Purposeful SDM: A problem-based approach to caring for patients with shared decision making

Shared decision making for high-risk surgery

IntroductionPatient-centered care (PCC) is a key principle of high-quality health care. Chile has declared PCC as a fundamental pillar of its health care system. However, PCC implementation in the Chilean...

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative process involving both healthcare providers and patients in making medical decisions, which gains increasing prominence in healthcare practice. But evidence on the level of SDM in medical practice and barriers as well as stimulus during the SDM implementation among aesthetic dermatologists is limited in China. From July to August 2023, 1938 dermatologists were recruited online in China. Data were collected through an electronic questionnaire covering: (1) demographic features; (2) SDM questionnaire physician version (SDM-Q-Doc); and (3) stimulus and barriers in SDM implementation. Logistic regression was applied to explore factors associated with SDM practice, barriers, and stimulus of SDM implementation, respectively. The 1938 dermatologists included 1329 females (68.6%), with an average age of 35 years. The total SDM score ranged from 0 to 45, with a median value of 40 (IQR: 35-44), and the median stimulus score and barriers scores were 28 (IQR: 24-32) and 19 (IQR: 13-26), respectively. The prevalence of good SDM was 27.2%, logistic regression indicated that female dermatologists (odds ratio, OR=1.21, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.96-1.51), and dermatologists with more years of aesthetic practice had a higher proportion of good SDM practice (OR was 1.44 for 5-9 years, 1.58 for 10-15 years and 1.77 for over 15 years). Moreover, female dermatologists and dermatologists with higher education level and serviced in private settings had lower barrier scores; female dermatologists and dermatologists with more years of aesthetic practice had higher stimulus scores. Chinese aesthetic dermatologists appear to implement SDM at an active level, with more stimulus and less barriers in SDM implementation. The integration of SDM into clinical practice among dermatologists is beneficial both for patients and dermatologists. Moreover, SDM practice should be strongly promoted and enhanced during medical aesthetics, especially among male dermatologists, dermatologists with less working experience, and those who work at public institutions.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative approach to making decisions in health care, and is a cornerstone of person-centered care. While providers are increasingly expected to utilize SDM in routine practice, widespread and sustainable implementation has proven difficult, especially in the care of individuals diagnosed with serious mental illnesses, and physicians and patients continue to identify barriers to effective collaboration. To date, SDM research has largely focused on the provision of high-quality clinical information from doctors to patients to the neglect of what may be the most important, and transformative, aspect of SDM-the relationship itself. In this forum, the lack of attention to the relationship in SDM research and practice will be explored, along with the relational qualities that need to be in place to implement SDM in the care of persons with serious mental illness based on the findings from a mixed-methods, participatory research project.

Shared decision-making: easy to evoke, challenging to implement.

Historically, the role of the health-care provider in medical practice has been primarily paternalistic by offering information, compassion, and decisive views with regard to medical decisions. This approach would exclude patients in the decision-making process. In a shift toward more patient-centered care, health-care providers are routinely encouraged to practice shared decision making (SDM). SDM uses evidence-based information about the options, elicitation of patient preferences, and decision support based on the patient's needs with the use of decision aids or counseling. Although there are well-known benefits of SDM, including improvements in psychological, clinical, and health-care system domains providers have found it challenging to apply SDM in everyday clinical practice. In allergy, we have a unique role in the treatment of children and adults, and SDM should be applied appropriately when engaging with these specific groups. There are many situations in which there is not a clear best option (food allergy testing, food introduction and challenges, and immunotherapy). Therefore, decision aids specific to our field, coupled with evidenced-based information that ultimately leads to a decision that reflects the patient's values will make for a vital skill in practice. In this article, we defined SDM, the benefits and barriers to SDM, unique situations in SDM, and approach to SDM in food allergy.

Background. Shared decision making (SDM) involving adolescents with chronic conditions is a triadic process that requires engaging adolescent patients, their parent(s), and their health care provider. We sought to understand the perspectives of parents about these interactions and the parents’ role in SDM. Methods. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with parents of adolescents (aged 12–17 y) with chronic conditions. The interviews focused on parents’ experiences of medical decision making related to their adolescent’s care, followed by experiences of SDM. We specifically addressed key aspects of SDM including information exchange, options, values, and preferences. We coded and analyzed the interviews using thematic content analysis. Results. Twenty-one parents completed an interview (median age 44 y, 91% female, 53% non-White). We identified 4 themes from the data: parents want an executive role, parents as experts, parents’ perceptions of others’ roles, and parents’ necessities for SDM. Parents described wanting to control the level to which their adolescent is involved in SDM based on their perceived knowledge of their adolescent’s capabilities. Parents reported feeling pressure to understand all aspects of potential decisions. Finally, parents underscored the need for trusting relationships between all members of the triad. Conclusions. Parents identify key roles for themselves and others in triadic SDM. By understanding these perspectives, health care providers may be better prepared to promote SDM in the care of adolescents with chronic conditions. Implications. This research has implications for how decisions are shared between providers and families. Valuing parents and including them in decision making has the potential to establish stronger relationships between the family and the care team and reduce parents’ anxiety about their child’s health.HighlightsThis study is the first to explore parents’ perspectives of triadic SDM involving an adolescent with a chronic condition.We identify situations (e.g., non–life-threatening treatment decisions, before an impending transition to adult medicine) in which parents may be more amenable to including their adolescent in the decision process.Understanding parents’ perspectives on decision making can help providers establish strong relationships with the families, which may improve care for adolescents with chronic conditions.

Presenting summary reports to patients with chronic health conditions to support values-based discussions and decision-making: A literature review.

BackgroundMental health care has lagged behind other health‐care domains in developing and applying shared decision making (SDM) for treatment decisions. This is despite compatibilities with ideals of modern mental health care such as self‐management and recovery‐oriented practice, and growing policy‐level interest. Psychiatric medication is a mainstay of mental health treatment, but there are known problems with prescribing practices, and service users report feeling uninvolved in medication decisions and concerned about adverse effects. SDM has potential to produce better tailoring of psychiatric medication to individuals' needs.ObjectivesThis conceptual review argues that several aspects of mental health care that differ from other health‐care contexts (e.g. forms of coercion, questions about service users' insight and disempowerment) may impact on processes and possibilities for SDM. It is therefore problematic to uncritically import models of SDM developed in other health‐care contexts. We argue that decision making for psychiatric medication is better understood in a broader way that moves beyond the micro‐social focus of a medical consultation. Contextualizing specific medication‐related consultations within longer term relationships, and broader service systems enables recognition of the multiple processes, actors and agendas that shape how psychiatric medication is prescribed, managed and used, and which may facilitate or impede SDM.ConclusionA broad conceptualization of decision making for psychiatric medication that moves beyond the micro‐social can account for why SDM in this domain remains a rarity. It has both conceptual and practical utility for evaluating research evidence, identifying future research priorities and highlighting fruitful ways of developing and implementing SDM in mental health care.

This article describes the process undertaken to identify and validate behavioral and normative beliefs and behavioral intent based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and applied to men between the ages of 45 and 70 in the context of their participation in shared decision-making (SDM) in medically uncertain situations. This article also discusses the preliminary results of the aforementioned processes and explores potential future uses of this information that may facilitate greater understanding, efficiency and effectiveness of clinician-patient consultations. Twenty-five male subjects from the Philadelphia community participated in this study. Individual semi-structure patient interviews were conducted until data saturation was reached. Based on their review of the patient interview transcripts, researchers conducted a qualitative content analysis to identify prevalent themes and, subsequently, create a category framework. Qualitative indicators were used to evaluate respondents' experiences, beliefs, and behavioral intent relative to participation in shared decision-making during medical uncertainty. Based on the themes uncovered through the content analysis, a category framework was developed to facilitate understanding and increase the accuracy of predictions related to an individual's behavioral intent to participate in shared decision-making in medical uncertainty. The emerged themes included past experience with medical uncertainty, individual personality, and the relationship between the patient and his physician. The resulting three main framework categories include 1) an individual's Foundation for the concept of medical uncertainty, 2) how the individual Copes with medical uncertainty, and 3) the individual's Behavioral Intent to seek information and participate in shared decision-making during times of medically uncertain situations. The theme of Coping (with uncertainty) emerged as a particularly critical behavior/characteristic amongst the subjects. By understanding a subject's disposition with regard to coping, researchers were better able to make connections between a subject's prior experiences, their knowledge seeking activities, and their intent to participate in SDM. Despite having information and social support, the subjects still had to cope with the idea of uncertainty before determining how to proceed with regard to shared decision-making. In addition, the coping category reinforced the importance of information seeking behaviors and preferences for shared decision-making. This study applies and extends the field of behavioral and health informatics to assist medical practice and decision-making in situations of medical uncertainty. More specifically, this study led to the development of a category framework that facilitates the identification of an individual's needs and motivational factors with regard to their intent to participate in shared decision-making in situations of medical uncertainty.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality encouraged a re-examination of the concept, process, and measurement of shared decision-making (SDM) in 2016. Progress, however, has been slow. One illustrative example is SDM's relationship with the concept of equipoise: there remains little consensus on what equipoise means in the context of SDM, creating confusion about when SDM is and is not indicated. In this paper, we describe the ways in which this focus on equipoise in SDM is counter-productive and argue that equipoise is neither a necessary nor sufficient criterion in determining the need for SDM. Moreover, we suggest that what is needed to move the field of SDM forward is a shift away from focusing on when SDM is needed to instead focusing on how best to accomplish SDM across a variety of contexts by advancing the science of SDM implementation.

Shared decision making (SDM) about medicine with older poly-medicated patients is vital to improving adherence and preventing medication-related hospital admissions, but it is difficult to achieve in practice. This study’s primary aim was to provide insight into the extent of SDM in medication decisions in the Emergency Department (ED) and to compare how it aligns with older poly-medicated patients’ preferences and needs. We applied a mixed-methods design to investigate SDM in medication decisions from two perspectives: (1) observational measurements with the observing patient involvement (OPTION 5) instrument of healthcare professionals’ SDM behavior in medication decisions and (2) semi-structured interviews with older poly-medicated patients. A convergent parallel analysis was performed. Sixty-five observations and fourteen interviews revealed four overall themes: (1) a low degree of SDM about medication, (2) a variation in the pro-active and non-active patients approach to conversations about medicine, (3) no information on side effects, and (4) a preference for medication reduction. The lack of SDM with older patients in the ED may increase inequality in health. Patients with low health literacy are at risk of safety threats, nonadherence, and preventable re-admissions. Therefore, healthcare professionals should systematically investigate older poly-medicated patients’ preferences and discuss the side effects and the possibility of reducing harmful medicine.

Known as the "pinnacle of patient-centered care," shared decision-making (SDM) is the process that enables and encourages the health care provider, the patient, and/or their caregiver (parent or guardian) to participate collaboratively in medical decisions. Prior research indicates that children with emotional, developmental, or behavioral health conditions (EDB) are less likely to attain SDM than children with other special healthcare needs (SHCNs). This study investigates whether the presence of a medical home reduces disparities in SDM among children with EDB when compared to children with other SHCNs and the general pediatric population. Using the 2016 National Survey of Children's Health, we conducted weighted descriptive statistics to investigate the prevalence of medical home and SDM for children with (1) EDB, (2) other SHCNs, and (3) no SHCNs. We then employed a nested multivariate logistic regression model to examine whether the presence of a medical home reduced the disparity between children with EDB and their counterparts. Nationally, 21% of children with EDB (n = 647,274), 14.0% of children with other SHCNs (n = 1,086,068), and 13% of children with no SHCNs (n = 883,969) did not attain caregiver-reported SDM in medical care. In each of the health condition groups, the presence of a medical home significantly improved the odds of SDM (p < 0.001). Presence of a medical home also reduced the disparities observed in caregiver-reported SDM among children with EDB as compared to those with other SHCNs and no SHCNs. Ongoing investment in medical homes may reduce disparities in SDM experienced by children with EDB.

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process in which patients and clinicians work together to make medical decisions based on clinical evidence that balances risks and expected outcomes with patient preferences and values. SDM has been advocated as the ideal model for patient decision-making in healthcare. However, SDM is rarely used in practice due, in part, to limited availability of healthcare professionals trained in these techniques. In this work, we describe the design of a virtual decision coach to help women participate in SDM about prenatal testing for Down syndrome. In a quasi-experimental evaluation study, participants demonstrated significant increases in knowledge, high levels of satisfaction with their final decision and low levels of decisional conflict and regret, indicating that virtual agents can effectively perform in the role of decision coach and facilitate the implementation of SDM.

BackgroundShared Decision Making (SDM) as means to the involvement of patients in medical decision making is increasingly demanded by treatment guidelines and legislation. Also, matching of patients’ preferences to treatments has been shown to be effective regarding symptom reduction. Despite promising results for patients with substance use disorders (SUD) no systematic evaluation of the literature has been provided. The aim is therefore to give a systematic overview of the literature of patient preferences and SDM in the treatment of patients with SUD.MethodsAn electronic literature search of the databases Medline, Embase, Psyndex and Clinical Trials Register was performed. Variations of the search terms substance use disorders, patient preferences and SDM were used. For data synthesis the populations, interventions and outcomes were summarized and described according to the PRISMA statement. Methodological quality of the included articles was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.ResultsN = 25 trials were included in this review. These were conducted between 1986 and 2014 with altogether n = 8.729 patients. Two studies found that patients with SUD preferred to be actively involved in treatment decisions. Treatment preferences were assessed in n = 18 studies, where the majority of patients preferred outpatient compared with inpatient treatment. Matching patients to preferences resulted in a reduction on substance use (n = 3 studies), but the majority of studies found no significant effect. Interventions for SDM differed across patient populations and optional therapeutic techniques.DiscussionPatients with substance use disorders should be involved in medical treatment decisions, as patients with other health conditions. A suitable approach is Shared Decision Making, emphasizing the patients’ preferences. However, due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, results should be interpreted with caution. Further research is needed regarding SDM interventions in patient populations with substance use disorders.