[Right to shared decision making in various phases of the decision making process, role of the professional organization].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Decision Making↗
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.
[Shared decision making with an exception?].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Decision Making↗
Selecting leaders through shared decision making.
The WEVAS procedure, through use of consultative decision making, facilitates the selection of CEOs who will be accepted by associates and subordinates and thus will be able to function with maximum effectiveness.
Decision Making↗
[Shared decision making on the hospital ward?].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Authoritarianism↗
Do patients want to participate in medical decision making?
Although shared decision making by patients and clinicians has been advocated, little is known about the degree of participation in decision making that patients actually prefer or about clinicians' appreciation of these preferences. We administered questionnaires about three aspects of decision making to 210 hypertensive outpatients and to their 50 clinicians, who represented three types of medical practices. We found that 41% of patients preferred more information about hypertension; clinicians underestimated patient preferences for discussion about therapy in 29% of cases and overestimated 11% (k = .22); and 53% of patients preferred to participate in making decisions, while clinicians believed that their patients desired to participate in 78% of cases. Many patients who preferred not to make initial therapeutic decisions did want to participate in ongoing evaluation of therapy. Thus, clinicians underestimate patients' desire for information and discussion but overestimate patients' desire to make decisions. Awareness of this discrepancy may facilitate communication and decision making.
Adult↗
Predicting preferences: a neglected aspect of shared decision-making.
In recent years, shared decision-making between patients and doctors regarding choice of treatment has become an issue of priority. Although patients' preferences lie at the core of the literature on shared decision-making, there has not been any attempt so far to link the concept of shared decision-making with the extensive behavioural literature on people's self-predictions of their future preferences. The aim of the present review is to provide this link. First, we summarize behavioural research that suggests that people mispredict their future preferences and feelings. Secondly, we provide the main psychological accounts for people's mispredictions. Thirdly, we suggest three main empirical questions for inclusion in a programme aimed at enriching our understanding of shared decision-making and improving the procedures used for putting it into practice.
Decision Making↗
Shared decision-making in nursing education.
Shared decision-making is an effective management strategy that may have positive implications for nurse educators facing curricular and course delivery issues. Use of shared or participative decision-making recognizes that decisions made for the overall good of the organization should include those integrally involved, i.e., faculty, students and administration. Ultimately, effective student learning should be the outcome of decisions related to curricular and content delivery. In this anecdotal paper, the authors present shared decision-making (SDM) as a management strategy that may be effectively utilized in a range of situations in educational settings. An exemplar is presented regarding changes in course delivery methods at two sister schools of nursing. Strategies to promote successful implementation, as well as challenges in initiating SDM, are discussed. The information presented in this paper can benefit nurse educators by offering a collaborative approach to the issues of evolving nursing curricula and content delivery.
Canada↗
[The internet. Chances, risks and prospects for the surgical patient].
The World Wide Web (WWW) serves consumers with an abundance of health information and services. This factor sets new accents in the health care system. The Internet can help to create an informed patient, who is actively involved in clinical decision-making processes ("shared decision making"). This has effects on the physician patient relationship. An informed patient demands better performance. The increased transparency and comparability of provider performance in patient care leads to an enhanced competition between providers. On the other hand, the Internet also bears certain risks: The quality of health information on the Internet is frequently described as unsatisfactory and patients rarely pay attention to quality markers of the information provided. It is necessary to encourage an active quality management for health information and services on the web. The Internet is not only a passive information resource but, above, all, an interaction medium. It can be harnessed to facilitate quality management. Intelligent technologies will gain increasing significance in the future, when the WWW develops towards a "semantic web". In particular, consumers will use intelligent computer programs, so-called "agents", to gather information or to evaluate the trustworthiness of health information providers.
Forecasting↗
Treatment decisions about lumbar herniated disk in a shared decision-making program.
BACKGROUND: An explicit process of collaborative (shared) decision making involving the patient and physician has been recommended for discretionary surgical procedures in which small-area analysis demonstrates high variation not attributable to differences in the patient population in the area. One such example is laminectomy for lumbar herniated disk (HD). An observational study was undertaken to evaluate the impact of an HD videodisk program on patient satisfaction, decision making, and treatment preferences. METHODS: Enrollment occurred in the outpatient offices of surgeons treating Kaiser Permanente (Colorado Region) patients with HD who had indications for surgery. Enrollment took place from May 1993 to December 1995, and follow-up surveys of patients were completed by January 1997. RESULTS: A 6.0% decrease in the undecided group and a 1.3% decrease in the group preferring nonsurgical treatment drove a shift of patients toward laminectomy, from 26.7% to 35.8% (Wilcoxon signed rank test = 349.5, p = .017). Postviewing preference (74.0%) was a better aggregate predictor of the ultimate treatment than previewing preference (70.0%) for laminectomy. DISCUSSION: Viewing the videodisk increased the preference for laminectomy. However, limitations in the data prevented us from determining whether this change in preference was actually reflected in patients' ultimate decisions. The fact that the strongest predictor of choosing surgery was the patient's valuation of his or her condition supports shared decision making, with its emphasis on patient's values. Participation in other videodisk programs has been low; perhaps physicians should ask patients to view these videodisks before their visits.
Adult↗
Medical students, clinical preventive services, and shared decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: Improving access to preventive care requires addressing patient, provider, and systems barriers. Patients often lack knowledge or are skeptical about the importance of prevention. Physicians feel that they have too little time, are not trained to deliver preventive services, and are concerned about the effectiveness of prevention. We have implemented an educational module in the required family practice clerkship (1) to enhance medical student learning about common clinical preventive services and (2) to teach students how to inform and involve patients in shared decision making about those services. DESCRIPTION: Students are asked to examine available evidence-based information for preventive screening services. They are encouraged to look at the recommendations of various organizations and use such resources as reports from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to determine recommendations they want to be knowledgeable about in talking with their patients. For learning shared decision making, students are trained to use a model adapted from Braddock and colleagues(1) to discuss specific screening services and to engage patients in the process of making informed decisions about what is best for their own health. The shared decision making is presented and modeled by faculty, discussed in small groups, and students practice using Web-based cases and simulations. The students are evaluated using formative and summative performance-based assessments as they interact with simulated patients about (1) screening for high blood cholesterol and other lipid abnormalities, (2) screening for colorectal cancer, (3) screening for prostate cancer, and (4) screening for breast cancer. The final student evaluation is a ten-minute, videotaped discussion with a simulated patient about screening for colorectal cancer that is graded against a checklist that focuses primarily on the elements of shared decision making. DISCUSSION: Our medical students appear quite willing to accept shared decision making as a skill that they should have in working with patients, and this was the primary focus of the newly implemented module. However, we have learned that students need to deepen their understanding of screening services in order to help patients understand the associated benefits and risks. The final videotaped interaction with a simulated patient about colorectal cancer screening has been very helpful in making it more obvious to faculty what students believe and know about screening for colorectal cancer. As the students are asked to discuss clinical issues with patients and discuss the pros and cons of screening tests as part of the shared decision-making process, their thinking becomes transparent and it is evident where curricular changes and enhancements are required. We have found that an explicit model that allows students to demonstrate a process for shared decision making is a good introductory tool. We think it would be helpful to provide students with more formative feedback. We would like to develop faculty development programs around shared decision making so that more of our clinical faculty would model such a process with patients. Performance-based assessments are resource-intensive, but they appear to be worth the added effort in terms of enhanced skills development and a more comprehensive appraisal of student learning.
Breast Neoplasms↗
Shared decision-making and evidence-based practice.
Shared decision-making refers to a process of health care delivery in which practitioners and clients seeking help for problems or disorders collaborate to access relevant information and to enable client-centered selection of health care resources. Though nearly all clients express a desire for more information, preferences for participation in health care decisions vary by individual and by illness. Two common strategies to promote shared decision-making are communication training for clients and clinicians, and decision aids to provide targeted information and values clarification. Research in several areas of medicine shows that active client participation results in a variety of benefits, from increased satisfaction to decreased symptom burden. Many current mental health interventions promote client-centered care, client choice, and self-directed care, but research on shared decision-making in mental health for clients with severe and persistent mental illness is just beginning.
Cooperative Behavior↗
[Shared decision-making in primary breast cancer].
Following an overall view of the emotional situation of primary breast cancer patients and of studies exploring shared decision making in this setting we present the results of qualitative analyses about breaking bad news situations and interviews with this group of patients and describe both methods for implementing shared decision making in the treatment of primary breast cancer and an evaluation study. The main result was that most patients showed a lack of information about breast cancer and its therapy, which led to uncertainty. Another source of uncertainty was the lack of preoperative punch biopsy. Due to the so-called "diagnostic shock" patients felt under pressure to make a quick decision over their treatment. This perceived pressure can be effectively countered by a shared decision making approach. To investigate the options in breast cancer therapy, decision aids for diagnostic and therapeutic options have been developed focusing on the following treatment modalities: 1. breast conserving therapy and radiation versus radical mastectomy 2. chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone 3. preoperative versus postoperative chemotherapy. The decision instruments in question were tested in N = 35 breast cancer patients and N = 36 nurses as a control group. The results of a questionnaire survey among both these groups revealed a very positive appraisal of the decision aids. Implementation in daily routine was favoured.
Breast Neoplasms↗
Will older persons and their clinicians use a shared decision-making instrument?
OBJECTIVE: To examine experiences of older persons and their clinicians with shared decision making (SDM) and their willingness to use an SDM instrument. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group study. PARTICIPANTS: Four focus groups of 41 older persons and 2 focus groups of 11 clinicians, purposively sampled to encompass a range of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. APPROACH AND MAIN RESULTS: Audiotaped responses were transcribed, coded independently, and analyzed by 3 reviewers using the constant comparative method. Patient participants described using informal facilitators of shared decision making and supported use of an SDM instrument to keep "the doctor and patient on the same page." They envisioned the instrument as "part of the medical record" that could be "referenced at home." Clinician participants described the instrument as a "motivational and educational tool" that could "customize care for individual patients." Some clinician and patient participants expressed reluctance given time constraints and unfamiliarity with the process of setting participatory clinical goals. CONCLUSIONS: Participants indicated that they would use a shared decision-making instrument in their clinical encounters and attributed multiple functions to the instrument, especially as a tool to facilitate agreement with treatment goals and plans.
Age Factors↗
Patient involvement in clinical decision making: the effect of GP attitude on patient satisfaction.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates general practitioners' (GPs) and patients' attitudes to shared decision making, and how these attitudes affect patient satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Sharing of information and decisions in the consultation is largely accepted as the ideal in general practice. Studies show that most patients prefer to be involved in decision making and shared decision making is associated with patient satisfaction, although preferences vary. Still we know little about how the interaction of GP and patients' attitudes affects patient satisfaction. One such study was conducted in the USA, but comparative studies are lacking. DESIGN: Questionnaire survey distributed through GPs. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The results are based on the combined questionnaires of 41 GPs and 829 of their patients in the urban municipality of Bergen in the western part of Norway. Main variables studied The data were collected using a nine-item survey instrument constructed to measure attitudes towards patient involvement in medical consultations. The patients were also asked to rate their satisfaction with their GP. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The patients had a strong preference for shared decision making. The GPs also generally preferred shared decision making, but to a lesser degree than the patients, which is the opposite of the findings of the US study. There was a positive effect of the GP's attitude towards shared decision making on patient satisfaction, but no significant effect of congruence of attitudes between patient and GP on patient satisfaction. The suggested explanation is that GPs that are positive to sharing decisions are more responsive to patients' needs and therefore satisfy patients even when the patient's attitude differs from the GPs' attitude. Hence, although some patients do prefer a passive role, it is important to promote positive attitudes towards patient involvement in medical consultations.
Adult↗
Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions.
BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is advocated because of its potential to improve the quality of the decision-making process for patients and ultimately, patient outcomes. However, current evidence suggests that shared decision-making has not yet been widely adopted by health professionals. Therefore, a systematic review was performed on the barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice as perceived by health professionals. METHODS: Covering the period from 1990 to March 2006, PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, PsycINFO, and Dissertation Abstracts were searched for studies in English or French. The references from included studies also were consulted. Studies were included if they reported on health professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in their practices. Shared decision-making was defined as a joint process of decision making between health professionals and patients, or as decision support interventions including decision aids, or as the active participation of patients in decision making. No study design was excluded. Quality of the studies included was assessed independently by two of the authors. Using a pre-established taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical practice guidelines in practice, content analysis was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-one publications covering 28 unique studies were included. Eleven studies were from the UK, eight from the USA, four from Canada, two from The Netherlands, and one from each of the following countries: France, Mexico, and Australia. Most of the studies used qualitative methods exclusively (18/28). Overall, the vast majority of participants (n = 2784) were physicians (89%). The three most often reported barriers were: time constraints (18/28), lack of applicability due to patient characteristics (12/28), and lack of applicability due to the clinical situation (12/28). The three most often reported facilitators were: provider motivation (15/28), positive impact on the clinical process (11/28), and positive impact on patient outcomes (10/28). CONCLUSION: This systematic review reveals that interventions to foster implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice will need to address a broad range of factors. It also reveals that on this subject there is very little known about any health professionals others than physicians. Future studies about implementation of shared decision-making should target a more diverse group of health professionals.
Journal Article↗
Shared decision-making, gender and new technologies.
Much discussion of decision-making processes in medicine has been patient-centred. It has been assumed that there is, most often, one patient. Less attention has been given to shared decision-making processes where two or more patients are involved. This article aims to contribute to this special area. What conditions need to be met if decision-making can be said to be shared? What is a shared decision-making process and what is a shared autonomous decision-making process? Why make the distinction? Examples are drawn from the area of new reproductive medicine and clinical genetics. Possible gender-differences in shared decision-making are discussed.
Cooperative Behavior↗
Shared treatment decision making: what does it mean to physicians?
PURPOSE: Physicians are urged to practice shared treatment decision making (STDM), yet this concept is poorly understood. We developed a conceptual framework describing essential characteristics of a shared approach. This study assessed the degree of congruence in the meanings of STDM as described in the framework and as perceived by practicing physicians. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey questionnaire was mailed to eligible Ontario medical and radiation oncologists and surgeons treating women with early-stage breast cancer. Open-ended and structured questions elicited physicians' perceptions of shared decision making. RESULTS: Most study physicians spontaneously described STDM using characteristics identified in the framework as essential to this concept. When presented with clinical examples in which the decision-making roles of physicians and patients were systematically varied, study physicians overwhelmingly identified example 4 as illustrating a shared approach. This example was deliberately constructed to depict STDM as defined in the framework. In addition, more than 85.0% of physicians identified as important to STDM specific patient and physician roles derived from the framework. These included the following: the physician gives information to the patient on treatment benefits and risks; the patient gives information to the physician about her values; the patient and physician discuss treatment options; both agree on the treatment to implement. CONCLUSION: Substantial congruence was found between the meaning of STDM as described in the framework and as perceived by study physicians. This supports use of the framework as a conceptual tool to guide research, compare different treatment decision-making approaches, clarify the meaning of STDM, and enhance its translation into practice.
Attitude of Health Personnel↗
Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango).
Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated as an ideal model of treatment decision-making in the medical encounter. To date, the concept has been rather poorly and loosely defined. This paper attempts to provide greater conceptual clarity about shared treatment decision-making, identify some key characteristics of this model, and discuss measurement issues. The particular decision-making context that we focus on is potentially life threatening illnesses, where there are important decisions to be made at key points in the disease process, and several treatment options exist with different possible outcomes and substantial uncertainty. We suggest as key characteristics of shared decision-making (1) that at least two participants-physician and patient be involved; (2) that both parties share information; (3) that both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment; and (4) that an agreement is reached on the treatment to implement. Some challenges to measuring shared decision-making are discussed as well as potential benefits of a shared decision-making model for both physicians and patients.
Decision Making↗