scholarly journals Assessing medical student knowledge and attitudes about shared decision making across the curriculum: protocol for an international online survey and stakeholder analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. e015945 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Anne Durand ◽  
Renata Yen ◽  
Paul J Barr ◽  
Nan Cochran ◽  
Johanna Aarts ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 568.2-568
Author(s):  
L. Kranenburg ◽  
M. Dankbaar ◽  
N. Basoski ◽  
W. Van den Broek ◽  
J. Hazes

Background:The training curriculum for rheumatologists in training in the Netherlands describes competences and entrusted professional activities (EPA) to monitor the progress in learning. However, this training program does not discuss training of Shared Decision Making. As the basis for shared care and patient participation is made during these years, the question arises how rheumatologist in training think about Shared Decision Making and how they use this in daily practice.Objectives:Inventory of vision, experience and self-evaluation of skills related to Shared Decision Making amongst rheumatologists in training in the Netherlands in order to identify barriers in the implementation of Shared Decision Making in daily practice.Methods:Qualitative data was collected from on online survey amongst rheumatologists in training who were registered in January 2018 by the Dutch Society of Rheumatology.Results:Forty-two rheumatologists in training from various years of training responded (60%). Respondents think that Shared Decision Making is important. A third applies Shared Decision Making on a regular basis in daily practice. Self rating of skills for Shared Decision Making varies from sufficient to good. However, respondents are uncertain about their performance due to a lack of feedback and unclearness of the concept. They indicate that Shared Decision Making is not possible for all patients and find it difficult to assess whether the patient has a clear understanding of the options. Patient’s preferences are discussed only by 33% of the doctors on a regular basis when starting new treatment.Conclusion:Rheumatologists in training agree on the importance of Shared Decision Making, but are uncertain about their performance. Unclearness of the concept is described as a known barrier in literature1,2and is frequently mentioned by respondents. Rheumatologist in training indicate that not all patients are fit for Shared Decision Making. Regarding the limited training on the subject this could also be a misjudgment of patients preferences and lack of experience how to deal with different patient types. There is a clear plea for more training and feedback on the subject. Training should be integrated in the curriculum focusing on how to assess patients preferences and how to apply Shared Decision Making also for patients who indicate to leave decisions up to their doctor.References:[1]van Veenendaal, H.et al.Accelerating implementation of shared decision-making in the Netherlands: An exploratory investigation.Patient Educ Couns101, 2097-2104 (2018).[2]Legare, F., Ratte, S., Gravel, K. & Graham, I. D. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions.Patient Educ Couns73, 526-535 (2008).Disclosure of Interests:Laura Kranenburg Grant/research support from: Pfizer and UCB for the development of the Reuma App, a tool to support selfmanagement for patients. This is not used for the research related to the submitted abstract., Mary Dankbaar: None declared, Natalja Basoski: None declared, Walter Van den Broek: None declared, Johanna Hazes: None declared


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel C Forcino ◽  
Renata West Yen ◽  
Maya Aboumrad ◽  
Paul J Barr ◽  
Danielle Schubbe ◽  
...  

ObjectiveIn this study, we aim to compare shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge and attitudes between US-based physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians across surgical and family medicine specialties.SettingWe administered a cross-sectional, web-based survey between 20 September 2017 and 1 November 2017.Participants272 US-based NPs, PA and physicians completed the survey. 250 physicians were sent a generic email invitation to participate, of whom 100 completed the survey. 3300 NPs and PAs were invited, among whom 172 completed the survey. Individuals who met the following exclusion criteria were excluded from participation: (1) lack of English proficiency; (2) area of practice other than family medicine or surgery; (3) licensure other than physician, PA or NP; (4) practicing in a country other than the US.ResultsWe found few substantial differences in SDM knowledge and attitudes across clinician types, revealing positive attitudes across the sample paired with low to moderate knowledge. Family medicine professionals (PAs) were most knowledgeable on several items. Very few respondents (3%; 95% CI 1.5% to 6.2%) favoured a paternalistic approach to decision-making.ConclusionsRecent policy-level promotion of SDM may have influenced positive clinician attitudes towards SDM. Positive attitudes despite limited knowledge warrant SDM training across occupations and specialties, while encouraging all clinicians to promote SDM. Given positive attitudes and similar knowledge across clinician types, we recommend that SDM is not confined to the patient-physician dyad but instead advocated among other health professionals.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 516-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Sturgiss ◽  
Elizabeth Rieger ◽  
Emily Haesler ◽  
Matthew J Ridd ◽  
Kirsty Douglas ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Relational aspects of primary care are important, but we have no standard measure for assessment. The ‘working alliance’ incorporates elements of the therapeutic relationship, shared decision-making, goal setting and communication skills. The Working Alliance Inventory (short form) (WAI-SF) has been used in adult psychology, and a high score on the survey is associated with improved outcomes for clients. Objective To adapt the WAI-SF for use between GPs and patients and to test its concurrent validity with measures of shared decision-making and the doctor–patient relationship and discriminant validity with measures of social desirability. Methods Two rounds of online survey feedback from 55 GPs and 47 patients were used to adapt the WAI-SF—the WAI-GP. The tool was then completed by 142 patients in waiting rooms after seeing their GP and by 16 GPs at the end of their session. Concurrent validity with measures of shared decision-making and patient–doctor depth of relationship was determined using Spearman Rho correlations. Patients also completed two social desirability surveys, and discriminant validity with WAI-GP was assessed. Results Following feedback, the survey was re-worded to remove phrases that were perceived as judgmental or irrelevant. The patient measure of the WAI-GP was strongly correlated with Dyadic OPTION (rho = 0.705, P = 0.0001) and Patient–Doctor Depth of Relationship scale (rho = 0.591, P = 0.0001) and not with measures of social desirability. Conclusion The psychometric properties of the WAI-GP support its use for measuring GP-patient alliance. Possibilities for use include assessing the influence of therapeutic alliance on the effectiveness of interventions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 238146831989145
Author(s):  
Jamie L. Studts ◽  
Richard J. Thurer ◽  
Kory Brinker ◽  
Sarah E. Lillie ◽  
Margaret M. Byrne

Background. Recent data and policy decisions have led to the availability of lung cancer screening (LCS) for individuals who are at increased risk of developing lung cancer. In establishing implementation policies, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services required that individuals who meet eligibility criteria for LCS receive a patient counseling and shared decision-making consultation prior to LCS. Methods. This study evaluated the potential of a values clarification/preference elicitation exercise and brief educational intervention to reduce decisional conflict regarding LCS. Participants ( N = 210) completing a larger online survey responded to a measure of decisional conflict prior to and following administration of a conjoint survey and brief educational narrative about LCS. The conjoint survey included 22 choice sets (two of which were holdout cards), incorporating 5 attributes with 17 levels. Results. Results pertaining to changes in decisional conflict showed that participants reported statistically significantly and clinically meaningful reductions in decisional conflict following administration of the brief educational narrative and conjoint survey across the total score (Δ = 29.30; d = 1.09) and all four decisional conflict subscales: Uncertainty (Δ = 27.75; d = 0.73), Informed (Δ = 35.32; d = 1.11), Values Clarity (Δ = 31.82; d = 0.85), and Support (Δ = 18.78; d = 0.66). Discussion. While the study design precludes differentiating the effects of the brief educational narrative and the conjoint survey, data suggest that these tools offer a reasonable approach to clarifying personal beliefs and perspectives regarding LCS participation. Given the complicated nature of LCS decisions and recent policies advocating informed and shared decision-making approaches, conjoint surveys should be evaluated as one of the tools that could help individuals make choices about LCS participation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 779-779
Author(s):  
Soyeon Cho ◽  
Jung Kwak ◽  
Brian Hughes ◽  
George Hands ◽  
Moon Lee

