Shared decision making observed in clinical practice: visual displays of communication sequence and patterns

Nurse-led immunotreatment DEcision Coaching In people with Multiple Sclerosis (DECIMS) - A cluster- randomised controlled trial and mixed methods process evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a nurse-led decision coaching programme aiming to redistribute health professionals' tasks to support immunotherapy decision-making in people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

Cluster-randomised controlled trial with an accompanying mixed methods process evaluation (2014 - 2018). We planned to recruit 300 people with clinically isolated syndrome or relapsing-remitting MS facing immunotherapy decisions in 15 clusters across Germany. Participants in the intervention clusters received up to three decision coaching sessions by a trained nurse and access to an evidence-based online information platform. In the control clusters, participants also had access to the information platform. The primary outcome was informed choice after six months, defined as good risk knowledge and congruent attitude and uptake.

RESULTS

Twelve nurses from eight clusters participated in the decision coaching training. Due to insufficient recruitment, the randomised controlled trial was terminated prematurely with 125 participants (n = 42 intervention clusters, n = 83 control clusters). We found a non-significant difference between groups for informed choice favouring decision coaching: odds ratio 1.64 (95% CI 0.49-5.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that decision coaching might facilitate informed decision-making in MS compared to providing patient information alone.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Barriers have to be overcome to achieve structural change and successful implementation.

Patient Preferences for Rescue Medications in the Treatment of Breakthrough Cancer Pain

OBJECTIVE

The discrete choice experiment (DCE) is conducted in this study to discuss Chinese cancer patients' risk-benefit preferences for rescue medications (RD) and their willingness to pay (WTP) in the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP).

METHOD

Through literature reviews, specialist consultation, and patient surveys, this work finally included five attributes in the DCE questionnaire, i.e., the remission time of breakthrough pain, adverse reactions of the digestive system, adverse reactions of the neuropsychiatric system, administration routes, and drug costs (estimating patients' WTP). The alternative-specific conditional logit model is used to analyze patients' preferences and WTP for each attribute and its level and to assess the sociodemographic impact and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 134 effective questionnaires were collected from January, 1 to April, 5 in 2022. Results show that the five attributes all have a significant impact on cancer patients' choice of "rescue medications" (P<0.05). Among these attributes, the remission time after drug administration (10.0; 95%CI 8.5-11.5) is the most important concern for patients, followed by adverse reactions of the digestive system (8.5; 95%CI 7.0-10.0), adverse reactions of the neuropsychiatric system (2.9; 95%CI 1.4-4.3), and administration routes (0.9; 95%CI 0-1.8). The respondents are willing to spend 1182 yuan (95%CI 605-1720 yuan) per month for "rescue medications" to take effect within 15 minutes and spend 1002 yuan (95%CI 605-1760 yuan) per month on reducing the incidence of drug-induced adverse reactions in the digestive system to 5%.

CONCLUSION

For Chinese cancer patients, especially those with moderate/severe cancer pain, the priority is to relieve the BTcP more rapidly and reduce adverse drug reactions more effectively. This study indicates these patients' expectations for the quick control of breakthrough pain and their emphasis on the reduction of adverse reactions. These findings are useful for doctors, who are encouraged to communicate with cancer patients about how to better alleviate the BTcP.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Proponents of shared decision-making (SDM) advocate the elicitation of the patient's perspective. This scoping review explores if, and to what extent, the personal perspectives of patients are elicited during a clinical encounter, as part of a SDM process. We define personal perspective elicitation (PPE) as: the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or context.

METHODS

A search was conducted in five literature databases from inception dates up to July 2020, to identify empirical studies about SDM (with/without SDM instrument).

RESULTS

The search identified 4562 abstracts; 263 articles were read in full text, resulting in 99 included studies. Studies reported low levels of PPE. Integration of personal perspectives into the conversation or a future care plan was largely absent. The majority of the discussed content related to physical health, while social and psychological topics were mostly unaddressed.

CONCLUSIONS

PPE occurs on a very low level in efforts to achieve SDM according to evaluation studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PPE is advocated but rarely achieved in SDM evaluation studies. Causes should be identified, followed by designing interventions to improve this aspect of SDM.

Health Literacy and Patient Participation in Shared Decision-Making in Orthopedic Surgery

The influence of health literacy on involvement in decision-making in orthopedic surgery has not been analyzed and could inform processes to engage patients. The goal of this study was to determine the relationship between health literacy and the patient's preferred involvement in decision-making. We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of patients presenting to a multispecialty orthopedic clinic. Patients completed the Literacy in Musculoskeletal Problems (LiMP) survey to evaluate their health literacy and the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) survey to evaluate their preferred level of involvement in decision-making. Statistical analysis was performed with Pearson's correlation and multivariable logistic regression. Thirty-seven percent of patients had limited health literacy (LiMP score <6). Forty-eight percent of patients preferred to share decision-making with their physician equally (CPS score=3), whereas 38% preferred to have a more active role in decision-making (CPS score≤2). There was no statistically significant correlation between health literacy and patient preference for involvement in decision-making (r=0.130; P=.150). Among patients with orthopedic conditions, there is no significant relationship between health literacy and preferred involvement in decision-making. Results from studies in other specialties that suggest that limited health literacy is associated with a preference for less involvement in decision-making are not generalizable to orthopedic surgery. Efforts to engage patients to be informed and participatory in decision-making through the use of decision aids and preference elicitation tools should be directed toward variation in preference for involvement in decision-making, but not toward patient health literacy. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(4):227-232.].

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Shared decision making in consultations for hypertension: Qualitative study in general practice

Background

Hypertension is mainly managed in primary care. Shared decision making is widely recommended as an approach to treatment decision making. However, no studies have investigated; in detail, what happens during primary care consultations for hypertension.

Aim

To understand patients’ and clinicians’ experience of shared decision making for hypertension in primary care, in order to propose how it might be better supported.

Design

Longitudinal qualitative study.

Setting

Five general practices in south‐west England.

Method

Interviews with a purposive sample of patients with hypertension, and with the health‐care practitioners they consulted, along with observations of clinical consultations, for up to 6 appointments. Interviews and consultations were audio‐recorded and observational field notes taken. Data were analysed thematically.

Results

Forty‐six interviews and 18 consultations were observed, with 11 patients and nine health‐care practitioners (five GPs, one pharmacist and three nurses). Little shared decision making was described by participants or observed. Often patients’ understanding of their hypertension was limited, and they were not aware there were treatment choices. Consultations provided few opportunities for patients and clinicians to reach a shared understanding of their treatment choices. Opportunities for patients to engage in choices were limited by structured consultations and the distribution of decisions across consultations.

Conclusion

For shared decision making to be better supported, consultations need to provide opportunities for patients to learn about their condition, to understand that there are treatment choices, and to discuss these choices with clinicians.

Patient or Public Contribution

A patient group contributed to the design of this study.

