Shared decision making in consultations for hypertension: Qualitative study in general practice

BackgroundHypertension is mainly managed in primary care. Shared decision making is widely recommended as an approach to treatment decision making. However, no studies have investigated; in detail, what happens during primary care consultations for hypertension.AimTo understand patients’ and clinicians’ experience of shared decision making for hypertension in primary care, in order to propose how it might be better supported.DesignLongitudinal qualitative study.SettingFive general practices in south‐west England.MethodInterviews with a purposive sample of patients with hypertension, and with the health‐care practitioners they consulted, along with observations of clinical consultations, for up to 6 appointments. Interviews and consultations were audio‐recorded and observational field notes taken. Data were analysed thematically.ResultsForty‐six interviews and 18 consultations were observed, with 11 patients and nine health‐care practitioners (five GPs, one pharmacist and three nurses). Little shared decision making was described by participants or observed. Often patients’ understanding of their hypertension was limited, and they were not aware there were treatment choices. Consultations provided few opportunities for patients and clinicians to reach a shared understanding of their treatment choices. Opportunities for patients to engage in choices were limited by structured consultations and the distribution of decisions across consultations.ConclusionFor shared decision making to be better supported, consultations need to provide opportunities for patients to learn about their condition, to understand that there are treatment choices, and to discuss these choices with clinicians.Patient or Public ContributionA patient group contributed to the design of this study.     

The contingency of patient preferences for involvement in health decision making

BACKGROUND: Studies indicate that better patient compliance and higher patient satisfaction result when agreement exists between the physician and the patient regarding the medical problem and its treatment. PURPOSES: This study will extend previous work by investigating (1) under what conditions patients prefer to be actively involved in their treatment decisions, (2) the underlying theoretical reasons that may account for patient decision-making preferences, and (3) what medical decision-making model can guide physicians and medical policy makers when adapting their medical decision-making styles. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A total of 2,765 individuals were surveyed by the National Opinion Research Center as part of the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS). This survey included a one-time topical module on "Doctors and Patients," which incorporated questions on patient preferences concerning the physician-patient relationship. Demographic information (e.g., age, education, and sex) was analyzed against patient preferences for medical decision making. FINDINGS: Results support patient preferences for participatory medical decision making, and this is especially true for younger, more educated, and female patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Common prudence would suggest that the best way to determine a patient's preference for participating in medical decision making is to simply ask them. However, the very asking of this straightforward question is based on the assumption that patients do wish to be actively involved. Results of this study support such an assumption. In the absence of all other knowledge, the results of this national survey support the health care practitioner's belief that U.S. patients, in general, have a preference for being actively involved in medical decision making and that this preference is truer for younger, female, and more educated patients.     

Patients' preferences for involvement in treatment decision making in Japan

Background  

A number of previous studies have suggested that the Japanese have few opportunities to participate in medical decision-making, as a result both of entrenched physician paternalism and national characteristics of dependency and passivity. The hypothesis that Japanese patients would wish to participate in treatment decision-making if adequate information were provided, and the decision to be made was clearly identified, was tested by interview survey.     

Understanding the impact of economic evidence on clinical decision making: A discrete choice experiment in cardiology

The present study aims to evaluate the impact of cost-effectiveness information on clinical decision making using discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology. Data were collected through a self-completed questionnaire administered to Italian cardiologists in June 2007 (n = 129 respondents, 1143 observations). The questionnaire asked clinicians to make choices between paired scenarios, across which three key dimensions were identified and varied: (1) quality of clinical evidence, (2) size of health gain (reduction of relative and absolute risk), and (3) economic impact (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). A random effects probit model was used to estimate clinicians' preferences for the different dimensions, while the heterogeneity of preferences was tested in a model with interaction terms. Dominance tests were used to assess the consistency of responses. The results indicate that Italian cardiologists regard economic impact (cost-effectiveness) as an important factor in their decision making. Economic evidence is valued more highly among clinicians with a higher self-assessed level of knowledge regarding economic evaluation techniques, as well as among younger professionals (age<45). While relevant study limitations should be acknowledged, our results suggest that DCEs can be used to elicit clinicians' decision-making criteria and to inform the allocation of resources for future research in a logical manner. Italian cardiologists appear to take cost-effectiveness information into account when deciding whether to use new treatments.     

How does trust affect patient preferences for participation in decision‐making?