Abstract Healthcare chaplains have key roles in palliative care including facilitating advance care planning (ACP). However, little is known about chaplains’ competency in ACP. We conducted an online survey with board-certified healthcare chaplains recruited from three major professional chaplains’ organizations. We explored correlates of chaplains’ competency in ACP facilitation among two groups of chaplains, general and special care (SC) chaplains (chaplains in oncology, intensive care, or palliative units) because SC chaplains are generally more involved in palliative care. The final sample included 481 chaplains with 89.8% reporting ACP as an important part of their work and 71.3% reporting to help patients complete advance directives. There was no significant difference in ACP competency between general chaplain group (n=240; M=39.61, SD=7.0) and SC chaplain group (n=241; M=40.65, SD=5.87). Hierarchical regression analyses revealed differences between the groups. General chaplains who practiced longer as a chaplain (b=1.02, p<.000), were more engaged in ACP facilitation (b=1.06, p<.05), had more positive attitude toward ACP (b=4.04, p<.000), and reported a higher level of participation in shared decision-making with other team members (b=.75, p<.000) were more competent in ACP facilitation. In the SC chaplain group, higher competency was associated with more positive attitude towards ACP (b=2.58, p <.05), and a higher level of participation in shared decision-making (b=1.05, p <.000). Overall, these findings suggest that healthcare chaplains, both general and special care, are competent and actively involved in ACP facilitation. Further systematic studies are warranted to examine the effects of chaplains facilitating ACP on patient and healthcare system outcomes.


RMD Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e001121
Author(s):  
Elke G E Mathijssen ◽  
Bart J F van den Bemt ◽  
Sabien Wielsma ◽  
Frank H J van den Hoogen ◽  
Johanna E Vriezekolk

ObjectivesTo explore physicians’ and nurses’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making (SDM) in rheumatology, to identify barriers and facilitators to SDM, and to examine whether physicians’ and nurses’ perspectives of SDM differ.MethodsA cross-sectional, exploratory, online survey was used. Besides demographic characteristics, healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences of SDM in rheumatology were assessed. Barriers and facilitators to SDM were identified from healthcare professionals’ answers. Descriptive statistics were computed and differences between physicians’ and nurses’ perspectives of SDM were examined with a t-test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate.ResultsBetween April and June 2019, 77 physicians and 70 nurses completed the survey. Although most healthcare professionals lacked a full conceptual understanding of SDM, almost all physicians (92%) and all nurses had a (very) positive attitude toward SDM, which was most frequently motivated by the belief that SDM improves patients’ treatment adherence. The majority (>50%) of healthcare professionals experienced problems with the application of SDM in clinical practice, mostly related to time constraints. Other important barriers were the incompatibility of SDM with clinical practice guidelines and beliefs that patients do not prefer to be involved in decision making or are not able to take an active role. Modest differences between physicians’ and nurses’ perspectives of SDM were found.ConclusionsThere is a clear need for education and training that equips and empowers healthcare professionals to apply SDM. Furthermore, the commitment of time, resources and financial support for national, regional and organisational initiatives is needed to make SDM in rheumatology a practical reality.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea O Hagopian ◽  
Teresa B Ades ◽  
Thomas M Hagopian ◽  
Erik M Wolfswinkel ◽  
W Grant Stevens

Abstract Background Best practice for informed consent in aesthetic plastic surgery is a process of shared decision-making, yet evidence strongly suggests this is not commonly reflected in practice nor is it supported by traditional informed consent documents (ICD). Falsely held beliefs by clinicians about shared decision-making may contribute to its lack of adoption. Objective The authors sought to understand the baseline attitudes, beliefs, and practices of informed consent among board-certified plastic surgeons with a primarily aesthetics practice. Methods A 15-question online survey was emailed to active members of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Items included demographics, Likert scales, free-text, acceptability, and 1 question seeking consensus on general information all patients must understand before any surgery. Results This survey yielded a 13% response rate with a 52% completion rate across 10 countries and 31 US states. A total of 69% were very or extremely confident that ICD contain evidence-based information, but 63% were not at all or not so confident in ICD effectiveness of prompting patients to teach-back essential information. A total of 50% believed surgical ICD should be reviewed annually. Eighty-six percent reported assistance with patient education during informed consent. Members of professional plastic surgery societies should be a source of evidence for content (free-text). A total of 64% were somewhat to very satisfied with the survey and 84% will probably to definitely participate in future related surveys. Conclusions The findings echo concerns in the literature that ICD are focused on disclosure instead of patient understanding. There is notable concern regarding information overload and retention but less regarding the quality and completeness of information. Current culture suggests key clinician stakeholders are amenable to change.


Author(s):  
Brennan Hodgson Kim ◽  
Dalia M. Feltman ◽  
Simone Schneider ◽  
Constance Herron ◽  
Andres Montes ◽  
...  

