Search

Objective Our aim was to use critical discourse analysis (CDA) to examine the most widely cited definitions of shared decision making so that we can evaluate how language is used to position participants. Based on our conceptual understanding, we presumed that shared decision making involves acts of communication where processes are collaborative. Methods We used a CDA lens to closely examine the phrases, semantics, syntax, implied functions, and the social actions proposed in SDM definition texts. We conducted a systematic search guided by the PRISMA guidelines, to identify the most widely cited definitions of SDM. Results A total of 72 studies met our inclusion criteria. While SDM is not consistently defined, it was striking to find that clinicians are constructed as active whereas patients were viewed to be passive participants. The definitions construct SDM to be a gift that the clinician has the power to offer, and the relationship in the definitions appears asymmetric, in which only one party seems to speak. Conclusions The SDM definitions examined convey a process characterized by a clinician who speaks, while a patient mostly listens, and is invited to contribute. An alternative definition might be constructed through references to joint activity via sentences in active voice. Practice implications Clinicians may be influenced by definitions of SDM that reinforce the positionality of active speaker versus passive recipient. Clearer definitions that address the constructs of power and roles may help support the implementation of SDM.

Objective: Is the level of shared decision-making (SDM) higher after introduction of a SDM package (including encounter decision aids on treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding and training for clinicians) than before?. Methods: This before-after study, performed in OB-GYN practice, compared consultations before and after introduction of a SDM package. The target sample size was 25 patients per group. Women seeking treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding were eligible. After their appointments, patients filled out a three-item patient-reported SDM measure. Treatment discussions were audio-recorded and rated for SDM using Observer OPTION 5. Consultation transcripts in the ‘after’ group were checked for adherence to the steps required for intended use of decision aids. Results: 16 gynaecologists participated. 25 patients participated before introduction of the decision aids and 28 after. The proportion of women reporting optimal SDM was higher after introduction (75 %) than before (50 %;p < 0.001). The mean observer-rated level of SDM was also significantly higher after than before (MD = 12.50,95 % CI 5.53–19.47). Conclusion: The level of SDM was higher after the introduction of the package than before. Practice implications: This study was conducted in a real-life setting in three clinics, both large academic and small rural, offering opportunities for implementation in different type of organizations.

Cooperation has emerged as a fundamental characteristic of human society, and many argue that this ability is the basis for the phenomenal development in our capability as a species. When we focus our attention to the interactions that occur in healthcare, we inevitably notice power asymmetry due to unequal knowledge, experience, and status. However, as many have argued since the 1970s, there is an ethical imperative to respect the agency of individuals, offer information, collaborate, and support deliberation when difficult decisions arise. This process is particularly important when reasonable alternative courses of action exist and where the priorities and preferences of individuals would be expected to sway such decisions. This position article argues that this process, commonly described as shared decision making, involves work that is cognitive, emotional, and relational, and, particularly if people are ill, should have the underpinning goal of restoring autonomy. It covers the origin of the term and describes the core components; it describes how to do the cognitive, emotional, and relational work that is required, and offers a model to guide the process.

We evaluated the willingness of Family Medicine residents to engage in SDM, before and after an educational intervention.We delivered a lecture and a workshop for residents on implementing SDM in preventive health care. Before the lecture (T1), participants completed a measure of their willingness to engage in SDM. Six months later, participants completed the measure a second time (T2).At T1, 64 of 73 residents who attended the educational session completed incorpoRATE. Six months later, 44 of 64 participants completed the measure a second time (T2). The range of incorpoRATE sum scores at T1 was from 4.9 to 9.1 out of 10. Among the 44 participants who completed incorpoRATE at both time points, the mean scores were 7.0 ± 1.0 at T1 and 7.4 ± 1.0 at T2 (t = -2.833, p = 0.007, Cohen's D = 0.43).Among Family Medicine residents, the willingness to engage in SDM is highly variable. This suggests a lack of consensus in the mind of these residents about SDM. Although mean scores at T2 were significantly higher, we question the educational importance of this change.incorpoRATE is a promising measure for educators. Understanding how willing a particular physician audience is to undertake SDM, and which elements require attention, could be helpful in designing more targeted curricula. Further research is needed to understand how the perceived stakes of a clinical situation influence physician willingness to engage in SDM.

