Interest In Shared Decision-making Research Articles

A Practical Guideline for the Implementation of Shared Decision-making in Complex Ventral Incisional Hernia Repair

BackgroundAlthough obtaining preoperative procedural consent is required to meet legal and ethical obligations, consent is often relegated to a unidirectional conversation between surgeons and patients. In contrast, shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative dialog that elicits patient preferences. Despite emerging interest in SDM, there is a paucity of literature on its application to ventral incisional hernia repair (VIHR). The various surgical techniques and mesh types available, the potential impact on functional outcomes and quality of life, the largely elective nature of the operation, and the significant risk of perioperative patient complications render VIHR an ideal field for SDM implementation. MethodsThe authors reviewed the current literature and drew on their own practice experience to describe evidence-based practical guidelines for implementing the SDM into VIHR care. ResultsWe summarized the evidence basis for SDM in surgery and discussed how this model can be applied to VIHR given the multiple, complex factors that influence surgical decision-making. We outlined an example of using an SDM framework, “SHARE,” with a patient with a large, recurrent ventral hernia. ConclusionsSDM has the potential to improve patient-centered and preference-concordant care among individuals being considered for VIHR to ensure that treatment interventions meet a patient's goals, rather than solely treating the underlying disease process.

Personalizing Value in Cancer Care: The Case for Incorporating Patient Preferences Into Routine Clinical Decision Making.

Despite growing research demonstrating the potential for shared decision making (SDM) to improve health outcomes, patient preferences—including financial trade-offs—are still not routinely incorporated into health care decision making. As the US health care delivery system transitions to rewarding value-based care, the question of “value to whom?” assumes greater importance. To achieve the goals of value-based care, the patient voice must be incorporated into clinical decision making by embedding SDM as a routine part of clinical practice. Identified as a priority by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), SDM-related measures and initiatives have already been integrated into CMS’ Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) demonstration projects (eg, the Oncology Care Model and Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative) and value-based payment programs (eg, the Merit-based Incentive Payment System, Medicare Shared Savings Program) to incentivize more proactive SDM engagement between patients and their providers. Furthermore, CMS has also integrated formal shared decision-making encounters into coverage and reimbursement policies (eg, for implantable cardioverter defibrillators), demonstrating a growing interest in SDM and its potential for eliciting and promoting the integration of patient preferences into the clinical decision-making process. In addition to increasing policy efforts to promote SDM, we need more research investments aimed at understanding how to optimize the science and practice of meaningful SDM. The current landscape and proposed road map for next steps in research, outlined in this review article, will help ensure the transition of pilots and research projects regarding the implementation of SDM into sustainable solutions.

Engaging Multidisciplinary Stakeholders to Drive Shared Decision-Making in Oncology.

Although recognized as best practice, regular integration of shared decision-making (SDM) approaches between patients and oncologists remains an elusive goal. It is clear that usable, feasible, and practical tools are needed to drive increased SDM in oncology. To address this goal, we convened a multidisciplinary collaborative inclusive of experts across the health-care delivery ecosystem to identify key principles in designing and testing processes to promote SDM in routine oncology practice. In this commentary, we describe 3 best practices for addressing challenges associated with implementing SDM that emerged from a multidisciplinary collaborative: (1) engagement of diverse stakeholders who have interest in SDM, (2) development and validation of an evidence-based SDM tool grounded within an established conceptual framework, and (3) development of the necessary roadmap and consideration of the infrastructure needed for engendering patient engagement in decision-making. We believe these 3 principles are critical to the success of creating SDM tools to be utilized both within and outside of clinical practice. We are optimistic that shared use across settings will support adoption of this tool and overcome barriers to implementing SDM within busy clinical workflows. Ultimately, we hope that this work will offer new perspectives on what is important to patients and provide an important impetus for leveraging patient preferences and values in decision-making.

Milestones, barriers and beacons: Shared decision making in Canada inches ahead

Canada's approach to shared decision making (SDM) remains as disparate as its healthcare system; a conglomerate of 14 public plans – ten provincial, three territorial and one federal. The healthcare research funding environment has been largely positive for SDM because there was funding for knowledge translation research which also encompassed SDM. The funding climate currently places new emphasis on patient involvement in research and on patient empowerment in healthcare. SDM fields have expanded from primary care to elder care, paediatrics, emergency and critical care medicine, cardiology, nutrition, occupational therapy and workplace rehabilitation. Also, SDM has reached out to embrace other health-related decisions including about home care and social care and has been adapted to Aboriginal decision making needs. Canadian researchers have developed new interprofessional SDM models that are being used worldwide. Professional interest in SDM in Canada is not yet widespread, but there are provincial initiatives in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Decision aids are routinely used in some areas, for example for prostate cancer in Saskatchewan, and many others are available for online consultation. The Patient Decision Aids Research Group in Ottawa, Ontario maintains an international inventory of decision aids appraised with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The Canada Research Chair in SDM and Knowledge Translation in Quebec City maintains a website of SDM training programs available worldwide. These initiatives are positive, but the future of SDM in Canada depends on whether health policies, health professionals and the public culture fully embrace it.

