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

Strategies for implementing shared decision making in elective surgery by health care practitioners: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 582-601
Author(s):  
Clarabelle Pham ◽  
Lucylynn Lizarondo ◽  
Jonathan Karnon ◽  
Edoardo Aromataris ◽  
Zachary Munn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Health Care Practitioners

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.

scholarly journals Values-Based Practice When Engaging with Voice-Hearers

2020 ◽  
pp. 297-304
Author(s):  
Rosalind Austin
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Definition Of

AbstractThis chapter explores the values issues arising in voice-hearing through the resources of a new skills-based approach to working with values called values-based practice. The chapter is focused on the experiences of two voice-hearers, Paul and Mary, so as to highlight the diversity of ways that people experience voice-hearing, and how a correspondingly nuanced way of supporting voice-hearers is needed. It employs an inclusive definition of values covering anything that matters or is important to the person concerned. The chapter demonstrates that values-based practice in voice-hearing supports shared decision-making when working with values challenges in health care. Both Paul’s and Mary’s stories offer illustrations of the complex and sometimes conflicting values associated with voice-hearing.

scholarly journals Measurement issues of shared decision making in mental health: challenges and opportunities

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 214-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez ◽  
Amado Rivero-Santana ◽  
Yolanda Alvarez-Perez ◽  
Yaara Zisman-Ilani ◽  
Emma Kaminskiy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Psychometric Validation ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Deliberative Process ◽  
Content Type

Purpose Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of health care in which patients are involved in the decision-making process about their treatment, considering their preferences and concerns in a deliberative process with the health care provider. Many existing instruments assess the antecedents, process, or the outcomes of SDM. The purpose of this paper is to identify the SDM-related measures applied in a mental health context. Design/methodology/approach The authors performed a systematic review in several electronic databases from 1990 to October 2016. Studies that assessed quantitatively one or more constructs related to SDM (antecedents, process, and outcomes) in the field of mental health were included. Findings The authors included 87 studies that applied 48 measures on distinct SDM constructs. A large majority of them have been developed in the field of physical diseases and adapted or directly applied in the mental health context. The most evaluated construct is the SDM process in consultation, mainly by patients’ self-report but also by external observer measures, followed by the patients’ preferences for involvement in decision making. The most applied instrument was the Autonomy Preference Index, followed by the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) and the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). The psychometric validation in mental health samples of the instruments identified is scarce. Research limitations/implications The bibliographic search is comprehensive, but could not be completely exhaustive. Effort should be invested in the development of new SDM for mental health tools that will reflect the complexity and specific features of mental health care. Originality/value The authors highlight several limitations and challenges for the measurement of SDM in mental health care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document