Shared Decision-making In Practice Research Articles

Integrating training in evidence-based medicine and shared decision-making: a qualitative study of junior doctors and consultants.

In the past, evidence-based medicine (EBM) and shared decision-making (SDM) have been taught separately in health sciences and medical education. However, recognition is increasing of the importance of EBM training that includes SDM, whereby practitioners incorporate all steps of EBM, including person-centered decision-making using SDM. However, there are few empirical investigations into the benefits of training that integrates EBM and SDM (EBM-SDM) for junior doctors, and their influencing factors. This study aimed to explore how integrated EBM-SDM training can influence junior doctors' attitudes to and practice of EBM and SDM;to identify the barriers and facilitators associated with junior doctors' EBM-SDM learning and practice; andto examine how supervising consultants' attitudes and authority impact on junior doctors' opportunities for EBM-SDM learning and practice. We developed and ran a series of EBM-SDM courses for junior doctors within a private healthcare setting with protected time for educational activities. Using an emergent qualitative design, we first conducted pre- and post-course semi-structured interviews with 12 junior doctors and thematically analysed the influence of an EBM-SDM course on their attitudes and practice of both EBM and SDM, and the barriers and facilitators to the integrated learning and practice of EBM and SDM. Based on the responses of junior doctors, we then conducted interviews with ten of their supervising consultants and used a second thematic analysis to understand the influence of consultants on junior doctors' EBM-SDM learning and practice. Junior doctors appreciated EBM-SDM training that involved patient participation. After the training course, they intended to improve their skills in person-centered decision-making including SDM. However, junior doctors identified medical hierarchy, time factors, and lack of prior training as barriers to the learning and practice of EBM-SDM, whilst the private healthcare setting with protected learning time and supportive consultants were considered facilitators. Consultants had mixed attitudes towards EBM and SDM and varied perceptions of the role of junior doctors in either practice, both of which influenced the practice of junior doctors. These findings suggested that future medical education and research should include training that integrates EBM and SDM that acknowledges the complex environment in which this training must be put into practice, and considers strategies to overcome barriers to the implementation of EBM-SDM learning in practice.

Shared decision making with breast cancer patients – does it work? Results of the cluster-randomized, multicenter DBCG RT SDM trial

Background and purposeShared decision making (SDM) is a patient engaging process advocated especially for preference-sensitive decisions, such as adjuvant treatment after breast cancer. An increasing call for patient engagement in decision making highlights the need for a systematic SDM approach. The objective of this trial was to investigate whether the Decision Helper (DH), an in-consultation patient decision aid, increases patient engagement in decisions regarding adjuvant whole breast irradiation. Material and methodsOncologists at four radiotherapy units were randomized to practice SDM using the DH versus usual practice. Patient candidates for adjuvant whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery for node-negative breast cancer were eligible. The primary endpoint was patient-reported engagement in the decision process assessed with the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) (range 0–100, 4 points difference considered clinical relevant). Other endpoints included oncologist-reported patient engagement, decisional conflict, fear of cancer recurrence, and decision regret after 6 months. ResultsOf the 674 included patients, 635 (94.2%) completed the SDM-Q-9. Patients in the intervention group reported higher level of engagement (median 80; IQR 68.9 to 94.4) than the control group (71.1; IQR 55.6 to 82.2; p < 0.0001). Oncologist-reported patient engagement was higher in the invention group (93.3; IQR 82.2 to 100) compared to control group (73.3; IQR 60.0 to 84.4) (p < 0.0001). ConclusionPatient engagement in medical decision making was significantly improved with the use of an in-consultation patient decision aid compared to standard. The DH on adjuvant whole breast irradiation is now recommended as standard of care in the Danish guideline.

Decision aids for promoting shared decision-making: A review of systematic reviews.

In the context of shared decision-making (SDM), experts have advocated the use of validated decision aids (DAs) as valuable tools for facilitating SDM in various healthcare scenarios. This comprehensive review attempts to analyze a vast corpus of DA research by performing thorough searches across four prominent databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science). Independent reviewers selected relevant reviews, extracted data, and assessed review quality using the AMSTAR II tool. A total of 34 systematic reviews were identified and evaluated in this review, encompassing a wide range of outcomes associated with using DAs. These outcomes include patient knowledge, patient involvement in SDM, decision conflict, decision regret, satisfaction, and adherence. In addition, DAs positively affect healthcare provider outcomes by increasing satisfaction, reducing decision conflicts, and lengthening clinical consultations. This review highlights the need for additional research in specific contexts such as long-term care, mental health, and reproductive health to better understand the benefits and challenges of implementing DAs in these settings. Such research can contribute to the improvement of SDM practices and patient-centered care.

Barriers and Stimulus in Shared Decision Making Among Aesthetic Dermatologists in China: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Study.

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative process involving both healthcare providers and patients in making medical decisions, which gains increasing prominence in healthcare practice. But evidence on the level of SDM in medical practice and barriers as well as stimulus during the SDM implementation among aesthetic dermatologists is limited in China. From July to August 2023, 1938 dermatologists were recruited online in China. Data were collected through an electronic questionnaire covering: (1) demographic features; (2) SDM questionnaire physician version (SDM-Q-Doc); and (3) stimulus and barriers in SDM implementation. Logistic regression was applied to explore factors associated with SDM practice, barriers, and stimulus of SDM implementation, respectively. The 1938 dermatologists included 1329 females (68.6%), with an average age of 35 years. The total SDM score ranged from 0 to 45, with a median value of 40 (IQR: 35-44), and the median stimulus score and barriers scores were 28 (IQR: 24-32) and 19 (IQR: 13-26), respectively. The prevalence of good SDM was 27.2%, logistic regression indicated that female dermatologists (odds ratio, OR=1.21, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.96-1.51), and dermatologists with more years of aesthetic practice had a higher proportion of good SDM practice (OR was 1.44 for 5-9 years, 1.58 for 10-15 years and 1.77 for over 15 years). Moreover, female dermatologists and dermatologists with higher education level and serviced in private settings had lower barrier scores; female dermatologists and dermatologists with more years of aesthetic practice had higher stimulus scores. Chinese aesthetic dermatologists appear to implement SDM at an active level, with more stimulus and less barriers in SDM implementation. The integration of SDM into clinical practice among dermatologists is beneficial both for patients and dermatologists. Moreover, SDM practice should be strongly promoted and enhanced during medical aesthetics, especially among male dermatologists, dermatologists with less working experience, and those who work at public institutions.

Effectiveness of adding educational video in patients with atopic dermatitis to facilitate shared decision-making

Abstract Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is becoming more popular in various medical specialties as a core component of patient-centered care. However, patients’ lack of sufficient disease knowledge remains a barrier to implementing SDM. Objectives: This study aims to examine the effectiveness of two educational approaches for atopic dermatitis (AD) patients, a pamphlet and pamphlet plus video, using assessments of knowledge level and satisfaction. Methods: From August 2021 to February 2023, patients with AD from the dermatology outpatient clinic at Tri-Service General Hospital were included. Educational pamphlets were provided before educational videos, and patients were asked to complete an identical five-question test postpamphlet and postpamphlet plus video, respectively. A questionnaire was used to evaluate patients’ satisfaction. The two test scores were compared, and the satisfaction levels were analyzed. Results: The mean postpamphlet plus video score (94.84 ± 10.20) was significantly higher than the mean postpamphlet score (77.42 ± 17.17, P &lt; 0.001) across 62 eligible samples. Gender and age subgroups showed similar trends. In addition, most patients preferred educational pamphlet plus videos (ranging from 37.5% to 75.0% in different subgroups) compared with educational pamphlets (ranging from 0.0% to 3.85%). The educational pamphlet plus video demonstrated high satisfaction in promoting disease knowledge and treatment options for AD. Conclusion: Adding educational video is an efficient approach toward reinforcement of patients’ knowledge of AD and further facilitates the implementation of SDM in dermatology practice.

A shared decision-making model in pediatric palliative care: a qualitative study of healthcare providers

BackgroundPediatric shared decision-making (SDM) is a fundamental part of family-centered care. Pediatric palliative care (PPC) is one of the more difficult fields for healthcare providers when choosing to utilize SDM. However, to our knowledge, there are still few structured approaches of SDM in PPC. We aimed to build a model of SDM in PPC that achieves better care and outcomes for children and their family members.MethodsThis study is a descriptive phenomenology study. Participants included physicians, nurses, and social workers in the PPC team. Participants were individually interviewed face-to-face or via an online meeting software. Data were collected in semi-structured interviews and analyzed using a thematic framework analysis.ResultsIn total, 27 healthcare providers were interviewed. The model of SDM in PPC identified three themes, including the participants, the principle and the process of SDM. Decision participants involved the children, parents, the PPC team and others. The decision principle had three sub-themes including type, standard and precondition. The decision process describes the fundamental process of SDM and provides suggestions for mobilizing patients and parents to engage in decision-making and seeking conflict resolution.ConclusionsThis is the first study to develop a SDM model in PPC. This model can provide guidance to PPC teams on SDM practices. In addition, the model contributes to the existing body of knowledge by providing a conceptual model for SDM in the context of PPC.

Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening in 75 + Women to Inform Shared Decision-making: a Simulation Modeling Study.

Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) around mammography screening for women ≥ 75years old. To use microsimulation modeling to estimate the lifetime benefits and harms of screening women aged 75, 80, and 85years based on their individual risk factors (family history, breast density, prior biopsy) and comorbidity level to support SDM in clinical practice. We adapted two established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models to evaluate the remaining lifetime benefits and harms of screening U.S. women born in 1940, at decision ages 75, 80, and 85years considering their individual risk factors and comorbidity levels. Results were summarized for average- and higher-risk women (defined as having breast cancer family history, heterogeneously dense breasts, and no prior biopsy, 5% of the population). Remaining lifetime breast cancers detected, deaths (breast cancer/other causes), false positives, and overdiagnoses for average- and higher-risk women by age and comorbidity level for screening (one or five screens) vs. no screening per 1000 women. Compared to stopping, one additional screen at 75years old resulted in six and eight more breast cancers detected (10% overdiagnoses), one and two fewer breast cancer deaths, and 52 and 59 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk women without comorbidities, respectively. Five additional screens over 10years led to 23 and 31 additional breast cancer cases (29-31% overdiagnoses), four and 15 breast cancer deaths avoided, and 238 and 268 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk screened women without comorbidities, respectively. Screening women at older ages (80 and 85years old) and high comorbidity levels led to fewer breast cancer deaths and a higher percentage of overdiagnoses. Simulation models show that continuing screening in women ≥ 75 years old results in fewer breast cancer deaths but more false positive tests and overdiagnoses. Together, clinicians and 75 + women may use model output to weigh the benefits and harms of continued screening.

Shared decision making in sarcopenia treatment.

The implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in management of sarcopenia is still in its nascent stage, especially compared to other areas of medical research. Accumulating evidence has highlighted the importance of SDM in older adults care. The current study overviews general SDM practices and explores the potential advantages and dilemmas of incorporating these concepts into sarcopenia management. We present common patient decision aids available for sarcopenia management and propose future research directions. SDM can be effectively integrated into daily practice with the aid of structured techniques, such as the "seek, help, assess, reach, evaluate" approach, "making good decisions in collaboration" questions, "benefits, risks, alternatives, doing nothing" tool, or "multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making." Such techniques fully consider patient values and preferences, thereby enhancing adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention measures. Additionally, we review the barriers to and potential solutions to SDM implementation. Further studies are required to investigate measurement and outcomes, coordination and cooperation, and digital technology, such as remote SDM. The study concludes that sarcopenia management must go beyond the single dimension of "Paternalism" choice. Integrating SDM into clinical practice offers promising opportunities to improve patient care, with patient-centered care and partnership of care approaches positively impacting treatment outcomes.

Shared decision-making in the treatment of adolescents diagnosed with depression: A cross-sectional survey of mental health professionals in China.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision-making (SDM) is an ideal model for a therapeutic relationship that can improve health outcomes. Healthcare professionals are a critical part of SDM, and they play an important role in the practices of SDM in the clinical setting. Evidence suggests that adolescents diagnosed with depression can benefit substantially from SDM. However, mental health professionals' (MHPs) practices of SDM for adolescents diagnosed with depression in China are not well-documented. This study aimed to investigate the practices of SDM for adolescents diagnosed with depression from the viewpoints of MHPs in China. In this cross-sectional study, we recruited a total of 581 MHPs by convenience sampling. The Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) was used to evaluate the MHPs' practices of SDM for adolescents diagnosed with depression. The mean SDM-Q-Doc was 80.47 (±16.31). Within the six specific decision-making situations, most MHPs selected non-SDM (52.7%-71.6%). Substantial numbers of respondents believed that MHPs made the final decision, especially with regard to the development (37%) and adjustment of medication regimens (42%). The practice of SDM was predicted by MHPs' preference for providing information, their trust in consumers, preference for family involvement in treatment decision-making, working in an outpatient clinic and receiving SDM training (F = 23.582; p = .000; R2 = .198; adjusted R2 = .189). Although the MHPs' self-rated score of SDM-Q-Doc was high, SDM was not extensively applied in the daily management of adolescents diagnosed with depression. Thus, SDM needs to be further promoted by enhancing SDM-related training for MHPs, thereby actively promoting the involvement of families, facilitating the information sharing for consumers and families, and building an active, trusting consumer-practitioner relationship. MHPs should prioritise information sharing with consumers and families, as well as build trusting and friendly therapeutic relationships. Family involvement in treatment decisions should be encouraged when adolescents diagnosed with depression are in need. Actively participating in training related to SDM is also important. Future high-quality evidence is still needed to explore the facilitators and barriers to SDM practices from a tripartite perspective of MHPs, adolescents diagnosed with depression and their families.

Shared decision making and medication adherence in patients with COPD and/or asthma: the ANANAS study.

Background: Medication adherence to inhalation medication is suboptimal in patients with COPD and asthma. Shared decision making (SDM) is proposed as an intervention to improve medication adherence. Despite its wide promotion, evidence of SDM's association with greater medication adherence is scarce. Also, it is unknown to what degree patients presently experience SDM and how it is associated with medication adherence. Objective: To (i) assess the level of SDM and (ii) medication adherence, (iii) explore the relation between SDM and medication adherence and iv) investigate possible underlying mechanisms. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study. A survey was distributed among Dutch patients with COPD and/or asthma using inhaled medication. Medication adherence was measured using the Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI-10), and SDM by the 9-item Shared Decision-Making questionnaire (SMD-Q-9). Feeling of competence, relatedness and feeling of autonomy from the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) were considered as possible mechanisms. The primary outcome was adherence. Results: A total of 396 patients with complete information on relevant covariates were included. Mean SDM-Q-9 score was 26.7 (SD 12.1, range 0-45) and complete adherence was 41.2%. The odds ratio for the association of SDM with adherence was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.02). This only changed minimally when adjusted for mediators (mediating effect <3%). Conclusion: The patient experienced level of SDM in daily practice and medication adherence have room for improvement. No association between SDM and medication adherence was observed. Factors related to feeling of competence, relatedness and feeling of autonomy did not meaningfully explain this finding.

Information provision and decision-making in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm: A qualitative study of patient experience.

Shared decision making (SDM) refers to patients and health care professionals working together to reach a decision about treatment/care. In abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment options are influenced by patients' clinical characteristics, their preferences, and potential trade-offs between alternative interventions. This is a prime example of where SDM is essential to ensure the right decision is made for the right patient, yet we have little understanding of what happens in practice. This study explored patient experiences to understand SDM practice in AAA surgery. We used a qualitative approach to describe, and identify improvements to, current treatment decision making in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. Two groups of patients were interviewed: those at the point of discussing treatment options (with corresponding digitally recorded consultation data) and following surgical intervention from one hospital. Framework analysis was used. Fifteen patients were interviewed, seven at the point of discussing treatment options and eight following surgical intervention. Timing, format and sources of information, verbal framing of interventions and level of patient engagement were key themes. Four areas for improvement were identified: earlier provision and more detailed written information along with signposting to quality on-line information; both intervention options, risks, benefits, and consequences, were not always discussed; some clinicians were somewhat directive in the decision-making process; and patients' treatment values/preferences were not explored-the only example was in one of the eight recorded consultations. Patients could feel overwhelmed by the information and decision and fearful of the impending surgery. More emphasis should be placed on the provision of full information and the exploration of patient values and preferences for treatment. Clinician training and support for patients, including decision aids, could facilitate the decision-making process. Providing written information earlier and guidance on reliable on-line resources would benefits patients and their families.

Views and attitudes, and reported practices of nephrology nurses regarding shared decision-making in end-of-life care.

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is the final stage of chronic kidney disease. Yet dialysis is not suitable for all ESRD patients. Moreover, while shared decision-making (SDM) is the preferred model for making medical decisions, little is known about SDM between nephrology nurses and ESRD patients in Israel. Assessing the views, attitudes, practices, and ethical dilemmas of nephrology nurses in Israel regarding SDM with ESRD patients. Using the descriptive quantitative approach, questionnaires were completed by 444 nephrology nurses in Israel. In addition to conducting descriptive statistics, t-tests for independent samples, f-tests for analysis of variance, and both tests for independence were also performed. The research aims, expected advantages and risks have been explained to respondents before completing the questionnaire to secure informed consent. Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured throughout the study. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the University of Haifa (Approval # 411/21). About one-third (30%-36.5%) of nurses reported discussing quality of life issues with ESRD patients, asking about their advance directives/power of attorney, exploring cultural/religious beliefs in end-of-life care, and ask about their preferred place of death. Nurses who convey high levels of patient-centered care (68.9%, p<0.0001), have high end-of-life training (76.2%, p<0.0001), and report cooperating with interdisciplinary teams (63.8%, p = 0.0415), also reported higher SDM practices than others. Nurses who refer less patients to palliative care (70%, p<0.0001) reported higher involvement in SDM compared to other nurses. Nephrology nurses in Israel do not tend to implement the SDM model, despite its potential for improving quality of life for ESRD patients and their families and increasing conservative care options. Policy makers and educators in Israel should develop and implement training programs and support in the workplace, to enhance SDM between nephrology nurses and ESRD patients.

Factors influencing shared decision-making in long-term care facilities

BackgroundShared decision-making, a communicative process to reach decisions based on informed preferences, evidence, and co-created goals, improves care satisfaction and patients’ quality of life. However, shared decision-making has not been widely implemented in long-term care facilities, and few studies have examined how to promote the shared decision-making practice. This study aimed to identify the influencing factors of shared decision-making based on the Person-centered Practice Framework in long-term care facilities.MethodsA total of 300 staff (nursing staff, social workers, and personal care workers) in 13 Korean long-term care facilities participated in this study. Data from 280 respondents were finally analyzed, excluding respondents with missing values. Data were collected using structured questionnaires that included items on shared decision-making, personal factors (e.g., knowledge about dementia, person-centered care education, person-centered attitude, communication behavior, and job tenure), and care environment factors (e.g., person-centered climate, staffing level, effective staff relationships, supportive supervisors, and power-sharing). Multilevel linear regression analyses were performed using Mplus Version 8.8.ResultsThe mean shared decision-making score was 35.78 (range 8–45). Staff with experience of person-centered care education (β = 0.198, p = 0.034), a higher person-centered attitude score (β = 0.201, p = 0.007), and a higher communication behavior score (β = 0.242, p < 0.001) were more likely to report a higher shared decision-making score. In addition, staff who viewed their care environment as more person-centered were more likely to report a higher shared decision-making score (β = 0.416, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study highlights that personal (e.g., person-centered care education, person-centered attitude, and communication behavior) and care environment (e.g., person-centered climate) factors could influence shared decision-making for long-term care residents. These findings could be foundational evidence for facilitating shared decision-making practice in long-term care settings.

Van evidencebased medicine naar shared decision-making bij diabetes mellitus

From evidence-based medicine to shared decision-making in diabetes mellitus Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic disease with a worldwide prevalence of more than 450 million people. It is estimated that only 14.3% of this population achieves the targets with regard to HbA1c, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. DM prevention and management are getting more and more attention. Thanks to shared decision-making (SDM), the patient’s personal context can be identified and therapy can be adjusted if needed. Currently, there is little guidance for physicians on how they should implement SDM in practice. Healthcare organizations can play a role in providing education to support the use of SDM. Various barriers such as time pressure, paternalism and ignorance hamper the use of SDM. New technologies are making it increasingly easy to exchange information between doctors and patients in a patient-friendly manner. Given the actual increase of patient participation in practice, SDM will become increasingly important. From an ethical point of view, patient education is necessary in order to achieve complete autonomy of the patient and to enable SDM. The diabetes educator plays an important role to achieve this, complemented by the use of technological tools that become more and more available such as apps, web-based applications, continuous glucose monitoring, etc. SDM has the opportunity to combine an ethical approach with scientific evidence and consequently transforming care in making the best decision for each patient.

The Practice of Shared Decision-Making Among Physiotherapists and Patients with Musculoskeletal Conditions.

Shared decision-making (SDM) may be interpreted as a set of core values rather than as a consensus definition. This study aimed to explore how SDM between patients and physiotherapists may lead to patient satisfaction. A cross-sectional study was conducted to examine the relationship between SDM and patient satisfaction. The study targeted physiotherapists and patients with musculoskeletal pain or disorders. A structured questionnaire (the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire) was developed to show the extent to which patients felt involved in the process by scoring nine items from 0 to 5 on a six-point scale. t-tests were performed to estimate differences in SDM perceptions between patients and physiotherapists, and regression analyses were performed to estimate the best predictors of SDM. The questionnaire was completed by a total of 106 patients and nine physiotherapists. The demographic information of the samples was presented with frequency analysis. This study's findings demonstrate no variations in the final SDM perceptions between patients and physiotherapists, but when SDM was contrasted step-by-step (as items), many variances were discovered. These distinctions reinforce the notion that regardless of the end outcome, the process of reaching a consensus has a distinct profile depending on the type of medical care. Therapists emphasize the first steps, possibly because there is sufficient evidence to make a therapeutic decision. However, patients highlight the final steps, perhaps because the moment for a decision based on the consultation's nature is approaching. This study demonstrates that SDM is a complex process that must be examined in multiple stages. However, in physiotherapy contexts, this process exhibits extremely different patterns, reflecting a significantly different perspective of the decision-making process.

Experiences of decisional conflict related to epidural labour analgesia among women during late pregnancy in a tertiary hospital in China: a mixed methods study

BackgroundResearch has indicated some women were in a state of uncertainty about pharmacological pain management decisions, which may lead to maternal anxiety and decisional regret. However, little is known about decisional conflict in the choice of epidural labour analgesia amongst Chinese women. AimThis study aimed to investigate the level of and reasons underlying decisional conflict in Chinese women during their late pregnancy when making a decision on the use of epidural analgesia in labour. MethodsA convergent parallel mixed methods study was undertaken, that included a quantitative survey (n = 323) and qualitative interviews (n = 17) with women recruited from a tertiary general hospital in Hangzhou, China. The quantitative survey assessed the level of and its influencing factors of women's decisional conflict, while the qualitative interview further explored experiences of and reasons underlying the conflict. FindingsParticipants reported a high level of decisional conflict (mean±SD, 39.59±15.92), which related to decision delay and/or negative perceptions about the decision. Multiple stepwise linear regression analysis identified that highest level of education and knowledge of epidural were negatively associated with decisional conflict (p<0.05). Four decision-making styles (rational, dependant, intuitive and avoidant decision-making) associated with different levels of decisional conflict, and four underlying reasons (personal characteristics, informational provision, emotional support and participation in decision-making) of the conflict were thematized. ConclusionDecisional conflict related to epidural labour analgesia is a noteworthy issue amongst women during their late pregnancy. This study suggests a need for provision of family-centred shared decision-making practice about the use of epidural analgesia in labour.

Shared decision-making in physiotherapy: a cross-sectional study of patient involvement factors and issues in Japan

BackgroundEvidence-based medicine education has not focused on how clinicians involve patients in decision-making. Although shared decision-making (SDM) has been investigated to address this issue, there are insufficient data on SDM in physiotherapy. This study aimed to clarify the issues concerning patient involvement in Japan, and to examine whether SDM is related to perceptions of patient involvement in decision-making.MethodsThe study participants were recruited from among acute and sub-acute inpatients and community residents receiving physiotherapy outpatient care, day care, and/or home rehabilitation. The Control Preference Scale (CPS) was used to measure the patients' involvement in decision-making. The nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) was used to measure SDM. In analysis I, we calculated the weighted kappa coefficient to examine the congruence in the CPS between the patients' actual and preferred roles. In analysis II, we conducted a logistic regression analysis using two models to examine the factors of patient involvement.ResultsAnalysis I included 277 patients. The patients' actual roles were as follows: most active (4.0%), active (10.8%), collaborative (24.6%), passive (35.0%), and most passive (25.6%). Their preferred roles were: most active (3.3%), active (18.4%), collaborative (39.4%), passive (24.5%), and most passive (14.4%). The congruence between actual and preferred roles by the kappa coefficient was 0.38. Analysis II included 218 patients. The factors for patient involvement were the clinical environment, the patient's preferred role, and the SDM-Q-9 score.ConclusionsThe patients in Japan indicated a low level of decision-making involvement in physiotherapy. The patients wanted more active involvement than that required in the actual decision-making methods. The physiotherapist's practice of SDM was revealed as one of the factors related to perceptions of patient involvement in decision-making. Our results demonstrated the importance of using SDM for patient involvement in physiotherapy.

Measures of Shared Decision Making for People With Mental Disorders and Limited Decisional Capacity: A Systematic Review.

Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model to improve treatment decision making and is underused for people with mental health conditions and limited, impaired, or fluctuating decisional capacity. SDM measures are essential to enhancing the adoption and implementation of SDM practices, yet no tools or research findings exist that explicitly focus on measuring SDM with such patients. The aim of this review was to identify instruments that measure SDM involving individuals with mental health conditions and limited decisional capacity, their family members, and their health and social care providers. A systematic review was performed by searching the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycInfo databases. The authors included peer-reviewed, quantitative articles published in English during 2009-2022 that focused on adults (≥18 years old). All authors performed the screening independently. A total of 7,956 records were identified, six of which met the inclusion criteria for full-text review and five of which were analyzed (one full-text article was not available). No instruments were identified that measured forms of SDM involving patients with mental health conditions and limited, impaired, or fluctuating decisional capacity. Measurement instruments to address and assess SDM in health care-related communication processes involving individuals with a mental health condition and limited decisional capacity are needed.

Level of shared decision making and associated factors among patients with mental illness in Northwest Ethiopia: Explanatory sequential mixed method study.

Shared decision-making is a patient-centered and a recovery-oriented mental health system in which consumers are encouraged to actively engage in illness management. Although shared decision-making research in mental health has evolved rapidly in the past two decades, there is a lack of studies examining the level and factors associated with shared decision-making practice in low-income countries like Ethiopia. An institutional-based explanatory sequential mixed method study design was conducted from July 18 to September 18, 2022, at Bahir Dar city specialized hospitals. A systematic random sampling technique was used. The level of shared-decision making was measured by 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire among 423 patients with mental illness. Epicollect5 was used to collect data, which was then exported to the Statistical Package for social science version 25 for analysis. Variables with a P-value < 0.25 were considered candidates for the multivariate logistic regression analysis. The odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval was used to show the strength of the association. An in-depth interview was conducted among ten purposively selected participants. Low shared decision-making practice was found to be 49.2% (95% CI 45.9%-55.7%). The Multivariate analysis showed that low perceived compassionate care (AOR = 4.45; 95%CI 2.52-7.89), low social support (AOR = 1.72; 95% CI 1.06-2.80), and no community-based health insurance (AOR = 1.96; 95%CI l.04-3.69) were positively associated with low shared decision making. The qualitative result showed that the most common barriers to shared decision-making were a lack of empathy and a shortage of mental health workers. Almost half of the patients had low shared decision-making practices. This implies that shared decision-making requires high attention as it is essential for patient-centered care.

Physician-reported characteristics, representations, and ethical justifications of shared decision-making practices in the care of paediatric patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness

BackgroundDespite consensus about the importance of implementing shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical practice, this ideal is inconsistently enacted today. Evidence shows that SDM practices differ in the degree of involvement of patients or family members, or in the amount of medical information disclosed to patients in order to “share” meaningfully in treatment decisions. Little is known on which representations and moral justifications physicians hold when realizing SDM. This study explored physicians’ experiences of SDM in the management of paediatric patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDOC). Specifically, we focused on physicians’ SDM approaches, representations, and ethical justifications for engaging in SDM.MethodsWe used a qualitative approach to explore the SDM experiences of 13 ICU physicians, paediatricians, and neurologists based in Switzerland who have been or were involved in the care of paediatric patients living with PDOC. A semi-structured interview format was used and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed through thematic analysis.ResultsWe found that participants followed three main decision-making approaches: the “brakes” approach, characterized by maximized family’s decisional freedom, though conditional to physician’s judgment regarding the medical appropriateness of a treatment; the “orchestra director” approach, characterized by a multi-step decision-making process led by the main physician aimed at eliciting the voices of the care team members and of the family; and the “sunbeams” approach, characterized by a process oriented to reach consensus with family members through dialogue, where the virtues of the physician are key to guide the process. We also found that participants differed in the moral justifications sustaining each approach, citing the duty to respect parental autonomy, to invest in an ethics of care, and to employ physicians’ virtues to guide the decision-making process.ConclusionOur results show that physicians come to perform SDM in different ways, with several representations, and distinct ethical justifications. SDM training among health care providers should clarify the ductility of SDM and the several ethical motivations underpinning it, rather than insisting on the principle of respect for patient’s autonomy as its only moral foundation.