Translating shared decision-making into health care clinical practices: proof of concepts

Limited Evidence of Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening in Audio-Recorded Primary Care Visits Among Black Men and their Healthcare Providers

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening is a preference-sensitive decision for which experts recommend a shared decision making (SDM) approach. This study aimed to examine PSA screening SDM in primary care. Methods included qualitative analysis of audio-recorded patient-provider interactions supplemented by quantitative description. Participants included 5 clinic providers and 13 patients who were: (1) 40-69 years old, (2) Black, (3) male, and (4) attending clinic for routine primary care. Main measures were SDM element themes and "observing patient involvement in decision making" (OPTION) scoring. Some discussions addressed advantages, disadvantages, and/or scientific uncertainty of screening, however, few patients received all SDM elements. Nearly all providers recommended screening, however, only 3 patients were directly asked about screening preferences. Few patients were asked about prostate cancer knowledge (2), urological symptoms (3), or family history (6). Most providers discussed disadvantages (80%) and advantages (80%) of PSA screening. Average OPTION score was 25/100 (range 0-67) per provider. Our study found limited SDM during PSA screening consultations. The counseling that did take place utilized components of SDM but inconsistently and incompletely. We must improve SDM for PSA screening for diverse patient populations to promote health equity. This study highlights the need to improve SDM for PSA screening.

Assessing the impact of patient-involvement healthcare strategies on patients, providers, and the healthcare system: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient involvement has become an important and lively field of research, yet existing findings are fragmented and often contested. Without a synthesis of the research field, these findings are of limited use to scholars, healthcare providers, or policy-makers.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the body of knowledge on patient involvement to determine what is known, contested, and unknown about benefits, risks, and effective implementation strategies.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

Patients were not involved.

METHODS

Systematic literature review of 99 journal articles using a conceptual model integrating three levels: health systems, health providers, and patients. We extracted individual research findings and organized them into the structure of our model to provide a holistic picture of patient involvement.

RESULTS

The review highlights overlaps and conflicts between various patient involvement approaches. Our results show benefits for individual patients and the health system as a whole. At the provider level, however, we identified clear barriers to patient involvement.

DISCUSSION

Patient involvement requires collaboration among health systems, healthcare providers, and patients. We showed that increasing patient responsibility and health literacy requires policy-maker interventions. This includes incentives for patient education by providers, adapting medical education curricula, and building a database of reliable health information and decision support for patients. Furthermore, policies supporting a common infrastructure for digital health data and managed patient data exchange will foster provider collaboration.

PRACTICAL VALUE

Our review shows how an approach integrating health systems, healthcare providers, and patients can make patient involvement more effective than isolated interventions. Such systematic patient involvement is likely to improve population health literacy and healthcare quality.

Clinical Trial Protocol for a Randomized Trial of Community Health Worker-led Decision Coaching to Promote Shared Decision-making on Prostate Cancer Screening Among Black Male Patients and Their Providers

We propose a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a community health worker-led decision-coaching program to facilitate shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening decisions by Black men at a primary care federally qualified health center.

Randomized trial of community health worker-led decision coaching to promote shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening among Black male patients and their providers

BACKGROUND

Black men are disproportionately affected by prostate cancer, the most common non-cutaneous malignancy among men in the USA. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) encourages prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing decisions to be based on shared decision-making (SDM) clinician professional judgment, and patient preferences. However, evidence suggests that SDM is underutilized in clinical practice, especially among the most vulnerable patients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a community health worker (CHW)-led decision-coaching program to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening among Black men in the primary care setting, with the ultimate aim of improving/optimizing decision quality.

METHODS

We proposed a CHW-led decision-coaching program to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening discussions in Black men at a primary care FQHC. This study enrolled Black men who were patients at the participating clinical site and up to 15 providers who cared for them. We estimated to recruit 228 participants, ages 40-69 to be randomized to either (1) a decision aid along with decision coaching on PSA screening from a CHW or (2) receiving a decision aid along with CHW-led interaction on modifying dietary and lifestyle to serve as an attention control. The independent randomization process was implemented within each provider and we controlled for age by dividing patients into two strata: 40-54 years and 55-69 years. This sample size sufficiently powered the detection differences in the primary study outcomes: knowledge, indicative of decision quality, and differences in PSA screening rates. Primary outcome measures for patients will be decision quality and decision regarding whether to undergo PSA screening. Primary outcome measures for providers will be acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. We will examine how decision coaching about prostate cancer screening impact patient-provider communication. These outcomes will be analyzed quantitatively through objective, validated scales and qualitatively through semi-structured, in-depth interviews, and thematic analysis of clinical encounters. Through a conceptual model combining elements of the Preventative Health Care Model (PHM) and Informed Decision-Making Model, we hypothesize that the prostate cancer screening decision coaching intervention will result in a preference-congruent decision and decisional satisfaction. We also hypothesize that this intervention will improve physician satisfaction with counseling patients about prostate cancer screening.

DISCUSSION

Decision coaching is an evidence-based approach to improve decision quality in many clinical contexts, but its efficacy is incompletely explored for PSA screening among Black men in primary care. Our proposal to evaluate a CHW-led decision-coaching program for PSA screening has high potential for scalability and public health impact. Our results will determine the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of a CHW intervention in a community clinic setting in order to inform subsequent widespread dissemination, a critical research area highlighted by USPSTF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered prospectively with the National Institute of Health registry ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ), registration number NCT03726320 , on October 31, 2018.

Shared decision making in peri-operative medicine: Miles to go in Indian scenario

Shared Decision Making (SDM) in peri-operative medicine is increasingly encouraged as an ideal model of treatment decision making in the medical encounter. Moreover, it has the potential to improve the quality of the decision-making process for patients and ultimately, patient outcomes. This review focuses on several published literature on SDM in peri-operative medicine, its Implementation, barriers faced by Patient and the Provider, Myths regarding SDM and current scenario of SDM in India. Within the anesthetic community, patient consent is vigorously guided. However, this community suffers from lack of advancements in implementing the patient-focused rather than doctor-focused characteristics of SDM. Out of the several barriers, the most common barrier towards the implementation of SDM is the lack of time from the provider community. Within the anesthesia domain, the consultations discussed directly preceding the surgery do not pursue the customary and highly organized stages of typical outpatient consultations. Under these backgrounds and to be successfully implemented, it becomes imperative to begin the process of SDM pre-operative assessment clinic targeting both the high- and low-risk patients. It is critical to summarise that SDM does not end at the time of anesthesia for the peri-operative healthcare professional, but it gets to carry forward until patient discharge. Therefore, it is carried as the Pinnacle of Patient-Centred Care.

