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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMed2001

Promoting registered nurse retention through shared decision making.

The authors describe an organization's success in creating a process, which aligned nurses and senior management in the creation of a desired future state. The environment is one of high census, nurse shortage, and two union organizing efforts. The outcome is a significant investment in this organization's future by the selection of key interventions to enhance nurse satisfaction and loyalty, and ultimately retention.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Use of meta-analytic results to facilitate shared decision making.

OBJECTIVES: Describe and evaluate an Internet-based approach to patient decision support using mathematical models that predict the probability of successful treatment on the basis of meta-analytic summaries of the mean and standard deviation of symptom response. DESIGN: An Internet-based decision support tool was developed to help patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) determine whether they wanted to use alpha blockers. The Internet site incorporates a meta-analytic model of the results of randomized trials of the alpha blocker terazosin. The site describes alternative treatments for BPH and potential adverse effects of alpha blockers. The site then measures patients' current symptoms and desired level of symptom reduction. In response, the site computes and displays the probability of a patient's achieving his objective by means of terazosin or placebo treatment. SETTING: Self-identified BPH patients accessing the site over the Internet. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' perceptions of the usefulness of information. RESULTS: Over a three-month period, 191 patients who were over 50 years of age and who reported that they have BPH used the decision support tool. Respondents had a mean American Urological Association (AUA) score of 18.8 and a desired drop in symptoms of 10.1 AUA points. Patients had a 40 percent chance of achieving treatment goals with terazosin and a 20 percent chance with placebo. Patients found the information useful (93 percent), and most (71 percent) believed this type of information should be discussed before prescribing medications. CONCLUSIONS: Interactive meta-analytic summary models of the effects of pharmacologic treatments can help patients determine whether a treatment offers sufficient benefits to offset its risks.

Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists↗
PubMed2003

Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review has shown that no measures of the extent to which healthcare professionals involve patients in decisions within clinical consultations exist, despite the increasing interest in the benefits or otherwise of patient participation in these decisions. AIMS: To describe the development of a new instrument designed to assess the extent to which practitioners involve patients in decision making processes. DESIGN: The OPTION (observing patient involvement) scale was developed and used by two independent raters to assess primary care consultations in order to evaluate its psychometric qualities, validity, and reliability. STUDY SAMPLE: 186 audiotaped consultations collected from the routine clinics of 21 general practitioners in the UK. METHOD: Item response rates, Cronbach's alpha, and summed and scaled OPTION scores were calculated. Inter-item and item-total correlations were calculated and inter-rater agreements were calculated using Cohen's kappa. Classical inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients and generalisability theory statistics were used to calculate inter-rater reliability coefficients. Basing the tool development on literature reviews, qualitative studies and consultations with practitioner and patients ensured content validity. Construct validity hypothesis testing was conducted by assessing score variation with respect to patient age, clinical topic "equipoise", sex of practitioner, and success of practitioners at a professional examination. RESULTS: The OPTION scale provided reliable scores for detecting differences between groups of consultations in the extent to which patients are involved in decision making processes in consultations. The results justify the use of the scale in further empirical studies. The inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (0.62), kappa scores for inter-rater agreement (0.71), and Cronbach's alpha (0.79) were all above acceptable thresholds. Based on a balanced design of five consultations per clinician, the inter-rater reliability generalisability coefficient was 0.68 (two raters) and the intra-rater reliability generalisability coefficient was 0.66. On average, mean practitioner scores were very similar (and low on the overall scale of possible involvement); some practitioner scores had more variation around the mean, indicating that they varied their communication styles to a greater extent than others. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement in decision making is a key facet of patient participation in health care and the OPTION scale provides a validated outcome measure for future empirical studies.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2000

The potential use of decision analysis to support shared decision making in the face of uncertainty: the example of atrial fibrillation and warfarin anticoagulation.

The quality of patient care is dependent upon the quality of the multitude of decisions that are made daily in clinical practice. Increasingly, modern health care is seeking to pursue better decisions (including an emphasis on evidence-based practice) and to engage patients more in decisions on their care. However, many treatment decisions are made in the face of clinical uncertainty and may be critically dependent upon patient preferences. This has led to attempts to develop decision support tools that enable patients and clinicians to make better decisions. One approach that may be of value is decision analysis, which seeks to create a rational framework for evaluating complex medical decisions and to provide a systematic way of integrating potential outcomes with probabilistic information such as that generated by randomised controlled trials of interventions. This paper describes decision analysis and discusses the potential of this approach with reference to the clinical decision as to whether to treat patients in atrial fibrillation with warfarin to reduce their risk of stroke.

Aged↗