Dataset Information

Professional centred shared decision making: patient decision aids in practice in primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient decision aids are increasingly regarded as important components of clinical practice that enable shared decision making (SDM) and evidence based patient choice. Despite broad acceptance of their value, there remains little evidence of their successful implementation in primary care settings.

Methods

Health care practitioners from five general practice surgeries in northern England participated in focus group sessions around the themes of patient decision aids, patient and practitioner preferences and SDM. Participants included general practitioners (n = 19), practice nurses (n = 5) and auxiliary staff (n = 3). Transcripts were analysed using a framework approach.

Results

We report a) practitioners' discussion of the current impetus towards sharing decisions and their perspectives on barriers to SDM, and b) the implementation of patient decision aids in practice and impediments such as lack of an evidence base and time available in consultations.

Conclusion

We demonstrate two orientations to sharing decisions: practitioner-centred and patient-centred with the former predominating. We argue that it is necessary to rethink the changes required in practice for the implementation of SDM.

SUBMITTER: Watson DB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2248564 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Professional centred shared decision making: patient decision aids in practice in primary care.

Watson Duika Burges DB Thomson Richard G RG Murtagh Madeleine J MJ

BMC health services research 20080111

<h4>Background</h4>Patient decision aids are increasingly regarded as important components of clinical practice that enable shared decision making (SDM) and evidence based patient choice. Despite broad acceptance of their value, there remains little evidence of their successful implementation in primary care settings.<h4>Methods</h4>Health care practitioners from five general practice surgeries in northern England participated in focus group sessions around the themes of patient decision aids, p ...[more]

PMID: 18190683

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background. Although effective interventions for shared decision making (SDM) exist, there is a lack of uptake of these tools into clinical practice. "Nudges," which draw on behavioral economics and target automatic thinking processes, are used by policy makers to influence population-level behavior change. Nudges have not been applied in the context of SDM interventions but have potential to influence clinician motivation, a primary barrier to long-term adoption of SDM tools. Objective. Describe, evaluate, and propose recommendations for the use of a behavioral economics framework (MINDSPACE) on clinician motivation and behavior during implementation of a validated decision aid (DA) for left ventricular assist device at nine hospitals. Methods. Qualitative thematic analysis of process notes from stakeholder meetings during the first 6 months of implementation to identify examples of how the MINDSPACE framework was operationalized. Quantitative implementation progress was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. Results. MINDSPACE components were translated into concrete approaches that leveraged influential stakeholders, fostered ownership over the DA and positive emotional associations, spread desirable norms across sites, and situated the DA within established default processes. DA reach to eligible patients increased from 9.8% in the first month of implementation to 70.0% in the sixth month. Larger gains in reach were observed following meetings using MINDSPACE approaches. Limitations. The MINDSPACE framework does not capture all possible influences on behavior and responses to nudges may differ across populations. Conclusions. Behavioral economics can be applied to implementation science to foster uptake of SDM tools by increasing clinician motivation. Our recommendations can help other researchers effectively apply these approaches in real-world settings when there are often limited incentives and opportunities to change organizational- or structural-level factors.

Project description:Primary care faces challenging times in many countries, mainly caused by an ageing population. The GPs' role to match patients' demand with medical need becomes increasingly complex with the growing multiple conditions population. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as ideal to the treatment decision making process. Understanding GPs' perception on SDM about patient referrals and whether patients' preferences are considered, becomes increasingly important for improving health outcomes and patient satisfaction. This study aims to 1) understand whether countries vary in how GPs perceive SDM, in patients' referral, 2) describe to what extent SDM in GPs' referrals differ between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems, and 3) identify what factors GPs consider when referring to specialists and describing how this differs between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems. Data were collected between October 2011 and December 2013 in 32 countries through the QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe). The first question was answered by assessing GPs' perception on who takes the referral decision. For the second question, a multilevel logistic model was applied. For the third question we analysed the GPs' responses on what patient logistics and need arguments they consider in the referral process. We found: 1) variation in GPs reported SDM- 90% to 35%, 2) a negative correlation between gatekeeper systems and SDM-however, some countries strongly deviate and 3) GPs in gatekeeper systems more often consider patient interests, whereas in non-gatekeeping countries the GP's value more own experience with specialists and benchmarking information. Our findings imply that GPs in gatekeeper systems seem to be less inclined to SDM than GPs in a non-gatekeeping system. The relation between gatekeeping/non-gatekeeping and SDM is not straightforward. A more contextualized approach is needed to understand the relation between gatekeeping as a system design feature and its relation with and/or impact on SDM.

