Factors associated with the difference in score between women's and doctors' decisional conflict about hormone therapy: a multilevel regression analysis

Shared decision making in the treatment of pediatric strabismus

PURPOSE

To quantify the results of shared decision making in pediatric strabismus surgery from the parent perspective using the nine-item Shared Decision Making (SDM) Questionnaire and the associations of SDM score with parental education level; secondarily, to evaluate postoperative parental satisfaction as a function of child age, parental education level, SDM scores, and motor outcomes.

METHODS

Consecutive parents of children 2-14 years of age with concomitant manifest strabismus that consented to strabismus surgery were surveyed using the SDM Questionnaire. A four-point Likert scale was used to gauge the level of postoperative satisfaction (POS). Potential predictors were estimated in multivariable regression analysis, with results adjusted for education level, children's age, and motor outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 100 parents (86 women) completed the survey and were included. Significant differences for SDM score were found between individuals with university-level versus the other three educational levels (P < 0.001 for primary and secondary levels; P = 0.017 for college or lyceum level). Categorical regression analysis showed that POS level was inversely correlated with education level and positively correlated with SDM score. Children's age at time of surgery and postoperative motor outcome were not significantly associated with POS.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study cohort, SDM score was correlated with educational level. Satisfaction was greater among responders with higher SDM scores, indicating that SDM may help improve parent-reported satisfaction with treatment results.

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.

Association of shared decision making with inpatient satisfaction: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

We assessed inpatient perceived shared decision making (SDM) and tested the association of SDM with inpatient satisfaction in public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai, China.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 2585 inpatients in 47 public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai in July and August 2018 was conducted. We assessed overall SDM and 4 aspects of SDM and tested the factors influencing SDM and the association of SDM with patient satisfaction (patient satisfaction with physician services, medical expenses, outcomes and overall inpatient care), by adopting linear or two-level regression models.

RESULTS

The positive response rate (PRR) and high positive response rate (HPRR) to overall SDM among the inpatients of public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai were relatively high (95.30% and 87.86%, respectively), while the HPRR to "My physician informed me of different treatment alternatives" was relatively low (80.09%). In addition, the inpatients who underwent surgery during admission had higher HPRRs and adjusted HPRRs to overall SDM than those who did not undergo surgery. The study showed that the adjusted high satisfaction rates (HSRs) with physician services, medical expenses, outcomes and overall inpatient care among the inpatients with high level of overall SDM were higher (96.50%, 68.44%, 89.50% and 92.60%) than those among the inpatients without a high level of overall SDM (71.77%, 35.19%, 57.30% and 67.49%). The greatest differences in the adjusted HSRs between the inpatients with and without a high level of SDM were found in inpatient satisfaction with medical expenses and informed consent in SDM. Moreover, 46.22% of the variances in the HSRs with overall inpatient care across the hospitals were attributed to the hospital type (general hospitals vs. specialty hospitals).

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient PRRs and HPRRs to SDM in public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai are relatively high overall but lower to information regarding alternatives. SDM can be affected by the SDM preference of both the patients and physicians and medical condition. Patient satisfaction can be improved through better SDM and should be committed at the hospital level.

How does physicians' decisional conflict influence their ability to address treatment outcomes in a decision-making encounter with an advanced-stage cancer simulated patient? A descriptive study

OBJECTIVES

This descriptive study assesses how physicians' decisional conflict influences their ability to address treatment outcomes (TOs) in a decision-making encounter with an advanced-stage cancer simulated patient (SP).

METHODS

Physicians (N = 138) performed a decision-making encounter with the SP trained to ask for TOs information. The physicians' decisional conflict regarding patients' cancer treatments in general was assessed with the General Decisional Conflict Scale (Gen-DCS). The physicians' decisional conflict regarding the SP's cancer treatments was assessed with the Specific Decisional Conflict Scale (Spe-DCS). Physicians' ability to address TOs during the encounter was assessed with an interaction analysis system: the Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Patient Outcome Predictions (MD.POP). Weekly time spent with cancer patients was assessed with a questionnaire.

RESULTS

Physicians' Spe-DCS (β = -.21 ; p = .014) and weekly time spent with cancer patients (β = .22 ; p = .008) predicted the number of TOs addressed during the encounter. Spe-DCS scores predicted nearly all MD.POP dimensions (r = -.18 ; p = .040 to r = -.30 to p < .001) whereas Gen-DCS scores predicted nearly none MD.POP dimensions.

