Shared decision making in preventive care in Switzerland: From theory to action

Shared decision-making and patient and public involvement: Can they become standard in Switzerland?

The Swiss healthcare system is highly decentralized, making implementation of shared decision making (SDM) and patient and public involvement (PPI) quite slow; nonetheless, change is happening. SDM is now a core communication competency for medical school graduates, as reflected by a dedicated station on the federal exam, and is endorsed by several national societies. Multiple local initiatives are contributing to international best practices, local implementation, and increased capacity. PPI is also gaining momentum, most notably in research, with the development of a national platform for clinical research and inclusion of patients in the evaluation committees for funding. The challenge now is going from example projects by motivated early adopters in academia to making SDM and PPI standard practice.

Healthcare professionals' behaviour regarding the implementation of shared decision-making in screening programmes: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To explore the barriers to and facilitators of healthcare professionals' implementation of SDM regarding screening programmes.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and PsyscInfo. The barriers and facilitators identified were classified into three factors based on their origin: patients, healthcare system performance, and healthcare professionals themselves.

RESULTS

Eight studies were selected: seven related to cancer screening. The most significant facilitators were literacy and interest in active participation, both of which have their origins in patients. The most significant barriers identified for the first time in a systematic review were legal conflict, lack of remuneration and lack of flexibility in clinical guidelines in screening programmes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that there are differences between barriers and facilitators for SDM when it is applied in the context of healthy people who perform preventive activities, particularly screening, in contrast to general medical consultation contexts.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The authors suggest that to advance in the practice of SDM, we need to develop and disseminate training documents. Further, SDM should be incorporated into clinical guidelines. There should be more studies focusing on healthcare professionals' behaviour within the context of the uncertainty of screening programmes.

Decision-making about participation in colorectal cancer screening in Sweden: Autonomous, value-dependent but uninformed?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate knowledge, values and preferences, and involvement among screening participants and non-participants in relation to colorectal cancer (CRC) and screening decision.

METHODS

Individuals (N = 2748) from the Screening of Swedish Colons trial were invited to respond to the SCREESCO questionnaire, assessing information/knowledge, values/preferences, and involvement.

RESULTS

Respondents' (screening participants, n = 1320; non-participants, n = 161) knowledge varied across items; 90 % recognised faecal blood as a CRC symptom, but less than half cited overweight, smoking, alcohol, and physical inactivity as risk factors. Incidence and case fatality were often over- and underestimated, respectively (>45 and 40 %). Non-participants were more uncertain about their CRC risk (p = 0.015) and less convinced that screening reduces the risk of dying from CRC (p < 0.001). In decision-making, screening participants took most into consideration the importance of early detection and CRC worry, and non-participants the risk of discomfort and complications due to the screening examination (p < 0.001). Most individuals made the decision without involving others.

CONCLUSION

For informed and shared decisions, efforts need to be made to increase public knowledge about CRC and to develop interventions to support individuals in decision-making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These results can inform and guide future initiatives to facilitate high quality decisions and CRC screening uptake in Sweden.