Patients' perspectives on shared decision making in secondary mental healthcare in Taiwan: A qualitative study

The Barriers to Shared Decision-making in Exercise Prescription for Children With Asthma: A Qualitative Study From Parents' Perspective

INTRODUCTION

The knowledge of barriers from the parental perspective is essential for facilitating shared decision-making in the field of pediatric asthma.

METHOD

Participants who were parents of children with a diagnosis of asthma were recruited, and in-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted. The interview transcripts were analyzed thematically using framework methods.

RESULTS

Seventeen participants undertook interviews. Three themes and nine subthemes emerged: (1) decision-making need level-limited understanding of decision-making knowledge, ambiguity regarding self-empowerment roles, and lack of family member support; (2) decision-making support level-insufficient ability to evaluate information, inefficient communication with health care professionals, and excessive use of professional terminology; and (3) decision-making outcome level-doubts about the final decision-making choices, time constraints on decision-making, and absence of mechanisms to track decisions made.

DISCUSSION

The findings would serve as crucial foundations for the development of decision-aid programs within the context of pediatric asthma.

Factors impacting the demonstration of relational autonomy in medical decision-making: A meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

Relational autonomy is an alternative concept of autonomy in which an individual is recognized as embedded into society and influenced by relational factors. Social context, including social location, political structure, and social forces, significantly influence an agent to develop and exercise autonomy skills. The relational approach has been applied in clinical practice to identify relational factors impacting patient autonomy and decision-making, yet there is a knowledge gap in how these factors influence the demonstration of relational autonomy in the context of medical decisions of adults.

OBJECTIVE

The present study targeted the existing knowledge of what and how relational factors impact individuals making medical decisions using the theoretical framework of relational autonomy.

METHODS

A meta-synthesis study was utilized. Four electronic databases, including Embase, OVID Medline, CINAHL, and PubMed, were searched, along with gray literature and reference lists, to identify relevant studies.

RESULTS

23 studies reporting 21 qualitative and two mixed-method studies were reviewed. Four themes emerged from the qualitative findings: (1) supportive relationships facilitate an individual's relational autonomy; (2) obtaining comprehensive information from broader sources helps individuals exercise relational autonomy; (3) undue family pressure impedes the exercising of patient relational autonomy; and (4) healthcare providers' dominant voice hampers the demonstration of relational autonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying relational autonomy to assist adults in making well-considered decisions is essential. The meta-synthesis suggests establishing a supportive relationship between individuals, healthcare providers, and family. A supportive relationship will allow healthcare providers to make judgments in line with an individual's values and wishes with the aim of promoting relational autonomy. Advance care planning was proposed as the effective solution to obtain a consensus between individuals and their families while respecting an individual's values and preferences. Furthermore, it is considered crucial for healthcare providers to appreciate an individual's values and incorporate their preferences into recommendations.

Experiences and perspectives related to shared decision-making among outpatients with degenerative joint disease in Taiwan: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Various treatment options are available for degenerative joint disease (DJD). During clinical visits, patients and clinicians collaboratively make decisions regarding the optimal treatment for DJD; this is the essence of shared decision-making (SDM). Here, we collated and assessed the SDM-related experiences and perspectives of outpatients with DJD in Taiwan.

DESIGN

In-depth interviews and thematic analysis.

SETTING

Primary care clinics of a regional teaching hospital in Taiwan, October 2021-May 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

21 outpatients with at least three visits for DJD and who were aware of SDM.

RESULTS

Four main themes emerged in this study: first, equipping themselves with knowledge: outpatients obtained disease-related and treatment-related knowledge in various ways-seeking relevant information online, discussing with family and friends, learning from their own experiences or learning from professionals. Second, shared or not shared: physicians had different patterns for communicating with patients, particularly when demonstrating authority, performing mutual discussion, respecting patient preferences or responding perfunctorily. Third, seldom saying no to physician-prescribed treatment plans during clinical visits: most patients respected physicians' professionalism; however, some patients rejected physicians' recommendations indirectly, whereas some responded depending on their disease prognosis. Fourth, whose call?-participants decided to accept or reject a treatment plan independently or by discussing it with their families or by obeying their physicians' recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, patients with DJD sought reliable medical information from various sources before visiting doctors; however, when having a conversation with patients, physicians dominated the discussion on treatment options. The patient-physician interaction dynamics during the SDM process determined the final medical decision, which was in accordance with either patients' original autonomy or physicians' recommendations. To alleviate medical paternalism and physician dominance, patients should be empowered to engage in medical decision-making and share their opinions or concerns with their physicians. Family members should also be included in SDM.

