scholarly journals Shared decision-making and the lessons learned about decision regret in cancer patients

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariam Chichua ◽  
Eleonora Brivio ◽  
Davide Mazzoni ◽  
Gabriella Pravettoni
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Medical Decisions ◽  
Increase Patient Satisfaction

AbstractThe commentary presents reflections on the literature on post-treatment cancer patient regret. Even though a lot of effort has been made to increase patient satisfaction by engaging them in medical decisions, patient regret remains present in clinical settings. In our commentary, we identify three main aspects of shared decision-making that previously have been shown to predict patient regret. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for physicians involved in the shared decision-making process. In addition, we make methodological suggestions for future research in the field.

Bridging the Gap: A Priorities Assessment Tool to Support Shared Decision Making, Maximize Appointment Time, and Increase Patient Satisfaction in Women With Ovarian Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e148-e154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa K. Frey ◽  
Annie Ellis ◽  
Savannah Shyne ◽  
Ryan Kahn ◽  
Eloise Chapman-Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Feedback Form ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Symptom Index ◽  
Increase Patient Satisfaction

PURPOSE: Women with ovarian cancer identify patient-physician communication as an essential element in determining treatment course and believe a discussion about goals and values should precede treatment decisions. We sought to develop a patient-centered priorities assessment tool for women with ovarian cancer that could streamline communication, enhance treatment discussions, and increase patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a priorities assessment tool using a validated ovarian cancer symptom index (National Comprehensive Cancer Center–Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index-18) combined with an index to assess daily quality-of-life priorities. The tool was distributed to women with ovarian cancer in small focus group settings and online, followed by a postactivity feedback form. RESULTS: In this pilot study, 36 women completed the priorities assessment tool and 35 completed the postactivity feedback form between September 2015 and May 2016. All participants reported that the tool was easy to understand and comprehensive in scope. Twenty-nine participants (82.9%) completed the tool in 10 minutes or less. Most participants (n = 31, 86.1%) were able to stratify their priorities and identify 5 top treatment-related priorities. Participants who indicated that their goals and priorities had changed since diagnosis (n = 25, 69.4%) reported that the tool helped to identify current goals and priorities (22 [88%] of 25 participants) and would help them feel more comfortable participating in shared decision making with their medical team (21 [84%] of 25 participants). CONCLUSION: A patient-centered priorities assessment tool was easy to complete and viewed as comprehensive and useful in a pilot cohort of women with ovarian cancer. Use of a priorities assessment tool has the potential to enhance communication, promote shared decision making, and improve patient satisfaction.

scholarly journals The influence of values in shared (medical) decision making

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-47
Author(s):  
Bettina Baldt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Medical Decisions ◽  
Teaching Concept ◽  
The Status ◽  
German Speaking ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Definition of the problem The Shared Decision Making model is becoming increasingly popular also in the German-speaking context, but it only considers values of patients to be relevant for medical decisions. Nevertheless, studies show that the values of physicians are also influential in medical decisions. Moreover, physicians are often unaware of this influence, which makes it impossible to control it. Arguments The influence of both patients’ and physicians’ values is examined from an empirical and normative perspective. The review about the empirical data provides a necessary overview about the status quo, whereas I deduct rules for value-influenced behaviour in the decision making process in the normative approach. Therefore, different scenarios are taken into account to explore in which situations it is acceptable for physicians to let their values be part of the decision making process. The conscious use of values is only possible, when physicians are aware of their influence. To raise awareness, the best option would be to educate future physicians about it in their training. Therefore, this article provides a teaching concept for a unit that could be part of an ethics class for physicians in training. Furthermore, patient’s rights and responsibilities in the decision making process are discussed. Conclusion I conclude that it is necessary to take the influence of values (more) into account and include this knowledge into the training of physicians. Conclusively, recommendations for patients and physicians and their dealing with values in shared decision making processes are suggested.

