Background And Objectives
To understand the association between shared decision-making (SDM) and health care expenditures and use among children with special health care needs (CSHCN).
We identified CSHCN <18 years in the 2002–2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey by using the CSHCN Screener. Outcomes included health care expenditures (total, out-of-pocket, office-based, inpatient, emergency department [ED], and prescription) and utilization (hospitalization, ED and office visit, and prescription rates). The main exposure was the pattern of SDM over the 2 study years (increasing, decreasing, or unchanged high or low). We assessed the impact of these patterns on the change in expenditures and utilization over the 2 study years.
Among 2858 subjects representing 12 million CSHCN, 15.9% had increasing, 15.2% decreasing, 51.9% unchanged high, and 17.0% unchanged low SDM. At baseline, mean per child total expenditures were $2131. Over the 2 study years, increasing SDM was associated with a decrease of $339 (95% confidence interval: $21, $660) in total health care costs. Rates of hospitalization and ED visits declined by 4.0 (0.1, 7.9) and 11.3 (4.3, 18.3) per 100 CSHCN, and office visits by 1.2 (0.3, 2.0) per child with increasing SDM. Relative to decreasing SDM, increasing SDM was associated with significantly lower total and out-of-pocket costs, and fewer office visits.
We found that increasing SDM was associated with decreased utilization and expenditures for CSHCN. Prospective study is warranted to confirm if fostering SDM reduces the costs of caring for CSHCN for the health system and families.
children with special health care needs; communication; decision-making; health care expenditures
To identify patterns of shared decision-making (SDM) among a nationally representative sample of US children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or asthma and determine if demographics, health status, or access to care are associated with SDM.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We performed a cross-sectional study of the 2002–2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which represents 2 million children with ADHD and 4 million children with asthma. The outcome, high SDM, was defined by using latent class models based on 7 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey items addressing aspects of SDM. We entered factors potentially associated with SDM into logistic regression models with high SDM as the outcome. Marginal standardization then described the standardized proportion of children’s households with high SDM for each factor.
For both ADHD and asthma, 65% of children’s households had high SDM. Those who reported poor general health for their children were 13% less likely to have high SDM for ADHD (64 vs 77%) and 8% less likely for asthma (62 vs 70%) when adjusting for other factors. Results for behavioral impairment were similar. Respondent demographic characteristics were not associated with SDM. Those with difficulty contacting their clinician by telephone were 26% (ADHD: 55 vs 81%) and 29% (asthma: 48 vs 77%) less likely to have high SDM than those without difficulty.
These findings indicate that households of children who report greater impairment or difficulty contacting their clinician by telephone are less likely to fully participate in SDM. Future research should examine how strategies to foster ongoing communication between families and clinicians affect SDM.
ADHD; asthma; communication; decision-making; telephone care
Shared decision-making (SDM) is an important component of patient-centered healthcare and is positively associated with improved health outcomes (e.g. diabetes and hypertension control). In shared decision-making, patients and physicians engage in bidirectional dialogue about patients' symptoms and treatment options, and select treatment plans that address patient preferences. Existing research shows that African-Americans experience SDM less often than whites, a fact which may contribute to racial disparities in diabetes outcomes. Yet little is known about the reasons for racial disparities in shared decision-making. We explored patient perceptions of how race may influence SDM between African-American patients and their physicians. We conducted in-depth interviews (n=24) and five focus groups (n= 27) among a purposeful sample of African-American diabetes patients aged over 21 years, at an urban academic medical center in Chicago. Each interview/focus group was audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and imported into Atlas.ti software. Coding was conducted iteratively; each transcription was independently coded by two research team members. Although there was heterogeneity in patients' perceptions about the influence of race on SDM, in each of the SDM domains (information-sharing, deliberation/physician recommendations, and decision-making), participants identified a range of race-related issues that may influence SDM. Participants identified physician bias/discrimination and/or cultural discordance as issues that may influence physician-related SDM behaviors (e.g. less likely to share information such as test results and more likely to be domineering with African-American patients). They identified mistrust of white physicians, negative attitudes and internalized racism as patient-related issues that may influence African-American patients' SDM behaviors (e.g. less forthcoming with physicians about health information, more deference to physicians, less likely to adhere to treatment regimens). This study suggests that race-related patient and physician-related barriers may serve as significant barriers to shared decision-making between African-American patients and their physicians. Finding innovative ways to address such communication barriers is an important area of future research.
USA; shared decision-making; patient/provider communication; diabetes; race; African-Americans; health disparities; physicians
Although shared decision making (SDM) has been reported to facilitate quality care, few studies have explored the extent to which SDM is implemented in primary care and factors that influence its application. This study assesses the extent to which physicians enact SDM behaviors and describes factors associated with physicians’ SDM behaviors within the context of depression care.
