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
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
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
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
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
Shared decision-making (SDM) is defined as a process by which a healthcare choice is made by practitioners together with the patient. Although many diagnostic and therapeutic processes in primary care integrate more than one type of health professional, most SDM conceptual models and theories appear to be limited to the patient-physician dyad. The objectives of this study are to develop a conceptual model and propose a set of measurement tools for enhancing an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary healthcare.
An inventory of SDM conceptual models, theories and measurement tools will be created. Models will be critically assessed and compared according to their strengths, limitations, acknowledgement of interprofessional roles in the process of SDM and relevance to primary care. Based on the theory analysis, a conceptual model and a set of measurements tools that could be used to enhance an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary healthcare will be proposed and pilot-tested with key stakeholders and primary healthcare teams.
This study protocol is informative for researchers and clinicians interested in designing and/or conducting future studies and educating health professionals to improve how primary healthcare teams foster active participation of patients in making health decisions using a more coordinated approach.
To measure and compare the extent to which shared a decision making (SDM) process is implemented both in psychiatric outpatient clinical encounters and in the primary care setting from the patient’s perspective.
A total of 1,477 patients recruited from the Canary Islands Health Service mental health and primary care departments were invited to complete the nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) immediately after their consultation. MANCOVA, Student’s t-test, and Pearson correlations were used to assess the relationship and differences between SDM-Q-9 scores in patient samples.
No differences were found in SDM-Q-9 total scores between the two patient samples, but there were relevant differences when item by item analysis was applied; differences were observed according to the different steps of the SDM process. SDM is present to a very limited extent in the routine psychiatric setting compared to primary care. Patients’ age, education, type of appointment, and treatment decision all play a specific role in predicting SDM.
The study provides evidence that SDM is a complex process that needs to be analyzed according to its different steps. SDM patterns were different in the primary care and psychiatric outpatient care settings and reflect quite a different perspective of the decision making process.
primary care patients; psychiatric outpatients; SDM-Q-9; shared decision making
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.
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
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
In the United States, African Americans are more likely to experience lower quality patient/provider communication and less shared decision making (SDM) than whites, which may be an important contributor to racial health disparities. Patient factors have not been fully explored as a potential contributor to communication disparities.
The authors analyzed cross-sectional data from a survey of 974 patients with diabetes seen at 34 community health centers (HC) in 17 midwestern and west-central states. They used ordinal and logistic regression models to investigate racial differences in patients’ preferences for SDM and in patients’ behaviors that may facilitate SDM (initiating discussions about diabetes care).
The response rate was 67%. In bivariate and multivariate analyses, race was not associated with patient preference for a shared role in the 3 measured SDM domains: agenda setting (odds ratio [OR]: 1.13 [0.86, 1.49]), information sharing (OR: 1.26 [0.97, 1.64]), or decision making (OR: 1.16 [0.85, 1.59]). African Americans were more likely to report initiating discussions with their physicians about 4 of 6 areas of diabetes care—blood pressure measurement (66% v. 52%, P < 0.001), foot examination (54% v. 47%, P = 0.04), eye examination (57% v. 46%, P = 0.002), and microalbumin testing (38% v. 29%, P = 0.01)—but not HbA1c testing (39% v. 43%, P = 0.31) or cholesterol testing (53% v. 51%, P = 0.52). In multivariate analysis, African Americans were still more likely to report initiating conversations about diabetes care (OR: 1.78 [1.10, 2.89]).
The authors found that African Americans in this study preferred shared decision making as much as whites and were more likely to report initiating more discussions with their doctors about their diabetes care. This research suggests that, among diabetes patients receiving care at community health centers, patient preference or patient behaviors may be an unlikely cause of racial differences in shared decision making.
randomized trial methodology; risk factor evaluation; population-based studies; scale development/validation
Most shared decision-making (SDM) models within healthcare have been limited to the patientphysician dyad. As a first step towards promoting an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary care, this article reports how an interprofessional and interdisciplinary group developed and achieved consensus on a new interprofessional SDM model. The key concepts within published reviews of SDM models and interprofessionalism were identified, analysed, and discussed by the group in order to reach consensus on the new interprofessional SDM (IP-SDM) model. The IP-SDM model comprises three levels: the individual (micro) level and two healthcare system (meso and macro) levels. At the individual level, the patient presents with a health condition that requires decision-making and follows a structured process to make an informed, value-based decision in concert with a team of healthcare professionals. The model acknowledges (at the meso level) the influence of individual team members' professional roles including the decision coach and organizational routines. At the macro level it acknowledges the influence of system level factors (i.e. health policies, professional organisations, and social context) on the meso and individual levels. Subsequently, the IP-SDM model will be validated with other stakeholders.