Shared decision making in West Africa: The forgotten area

Up to now, little attention has been paid to West Africa when it comes to shared decision making (SDM). West African countries seem to lag behind with regard to SDM initiatives compared to many other countries in the world. There is some interest in informed decision making or informed consent, but little in a full SDM process. Few decision-making tools are available for healthcare professionals and the majority are not designed to support decision-making with patients. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, there are no training programs for implementing SDM in healthcare teams. Many barriers exist to implementing SDM in West Africa, including lack of options, few or poor health resources and low levels of education. However, African countries present many opportunities for SDM as well. Existing SDM innovations developed for other populations with low literacy could be explored and adapted to the West African context, and research on implementation and outcomes in West Africa could contribute to SDM worldwide. West African countries are in an excellent position to both learn from other countries and contribute to SDM development in other parts of the world. In this paper we reflect on SDM challenges and opportunities, and propose a research agenda for West Africa. We hope to awaken interest in SDM in West Africa and encourage future collaborations on SDM with various West African stakeholders, including patients, healthcare professionals, policymakers, non-government organisations (NGOs) and academic institutions.

Shared decision-making using personal health record technology: a scoping review at the crossroads.

This scoping review aims to determine the size and scope of the published literature on shared decision-making (SDM) using personal health record (PHR) technology and to map the literature in terms of system design and outcomes. Literature from Medline, Google Scholar, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Engineering Village, and Web of Science (2005-2015) using the search terms "personal health records," "shared decision making," "patient-provider communication," "decision aid," and "decision support" was included. Articles ( n = 38) addressed the efficacy or effectiveness of PHRs for SDM in engaging patients in self-care and decision-making or ways patients can be supported in SDM via PHR. Analysis resulted in an integrated SDM-PHR conceptual framework. An increased interest in SDM via PHR is apparent, with 55% of articles published within last 3 years. Sixty percent of the literature originates from the United States. Twenty-six articles address a particular clinical condition, with 10 focused on diabetes, and one-third offer empirical evidence of patient outcomes. The tethered and standalone PHR architectural types were most studied, while the interconnected PHR type was the focus of more recently published methodological approaches and discussion articles. The study reveals a scarcity of rigorous research on SDM via PHR. Research has focused on one or a few of the SDM elements and not on the intended complete process. Just as PHR technology designed on an interconnected architecture has the potential to facilitate SDM, integrating the SDM process into PHR technology has the potential to drive PHR value.

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.

Preferences Regarding Shared Decision-Making in Japanese Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients.

IntroductionRecent studies have indicated that patients are showing increased interest in playing a larger role in making decisions regarding their medical treatment. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic disease that manifests either as Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). IBD treatment is multifaceted and dependent on patient-specific factors. The selection of treatment options is mostly driven by physicians, and it is unclear to what degree patients are involved in shared decision-making (SDM). The objective of the current study is to assess preferences among Japanese patients with IBD in regard to SDM during their treatment for IBD.MethodsA nationwide web-based survey was performed in Japan during February 2016. The patients were asked for their basic clinical characteristics, socioeconomic status, medical history, treatment details, and preferences regarding SDM in IBD treatment. Differences were analyzed by chi-square, t tests, a multiple regression analysis, and ordered logistic regression analysis.ResultsIn response to the screening survey, a total of 1068 Japanese nationals met the inclusion criteria for this study of being patients diagnosed with IBD who are currently receiving treatment. Of these, 235 had CD and 800 UC; 33 were not specified. Overall, the majority of these patients felt that SDM was very important. Furthermore, interest in SDM was strongly associated with certain disease comorbidities, surgical history, and current treatment, although there were some differences in the results between CD and UC.ConclusionThe present study found that the majority of IBD patients in Japan wanted to have a role in their treatment plan. The results indicate that the patient’s preference in regard to SDM was driven by their perception of the severity or progression of their disease.FundingJanssen Pharmaceuticals.

Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice.

Engaging individuals with cancer in decision making about their treatments has received increased attention; shared decision making (SDM) has become a hallmark of patient-centered care. Although physicians indicate substantial interest in SDM, implementing SDM in cancer care is often complex; high levels of uncertainty may exist, and health care providers must help patients understand the potential risks versus benefits of different treatment options. However, patients who are more engaged in their health care decision making are more likely to experience confidence in and satisfaction with treatment decisions and increased trust in their providers. To implement SDM in oncology practice, physicians and other health care providers need to understand the components of SDM and the approaches to supporting and facilitating this process as part of cancer care. This review summarizes recent information regarding patient and physician factors that influence SDM for cancer care, outcomes resulting from successful SDM, and strategies for implementing SDM in oncology practice. We present a conceptual model illustrating the components of SDM in cancer care and provide recommendations for facilitating SDM in oncology practice.

Shared Decision Making in the Safety Net: Where Do We Go from Here?

Shared decision making (SDM) is an interactive process between clinicians and patients in which both share information, deliberate together, and make clinical decisions. Clinics serving safety net patients face special challenges, including fewer resources and more challenging work environments. The use of SDM within safety net institutions has not been well studied. We recruited a convenience sample of 15 safety net primary care clinicians (13 physicians, 2 nurse practitioners). Each answered a 9-item SDM questionnaire and participated in a semistructured interview. From the transcribed interviews and questionnaire data, we identified themes and suggestions for introducing SDM into a safety net environment. Clinicians reported only partially fulfilling the central components of SDM (sharing information, deliberating, and decision making). Most clinicians expressed interest in SDM by stating that they "selected a treatment option together" with patients (8 of 15 in strong or complete agreement), but only a minority (3 of 15) "thoroughly weighed the different treatment options" together with patients. Clinicians attributed this gap to many barriers, including time pressure, overwhelming visit content, patient preferences, and lack of available resources. All clinicians believed that lack of time made it difficult to practice SDM. To increase use of SDM in the safety net, efficient SDM interventions designed for this environment, team care, and patient engagement in SDM will need further development. Future studies should focus on adapting SDM to safety net settings and determine whether SDM can reduce health care disparities.

Shared decision making in Chile: Supportive policies and research initiatives

WHAT ABOUT POLICY REGARDING SDM? Since 1999, there has been a small but growing interest by academics, the government, and society as a whole in strengthening patients' and professionals' involvement in shared decision making (SDM). Two governmental policy documents that indicate support for SDM are (1) Health Reform in 2003 and (2) Sanitary Objectives 2011-2020, which includes a brief section on client participation and SDM. WHAT ABOUT TOOLS - DECISION SUPPORT FOR PATIENTS? Research by Chilean academics has highlighted the patients' desire to participate in health decisions and effective approaches for enhancing health professionals' skills in interprofessional SDM; however, little has been done to support this need and the work is centralised in only one academic institution. Decision support tools and coaching interventions are limited to patients considering decisions about managing type 2 diabetes. WHAT ABOUT PROFESSIONAL INTEREST AND IMPLEMENTATION? Although there is increasing attention to studying patients' participation and involvement on their healthcare, little has been studied in relation to professionals' interest in SDM. As well, there are significant challenges for implementation of a country-wide SDM policy. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE LOOK LIKE? The future looks promising given the new health policies, local Chilean research projects, and international initiatives. Collaboration between health professionals, academics, and government policy makers, with public involvement needs to be strengthened in order to promote concrete strategies to implement SDM in Chile.

Moving SDM forward in Canada: milestones, public involvement, and barriers that remain

Canada's approach to shared decision making (SDM) is as disparate as its healthcare system; a conglomerate of 14 public plans at various administrative levels. SDM initiatives are taking place in different pockets of the country and are in different stages of development. The most advanced provincial initiative is occurring in Saskatchewan, where in 2010 the provincial government prepare to introduce patient decision aids into certain surgical specialties. With regard to decision support tools for patients, perhaps the most active entity is the Patient Decision Aids Research Group in Ottawa, Ontario. This group maintains a public inventory of decision aids ranked according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards and has developed the generic Ottawa Personal Decision Guide, as well as a toolkit for integrating decision aids in clinical practice. All of these tools are publicly available free of charge. Professional interest in SDM in Canada is not yet widespread, but Canada's principal health research funding agency is sponsoring several important SDM projects. Researchers from institutions across the country are promoting SDM through continuing professional development programs and other interventions in fields as varied as primary care, dietary medicine and workplace rehabilitation. Still, the future of SDM in Canada remains uncertain. Canada's provincially based structure obliges promoters to work with each province separately, and the recent growth of private healthcare risks dissipating efforts to implement SDM.