In a secondary analysis of data from a randomized experiment, we coded 287 audio-recorded interactions between physicians and standardized patients (SPs) using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) system to assess physician SDM behaviors. We performed a series of generalized linear mixed model analyses to examine physician and patient characteristics associated with SDM behavior.
The mean OPTION score was 11.4 (SD=3.3) out of 48 possible points. Older physicians (partial correlation coefficient = −0.29, b = −0.09, p <.01) and physicians who practiced in an HMO setting (b = −1.60, p <.01) performed fewer SDM behaviors. Longer visit duration was associated with more SDM behaviors (partial correlation coefficient = 0.31, b = 0.08, p <.01). In addition, physicians enacted more SDM behaviors with SPs who made general (b = 2.46, p <.01) and brand-specific (b = 2.21, p <.01) medication requests compared with those who made no request.
In the context of new visits for depressive symptoms, primary care physicians performed few SDM behaviors. However, physician SDM behaviors are influenced by practice setting and patient-initiated requests for medication. Additional research is needed to identify interventions that encourage SDM when indicated.
Shared Decision Making; Physician-Patient Relationship; Communication; Depression; Direct-to-Consumer Advertising
Shared Decision Making (SDM) is increasingly advocated as a model for medical decision making. However, there is still low use of SDM in clinical practice. High impact factor journals might represent an efficient way for its dissemination. We aimed to identify and characterize publication trends of SDM in 15 high impact medical journals.
We selected the 15 general and internal medicine journals with the highest impact factor publishing original articles, letters and editorials. We retrieved publications from 1996 to 2011 through the full-text search function on each journal website and abstracted bibliometric data. We included publications of any type containing the phrase “shared decision making” or five other variants in their abstract or full text. These were referred to as SDM publications. A polynomial Poisson regression model with logarithmic link function was used to assess the evolution across the period of the number of SDM publications according to publication characteristics.
We identified 1285 SDM publications out of 229,179 publications in 15 journals from 1996 to 2011. The absolute number of SDM publications by journal ranged from 2 to 273 over 16 years. SDM publications increased both in absolute and relative numbers per year, from 46 (0.32% relative to all publications from the 15 journals) in 1996 to 165 (1.17%) in 2011. This growth was exponential (P < 0.01). We found fewer research publications (465, 36.2% of all SDM publications) than non-research publications, which included non-systematic reviews, letters, and editorials. The increase of research publications across time was linear. Full-text search retrieved ten times more SDM publications than a similar PubMed search (1285 vs. 119 respectively).
This review in full-text showed that SDM publications increased exponentially in major medical journals from 1996 to 2011. This growth might reflect an increased dissemination of the SDM concept to the medical community.
Shared decision making; Bibliometric analysis; Decision making; Full text search; Review; Information storage and retrieval; PubMed; Text mining
Shared Decision Making (SDM) and Decision Aids (DAs) increase patients’ involvement in healthcare decisions and enhance satisfaction with their choices. Studies of SDM and DAs have primarily occurred in academic centers and large health systems, but most primary care is delivered in smaller practices and over 20% of Americans live in rural areas where poverty, disease prevalence and limited access to care may increase the need for SDM and DAs.
To explore perceptions and practices of rural primary care clinicians regarding SDM and DAs.
Cross sectional survey.
Setting and Participants
Primary care clinicians affiliated with the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN).
Surveys were returned by 181 of 231 eligible participants (78%), 174 could be analyzed. Two-thirds of participants were physicians, 84% practiced family medicine, and 55% were male. Sixty five percent of respondents were unfamiliar with the term “SDM”, but following definition, 97% reported they found the approach useful for conditions with multiple treatment options. Over 90% of clinicians perceived helping patients make decisions regarding chronic pain and health behavior change as moderate/hard in difficulty. Although 69% of respondents preferred that patients play an equal role in making decisions, they estimate this happens only 35% of the time. Time was reported as the largest barrier to engaging in SDM (63%). Respondents were receptive to using DAs to facilitate SDM in printed (95%) or web-based formats (72%) and topic preference varied by clinician specialty and decision difficulty.
Rural clinicians recognized the value of SDM and were receptive to using DAs in multiple formats. Integration of DAs to facilitate SDM in routine patient care may require addressing practice operation and reimbursement.
