Shared Decision-making Communication Research Articles

The influence of health literacy, anxiety and education on shared decision making and decisional conflict in older adults, and the mediating role of patient participation: A video observational study

ObjectiveTo explore the relationship between personal characteristics of older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) and perceived shared decision making (SDM) resp. decisional conflict. MethodsIn a video-observational study (N = 213) data were collected on personal characteristics. The main outcomes were perceived level of SDM and decisional conflict. The mediating variable was participation in the SDM process. A twostep mixed effect multilinear regression and a mediation analysis were performed to analyze the data. ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 77.3 years and 56.3% were female. Health literacy (β.01, p < .001) was significantly associated with participation in the SDM process. Education (β = −2.43, p = .05) and anxiety (β = −.26, p = .058) had a marginally significant direct effect on the patients’ perceived level of SDM. Education (β = 12.12, p = .002), health literacy (β = −.70, p = .005) and anxiety (β = 1.19, p = .004) had a significant direct effect on decisional conflict. The effect of health literacy on decisional conflict was mediated by participation in SDM. ConclusionHealth literacy, anxiety and education are associated with decisional conflict. Participation in SDM during consultations plays a mediating role in the relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict. Practice ImplicationsTailoring SDM communication to health literacy levels is important for high quality SDM.

Shared decision making in chronic kidney disease: a qualitative study of the impact of communication practices on treatment decisions for older patients

BackgroundEffective interpersonal communication is critical for shared decision-making (SDM). Previous SDM communication training in nephrology has lacked context-specific evidence from ethnographic analysis of SDM interactions with older patients considering treatment options of end stage kidney disease (ESKD). This study explores communication strategies in SDM discussions in nephrology, specifically focusing on older patients considering dialysis as kidney replacement therapy (KRT).MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study analysing naturally-occurring audio-recorded clinical interactions (n = 12) between Australian kidney doctors, patients aged 60+, and carers. Linguistic ethnography and qualitative socially-oriented functional approaches were used for analysis.ResultsTwo types of communication strategies emerged: (1) Managing and advancing treatment decisions: involving active checking of knowledge, clear explanations of options, and local issue resolution. (2) Pulling back: Deferring or delaying decisions through mixed messaging. Specifically for non-English speaking patients, pulling back was further characterised by communication challenges deferring decision-making including ineffective issue management, and reliance on family as interpreters. Age was not an explicit topic of discussion among participants when it came to making decisions about KRT but was highly relevant to treatment decision-making. Doctors appeared reluctant to broach non-dialysis conservative management, even when it appears clinically appropriate. Conservative care, an alternative to KRT suitable for older patients with co-morbidities, was only explicitly discussed when prompted by patients or carers.ConclusionsThe findings highlight the impact of different communication strategies on SDM discussions in nephrology. This study calls for linguistic-informed contextualised communication training and provides foundational evidence for nephrology-specific communication skills training in SDM for KRT among older patients. There is urgent need for doctors to become confident and competent in discussing non-dialysis conservative management. Further international research should explore naturally-occurring SDM interactions in nephrology with other vulnerable groups to enhance evidence and training integration.

Survey of patients and physicians on shared decision-making in treatment selection in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a key component of patient-centered healthcare. SDM is particularly pertinent in the relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) setting, in which numerous treatment options can present challenges for identifying optimal care. However, few studies have assessed the extent and relevance of SDM and patient-centered communication (PCC) in RRMM. To describe treatment decision-making patterns between physicians and patients in the RRMM setting, we conducted online surveys of patients and physicians in the USA to compare their perspectives on the process of treatment decision-making. We analyzed the surveys descriptively. Two hundred hematologists/oncologists and 200 patients with RRMM receiving second-line (n = 89), third-line (n = 65), and fourth-line (n = 46) therapy participated. Top treatment goals for physicians and patients included extending overall survival (among 76% and 83% of physicians and patients, respectively) and progression-free survival (among 54% and 77% of physicians and patients, respectively), regardless of the number of prior relapses. Thirty percent of physicians believed patients preferred a shared approach to treatment decision-making, while 40% of patients reported most often preferring a shared role in treatment decision-making. One-fourth of patients most often preferred physicians to make the final treatment decision after seriously considering their opinion. Thirty-two percent of physicians and 16% of patients recalled ≥3 treatment options presented at first relapse. Efficacy was a primary treatment goal for patients and physicians. Discrepancies in their perceptions during RRMM treatment decision-making exist, indicating that communication tools are needed to facilitate SDM and PCC.

A Patient-Centered Communication Tool for Older Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia, Their Caregivers, and Oncologists: A Single Arm Pilot Study

Introduction: Aging-related vulnerabilities (e.g. functional impairment) are prevalent in older adults with AML and can affect the risks and benefits of treatment. Shared decision making (SDM) is an important component of patient-centered care. To achieve SDM, patients must be informed about their disease, treatment options, and prognosis, and their values should be incorporated into treatment decisions. We previously developed and adapted a patient-centered communication tool [University of Rochester-Geriatric Oncology Assessment for acute myeloid Leukemia (UR-GOAL)] for older adults with AML (Figure 1a). The UR-GOAL tool assesses aging-related vulnerabilities, patient values, and prognostic awareness among older patients with AML. In this study, we assessed the feasibility and usability of the UR-GOAL tool for use in AML treatment decision making. Methods: We conducted a single arm pilot study at the Wilmot Cancer Institute and affiliated community oncology practices. We recruited adults (≥60 years) with newly diagnosed AML, their caregivers, and oncologists. The UR-GOAL tool includes: a) AML educational video, b) geriatric assessment to assess aging-related vulnerabilities, c) Best-Worst Scaling to assess patient values (Figure 1b), and d) assessment of prognostic awareness. A summary report is provided to the patient and oncologist at completion of the tool. The primary feasibility metric was retention rate (>50% was considered feasible). We collected recruitment rate, usefulness (Preparation for Decision Making Scale, range 1-5; higher is better), usability, and clinical outcomes including AML knowledge (range 0-14, higher is better), perceived efficacy in communicating with the oncologist (range 5-25, higher is better), SDM (SDM-Q-9, range 0-100; higher is better), and patient-centered communication (PCC-Ca, range 0-5; higher is better). We used paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to assess changes in measures from baseline to post-intervention. Due to the pilot nature of the study and small sample size, hypothesis testing was performed at α=0.10 (2-tailed). We conducted post-intervention qualitative interviews to gather feedback. Results: We included 15 patients (mean age=76, range 64-88), 12 caregivers (mean age=69 years, range 47-86), and 5 oncologists. Most patients (93%) were white and non-Hispanic. Enrollment rate was 84% and retention rate was 73%. Mean scores on the Preparation for Decision Making Scale were 3.8 (SD 0.7) and 3.5 (SD 1.2), among patients and caregivers, respectively. On usability survey, majority of patients (>90%) agreed that the UR-GOAL tool helped them understand AML and its treatment options, identify questions for their doctor, understand their values, and make more informed decisions. At baseline, mean AML knowledge scores among patients and caregivers were 6.0 (SD 1.1) and 5.7 (SD 1.3), respectively, which increased to 6.6 (SD 1.7; p=0.22) and 7.3 (SD 0.8; p=0.03) post-intervention. Perceived efficacy in communicating with the oncologist increased from baseline to post-intervention for both patients [mean +1.5 (SD 3.0; p=0.15)] and caregivers [mean +1.6 (SD 1.6; p=0.02)]. At post-intervention, mean patient scores on SDM-Q-9 and PCC-Ca were 89.4 (SD 14.4) and 4.4 (SD 0.5), respectively. Mean score on PCC-Ca was 93.5 (SD 8.1) for caregivers. Together, these scores indicate high level of SDM and patient-centered communication. In qualitative interviews, patients felt the educational video was easy to understand and suggested that they have the opportunity to re-watch the video as needed. Patients found the summary report helpful, and one patient noted referencing the report during subsequent visits with their oncologist. Oncologists did not perceive the tool to be burdensome to them or patients, and felt the summary report was easy to interpret. Oncologists felt the tool provided them with useful insight into the patient's understanding of their diagnosis and prognosis. Conclusion: We demonstrated it is feasible to incorporate a patient-centered communication tool to support older patients with AML, their caregivers, and oncologists in making treatment decisions. The UR-GOAL tool may improve patient and caregiver knowledge of AML and perceived efficacy in interacting with the oncologist. A pilot randomized controlled trial is ongoing to evaluate the preliminary efficacy of the UR-GOAL tool on SDM and communication. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

