Dealing with the Lack of Time for Detailed Shared Decision-making in Primary Care: Everyday Shared Decision-making.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Caverly TJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7572954 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Shared decision making (SDM) and decision aids (DAs) increase patients' involvement in health care decisions and enhance satisfaction with their choices. Studies of SDM and DAs have primarily occurred in academic centers and large health systems, but most primary care is delivered in smaller practices, and over 20% of Americans live in rural areas, where poverty, disease prevalence, and limited access to care may increase the need for SDM and DAs.To explore perceptions and practices of rural primary care clinicians regarding SDM and DAs.Cross-sectional survey. Setting and Participants Primary care clinicians affiliated with the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network.Surveys were returned by 181 of 231 eligible participants (78%); 174 could be analyzed. Two-thirds of participants were physicians, 84% practiced family medicine, and 55% were male. Sixty-five percent of respondents were unfamiliar with the term shared decision making, but following definition, 97% reported that they found the approach useful for conditions with multiple treatment options. Over 90% of clinicians perceived helping patients make decisions regarding chronic pain and health behavior change as moderate/hard in difficulty. Although 69% of respondents preferred that patients play an equal role in making decisions, they estimate that this happens only 35% of the time. Time was reported as the largest barrier to engaging in SDM (63%). Respondents were receptive to using DAs to facilitate SDM in print- (95%) or web-based formats (72%), and topic preference varied by clinician specialty and decision difficulty.Rural clinicians recognized the value of SDM and were receptive to using DAs in multiple formats. Integration of DAs to facilitate SDM in routine patient care may require addressing practice operation and reimbursement.
| S-EPMC3665512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient 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.MethodsHealth 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionWe 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.
| S-EPMC2248564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The authors assessed the impact of a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention among elderly depressed minority primary care patients not currently receiving treatment. METHODS:A total of 202 English and Spanish-speaking primary care participants aged 65 and older who scored positive on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (?10) were randomized at the physician level to receive a brief SDM intervention or usual care (UC). Primary analyses focused on patient adherence to either psychotherapy or antidepressant medication, and reduction in depression severity (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) over 12 weeks. RESULTS:Patients randomized to physicians in the SDM condition were significantly more likely than patients of physicians randomized to UC to receive a mental health evaluation or initiate some form of treatment (39% versus 21%), and to adhere to psychotherapy visits over 12 weeks. There were no differences between groups in adherence to antidepressant medication or in reduction of depressive symptoms. CONCLUSION:Among untreated elderly depressed minority patients from an inner-city municipal hospital, a brief SDM intervention was associated with greater initiation and adherence to psychotherapy. However, low treatment adherence rates across both groups and the intervention's lack of impact on clinical outcomes highlight the need to provide focused and accessible mental health services to patients choosing active treatments.
| S-EPMC6646064 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4754973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Shared decision making is an important implementation "pull" strategy for increasing uptake of evidence-based mental health practices. In this qualitative study, we explored provider perspectives on implementing shared decision making at the point of mental health treatment initiation using a publicly available, patient-facing decision support tool for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 mental health providers (psychiatrists, nurses, psychologists, and social workers) working in one of five VA primary care clinics. Interviewed were analyzed using thematic analysis. Provider were enthusiastic about using decision aids as a source of high quality information that could improve patient experience and confidence in treatment. However, providers had concerns about decision aid accessibility, time constraints to conduct shared decision making in-session, and patient motivation to engage in shared decision making. Providers stated they would prefer to use shared decision making with patients that they felt were most likely to follow through with treatment. While providers believed that shared decision making could improve PTSD treatment planning, they thought it most appropriate for patients with the highest levels of motivation and fewest barriers to care. These beliefs may limit widespread adoption and reflect missed opportunities to reach difficult-to-engage patients.
| S-EPMC8382773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient-centered diabetes care requires shared decision making (SDM). Decision aids promote SDM, but their efficacy in nonacademic and rural primary care clinics is unclear.We cluster-randomized 10 practices in a concealed fashion to implement either a decision aid (DA) about starting statins or one about choosing antihyperglycemic agents. Each practice served as a control group for another practice implementing the other type of DA. From April 2011 to July 2012, 103 (DA=53) patients with type 2 diabetes participated in the trial. We used patient and clinician surveys administered after the clinical encounter to collect decisional outcomes (patient knowledge and comfort with decision making, patient and clinician satisfaction). Medical records provided data on metabolic control. Pharmacy fill profiles provided data for estimating adherence to therapy.Compared to usual care, patients receiving the DA were more likely to report discussing medications (77% vs. 45%, p<.001), were more likely to answer knowledge questions correctly (risk reduction with statins 61% vs. 33%, p=.07; knowledge about options 57% vs. 33%, p=.002) and were more engaged by their clinicians in decision making (50. vs. 28, difference 21.4 (95% CI 6.4, 36.3), p=.01). We found no significant impact on patient satisfaction, medication starts, adherence or clinical outcomes, in part due to limited statistical power.DAs improved decisional outcomes without significant effect on clinical outcomes. DAs designed for point-of-care use with type 2 diabetes patients promoted shared decision making in nonacademic and rural primary care practices.NCT01029288.
| S-EPMC3751736 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe describe primary care providers' current practice patterns related to smoking cessation counseling and lung cancer screening (LCS).MethodsFamily, internal medicine, and pulmonary medicine providers from two medical centers were asked to complete an electronic survey to report their practice patterns.ResultsOf 52 participating providers, most reported initiating three major components of a smoking cessation intervention often or very often: advise to quit (50, 96%), assess willingness to quit (47, 90%), and assist with counseling or pharmacotherapy (49, 94%). However, other components were less commonly initiated such as arranging follow-ups (only 11 providers indicated recommending them often or very often, 21%) and less than half of providers reported that they often or very often recommend cessation counseling or pharmacotherapy of any type (except varenicline), though family medicine providers were more likely to recommend pharmacotherapy compared to the other specialists (p < 0.01). The majority of providers (47, 92%) reported that they engage in informed/shared decision-making about LCS, although only about one-third (17, 33%) indicated using a patient decision aid. Pulmonary medicine providers were more likely to use decision aids than providers from internal or family medicine (p < 0.04).ConclusionsWithin the context of LCS, primary care providers report often having conversations about smoking cessation with their patients who smoke, have no clear preference for type of treatment, and rarely use follow-up calls or visits pertaining to quitting smoking. While many providers report engaging in shared decision-making about LCS, few use a decision aid for this conversation.
| S-EPMC7926026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsShared decision making (SDM) and advance care planning (ACP) are important evidence and ethics based concepts that can be translated in communication tools to aid the treatment decision-making process. Although both have been recommended in the care of patients with risks of complications, they have not yet been described as two components of one single process. In this paper we aim to (1) assess how SDM and ACP is being applied, choosing patients with aortic stenosis with high and moderate treatment complication risks such as bleeding or stroke as an example, and (2) propose a model to best combine the two concepts and integrate them in the care process.MethodsIn order to assess how SDM and ACP is applied in usual care, we have performed a systematic literature review. The included studies have been analysed by means of thematic analysis as well as abductive reasoning to determine which SDM and ACP steps are applied as well as to propose a model of combining the two concepts into one process.ResultsThe search in Medline, Cinahl, Embase, Scopus, Web of science, Psychinfo and Cochrane revealed 15 studies. Eleven describe various steps of SDM while four studies discuss the documentation of goals of care. Based on the review results and existing evidence we propose a model that combines SDM and ACP in one process for a complete patient informed choice.ConclusionTo be able to make informed choices about immediate and future care, patients should be engaged in both SDM and ACP decision-making processes. This allows for an iterative process in which each important decision-maker can share their expertise and concerns regarding the care planning and advance care planning. This would help to better structure and prioritize information while creating a trustful and respectful relationship between the participants. PROSPERO 2019. CRD42019124575.
| S-EPMC10426137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChemoprevention with anti-estrogens, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene or aromatase inhibitors, have been shown to reduce breast cancer risk in randomized controlled trials; however, uptake among women at high-risk for developing breast cancer remains low. The aim of this study is to identify provider-related barriers to shared decision-making (SDM) for chemoprevention in the primary care setting.MethodsPrimary care providers (PCPs) and high-risk women eligible for chemoprevention were enrolled in a pilot study and a randomized clinical trial of web-based decision support tools to increase chemoprevention uptake. PCPs included internists, family practitioners, and gynecologists, whereas patients were high-risk women, age 35-75 years, who had a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk ≥ 1.67%, according to the Gail model. Seven clinical encounters of high-risk women and their PCPs who were given access to these decision support tools were included in this study. Audio-recordings of the clinical encounters were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using grounded theory methodology.ResultsSix primary care providers, of which four were males (mean age 36 [SD 6.5]) and two were females (mean age 39, [SD 11.5]) and seven racially/ethnically diverse high-risk female patients participated in this study. Qualitative analysis revealed three themes: (1) Competing demands during clinical encounters; (2) lack of knowledge among providers about chemoprevention; and (3) limited risk communication during clinical encounters.ConclusionsCritical barriers to SDM about chemoprevention were identified among PCPs. Providers need education and resources through decision support tools to engage in risk communication and SDM with their high-risk patients, and to gain confidence in prescribing chemoprevention in the primary care setting.
| S-EPMC9354269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAsthma is a common chronic illness affecting 19 million US adults. Inhaled corticosteroids are a safe and effective treatment for asthma, yet, medication adherence among patients remains poor. Shared decision-making, a patient activation strategy, can improve patient adherence to inhaled corticosteroids. This study aimed to explore whether audio-recorded patient-primary care provider encounters can be used to: 1. Evaluate the level of patient-perceived shared decision-making during the encounter, and 2. Predict levels of patient's inhaled corticosteroid adherence.Materials and methodsShared decision-making and inhaled corticosteroid adherence were assessed using the SDM Questionnaire-9 and the Medication Adherence Report Scale for Asthma (MARS-A). Speech-to-text algorithms were used to automatically transcribe 80 audio-recorded encounters between primary care providers and asthmatic patients. Machine learning algorithms (Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machines, Decision Tree) were applied to achieve the study's predictive goals.ResultsThe accuracy of automated speech-to-text transcription was relatively high (ROUGE F-score = .9). Machine learning algorithms achieved good predictive performance for shared decision-making (the highest F-score = .88 for the Naive Bayes) and inhaled corticosteroid adherence (the highest F-score = .87 for the Support Vector Machines).DiscussionThis was the first study that trained machine learning algorithms on a dataset of audio-recorded patient-primary care provider encounters to successfully evaluate the quality of SDM and predict patient inhaled corticosteroid adherence.ConclusionMachine learning approaches can help primary care providers identify patients at risk for poor medication adherence and evaluate the quality of care by measuring levels of shared decision-making. Further work should explore the replicability of our results in larger samples and additional health domains.
| S-EPMC9352008 | biostudies-literature