Primary Care; Translating Research Into Practice; Shared Decision Making – Decision Aid Tools; Decision Aids – Decision Aid Tools; Survey Methods – Statistical Methods
To describe the amount of shared decision-making (SDM) behavior exhibited during treatment planning encounters for children newly diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and to explore relationships between participant characteristics and amount of SDM
Prospective cohort study
Seven community-based primary care pediatric practices in the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky/Southeast Indiana Region from October 5, 2009 to August 9, 2010
Ten pediatricians and 26 families with a 6–10 year old child newly diagnosed with ADHD
Amount of SDM behavior exhibited during video-recorded encounters as coded by two independent raters using a validated scale that produces a score ranging from 0 (no parental involvement) to 100 (maximal parental involvement)
Treatment decisions focused on medication initiation. The mean (SD) SDM score was 28.5 (11.7). More SDM was observed during encounters involving families with Caucasian children vs. non-Caucasian (adjusted mean difference score=14.9 [95% confidence interval=10.2, 19.6], p<0.001), private vs. public insurance (adjusted mean difference score=15.1 [11.2, 19.0], p<0.001), mothers with at least some college education vs. high school graduate or less (adjusted mean difference score=12.3 [7.2, 17.4], p<0.001), and parents who did not screen positive for serious mental illness vs. those who did (adjusted mean difference score=15.0 [11.9, 18.1], p<0.001).
Low levels of SDM were observed. Exploratory analyses identified potential disparities and barriers. Interventions may be needed to foster SDM with all parents, especially those of minority race, lower economic status, lower education level, and with serious mental illness.
Treat to Target guidelines promote shared decision-making (SDM) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Also, due to high cost and potential toxicity of therapies, SDM is central to patient safety. Our objective was to examine patterns of perceived communication around decision-making in two cohorts of adults with RA.
Data were derived from patients enrolled in one of two longitudinal, observational cohorts (UCSF RA Cohort and RA Panel). Subjects completed a telephone interview in their preferred language that included a measure of patient-provider communication, including items about decision-making. Measures of trust in physician, education, and language proficiency were also asked. Logistic regression was performed to identify correlates of suboptimal SDM communication. Analyses were performed on each sample separately.
Of 509 patients across two cohorts, 30% and 32% reported suboptimal SDM communication. Low trust in physician was independently associated with suboptimal SDM communication in both cohorts. Older age and limited English proficiency were independently associated with suboptimal SDM in the UCSF RA Cohort, as was limited health literacy in the RA Panel.
This study of over 500 adults with RA from two demographically distinct cohorts found that nearly one-third of subjects report suboptimal SDM communication with their clinicians, regardless of cohort. Lower trust in physician was independently associated with suboptimal SDM communication in both cohorts, as was limited English language proficiency and older age in the UCSF RA Cohort and limited health literacy in the Panel. These findings underscore the need to examine the impact of SDM on health outcomes in RA.
arthritis; rheumatoid; health communication; health literacy; trust
Hypertension is one of the key factors causing cardiovascular diseases. A substantial proportion of treated hypertensive patients do not reach recommended target blood pressure values. Shared decision making (SDM) is to enhance the active role of patients. As until now there exists little information on the effects of SDM training in antihypertensive therapy, we tested the effect of an SDM training programme for general practitioners (GPs). Our hypotheses are that this SDM training (1) enhances the participation of patients and (2) leads to an enhanced decrease in blood pressure (BP) values, compared to patients receiving usual care without prior SDM training for GPs.
The study was conducted as a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) with GP practices in Southwest Germany. Each GP practice included patients with treated but uncontrolled hypertension and/or with relevant comorbidity. After baseline assessment (T0) GP practices were randomly allocated into an intervention and a control arm. GPs of the intervention group took part in the SDM training. GPs of the control group treated their patients as usual. The intervention was blinded to the patients. Primary endpoints on patient level were (1) change of patients’ perceived participation (SDM-Q-9) and (2) change of systolic BP (24h-mean). Secondary endpoints were changes of (1) diastolic BP (24h-mean), (2) patients’ knowledge about hypertension, (3) adherence (MARS-D), and (4) cardiovascular risk score (CVR).
In total 1357 patients from 36 general practices were screened for blood pressure control by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Thereof 1120 patients remained in the study because of uncontrolled (but treated) hypertension and/or a relevant comorbidity. At T0 the intervention group involved 17 GP practices with 552 patients and the control group 19 GP practices with 568 patients. The effectiveness analysis could not demonstrate a significant or relevant effect of the SDM training on any of the endpoints.
The study hypothesis that the SDM training enhanced patients’ perceived participation and lowered their BP could not be confirmed. Further research is needed to examine the impact of patient participation on the treatment of hypertension in primary care.
German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00000125
Hypertension; Shared decision-making; Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring; Educational training; Primary care; Family medicine; Cluster randomised controlled trial
Patient-centered health care is a central component of current health policy agendas. Shared decision making (SDM) is considered to be the pinnacle of patient engagement and methods to promote this are becoming commonplace. However, the measurement of SDM continues to prove challenging. Reviews have highlighted the need for a patient-reported measure of SDM that is practical, valid, and reliable to assist implementation efforts. In consultation with patients, we developed CollaboRATE, a 3-item measure of the SDM process.
There is a need for scalable patient-reported measure of the SDM process. In the current project, we assessed the psychometric properties of CollaboRATE.
A representative sample of the US population were recruited online and were randomly allocated to view 1 of 6 simulated doctor-patient encounters in January 2013. Three dimensions of SDM were manipulated in the encounters: (1) explanation of the health issue, (2) elicitation of patient preferences, and (3) integration of patient preferences. Participants then completed CollaboRATE (possible scores 0-100) in addition to 2 other patient-reported measures of SDM: the 9-item Shared Decision Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the Doctor Facilitation subscale of the Patient’s Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS). A subsample of participants was resurveyed between 7 and 14 days after the initial survey. We assessed CollaboRATE’s discriminative, concurrent, and divergent validity, intrarater reliability, and sensitivity to change.
The final sample consisted of 1341 participants. CollaboRATE demonstrated discriminative validity, with a significant increase in CollaboRATE score as the number of core dimensions of SDM increased from zero (mean score: 46.0, 95% CI 42.4-49.6) to 3 (mean score 85.8, 95% CI 83.2-88.4). CollaboRATE also demonstrated concurrent validity with other measures of SDM, excellent intrarater reliability, and sensitivity to change; however, divergent validity was not demonstrated.
The fast and frugal nature of CollaboRATE lends itself to routine clinical use. Further assessment of CollaboRATE in real-world settings is required.
decision making; physician-patient relations; psychometrics/Instrumentation; patient participation; questionnaires; Internet
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.
shared decision making; practice guidelines; patient–clinician communication
The goal was to compare how parents and clinicians understand shared decision-making (SDM) in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a prototype for SDM in pediatrics.
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 60 parents of children 6 to 12 years of age with ADHD (50% black and 43% college educated) and 30 primary care clinicians with varying experience. Open-ended interviews explored how pediatric clinicians and parents understood SDM in ADHD. Interviews were taped, transcribed, and then coded. Data were analyzed by using a modified grounded theory approach.
Parents and clinicians both viewed SDM favorably. However, parents described SDM as a partnership between equals, with physicians providing medical expertise and the family contributing in-depth knowledge of the child. In contrast, clinicians understood SDM as a means to encourage families to accept clinicians' preferred treatment. These findings affected care because parents mistrusted clinicians whose presentation they perceived as biased. Both groups discussed how real-world barriers limit the consideration of evidence-based options, and they emphasized the importance of engaging professionals, family members, and/or friends in SDM. Although primary themes did not differ according to race, white parents more commonly received support from medical professionals in their social networks.
Despite national guidelines prioritizing SDM in ADHD, challenges to implementing the process persist. Results suggest that, to support SDM in ADHD, modifications are needed at the practice and policy levels, including clinician training, incorporation of decision aids and improved strategies to facilitate communication, and efforts to ensure that evidence-based treatment is accessible.
shared decision-making; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Rationale, aims and objectives
Following increased interest in having inter-professional (IP) health care teams engage patients in decision making, we developed a conceptual model for an IP approach to shared decision making (SDM) in primary care. We assessed the validity of the model with stakeholders in Canada.
In 15 individual interviews and 7 group interviews with 79 stakeholders, we asked them to: (1) propose changes to the IP-SDM model; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to the model's implementation in clinical practice; and (3) assess the model using a theory appraisal questionnaire. We performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts and a descriptive analysis of the questionnaires.
Stakeholders suggested placing the patient at its centre; extending the concept of family to include significant others; clarifying outcomes; highlighting the concept of time; merging the micro, meso and macro levels in one figure; and recognizing the influence of the environment and emotions. The most common barriers identified were time constraints, insufficient resources and an imbalance of power among health professionals. The most common facilitators were education and training in inter-professionalism and SDM, motivation to achieve an IP approach to SDM, and mutual knowledge and understanding of disciplinary roles. Most stakeholders considered that the concepts and relationships between the concepts were clear and rated the model as logical, testable, having clear schematic representation, and being relevant to inter-professional collaboration, SDM and primary care.
