Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Decision Making, Shared”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Decisions on drug therapies by numbers needed to treat: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The number needed to treat (NNT) has been promoted as the preferred effect measure when patients and physicians share decision making. Our aim was to explore the impact of the NNT on laypeople's decisions about preventive drug therapies. METHODS: Two thousand subjects were selected for the survey; 1201 (60%) responded for a representative sample of the Norwegian population. Respondents were allocated to scenarios with random combinations of a disease to be prevented, drug treatment costs, and effect size in terms of NNT. They were interviewed about their hypothetical consent to the therapy, then randomized to different interpretations of NNT and asked to reconsider their initial responses. RESULTS: The proportions consenting varied from 76% when the NNT was 50 to 67% when the NNT was 1600 (P for trend = .06). When faced with the prospect of avoiding lethal disease, stroke, myocardial infarction, or hip fracture, the proportions consenting were 84%, 76%, 68%, and 53%, respectively (P<.01). Across different treatment costs ($37, $68, $162, and $589) the proportions consenting varied from 78% to 61% (P for trend <.01). Twenty-four percent of the respondents changed their decision when informed about how to interpret the NNT, and 93% of those switched from positive to negative decisions, regardless of the magnitude of NNT. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents' decisions were influenced by the type of disease to be prevented and the cost of the intervention, but not by the effect size in terms of NNT. This suggests that NNT is difficult to understand and that other effect formats should be considered for shared decision making.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Shared decision-making--results from an interdisciplinary consulting service for prostate cancer.

Locally confined prostate cancer (PCa) can be treated by various treatment options (e.g. radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy) with comparable results but different possible side effects. Therefore, treatment recommendations can vary between urologists and radiation oncologists. In 2001 the Charite-Campus Benjamin Franklin (CBF, Berlin), established the first interdisciplinary consulting service for prostate cancer patients in Germany. The aim was to offer a comprehensive and neutral consultation on all treatment options and to make treatment recommendations. The study examines what benefits may be derived from this type of consultation. A total of 362 patients presented to the consulting service between May 2001 and April 2003. Two questionnaires were used. The first one contained epidemiological questions as well as questions covering information already available on PCa. It also examined feelings and fears about the disease and possible treatment options. The second questionnaire was completed 2 weeks after the consultation to evaluate the treatment decision, determine the patient's satisfaction with the consultation and trace the development of feelings and fears. Of the patients, 334 (92.2%) were completely assessable. All patients had already obtained information about the disease and possible treatment options and wished to be involved in the decision-making process through objective and neutral consultation. Nearly all of them had a great fear of the possible side effects of therapy. Such a comprehensive consultation is time-consuming (average of 35 min) but largely received a very positive assessment in that a total of 66% found it either helpful (n=74, 22%) or very helpful (n=147, 44%). Patients felt they had been completely informed in 92% of the cases. Only 22 (9.7%) had still failed to make a decision after 2 weeks, 115 patients had stage T1c, PSA <10 ng/ml and a Gleason score < or =7. In these cases an equivalent recommendation for radical prostatectomy, percutaneous radiotherapy or permanent seed implantation was given. Of these, 49 (43.4%) decided on the surgical intervention, 48 (42.5%) on a type of radiotherapy and only 18 (15.6%) remained undecided. The histological examination of prostatectomy specimens from patients who had decided to undergo radical surgery at CBF showed a significant decrease in the rate of extracapsular disease extension (> or =T3) from 38% to 20% during the observation period. The interdisciplinary approach has made the process of deciding on an appropriate treatment much easier for the patient. The time-consuming consultation enables better selection of individual treatment modalities and their possible side effects from the point of view of both the patients and the attending physicians. In this study, patients chose either radical surgery or radiotherapy with equal frequency.

Humans↗
PubMed1992

Developing shared decision-making programs to improve the quality of health care.

We strongly believe in the importance of patient involvement in a medical decision. The interactive SDPs appear to be an effective way to facilitate this involvement. One key to the acceptance of these programs by patients and physicians is that they be--and be perceived as--fair, accurate, and balanced. Herein we have described the well-defined protocol for developing, evaluating, and updating SDPs. The first of the foundation's programs dealing with benign prostatic hyperplasia has been well received by patients and clinicians and has been demonstrated to have an impact on practice patterns. Efforts are under way to evaluate four additional programs, leading to widespread availability of the first five SDPs by fall of 1992.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2000

Practical issues in assisting shared decision-making.

To facilitate treatment decision-making, one aims to provide information, present it in a way that makes it as easy as possible to understand, and to help the decision-maker through the cognitive processes that result in a treatment decision. Decision aids aim to accomplish just these goals and this paper identifies practical issues that we have encountered in creating a decision aid for men with early stage prostate cancer. We highlight the results of studies we carried out to provide an empirical basis for the decision aid that we were developing. Several of the studies were designed to identify what information key players (health professionals, patients and family members) thought was important for the decision-making process. Another investigation studied methodological considerations in identifying important information. The final study focused on presentation issues. These studies, designed to explore what information was considered important, found great variability among both health care professionals involved in treating patients with prostate cancer (urologists, radiation oncologists, nurses in cancer clinics, and radiation technologists) and among the patients, themselves. The studies also showed that not all information contained within a typical category is of equal importance. A methodological study showed that the information that patients deem to be important to their decision depends on whether they are rating the information that could be provided, or questions that could be answered. Finally, presentation studies showed that the various formats used in presenting quantitative information are processed with differing degrees of accuracy and ease. Each of the above results has implications for those creating decision aids; these implications are highlighted.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1999

Breaking the bad news: dilemmas in shared decision-making in medical practice.

In a review of the literature, very little empirically based research was uncovered to guide the practice of health professionals who need to tell their patients bad news and help them to decide on their preferred treatment option. Various practising styles and guidelines are presented, and ethical and crosscultural challenges discussed. An enormous amount of research still needs to be done to discover the least stressful ways of dealing with these issues in health care settings.

Communication↗