Communicating risk and shared decision-making in osteopathic practice: A pilot study using focus groups to test a patient information leaflet

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 478-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.M. Janine Leach ◽  
Lisa Hodgson ◽  
Emmanuel Defever ◽  
Rachel Ives
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
Patient Information Leaflet ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Information Leaflet ◽  
Communicating Risk

P002 IBD PARTNERSHIPS: UNDERSTANDING PATIENTS VS. CLINICIANS PERSPECTIVES OF IBD TREATMENT OPTIONS TO IMPROVE SHARED DECISION-MAKING

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S51-S51
Author(s):  
Sandra Zelinsky ◽  
Catherine Finlayson
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Rural And Urban

Abstract Background The patient is the only constant in the care journey, the person who experiences both processes and the outcomes of care. There is an international shift towards including patients as equal partners in research. Co-producing research with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients to understand their values, needs and priorities when making treatment decisions will potentially improve shared decision-making between IBD patients and their Healthcare Providers (HCPs). To facilitate this process patients and HCPs must have a common understanding of expected medication benefits, risks and the potential impact on quality of life. The information available to facilitate this conversation must be aligned and reflect the priorities that IBD Patients and Healthcare Providers consider when making treatment decisions. Both parties can then share information and work towards an agreement to what treatment plan should be implemented. Aims To understand what matters most to IBD patients when making treatment decisions by conducting a qualitative patient-led peer to peer study which will inform the development of an IBD patient and HCP survey. Methods IBD patients (≥ 18 years of age) were recruited through the IBD clinic at the University of Calgary and via social media. Focus groups were held in three separate provinces (British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario) in both rural and urban locations. The focus groups were facilitated by a Patient Engagement Researcher to alleviate any potential power dynamics and to create a safe space for IBD patients to share their perspectives. A participatory action research approach was used to encourage co-production with participants throughout the focus groups. The focus groups were audio recorded. Flip charts and sticky notes were used for brainstorming and prioritization exercises. All audio and written data were transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to identify emerging themes and patient priorities. Results A total of 21 participants attended the focus groups from both rural and urban locations. Participant diversity ranged in ethnicity and age. Most of the participants were female (18 females and 3 males) of which 4 were biologic naïve and 17 were biologic exposed. The Top 5 IBD Patient Priorities when making treatment decisions are 1) Risks(more serious/long term) 2) Education(Support/Evidence Based Information/Resources) 3) Side Effects(short term/less serious) 4) Efficacy 5) Impact(Quality of Life/ Lifestyle/Logistics). Conclusions Co-producing research ‘with’ and ‘by’ IBD patients helped to generate priorities that matter most to patients when making treatment decisions. The patient priorities will help in the development of an IBD Patient and HCP survey. The results from the two surveys will be compared to understand patient vs. HCP perspectives.

scholarly journals Understanding shared decision-making experience among vulnerable population: Focus group with food bank clients

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Young Ji Lee ◽  
Tiffany Brazile ◽  
Francesca Galbiati ◽  
Megan Hamm ◽  
Cindy Bryce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Vulnerable Populations ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Therapeutic Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Food Bank

Abstract Introduction: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a critical component of delivering patient-centered care. Members of vulnerable populations may play a passive role in clinical decision-making; therefore, understanding their prior decision-making experiences is a key step to engaging them in SDM. Objective: To understand the previous healthcare experiences and current expectations of vulnerable populations on clinical decision-making regarding therapeutic options. Methods: Clients of a local food bank were recruited to participate in focus groups. Participants were asked to share prior health decision experiences, explain difficulties they faced when making a therapeutic decision, describe features of previous satisfactory decision-making processes, share factors under consideration when choosing between treatment options, and suggest tools that would help them to communicate with healthcare providers. We used the inductive content analysis to interpret data gathered from the focus groups. Results: Twenty-six food bank clients participated in four focus groups. All participants lived in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. Four themes emerged: prior negative clinical decision-making experience with providers, patients preparing to engage in SDM, challenges encountered during the decision-making process, and patients’ expectations of decision aids. Participants also reported they were unable to discuss therapeutic options at the time of decision-making. They also expressed financial concerns and the need for sufficiently detailed information to evaluate risks. Conclusion: Our findings suggest the necessity of developing decision aids that would improve the engagement of vulnerable populations in the SDM process, including consideration of affordability, use of patient-friendly language, and incorporation of drug–drug and drug–food interactions information.

Feasibility of Training Oncology Residents in Shared Decision Making: A Pilot Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 456-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Rajiv Samant ◽  
Mistrel Pratt ◽  
France Légaré
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals Independent and Web-Based Advice for Infertile Patients Using Fertility Consult: Pilot Study (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleida Gerarda Huppelschoten ◽  
Jan Peter de Bruin ◽  
Jan AM Kremer
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centeredness ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Online Platform ◽  
Centered Care

BACKGROUND Patient-centered care—that is, care tailored to personal wishes and needs of patients—has become increasingly important. It is especially relevant in health care areas where patients suffer from a high burden of disease, such as fertility care. At present, both diagnosis and treatment for infertile couples is provided at a single hospital. As a consequence, patients are not likely to receive optimal, independent advice regarding their fertility problems. Internet-based, independent advice could be feasible for large groups of patients because it is not limited by travel distance and overhead costs. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of both patients and professionals with an online platform using video consultations for patients with infertility seeking independent advice for their fertility problem. METHODS This pilot study evaluated an online platform, Fertility Consult, where patients with infertility can get independent advice by a gynecologist through a video consultation, thus eliminating the need of meeting the doctor physically. Semistructured interviews were performed with 2 gynecologists and the chairman of the Dutch patients association. This information was used for a patients’ questionnaire about their first experiences with Fertility Consult, including questions about the level of patient-centeredness and shared decision making, using the Patient-Centered Questionnaire-Infertility (PCQ-Infertility) and the CollaboRATE questionnaire, respectively. RESULTS Of the first 27 patients enrolled at Fertility Consult, 22 responded (82%). Most patients (82%) visited Fertility Consult for a second opinion, seeking more personal attention and independent advice. The mean level of patient-centeredness on the PCQ-Infertility questionnaire was 2.78 (SD 0.58) on a scale of 0 to 3. For the CollaboRATE questionnaire (scale 0-9), patients provided a median score of 8.0 (range 7-9) on all 3 questions about shared decision making. CONCLUSIONS Patients were satisfied with independent, well-prepared, Web-based advice; health care professionals felt they were able to provide patients with proper advice in a manner befitting patients’ needs, without any loss of quality. Future studies should focus more on the separation of advice and treatment and on Web-based consultations compared with face-to-face consultations to ascertain the possibility of increased patient involvement in the process to improve the level of patient-centered care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document