Patient Satisfaction With Decision Making Does Not Correlate With Patient Centeredness of Surgeons

BACKGROUND

High-quality decision making is important in patient-centered care. Although patient involvement in decision making varies widely, most patients desire to share in decision making. The Press-Ganey Patient Satisfaction survey includes questions that measure patients' perceptions of their providers' efforts to involve them in decision making (PGDM). We hypothesized that higher PGDM scores would correlate with higher scores on a validated measure of patient centeredness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Surgical providers at a university hospital who routinely receive Press-Ganey scores received a survey that included the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS), a validated tool that measures the provider's orientation toward patient centeredness on a continuous six-point scale: score ≥5 = high, 4.57-5 = moderate, and <4.57 = low and includes nine-item "caring" or "sharing" subscales. We compared PPOS scores to PGDM scores, averaged from April 2015 to January 2016.

RESULTS

Eighty-six of 112 (75%) of surgical providers responded to the survey. Fifty-two (46%) had PGDM scores available and 26% achieved a perfect score on the PGDM. The overall PPOS scores were low, with a mean of 4.2 (SD = 0.5). The PPOS was not correlated with the PGDM, correlation coefficient (rs) = -0.07 (CI: -0.34-0.21, P = 0.63). Similarly, the two subscales of the PPOS did not correlate with the PGDM with rs = -0.15 (CI: -0.41-0.13, P = 0.29) for "caring" and rs = -0.04 (CI: -0.31-0.23, P = 0.76) for "sharing".

CONCLUSIONS

Although surgical providers scored low in patient centeredness using the PPOS, over one-quarter (26%) of them rank in the top 1% on the PGDM. No correlation was found between providers' patient centeredness and their patients' perceptions of efforts to include them in decision making.

Implementation of the three good questions-A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments

Objectives

To determine the feasibility of pragmatic implementation strategies for three good questions (in Dutch: Drie Goede Vragen; 3GV. What are my options; what are the risks and benefits related to these options; and what does this mean for my situation?) to increase shared decision‐making (SDM) efforts in Dutch secondary care, and identify barriers and facilitators of implementation.

Methods

Convergent mixed‐method design: pre‐post surveys with patients attending one of six clinical departments in a Dutch Hospital, post‐intervention interviews with patients and health‐care professionals. Primary outcomes: feasibility (reach, use of 3GV). Secondary outcomes: SDM, experiences with 3GV and decision making. Interviews focused on barriers and facilitators of 3GV use. Interviews were content coded and categorized into determinants of behaviour change.

Results

35% of the respondents who had heard of 3GV (52%) used all three questions. 3GV use did not lead to more SDM (SDMQ9 M = Δ0.3;SE = 2.2) but patients felt empowered to decide (88%) and to SDM (86%). Barriers were as follows: time investment, other SDM projects and perception that the need to use 3GV differs per patient/consultation. Respondents preferred to use 3GV as they saw fit for the consultation, instead of literally asking them. Facilitators: easy, accessible information materials that can be flexibly used.

Conclusion

Implementation of 3GV seemed feasible, although influenced by contextual characteristics (eg type of decisions, patients, on‐going interventions). 3GV contributed to important elements of SDM, and respondents were willing to apply them in a way that suited their situation.

Practice implications

We recommend continuation of current and new implementation strategies to enable 3GV implementation in secondary care.

Developing a toolkit to implement the Statin Choice Conversation Aid at scale: application of a work reduction model

Background

Guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) for determining whether to use statins to prevent cardiovascular events in at-risk patients. We sought to develop a toolkit to facilitate the cross-organizational spread and scale of a SDM intervention called the Statin Choice Conversation Aid (SCCA) by (i) assessing the work stakeholders must do to implement the tool; and (ii) orienting the resulting toolkit’s components to communicate and mitigate this work.

Methods

We conducted multi-level and mixed methods (survey, interview, observation, focus group) characterizations of the contexts of 3 health systems (n = 86, 84, and 26 primary care clinicians) as they pertained to the impending implementation of the SCCA. We merged the data within implementation outcome domains of feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability. Using Normalization Process Theory, we then characterized and categorized the work stakeholders did to implement the tool. We used clinician surveys and IP address-based tracking to calculate SCCA usage over time and judged how stakeholder effort was allocated to influence outcomes at 6 and 18 months. After assessing the types and impact of the work, we developed a multi-component toolkit.

Results

At baseline, the three contexts differed regarding feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of implementation. The work of adopting the tool was allocated across many strategies in complex and interdependent ways to optimize these domains. The two systems that allocated the work strategically had higher uptake (5.2 and 2.9 vs. 1.1 uses per clinician per month at 6 months; 3.8 and 2.1 vs. 0.4 at 18 months, respectively) than the system that did not. The resulting toolkit included context self-assessments intended to guide stakeholders in considering the early work of SCCA implementation; and webinars, EMR integration guides, video demonstrations, and an implementation team manual aimed at supporting this work.

Conclusions

We developed a multi-component toolkit for facilitating the scale-up and spread of a tool to promote SDM across clinical settings. The theory-based approach we employed aimed to distinguish systems primed for adoption and support the work they must do to achieve implementation. Our approach may have value in orienting the development of multi-component toolkits and other strategies aimed at facilitating the efficient scale up of interventions.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT02375815.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4055-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The actor-partner interdependence model in shared decision-making: an illustrative example of its application to the physician-patient dyad in primary care consultations

OBJECTIVES

We applied the actor-partner interdependence model, a method used to evaluate the relationship process between two related persons, to patient-physician data about the effect of shared decision-making behaviors on patient and physician uncertainty. We discuss measurement and interpretation problems.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The EXACKTE² project was a cross-sectional study of 263 unique patient-physician dyads in 17 primary care clinics in Canada. Participants independently completed self-administered questionnaires postconsultation to measure patients' and physicians' perceptions of shared decision-making behaviors and their uncertainty about whether the decision was the best one for the patient. We used the actor-partner interdependence model to explore the effect of shared decision-making behaviors on patient and physician uncertainty.

RESULTS

Application of the actor-partner interdependence model to our data showed significant actor effects only. Our exploratory analysis suggested that an appropriate dyadic pattern for this context would be the couple-oriented model.