Decision aids to prepare patients for shared decision making: Two randomized controlled experiments on the impact of awareness of preference-sensitivity and personal motives

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Eggeling ◽  
Simone Korger ◽  
Ulrike Cress ◽  
Joachim Kimmerle ◽  
Martina Bientzle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Decision Strategies ◽  
The Impact

Objective: To participate in shared decision-making (SDM), patients need to understand their options and develop trust in their own decision-making abilities. Two experiments investigated the potential of decision aids (DAs) in preparing patients for SDM by raising awareness of preference-sensitivity (Study 1) and showing possible personal motives for decision-making (Study 2) in addition to providing information about the treatment options.Methods: Participants (Study 1: N=117; Study 2: N=217) were put into two scenarios (Study 1: cruciate ligament rupture; Study 2: contraception), watched a consultation video, and were randomized into one of three groups where they received additional information in the form of 1) narrative patient testimonials; 2) non-narrative decision strategies; 3) an unrelated text (control group). Results: Participants who viewed the patient testimonials or decision strategies felt better prepared for a decision (Study 1: P<.001, η²p=0.43; Study 2: P<.001, η²p=0.57) and evaluated the decision-making process more positively (Study 2: P<.001, η²p=0.13) than participants in the control condition. Decision certainty (Study 1: P<.001, η2p=0.05) and satisfaction (Study 1: P<.001, η2p=0.11; Study 2: P=.003, d=0.29) were higher across all conditions after watching the consultation video, and certainty and satisfaction were lower in the control condition (Study 2: P<.001, η²p=0.05).Discussion: DAs that explain preference-sensitivity and personal motives can be beneficial for improving people’s feelings of being prepared and their perception of the decision-making process. To reach decision certainty and satisfaction, being well informed of one’s options is particularly relevant. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and the design of DAs.

The impact of patient narratives on medical students’ perceptions of shared decision making: A randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Bientzle ◽  
Marie Eggeling ◽  
Simone Korger ◽  
Joachim Kimmerle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Information Text ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND: Successful shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice requires that future clinicians learn to appreciate the value of patient participation as early as in their medical training. Narratives, such as patient testimonials, have been successfully used to support patients’ decision-making process. Previous research suggests that narratives may also be used for increasing clinicians’ empathy and responsiveness in medical consultations. However, so far, no studies have investigated the benefits of narratives for conveying the relevance of SDM to medical students.METHODS: In this randomized controlled experiment, N = 167 medical students were put into a scenario where they prepared for medical consultation with a patient having Parkinson disease. After receiving general information, participants read either a narrative patient testimonial or a fact-based information text. We measured their perceptions of SDM, their control preferences (i.e., their priorities as to who should make the decision), and the time they intended to spend for the consultation.RESULTS: Participants in the narrative patient testimonial condition referred more strongly to the patient as the one who should make decisions than participants who read the information text. Participants who read the patient narrative also considered SDM in situations with more than one treatment option to be more important than participants in the information text condition. There were no group differences regarding their control preferences. Participants who read the patient testimonial indicated that they would schedule more time for the consultation.CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that narratives can potentially be useful for imparting the relevance of SDM and patient-centered values to medical students. We discuss possible causes of this effect and implications for training and future research.

The role of a shared decision-making process in paediatric epilepsy surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 429 ◽  
pp. 119162
Author(s):  
Michelle Gratton ◽  
Bonnie Wooten ◽  
Sandrine Deribaupierre ◽  
Andrea Andrade
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Epilepsy Surgery ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Paediatric Epilepsy

scholarly journals EFFECTS OF A SHARED DECISION MAKING INTERVENTION FOR OLDER ADULTS WITH CHRONIC CONDITIONS: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S296-S297
Author(s):  
Ruth E Pel-Littel ◽  
Bianca Buurman ◽  
Marjolein van de Pol ◽  
Linda Tulner ◽  
Mirella Minkman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Abstract Shared decision making (SDM) in older patients is more complex when multiple chronic conditions (MCC) have to be taken into account. The aim of this research is to explore the effect of the evidence based implementation intervention SDMMCC on (1) the preferred and perceived participation (2) decisional conflict and (3) actual SDM during consultations. 216 outpatients participated in a video observational study. The intervention existed of a SDM training for geriatricians and a preparatory tool for patients. Consultations were videotaped and coded with the OPTIONMCC. Pre- and post-consultation questionnaires were completed. Participation was measured by the Patients’ perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS). Decisional conflict was measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The patients mean age was 77 years, 56% was female. The preparatory tool was completed by 56 older adults (52%), of which 64% rated the tool as positive. The preparatory tool was used in 12% of the consultations. The mean overall OPTIONMCC score showed no significant changes on the level of SDM(39.3 vs 39.3 P0.98), however there were significant improvements on discussing goals and options on sub-items of the scale. There were no significant differences found in the match on preferred and perceived participation (86.5% vs 85.0% P 0.595) or in decisional conflict (22.7 vs 22.9 P0.630). The limited use of the preparatory tool could have biased the effect of the intervention. In future research more attention must be paid towards the implementation of preparatory tools, not only among patients but also among geriatricians.

scholarly journals Multidisciplinary teams caring for people with variations of sex characteristics: a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001257
Author(s):  
Martin Gramc ◽  
Jürg Streuli ◽  
Eva de Clercq
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Care Process ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Medical Professionals ◽  
Sex Characteristics ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Shared Decision

BackgroundIn 2006 the Chicago consensus statement on the management of people with variations of sex characteristics (VSC) acknowledged the importance of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. The consensus update from 2016 reinforced the call for multidisciplinary collaborations between medical professionals, parents and support groups, and proposed guidelines to improve shared decision making and patient-centred care embedded in ethical principles of self-determination and child participation. But there is little evidence that successfully MDTs have been implemented in clinical practice.Methods and aimsA scoping review was conducted to identify studies that address the collaboration and decision making process of MDTs providing care of people with VSC to identify ideal and actual (1) team composition; (2) models of collaboration and (3) ethical principles that MDTs follow. Six databases were systematically searched: CINAHIL, Medline, Psychinfo, Scopus, Socindex and Web of Science. No restriction was placed on the type of methodology used in the studies. To frame the research, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was used.ResultsThe MDTs in the literature include mainly medical professionals: endocrinologists, urologists and surgeons. The collaboration among medical professionals in MDTs lacks cooperation as one team member sets the tasks of the team while each professional works separately. Despite the importance of psycho-social support the involvement of psychologists remains secondary. The implementation of ethical principles tends to exclude people with VSC.ConclusionThe care of people with VSC described in the papers is medically oriented as the team members are mainly medical professionals working separately. MDT tend to exclude people with VSC despite references to shared decision making processes and informed consent. There was no mention of adult care and lack of inclusion of patient’s perspective in the care process. The future research should do more empirical research of MDTs.

scholarly journals The “Preparation for Shared Decision-Making” Tool for Women With Advanced Breast Cancer: Qualitative Validation Study

10.2196/16511 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e16511
Author(s):  
Domitilla Masi ◽  
Amalia Elvira Gomez-Rexrode ◽  
Rina Bardin ◽  
Joshua Seidman
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Validation Study ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Clinical Workflow

Background The range of decisions and considerations that women with advanced breast cancer (ABC) face can be overwhelming and difficult to manage. Research shows that most patients prefer a shared decision-making (SDM) approach as it provides them with the opportunity to be actively involved in their treatment decisions. The current engagement of these patients in their clinical decisions is suboptimal. Moreover, implementing SDM into routine clinical care can be challenging as patients may not always feel adequately prepared or may not expect to be involved in the decision-making process. Objective Avalere Health developed the Preparation for Shared Decision-Making (PFSDM) tool to help patients with ABC feel prepared to communicate with their clinicians and engage in decision making aligned with their preferences. The goal of this study was to validate the tool for its acceptability and usability among this patient population. Methods We interviewed a diverse group of women with ABC (N=30). Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and double coded by using NVivo. We assessed 8 themes to understand the acceptability and usability of the tool. Results Interviewees expressed that the tool was acceptable for preparing patients for decision making and would be useful for helping patients know what to expect in their care journey. Interviewees also provided useful comments to improve the tool. Conclusions This validation study confirms the acceptability and usability of the PFSDM tool for women with ABC. Future research should assess the feasibility of the tool’s implementation in the clinical workflow and its impact on patient outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document