ObjectiveTo develop a valid and reliable tool to measure triadic decision making between older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCC), their informal caregivers and geriatricians.MethodsVideo observational study with cross-sectional assessment of interaction during medical consultations between geriatricians (n = 10), patients (n = 108) and informal caregivers (68) by three calibrated raters at the geriatric outpatient department of two Dutch hospitals.The Observer OPTIONMCC instrument was developed, based on the 'Dynamic model of SDM in frail older patients' and the 'Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making - 5 item scale' (Observer OPTION-5).ResultsFactor analysis confirms that it is acceptable to regard the new scale as a single construct. The 7-item single factor solution explained 62.76% of the variability for geriatricians, 61.60% of the variability for patients and 54.32% of the variability for informal caregivers. The inter-rater ICC for the total Observer OPTIONMCC score was .96, .96, and .95 (resp. geriatricians, patients, informal caregivers), with values ranging from .60 to .95 for individual items, showing good levels of agreement.Conclusion and Practice ImplicationsWe conclude that Observer OPTIONMCC is sufficiently valid and reliable to be used for the assessment of triadic SDM in populations of older patients with MCC.

To conduct a scoping review of literature on the duration of patients' opening statements in clinical encounters, with or without an interruption.We conducted a scoping review to identify articles based on pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted study details and outcomes related to the length of patients' opening statements. A second reviewer verified this data.We included 14 studies from 1185 citations reviewed. Encounters were in primary care clinics, specialty clinics, and hospitals. Across six studies, the mean time to interruption was 18.2 s. The mean length of uninterrupted opening statements was 45.9 s across nine studies.Clinicians interrupting their patients' opening statements, compared to not interrupting, takes away time from the patient to fully present their concerns. Research has not focused on the nature of clinician interruptions. For instance, an interruption encouraging expansion or more detail facilitates understanding. Therefore, the impact these interruptions have on the clinical encounter remains unknown.Interrupting the average patient does not save time, so clinicians may benefit from allowing their patients to complete their opening statements.

Objective: Patient-directed knowledge tools are designed to engage patients in dialogue or deliberation, to support patient decision-making or self-care of chronic conditions. However, an abundance of these exists. The tools themselves and their purposes are not always clearly defined; creating challenges for developers and users (professionals, patients). The study's aim was to develop a conceptual framework of patient-directed knowledge tool types.Methods: A face-to-face evidence-informed consensus meeting with 15 international experts. After the meeting, the framework went through two rounds of feedback before informal consensus was reached.Results: A conceptual framework containing five patient-directed knowledge tool types was developed. The first part of the framework describes the tools' purposes and the second focuses on the tools' core elements.Conclusion: The framework provides clarity on which types of patient-directed tools exist, the purposes they serve, and which core elements they prototypically include. It is a working framework and will require further refinement as the area develops, alongside validation with a broader group of stakeholders.Practice implications: The framework assists developers and users to know which type a tool belongs, its purpose and core elements, helping them to develop and use the right tool for the right job. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contains fulltext : 207103.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of encounter patient decision aids (PDAs) as evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and conduct a narrative synthesis of non-randomized studies assessing feasibility, utility and their integration into clinical workflows. METHODS: Databases were systematically searched for RCTs of encounter PDAs to enable the conduct of a meta-analysis. We used a framework analysis approach to conduct a narrative synthesis of non-randomized studies. RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs and 30 non-randomized studies. Encounter PDAs significantly increased knowledge (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI 0.30, 0.55), lowered decisional conflict (SMD= -0.33; 95% CI -0.56, -0.09), increased observational-based assessment of shared decision making (SMD = 0.94; 95% CI 0.40, 1.48) and satisfaction with the decision-making process (OR = 1.78; 95% CI 1.19, 2.66) without increasing visit durations (SMD= -0.06; 95% CI -0.29, 0.16). The narrative synthesis showed that encounter tools have high utility for patients and clinicians, yet important barriers to implementation exist (i.e. time constraints) at the clinical and organizational level. CONCLUSION: Encounter PDAs have a positive impact on patient-clinician collaboration, despite facing implementation barriers. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The potential utility of encounter PDAs requires addressing the systemic and structural barriers that prevent adoption in clinical practice.