The seven key challenges for life-critical shared decision making systems

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) for life-critical diseases or conditions is a crucial type of SDM. This type of SDM is still greatly underdeveloped and it faces a number of key challenges. The main goal of this study is to identify the challenges that impede the development and use of life-critical SDM.

METHODS

This is a hybrid research and systematic / narrative review paper. Its results were derived by analyzing reviews already conducted by the authors when they were working on six recently published papers. These papers had collectively required two systematic reviews and four narrative reviews. The topics covered in the six published papers were related to computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) in medicine, the analysis of health state utilities, and the selection of the best treatment for life-critical diseases / conditions. A new narrative review was also executed to explore some new issues.

RESULTS

The key challenges for life-critical SDM relate to the following aspects: The mathematical models used to make the decisions, the data used to feed these models, the role the patient plays within the SDM framework, and finally, the role healthcare professionals play along with the pertinent rules and regulations that guide the use of this type of SDM today.

CONCLUSIONS

Life-critical SDM is the most important type of SDM. However, some challenges impede its successful development and use. A number of developments and enhancements need to be made urgently for this type of SDM to become widely acceptable and useful. The seven key challenges identified in this study and the suggested directions for future research offer a compelling path towards elevating life-critical SDM to the next level and do so both effectively and efficiently.

Patient and Provider Decision-Making Experiences: A Qualitative Study

The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to explore patient and provider experiences in making health care decisions. A convenience sample of primary care patients and providers was engaged in face-to-face and telephone interviews, to elicit participants' experiences in making health care decisions. Three main themes were identified in the data: Involvement, including being in control and accepting responsibility; seeking and confirming Information; and establishing communication and negotiating trust in the patient-provider Relationship. Themes identified in the data describe the elements involved in health care decision-making, and depict the relationship between patient and provider as being central to the making of health care decisions. In addition, the subthemes of control and negotiation merit additional in-depth exploration to illuminate the implicit and explicit expressions of hierarchy in the patient-provider relationship, as this hierarchy appears to hinder efforts at sharing decisions in health care encounters.

Overview of the main challenges in shared decision making in a multicultural and diverse society in the intensive and critical care setting

BACKGROUND

In shared decision making, health care professionals and patients collaborate in making health-related choices. This process is based on autonomy and constitutes one to the elements of patient-centered care. However, there are situations where shared decision making is more difficult, if not impossible, due to barriers, which may be related to language, culture, education, or mental capacity and external factors like the state of emergency or the availability of alternative sources of information.

AIM

The aim of this paper is to identify some of the main obstacles to the adoption of shared decision making in an intensive and critical care scenario and discuss potential ways to facilitate its implementation.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review on shared decision making from the perspective of intensive and critical care specialists.

DISCUSSION

Although the health care context is complex and the variety of situation that can arise makes it impossible to prepare professionals for every occurrence, shared decision making process should be structured at an organization level, engaging health care professionals, experts of communication, and patient representatives coming from different cultural backgrounds, languages, and education to assemble for all the main procedures, where shared decision making is involved, the specific information packages health care professionals will use in order to guide them through the process and ensuring all patients receive a comparable level of engagement. Shared decision making should not become a hindrance for the health care professional but on the contrary a way to strengthen their relationship with the patient.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of the shared decision making approach at an organization-wide level improves its quality and effectiveness.

Partner involvement in treatment-related decision making in triadic clinical consultations - A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies

OBJECTIVE

Explore how partners are involved in treatment-related decision-making within triadic clinical encounters.

METHODS

Studies were identified via database searches and reference lists. One author assessed eligibility of studies, which were verified by an additional co-author. Data were extracted by one author and cross-checked for accuracy by a second. Quality of articles was assessed using Qualsyst. Retrieved studies were categorised by one author, and agreed through discussion.

RESULTS

From 2442 records, 14 studies were included and categorised as: (1) Descriptions of partner role and behaviour; (2) Role intentions of partners; (3) Relationship between partner and patient behaviour; (4) HCP-Partner interactions.

CONCLUSION

Partners are often involved in triadic clinical consultations that have implications for treatment-related decision making. Most studies offered general descriptions but lacked detailed investigation of communicative processes in triads and how these may operate with partners vs. other companions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Existing studies lack detailed investigation through direct observation of the processes of partner involvement. Research in other areas of clinical communication suggests that future interventions could be informed by attention to the following areas: partner behaviour vs. other companion types in triads; relationships between partner involvement and decision-making processes; partner involvement in triads vs. other groups (e.g. quadratic).

Purposeful SDM: A problem-based approach to caring for patients with shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

Patient involvement focused the growth of Shared Decision Making (SDM) in contemporary healthcare practice, research, and education. Whilst important, securing appropriate patient involvement or equipping patients to choose is not necessarily the principal purpose of SDM. The purpose of SDM like all medical decision making is to act well in response to a patient's problem, broadly conceived. In which situations and how SDM addresses patient problems is unclear. We seek to develop a purposeful approach to SDM that is oriented to the kinds of problems that SDM might help resolve.

METHODS

Through vignettes of the experience of a patient, Rachel we demonstrate different kinds of situations in which Rachel, her family, and clinicians need to make decisions together.

RESULTS

Different methods of SDM are needed in situations of: CONCLUSION: SDM may be understood as a range of methods that vary substantially with patients' situations and the purpose that they pursue.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians struggle to adopt SDM when they do not see it as relevant to clinical work. Orienting SDM to the problems that patients and clinicians routinely face may further SDM adoption, education, and research.

Identifying decisions in optometry: A validation study of the decision identification and classification taxonomy for use in medicine (DICTUM) in optometric consultations

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Decision Identification and Classification Taxonomy for Use in Medicine (DICTUM) applied to optometry, to compare decisions in medical and optometric consultations, and to describe decisions in optometry.

METHODS

The study had a cross-sectional design. Data was collected from January to August 2016. Forty video-recorded patient-optometrist consultations were analysed. Clinical decisions were categorised according to DICTUM by two independent coders.

RESULTS

The framework was applied without modification. The inter-rater reliability was moderate, Cohen's kappa 0.57. The mean duration of the consultations was 41 (±9) minutes. In all, 891 clinical decisions were identified, mean 22 (±13) per consultation. Types of decisions were significantly different between optometric and medical consultations (chi-square, p < 0.001). More frequently, optometrists conveyed interpreted test results (27.6% vs 16.7%) and gave advice (23.6% vs 8%), while doctors defined the problem (30.4% vs 24.6%) and decided on treatment (17.8% vs 13.4%).

CONCLUSION

DICTUM is applicable to optometry encounters and may provide valuable insight to different health care settings.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Descriptive studiesofdecisions in patient-provider consultations is a first step for normative and prescriptive exploration of decision-making processes in health care.