Interprofessionalism; shared decision-making; conceptual models; theories; primary care
Shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and their physicians is associated with improved diabetes health outcomes. African-Americans have less SDM than Whites, which may contribute to diabetes racial disparities. To date, there has been little research on SDM among African-Americans.
We explored the barriers and facilitators to SDM among African-Americans with diabetes.
Qualitative research design with a phenomenological methodology using in-depth interviews (n = 24) and five focus groups (n = 27). Each interview/focus group was audio-taped and transcribed verbatim, and coding was conducted using an iterative process. Participants: We utilized a purposeful sample of African-American adult patients with diabetes. All patients had insurance and received their care at an academic medical center.
Patients identified multiple SDM barriers/facilitators, including the patient/provider power imbalance that was perceived to be exacerbated by race. Patient-related factors included health literacy, fear/denial, family experiences and self-efficacy. Reported physician-related barriers/facilitators include patient education, validating patient experiences, medical knowledge, accessibility and availability, and interpersonal skills.
Barriers/facilitators of SDM exist among African-Americans with diabetes, which can be effectively addressed in the outpatient setting. Primary care physicians, particularly academic internists, may be uniquely situated to address these barriers/facilitators and train future physicians to do so as well.
shared decision-making; patient-provider communication; diabetes; African-Americans
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
DECISION + 2, a training program for physicians, is designed to implement shared decision making (SDM) in the context of antibiotics use for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs). We evaluated the impact of DECISION + 2 on SDM implementation as assessed by patients and physicians, and on physicians’ intention to engage in SDM.
From 2010 to 2011, a multi-center, two-arm, parallel randomized clustered trial appraised the effects of DECISION + 2 on the decision to use antibiotics for patients consulting for ARTIs. We randomized 12 family practice teaching units (FPTUs) to either DECISION + 2 or usual care. After the consultation, both physicians and patients independently completed questionnaires based on the D-Option scale regarding SDM behaviors during the consultation. Patients also answered items assessing the role they assumed during the consultation (active/collaborative/passive). Before and after the intervention, physicians completed a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to measure their intention to engage in SDM. To account for the cluster design, we used generalized estimating equations and generalized linear mixed models to assess the impact of DECISION + 2 on the outcomes of interest.
A total of 270 physicians (66% women) participated in the study. After DECISION + 2, patients’ D-Option scores were 80.1 ± 1.1 out of 100 in the intervention group and 74.9 ± 1.1 in the control group (p = 0.001). Physicians’ D-Option scores were 79.7 ± 1.8 in the intervention group and 76.3 ± 1.9 in the control group (p = 0.2). However, subgroup analyses showed that teacher physicians D-Option scores were 79.7 ± 1.5 and 73.0 ± 1.4 respectively (p = 0.001). More patients reported assuming an active or collaborative role in the intervention group (67.1%), than in the control group (49.2%) (p = 0.04). There was a significant relation between patients’ and physicians’ D-Option scores (p < 0.01) and also between patient-reported assumed roles and both D-Option scores (as assessed by patients, p < 0.01; and physicians, p = 0.01). DECISION + 2 had no impact on the intention of physicians to engage in SDM.
DECISION + 2 positively influenced SDM behaviors as assessed by patients and teacher physicians. Physicians’ intention to engage in SDM was not affected by DECISION + 2.
ClinicalTrials.gov trials register no. NCT01116076.
Shared decision making; Implementation; Theory of planned behavior; Training
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
The wide scale permeation of health care by the shared decision making concept (SDM) reflects its relevance and advanced stage of development. An increasing number of studies evaluating the efficacy of SDM use instruments based on various sub-constructs administered from different viewpoints. However, as the concept has never been captured in operable core definition it is quite difficult to link these parts of evidence.
This study aims at investigating interrelations of SDM indicators administered from different perspectives.