Stakeholders validated the new IP-SDM model for primary care settings and proposed few modifications. Future research should assess if the model helps implement SDM in IP clinical practice.
conceptual model; decision coaching; inter-professionalism; primary care; shared decision making; validity
From many empirical and theoretical points of view, the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in work rehabilitation for pain due to a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) is justified but typically the SDM model applies to a one on one encounter between a healthcare provider and a patient and not to an interdisciplinary team.
To adapt and implement an SDM program adapted to the realities of work rehabilitation for pain associated with a MSD. More specific objectives are to adapt an SDM program applicable to existing rehabilitation programs, and to evaluate the extent of implementation of the SDM program in four rehabilitation centres.
For objective one, we will use a mixed perspective combining a theory-based development program/intervention and a user-based perspective. The users are the occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical coordinators. The strategies for developing an SDM program will include consulting the scientific literature and group consensus with clinicians-experts. A sample of convenience of eight OTs, four clinical coordinators and four psychologists all of whom have been working full-time in MSD rehabilitation for more than two years will be recruited from four collaborating rehabilitation centres. For objective two, using the same criteria as for objective one, we will first train eight OTs in SDM. Second, using a descriptive design, the extent to which the SDM program has been implemented will be assessed through observations of the SDM process. The observation data will be triangulated with the dyadic working alliance questionnaire, and findings from a final individual interview with each OT. A total of five patients per trained OT will be recruited, for a total of 40 patients. Patients will be eligible if they have a work-related disability for more than 12 weeks due to musculoskeletal pain and plan to start their work rehabilitation programs.
This study will be the first evaluation of the program and it is expected that improvements will be made prior to a broader-scale implementation. The ultimate aim is to improve the quality of decision making, patients' quality of life, and reduce the duration of their work-related disability by improving the services offered during the rehabilitation process.
While shared decision making (SDM) and adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are important, some believe they are incompatible. This study explored the mutual influence between physicians’ intention to engage in SDM and their intention to follow CPGs.
Embedded within a clustered randomized trial to assess the impact of training physicians in SDM about using antibiotics to treat acute respiratory tract infections, this study evaluated physicians’ intentions to both engage in SDM and follow CPGs. A self-administered questionnaire based on the theory of planned behavior evaluated both behavioral intentions and their respective determinants (attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control) at study entry and exit. We used path analysis to explore the relationships between the intentions. We conducted statistical analyses using the maximum likelihood method and the variance-covariance matrix. Goodness of fit indices encompassed the chi-square statistic, the comparative fit index and the root mean square error of approximation.
We analyzed 244 responses at entry and 236 at exit. In the control group, at entry we observed that physicians’ intention to engage in SDM (r = 0, t = 0.03) did not affect their intention to follow CPGs; however, their intention to follow CPGs (r = −0.31 t = −2.82) did negatively influence their intention to engage in SDM. At exit, neither behavioral intention influenced the other. In the experimental group, at entry neither behavioral intention influenced the other; at exit, the intention to engage in SDM still did not influence the intention to use CPGs, although the intention to follow CPGs (r = −0.15 t = −2.02) slightly negatively influenced the intention to engage in SDM, but this was not clinically significant.
Physicians’ intention to engage in SDM does not affect their intention to adopt CPGs even after SDM training. Physicians’ intention to adopt CPGs had no clinically significant influence on intention to engage in SDM.
In an interprofessional approach to shared decision-making (IP-SDM), an interprofessional team collaborates in identifying best options and helps patients determine their preferences, enabling them to take more control over the treatment plan. However, little is known about fostering IP-SDM in Canada's healthcare system. Therefore, we sought to evaluate health professionals' intentions to engage in IP-SDM in home care and explore the factors associated with this intention. A total of 272 eligible home care providers completed a questionnaire based on the theory of planned behavior. Eight managers and one healthcare team caring for the frail elderly were interviewed about possible barriers and facilitators. Analysis involved descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis of quantitative data and content analysis of qualitative data. On a scale of − 3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree), the mean intention to engage in IP-SDM was positive (1.42 ± 1.39). The intention was influenced by the following theory-based determinants (R2 = 57%; p ≤ 0.002), i.e. cognitive attitude (p < 0.001) subjective norm (p < 0.0001) and perceived behavioral control (p < 0.0001), with variations depending on the type of provider. Barriers included lack of time, poor team cohesion and high staff turnover. Facilitators included team cohesion and shared tools. Future programs implementing IP-SDM could address these barriers and facilitators.
Mixed methods; surveys; interprofessional collaboration; shared decision making; home care
A perspective on how to incorporate shared decision making into routine oncology practice to facilitate patient-centered communication and promote effective treatment decisions is presented.
