Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices

Uncertainty tolerance among primary care physicians: Relationship to shared decision making-related perceptions, practices, and physician characteristics

OBJECTIVE

Understand how physicians' uncertainty tolerance (UT) in clinical care relates to their personal characteristics, perceptions and practices regarding shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

As part of a trial of SDM training about colorectal cancer screening, primary care physicians (n = 67) completed measures of their uncertainty tolerance in medical practice (Anxiety subscale of the Physician's Reactions to Uncertainty Scale, PRUS-A), and their SDM self-efficacy (confidence in SDM skills). Patients (N = 466) completed measures of SDM (SDM Process scale) after a clinical visit. Bivariate regression analyses and multilevel regression analyses examined relationships.

RESULTS

Higher UT was associated with greater physician age (p = .01) and years in practice (p = 0.015), but not sex or race. Higher UT was associated with greater SDM self-efficacy (p < 0.001), but not patient-reported SDM.

CONCLUSION

Greater age and practice experience predict greater physician UT, suggesting that UT might be improved through training, while UT is associated with greater confidence in SDM, suggesting that improving UT might improve SDM. However, UT was unassociated with patient-reported SDM, raising the need for further studies of these relationships.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Developing and implementing training interventions aimed at increasing physician UT may be a promising way to promote SDM in clinical care.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of decision making interventions on increasing perceptions of shared decision making occurring in advanced cancer consultations

OBJECTIVE

To determine how decision making interventions for use in advanced cancer treatment consultations function and whether they increase perceptions of shared decision making (SDM) behaviours within consultations.

METHODS

A systematic search of five literature databases was conducted. Evaluations of decision making interventions where participants faced active treatment decisions for stage 4 or otherwise incurable cancer were included. Intervention descriptions were coded using Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) to provide a narrative of how the interventions function. A narrative synthesis of interventions effect on perceptions of SDM behaviours compared to usual care was conducted.

RESULTS

Four studies presenting different interventions were included. Education, training, modelling and enablement intervention functions were identified. Oncologist SDM training alone and combined with a patient communication aid demonstrated the only significant effect (p < 0.05) on SDM behaviours in advanced cancer consultations.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professional (HCP) SDM training which includes modelling and enablement functions may be effective in increasing clinician motivation, capability and opportunity to facilitate SDM in advanced cancer consultations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Implementing HCP SDM training into practice may encourage greater uptake of SDM which may lead to treatment decisions concordant with the goals of care of people with advanced cancer.

Shared decision-making performance of general practice residents: an observational study combining observer, resident, and patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is considered fundamental to person-centred care. However, applying SDM may be a challenge for residents in general practice, since it is a complex competence that requires the integration of knowledge and skills from several competency domains.

OBJECTIVE

To support learning of SDM during medical residency, we aimed to gain insight in Dutch residents' observed and perceived SDM performance in general practice.

METHODS

We evaluated residents' SDM performance from an observer, resident, and patient perspective. Consultations of first- and third-year residents were recorded. Trained observers used the validated Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) scale to assess observed SDM performance of residents in 98 actual recorded consultations. Perceived SDM performance was evaluated by residents and patients completing validated SDM questionnaires, supplemented with questions about (the context of) the consultation and perceived relevance of SDM immediately after the consultation. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics (mean, SD, minimums, and maximums) and explorative bivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The residents' observed mean SDM performance was 19.1 (range, 0-100, SD = 10.9), mean resident self-reported SDM performance was 56.9 (range, 0-100, SD = 18.5), and mean patient-reported SDM performance was 73.3 (range, 0-100, SD = 26.8). We found a significant and positive correlation between observed SDM performance and residents' perceived relevance of SDM for the consultation (t = 4.571, P ≤ 0.001) and the duration of the consultation (r = 0.390, P ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that there is room for increasing awareness of the potential incongruence between observed and perceived SDM performance during medical residency, in order to facilitate the implementation of SDM in clinical practice.

Through the Eyes of Patients: The Effect of Training General Practitioners and Nurses on Perceived Shared Decision-Making Support

PURPOSE

To examine the effects of training general practitioners and nurses in shared decision-making (SDM) support as perceived by cancer patients and survivors.

DESIGN

An innovative, experimental design was adopted that included analogue patients (APs), that is, people who have or have had cancer and who imagine themselves in the position of the actor-patient presented in a video. Each AP assessed a video-recorded simulated consultation of a health care professional (HCP) conducted before or after an SDM support training program. The primary outcome was the APs' perceived SDM support with 13 self-developed items reflecting the perceived patient benefit of SDM support as well as the perceived HCP support behavior. Secondary outcomes included an overall rating of SDM support, AP-reported extent of SDM (CollaboRATE), satisfaction with the communication (Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire), conversation appreciation and helpfulness, as well as decision-making satisfaction and confidence (visual analog scale, 0-100). In addition, patient and HCP characteristics associated with AP-perceived SDM support were examined.

