Shared decision making: What is the work?

Using decision support tools for treatment decision making about antidepressants in outpatient psychiatric consultations

OBJECTIVE

To examine the use of decision support tools in decision making about antidepressants during conversations between patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and their psychiatrists.

METHODS

Theme-oriented discourse analysis of two psychiatric consultation groups: control (n = 17) and intervention (n = 16). In the control group, only a doctor's conversation guide was used; in the intervention group, the conversation guide and a patient decision aid (PDA) were used.

RESULTS

Psychiatrists mainly dominated conversations in both consultation groups. They were less likely to elicit patient treatment-related perspectives in the intervention group as they focused more on delivering the information than obtaining patient perspectives. However, using PDA in the intervention group slightly encouraged patients to participate in decisional talk.

CONCLUSION

The decision support tools did promote SDM performance. Using the conversation guide in both consultation groups encouraged the elicitation of patient perspectives, which helped the psychiatrists in tailoring their recommendations of options based on patient preferences and concerns. Using the PDA in the intervention group created space for treatment discussion and fostered active collaboration in treatment decision making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our findings have implications for SDM communication skills training and critical reflection on SDM practice.

"Trying to write a story together": general practitioners' perspectives on culturally sensitive care

BACKGROUND

Culturally sensitive care is integral to effective and equitable healthcare delivery, necessitating an understanding and acknowledgment of patients' cultural needs, preferences, and expectations. This study investigates the perceptions of cultural sensitivity among general practitioners (GPs), focusing on their intentions, willingness and perceived responsibilities in providing care tailored to cultural needs.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with 21 Flemish GPs to explore their perspectives on culturally sensitive care. Data analysis followed a conventional qualitative content analysis approach within a constructivist framework. A coding scheme was developed to identify recurring themes and patterns in the GPs' responses.

RESULTS

Findings reveal that culturally sensitive care provision is perceived as a multifaceted process, initiated by an exploration phase where GPs inquire about patients' cultural needs and preferences. Two pivotal factors shaping culturally sensitive care emerged: patients' specific cultural expectations and GPs' perceived responsibilities. These factors guided the process of culturally sensitive care towards three distinct outcomes, ranging from complete adaptation to patients' cultural requirements driven by a high sense of responsibility, through negotiation and compromise, to a paternalistic approach where GPs expect patients to conform to GPs' values and expectations. Three typologies of GPs in providing culturally sensitive care were identified: genuinely culturally sensitive, surface-level culturally sensitive, and those perceiving diversity as a threat. Stereotyping and othering persist in healthcare, underscoring the importance of critical consciousness and cultural reflexivity in providing patient-centered and equitable care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the significance of empathy and underscores the necessity for GPs to embrace the exploration and acknowledgement of patients' preferences and cultural needs as integral aspects of their professional role. It highlights the importance of shared decision-making, critical consciousness, cultural desire and empathy. Understanding these nuances is essential for enhancing culturally sensitive care and mitigating healthcare disparities.

Is it too early to recommend local treatment in oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a plea for equipoise

Oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (OMD NSCLC) has been proposed to bridge the spectrum between non-metastatic and widely metastatic states and is perceived as an opportunity for potential cure if removed. Twelve clinical trials on local treatment have been reported, yet none are conclusive. These trials informed the development of a joint clinical practice guideline by the American & European Societies for Radiation Oncology, which endorses local treatment for OMD NSCLC. However, the heterogeneity between prognostic factors within these trials likely influenced outcomes and can only support guidance at this time. Caution against an uncritical acceptance of the guideline is discussed, as strong recommendations are offered based on expert opinion and inconclusive evidence. The guideline is also examined by a patient's caregiver, who emphasizes that uncertain evidence impedes shared decision making.

Medical Care as Flea Market Bargaining? An International Interdisciplinary Study of Varieties of Shared Decision Making in Physician-Patient Interactions

Phenomenon: Shared decision making (SDM) is a core ideal in the interaction between healthcare providers and patients, but the implementation of the SDM ideal in clinical routines has been a relatively slow process. Approach: In a sociological study, 71 interactions between physicians and simulated patients enacting chronic heart failure were video-recorded in China, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey as part of a quasi-experimental research design. Participating physicians varied in specialty and level of experience. The secondary analysis presented in this article used content analysis to study core components of SDM in all of the 71 interactions and a grounded theory approach to observe how physicians responded actively to patients even though they did not actively employ the SDM ideal. Findings: Full realization of the SDM ideal remains an exception, but various aspects of SDM in physician-patient interaction were observed in all four locations. Analyses of longer interactions show dynamic processes of interaction that sometimes surprised both patient and physician. We observed varieties of SDM that differ from the SDM ideal but arguably achieve what the SDM ideal is intended to achieve. Our analysis suggests a need to revisit the SDM ideal-to consider whether varieties of SDM may be acceptable, even valuable, in their own right. Insights: The gap between the SDM ideal and SDM as implemented in clinical practice may in part be explained by the tendency of medicine to define and teach SDM through a narrow lens of checklist evaluations. The authors support the argument that SDM defies a checklist approach. SDM is not uniform, but nuanced, dependent on circumstances and setting. As SDM is co-produced by patients and physicians in a dynamic process of interaction, medical researchers should consider and medical learners should be exposed to varieties of SDM-related practice rather than a single idealized model. Observing and discussing worked examples contributes to the physician's development of realistic expectations and personal professional growth.

Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data

BACKGROUND

The occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

OBJECTIVE

To assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed.

MAIN MEASURES

In the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION12 item) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION12 as a dependent variable.

RESULTS

We included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION12 scores was 7.7 of 100 points (P < 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION12 score except for education level (p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION12 score (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Most characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used.

HIGHLIGHTS

Most sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making.Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used.SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.

Communication Strategies of Transplant Hematologists in High-Risk Decision-Making Conversations

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) is essential to empower patients with blood cancers to make goal-concordant decisions about allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. This study characterizes communication strategies used by hematologists to discuss treatment options and facilitate SDM with patients in this high-risk, high-reward setting.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We recruited US hematologists who routinely perform allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant through email. Participants conducted up to an hour-long video-recorded encounter with an actor portraying a 67-year-old man with recently diagnosed high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. We transcribed and qualitatively analyzed video-recorded data.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants (N = 37) was 44 years, 65% male, and 68% White. Many hematologists included similar key points in this initial consultation, although varied in how much detail they provided. Their discussion of treatment options included transplant and chemotherapy and less commonly supportive care or clinical trials. They often emphasized transplant's potential for cure, discussed transplant chronologically from pretransplant considerations through the post-transplant course, and outlined risks, complications, and major outcomes. Hematologists referred to several elements that formed the basis of treatment decision making. The strength of their treatment recommendations ranged from strong recommendations for transplant or chemotherapy to deferrals pending more information. Hematologists also varied in the extent to which they indicated the decision was physician-driven, patient-led, or shared.

CONCLUSION

The transplant decision-making discussion is complex. Identification of similar content areas used by hematologists can be used as the basis for a communication tool to help hematologists discuss allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant with patients.

Training Undergraduate Medical Students in Shared Decision Making: A Systematic Review

In the field of healthcare delivery, shared decision making (SDM) refers to a collaborative process, wherein both patients and the healthcare professionals mutually work to make informed and consensus decisions with reference to the kind of medical care that will be administered to patients. The purpose of the current review is to explore SDM in health care, ascertain the role of medical education, and identify the ways to train and assess undergraduate medical students in competencies pertaining to SDM. An extensive search of all materials related to the topic was carried out on the PubMed and Google Scholar search engines and a total of 29 articles were selected based on their suitability with the current review objectives and analyzed. Keywords used in the search include learning resources in the title alone only (viz. shared decision making [ti] AND patient [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND medical education [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND assessment [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND self-assessment [ti]; shared decision making [ti]; shared decision making [ti]). In the domain of medical education, the promotion of SDM essentially will require a multipronged approach to enable its integration into the medical curriculum. However, we must remember that mere teaching-learning methods would not improve it unless they are supplemented with assessment methods, otherwise, we will fail to deliver sustained results. In conclusion, SDM in medical education and healthcare industry represents a transformative shift from the traditional paradigm to a patient-centered approach that empowers both patients and healthcare providers, including budding medical students. The need of the hour is to advocate and encourage structured integration of SDM in the medical curriculum and support the same with periodic assessments.

The experience of shared decision-making for people with asthma: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies

OBJECTIVES

To identify, describe and synthesise the views and experiences of adults living with asthma regarding shared decision-making (SDM) in the existing qualitative literature METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of 10 databases (list databases) from inception until September 2023. Screening was performed according to inclusion criteria. Tools from the Joanna Briggs lnstitute were utilised for the purposes of data extraction and synthesis in this study. The data extraction process in this study employed the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model) as a framework, and a pragmatic meta-aggregative approach was employed to synthesise the collected results.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included in the metasynthesis. Three synthesised themes were identified: the capability of people living with asthma, the opportunities of people living with asthma in SDM, and the motivation of the people living with asthma in SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified specific factors influencing people living with asthma engaging in SDM. The findings of this study can serve as a basis for the implementation of SDM in people living with asthma and provide insights for the development of their SDM training programs. The ConQual score for the synthesised findings was rated as low. To enhance confidence, future studies should address dependability and credibility factors.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This review contemplates the implementation of SDM from the perspective of people living with asthma, with the aim of providing patient-centred services for them. The results of this review can benefit the implementation of SDM and facilitate information sharing. It offers guidance for SDM skills training among adults living with asthma, fosters a better doctor-patient relationship and facilitates consensus in treatment decisions, thereby enabling personalised and tailored medical care.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Three nursing graduate students participated in the data extraction and integration process, with two students having extensive clinical experience that provided valuable insights for the integration.

Sharing a medical decision

During the last decades, shared decision making (SDM) has become a very popular model for the physician-patient relationship. SDM can refer to a process (making a decision in a shared way) and a product (making a shared decision). In the literature, by far most attention is devoted to the process. In this paper, I investigate the product, wondering what is involved by a medical decision being shared. I argue that the degree to which a decision to implement a medical alternative is shared should be determined by taking into account six considerations: (i) how the physician and the patient rank that alternative, (ii) the individual preference scores the physician and the patient (would) assign to that alternative, (iii) the similarity of the preference scores, (iv) the similarity of the rankings, (v) the total concession size, and (vi) the similarity of the concession sizes. I explain why shared medical decisions are valuable, and sketch implications of the analysis for the physician-patient relationship.

