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 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

General practitioners' views on shared decision making: a qualitative analysis.

Despite rhetoric about increasing partnership in the consultation, shared decision making (SDM) is not necessarily happening in practice. As patient involvement in decision making cannot be achieved without general practitioners' (GPs) co-operation, attention to their concerns is essential. Previous research has used simulated patients to explore this area. Here, data from consultations and interviews with patients and GPs were used in focus group discussions enabling GPs to ground their views of the practical application of SDM in their own and other participants' real life practice. The following ideas were discussed; what constitutes SDM in practice, negotiation about treatment, perceptions of patients' viewpoints and perceived barriers to SDM. Agreement with SDM in theory may not translate into practice. The process outlined is being developed in order to establish whether the techniques could provide a supportive environment in which GPs can make changes to their practice to increase patient participation.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2006

What is the impact of shared decision making on treatment and outcomes for older women with breast cancer?

PURPOSE: Shared decision making (SDM) has been recommended as a standard of care, especially when there are treatment alternatives or uncertainty in outcomes. However, we know little about use of SDM in cancer care, and even less is known about SDM in older patients. We describe patient and physician determinants of SDM in older women with breast cancer and evaluate whether SDM is associated with treatment patterns or short-term outcomes of care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women age 67 or older treated for early stage breast cancer in 29 sites from five geographic regions comprise the study sample (N = 718). Data were obtained from patients by in-person and telephone interviews. Physician data were collected via survey, and medical records were reviewed to ascertain comorbidity and tumor characteristics. Random effects and logistic regression models were used to assess associations between SDM and other factors. RESULTS: Women who were age 67 to 74 years (v 75 or older) were accompanied to consultation and who sought information reported the highest SDM, after considering covariates. While SDM was not associated with surgical treatment, greater SDM was associated with higher odds of having adjuvant treatment, controlling for clinical factors. Greater SDM was also associated with improved short-term satisfaction. CONCLUSION: SDM plays an important role in the process of care for older women with breast cancer. Physicians treating this growing population have a simple, but powerful tool for improving outcomes within their grasp-spending time to engage and involve older women in their breast cancer care.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2003

[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.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed2001

Shared decision making observed in clinical practice: visual displays of communication sequence and patterns.

UNLABELLED: The aim of the study was to examine the communication strategies of general practitioners attempting to involve patients in treatment or management decisions. This empirical data was then compared with theoretical 'competences' derived for 'shared decision making'. The subjects were four general practitioners, who taped conducted consultations with the specific intent of involving patients in the decision-making process. The consultations were transcribed, coded into skill categorizations and presented as visual display using a specifically devised sequential banding METHOD: The empirical data from these purposively selected consultation from clinicians who are experienced in shared decision making did not match suggested theoretical frameworks. The views of patients about treatment possibilities and their preferred role in decision making were not explored. The interactions were initiated by a problem-defining phase, statements of 'equipoise' consistently appeared and the portrayal of option information was often intermingled with opportunities to allow patients to question and reflect. A decision-making stage occurred consistently after approximately 80% of the total consultation duration and arrangements were consistently made for follow-up and review. Eight of the 10 consultations took more than 11 min - these specific consultations were characterized by significant proportions of time provided for information exchange and patient interaction. The results demonstrate that some theoretical competences are not distinguishable in practice and other stages, not previously described, such as the 'portrayal of equipoise', are observed. The suggested ideal of a shared decision-making interaction will either require more time than currently allocated, or alternative strategies to enable information exchange outside the consultation.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

[Effects of a shared decision making model in psychiatric and neurologic practice].

Involving patients in medical decisions is increasingly being advocated in medical fields other than psychiatry and neurology. A model of shared decision making might prove to be an ideal way of bridging the gap between patient-centred and evidence-based medicine. This report provides a survey of this shared decision making model and a discussion of its implications in the fields of mental health and neurology.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed2006

Preferences for shared decision making in chronic pain patients compared with patients during a premedication visit.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence that patients' outcomes improve if they are involved in shared decision making (SDM). A chronic pain clinic or premedication visit could be adequate settings for the implementation of SDM. So far, the patients' preference for involvement in decision making and their desire for information have not been tested in anesthesiological settings. METHODS: A group of chronic pain patients was compared with a group of patients in the premedication visit with respect to SDM, the desire for information and perceived involvement in care. The autonomy preference index (API, measuring preference for involvement and desire for information) and the perceived involvement in care scale (PICS, measuring patients' perception of easier involvement by doctors and information exchange) were administered. RESULTS: In total, 190 chronic pain patients and 151 patients of premedication were included in this study. Patient of the premedication visit had significantly higher SDM scores. Desire for information was high, but there were no differences between groups. Younger patients [B (estimate) =- 0.3; 95% CI (-0.4) - (-0.1)], women (B = 10.9; 95% CI 6.3-15.4) and patients with higher educational level (B = 10.1; 95% CI 5.6-14.6) had more desire for SDM. PICS scores were basically influenced by groups: chronic pain patients felt more facilitated by doctors [B =- 0.185; 95% CI (-0.4) - (-0.1)] and had more information exchange [B =- 19.5; 95% CI (-15.8) - (-2.4)] than patients in the premedication visit. CONCLUSION: In both anesthesiological settings, the desire for information was high, but patients in the premedication visit had higher SDM scores, especially young female patients with higher educational level. Real patient-physician interaction showed that premedication patients felt less involved by doctors and had less information exchange compared with the chronic pain patients. Therefore, premedication visits should be focussed more on adequate information exchange and involvement of the patient in the shared decision making process.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Evaluating the influence of implicit models of mental disorder on processes of shared decision making within community-based multi-disciplinary teams.

This paper reports findings from a qualitative study concerning the influence of implicit models of mental disorder on shared decision making within community-based mental health teams. One-hundred participants representing five distinct multi-agency groups: psychiatrists, community psychiatric nurses, approved social workers, patients and informal carers operating within Leicestershire, England were interviewed using a standard case vignette describing a person whose behaviour suggests he may have schizophrenia. The results showed that each of the study's multi-agency groups implicitly supports a complex range of model dimensions regarding the nature of schizophrenia, the appropriateness of specific forms of treatment and care, and their respective rights and obligations towards each other. The influence of these implicit model patterns on processes of shared decision making are discussed through evaluating their contribution to our understanding of the power relationships existing between various practitioner groups (including informal carers), and between practitioners and patients during clinical encounters.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1999

Towards a feasible model for shared decision making: focus group study with general practice registrars.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the views of general practice registrars about involving patients in decisions and to assess the feasibility of using the shared decision making model by means of simulated general practice consultations. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on focus group interviews. SETTING: General practice vocational training schemes in south Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 39 general practice registrars and eight course organisers (acting as observers) attended four sessions; three simulated patients attended each time. METHOD: After an introduction to the principles and suggested stages of shared decision making the registrars conducted and observed a series of consultations about choices of treatment with simulated patients using verbal, numerical, and graphical data formats. Reactions were elicited by using focus group interviews after each consultation and content analysis undertaken. RESULTS: Registrars in general practice report not being trained in the skills required to involve patients in clinical decisions. They had a wide range of opinions about "involving patients in decisions," ranging from protective paternalism ("doctor knows best"), through enlightened self interest (lightening the load), to the potential rewards of a more egalitarian relationship with patients. The work points to three contextual precursors for the process: the availability of reliable information, appropriate timing of the decision making process, and the readiness of patients to accept an active role in their own management. CONCLUSIONS: Sharing decisions entails sharing the uncertainties about the outcomes of medical processes and involves exposing the fact that data are often unavailable or not known; this can cause anxiety to both patient and clinician. Movement towards further patient involvement will depend on both the skills and the attitudes of professionals, and this work shows the steps that need to be taken if further progress is to be made in this direction.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a patient-educational approach to shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with preoffice visit assessment and 2-week follow-up. SETTING: University-based family practice center. PATIENTS: Men aged 45 through 70 years with no history of prostate cancer or treatment for prostate disease (N = 160). Two patients were unavailable for follow-up. INTERVENTION: Twenty-minute educational videotape on advantages and disadvantages of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A measure of patients' core knowledge of prostate cancer developed for this study, reported preferences for PSA testing, and ratings of the videotape. RESULTS: Patients' core knowledge at baseline was poor. At 2-week follow-up, subjects undergoing videotape intervention showed a 78% improvement in the number of knowledge questions answered correctly (P = .001), and knowledge increased about mortality due to early-stage prostate cancer, PSA screening performance, treatment-related complications, and disadvantages of screening. No overall change was observed for control subjects. At follow-up, 48 (62%) of 78 intervention patients planned to have the PSA test compared with 64 (80%) of 80 control patients (18.5% absolute reduction; 95% confidence interval, 4.6%-32.4%; P = .009). Intervention subjects rated favorably the amount of information provided and the clarity, balance, and length of the videotape and would recommend the videotape to others. CONCLUSIONS: Patient education regarding the potential benefits and harms of early detection of prostate cancer can lead to more informed decision making. Incorporating the PSA videotape into the periodic health examination for asymptomatic men aged 50 years and older is recommended.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice.