CONCLUSION

Each actor's perception of the physicians' shared decision-making behaviors appeared only to affect their own uncertainty (actor effects), but the questionnaire may have been inadequate for identifying partner effects. Researchers should further explore using the actor-partner interdependence model to analyze actor-partner interdependence in the physician-patient relationship, and format questions tailored precisely to the model.

Assessing Shared Decision-Making Clinical Behaviors Among Genetic Counsellors

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative approach in which clinicians educate, support, and guide patients as they make informed, value-congruent decisions. SDM improves patients' health-related outcomes through increasing knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and enhancing experience of care. We measured SDM in genetic counselling appointments with 27 pregnant women who were at increased risk to have a baby with a genetic abnormality. The eight experienced genetic counsellors who participated had no specific SDM training and were unaware that SDM was being assessed. Audio transcripts of appointments were scored using 'Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making' (OPTION12). Patients' anxiety and decisional conflict were also assessed. The genetic counsellors' mean OPTION12 score was 42.4% (SD 9.0%; possible range 0-100%). Specific SDM behaviours that scored highest included introducing the concept of equipoise and listing all options with their pros and cons. Behaviours that scored lowest included eliciting patients' preferred approach to receiving information and desired degree of involvement in decision-making. Patients' levels of anxiety and decisional conflict were unassociated with genetic counsellors' OPTION12 scores. Some SDM behaviours were better demonstrated in this prenatal genetic counselling study than others. Formal training of genetic counsellors in SDM may enhance use of this approach in their professional practice.

Active Collaboration with Clients: An Underemphasized but Vital Part of Evidence-Based Practice

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a widely recognized concept in contemporary social work practice. However, recent studies have shown that social workers do not understand EBP correctly. Standardized administrative approaches to implementing EBP have led to confusion about its core practice decision-making process. This collaborative process is the heart of EBP in direct social work practice. This article explores the EBP process and addresses a vital but often underemphasized step of EBP: active collaboration with the client in decision making. Active collaboration with the client is shown to be important in that it (a) is consistent with social work's professional values and ethics, (b) is consistent with patient-centered health care in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and contemporary health care approaches, (c) is consistent with culturally competent practice, and (d) has empirical support for its beneficial impact. Correctly and fully understanding EBP in direct practice is important to improving social work practice and improving client outcomes.

Use of a patient decision aid for prenatal screening for Down syndrome: what do pregnant women say?

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids (PtDAs) help people make difficult, values-sensitive decisions. Prenatal screening for assessing the risk of genetic conditions in the fetus is one such decision and patient decision aids are rarely used in this clinical context. We sought to identify factors influencing pregnant women's use of a patient decision aid for deciding about prenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS).

METHODS

This qualitative study was embedded in a sequential mixed-methods research program whose main aim is to implement shared decision-making (SDM) in the context of prenatal screening for DS in the province of Quebec, Canada. We planned to recruit a purposive sample of 45 pregnant women with low-risk pregnancy consulting for prenatal care at three clinical sites. Participating women watched a video depicting a prenatal care follow-up during which a pregnant woman, her partner and a health professional used a PtDA to decide about prenatal screening for DS. The women were then interviewed about factors that would influence the use of this PtDA using questions based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We performed content analysis of transcribed verbatim interviews.

RESULTS

Out of 216 eligible women, 100 agreed to participate (46% response rate) and 46 were interviewed. Regarding the type of health professional responsible for their prenatal care, 19 participants (41%) reported having made a decision about prenatal screening for DS with an obstetrician-gynecologist, 13 (28%) with a midwife, 12 (26%) with a family physician, and two (4%) decided on their own. We identified 54 factors that were mapped onto nine of the 12 TDF domains. The three most frequently-mentioned were: opinion of the pregnant woman's partner (n = 33, 72%), presentation of the PtDA by health professional and a discussion (n = 27, 72%), and not having encountered a PtDA (n = 26, 57%).

CONCLUSION

This study allowed us to identify factors influencing pregnant women's use of a PtDA for prenatal screening for DS. Use of a PtDA by health professionals and patients is one step in providing the needed decision support and our study results will allow us to design an effective implementation strategy for PtDAs for prenatal screening for DS.

More primary care patients regret health decisions if they experienced decisional conflict in the consultation: a secondary analysis of a multicenter descriptive study

Background

We sought to estimate the extent of decision regret among primary care patients and identify risk factors associated with regret.

Methods

Secondary analysis of an observational descriptive study conducted in two Canadian provinces. Unique patient-physician dyads were recruited from 17 primary care clinics and data on patient, physician and consultation characteristics were collected before, during and immediately after consultations, as well as two weeks post-consultation, when patients completed the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). We examined the DRS score distribution and performed ordinal logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of regret.

Results

Among 258 unique patient-physicians dyads, mean ± standard deviation of decision regret scores was 11.7 ± 15.1 out of 100. Overall, 43 % of patients reported no regret, 45 % reported mild regret and 12 % reported moderate to strong regret. In multivariate analyses, higher decision regret was strongly associated with increased decisional conflict and less significantly associated with patient age and education, as well with male (vs. female) physicians and residents (vs. teachers).

Conclusion

After consulting family physicians, most primary care patients experience little decision regret, but some experience more regret if there is decisional conflict. Strategies for reducing decisional conflict in primary care, such as shared decision-making with decision aids, seem warranted.

Evaluating the quality of shared decision making during the patient-carer encounter: a systematic review of tools

BACKGROUND

The concept of shared decision making (SDM) has been developing in many countries since the 1990s. The main challenge of SDM, based on the principles of respect for the person's autonomy, is to improve patients' participation, should they so wish, in decisions concerning their personal health. To our knowledge, there is only one SDM evaluation tool validated in metropolitan French that does not measure the entire SDM construct. The aim of this review was to identify existing and validated SDM measurement tools to determine which of them could be adapted in French to cover all the dimensions of SDM.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted based on articles found in the PubMed and PsycINFO bibliographic databases and published between 2010 and 2014. Studies were included if the main goal of the article was the development and psychometric validation of an SDM measurement tool, not specific to any given disease or situation, in English, French and Spanish. We used the nine essential elements of the Makoul and Clayman's integrative model to describe the different existing tools.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included. Seven new tools had been published since Scholl's previous review in 2011. We observed a recent spread of the multi-appraiser approach, which combines points of view of patients, healthcare professionals and sometimes external observers. Several models were used for the development of the seven newly identified tools. None of the identified tools assessed the nine elements of the Makoul's model. Three of these elements, however, were systematically measured in each of the new tools: "defining/explaining the problem", "patient values/preferences", and "checking/clarifying understanding".