RESULTS

APs (n = 131) did not significantly differentiate trained from untrained HCPs in their perceptions of SDM support nor in secondary outcomes. Agreement between APs' perceptions was poor. The higher the perceived comparability of the consultation with APs' previous personal experiences, the higher their rating of SDM support.

LIMITATIONS

We used a nonvalidated primary outcome and an innovative study design that should be tested in future work.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of the study design, the training seemed to not affect cancer patients' and survivors' perceived SDM support.

IMPLICATIONS

The clinical relevance of the training on SDM support needs to be established. The variation in APs' assessments suggests patients differ in their perception of SDM support, stressing the importance of patient-tailored SDM support.

HIGHLIGHTS

Cancer patients and survivors did not significantly differentiate trained from untrained HCPs when evaluating SDM support, and agreement between their perceptions was poor.The clinical relevance of training GPs and nurses in SDM support needs to be established.Patient-tailored SDM support may be recommended, given the variation in APs' assessments and their possible diverging perceptions of SDM support.This innovative study design (having patients watch and assess videos of simulated consultations made in the context of training evaluation) needs to be further developed.

Real-world use and perceptions of shared decision-making for allergy and asthma care in a US population

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM), the process of engaging patients in their healthcare decisions, is an integral component of personalized medicine. The use of SDM in real-world allergy and asthma care in the United States (US) is unknown. Cross-sectional surveys of allergists and patients in a US population were conducted to assess the use and perceptions of SDM and SDM tools in real-world allergy and asthma care.

Methods

Allergists (N = 101) who were members of the American College of Allergy Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) and who were also Dynata (a marketing research firm) research partners or in the Allergy & Asthma Network customer database completed an online survey from February-March 2022. Adult patients (N = 110) with asthma, allergy, and/or eczema in the United States who were participants of online research panels hosted by Dynata completed on online survey from February 1-7, 2022.

Results

Based on their own definition, 98% of the allergists reported familiarity with SDM, and 79% reported using it frequently. Allergists reported using SDM with an average of 44% of their patients. The most commonly used tool was the Immunotherapy SDM toolkit (40%); 43% had not used any SDM tool. Among allergists not using SDM or using it infrequently (n = 19), 42% considered it too time-consuming and 37% believed their patients have low health literacy. Of the surveyed patients, 25% reported their provider used SDM "frequently" or "occasionally" when being treated for allergies, asthma, or eczema, and 22% reported using SDM tools with their provider at some point. The most commonly used tool was the Asthma and Allergy Symptom Test (60%). Among patients whose allergists used SDM infrequently or never (n = 56), 70% reported they would be likely to ask their allergist to use SDM more often.

Conclusion

Survey responses revealed a disconnect between allergists and patients regarding SDM use. Barriers to SDM are consistent with those across the healthcare industry. Patients clearly expressed their desire for SDM.

Blended online learning for oncologists to improve skills in shared decision making about palliative chemotherapy: a pre-posttest evaluation

PURPOSE

To improve shared decision making (SDM) with advanced cancer patients, communication skills training for oncologists is needed. The purpose was to examine the effects of a blended online learning (i.e. e-learning and online training session) for oncologists about SDM in palliative oncological care and to compare this blended format with a more extensive, fully in-person face-to-face training format.

METHODS

A one-group pre-posttest design was adopted. Before (T0) and after (T2) training, participants conducted simulated consultations (SPAs) and surveys; after the e-learning (T1), an additional survey was filled out. The primary outcome was observed SDM (OPTION12 and 4SDM). Secondary outcomes included observed SDM per stage, SPA duration and decision made as well as oncologists' self-reported knowledge, clinical behavioural intentions, satisfaction with the communication and evaluation of the training. Additionally, outcomes of the blended learning were compared with those of the face-to-face training cohort. Analyses were conducted in SPSS by linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Oncologists (n = 17) showed significantly higher SDM scores after the blended online learning. The individual stages of SDM and the number of times the decision was postponed as well as oncologists' beliefs about capabilities, knowledge and satisfaction increased after the blended learning. Consultation duration was unchanged. The training was evaluated as satisfactory. When compared with the face-to-face training, the blended learning effects were smaller.

CONCLUSION

Blended online SDM training for oncologists was effective. However, the effects were smaller compared to face-to-face training. The availability of different training formats provides opportunities for tailoring training to the wishes and needs of learners.

Show me the roads and give me a road map: Development of a patient conversation tool to improve lung cancer treatment decision-making

Objective

Evidence-based decision support resources do not exist for persons with lung cancer. We sought to develop and refine a treatment decision support, or conversation tool, to improve shared decision-making (SDM).

