Virtual Method to Compare Treatment Options to Assist Maxillofacial Surgery Planning and Decision Making Process for Implant and Screw Placement

Author(s):  
Yuwaraj Kumar Balakrishnan ◽  
Alwin Kumar Rathinam ◽  
Tan Su Tung ◽  
Vicknes Waran ◽  
Zainal Ariff Abdul Rahman
2021 ◽  
pp. 238008442110144
Author(s):  
N.R. Paul ◽  
S.R. Baker ◽  
B.J. Gibson

Introduction: Patients’ decisions to undergo major surgery such as orthognathic treatment are not just about how the decision is made but what influences the decision. Objectives: The primary objective of the study was to identify the key processes involved in patients’ experience of decision making for orthognathic treatment. Methods: This study reports some of the findings of a larger grounded theory study. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews of patients who were seen for orthognathic treatment at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Twenty-two participants were recruited (age range 18–66 y), of whom 12 (male = 2, female = 10) were 6 to 8 wk postsurgery, 6 (male = 2, female = 4) were in the decision-making stage, and 4 (male = 0, female = 4) were 1 to 2 y postsurgery. Additional data were also collected from online blogs and forums on jaw surgery. The data analysis stages of grounded theory methodology were undertaken, including open and selective coding. Results: The study identified the central role of dental care professionals (DCPs) in several underlying processes associated with decision making, including legitimating, mediating, scheduling, projecting, and supporting patients’ decisions. Six categories were related to key aspects of decision making. These were awareness about their underlying dentofacial problems and treatment options available, the information available about the treatment, the temporality of when surgery would be undertaken, the motivations and expectation of patients, social support, and fear of the surgery, hospitalization, and potentially disliking their new face. Conclusion: The decision-making process for orthognathic treatment is complex, multifactorial, and heavily influenced by the role of DCPs in patient care. Understanding the magnitude of this role will enable DCPs to more clearly participate in improving patients’ decision-making process. The findings of this study can inform future quantitative studies. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study can be used both for informing clinical practice around enabling decision making for orthognathic treatment and also for designing future research. The findings can better inform clinicians about the importance of their role in the patients’ decision-making process for orthognathic treatment and the means to improve the patient experience. It is suggested that further research could be conducted to measure some of the key constructs identified within our grounded theory and assess how these change during the treatment process.


Author(s):  
Marjolaine Frenette ◽  
Jocelyne Saint-Arnaud

ABSTRACTDifferent care settings in Quebec use levels of medical intervention forms, also called levels of care (LOC), to determine the code status of patients and to improve end-of-life care planning. It is not currently possible to know whether the levels of care in hospitals benefit patients and staff in facilitating the decision making process of treatment options and resuscitation measures. No study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, has been published about LOC, particularly in Quebec and Canada. This literature review was undertaken on levels of care in order to clarify this topic. Relevant articles are discussed under different themes that are pertinent to LOC. The themes addressed in this article include care at the end of life, do-not-resuscitate orders, treatment withdrawal, and decision making at end of life.


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6-6
Author(s):  
Jhosselini Cardenas Mori

6 Background: We aim to explore medical information-sharing and decision-making preferences of Hispanic patients in the Bronx. Methods: We are recruiting cancer patients who self-identify as Hispanic and are waiting at the oncology clinic at Montefiore Medical Center Cancer Center before an appointment. Results: To date we have interviewed 110 patients. The majority (60, 52.6%) preferred shared decision-making with their doctors, families or both, while 45 (39.5%) had an active decision-making style. A minority (9, 7.9%) had a passive decision-making style, deferring to their families and only 1 (0.9%) had a passive decision-making style deferring to the physician. The only demographic characteristic that was associated with decision-making preference was language; those who are English-speaking were more likely to endorse an active decision-making style (Chi2 = 7.06, p = 0.029) and less likely to endorse shared decision-making (Chi2 = 6.33, p = 0.042). The majority of patients agreed or strongly agreed that they wanted to hear all of the information regarding their diagnosis, treatment options, treatment expectation and treatment risks and benefits. Conclusions: These results confirm our hypothesis that most Hispanic patients prefer either an active or shared decision-making process rather than a passive decision-making process. Most patients prefer disclosure of diagnosis, prognosis and plan.


Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 2624-2624
Author(s):  
Joanne S. Buzaglo ◽  
Victoria Kennedy ◽  
Clare Karten ◽  
Melissa F. Miller ◽  
Anne Morris ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The US prevalence of multiple myeloma (MM) is estimated at 83,118 as of January 1, 2011(SEER, 2014), and about 24,050 new MM cases will be diagnosed in 2014 (ACS, 2014). With advances in treatment, MM patients are living longer and are confronted with increasingly complex therapeutic decisions. Frequently patients are not fully prepared to discuss the possible treatment options effectively with their provider. Methods: From July 2013 to July 2014, the Cancer Support Community (CSC) registered 495 people living with MM to the Cancer Experience Registry: MM, an online initiative designed to investigate and raise awareness about the psychosocial impact of MM. Registrants were recruited through an outreach program that included the CSC and The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) network of community-based affiliates/chapters, CSC and LLS online communities, CSC’s helpline and LLS’s information resource center, other advocacy organizations, social and other media channels. Those who registered completed a survey about their MM history, status and treatment. Results: General: 406 (82%) registrants responded to the questionnaire. The present analysis is limited to 280 US based registrants who answered on treatment decision making. The participant median age was 64 years; 54% female, 87% Caucasian, 9.5% African American. Total annual income: 35% <$40K; 35% $40-79K; 30% at least $80K. Median time since MM diagnosis was 4.5 years. 26% did not know stage of their MM. Among those who reported stage: 20% stage I; 18% stage II; 48% Stage III; 10% “other”. 40% reported they experienced a relapse of MM. Treatment Decision Making: Prior to making a treatment decision, 94% reported receiving information about their diagnosis, and 80% received information about their treatment options. 45% described their level of knowledge about treatment options as “quite a bit” or “very much”. However, 33% reported they were not knowledgeable regarding MM treatment (21% “not at all” and 12% “a little bit”). 40% received treatment decision support prior to therapy, and 36% would have liked more support. 16% had little or no involvement in their treatment decision-making process. 25% did not feel they had a treatment choice, and 20% reported they did not have enough time to make a treatment decision. Two-thirds (66%) received a second opinion about medical treatment. 64% of registrants reported that a member of their health care team spoke to them about cancer clinical trials, and 29% participated in a clinical trial. Patient Satisfaction and Empowerment. A majority of MM registrants were satisfied with various aspects of the treatment decision-making process: outcome of the treatment(s) received (82%); doctor’s explanation of the benefits (74%); how they arrived at a decision (71%); how much they participated in making the decision (68%); and their doctor’s explanation of the risks and side effects (67%). 66% received a second opinion about medical treatment. Those who got a second opinion were slightly more satisfied with how they arrived at their treatment decision (OR=1.61; 95% CI=0.90, 2.88; p=0.11), but getting a second opinion did not affect patient’s satisfaction with treatment outcomes. Those who wrote down a list of questions prior to their first visit to discuss treatment options with their health care provider felt significantly more prepared to discuss their treatment options (p<0.01). 65% and 70%, respectively, thought it would be important to get help with gathering information or developing a written list of questions before meeting with their cancer specialists. Conclusion: Although nearly three-quarters of the sample were satisfied with various aspects of treatment decision-making, including communication about treatment decisions with physicians, more than one-third of MM patients thought they had no choice or felt rushed in making a decision. Those who prepared a list of questions prior to a consultation with the doctor felt significantly more prepared to make appropriate decisions. While most patients reported receiving information about their treatment options, less than half report being knowledgeable about treatment options, and a significant proportion reported not having enough knowledge or support to fully engage in treatment decisions. Further efforts are needed to address gaps in the delivery of treatment decision support to MM patients. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez ◽  
Yolanda Alvarez-Perez ◽  
Amado Rivero-Santana ◽  
Vanesa Ramos-García ◽  
Andrea Duarte-Díaz ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a health condition sensitive to patient’s preferences and values regarding the benefits and risks of the different treatment options. In this sense, patient decision aids (PtDA) can play an important role in helping patients to incorporate their values, needs and preferences into the decision-making process, thus improving Person-Centred Care. Previous research has focused almost exclusively on knee OA, and therefore the aim of this study is to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a PtDA for patients with hip OA.Methods: The general design consists of two phases: 1) design a web-based PtDA for patients with hip OA, following the recommended procedures: systematic review of safety/effectiveness of treatments, and an iterative process of development with the help of an Advisory Committee composed of health professionals and patients; 2) To evaluate the impact of the PtDA on hip OA patients’ decision-making process related with their treatment. For that aim, a multicenter randomized controlled trial will be carried out with 124 patients with hip OA in Tenerife (Spain) comparing intervention or usual care.Discussion: PtDAs have been recommended as a useful and effective resource for improving PCC in many health conditions. The intervention is intended to empower patients by fostering their active participation during the decision-making process about their treatment, and by ensuring they make informed decisions congruent with their values and preferences. This study will contribute to the scientific knowledge about effectiveness of PtDAs in hip OA, in order to improve the quality of health care offered to these patients.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gob (NCT04241978). Registered on 24 January 2020.


