Article

Toward a Behavioral Model of Shared Decision Making

Authors:
  • The Organizational Neuroscience Laboratory | University of Surrey | Warwick University
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Recently, shared decision making (SDM) has come forward as a primary framework for decision making in healthcare. While current works on SDM are mostly grounded on normative and static decision models, this body of research has largely overlooked individuals' dynamic preferences, emotions and bounded cognitive capacities, which are instead compelling behavioral aspects of any decision space involving two or more individuals, like patients and physicians. In this paper, we address this gap by synthetizing and systematizing the current literature on SDM into key thematic domains. Building on this evidence, we advance a theoretical apparatus of SDM which integrates extant research with insights from the behavioral sciences. The resulting effort offers a behavioral model of SDM. It accounts for a social dimension in the construction of preferences as well as the constraints imposed by bounded rationality and their effects on patient-centered care. Overall, this work locates topical and practical insights as to how we might best understand interacting cognitive and emotional behavioral influences behind SDM.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... Clinical decisions can be relatively simple (such as those involving general clinical treatment) or complex (such as those involving cancer treatment); be discrete (such as those involving the birth method) or involve continuous care management (such as when formulating chronic disease treatment and care plans); and can involve multiple stakeholders (such as the professional care team and caregivers of the patient) [26]. All interviewees in this study indicated that knowledge regarding SDM is extremely crucial in the SDM process. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered nursing concept that emphasizes the autonomy of patients. SDM is a co-operative process that involves information exchange and communication between medical staff and patients for making treatment decisions. In this study, we explored the experiences of clinical nursing staff participating in SDM. Methods This study adopted a qualitative research design. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 21 nurses at a medical center in northern Taiwan. All interview recordings were transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was performed to analyze the data. Results The findings yielded the following three themes covering seven categories: knowledge regarding SDM, trigger discussion and coordination, and respect of sociocultural factors. Conclusions The results of this study describe the experiences of clinical nursing staff participating in SDM and can be used as a reference for nursing education and nursing administrative supervisors wishing to plan and enhance professional nursing SDM in nursing education.
... In a nutshell, the SDM model is well-suited and appropriate within real-world healthcare systems (e.g. nursing, over-the-counter consumer purchases, emergency, chronic illness management and mental illnesses) and thus patients can expect further individualised and personal treatment plans (Tay, Massaro and Vlaev 2017). With all these advances in techniques and tools to encourage patient participation in SDM, challenges still exist in developing tools for patients with lower literacy, poor health knowledge, limited involvement in health decisions and poor health outcomes (McCaffery, Smith and Wolf 2010). ...
Article
Full-text available
Shared-decision making (SDM), occasionally called "participatory governance" is the approach in healthcare to ensure that patients have the right to participate effectively in the decision-making (DM) process. The aim of this research was to discuss the external aspect of SDM and put forward applicable solutions to ensure SDM at both patient and physician levels. A standardised validated nine-item SDM questionnaire (patient version SDM-Q-9) was employed. SPSS version 25 was used to perform data analysis. Multiple tests such as Mann-Whitney U and Jonckheere-Terpstra were used. Kendall's Tau coefficient was used for interpretation of the significant relationship among all items of SDM-Q-9 and education. A total of 465 chronically ill patients took part, where majority (63.4%) of patients was above the age of 47. The cohort was dominated by females (67.5%) with 92% of the sample was married. Majority (86.9%) of the patient reported not involved in any decision. During analysis, considerable association was reported between gender and all items of SDM-Q-9, where more men were involved in SDM when compared with women. Our findings did produce significant association between education and SDM-Q-9, which reveals that increase in education can improve the SDM. SDM should not be limited to chronic or emergency in practice. Specific and tailored shared medical DM programmes must be developed for low literacy population implementation. SDM is to be supported at policy and operation levels.
Article
Full-text available
The growing consensus espousing the use of shared decision making (SDM) in cancer treatment has coincided with the rise of health care evaluation paradigms that emphasize quality of life (QOL) as a central outcome measure. This review systematically examines the association between treatment SDM and QOL outcomes in cancer. A range of bibliographic databases and gray literature sources was searched. The search retrieved 16,726 records, which were screened by title, abstract, and full text to identify relevant studies. The review included 17 studies with a range of study designs and populations. Data were extracted on study methods, participants, setting, study or intervention description, outcomes, main findings, secondary findings, and limitations. Quality appraisal was used, in conjunction with a narrative approach, to synthesize the evidence. The review found weak, but suggestive, evidence for a positive association between perceived patient involvement in decision making, a central dimension of SDM, and QOL outcomes in cancer. The review did not find evidence for an inverse association between SDM and QOL. The poor methodological quality and heterogeneity of the extant literature constrained the derived conclusions. In addition, the literature commonly treated various subscales of QOL instruments as separate outcomes, increasing the probability of spurious findings. There is weak evidence that aspects of shared decision-making approaches are positively associated with QOL outcomes and very little evidence of a negative association. The extant literature largely assessed patient involvement, only capturing one aspect of the shared decision-making construct, and is of poor quality, necessitating robust studies examining the association. © The Author(s) 2015.
Article
Full-text available
Measuring clinicians' shared decision-making (SDM) performance is a key requirement given the intensity of policy interest in many developed countries - yet it remains one of the most difficult methodological challenges, which is a concern for many stakeholders. In this Viewpoint Article, we investigate the development of existing patient-reported measures (PRMs) of SDM identified in a recent review. We find that patients were involved in the development of only four of the 13 measures. This lack of patient involvement in PRM development is associated with two major threats to content validity, common to all 13 PRMs of SDM: (i) an assumption of patient awareness of 'decision points' and (ii) an assumption that there is only one decision point in each healthcare consultation. We provide detailed examples of these threats and their impact on accurate assessment of SDM processes and outcomes, which may hamper efforts to introduce incentives for SDM implementation. We propose cognitive interviewing as a recommended method of involving patients in the design of PRMs in the field of SDM and provide a practical example of this approach. © 2015 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Article
Full-text available
Shared decision making has found its way into mental health care to a limited extent only, and especially "challenging" patients do not benefit from this approach. The authors describe barriers to shared decision making among mental health professionals and among patients. They propose an integrative approach-SDM-PLUS-that fosters shared decision making in mental health settings. SDM-PLUS empowers both patients and mental health care providers. Patients are empowered to become more active and self-confident and to acquire greater skills in regard to health literacy and communication. Providers are trained in analyzing decisional situations and are empowered to use a wider array of communication strategies to optimize patient participation.
