Practices and perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals on shared decision-making in nephrology

Trust, discrimination and preference for shared decision-making in adolescents diagnosed with depression: Implications from Chinese mental health professionals

BACKGROUND

While evidence suggests that the attitudes of healthcare providers toward medical decision-making in adolescents diagnosed with depression merit exploration, research on their preferences for Shared Decision-Making (SDM) and the factors affecting these preferences remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate Chinese mental health professionals' (MHPs) preferences for SDM in adolescents with depression and identify the relationships between their preference for SDM and trust and discrimination.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was used in this study. Clinical Decision-making Style-Staff (CDMS-S) was applied to evaluate their preferences for SDM. Physician Trust in the Patient Scale (PTPS) was utilised to assess their trust in consumers. Social Distance Scale to Mental Illness (SDSMI) was utilised to measure their discrimination against people with mental illness.

RESULTS

A total of 581 MHPs were identified in China. MHPs rated their preference for participation in decision making (PD) as shared (1.89 ± 0.472), information (IN) as moderate (2.62 ± 0.682), and family involvement (FI) as high (3.13 ± 0.840). The preferences for three decision topics ranked from the highest to the lowest score were working-related decision (2.35 ± 0.681), general preferences in decision (1.82 ± 0.581) and medication-related decision (1.74 ± 0.826). The mean score of PTPS and SDSMI were 34.71 (SD=9.709) and 15.17 (SD=4.299), respectively. Logistic regression indicated that the preference for PD was associated with discrimination; the preference for IN was associated with trust, discrimination and SDM-related training experience; and the preference for FI was associated with both trust and discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

While MHPs generally exhibit a favourable attitude toward SDM, this positivity is not universally observed across all contexts. There remains room for improvement in the willingness to co-develop medication regimens and share health information. Rational recognition of depression, and building trusting and friendly therapeutic relationships are key to promoting MHPs' preferences for SDM.

PRACTICAL VALUE

MHPs' preferences for SDM have a significant impact on SDM implementation, which will be promoted by implementing SDM-related training.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Advance Care Planning, Shared Decision Making, and Serious Illness Conversations in Onconephrology

Advance care planning, shared decision making, and serious illness conversations are communication processes designed to promote patient-centered care. In onconephrology, patients face a series of complex medical decisions regarding their care at the intersection of oncology and nephrology. Clinicians who aim to ensure that patient preferences and values are integrated into treatment planning must work within a similarly complex care team comprising multiple disciplines. In this review, we describe key decision points in a patient's care trajectory, as well as guidance on how and when to engage in advance care planning, shared decision making, and serious illness discussions. Further research on these processes in the complex context of onconephrology is needed.

Usability Testing of the Kidney Score Platform to Enhance Communication About Kidney Disease in Primary Care Settings: Qualitative Think-Aloud Study

Background

Patient awareness of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is low in part due to suboptimal testing for CKD among those at risk and lack of discussions about kidney disease between patients and clinicians. To bridge these gaps, the National Kidney Foundation developed the Kidney Score Platform, which is a web-based series of tools that includes resources for health care professionals as well as an interactive, dynamic patient-facing component that includes a brief questionnaire about risk factors for kidney disease, individualized assessment of risk for developing CKD, and self-management tools to manage one’s kidney disease.

Objective

The aim of this study is to perform usability testing of the patient component of the Kidney Score platform among veterans with and at risk for kidney disease and among clinicians working as primary care providers in Veterans Affairs administration.

Methods

Think-aloud exercises were conducted, during which participants (veterans and clinicians) engaged with the platform while verbalizing their thoughts and making their perceptions, reasonings, and decision points explicit. A usability facilitator observed participants’ behaviors and probed selectively to clarify their comprehension of the tool’s instructions, content, and overall functionality. Thematic analysis on the audio-recording transcripts was performed, focusing on positive attributes, negative comments, and areas that required facilitator involvement.

Results

Veterans (N=18) were 78% (14/18) male with a mean age of 58.1 years. Two-thirds (12/18) were of non-White race/ethnicity, 28% (5/18) had laboratory evidence of CKD without a formal diagnosis, and 50% (9/18) carried a diagnosis of hypertension or diabetes. Clinicians (N=19) were 29% (5/17) male, 30% (5/17) of non-White race/ethnicity, and had a mean of 17 (range 4-32) years of experience. Veterans and clinicians easily navigated the online tool and appreciated the personalized results page as well as the inclusion of infographics to deliver key educational messages. Three major themes related to content and communication about risk for CKD emerged from the think-aloud exercises: (1) tension between lay and medical terminology when discussing kidney disease and diagnostic tests, (2) importance of linking general information to concrete self-management actions, and (3) usefulness of the tool as an adjunct to the office visit to prepare for patient-clinician communication. Importantly, these themes were consistent among interviews involving both veterans and clinicians.

Conclusions

Veterans and clinicians both thought that the Kidney Score Platform would successfully promote communication and discussion about kidney disease in primary care settings. Tension between using medical terminology that is used regularly by clinicians versus lay terminology to promote CKD awareness was a key challenge, and knowledge of this can inform the development of future CKD educational materials.