Objective The study aimed to better understand how neonatology and maternal fetal medicine (MFM) physicians convey information during antenatal counseling that requires facilitating shared decision-making with parents facing options of resuscitation versus comfort care after extremely early delivery Study Design Attending physicians at US centers with both Neo and MFM fellowships were invited to answer an original online survey about antenatal counseling for extremely early newborns. The survey assessed information conveyed, processes for facilitating shared decision-making (reported separately), and clinical experiences. Neonatology and MFM responses were compared. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed topics often and seldom discussed by specialty groups with respect to respondents' clinical experience and resuscitation option preferences at different gestational weeks. Results In total, 74 MFM and 167 neonatologists representing 94% of the 81 centers surveyed responded. Grouped by specialty, respondents were similar in counseling experience and distribution of allowing choices between resuscitation and no resuscitation for delivery at specific weeks of gestational ages. MFM versus neonatology reported similar rates of discussing long-term health and developmental concerns and differed in all other categories of topics. Neonatologists were less likely than MFM to discuss caregiver impacts (odds ratio [OR]: 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11–0.18, p < 0.001) and comfort care details (OR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.15–0.25, p < 0.001). Conversely, neonatology versus MFM respondents more frequently reported “usually” discussing topics pertaining to parenting in the NICU (OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.2–1.8, p < 0.001) and those regarding stabilizing interventions in the delivery room (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.4–2.2, p < 0.001). Compared with less-experienced respondents, those with 17 years’ or more of clinical experience had greater likelihood in both specialties to say they “usually” discussed otherwise infrequently reported topics pertaining to caregiver impacts. Conclusion Parents require information to make difficult decisions for their extremely early newborns. Our findings endorse the value of co-consultation by MFM and neonatology clinicians and of trainee education on antenatal consultation education to support these families. Key Points


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 164.1-164
Author(s):  
C. Jacklin ◽  
A. Bosworth

Background:The introduction of 4 adalimumab biosimilars was challenging for the health service and patients alike. A group of patient organisations representing rheumatology, dermatology and gastroenterology patients worked with NHS England in producing materials for disseminating information to prescribers and patients to ensure smooth and appropriate transition to biosimilar products from the originator product as appropriate. These patient groups wanted to know how the ‘switch’ process was implemented and if shared decision making was practiced.Objectives:To gather patient feedback on biosimilar switch process and report findings back to NHS England as well as provide the patient organisations information to develop any future resources to help improve patient and physician shared decision making.Methods:A working group of the 4 organisations collaborated on designing an online survey asking questions around how the individual was communicated with regarding their treatment being switched to a biosimilar; was there any choice or perceived input into the decision making process; how queries or issues were handled and overall satisfaction on how the individual felt their personal preferences/needs were met.Results:899 useable responses were gathered representing 52% Rheumatology patients; 42% Gastroenterology patients and 5% Dermatology patients with remaining 1% more complex specialties. More than half of patients were not asked for their consent before their treatment was switched to a biosimilar of adalimumab with only 40% giving consent 7% couldn’t remember or were unsure if consent was given. 75% were not at all satisfied or not satisfied with the ability to decline being switched with only 12% feeling that they had been given an option to decline being switched.Conclusion:Shared Decision Making (SDM) needs to be put into action not just words. There is a clear majority that are dissatisfied with the communication they had prior to the switch and are very dissatisfied with the lack of patient engagement in the decision-making process. NRAS, NASS, Crohn’s & Colitis UK and the Psoriasis Association will continue to collaborate with NHS England and other stakeholders as appropriate to make Shared Decision Making a reality not just rhetoric.Acknowledgments:National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society UK; Crohns’ & Colitis UK;Psorarsis Association, UK; National Rheumatoid Arthritis SocietyDisclosure of Interests:Clare Jacklin Grant/research support from: NRAS has received grants from pharmaceutical companies to carry out a number of projects, Consultant of: I have been paid a speakers fee to participate in advisory boards, in house training of staff and health professional training opportunities, Speakers bureau: Various pharma companies, Ailsa Bosworth Speakers bureau: a number of pharmaceutical companies for reasons of inhouse training, advisory boards etc.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document