Objective  Does trust in physicians aid or hinder patient autonomy? We examine the relationship between trust in the recipient''s doctor, and desire for a participative role in decisions about medical treatment. Design  We conducted a cross‐sectional survey in an urban Canadian teaching hospital. Setting and participants  A total of 606 respondents in three clinics (breast cancer, prostate cancer, fracture) completed questionnaires. Variables studied  The instrument included the Problem Solving Decision Making (PSDM) Scale, which used two vignettes (current health condition, chest pain) to categorize respondents by preferred role, and the Trust‐in‐Physician Scale. Results  Few respondents preferred an autonomous role (2.9% for the current health condition vignette and 1.2% for the chest pain vignette); most preferred shared decision‐making (DM) (67.3% current health condition; 48.7% chest pain) or a passive role (29.6% current health condition; 50.1% chest pain). Trust‐in‐physician yielded 6.3% with blind trust, 36.1% with high trust, 48.6% moderate trust and 9.0% low trust. As hypothesized, autonomous patients had relatively low levels of trust, passive respondents were more likely to have blind trust, while shared respondents had high but not excessive trust. Trust had a significant influence on preferred role even after controlling for the demographic factors such as sex, age and education. Conclusions  Very few respondents wish an autonomous role; those who do tend to have lower trust in their providers. Familiarity with a clinical condition increases desire for a shared (as opposed to passive) role. Shared DM often accompanies, and may require, a trusting patient–physician relationship.     

Shared decision making in surgery: A scoping review of the literature

BackgroundShared decision making (SDM) has been increasingly implemented to improve health‐care outcomes. Despite the mixed efficacy of SDM to provide better patient‐guided care, its use in surgery has not been studied. The aim of this study was to systematically review SDM application in surgery.DesignThe search strategy, developed with a medical librarian, included nine databases from inception until June 2019. After a 2‐person title and abstract screen, full‐text publications were analysed. Data collected included author, year, surgical discipline, location, study duration, type of decision aid, survey methodology and variable outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative cross‐sectional studies, as well as RCTs, were included.ResultsA total of 6060 studies were retrieved. A total of 148 were included in the final review. The majority of the studies were in plastic surgery, followed by general surgery and orthopaedics. The use of SDM decreased surgical intervention rate (12 of 22), decisional conflict (25 of 29), and decisional regret (5 of 5), and increased decisional satisfaction (17 of 21), knowledge (33 of 35), SDM preference (13 of 16), and physician trust (4 of 6). Time increase per patient encounter was inconclusive. Cross‐sectional studies showed that patients prefer shared treatment and surgical treatment varied less. The results of SDM per type of decision aid vary in terms of their outcome.ConclusionSDM in surgery decreases decisional conflict, anxiety and surgical intervention rates, while increasing knowledge retained decisional satisfaction, quality and physician trust. Surgical patients also appear to prefer SDM paradigms. SDM appears beneficial in surgery and therefore worth promoting and expanding in use.     

Shared decision making: an overview of international research literature

Shared decision making (SDM) is a particular type of physician-patient-interaction to which the patient brings his/her individual preferences and the physician contributes the medical expertise. The aim of the SDM process is a treatment decision based on mutual agreement and active participation. This kind of decision-making is best effectuated in cases of diseases with medical uncertainty and/or differing patient outcome-treatment potentialities (e.g., breast- or prostate cancer). The concept of SDM is widely known in the English-speaking world. A database search with the keywords "shared decision" produced 301 relevant papers, of which 193 are theoretical and 108 empirical works. This paper gives an overview over the state of international research under special consideration in continental European literature. Different questions are explored with regard to potential methodological and contextual research fields. Present results indicate that the level of patient preference to participate in decisions is higher than their actual involvement. Results also prove that SDM leads to higher rates of satisfaction and better treatment results according to patients. Results regarding the efficacy of various intervention methods used to promote SDM, especially within different cultural contexts, are inconsistent. A great amount of research still needs to be done in this field.     

Shared decision making in breast cancer patients--qualitative study on mutual decision making in breast cancer in a university hospital

This qualitative study examines doctor-patient interactions and interviews with breast cancer patients referring to shared decision making. The interviews have been evaluated according to the method of grounded theory. Videos of doctor-patient interactions show information and discussions on therapy planning. Breast cancer is a serious, in many cases life-threatening disease. The primary therapy is characterised by confrontation with the diagnosis, fear and hope of the patients and the subsequent treatment. Central themes of the article are the context and implicit assumptions of doctors influencing the shared decision making approach.     

Bureaucracy's impact on decision making in long-term care

Are decisions about the most effective services for a client influenced by factors other than the client's needs, available resources, and the social worker's skill and judgment? This study of social workers in two social welfare agencies in Israel examines how practice settings affect workers' decisions and suggests that environmental variables have a pervasive impact.     

Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions

CONTENT: Shared medical decision making is a process by which patients and providers consider outcome probabilities and patient preferences and reach a health care decision based on mutual agreement. Shared decision making is best used for problems involving medical uncertainty. During the process the provider-patient dyad considers treatment options and consequences and explores the fit of expected benefits and consequences of treatment with patient preferences for various outcomes. This paper reviews the literature on shared medical decision making. Several questions are considered. Although several studies suggest that patients do not want to be involved in decision making, these studies typically fail to separate decisions about technical aspects of treatment from preferences for outcomes. There is considerable evidence that patients want to be consulted about the impact of treatment. Studies on the acceptability of shared decision making for physicians have produced inconsistent results. Shared decision making is more acceptable to younger and better-educated patients. It remains unclear whether shared decision making requires expensive video presentations or whether the same results can be obtained with simpler methods, such as the decision board. We conclude that shared medical decision making is an important development in health care. More research is necessary to identify the effects of shared decision making on patient satisfaction and health outcomes. Further, more research is necessary in order to evaluate the most effective methods for engaging patients in decisions about their own health care.     

