Dataset Information

Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making: a participant-level meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Gender differences in communication styles between clinicians and patients have been postulated to impact patient care, but the extent to which the gender dyad structure impacts outcomes in shared decision making remains unclear.Participant-level meta-analysis of 775 clinical encounters within 7 randomized trials where decision aids, shared decision making tools, were used at the point of care. Outcomes analysed include decisional conflict scale scores, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, concordance between stated decision and action taken, and degree of patient engagement by the clinician using the OPTION scale. An estimated minimal important difference was used to determine if nonsignificant results could be explained by low power.We did not find a statistically significant interaction between clinician/patient gender mix and arm for decisional conflict, satisfaction with the clinical encounter or patient engagement. A borderline significant interaction (p = 0.05) was observed for one outcome: concordance between stated decision and action taken, where encounters with female clinician/male patient showed increased concordance in the decision aid arm compared to control (8% more concordant encounters). All other gender dyads showed decreased concordance with decision aid use (6% fewer concordant encounters for same-gender, 16% fewer concordant encounters for male clinician/female patient).In this participant-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, decision aids used at the point of care demonstrated comparable efficacy across gender dyads. Purported barriers to shared decision making based on gender were not detected when tested for a minimum detected difference.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00888537, NCT01077037, NCT01029288, NCT00388050, NCT00578981, NCT00949611, NCT00217061.

SUBMITTER: Wyatt KD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4170214 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making: a participant-level meta-analysis.

Wyatt Kirk D KD Branda Megan E ME Inselman Jonathan W JW Ting Henry H HH Hess Erik P EP Montori Victor M VM LeBlanc Annie A

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20140902

<h4>Background</h4>Gender differences in communication styles between clinicians and patients have been postulated to impact patient care, but the extent to which the gender dyad structure impacts outcomes in shared decision making remains unclear.<h4>Methods</h4>Participant-level meta-analysis of 775 clinical encounters within 7 randomized trials where decision aids, shared decision making tools, were used at the point of care. Outcomes analysed include decisional conflict scale scores, satisfa ...[more]

PMID: 25179289

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:BackgroundThis project engages patients and physicians in the development of Decision Boxes, short clinical topic summaries covering medical questions that have no single best answer. Decision Boxes aim to prepare the clinician to communicate the risks and benefits of the available options to the patient so they can make an informed decision together.MethodsSeven researchers (including four practicing family physicians) selected 10 clinical topics relevant to primary care practice through a Delphi survey. We then developed two one-page prototypes on two of these topics: prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen test, and prenatal screening for trisomy 21 with the serum integrated test. We presented the prototypes to purposeful samples of family physicians distributed in two focus groups, and patients distributed in four focus groups. We used the User Experience Honeycomb to explore barriers and facilitators to the communication design used in Decision Boxes. All discussions were transcribed, and three researchers proceeded to thematic content analysis of the transcriptions. The coding scheme was first developed from the Honeycomb's seven themes (valuable, usable, credible, useful, desirable, accessible, and findable), and included new themes suggested by the data. Prototypes were modified in light of our findings.ResultsThree rounds were necessary for a majority of researchers to select 10 clinical topics. Fifteen physicians and 33 patients participated in the focus groups. Following analyses, three sections were added to the Decision Boxes: introduction, patient counseling, and references. The information was spread to two pages to try to make the Decision Boxes less busy and improve users' first impression. To try to improve credibility, we gave more visibility to the research institutions involved in development. A statement on the boxes' purpose and a flow chart representing the shared decision-making process were added with the intent of clarifying the tool's purpose. Information about the risks and benefits according to risk levels was added to the Decision Boxes, to try to ease the adaptation of the information to individual patients.ConclusionResults will guide the development of the eight remaining Decision Boxes. A future study will evaluate the effect of Decision Boxes on the integration of evidence-based and shared decision making principles in clinical practice.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveGreater understanding of the challenges to shared decision making about treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is needed to support implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice.Study designQualitative study.Setting & participantsPatients aged≥65 years with advanced CKD and their clinicians recruited from 3 medical centers participated in semi-structured interviews. In-depth review of patients' electronic medical records was also performed.Analytical approachInterview transcripts and medical record notes were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsTwenty-nine patients (age 73±6 years, 66% male, 59% White) and 10 of their clinicians (age 52±12 years, 30% male, 70% White) participated in interviews. Four themes emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) competing priorities-patients and their clinicians tended to differ on when to prioritize CKD and dialysis planning above other personal or medical problems; (2) focusing on present or future-patients were more focused on living well now while clinicians were more focused on preparing for dialysis and future adverse events; (3) standardized versus individualized approach to CKD-although clinicians tried to personalize care recommendations to their patients, the patients perceived their clinicians as taking a monolithic approach to CKD that was predicated on clinical practice guidelines and medical literature rather than the patients' lived experiences with CKD and personal values and goals; and (4) power dynamics-patients described cautiously navigating a power differential in their therapeutic relationship with their clinicians whereas clinicians seemed less attuned to these power dynamics.LimitationsThematic saturation was based on patient interviews. Themes presented might incompletely reflect clinicians' perspectives.ConclusionsEfforts to improve shared decision making for treatment of advanced CKD will likely need to explicitly address differences between patients and their clinicians in approaches to decision making about treatment of advanced CKD and perceived power imbalances in the therapeutic relationship.