Objective Our aim was to gather community stakeholder input to inform the development of a digital system linking depression screening to decision support. Methods Views and feature requirements were identified through (1) focus groups with patients and consumers with depression, and interviews with primary care clinicians and (2) usability sessions where patients and consumers used the current version of encounter decision aid (eDA) in a primary care waiting room. Qualitative data were analyzed using the framework method. Results We conducted six focus groups with 15 participants, seven clinician interviews and 10 usability sessions. Patients were comfortable completing the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and receiving the electronic eDA in clinic. They felt this would allow patients to prepare for their visit and instill a sense of agency. Participants were comfortable receiving the PHQ-9 results and a subsequent eDA on a tablet in the waiting room. Conclusion Patients with and without depression, as well as clinicians, viewed linking the PHQ-9, results, and eDA positively. Patients were comfortable doing this in the clinic waiting room. Practice implications Linking depression decision support to screening was viewed positively by patients and clinicians, and could help overcome barriers to shared decision-making implementation in this population.

We assessed the impact of a workshop on first-year medicine residents (PGY1) shared decision-making (SDM) communication skill, risk-benefit education, and attitude.A SDM skills-focused workshop was integrated into an academic medical center PGY1 ambulatory rotation in 2016-2017. Pre/post recordings of virtual Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) with standardized patients sharing decisions were scored using OPTION5. Risk-benefit education, including decision aid use, was measured. Pre/post surveys assessed SDM practice attitudes and perceived barriers.31 of 48 (65%) PGY1 workshop attendees completed pre/post OSCEs yielding 62 videos. OPTION5 scores improved from 27/100 pre to 56/100 post (p 0.001). Pre/post increases in integration of qualitative (15/31 vs 31/31, p 0.001) and quantitative (3/31 vs 31/31, p 0.001) risk measures, and decision aids (1/3 vs 31/31, p 0.001) were observed. Pro-SDM attitude of decisional neutrality increased 16.6% pre to 71.9% post-survey (P 0.001). Barriers to SDM remain.This PGY1 workshop with virtual OSCEs improved SDM communication skills, the ability to find and provide risk-benefit education, and SDM-facilitating attitude.Residency programs can improve SDM skills, risk-benefit education, and attitudes with a workshop intervention. Perceived time constraints and cognitive biases regarding risk-benefit estimates should be addressed to ensure quality SDM in practice.

Objectives To develop ‘incorpoRATE’, a brief and broadly applicable measure of physicians’ willingness to incorporate shared decision making (SDM) into practice. Methods incorpoRATE was developed across three phases: 1) A review of relevant literature to inform candidate domain and item development, 2) Cognitive interviews with US physicians to iteratively refine the measure, and 3) Pilot testing of the measure across a larger sample of US physicians to explore item and measure performance. Results The final measure consists of seven items that assess physician perspectives on various components of SDM use that may present as barriers in practice. During pilot testing, the majority of physicians expressed positive opinions about the overall concept of SDM, yet were less comfortable acting on informed patient choices when there was known incongruence with their own recommendations. Conclusions incorpoRATE is a novel physician-reported measure that assesses physicians’ willingness to incorporate SDM in practice. Practice implications incorpoRATE has the potential to help us further understand the limited adoption of SDM and areas of focus for improving the use of SDM in the future. We recommend that incorpoRATE be subject to further psychometric, real-world testing, in order to explore its performance across different samples of physicians and organizations.

To determine if two encounter conversation aids for early-stage breast cancer surgery increased observed and patient-reported shared decision making (SDM) compared with usual care and if observed and patient-reported SDM were associated.Surgeons in a cluster randomized trial at four cancer centers were randomized to use an Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, or usual care. We used bivariate statistics, linear regression, and multilevel models to evaluate the influence of trial arm, patient socioeconomic status and health literacy on observed SDM (via OPTION-5) and patient-reported SDM (via collaboRATE).From 311 recordings, OPTION-5 scores were 73/100 for Option Grid (n = 40), 56.3/100 for Picture Option Grid (n = 144), and 41.0/100 for usual care (n = 127; p0.0001). Top collaboRATE scores were 81.6 % for Option Grid, 80.0 % for Picture Option Grid, and 56.4 % for usual care (p0.001). Top collaboRATE scores correlated with an 8.60 point (95 %CI 0.66, 13.7) higher OPTION-5 score (p = 0.008) with no correlation in the multilevel analysis. Patients of lower socioeconomic status had lower OPTION-5 scores before accounting for clustering.Both conversation aids led to meaningfully higher observed and patient-reported SDM. Observed and patient-reported SDM were not strongly correlated.Healthcare providers could implement these conversation aids in real-world settings.

To assess the psychometric properties of the consideRATE questions, a measure of serious illness experience.We recruited people at least 50 years old via paid panels online, with US-Census-based quotas. We randomized participants to a patient experience story at two time points. Participants completed a series of measures, including the consideRATE questions. We assessed convergent (Pearson's correlation), discriminative (one-way ANOVA with Tukey's test for multiple comparisons) and divergent (Pearson's correlation) validity. We also assessed intra-rater reliability (intra-class correlation) and responsiveness to change (t-tests).We included 809 individuals in our analysis. We established convergent validity (r = 0.77; p 0.001); discriminative validity (bad/neutral stories [mean diff=0.4; p 0.001]; neutral/ good stories [mean diff=1.3; p 0.001]) and moderate divergent validity (r = 0.57; p 0.001). We established sensitivity to change in all stories (bad/good [mean diff=1.52; p 0.001]; good/bad [mean diff= -1.68; p 0.001]; neutral/bad [mean diff= -0.57; p 0.001]; good/neutral [mean diff= -1.11; p 0.001]; neutral/good [mean diff= 1.1; p 0.001]) but one (bad/neutral [mean diff= 0.4; p 0.07]). Intra-rater reliability was demonstrated between time points (r = 0.77; p 0.001).the consideRATE questions were reliable and valid in a simulated online test.the consideRATE questions may be a practical way to measure serious illness experience and the effectiveness of interventions to improve it.

Contains fulltext : 174294.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: This study describes the process elements of decision-making for dementia, in order to enrich a model to facilitate shared decision-making for professionals working with people with dementia and their informal caregivers. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study based on secondary analysis of 117 interviews from 23 care networks consisting of people with dementia, their informal caregivers and professionals. Findings were compared to an existing model of collaborative deliberation. RESULTS: We made an enhancement to the existing collaborative deliberation model, to include: (1) constructive network engagement, (2) recognizing the need for a decision, (3) defining what to decide on, (4) developing alternatives, (5) constructing preferences through deliberation and trying out alternatives, (6) multiple preference integration, and (7) evaluating decision-making. CONCLUSION: In describing the process elements of decision-making in dementia, this empirical study proposes a modification of the model of collaborative deliberation for the context of dementia care. The adaptation highlights the special attention needed to recognize and define what to decide on, try out alternatives, and handle conflicting interests and preferences. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Professionals should be attentive to mark the start of the decision-making process and work with participants towards a shared view on the pressing matters at hand.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a brief observational measure of clinical risk communication competence. METHODS: A 4-item checklist-type measure, the BRISK (Brief Risk Information Skill) Scale, was developed by selecting and refining items from a more comprehensive measure of clinical risk communication competence. Six volunteer raters received brief training on the measure and then used the BRISK Scale to evaluate 52 video-recorded encounters between 2nd-year medical students and standardized patients conducted as part of an Observed Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) involving a risk communication task. Internal consistency reliability, inter-rater reliability, and criterion validity were assessed. RESULTS: Raters reported no difficulties using the BRISK Scale; scores across all raters and subjects ranged from 0 to 16 with a mean score of 6.49 (SD=3.17). The BRISK Scale showed good internal consistency reliability (alpha=0.64), and inter-rater reliability at the scale level (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC)=0.79 for consistency, and 0.75 for absolute agreement) and individual-item level (ICC range: 0.62-.91). Novice raters' BRISK Scale scores were highly correlated (r=0.84, p

Objective To evaluate shared decision-making (SDM) and delineate SDM processes in audio-recorded conversations between language congruent Spanish-/English-speaking clinicians and parents of pediatric mental health patients. Methods Transcripts from audio-recorded consultations were rated using the 5-Item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (Observer OPTION5) instrument. One hundred encounters between seventeen clinicians and 100 parents were rated. Interrater reliability for total score was 0.98 between two trained coders (ICC range: 0.799-0.879). Results Scores ranged between 0 and 70 on a 100-point scale, with an average total Observer OPTION5 score of 33.2 (SD = 17.36). This corresponded to modest success at mutual shared decision-making. Clinicians and parents both showed effort at identifying a problem with treatment options and engaging in team talk. However, preference elicitation and integration were largely lacking. Conclusion The present sample performed on par with other populations studied to date. It expands the evaluation of observed SDM to include Latino patients and new clinician populations. Practice implications Use of the Observer OPTION5 Item instrument highlights that eliciting and integrating parent/patient preferences is a skill that requires attention when delivering culturally competent interventions.

