Engagement In Shared Decision-making Research Articles

Differences in shared decision-making and prostate cancer screening by sexual orientation and race/ethnicity.

10525 Background: There are well-documented disparities among racial and sexual minorities in prostate cancer screening uptake and shared-decision making (SDM) conversations. However, it is unclear how racial/ethnic identity and sexual orientation interact to affect prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing uptake. Methods: Data came from the 2018-2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS). Outcomes were survey responses to questions about engagement in SDM and PSA testing uptake. The sample included 88,365 heterosexual (HS) men and 2,562 sexual minority (SM) men ages 55 to 69. Data were stratified by race/ethnicity and survey-weighted logistic regression models analyzed the association between sexual orientation and outcomes. Models controlled for age, relationship status, education, household income, insurance status, having a usual source of care, and region. Results: White SM men were more likely to have discussed disadvantages of PSA testing with their healthcare provider [odds ratio (OR)=1.407; p<0.001] and to have undergone PSA testing [OR=1.320; p<0.001] compared to White HS men. Asian SM men were more likely to have had discussions about PSA testing [OR=4.470; p<0.05]; to have discussed advantages [OR=4.596; p<0.05]; to have been recommended PSA testing [OR=4.836; p<0.05] and to have undergone PSA testing [OR=4.401; p<0.001] compared to Asian HS men. Black SM men were more likely to undergo screening because of an issue or a reason besides routine screening [OR=1.073, p<0.05] compared with Black HS men. Hispanic SM men were more likely to have undergone screening as part of a routine checkup [OR=4.2, p<0.001] compared with Hispanic HS men. There were no sexual orientation differences in PSA screening or SDM among American Indian or Native Alaskans. Conclusions: Differences in PSA testing uptake and SDM by sexual orientation vary by race/ethnicity. Further research is needed to study the factors affecting PSA testing uptake and SDM among sexual minority men of different racial/ethnic groups. [Table: see text]

P.019 A shared decision-model toolkit for pregnancy related care in neurology

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a dynamic, patient-engaged approach to collaborative medical care. Limited SDM tools exist in pregnancy. We aimed to examine the need and usability of a novel SDM tool for pharmaco-therapeutic treatment of neurological conditions in pregnancy. Methods: This is an exploratory mixed-methods study. Non-pregnant women of any age were recruited using convenience, purposive sampling from an academic neurology clinic in Toronto. Participants reported the user friendliness of the SDM by completing the systems usability (SUS) questionnaire and participated in a focus group to further elaborate on their experience. Results: Eleven participants completed the survey 45% each between age 31-40, and 51-60. Median time spent on the tool was 17.2 minutes, and median SUS score 70 (<68 being not usable). Thematic data analysis from 2 focus groups, identified technical and content improvements: use of inclusive language, simplified design, and importance of patient engagement in SDM. Conclusions: Based on our preliminary results, a SDM web-tool for medication-related concerns of pregnant patients with neurological conditions is needed and usable. With integration of patients’ lived experiences, this novel tool may serve as an anchor point for future work in this field.

Shared decision-making in psoriasis care: Evaluation of how patients' perception of clinicians' delivery of care changes by age and sex.

Shared decision-making (SDM) refers to a collaborative process in which clinicians assist patients in making medically informed, evidence-based decisions that align with their values and preferences. There is a paucity of literature on SDM in dermatology. We aim to assess whether male and female psoriasis patients evaluate their clinicians' engagement in SDM differently across different age groups. Cross-sectional study using data from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS). A weighted total of 7,795,608 psoriasis patients were identified. SDM Scores ranged from 1 to 4, with 4 representing the most favorable patient evaluation of their clinicians' engagement in SDM. We conducted multivariate linear regression to compare mean SDM Scores in male psoriasis patients versus female psoriasis patients across different patient age groups. Female patients ages 60-69 perceived significantly greater clinician engagement in SDM compared to age-matched male patients (female patient perception of SDM 3.65 [95%CI:3.61-3.69] vs. male patient perception of SDM 3.50 [95%CI:3.43-3.58], p<0.005). The same trend of older female patients evaluating their clinicians' engagement in SDM significantly higher than their age-matched male counterparts exists for the age group >70 (p<0.005). No significant differences between male and female patients' evaluations of their clinicians' engagement in SDM were demonstrated in subjects younger than 60. All calculations were adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. Compared to older male psoriasis patients, older female psoriasis patients evaluated their clinicians to be more engaged in shared decision-making.

Transforming Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Care with Real-World Patient and Provider Perspectives: Results from Two Collaborative Patient-Provider Quality Improvement Programs

Background Improved quality of life and overall satisfaction of care stems from patients’ understanding of their disease state and collaboration with their providers in shared decision-making (SDM). Using a validated collaborative learning model (Sapir 2017), we evaluated patient and healthcare provider (HCP) perceptions regarding SDM and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) care. Methods From October to November 2020 and September to November 2021, we conducted two collaborative patient-provider programs involving 12 oncology centers across the US. A combined 378 patients and caregivers of patients with CLL and 58 HCPs participated in the programs (Table 1). Before and after the sessions, patients and their providers completed tethered surveys to assess alignments and discordances in preferences, experiences, and concerns around CLL treatment and SDM. Chi-square analysis was used to test significance between patient and provider responses. Results Patients and HCPs were aligned in the factors they thought were most important to patients in treatment decision-making, identifying how well the treatment will work against my cancer (58% patient, 50% HCP) and how it will affect my quality of life (42% patient, 43% HCP) as most important. However, HCPs’ perceptions of the biggest challenges faced by patients with CLL in their care differ from patient self-reports. HCPs believe their patients’ biggest challenge in CLL care is worrying about and/or difficulty managing side effects from treatment (40%) whereas, patients most often reported their biggest challenge as "other” (50%). When asked about their patients’ top goals of treatment, HCPs compared to patients placed higher importance on improving quality of life (66% vs 30%, p<0.001) and maintaining independence in daily activities (21% vs 13%). Conversely, HCPs were less likely than patients to identify patients’ goals of treatment as preventing disease progression (31% vs 51%, p = 0.005), surviving for as long as possible (40% vs 47%), and controlling symptoms (21% vs 33%) (Figure 1). Patients and HCPs also differed in their estimates of how involved they feel in decisions around treatment options. HCPs reported only 39% of their patients’ being very or extremely involved in their care compared to 67% of patients. When asked why patients are not more involved in treatment decisions, patients were more likely than HCPs to report that they are already fully involved in treatment decision-making (45% vs 12%).Conversely, HCPs were much more likely to report that patients feel too overwhelmed to make decisions (57% vs 3%) and that patients lack of understanding of medicine (36% vs 5%). In addition, 8% of patients acknowledged less involvement because their care team does not ask about their treatment goals and priorities. Providers cite top barriers to engaging patients with CLL in SDM as not enough time (62%) and patients’ low health literacy (34%). HCPs were more likely than patients to report that they always/often: askhow CLL is affecting the patient's quality of life (64% vs 54%) and ask about the patient's goals for treatment (52% vs 43%). Patients reported higher rates of providers willing to work with the patient to create a treatment plan that fits the patient's needs and goals (59% patients, 52% HCPs). When asked about their experience with clinical trials, 78% of patients stated no experience. Following the collaborative learning sessions, patients set goals to notify their care team if new symptoms arise or if I have concerns (55%), consider their treatment options more closely (41%), and discuss goals for treatment with the care team (35%). HCPs made commitments to engage their patients more frequently in SDM (83%), increase the variety of educational materials they provide to patients (50%), and conduct additional small-group education sessions with their patients (50%). Conclusions Patients with CLL and their HCPs differed in their experiences, perceptions, and beliefs related to SDM and other key aspects of patient-centered care. Collaborative education can support improved knowledge, communication, and understanding between patients and providers, leading to greater engagement in SDM around personalized CLL care. Study Sponsor Statement The study reported in this abstract was funded by an independent educational grant from Genentech. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

Patients' and physicians' gender and perspective on shared decision-making: A cross-sectional study from Dubai.

Delivering patient-centered care is a declared objective of many health delivery systems globally, especially in an era of value-based health care. It entails the active engagement of the patients in healthcare decisions related to their health, also known as shared decision making (SDM). Little is known about the role of gender in shaping the perspective of patients on their opportunity for engaging in SDM in the Arabian Gulf Region. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of gender in shaping patients' perspectives toward their opportunity for SDM in Dubai, UAE. This study utilized a cross-sectional survey consisting of sociodemographic questions and the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). A total of 50 physicians (25 females and 25 males), practicing at a large private healthcare delivery network in Dubai, were recruited using convenience sampling. Ten patients of every recruited physician (5 male and 5 female) were surveyed (i.e., a total of 500 patients). Statistical analysis assessed the differences in patients' perceptions of physician SDM attitude scores by physicians' and patients' gender using independent t-test, ANOVA-test, and Chi-square analyses. A total of 50 physicians and 500 patients (250 male patients and 250 female patients) participated in this study. The odd of patients agreement was significantly lower for male physicians, compared to their female counterparts, on the following elements of SDM: the doctor precisely explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.34-0.88, p = 0.012); the doctor helping them understand the information (OR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.23-0.97, p = 0.038), the doctor asking about preferred treatment option (OR = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.35-0.77, p = 0.001), and the doctor thoroughly weighting the different treatment options (OR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.41-0.90, p = 0.013). No significant associations were observed between patients' gender and their perception of their opportunity for SDM. Likewise, no significant associations were observed between the same or different physician-patient gender and patients' perception of physicians' SDM attitudes. Statistically significant associations were observed between physician-patient gender and preferred treatment option for patients (p = 0.012). Study findings suggest that while there were no differences in patients' perspective on SDM by the gender of patients, significant differences were observed by the gender of physicians. Female physicians, compared to their male counterparts, were more engaged in SDM, with both male and female patients. Male physician-female patient dyad received the lowest scores on SDM. This could be explained by the cultural, social, and religious sensitivities that infiltrate the physician-patient relationship in the Arab contexts. Despite the multi-cultural nature of the country, some female patients may still experience some discomfort in opening up and in discussion preferences with male physicians. For physicians, striking the right balance between assertiveness and SDM is necessary within the cultural context, especially among male providers. Offering targeted learning and development programs on the importance and practice of SDM is also necessary to ensure equitable opportunity for engagement in SDM for all patients irrespective of the gender of their provider.

Factors Associated With Patient Engagement in Shared Decision-Making for Stroke Prevention Among Older Adults with Atrial Fibrillation.

ObjectiveTo examine the extent of, and factors associated with, patient engagement in shared decision-making (SDM) for stroke prevention among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).MethodsWe used data from the Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Elements-Atrial Fibrillation study which includes older ( ≥65 years) patients with AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc≥2. Participants reported engagement in SDM by answering whether they actively participated in choosing to take an oral anticoagulant (OAC) for their condition. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess associations between sociodemographic, clinical, geriatric, and psychosocial factors and patient engagement in SDM.ResultsA total of 807 participants (mean age 75 years; 48% female) on an OAC were studied. Of these, 61% engaged in SDM. Older participants (≥80 years) and those cognitively impaired were less likely to engage in SDM, while those very knowledgeable of their AF associated stroke risk were more likely to do so than respective comparison groups.ConclusionsA considerable proportion of older adults with AF did not engage in SDM for stroke prevention with older patients and those cognitively impaired less likely to do so. Clinicians should identify patients who are less likely to engage in SDM, promote patient engagement, and foster better patient-provider communication which may enhance long-term patient outcomes.

Abstract 57: Experiences and Beliefs Regarding Shared Decision-Making About Treatment of Incurable Cancer in Tanzania

Abstract Purpose: Treatment decision-making in the setting of advanced cancer is often complex and culturally embedded. Potential benefits of treatment must be weighed against toxicities, economic burden, and social consequences. The standard of shared decision-making (SDM) between doctor and patient, rooted in the Western principle of patient autonomy, may not be readily transferable to other cultural and socioeconomic contexts, where different values and considerations may take precedence. This study aims to characterize the decision-making experiences and beliefs of stakeholders at Ocean Road Cancer Institute (ORCI) in Tanzania in order to inform communication guidelines and improvement strategies. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of oncologists and nurses (n=13) and patients with advanced cancer (n=11) at ORCI. A diagram depicting paternalistic, informed, and shared approaches to decision-making was referenced during interviews. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, translated to English, coded using MAXQDA software, and analyzed using framework thematic analysis. Results: Patients and providers reported heterogeneous decision-making experiences and preferences, with a trend toward greater patient engagement in recent years. Providers believed SDM is especially important when treatment goals are palliative and when out-of-pocket costs are significant, but favored paternalistic decision-making in the context of curative treatment and lower patient health literacy. Patients generally placed greater importance on providers' communication style and the quality of clinical care than engagement in SDM. Several participants perceived SDM to increase patient adherence to treatment. Barriers and facilitators of SDM were identified at the patient, provider, and healthcare system levels. Community misperceptions about cancer treatment was commonly cited as a barrier. Practical suggestions included communication skills training for providers, implementation of a clinical tool for decision-making, and increased patient and public education about cancer treatment. Conclusion: Understanding the nuanced views regarding SDM is important for development of culturally informed communication guidelines, tools, and training. Citation Format: Megan Casey, Raymond Athanas, Nazima Dharsee, Anna Jazza, Kalunde Julius, Francis Semwaza, Beatrice Mushi, Emilie Kadhim, Katherine Van Loon, Anita Ho, Rebecca Deboer. Experiences and Beliefs Regarding Shared Decision-Making About Treatment of Incurable Cancer in Tanzania [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual Symposium on Global Cancer Research; Global Cancer Research and Control: Looking Back and Charting a Path Forward; 2021 Mar 10-11. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2021;30(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 57.

Birth choices after caesarean in Taiwan: A mixed methods pilot study of a decision aid for shared decision making

BackgroundTaiwan has a high national caesarean rate coupled with a low vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) rate. Studies suggest that women do not receive sufficient information about birth choices after caesarean in Taiwan and shared decision making (SDM) is not an expectation. This pilot study aimed to test the feasibility of using a birth choices decision aid to improve women's opportunity for engagement in SDM about birth after cesarean. MethodsA two-phase sequential mixed methods pilot study was conducted in a regional hospital in northern Taiwan. Phase I involved a randomized pre-test and post-test experimental design. Participants with one previous caesarean section (CS) were recruited at 14-24 weeks. A total of 65 women completed a baseline survey and were randomly allocated to either the intervention (birth choice decision aid booklet) or usual care (general maternal health booklet) group. A follow up survey at 37-38 weeks measured change in decisional conflict, knowledge, and birth mode preference. Birth outcomes and satisfaction were assessed one month after birth. Phase II consisted of postnatal interviews with women at one month after birth, to explore women's decision making experiences, using a constant comparative analytic technique and thematic analysis. ResultsDecisional conflict was relatively low at baseline for all women. Although there were reductions in decisional conflict at follow up, differences between groups were not statistically significant. Women's early preferences regarding mode of birth influenced their knowledge-seeking behaviors and expectations or intention for engaging in SDM during pregnancy. Improvements in knowledge for the decision aid group were larger than for the usual care group, although differences between groups were not statistically significant. Four themes related to key factors in decision making were clarity, safety and risk, consistency, and support. ConclusionA cultural shift is needed to align expectations and relationships towards SDM for birth in Taiwan. Simulation-based strategies and tailored communication skills should be explored to enhance skills in decision coaching for providers. Use of interactive multimedia technology may provide opportunities to increase engagement with tools and support women during decision consultations. Midwife-led continuity of care models may also be beneficial in empowering women to actively share decisions and achieve the birth that is best for them.

Abstract 13111: Factors Associated With Patient Engagement in Shared Decision-Making for Stroke Prevention Among Older Adults With Atrial Fibrillation: Implications for Patient-Provider Communication

Introduction: Though engaging patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the decision-making process for stroke prevention is encouraged by guidelines, little is known about the extent of, and the factors associated with, patient engagement in this process. Hypothesis: Patient engagement in shared decision-making (SDM) would be modest and that older participants will less likely engage in SDM for stroke prevention. Methods: Data are from the ongoing SAGE (Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Elements)-AF study which enrolled older adults aged 65 years and older with AF from clinics in Massachusetts and Georgia. Participants on an oral anticoagulant (OAC) reported whether they were engaged in the decision to be on an OAC by answering “Yes” to the question: “Did you participate actively in choosing to take an OAC?”. We used multiple logistic regression analysis to examine the sociodemographic, geriatric, psychosocial, and clinical factors associated with patient engagement in SDM for stroke prevention. Results: Participants (N= 807) were on average 75 years old and 48% were female. Approximately, 61% engaged in the decision to be on an OAC. Participants aged 80 years and older (aOR= 0.53; 95 % CI:0.31-0.89) and those cognitively impaired (aOR= 0.69; 95 % CI: 0.48, 0.99) were less likely to engage in SDM than respective comparison groups. Participants who reported being very knowledgeable of their AF associated risk of stroke had higher odds of engaging in SDM than those with less knowledge (aOR= 3.06; 95 % CI:1.59, 5.90). Conclusions: Clinicians should identify older patients and those who are cognitively impaired who are less likely to engage in SDM for stroke prevention, promote patient engagement, and provide support to ensure sustained engagement that would enhance long-term treatment outcomes for patients with AF.

Discordant Beliefs, Perceptions, and Experiences between Patients with Sickle Cell Disease and Their Care Teams: Insights from a Pilot Program to Support Shared Decision-Making

Background For patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), shared learning, understanding, and decision-making with their healthcare providers (HCPs) is critical for achieving treatment goals. Using a validated collaborative learning model (Sapir 2017), we evaluated patient and HCP perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) related to SCD treatment. Methods In June 2020, 113 patients/caregivers of patients with SCD and 30 HCPs participated in 3 live, virtual collaborative learning sessions developed with the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America (Table 1). Before and after the sessions, patients and their HCPs completed tethered surveys to assess alignments and discordances in preferences, experiences, and concerns around SCD treatment and SDM. Results Patients and HCPs held discordant beliefs about the degree of patients' progress toward treatment goals. While HCPs estimated that only 29% of their patients are on track to meet their goals, 85% of patients reported that they felt somewhat (39%) or fully (46%) on track. The magnitude of this discrepancy suggests that patients may not be aware of treatment milestones they are not reaching. Participants differed in their perceptions of how often HCPs engage patients in SDM (Figure 1). Relative to patients' estimates, HCPs were more likely to report that they usually or always: ask about the patient's goals for treatment (41% vs 61%), work with the patient to create a treatment plan (47% vs 55%), explain their own goals for the patient's treatment (47% vs 55%), and explain the pros/cons of each treatment choice (47% vs 55%). The biggest missed opportunity for SDM involved how often HCPs ask patients about stigma related to opioids for pain management (28% vs 35%). The reported lack of communication around stigma may contribute to providers' underestimation of how often their patients encounter stigma. HCPs estimated that 47% of their patients have faced barriers to adequate pain management in the ER due to opioid stigma and/or poor knowledge of pain crises among ER staff. By comparison, 74% of patients reported ever feeling that ER doctors, nurses, or staff questioned their need for pain medication during a pain crisis (20% once; 54% more than once). When asked why patients are not more involved in SDM (Figure 2), HCPs were more likely to select patient factors: feeling too overwhelmed to make treatment decisions (52% HCPs, 14% patients), low health literacy (49% HCPs, 12% patients), and lack of confidence in validity of opinions/concerns (44% HCPs, 10% patients). In contrast, patients were more likely to report that they are completely involved in treatment decisions (40% patients, 4% HCPs) and that they trust their care team to make decisions on their behalf (37% patients, 30% HCPs). Regarding adjusting SCD therapy, HCPs overestimated how many patients were concerned about learning a new routine/schedule (23% HCPs, 7% patients), but underestimated concerns about being able to pay for it (4% HCPs, 9% patients). HCPs correctly estimated concerns about knowing whether treatment will work (33% HCPs, 34% patients), fear of side effects (29% HCPs, 25% patients), and knowing how to manage a pain episode (9% HCPs, 9% patients). Overall, HCPs underestimated how many patients would not worry about switching treatment (1% HCPs, 9% patients). Following the collaborative learning sessions, patients made commitments to talk to their care team about their treatment goals (52%), consider treatment options more closely (50%), take a more active role in decision-making (46%), and notify their care team with concerns (41%). HCPs set goals to increase the types of educational materials they provide (57%), attempt to ease the transition to the adult care setting (50%), engage their patients more frequently in SDM (47%), and train colleagues on how to conduct additional learning sessions (34%). The full data set with 2 additional learning sessions (Aug 2020) will be presented. Conclusions Patients with SCD and their care teams differed in their experiences and beliefs related to SDM. Collaborative education can reveal opportunities for greater understanding and facilitate improved patient-provider communication, leading to greater engagement in SDM around SCD treatment. Study Sponsor Statement The study reported in this abstract was funded by an independent educational grant from bluebird bio. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. Disclosures Smith-Whitley: Prime: Other: Education material; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Global Blood Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Disparities in Shared Decision Making and Service Receipt Among Children With Special Health Care Needs and Developmental Delay: A National Survey Analysis.

Shared decision making (SDM) is associated with increased service satisfaction among pediatric patients. Our objective was to examine the association between SDM and service use experiences across racial/ethnic child groups. This secondary data analysis used the 2009-2010 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCN) and 2011 Pathways to Diagnosis and Services Survey. We used a rank-and-replace matching approach consistent with Institute of Medicine recommendations for health disparities research. We included CSHCN aged 6 to 17 years. The exposure of interest was parents of CSHCN reporting engagement in SDM with clinicians. There were 4032 CSHCN included in analysis. CSHCNs experiencing SDM had a 16% higher probability of reporting service use compared to those not experiencing it (95% CI, 14.24-19.42). Black children experiencing SDM reported seeing all needed care providers at a lower rate than whites (79% and 87.6% respectively; 95% CI, -14.05-3.27). The benefit of SDM over not experiencing it for blacks was 12.2% less than for whites for the outcome of seeing all needed care providers. For the outcome of receiving all needed treatments and services, the SDM benefit was 9.1% lower for Hispanics compared with whites. SDM can improve service experiences but implementation flexibility may be needed.

Trust and world view in shared decision making with indigenous patients: A realist synthesis.

IntroductionHow shared decision making (SDM) works with indigenous patient values and preferences is not well understood. Colonization has affected indigenous peoples' levels of trust with institutions, and their world view tends to be distinct from that of nonindigenous people. Building on a programme theory for SDM, the present research aims to refine the original programme theory to understand how the mechanisms of trust and world view might work differently for indigenous patients.DesignWe used a six‐step iterative process for realist synthesis: preliminary programme theory development, search strategy development, selection and appraisal of literature, data extraction, data analysis and synthesis, and formation of a revised programme theory.Data SourcesSearches were through Medline, CINAHL, and the University of Saskatchewan iPortal for grey literature. Medline and CINAHL searches included the University of Alberta Canada‐wide indigenous peoples search filters.Data synthesisFollowing screening 731 references, 90 documents were included for data extraction (53 peer reviewed and 37 grey literature). Documents from countries with similar colonization experiences were included.ResultsA total of 518 context‐mechanism‐outcome (CMO) configurations were identified and synthesized into 21 CMOs for a revised programme theory. Demographics, indigenous world view, system and institutional support, language barriers, and the macro‐context of discrimination and historical abuse provided the main contexts for the programme theory. These inspired mechanisms of reciprocal respect, perception of world view acceptance, and culturally appropriate knowledge translation. In turn, these mechanisms influenced the level of trust and anxiety experienced by indigenous patients. Trust and anxiety were both mechanisms and intermediate outcomes and determined the level of engagement in SDM.ConclusionThis realist synthesis provides clinicians and policymakers a deeper understanding of the complex configurations that influence indigenous patient engagement in SDM and offers possible avenues for improvement.

“I had already made up my mind.” The impact of prior experience and health care perceptions on decision making in women with early-stage breast cancer.

228 Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when informed patients partner with their oncologists to incorporate personal preferences into treatment. Even before engaging with an oncologist about treatment options, patients may have personal experiences or knowledge of other’s experiences with breast cancer that frame their decision-making. This study sought to understand how prior experiences and knowledge drive preferences in early stage breast cancer treatment approaches. Methods: This qualitative study included early stage breast cancer (BC) patients at an academic medical center in the Deep South. Women age ≥18 with an AJCC stage I-III BC diagnosis were invited to complete semi-structured interviews with a trained interviewer. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by two independent coders utilizing a constant comparative method from an a priori conceptual model based on the Ottawa Framework. Major themes and exemplary quotes related to decision-making preferences were extracted. Results: Women (n = 33) interviewed were an average age of 74 (4.2 SD), and 19% of participants were African American. Many women were given the option to omit treatments, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy, based on hormone receptor status and axillary node involvement. Major themes related to a desire for more treatment were past experiences with family members having cancer or an impression that additional treatment would be more effective. For women that opted out of treatments, prior knowledge of potential physical side effects from friends, family, and other cancer survivors were cited as a major deterrent. Perceptions of low recurrence risk also influenced desire to forgo treatments. Conclusions: Women presenting with early stage BC had varied healthcare experiences, which resulted in preconceived ideas about receiving breast cancer treatments. Consideration of these themes may aid physicians’ ability to address individual concerns to further personalize patient care, thus enhancing the patient-physician partnership. These findings will ultimately assist in improving patient engagement in SDM.

Shared decision making by United Kingdom osteopathic students: an observational study using the OPTION-12 instrument

BackgroundAt the crux of patient centred care is Shared Decision Making (SDM), which benefits patient and practitioner. Despite external pressures, studies indicate that SDM remains poorly practised across a variety of healthcare professions. The degree of SDM engagement within United Kingdom osteopathic undergraduate teaching clinics is currently unknown.MethodsIn 2014 we used the reliable and validated OPTION-12 (O12) instrument to calculate a score that reflected the degree of SDM utility in one United Kingdom Osteopathic Educational Institute’s teaching clinic. We also aimed to compare these scores with those previously obtained for physiotherapists working within the United Kingdom’s National Health Service. Student-patient initial and follow-up encounters were audio recorded, transcribed and scored using the O12. Comparisons between the following O12 scores were performed: the Osteopathic Educational Institute’s 4th and 3rd year students; the Osteopathic Educational Institute’s student’s initial and follow-up patient encounters; the Osteopathic Educational Institute’s students and National Health Service physiotherapists.ResultsWe analysed 35.5 h of transcribed data from 30 student-patient encounters (7 initial: 23 follow-up). An O12 score of 0.6% (range 0–10.4%) was calculated. No significant differences were found between year groups or encounter types. Significant differences were found compared to National Health Service physiotherapist (score = 24.4%): (U = 144, z = 4.25, p < 0.0005); although both scores are below the 60% threshold for competent SDM behaviour.ConclusionsUndergraduate osteopaths did not appear to engage in competent SDM behaviours, implying traditional and paternalistic styles of decision making that align with results from other manual therapy professions. Students in this study did not practise competent SDM behaviours. Effective educational strategies are required to ensure SDM behaviours reach competent levels.

Shared decision-making in outpatients with mental disorders: Patients´ preferences and associated factors.

Over the last years, traditional paternalistic model is being questioned. Shared Decision-Making (SDM) model has been proposed as a way to improve patient-physician interaction. Little is known to what extent people with severe mental illness want to be involved in decision-making process. This study evaluates their preferences about making clinical decisions and which variables influence these desires. One hundred seven patients with DSM diagnoses of bipolar disorder or schizophrenia and 100 Non Psychiatric Comparison (NPC) subjects recruited from mental health and primary care departments completed a self-reported questionnaire about preferences in decision-making process. Demographic and clinical information was obtained through review of available records and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Patients and NPCs differed as regards their preferences about their participation in medical decisions. NPCs were 18 times more likely to prefer options about their treatment and 2 times more likely to prefer to take medical decisions by their own than psychiatric patients. The best predictors of the preference of a SDM model were a lower BPRS global score and the absence of previous compulsory admissions. Psychiatric patients more frequently preferred a passive role in the decision-making process. Interventions to promote SDM should be tailored to the values and needs of each patient because not everyone wants to participate to the same degree. We found several factors to take into account in patient engagement in SDM as these populations may be more vulnerable.

Shared Decision Making and Treatment for Minority Children With ADHD.

Shared decision making (SDM) involves the patient and family in medical decisions regarding treatment. The purpose of this article is to utilize the 2016 National Survey of Children's Health to explore whether family engagement in SDM increases the odds of treatment for children with ADHD, and more specifically, if the presence of SDM is associated with the reduction of racial and ethnic disparities in treatment. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model the odds of treatment for each racial/ethnic group controlling for sociodemographic and health-related variables. Results indicated that White and Multiracial families engaged in SDM were twice as likely to report treatment for ADHD. Black and Latinx families, however, showed no difference in treatment for ADHD when SDM was present. Based on these findings, we conclude that SDM may be less important for Black and Latinx families when making treatment decisions for children with ADHD.

Patient and provider perspectives on shared decision making: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature.

For comparative effectiveness research to be effective, patients and providers must collaborate in shared decision making (SDM) to make evidence-based clinical decisions that align with patient preferences. We conducted a systematic review to examine patient and provider attitudes toward and engagement in SDM in the USA. Searches in PubMed and PsycINFO identified 1585 articles published between July 2006 and December 2016, of which 290 were screened in for coding and analysis. We found that patients and providers have generally positive attitudes toward SDM, but actual engagement in SDM behavior is lagging. Translation of positive attitudes into behavior could be achieved through policies that support key SDM processes of sharing evidence, considering patient preferences and discussing the relative advantages of different clinical options.

Stakeholders' Perspectives on Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Recognizing Ways to Improve Shared Decision Making.

Postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) is an elective, preference-sensitive decision made during a stressful, time-pressured period after a cancer diagnosis. Shared decision making (SDM) can improve decision quality about preference-sensitive choices. Stakeholders' perspectives on ways to support PMBR decision-making were explored. Forty semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (20 postmastectomy patients, 10 PMBR surgeons, 10 PMBR nurses) were conducted. Clinicians were recruited from diverse practices across the United States. Patients were recruited using purposive sampling with varying PMBR experiences, including no reconstruction. The interview guide was based on an implementation research framework. Themes were identified using grounded theory approach, based on frequency and emotive force conveyed. Engagement in SDM was variable. Some patients wanted more information about PMBR from clinicians, particularly about risks. Some clinicians acknowledged highlighting benefits and downplaying risks. Many patients felt pressured to make a choice by their clinicians. Clinicians who successfully engaged patients through decisions often used outside resources to supplement conversations. Patient-clinician trust was critical to high-quality decisions, and many patients expressed decision regret when they were not engaged in PMBR discussions. Patients often perceived a race- or age-related bias in clinician information sharing. Interventions to support SDM may enhance decision quality and reduce decision regret about PMBR, ultimately improving patient-centered care for women with breast cancer.

The Physician-as-Stakeholder: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of Physicians' Motivations for Using Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department.

Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly recognized as an important facet of patient-centered care. Despite growing interest in SDM in the emergency department (ED), little is known about emergency physicians' (EPs') motivations for using SDM. Understanding current patterns of SDM use and EP's rationale for using SDM is essential for the development of interventions to increase use. Recognizing the EP as an important stakeholder in SDM research, we sought to identify and explore factors that may motivate EPs' engagement in SDM. In this qualitative study, informed by the Theory of Planned Behavior and Social Cognitive Theory, we conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of EPs. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Using a directed qualitative content analysis approach, three members of the research team performed open coding of the transcripts in an iterative process, building a provisional code book as coding progressed. Respondent validation was employed to ensure methodologic rigor. Fifteen EPs, ages 31-65, from both academic and community practice settings, were interviewed. Several had not heard of the specific phrase "shared decision making," but all understood the concept and felt that they used SDM techniques to some degree. Most noted they had often had an agenda when they used SDM, which often motivated them to have the conversation. Agendas described included counteracting an algorithmic or defensive approach to diagnosis and treatment, avoiding harmful tests, or sharing uncertainty. All participants believed that patients benefited from SDM in terms of satisfaction, engagement, or education. Nearly all participants identified research outcomes that they felt would encourage their use of SDM (e.g., improvements in patient engagement, mitigation of risk) and many prioritized patient-centered outcomes over systems outcomes such as improved resource utilization. Little consensus was seen, however, regarding the importance of individual outcomes: of eight potential research outcomes participants endorsed, no single outcome was endorsed by even half of the physicians interviewed. Emergency physicians identified many factors that motivated them to use SDM. This study informs current research on SDM in the ED, particularly regarding the motivations of the physician-as-stakeholder.

Patients' Perceptions and Experiences of Shared Decision-Making in Primary HIV Care Clinics

Shared decision-making (SDM) is considered best practice in health care. Prior studies have explored attitudes and barriers/facilitators to SDM, with few specific to HIV care. We interviewed 53 patients in HIV primary care clinics in California to understand the factors and situations that may promote or hinder engagement in SDM. Studies in other populations have found that patients' knowledge about their diseases and their trust in providers facilitated SDM. We found these features to be more nuanced for HIV. Perceptions of personal agency, knowledge about one's disease, and trust in provider were factors that could work for or against SDM. Overall, we found that participants described few experiences of SDM, especially among those with no comorbidities. Opportunities for SDM in routine HIV care (e.g., determining antiretroviral therapy) may arise infrequently because of treatment advances. These findings yield considerations for adapting SDM to fit the context of HIV care.