Article
Full-text available
Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Existing models of patient-centeredness reveal a lack of conceptual clarity. This results in a heterogeneous use of the term, unclear measurement dimensions, inconsistent results regarding the effectiveness of patient-centered interventions, and finally in difficulties in implementing patient-centered care. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the different dimensions of patient-centeredness described in the literature and to propose an integrative model of patient-centeredness based on these results. Methods: Protocol driven search in five databases, combined with a comprehensive secondary search strategy. All articles that include a definition of patient-centeredness were eligible for inclusion in the review and subject to subsequent content analysis. Two researchers independently first screened titles and abstracts, then assessed full texts for eligibility. In each article the given definition of patient-centeredness was coded independently by two researchers. We discussed codes within the research team and condensed them into an integrative model of patient-centeredness. Results: 4707 records were identified through primary and secondary search, of which 706 were retained after screening of titles and abstracts. 417 articles (59%) contained a definition of patient-centeredness and were coded. 15 dimensions of patient-centeredness were identified: essential characteristics of clinician, clinician-patient relationship, clinician-patient communication, patient as unique person, biopsychosocial perspective, patient information, patient involvement in care, involvement of family and friends, patient empowerment, physical support, emotional support, integration of medical and non-medical care, teamwork and teambuilding, access to care, coordination and continuity of care. In the resulting integrative model the dimensions were mapped onto different levels of care. Conclusions: The proposed integrative model of patient-centeredness allows different stakeholders to speak the same language. It provides a foundation for creating better measures and interventions. It can also be used to inform the development of clinical guidance documents and health policy directives, and through this support the shift towards patient-centered health care.
Article
Full-text available
Background: The role of cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making is of growing interest. The purpose of this study was to determine whether studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on actual or hypothetical decisions and are conducted with populations that are representative of those who typically make the medical decision; to categorize the types of cognitive biases and heuristics found and whether they are found in patients or in medical personnel; and to critically review the studies based on standard methodological quality criteria. Method: Data sources were original, peer-reviewed, empirical studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making found in Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, and the CINAHL databases published in 1980-2013. Predefined exclusion criteria were used to identify 213 studies. During data extraction, information was collected on type of bias or heuristic studied, respondent population, decision type, study type (actual or hypothetical), study method, and study conclusion. Results: Of the 213 studies analyzed, 164 (77%) were based on hypothetical vignettes, and 175 (82%) were conducted with representative populations. Nineteen types of cognitive biases and heuristics were found. Only 34% of studies (n = 73) investigated medical personnel, and 68% (n = 145) confirmed the presence of a bias or heuristic. Each methodological quality criterion was satisfied by more than 50% of the studies, except for sample size and validated instruments/questions. Limitations are that existing terms were used to inform search terms, and study inclusion criteria focused strictly on decision making. Conclusions: Most of the studies on biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on hypothetical vignettes, raising concerns about applicability of these findings to actual decision making. Biases and heuristics have been underinvestigated in medical personnel compared with patients.
Article
Full-text available
Shared decision making enables a clinician and patient to participate jointly in making a health decision, having discussed the options and their benefits and harms, and having considered the patient's values, preferences and circumstances. It is not a single step to be added into a consultation, but a process that can be used to guide decisions about screening, investigations and treatments. The benefits of shared decision making include enabling evidence and patients' preferences to be incorporated into a consultation; improving patient knowledge, risk perception accuracy and patient-clinician communication; and reducing decisional conflict, feeling uninformed and inappropriate use of tests and treatments. Various approaches can be used to guide clinicians through the process. We elaborate on five simple questions that can be used: What will happen if the patient waits and watches? What are the test or treatment options? What are the benefits and harms of each option? How do the benefits and harms weigh up for the patient? Does the patient have enough information to make a choice? Although shared decision making can occur without tools, various types of decision support tools now exist to facilitate it. Misconceptions about shared decision making are hampering its implementation. We address the barriers, as perceived by clinicians. Despite numerous international initiatives to advance shared decision making, very little has occurred in Australia. Consequently, we are lagging behind many other countries and should act urgently. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2014/201/1/shared-decision-making-what-do-clinicians-need-know-and-why-should-they-bother
Article
Full-text available
Adoption of shared decision making into routine clinical settings has been slow.1 Large scale implementation programmes in the UK have delivered valuable lessons on how best to embed shared decision making,2 3 4 5 but few programmes have actually considered what helps or stops patients from being involved in healthcare decisions. Organisational and clinician perceived barriers are important,1 3 6 but shared decision making is unlikely to become the norm if we do not also deal with the barriers that patients perceive. Our recent systematic review of patients’ perceptions highlighted deeper rooted attitudes that need to be changed in order to prepare patients for a new type of clinical encounter.7 Here we highlight the main findings and discuss how to prepare patients for shared decision making.
Article
Full-text available
Two decades of research has established the positive effect of using patient-targeted decision support interventions: patients gain knowledge, greater understanding of probabilities and increased confidence in decisions. Yet, despite their efficacy, the effectiveness of these decision support interventions in routine practice has yet to be established; widespread adoption has not occurred. The aim of this review was to search for and analyze the findings of published peer-reviewed studies that investigated the success levels of strategies or methods where attempts were made to implement patient-targeted decision support interventions into routine clinical settings. An electronic search strategy was devised and adapted for the following databases: ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, HMIC, Medline, Medline-in-process, OpenSIGLE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Social Services Abstracts, and the Web of Science. In addition, we used snowballing techniques. Studies were included after dual independent assessment. After assessment, 5322 abstracts yielded 51 articles for consideration. After examining full-texts, 17 studies were included and subjected to data extraction. The approach used in all studies was one where clinicians and their staff used a referral model, asking eligible patients to use decision support. The results point to significant challenges to the implementation of patient decision support using this model, including indifference on the part of health care professionals. This indifference stemmed from a reported lack of confidence in the content of decision support interventions and concern about disruption to established workflows, ultimately contributing to organizational inertia regarding their adoption. It seems too early to make firm recommendations about how best to implement patient decision support into routine practice because approaches that use a 'referral model' consistently report difficulties. We sense that the underlying issues that militate against the use of patient decision support and, more generally, limit the adoption of shared decision making, are under-investigated and under-specified. Future reports from implementation studies could be improved by following guidelines, for example the SQUIRE proposals, and by adopting methods that would be able to go beyond the 'barriers' and 'facilitators' approach to understand more about the nature of professional and organizational resistance to these tools. The lack of incentives that reward the use of these interventions needs to be considered as a significant impediment.
Article
Full-text available
In 2003, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration was established to enhance the quality and effectiveness of patient decision aids by establishing an evidence-informed framework for improving their content, development, implementation, and evaluation. Over this 10 year period, the Collaboration has established: a) the background document on 12 core dimensions to inform the original modified Delphi process to establish the IPDAS checklist (74 items); b) the valid and reliable IPDAS instrument (47 items); and c) the IPDAS qualifying (6 items), certifying (6 items + 4 items for screening), and quality criteria (28 items). The objective of this paper is to describe the evolution of the IPDAS Collaboration and discuss the standardized process used to update the background documents on the theoretical rationales, evidence and emerging issues underlying the 12 core dimensions for assessing the quality of patient decision aids.
