Shared Decision-Making and Risk Communication Attitudes and Practices--Teacher Questionnaire

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klazine van der Horst ◽  
Max Giger ◽  
Michael Siegrist
2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-59
Author(s):  
Gisèle Diendéré ◽  
Imen Farhat ◽  
Holly Witteman ◽  
Ruth Ndjaboue

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 87-87
Author(s):  
Nirupa Jaya Raghunathan ◽  
Deborah Korenstein ◽  
Nassim Anderson ◽  
Roberto Adsuar ◽  
Emily S. Tonorezos ◽  
...  

87 Background: There are currently over a million survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult (CAYA) cancer in the US, many of whom were treated with radiation therapy. Chest radiation with fields including the coronary arteries is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Of note, survivors are often unaware of this increased CVD risk or, if they are aware, do not know how to mitigate the risk. Visual aids and communicating risk in terms of absolute risk reductions are shown to improve patients’ understanding. The Institute of Medicine recommends use of decision aids to optimize patient discussions of benefits and harms of therapies. Our goal is to develop and pilot test a statin therapy risk communication tool for use in high-risk cancer survivors to improve shared decision making and patient knowledge of coronary artery disease risk. Methods: The Statin Risk Communication Tool, modeled after the validated Statin Choice decision aid, presents a pictorial representation of absolute risk of coronary heart disease risk in survivors of CAYA cancer treated with radiation to the chest. The intervention also presents data depicting absolute risk reduction of myocardial infarction with use of statins in similar risk populations (≥7.5% baseline risk). This pilot study compares the statin risk communication tool to usual care. The post-visit assessment uses Likert-like scales to explore patient perceptions of statin use, knowledge questions to assess patient understanding of the risks and benefits of using statins and the validated 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale to measure decisional satisfaction. We will also survey participants three months after introduction of the tool to ascertain statin use and attitudes towards the discussion of statins. Results: The timeline for data collection anticipates analyzable results by August 2017. Conclusions: This risk communication tool will be assessed for acceptability, knowledge enhancement, and decisional conflict. Additionally, we will gather qualitative data regarding usual care. With this information, a future randomized controlled trial across institutions could provide information on how CAYA survivors approach shared decision making with risk communication tools. Clinical trial information: NCT02895880.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 180-180
Author(s):  
Christina Mangir ◽  
Leigh Boehmer ◽  
Sandra E. Kurtin ◽  
Lalan S. Wilfong ◽  
Rena Kass ◽  
...  

180 Background: Patients who engage in decision making are more likely to experience confidence in treatment decisions, satisfaction with treatment, and trust in clinicians. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) conducted a survey to explore multidisciplinary team attitudes and practices around shared decision-making (SDM) and health literacy. Methods: ACCC convened a steering committee of multidisciplinary specialists and advocacy representatives to guide this research. The survey included 26 mostly closed-ended questions and was open to multidisciplinary cancer programs from 10/29/19 to 2/20/20. Exploratory analysis was performed on this data set of 305 complete responses. Results: While most respondents reported engaging patients in decision-making to some degree, only 50% reported that SDM is a top organizational priority. 33% reported organizational efforts to formally integrate SDM into the clinical workflow, with only 15% indicating staff opportunities for basic SDM training. The three most frequently cited perceived barriers to engaging in SDM were patients feeling overwhelmed (53%), wanting to defer decisions to clinicians (46%), and having limited health literacy (46%). Only 13% indicated that lack of time was a barrier. Less than half (41%) of respondents reported using patient decision aids to support SDM. Respondents represented a wide range of multidisciplinary team members, though surgical oncologists and general surgeons (20% and 16% respectively) are overrepresented in the results. Conclusions: SDM is commonly accepted as essential to patient engagement but clarity in terminology and prioritizing formal integration of SDM into practice is limited. Strategies to improve integration of SDM into oncology practice should include: 1) Educational initiatives and tools to overcome barriers to SDM, including patient decision aids and SDM training, 2) Initiatives to address health literacy as it relates to patient and caregiver engagement in decision making, 3) Psychosocial support for patients whose emotional upset is a barrier to SDM, 4) Healthcare policies that encourage and incentive providers to engage in SDM. Future analyses will require concurrent assessment of patient, caregiver, healthcare professional, and administrator perspectives.


2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pia Kirkegaard ◽  
Adrian GK Edwards ◽  
Bo Hansen ◽  
Mette D Hansen ◽  
Morten SA Jensen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document