CONCLUSION

Physicians' specific decisional conflict interferes with their ability to address TOs in a decision-making encounter with an advanced-stage cancer SP.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians should be trained to address TOs according to patient preferences, despite their own decisional conflict.

Predictors of physicians' communication performance in a decision-making encounter with a simulated advanced-stage cancer patient: A longitudinal study

OBJECTIVES

Physicians' characteristics that influence their communication performance (CP) in decision-making encounters have been rarely studied. In this longitudinal study, predictors of physicians' CP were investigated with a simulated advanced-stage cancer patient.

METHODS

Physicians (n=85) performed a decision-making encounter with a simulated patient (SP). Their CP was calculated by analyzing encounter transcripts with validated interaction analysis systems. Potential specific psychological predictors were physicians' empathy towards the SP (Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy, JSPE) and their decisional conflict about the treatment (Decisional Conflict Scale, DCS). Potential general psychological predictors were physicians' empathy towards cancer patients (JSPE), their decisional conflict about cancer patients' treatments (DCS), and their affective reactions to uncertainty (Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty, PRU).

RESULTS

Physicians' CP was predicted by their decisional conflict about the SP's treatment (DCS) (β=0.41; p< 0.001) and their affective reactions to uncertainty regarding cancer treatments (PRU) (β=-0.31; p=0.003).

CONCLUSION

During encounters with advanced-stage cancer patients, physicians' awareness of uncertainty about which treatments to consider may facilitate their communication performance, whereas physicians' affective reactions to uncertainty may inhibit their performance.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians' decisional conflict and reactions to uncertainty should be addressed in communication skills training programs.

End-of-Life Decision Making and Communication of Bereaved Family Members of African Americans with Serious Illness

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to examine factors that influence African American (AA) family members' end-of-life care decision outcomes for a relative who recently died from serious illness.

METHODS

A cross-sectional descriptive study design was used. Binary logistic and linear regressions were used to identify factors associated with decision regret and decisional conflict. Forty-nine bereaved AA family members of AA decedents with serious illness who died two to six months prior to enrollment were recruited from the palliative care program in a safety net hospital and a metropolitan church in the Midwest. Measurements used were the Decisional Conflict, Decision Regret, Beliefs and Values, and Quality of Communication scales.

RESULTS

Family members who reported higher quality of communication with health care providers had lower decisional conflict. Family members of decedents who received comfort-focused care (CFC) had significantly less decision regret than family members of those who received life-prolonging treatment (LPT). Family members who reported stronger beliefs and values had higher quality of communication with providers and lower decisional conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

This research adds to a small body of literature on correlates of end-of-life decision outcomes among AAs. Although AAs' preference for aggressive end-of-life care is well-documented, we found that receipt of CFC was associated with less decision regret. To reduce decisional conflict and decision regret at the end of life, future studies should identify strategies to improve family member-provider communication, while considering relevant family member and decedent characteristics.

Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict

Background. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) provides a process that facilitates shared decision making. Objective. To assess the impact of implementing the ODSF on the agreement and the difference between patients' and physicians' decisional conflict scores. Design. In total, 120 physicians and 903 patients enrolled in this before-and-after study. Implementation of the ODSF was composed of an interactive workshop, feedback, and a reminder at the point of care. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) was completed by physicians and patients after a clinical encounter. Results. The intraclass correlation coefficient was–0.205 ± 0.096 (95% confidence interval [CI]= – 0.224 to –0.186) before implementing the ODSF and– 0.013 ± 0.114 (95% CI = – 0.036 to 0.009) after. At the patient level, the following factors were significantly associated with the difference between the patients' and physicians' DCS: unemployed (P = 0.023), implementing the ODSF (P = 0.008), high school degree (P = 0.04), male (P = 0.03), and unilateral role in decision making (P = 0.03). At the physician level, provincial committee (P = 0.001), national committee (P = 0.045), clinical site (P = 0.016), reluctance to share uncertainty (P = 0.023), and anxiety due to uncertainty (P = 0.017) were significantly associated with this outcome. Conclusion. After implementing the ODSF, there was less dissimilarity between patients' and physicians' DSC than expected by chance than before. Implementing the ODSF was also found to be associated with the difference between patients' and physicians' DSC. The physician level explained a significant amount of the variance in this outcome, thus emphasizing the importance of an intervention at this level.

Decisional conflict in asthma patients: a cross sectional study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at determining the level of decisional conflict in asthmatic individuals facing recommendation-based decisions provided to improve asthma control.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study performed on a convenience sample of 50 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with a diagnosis of asthma. They completed a decisional conflict scale (possible range of 0-100%), asthma knowledge and control questionnaires (both 0% and 100%), and a general questionnaire on socio-demographic characteristics. A decisional conflict was considered clinically significant with a score greater than 37.5%. Simple descriptive statistics were used to investigate associations with decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Participants were mainly women (76%) and diagnosed with mild asthma (72%). The median age (1st and 3rd quartile) was 25 years (22 and 42). The median score (1st and 3rd quartile) of decisional conflict was 33% (24 and 44). A clinically significant score (>37.5%) was obtained in 36% of subjects. A statistically significant negative correlation between the knowledge score and the decisional conflict score (r(p) = -0.38; p = 0.006) was observed. The level of knowledge was the only statistically independent variable associated with the decisional conflict score (p = 0.0043).

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of patients with asthma have a clinically significant level of decisional conflict when facing decisions aimed at improving asthma control. Patients with poor knowledge of asthma are more at risk of clinically significant level of decisional conflict. These findings support the relevance of providing asthmatic patients with relevant information in decision aids.

Dyadic validity of the Decisional Conflict Scale: common patient/physician measures of patient uncertainty were identified

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the dyadic validity of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) for assessing shared decision making in clinical consultations. We applied dyadic criteria, which consider the patient and physician as an interactive dyad instead of as independent individuals, to identify common patient/physician measures of patient uncertainty.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Patients and their physicians, participating in a randomized clustered trial, completed separately an adapted version of the DCS with five subscales. We performed factor analysis on the full DCS and each subscale independently. We defined a measure as dyadic when measurement invariance across patients and physicians was supported.

RESULTS

We analyzed 332 paired responses (physicians with adults or with parents and children) at study entry and 339 at exit. Factor analysis showed that the full DCS is not a valid dyadic measure. However, independent analysis of each subscale showed measurement invariance for values clarity, support, and effective decision (comparative fit index range, 0.93-1; root mean square error of approximation range, 0-0.07; and P-value > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Application of our dyadic validation criterion indicated that the full DCS cannot be considered a dyadic measure. However, three of its subscales, values clarity, support and effective decision, are valid dyadic measures.

Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the empirical evidence linking patient outcomes and SDM, when the decision-making process has been explicitly measured, and to identify under what measurement perspectives SDM is associated with which types of patient outcomes (affective-cognitive, behavioral, and health).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (through December 2012) and hand search of article bibliographies.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they empirically 1) measured SDM in the context of a patient-clinician interaction and 2) evaluated the relationship between SDM and at least 1 patient outcome.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study results were categorized by SDM measurement perspective (patient-reported, clinician-reported, or observer-rated) and outcome type (affective-cognitive, behavioral, or health).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-three used patient-reported measures of SDM, 6 used observer-rated measures, and 2 used clinician-reported measures. Ninety-seven unique patient outcomes were assessed; 51% affective-cognitive, 28% behavioral, and 21% health. Only 43% of assessments (n = 42) found a significant and positive relationship between SDM and the patient outcome. This proportion varied by SDM measurement perspective and outcome category. It was found that 52% of outcomes assessed with patient-reported SDM were significant and positive, compared with 21% with observer-rated and 0% with clinician-reported SDM. Regardless of measurement perspective, SDM was most likely to be associated with affective-cognitive patient outcomes (54%), compared with 37% of behavioral and 25% of health outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

The relatively small number of studies precludes meta-analysis. Because the study inclusion and exclusion criteria required both an empirical measure of SDM and an assessment of the association between that measure and a patient outcome, most included studies were observational in design.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM, when perceived by patients as occurring, tends to result in improved affective-cognitive outcomes. Evidence is lacking for the association between empirical measures of SDM and patient behavioral and health outcomes.

Patient preference for involvement, experienced involvement, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with physician: a structural equation model test

Background

A comprehensive model of the relationships among different shared decision-making related constructs and their effects on patient-relevant outcomes is largely missing. Objective of our study was the development of a model linking decision-making in medical encounters to an intermediate and a long-term endpoint. The following hypotheses were tested: physicians are more likely to involve patients who have a preference for participation and are willing to take responsibility in the medical decision-making process, increased patient involvement decreases decisional conflict, and lower decisional conflict favourably influences patient satisfaction with the physician.

Methods

This model was tested in a German primary care sample (N = 1,913). Psychometrically tested instruments were administered to assess the following: patients’ preference for being involved in medical decision-making, patients’ experienced involvement in medical decision-making, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with the primary care provider. Structural equation modelling was used to explore multiple associations. The model was tested and adjusted in a development sub-sample and cross-validated in a confirmatory sample. Demographic and clinical characteristics were accounted for as possible confounders.