The role of specialty palliative care interdisciplinary team members in acute care decision support: a qualitative study protocol

BACKGROUND

Specialty palliative care interdisciplinary teams (IDT) can play an important role in supporting patients and family members during acute care decision-making. Despite guidelines and evidence emphasizing decision-making support as a key domain of specialty palliative care, little is known about how decision-making support is actually implemented by specialty palliative care IDTs. This study aims to (1) describe the structure and processes of inpatient decision-making support delivered by specialty palliative care IDT, and (2) examine the perspectives of IDT members on their role in this decision-support.

METHODS

A team of clinician and non-clinician researchers will conduct non-participant observation ethnography at a single medical center in northern New England. The ethnography will focus on the work of IDT members in supporting decision making, particularly elements of specialty palliative care that have limited descriptions in the literature (e.g. systems and processes of care). Observations of formal and informal interactions between IDT members and clinical encounters will be conducted at one site over four months. Participants include patients, care partners, non-specialty palliative care providers, and specialty palliative care IDT members. Additionally, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with IDT members across three geographically diverse specialty palliative care teams across the United States to explore providers' first-person perspective on their roles and function in decision-making support for hospitalized patients. Field notes and transcripts from observation and interviews will be uploaded to Dedoose software for management and thematic analysis following an inductive approach.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this will be the first observational study of the roles of interdisciplinary specialty palliative care teams. Results from this research will support further investigation into implementation of decision-making support across different types of medical teams.

Nurses' perceptions of patient involvement in shared decision-making in cardiovascular care

It is important for nurses to involve patients in their own care to enable shared decision-making. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of nurses regarding the degree to which involvement in shared decision-making takes place in clinical settings during consultations. Previous studies have shown that the use of shared decision-making by healthcare professionals can improve their caring practices and the quality of life of their patients. However, studies have also shown little evidence of the existence of shared decision-making in clinical practice. One step forward can be to clarify nurses' perceptions of patient involvement in shared decision-making. Qualitative data were collected from 10 nurses at four Swedish hospitals using a semi-structured, open-ended interview guide. The data were analyzed using inductive latent content analysis. The results showed that the care practices described by the nurses in the study are clearly different from the healthcare policy and scientific vision of shared decision-making. The nurses in the study believe that, with some exceptions, both healthcare professionals and patients prefer to leave decision-making to medical experts. In order to take advantage of the existing potential for improvement of shared decision-making in cardiologic care, healthcare professionals must be given time to seriously listen to and develop an interest in their patients' lifeworlds. Furthermore, the implementation of shared decision-making requires a mutual initiative and development of knowledge about the decision-making process from healthcare professionals and patients.

Development and validation of a Decision-Making Ability Scale for postpartum urinary incontinence women engaging in pelvic floor physical therapy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop and validate a Decision-Making Ability Scale (DMA-S) for postpartum urinary incontinence (PPUI) women engaging in pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT).

METHODS

Items were created in line with a review of the literature and exploratory qualitative study with 22 women. The items were submitted for expert opinion and a pilot implementation was made with 58 women with PPUI. Furthermore, the construct validity of the scale was tested with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (n = 220) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (n = 240). Internal consistency for the Chronbach's α and test-retest reliability for the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were also investigated for the DMA-S in the study.

RESULTS

The results of the EFA indicated a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value of 0.85 and Bartlett's test of sphericity showed a χ2 value of 8352.101, p < 0.001. After removing one item with factor loading values below 0.50, the resulting factor structure accounted for 83.38% of the total variance. The fit indices of the scale model tested in the CFA were determined as χ2 /df = 1.08 < 3, root mean square error of approximation = 0.018 < 0.08, comparative fit index = 0.996 > 0.90, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.995 > 0.90, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.933 > 0.90, adjusted GFI = 0.916 > 0.90, and incremental fit index = 0.996 > 0.90. The Cronbach's α values were 0.95-0.97 for the subdimensions of the scale and 0.93 for the total scale. Data also showed a good test-retest stability (ICC = 0.984).

CONCLUSION

The DMA-S is a reliable and valid tool for assessing the decision-making ability for PPUI women engaging in PFPT.

Relational practice in health, education, criminal justice, and social care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Establishing and maintaining relationships and ways of connecting and being with others is an important component of health and wellbeing. Harnessing the relational within caring, supportive, educational, or carceral settings as a systems response has been referred to as relational practice. Practitioners, people with lived experience, academics and policy makers, do not yet share a well-defined common understanding of relational practice. Consequently, there is potential for interdisciplinary and interagency miscommunication, as well as the risk of policy and practice being increasingly disconnected. Comprehensive reviews are needed to support the development of a coherent shared understanding of relational practice.

METHOD

This study uses a scoping review design providing a scope and synthesis of extant literature relating to relational practice focussing on organisational and systemic practice. The review aimed to map how relational practice is used, defined and understood across health, criminal justice, education and social work, noting any impacts and benefits reported. Searches were conducted on 8 bibliographic databases on 27 October 2021. English language articles were included that involve/discuss practice and/or intervention/s that prioritise interpersonal relationships in service provision, in both external (organisational contexts) and internal (how this is received by workers and service users) aspects.