Rheumatology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (8) ◽  
pp. 2052-2061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Spierings ◽  
Femke C C van Rhijn-Brouwer ◽  
Carolijn J M de Bresser ◽  
Petra T M Mosterman ◽  
Arwen H Pieterse ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives To examine the treatment decision-making process of patients with dcSSc in the context of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Methods A qualitative semi-structured interview study was done in patients before or after HSCT, or patients who chose another treatment than HSCT. Thematic analysis was used. Shared decision-making (SDM) was assessed with the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Results Twenty-five patients [16 male/nine female, median age 47 (range 27–68) years] were interviewed: five pre-HSCT, 16 post-HSCT and four following other treatment. Whereas the SDM-Q-9 showed the decision-making process was perceived as shared [median score 81/100 (range 49–100)], we learned from the interviews that the decision was predominantly made by the rheumatologist, and patients were often steered towards a treatment option. Strong guidance of the rheumatologist was appreciated because of a lack of accessible, reliable and SSc-specific information, due to the approach of the decision-making process of the rheumatologist, the large consequence of the decision and the trust in their doctor. Expectations of outcomes and risks also differed between patients. Furthermore, more than half of patients felt they had no choice but to go for HSCT, due to rapid deterioration of health and the perception of HSCT as ‘the holy grail’. Conclusion This is the first study that provides insight into the decision-making process in dcSSc. This process is negatively impacted by a lack of disease-specific education about treatment options. Additionally, we recommend exploring patients’ preferences and understanding of the illness to optimally guide decision-making and to provide tailor-made information.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 19553-19553
Author(s):  
P. M. Ellis ◽  
S. Dimitry ◽  
C. Charles ◽  
M. O’Brien ◽  
T. J. Whelan

19553 Background: Facilitating patient involvement in TDM is a desirable feature of the oncology consultation. Greater patient involvement in TDM may lead to improved patient satisfaction, compliance and reduced psychological morbidity. However, there is little empiric evidence defining physician behaviors and attributes that facilitate patient involvement in TDM. This study used qualitative methods to identify such behaviors and attributes suggested by both practicing oncologists and patients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 medical, 10 radiation oncologists and 19 patients with breast, lung, GI, or GU cancer to determine physician behaviors and attributes that facilitate patient involvement in TDM. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, then analyzed independently by two researchers using inductively derived coding categories and predetermined coding rules. Behaviors and attributes were identified and coded into common themes. Six focus groups with an additional 37 patients were conducted to review these behaviors and attributes. Results: A total of 231 individual physician behaviors and attributes were identified by physicians (179) and patients (52) that facilitate patient involvement in DM. Common behaviors and attributes identified from the interviews include: assessing patient’s understanding and preferences, providing information, explaining the DM process, providing information on treatment options, allowing time to consider treatment options, checking patient understanding of options and inviting patient input into decisions. Other behaviors such as physicians’ communication skills were reported as facilitating TDM. Specific physician personality attributes, such as empathy, were identified as important facilitators. Conclusions: Physicians and patients identify a large number of physician behaviors and attributes that may facilitate patient involvement in TDM. These include both behaviors that are important in general physician-patient communication, as well as those that are specifically related to the decision making process. Further research is ongoing to determine the importance of these factors and approaches to encourage their use in the oncology consultation. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez ◽  
Yolanda Alvarez-Perez ◽  
Amado Rivero-Santana ◽  
Vanesa Ramos-García ◽  
Andrea Duarte-Díaz ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a health condition sensitive to patient’s preferences and values regarding the benefits and risks of the different treatment options. In this sense, patient decision aids (PtDA) can play an important role in helping patients to incorporate their values, needs and preferences into the decision-making process, thus improving Person-Centred Care. Previous research has focused almost exclusively on knee OA, and therefore the aim of this study is to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a PtDA for patients with hip OA.Methods: The general design consists of two phases: 1) design a web-based PtDA for patients with hip OA, following the recommended procedures: systematic review of safety/effectiveness of treatments, and an iterative process of development with the help of an Advisory Committee composed of health professionals and patients; 2) To evaluate the impact of the PtDA on hip OA patients’ decision-making process related with their treatment. For that aim, a multicenter randomized controlled trial will be carried out with 124 patients with hip OA in Tenerife (Spain) comparing intervention or usual care.Discussion: PtDAs have been recommended as a useful and effective resource for improving PCC in many health conditions. The intervention is intended to empower patients by fostering their active participation during the decision-making process about their treatment, and by ensuring they make informed decisions congruent with their values and preferences. This study will contribute to the scientific knowledge about effectiveness of PtDAs in hip OA, in order to improve the quality of health care offered to these patients.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gob (NCT04241978). Registered on 24 January 2020.


Author(s):  
Mayank Singh ◽  
Aparna Acharya

AbstractMale and female pattern hair loss (PHL) is an innocuous condition, but it has a major psychological impact on the sufferer. This paper aims to provide a simple algorithmic approach toward diagnosis, staging, and treatment of PHL in males and females. It also aims at simplifying the decision-making process for the surgeon with regard to timing and extent of procedure for hair transplant surgeries. Various treatment options, their merits and demerits, along with scientific evidence supporting or not supporting the treatment options are discussed in detail.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 201-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Duffin ◽  
Srikant Sarangi

Shared decision making (SDM) as a corrective to paternalism - particularly in relation to treatment options - is a much-discussed theme in healthcare research and practice. The communicative/interactional dimensions of SDM have lately received scholarly attention, albeit limited to a few clinic sites. The Huntington's disease (HD) management clinic, which is the site of this study, involves the co-presence of family members in their carer role, since the patient with HD may lack the cognitive ability to participate adequately in the decision-making process. We closely examine 12 audio-recorded clinic consultation transcripts, using the combined framework of theme-orientated discourse analysis and activity analysis. Our analytical focus is on how decisions are formulated and shared, or not shared, by the co-participants (the consultant, the patient and the carers) and the extent to which the consultant and the carers negotiate their 'expert' assessments of the patient's current and future management scenarios. We first outline a step-wise structure of decision making - to include problem designation, problem confirmation, generation of options and their assessment, and formulation and confirmation of decision. Contrary to how SDM is represented in various models in the literature, these different steps are interactionally dispersed and become negotiable in particular clinic sessions. Our findingssuggest that the consultant routinely uses three main strategies to steer the decision-making process: foregrounding the decision itself, foregrounding the temporal dimension and foregrounding the person/ carer dimension. Moreover, carer participation differs depending on the carer's relationship with the patient and other contingent matters. -


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document