Shared Decision-making Behaviors Research Articles

The causal impact of shared decision making on pain outcomes: Gender matters

This national US study determined the causal impact of shared decision making (SDM) on pain outcomes, including any overall pain and the subcategories of any acute pain and any chronic pain. We additionally examined whether the causal impact of SDM on overall pain is moderated by gender, race-ethnicity, clinician-patient racial-ethnic concordance, and clinician-patient gender concordance. We used national US data from the 2003–2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which were externally valid to the US national non-institutionalized population, employed a standard measure of shared decision making, and applied an internally-valid two-stage least squares approach that used the peer SDM behavior of similar clinicians as an instrument. The instrument was sufficiently strong and statistically uncorrelated with patient characteristics. We found a large impact of SDM on both female and male chronic pain outcomes, where the effect for females was approximately 50% larger than for males, with a 10 percentage point increase in SDM quality resulted fewer females experiencing chronic pain that interfered with everyday activities (−24.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 43.3, −6.4) than males (−16.5 percentage points; 95% CI: 32.9, −1.0). We estimated that a 10 percentage point national increase in the SDM index would thus result in 10.1 million fewer females and 5.7 million fewer males in the US experiencing chronic pain that interfered with their daily activities. Policy implications include both increasing the quality of SDM for all patients and educating male patients on the value of SDM.

Associations between physicians' SDM behaviour and participation of older patients and family members in triadic decision-making: An observational study

BackgroundMedical consultations with older patients often include triadic conversations and decision-making processes involving physicians, patients, and family members. The presence of family members may change the communication dynamics and therefore increase the complexity of the consultation and decision-making process. ObjectiveThis study explored associations between physicians' shared decision-making (SDM) behaviour and patients' and family members' participation in the decision-making process. MethodsUsing an observational design, we analysed 95 recorded consultations between medical specialists, patients aged ≥65 years, and accompanying family members at a Dutch hospital. The OPTIONMCC was used to assess the physicians' SDM behaviour and patients' and family members' levels of involvement in SDM. ResultsWe found a strong positive correlation between physicians' behaviour and patients' and family members' participation in SDM (0.68 and 0.64, respectively, p < .01). Family members were more involved in SDM for patients aged 80 and older. ConclusionWhile not asserting causation, our study suggests physicians potentially play a facilitating role in shaping the SDM process together with proactive contributions from patients and family members. InnovationThe results offer new insights into triadic SDM and provide suggestions for refining the OPTIONMCC. Further research is recommended into participants' mutual directional influences in triadic SDM.

Online communication skill training of patients with cancer: A test of the behavioral intention predictive framework for communication skills

ObjectiveTo assess the Behavioral Intention Predictive Framework's utility in explaining variation in cancer patients' strong behavioral intention (SBI) to use LEAPS (Listen, Educate, Assess, Partner, Support) communication skills after viewing training videos. MethodsNinety-eight patients were enrolled through anonymized online platforms to view LEAPS training videos, complete background and communication questionnaires and report their SBI to use LEAPS skills. ResultsOn average, patients indicated SBI to use 6 of 13 skills and 46% of patients expressed SBI across individual skills. The framework explained 27.7% of the adjusted variance in SBI with significant predictors of frequent past use of LEAPS-related shared decision-making behaviors, poor emotional health, being rarely accompanied to visits and positive ratings of narrative videos. Finally, 21.7% of the adjusted variance in problem communication was explained by infrequent use of LEAPS-related information behaviors, patient accompaniment of another adult and positive narrative scores. ConclusionPatients SBI to use multiple LEAPS skills and past problem communication were explained by framework predictors. InnovationDespite theoretical and empirical evidence that behavioral intention significantly predicts behavior, it has not been studied in patient communication research. Application of the novel framework to LEAPS training videos contributes an innovative address of this research gap.

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.