Article
Full-text available
To introduce a new online generic decision support system based on multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), implemented in practical and user-friendly software (Annalisa©). All parties in health care lack a simple and generic way to picture and process the decisions to be made in pursuit of improved decision making and more informed choice within an overall philosophy of person- and patient-centred care. The MCDA-based system generates patient-specific clinical guidance in the form of an opinion as to the merits of the alternative options in a decision, which are all scored and ranked. The scores for each option combine, in a simple expected value calculation, the best estimates available now for the performance of those options on patient-determined criteria, with the individual patient's preferences, expressed as importance weightings for those criteria. The survey software within which the Annalisa file is embedded (Elicia©) customizes and personalizes the presentation and inputs. Principles relevant to the development of such decision-specific MCDA-based aids are noted and comparisons with alternative implementations presented. The necessity to trade-off practicality (including resource constraints) with normative rigour and empirical complexity, in both their development and delivery, is emphasized. The MCDA-/Annalisa-based decision support system represents a prescriptive addition to the portfolio of decision-aiding tools available online to individuals and clinicians interested in pursuing shared decision making and informed choice within a commitment to transparency in relation to both the evidence and preference bases of decisions. Some empirical data establishing its usability are provided.
Article
Full-text available
Background: To explore how clinical practice guidelines can be adapted to facilitate shared decision making. Methods: This was a qualitative key-informant study with group discussions and semi-structured interviews. First, 75 experts in guideline development or shared decision making participated in group discussions at two international conferences. Next, health professionals known as experts in depression or breast cancer, experts on clinical practice guidelines and/or shared decision making, and patient representatives were interviewed (N=20). Using illustrative treatment decisions on depression or breast cancer, we asked the interviewees to indicate as specifically as they could how guidelines could be used to facilitate shared decision making. Results: Interviewees suggested some generic strategies, namely to include a separate chapter on the importance of shared decision making, to use language that encourages patient involvement, and to develop patient versions of guidelines. Recommendation-specific strategies, related to specific decision points in the guideline, were also suggested: These include structuring the presentation of healthcare options to increase professionals' option awareness; structuring the deliberation process between professionals and patients; and providing relevant patient support tools embedded at important decision points in the guideline. Conclusions: This study resulted in an overview of strategies to adapt clinical practice guidelines to facilitate shared decision making. Some strategies seemed more contentious than others. Future research should assess the feasibility and impact of these strategies to make clinical practice guidelines more conducive to facilitate shared decision making.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Shared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men. Objective: In July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians. Design: Two-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes. Participants: Sixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations). Main measures: Panelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTank(TM)). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified. Key results: Highly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training. Conclusions: Conference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers.
Article
Full-text available
Shared decision making (SDM) is concerned with patient involvement into medical decisions and chronic conditions such as Multiple sclerosis (MS), with only partially effective treatments leading to potential severe side effects, conflicting evidence, and uncertain evidence on outcomes, constitute a typical condition for SDM. As treatment options increase and patients participate more intensively in decisions, the need for evidence-based information (EBI) becomes clear. Natural history (NH) studies of MS represent the basic sources for required EBI and are especially useful to contribute to the practical exercise of prognosis formulation and to enable the evaluation of effectiveness in the context of treatment. Several of these identify early clinical factors predictive of the course of MS but there is no consensus method for determining the long term progression of disability and evolution of individual patients on the basis of observations on the early stages of the disease, which constitutes a major challenge for the practicing neurologist. Aiming at delivering more reliable prognosis estimation, this study combines the distribution of patients reaching specific levels of disability within defined time periods as determined in NH studies, with disability curves and severity scores as a function of time, in terms of percentiles and deciles respectively, derived from longitudinal data analysis studies. A computer agent-based simulation model was implemented as a comprehensive and easy to utilize tool able to predict and monitor progression of disability in MS patients, and to support the neurologist discussing prognosis scenarios with the individual patient for effective SDM.
Article
Full-text available
Clinical practice guidelines aim to improve the health of patients by guiding individual care in clinical settings. Many guidelines specifically about health promotion or primary disease prevention are beginning to support informed patient choice, and suggest that clinicians and patients engage in shared discussions to determine how best to tailor guidelines to individuals. However, guidelines generally do not address how to translate evidence from the population to the individual in clinical practice, or how to engage patients in these discussions. In addition, they often fail to reconcile patients' preferences and social norms with best evidence. Shared decision making (SDM) is one solution to bridge guidelines about health promotion and disease prevention with clinical practice. SDM describes a collaborative process between patients and their clinicians to reach agreement about a health decision involving multiple medically appropriate treatment options. This paper discusses: 1) a brief overview of SDM; 2) the potential role of SDM in facilitating the implementation of prevention-focused practice guidelines for both preference-sensitive and effective care decisions; and 3) avenues for future empirical research to test how best to engage individual patients and clinicians in these complex discussions about prevention guidelines. We suggest that SDM can provide a structure for clinicians to discuss clinical practice guidelines with patients in a way that is evidence-based, patient-centered, and incorporates patients' preferences. In addition to providing a model for communicating about uncertainty at the individual level, SDM can provide a platform for engaging patients in a conversation. This process can help manage patients' and clinicians' expectations about health behaviors. SDM can be used even in situations with strong evidence for benefits at the level of the population, by helping patients and clinicians prioritize behaviors during time-pressured medical encounters. Involving patients in discussions could lead to improved health through better adherence to chosen options, reduced practice variation about preference-sensitive options, and improved care more broadly. However, more research is needed to determine the impact of this approach on outcomes such as morbidity and mortality.
Article
Full-text available
In recent decades, rapid advances in the biosciences have delivered an explosion of treatment options. This is good news for patients, but it makes medical decision making more complicated. Most critically, an accurate medical diagnosis is no longer sufficient to identify the proper treatment. Just as important is an accurate preference diagnosis. 1 Every option for treatment (a term that we use broadly here, to include procedures, tests, and even watchful waiting) has a unique profile of risks, benefits, and side effects. Doctors, generalists as well as specialists, cannot recommend the right treatment without understanding how the patient values the trade-offs. Regrettably, patients' preferences are often misdiagnosed. We outline a method for making better preference diagnoses. Historical perspective "Listen to the patient: he is telling you the diagnosis," William Osler urged students he taught at Johns Hopkins and Oxford more than a century ago. Osler knew that the patient's story was often critical to an accurate diagnosis. Like many of his contemporaries, Osler saw diagnosis as the medical profession's foundational skill. The right treatment, after all, depended on the right diagnosis. Generations later, skill in diagnosis remains a source of professional pride for many physicians, while the spectre of a misdiagnosis or missed diagnosis can provoke sleepless nights. Medicine has changed since Osler's day, in that there are now more diagnostic technologies and more treatment options. Although the rising accuracy of diagnostic tests has allowed doctors to rely less on listening when determining the cause of symptoms, 2 listening is growing in importance when deciding which of the many treatment options best fits each patient's priorities.