RESULTS

A total of 8010 relevant articles were identified, of which 158 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the synthesis. Most were opinion-based or theoretical argument papers (n = 61, 38.60%), with 6 (3.80%) critical or narrative reviews. A further 27 (17.09%) were categorised as case studies, focussing on explaining relational practice being used in an organisation or a specific intervention and its components, rather than conducting an evaluation or examination of the effectiveness of the service, with only 11 including any empirical data. Of the included empirical studies, 45 were qualitative, 6 were quantitative, and 9 mixed methods studies. There were differences in the use of terminology and definitions of relational practice within and across sectors.

CONCLUSION

Although there may be implicit knowledge of what relational practice is the research field lacks coherent and comprehensive models. Despite definitional ambiguities, a number of benefits are attributed to relational practices.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021295958.

Conceptualization of patient-centered care in Latin America: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Patient-centered care (PCC) has been declared as a desirable goal for health care in Latin American countries, but a coherent definition of what exactly PCC entails for clinical practice is missing. This article's aim was to identify how PCC is conceptualized in Latin American countries.

METHODS

Scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scielo, Scopus, Web of Science) and webpages of the ministries of health were searched, and experts were contacted for suggestions of literature. References were included if they contained one of a range of a priori defined keywords related to PCC in the title, were published between 2006 and 2021, and were carried out in or concerned Latin America. Definitions of PCC were extracted from the included articles and analyzed using deductive and inductive coding. Deductive coding was based on the integrative model of patient-centeredness, which unites the definitions of PCC in the international literature (mainly North America and Europe) and proposes 16 dimensions describing PCC.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles were included in the analysis and about half of them were from Brazil. Numerous similarities were found between the integrative model of patient-centeredness and the definitions of PCC given in the selected literature. The dimensions of the integrative model of patient-centeredness that were least and most prominent in the literature were physical support and patient information, respectively. A differentiation between PCC and family-centered care (FCC) was observed. Definitions of PCC and FCC as well as their cited references were diverse.

CONCLUSION

A considerable overlap between the conceptualization of PCC in Latin America and the integrative model of patient-centeredness has been identified. However, there are substantial differences between countries in Latin America regarding the emphasis of research on PCC versus FCC and diverse conceptualizations of PCC and FCC exist.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

This scoping review takes the patient's perspective based on the integrative model of patient-centeredness. Due to the study being a review, no patients, neither caregivers, nor members of the public, were involved.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures in Rhinoplasty: Need for Use and Implementation

Patient-reported outcome metrics (PROMs) are increasingly utilized to capture data about patients' quality of life. PROMs play an important role in the value-based health care movement by providing a patient-centered metric of quality. There are many barriers to the implementation of PROMs, and widespread adoption requires buy-in from numerous stakeholders including patients, clinicians, institutions, and payers. Several validated PROMs have been utilized by facial plastic surgeons to measure both functional and aesthetic outcomes among rhinoplasty patients. These PROMs can help clinicians and rhinoplasty patients participate in shared decision making (SDM), a process via which clinicians and patients arrive at treatment decisions together through a patient-centered approach. However, widespread adoption of PROMs and SDM has not yet been achieved. Further work should focus on overcoming barriers to implementation and engaging key stakeholders to increase the utilization of PROMs in rhinoplasty.

'A good decision is the one that feels right for me': Codesign with patients to inform theoretical underpinning of a decision aid website

INTRODUCTION

Patient decision aids (PtDA) complement shared decision-making with healthcare professionals and improve decision quality. However, PtDA often lack theoretical underpinning. We are codesigning a PtDA to help people with increased genetic cancer risks manage choices. The aim of an innovative workshop described here was to engage with the people who will use the PtDA regarding the theoretical underpinning and logic model outlining our hypothesis of how the PtDA would lead to more informed decision-making.

METHODS

Short presentations about psychological and behavioural theories by an expert were interspersed with facilitated, small-group discussions led by patients. Patients were asked what is important to them when they make health decisions, what theoretical constructs are most meaningful and how this should be applied to codesign of a PtDA. An artist created a visual summary. Notes from patient discussions and the artwork were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The overarching theme was: It's personal. Contextual factors important for decision-making were varied and changed over time. There was no one 'best fit' theory to target support needs in a PtDA, suggesting an inductive, flexible framework approach to programme theory would be most effective. The PtDA logic model was revised based on patient feedback.

CONCLUSION

Meaningful codesign of PtDA including discussions about the theoretical mechanisms through which they support decision-making has the potential to lead to improved patient care through understanding the intricately personal nature of health decisions, and tailoring content and format for holistic care.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

Patients with lived experience were involved in codesign and coproduction of this workshop and analysis as partners and coauthors. Patient discussions were the primary data source. Facilitators provided a semi-structured guide, but they did not influence the patient discussions or provide clinical advice. The premise of this workshop was to prioritise the importance of patient lived experience: to listen, learn, then reflect together to understand and propose ideas to improve patient care through codesign of a PtDA.

Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Shared decision-making is increasingly embraced in health care and recommended in cardiovascular guidelines. Patient involvement in health care decisions, patient-clinician communication, and models of patient-centered care are critical to improve health outcomes and to promote equity, but formal models and evaluation in cardiovascular care are nascent. Shared decision-making promotes equity by involving clinicians and patients, sharing the best available evidence, and recognizing the needs, values, and experiences of individuals and their families when faced with the task of making decisions. Broad endorsement of shared decision-making as a critical component of high-quality, value-based care has raised our awareness, although uptake in clinical practice remains suboptimal for a range of patient, clinician, and system issues. Strategies effective in promoting shared decision-making include educating clinicians on communication techniques, engaging multidisciplinary medical teams, incorporating trained decision coaches, and using tools (ie, patient decision aids) at appropriate literacy and numeracy levels to support patients in their cardiovascular decisions. This scientific statement shines a light on the limited but growing body of evidence of the impact of shared decision-making on cardiovascular outcomes and the potential of shared decision-making as a driver of health equity so that everyone has just opportunities. Multilevel solutions must align to address challenges in policies and reimbursement, system-level leadership and infrastructure, clinician training, access to decision aids, and patient engagement to fully support patients and clinicians to engage in the shared decision-making process and to drive equity and improvement in cardiovascular outcomes.

Shared Decision-Making in Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) Options Using a Questionnaire for Respiratory Allergic Patients: A Delphi Consensus Study

Purpose

The objective of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire, through a Delphi consensus, to be used by allergists in their routine clinical practice to assess the preferences of patients starting allergen immunotherapy (AIT) treatment using an objective approach.

Patients and Methods

A Delphi consensus-driven process was used. The scientific committee, composed of 15 allergists, led the study and participated in the preparation of the questionnaire. Two-hundred panelists from different Spanish regions were invited to complete a 16-item questionnaire on a nine-point Likert scale covering six topic blocks. Consensus was achieved if ≥66.6% of panelists reached agreement or disagreement.

Results

Of the 200 experts invited to participate in the Delphi process, a total of 195 (97.5%) answered the questionnaire. The panel experts reached a consensus on "agreement" on a total of 12 of the 16 (75.0%) items, covering a total of six categories: (a) patient knowledge (2 questions), (b) barriers to patient adherence (3 questions), (c) patient behavior (4 questions), (d) future actions (3 questions), (e) treatment costs (2 questions), and (f) final patient preferences (2 questions).

Conclusion

This Delphi consensus study validated a set of twelve recommended questions for patients objectively assessing their preferences and suitability for the most common AIT options available. The questionnaire intends to assist allergists in making an objective, unconditioned decision regarding the best AIT option for each patient, after informing them about the different routes.

Identifying Womens' Needs in Making a Treatment Decision for Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Qualitative Study

Background

Choosing a treatment option for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a preference-sensitive decision. Nowadays, shared decision making (SDM) is the preferred way of decision making. SDM considers the needs patients have regarding the decision-making process. The aim of this study was to identify decisional needs of women who are making a treatment decision for SUI.

Materials and Methods

Semistructured interviews were planned with women who had been seeking treatment for SUI. Patients were recruited in two teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Interviewers used a topic list based on the Ottawa decision support framework. The interviews were transcribed and coded. Themes and subthemes of factors relating to the treatment decision-making process were identified and described.

Results

We interviewed a total of 16 women. Four major themes of SUI patients' needs were identified: information on disorder and treatment, SDM, personalized health care, and consideration for social context. Within these themes, specific needs varied between individuals. In addition to the provision of objective information, other important identified needs were subjective, such as acknowledgment of symptoms and feeling understood by a physician. It was important for patients that they had a sufficient amount of time to make their decision.

Conclusions

To ensure a good quality treatment decision in female SUI, several topics need to be addressed in an SDM process. The themes of decisional needs identified in this study can help improve the decision-making process.

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.

Shared decision making with black patients: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review is to explore the breadth of research conducted on SDM in the care of Black patients.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review following the methodological framework outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. We searched articles related to original research on SDM in the care of Black patients in October 2022 using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. Articles of all study designs (quantitative and qualitative), published or translated into English, were included. A standardized data extraction form and thematic analysis were used to facilitate data extraction by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

After removal of duplicates and screening, 30 articles were included in the final analysis. Black patients and clinician were found to not share the same understanding of SDM, and patients highly valued SDM in their care. Interventions to improve SDM yielded mixed results to enhance intent, participation in SDM, as well as health outcomes. Decision aids were the most effective form of intervention to enhance SDM. The most common barrier to SDM was patient-clinician communication, and was exacerbated by racial discordance, clinician mistrust, past experiences, and paternalistic clinician-patient dynamics.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM has the potential to improve health outcomes in Black patients when implemented contextually within Black patients' experiences and concerns. Significant barriers such as clinician mistrust exist, and the overall perception in the Black community is that SDM does not occur sufficiently. Barriers to SDM seem to be most pronounced when there is patient-clinician racial discordance. Several interventions aimed at improving SDM with Black patients have shown mixed results. Future studies should evaluate larger-scale interventions with longer follow-up. Practice implications Shared decision making (SDM) has been proposed as a useful tool for improving quality and equity in Black patients' care. However, Black patients experience lower rates of SDM compared to other populations. SDM has the potential to improve health outcomes in Black patients when implemented contextually within Black patients' experiences and concerns.

Physicians' views of patient-planetary health co-benefit prescribing: a mixed methods systematic review

Health professionals are increasingly called to become partners in planetary health. Using patient-planetary health (P-PH) co-benefit prescribing framing, we did a mixed methods systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators to adopting P-PH co-benefit prescribing by physicians and mapped these onto the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behaviour (COM-B) model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We searched electronic databases from inception until October, 2022, and did a content analysis of the included articles (n=12). Relevant categories were matched to items in the COM-B model and TDF. Nine barriers and eight facilitators were identified. Barriers included an absence of, or little, knowledge of how to change practice and time to implement change; facilitators included having policy statements and guidelines from respected associations. More diverse study designs that include health professionals, patients, and health-care system stakeholders are needed to ensure a more holistic understanding of the individual, system, and policy levers involved in implementing clinical work informed by planetary health.

Physician-reported characteristics, representations, and ethical justifications of shared decision-making practices in the care of paediatric patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness

BACKGROUND

Despite consensus about the importance of implementing shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical practice, this ideal is inconsistently enacted today. Evidence shows that SDM practices differ in the degree of involvement of patients or family members, or in the amount of medical information disclosed to patients in order to "share" meaningfully in treatment decisions. Little is known on which representations and moral justifications physicians hold when realizing SDM. This study explored physicians' experiences of SDM in the management of paediatric patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDOC). Specifically, we focused on physicians' SDM approaches, representations, and ethical justifications for engaging in SDM.

METHODS

We used a qualitative approach to explore the SDM experiences of 13 ICU physicians, paediatricians, and neurologists based in Switzerland who have been or were involved in the care of paediatric patients living with PDOC. A semi-structured interview format was used and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed through thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We found that participants followed three main decision-making approaches: the "brakes" approach, characterized by maximized family's decisional freedom, though conditional to physician's judgment regarding the medical appropriateness of a treatment; the "orchestra director" approach, characterized by a multi-step decision-making process led by the main physician aimed at eliciting the voices of the care team members and of the family; and the "sunbeams" approach, characterized by a process oriented to reach consensus with family members through dialogue, where the virtues of the physician are key to guide the process. We also found that participants differed in the moral justifications sustaining each approach, citing the duty to respect parental autonomy, to invest in an ethics of care, and to employ physicians' virtues to guide the decision-making process.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that physicians come to perform SDM in different ways, with several representations, and distinct ethical justifications. SDM training among health care providers should clarify the ductility of SDM and the several ethical motivations underpinning it, rather than insisting on the principle of respect for patient's autonomy as its only moral foundation.

Providers' shared decision-making as a predictor of healthcare outcomes for college-aged adults managing upper respiratory tract infections

OBJECTIVES

Strategies that assist patients with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) to endorse non-antibiotic treatments are vital to curbing antibiotic resistance. This study examines the potential of shared decision-making (SDM) for improving stewardship-relevant outcomes and investigates patient affect as a mechanism that explains the beneficial impact of perceived SDM.

METHOD

Patients (N = 433) seeking care for URTIs at a university student health center and not prescribed antibiotics completed a pre-visit questionnaire and two surveys one day and 14 days post-visit. The day-one survey assessed perceived SDM, affect, and immediate stewardship-relevant outcomes, and the day-14 survey assessed long-term stewardship-relevant outcomes.

RESULTS

Perceived SDM was negatively associated with negative affect and positively associated with positive affect, favorable perceptions of non-antibiotic treatments and providers, and self-efficacy to manage symptoms and obtain follow-up care. Patient affect and day-one outcomes were mediators between perceived SDM and retrospective self-efficacy two weeks post-visit.

CONCLUSION

The study illustrated the beneficial influence of patient perceived SDM on antibiotic stewardship in both short and long terms and elucidated the mechanisms through which the influence occurs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

SDM can be an effective strategy for primary care providers to improve patients' outcomes with URTI visits without prescribing unwarranted antibiotics.

Sharing decision-making between the older person and the nurse: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Sharing decision-making is globally recognised as an important concept in healthcare research, policy, education and practice which enhances person-centred care. However, it is becoming increasingly evident shared decision-making has not been successfully translated into everyday healthcare practice. Sharing decision-making has strong links with person-centred practice. Core to person-centredness and shared decision making, is the need to recognise that as we age, greater reliance is placed on emotion and life experience to inform decision making processes. With the world's ageing population, older persons facing more complex decisions and transitions of care, it is more important than ever it is understood how shared decision-making occurs.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping literature review aims to find out how sharing decision making between nurses and older persons in healthcare settings is understood and presented in published literature.

METHODS

This scoping review utilised the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework, advanced by Levac et al. Electronic databases and grey literature were searched, returning 362 records which were examined against defined inclusion criteria. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

Twenty-two records met inclusion criteria for the review. Results indicate while shared decision-making is included in research, education and policy literature, it has not been effectively translated to inform practice and the relationship between a nurse and an older person. The records lack definitions of shared decision-making and theoretical or philosophical underpinnings. There is also no consideration of emotion and life experience in decision-making and how nurses 'do' shared decision-making with older persons.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate sharing decision-making between nurses and older persons is not well understood in the literature, and therefore is not translated into nursing practice. Further research is needed.

