scholarly journals Shared Decision Making in Cancer Screening and Treatment Decisions for American Indian and Alaska Native Communities: Can We Ethically Calibrate Interventions to Patients' Values?

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 790-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine E. Nowakowski ◽  
Jon C. Tilburt ◽  
Judith S. Kaur
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
American Indian ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Alaska Native ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Native Communities

Shared decision making for supporting women’s decisions about breast cancer screening

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Riganti ◽  
M. Victoria Ruiz Yanzi ◽  
Camila Micaela Escobar Liquitay ◽  
Karin S Kopitowski ◽  
Juan VA Franco
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals Implementation of Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening Among the Privately Insured Nonelderly

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 238146832098477
Author(s):  
Ya-Chen Tina Shih ◽  
Ying Xu ◽  
Lisa M. Lowenstein ◽  
Robert J. Volk
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Coverage Policy ◽  
Privately Insured

Introduction. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires a written order of shared decision making (SDM) visit in its coverage policy for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening (LCS). With screening eligibility starting at age 55, private insurance plans will likely adopt this coverage policy. This study examined the implementation of SDM in the context of LCS among the privately insured. Methods. We constructed two study cohorts from MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database 2016-2017: a LDCT cohort who received LDCT for LCS and an SDM cohort who had an LCS-related SDM visit. For the LDCT cohort, we examined the trend and factors associated with the receipt of SDM within 3 months prior to LDCT. For the SDM cohort, we studied the trend and factors associated with LDCT within 3 months after an SDM visit. Results. For privately insured adults aged <64, 93% (19,681/21,084) of the LDCT cohort did not have a billing claim indicating SDM, although the uptake of SDM increased from 3.1% in 1Q2016 to 8.2% in 4Q2017 ( P < 0.0001). For the SDM cohort, 46% (948/2048) did not have a claim for an LDCT for lung cancer screening in the 3 months after the SDM visit; this percentage increased from 29.5% in 1Q2016 to 61.8% in 3Q2017 ( P < 0.0001). Limitations. Findings cannot be generalized to other nonelderly adults without private insurance. Additionally, the rate of SDM identified from claims may be underreported. Conclusions. We found a growing but low uptake of SDM among privately insured individuals who underwent LDCT. The higher rate of LDCT in the SDM cohort than the rate reported in national studies emphasized the importance of patient awareness.

MP9-12 PATIENT-CENTERED TREATMENT DECISIONS: USING CONJOINT ANALYSIS AS AN AID FOR SHARED DECISION-MAKING FOR URETHRAL STRICTURE TREATMENT

2015 ◽  
Vol 193 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay Hampson ◽  
Thomas Gaither ◽  
Leslie Wilson ◽  
Jie Ting ◽  
Isabel Allen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Conjoint Analysis ◽  
Urethral Stricture ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered

scholarly journals “They Should Be Asking Us”: A Qualitative Decisional Needs Assessment for Women Considering Cervical Cancer Screening

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 233339361878363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianne Wood ◽  
Virginia L. Russell ◽  
Ziad El-Khatib ◽  
Susan McFaul ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Screening ◽  
Hpv Testing ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Providers

In this study, we examine from multiple perspectives, women’s shared decision-making needs when considering cervical screening options: Pap testing, in-clinic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, self-collected HPV testing, or no screening. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework guided the development of the interview schedule. We conducted semi-structured interviews with seven screen-eligible women and five health care professionals (three health care providers and two health system managers). Women did not perceive that cervical screening involves a “decision,” which limited their knowledge of options, risks, and benefits. Women and health professionals emphasized how a trusted primary care provider can support women making a choice among cervical screening modalities. Having all cervical screening options recommended and funded was perceived as an important step to facilitate shared decision making. Supporting women in making preference-based decisions in cervical cancer screening may increase screening among those who do not undergo screening regularly and decrease uptake in women who are over-screened.

scholarly journals Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110292
Author(s):  
K. D. Valentine ◽  
Brittney Mancini ◽  
Ha Vo ◽  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Carol Cosenza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
High Cholesterol ◽  
Hypothetical Scenario ◽  
Quality Video ◽  
Process Scale

Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a brief, patient-reported measure of SDM with demonstrated validity in surgical decision making studies. Herein we examine the validity of the scores in assessing SDM for cancer screening and medication decisions through standardized videos of good-quality and poor-quality SDM consultations. Method An online sample was randomized to a clinical decision—colon cancer screening or high cholesterol—and a viewing order—good-quality video first or poor-quality video first. Participants watched both videos, completing a survey after each video. Surveys included the SDM Process scale and the 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9); higher scores indicated greater SDM. Multilevel linear regressions identified if video, order, or their interaction predicted SDM Process scores. To identify how the SDM Process score classified videos, area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The correlation between SDM Process score and SDM-Q-9 assessed construct validity. Heterogeneity analyses were conducted. Results In the sample of 388 participants (68% white, 70% female, average age 45 years) good-quality videos received higher SDM Process scores than poor-quality videos ( Ps < 0.001), and those who viewed the good-quality high cholesterol video first tended to rate the videos higher. SDM Process scores were related to SDM-Q-9 scores ( rs > 0.58; Ps < 0.001). AUC was poor (0.69) for the high cholesterol model and fair (0.79) for the colorectal cancer model. Heterogeneity analyses suggested individual differences were predictive of SDM Process scores. Conclusion SDM Process scores showed good evidence of validity in a hypothetical scenario but were lacking in ability to classify good-quality or poor-quality videos accurately. Considerable heterogeneity of scoring existed, suggesting that individual differences played a role in evaluating good- or poor-quality SDM conversations.

PATIENT KNOWLEDGE RETENTION FOLLOWING SHARED DECISION-MAKING FOR LUNG CANCER SCREENING

CHEST Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 156 (4) ◽  
pp. A5
Author(s):  
Erin Hirsch ◽  
Melissa New ◽  
Anna Baron ◽  
Stephen Malkoski
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Knowledge Retention ◽  
Patient Knowledge ◽  
Shared Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document