scholarly journals Exploring healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making in rheumatology

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
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Exact Test

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.

scholarly journals Medical Students’ Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Shared Decision Making: Results From a Multinational, Cross-Sectional Survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 238146831988587
Author(s):  
Renata W. Yen ◽  
Paul J. Barr ◽  
Nan Cochran ◽  
Johanna W. Aarts ◽  
France Légaré ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Risk Communication ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
The United States ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Convenience Sample

Introduction. We aimed to conduct a multinational cross-sectional online survey of medical students’ attitudes toward, knowledge of, and experience with shared decision making (SDM). Methods. We conducted the survey from September 2016 until May 2017 using the following: 1) a convenience sample of students from four medical schools each in Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands ( n = 12), and 2) all medical schools in the United Kingdom through the British Medical School Council ( n = 32). We also distributed the survey through social media. Results. A total of 765 students read the information sheet and 619 completed the survey. Average age was 24, 69% were female. Mean SDM knowledge score was 83.6% (range = 18.8% to 100%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 82.8% to 84.5%). US students had the highest knowledge scores (86.2%, 95% CI = 84.8% to 87.6%). The mean risk communication score was 57.4% (range = 0% to 100%; 95% CI = 57.4% to 60.1%). Knowledge did not vary with age, race, gender, school, or school year. Attitudes were positive, except 46% believed SDM could only be done with higher educated patients, and 80.9% disagreed that physician payment should be linked to SDM performance (increased with years in training, P < 0.05). Attitudes did not vary due to any tested variable. Students indicated they were more likely than experienced clinicians to practice SDM (72.1% v. 48.8%). A total of 74.7% reported prior SDM training and 82.8% were interested in learning more about SDM. Discussion. SDM knowledge is high among medical students in all four countries. Risk communication is less well understood. Attitudes indicate that further research is needed to understand how medical schools deliver and integrate SDM training into existing curricula.

Knowledge of, and attitudes to, shared decision-making in orthodontics in the UK

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 294-302
Author(s):  
Sophy K Barber ◽  
Fiona Ryan ◽  
Susan J Cunningham
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Treatment Providers ◽  
The Uk

Objective: To establish UK orthodontic treatment providers’ knowledge of, and attitudes to, shared decision-making (SDM). SDM involves patients as equal partners in decisions about treatment. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Online survey across the UK. Population: Dentists and orthodontists providing orthodontic treatment in the UK. Methods: Potential participants were contacted through the British Orthodontic Society mailing lists. An online survey was developed to examine knowledge of, and attitudes to, SDM using a combination of evidence-based statements and free text boxes. Questions regarding previous training in SDM and preferences for further training were also included. Results: The survey was completed by 210 respondents, yielding an approximate response rate of 15%. Respondents were mainly consultants (34%) and specialist orthodontists (42%). SDM was well described in terms of the people involved in this process, how it is approached, the components and topics of discussion, and the overall purpose of SDM. Generally, there was consistency in attitudinal responses, with the largest variance in responses to questions about the professional–patient partnership, the interface between SDM and clinical guidelines, and accepting a decision that is discordant with the professional’s opinion. Fifty-one respondents reported having some previous teaching/training in SDM, with the majority (87%) indicating that they would like more training. Conclusion: Clinicians providing orthodontic treatment in the UK have a good understanding of the meaning of shared decision-making. Concerns raised about using SDM and knowledge gaps suggest there is value in providing SDM training for the orthodontic team and that orthodontic providers would welcome it.

Treatment Decision Needs of Psoriasis Patients: Cross-sectional Survey

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 233-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry Tan ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Karen Fung ◽  
Benjamin Barankin ◽  
Robert Bissonnette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Medical Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Values

Background: Informed shared decision making is a mutual process engaging both doctor and patient and informed by best medical evidence and patient values and preferences. Objective: Our aim was to identify the needs of psoriasis patients in decisions on selecting treatment. Methods: Psoriasis subjects participated in an online survey on decisional role, postdecisional conflict, and treatment awareness. Results: Of 2,622 people invited to participate, 248 completed surveys. Their most recent treatment decision was either made by subjects alone (42%) or physicians alone (28%) or was shared (29%). Subjects perceived that their doctors lacked time to stay abreast of treatments, to provide counseling, and to access appropriate treatments. Deficiencies most frequently identified were information on options, clarification of values, access to physicians, and decision-making skills. Those with a body surface area (BSA) ≥ 3% more frequently indicated that having the skill or ability to make treatment decisions was important. Limitations: The limitations of this study include sampling, recall, and reporting bias. Percent BSA was not verified. Conclusions: The multiple deficiencies in support of psoriasis patients in treatment decisions may preclude informed shared decision making.