Results

Local and global indexes suggested an acceptable fit between the theoretical model and the data. Increased patient involvement was strongly associated with decreased decisional conflict (standardised regression coefficient Β = −.73). Both high experienced involvement (Β = .34) and low decisional conflict (B = -.28) predicted higher satisfaction with the physician. Patients’ preference for involvement was negatively associated with the experienced involvement (B = −.24).

Conclusion

Altogether, our model could be largely corroborated by the collected empirical data except the unexpected negative association between preference for involvement and experienced involvement. Future research on the associations among different SDM-related constructs should incorporate longitudinal studies in order to strengthen the hypothesis of causal associations.

Decision-making in oncology: a selected literature review and some recommendations for the future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Decision-making in oncology is associated with uncertainty and potential decisional conflict. The purpose of this paper is to review strategies suggested to improve treatment decision-making, discuss their limits and describe recommendations that have been made to improve the decision-making process.

RECENT FINDINGS

To improve the decision-making process, uncertainty reduction, shared decision-making and multidisciplinary teamwork have been initially proposed. Due to their limits, alternative approaches such as uncertainty management, collaborative decision-making and collaborative multidisciplinary teamwork have been recommended. Uncertainty management considers uncertainty as a multilevel concept. It may be achieved through collaborative decision-making and collaborative multidisciplinary teamwork. Collaborative decision-making is an in-depth personalized iterative assessment of patient medical, psychological and social status. It promotes the patient's proactive role as a key stakeholder of decision-making and the physician's proactive role as a key support to patient decision-making. Collaborative multidisciplinary teamwork promotes an optimal environment for collaborative decision-making in which patients are key stakeholders and all relevant healthcare professionals are actively involved. These approaches require developing interventions for patients, and trainings for physicians and multidisciplinary teams.

SUMMARY

On the basis of these recent approaches, we propose a 'three-step model of multidisciplinary collaborative treatment decision-making' in oncology. This model should be tested for its validity.

Decisional Conflict in Patients and Their Physicians: A Dyadic Approach to Shared Decision Making

Background. Decisional conflict is defined as personal uncertainty about which course of action to take when choice among competing options involves risk, regret, or challenge to personal life values. It is influenced by inadequate knowledge, unclear values, inadequate support, and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made. Until recently, it has been studied at the individual level, which ignores the interpersonal system between patients and physicians. Objective. To explore the effect of feeling uninformed, unclear values, inadequate support, and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made on one own's outcome (actor effect) and on the other person's outcome (partner effect). Methods. After a clinical encounter, modifiable deficits and personal uncertainty were measured in physicians and patients using the Decisional Conflict Scale. Structural equation modeling was used to measure the parameters of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Results. A total of 112 dyads of physicians and patients were included in the analysis. For both patients and physicians, 2 actor effects, unclear values (P < 0:0001 ) and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made (P < 0:0001 ), were found to be positively correlated with personal uncertainty. One partner effect, feeling uninformed (P=0:03 ), was found to be negatively correlated with personal uncertainty. Conclusions. Personal uncertainty of patients and physicians is influenced not only by their respective deficits but also by the deficits of the other member of the dyad. Our results indicate that the more unclear the expression of their own values and the more they perceive that an ineffective choice had been made, the more both physicians and patients experience personal uncertainty. They also indicate that the less uninformed they feel, the more both physicians and patients experience personal uncertainty.

Using decision aids in community-based primary care: a theory-driven evaluation with ethnically diverse patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of informational brochures and video decision aids about cancer screening on patient intention to engage in shared decision-making and its predictors in a racially diverse sample.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from 13 community-based primary care practices serving racially and ethnically diverse patients in predominately economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Participants completed theory-based measures assessing attitudes, perceived social norms, self-efficacy and intentions for working with their physician to make a cancer screening decision after reviewing a brochure or video decision aid, but before seeing the physician. A post-questionnaire assessed screening decisions and participant knowledge.

RESULTS

Participants who reviewed a video decision aid had higher knowledge and were more likely to want to be the primary decision-maker. They reported lower perceived social norms, self-efficacy and intentions to work with their physicians than participants who reviewed a brochure. Participants who decided against cancer screening reported lower intentions to work with their physician in making a decision and were less likely to report having spoken with their physician about screening.