Shared decision-making in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic and progressive neurological disorder impacting physical, cognitive, and psychosocial health. The disease course, severity, and presence of symptoms differ within and between persons over time and are unpredictable. Given the preference-sensitive nature of many key decisions to be made, and the increasing numbers of disease-modifying therapies, shared decision-making (SDM) with patients seems to be key in offering optimum care and outcomes for people suffering from MS. In this paper, we describe our perspective on how to achieve SDM in patients with MS, following key SDM-elements from established SDM-frameworks. As for deliberation in the clinical encounter, SDM communication training of professionals and feedback on their current performance are key aspects, as well as encouraging patients to participate. Concerning information for patients, it is important to provide balanced, evidence-based information about the benefits and the harms of different treatment options, including the option of surveillance only. At the same time, attention is needed for the optimal dosage of that information, given the symptoms of cognitive dysfunction and fatigue among MS-patients, and the uncertainties they have to cope with. Finally, for broader communication, a system is required that assures patient preferences are actually implemented by multidisciplinary MS-teams. As SDM is also being implemented in many countries within the context of value-based health care, we consider the systematic use of outcome information, such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient Decision Aids, as an opportunity to achieve SDM.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial

BackgroundFor adults aged 76–85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient’s CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences.ObjectiveTo promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults.DesignTwo-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat.Participants and SettingPrimary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76–85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period.InterventionsIntervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only.Main MeasuresThe primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0–4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit.Key ResultsSixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms.ConclusionPhysician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential.Trial RegistrationThe trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Enhancing knowledge and awareness of transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis and shared decision-making among cardiology team members in Colorado, USA via an online educational initiative

ABSTRACT Objectives Our project aimed to increase knowledge of noninvasive diagnostic modalities (including bone radiotracer scintigraphy), raise suspicion of transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (ATTR-CA), and improve cardiology team member’s awareness and knowledge of shared decision-making (SDM), as well as the quality of SDM communication between cardiology team members and patients. Methods An online educational module and survey was developed and cardiology team members in Colorado, USA, were invited to participate. This online educational module included various important topics related to ATTR-CA (e.g., the cause of ATTR-CA, endomyocardial biopsy, and noninvasive methods to diagnose ATTR-CA) and SDM (e.g., benefits of SDM, the role of SDM in the diagnosis of ATTR-CA, implementation of SDM in cardiology practice, and the 3-talk model). Results There were 34 survey respondents, over one-third of whom were cardiologists. Most respondents agreed on the importance of diagnosing ATTR-CA at an early stage, and about three-quarters of the survey takers agreed that bone scintigraphy can reliably diagnose ATTR-CA without the need for endomyocardial biopsy. Concern over increased time commitment was the leading barrier to the implementation of SDM in respondents’ clinical practice. The majority of respondents identified the correct answer regarding ATTR-CA and SDM after reading the online educational module. This improvement in scores after exposure to the online educational module was statistically significant. Conclusion Baseline knowledge and awareness of various issues related to ATTR-CA was relatively low among cardiology team members. Participants’ knowledge was enhanced through our effective online educational program. Prospective educational projects focused on various methods of detecting ATTR-CA as well as other amyloid conditions in diverse clinical settings will remain important.

Shared decision-making in urology and female pelvic floor medicine and reconstructive surgery.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a hallmark of patient-centred care that uses informed consent to help guide patients with making complex health-care decisions. In SDM, patients and providers work together to determine the best course of action based on both the current available evidence and the patient's values and preferences. SDM not only provides a framework for the legal and ethical obligations providers need to fulfil for informed consent, but also leads to improved knowledge of treatment options and satisfaction of decision-making for patients. Tools such as decision aids have been developed to support SDM for complex decisions. Several decision aids are available for use in the field of urology and female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, but these decision aids are also associated with barriers to SDM implementation including patient, provider and systematic challenges. However, solutions to such barriers to SDM include continued development of SDM tools to improve patient engagement, expand training of providers in SDM communication models and a process to encourage implementation of SDM.