Project description:BackgroundEnhancing patient-centered care and shared decision making (SDM) has become a national priority as a means of engaging patients in their care, improving treatment adherence, and enhancing health outcomes. Relatively little is known about the healthcare experiences or shared decision making among racial/ethnic minorities who also identify as being LGBT. The purpose of this paper is to understand how race, sexual orientation and gender identity can simultaneously influence SDM among African-American LGBT persons, and to propose a model of SDM between such patients and their healthcare providers.MethodsWe reviewed key constructs necessary for understanding SDM among African-American LGBT persons, which guided our systematic literature review. Eligible studies for the review included English-language studies of adults (≥ 19 y/o) in North America, with a focus on LGBT persons who were African-American/black (i.e., > 50 % of the study population) or included sub-analyses by sexual orientation/gender identity and race. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases using MESH terms and keywords related to shared decision making, communication quality (e.g., trust, bias), African-Americans, and LGBT persons. Additional references were identified by manual reviews of peer-reviewed journals' tables of contents and key papers' references.ResultsWe identified 2298 abstracts, three of which met the inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, one was cross-sectional and two were qualitative; one study involved transgender women (91 % minorities, 65 % of whom were African-Americans), and two involved African-American men who have sex with men (MSM). All of the studies focused on HIV infection. Sexual orientation and gender identity were patient-reported factors that negatively impacted patient/provider relationships and SDM. Engaging in SDM helped some patients overcome normative beliefs about clinical encounters. In this paper, we present a conceptual model for understanding SDM in African-American LGBT persons, wherein multiple systems of social stratification (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation) influence patient and provider perceptions, behaviors, and shared decision making.DiscussionFew studies exist that explore SDM among African-American LGBT persons, and no interventions were identified in our systematic review. Thus, we are unable to draw conclusions about the effect size of SDM among this population on health outcomes. Qualitative work suggests that race, sexual orientation and gender work collectively to enhance perceptions of discrimination and decrease SDM among African-American LGBT persons. More research is needed to obtain a comprehensive understanding of shared decision making and subsequent health outcomes among African-Americans along the entire spectrum of gender and sexual orientation.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision making is a crucial component of evidence-based practice, but a lack of training in the "how to" of it is a major barrier to its uptake.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a brief intervention for facilitating shared decision making skills in clinicians and student clinicians.DesignMulti-centre randomized controlled trial.ParticipantsOne hundred and seven medical students, physiotherapy or occupational therapy students undertaking a compulsory course in evidence-based practice as part of their undergraduate or postgraduate degree from two Australian universities.InterventionThe 1-h small-group intervention consisted of facilitated critique of five-step framework, strategies, and pre-recorded modelled role-play. Both groups were provided with a chapter about shared decision making skills.Main measuresThe primary outcome was skills in shared decision making and communicating evidence [Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale, items from the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) Tool], rated by a blinded assessor from videorecorded role-plays.Secondary outcomesconfidence in these skills and attitudes towards patient-centred communication (Patient Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS)).Key resultsOf participants, 95 % (102) completed the primary outcome measures. Two weeks post-intervention, intervention group participants scored significantly higher on the OPTION scale (adjusted group difference?=?18.9, 95 % CI 12.4 to 25.4), ACEPP items (difference?=?0.9, 95 % CI 0.5 to 1.3), confidence measure (difference?=?13.1, 95 % CI 8.5 to 17.7), and the PPOS sharing subscale (difference?=?0.2, 95 % CI 0.1 to 0.5). There was no significant difference for the PPOS caring subscale.ConclusionsThis brief intervention was effective in improving student clinicians' ability, attitude towards, and confidence in shared decision making facilitation. Following further testing of the longer-term effects of this intervention, incorporation of this brief intervention into evidence-based practice courses and workshops should be considered, so that student clinicians graduate with these important skills, which are typically neglected in clinician training.