Shifting Perspectives on the Challenges of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Care

Although shared decision making (SDM) has become the most preferable way in doctor-patient communication, it is not fully implemented in mental health care likely due to the complex nature of psychiatric syndromes and treatments. In this review we provide a systematic overview of all perceived and reported barriers to SDM in the literature, acknowledging field-specific challenges, and offering perspectives to promote its wider use. We conducted a systematic search of the wider literature in different databases and included all publications mentioning specified barriers to SDM in psychiatric care. Relevant data and opinions were categorised into micro-, meso- and macro-level themes and put into clinical perspective. We derived 20 barriers to SDM from 100 studies and reports. Eight were on micro-level care delivery, seven involved meso-level issues, five concerned macro-level themes. The multitude of perceived and actual barriers to SDM underline the challenges its implementation poses in mental health care, some of which can be resolved while others are inherent to the nature of the care, with its long-term relationships, complex dynamics, and social consequences, all requiring a flexible approach. We present four perspectives to help change views on the potential of SDM in mental health care.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Patient and clinician perspectives on shared decision-making in infertility treatment: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the considerations and barriers to implementing shared decision-making (SDM) in infertility treatment among female infertility patients, their male spouses, and fertility clinicians.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from a reproductive medicine hospital in China's Shandong Province using purposive sampling. One-on-one interviews were held with female infertility patients and their spouses. In addition, a focus group discussion was conducted with fertility clinicians. Data analysis was subjected to open, axial, and selective coding.

RESULTS

Nineteen female infertility patients and 10 male spouses were interviewed one-on-one. Five clinicians participated in the focus group discussion. Most female patients wanted to participate in the decision-making process, and that spouses and fertility clinicians supported SDM. Furthermore, key barriers were identified from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders, including communication difficulties, psychological pressure on female patients, patient preferences, multiple treatment stages, male spousal participation, clinician-patient trust, and subjective patient factors.

CONCLUSIONS/PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study explored the considerations of and barriers to implementing SDM in infertility treatment. Key barriers were identified from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Based on the findings, clinicians should encourage patients and their spouses to actively participate in decision-making, and provide objective and realistic guidance.

Patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making about treatment: A scoping review of the qualitative literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM) about treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies. We searched for literature across seven databases until March 2022, and included qualitative studies that focused on associations between patient-related characteristics and SDM about treatment in adults. We analyzed studies using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5948 articles, of which 70 were included. We identified many different patient-related characteristics, which we grouped into four categories related to: (1) the individual who is facing the decision, (2) the decision, (3) the relationship between the patient and the clinician and others involved in the decision, and (4) the healthcare context.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies report a variety of patient-related characteristics that may affect patient involvement in SDM. Amongst others, patients may need to feel informed, to understand their role in SDM, and be able to communicate. Involvement may be challenging with characteristics such as perceived time pressure, poor patient-clinician relationships, emotional distress, and severe illness.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to truly involve patients in SDM, we might need to focus on characteristics such as patient emotions and relationship building, besides information provision and values clarification.

Patient Involvement in Shared Decision-Making: Do Patients Rate Physicians and Nurses Differently?

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making implies that patients and healthcare professionals make decisions together about clinical exams, available treatments, choice of options, and the benefit or downside of every choice. Patients involved in the shared decision-making process are more compliant with treatments and have a reduced risk of complications related to the pathology. In Italy, patient involvement in caring processes is still barely investigated.

AIM

To investigate patients' perceptions about shared decision-making with physicians and nurses, respectively, and to examine the relationship between shared decision-making and patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care/treatment.

METHODS

The study was performed between March and June 2019 in two wards of one Italian hospital. A questionnaire was administered to inpatients at the time of admission and again at discharge, including demographic information and measurement scales regarding patient involvement in shared decision-making, patient satisfaction, and perceived quality of treatment/care.