Article
Full-text available
This study explores patient trust in physicians and its relationship to shared decision-making (SDM) among African-Americans with diabetes (types 1 and 2). We conducted a series of focus groups (n = 27) and in-depth interviews (n = 24). Topic guides were developed utilizing theoretical constructs. Each interview was audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Each transcript was independently coded by two randomly assigned members of the research team; codes and themes were identified in an iterative fashion utilizing Atlas.ti software. The mean age of study participants was 62 years and 85% were female. We found that (1) race as a social construct has the potential to influence key domains of patient trust (interpersonal/relationship aspects and medical skills/technical competence), (2) the relationship between patient trustand shared decision-making is bidirectional in nature, and (3) enhancing patient trust may potentially increase or decrease SDM among African-Americans with diabetes. Mistrust of physicians among African-Americans with diabetes may partially be addressed through (1) patient education efforts, (2) physician training in interpersonal skills and cultural competence, and (3) physician efforts to engage patients in SDM. To help enhance patient outcomes among African-Americans with diabetes, physicians might consider incorporating strategies to simultaneously engender their patients' trust and encourage shared decision-making.
Article
Full-text available
Patient involvement in decisions is central to patient-centered care. Yet many important decisions must be made in complex, ambiguous clinical situations in which all possible options cannot be known, evidence is inadequate to inform patients' preferences fully, and/or patients are unclear about their desired level of involvement. In these situations, preferences are shaped by affect, framing, and "collaborative cognition" among clinicians, patients, and their families; thus, decisions are often relational, dynamic, iterative, provisional, and/or conditional. Clinicians can help patients achieve greater autonomy by engaging both intuitive and deliberative decision-making processes ("whole mind") and involving others in exploring, clarifying, and co-constructing patients' preferences ("shared mind"). Clinical and interpersonal relationships can promote effective decision making through developing a shared attentional focus, tailoring information, and identifying conditions under which provisional preferences might change. Information technology and health systems offer untapped potential to deepen the relationships and conversations within which decisions are made.
Article
Full-text available
To assess the psychometric properties of dyadic measures for shared decision making (SDM) research. 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). 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. 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.
Article
Full-text available
Context: Existing measurements of patient preferences cover only a limited range of health information and participation in decision making. A broader approach is necessary to understand the breadth and variations in patient preferences. Objective: To explore the breadth and variances in patient preferences for health information and participation in decision making and to understand the relationship between age and each type of preference. Design: The Health Information Wants Questionnaire (HIWQ) was administered during May-December 2010 to gather data about the information and corresponding decision-making autonomy participants would want in seven areas: diagnosis, treatment, laboratory tests, self-care, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), psychosocial factors and health-care providers. Setting: A large state university, public libraries and senior centres in Maryland, USA. Participants: A convenience sample of 438 individuals, including 226 undergraduates (mean age = 20; SD = 2.15) and 212 community-dwelling older adults (mean age = 72; SD = 9.00). Main outcome measures: Ratings on the information and decision-making items of the HIWQ. Results: Participants expressed higher levels of preference for information than for participation in decision making on six of seven subscales. On the psychosocial subscale, they expressed stronger desire for participation in decision making than for information. Age had no predictive effect on the overall preferences or specific preferences for information and participation in decision making about standard treatments and CAM. The predictive effect of age on the other types of preferences varied significantly. Conclusions: Physicians should take into account the breadth and variations in patient preferences. The predictive effect of age on patient preferences varied depending on the specific area of preferences.
Article
Full-text available
We investigate how making highly consequential, highly undesirable decisions affects emotions and preference for autonomy. We examine individuals facing real or hypothetical decisions to discontinue their infants’ life support who either choose personally or have physicians choose for them. Findings from a multidisciplinary approach consisting of a qualitative analysis of in‐depth interviews and three laboratory studies reveal that perceived personal causality for making tragic decisions generates more negative feelings than having the same choices externally made. Tragic decisions also undermine coping abilities, weakening the desire for autonomy. Consequently, participants disliked making decisions but also resented relinquishing their option to choose.
Article
One of the most important skills in medicine is communication. It lies at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship, and is particularly important when one has been diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening condition. Words are powerful and too often can be interpreted in ways not intended. In our session at the 2013 ASCO Annual Meeting, we discuss the communication of cancer and ways we might want to consider discussions regarding treatment options and prognosis. We recognize that all patients are different and that approaches should be individualized, to reflect each person's needs (what they want to know) while respecting their limits (how much they want to know). We discuss the concept of shared decision making, and how it can be used when there is uncertainty in what treatments may (or may not) accomplish. Finally, we discuss the skills that constitute a toolkit for communication, which we hope can be tailored to meet the variable needs of those we are caring for and by doing so, can be of help to clinicians in their own practices. In the era of personalized medicine, treatments may become more complex, and more options may be available. We hope to encourage providers to welcome patients as active participants in their care by sharing information, requesting their input, and by engaging them in important processes such as advance care planning—to ensure their needs and wishes are respected in the present and for whatever may come in the future.
Article
Objective: To test the influence of physician empathy (PE), shared decision making (SDM), and the match between patients' preferred and perceived decision-making styles on patients' decision regret. Methods: Patients with breast or colon cancer (n=71) completed questionnaires immediately following (T1) and three months after a consultation (T2). Path analysis was used to examine the relationships among patient demographics, patient reports of PE, SDM, the match between preferred and perceived decision-making styles, and patient decision regret at T2. Results: After controlling for clinician clusters, higher PE was directly associated with more SDM (β=0.43, p<0.01) and lower decision regret (β=-0.28, p<0.01). The match between patients' preferred and perceived roles was negatively associated with decision regret (β=-0.33, p<0.01). Patients who participated less than desired reported more decision regret at T2. There was no significant association between SDM and decision regret (β=0.03, p=0.74). Conclusion: PE and the match between patients' preferred and perceived roles in medical decision making are essential for patient-centered cancer consultations and treatment decisions. Practice implications: Ways to enhance PE and matching the consultation style to patients' expectations should be encouraged.