A shared decision-making communications workshop improves internal medicine resident skill, risk-benefit education, and counseling attitude

ObjectiveWe assessed the impact of a workshop on first-year medicine residents (PGY1) shared decision-making (SDM) communication skill, risk-benefit education, and attitude. MethodsA SDM skills-focused workshop was integrated into an academic medical center PGY1 ambulatory rotation in 2016–2017. Pre/post recordings of virtual Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) with standardized patients sharing decisions were scored using OPTION5. Risk-benefit education, including decision aid use, was measured. Pre/post surveys assessed SDM practice attitudes and perceived barriers. Results31 of 48 (65%) PGY1 workshop attendees completed pre/post OSCEs yielding 62 videos. OPTION5 scores improved from 27/100 pre to 56/100 post (p < 0.001). Pre/post increases in integration of qualitative (15/31 vs 31/31, p < 0.001) and quantitative (3/31 vs 31/31, p < 0.001) risk measures, and decision aids (1/3 vs 31/31, p < 0.001) were observed. Pro-SDM attitude of decisional neutrality increased 16.6% pre to 71.9% post-survey (P < 0.001). Barriers to SDM remain. ConclusionThis PGY1 workshop with virtual OSCEs improved SDM communication skills, the ability to find and provide risk-benefit education, and SDM-facilitating attitude. Practice implicationsResidency programs can improve SDM skills, risk-benefit education, and attitudes with a workshop intervention. Perceived time constraints and cognitive biases regarding risk-benefit estimates should be addressed to ensure quality SDM in practice.

Supporting Communication of Shared Decision-Making Principles in US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.

Aims. This methods project was conducted to support the US Preventive Services Task Force’s (USPSTF) consideration of how information pertinent to shared decision making (SDM) can be best communicated in its recommendations. Methods. The project included a literature scan to identify SDM frameworks, audit of six USPSTF recommendations to judge the completeness of SDM communication, input from eight SDM experts on the most helpful SDM guidance to provide in USPSTF recommendations, and review of USPSTF recommendations and evidence reports to establish criteria for identifying topics that would most benefit from additional communication resources. Results. We identified eight SDM frameworks and selected one to guide the audit of USPSTF recommendations. All six recommendations include SDM elements related to the patient’s role in decision making, preventive service being considered, pros and cons of options, uncertainties about benefits and harms, and importance of patient preferences. Two SDM elements are not routinely communicated in the recommendations—identification of not screening or initiating preventive medication as an alternative and the importance of patient understanding of options. Experts offered suggestions for essential SDM elements to address, such as assessing decisional conflict to measure patient uncertainty in choosing an option and highlighting uncertainty in estimates of benefit and harm, credibility of the evidence base, precision of estimates, and applicability to the individual patient. We developed six criteria for selection of USPSTF recommendations to supplement with a communication resource. Conclusions. The findings of this project can assist the USPSTF and other clinical guideline developers in incorporating SDM information in recommendations and determining which topics would most benefit from additional communication resources to support clinicians in engaging patients in SDM.

Making shared decision-making (SDM) a reality: protocol of a large-scale long-term SDM implementation programme at a Northern German University Hospital

IntroductionShared decision-making (SDM) is not yet widely used when making decisions in German hospitals. Making SDM a reality is a complex task. It involves training healthcare professionals in SDM communication and enabling patients to actively participate in communication, in addition to providing sound, easy to understand information on treatment alternatives in the form of evidence-based patient decision aids (EbPDAs). This project funded by the German Innovation Fund aims at designing, implementing and evaluating a multicomponent, large-scale and integrative SDM programme—called SHARE TO CARE (S2C)—at all clinical departments of a University Hospital Campus in Northern Germany within a 4-year time period.Methods and analysisS2C tackles the aforementioned components of SDM: (1) training physicians in SDM communication, (2) activating and empowering patients, (3) developing EbPDAs in the most common/relevant diseases and (4) training other healthcare professionals in SDM coaching. S2C is designed together with patients and providers. The physicians’ training programme entails an online and an in situ training module. The decision coach training is based on a similar but less comprehensive approach. The development of online EbPDAs follows the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and includes written, graphical and video-based information. Validated outcomes of SDM implementation are measured in a preintervention and postintervention evaluation design. Process evaluation accompanies programme implementation. Health economic impact of the intervention is investigated using a propensity-score-matched approach based on potentially preference-sensitive hospital decisions.Ethics and disseminationEthics committee review approval has been obtained from Medical Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel. Project information and results will be disseminated at conferences, on project-hosted websites at University Hospital Medical Center Schleswig Holstein and by S2C as well as in peer-reviewed and professional journals.