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several potentially interesting tools for the French context which could cover the whole elements of Makoul's model. The next step will be the development of a French-language instrument based on these tools.

Health literacy in pregnant women facing prenatal screening may explain their intention to use a patient decision aid: a short report

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that health literacy may impact the use of decision aids (DAs) among patients facing difficult decisions. Embedded in the pilot test of a questionnaire, this study aimed to measure the association between health literacy and pregnant women's intention to use a DA to decide about prenatal screening. We recruited a convenience sample of 45 pregnant women in three clinical sites (family practice teaching unit, birthing center and obstetrical ambulatory care clinic). We asked participating women to complete a self-administered questionnaire assessing their intention to use a DA to decide about prenatal screening and assessed their health literacy levels using one subjective and two objective scales.

RESULTS

Two of the three scales discriminated between levels of health literacy (three numeracy questions and three health literacy questions). We found a positive correlation between pregnant women's intention to use a DA and subjective health literacy (Spearman coefficient, Rho 0.32, P = 0.04) but not objective health literacy (Spearman coefficient, Rho 0.07, P = 0.65). Hence subjective health literacy may affect the intention to use a DA among pregnant women facing a decision about prenatal screening.

CONCLUSION

Special attention should be given to pregnant women with lower health literacy levels to increase their intention to use a DA and ensure that every pregnant women can give informed and value-based consent to prenatal screening.

Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is advocated as the model for decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions. In this paper we sketch the history of the concept of SDM, evidence on the occurrence of the steps in daily practice, and provide a clinical audience with communication strategies to support the steps involved. Finally, we discuss ways to improve the implementation of SDM.

RESULTS

The plea for SDM originated almost simultaneously in medical ethics and health services research. Four steps can be distinguished: (1) the professional informs the patient that a decision is to be made and that the patient's opinion is important; (2) the professional explains the options and their pros and cons; (3) the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences and the professional supports the patient in deliberation; (4) the professional and patient discuss the patient's wish to make the decision, they make or defer the decision, and discuss follow-up. In practice these steps are seen to occur to a limited extent.

DISCUSSION

Knowledge and awareness among both professionals and patients as well as tools and skills training are needed for SDM to become widely implemented.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Professionals may use the steps and accompanying communication strategies to implement SDM.

The development of a prototype measure of the co-production of health in routine consultations for people with long-term conditions

OBJECTIVES

(i) To develop a prototype measure of co-production of health (CPH) in consultations for people with long-term conditions (LTCs); and (ii) to undertake initial validation of it, using a measure of patient-centred care, as defined by the Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS).

METHODS

Mixed methods were applied. A qualitative study gathered 11 experts' views on what comprised CPH behaviours. These were operationalised and a prototype measure applied to a convenience sample of 50 video-recorded consultations involving clinicians trained in self-management support and patients with LTCs at health services in six UK locations.

RESULTS

Twenty-two CPH behaviours were identified. High frequencies of CPH behaviours in consultations were associated with greater patient-centeredness, less clinician verbal dominance, and more patient communication control in comparison to consultations where CPH behaviours were less frequent.

CONCLUSION

Although the CPH tool is promising, further testing is required in order to improve reliability and validity.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

In the future, the measure could be used to test interventions to promote patient participation in decision making about self-management.

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.

Improving Decision making On Location of Care with the frail Elderly and their caregivers (the DOLCE study): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

One of the toughest decisions faced by elderly people is whether to stay at home or move to a care facility. This study seeks to evaluate the impact of training interprofessional home-care teams in shared decision making combined with a decision aid on the proportion of elderly people who report being active in the decision-making process regarding whether to stay at home or move to a care facility.

Methods/Design

We propose a multicenter cluster randomized trial conducted with home-care interprofessional teams in the Province of Quebec with 2 data collection phases: before and after the intervention. Units of randomization will be centers for primary healthcare and social services. We will enroll 16 of these and ask each to provide one home-care interprofessional team involved in decisions and care planning with eligible clients. Clients will be included if they i) are aged ≥65; ii) are receiving care from the participating home-care interprofessional team; iii) have faced the decision about staying at home or moving to a care facility in the past 3 to 6 months; iv) are able to read, understand and write French or English; and v) are able to give informed consent. If clients are unable to provide informed consent, their primary caregiver who was involved in the decision-making process will be eligible to participate. The intervention arm will receive training in shared decision making and use of a decision aid. The control arm will receive ‘usual care’. The primary outcome of interest is the assumed role in the decision-making process as assessed in clients or caregivers with a modified version of the Control Preferences Scale. Multilevel modeling will be used to take the hierarchical structure of the data into account. The study has obtained full ethical approval. The trial will comply with CONSORT guidelines adapted for cluster randomized trials.

Discussion

Home care is a rapidly growing sector and this study will lay the foundations of a national strategy to ensure that IP home-care teams provide the highest quality of care for seriously ill elderly people and support for their families.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02244359 (registered 18 September 2014).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0567-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Relationship-centred care: antidote, guidepost or blind alley? The epistemology of 21st century health care

Contemporary health care is increasing in complexity and lacks a unifying understanding of epistemology, methodology and goals. Lack of conceptual consistency in concepts such as 'patient-centred care' (PCC) typifies system-wide discordance. We contrast the fragmented descriptions of PCC and related tools to its own origins in the writings of Balint and to a subsequent construct, relationship-centred care (RCC). We identify the explicit and elaborated connection between RCC and a defined epistemological foundation as a distinguishing feature of the construct and we demonstrate that this makes possible the recognition of alignments between RCC and independently developed constructs. Among these, we emphasize Schon's reflective practice, Nonaka's theory of organizational knowledge creation and the research methodology of realist synthesis. We highlight the relational principles common to these domains and to their common epistemologies and illustrate unsatisfying consequences of adherence to less adequate epistemological frameworks such as positivism. We offer RCC not as an 'antidote' to the dilemmas identified at the outset but as an example that illuminates the value and importance of explicit identification of the premises and assumptions underlying approaches to improvement of the health care system. We stress the potential value of identifying epistemological affinities across otherwise disparate fields and disciplines.

Exploration of shared decision-making processes among dieticians and patients during a consultation for the nutritional treatment of dyslipidaemia

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) holds great potential for improving the therapeutic efficiency and quality of nutritional treatment of dyslipidaemia by promoting patient involvement in decision making. Adoption of specific behaviours fostering SDM during consultations has yet to be studied in routine dietetic practice.

OBJECTIVE

Using a cross-sectional study design, we aimed to explore both dieticians' and patients' adoption of SDM behaviours in dietetic consultations regarding the nutritional treatment of dyslipidaemia.

METHODS

Twenty-six dieticians working in local health clinics in the Quebec City metropolitan area were each asked to identify one dyslipidaemic patient they would see in an upcoming consultation. Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), questionnaires were designed to study two targeted SDM behaviours: 'to discuss nutritional treatment options for dyslipidaemia' and 'to discuss patients' values and preferences about nutritional treatment options for dyslipidaemia'. These questionnaires were administered to the dietician-patient dyad individually before the consultation. Associations between TPB constructs (attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control) towards behavioural intentions were analysed using Spearman's partial correlations.

RESULTS

Thirteen unique patient-dietician dyads completed the study. Perceived behavioural control was the only TPB construct significantly associated with both dieticians' and patients' intentions to adopt the targeted SDM behaviours (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

As perceived behavioural control seems to determine dieticians' and patients' adoption of SDM behaviours, interventions addressing barriers and reinforcing enablers of these behaviours are indicated. This exploratory study highlights issues that could be addressed in future research endeavours to expand the knowledge base relating to SDM adoption in dietetic practice.

Shared decision-making behaviours in health professionals: a systematic review of studies based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) requires health professionals to change their practice. Socio‐cognitive theories, such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), provide the needed theoretical underpinnings for designing behaviour change interventions.

Objective

We systematically reviewed studies that used the TPB to assess SDM behaviours in health professionals to explore how theory is being used to explain influences on SDM intentions and/or behaviours, and which construct is identified as most influential.

Search strategy

We searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Index to theses, Proquest dissertations and Current Contents for all years up to April 2012.

Inclusion criteria

We included all studies in French or English that used the TPB and related socio‐cognitive theories to assess SDM behavioural intentions or behaviours in health professionals. We used Makoul & Clayman's integrative SDM model to identify SDM behaviours.

Data extraction and synthesis

We extracted study characteristics, nature of the socio‐cognitive theory, SDM behaviour, and theory‐based determinants of the SDM behavioural intention or behaviour. We computed simple frequency counts.

Main results

Of 12 388 titles, we assessed 136 full‐text articles for eligibility. We kept 20 eligible studies, all published in English between 1996 and 2012. Studies were conducted in Canada (n = 8), the USA (n = 6), the Netherlands (n = 3), the United Kingdom (n = 2) and Australia (n = 1). The determinant most frequently and significantly associated with intention was the subjective norm (n = 15/21 analyses).

Discussion

There was great variance in the way socio‐cognitive theories predicted SDM intention and/or behaviour, but frequency of significance indicated that subjective norm was most influential.

Insights from a conference on implementing comparative effectiveness research through shared decision-making

For decades, investigators have conducted innovative research on shared decision-making (SDM), helping patients and clinicians to discuss health decisions and balance evidence with patients' preferences for possible outcomes of options. In addition, investigators have developed and used rigorous methods for conducting comparative effectiveness research (CER), comparing the benefits and risks of different interventions in real-world settings with outcomes that matter to patients and other stakeholders. However, incorporating CER findings into clinical practice presents numerous challenges. In March 2012, we organized a conference at Washington University in St Louis (MO, USA) aimed at developing a network of researchers to collaborate in developing, conducting and disseminating research about the implementation of CER through SDM. Meeting attendees discussed conceptual similarities and differences between CER and SDM, challenges in implementing CER and SDM in practice, specific challenges when engaging SDM with unique populations and examples of ways to overcome these challenges. CER and SDM are related processes that emphasize examining the best clinical evidence and how it applies to real patients in real practice settings. SDM can provide one opportunity for clinicians to discuss CER findings with patients and engage in a dialog about how to manage uncertainty about evidence in order to make decisions on an individual patient level. This meeting highlighted key challenges and suggested avenues to pursue such that CER and SDM can be implemented into routine clinical practice.

Some but not all dyadic measures in shared decision making research have satisfactory psychometric properties

OBJECTIVE

To assess the psychometric properties of dyadic measures for shared decision making (SDM) research.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted an observational cross-sectional study in 17 primary care clinics with physician-patient dyads. We used seven subscales to measure six elements of SDM: (1) defining the problem, presenting options, and discussing pros and cons; (2) clarifying the patient's values and preferences; (3) discussing the patient's self-efficacy; (4) drawing on the doctor's knowledge; (5) verifying the patient's understanding; and (6) assessing the patient's uncertainty. We assessed the reliability and invariance of the factorial structure and considered a measure to be dyadic if the factorial structure of the patient version was similar to that of the physician version and if there was equality of loading (no significant chi-square).

RESULTS

We analyzed data for 264 physicians and 269 patients. All measures except one showed adequate reliability (Cronbach alpha, 0.70-0.93) and factorial validity (root mean square error of approximation, 0.000-0.06). However, we found only four measures to be dyadic (P>0.05): the values clarification subscale, perceived behavioral subscale, information-verifying subscale, and uncertainty subscale.

CONCLUSION

The subscales for values clarification, perceived behavioral control, information verifying, and uncertainty are appropriate dyadic measures for SDM research and can be used to derive dyadic indices.

Development of PRIDe: a tool to assess physicians' preference of role in clinical decision making

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate items for inclusion in PRIDe (Preferred Role in Decision Making), a new tool to assess changes of role preference among professionals exposed to training in shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

This study was part of a pilot trial to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM training on the doctors' prescription of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. Thirty-nine family physicians were randomized to immediate exposure to training or to delayed exposure. Potential items for PRIDe and a questionnaire about physicians' intention to engage in SDM were administered at baseline and at follow-up.

RESULTS

Following analysis, we retained five items that captured a change in physicians' preference. The items' scores were pooled and the resulting tool showed limited internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.41) but significant test-retest reliability (immediate group: P = 0.03; delayed group: P = 0.008) and acceptable discriminant validity, with patients involved in decision making more actively after training than before (Fisher's test, P = .02).