Article
Background: Although there are compelling moral arguments for patient participation in medical decisions, the link to health outcomes has not been systematically explored. Objective: Assess the extent to which patient participation in decision making within medical encounters is associated with measured patient outcomes. Methods: We conducted a primary search in PubMed-excluding non-English and animal studies-for articles on decision making in the context of the physician-patient relationship published through the end of February 2015, using the MeSH headings (Physician-Patient Relations [MeSH] OR Patient Participation [MeSH]) and the terms (decision OR decisions OR option OR options OR choice OR choices OR alternative OR alternatives) in the title or abstract. We also conducted a secondary search of references in all articles that met the inclusion criteria. Results: A thorough search process yielded 116 articles for final analysis. There was wide variation in study design, as well as measurement of patient participation and outcomes, among the studies. Eleven of the 116 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Interventions increased patient involvement in 10 (91%) of the 11 RCTs. At least one positive outcome was detected in 5 (50%) of the 10 RCTs reporting increased participation; the ratio of positive results among all outcome variables measured in these studies was much smaller. Although proportions differed, similar patterns were found across the 105 nonrandomized studies. Conclusions: Very few RCTs in the field have measures of participation in decision making and at least one health outcome. Moreover, extant studies exhibit little consistency in measurement of these variables, and results are mixed. There is a great need for well-designed, reproducible research on clinically relevant outcomes of patient participation in medical decisions.
Article
Although evidence suggests that shared decision-making (SDM) can improve patient outcomes, uptake to date has been sparse. The purpose of this review was to determine the reported opinions of physicians regarding the use of SDM in clinical practice and to identify strategies to promote uptake. We conducted a systematic review, including papers published between 2007 and 2014. The electronic search yielded 11,761 results. Following abstract review, 123 papers were selected for full text review, and 43 papers were included for analysis. Fourteen of the included studies considered SDM within the context of primary care, 25 in secondary care, and 4 in both. Physicians express positive attitudes toward SDM in clinical practice, although the level of support varies by clinical scenario, treatment decision and patient characteristics. Physician support for SDM is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition to facilitate meaningful SDM. In order to garner support for SDM, additional empirical evidence regarding the clinical and patient important outcomes must be established. Based on the results of this review, the authors suggest assessing the impact of SDM within the context of chronic disease management where multiple therapeutic options exist, and outcomes may be measured long-term. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Article
Background: Although current ideology suggests patients should be active participants in decision making about their care, the literature suggests that patients wish to be informed but not involved.Objective: To test the hypothesis that most patients want their physicians to take the responsibility for problem solving (PS, identifying the one right answer), but that many want to be involved in decision-making (DM, selecting the most desired bundle of outcomes) tasks.Methods: Survey responses from 300 patients undergoing angiogram at a Toronto, Ontario, hospital were analyzed (response rate, 72%). Survey items included scales to measure desire for information and participation, including Autonomy Preference Index, the Krantz Health Opinion Survey, and the Deber-Kraetschmer Problem-Solving Decision-Making Scale measured on a scale from 1 (doctor only) to 5 (patient only).Results: Patients had a relatively high desire for information. On the Problem-Solving Decision-Making Scale, they overwhelmingly wished the PS tasks to be performed by or shared with the physician (98.4% of the 12 PS scores are between 1 and 3), but wanted to be involved in DM (78% of the 6 DM scores are between 3 and 5). Preference for handing over control to the physician was significantly greater for the vignette involving potential mortality (chest pain) than for the vignettes involving mainly morbidity (urinary problems) or quality of life (fertility).Conclusions: Although patients do not wish to be involved in PS tasks, few wish to hand over DM control to their physician. These findings suggest 2 major roles for clinicians—assisting patients in PS to structure choices and supporting them in making often difficult decisions.Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:1414-1420
Article
Decision-making between mental health clinicians and patients is under-researched. We tested whether mental health patients are more satisfied with a decision made (i) using their preferred decision-making style and (ii) with a clinician with the same decision-making style preference. As part of the CEDAR Study (ISRCTN75841675), a convenience sample of 445 patients with severe mental illness from six European countries were assessed for desired clinical decision-making style (rated by patients and paired clinicians), decision-specific experienced style and satisfaction. Patients who experienced more involvement in decision-making than they desired rated higher satisfaction (OR = 2.47, P = 0.005, 95% CI 1.32-4.63). Decisions made with clinicians whose decision-making style preference was for more active involvement than the patient preference were rated with higher satisfaction (OR = 3.17, P = 0.003, 95% CI 1.48-6.82). More active involvement in decision-making than the patient stated as desired was associated with higher satisfaction. A clinical orientation towards empowering, rather than shared, decision-making may maximise satisfaction. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Article
Background Training health professionals in shared decision making (SDM) may influence their patients' intention to engage in SDM.Objective To assess the impact of DECISION+2, a SDM training programme for family physicians about the use of antibiotics to treat acute respiratory infections (ARIs), on their patients' intention to engage in SDM in future consultations.DesignSecondary analysis of a multicentre clustered randomized trial.Setting and participantsThree hundred and fifty-nine patients consulting family physicians about an ARI in nine family practice teaching units (FPTUs).InterventionDECISION+2 (two-hour online tutorial, two-hour workshop, and decision support tools) was offered in the experimental group (five FPTUs, 162 physicians, 181 patients). Usual care was provided in the control group (four FPTUs, 108 physicians, 178 patients).Outcome measureChange in patients' intention scores (range −3 to +3) between pre- and post-consultation.ResultsThe mean ± SD [median] scores of intention to engage in SDM were high in both study groups before consultation (DECISION+2 group: 1.4 ± 1.0 [1.7]; control group: 1.5 ± 1.1 [1.7]) and increased in both groups after consultation (DECISION+2 group: 2.1 ± 1.1 [2.7]; control group: 1.9 ± 1.2 [2.3]). Change of intention, classified as either increased, stable or decreased, was not statistically associated with the exposure to the DECISION+2 programme after adjusting for the cluster design (proportional odds ratio = 1.5; 95% confidence interval = 0.8–3.0).ConclusionDECISION+2 had no significant impact on patients' intention to engage in SDM for choosing to use antibiotics or not to treat an ARI in future consultations. Patient-targeted interventions may be necessary to achieve this purpose.
Article
We conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of client preferences on treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome. Our search of the literature resulted in 35 empirical articles describing 33 unique clinical trials that either randomized some clients to an active choice condition (shared decision making condition or choice of treatment) or assessed client preferences. Clients who were involved in shared decision making, chose a treatment condition, or otherwise received their preferred treatment evidenced higher treatment satisfaction (ESd = .32; p < .001), increased completion rates (ESOR = 1.37; ESd = .17; p < .001), and superior clinical outcome (ESd = .19; p < .0001), compared to clients who were not involved in shared decision making, did not choose a treatment condition, or otherwise did not receive their preferred treatment. Although the effect sizes are modest in magnitude, they were generally consistent across several potential moderating variables including study design (preference versus active choice), psychoeducation (informed versus uninformed), setting (inpatient versus outpatient), client diagnosis (mental health versus other), and unit of randomization (client versus provider). Our findings highlight the clinical benefit of assessing client preferences, providing treatment choices when two or more efficacious options are available, and involving clients in treatment-related decisions when treatment options are not available.