Objective To user-test graphical display formats (icon arrays, pie, bar, and line charts) to identify preferred formats and metrics (‘probability of death or stroke’ or ‘proportion of time lived without death or stroke’) in order to display time-dependent risks of stroke or death for three carotid stenosis treatments: endarterectomy (surgery), stenting, and medical therapy. Methods Iterative cycles of semi-structured interviews with patients recruited from a Vascular Clinic. Results A total of 27 patients (mean age = 68; range: 50–85) were interviewed over four cycles. Patients strongly preferred the pie chart over icon arrays, and over bar or line graphs. The preference was based on patient recognition of the time-based increase in risk for stroke or death for treatment options. Patients preferred data presented as probabilities instead of the proportion of time lived. We did not assess patients’ understanding. Conclusion Patients preferred the pie chart formats and reported better realization that risks increase with time for each option and that tradeoffs exist when surgery has a higher short-term risk than medical therapy. Practice implications There remains debate on how best to convey time-dependent risk information to patients, especially where low literacy and numeracy might exist.

Objective Care communication about obesity needs to respond to the complex biopsychosocial processes that affect weight and health. The collaborative deliberation model conceptualizes interpersonal work that underpins empathic communication and shared decision-making. The goal of this study was to elucidate how primary care practitioners can use the model to achieve shared obesity assessment and care planning. Methods This qualitative study used direct observation of clinical encounters with twenty patients with obesity sampled for maximum variation in context, semi-structured patient and provider interviews, patient journals and two follow-up interviews over eight weeks. Themes were compared to the original model. Results We identified five processes that may be relevant for collaborative deliberation about obesity in addition to the original model: (1) Exploring the story, (2) Reframing the story, (3) Co-constructing a new story, (4) Choosing a priority, and (5) Experimenting with alternatives. Conclusions We propose an enhanced collaborative deliberation model for obesity that describes the interpersonal work needed before and after deliberation about preferences and courses of action. Practice implications The enhanced model can support clinicians in achieving meaningful conversations about obesity and complex chronic disease resulting in care plans that are responsive to and achievable in the patient’s lifeworld.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: Existing theoretical work in decision making and behavior change has focused on how individuals arrive at decisions or form intentions. Less attention has been given to theorizing the requirements that might be necessary for individuals to work collaboratively to address difficult decisions, consider new alternatives, or change behaviors. The goal of this work was to develop, as a forerunner to a middle range theory, a conceptual model that considers the process of supporting patients to consider alternative health care options, in collaboration with clinicians, and others. METHODS: Theory building among researchers with experience and expertise in clinician-patient communication, using an iterative cycle of discussions. RESULTS: We developed a model composed of five inter-related propositions that serve as a foundation for clinical communication processes that honor the ethical principles of respecting individual agency, autonomy, and an empathic approach to practice. We named the model 'collaborative deliberation.' The propositions describe: (1) constructive interpersonal engagement, (2) recognition of alternative actions, (3) comparative learning, (4) preference construction and elicitation, and (5) preference integration. CONCLUSIONS: We believe the model underpins multiple suggested approaches to clinical practice that take the form of patient centered care, motivational interviewing, goal setting, action planning, and shared decision making.

Contains fulltext : 159364.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) OBJECTIVE: Measuring the process of shared decision making is a challenge, which constitutes a barrier to research and implementation. The aim of the study was to report the development of CollaboRATE, brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making. METHODS: We used the following stages: (1) item formulation; (2) cognitive interviews; (3) item refinement; and (4) pilot testing of final items. Participants were over 18 years old, recruited from the public areas of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. RESULTS: The key finding of this study is that developing a brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making requires a move away from terms such as 'decisions', 'options' and 'preferences'. Although technically correct, these terms act as barriers. They are often unfamiliar, and they also implicitly assume that patients are willing to take active roles in decision making; whereas patients are often unaware that decisions are required, or have taken place, never mind feel that they could or should have participated in them. CONCLUSION: These methods have allowed us to develop a brief, patient-reported measure of shared decision making that is highly accessible to intended users. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The potential strength of the CollaboRATE will be the ability for completion in less than 30s, and across a range of routine settings.