Project description:Shared decision making (SDM) is important in achieving patient-centered care. SDM tools such as decision aids are intended to inform the patient. When used to assist in decision making between treatments, decision aids have been shown to reduce decisional conflict, increase ease of decision making, and increase modification of previous decisions.The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes related to SDM for seriously ill patients.PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes and SDM in serious illness. Six RCTs were identified and data were extracted on study population, design, and results. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials.Six RCTs tested decision tools in varying serious illnesses. Three studies compared different computerized decision aids against each other and a control. All but one study demonstrated improvement in at least one patient-centered outcome. Computerized decision tools may reduce unnecessary treatment in patients with low disease severity in comparison with informational pamphlets. Additionally, electronic health record (EHR) portals may provide the opportunity to manage care from the home for individuals affected by illness. The quality of decision aids is of great importance. Furthermore, satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decisional conflict. Finally, patients may benefit from computerized decision tools without the need for increased physician involvement.Most computerized decision aids improved at least one patient-centered outcome. All RCTs identified were at a High Risk of Bias or Unclear Risk of Bias. Effort should be made to improve the quality of RCTs testing SDM aids in serious illness.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:For antidepressants, the translation of evidence of comparative effectiveness into practice is suboptimal. This deficit directly affects outcomes and quality of care for patients with depression. To overcome this problem, we developed the Depression Medication Choice (DMC) encounter decision aid, designed to help patients and clinicians consider the available antidepressants and the extent to which they improved depression and other issues important to patients. OBJECTIVE:Estimate the effect of DMC on quality of the decision-making process and depression outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted a cluster randomized trial of adults with moderate to severe depression considering treatment with an antidepressant. Primary care practices in 10 rural, suburban, and urban primary care practices across Minnesota and Wisconsin were randomly allocated to treatment of depression with or without use of the DMC decision aid. INTERVENTION:Depression Medication Choice, a series of cards, each highlighting the effect of the available options on an issue of importance to patients for use during face-to-face consultations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Decision-making quality as judged by patient knowledge and involvement in decision making, patient and clinician decisional comfort (Decisional Conflict Scale) and satisfaction, encounter duration, medication adherence, depression symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9). RESULTS:We enrolled 117 clinicians and 301 patients (67% women; mean [SD] age, 44 [15] years; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 15 [4]) into the trial. Compared with usual care (UC), use of DMC significantly improved patients' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 75%; P = .02), knowledge (DMC, 65% vs UC, 56%; P =?.03), satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], from 1.25 [P =?.81] to RR, 2.4 [P =?.002] depending on satisfaction domain), and involvement (DMC, 47% vs UC, 33%; P<.001). It also improved clinicians' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 68%; P <?.001) and satisfaction (RR, 1.64; P =?.02). There were no differences in encounter duration, medication adherence, or improvement of depression control between arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:The DMC decision aid helped primary care clinicians and patients with moderate to severe depression select antidepressants together, improving the decision-making process without extending the visit. On the other hand, DMC had no discernible effect on medication adherence or depression outcomes. By translating comparative effectiveness into patient-centered care, use of DMC improved the quality of primary care for patients with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01502891.

Project description:BackgroundPoor patient-provider communication, among other reasons, is a notable barrier to contraceptive decision-making among Latinas. Patient-centered approaches to contraceptive counseling that optimize communication align with shared decision-making (SDM) -which is associated with satisfaction and continued contraceptive use among various populations.ObjectiveTo examine associations of patient-provider communication and importance of SDM tenets with consistent contraceptive use among a population of Latinas.Patient involvementFormative work for this study included prior qualitative and quantitative research with Latinas who expressed the importance of patient-provider communication during contraceptive counseling and therefore were instrumental in problem definition.MethodsCross-sectional surveys were administered to Latinas ages 15-29 years. Patient-provider communication, patient-reported importance of specific SDM tenets, and consistent contraception use were measured and analyzed for associations.Results103 Latinas (mean age = 21.4) participated. 33% of participants<21 years were using contraception consistently vs. 67% for those ≥ 21 (p = 0.003). Among participants ≥ 21, consistent users reported higher communication scores compared to inconsistent users and non-users (p = 0.042). For participants< 21, consistent users were more likely than inconsistent users and non-users to report that 2 SDM tenets (discussion of contraceptive preferences and avoidance of race/ethnic-based judgement) are important (p = 0.052, 0.028, respectively).DiscussionPatient-provider communication was especially important for Latinas ≥ 21 while using an SDM approach during counseling was highly valued by those<21. Patient-centered approaches to contraceptive counseling provide opportunities to optimize healthcare delivery for this vulnerable population.Practical valueResults from this research demonstrate that patient-centered communication is highly valued by Latina study participants and is an important consideration in their contraceptive counseling. Clinicians should consider employing techniques such as SDM as they seek to provide patient-centered care during contraceptive counseling for this patient population.

Dataset Information

Professional centred shared decision making: patient decision aids in practice in primary care.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Professional centred shared decision making: patient decision aids in practice in primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure