scholarly journals Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans ◽  
Dima Mohammed
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Institutional Constraints ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
The Ideal

In this paper it is first investigated to what extent the institutional goal and basic principles of shared decision making are compatible with the aim and rules for critical discussion. Next, some techniques that doctors may use to present their own treatment preferences strategically in a shared decision making process are discussed and evaluated both from the perspective of the ideal of shared decision making and from that of critical discussion.

scholarly journals Using argumentation theory to identify the challenges of shared decision-making when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia A. Zanini ◽  
Sara Rubinelli
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Communication Skills ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Ideal Model ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
The Ideal

This paper aims to identify the challenges in the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion. It analyses the preconditions of the resolution of this difference of opinion by using an analytical and normative framework known in the field of argumentation theory as the ideal model of critical discussion. This analysis highlights the communication skills and attitudes that both doctors and patients must apply in a dispute resolution-oriented communication. Questions arise over the methods of empowerment of doctors and patients in these skills and attitudes as the preconditions of SDM. Overall, the paper highlights aspects in which research is needed to design appropriate programmes of training, education and support in order to equip doctors and patients with the means to successfully engage in shared decision-making.

scholarly journals Navigating the Decision Space: Shared Medical Decision Making as Distributed Cognition

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 1035-1048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine D. Lippa ◽  
Markus A. Feufel ◽  
F. Eric Robinson ◽  
Valerie L. Shalin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Distributed Cognition ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Decision Space

Despite increasing prominence, little is known about the cognitive processes underlying shared decision making. To investigate these processes, we conceptualize shared decision making as a form of distributed cognition. We introduce a Decision Space Model to identify physical and social influences on decision making. Using field observations and interviews, we demonstrate that patients and physicians in both acute and chronic care consider these influences when identifying the need for a decision, searching for decision parameters, making actionable decisions Based on the distribution of access to information and actions, we then identify four related patterns: physician dominated; physician-defined, patient-made; patient-defined, physician-made; and patient-dominated decisions. Results suggests that (a) decision making is necessarily distributed between physicians and patients, (b) differential access to information and action over time requires participants to transform a distributed task into a shared decision, and (c) adverse outcomes may result from failures to integrate physician and patient reasoning. Our analysis unifies disparate findings in the medical decision-making literature and has implications for improving care and medical training.

A pragma-dialectical perspective on obstacles to shared decision-making

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roosmaryn Pilgram ◽  
Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Systematic Account ◽  
Dialectical Theory ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Argumentative Discussion ◽  
Dialectical Perspective

Abstract Shared medical decision-making has been analyzed as a particular kind of argumentative discussion. In the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, different types of conditions and rules are formulated for the ideal of a reasonable argumentative discussion. In this paper, we shall first show how making use of the distinctions made in the pragma-dialectical theory between different types of conditions for reasonable discussion can help to give a more systematic account of the obstacles that need to be overcome for shared decision-making to be successful. Next, by referring to the rules for critical discussion, we shall provide a more detailed explanation than can be found in the literature on health communication of why certain types of conduct of the participants in the medical encounter can be analyzed as obstacles to the goal of shared decision-making.

Patient attendance at molecular tumor board: A new means of shared decision making?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18001-e18001
Author(s):  
Timothy Lewis Cannon ◽  
Donald L. Trump ◽  
Laura Knopp ◽  
Hongkun Wang ◽  
Tiffani DeMarco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Team ◽  
Level Of Satisfaction ◽  
Holistic Method ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

e18001 Background: Patient engagement in medical decision-making improves patient related outcomes through compliance and patient satisfaction. The Inova Schar Cancer Institute (ISCI) has a weekly molecular tumor board (MTB) to match comprehensive genomic sequencing results with targeted therapies for patients. The ISCI MTB invites patients to attend and engage in the MTB discussion. We performed a pilot study to investigate the feasibility and satisfaction in patients who attended MTB. Methods: During the time of this study, August 2017 through October 2018, 139 patients were presented and all 20 who were able to attend MTB completed pre-and post- MTB surveys. Patients who did not attend were either not invited by their primary oncologist, unable to attend, or chose not to attend. The survey included six questions related to comprehension, engagement, and satisfaction with the treatment team. Results: There was a statistically significant change for the question “I am satisfied with how well informed I am about targeted therapy” with p = 0.016. All 20 patients answered positively that it was beneficial for them to attend. Many patients expressed concerns about their difficulty understanding the technical aspects of the meeting. Conclusions: Patients who attended MTB reported a higher level of satisfaction after MTB attendance as compared to before MTB. This may reflect a sense of engagement in shared decision making rather than comprehension of genomic information. A more holistic method of studying this practice would include sampling a larger patient population and a formal evaluation of the physicians’ experience with patients attending. Supported by philanthropic funds from the Inova Schar Cancer Institute.

scholarly journals Shared decision making in mild cognitive impairment

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea M. Mejia ◽  
Glenn E. Smith ◽  
Meredith Wicklund ◽  
Melissa J. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Mild Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Medical Evidence

Shared decision making (SDM) occurs when patients and clinicians consider patients' values and preferences while discussing medical evidence to inform healthcare decisions. SDM enables patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to express values and preferences when making current healthcare decisions and presents a unique opportunity to inform future decision making in the case of further cognitive decline. However, clinicians often fail to facilitate SDM with patients with MCI. This review describes research pertaining to value solicitation, weighing of the medical evidence, and medical decision making for individuals with MCI, explores the role of caregivers, identifies barriers to and facilitators of SDM in MCI, and suggests strategies to optimize SDM for persons with MCI in neurology clinical practice. Further research is needed to identify more strategies for decision support for individuals affected by cognitive impairment.