BACKGROUND: A consulting method known as 'shared decision making' (SDM) has been described and operationalized in terms of several 'competences'. One of these competences concerns the discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment or care options-'risk communication'. Few data exist on clinicians' ability to acquire skills and implement the competences of SDM or risk communication in consultations with patients. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the effects of skill development workshops for SDM and the use of risk communication aids on the process of consultations. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. Half the consultations were randomly selected for audio-taping, of which 352 patients attended and were audio-taped successfully. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were allocated randomly to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations were audio-taped from each phase. Raters (independent, trained and blinded to study phase) assessed the audio-tapes using a validated scale to assess levels of patient involvement (OPTION: observing patient involvement), and to analyse the nature of risk information discussed. Clinicians completed questionnaires after each consultation, assessing perceived clinician-patient agreement and level of patient involvement in decisions. Multilevel modelling was carried out with the OPTION score as the dependent variable, and rater, consultation and clinician levels of data, standardized by rater within clinician. RESULTS: Following each of the interventions, the clinicians significantly increased their involvement of patients in decision making (OPTION score increased by 10.6 following risk communication training [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.9 -13.3; P < 0.001] and by 12.9 after SDM skill development (95% CI 10 -15.8, P < 0.001), a moderate effect size. The level of involvement achieved by the risk communication aids was significantly increased by the subsequent introduction of the skill development workshops (7.7 increase in OPTION score, 95% CI 3.4-12; P < 0.001). The alternative sequence (skills followed by risk communication aids) did not achieve this effect. The use of most risk information formats increased after the provision of specific risk communication aids (P < 0.001). Clinicians using the risk communication tools perceived significantly higher patient and clinician agreement on treatment (P < 0.001), patient satisfaction with information (P < 0.01), clinician satisfaction with decision (P < 0.01) and general overall satisfaction with the consultation (P < 0.001) than those who were exposed to SDM skill development workshops. CONCLUSIONS: These clinicians were able to acquire the skills to implement SDM competences and to use risk communication aids. Each intervention provided independent effects. Further progress towards greater patient involvement in health care decision making is possible, and skill development in this area should be incorporated into postgraduate professional development programmes.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Shared decision making for in-patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Patients' participation in treatment planning is being increasingly advocated in mental health. The model of "Shared Decision Making" (SDM) is proposed as a promising method of engaging patients in medical decisions and improving health-related outcomes. In the present study, the feasibility and effects of SDM for in-patients with schizophrenia should be evaluated. METHOD: Randomized controlled trial comparing a SDM program with routine care (n = 107). RESULTS: The intervention studied was feasible for most of the patients and did not take up more of the doctors' time. Patients in the intervention group had a better knowledge about their disease (P = 0.01) and a higher perceived involvement in medical decisions (P = 0.03). The intervention increased the uptake of psychoeducation (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Sharing medical decisions with acutely ill in-patients with schizophrenia is in many cases possible and improves important treatment patterns. This might help in destigmatizing this group of patients and improving schizophrenia-related health outcomes.

Acute Disease↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Developing, implementing, and evaluating decision support systems for shared decision making in patient care: a conceptual model and case illustration.

The importance of including patient preferences in decisions regarding their care has received increased emphasis over recent years. Medical informatics can play an important role in improving patient-centered care by developing decision support systems to support the inclusion of patient preferences in clinical decision making. However, development of such systems is a complex task that requires the integration of knowledge from four major research areas: (1) the clinical domain, for understanding of the decision problem, (2) decision science and research on shared decision making, to provide the theoretical underpinnings and techniques for eliciting patient preferences; (3) medical informatics, to provide the technology and algorithms for the collection, processing, structure, presentation and integration of patient preferences into patient care; and (4) organizational knowledge, to adapt the decision support system to the practices and work flows of clinicians and the organizational and professional context of the clinical practice settings. This paper describes a conceptual model comprising eight key components that are important to be considered in the development, implementation, and evaluation of decision support systems for shared decision making in patient care. The example of CHOICE, a decision support system to assist nurses in eliciting and integrating rehabilitation patients' preferences for functional performance in patient care is used to illustrate the eight components.

Choice Behavior↗
PubMed2005

A communication model of shared decision making: accounting for cancer treatment decisions.

The authors present a communication model of shared decision making (CMSDM) that explicitly identifies the communication process as the vehicle for decision making in cancer treatment. In this view, decision making is necessarily a sociocommunicative process whereby people enter into a relationship, exchange information, establish preferences, and choose a course of action. The model derives from contemporary notions of behavioral decision making and ethical conceptions of the doctor-patient relationship. This article briefly reviews the theoretical approaches to decision making, notes deficiencies, and embeds a more socially based process into the dynamics of the physician-patient relationship, focusing on cancer treatment decisions. In the CMSDM, decisions depend on (a) antecedent factors that have potential to influence communication, (b) jointly constructed communication climate, and (c) treatment preferences established by the physician and the patient.

Communication↗
PubMed2002

Deconstructing patient centred communication and uncovering shared decision making: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Patient centred communication (PCC) has been described as a method for doctor-patient communication. The principles of shared decision making (SDM) have been proposed more recently. AIMS: This study aimed to examine PCC and SDM empirically with respect to their mutual association, the variation in practitioners' working styles, and the associations with patient characteristics. METHODS: Sixty general practitioners recruited 596 adult patients who gave written consent to have their consultations videotaped. The tapes were assessed by two researchers, using a standardised instrument for global communication. For the purpose of this exploratory study, scales for PCC and SDM were based on subsamples of items in the MAAS. RESULTS: The scales for PCC and SDM were weakly associated (Pearson correlation: 0.25). Physicians varied more on SDM than on PCC. The intracluster correlation of the PCC and SDM scales were, respectively, 0.34 and 0.19. However, hypotheses regarding associations with patient characteristics were not confirmed. Neither PCC nor SDM scores were related to patient gender, education, age, functional health status or existence of chronic conditions. CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that PCC and SDM can be differentiated and comprise approaches to communication between clinicians and patients which may be more clearly distinguished by further focused research and training developments.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Putting informed and shared decision making into practice.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the practice, experiences and views of motivated and trained family physicians as they attempt to implement informed and shared decision making (ISDM) in routine practice and to identify and understand the barriers they encounter. BACKGROUND: Patient involvement in decision making about their health care has been the focus of much academic activity. Although significant conceptual and experimental work has been done, ISDM rarely occurs. Physician attitudes and lack of training are identified barriers. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of transcripts of consultations and key informant group interviews. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Six family physicians received training in the ISDM competencies. Audiotapes of office consultations were made before and after training. Transcripts of consultations were examined to identify behavioural markers associated with each competency and the range of expression of the competencies. The physicians attended group interviews at the end of the study to explore experiences of ISDM. RESULTS: The physicians liked the ISDM model and thought that they should put it into practice. Evidence from transcripts indicated they were able to elicit concerns, ideas and expectations (although not about management) and agree an action plan. They did not elicit preferences for role or information. They sometimes offered choices. They had difficulty achieving full expression of any of the competencies and integrating ISDM into their script for the medical interview. The study also identified a variety of competency-specific barriers. CONCLUSION: A major barrier to the practice of ISDM by motivated physicians appears to be the need to change well-established patterns of communication with patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Shared decision making and medication management in the recovery process.

Mental health professionals commonly conceptualize medication management for people with severe mental illness in terms of strategies to increase compliance or adherence. The authors argue that compliance is an inadequate construct because it fails to capture the dynamic complexity of autonomous clients who must navigate decisional conflicts in learning to manage disorders over the course of years or decades. Compliance is rooted in medical paternalism and is at odds with principles of person-centered care and evidence-based medicine. Using medication is an active process that involves complex decision making and a chance to work through decisional conflicts. It requires a partnership between two experts: the client and the practitioner. Shared decision making provides a model for them to assess a treatment's advantages and disadvantages within the context of recovering a life after a diagnosis of a major mental disorder.

Convalescence↗
PubMed2004

Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) between professionals and patients is increasingly advocated from ethical principles. Some data are accruing about the effects of such approaches on health or other patient-based outcomes. These effects often vary substantially between studies. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the effects of training GPs in SDM, and the use of simple risk communication aids in general practice, on patient-based outcomes. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills; or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were randomly allocated to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations took place in 'research clinics' to evaluate the effects of more time for consultations, compared with usual surgery time. Patient-based outcomes were assessed at exit from consultation and 1 month follow-up. These were: COMRADE instrument (principal measures; subscales of risk communication and confidence in decision), and a range of secondary measures (anxiety, patient enablement, intention to adhere to chosen treatment, satisfaction with decision, support in decision making and SF-12 health status measure). Multilevel modelling was carried out with outcome score as the dependent variable, and follow-up point (i.e. exit or 1 month later for each patient), patient and doctor levels of explanatory variables. RESULTS: No statistically significant changes in patient-based outcomes due to the training interventions were found: COMRADE risk communication score increased 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to 2.32] after risk communication training and 0.9 (95% CI -0.89 to 2.35) after SDM training; and COMRADE satisfaction with communication score increased by 1.0 (95% CI -1.1 to 3.1) after risk communication, and decreased by 0.6 (95% CI 2.7 to -1.5) after SDM training. Patients' confidence in the decision (2.1 increase, 95% CI 0.7-3.5, P < 0.01) and expectation to adhere to chosen treatments (0.7 increase, 95% CI 0.04-1.36, P < 0.05) were significantly greater among patients seen in the research clinics (when more time was available) compared with usual surgery time. Most outcomes deteriorated between exit and 1 month later. There was no interaction between intervention effects. CONCLUSION: Patients can be more involved in treatment decisions, and risks and benefits of treatment options can be explained in more detail, without adversely affecting patient-based outcomes. SDM and risk communication may be advocated from values and ethical principles even without evidence of health gain or improvement in patient-based outcomes, but the resources required to enhance these professional skills must also be taken into consideration. These data also indicate the benefits of extra consultation time.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

[Shared decision making. The perspective of practicing physicians].

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: More and more, patients want to participate in medical decision making. They expect a patient-centered communication as well as adequate information. However, little is known about the physicians' perspective and skills regarding shared decision making (SDM). This paper presents data about the physicians' perspective and allows focused comparison with the patients' views. METHODS: Standardized survey of 502 physicians from ambulatory care practices and of 1,512 German-speaking people, aged 18-79 years. Patient data were collected from a population-based random sample of an access panel. The following topics were included in this survey: medical decision making in daily practice, communication skills and behavior of physicians from the perspectives of physicians and patients. RESULTS: A majority of physicians approve the concept of SDM. Especially younger physicians favor the concept of SDM. Overall, physicians underestimate their patients' preference to participate in medical decision making. Physicians also tend to overestimate their information and communication skills. CONCLUSION: Not only in the general public, but also among physicians, a model of SDM is widely accepted. The communication skills necessary for this process appear to exist. However, they need to be promoted and extended. Learning to communicate adequately should receive a greater focus in medical education and postgraduate training.

Adolescent↗