scholarly journals Continuing professional education of Iranian healthcare professionals in shared decision-making: lessons learned

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi ◽  
Charo Rodriguez ◽  
Jordie Croteau ◽  
Alireza Sadeghpour ◽  
Amir-Mohammad Navali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Professional Education ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Facilitators And Barriers ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background In this study, we sought to assess healthcare professionals’ acceptance of and satisfaction with a shared decision making (SDM) educational workshop, its impact on their intention to use SDM, and their perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation of SDM in clinical settings in Iran. Methods We conducted an observational quantitative study that involved measurements before, during, and immediately after the educational intervention at stake. We invited healthcare professionals affiliated with Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, East Azerbaijan, Iran, to attend a half-day workshop on SDM in December 2016. Decisions about prenatal screening and knee replacement surgery was used as clinical vignettes. We provided a patient decision aid on prenatal screening that complied with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards and used illustrate videos. Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and a questionnaire to assess their familiarity with SDM, a questionnaire based on theoretical domains framework to assess their intention to implement SDM, a questionnaire about their perceived facilitators and barriers of implementing SDM in their clinical practice, continuous professional development reaction questionnaire, and workshop evaluation. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively and with multiple linear regression. Results Among the 60 healthcare professionals invited, 41 participated (68%). Twenty-three were female (57%), 18 were specialized in family and emergency medicine, or community and preventive medicine (43%), nine were surgeons (22%), and 14 (35%) were other types of specialists. Participants’ mean age was 37.51 ± 8.64 years with 8.09 ± 7.8 years of clinical experience. Prior to the workshop, their familiarity with SDM was 3.10 ± 2.82 out of 9. After the workshop, their belief that practicing SDM would be beneficial and useful (beliefs about consequences) (beta = 0.67, 95% CI 0.27, 1.06) and beliefs about capability of using SDM (beta = 0.32, 95% CI -0.08, 0.72) had the strongest influence on their intention of practicing SDM. Participants perceived the main facilitator and barrier to perform SDM were training and high patient load, respectively. Conclusions Participants thought the workshop was a good way to learn SDM and that they would be able to use what they had learned in their clinical practice. Future studies need to study the level of intention of participants in longer term and evaluate the impact of cultural differences on practicing SDM and its implementation in both western and non-western countries.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 2128
Author(s):  
Marta Maes-Carballo ◽  
Manuel Martín-Díaz ◽  
Luciano Mignini ◽  
Khalid Saeed Khan ◽  
Rubén Trigueros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Professional Societies ◽  
New Policies

Objectives: To assess shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge, attitude and application among health professionals involved in breast cancer (BC) treatment. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study based on an online questionnaire, sent by several professional societies to health professionals involved in BC management. There were 26 questions which combined demographic and professional data with some items measured on a Likert-type scale. Results: The participation (459/541; 84.84%) and completion (443/459; 96.51%) rates were high. Participants strongly agreed or agreed in 69.57% (16/23) of their responses. The majority stated that they knew of SDM (mean 4.43 (4.36–4.55)) and were in favour of its implementation (mean 4.58 (4.51–4.64)). They highlighted that SDM practice was not adequate due to lack of resources (3.46 (3.37–3.55)) and agreed on policies that improved its implementation (3.96 (3.88–4.04)). The main advantage of SDM for participants was patient satisfaction (38%), and the main disadvantage was the patients’ paucity of knowledge to understand their disease (24%). The main obstacle indicated was the lack of time and resources (40%). Conclusions: New policies must be designed for adequate training of professionals in integrating SDM in clinical practice, preparing them to use SDM with adequate resources and time provided.

Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-59
Author(s):  
Gisèle Diendéré ◽  
Imen Farhat ◽  
Holly Witteman ◽  
Ruth Ndjaboue
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Risk Communication ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Values Clarification ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Consultations

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document