Perceived vs Actual Shared Decision-Making Behavior Among Urologists: A Convergent, Parallel, Mixed-Methods Study of Self-Reported Practice

To evaluate the association between self-perceived use of shared decision-making among urologists with use of validated prediction tools and self-described surgical decision-making. This is a convergent mixed methods study of these parallel data from two modules (Shared Decision Making and Validated Prediction tools) within the 2019 American Urological Association (AUA) Annual Census. The shared decision-making (SDM) module queried aspects of SDM that urologists regularly used. The validated prediction tools module queried whether urologists regularly used, trusted, and found prediction tools helpful. Selected respondents to the 2019 AUA Annual Census underwent qualitative interviews on their surgical decision-making. In the weight sampled of 12,312 practicing urologists, most (77%) reported routine use of SDM, whereas only 30% noted regular use of validated prediction tools. On multivariable analysis, users of prediction tools were not associated with regular SDM use (31% vs 28%, P=.006) though was associated with use of decision aids f (32% vs 26%, P<.001). Shared decision-making emerged thematically with respect to matching treatment options, prioritizing goals, and navigating challenging decisions. However, the six specific components of shared decision-making ranged in their mentions within qualitative interviews. Most urologists report performing SDM as supported by its thematic presence in surgical decision-making. However, only a minority use validated prediction tools and urologists infrequently mention specific SDM components. This discrepancy provides an opportunity to explore how urologists perform SDM and can be used to support integrated strategies to implement SDM more effectively in clinical practice.

Shared Decision Making in Health Care Visits for CKD: Patients’ Decisional Role Preferences and Experiences

Research on shared decision making (SDM) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) has focused almost exclusively on the modality of kidney replacement treatment. We explored what other CKD decisions are recognized by patients, what their preferences and experiences are regarding these decisions, and how decisions are made during their interactions with medical care professionals. Cross-sectional study. Patients with CKD receiving (outpatient) care in 1 of 2 Dutch hospitals. Patients' preferred decisional roles fortreatment decisions were measured using theControl Preferences Scale survey administered after a health care visit with medical professionals. Number of decisions for which patients experienced a decisional role that did or did not match their preferred role. Observed levels of SDM and motivational interviewing in audio recordings of health care visits, measured using the 4-step SDM instrument (4SDM) and Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding tools. The results were characterized using descriptive statistics, including differences in scores between the patients' experienced and preferred decisional roles. According to the survey (n=122) patients with CKD frequently reported decisions regarding planning (112 of 122), medication changes (82 of 122), or lifestyle changes (59 of 122). Of the 357 reported decisions in total, patients preferred that clinicians mostly (125 of 357) or fully (101 of 357) make the decisions. For 116 decisions, they preferred a shared decisional role. For 151 of 357 decisions, the patients' preferences did not match their experiences. Decisions were experienced as "less shared/patient-directed" (76 of 357) or "more shared/patient-directed" (75 of 357) than preferred. Observed SDM in 118 coded decisions was low (median4; range, 0 - 22). Motivational interviewing techniques were rarely used. Potential recall and selection bias, and limited generalizability. We identified multiple discrepancies between preferred, experienced, and observed SDM in health care visits for CKD. Although patients varied in their preferred decisional role, a considerable number of patients expressed a preference for shared decision making for many decisions. However, SDM behavior during the health care visits was observed infrequently. Shared decision making (SDM) may be a valuable approach for common chronic kidney disease (CKD) decisions, but our knowledge is limited. We collected patient surveys after health care visits for CKD. Patients most frequently experienced decisions regarding planning, medication, and lifestyle. Three decisional roles were preferred by comparable numbers of patients: let the clinician alone decide, let the clinician decide for the most part, or "equally share" the decision. Patients' experiences of who made the decision did not always match their preferences. In audio recordings of the health care visits, we observed low levels of SDM behavior. These findings suggest that the preference for "sharing decisions" is often unmet for a large number of patients.

Veterinarians' use of shared decision making during on-farm interactions with dairy and beef producers.

The objectives of this study were to explore the level of shared decision making (SDM) between veterinarians and dairy and beef producers during on-farm interactions and to identify factors associated with veterinarians' use of SDM behaviours. A cross-sectional sample of food-animal veterinarians and their clients were recruited in Ontario, Canada. Their on-farm interactions were audio-video recorded. The recordings were analysed using the 'Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making' (observer OPTION5 ) instrument to determine the level of SDM utilised during preference-sensitive decisions. A logistic regression model was developed to assess factors associated with a preference-sensitive decision occurring. Meanwhile, a linear regression model was developed to identify factors associated with the level of SDM used. Forty-one veterinarians participated, and 186 unique veterinarian-producer interactions were audio-video recorded and OPTION5 score was calculated. SDM scores were low and comparable to other studies using the OPTION5 instrument. The only factor associated with whether a preference-sensitive decision occurred was the length of the veterinarian and producer's relationship (in years). As the length of their relationship increased, a preference-sensitive decision was less likely to occur. The use of SDM behaviours was found to decrease as veterinarian burnout score increased. These findings demonstrate that SDM behaviours are being used by food-animal veterinarians, yet an opportunity exists to further implement more producer-centred SDM skills into on-farm interactions. Small portions of veterinarian-producer conversation occurred outside of audio-video-recorded interactions and were not included in the analysis. The results of this study aid in further understanding on-farm interactions between veterinarians and producers and can help to further improve veterinary communication curricula.