Methods

We conducted a multi-site study among patients with stage I-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who completed or had ongoing lung cancer treatment using semi-structured, cognitive qualitative interviews to assess participant understanding of content. We used an integrated approach of deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-seven patients with NSCLC participated. Participants with prior cancer experiences or those with family members with prior cancer experiences reported better preparedness for cancer treatment decision-making. All participants agreed the conversation tool would be helpful to clarify their thinking about values, comparisons, and goals of treatment, and to help patients communicate more effectively with their clinicians.

Conclusion

Participants reported that the tool may empower them with confidence and agency to actively participate in cancer treatment SDM. The conversation tool was acceptable, comprehensible, and usable. Next steps will test effectiveness on patient-centered and decisional outcomes.

Innovation

A personalized conversation tool using consequence tables and core SDM components is novel in that it can encourage a tailored, conversational dynamic and includes patient-centered values along with traditional decisional outcomes.

Qualitative analysis of shared decision-making for chemoprevention in the primary care setting: provider-related barriers

Background

Chemoprevention with anti-estrogens, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene or aromatase inhibitors, have been shown to reduce breast cancer risk in randomized controlled trials; however, uptake among women at high-risk for developing breast cancer remains low. The aim of this study is to identify provider-related barriers to shared decision-making (SDM) for chemoprevention in the primary care setting.

Methods

Primary care providers (PCPs) and high-risk women eligible for chemoprevention were enrolled in a pilot study and a randomized clinical trial of web-based decision support tools to increase chemoprevention uptake. PCPs included internists, family practitioners, and gynecologists, whereas patients were high-risk women, age 35–75 years, who had a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk ≥ 1.67%, according to the Gail model. Seven clinical encounters of high-risk women and their PCPs who were given access to these decision support tools were included in this study. Audio-recordings of the clinical encounters were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using grounded theory methodology.

Results

Six primary care providers, of which four were males (mean age 36 [SD 6.5]) and two were females (mean age 39, [SD 11.5]) and seven racially/ethnically diverse high-risk female patients participated in this study. Qualitative analysis revealed three themes: (1) Competing demands during clinical encounters; (2) lack of knowledge among providers about chemoprevention; and (3) limited risk communication during clinical encounters.

Conclusions

Critical barriers to SDM about chemoprevention were identified among PCPs. Providers need education and resources through decision support tools to engage in risk communication and SDM with their high-risk patients, and to gain confidence in prescribing chemoprevention in the primary care setting.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01954-y.

Patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles, and observed patient involvement in videotaped encounters with medical specialists

OBJECTIVE

To assess how patients prefer and perceive medical decision making, which factors are associated with their preferred and perceived decision-making roles, and whether observed involvement reflects patients' perceived role.

METHODS

We asked 781 patients visiting a medical specialist from 18 different disciplines to indicate their preferred and perceived decision-making roles. Patient involvement in videotaped consultations was assessed with the OPTION5 instrument.

RESULTS

Most patients preferred and perceived decision making as shared (SDM; 58% and 43%, respectively), followed by paternalistic (26% and 38%), and informative (16% and 15%). A large minority (n = 103, 21%) of patients preferring shared or informative decision making (n = 482) experienced paternalistic decision making. Mean (SD) OPTION5 scores were highest in consultations which patients perceived as informative (26.0 (19.7)), followed by shared (19.1 (17.2)) and lowest in paternalistic decision making (11.8 (13.4) p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients want to be involved in decision making. Patients perceive that the physician makes the decision more often than they prefer, and perceive more involvement in the decision than objective assessment by an independent researcher shows.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A clearer understanding of patients' medical decision-making experiences is needed to optimize physician SDM training programmes and patient awareness campaigns.

Shared decision-making in general practice from a patient perspective. A cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess patient involvement in terms of shared decision-making in general practice from the perspectives of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) (or both).

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey using the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) ranging from 0 to 5 (best).

SETTING AND SUBJECTS

Patients diagnosed with either T2DM and/or COPD were asked to focus on their most recent consultation in general practice concerning their T2DM or lung disease. Responders were approached through the Danish Diabetes Association and Danish Lung Association.

RESULTS

The sample included 468 responders. Mean scores for the total sample were between 3.3 and 4.2. The overall mean score for all items was 3.7. The highest overall mean score was for patients with T2DM, whereas the lowest overall mean score was for patients having both T2DM and COPD. Furthermore, we observed a slightly lower overall mean score for women compared to men and for those younger than 65 years compared to those aged 65 years or older.

CONCLUSION

Overall, patients are involved in shared decision-making in general practice Minor nuances were found because patients with COPD were less involved in shared decision-making compared to patients with T2DM. Similarly, younger patients and women were less involved than older patients and men.