Cancer survivorship and agency model: implications for patient choice,decision making,and influence

Relative to other types of health communication research (acute care physician patient communication, communication campaigns, compliance episodes, etc.), investigations of patient communication following the diagnosis of cancer are infrequent. Theoretically driven, empirical research is desperately needed in such postdiagnostic communication processes as survivorship, quality of life, palliative and hospice care, and loss, bereavement, and grief for those millions of people who have been diagnosed with the second leading cause of death in our nation. An organizational model of patient communication is needed that identifies and describes salient issues and processes involved when cancer patients attempt to negotiate the difficult courses of action following the diagnosis of cancer. The cancer survivorship and agency model (CSAM) proposes both general and specific strategies that serve as options for patients seeking to take greater control of the decision-making process related to their treatment and care of cancer. Although seemingly practical in its offering, CSAM is intended to serve as a heuristic springboard for theoretically based, applied communication research focusing exclusively on post diagnostic cancer processes.     

General preferences for involvement in treatment decision making among European women with urinary incontinence

Current health care policies advocate patient participation in treatment decision making. Little evidence on possible differences between European women's preferences for involvement in this process exists. In this study we explore preferences for involvement in treatment decision making in 15 European countries in a sample of 9434 women seeking treatment for urinary incontinence in an outpatient setting. Their generally preferred role in treatment decisions was assessed using the Control Preferences Scale. Results show variations within and between countries in preferences for involvement in treatment decision making. The 'collaborative role' was the most preferred role in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the UK. In Greece, Portugal and Spain the 'passive role' was most preferred. Over a third of women in Denmark, Finland and Norway preferred an 'active role'. Multinominal regression analyses found that, after adjusting for case mix and factors previously associated with role preferences, country membership was strongly associated with role preferences, with women living in Southern European countries preferring a more passive role. Such clear differences are of interest in the current health care environment where active patient participation is being encouraged. Greater efforts need to be made to establish whether patient preferences are genuine or merely a learned response influenced by cultural attitudes and traditions so that a balance can be struck between assisting women to play a more active role in the treatment decision-making process without disregarding some women's genuine preferences to play a more passive role.     

Shared mind: communication, decision making, and autonomy in serious illness

In the context of serious illness, individuals usually rely on others to help them think and feel their way through difficult decisions. To help us to understand why, when, and how individuals involve trusted others in sharing information, deliberation, and decision making, we offer the concept of shared mind-ways in which new ideas and perspectives can emerge through the sharing of thoughts, feelings, perceptions, meanings, and intentions among 2 or more people. We consider how shared mind manifests in relationships and organizations in general, building on studies of collaborative cognition, attunement, and sensemaking. Then, we explore how shared mind might be promoted through communication, when appropriate, and the implications of shared mind for decision making and patient autonomy. Next, we consider a continuum of patient-centered approaches to patient-clinician interactions. At one end of the continuum, an interactional approach promotes knowing the patient as a person, tailoring information, constructing preferences, achieving consensus, and promoting relational autonomy. At the other end, a transactional approach focuses on knowledge about the patient, information-as-commodity, negotiation, consent, and individual autonomy. Finally, we propose that autonomy and decision making should consider not only the individual perspectives of patients, their families, and members of the health care team, but also the perspectives that emerge from the interactions among them. By drawing attention to shared mind, clinicians can observe in what ways they can promote it through bidirectional sharing of information and engaging in shared deliberation.     

Shared treatment decision making in a collectively funded health care system: possible conflicts and some potential solutions

In recent years there has been a growth in the advocacy of shared decision making (SDM) between clinicians and patients as a way of practicing medicine. Although there is a range of perspectives on what SDM means, in essence it refers to greater involvement of the individual patient in deliberations about appropriate forms of clinical management. The patient's perception of the role of the doctor in SDM is crucial: for it to work successfully, the patient needs to be able to be confident that the doctor is focused on which treatment will generate the greatest benefit for them. However, the doctor also has responsibilities to others, in particular to other patients and potential patients within the collectively funded health care system. This dual responsibility can create a range of dilemmas for the clinician in the context of SDM: Should they inform patients about all effective treatments or just those that the health care system considers cost-effective? Do they risk losing patients from their books if they inform patients about their responsibilities to the health care system? SDM also raises questions about the wider principles of the health care system: Are its equity principles consistent with SDM? Should patients with a strong preference for an effective but non-cost-effective treatment be permitted to pay for it privately? This paper describes the nature of the conflicts that are likely to emerge if SDM diffuses within collectively funded health care systems, and considers a range of policy responses. It argues that the risk of conflict may be reduced by making a clear distinction between clinical guidelines (focusing on effectiveness) and system guidelines (focusing on cost-effectiveness).