Shared decision making process measures and patient problems

ObjectivesPurposeful SDM posits four modes of shared decision making (SDM). The use of each mode depends on the type of problem of care that is being addressed. We sought to identify how current observer-based SDM measures apply to each mode of Purposeful SDM.MethodsFour coders, working independently, evaluated 192 items pertaining to 12 observer-based SDM process measures. They classified the items into 6 themes that vary across Purposeful SDM modes and then into one of the four modes (weighing, negotiating, problem-solving, developing insight). Disagreements were resolved by consensus.ResultsThe items were classified as pertaining to the following themes: problem (28), roles/participation (84), options (62), preferences (21), decision (15), and evaluation (6). They were then classified as pertaining particularly to the SDM modes of weighing (54), negotiating (5), problem-solving (0), and developing insight (0) modes, with 191 items applying broadly to all modes of Purposeful SDM.ConclusionsObserver-based SDM measures describe behaviors pertinent to all modes but lack items sensitive to behaviors particular to some modes of SDM.Practice ImplicationsNew or revised observer-based measures of the SDM process could help estimate the extent to which the appropriate SDM mode is being used to address the patient’s problem.     

Remote shared decision making through telemedicine: A systematic review of the literature

ObjectivesTo assess the extent to which shared decision making (SDM) can take place in telemedicine (remote SDM).MethodsWe searched Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus from 2010 until August 7th, 2020 for articles on remote SDM in the care of any patient using any technology. We also conducted a search for telemedicine articles citing key reports on SDM outcome measures. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full text eligible studies, and synthesized their content using thematic analysis.ResultsOf the 12 eligible articles, most were European with patients with chronic disease or mental and behavioral health. 8 articles used synchronous remote SDM and 1 used asynchronous remote SDM. Themes related to interactional workability of both telemedicine technologies and SDM emerged, namely access to broadband, digital literacy, and satisfaction with the convenience of remote visits.ConclusionsTelemedicine technologies may foster virtual interactions that support remote SDM, which, in turn, may promote productive patient-clinician interactions and patient-centered care.Practice implicationsDigitally-mediated consultations surged amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The extent to which SDM frameworks developed for in-person use need any adaptation for remote SDM remains unclear. Investment in innovation, design, implementation, and effectiveness research to advance remote SDM are needed.     

Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making: A systematic review

Objective

To assess the extent to which evaluations of shared decision making (SDM) assess the extent and quality of humanistic communication (i.e., respect, compassion, empathy).

Twelve myths about shared decision making

Objective

As shared decision makes increasing headway in healthcare policy, it is under more scrutiny. We sought to identify and dispel the most prevalent myths about shared decision making.

Methods

In 20 years in the shared decision making field one of the author has repeatedly heard mention of the same barriers to scaling up shared decision making across the healthcare spectrum. We conducted a selective literature review relating to shared decision making to further investigate these commonly perceived barriers and to seek evidence supporting their existence or not.

Results

Beliefs about barriers to scaling up shared decision making represent a wide range of historical, cultural, financial and scientific concerns. We found little evidence to support twelve of the most common beliefs about barriers to scaling up shared decision making, and indeed found evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion

Our selective review of the literature suggests that twelve of the most commonly perceived barriers to scaling up shared decision making across the healthcare spectrum should be termed myths as they can be dispelled by evidence.

Practice implications

Our review confirms that the current debate about shared decision making must not deter policy makers and clinicians from pursuing its scaling up across the healthcare continuum.     

Promoting shared decision making in advanced cancer: Development and piloting of a patient communication aid

Objective

To learn how to configure a patient communication aid (PCA) to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment for advanced cancer.

Shared decision making: prostate cancer patients' appraisal of treatment alternatives and oncologists' eliciting and responding behavior, an explorative study

Objective

To assess clinicians’ use of shared decision making (SDM) skills, enabling patient treatment evaluations (appraisals); and varieties of patient appraisals and clinicians’ preceding and following utterances.

Methods

Two coders rated videotaped initial visits of 25 early-stage prostate cancer patients to their radiation oncologist. SDM skills were assessed using the Decision Analysis System for Oncology (DAS-O); appraisals and clinicians’ utterances were labeled using qualitative methodology.

Results

Clinicians offered a treatment choice to 10 patients. They informed 15/25 about pros and 20/25 about cons of options. Patients expressed 67 appraisals (median/visit = 2; range, 0-12). Half of appraisals were favorable and one-fourth was unfavorable toward treatment options. One-fifth referred to explicit tradeoffs. One-third of appraisals followed clinician requests; 58% followed clinician information. Clinicians approved almost half of appraisals. They contested, ignored or highlighted a minority.