Optimizing Shared Decision Making about Hydroxyurea in Young Children with Sickle Cell Anemia

Introduction: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) recommends hydroxyurea (HU) be offered to all children with sickle cell anemia (SCA) age >9 months via shared decision-making (SDM). However, HU remains underutilized, largely due to parental concerns about safety and potential long-term effects. SDM was recommended because it can decrease parental uncertainty as families clarify their values/preferences and understand scientific evidence about HU. Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the Engage HU study (NCT03442114) compared two methods for optimizing SDM for HU in young children with SCA: the American Society of Hematology's (ASH) HU clinician pocket guide (usual care condition) and a HU SDM toolkit (toolkit condition) created by the research team. This study aimed to compare the impact of these on caregiver decisional uncertainty and caregiver perception of clinician use of SDM. Methods: Engage HU was a prospective, multi-site intervention trial with a unidirectional crossover design in which each clinic began enrolling in the usual care condition and then one-by-one crossed over to the toolkit condition. Inclusion criteria included children ages 0-5 years followed at 12 SCA centers in the US who were candidates for HU and whose caregivers had not decided about HU therapy within 3 months prior to enrollment. After receiving a flyer/letter, eligible caregivers were approached in clinic or by phone. Caregivers completed an e-consent form. Study visits were conducted in-person or via telehealth. Primary endpoints were caregiver decisional uncertainty (Decisional Conflict Scale-DCS) and caregiver perception of clinician use of SDM (Dyadic OPTION scale-OPTION). Lower scores on the DCS indicate less decisional uncertainty and higher scores on the OPTION indicate that the clinician demonstrated more SDM behaviors (e.g., asked about caregiver preferences/values). All survey data were collected using paper surveys or electronically via REDCap™. Data were analyzed using linear regression models in Stata version 17 for each main outcome of interest (DCS and OPTION Total Scores). Our primary predictor was group (toolkit versus usual care). The model was estimated using full information maximum likelihood estimation on the full analysis sample (N=132) to account for missing data. We also accounted for site-level variation, when the sites crossed from usual care to toolkit (i.e., the cluster), when data were collected (0=pre-COVID, 1=during COVID), and the impact of COVID-19 on caregivers (assessed using the COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Survey [CEFIS]). Results: A total of 176 caregivers of eligible children consented. Twelve SCA clinical sites participated; however, four sites were terminated early due to staff turnover or low accrual. Mean caregiver age was 30.19 (SD=6.97); most identified as female (93.1%), Black/African American (89.3%), or Mixed race (6.1%), and mothers (90.8%). Most children had HbSS (94.7%). Preliminary analyses were conducted on 132 caregivers with complete data (n=85 Usual Care; n=47 Toolkit). Regression analyses showed that participants in the toolkit condition had significantly lower DCS Total scores (i.e., lower decisional conflict) than those in usual care condition (b=-7.33, 95% CI=-13.3 to 1.31, p=.017). In addition, significant differences were found on the DCS subscales (see Table 1). Similarly, participants in the toolkit condition had significantly higher OPTION Total scores (i.e., parents reported that the clinician exhibited more SDM behaviors) than those in usual care (b=2.38, 95% CI=0.44 to 4.34, p=.016). Conclusions: Use of the HU toolkit compared to the usual care approach significantly improved SDM between providers and caregivers of children with SCA; however, given site team turnover, lower than expected accrual, and study interruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, additional research is needed to confirm these preliminary findings. Future studies should also seek to identify context-specific factors (e.g., clinic processes) that are key to successful implementation of SDM with both younger and older children with SCA. This project was supported by an award fromPCORI contract number CDR-1609-36055 (PI: Crosby).Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

Association Between Shared Decision-Making During Family Meetings and Surrogates’ Trust in Their ICU Physician