Prudence in Shared Decision-Making: The Missing Link between the “Technically Correct” and the “Morally Good” in Medical Decision-Making

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Muleli Kioko ◽  
Pablo Requena Meana
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Autonomy ◽  
Intellectual Ability ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Physician Patient Relationship ◽  
Good Healing ◽  
The Right ◽  
Physician Patient

Abstract Shared Decision-Making is a widely accepted model of the physician–patient relationship providing an ethical environment in which physician beneficence and patient autonomy are respected. It acknowledges the moral responsibility of physician and patient by promoting a deliberative collaboration in which their individual expertise—complementary in nature, equal in importance—is emphasized, and personal values and preferences respected. Its goal coincides with Pellegrino and Thomasma’s proximate end of medicine, that is, a technically correct and morally good healing decision for and with a particular patient. We argue that by perfecting the intellectual ability to apprehend the complexity of clinical situations, and through a perfection of the application of the first principles of practical reason, prudence is able to point toward the right and good shared medical decision. A prudent shared medical decision is therefore always in keeping with the kind of person the physician and the patient have chosen to be.

scholarly journals Patient engagement, treatment preferences and shared decision-making in the treatment of opioid use disorder in adults: a scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler Marshall ◽  
Elizabeth N Kinnard ◽  
Myles Hancock ◽  
Susanne King-Jones ◽  
Karin Olson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Cochrane Database

IntroductionOpioid use disorder (OUD) is characterised by the fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual as a problematic pattern of opioid use (eg, fentanyl, heroin, oxycodone) that leads to clinically significant impairment. OUD diagnoses have risen substantially over the last decade, and treatment services have struggled to meet the demand. Evidence suggests when patients with chronic illnesses are matched with their treatment preferences and engaged in shared decision-making (SDM), health outcomes may improve. However, it is not known whether SDM could impact outcomes in specific substance use disorders such as OUD.Methods and analysisA scoping review will be conducted according to Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and by recommendations from Levacet al. The search strategy was developed to retrieve relevant publications from database inception and June 2017. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database for Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews and reference lists of relevant articles and Google Scholar will be searched. Included studies must be composed of adults with a diagnosis of OUD, and investigate SDM or its constituent components. Experimental, quasi-experimental, qualitative, case–control, cohort studies and cross-sectional surveys will be included. Articles will be screened for final eligibility according to title and abstract, and then by full text. Two independent reviewers will screen excluded articles at each stage. A consultation phase with expert clinicians and policy-makers will be added to set the scope of the work, refine research questions, review the search strategy and identify additional relevant literature. Results will summarise whether SDM impacts health and patient-centred outcomes in OUD.Ethics and disseminationScoping review methodology is considered secondary analysis and does not require ethics approval. The final review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, disseminated at relevant academic conferences and will be shared with policy-makers, patients and clinicians.

scholarly journals Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure

2020 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2097787
Author(s):  
K. D. Valentine ◽  
Ha Vo ◽  
Floyd J. Fowler ◽  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Michael J. Barry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Decision Quality ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Partial Credit ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Process Scale

Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity. Method Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results. Results Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality ( d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores ( d = 0.57, P < 0.001), and lower decision regret ( d = −0.34, P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was present in all validity analyses. Limitations Included studies all focused on surgical decisions, several had small sample sizes, and many were retrospective. Conclusion SDM Process scores showed resilience to coding changes, and a scheme using the short, partial credit, with equal weights was adopted. The SDM Process scores demonstrated a small, positive relationship with decision quality and were consistently related to lower decision conflict and less regret, providing evidence of validity across several surgical decisions.

scholarly journals Treatment Choice in Adolescents With Cleft Lip and/or Palate: The Importance of Shared Decision-Making

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (9) ◽  
pp. 1220-1229
Author(s):  
Francesca Wogden ◽  
Alyson Norman ◽  
Louise Dibben
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Young People ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Pediatric Dentist ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Inductive Thematic Analysis

Objective: Limited research has studied the involvement of children in medical decision-making. The aim of the study was to understand the involvement of adolescents with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) in decisions about elective surgeries and treatments. Design: Parents and professionals completed mixed-methods questionnaires about the degree to which children had been involved in choices about elective treatments. Data were analyzed using content analysis. Young people aged 12 to 25 years were asked to take part in semistructured interviews. The data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Setting: Questionnaire data collection took place online, and interview data were collected via messenger or telephone-based interviews. Participants: The study employed 30 participants; 11 young people (3 male, 8 female), 17 parents (13 mothers, 4 fathers), and 5 professionals (2 surgeons, 2 speech and language therapists, and 1 pediatric dentist). Results: Five main themes were identified. These reflected participants feeling that with increasing age should come increased involvement in decision-making and that it was important for adolescents to “have a voice” during decision-making. Parents, peers, and health professionals were identified as influencing decisions. Most adolescents reported overall satisfaction with their involvement in decision-making but sometimes felt “left in the dark” by professionals or under pressure from parents. A desire to improve speech and/or appearance was as an area where adolescents wanted to be more involved in decision-making. Conclusions: Shared decision-making is an important factor for psychological well-being by promoting autonomy and self-esteem among adolescents with CL/P.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document