Information provision for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are confronted with a number of important uncertainties concerning many aspects of the disease. These include diagnosis, prognosis, disease course, disease-modifying therapies, symptomatic therapies, and non-pharmacological interventions, among others. While people with MS demand adequate information to be able to actively participate in medical decision making and to self manage their disease, it has been shown that patients' disease-related knowledge is poor, therefore guidelines recommend clear and concise high-quality information at all stages of the disease. Several studies have outlined communication and information deficits in the care of people with MS. However, only a few information and decision support programmes have been published.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this updated review was to evaluate the effectiveness of information provision interventions for people with MS that aim to promote informed choice and improve patient-relevant outcomes, Further objectives were to evaluate the components and the developmental processes of the complex interventions used, to highlight the quantity and the certainty of the research evidence available, and to set an agenda for future research.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register, which contains trials from CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, and clinical trials registries (29 November 2017) as well as other sources. We also searched reference lists of identified articles and contacted trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials, and quasi-randomised trials comparing information provision for people with MS or suspected MS (intervention groups) with usual care or other types of information provision (control groups) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the retrieved articles for relevance and methodological quality and extracted data. Critical appraisal of studies addressed the risk of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias. We contacted authors of relevant studies for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new RCT (73 participants), which when added to the 10 previously included RCTs resulted in a total of 11 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria and were analysed (1387 participants overall; mean age, range: 31 to 51; percentage women, range: 63% to 100%; percentage relapsing-remitting MS course, range: 45% to 100%). The interventions addressed a variety of topics using different approaches for information provision in different settings. Topics included disease-modifying therapy, relapse management, self care strategies, fatigue management, family planning, and general health promotion. The active intervention components included decision aids, decision coaching, educational programmes, self care programmes, and personal interviews with physicians. All studies used one or more components, but the number and extent differed markedly between studies. The studies had a variable risk of bias. We did not perform meta-analyses due to marked clinical heterogeneity. All five studies assessing MS-related knowledge (505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) detected significant differences between groups as a result of the interventions, indicating that information provision may successfully increase participants' knowledge. There were mixed results on decision making (five studies, 793 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (six studies, 671 participants; low-certainty evidence). No adverse events were detected in the seven studies reporting this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information provision for people with MS seems to increase disease-related knowledge, with less clear results on decision making and quality of life. The included studies in this review reported no negative side effects of providing disease-related information to people with MS. Interpretation of study results remains challenging due to the marked heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures.

Patient Perceptions Correlate Weakly With Observed Patient Involvement in Decision-making in Orthopaedic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making between patients and physicians involves educating the patient, providing options, eliciting patient preferences, and reaching agreement on a decision. There are different ways to measure shared decision-making, including patient involvement, but there is no consensus on the best approach. In other fields, there have been varying relationships between patient-perceived involvement and observed patient involvement in shared decision-making. The relationship between observed and patient-perceived patient involvement in decision-making has not been studied in orthopaedic surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does patient-perceived involvement correlate with observed measurements of patient involvement in decision-making in orthopaedic surgery? (2) Are patient demographics associated with perceived and observed measurements of patient involvement in decision-making?

METHODS

We performed a prospective, observational study to compare observed and perceived patient involvement in new patient consultations for eight orthopaedic surgeons in subspecialties including hand/upper extremity, total joint arthroplasty, spine, sports, trauma, foot and ankle, and tumor. We enrolled 117 English-literate patients 18 years or older over an enrollment period of 2 months. A member of the research team assessed observed patient involvement during a consultation with the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION) instrument (scaled 1-100 with higher scores representing greater involvement). After the consultation, we asked patients to complete a questionnaire with demographic information including age, sex, race, education, income, marital status, employment status, and injury type. Patients also completed the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS), which measures patient-perceived involvement (scaled 1-13 with higher scores representing greater involvement). Both instruments are validated in multiple studies in various specialties and the physicians were blinded to the instruments used. We assessed the correlation between observed and patient-perceived involvement as well as tested the association between patient demographics and patient involvement scores.

RESULTS

There was weak correlation between observed involvement (OPTION) and patient-perceived involvement (PICS) (r = 0.37, p < 0.01) in decision-making (mean OPTION, 28.7, SD 7.7; mean PICS, 8.43, SD 2.3). We found a low degree of observed patient involvement despite a moderate to high degree of perceived involvement. No patient demographic factor had a significant association with patient involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Further work is needed to identify the best method for evaluating patient involvement in decision-making in the setting of discordance between observed and patient-perceived measurements. Knowing whether it is necessary for (1) actual observable patient involvement to occur; or (2) a patient to simply believe they are involved in their care can inform physicians on the best way to improve shared decision-making in their practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

How Does a Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Intervention for Oncologists Affect Participation Style and Preference Matching in Patients with Breast and Colon Cancer?

The aims of this study are to assess patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles and preference matching in a sample of German breast and colon cancer patients and to investigate how a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention for oncologists influences patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles and the attainment of preference matches. This study is a post hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the effects of an SDM intervention. The SDM intervention was a 12-h SDM training program for physicians in combination with decision board use. For this study, we analysed a subgroup of 107 breast and colon cancer patients faced with serious treatment decisions who provided data on specific questionnaires with regard to their preferred and perceived decision-making roles (passive, SDM or active). Patients filled in questionnaires immediately following a decision-relevant consultation (t1) with their oncologist. Eleven of these patients' 27 treating oncologists had received the SDM intervention within the RCT. A majority of cancer patients (60%) preferred SDM. A match between preferred and perceived decision-making roles was reached for 72% of patients. The patients treated by SDM-trained physicians perceived greater autonomy in their decision making (p < 0.05) with more patients perceiving SDM or an active role, but their preference matching was not influenced. A SDM intervention for oncologists boosted patient autonomy but did not improve preference matching. This highlights the already well-known reluctance of physicians to engage in explicit role clarification.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00000539; Funding Source: German Cancer Aid.

Shared Decision-Making for Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making has received national and international interest by providers, educators, researchers, and policy makers. The literature on shared decision-making is extensive, dealing with the individual components of shared decision-making rather than a comprehensive process. This view of shared decision-making leaves healthcare providers to wonder how to integrate shared decision-making into practice.

OBJECTIVE

To understand shared decision-making as a comprehensive process from the perspective of the patient and provider in all healthcare settings.

METHODS

An integrative review was conducted applying a systematic approach involving a literature search, data evaluation, and data analysis. The search included articles from PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO from 1970 through 2016. Articles included quantitative experimental and non-experimental designs, qualitative, and theoretical articles about shared decision-making between all healthcare providers and patients in all healthcare settings.

RESULTS

Fifty-two papers were included in this integrative review. Three categories emerged from the synthesis: (a) communication/ relationship building; (b) working towards a shared decision; and (c) action for shared decision-making. Each major theme contained sub-themes represented in the proposed visual representation for shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive understanding of shared decision-making between the nurse and the patient was identified. A visual representation offers a guide that depicts shared decision-making as a process taking place during a healthcare encounter with implications for the continuation of shared decisions over time offering patients an opportunity to return to the nurse for reconsiderations of past shared decisions.

