Conditions for shared decision making in the care of transgender youth in Canada

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth A Clark ◽  
Alice Virani ◽  
Sheila K Marshall ◽  
Elizabeth M Saewyc
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Hormone Therapy ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Open Communication ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Trans Youth

Abstract Information is lacking on the role shared decision making plays in the care of transgender (trans) youth. This qualitative, descriptive study explored how trans youth, parents and health care providers engaged or did not engage in shared decision-making practices around hormone therapy initiation and what conditions supported shared decision-making approaches in clinical practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 47 participants in British Columbia, Canada, and analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach. While formal shared decision-making models were not used in practice, many participants described elements of such approaches when asked about their health care decision-making processes. Others described health care interactions that were not conducive to a shared decision-making approach. The key finding that emerged through this analysis was a set of five conditions for supporting shared decision making when making decisions surrounding initiation of hormone therapy with trans youth. Both supportive relationships and open communication were necessary among participants to support shared decision making. All parties needed to agree regarding what decisions were to be made and what role each person would play in the process. Finally, adequate time was needed for decision-making processes to unfold. When stakeholders meet these five conditions, a gender-affirming and culturally safer shared decision-making approach may be used to support decision making about gender-affirming care. Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed.

The Influence of Family Ties on Men’s Prostate Cancer Screening, Biopsy, and Treatment Decisions

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 461-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric K. Shaw ◽  
John G. Scott ◽  
Jeanne M. Ferrante
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Open Communication ◽  
Relational Dynamics ◽  
Family Ties

Extensive research has focused on understanding family dynamics of men with prostate cancer. However, little qualitative work has examined the role of family ties on men’s prostate cancer decisions across the spectrum of screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Using data from a larger study, we qualitatively explored the influence of family ties on men’s prostate cancer decisions. Semistructured interviews were conducted with men ages ≥50 ( N = 64), and data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach and a series of immersion/crystallization cycles. Three major themes of spousal/family member influence were identified: (a) spousal/family member alliance marked by open communication and shared decision making, (b) men who actively opposed spouse/family member pressure and made final decisions themselves, and (c) men who yielded to spouse/family member pressure. Our findings provide insights into men’s relational dynamics that are important to consider for the shared decision-making process across the prostate cancer spectrum.

scholarly journals Plain Language Summary: Opioid Prescribing for Analgesia After Common Otolaryngology Operations

2021 ◽  
Vol 164 (4) ◽  
pp. 704-711
Author(s):  
Samantha Anne ◽  
Sandra A. Finestone ◽  
Allison Paisley ◽  
Taskin M. Monjur
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Opioid Prescribing

This plain language summary explains pain management and careful use of opioids after common otolaryngology operations. The summary applies to patients of any age who need treatment for pain within 30 days after having a common otolaryngologic operation (having to do with the ear, nose, or throat). It is based on the 2021 “Clinical Practice Guideline: Opioid Prescribing for Analgesia After Common Otolaryngology Operations.” This guideline uses available research to best advise health care providers, and it includes recommendations that are explained in this summary. Recommendations may not apply to every patient but can be used to facilitate shared decision making between patients and their health care providers.

A survey of health care practitioners’ attitudes toward shared decision‐making for choice of next birth after cesarean

Birth ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Munro ◽  
Elizabeth S. Wilcox ◽  
Leah K. Lambert ◽  
Monica Norena ◽  
Sarah Kaufman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Health Care Practitioners

Certified Patient Decision Aids: Solving Persistent Problems with Informed Consent Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thaddeus Mason Pope
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes

The legal doctrine of informed consent has overwhelmingly failed to assure that the medical treatment patients get is the treatment patients want. This Article describes and defends an ongoing shift toward shared decision making processes incorporating the use of certified patient decision aids.

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 Engaging Multidisciplinary Stakeholders to Drive Shared Decision-Making in Oncology

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Rocque ◽  
Ellen Miller-Sonnet ◽  
Alan Balch ◽  
Carrie Stricker ◽  
Josh Seidman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Oncology Practice ◽  
Development And Validation

Although recognized as best practice, regular integration of shared decision-making (SDM) approaches between patients and oncologists remains an elusive goal. It is clear that usable, feasible, and practical tools are needed to drive increased SDM in oncology. To address this goal, we convened a multidisciplinary collaborative inclusive of experts across the health-care delivery ecosystem to identify key principles in designing and testing processes to promote SDM in routine oncology practice. In this commentary, we describe 3 best practices for addressing challenges associated with implementing SDM that emerged from a multidisciplinary collaborative: (1) engagement of diverse stakeholders who have interest in SDM, (2) development and validation of an evidence-based SDM tool grounded within an established conceptual framework, and (3) development of the necessary roadmap and consideration of the infrastructure needed for engendering patient engagement in decision-making. We believe these 3 principles are critical to the success of creating SDM tools to be utilized both within and outside of clinical practice. We are optimistic that shared use across settings will support adoption of this tool and overcome barriers to implementing SDM within busy clinical workflows. Ultimately, we hope that this work will offer new perspectives on what is important to patients and provide an important impetus for leveraging patient preferences and values in decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document