After completing this course, the reader will be able to:
Outline the five steps that comprise shared decision making.Identify specific tactics that can be used to engage a patient in a shared decision making process.
This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com
There is growing interest by patients, policy makers, and clinicians in shared decision making (SDM) as a means to involve patients in health decisions and translate evidence into clinical practice. However, few clinicians feel optimally trained to implement SDM in practice, and many patients report that they are less involved than they desire to be in their cancer care decisions. SDM might help address the wide practice variation reported for many preference-sensitive decisions by incorporating patient preferences into decision discussions.
This paper provides a perspective on how to incorporate SDM into routine oncology practice to facilitate patient-centered communication and promote effective treatment decisions. Oncology practice is uniquely positioned to lead the adoption of SDM because of the vast number of preference-sensitive decisions in which SDM can enhance the clinical encounter.
Clinicians can facilitate cancer decision making by: (a) determining the situations in which SDM is critical; (b) acknowledging the decision to a patient; (c) describing the available options, including the risks, benefits, and uncertainty associated with options; (d) eliciting patients' preferences; and (e) agreeing on a plan for the next steps in the decision-making process.
Given recent policy movements toward incorporating SDM and translating evidence into routine clinical practice, oncologists are likely to continue expanding their use of SDM and will have to confront the challenges of incorporating SDM into their clinical workflow. More research is needed to explore ways to overcome these challenges such that both quality evidence and patient preferences are appropriately translated and incorporated into oncology care decisions.
Decision making; Decision support; Health communication
Shared Decision Making (SDM) is regarded as the best practice model for the communicative challenge of decision making about treatment or diagnostic options. However, randomized controlled trials focusing the effectiveness of SDM trainings are rare and existing measures of SDM are increasingly challenged by the latest research findings. This study will 1) evaluate a new physicians' communication training regarding patient involvement in terms of SDM, 2) validate SDMMASS, a new compound measure of SDM, and 3) evaluate the effects of SDM on the perceived quality of the decision process and on the elaboration of the decision.
In a multi-center randomized controlled trial with a waiting control group, 40 physicians from 7 medical fields are enrolled. Each physician contributes a sequence of four medical consultations including a diagnostic or treatment decision.
The intervention consists of two condensed video-based individual coaching sessions (15min.) supported by a manual and a DVD. The interventions alternate with three measurement points plus follow up (6 months).
Realized patient involvement is measured using the coefficient SDMMASS drawn from the Multifocal Approach to the Sharing in SDM (MAPPIN'SDM) which includes objective involvement, involvement as perceived by the patient, and the doctor-patient concordance regarding their judges of the involvement. For validation purposes, all three components of SDMMASS are supplemented by similar measures, the OPTION observer scale, the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q) and the dyadic application of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Training effects are analyzed using t-tests. Spearman correlation coefficients are used to determine convergent validities, the influence of involvement (SDMMASS) on the perceived decision quality (DCS) and on the elaboration of the decision. The latter is operationalised by the ELAB coefficient from the UP24 (Uncertainty Profile, 24 items version).
Due to the rigorous blinded randomized controlled design, the current trial promises valid and reliable results. On the one hand, we expect this condensed time-saving training to be adopted in clinical routine more likely than previous trainings. On the other hand, the exhaustivity of the MAPPIN'SDM measurement system qualifies it as a reference measure for simpler instruments and to deepen understanding of decision-making processes.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78716079
Shared decision-making (SDM) is at the core of patient-centered care. We examined whether young adults with type 1 diabetes perceived the clinician groups they consulted as practicing SDM.
In a web-based survey, 150 Australians aged 18–35 years and with type 1 diabetes rated seven aspects of SDM in their interactions with endocrinologists, diabetes educators, dieticians, and general practitioners. Additionally, 33 participants in seven focus groups discussed these aspects of SDM.
Of the 150 respondents, 90% consulted endocrinologists, 60% diabetes educators, 33% dieticians, and 37% general practitioners. The majority of participants rated all professions as oriented toward all aspects of SDM, but there were professional differences. These ranged from 94.4% to 82.2% for “My clinician enquires about how I manage my diabetes”; 93.4% to 82.2% for “My clinician listens to my opinion about my diabetes management”; 89.9% to 74.1% for “My clinician is supportive of my diabetes management”; 93.2% to 66.1% for “My clinician suggests ways in which I can improve my self-management”; 96.6% to 85.7% for “The advice of my clinician can be understood”; 98.9% to 82.2% for “The advice of my clinician can be trusted”; and 86.5% to 67.9% for “The advice of my clinician is consistent with other members of the diabetes team”. Diabetes educators received the highest ratings on all aspects of SDM. The mean weighted average of agreement to SDM for all consultations was 84.3%. Focus group participants reported actively seeking clinicians who practiced SDM. A lack of SDM was frequently cited as a reason for discontinuing consultation. The dominant three themes in focus group discussions were whether clinicians acknowledged patients’ expertise, encouraged patients’ autonomy, and provided advice that patients could utilize to improve self-management.
