Patient Preferences for Shared Decision Making: Not All Decisions Should Be Shared.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
To assess bounds of shared decision making in orthopaedic surgery, we conducted an exploratory study to examine the extent to which patients want to be involved in decision making in the management of a musculoskeletal condition.Methods
One hundred fifteen patients at an orthopaedic surgery clinic were asked to rate preferred level of involvement in 25 common theoretical clinical decisions (passive [0], semipassive [1 to 4], equally shared involvement between patient and surgeon [5], semiactive [6 to 9], active [10]).Results
Patients preferred semipassive roles in 92% of decisions assessed. Patients wanted to be most involved in scheduling surgical treatments (4.75 ± 2.65) and least involved in determining incision sizes (1.13 ± 1.98). No difference exists in desired decision-making responsibility between patients who had undergone orthopaedic surgery previously and those who had not. Younger and educated patients preferred more decision-making responsibility. Those with Medicare desired more passive roles.Discussion
Despite the importance of shared decision making on delivering patient-centered care, our results suggest that patients do not prefer to share all decisions.
SUBMITTER: E Lindsay S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8080702 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimsTo determine the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), during selection of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and rhythm control treatments, in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF).Methods and resultsWe evaluated survey data from 1006 patients with new-onset AF enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the SATELLITE substudy of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT II). Patients completed surveys at enrolment and at 6-month follow-up. Patients were asked about who made their AF treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was classified as one that the patient felt was an autonomous decision or a shared decision with their healthcare provider (HCP). Approximately half of patients reported that their OAC treatment decisions were made entirely by their HCP. Compared with those reporting no SDM, patients reporting SDM for OAC were more often female (47.2% vs. 38.4%), while patients reporting SDM for rhythm control were more often male (62.2% vs. 57.6%). The most important factors cited by patients during decision-making for OAC were reducing stroke and bleeding risk, and their HCP's recommendations. After adjustment, patients with self-reported understanding of OAC, and rhythm control options, had higher odds of having participated in SDM [odds ratio (OR) 2.54, confidence interval (CI): 1.75-3.68 and OR 2.36, CI: 1.50-3.71, both P ≤ 0.001, respectively].ConclusionShared decision-making is not widely implemented in contemporary AF practice. Patient understanding about available therapeutic options is associated with a more than a two-fold higher likelihood of SDM, and may be a potential target for future interventions.
| S-EPMC7778449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:As shared decision making (SDM) has received increased attention as a method to improve the patient-centeredness of emergency department (ED) care, we sought to determine patients' desired level of involvement in medical decisions and their perceptions of potential barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. METHODS:We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of adult ED patients at three academic medical centers across the United States. The survey included 32 items regarding patient involvement in medical decisions including a modified Control Preference Scale and questions about barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. Items were developed and refined based on prior literature and qualitative interviews with ED patients. Research assistants administered the survey in person. RESULTS:Of 797 patients approached, 661 (83%) agreed to participate. Participants were 52% female, 45% white, and 30% Hispanic. The majority of respondents (85%-92%, depending on decision type) expressed a desire for some degree of involvement in decision making in the ED, while 8% to 15% preferred to leave decision making to their physician alone. Ninety-eight percent wanted to be involved with decisions when "something serious is going on." The majority of patients (94%) indicated that self-efficacy was not a barrier to SDM in the ED. However, most patients (55%) reported a tendency to defer to the physician's decision making during an ED visit, with about half reporting they would wait for a physician to ask them to be involved. CONCLUSION:We found that the majority of ED patients in our large, diverse sample wanted to be involved in medical decisions, especially in the case of a "serious" medical problem, and felt that they had the ability to do so. Nevertheless, many patients were unlikely to actively seek involvement and defaulted to allowing the physician to make decisions during the ED visit. After fully explaining the consequences of a decision, clinicians should make an effort to explicitly ascertain patients' desired level of involvement in decision making.
| S-EPMC6185792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Conflicts of interest about where to go and what to do are a primary challenge of group living. However, it remains unclear how consensus is achieved in stable groups with stratified social relationships. Tracking wild baboons with a high-resolution global positioning system and analyzing their movements relative to one another reveals that a process of shared decision-making governs baboon movement. Rather than preferentially following dominant individuals, baboons are more likely to follow when multiple initiators agree. When conflicts arise over the direction of movement, baboons choose one direction over the other when the angle between them is large, but they compromise if it is not. These results are consistent with models of collective motion, suggesting that democratic collective action emerging from simple rules is widespread, even in complex, socially stratified societies.
| S-EPMC4801504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose At the end of life, communication is a key factor for good care. However, in clinical practice, it is difficult to adequately discuss end-of-life care. In order to understand and analyze how decision-making related to life-sustaining treatment (LST) is performed, the shared decision-making (SDM) behaviors of physicians were investigated. Methods A questionnaire was designed after reviewing the literature on attitudes toward SDM or decision-making related to LST. A final item was added after consulting experts. The survey was completed by internal medicine residents and hematologists/medical oncologists who treat terminal cancer patients. Results In total, 202 respondents completed the questionnaire, and 88.6% said that the decision to continue or end LST is usually a result of SDM since they believed that sufficient explanation is provided to patients and caregivers, patients and caregivers make their own decisions according to their values, and there is sufficient time for patients and caregivers to make a decision. Expected satisfaction with the decision-making process was the highest for caregivers (57.4%), followed by physicians (49.5%) and patients (41.1%). In total, 38.1% of respondents said that SDM was adequately practiced when making decisions related to LST. The most common reason for inadequate SDM was time pressure (89.6%). Conclusion Although most physicians answered that they practiced SDM when making decisions regarding LST, satisfactory SDM is rarely practiced in the clinical field. A model for the proper implementation of SDM is needed, and additional studies must be conducted to develop an SDM model in collaboration with other academic organizations.
| S-EPMC10180072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOur objective was to elicit clinicians' and parents' perspectives about decision-making related to hospitalization for children with bronchiolitis and the use of shared decision-making (SDM) to guide these decisions.MethodsWe conducted individual, semistructured interviews with purposively sampled clinicians (pediatric emergency medicine physicians and nurses) at 2 children's hospitals and parents of children age <2 years with bronchiolitis evaluated in the emergency department at 1 hospital. Interviews elicited clinicians' and parents' perspectives on decision-making and SDM for bronchiolitis. We conducted an inductive analysis following the principles of grounded theory until data saturation was reached for both groups.ResultsWe interviewed 24 clinicians (17 physicians, 7 nurses) and 20 parents. Clinicians identified factors in 3 domains that contribute to hospitalization decision-making for children with bronchiolitis: demographics, clinical factors, and social-emotional factors. Although many clinicians supported using SDM for hospitalization decisions, most reported using a clinician-guided decision-making process in practice. Clinicians also identified several barriers to SDM, including the unpredictable course of bronchiolitis, perceptions of parents' preferences for engaging in SDM, and parents' emotions, health literacy, preferred language, and comfort with discharge. Parents wanted the opportunity to express their opinions during decision-making about hospitalization, although they often felt comfortable with the clinician's decision when adequately informed.ConclusionsAlthough clinicians and parents of children with bronchiolitis are supportive of SDM, most hospitalization decision-making is clinician guided. Future investigation should evaluate how to address barriers and implement SDM in practice, including training clinicians in this SDM approach.
| S-EPMC9647631 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared Decision Making (SDM) as means to the involvement of patients in medical decision making is increasingly demanded by treatment guidelines and legislation. Also, matching of patients' preferences to treatments has been shown to be effective regarding symptom reduction. Despite promising results for patients with substance use disorders (SUD) no systematic evaluation of the literature has been provided. The aim is therefore to give a systematic overview of the literature of patient preferences and SDM in the treatment of patients with SUD.MethodsAn electronic literature search of the databases Medline, Embase, Psyndex and Clinical Trials Register was performed. Variations of the search terms substance use disorders, patient preferences and SDM were used. For data synthesis the populations, interventions and outcomes were summarized and described according to the PRISMA statement. Methodological quality of the included articles was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.ResultsN = 25 trials were included in this review. These were conducted between 1986 and 2014 with altogether n = 8.729 patients. Two studies found that patients with SUD preferred to be actively involved in treatment decisions. Treatment preferences were assessed in n = 18 studies, where the majority of patients preferred outpatient compared with inpatient treatment. Matching patients to preferences resulted in a reduction on substance use (n = 3 studies), but the majority of studies found no significant effect. Interventions for SDM differed across patient populations and optional therapeutic techniques.DiscussionPatients with substance use disorders should be involved in medical treatment decisions, as patients with other health conditions. A suitable approach is Shared Decision Making, emphasizing the patients' preferences. However, due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, results should be interpreted with caution. Further research is needed regarding SDM interventions in patient populations with substance use disorders.
| S-EPMC4701396 | 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:BackgroundDespite health policy that promotes shared decision-making, it is not yet the norm in clinical practice. We aimed to assess how much shared decision-making Canadians experienced in health-related decisions in 2017.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey in January 2018 with a Web-based panel of Canadians representing all 10 provinces. We assessed their involvement in health-related decisions made with a health care professional over the previous year by asking about 1) discussion of choice of treatment or care plan, 2) presentation of advantages and disadvantages, 3) exploration of ideas and preferences, 4) discussion of preferred option and 5) match between preferred and actual level of participation. We computed an average shared decision-making score (range 1 [never] to 5 [always]). We presented characteristics of participants and responses using descriptive statistics and explored variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, geographical areas and care settings (home care or not) using multivariate weighted regressions.ResultsOf the 1591 participants surveyed, 1010 (63.5%) reported receiving health care in the previous 12 months. The mean of the average shared decision-making score was 2.25/5 (standard deviation [SD] 1.16). After weighting, 42.8% of respondents reported that their health care professional often or always mentioned that they had a choice of treatment or care plan, 45.4% reported that advantages and disadvantages were often or always presented, 38.8% reported that they were often or always asked for their ideas or preferences, 40.2% reported that they were often or always asked about their preferred option, and 54.1% stated that their level of participation in decision-making often or always matched their preferred level of participation. Increasing age, rural setting, living in the province of Quebec and not being white significantly decreased the level of shared decision-making experienced. Older respondents (age ≥ 65 yr) receiving home care reported the least shared decision-making (mean score 1.7 [SD 0.5]).InterpretationCanadians in all 10 provinces experienced a low degree of shared decision-making in 2017, with variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, care settings and geographical areas. Further efforts to foster implementation of shared decision-making are needed and should take these variations into account.
| S-EPMC6450794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop recommendations for pediatric shared decision-making (SDM).MethodsWe conducted a Delphi method study from 2020 to 2021 with an international panel (n = 21) of clinicians, researchers, and parents with expertise in pediatric SDM. We conducted semistructured interviews to identify the key processes of pediatric SDM. We coded the interviews using content analysis and developed a questionnaire on the potential processes of pediatric SDM. Using a Likert scale, panelists evaluated each process twice, once for simple decisions and once for complex decisions. Panelists were provided with a summary of the results and evaluated each process again. The processes that were agreed on for simple and complex decisions were reported as "fundamental processes." The processes that were agreed on for complex decisions were reported as "additional processes."ResultsA total of 79 recommendations were developed, including 29 fundamental processes and 14 additional processes for complex decisions. A recurring theme was the importance of personalizing the decision-making process. For example, the panel recommended that physicians should assess the family and child's desired roles in the decision-making process, assess their desired level of directiveness, and elicit and clarify their values, preferences, and goals. The panel also disagreed on several subprocesses, such as how to determine the child's role and the appropriate level of directiveness.ConclusionsAn international expert panel developed recommendations for pediatric SDM for both simple and complex decisions. The recommendations highlight the importance of personalizing the decision-making process.
| S-EPMC9647592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTraditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), integrating patient preferences into decision-making process, has been widely used in the multimodality therapy of lung cancer. This study aimed to estimate patient preferences for treatment and shared decision-making (SDM) modes concerning inpatient TCM treatment of lung cancer in Shanghai in order to provide a basis for clinical decision-making process on TCM therapy for lung cancer.MethodsThis study was conducted among patients (n = 347) from nine tertiary hospitals in Shanghai by discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey and Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-patient version (SDM-Q-9) survey. The DCE was developed with the inclusion of the most relevant attributes at appropriate levels for the TCM treatment of lung cancer. The empirical data analyses of patients were performed using mixed logit models. Additionally, subgroup analysis was conducted.ResultsIn total, 347 respondents completed the questionnaire. All attributes' coefficients were statistically significant for patients' preferences. Patients showed strong preferences for increasing disease control rate, relieving nausea and vomiting, reducing the risk of side effects, and were concerned about monthly out-of-pocket costs. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients with a lower SDM-Q-9 score and those who were satisfied with medical services emphasized more importance of higher disease control rate. Furthermore, most of the patients (90.20%) self-reported a high willingness to use SDM during the decision-making process.ConclusionIn Shanghai, patients mainly preferred SDM and considered disease control rate as the most essential attribute in the TCM treatment of lung cancer. The study findings could underscore the importance of considering patients' preferences and promote SDM.
| S-EPMC10400851 | biostudies-literature