Although trust is central to successful physician-family relationships in ICUs, little is known about how to promote surrogates' trust of ICU physicians in this setting. Does the conduct of family conferences and physicians' use of shared decision-making (SDM) within family conferences impact surrogates' trust in the physician? A mixed-methods secondary analysis was done of a multicenter prospective cohort study of 369 surrogate decision-makers of 204 decisionally incapacitated patients at high risk of death or severe functional impairment within 13 ICUs at six US medical centers between 2008 and 2012. Surrogates completed the Abbreviated Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale (range, 5-25) before and after an audio-recorded family conference conducted within 5days of ICU admission. We qualitatively coded transcribed conferences to determine physicians' use of five SDM behaviors: discussing surrogate's role, explaining medical condition and prognosis, providing emotional support, assessing understanding, and eliciting patient's values and preferences. Using multivariable linear regression with adjustment for clustering, we assessed whether surrogates' trust in the physician increased after the family meeting; we also examined whether the number of SDM behaviors used by physicians during the family meeting impacted trust scores. In adjusted models, conduct of a family meeting was associated with increased trust (average change, pre- to post family meeting: 0.91 point [95%CI, 0.4-1.4; P< .01]). Every additional element of SDM used during the family meeting, including discussing surrogate's role, providing emotional support, assessing understanding, and eliciting patient's values and preferences, was associated with a 0.37-point increase in trust (95%CI, 0.08-0.67; P= .01). If all four elements were used, trust increased by 1.48 points. Explaining medical condition or prognosis was observed in nearly every conference (98.5%) and was excluded from the final model. The conduct of family meetings and physicians' use of SDM behaviors during meetings were both associated with increases in surrogates' trust in the treating physician.

Use and Perceptions of Shared Decision-Making by General Surgery Faculty and Trainees.

The purpose of this study was to assess the practice and perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) by both faculty and residents at Boston Medical Center and explore barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM at our institution. We created and distributed an online survey assessing provider demographic and training characteristics, experiences with the informed consent process, practices in SDM, and perceptions about SDM. We used descriptive statistics to summarize provider characteristics and survey responses and univariate analysis to determine associations between them. Fifteen surgeons and 19 surgical residents completed the survey (49% response rate). Most respondents were aware of and had a positive attitude toward SDM (91% and 76%, respectively); 35% reported having SDM training. Providers had varying levels of engagement with different SDM practices, and there were inconsistent associations between provider characteristics and the use of SDM. Often providers thought the patient's health literacy, foreign primary language, clinical condition, and socioeconomic factors were barriers to the SDM process. Although most general surgery faculty and residents at our institution had a positive view of SDM, they engaged in SDM behaviors inconsistently, with no clear association between clinician characteristics and specific behaviors. We identified several barriers to SDM consistent with those identified by providers in other specialties. This highlights the need for further research to study live general surgery provider-patient interactions, as well as structured SDM education to train general surgery providers to reliably engage their patients in effective SDM.

Practices and perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals on shared decision-making in nephrology

BackgroundGiven the complexity and variety in treatment options for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), shared decision-making (SDM) can be a challenge. SDM is needed for making decisions that best suit patients’ needs and their medical and living situations. SDM might be experienced differently by different stakeholders. This study aimed to explore clinical practice and perspectives on SDM in nephrology from three angles: observers, patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).MethodsAn explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used. First, in the quantitative part of the study, outpatient consultations with patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (eGFR < 20 ml/min) were video recorded and SDM was assessed using the OPTION5 instrument. Subsequently, in the qualitative part, patients and HCPs reflected on their own SDM behaviour during individual stimulated recall interviews which were analysed using deductive thematic content analysis.ResultsTwenty nine consultations were recorded and observed in seven hospitals. The mean SDM score was 51 (range 25–80), indicating that SDM was applied to a moderate extent. The stimulated recall interviews with patients showed that they rely on the information provision and opinion of HCPs, expect consistency and support, and desire a proactive role. They also expect to be questioned by the HCP about their SDM preferences. HCPs said they were willing to incorporate patients’ preferences in SDM, as long as there are no medical contraindications. They also prefer patients to take a prominent role in SDM. HCPs ascribe various roles to themselves in supporting patients’ decision-making.ConclusionsAlthough SDM was applied by HCPs to a moderate extent, improvement is needed, especially in helping patients get the information they need and in making sure that every patient is involved in SDM. This is even more important given the complex nature of the disease and the relatively high prevalence of limited health literacy among patients with chronic kidney disease.