Project description:RationaleGuidelines for pulmonary nodule evaluation suggest a variety of strategies, reflecting the lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating the superiority of any one approach. It is unclear whether clinicians agree that multiple management options are appropriate at different levels of risk and whether this impacts their decision-making approaches with patients.ObjectivesTo assess clinicians' perceptions of the appropriateness of various diagnostic strategies, approach to decision-making, and perceived clinical equipoise in pulmonary nodule evaluation.MethodsWe developed and administered a web-based survey in March and April, 2014 to clinician members of the American Thoracic Society. The primary outcome was perceived appropriateness of pulmonary nodule evaluation strategies in three clinical vignettes with different malignancy risk. We compared responses to guideline recommendations and analyzed clinician characteristics associated with a reported shared decision-making approach. We also assessed clinicians' likelihood to enroll patients in hypothetical randomized trials comparing nodule evaluation strategies.ResultsOf 5,872 American Thoracic Society members e-mailed, 1,444 opened the e-mail and 428 eligible clinicians participated in the survey (response rate, 30.0% among those who opened the invitation; 7% overall). The mean number of options considered appropriate increased with pretest probability of cancer, ranging from 1.8 (SD, 1.2) for the low-risk case to 3.5 (1.1) for the high-risk case (P < 0.0001). As recommended by guidelines, the proportion that deemed surgical resection as an appropriate option also increased with cancer risk (P < 0.0001). One-half of clinicians (50.4%) reported engaging in shared decision-making with patients for pulmonary nodule management; this was more commonly reported by clinicians with more years of experience (P = 0.01) and those who reported greater comfort in managing pulmonary nodules (P = 0.005). Although one-half (49.9%) deemed the evidence for pulmonary nodule evaluation to be strong, most clinicians were willing to enroll patients in randomized trials to compare nodule management strategies in all risk categories (low risk, 87.6%; moderate risk, 89.7%; high risk, 63.0%).ConclusionsConsistent with guideline recommendations, clinicians embrace multiple options for pulmonary nodule evaluation and many are open to shared decision-making. Clinicians support the need for randomized clinical trials to strengthen the evidence for nodule evaluation, which will further improve decision-making.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study uses the diffusion of innovations (DOI) theory to comprehensively understand the adoption of shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical practice, specifically focusing on the 'knowledge' and 'persuasion' stages within DOI. We aim to understand the challenges and dynamics associated with SDM adoption, offering insights for more patient-centred decision-making in healthcare.DesignThis qualitative study employs a modified framework analysis approach, integrating ethnographic and interview data from prior research, along with additional interviews. The framework used is based on the DOI theory.Study setting and participantsThis study was conducted in the obstetrics and gynaecology department of a tertiary teaching hospital in the Eastern region of the Netherlands. It included interviews with 20 participants, including gynaecologists, obstetrics registrars and junior doctors currently practising in the department. Additionally, data from prior research conducted within the same department were incorporated, ensuring the maintenance of contextual consistency.ResultsFindings reveal a complex interplay between SDM's benefits and challenges. Clinicians value SDM for upholding patient autonomy and enhancing medical practice, viewing it as valuable for medical decision-making. Decision aids are seen as advantageous in supporting treatment decisions. Challenges include compatibility issues between patient and clinician preferences, perceptions of SDM as time-consuming and difficult and limitations imposed by the rapid pace of healthcare and its swift decisions. Additionally, perceived complexity varies by situation, influenced by colleagues' attitudes, with limited trialability and sparsely observed instances of SDM.ConclusionsClinicians' decision to adopt or reject SDM is multifaceted, shaped by beliefs, cognitive processes and contextual challenges. Cognitive dissonance is critical as clinicians reconcile their existing practices with the adoption of SDM. Practical strategies such as practice assessments, open discussions about SDM's utility and reflective practice through professional development initiatives empower clinicians to make the best informed decision to adopt or reject SDM.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).ObjectiveWe examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.DesignMulticenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.ApproachWe performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.ParticipantsWe interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.ResultsAll clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.

Dataset Information

Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making: a participant-level meta-analysis.

Publications

Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making: a participant-level meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets