Shared Decision-making In Healthcare Research Articles

Training Undergraduate Medical Students in Shared Decision Making: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT In the field of healthcare delivery, shared decision making (SDM) refers to a collaborative process, wherein both patients and the healthcare professionals mutually work to make informed and consensus decisions with reference to the kind of medical care that will be administered to patients. The purpose of the current review is to explore SDM in health care, ascertain the role of medical education, and identify the ways to train and assess undergraduate medical students in competencies pertaining to SDM. An extensive search of all materials related to the topic was carried out on the PubMed and Google Scholar search engines and a total of 29 articles were selected based on their suitability with the current review objectives and analyzed. Keywords used in the search include learning resources in the title alone only (viz. shared decision making [ti] AND patient [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND medical education [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND assessment [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND self-assessment [ti]; shared decision making [ti]; shared decision making [ti]). In the domain of medical education, the promotion of SDM essentially will require a multipronged approach to enable its integration into the medical curriculum. However, we must remember that mere teaching–learning methods would not improve it unless they are supplemented with assessment methods, otherwise, we will fail to deliver sustained results. In conclusion, SDM in medical education and healthcare industry represents a transformative shift from the traditional paradigm to a patient-centered approach that empowers both patients and healthcare providers, including budding medical students. The need of the hour is to advocate and encourage structured integration of SDM in the medical curriculum and support the same with periodic assessments.

Shared decision-making in health care.

Shared decision-making in health care.

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.

The use of digital storytelling of patients\u2019 stories as an approach to translating knowledge: a scoping review

BackgroundA growing interest has centered on digital storytelling in health research, described as a multi-media presentation of a story using technology. The use of digital storytelling in knowledge translation (KT) is emerging as technology advances in healthcare to address the challenging tasks of disseminating and transferring knowledge to key stakeholders. We conducted a scoping review of the literature available on the use of patient digital storytelling as a tool in KT interventions.MethodsWe followed by Arksey and O’Malley (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19–32, 2005), and Levac et al. (Implement Sci 5(1):69, 2010) recommended steps for scoping reviews. Search strategies were conducted for electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest dissertations and theses global, Clinicaltrials.gov and Psychinfo). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used to report the review process.ResultsOf 4656 citations retrieved, 114 full texts were reviewed, and twenty-one articles included in the review. Included studies were from nine countries and focused on an array of physical and mental health conditions. A broad range of interpretations of digital storytelling and a variety of KT interventions were identified. Digital storytelling was predominately defined as a story in multi-media form, presented as a video, for selective or public viewing and used as educational material for healthcare professionals, patients and families.ConclusionUsing digital storytelling as a tool in KT interventions can contribute to shared decision-making in healthcare and increase awareness in patients’ health related experiences. Concerns centered on the accuracy and reliability of some of the information available online and the impact of digital storytelling on knowledge action and implementation.

The Position of Neuromuscular Patients in Shared Decision Making. Report from the 235th ENMC Workshop: Milan, Italy, January 19-20, 2018.

In the era of patient-centered medicine, shared decision-making (SDM) - in which healthcare professionals and patients exchange information and preferences and jointly reach a decision - has emerged as the gold standard model for the provision of formal healthcare. Indeed, in many geographical settings, patients are frequently invited to participate in choices concerning the design and delivery of their medical management. From a clinical perspective, benefits of this type of patient involvement encompass, for example, enhanced treatment satisfaction, improved medical compliance, better health outcomes, and maintained or promoted quality of life. Yet, although the theory and enactment of SDM in healthcare are well-described in the literature [1-3], comparatively less attention has been devoted to contextualizing questions relating to if, when, and how to include patients in decisions within medical research. In this context, patient involvement would be expected to be potentially relevant for and applicable to a wide range of activities and processes, from the identification of research priorities and development of grant applications, to the design of patient information and consent procedures, formulation of interventions, identification and recruitment of study sample populations, feasibility of a clinical trial, identification, selection, and specification of endpoints and outcomes in clinical trials and observational studies, data collection and analysis, and dissemination of results. To this end, 45 clinicians, healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, caregivers, and representatives from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies from 15 different countries met to discuss the level of involvement of patients with neuromuscular diseases, specifically in the following settings of medical research for neuromuscular diseases: i) registries and biobanks; ii) clinical trials; and iii) regulatory processes. In this report, we present summaries of the talks that were given during the workshop, as well as discussion outcomes from the three topic areas listed above.

Interventions for promoting participation in shared decision-making for children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis

Background Shared decision-making is important in child and adolescent healthcare because there is growing international recognition of children and young people's rights to be included in decisions that affect them. In order for young people to participate effectively in shared decision-making they need to develop the skills of engagement with healthcare professionals and confidence in interacting with them. They also need to learn how to manage their condition and treatments on their own when they move into adulthood. Children and young people who participate in shared decision-making in healthcare are likely to be more informed, feel more prepared, and experience less anxiety about the unknown. Significant improvements in cystic fibrosis (CF) survival over recent decades, due to improved therapies and better management of care, means that young people with CF are routinely transitioning to adult healthcare where increasing emphasis on self-management brings greater complexity in decision-making. We need to know what interventions are effective in promoting shared decision-making for young people with CF. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions that promote participation in shared decision-making for children and adolescents (aged between four and 18 years) with CF. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearches of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of articles and reviews addressing shared decision-making.Date of most recent search: 12 March 2019.We searched PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), PsycINFO (EBSCO), WHO ICTRP, ASSIA (ProQuest), ERIC (ProQuest), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted study authors with published relevant research in shared decision-making for adults to ask if they were aware of any published or ongoing studies on the promotion of the intervention for children or adolescents (or both) with CF.Date of most recent search: 19 March 2019. Selection criteria We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (but not cross-over RCTs) of interventions promoting shared decision-making for children and adolescents with CF aged between four and 18 years, such as information provision, booklets, two-way interaction, checking understanding (by the participant), preparation to participate in a healthcare decision, decision-aids, and training interventions or educational programs. We planned to include interventions aimed at children or adolescents (or both), parents or healthcare professionals or any combination of these groups provided that the focus was aimed at promoting shared decision-making for children and adolescents with CF. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently reviewed papers identified in the searches. Main results No eligible RCTs were identified for inclusion in this systematic review. Authors' conclusions We were unable to identify RCTs with evidence which would support healthcare policy-making and practice related to implementation of shared decision-making for children and adolescents (aged between four and 18 years) with CF). We hope that having identified this gap in research, awareness will increase amongst researchers of the need to design high-quality shared decision-making interventions for young people with CF, perhaps adapted from existing models for adults, and to test these interventions and children's preferences in RCTs. It is also important to target health professionals with evidence-based education programmes on shared decision-making and a need for international consensus on addressing the variability in education programmes.

Shared Decision-making in Health Care – Achieving Evidence-based Patient Choice (2nd ed.)

Shared Decision-making in Health Care – Achieving Evidence-based Patient Choice (2nd ed.)

“Involving the Patient – Shared Decision-making in Health Care” – 2nd conference – 24th–25th April 2008 in Marburg

True to the motto “small but mighty” 35 health professionals and scientists joined together at the 2nd conference on shared decision-making hosted by the Department of General Practice/Family Medicine of the Philipps University of Marburg from 24–25th April 2008.

Improving Informed Consent by Implementing Shared Decisionmaking in Health Care

emplified in (draft) legal rules to emphasize patients' rights in medical treatment (Medical Contract Act) and protect human subjects in clinical trials (Medical Research with Human Beings Bill). The aim of these regulations is to give patients an active role in medical decisionmaking. Appeals to patients' rights and legal visions of informed consent alone do not adequately enable patient involvement in medical decisionmaking. Legal requirements, if regarded as merely procedural obligations, may even constitute an obstacle to doctorpatient communication.1 Rules applied when the subject is uneducated function only as an ideology.2 Empirical studies suggest that as a result of illness, patients tend to feel they must do whatever the doctor suggests, and tend to become less aggressive in seeking alternatives and passive out of a sense of powerlessness in the face of massive technical information.3 Studies have shown that relevant infor-