Past, Present, and Future Shared Decision-making Behavior Among Patients With Eczema and Caregivers

Engaging in shared decision-making (SDM) can help patients understand and choose treatments according to their values and has been shown to improve patient satisfaction and adherence with treatment. It is well suited for conditions like eczema for which several medically appropriate treatment options exist. However, little is known about the use and experience of SDM in eczema. To understand experiences, preferences, and expectations for SDM in eczema care settings from the patient and caregiver perspective. The National Eczema Association conducted an online survey in January 2021 among self-selected patients and caregivers. Inclusion criteria (US resident, patient with eczema or caregiver of a patient with eczema aged ≤17 years, respondent age ≥18 years) were met by 1313 of 1387 respondents (94.7%). Data analysis was performed from May 2021 to November 2021. Outcomes were past SDM (using a 9-item SDM questionnaire [SDMQ9]; score ranges transformed to 0-100), present SDM (Control Preferences Scale), and future SDM (self-reported confidence and motivation to engage in SDM) behavior. Among the 1313 respondents included in the study, most were female (1046 of 1313 [79.7%]) adult (1086 of 1313 [82.7%]) patients with a mean (SD) patient Recap of Atopic Eczema score of 11.7 (7.2), mean (SD) patient age of 39.5 (22.2) years, and mean (SD) SDMQ9 score of 65.1 (27.4). For present SDM, 479 of 966 (49.6%) reported "I prefer to make the final decision after seriously considering my doctor's opinion," and 655 of 955 (69.4%) reported being very or extremely confident to engage in SDM in the future. Those who reported feeling "very well informed" about the causes of eczema had a 14.7-point higher (95% CI, 9.2-20.2; P < .001, multiple linear regression) SDMQ9 score than those "not adequately informed" and were 3.4 times more likely (95% CI, 2.1-5.7; P < .001, multiple logistic regression) to be confident to engage in future SDM. Respondents reported that they would be motivated to engage in SDM if the clinician initiated SDM, valued input from the patient, and acknowledged that patients are experts on their own bodies or if a treatment is no longer working. Results of this survey study suggest that a majority of patients with eczema and caregivers prefer a large role in decision-making for their care and that clinicians can initiate and facilitate SDM to improve patient satisfaction with care.

Shared Decision Making with Acutely Hospitalized, Older Poly-Medicated Patients: A Mixed-Methods Study in an Emergency Department.

Shared decision making (SDM) about medicine with older poly-medicated patients is vital to improving adherence and preventing medication-related hospital admissions, but it is difficult to achieve in practice. This study’s primary aim was to provide insight into the extent of SDM in medication decisions in the Emergency Department (ED) and to compare how it aligns with older poly-medicated patients’ preferences and needs. We applied a mixed-methods design to investigate SDM in medication decisions from two perspectives: (1) observational measurements with the observing patient involvement (OPTION 5) instrument of healthcare professionals’ SDM behavior in medication decisions and (2) semi-structured interviews with older poly-medicated patients. A convergent parallel analysis was performed. Sixty-five observations and fourteen interviews revealed four overall themes: (1) a low degree of SDM about medication, (2) a variation in the pro-active and non-active patients approach to conversations about medicine, (3) no information on side effects, and (4) a preference for medication reduction. The lack of SDM with older patients in the ED may increase inequality in health. Patients with low health literacy are at risk of safety threats, nonadherence, and preventable re-admissions. Therefore, healthcare professionals should systematically investigate older poly-medicated patients’ preferences and discuss the side effects and the possibility of reducing harmful medicine.

Shared decision-making in the Netherlands: Progress is made, but not for all. Time to become inclusive to patients

Dutch initiatives targeting shared decision-making (SDM) are still growing, supported by the government, the Federation of Patients’ Organisations, professional bodies and healthcare insurers. The large majority of patients prefers the SDM model. The Dutch are working hard to realise improvement in the application of SDM in daily clinical practice, resulting in glimpses of success with objectified improvement on observed behavior. Nevertheless, the culture shift is still ongoing. Large-scale uptake of SDM behavior is still a challenge. We haven’t yet fully reached the patients’ needs, given disappointing research data on patients’ experiences and professional behavior. In all Dutch implementation projects, early adopters, believers or higher-educated persons have been overrepresented, while patients with limited health literacy have been underrepresented. This is a huge problem as 25% of the Dutch adult population have limited health literacy.To further enhance SDM there are issues to be addressed: We need to make physicians conscious about their limited application of SDM in daily practice, especially regarding preference and decision talk. We need to reward clinicians for the extra work that comes with SDM. We need to be inclusive to patients with limited health literacy, who are less often actually involved in decision-making and at the same time more likely to regret their chosen treatment compared to patients with higher health literacy.