The majority of clinicians engaged in SDM. Young adults with type 1 diabetes prefer such clinicians. They may fail to take up recommended health services when clinicians do not practice this component of patient-centered care. Such findings have implications for patient safety, improved health outcomes, and enhanced health service delivery.
shared decision-making; patient perspective; patient-centered care; patient autonomy; type 1 diabetes; young adults; health service delivery; glycemic control
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between shared decision-making (SDM) and satisfaction with decision (SWD) within a larger survey of patient decision-making in health care consultations.
A randomly selected age-proportionate national sample of adults (aged 21–70 years) stratified on race, ethnicity, and gender (N = 488) was recruited from a health research volunteer registry and completed an online survey with reference to a recent health consultation. Measures included the Shared Decision Making-9 questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), Satisfaction With Decision (SWD) scale, sociodemographic, health, and other standardized decision-making measures. Forward selection weighted multiple regression analysis was used to model correlates of SWD.
After controlling for sociodemographic variables, SDM-Q-9 total score was associated with SWD, adjusted R2 = .368, p < .001. Three of nine SDM-Q-9 items accounted for significant proportions of variance in SWD.
SDM was positively associated with SWD and was strongest for three areas of SDM: patients being helped in a health care consultation with understanding information, with treatment preference elicitation, and with weighing options thoroughly.
By identifying variables such as SDM that are associated with SWD, health care interventions can better target modifiable factors to enhance satisfaction and other outcomes.
shared decision-making; satisfaction with decision; patient-provider communication
Little is known about factors contributing to children’s asthma control status and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The study objectives were to assess the relationship between asthma control and asthma-specific HRQoL in asthmatic children, and to examine the extent to which parental health literacy, perceived self-efficacy with patient-physician interaction, and satisfaction with shared decision-making (SDM) contribute to children’s asthma control and asthma-specific HRQoL.
This cross-sectional study utilized data collected from a sample of asthmatic children (n = 160) aged 8–17 years and their parents (n = 160) who visited a university medical center. Asthma-specific HRQoL was self-reported by children using the National Institutes of Health’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pediatric Asthma Impact Scale. Satisfaction with SDM, perceived self-efficacy with patient-physician interaction, parental health literacy, and asthma control were reported by parents using standardized measures. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to test the hypothesized pathways.
Path analysis revealed that children with better asthma control reported higher asthma-specific HRQoL (β = 0.4, P < 0.001). Parents with higher health literacy and greater perceived self-efficacy with patient-physician interactions were associated with higher satisfaction with SDM (β = 0.38, P < 0.05; β = 0.58, P < 0.001, respectively). Greater satisfaction with SDM was in turn associated with better asthma control (β = −0.26, P < 0.01).
Children’s asthma control status influenced their asthma-specific HRQoL. However, parental factors such as perceived self-efficacy with patient-physician interaction and satisfaction with shared decision-making indirectly influenced children’s asthma control status and asthma-specific HRQoL.
Asthma control; Health-related quality of life; PROMIS; Satisfaction with shared decision-making; Perceived self-efficacy with patient-physician interaction; Structural equation modeling
Shared decision making (SDM) is fundamental to informed consent and client-centered care. So far, SDM frameworks have been limited to the client-physician dyad, even though care is increasingly delivered by interprofessional (IP) teams. IP collaboration is especially essential in home care, one of health care's most rapidly growing areas. This study will assess whether it is possible to practice SDM in IP home care.
We will use a qualitative case study and a quantitative survey to capture the macro, meso and micro levels of stakeholders in home care. The case study will follow the knowledge-to-action process framework to evaluate the work of an IP home care team at a Quebec City health center. Sources of data will include one-on-one interviews with patients, family caregivers or surrogates and significant others, and administrators; a focus group of home care health professionals; organizational documents; and government policies and standards. The interview guide for the interviews and the focus group will explore current practices and clinical problems addressed in home care; factors that could influence the implementation of the proposed IP approach to SDM; the face and content validity of the approach; and interventions to facilitate the implementation and evaluation of the approach. The survey will ask 300 health professionals working in home care at the health center to complete a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour that measures their intentions to engage in an IP approach to SDM. We will use our analysis of the individual interviews, the focus group and the survey to elaborate a toolkit for implementing an IP approach to SDM in home care. Finally, we will conduct a pilot study in Alberta to assess the transferability of our findings.