Article
Decision aids (DAs) increase patient knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and promote shared decision making (SDM). The extent to which they do so across diverse sociodemographic patient groups is unknown. We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials of DA versus usual care comprising 771 encounters between patients and clinicians discussing treatment options for chest pain, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and osteoporosis. Using a random effects model, we examined the impact of sociodemographic patient characteristics (age, sex, education, income, and insurance status) on the outcomes of knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. Because of small numbers of people of color in the study population, we were not powered to investigate the role of race. Most patients were aged ≥65 years (61%), white (94%), and women (59%); two thirds had greater than a high school education. Compared with usual care, DA patients gained knowledge, were more likely to know their risk, and had less decisional conflict along with greater involvement in SDM. These gains were largely consistent across sociodemographic patient groups, with DAs demonstrating similar efficacy when used with vulnerable patients such as the elderly and those with less income and less formal education. Differences in efficacy were found only in knowledge of risk in 1 subgroup, with greater efficacy among those with higher education (35% versus 18%; P=0.02). In this patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, DAs were efficacious across diverse sociodemographic groups as measured by knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. To the extent that DAs increase patient knowledge and participation in SDM, they have potential to impact health disparities related to these factors.
Article
Background: Despite progress, models that incorporate antecedent and mediating factors associated with SDM-related outcomes remain limited. An experimental study tests patient decision aid (DA) effects on a network of antecedents and mediators associated with patient empowerment prior to a medical decision making consultation regarding cancer treatment. Methods: A pilot study initially evaluated measurement scales, model fit and the overall effect of the DA experience. The pilot compared matched treatment and control group samples of US adult online panel members exposed to a vignette about meeting their dermatologist to decide on skin cancer treatment. The treatment group also experienced a skin cancer DA with treatment options and value clarification activity, while the control group did not. The main study employed a randomized experimental design to formally test hypothesized path coefficients across the groups. Results: The pilot study suggested an overall enhanced DA effect on self-empowerment. In the experimental study, the DA experience strengthened the direct path from desire for medical information to self-empowerment and the indirect path from comprehension/participation confidence to self-empowerment through cancer attitude. The DA had no strengthening effect on the direct path from life satisfaction to self-empowerment, but, in the DA condition, the factor appeared to play a role by contributing to the enhanced association between through confidence and cancer attitude. Conclusion: Evidence from this research indicates that experiencing a DA prior to treatment decision making impacts patient empowerment through a network that includes desire for information, life satisfaction and multiple mediators. The studies also demonstrate the role that theory-based, multi-group SEM models can play in increasing understanding of DA effects. Such understanding is critical to improving SDM between patients and their physicians.
Article
Shared decision-making (SDM) is a model of how doctors and patients make medical decisions, which is seen as very applicable to mental health. This review addresses the following issues: Do patients and professionals see the need for SDM? Does SDM actually take place for patients with schizophrenia? What are facilitators and barriers of SDM in schizophrenia treatment? What are the outcomes of SDM? Publications in the last 18 months showed the following: Both patients and providers acknowledge the desirability of SDM. SDM occurs less often in mental health than desired by patients and less frequently compared with general practice. SDM in mental health is complex, takes time and involves more than just two participants; patients' lack of decisional capacity is seen as the major barrier. There are only a few interventional studies measuring the outcome of SDM; existing research constantly shows positive, but small effects. SDM is highly accepted and wanted in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders, but more research is needed regarding how SDM can be implemented in regular care. Healthcare professionals need more training in how to deal with difficult decisional situations.
Article
Purpose of the research Despite decision-making featuring throughout the trajectory of cancer care, children's participation in decision-making remains an area much under-researched and complicated by conflicting opinions. This study explored children's participation in shared decision-making (SDM) from multiple perspectives from one haematology/oncology unit in Ireland. Methods and sample Qualitative research design was used to explore participants' experiences of children's decision-making. Interviews were conducted with children1 aged 7–16 years (n = 20), their parents (n = 22) and healthcare professionals (n = 40). Data were managed with the aid of NVivo (version 8). Key results Parents and children's roles in decision-making were significantly influenced by the seriousness of the illness. Cancer is a life-threatening illness and so the treatment ‘had to be done’. Children were not involved in major decisions (treatment decisions) as refusal was not an option. They were generally involved in minor decisions (choices about care delivery) with the purpose of gaining their cooperation, making treatment more palatable, giving back a sense of control and building trusting relationships. These choices were termed ‘small’ decisions that would not compromise the child's welfare. Some adolescents were aware that choices were not ‘real’ decisions since they were not allowed to refuse and expressed feelings of frustration. Conclusions Healthcare professionals and parents controlled the process of SDM and the children's accounts revealed that they held a minimal role. Children appeared content that adults held responsibility for the major treatment decisions. However, they desired and valued receiving information, voicing their preferences and choosing how treatments were administered to them.
Article
This paper describes our approach for fostering and facilitating communication among patients and caregivers in the context of shared decision making, i.e., when decisions must be taken not only on the basis of scientific evidence but also of the patient's preferences and context. This happens because clinical practice guidelines cannot provide recommendations for every possible situation, and cannot foresee every change in a patient's context, which might imply the deviation from a previously acknowledged recommendation. Within the EU-funded project MobiGuide (www.mobiguide-project.eu), supporting remote patient management, we propose decision theory as a methodological framework for a tool that, during face to face encounters, is used to tailor pre-defined, generic decision models to the individual patient, by involving the patient himself in the customization of the model parameters. Although this approach is not appropriate for all patients, it leads, in well-chosen cases, to a more informed choice, with potentially better treatment compliance.
Article
Background: Although shared decision making offers clinical benefits, there is a lack of research investigating physicians' roles in interactions with their patients. Research examining what characterizes physicians who involve patients in decision making is also limited. The authors investigated surgeons' preferred and usual roles in interactions with patients, and whether these roles are influenced by their gender, experience, area of expertise, numeracy, and cultural background. Methods and results: Participants were a diverse sample of 292 surgeons from 60 countries. Surgeons completed a survey about their usual and preferred roles in medical decision making. They also completed the Berlin Numeracy Test-a brief instrument designed to measure numeracy in culturally diverse educated individuals. Most surgeons preferred to share decision making with patients, but very few reported having a collaborative role in typical interactions. Female surgeons showed a stronger preference for collaborative decision making than their male counterparts (OR = 2.08). However, female surgeons more often played an active role in medical decision making, involving patients less often (OR = 5.39). Surgeons with low numeracy (OR = 3.83), less experienced surgeons (OR = 3.15), and surgeons from individualistic countries (OR = 1.82) rarely involved patients in decision making. Conclusions: Most surgeons reported that shared decision making was their preferred method for medical decision making. Unfortunately, many of them were insufficiently equipped to take a more collaborative role in interactions with patients. Gender, numeracy, length of experience, and cultural background limited their willingness to collaborate. Future research should identify effective interventions that help overcome barriers to shared decision making.