Effect of a Skills Training for Oncologists and a Patient Communication Aid on Shared Decision Making About Palliative Systemic Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BackgroundPalliative systematic treatment offers uncertain and often limited benefits, and the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require shared decision making (SDM). This trial examined the independent and combined effect of an oncologist training and a patient communication aid on SDM.MethodsIn this multicenter randomized controlled trial with four parallel arms (2016–2018), oncologists (n = 31) were randomized to receive SDM communication skills training or not. The training consisted of a reader, two group sessions, a booster session, and a consultation room tool (10 hours). Patients (n = 194) with advanced cancer were randomized to receive a patient communication aid or not. The aid consisted of education on SDM, a question prompt list, and a value clarification exercise. The primary outcome was observed SDM as rated by blinded observers from audio‐recorded consultations. Secondary outcomes included patient‐reported SDM, patient and oncologist satisfaction, patients’ decisional conflict, patient quality of life 3 months after consultation, consultation duration, and the decision made.ResultsThe oncologist training had a large positive effect on observed SDM (Cohen's d = 1.12) and on patient‐reported SDM (d = 0.73). The patient communication aid did not improve SDM. The combination of interventions did not add to the effect of training oncologists only. The interventions affected neither patient nor oncologist satisfaction with the consultation nor patients’ decisional conflict, quality of life, consultation duration, or the decision made.ConclusionTraining medical oncologists in SDM about palliative systemic treatment improves both observed and patient‐reported SDM. A patient communication aid does not. The incorporation of skills training in (continuing) educational programs for medical oncologists is likely to stimulate the widely advocated uptake of shared decision making in clinical practice. Trial registration. Netherlands Trial Registry NTR 5489.Implications for PracticeTreatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and often small benefits, and the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require shared decision making (SDM). SDM is increasingly advocated for ethical reasons and for its beneficial effect on patient outcomes. Few initiatives to stimulate SDM are evaluated in robust designs. This randomized controlled trial shows that training medical oncologists improves both observed and patient‐reported SDM in clinical encounters (n = 194). A preconsultation communication aid for patients did not add to the effect of training oncologists. SDM training effectively changes oncologists’ practice and should be implemented in (continuing) educational programs.

Eliciting patient preferences in shared decision-making (SDM): Comparing conversation analysis and SDM measurements

ObjectiveTo explore how physicians bring up patient preferences, and how it aligns with assessments of shared decision-making. MethodsQualitative conversation analysis of physicians formulating hypotheses about the patient’s treatment preference was compared with quantitative scores on SDM and ‘patient preferences’ using OPTION(5) and MAPPIN’SDM. ResultsPhysicians occasionally formulate hypotheses about patients’ preferences and then present a treatment option on the basis of that (“if you think X+we can do Y”). This practice may promote SDM in that the decisions are treated as contingent on patient preferences. However, the way these hypotheses are formulated, simultaneously constrains the patient’s freedom of choice and exerts a pressure to accept the physician’s recommendation. These opposing effects may in part explain cases where different assessment instruments yield large variations in SDM measures. ConclusionEliciting patient preferences is a complex phenomenon that can be difficult to reduce into an accurate number. Detailed analysis can shed light on how patient preferences are elicited, and its consequences for patient involvement. Comparing CA and SDM measurements can contribute to specifying communicative actions that SDM scores are based on. Practice implicationsOur findings have implications for SDM communication skills training and further development of SDM measurements.

Psychometrics of shared decision making and communication as patient centered measures for two language groups.