Clinical decisions presented to patients in hospital encounters: a cross-sectional study using a novel taxonomy

OBJECTIVE

To identify and classify all clinical decisions that emerged in a sample of patient-physician encounters and compare different categories of decisions across clinical settings and personal characteristics.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional descriptive evaluation of hospital encounters videotaped in 2007-2008 using a novel taxonomy to identify and classify clinically relevant decisions (both actions and judgements).

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

372 patients and 58 physicians from 17 clinical specialties in ward round (WR), emergency room (ER) and outpatient (OP) encounters in a Norwegian university hospital.

RESULTS

The 372 encounters contained 4976 clinically relevant decisions. The average number of decisions per encounter was 13.4 (min-max 2-40, SD 6.8). The overall distribution of the 10 topical categories in all encounters was: defining problem: 30%, evaluating test result: 17%, drug related: 13%, gathering additional information: 10%, contact related: 10%, advice and precaution: 8%, therapeutic procedure related: 5%, deferment: 4%, legal and insurance related: 2% and treatment goal: 1%. Across three temporal categories, the distribution of decisions was 71% here-and-now, 16% preformed and 13% conditional. On average, there were 15.7 decisions per encounter in internal medicine specialties, 7.1 in ear-nose-throat encounters and 11.0-13.6 in the remaining specialties. WR encounters contained significantly more drug-related decisions than OP encounters (P=0.031) and preformed decisions than ER and OP encounters (P<0.001). ER encounters contained significantly more gathering additional information decisions than OP and WR encounters (P<0.001) and fewer problem defining decisions than WR encounters (P=0.028). There was no significant difference in the average number of decisions related to the physician's and patient's age or gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-physician encounters contain a larger number of clinically relevant decisions than described in previous studies. Comprehensive descriptions of how decisions, both as judgements and actions, are communicated in medical encounters may serve as a first step in assessing clinical practice with respect to efficiency and quality on a provider or system level.

Parental involvement in neonatal critical care decision-making

The article analyses the decision-making process between doctors and parents of babies in neonatal intensive care. In particular, it focuses on cases in which the decision concerns the redirection of care from full intensive care to palliative care at the end of life. Thirty one families were recruited from a neonatal intensive care unit in England and their formal interactions with the doctor recorded. The conversations were transcribed and analysed using conversation analysis. Analysis focused on sequences in which decisions about the redirection of care were initiated and progressed. Two distinct communicative approaches to decision-making were used by doctors: 'making recommendations' and 'providing options'. Different trajectories for parental involvement in decision-making were afforded by each design, as well as differences in terms of the alignments, or conflicts, between doctors and parents. 'Making recommendations' led to misalignment and reduced opportunities for questions and collaboration; 'providing options' led to an aligned approach with opportunities for questions and fuller participation in the decision-making process. The findings are discussed in the context of clinical uncertainty, moral responsibility and the implications for medical communication training and guidance. A Virtual Abstract of this paper can be accessed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyuymxDNupk&feature=youtu.be.

When do cancer patients regret their treatment decision? A path analysis of the influence of clinicians' communication styles and the match of decision-making styles on decision regret

OBJECTIVE

To test the influence of physician empathy (PE), shared decision making (SDM), and the match between patients' preferred and perceived decision-making styles on patients' decision regret.

METHODS

Patients with breast or colon cancer (n=71) completed questionnaires immediately following (T1) and three months after a consultation (T2). Path analysis was used to examine the relationships among patient demographics, patient reports of PE, SDM, the match between preferred and perceived decision-making styles, and patient decision regret at T2.

RESULTS

After controlling for clinician clusters, higher PE was directly associated with more SDM (β=0.43, p<0.01) and lower decision regret (β=-0.28, p<0.01). The match between patients' preferred and perceived roles was negatively associated with decision regret (β=-0.33, p<0.01). Patients who participated less than desired reported more decision regret at T2. There was no significant association between SDM and decision regret (β=0.03, p=0.74).

CONCLUSION

PE and the match between patients' preferred and perceived roles in medical decision making are essential for patient-centered cancer consultations and treatment decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Ways to enhance PE and matching the consultation style to patients' expectations should be encouraged.

Evaluator-blinded trial evaluating nurse-led immunotherapy DEcision Coaching In persons with relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis (DECIMS) and accompanying process evaluation: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic neurological condition usually starting in early adulthood and regularly leading to severe disability. Immunotherapy options are growing in number and complexity, while costs of treatments are high and adherence rates remain low. Therefore, treatment decision-making has become more complex for patients. Structured decision coaching, based on the principles of evidence-based patient information and shared decision-making, has the potential to facilitate participation of individuals in the decision-making process.

This cluster randomised controlled trial follows the assumption that decision coaching by trained nurses, using evidence-based patient information and preference elicitation, will facilitate informed choices and induce higher decision quality, as well as better decisional adherence.

Methods/Design

The decision coaching programme will be evaluated through an evaluator-blinded superiority cluster randomised controlled trial, including 300 patients with suspected or definite relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, facing an immunotherapy decision. The clusters are 12 multiple sclerosis outpatient clinics in Germany. Further, the trial will be accompanied by a mixed-methods process evaluation and a cost-effectiveness study.

Nurses in the intervention group will be trained in shared decision-making, coaching, and evidence-based patient information principles. Patients who meet the inclusion criteria will receive decision coaching (intervention group) with up to three face-to-face coaching sessions with a trained nurse (decision coach) or counselling as usual (control group). Patients in both groups will be given access to an evidence-based online information tool.

The primary outcome is ‘informed choice’ after six months, assessed with the multi-dimensional measure of informed choice including the sub-dimensions risk knowledge (questionnaire), attitude concerning immunotherapy (questionnaire), and immunotherapy uptake (telephone survey). Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict, adherence to immunotherapy decisions, autonomy preference, planned behaviour, coping self-efficacy, and perceived involvement in coaching and decisional encounters. Safety outcomes are comprised of anxiety and depression and disease-specific quality of life.

Discussion

This trial will assess the effectiveness of a new model of patient decision support concerning MS-immunotherapy options. The delegation of treatment information provision from physicians to trained nurses bears the potential to change current doctor-focused practice in Germany.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials (identifier: ISRCTN37929939), May 27, 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0611-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Temporal characteristics of decisions in hospital encounters: a threshold for shared decision making? A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To identify and characterize physicians' statements that contained evidence of clinically relevant decisions in encounters with patients in different hospital settings.

METHODS

Qualitative analysis of 50 videotaped encounters from wards, the emergency room (ER) and outpatient clinics in a department of internal medicine at a Norwegian university hospital.

RESULTS

Clinical decisions could be grouped in a temporal order: decisions which had already been made, and were brought into the encounter by the physician (preformed decisions), decisions made in the present (here-and-now decisions), and decisions prescribing future actions given a certain course of events (conditional decisions). Preformed decisions were a hallmark in the ward and conditional decisions a main feature of ER encounters.

CONCLUSION

Clinical decisions related to a patient-physician encounter spanned a time frame exceeding the duration of the encounter. While a distribution of decisions over time and space fosters sharing and dilution of responsibility between providers, it makes the decision making process hard to access for patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to plan when and how to involve patients in decisions, physicians need increased awareness of when clinical decisions are made, who usually makes them, and who should make them.