Article
Shared decision making is a crucial component of evidence-based practice, but a lack of training in the "how to" of it is a major barrier to its uptake. To evaluate the effectiveness of a brief intervention for facilitating shared decision making skills in clinicians and student clinicians. Multi-centre randomized controlled trial. One hundred and seven medical students, physiotherapy or occupational therapy students undertaking a compulsory course in evidence-based practice as part of their undergraduate or postgraduate degree from two Australian universities. The 1-h small-group intervention consisted of facilitated critique of five-step framework, strategies, and pre-recorded modelled role-play. Both groups were provided with a chapter about shared decision making skills. The primary outcome was skills in shared decision making and communicating evidence [Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale, items from the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) Tool], rated by a blinded assessor from videorecorded role-plays. Secondary outcomes: confidence in these skills and attitudes towards patient-centred communication (Patient Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS)). Of participants, 95 % (102) completed the primary outcome measures. Two weeks post-intervention, intervention group participants scored significantly higher on the OPTION scale (adjusted group difference = 18.9, 95 % CI 12.4 to 25.4), ACEPP items (difference = 0.9, 95 % CI 0.5 to 1.3), confidence measure (difference = 13.1, 95 % CI 8.5 to 17.7), and the PPOS sharing subscale (difference = 0.2, 95 % CI 0.1 to 0.5). There was no significant difference for the PPOS caring subscale. This brief intervention was effective in improving student clinicians' ability, attitude towards, and confidence in shared decision making facilitation. Following further testing of the longer-term effects of this intervention, incorporation of this brief intervention into evidence-based practice courses and workshops should be considered, so that student clinicians graduate with these important skills, which are typically neglected in clinician training.
Article
The aim of this study was to review the literature on clinician characteristics influencing patient-clinician communication or patient outcome in oncology. Studies investigating the association of clinician characteristics with quality of communication and with outcome for adult cancer patients were systematically searched in MEDLINE, PSYINFO, PUBMED, EMBASE, CINHAL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library up to November 2012. We used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement to guide our review. Articles were extracted independently by two of the authors using predefined criteria. Twenty seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Clinician characteristics included a variety of sociodemographic, relational, and personal characteristics. A positive impact on quality of communication and/or patient outcome was reported for communication skills training, an external locus of control, empathy, a socioemotional approach, shared decision-making style, higher anxiety, and defensiveness. A negative impact was reported for increased level of fatigue and burnout and expression of worry. Professional experience of clinicians was not related to communication and/or to patient outcome, and divergent results were reported for clinician gender, age, stress, posture, and confidence or self-efficacy. Various clinician characteristics have different effects on quality of communication and/or patient outcome. Research is needed to investigate the pathways leading to effective communication between clinicians and patients. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article
Increasing importance is being conferred to the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice for medical, ethical, and sociological reasons. In Germany, SDM has recently been adopted as an explicit goal in the S3-melanoma treatment guideline. The aim of this study is to present data on how melanoma patients want to be involved in treatment decisions and second on the dynamic of these preferences for involvement. This was investigated in consecutively recruited melanoma patients (stages I-III) in two German Skin Cancer Centers as part of a longitudinal questionnaire study. The Control Preference Scale assessed patients' preferences at baseline (n=405) and was readministered 1 year later (n=314) to detect potential changes. In addition, the perceived realization of SDM in the adjuvant interferon-α treatment decision was investigated in a subgroup of patients (n=108) using the nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). More than 80% of the patients want to play an active role (autonomous or collaborative) in treatment decisions and only 17% want to delegate their decision to the doctor. We found a significant preference shift within a year in 43% of the patients, predominantly toward more active involvement. The results of the SDM-Q-9 indicate a moderate degree of perceived participation, with differing perceived implementation of the individual the SDM process steps. With the majority of melanoma patients preferring an active role in treatment decisions and improvable implementation of the SDM process steps in clinical practice, our findings support the relevance of SDM in dermato-oncology.
Article
Shared decision making is an approach to care that seeks to fully inform patients about the risks and benefits of available treatments and engage them as participants in decisions about the treatments. Although recent federal and state policies pursue the expanded use of shared decision making as a way to improve care quality and patient experience, payers and providers want evidence that this emerging model of care is cost-effective. We examined data obtained from a yearlong randomized investigation. The study compared the effects on patients of receiving a usual level of support in making a medical treatment decision with the effects of receiving enhanced support, which included more contact with trained health coaches through telephone, mail, e-mail, and the Internet. We found that patients who received enhanced support had 5.3 percent lower overall medical costs than patients who received the usual level of support. The enhanced-support group had 12.5 percent fewer hospital admissions than the usual-support group, and 9.9 percent fewer preference-sensitive surgeries, including 20.9 percent fewer preference-sensitive heart surgeries. These findings indicate that support for shared decision making can generate savings. They also suggest that a "remote" model of support-combining telephonic coaching with decision aids, for example-may constitute a relatively low-cost and effective intervention that could reach broader populations without the need for the direct involvement of regular medical care team members.
Article
For many patients, the time spent meeting with their physician-the clinical encounter-is the most opportune moment for them to become engaged in their own health through the process of shared decision making. In the United States shared decision making is being promoted for its potential to improve the health of populations and individual patients, while also helping control care costs. In this overview we describe the three essential elements of shared decision making: recognizing and acknowledging that a decision is required; knowing and understanding the best available evidence; and incorporating the patient's values and preferences into the decision. To achieve the promise of shared decision making, more physicians need training in the approach, and more practices need to be reorganized around the principles of patient engagement. Additional research is also needed to identify the interventions that are most effective.
Article
Studies show that patients want to be more involved in their own health care. Yet insufficient attention has been paid to the specific competencies of both patients and providers that are needed to optimize such patient engagement and shared decision making. In this article we address the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that patients, physicians, and health care systems require to effectively engage patients in their health care. For example, many patient-physician interactions still follow the traditional office visit format, in which the patient is passive, trusting, and compliant. We recommend imaginative models for redesigned office care, restructured reimbursement schemes, and increased support services for patients and professionals. We present three clinical scenarios to illustrate how these competencies must work together. We conclude that effective shared decision making takes time to deliver proficiently and that among other measures, policy makers must change payment models to focus on value and support education and discussion of competencies for a modern health care system.
Article
While promoting patient involvement is a necessary corrective to paternalistic approaches [6], it would be misguided for physicians to assume that shared decision making is only about patient autonomy. As one author put it, “That one party becomes more responsible does not necessarily make the other party less responsible” [7]. This is particularly relevant when patient autonomy is framed as relational autonomy. Relational autonomy recognizes that an individual’s identity and values do not exist in a vacuum, but are “constituted in and by” interpersonal relationships and the broader social environment [8]. In this view, a patient’s social relationships (especially their relationships with physicians) inform his or her medical preferences and treatment decisions. Relational autonomy also helps remind us to consider the question of who decides which treatment options should be offered in the first place, a role largely assumed by physicians. We acknowledge that access to information on the Internet about traditional and alternative therapies can have an extraordinary and independent impact on a patient’s understanding of treatment options. Nevertheless, it is important to appreciate that, when physicians communicate about evidence pertaining to treatments and define the treatment options available, they are contributing to the relational autonomy of their patients.