Evaluate interventions to enhance patient-physician communication and shared decision making (SDM).We used Observer OPTIONThe mean overall OPTIONOpenComm and AskShareKnow were associated with improved SDM relative to usual care.Results suggest targeting patient and physician behaviors promotes SDM better than patient activation only. Improving SDM for less educated patients is crucial.

Contains fulltext : 69648.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: Effective risk communication may enable clients to participate effectively in decision-making about their health and health care. A systematic review of existing literature on risk communication in genetics, and its effects on key outcomes for clients, was undertaken. METHOD: Systematic searching of six electronic databases and data extraction from included studies; narrative synthesis of results. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included, principally from cancer genetics. Sixteen communication interventions have been evaluated, generally showing improvements in cognitive outcomes for users, such as knowledge, understanding and risk perception, and without adverse effects on anxiety, cancer-related worry and depression. However, often it was the supportive or emotional elements of counselling that provided benefits to users, rather than the informational or educational elements. Similar results were found in 12 further studies of decision aids which also appear to achieve shorter consultations that can focus more on the supportive elements of counselling. CONCLUSION: For both communication models and decision aids, the supportive or emotional elements of counselling provided more benefits to users than the informational or educational elements. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Debate is required on how to strike a balance between the medical model, its agenda and perceived requirements to disclose or discuss a range of issues and the sometimes competing goals of addressing users' concerns, needs for support, issues of loss and relationship problems.

Contains fulltext : 69384.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe the extent to which theory or theoretical frameworks informed the development and evaluation of decision support technologies (DSTs). METHODS: The analysis was based on the decision technologies used in studies included in the Cochrane systematic review of patient decision aids for people facing health screening or treatment decisions. The assumption was made that DSTs evaluated by randomized controlled trials, and therefore included in the updated Cochrane review have been the most rigorously developed. RESULTS: Of the 50 DSTs evaluated only 17 (34%) were based on a theoretical framework. Amongst these, 11 decision-making theories were described but the extent to which theory informed the development, field-testing and evaluation of these interventions was highly variable between DSTs. The majority of the 17 DSTs that relied on a theory was not explicit about how theory had guided their design and evaluation. Many had superficial descriptions of the theory or theories involved. Furthermore, based on the analysis of those 17 DSTs, none had reported field-testing prior to evaluation. CONCLUSION: The use of decision-making theory in DST development is rare and poorly described. The lack of theoretical underpinning to the design and development of DSTs most likely reflects the early development stage of the DST field. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The findings clearly indicate the need to give more attention to how the most important decision-making theories could be better used to guide the design of key decision support components and their modes of action.

To evaluate whether introducing tools, specifically designed for use in clinical encounters, namely Option Grids, into a clinical practice setting leads to higher levels of shared decision making.A stepped wedge trial design where 6 physiotherapists at an interface clinic in Oldham, UK, were sequentially instructed in how to use an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee. Patients with suspected or confirmed osteoarthritis of the knee were recruited, six per clinician prior to instruction, and six per clinician afterwards. We measured shared decision making, patient knowledge, and readiness to decide.A total of 72 patients were recruited; 36 were allocated to the intervention group. There was an 8.4 point (95% CI 4.4 to 12.2) increase in the Observer OPTION score (range 0-100) in the intervention group. The mean gain in knowledge was 0.9 points (score range 0-5, 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5). There was no increase in encounter duration.Shared decision making increased when clinicians used the knee osteoarthritis Option Grid.Tools designed to support collaboration and deliberation about treatment options lead to increased levels of shared decision making.