A conceptual model of the multiple stages of communication necessary to support patient-centered care

Patient-centered care requires that both healthcare providers and patients have access to comparative effectiveness research (CER), which provides direct comparisons of the risks and benefits of available clinical options. However, insufficient attention has been paid to developing the comprehensive communication systems necessary to ensure that CER reaches patients and healthcare providers. In this review, we propose a model of the multiple stages of CER communication necessary for patient-centered care and review the existing research and gaps in knowledge relevant to each stage. These stages include: promotion of the underlying concepts and value of CER; translation of CER results; dissemination of CER results; and utilization of the results of CER in shared decision-making between patients and providers. A comprehensive approach to CER communication is necessary to ensure that the growing interest in and availability of CER is able to support a more patient-centered model of healthcare.

Association between physicians' beliefs and the option of comfort care for critically ill patients

PURPOSE

For critically ill patients at high risk of death, reasonable treatment options include attempts at life prolongation and treatment focused on comfort. Little is known about whether and how physicians present the option of comfort care to surrogates. This study assessed how comfort care is presented to surrogates and whether physicians' beliefs are associated with whether comfort care is presented as an option.

METHODS

Mixed-methods study of 72 audio-recorded family conferences about treatment decisions in five ICUs at two hospitals in San Francisco, California. One hundred sixty-nine family members and 54 physicians participated. Patients were at high risk of death or severe functional impairment. Transcripts of audio-recorded conferences were coded to identify whether physicians offered comfort care as an alternative to life-sustaining treatment and to characterize the stated risks and benefits. Physicians completed a questionnaire indicating the strength of their belief that life support should be foregone.

RESULTS

The inpatient mortality rate was 72 %. Using a broad definition of comfort-oriented treatment, this option was presented in 56 % (95 % CI, 44-67 %) of conferences. In clustered multivariate models, the only independent predictor of offering comfort care as an option was the strength of the physician's belief that life support should be foregone [OR 1.38 (1.14-1.66), p = 0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians did not explicitly inform surrogates about the option of comfort-oriented treatment in roughly half of clinician-family meetings. Physicians who more strongly believe that the appropriate goal of care is life prolongation are less likely to inform surrogates about the option of comfort care.

Implementation of shared decision making by physician training to optimise hypertension treatment. Study protocol of a cluster-RCT

Background

Hypertension is one of the key factors causing cardiovascular diseases which make up the most frequent cause of death in industrialised nations. However about 60% of hypertensive patients in Germany treated with antihypertensives do not reach the recommended target blood pressure. The involvement of patients in medical decision making fulfils not only an ethical imperative but, furthermore, has the potential of higher treatment success. One concept to enhance the active role of patients is shared decision making. Until now there exists little information on the effects of shared decision making trainings for general practitioners on patient participation and on lowering blood pressure in hypertensive patients.

Methods/Design

In a cluster-randomised controlled trial 1800 patients receiving antihypertensives will be screened with 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in their general practitioners’ practices. Only patients who have not reached their blood pressure target (approximately 1200) will remain in the study (T1 – T3). General practitioners of the intervention group will take part in a shared decision making-training after baseline assessment (T0). General practitioners of the control group will treat their patients as usual. Primary endpoints are change of systolic blood pressure and change of patients’ perceived participation. Secondary endpoints are changes of diastolic blood pressure, knowledge, medical adherence and cardiovascular risk. Data analysis will be performed with mixed effects models.

Discussion

The hypothesis underlying this study is that shared decision making, realised by a shared decision making training for general practitioners, activates patients, facilitates patients’ empowerment and contributes to a better hypertension control. This study is the first one that tests this hypothesis with a (cluster-) randomised trial and a large sample size.

Trial registration

WHO International Clinical Trials: http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00000125

[Opinions of family doctors on the involvement of patients in the taking of decisions: a study with focus groups]

OBJECTIVE

To determine what family doctors think about various aspects of patient involvement in clinical decision making in Primary Care.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using focus groups.

LOCATION

Primary Care.

PARTICIPANTS

Family physicians with and without expertise in clinical communication.

METHODS

Three focus groups were developed, involving 6-8 professionals per group, and took part in two meetings. The conversations were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The discussion was analysed using literature-based categories and other emerging from the text, encoding the information and making an inductive interpretation.

RESULTS

Family physicians refer mainly to involving the patient in decisions by proposing a plan tailored to the knowledge of patient problems and then verifying their approval or rejection. However, some professionals ponder whether this could be classified as patient involvement, questioning the real role that both players would take at the time of deciding.

CONCLUSIONS

The explanation of how family physicians would involve the patient in decisions clashes with the most widespread theories on the subject and, also opposes the view of patients who would like to be involved more actively. Taking into account discordant reflections on the relevance of considering this process as real patient involvement, it is necessary to describe a realistic theoretical model that allows further development of strategies to improve the attitude and training of professionals to patient involvement in clinical decisions.

Shared decision making in oncology practice: what do oncologists need to know?

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest by patients, policy makers, and clinicians in shared decision making (SDM) as a means to involve patients in health decisions and translate evidence into clinical practice. However, few clinicians feel optimally trained to implement SDM in practice, and many patients report that they are less involved than they desire to be in their cancer care decisions. SDM might help address the wide practice variation reported for many preference-sensitive decisions by incorporating patient preferences into decision discussions.

METHODS

This paper provides a perspective on how to incorporate SDM into routine oncology practice to facilitate patient-centered communication and promote effective treatment decisions. Oncology practice is uniquely positioned to lead the adoption of SDM because of the vast number of preference-sensitive decisions in which SDM can enhance the clinical encounter.

RESULTS

Clinicians can facilitate cancer decision making by: (a) determining the situations in which SDM is critical; (b) acknowledging the decision to a patient; (c) describing the available options, including the risks, benefits, and uncertainty associated with options; (d) eliciting patients' preferences; and (e) agreeing on a plan for the next steps in the decision-making process.

CONCLUSION

Given recent policy movements toward incorporating SDM and translating evidence into routine clinical practice, oncologists are likely to continue expanding their use of SDM and will have to confront the challenges of incorporating SDM into their clinical workflow. More research is needed to explore ways to overcome these challenges such that both quality evidence and patient preferences are appropriately translated and incorporated into oncology care decisions.

Temporal lobe epilepsy surgery: what do patients want to know?

Patients with pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) contemplating brain surgery must make a complex treatment decision involving trade-offs. Patient decision aids, containing information on the risks and benefits of treatment interventions, increase patient knowledge and facilitate shared decision making between patients and physicians. We conducted five focus groups to describe the information patients need to make informed decisions about TLE surgery. Twenty patients who had undergone TLE surgery described the information used in their decision-making process, and evaluated the potential for a patient decision aid to assist other patients who are considering surgery. Thematic analysis revealed information needs that were both experiential (i.e., learning about other patients' experiences through testimonials) and factual (i.e., individualized statistical information). Patients also made suggestions on how this information should be delivered to patients. These data will accelerate the development of a patient decision aid designed to assist TLE patients in their decision making about epilepsy surgery.