A comprehensive inventory was developed mapping judgements from different perspectives (observer, doctor, patient) and constructs (behavior, perception) referring to three units (doctor, patient, doctor-patient-dyad) and an identical set of SDM-indicators. The inventory adopted the existing approaches, but added additional observer foci (patient and doctor-patient-dyad) and relevant indicators hitherto neglected by existing instruments. The complete inventory comprising a doctor-patient-questionnaire and an observer-instrument was applied to 40 decision consultations from 10 physicians from different medical fields. Convergent validities were calculated on the basis of Pearson correlation coefficients.
Reliabilities for all scales were high to excellent. No correlations were found between observer and patients or physicians neither for means nor for single items. Judgements of doctors and patients were moderately related. Correlations between the observer scales and within the subjective perspectives were high. Inter-perspective agreement was not related to SDM performance or patient activity.
The study demonstrates the contribution to involvement made by each of the relevant perspectives and emphasizes the need for an inter-subjective approach regarding SDM measurement.
To compare and contrast notions of ADHD among pediatricians and parents of affected children to understand the perspectives they bring to shared decision making (SDM).
In this freelisting study, 60 parents of children with ADHD and 30 primary care pediatricians listed words reflecting their understanding of (1) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), (2) getting/offering help for ADHD, (3) talking to doctors/families about ADHD, and (4) “mental health.” Smith’s salience score established terms that were salient and cultural consensus analysis identified variation within subgroups of participants.
Parents’ terms reflected ADHD’s effects on the child and family, while clinicians often mentioned school. Lists suggested differing needs and goals for clinicians and subgroups of parents in SDM: “time” for clinicians, “learning” and “understanding” for non-college educated parents, and “comfort” and “relief” for college educated parents. Neither parents nor clinicians framed ADHD in the same way as “mental health.”
Parents and clinicians, who conceptualize ADHD differently, should negotiate a shared understanding of ADHD as a basis for SDM. Treatment discussions should be tailored to encompass families’ varied emotional and educational needs.
Fostering SDM in primary care is consonant with notions of ADHD as distinct from mental health.
Shared decision making; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Disparities
To compare patient-reported and observer-rated shared decision making (SDM) use for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and evaluate patient, physician and patient-reported relational communication factors associated with patient-reported use of shared CRC screening decisions.
Study physicians are salaried primary care providers. Patients are insured, aged 50-80 and due for CRC screening. Audio-recordings from 363 primary care visits were observer-coded for elements of SDM. A post-visit patient survey assessed patient-reported decision-making processes and relational communication during visit. Association of patient-reported SDM with observer-rated elements of SDM, as well as patient, physician and relational communication factors were evaluated using generalized estimating equations.
70% of patients preferred SDM for preventive health decisions, 47% of patients reported use of a SDM process, and only one of the screening discussions included all four elements of SDM per observer ratings. Patient report of SDM use was not associated with observer-rated elements of SDM, but was significantly associated with female physician gender and patient-reported relational communication.
Inconsistencies exist between patient reports and observer ratings of SDM for CRC screening.
Future studies are needed to understand whether SDM that is patient-reported, observer-rated or both are associated with informed and value-concordant CRC screening decisions.
Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the healthcare professional and the patient. SDM is the essential element of patient-centered care, a core concept of primary care. However, SDM is seldom translated into primary practice. Continuing professional development (CPD) is the principal means by which healthcare professionals continue to gain, improve, and broaden the knowledge and skills required for patient-centered care. Our international collaboration seeks to improve the knowledge base of CPD that targets translating SDM into the clinical practice of primary care in diverse healthcare systems.
Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), our project is to form an international, interdisciplinary research team composed of health services researchers, physicians, nurses, psychologists, dietitians, CPD decision makers and others who will study how CPD causes SDM to be practiced in primary care. We will perform an environmental scan to create an inventory of CPD programs and related activities for translating SDM into clinical practice. These programs will be critically assessed and compared according to their strengths and limitations. We will use the empirical data that results from the environmental scan and the critical appraisal to identify knowledge gaps and generate a research agenda during a two-day workshop to be held in Quebec City. We will ask CPD stakeholders to validate these knowledge gaps and the research agenda.
This project will analyse existing CPD programs and related activities for translating SDM into the practice of primary care. Because this international collaboration will develop and identify various factors influencing SDM, the project could shed new light on how SDM is implemented in primary care.