Co-created decision-making: From co-production to value co-creation in health care

Rare diseases are characterized by a wide diversity of signs and symptoms and vary not only from disease to disease but also from person to person, and living with a disease leads patients to peculiar experiences, without limits of time and space, as they extend to various environments and relationships of their lives. Therefore, the objective of this study is the theoretical interaction between value co-creation (VC) and the stakeholder theory (ST) with the shared decision-making (SDM) health care theory, to enable the analysis of the relationships between patients and their stakeholders in the co-creation of value for decision-making focused on the patient's quality of life. It is configured as a multi-paradigmatic proposal by enabling the analysis of multiple perspectives of different stakeholders in health care. Thus, co-created decision-making (CDM) emerges with emphasis on interactivity of the relationships. As previous studies have already highlighted the importance of holistic care, seeing the patient as a whole and not just the body, studies with CDM will be beneficial for analyses that go beyond the clinical office and doctor-patient relationships, extending to all environments and interactions that add value to the patient's treatment. It was concluded that the essence of this new theory proposed here is neither in patient-centered care nor in patient self-care, but in co-created relationships with and between stakeholders, including non-health care environments that are important to the patient, such as relationships with friends, family, other patients with the same disease, social media, public policies, and the practice of pleasurable activities.

Effects and Working Mechanisms of a Multilevel Implementation Program for Applying Shared Decision-Making while Discussing Systemic Treatment in Breast Cancer

Background: Enhancing the application of shared decision-making (SDM) is critical for integrating patient preferences in breast cancer treatment choices. We investigated the effect of an adapted multilevel SDM implementation program in breast cancer care. Methods: Breast cancer patients qualifying for (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment were included in a multicenter before−after study. Consultations were audio recorded between June 2018 and July 2019 and analyzed using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-5) instrument to score SDM application by clinicians. The Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) was used to rate patients’ perceived SDM level. Consultation duration, decision types, number of options discussed and consultations per patient were monitored. Regression analysis was used to investigate the correlated variables and program components. Results: Mean OPTION-5 scores increased from 33.9 (n = 63) before implementation to 54.3 (n = 49) after implementation (p < 0.001). The SDM-Q-9 scores did not change: 91.1 (n = 51) at baseline versus 88.9 (n = 23) after implementation (p = 0.81). Without increasing consultation time, clinicians discussed more options after implementation. The regression analysis showed that exposure to the implementation program, redistribution of tasks and discussing feedback from consultations was associated with a higher level of SDM. Conclusion: The multilevel program helped clinicians achieve clinically relevant improvement in SDM, especially when it is tailored to (individuals in) teams and includes (e-)training, discussing feedback on consultations and redistribution of tasks.

Determining the Development Strategy and Suited Adoption Paths for the Core Competence of Shared Decision-Making Tasks through the SAA-NRM Approach

Shared decision making (SDM) is an interactive process that involves patients and their healthcare professionals reaching joint decisions about medical care through negotiation. As the initiators of medical decision-making in daily routine, physicians should be aware of and concerned about the SDM process. Thus, professional competency development for SDM has become increasingly critical for physicians' training. Therefore, this study investigates the professional competency and the important competency development aspects/criteria of SDM tasks through expert interviews and literature research. The study adopts the SAA (satisfaction-attention analysis) method to assess the status of competency development aspects/criteria and determine the NRM (network relation map) based on the DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory) technique. The results demonstrate that the CE (concept and evaluation) aspect is the dominant aspect, and the CR (communication and relationship) aspect is the aspect being dominated. The CE aspect influences the aspects of SP (skill and practice), JM (joint information and decision making) and CR, and the SP aspect affects the aspects of JM and CR. Then, the JM aspect affects the CR aspect. The study also suggests suitable adoption paths of competency development for SDM tasks using the NRM approach. It provides recommendations and strategic directions for SDM competency development and sustainable training programs.

Applying shared decision-making to screening for trauma and adversity in youth

Youth who have experienced adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) or trauma are at risk for negative outcomes that may be lessened by adversity screening and prevention efforts. However, experts and consumers do not universally embrace adversity screening efforts. Despite significant support for widespread adversity screening, and many guidelines on how to conduct such screening, successful implementation has lagged behind enthusiasm. This paper outlines the challenges of adversity screening and then proposes applying the shared decision-making (SDM) model to improve adversity screening by increasing youths' 1) engagement in adversity screening if doing so is appropriate for them, and 2) disclosure of honest information during screens. Using an SDM approach honors youth preferences and perspectives, which simultaneously accomplishes a third overarching goal: aligning adversity screening with the principles of trauma-informed care.