Article
Background Shared decision making (SDM) encourages the patient to play a more active role in the process of medical consultation and its primary objective is to find the best treatment for a specific patient. Recent findings, however, show that patient preferences cannot be easily or accurately judged on the basis of communicative exchange during routine office visits, even for patients who seek to expand their role in medical decision making (MDM).Objective The objective of this study is to improve the quality of patient–physician communication by developing a novel design process for SDM and then demonstrating, through a case study, the applicability of this process in enabling the use of a normative model for a specific medical situation.DesignOur design process goes through the following stages: definition of medical situation and decision problem, development/identification of normative model, adaptation of normative model, empirical analysis and development of decision support systems (DSS) tools that facilitate the SDM process in the specific medical situation.Case studyThis study demonstrates the applicability of the process through the implementation of the general normative theory of MDM under uncertainty for the medical–financial dilemma of choosing a physician to perform amniocentesis.DiscussionThe use of normative models in SDM raises several issues, such as the goal of the normative model, the relation between the goals of prediction and recommendation, and the general question of whether it is valid to use a normative model for people who do not behave according to the model's assumptions.
Article
Background: There are doubts on whether patients feel that they have sufficient information for actively participating in clinical decisions. Objective: To describe the type of information that patients receive. To determine whether patients consider this information sufficient, and whether it contributes or not to improve clinical safety. To identify the barriers for patient participation in clinical decision making. Study design: Cross-sectional study with 764 patients and 327 physicians. Study setting and participants: Fourteen health centres belonging to three primary care districts and three hospitals in Spain. Principal findings: Just 35.1% (268) (95% CI 32.2, 39.1%) of patients preferred to have the last word in clinical decisions. Age (39 vs. 62%, P < 0.001) and severity of illness (38 vs. 46%, P = 0.002) increased the tendency to take a passive role. In 85.1% (650) (95% CI 83.3, 88.3%) of the cases, patients reported having received sufficient information. Lack of consultation time (29.6%, 95% CI 25.8, 32.5%) and patients' use of Internet or other sources (19.2%, 95% CI 16.4, 22.2%) were identified as new obstacles to doctor-patient communication by the patients. Only 19.6% (64) (95% CI 15.4, 24.2%) of doctors considered that they could intervene to involve patients in the decisions. Discussions and conclusions: The majority of patients prefer the decisions to be made by their doctor, especially those with more severe illnesses, and older patients. Patients are not normally informed about medication interactions, precautions and foreseeable complications. The information provided by general practitioners does not seem to contribute enough to the patient involvement in clinical safety.
Article
Objective: To describe the exploratory use of short decision support tools for patients, called Option Grids. Option Grids are summary tables, using one side of paper to enable rapid comparisons of options, using questions that patients frequently ask (FAQs) and designed for face-to-face clinical encounters. To date, most evidence about 'patient decision aids' has been based on tools with high content levels, designed for patients to use independently, either before or after visits. Methods: We studied the use of Option Grids in a quality improvement project, collecting field notes and conducting interviews with clinical teams. Results: In the 'Making Good Decisions in Collaboration' (MAGIC) program, clinicians found that using Option Grids made it easier to explain the existence of options and reported a 'handover' effect, where patient involvement in decision making was enhanced. Conclusion: Option Grids made options more visible and clinicians found it easier to undertake shared decision making when these tools were available. Used in a collaborative way, they enhance patients' confidence and voice, increasing their involvement in collaborative dialogs. Practice implications: Further work to confirm these preliminary findings is required, to measure processes and to assess whether these tools have similar impact in other clinical settings.
Article
Background: Medical interventions are often characterized by substantial scientific uncertainty regarding their benefits and harms. Physicians must communicate to their patients as part of the process of shared decision making, yet they may not always communicate scientific uncertainty for several reasons. One suggested by past research is individual differences in physicians' tolerance of uncertainty. Relatedly, an unexplored explanation is physicians' beliefs about their patients' tolerance of uncertainty. Design: To test this possibility, we surveyed a sample of primary care physicians (N = 1500) and examined the association between their attitudes about communicating and managing scientific uncertainty and their perceptions of negative reactions to uncertainty by their patients. Physician perceptions were measured by their propensity towards pessimistic appraisals of risk information and avoidance of decision making when risk information is ambiguous--of uncertain reliability, credibility or adequacy, known as 'ambiguity aversion'. Results: Confirming past studies, physician demographics (e.g. medical specialty) predicted attitudes toward communicating scientific uncertainty. Additionally, physicians' beliefs about their patients' ambiguity aversion significantly predicted these preferences. Physicians who thought that more of their patients would have negative reactions to ambiguous information were more likely to think that they should decide what is best for their patients (β = 0.065, P = 0.013), and to withhold an intervention that had uncertainty associated with it (β = 0.170, P < 0.001). Discussion: When faced with the task of communicating scientific uncertainty about medical tests and treatments, physicians' perceptions of their patients' ambiguity aversion may be related to their attitudes towards communicating uncertainty.
Article
Background: Given the large number of interventions of uncertain effectiveness, research on communicating uncertainty is needed to examine its impact on patients' health decisions. Objective: To examine physicians' communication of uncertainty and its impact on patients' decisions and decision satisfaction. Design, setting, and participants: Participants included female patients seen in a breast health centre whose physicians were discussing a decision with them, with no clear 'best' choice based on outcome evidence. Main variables: Decision communication was measured using the OPTION scale, a measure of the degree to which physicians involve patients in a decision-making process. One-to-two weeks after the discussion, patients reported their satisfaction with the decision-making process and their decision. Decisions were verified in medical charts with patient consent. Results: Seventy-five women agreed to participate (94% response rate). The mean translated score of the OPTION scale was 68.0 (SD 18.3), but only 33.2 (SD 19.1) for the uncertainty items. Among cancer patients, communicating uncertainty was negatively related to decision satisfaction (P < 0.002), and there was an interaction between patient involvement in decisions and communicating uncertainty in relation to patients' decision satisfaction (P < 0.03). Discussion: Communicating scientific uncertainty might lead to less decision satisfaction among women facing cancer treatment decisions; this could be a natural outcome of the decision making process. Involving patients in decisions might help them tolerate uncertainty. Conclusion: Future studies should consider assessing other outcomes (e.g. knowledge, physician support) of the decision making process. There may be trade-offs between acknowledging uncertainty and immediate decision satisfaction.