CONCLUSION

This initial step to develop an evaluation tool to assess changes in doctors' preference of role in decision making following SDM training shows promising results. The next step is to develop more clinical vignettes followed by questions inspired from this analysis.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The PRIDe instrument can be used in the assessment of health professionals' attitude towards shared decision making after training in shared decision making. Additional research is needed to evaluate its validity before it can be recommended for use.

Situationally-sensitive knowledge translation and relational decision making in hyperacute stroke: a qualitative study

Stroke is a leading cause of disability. Early treatment of acute ischaemic stroke with rtPA reduces the risk of longer term dependency but carries an increased risk of causing immediate bleeding complications. To understand the challenges of knowledge translation and decision making about treatment with rtPA in hyperacute stroke and hence to inform development of appropriate decision support we interviewed patients, their family and health professionals. The emergency setting and the symptomatic effects of hyper-acute stroke shaped the form, content and manner of knowledge translation to support decision making. Decision making about rtPA in hyperacute stroke presented three conundrums for patients, family and clinicians. 1) How to allow time for reflection in a severely time-limited setting. 2) How to facilitate knowledge translation regarding important treatment risks and benefits when patient and family capacity is blunted by the effects and shock of stroke. 3) How to ensure patient and family views are taken into account when the situation produces reliance on the expertise of clinicians. Strategies adopted to meet these conundrums were fourfold: face to face communication; shaping decisions; incremental provision of information; and communication tailored to the individual patient. Relational forms of interaction were understood to engender trust and allay anxiety. Shaping decisions with patients was understood as an expression of confidence by clinicians that helped alleviate anxiety and offered hope and reassurance to patients and their family experiencing the shock of the stroke event. Neutral presentations of information and treatment options promoted uncertainty and contributed to anxiety. ‘Drip feeding’ information created moments for reflection: clinicians literally made time. Tailoring information to the particular patient and family situation allowed clinicians to account for social and emotional contexts. The principal responses to the challenges of decision making about rtPA in hyperacute stroke were relational decision support and situationally-sensitive knowledge translation.

Interprofessional education about shared decision making for patients in primary care settings

With an increasingly complex array of interventions facing healthcare professionals and patients, coupled with a potentially diverse number of professionals operating within the primary care team, the adoption of shared decision making (SDM) - with or without patients' decision aids - in an interprofessional manner is essential to ensure the highest quality of care for patients. In this article, we propose a framework for interprofessional education about SDM targeted to primary care settings. Five areas of knowledge and skills were agreed to be essential for all relevant stakeholders for interprofessional education in SDM to be successful: understanding the concept of SDM; acquiring relevant communication skills to facilitate SDM; understanding interprofessional sensitivities; understanding the roles of different professions within the relevant primary care group; and acquiring relevant skills to implement SDM. We suggest a series of teaching methods for the aforementioned areas, using principles from adult learning.

The impact of physicians' reactions to uncertainty on patients' decision satisfaction

RATIONALE

Patients' and physicians' response to uncertainty may affect decision outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of patients' and physicians' reactions to uncertainty on patients' satisfaction with breast health decisions.

METHODS

Seventy-five women facing breast cancer prevention or treatment decisions and five surgeons were recruited from a breast health centre. Patients' and physicians' anxiety from uncertainty was assessed using the Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty Scale; wording was slightly modified for patients to ensure the scale was applicable. Patients' decision satisfaction was assessed 1-2 weeks after their appointment. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to assess associations between patients' and providers' anxiety from uncertainty and patients' decision satisfaction. A provider-specific random effects term was included in the model to account for correlation among patients treated by the same provider.

RESULTS

Patients' decision satisfaction was associated with physicians' anxiety from uncertainty (beta = 0.92, P < 0.01), but not with patients' anxiety from uncertainty (beta = -0.18, P > 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that physicians' reactions to uncertainty may have an effect on decision satisfaction in patients. More research is needed to confirm this relationship and to determine how to help patient-provider dyads to manage the uncertainty that is inherent in most cancer decisions.

Exploring dietitians' salient beliefs about shared decision-making behaviors

Background

Shared decision making (SDM), a process by which health professionals and patients go through the decision-making process together to agree on treatment, is a promising strategy for promoting diet-related decisions that are informed and value based and to which patients adhere well. The objective of the present study was to identify dietitians' salient beliefs regarding their exercise of two behaviors during the clinical encounter, both of which have been deemed essential for SDM to take place: (1) presenting patients with all dietary treatment options for a given health condition and (2) helping patients clarify their values and preferences regarding the options.

Methods

Twenty-one dietitians were allocated to four focus groups. Facilitators conducted the focus groups using a semistructured interview guide based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Discussions were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed with NVivo8 (QSR International, Cambridge, MA) software.

Results

Most participants stated that better patient adherence to treatment was an advantage of adopting the two SDM behaviors. Dietitians identified patients, physicians, and the multidisciplinary team as normative referents who would approve or disapprove of their adoption of the SDM behaviors. The most often reported barriers and facilitators for the behaviors concerned patients' characteristics, patients' clinical situation, and time.

Conclusions

The implementation of SDM in nutrition clinical practice can be guided by addressing dietitians' salient beliefs. Identifying these beliefs also provides the theoretical framework needed for developing a quantitative survey questionnaire to further study the determinants of dietitians' adoption of SDM behaviors.

Helping high-risk youth move through high-risk periods: personally controlled health records for improving social and health care transitions

BACKGROUND

New patient-centered information technologies are needed to address risks associated with health care transitions for adolescents and young adults with diabetes, including systems that support individual and structural impediments to self- and clinical-care.

METHODS

We describe the personally controlled health record (PCHR) system platform and its key structural capabilities and assess its alignment with tenets of the chronic care model (CCM) and the social-behavioral and health care ecologies within which adolescents and young adults with diabetes mature.

RESULTS

Configured as Web-based platforms, PCHRs can support a new class of patient-facing applications that serve as monitoring and support systems for adolescents navigating complex social, developmental, and health care transitions. The approach can enable supportive interventions tailored to individual patient needs to boost adherence, self-management, and monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

The PCHR platform is a paradigm shift for the organization of health information systems and is consistent with the CCM and conceptualizations of patient- and family-centered care for diabetes. Advancing the approach augers well for improvement around health care transitions for youth and also requires that we address (i) structural barriers impacting diabetes care for maturing youth; (ii) challenges around health and technology literacy; (iii) privacy and confidentiality issues, including sharing of health information within family and institutional systems; and (iv) needs for evaluation around uptake, impacts, and outcomes.