Contains fulltext : 51325.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore if patients' preferences to be involved in decision making correlates with reasons for encounter, psychological or demographic characteristics and with the physicians' estimation of the patients' preferred communication styles. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty-four patients in general practice completed a questionnaire, which included the 'Autonomy Preference Index' (API), 'health locus of control' and 'hospital anxiety and depression'. The physicians documented the diagnoses and estimated the patients' preference for an autonomous, paternalistic or shared decision communication style. RESULTS: The preference for involvement varied across the reason for encounter (range 36.6-50.6), but this effect is explained by the patients' age (p

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Current models of the medical consultation emphasize shared decision-making (SDM), whereby the expertise of both the doctor and the patient are recognised and seen to equally contribute to the consultation. The evidence regarding the desirability and effectiveness of the SDM approach is often conflicting. It is proposed that the conflicts are due to the nature of assessment, with current assessments from the perspective of an outside observer. AIMS: To empirically assess perceived involvement in the medical consultation using the dyadic OPTION instrument. METHOD: 36 simulated medical consultations were organised between general practitioners and standardized- patients, using the observer OPTION and the newly developed dyadic OPTION instruments. RESULTS: SDM behaviours observed in the consultations were seen to depend on both members of the doctor and patient dyad, rather than each in isolation. Thus a dyadic approach to measurement is supported. CONCLUSIONS: This current study highlights the necessity for a dyadic approach to assessment and introduces a novel research instrument: the dyadic OPTION instrument.

Item does not contain fulltext We wanted to determine whether research instruments exist which focus on measuring to what extent health professionals involve patients in treatment and management decisions. A systematic search and appraisal of the relevant literature was conducted by electronic searching techniques, snowball sampling and correspondence with field specialists. The instruments had to concentrate on assessing patient involvement in decision-making by observation techniques (either direct or using audio or videotaped data) and contain assessments of the core aspects of 'involvement', namely evidence of patients being involved (explicitly or implicitly) in decision-making processes, a portrayal of options and a decision-making or deferring stage. Eight instruments met the inclusion criteria. But we did not find any instruments that had been specifically designed to measure the concept of 'involving patients' in decisions. The results reveal that little attention has been given to a detailed assessment of the processes of patient involvement in decision-making. The existing instrumentation only includes these concepts as sub-units within broader assessments, and does not allow the construct of patient involvement to be measured accurately. Instruments developed to measure 'patient-centeredness' are unable to provide enough focus on 'involvement' because of their attempt to cover so many dimensions. The concept of patient involvement (shared decision-making; informed collaborative choice) is emerging in the literature and requires an accurate method of assessment.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: The benefits of providing patients with recorded clinical consultations have been mostly investigated in oncology settings, generally demonstrating positive outcomes. There has been limited synthesis of evidence about the practice in wider context. Our aim was to summarize, in a scoping review, the evidence about providing consultation recordings to patients. METHODS: We searched seven literature databases. Full text articles meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved and reviewed. Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping studies guided the review process and thematic analysis was undertaken to synthesize extracted data. RESULTS: Of 5492 abstracts, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. Between 53.6% and 100% (72% weighted average) of patients listened to recorded consultations. In 60% of reviewed studies patients shared the audio-recordings with others. Six themes identified in the study provided evidence for enhanced information recall and understanding by patients, and positive reactions to receiving recorded consultations. There has been limited investigation into the views of providers and organizations. Medico-legal concerns have been reported. CONCLUSION: Patients place a high value on receiving audio-recordings of clinical consultations and majority benefit from listening to consultation recordings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further investigation of the ethical, practical and medico-legal implications of routinely providing recorded consultations is needed.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: To test whether the coping in deliberation (CODE) framework can be adapted to a specific preference-sensitive medical decision: risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in women at increased risk of ovarian cancer. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search to identify issues important to women during deliberations about RRSO. Three focus groups with patients (most were pre-menopausal and untested for genetic mutations) and 11 interviews with health professionals were conducted to determine which issues mattered in the UK context. Data were used to adapt the generic CODE framework. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 49 relevant studies, which highlighted various issues and coping options important during deliberations, including mutation status, risks of surgery, family obligations, physician recommendation, peer support and reliable information sources. Consultations with UK stakeholders confirmed most of these factors as pertinent influences on deliberations. Questions in the generic framework were adapted to reflect the issues and coping options identified. CONCLUSIONS: The generic CODE framework was readily adapted to a specific preference-sensitive medical decision, showing that deliberations and coping are linked during deliberations about RRSO. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Adapted versions of the CODE framework may be used to develop tailored decision support methods and materials in order to improve patient-centred care.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVES: To undertake a quantitative evaluation of a theory-based, interactive online decision aid (BresDex) to support women choosing surgery for early breast cancer (Stage I and II), based on observations of its use in practice. METHODS: Observational cohort study. Website log-files collected data on the use of BresDex. Online questionnaires assessed knowledge about breast cancer and treatment options, degree to which women were deliberating about their options, and surgery intentions, pre- and post-BresDex. RESULTS: Readiness to make a decision significantly increased after using BresDex (p