From questionnaire to conversation: a structural intervention to improve HIV test counseling

OBJECTIVE

We describe the effects of structural intervention to enhance the quality of HIV test counseling interaction with men who have sex with men (MSM) in San Francisco.

METHODS

Audio recordings of 28 rapid HIV test sessions by seven counselors were collected in two phases: before and after implementation of a waiting room intervention prior to the session. The sessions were analyzed using sequence maps to visualize and compare the sequence and distribution of four activities: counseling, information delivery, data collection, and sample collection.

RESULTS

Prior to the intervention, counselors and clients often oriented to data collection about the client's past risk as if it were a survey. In sessions recorded after the intervention, questions about past risk were dispersed throughout the session and embedded within an elaborated discussion of the client's particular life circumstances.

CONCLUSION

Direct observation with the aid of sequence maps illuminates the ways that counselors and clients collaboratively orient to various tasks.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We demonstrated the feasibility of a structural intervention that improved the quality of both counseling and the accuracy of client risk data without requiring additional session time or counselor training.

Shared decision making in the medical encounter: are we all talking about the same thing?

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to explore 1) whether after all the research done on shared decision making (SDM) in the medical encounter, a clear definition (or definitions) of SDM exists; 2) whether authors provide a definition of SDM when they use the term; 3) and whether authors are consistent, throughout a given paper, with respect to the research described and the definition they propose or cite.

METHODS

The authors searched different databases (Medline, HealthStar, Cinahl, Cancerlit, Sociological Abstracts, and Econlit) from 1997 to December 2004. The keywords used were informed decision making and shared decision making as these are the keywords more often encountered in the literature. The languages selected were English and French.

RESULTS

The 76 reported papers show that 1) several authors clearly define what they mean by SDM or by another closely related phrase, such as informed shared decision making. 2) About a third of the papers reviewed (25/76) cite these authors although 8 of them do not use the term in a manner consistent with the definition cited. 3) Certain authors use the term SDM inconsistently with the definition they propose, and some use the terms informed decision making and SDM as if they were synonymous. 4) Twenty-one papers do not provide or cite any definition, or their use of the term (i.e., SDM) is not consistent with the definition they provide.

CONCLUSION

Although several clear definitions of shared decision making have been proposed, they are cited by only about a third of the papers reviewed. In the other papers, authors refer to the term without specifying or citing a definition or use the term inconsistently with their definition. This is a problem because having a clear definition of the concept and following this definition are essential to guide and focus research. Authors should use the term consistently with the identified definition.

The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a cluster-randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Patient-centred depression care approaches should better address barriers of insufficient patient information and involvement in the treatment decision process. Additional research is needed to test the effect of increased patient participation on outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess, if patient participation in decision-making via a shared decision-making intervention leads to improved treatment adherence, satisfaction, and clinical outcome without increasing consultation time.

METHODS

Cluster-randomized controlled intervention study based on physician training and patient-centered decision aid compared to usual care in primary care settings in Südbaden region of Germany. Twenty-three primary care physicians treating 405 patients with newly diagnosed depression were enrolled. Patient involvement was measured with the patient perceived involvement in care scale (PICS) and a patient participation scale (MSH-scale). Patient satisfaction was measured by the CSQ-8 questionnaire. Treatment adherence was evaluated by patient and provider self-report. Depression severity and remission outcomes were assessed with the Brief PHQ-D.

RESULTS

Physician facilitation of patient participation improved significantly and to a greater extent in the intervention compared to the control group. There was no intervention effect for depression severity reduction. Doctor facilitation of patient participation, patient-rated involvement, and physician assessment of adherence improved only in the intervention group. Patient satisfaction at post-intervention was higher in the intervention group compared to the control group. The consultation time did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

A shared decision-making intervention was better than usual care for improving patient participation in treatment decision-making, and patient satisfaction without increasing consultation time. Additional research is needed to model causal linkages in the decision-making process in regard to outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study results encourage the implementation of patient participation in primary care of depression.

Quality of life and congenital heart defects: comparing parent and professional values

OBJECTIVE

To compare preferences obtained from health professionals with those from parents for the longer-term health outcomes of children with congenital heart defects.

SETTING

Cardiology conference; hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

109 paediatric cardiology professionals (72% female, median age 38 years) and 106 parents of children with congenital heart defects (82% female, median age 37 years).

INTERVENTIONS

Eight health state descriptions, for cardiac and neurological disability resulting from congenital heart defects, were developed and presented with a self-administered anonymous questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rank health state descriptions from best to worst, score each health state using a visual analog scale and mark death on this scale.

RESULTS

Health professionals and parents agreed in the order of ranking health states from best to worst. Both groups assigned the lowest scores to health states with severe neurological disability. Scores did not differ significantly by age, sex or whether the respondent was in the health professional or parent group. Of all respondents, 8% (17) scored at least one health state description worse than death.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents and health professionals place similar values on the quality of life outcomes of children with congenital heart defects. Both are more averse to health states describing worse neurological than cardiac disability. Improving our understanding of the relative importance of different outcomes to children and families is an important basis for sharing decisions about clinical care. The views of young people with congenital heart defects should be an important focus for future enquiry into health outcomes.

Risk communication in consultations about hormone therapy in the menopause: concordance in risk assessment and framing due to the context

BACKGROUND

It is important for the physician and the patient to have a mutual understanding of the possible consequences of different treatment alternatives in order to achieve a partnership in decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore to which degree first-time consultations for discussion of climacteric discomfort achieved shared understanding of the risks and benefits associated with hormone therapy in the menopausal transition.

METHODS

Analysis of structure and content of transcribed consultations (n = 20), and follow-up interviews of the women (n = 19 pairs of consultations and interviews), from first-time visits for discussion of climacteric discomfort and/or HT with five physicians at three different outpatient clinics of gynecology in Sweden.

RESULTS

Four distinctively different interpretations of risk, depending on whether or not benefits were discussed in the same context, emerged from the analysis. On average, five advantages (range 0-11) and two (0-3) disadvantages were mentioned during the consultations. In the interviews, the women expressed on average four advantages (0-7) and one disadvantage (0-3). There were major variations between advantages and disadvantages expressed in the consultation and the following interview.

CONCLUSION

Even though the consultations scored high in patient involvement, the information in most consultations was not structured in a way that made it possible to achieve a shared or an informed decision-taking.