Deliberation before determination: the definition and evaluation of good decision making

OBJECTIVES

In this article, we examine definitions of suggested approaches to measure the concept of good decisions, highlight the ways in which they converge, and explain why we have concerns about their emphasis on post-hoc estimations and post-decisional outcomes, their prescriptive concept of knowledge, and their lack of distinction between the process of deliberation, and the act of decision determination.

BACKGROUND

There has been a steady trend to involve patients in decision making tasks in clinical practice, part of a shift away from paternalism towards the concept of informed choice. An increased understanding of the uncertainties that exist in medicine, arising from a weak evidence base and, in addition, the stochastic nature of outcomes at the individual level, have contributed to shifting the responsibility for decision making from physicians to patients. This led to increasing use of decision support and communication methods, with the ultimate aim of improving decision making by patients. Interest has therefore developed in attempting to define good decision making and in the development of measurement approaches.

METHOD

We pose and reflect whether decisions can be judged good or not, and, if so, how this goodness might be evaluated.

RESULTS

We hypothesize that decisions cannot be measured by reference to their outcomes and offer an alternative means of assessment, which emphasizes the deliberation process rather than the decision's end results. We propose decision making comprises a pre-decisional process and an act of decision determination and consider how this model of decision making serves to develop a new approach to evaluating what constitutes a good decision making process. We proceed to offer an alternative, which parses decisions into the pre-decisional deliberation process, the act of determination and post-decisional outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Evaluating the deliberation process, we propose, should comprise of a subjective sufficiency of knowledge, as well as emotional processing and affective forecasting of the alternatives. This should form the basis for a good act of determination.

Developing a dyadic OPTION scale to measure perceptions of shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to develop a measurement which enables research into the interdependent nature of clinical encounters. The prime objective was to develop an instrument capable of assessing the extent to which patients have been involved in (shared) decision making from two viewpoints-that of the patient and the clinician.

METHODS

To develop an initial 'dyadic OPTION' instrument, the twelve original third-person items were drafted in passive, first person plural forms. Using this version initially, three rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews were held. These were audio-recorded and analysed at the end of each round and the results used to revise the dyadic OPTION scale.

RESULTS

It was possible to modify the observer OPTION instrument into an instrument for completion by both clinicians and patients after a dyadic interaction. Cognitive debriefing revealed five areas of interpretative difficulty. Each item of the observer OPTION scale underwent modification in order to develop a dyadic version of the scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The dyadic OPTION scale is acceptable and comprehensible by both clinicians and public respondents. Cognitive debriefing adapted and refined an existing scale and provided confidence that the core constructs of the scale (perceived involvement in decisions making) were understood.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further validation of the dyadic OPTION scale is required prior to its use in research settings.

Do continuing medical education articles foster shared decision making?

INTRODUCTION

Defined as reviews of clinical aspects of a specific health problem published in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed medical journals, offered without charge, continuing medical education (CME) articles form a key strategy for translating knowledge into practice. This study assessed CME articles for mention of evidence-based information on benefits and harms of available treatment and/or preventive options that are deemed essential for shared decision making (SDM) to occur in clinical practice.

METHODS

Articles were selected from 5 medical journals that publish CME articles and are provided free of charge to primary-care physicians of the Province of Quebec, Canada. Two individuals independently scored each article with the use of a 10-item checklist based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. In case of discrepancy, the item score was established by team consensus. Scores were added to produce a total article score ranging from 0 (no item present) to 10 (all items present).

RESULTS

Thirty articles (6 articles per journal) were selected. Total article scores ranged from 1 to 9, with a mean (+/- SD) of 3.1 +/- 2.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-4.3). Health conditions and treatment options were the items most frequently discussed in the articles; next came treatment benefits. Possible harms, the use of the same denominators for benefits and harms, and methods to facilitate the communication of benefits and harms to patients were almost never described. No significant differences between journals were observed.

DISCUSSION

The CME articles evaluated did not include the evidence-based information necessary to foster SDM in clinical practice. Peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed medical journals should require CME articles to include this type of information.

Interpersonal perception in the context of doctor-patient relationships: a dyadic analysis of doctor-patient communication

Doctor-patient communication is an interpersonal process and essential to relationship-centered care. However, in many studies, doctors and patients are studied as if living in separate worlds. This study assessed whether: 1) doctors' perception of their communication skills is congruent with their patients' perception; and 2) patients of a specific doctor agree with each other about their doctor's communication skills. A cross-sectional study was conducted in three provinces in Canada with 91 doctors and their 1749 patients. Doctors and patients independently completed questions on the doctor's communication skills (content and process) after a consultation. Multilevel modeling provided an estimate of the patient and doctor variance components at both the dyad-level and the doctor-level. We computed correlations between patients' and doctors' perceptions at both levels to assess how congruent they were. Consensus among patients of a specific doctor was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The mean score of the rating of doctor's skills according to patients was 4.58, and according to doctors was 4.37. The dyad-level variance for the patient was .38 and for the doctor was .06. The doctor-level variance for the patient ratings was .01 and for the doctor ratings, .18. The correlation between both the patients' and the doctors' skills' ratings scores at the dyad-level was weak. At the doctor-level, the correlation was not statistically significant. The ICC for patients' ratings was .03 and for the doctors' ratings .76. Overall, this study suggests that doctors and their patients have a very different perspective of the doctors' communication skills occurring during routine clinical encounters.

Adjuncts or adversaries to shared decision-making? Applying the Integrative Model of behavior to the role and design of decision support interventions in healthcare interactions

Background

A growing body of literature documents the efficacy of decision support interventions (DESI) in helping patients make informed clinical decisions. DESIs are frequently described as an adjunct to shared decision-making between a patient and healthcare provider, however little is known about the effects of DESIs on patients' interactional behaviors-whether or not they promote the involvement of patients in decisions.

Discussion

Shared decision-making requires not only a cognitive understanding of the medical problem and deliberation about the potential options to address it, but also a number of communicative behaviors that the patient and physician need to engage in to reach the goal of making a shared decision. Theoretical models of behavior can guide both the identification of constructs that will predict the performance or non-performance of specific behaviors relevant to shared decision-making, as well as inform the development of interventions to promote these specific behaviors. We describe how Fishbein's Integrative Model (IM) of behavior can be applied to the development and evaluation of DESIs. There are several ways in which the IM could be used in research on the behavioral effects of DESIs. An investigator could measure the effects of an intervention on the central constructs of the IM - attitudes, normative pressure, self-efficacy, and intentions related to communication behaviors relevant to shared decision-making. However, if one were interested in the determinants of these domains, formative qualitative research would be necessary to elicit the salient beliefs underlying each of the central constructs. Formative research can help identify potential targets for a theory-based intervention to maximize the likelihood that it will influence the behavior of interest or to develop a more fine-grained understanding of intervention effects.