RESULTS

A total of 151 out of 301 patients completed questionnaires at both admission and discharge. Patients' scores for shared decision-making (information, patient needs, treatment planning) were significantly different for physicians and nurses. At both admission and discharge, patients rated shared decision-making significantly higher for physicians compared to nurses, while there were no differences in their satisfaction ratings. Patient ratings of physicians did not change from admission (information: mean (M) = 3.50, standard deviation (SD) = 0.81; patient need: M = 3.05, SD = 1.05; treatment planning: M = 2.75, SD = 1.23) to discharge (information: M = 3.50, SD = 0.79; patient need: M = 3.17, SD = 1.02; treatment planning: M = 2.66, SD = 1.23) (p = 0.924, p = 0.098, p = 0.293, respectively), but patients' ratings of nurses' behavior increased significantly from admission (information: M = 2.44, SD = 1.23; patient need: M = 2.27, SD = 1.17; treatment planning: M = 2.12, SD = 1.19) to discharge (information: M = 2.62, SD = 1.22; patient need: M = 2.53, SD = 1.24; treatment planning: M = 2.35, SD = 1.21) (p = 0.019, p = 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively). Attention to patients' needs was the key determinant of both satisfaction with nurses (OR = 3.65, 95% CI = 1.31-10.14, p = 0.013) and perceived quality of care (OR = 3.97, 95% CI = 1.49-10.55, p = 0.006). Providing appropriate information about disease progress and treatments was a key determinant of both satisfaction with physicians (OR = 19.75, 95% CI = 7.29-53.55, p < 0.001) and perceived quality of treatment (OR = 8.03, 95% CI = 3.25-19.81, p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Nurses should be sensitized to involving patients in the decision-making process, especially upon hospital admission. Specific training about effective communication techniques can be implemented to manage relationships with patients in different caring situations. Practical implications and future directions are discussed.

Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure-process-outcome model

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) as a multicollaborative approach is vital for facilitating patient-centred care. Considering the limited clinical practice, we attempted to synthesize the motivations and resistances, and investigate their mutual relationships for advancing the implementation of SDM.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed. 'Shared decision making' was searched as the mesh term through PubMed, Web of Science and EBSCO from 2000 to 2021, and the quality of literature was appraised using the QualSyst Tool. Motivations and resistances were categorized based on content analysis and the 'structure-process-outcome' model.

RESULTS

From 8319 potential citations, 105 were included, comprising 53 qualitative studies (the average quality score is 0.92) and 52 quantitative studies (the average quality score is 0.95). A total of 42 categories of factors were identified into 11 themes and further grouped into three dimensions: structure, process and outcome. The structure dimension comprised six themes (71.43%), the process dimension contained four themes (11.01%) and the outcome dimension covered only one theme. Across all categories, decision-making time and patients' decision preparedness in the process dimension were the most reported, followed by physicians' communication skills and health care environment in the structure dimension. Analysis of implementation of SDM among various types of diseases showed that more influencing factors were extracted from chronic diseases and unspecified disease decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

The major determinants for the implementation of SDM are focused on the structural dimension, which challenges the health systems of both developed and low- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, we consider it important to understand more about the interactions among the factors to take integrated measures to address the problems and to ensure the effectiveness of implementing SDM.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders articulated their perspectives on the implementation of SDM actively, and these were adopted and analysed in this study. However, the above-mentioned individuals were not directly involved in the process of this study. Protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021259309).

NICE shared decision making guidelines and mental health: challenges for research, practice and implementation

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) initiated an ambitious effort to develop the first shared decision making guidelines. The purpose of this commentary is to identify three main concerns pertaining to the new published guidelines for shared decision making research, practice, implementation and cultural differences in mental health.

Shared clinical decision-making experiences in nursing: a qualitative study

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered nursing concept that emphasizes the autonomy of patients. SDM is a co-operative process that involves information exchange and communication between medical staff and patients for making treatment decisions. In this study, we explored the experiences of clinical nursing staff participating in SDM.

Methods

This study adopted a qualitative research design. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 21 nurses at a medical center in northern Taiwan. All interview recordings were transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was performed to analyze the data.

Results

The findings yielded the following three themes covering seven categories: knowledge regarding SDM, trigger discussion and coordination, and respect of sociocultural factors.

Conclusions

The results of this study describe the experiences of clinical nursing staff participating in SDM and can be used as a reference for nursing education and nursing administrative supervisors wishing to plan and enhance professional nursing SDM in nursing education.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-021-00597-0.

Using DEMATEL Technique to Identify the Key Success Factors of Shared Decision-Making Based on Influential Network Relationship Perspective

In the field of medicine, shared decision-making (SDM) is an important issue primarily aimed at resolving the problem of information asymmetry between clinicians and patients in the selection of treatment options and follow-up nursing plans. Most previous studies on this topic have focused on key elements and the development and implementation of SDM scales. This study used the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method to establish a network of influence relationships among factors that are keys to the success of the SDM process. Survey data were obtained from a well-known brain hospital in China. The key factors of success included tailor information, flexibility approach, check understanding patient, document (discussion about) decision, present evidence, make or explicitly defer decision, and patient values and preferences. We determined that clinicians should provide a series of treatment options and follow-up care plans based on a patientʼs conditions and preferences. Clinicians should also actively communicate with patients and their families to ensure a thorough understanding of the entire treatment and nursing process. This study also highlights the academic value of the cross-disciplinary integration of medical decision issues and multiple attribute decision-making methodologies.