Adherence behaviour with psychotropic medication is a form of self-medication

Adherence with psychotropic medication is at least at poor as adherence with medication for physical health problems. There has been an assumption this was due to loss of insight resulting from psychiatric disorders themselves. Consequently, interventions have focussed on treating the underlying psychiatric disorder and generating psychological strategies to promote awareness. Recent surveys of patient preferences for information and involvement in health care decisions highlight that most individuals want to participate in the process of medical care. Patients often have strong pre-existing beliefs about different therapeutic options. This is supported by the self-determination theory which distinguishes between autonomous behaviour and behaviours that are influenced by external forces. When considering the patient perspective in medication adherence, it is useful to consider the self-medication hypothesis. This can equally be applied to prescribed and non-prescribed drugs. The self-medication hypothesis states that patients decide to start, adjust or stop prescribed medication according to perceived health needs. Such decisions are often conducted intentionally and rationally, given the information available to the patient and their understanding of their condition. In this narrative review, the evidence for and against intentionality in psychotropic adherence behaviour is examined. Studies of compliance and related predictors are examined in depression, schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder. Results suggest that although concordance depends on patient, illness and clinician factors, patient choice is usually the final common pathway. Illness severity and insight is important in some cases but can act in concert with cognitive factors. Individuals appear to prefer to take medication "as required" (symptomatically) rather than prophylactically. Significant influences upon self-medication habits are prior health beliefs, medication attitudes, adverse effects and adequacy of communication from the health care professional. The self-medication hypothesis applied to prescribed psychotropic medication should assist rather than heed clinicians in improving adherence by taking a patient centred approach and where possible promoting patient autonomy.

The assessment of depressive patients' involvement in decision making in audio-taped primary care consultations

OBJECTIVE

In primary care of depression treatment options such as antidepressants, counseling and psychotherapy are reasonable. Patient involvement could foster adherence and clinical outcome. However, there is a lack of empirical information about the extent to which general practitioners involve patients in decision making processes in this condition, and about the consultation time spent for distinct decision making tasks.

METHODS

Twenty general practice consultations with depressive patients prior to a treatment decision were audio-taped and transcribed. Patient involvement in decision making was assessed with the OPTION-scale and durations of decision making stages were measured.

RESULTS

Mean duration of consultations was 16 min, 6s. The mean of the OPTION-items were between 0.0 and 26.9, in a scale range from 0 to 100. Overall, 78.6% of the consultation time was spent for the step "problem definition" (12 min, 42 s).

CONCLUSION

Very low levels of patient involvement in medical decisions were observed in consultations about depression. Physicians used the majority of their time for the definition of the patient's medical problem.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

To improve treatment decision making in this condition, general practitioners should enhance their decision making competences and be more aware of the time spent in each decision making stage.

The significance for decision-making of information that is not exchanged by patients and health professionals during consultations

Information exchange between patients and health professionals is fundamental to achieving patient participation in decision-making and shared decision-making is said to require the exchange of "all information relevant to decision-making". This paper reports on a qualitative investigation of instances in which information that was potentially relevant to decision-making was not exchanged in consultations. Consultations from 5 diverse clinical areas in the UK were video-recorded and the health professionals and patients involved were interviewed separately before and after their consultations. This analysis is based on cases involving 20 patients. It draws on data from their 26-recorded consultations and from the 137 associated interviews. Several strategies were used to identify instances in which patients and/or health professionals did not disclose information that was potentially relevant to decision-making. Analysis focussed on the types of information not disclosed, the reasons that health professionals and patients gave for non-disclosure, and the apparent or potential significance of the non-disclosure. We identified 34 instances of non-disclosure of information relating to the patient's problem and 52 instances of non-disclosure of information relating to treatment or management options. The types of information not disclosed were diverse and the reasons given for non-disclosure varied. Some, but not all, instances of non-disclosure had negative implications for the quality of decision-making and/or the patient's healthcare experience. Our findings have implications for future attempts to examine information exchange in consultations-whether for research or for professional assessment purposes. In particular, they highlight the importance of appraising instances of non-disclosure of information in context and of recognising the limitations of approaches that rely on single consultations and/or single perspectives for assessments of information exchange.

Patients' decision-making strategies for managing postoperative pain

Despite technological advances, many postoperative patients continue to suffer unrelieved pain. The aim of this study was to identify the strategies used by postoperative patients to bring about pain management decisions. A single-group noncomparative study design was chosen using observations as the means of examining pain activities in 2 surgical units of a metropolitan teaching hospital in Melbourne, Australia. A total of 52 nurses and 312 patients participated in the study, and 316 pain activities were observed. The most common strategy used was patients acting as a passive recipient for pain relief (60%), whereas problem solving (23%) and active negotiation (17%) were less commonly used. Patients in this study were admitted for surgical treatment of a particular condition, and their subsequent pain was specifically related to this acute event. Therefore, the lack of familiarity of the situation and the severity of pain experienced may have encouraged passivity. Patients may have also felt uncertain about how to approach the pain decision, preferring to defer to nurses. Because increased pain levels can be associated with fear, patients could have been unwilling to speak with nurses to discuss their need for pain relief.

PERSPECTIVE

This paper shows that patient decision making for postoperative pain relief largely involves the use of passive requests, compared with problem solving and active negotiation. Effective communication must be supported between health professionals and patients if shared understandings about treatment options are to become a reality.

An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters

OBJECTIVE

Given the fluidity with which the term shared decision making (SDM) is used in teaching, assessment and research, we conducted a focused and systematic review of articles that specifically address SDM to determine the range of conceptual definitions.

METHODS

In April 2005, we ran a Pubmed (Medline) search to identify articles published through 31 December 2003 with the words shared decision making in the title or abstract. The search yielded 681 citations, 342 of which were about SDM in the context of physician-patient encounters and published in English. We read and reviewed the full text of all 342 articles, and got any non-redundant references to SDM, which yielded an additional 76 articles.

RESULTS

Of the 418 articles examined, 161 (38.5%) had a conceptual definition of SDM. We identified 31 separate concepts used to explicate SDM, but only "patient values/preferences" (67.1%) and "options" (50.9%) appeared in more than half the 161 definitions. Relatively few articles explicitly recognized and integrated previous work.

CONCLUSION

Our review reveals that there is no shared definition of SDM. We propose a definition that integrates the extant literature base and outlines essential elements that must be present for patients and providers to engage in the process of SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The integrative definition of SDM is intended to provide a useful foundation for describing and operationalizing SDM in further research.

Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--a critical analysis of models

This paper highlights some of the limitations of models of patient involvement in decision-making and explores the reasons for, and implications of, these limitations. Taking the three models of interpretative, shared and informed decision-making as examples, we focus on two limitations of the models: (1) neglect of which decisions the patient should be involved in (the framing problem) and (2) how the patient should be involved in decision-making (the nature of reasoning problem). Although there will inevitably be a gap between models and practice--this much is in the nature of the models--we suggest that these two issues are substantially neglected by the models and yet are fundamental to understanding patient-doctor decision-making. We also suggest that the fundamental problem that lies behind these limitations is insufficient attention to, and explicitness about, the dilemmas of professional ethics, which are played out in the professional-patient relationships that the models are supposed to represent, particularly with respect to the issue of expert and lay accountability.

Missed Expectations?