Summary

Behavioral theory can guide the development and evaluation of DESIs to increase the likelihood that these will prepare patients to play a more active role in the decision-making process. Self-reported behavioral measures can reduce the measurement burden for investigators and create a standardized method for examining and reporting the determinants of communication behaviors necessary for shared decision-making.

Health decision-making preferences among African American men recruited from urban barbershops

OBJECTIVE

To examine general health decision-making roles among African American men ages 40 to 70 recruited in barbershops in the Richmond, Virginia, metropolitan area.

METHODS

We adapted the 1-item Control Preference scale to study the associations between health decision-making role preferences and demographic variables. Forty African-American men were recruited from barbershops to complete a self-administered survey. After performing descriptive statistics, we dichotomized our outcome into active vs nonactive (collaborative or passive) decision makers. Data were then analyzed using chi2, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank sum, and multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Fifteen subjects responded that they engaged in active decision making, 20 in collaborative, and 5 in passive decision making. Almost all (86.7%) active decision makers were home owners, vs 41.7% of nonactive decision makers. Among active decision makers, 46.7% had incomes of more than $70000, vs 12.5% of nonactive decision makers. The active group reported health status that was good to excellent, while 20.8% of those in the nonactive group reported poor/fair health.

CONCLUSION

African American male barbershop clients preferred an active or collaborative health decision-making role with their physician, rather than a passive role. The relationship among home ownership, income, and decision style may best be understood by considering the historical and cultural influences on gender role socialization among African American males. More comprehensive assessment of decision styles is necessary to better understand health decision making among African American male patients.

EXACKTE(2): exploiting the clinical consultation as a knowledge transfer and exchange environment: a study protocol

Background

While the evidence suggests that the way physicians provide information to patients is crucial in helping patients decide upon a course of action, the field of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) is silent about how the physician and the patient influence each other during clinical interactions and decision-making. Consequently, based on a novel relationship-centered model, EXACKTE² (EXploiting the clinicAl Consultation as a Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Environment), this study proposes to assess how patients and physicians influence each other in consultations.

Methods

We will employ a cross-sectional study design involving 300 pairs of patients and family physicians from two primary care practice-based research networks. The consultation between patient and physician will be audio-taped and transcribed. Following the consultation, patients and physicians will complete a set of questionnaires based on the EXACKTE² model. All questionnaires will be similar for patients and physicians. These questionnaires will assess the key concepts of our proposed model based on the essential elements of shared decision-making (SDM): definition and explanation of problem; presentation of options; discussion of pros and cons; clarification of patient values and preferences; discussion of patient ability and self-efficacy; presentation of doctor knowledge and recommendation; and checking and clarifying understanding. Patients will be contacted by phone two weeks later and asked to complete questionnaires on decisional regret and quality of life. The analysis will be conducted to compare the key concepts in the EXACKTE² model between patients and physicians. It will also allow the assessment of how patients and physicians influence each other in consultations.

Discussion

Our proposed model, EXACKTE², is aimed at advancing the science of KTE based on a relationship process when decision-making has to take place. It fosters a new KTE paradigm by putting forward a relationship-centered perspective and has the potential to reveal unknown mechanisms that underline effective KTE in clinical contexts. This will result in better understanding of the mechanisms that may promote a new generation of knowledge transfer strategies.

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.

Implementing shared decision-making in nutrition clinical practice: a theory-based approach and feasibility study

Background

There are a growing number of dietary treatment options to choose from for the management of many chronic diseases. Shared decision making represents a promising approach to improve the quality of the decision making process needed for dietary choices that are informed by the best evidence and value-based. However, there are no studies reporting on theory-based approaches that foster the implementation of shared decision making in health professions allied to medicine. The objectives of this study are to explore the integration of shared decision making within real nutritional consultations, and to design questionnaires to assess dieticians' intention to adopt two specific behaviors related to shared decision making using the Theory of Planned Behavior.

Methods

Forty dieticians will audiotape one clinical encounter to explore the presence of shared decision making within the consultation. They will also participate to one of five to six focus groups that aim to identify the salient beliefs underlying the determinants of their intention to present evidence-based dietary treatment options to their patients, and clarify the values related to dietary choices that are important to their patients. These salient beliefs will be used to elaborate the items of two questionnaires. The internal consistency of theoretical constructs and the temporal stability of their measurement will be checked using the test-retest method by asking 35 dieticians to complete the questionnaire twice within a two-week interval.

Discussion

The proposed research project will be the first study to: provide preliminary data about the adoption of shared decision making by dieticians and theirs patients; elicit dieticians' salient beliefs regarding the intention to adopt shared decision making behaviors, report on the development of a specific questionnaire; explore dieticians' views on the implementation of shared decision making; and compare their views regarding the implementation of shared decision making in different clinical settings.

It is anticipated that the results generated by the proposed research project will significantly contribute to the emergence of shared decision making in nutrition through a theory-based approach.

Health decision making: lynchpin of evidence-based practice

Health decision making is both the lynchpin and the least developed aspect of evidence-based practice. The evidence-based practice process requires integrating the evidence with consideration of practical resources and patient preferences and doing so via a process that is genuinely collaborative. Yet, the literature is largely silent about how to accomplish integrative, shared decision making.

IMPLICATIONS

for evidence-based practice are discussed for 2 theories of clinician decision making (expected utility and fuzzy trace) and 2 theories of patient health decision making (transtheoretical model and reasoned action). Three suggestions are offered. First, it would be advantageous to have theory-based algorithms that weight and integrate the 3 data strands (evidence, resources, preferences) in different decisional contexts. Second, patients, not providers, make the decisions of greatest impact on public health, and those decisions are behavioral. Consequently, theory explicating how provider-patient collaboration can influence patient lifestyle decisions made miles from the provider's office is greatly needed. Third, although the preponderance of data on complex decisions supports a computational approach, such an approach to evidence-based practice is too impractical to be widely applied at present. More troublesomely, until patients come to trust decisions made computationally more than they trust their providers' intuitions, patient adherence will remain problematic. A good theory of integrative, collaborative health decision making remains needed.