Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data

BACKGROUND

The occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

OBJECTIVE

To assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed.

MAIN MEASURES

In the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION12 item) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION12 as a dependent variable.

RESULTS

We included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION12 scores was 7.7 of 100 points (P < 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION12 score except for education level (p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION12 score (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Most characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used.

HIGHLIGHTS

Most sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making.Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used.SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.

Patient readiness for shared decision making about treatment: Conceptualisation and development of the ReadySDM

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision making (SDM) requires an active role of both clinicians and patients. We aimed to conceptualise patient readiness for SDM about treatment, and to develop a patient questionnaire to assess readiness.

METHODS

We used the results of a scoping review and a qualitative study to inform the patient readiness construct. We conducted five additional rounds of data collection to finalise the construct definition and develop the Patient Readiness for SDM Questionnaire (ReadySDM ) in an oncological setting: (1) longitudinal interviews with patients with cancer during and after a treatment decision-making process; (2) a pilot study among experts, clinicians, and patients for feedback on the concept and items; (3) a field test among (former) patients with cancer to test item format and content validity, and to reduce the number of items; (4) cognitive interviews with people with low literacy to test the comprehensibility of the questionnaire; and (5) a field test among (former) patients who faced a cancer treatment decision in the last year, to test the content validity of the final version of the questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 251 people participated in the various rounds of data collection. We identified eight elements of patient readiness for SDM about treatment: (1) understanding of and attitude towards SDM; (2) information skills; (3) skills in communicating and claiming space; (4) self-awareness; (5) consideration skills; (6) self-efficacy; (7) emotional distress; and (8) experienced time. We developed the 20-item ReadySDM to retrospectively measure these elements in an oncological setting.

CONCLUSION

We conducted a thorough procedure to conceptualise patient readiness and to develop the ReadySDM . The questionnaire aims to provide novel insights into ways to enhance SDM in daily practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Multiple people with lived experience were involved in various phases of the study. They were asked for input on the study design, the conceptualisation of readiness, and the development of the questionnaire.

Patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making about treatment: A scoping review of the qualitative literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM) about treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies. We searched for literature across seven databases until March 2022, and included qualitative studies that focused on associations between patient-related characteristics and SDM about treatment in adults. We analyzed studies using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5948 articles, of which 70 were included. We identified many different patient-related characteristics, which we grouped into four categories related to: (1) the individual who is facing the decision, (2) the decision, (3) the relationship between the patient and the clinician and others involved in the decision, and (4) the healthcare context.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies report a variety of patient-related characteristics that may affect patient involvement in SDM. Amongst others, patients may need to feel informed, to understand their role in SDM, and be able to communicate. Involvement may be challenging with characteristics such as perceived time pressure, poor patient-clinician relationships, emotional distress, and severe illness.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to truly involve patients in SDM, we might need to focus on characteristics such as patient emotions and relationship building, besides information provision and values clarification.

How are patient-related characteristics associated with shared decision-making about treatment? A scoping review of quantitative studies

OBJECTIVES

To identify what patient-related characteristics have been reported to be associated with the occurrence of shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed articles in English or Dutch reporting on associations between patient-related characteristics and the occurrence of SDM for actual treatment decisions.

INFORMATION SOURCES

COCHRANE Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published until 25 March 2019.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5289 hits of which 53 were retained. Multiple categories of patient characteristics were identified: (1) sociodemographic characteristics (eg, gender), (2) general health and clinical characteristics (eg, symptom severity), (3) psychological characteristics and coping with illness (eg, self-efficacy) and (4) SDM style or preference. Many characteristics showed no association or unclear relationships with SDM occurrence. For example, for female gender positive, negative and, most frequently, non-significant associations were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

A large variety of patient-related characteristics have been studied, but for many the association with SDM occurrence remains unclear. The results will caution often-made assumptions about associations and provide an important step to target effective interventions to foster SDM with all patients.

What makes a patient ready for Shared Decision Making? A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making (SDM) requires an active role from patients, which might be difficult for some. We aimed to identify what patients need to be ready (i.e., well-equipped and enabled) to participate in SDM about treatment, and what patient- and decision-related characteristics may influence readiness.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and professionals (physicians, nurses, general practitioners, and researchers). Interviews were analyzed inductively.

RESULTS

We identified five elements of patient readiness: 1) understanding of and attitude towards SDM, 2) health literacy, 3) skills in communicating and claiming space, 4) self-awareness, and 5) consideration skills. We identified 10 characteristics that may influence elements of readiness: 1) age, 2) cultural background, 3) educational background, 4) close relationships, 5) mental illness, 6) emotional distress, 7) acceptance of diagnosis, 8) clinician-patient relationship, 9) decision type, and 10) time.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a wide range of elements that may constitute patient readiness for SDM. Readiness might vary between and within patients. This variation may result from differences in patient- and decision-related characteristics.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should be aware that not all patients may be ready for SDM at a given moment and may need support to enhance their readiness.

Healthcare professionals' views of group structured education for people with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes

AIM

To determine healthcare professionals' (HCP) views of group structured education for people with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to ascertain primary care HCPs' views and experiences of education for people with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes. A thematic framework method was applied to analyse the data. Participants were HCPs (N = 22) from 15 general practices in three south London boroughs.

RESULTS

All but one HCP viewed diabetes education favourably and all identified that low attendance was a problem. Three key themes emerged from the qualitative data: (1) benefits of diabetes education, including the group mode of delivery, improved patient interactions, saving HCPs' time and improved patient outcomes; (2) factors limiting uptake of education, including patient-level problems such as access and the appropriateness of the programme for certain groups, and difficulties communicating the benefits to patients and integration of education management plans into ongoing diabetes care; and (3) suggestions for improvement, including strategies to improve attendance at education with more localized and targeted marketing and enhanced programme content including follow-up sessions and support for people with pre-existing psychological issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Most HCPs valued diabetes education and all highlighted the lack of provision for people with different levels of health literacy. Because there was wide variation in terms of the level of knowledge regarding the education on offer, future studies may want to focus on how to help HCPs encourage their patients to attend.