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: Design and undertake usability and field-testing evaluation of a theory-guided decision aid (BresDex) in supporting women choosing surgery for early breast cancer. METHODS: An extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the Common Sense Model of Illness Representations (CSM) guided the design of BresDex. BresDex was evaluated and refined across 3 cycles by interviewing 6 women without personal history of breast cancer, 8 women with personal history of breast cancer who had completed treatment and 11 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Participants were interviewed for views on content, presentation (usability) and perceived usefulness towards deciding on treatment (utility). Framework analysis was used, guided by the extended TPB and the CSM. RESULTS: BresDex was positively received in content and presentation (usability). It appeared an effective support to decision-making and useful source for further information, particularly in clarifying attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioral control, and presenting consequences of decisions (utility). CONCLUSION: This study illustrates the potential benefit of the extended TPB and CSM in designing a decision aid to support women choosing breast cancer surgery. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: BresDex could provide decision-making support and serve as an additional source of information, to complement the care received from the clinical team. 01 februari 2012

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: To describe the exploratory use of short decision support tools for patients, called Option Grids. Option Grids are summary tables, using one side of paper to enable rapid comparisons of options, using questions that patients frequently ask (FAQs) and designed for face-to-face clinical encounters. To date, most evidence about 'patient decision aids' has been based on tools with high content levels, designed for patients to use independently, either before or after visits. METHODS: We studied the use of Option Grids in a quality improvement project, collecting field notes and conducting interviews with clinical teams. RESULTS: In the 'Making Good Decisions in Collaboration' (MAGIC) program, clinicians found that using Option Grids made it easier to explain the existence of options and reported a 'handover' effect, where patient involvement in decision making was enhanced. CONCLUSION: Option Grids made options more visible and clinicians found it easier to undertake shared decision making when these tools were available. Used in a collaborative way, they enhance patients' confidence and voice, increasing their involvement in collaborative dialogs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further work to confirm these preliminary findings is required, to measure processes and to assess whether these tools have similar impact in other clinical settings.

Contains fulltext : 49741.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: In primary care of depression treatment options such as antidepressants, counseling and psychotherapy are reasonable. Patient involvement could foster adherence and clinical outcome. However, there is a lack of empirical information about the extent to which general practitioners involve patients in decision making processes in this condition, and about the consultation time spent for distinct decision making tasks. METHODS: Twenty general practice consultations with depressive patients prior to a treatment decision were audio-taped and transcribed. Patient involvement in decision making was assessed with the OPTION-scale and durations of decision making stages were measured. RESULTS: Mean duration of consultations was 16 min, 6s. The mean of the OPTION-items were between 0.0 and 26.9, in a scale range from 0 to 100. Overall, 78.6% of the consultation time was spent for the step "problem definition" (12 min, 42 s). CONCLUSION: Very low levels of patient involvement in medical decisions were observed in consultations about depression. Physicians used the majority of their time for the definition of the patient's medical problem. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To improve treatment decision making in this condition, general practitioners should enhance their decision making competences and be more aware of the time spent in each decision making stage.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext Significant conceptual work on shared decision making has taken place but there are still significant challenges in achieving it in routine clinical practice. This paper outlines what research has identified to date that may promote shared decision making, and the further research that is required to enable continuing progress. Greater understanding of the models of decision making and instruments to identify them in practice are still required. Specifying consumer competences, developing instruments to assess these and interventions to enhance them may also be important. Clarifying all these aspects may enable those charged with training professionals to improve the content of professional development programmes. This may be particularly important in the field of cancer treatments where the stakes are high-patients usually desire much information but their desire for involvement in decision making is more variable. The consequences of getting this balance right or wrong are significant with much to be gained or lost. Continued development and evaluation of decision aids and decision explorers that use interactive technology will also be important in identifying how to progress with consumer involvement. If we can learn these lessons, then wider implementation of shared decision making or consumer involvement may become a nearer prospect.