Supporting Patient Autonomy in Shared Decision Making for Individuals With Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE

Management of head and neck cancer (HNC) can result in substantial long-term, multifaceted disability, leading to significant deficits in one's functioning and quality of life (QoL). Consequently, treatment selection is a challenging component of care for patients with HNC. Clinical care guided by shared decision making (SDM) can help address these decisional challenges and allow for a more individualized approach to treatment. However, due in part to the dominance of biomedically oriented philosophies in clinical care, engaging in SDM that reflects the individual patient's needs may be difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

In this clinical focus article, we propose that health care decisions made in the context of biopsychosocial-framed care-one that contrasts to decision making directed solely by the biomedical model-will promote patient autonomy and permit the subjective personal values, beliefs, and preferences of individuals to be considered and incorporated into treatment-related decisions. Consequently, clinical efforts that are directed toward biopsychosocial-framed SDM hold the potential to positively affect QoL and well-being for individuals with HNC.

Time to rise to the challenge of truly implementing patient-centered care and shared decision-making in Israel: The educational and policy mission

Five years ago, Israel was perceived to be on the verge of implementing shared decision making (SDM). However, as presented in this paper, SDM in Israel remains relatively unexplored, is implemented in only few research interventions, and is rarely taught in medical schools or continuing education. Furthermore, policies on patient-centered care and SDM are limited and lack clear regulations and training on how to apply them. This situation is of concern. The paper describes the current state of SDM, identifying higher-level barriers to implementation. They include the need to address healthcare professionals' attitudes regarding patients and relationships; the need to rename and clearly define SDM terminology in Hebrew; the need to place SDM in the larger context and training of PCC; and the call for the development of clear policies, regulations, and training truly to rise to the need for national implementation of PCC and SDM.

Experiences of shared decision making among patients with psychotic disorders in Norway: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process where the patient and the health professional collaborate to make decisions based on both the patient's preferences and the best available evidence. Patients with psychotic disorders are less involved in making decisions than they would like. More knowledge of these patients' experiences of SDM may improve implementation. The study aim was to describe and explore experiences of SDM among patients with psychotic disorders in mental health care.

METHODS

Individual interviews were conducted with ten persons with a psychotic disorder. They were service users of two community mental health centres. The transcribed material was analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Four-fifths of the participants in this study found that they received insufficient information about their health situation and treatment options. All participants experienced that only one kind of treatment was often presented, which was usually medication. Although the study found that different degrees of involvement were practised, two thirds of the participants had little impact on choices to be made. This was despite the fact that they wanted to participate and felt capable of participating, even during periods of more severe illness. The participants described how important it was that SDM in psychosis was based on a trusting relationship, but stated that it took time to establish such a relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

This study with ten participants indicates that patients with psychotic disorders experienced that they were not allowed to participate as much as they wanted to and believed they were capable of. Some patients were involved, but to a lesser degree than in SDM. More and better tailored information communicated within a trusting relationship is needed to provide psychotic patients with a better basis for active involvement in decisions about their health care.

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

Clinician documentation of patient centered care in the electronic health record

Background

In this study we sought to explore the possibility of using patient centered care (PCC) documentation as a measure of the delivery of PCC in a health system.

Methods

We first selected 6 VA medical centers based on their scores for a measure of support for self-management subscale from a national patient satisfaction survey (the Survey for Healthcare Experience-Patients). We accessed clinical notes related to either smoking cessation or weight management consults. We then annotated this dataset of notes for documentation of PCC concepts including: patient goals, provider support for goal progress, social context, shared decision making, mention of caregivers, and use of the patient's voice. We examined the association of documentation of PCC with patients’ perception of support for self-management with regression analyses.

Results

Two health centers had < 50 notes related to either tobacco cessation or weight management consults and were removed from further analysis. The resulting dataset includes 477 notes related to 311 patients total from 4 medical centers. For a majority of patients (201 out of 311; 64.8%) at least one PCC concept was present in their clinical notes. The most common PCC concepts documented were patient goals (patients n = 126; 63% clinical notes n = 302; 63%), patient voice (patients n = 165, 82%; clinical notes n = 323, 68%), social context (patients n = 105, 52%; clinical notes n = 181, 38%), and provider support for goal progress (patients n = 124, 62%; clinical notes n = 191, 40%). Documentation of goals for weight loss notes was greater at health centers with higher satisfaction scores compared to low. No such relationship was found for notes related to tobacco cessation.

Conclusion

Providers document PCC concepts in their clinical notes. In this pilot study we explored the feasibility of using this data as a means to measure the degree to which care in a health center is patient centered. Practice Implications: clinical EHR notes are a rich source of information about PCC that could potentially be used to assess PCC over time and across systems with scalable technologies such as natural language processing.

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Personalised Medicine: Opening the Debate

Surgeons and cancer patients are starting to open the debate on how personalised medicine could use shared decision-making (SDM) to balance the personal and clinical components and thus improve the quality and value of care. Personalised precision medicine (PPM) has traditionally focused on the use of genomic information when prescribing treatments, which are usually pharmaceutical. However, the knowledge base is considerably scarcer in terms of how clinicians can individualise the information they provide patients about the consequences of different treatments, and in doing so involve them in the decision-making process. To achieve this, the ethical implications of SDM must be addressed from both sides. This paper explores the medical characteristics, the SDM implications in severe and fragile patients, potential risks, and observed benefits within this healthcare approach through four clinical cases. Findings shed light on current needs for clinician and patient training and tools related to SDM in PPM, and also remarks on the way in which this shift in healthcare settings is taking place to include the human component together with the biological and technological advances when designing care processes in colorectal cancer.