CONCLUSION

Participants who opted against cancer screening after reviewing a brochure or decision aid were less likely to discuss their decision with their physician. The tendency toward autonomous decision-making was stronger among participants who reviewed a video decision aid.

Instruments to assess the perception of physicians in the decision-making process of specific clinical encounters: a systematic review

Background

The measurement of processes and outcomes that reflect the complexity of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters is an important area of research to pursue. A systematic review was conducted to identify instruments that assess the perception physicians have of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters.

Methods

For every year available up until April 2007, PubMed, PsycINFO, Current Contents, Dissertation Abstracts and Sociological Abstracts were searched for original studies in English or French. Reference lists from retrieved studies were also consulted. Studies were included if they reported a self-administered instrument evaluating physicians' perceptions of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters, contained sufficient description to permit critical appraisal and presented quantitative results based on administering the instrument. Two individuals independently assessed the eligibility of the instruments and abstracted information on their conceptual underpinnings, main evaluation domain, development, format, reliability, validity and responsiveness. They also assessed the quality of the studies that reported on the development of the instruments with a modified version of STARD.

Results

Out of 3431 records identified and screened for evaluation, 26 potentially relevant instruments were assessed; 11 met the inclusion criteria. Five instruments were published before 1995. Among those published after 1995, five offered a corresponding patient version. Overall, the main evaluation domains were: satisfaction with the clinical encounter (n = 2), mutual understanding between health professional and patient (n = 2), mental workload (n = 1), frustration with the clinical encounter (n = 1), nurse-physician collaboration (n = 1), perceptions of communication competence (n = 2), degree of comfort with a decision (n = 1) and information on medication (n = 1). For most instruments (n = 10), some reliability and validity criteria were reported in French or English. Overall, the mean number of items on the modified version of STARD was 12.4 (range: 2 to 18).

Conclusion

This systematic review provides a critical appraisal and repository of instruments that assess the perception physicians have of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters. More research is needed to pursue the validation of the existing instruments and the development of patient versions. This will help researchers capture the complexity of the decision-making process within specific clinical encounters.

Comparing a generic and individualized information decision support intervention for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer

A randomized study was conducted to compare a generic and individualized approach to providing decisional support to men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Patients (N = 324) were referred by community urologists to a patient education center where they were randomly assigned to receive either an individualized or generic information intervention. Men assigned to the generic group viewed a video on the various treatments available for localized prostate cancer. Men in the individualized information group used a computer program to identify their information preferences. Computer printouts on top information preferences were individualized according to patient's specific disease characteristics, followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each recommended treatment option. Both groups received a standardized package of written information. Men completed measures of decision control, satisfaction, and decision conflict at baseline and after a definitive treatment decision was made. Results demonstrated that overall both groups reported increased levels of decision control and lower levels of decision conflict after their treatment decision. All men reported being satisfied with their preparation to make a treatment decision. Compared to the generic information group, men who received the individualized information were more satisfied with the type, amount and method of providing information, and role played in treatment decision making with their physician (P < .002). Both information interventions seem to be similar in providing decisional support to this group of men at the time of diagnosis. Further research is required to determine how to identify men who may benefit from a more individualized approach.

"It's my body'': does patient involvement in decision making reduce decisional conflict?

OBJECTIVE

This study explores how much people with HIV/AIDS wanted and how much they actually perceived being involved in the decision to take or not to take antiretroviral treatment (ART). The congruence between desired and perceived decisional involvement was also related to decisional conflict.

METHOD

Cross-sectional (N = 79), the Control Preferences Scale assessed patients' preferred versus perceived role in treatment decision making. The Decisional Conflict Scale measured patients' perceived difficulties in decision making.

RESULTS

Although a minority of patients (32%) perceived their role as shared decision making, the majority (59%) preferred shared decision making. Some did not desire shared decision making, with 28% preferring to decide on their own versus 13% wanting their physicians to decide for them. Overall, 58% did not feel they had achieved their desired role in decision making (half of whom perceived more control and the other half less control than preferred). Participants declining ART felt more pressure to decide alone compared with those taking ART (P < 0.01). Decisional conflict was expressed by 53% and was highest when physicians unilaterally made decisions about ART for patients who preferred shared decision making (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, most physicians do not meet their patients' desired roles in decision making. One-third of people taking ART feel less involved than they desire. More critically, half of those declining ART feel pressured to decide alone, suggesting that physicians should remain involved in the decision to reject treatment, as this requires careful monitoring and periodical revisiting. Because lack of shared decision making is related to decisional conflict, physicians may reduce decisional conflict by meeting patients' desires for shared decision making.