Physician-patient communication in vascular surgery: Analysis of encounters in academic practice.

Objective:To assess physician–patient communication in vascular consults with the aim of identifying areas for improvement.Introduction:Shared decision-making in clinical consults can enhance patient outcomes. Its potential benefits are significant in vascular surgery, where decisions are dependent on the patient’s definition of quality of life and outcomes are influenced by significant lifestyle changes.Methods:In this qualitative cross-sectional study, encounters between five vascular surgeons and their patients with two asymptomatic vascular diseases were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for validated sociolinguistic statistics. The nine-item shared decision-making questionnaire was used to gauge subjective patient perspective.Results:Physicians spent an average of 19 min and 28 s (±8:55) per consult and an average of 12 min and 7 s talking to the patient (±6:33). Physicians used formalized language about 10.3 times an encounter (±8.39), checked for understanding 6.4 times (±4.84), and asked more close-ended than open-ended questions (10.5 ± 6.15 versus 4.6 ± 2.37). Physicians accounted for 46.34% of utterances (±6%) and averaged 5.8 interruptions per encounter (±4). Patients and company accounted for 53.66% of total utterances (±6%) and averaged 10.1 clarification questions (±9.78). The average nine-item shared decision-making questionnaire Likert-type score per patient was 2.82 on a range of −3 to +3 (±0.33), with positive numbers indicating agreement. On average, patients strongly (+2) or completely (+3) agreed that physicians covered the nine criteria.Conclusion:The 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire data showed that patients mostly felt their physician was adequate in exhibiting shared decision-making behaviors. However, physicians asked closed-ended questions that elicited “yes/no” or brief responses, continuously interrupted patient narratives, and rarely checked for understanding from their patients. These subliminal behaviors restrict patient participation in shared decision-making and may be corrected via longitudinal intervention.

A Cross-sectional Survey to Assess Reasons for Therapeutic Inertia in People With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Preferred Strategies to Overcome It From the Perspectives of Persons With Diabetes and General/Family Practitioners: Results From the MOTION Study

ObjectivesAlthough multiple causes of therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been identified, few studies have addressed the behavioural aspects of treatment-intensification decisions among persons with type 2 diabetes (PwT2DM) and general practitioners/family practitioners (GPFPs). MethodsA quantitative online survey was developed to capture from 300 PwT2DM and 100 GPFPs the following information: 1) perspectives on shared decision-making (SDM) related to treatment intensification, using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire and the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire---physician version; 2) intentions to intensify treatments, using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB); and 3) preferred strategies to overcome causes of therapeutic inertia in T2DM. Regression methods were applied post hoc to examine correlations with SDM scores, behavioural intentions and behaviours. ResultsSDM scores showed a significantly lower level of perceived involvement in decision-making related to treatment intensification among PwT2DM compared with GPFPs. The TPB identified that, for PwT2DM, attitudes, perceived behavioural control and age were associated with variation in intention to intensify treatment and, for GPFPs, perceived behavioural control and not being in a shared/group practice were associated with intentions to intensify treatment. PwT2DM behaviour, measured as hesitancy to intensify treatment, was associated with age. PwT2DM want more information to become more comfortable with the treatment decision-making process, whereas GPFPs desired support from other health professionals, and more time to address issues among PwT2DM. ConclusionsStrategies directed at providing GPFPs with tools/approaches to increase PwT2DM involvement in the decision-making process, such as behavioural coaching, decision aids and goal setting, may increase acceptance of treatment intensification, leading to a reduction in therapeutic inertia in T2DM.

Evaluating shared decision-making between companion animal veterinarians and their clients using the Observer OPTION5 instrument.

Communication practices used by veterinarians can impact client's involvement in decision-making. The objective of this study was to evaluate the level of client involvement in veterinary care decisions and factors impacting client involvement. A random sample of practising companion animal veterinarians and a convenience sample of pet owners were recruited. Each consultation was audio-video recorded and analyzed using the Observer OPTION5 instrument, adapted from human medicine, to assess veterinarians' level of shared decision-making. A mixed linear model was used to assess statistical associations between veterinarian, client and appointment-level factors and OPTION5 scores. Sixty veterinarians and 909 of their clients were audio-video recorded during a consultation, of which 717 interactions included a decision identified for analysis using the OPTION5 instrument. Elements consistent with shared decision-making were uncommon, with a mean OPTION5 score of 22.6 (median = 20.0; sd = 13.05; range = 0-75) out of 100. OPTION5 scores were positively associated with the length of the appointment and negatively associated with the veterinarian's years in practice when controlling for statistical interaction between client income and appointment type. Findings suggest an opportunity exists for veterinarians to incorporate more client involvement through increased use of shared decisionmaking behaviours during veterinary consultations.

The Chinese version of OPTION scale: Is it reliable on measuring the shared decision-making among preoperative conversations

ObjectiveTo test the reliability of the Chinese version of the OPTION12 (OPTION12-C) scale; and to evaluate the level of shared decision-making (SDM) in the preoperative conversations for high-risk procedures by using the OPTION12-C. MethodsTwo hundred and ninety-seven conversations were rated. Cronbach's alpha, Pearson’s correlation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to assess the reliability of the OPTION12-C. Mean and median were applied to evaluate the scores. ResultsThe Cronbach's alpha was 0.603. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient of the sub-items ranged from 0.002 to 0.595; the inter-rater ICC was 0.992. The mean and median of the total scores were 9.61 ( ± 3.583) and 9 respectively. 430 family members appeared in the conversations. ConclusionThe reliability of the OPTION12-C was acceptable. The SDM behaviors of doctors were only scored at or close to the minimal skill level. High level of family involvement demonstrated the Chinese culture of family- centeredness. Practice implicationsThe OPTION12-C was proved to be applicable for testing the extent of SDM. The low level of SDM indicates a need to improve Chinese doctors’ communication skills.

Shared-decision-making Behavior in Hospitalized Patients: Investigating the Impact of Patient's Trust in Physicians, Emotional Support, Informational Support, and Tendency to Excuse Using a Structural Equation Modeling Approach.

Patient participation in care decisions is facilitated by shared-decision-making (SDM). This study, therefore, aims to explore the impact of patient's trust in physicians, emotional support, informational support, and tendency to excuse on SDM. A cross-sectional study was conducted at the medical–surgical wards of 6 similar-sized public hospitals in Tabriz, northwest Iran, using a self-administered questionnaire, with 321 cases collected from October to December 2019. The structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was used to test the hypothetical model. Using the SEM approach, the findings fully confirmed the study hypothesis, and patients’ trust in physician (Beta = −0.44), emotional support (Beta = 0.29), tendency to excuse (Beta = 0.18), and informational support (Beta = 0.58) predicted the inpatient's SDM behavior (R2 = 0.65, goodness-of-fit index = 0.902). To improve patient outcomes, physicians might advise incorporating techniques such as improving patient trust, informational and emotional supports to improve SDM. Improving the psychosocial skills of physicians also seems to be essential to help patients express their concerns.

Effect of a multilevel implementation programme on shared decision-making in breast cancer care.

Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer face multiple treatment options. Involving them in a shared decision-making (SDM) process is essential. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a multilevel implementation programme enhanced the level of SDM behaviour of clinicians observed in consultations. This before-after study was conducted in six Dutch hospitals. Patients with breast cancer who were facing a decision on surgery or neoadjuvant systemic treatment between April 2016 and September 2017 were included, and provided informed consent. Audio recordings of consultations made before and after implementation were analysed using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-5) instrument to assess whether clinicians adopted new behaviour needed for applying SDM. Patients scored their perceived level of SDM, using the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Hospital, duration of the consultation(s), age, and number of consultations per patient that might influence OPTION-5 scores were investigated using linear regression analysis. Consultations of 139 patients were audiotaped, including 80 before and 59 after implementation. Mean (s.d.) OPTION-5 scores, expressed on a 0-100 scale, increased from 38.3 (15.0) at baseline to 53.2 (14.8) 1year after implementation (mean difference (MD) 14.9, 95 per cent c.i. 9.9 to 19.9). SDM-Q-9 scores of 105 patients (75.5 per cent) (72 before and 33 after implementation) were high and showed no significant changes (91.3 versus 87.6; MD -3.7, -9.3 to 1.9). The implementation programme had an association with OPTION-5 scores (β = 14.2, P < 0.001), hospital (β = 2.2, P = 0.002), and consultation time (β = 0.2, P < 0.001). A multilevel implementation programme supporting SDM in breast cancer care increased the adoption of SDM behaviour of clinicians in consultations.