Little is known about shared decision-making (SDM) with Métis, First Nations and Inuit women (“Aboriginal women”). SDM is a collaborative process that engages health care professional(s) and the client in making health decisions and is fundamental for informed consent and patient-centred care. The objective of this study is to explore Aboriginal women’s health and social decision-making needs and to engage Aboriginal women in culturally adapting an SDM approach.
Using participatory research principles and guided by a postcolonial theoretical lens, the proposed mixed methods research will involve three phases. Phase I is an international systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions for Aboriginal peoples’ health decision-making. Developed following dialogue with key stakeholders, proposed methods are guided by the Cochrane handbook and include a comprehensive search, screening by two independent researchers, and synthesis of findings. Phases II and III will be conducted in collaboration with Minwaashin Lodge and engage an urban Aboriginal community of women in an interpretive descriptive qualitative study. In Phase II, 10 to 13 Aboriginal women will be interviewed to explore their health/social decision-making experiences. The interview guide is based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and previous decisional needs assessments, and as appropriate may be adapted to findings from the systematic review. Digitally-recorded interviews will be transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively to identify participant decision-making approaches and needs when making health/social decisions. In Phase III, there will be cultural adaptation of an SDM facilitation tool, the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide, by two focus groups consisting of five to seven Aboriginal women. The culturally adapted guide will undergo usability testing through individual interviews with five to six women who are about to make a health/social decision. Focus groups and individual interviews will be digitally-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed inductively to identify the adaptation required and usability of the adapted decision guide.
Findings from this research will produce a culturally sensitive intervention to facilitate SDM within a population of urban Aboriginal women, which can subsequently be evaluated to determine impacts on narrowing health/social decision-making inequities.
First Nations; Inuit and Métis women; Shared decision-making; Equity; Health equity; Participatory research principles; Cultural adaption
Shared decision making (SDM) is recognized as an ideal model of patient-physician interaction, yet clinical application occurs infrequently. The current study evaluated attitudes of first-year residents to identify potential barriers and opportunities regarding SDM.
A total of 70 residents attending orientation at the University of Utah completed a questionnaire that elicited their understanding of SDM, perceptions about the importance of SDM, confidence in utilizing SDM, and reasons for lacking confidence.
Most residents reported no prior SDM education (N = 42, 60%) or training (N = 46, 66%), yet 67 (96%) of them could recognize it in a clinical vignette. Using a Likert scale, the majority of residents (91% to 99%) attributed importance to SDM principles, and most (79% to 90%) indicated confidence in applying them. Lack of training was reported as a barrier by 40 (57%) residents.
A minority of residents reported formal education or training in SDM, yet the vast majority recognized and valued the model. A large percentage of residents expressed confidence in their abilities to incorporate SDM into patient care, but many also identified a need for more education and training.
Decision Making; Interviews/methods; Patient Participation/methods; Physician-Patient Relations; Patient Participation/psychology; Physician's Role/psychology; Communication; Physicians; Education; Training; Internship and Residency; Internship; Medical Residency
There is considerable interest today in shared decision-making (SDM), defined as a decision-making process jointly shared by patients and their health care provider. However, the data show that SDM has not been broadly adopted yet. Consequently, the main goal of this proposal is to bring together the resources and the expertise needed to develop an interdisciplinary and international research team on the implementation of SDM in clinical practice using a theory-based dyadic perspective.
Participants include researchers from Canada, US, UK, and Netherlands, representing medicine, nursing, psychology, community health and epidemiology. In order to develop a collaborative research network that takes advantage of the expertise of the team members, the following research activities are planned: 1) establish networking and on-going communication through internet-based forum, conference calls, and a bi-weekly e-bulletin; 2) hold a two-day workshop with two key experts (one in theoretical underpinnings of behavioral change, and a second in dyadic data analysis), and invite all investigators to present their views on the challenges related to the implementation of SDM in clinical practices; 3) conduct a secondary analyses of existing dyadic datasets to ensure that discussion among team members is grounded in empirical data; 4) build capacity with involvement of graduate students in the workshop and online forum; and 5) elaborate a position paper and an international multi-site study protocol.
This study protocol aims to inform researchers, educators, and clinicians interested in improving their understanding of effective strategies to implement shared decision-making in clinical practice using a theory-based dyadic perspective.
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