Shared decision making (SDM) and effective patient-provider communication are key and interrelated elements of patient-centered care that impact health and behavioral health outcomes. Measurement of SDM and communication from the patient's perspective is necessary in order to ensure that health care systems and individual providers are responsive to patient views. However, there is a void of research addressing the psychometric properties of these measures with diverse patients, including non-English speakers, and in the context of behavioral health encounters. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of 2 patient-centered outcome measures, the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-9 (SDM-Q) and the Kim Alliance Scale-Communication subscale (KAS-CM), in a sample of 239 English and Spanish-speaking behavioral health patients. One dominant factor was found for each scale and this structure was used to examine whether there was measurement invariance across the 2 language groups. One SDM-Q item was inconsistent with the configural invariance comparison and was removed. The remaining SDM-Q items exhibited strong invariance, meaning that item loadings and item means were similar across the 2 groups. The KAS-CM items had limited variability, with most respondents indicating high communication levels, and the invariance analysis was done on binary versions of the items. These had metric invariance (loadings the same over groups) but several items violated the strong invariance test. In both groups, the SDM-Q had high internal consistency, whereas the KAS-CM was only adequate. These findings help interpret results for individual patients, taking into account cultural and linguistic differences in how patients perceive SDM and patient-provider communication. (PsycINFO Database Record

Barriers to shared decision making in mental health care: qualitative study of the Joint Crisis Plan for psychosis.

Despite increasing calls for shared decision making (SDM), the precise mechanisms for its attainment are unclear. Sharing decisions in mental health care may be especially complex. Fluctuations in service user capacity and significant power differences are particular barriers. We trialled a form of facilitated SDM that aimed to generate patients' treatment preferences in advance of a possible relapse. The 'Joint Crisis Plan' (JCP) intervention was trialled in four mental health trusts in England between 2008 and 2011. This qualitative study used grounded theory methods to analyse focus group and interview data to understand how stakeholders perceived the intervention and the barriers to SDM in the form of a JCP. Fifty service users with psychotic disorders and 45 clinicians participated in focus groups or interviews between February 2010 and November 2011. Results suggested four barriers to clinician engagement in the JCP: (i) ambivalence about care planning; (ii) perceptions that they were 'already doing SDM'; (iii) concerns regarding the clinical 'appropriateness of service users' choices'; and (iv) limited 'availability of service users' choices'. Service users reported barriers to SDM in routine practice, most of which were addressed by the JCP process. Barriers identified by clinicians led to their lack of constructive engagement in the process, undermining the service users' experience. Future work requires interventions targeted at the engagement of clinicians addressing their concerns about SDM. Particular strategies include organizational investment in implementation of service users' choices and directly training clinicians in SDM communication processes.

English language proficiency, health literacy, and trust in physician are associated with shared decision making in rheumatoid arthritis.

Treat-to-target guidelines promote shared decision making (SDM) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Also, because of high cost and potential toxicity of therapies, SDM is central to patient safety. Our objective was to examine patterns of perceived communication around decision making in 2 cohorts of adults with RA. Data were derived from patients enrolled in 1 of 2 longitudinal, observational cohorts [University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) RA Cohort and RA Panel Cohort]. Subjects completed a telephone interview in their preferred language that included a measure of patient-provider communication, including items about decision making. Measures of trust in physician, education, and language proficiency were also asked. Logistic regression was performed to identify correlates of suboptimal SDM communication. Analyses were performed on each sample separately. Of 509 patients across 2 cohorts, 30% and 32% reported suboptimal SDM communication. Low trust in physician was independently associated with suboptimal SDM communication in both cohorts. Older age and limited English proficiency were independently associated with suboptimal SDM in the UCSF RA Cohort, as was limited health literacy in the RA Panel Cohort. This study of over 500 adults with RA from 2 demographically distinct cohorts found that nearly one-third of subjects report suboptimal SDM communication with their clinicians, regardless of cohort. Lower trust in physician was independently associated with suboptimal SDM communication in both cohorts, as was limited English language proficiency and older age in the UCSF RA Cohort and limited health literacy in the RA Panel Cohort. These findings underscore the need to examine the influence of SDM on health outcomes in RA.

Capsule commentary on Hoffman et al., Brief training of student clinicians in shared decision making: a single-blind randomized control trial.

