OP126 Shared Decision-Making Influences Patients’ Adoption Of Stents In China

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 48-49
Author(s):  
Jian Ming ◽  
Yan Wei ◽  
Yingyao Chen ◽  
Jiayan Huang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patients Satisfaction ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Impact

Introduction:Shared decision-making (SDM) is an essential component of patient-centered care, involving communication and discussions between physicians and patients on various options to meet their health needs. This study examines the current situation of patients’ participation in decision-making in relation to the clinical application of drug-eluting stents (DES). Further, the impact of patients’ involvement in decision-making on patients' adoption of DES was analyzed, with a view to providing research outcomes to guide clinical practice.Methods:A cross-sectional study was conducted from July to December 2016 in selected hospitals in Fujian Province, Sichuan Province, and Shanghai in China. Patients with coronary heart disease completed a survey, which contained the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) about satisfaction with decision-making processes, and questions on DES. Data were analyzed with cluster analysis, correlation analysis, multivariate logistic regression, and multivariate linear regression.Results:One hundred and seventy-nine patients with coronary heart disease from 15 hospitals in the three regions completed the questionnaire. There were good validity and reliability for SDM-Q-9, with Cronbach's alpha as 0.96 and intra-class correlations 0.59–0.79 (all P < 0.01). Among these respondents, 42.1 percent adopted DES, 83.4 percent were supportive of SDM and 61.33 percent thought they had better communication with physicians regarding decision-making. Patients’ level of SDM involvement was found to be positively associated with their satisfaction with the decision-making process (P < 0.001) and their adoption of DES (P < 0.05). Also, satisfaction with shared decision-making regarding treatment was positively associated with adoption of DES (P < 0.001).Conclusions:Most of the patients with coronary heart disease preferred SDM, and SDM was found to be an important predictor of patients’ satisfaction with decision-making processes and adoption of DES. Better communication between physicians and patients is needed in order to improve patients’ satisfaction and promote the appropriate use of DES technology in China.

Abstract 162: Does a Telehealth “Virtual Consult” Including Referring Physicians, Specialist Physicians and Patients Increase Shared Decision Making for Patients With Heart Disease?

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Coylewright ◽  
Ariel Sherman ◽  
Stuart W Grande ◽  
Keren Xu ◽  
John Kirk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Fisher Exact Test ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Specialist Physician ◽  
Referring Physicians ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Strong Agreement

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is highly recommended but difficult to implement for patients with severe heart disease referred for cardiac intervention. This study utilized telehealth (TH) to bring referring physicians and their patients together with a specialist physician to exchange treatment options and patient preferences via a triadic “virtual consult”. This study explores the impact of this innovative approach on SDM and patient decisional conflict. Methods: Two cohorts were included: usual care (UC) and TH. UC patients were seen in a clinic with one of 4 participating physicians, and visits were recorded. Telehealth patients met with their local referring physician in the office, and connected remotely with the specialist physician. One of two decision aids (DA) was used: HealthDecision, an electronic health record-integrated DA for atrial fibrillation, or AS Choice, a paper-based DA for severe aortic stenosis. Patient characteristics were collected via surveys. SDM was measured via Observer OPTION-5, a tool used to rate audio or video-taped clinical encounters, with raters’ agreement being assessed by the Bland-Altman analysis (2-rater pairs). Decisional conflict was measured by a 4-item survey, SURE. Data from two cohorts were compared using the Fisher exact test and the Student’s t test. Results: Twenty UC visits (5 per physician) were compared with 7 telehealth visits from 4 clinical sites. Patient mean age was 84.3 years and 52% were women. UC patients were older than telehealth patients (87.6 vs. 74.9, p=0.002). Patient decisional conflict was significantly different between the two groups (p=0.02). Telehealth visits had higher OPTION-5 scores than UC visits (99.3 vs. 19.0, p<0.001). (Figure) Rater pairs were used for each observation with evidence of lack of strong agreement in 2 pairs (95% limits of agreement in 3 pairs: [-6.0, 8.8], n=7; [-24.3, 20.7], n=11; [-34.2, 18.7], n=9). Conclusions: A combined clinical visit with both the referring and specialist physicians, along with their patient in a “virtual consult,” led to decreased patient decisional conflict. Higher OPTION-5 scores were suggested, indicating improvement in the presence of SDM; lack of strong agreement between raters limits this finding and larger studies are needed.

scholarly journals Shared decision-making following disclosure of coronary heart disease genetic risk: results from a randomized clinical trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 681-688 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hayan Jouni ◽  
Raad A Haddad ◽  
Tariq S Marroush ◽  
Sherry-Ann Brown ◽  
Teresa M Kruisselbrink ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Genetic Risk ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Physician Visit ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Chd Risk

Whether disclosure of genetic risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) influences shared decision-making (SDM) regarding use of statins to reduce CHD risk is unknown. We randomized 207 patients, age 45–65 years, at intermediate CHD risk, and not on statins, to receive the 10-year risk of CHD based on conventional risk factors alone (n=103) or in combination with a genetic risk score (n=104). A genetic counselor disclosed this information followed by a physician visit for SDM regarding statin therapy. A novel decision aid was used in both encounters to disclose the CHD risk estimates and facilitate SDM regarding statin use. Patients reported their decision quality and physician visit satisfaction using validated surveys. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the SDM score, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, perception of the quality of the discussion or of participation in decision-making and physician visit satisfaction scores. Quantitative analyses of a random subset of 80 video-recorded encounters using the OPTION5 scale also showed no significant difference in SDM between the two groups. Disclosure of CHD genetic risk using an electronic health record-linked decision aid did not adversely affect SDM or patients’ satisfaction with the clinical encounter. Trial registration numberNCT01936675; Results.

scholarly journals Shared Decision Making in Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Full Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Kacper Niburski ◽  
Elena Guadagno ◽  
Dan Poenaru
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Librarian ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Shared decision-making (SDM), the process where physician and patient reach an agreed-upon choice by understanding the values, concerns, and preferences inherent within each treatment option available, has been increasingly implemented in clinical practice to better health care outcomes. Despite the proven efficacy of SDM to provide better patient-guided care in medicine, its use in surgery has not been studied widely. A search strategy was developed with a medical librarian. It included nine databases from inception until December 2018. After a 2-person title and abstract screen, full-text publications were analyzed in detail. A meta-analysis was done to quantify the impact of SDM in surgical specialties. In total 5,596 studies were retrieved. After duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were screened, and p-values were recorded, 140 (45 RCTs and 95 cross-sectional studies) were used for the systematic review and 42 for the meta-analyses. Most of the studies noted decreased intervention rate (8 of 14), decisional conflict (13 of 16), and decisional regret (3 of 3), and an increased decisional satisfaction (9 of 12), knowledge (19 of 20), SDM preference (6 of 8), and physician trust (3 of 4) when using SDM. Time increase per patient encounter was inconclusive. The meta-analysis showed that despite high heterogeneity, the results were significant. Far from obviating surgical immediacy, these results suggest that SDM is vital for the best indicators of care. With decreased conflict and anxiety, increasing knowledge and satisfaction, and creating a more whole, trusting relationship, SDM appears to be beneficial in surgery.

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.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 2128
Author(s):  
Marta Maes-Carballo ◽  
Manuel Martín-Díaz ◽  
Luciano Mignini ◽  
Khalid Saeed Khan ◽  
Rubén Trigueros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Professional Societies ◽  
New Policies

Objectives: To assess shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge, attitude and application among health professionals involved in breast cancer (BC) treatment. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study based on an online questionnaire, sent by several professional societies to health professionals involved in BC management. There were 26 questions which combined demographic and professional data with some items measured on a Likert-type scale. Results: The participation (459/541; 84.84%) and completion (443/459; 96.51%) rates were high. Participants strongly agreed or agreed in 69.57% (16/23) of their responses. The majority stated that they knew of SDM (mean 4.43 (4.36–4.55)) and were in favour of its implementation (mean 4.58 (4.51–4.64)). They highlighted that SDM practice was not adequate due to lack of resources (3.46 (3.37–3.55)) and agreed on policies that improved its implementation (3.96 (3.88–4.04)). The main advantage of SDM for participants was patient satisfaction (38%), and the main disadvantage was the patients’ paucity of knowledge to understand their disease (24%). The main obstacle indicated was the lack of time and resources (40%). Conclusions: New policies must be designed for adequate training of professionals in integrating SDM in clinical practice, preparing them to use SDM with adequate resources and time provided.

Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-59
Author(s):  
Gisèle Diendéré ◽  
Imen Farhat ◽  
Holly Witteman ◽  
Ruth Ndjaboue
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Risk Communication ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Values Clarification ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Consultations

Background Measuring shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice is important to improve the quality of health care. Measurement can be done by trained observers and by people participating in the clinical encounter, namely, patients. This study aimed to describe the correlations between patients’ and observers’ ratings of SDM using 2 validated and 2 nonvalidated SDM measures in clinical consultations. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 238 complete dyads of health professionals and patients in 5 university-affiliated family medicine clinics in Canada. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires before and after audio-recorded medical consultations. Observers rated the occurrence of SDM during medical consultations using both the validated OPTION-5 (the 5-item “observing patient involvement” score) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-observer). Patients rated SDM using both the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q9) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-patient). Results Agreement was low between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using validated OPTION-5 and SDM-Q9, respectively (ρ = 0.07; P = 0.38). Observers’ ratings using RCVC-observer were correlated to patients’ ratings using either SDM-Q9 ( rpb = −0.16; P = 0.01) or RCVC-patients ( rpb = 0.24; P = 0.03). Observers’ OPTION-5 scores and patients’ ratings using RCVC-questions were moderately correlated ( rφ = 0.33; P = 0.04). Conclusion There was moderate to no alignment between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using both validated and nonvalidated measures. This lack of strong correlation emphasizes that observer and patient perspectives are not interchangeable. When assessing the presence, absence, or extent of SDM, it is important to clearly state whose perspectives are reflected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document