We believe that developing tools to implement IP SDM in home care is essential to strengthening Canada's healthcare system and furthering patient-centered care. This study will contribute to the evaluation of IP SDM delivery models in home care. It will also generate practical, policy-oriented knowledge regarding the barriers and facilitators likely to influence the practice of IP SDM in home care.
Although research suggests that patients prefer a shared decision making (SDM) experience when making healthcare decisions, clinicians do not routinely implement SDM into their practice and training programs are needed. Using a novel case-based strategy, we developed and pilot tested an online educational program to promote shared decision making (SDM) by primary care clinicians.
A three-phased approach was used: 1) development of a conceptual model of the SDM process; 2) development of an online teaching case utilizing the Design A Case (DAC) authoring template, a well-tested process used to create peer-reviewed web-based clinical cases across all levels of healthcare training; and 3) pilot testing of the case. Participants were clinician members affiliated with several primary care research networks across the United States who answered an invitation email. The case used prostate cancer screening as the clinical context and was delivered online. Post-intervention ratings of clinicians’ general knowledge of SDM, knowledge of specific SDM steps, confidence in and intention to perform SDM steps were also collected online.
Seventy-nine clinicians initially volunteered to participate in the study, of which 49 completed the case and provided evaluations. Forty-three clinicians (87.8%) reported the case met all the learning objectives, and 47 (95.9%) indicated the case was relevant for other equipoise decisions. Thirty-one clinicians (63.3%) accessed supplementary information via links provided in the case. After viewing the case, knowledge of SDM was high (over 90% correctly identified the steps in a SDM process). Determining a patient’s preferred role in making the decision (62.5% very confident) and exploring a patient’s values (65.3% very confident) about the decisions were areas where clinician confidence was lowest. More than 70% of the clinicians intended to perform SDM in the future.
A comprehensive model of the SDM process was used to design a case-based approach to teaching SDM skills to primary care clinicians. The case was favorably rated in this pilot study. Clinician skills training for helping patients clarify their values and for assessing patients’ desire for involvement in decision making remain significant challenges and should be a focus of future comparative studies.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6947-14-95) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Decision making; Medical education; Primary health care
Purpose of review
To advance integration of shared decision making (SDM) into mental health care service delivery, researchers have outlined several priorities for future research [2–3]. These include: 1) SDM and its role in mental health care; 2) Patient and provider perspectives on SDM; 3) The degree to which SDM is practice in mental health settings; and 4) Outcomes of SDM in mental health populations. This article will review recent advances in these areas.
The current literature shows that 1) SDM can play a role in the mental health treatment process from entry into care to recovery; 2) Patients and providers find SDM acceptable and express a willingness to engage in SDM for reasons that are multifactorial; 3) Barriers to SDM exist in mental health decision making including patient preferences and provider level biases; and 4) Outcomes research provide encouraging preliminary evidence for feasibility and effectiveness of SDM during the mental health encounter.
Although there have not been a great number of SDM studies in mental health to date, the positive effects of SDM are comparable to those documented in general non-mental health patient groups, suggesting that future research is likely to be helpful for patients with psychiatric disorders.
shared decision making; mental health; patient-provider relationship; communication
Shared decision making (SDM) - involving patients in decisions relevant to their health - has been increasingly influential in medical thought and practice around the world. This paper reviews the current status of SDM in Israel, including efforts to promote SDM in the legislation and healthcare system, its influence in medical training and the national health plans, and funding for SDM-related research. Published studies of SDM in Israel are also reviewed. Although informed consent and patients' right to information are regulated by Israeli law, little provision is made for SDM. Further, there are few organized programs to promote SDM among medical professionals or the public, and governmental support of SDM-related research is minimal. Nonetheless, patients have begun to influence litigation in both formal and informal capacities, medical schools have begun to incorporate courses for improving physician-patient communication into their curricula, and the largest national health plan has initiated a plan to increase public awareness. A review of the limited research literature suggests that although patients and physicians express a desire for greater patient involvement, they often have reservations about its implementation. Research also suggests that despite the positive effects of SDM, such an approach may only infrequently be applied in actual clinical practice. In conclusion, though not actively promoting SDM at present, Israel's universal coverage and small number of health plans make rapid, widespread advances in SDM feasible. Israeli policymakers should thus be encouraged to nurture burgeoning initiatives and set plausible milestones. Comparing the status of SDM in Israel with that in other countries may stimulate further advancement.
Shared decision-making; Israel; patient autonomy; informed consent; health care system; patient participation