OBJECTIVE

Physicians are encouraged to actively involve patients in clinical decision-making, but this expectation has not been adequately examined from the physicians' perspective. Our objective was to identify and characterize physicians' attitudes toward patient participation in decision-making and to gain insight into how they consequently think about and structure the decision-making process.

DESIGN

This was a qualitative cross-sectional study of physicians' reported attitudes and practices.

SETTING

The study took place in private practice and academic physicians' practices.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 53 academic and private practice physicians from primary care and surgical specialties, ranging from first year residents to recently retired, participated in the study.

MEASUREMENTS

We performed a qualitative analysis of semistructured individual interviews.

RESULTS

The physicians in this study expressed consistently positive attitudes toward patient participation in medical decision-making. They identified patient autonomy as an essential justification for patient participation but often went beyond an autonomy-based rationale. Several were motivated by the fundamental principle of beneficence as well as their own self-interest in avoiding legal liability. Many physicians saw their role as an expert who educates the patient but retains control over the decision-making process; others took a more collaborative approach, encouraging patients to assume decisional priority. The decision-making process often was modified by patient, physician, and environmental factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The physicians in this study demonstrated a positive, flexible approach toward including patients in decision-making. A one-dimensional model of shared decision-making based solely on the principle of autonomy fails to account for variability in how physicians allocate decisional priority and is therefore ethically inadequate.

Decision Making in Medicine and Health Care

Decision making is central to health policy and medical practice. Because health outcomes are probabilistic, most decisions are made under conditions of uncertainty. This review considers two classes of decisions in health care: decisions made by providers on behalf of patients, and shared decisions between patients and providers. Considerable evidence suggests wide regional variation exists in services received by patients. Evidence-based guidelines that incorporate quality of life and patient preferences may help address this problem. Systematic cost-effectiveness analysis can be used to improve resource allocation decisions. Shared medical decision making seeks to engage patients and providers in a collaborative process to choose clinical options that reflect patient preferences. Although some evidence indicates patients want an active role in making decisions, other evidence suggests that some patients prefer a passive role. Decision aids hold promise for improving individual decisions, but there are still few systematic evaluations of these aids. Several directions for future research are offered.

Implications of patient and physician decision making: an illustration in treatment options for coronary artery disease

The objective of this study was to explore the extent to which patients and physicians desire patient participation in medical decision making. The cross-sectional pilot study involved 92 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and 50 physicians involved in treating patients with CAD. Desire to participate in making the decision between treatment options for CAD and factors that influence the decision were assessed. Physicians prefer to participate in shared decision making more often than do the patients (P = .016). When faced with clinical scenarios requiring a decision to be made between percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass graft, patients and physicians tended to defer to one another to make the decision. Multinomial logistic regression models showed that the overriding factor influencing patient decision making was the physician's opinion (P < .0001) and the patient's preference was the overriding factor influencing physician decision making (P < .0001). Because patients tend to defer to physicians when making medical decisions, it is incumbent upon the physician to assure that the physician-patient dialogue reflects important information about the procedures (coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) and that preferences are acknowledged. This may impact greatly on achieving satisfactory health outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Developing ethical strategies to assist oncologists in seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials

Randomised clinical trials have come to be regarded as the gold standard in treatment evaluation. However, many doctors see the discussion of a clinical trial as an intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship and find these discussions difficult to initiate. Detailed informed consent is now a requirement of patient participation in trials; however, it is known that patients commonly fail to understand and recall the information conveyed. These difficulties for doctors and patients raise questions about the ethical integrity of the informed consent process. In this study, we have developed a set of communication strategies underpinned by ethical, linguistic and psychological theory, designed to assist doctors in this difficult task. Initially, audiotape transcripts of 26 consultations in which 10 medical oncologists invited patients to participate in clinical trials were analysed by expert ethicists, linguists, oncologists and psychologists, using rigorous qualitative methodology. A subset of seven of these was subjected to detailed linguistic analysis. A strategies document was developed to address themes which emerged from these analyses. This document was presented to relevant expert stakeholders. Their feedback was incorporated into the final document. Four themes emerged from the analysis; (a) shared decision-making, (b) the sequence of moves in the consultation, (c) the type and clarity of the information provided and (d) disclosure of controversial information and coercion. Detailed strategies were developed to assist doctors to communicate in these areas. We have developed a set of ethical strategies which may assist health professionals in this difficult area. A training package based on these strategies is currently being evaluated in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Participation by clients and nurse midwives in family planning decision making in Indonesia

In order to enhance understanding of the quality of decision making during family planning consultations in developing countries, provider competencies and client behaviors during 179 randomly selected consultations in Indonesia were assessed. Results show that family planning clients make a significant contribution to the quality of the decision-making process, most notably by identifying the problem requiring a decision, expressing their feelings about using a method, and asking questions. Client involvement may compensate for provider weaknesses, which tend to be in areas calling for interpersonal rather than technical skills. However, the programmatic ideal of informed choice has not yet been realized. Supervisors, trainers, communicators, and program managers can improve the quality of decision making by: creating opportunities for client involvement during consultations, strengthening providers' ability to fully inform clients about their options, and making providers aware of the opportunities for decision making in consultations with continuing clients.

Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement

BACKGROUND

A systematic review has shown that no measures of the extent to which healthcare professionals involve patients in decisions within clinical consultations exist, despite the increasing interest in the benefits or otherwise of patient participation in these decisions.

AIMS

To describe the development of a new instrument designed to assess the extent to which practitioners involve patients in decision making processes.

DESIGN

The OPTION (observing patient involvement) scale was developed and used by two independent raters to assess primary care consultations in order to evaluate its psychometric qualities, validity, and reliability.

STUDY SAMPLE

186 audiotaped consultations collected from the routine clinics of 21 general practitioners in the UK.

METHOD

Item response rates, Cronbach's alpha, and summed and scaled OPTION scores were calculated. Inter-item and item-total correlations were calculated and inter-rater agreements were calculated using Cohen's kappa. Classical inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients and generalisability theory statistics were used to calculate inter-rater reliability coefficients. Basing the tool development on literature reviews, qualitative studies and consultations with practitioner and patients ensured content validity. Construct validity hypothesis testing was conducted by assessing score variation with respect to patient age, clinical topic "equipoise", sex of practitioner, and success of practitioners at a professional examination.

RESULTS

The OPTION scale provided reliable scores for detecting differences between groups of consultations in the extent to which patients are involved in decision making processes in consultations. The results justify the use of the scale in further empirical studies. The inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (0.62), kappa scores for inter-rater agreement (0.71), and Cronbach's alpha (0.79) were all above acceptable thresholds. Based on a balanced design of five consultations per clinician, the inter-rater reliability generalisability coefficient was 0.68 (two raters) and the intra-rater reliability generalisability coefficient was 0.66. On average, mean practitioner scores were very similar (and low on the overall scale of possible involvement); some practitioner scores had more variation around the mean, indicating that they varied their communication styles to a greater extent than others.

CONCLUSIONS

Involvement in decision making is a key facet of patient participation in health care and the OPTION scale provides a validated outcome measure for future empirical studies.