Conclusion

Clinicians infrequently offered patients a choice or explored appraisals. Most appraisals supported rather than challenged treatment options. Clinicians most often legitimized appraisals, thereby helping patients to feel good about the decision. Exploring appraisals may help patients in forming more stable preferences, thus benefiting patients in the long run.

Practice implication

Clinicians should request patient appraisals and ascertain whether these seem well-informed before making treatment recommendations.     

Shared decision making: What is the work?

Cooperation has emerged as a fundamental characteristic of human society, and many argue that this ability is the basis for the phenomenal development in our capability as a species. When we focus our attention to the interactions that occur in healthcare, we inevitably notice power asymmetry due to unequal knowledge, experience, and status. However, as many have argued since the 1970s, there is an ethical imperative to respect the agency of individuals, offer information, collaborate, and support deliberation when difficult decisions arise. This process is particularly important when reasonable alternative courses of action exist and where the priorities and preferences of individuals would be expected to sway such decisions. This position article argues that this process, commonly described as shared decision making, involves work that is cognitive, emotional, and relational, and, particularly if people are ill, should have the underpinning goal of restoring autonomy. It covers the origin of the term and describes the core components; it describes how to do the cognitive, emotional, and relational work that is required, and offers a model to guide the process.     

Using a ‘talk’ model of shared decision making to propose an observation-based measure: Observer OPTION

Objective

To propose a revised Observer OPTION measure of shared decision making.

Methods

We analyzed published models to identify the core components of a parsimonious conceptual framework of shared decision making. By using this framework, we developed a revised measure combining data from an observational study of clinical practice in Canada with our experience of using Observer OPTION^{12 Item}.

Results

Our conceptual framework for shared decision making composed of justifying deliberative work, followed by the steps of describing options, information exchange, preference elicitation, and preference integration. By excluding items in Observer OPTION^{12 Item} that were seldom observed or not aligned to a robust construct, we propose Observer OPTION^{5 Item}.

Conclusion

Although widely used, Observer OPTION^{12 Item} did not give sufficient attention to preference elicitation and integration, and included items that were not specific to a core construct of shared decision making. We attempted to remedy these shortcomings by proposing a shorter, more focused measure.

Practice implications

Observer OPTION^{5 Item} requires evaluation; we hope that it will be useful as both a research tool and as a formative measure of clinical practice.     

Understanding patient perceptions of shared decision making

Objective

This study aims to develop a conceptual model of patient-defined SDM, and understand what leads patients to label a specific, decision-making process as shared.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 primary care patients following a recent appointment. Patients were asked about the meaning of SDM and about specific decisions that they labeled as shared. Interviews were coded using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Patients’ conceptual definition of SDM included four components of an interactive exchange prior to making the decision: both doctor and patient share information, both are open-minded and respectful, patient self-advocacy, and a personalized physician recommendation. Additionally, a long-term trusting relationship helps foster SDM. In contrast, when asked about a specific decision labeled as shared, patients described a range of interactions with the only commonality being that the two parties came to a mutually agreed-upon decision.

Conclusion

There is no one-size-fits all process that leads patients to label a decision as shared. Rather, the outcome of “agreement” may be more important than the actual decision-making process for patients to label a decision as shared.

Practice implications

Studies are needed to better understand how longitudinal communication between patient and physicians and patient self-advocacy behaviors affect patient perceptions of SDM.     

Shared decision-making for delivery mode: An OPTION scale observer-based evaluation

ObjectiveShared decision-making (SDM) may help to reduce the rate of Cesarean Delivery (CD). The aim of the study was to evaluate the extent to which pregnant women are involved in SDM about the mode of delivery, applying the Italian version of the OPTION¹² scale to obstetric consultations.MethodsFifty-eight outpatient consultations were rated; statistical associations between OPTION¹² scores and sociodemographic data of both patient and physicians were determined.ResultsThe OPTION¹² total scores showed a skewed distribution in the lower range of total scores. Total scores in a percentage basis ranged from 0 to 69, with a mean of 21.2 (±19.84) and a median of 13.5. Mean and median scores for all the 12 OPTION¹² items never reached the minimum skill level.ConclusionA low level of patient involvement in deciding between a CD and a Vaginal Delivery (VD) was demonstrated. Interventions aiming at educating obstetricians as well as the adoption of decision aids are requested.Practice implicationsThe OPTION¹² scale may prove useful for testing the extent of pregnant women’s involvement in deciding between CD and VD. The awareness of a low patient involvement seems mandatory to improve SDM and may lead to medico-legal protection.     

Development and field testing of a decision support tool to facilitate shared decision making in contraceptive counseling

ObjectiveWe developed and formatively evaluated a tablet-based decision support tool for use by women prior to a contraceptive counseling visit to help them engage in shared decision making regarding method selection.MethodsDrawing upon formative work around women’s preferences for contraceptive counseling and conceptual understanding of health care decision making, we iteratively developed a storyboard and then digital prototypes, based on best practices for decision support tool development. Pilot testing using both quantitative and qualitative data and cognitive testing was conducted. We obtained feedback from patient and provider advisory groups throughout the development process.ResultsNinety-six percent of women who used the tool in pilot testing reported that it helped them choose a method, and qualitative interviews indicated acceptability of the tool’s content and presentation. Compared to the control group, women who used the tool demonstrated trends toward increased likelihood of complete satisfaction with their method. Participant responses to cognitive testing were used in tool refinement.ConclusionOur decision support tool appears acceptable to women in the family planning setting.Practice implicationsFormative evaluation of the tool supports its utility among patients making contraceptive decisions, which can be further evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.     

The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample

Objective

To develop and psychometrically test a brief patient-report instrument for measuring Shared Decision Making (SDM) in clinical encounters.

Methods

We revised an existing instrument (Shared Decision Making Questionnaire; SDM-Q), including the generation of new items and changing the response format. A 9-item version (SDM-Q-9) was developed and tested in a German primary care sample of 2351 patients via face validity ratings, investigation of acceptance, as well as factor and reliability analysis. Findings were cross-validated in a randomly selected subsample.

Results

The SDM-Q-9 showed face validity and high acceptance. Factor analysis revealed a clearly one-dimensional nature of the underlying construct. Both item difficulties and discrimination indices proved to be appropriate. Internal consistency yielded a Cronbach's α of 0.938 in the test sample.

Conclusion

The SDM-Q-9 is a reliable and well accepted instrument. Generalizability of the findings is limited by the elderly sample living in rural areas of Germany. While the current results are promising, further testing of criterion validity and administration in other populations is necessary.

Practice implications

The SDM-Q-9 can be used in studies investigating the effectiveness of interventions aimed at the implementation of SDM and as a quality indicator in health services assessments.     

The perception of shared medical decision making of expert and lay people: Effects of observing a movie clip depicting a medical consultation

Objective

To test for differences between experts and lay people in assessment of the degree to which a doctor engaged in a shared decision making (SDM) with a patient using the OPTION scale and a movie clip as stimulus material.

Methods

A segment of the movie ‘Wit’, depicting the communication of the diagnosis and the therapy proposed of a cancer, was shown to (a) university students with no knowledge about doctor–patient communication; (b) nurses working in medicine departments; (c) advanced medical students; (d) hospital physicians. The participants were asked to complete the OPTION scale which measures the extent to which physicians involve patients in medical decisions. An analysis of variance was used to compare OPTION scores across the four groups and to compare males and females.

Results

Being female [F_(1,190) = 11.9; p < .001] and being familiar with medical issues [F_(3,190) = 11.09; p < .001] were both significantly associated with a negative evaluations of the doctor's ability to involve the patient in the SDM.

Conclusion

Lay people and males (including male experts), are less demanding regarding SDM abilities.

Practice implications

A more systematic use of videos and the OPTION scale as validated outcome measure could be helpful educational strategy for the teaching of SDM.     

Measuring critical deficits in shared decision making before elective surgery

Objective

Identifying patient factors correlated with specific needs in preoperative decision making is of clinical and ethical importance. We examined patterns and predictors of deficiencies in informed surgical consent and shared decision-making in preoperative patients.

Methods

Validated measures were used to survey 1034 preoperative patients in the preoperative clinic after signed informed consent. Principal component analysis defined correlated groupings of factors. Multivariable analysis assessed patient factors associated with resultant groupings.

Results

13% of patients exhibited deficits in their informed consent process; 33% exhibited other types of deficits. Informed consent deficits included not knowing the procedure being performed or risks and benefits. Other deficits included not having addressed patient values, preferences and goals. Non-English language and lower educational level were factors correlated with higher risk for deficits.

Conclusion

Deficits exist in over a third of patients undergoing preoperative decision-making. Sociodemographic factors such as language and educational level identified particularly vulnerable groups at risk for having an incomplete, and possibly ineffective, decision-making process.

Practice implications

Interventions to identify vulnerable groups and address patient centered surgical decision making in the pre-operative setting are needed. Focused interventions to address the needs of at-risk patients have potential to improve the surgical decision-making process and reduce disparities.