The Institute of Medicine highlighted shared decision-making (SDM) over a decade ago.1 Since then, more than 80 randomized trials have been published, many demonstrating that involving the patient in decisions and improving provider communication are associated with positive healthcare quality markers and overall morbidity and mortality outcomes.2 Few have involved multi-disciplinary practitioners; the trial by Hoffman et al.3 evaluated the effectiveness of a brief intervention on facilitating shared decision making (SDM) among student clinicians (of medicine, physiotherapy and occupational therapy) from two Australian universities. Based on valid, objective measures of video recorded interactions with simulated patient encounters, they found that their intervention improved performance of student healthcare providers in several important outcomes, including SDM communication skills, self-confidence in SDM skills, SDM attitudes and involving patients in decision making. An important limitation of this study is that it is based on simulated patients rather than live patients and the impact of the intervention was measured shortly after the intervention. However, its rigorous methods and robust evaluations suggest that modest interventions can yield significant improvement in learner SDM skills. A very important finding is that participants had high confidence at baseline in their SDM skills; a confidence that was not borne when objectively measured. This has been seen in other studies, whereby learners express overconfidence in their own communication skills—which begs the question: do residents and physicians do the same? One of the core competencies for US residencies is interpersonal and communication skills. This study highlights tools that are available for measuring learner competencies in shared decision making (OPTION scale4) and in eliciting patient preferences (ACEPP5). The authors are willing to share their training materials for programs that want to adopt formal curricula in shared decision making. There are a number of potential research questions that could be asked, such as the impact of health literacy (and numeracy), language/culture concordance between the provider and the patient and whether or not training in SDM persists over time, and whether knowledge gained from artificial simulated encounters transfers to inpatient and outpatient settings.

Core Domains of Shared Decision-Making During Psychiatric Visits: Scientific and Preference-Based Discussions

Shared decision-making (SDM) is imperative to person-centered care, yet little is known about what aspects of SDM are targeted during psychiatric visits. This secondary data analysis (191 psychiatric visits with 11 providers, coded with a validated SDM coding system) revealed two factors (scientific and preference-based discussions) underlying SDM communication. Preference-based discussion occurred less. Both provider and consumer initiation of SDM elements and decision complexity were associated with greater discussions in both factors, but were more strongly associated with scientific discussion. Longer visit length correlated with only scientific discussion. Providers' understanding of core domains could facilitate engaging consumers in SDM.

Family meetings for older adults in intermediate care settings: the impact of patient cognitive impairment and other characteristics on shared decision making

Clinicians, older adults and caregivers frequently meet to make decisions around treatment and lifestyle during an acute hospital admission. Patient age, psychological status and health locus of control (HLC) influence patient preference for consultation involvement and information but overall, a shared-decision-making (SDM) approach is favoured. However, it is not known whether these characteristics and the presence of cognitive impairment influence SDM competency during family meetings. To describe meetings between older adults, caregivers and geriatricians in intermediate care and explore patient and meeting characteristics associated with a SDM communication style. Fifty-nine family meetings involving geriatricians, patients in an intermediate care setting following an acute hospital admission and their caregivers were rated using the OPTION system for measuring clinician SDM behaviour. The geriatric depression scale and multidimensional HLC scale were completed by patients. The mini-mental state exam (MMSE) assessed patient's level of cognitive impairment. Meetings lasted 38 min (SD 13) and scored 41 (SD 17) of 100 on the OPTION scale. Nine (SD 2.2) topics were discussed during each meeting, and most were initiated by the geriatrician. Meeting length was an important determinant of OPTION score, with higher SDM competency displayed in longer meetings. Patient characteristics, including MMSE, HLC and depression did not explain SDM competency. Whilst SDM can be achieved during consultations frail older patients and their caregivers, an increased consultation time is a consequence of this approach.

Attitudes toward shared decision-making and risk communication practices in residents and their teachers

Background: Health professionals’ attitudes toward shared decision-making (SDM) are an important facilitator of SDM, but information on these attitudes is limited.Aims: The purpose of this study is to examine attitudes, education and practices around SDM and risk communication in residents and their teachers.Method: A questionnaire was mailed to residents in Swiss hospitals in postgraduate medical training programs assessing risk communication education and SDM. In an Internet survey, teachers of the medical training programs answered questions on SDM and risk communication practices. Data were analyzed with ANOVAs and paired samples t-tests.Results: Significant differences in residents’ and teachers’ opinions regarding SDM were found between specialties and number of residents in a residency (1–3, 4–10, ≥11 residents). Teachers showed a high use of verbal risk communication. Neither residents nor teachers expressed a strong feeling that they lacked the time for decision-making. Residents were significantly more negative about the ability of patients to participate in decision-making compared to their teachers.Conclusions: As residents are more negative about SDM compared to teachers and teachers do not always use the preferred and best methods for risk communication, more education for teachers and residents is needed to improve communication practices in the future.