Dataset Information

'They leave at least believing they had a part in the discussion': understanding decision aid use and patient-clinician decision-making through qualitative research.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study explores how patient decision aids (DAs) for antihyperglycemic agents and statins, designed for use during clinical consultations, are embedded into practice, examining how patients and clinicians understand and experience DAs in primary care visits.

Methods

We conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with patients (n=22) and primary care clinicians (n=19), and videorecorded consultations (n=44). Two researchers coded all transcripts. Inductive analyses guided by grounded theory led to the identification of themes. Video and interview data were compared and organized by themes.

Results

DAs used during consultations became flexible artifacts, incorporated into existing decision making roles for clinicians (experts, authority figures, persuaders, advisors) and patients (drivers of healthcare, learners, partners). DAs were applied to different decision making steps (deliberation, bargaining, convincing, case assessment), and introduced into an existing knowledge context (participants' literacy regarding shared decision-making (SDM) and DAs).

Conclusion

DAs' flexible use during consultations effectively provided space for discussion, even when SDM was not achieved. DAs can be used within any decision-making model.

Practice implications

Clinician training in DA use and SDM practice may be needed to facilitate DA implementation and promote more ideal-type forms of sharing in decision making.

SUBMITTER: Tiedje K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3759553 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

'They leave at least believing they had a part in the discussion': understanding decision aid use and patient-clinician decision-making through qualitative research.

Tiedje Kristina K Shippee Nathan D ND Johnson Anna M AM Flynn Priscilla M PM Finnie Dawn M DM Liesinger Juliette T JT May Carl R CR Olson Marianne E ME Ridgeway Jennifer L JL Shah Nilay D ND Yawn Barbara P BP Montori Victor M VM

Patient education and counseling 20130415 1

<h4>Objective</h4>This study explores how patient decision aids (DAs) for antihyperglycemic agents and statins, designed for use during clinical consultations, are embedded into practice, examining how patients and clinicians understand and experience DAs in primary care visits.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with patients (n=22) and primary care clinicians (n=19), and videorecorded consultations (n=44). Two researchers coded all transcripts. Inductive analyses gu ...[more]

PMID: 23598292

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEffective management of metastatic disease requires multidisciplinary input and entails high risk of disease-related and treatment-related morbidity and mortality. The factors that influence clinician decision-making around spinal metastases are not well understood. We conducted a qualitative study that included a multidisciplinary cohort of physicians to evaluate the decision-making process for treatment of spinal metastases from the clinician's perspective.MethodsWe recruited operative and nonoperative clinicians, including orthopaedic spine surgeons, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and physiatrists, from across North America to participate in either a focus group or a semistructured interview. All interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. We then performed a thematic analysis using all of the available transcript data. Investigators sequentially coded transcripts and identified recurring themes that encompass overarching patterns in the data and directly bear on the guiding study question. This was followed by the development of a thematic map that visually portrays the themes, the subthemes, and their interrelatedness, as well as their influence on treatment decision-making.ResultsThe thematic analysis revealed that numerous factors influence provider-based decision-making for patients with spinal metastases, including clinical elements of the disease process, treatment guidelines, patient preferences, and the dynamics of the multidisciplinary care team. The most prominent feature that resonated across all of the interviews was the importance of multidisciplinary care and the necessity of cohesion among a team of diverse health-care providers. Respondents emphasized aspects of care-team dynamics, including effective communication and intimate knowledge of team-member preferences, as necessary for the development of appropriate treatment strategies. Participants maintained that the primary role in decision-making should remain with the patient.ConclusionsNumerous factors influence provider-based decision-making for patients with spinal metastases, including multidisciplinary team dynamics, business pressure, and clinician experience. Participants maintained a focus on shared decision-making with patients, which contrasts with patient preferences to defer decisions to the physician, as described in prior work.Clinical relevanceThe results of this thematic analysis document the numerous factors that influence provider-based decision-making for patients with spinal metastases. Our results indicate that provider decisions regarding treatment are influenced by a combination of clinical characteristics, perceptions of patient quality of life, and the patient's preferences for care.

Project description:BackgroundThe increase in therapeutic options for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) has added complexity to treatment decisions. Shared decision making has the potential to help providers and families work together to choose the best possible option for each patient from the array of choices. As part of a needs assessment, prior to design and implementation of shared decision making interventions, we conducted a qualitative assessment of clinicians' current approaches to treatment decision making in JIA.MethodsPediatric rheumatology clinicians were recruited from 2 academic children's hospitals affiliated with a quality improvement learning network, using purposive and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews elicited how clinicians with prescribing authority (n?=?10) interact with families to make treatment decisions. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A multi-disciplinary research team used content analysis to analyze the interview data.To validate data from individual interviews and enrich our understanding, we presented the interview results to pediatric rheumatology clinicians attending a learning network meeting (n?=?24 from 12 children's hospitals). We then asked the clinicians questions to further identify and discuss areas of variation in the decision-making processes.ResultsClinicians described a decision-making process in which they, rather than the family or other care team members, consistently initiated treatment decisions. Initial treatment options presented to families generally reflected the clinician's preferred treatment approaches, which differed across clinicians. Clinicians used various methods to inform families about treatment options and tailor information according to perceptions of a family's information needs, level of comprehension or mood (e.g. anxiety). The attributes of medication presented to families fell into 4 categories: benefits, risks, logistics and family preferences. Clinicians typically included family members in the decision to initiate JIA treatment after limiting the options to fit the clinical situation and the clinician's own preferences. Family members' preferences were seen as more integral in the decision to stop treatment after symptom remission.ConclusionsDecision making about initial JIA treatment appears to be largely driven by clinician preferences. Family preferences are more likely to be considered for treatment discontinuation. Opportunities exist to develop, test, and implement tools to facilitate shared decision making in pediatric rheumatology.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Surgical treatments are being offered to more patients than ever before, and increasingly to high-risk patients (typically multimorbid and over 75). Shared decision making is seen as essential practice. However, little is currently known about what 'good' shared decision making involves nor how it applies in the context of surgery for high-risk patients. This new study aims to identify how high-risk patients, their families and clinical teams negotiate decision making for major surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Focusing on major joint replacement, colorectal and cardiac surgery, we use qualitative methods to explore how patients, their families and clinicians negotiate decision making (including interactional, communicative and informational aspects and the extent to which these are perceived as shared) and reflect back on the decisions they made. Phase 1 involves video recording 15 decision making encounters about major surgery between patients, their carers/families and clinicians; followed by up to 90 interviews (with the same patient, carer and clinician participants) immediately after a decision has been made and again 3-6 months later. Phase 2 involves focus groups with a wider group of (up to 90) patients and (up to 30) clinicians to test out emerging findings and inform development of shared decision making scenarios (3-5 summary descriptions of how decisions are made). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study forms the first part in a 6-year programme of research, Optimising Shared decision-makIng for high-RIsk major Surgery (OSIRIS). Ethical challenges around involving patients at a challenging time in their lives will be overseen by the programme steering committee, which includes strong patient representation and a lay chair. In addition to academic outputs, we will produce a typology of decision making scenarios for major surgery to feed back to patients, professionals and service providers and inform subsequent work in the OSIRIS programme.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE:To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. DESIGN:Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS:We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). APPROACH:Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. KEY RESULTS:Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.

Dataset Information

'They leave at least believing they had a part in the discussion': understanding decision aid use and patient-clinician decision-making through qualitative research.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Practice implications

Publications

'They leave at least believing they had a part in the discussion': understanding decision aid use and patient-clinician decision-making through qualitative research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets