Facilitators Of Shared Decision-making Research Articles

MMpowerment: Empowering patients with multiple myeloma for shared decision-making by developing an intervention to integrate personal preferences into digital care pathways

ObjectiveAs part of a quality improvement initiative in the context of value-based health care we aimed to optimize the shared decision-making (SDM) process in the care pathway for Multiple Myeloma as part of a digital care pathway (DCP). For this, more insight was needed in health care professionals’ (HCPs’) perspectives on SDM, and how SDM elements could be addressed in a DCP for MM to facilitate HCPs’ performance of SDM. MethodsHCPs were interviewed as per the theory of planned behaviour and the model of organizational context and SDM (phase 1). Multidisciplinary development sessions were organized to discuss concepts of the solution with HCPs (phase 2). The solution was evaluated with two patients from the quality improvement team. ResultsIn phase 1, ten interviews were held. HCPs’ attitudes and the subjective norm towards SDM were positive, and the intention to perform SDM was high. The clinical environment (physical context, disease characteristics, assumptions about patient characteristics, and workflows) for MM posed challenges on the actual SDM behavior. Education and use of the DCP to create awareness of SDM were seen as possible facilitators for SDM. A prepared and active patient would facilitate the SDM process. In phase 2, three concept solutions were developed before arriving at the final solution. The final solution consisted of three elements to incorporate SDM steps in the DCP: 1) creating patient awareness and activation with two questions about their preferences prior to a consultation, 2) visualisation of preferences centrally in the DCP to trigger HCP to discuss them, 3) monitoring and improving SDM with patient-questionnaires after decision-making. Patients and HCPs were willing to implement it. ConclusionHCPs intention to engage in SDM was high, but their actual behaviour was challenged by the clinical environment. A 3-element DCP-based intervention was developed to increase SDM. Patient or public contributionInput on the solution was obtained from end-users including two patients and ten healthcare professionals.

The Perspectives of Surrogates and Healthcare Providers Regarding SDM (Shared Decision-Making).

The purpose of this paper is to explore the attitudes of surrogacy and medical service providers toward SDM and to identify the barriers and promoters of SDM in this population. To this end, we conducted a qualitative study of surrogacy and medical service providers in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University using semistructured interviews. Thirty participants (11 agents, 12 ICU physicians, and 7 ICU nurses) were interviewed. The three stakeholders showed different attitudes toward SDM. They reported barriers to SDM, including insufficient cognition of decision-makers, high expectations, negative psychological experiences, previous decision-making experiences, excessive workload, heavy financial burden, and lack of decision AIDS. They reported facilitators of SDM, including trust, effective communication, decision support, value clarification, outcome commitment, and continuous service. This study explored the different attitudes of the three stakeholders and identified various barriers and facilitators of SDM. It highlights the need to develop localised decision AIDS and to involve agents and nurses more in the decision-making process. Therefore, this paper identifies barriers and facilitators of SDM in this population. In addition, the study identified various barriers and facilitators to SDM and highlighted the need to develop localised decision AIDS and involve agents and nurses more in the decision-making process. Finally, the barriers and facilitators of SDM are established. The paper also shows that the development of localized decision AIDS and greater involvement of agents and nurses in the decision-making process are integral to good treatment outcomes.

DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED DECISION MAKING TRAINING MODULE FOR PATIENTS FACING PREFERENCE-SENSITIVE DECISIONS REGARDING MAJOR SURGICAL PROCEDURES

DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED DECISION MAKING TRAINING MODULE FOR PATIENTS FACING PREFERENCE-SENSITIVE DECISIONS REGARDING MAJOR SURGICAL PROCEDURES

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.

The current extent of and need for shared decision making in atopic dermatitis and psoriasis in the Netherlands: an online survey study amongst patients and physicians.

BackgroundIn shared decision making (SDM), patients and physicians work together to choose the best treatment option for an individual patient. Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are particularly suitable for SDM, considering that the best treatment option depends on a patient’s preferences and values (preference‐sensitive decisions). Currently, it is unknown to what extent SDM is applied in treatment decisions for these diseases in the Netherlands.ObjectivesPrimary, to assess the current extent of SDM in AD and psoriasis in the Netherlands amongst patients and dermatologists. Secondary, to assess the degree to which patients and physicians endorse SDM, to explore which characteristics are related to their preference to be involved in SDM and to identify which barriers and facilitators for SDM they perceive.MethodsTwo similar online surveys, one for patients with AD or psoriasis and one for (resident) dermatologists, were carried out. The surveys comprised validated questionnaires (shared decision making questionnaire (SDM‐Q; range 0–100), Control Preference Scale) and study‐specific statements mainly regarding barriers and facilitators for SDM.ResultsThe responses of 219 patients and 147 physicians were analysed. Dermatologists experienced significantly more SDM than patients (SDM‐Q 82 vs 55; P < 0.01).Most patients and dermatologists prefer to share treatment decisions. Mainly facilitators for SDM were perceived, including the positive perception of patients and dermatologists regarding SDM. The perceived barriers included lack of continuity of care by the same physician and lack of time.ConclusionDespite the dermatologists’ optimistic perspective, patients experience a limited extent of SDM and physicians should be aware of this gap. Improvement of SDM in AD and psoriasis is needed. The positive attitude of patients and dermatologists towards the process and outcome of SDM is important facilitators, while barriers were mainly perceived on an organizational level.

Barriers and facilitators to shared decision‐making in child and youth mental health: Exploring young person and parent perspectives using the Theoretical Domains Framework

AbstractObjectiveYoung people and parents want to be more active in treatment decisions. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which segments behaviour change into barriers and facilitators across fourteen domains, the aim of this study is to explore the barriers and facilitators to shared decision‐making (SDM) from young people and their parents’ perspectives.MethodThe sample comprised nine young people who presented with internalising difficulties and ten parents of young people with internalising difficulties across two sites in England. Interviews were conducted, and transcripts were analysed using a deductive thematic analysis.ResultsOverall, 15 barriers to and facilitators for SDM in child and youth mental health were identified. Under capability, these included an awareness of SDM, forgetting discussions or not asking questions, clinician listening skills and communication skills. For opportunity, these included the availability of treatment options, availability of understandable resources, staff shortages, the environment being conducive to SDM, and if the school, or parents of young people, facilitated decisions. For motivation, these included whether SDM was thought to empower individuals, result in better treatment, or individuals making the ‘wrong’ decision, as well as whether individuals felt capable to be involved in treatment decision‐making, whether young people lacked capacity, and whether they could make decisions due to enhanced emotional states.ConclusionsBarriers and facilitators across capability, opportunity and motivation were identified. Interventions which target these barriers and facilitators may facilitate young people and their parents’ involvement in decision‐making.

Shared decision making in mild cognitive impairment.

Shared decision making (SDM) occurs when patients and clinicians consider patients' values and preferences while discussing medical evidence to inform healthcare decisions. SDM enables patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to express values and preferences when making current healthcare decisions and presents a unique opportunity to inform future decision making in the case of further cognitive decline. However, clinicians often fail to facilitate SDM with patients with MCI. This review describes research pertaining to value solicitation, weighing of the medical evidence, and medical decision making for individuals with MCI, explores the role of caregivers, identifies barriers to and facilitators of SDM in MCI, and suggests strategies to optimize SDM for persons with MCI in neurology clinical practice. Further research is needed to identify more strategies for decision support for individuals affected by cognitive impairment.

Barriers and facilitators to shared decision making in child and youth mental health: clinician perspectives using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly being suggested as an integral part of mental health provision. Yet, there is little research on what clinicians believe the barriers and facilitators around practice to be. At the same time, there is also increasing recognition of a theory–practice gap within the field, with calls for more pragmatic uses of theory to inform and improve clinical practice. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a comprehensive, theoretical-led framework, underpinned by 33 behaviour change theories and 128 constructs, clinician perceived barriers and facilitators to SDM are investigated. The sample comprised of 15 clinicians across two sites in England, who took part in qualitative semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Transcripts were analysed using a deductive thematic analysis, and themes were coded under each theoretical domain. Overall, 21 barriers and facilitators for SDM in child and youth mental health were identified across ten domains of the TDF. Under capability, barriers and facilitators were found for knowledge, skills, memory/attention/decision making processes, and behavioural regulation. For opportunity, barriers and facilitators were found for social influences, as well as environmental context and resources. Finally, for motivation, domains covered included: beliefs about consequences, beliefs about capabilities, emotions, and professional role and identity. Findings suggest that a range of barriers and facilitators affect clinicians’ abilities to engage in SDM with young people and parents. Interventions which target different domains related to capability, opportunity and motivation should be developed to better facilitate young people and their families in care and treatment decisions.

Understanding Barriers and Facilitators of Shared Decision-Making and Inter-professional Collaboration in Mental Healthcare: A Qualitative Study

Understanding Barriers and Facilitators of Shared Decision-Making and Inter-professional Collaboration in Mental Healthcare: A Qualitative Study