Relationship Between Parental Intolerance of Uncertainty and Decisional Conflict in Pediatric Otolaryngologic Surgery

2020 ◽  
pp. 019459982097364
Author(s):  
Chelsea Cleveland ◽  
Vijay A. Patel ◽  
Shari A. Steinman ◽  
Reena Razdan ◽  
Michele M. Carr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Sex Education ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Intolerance Of Uncertainty ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Pediatric Otolaryngology ◽  
State Worry

Objective To assess the relationship between depression, anxiety, stress, worry, intolerance of uncertainty (IU), and shared decision making (SDM) in parents of pediatric otolaryngology surgical patients with their perceptions of decisional conflict (DC). Study Design Cross-sectional. Setting Academic pediatric otolaryngology outpatient clinic. Methods Participants were legal guardians of pediatric patients who met criteria for otolaryngologic surgery. Participants completed a demographic survey as well as validated Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS); Shared Decision-Making Scale (SDMS); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale–21 (DASS-21); Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ); and short form of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS-12). Results A total of 114 participants were enrolled. Respondents were predominantly female (93.0%) and married (60.5%). Most guardians had not consented previously for otolaryngologic surgery for their child (69.3%). Participants reported low levels of DC and depression as well as moderate levels of anxiety and stress. DC scores were not significantly correlated to DASS-21, PSWQ, or SDM. IUS-12 Total and subscale IUS-12 prospective negatively correlated with Total DC. DC was not related to age, sex, education level, previous otolaryngologic surgery, or type of surgery recommended. Conclusion In this group, an association was found between IU and DC. Clinicians should be aware that DC is not modified by previous surgical experience. Interventions aimed at addressing parental IU related to surgery may reduce DC. Further research efforts could help us understand how mental health relates to surgical decision making.

scholarly journals Shared Decision Making in Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Full Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Kacper Niburski ◽  
Elena Guadagno ◽  
Dan Poenaru
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Librarian ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Shared decision-making (SDM), the process where physician and patient reach an agreed-upon choice by understanding the values, concerns, and preferences inherent within each treatment option available, has been increasingly implemented in clinical practice to better health care outcomes. Despite the proven efficacy of SDM to provide better patient-guided care in medicine, its use in surgery has not been studied widely. A search strategy was developed with a medical librarian. It included nine databases from inception until December 2018. After a 2-person title and abstract screen, full-text publications were analyzed in detail. A meta-analysis was done to quantify the impact of SDM in surgical specialties. In total 5,596 studies were retrieved. After duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were screened, and p-values were recorded, 140 (45 RCTs and 95 cross-sectional studies) were used for the systematic review and 42 for the meta-analyses. Most of the studies noted decreased intervention rate (8 of 14), decisional conflict (13 of 16), and decisional regret (3 of 3), and an increased decisional satisfaction (9 of 12), knowledge (19 of 20), SDM preference (6 of 8), and physician trust (3 of 4) when using SDM. Time increase per patient encounter was inconclusive. The meta-analysis showed that despite high heterogeneity, the results were significant. Far from obviating surgical immediacy, these results suggest that SDM is vital for the best indicators of care. With decreased conflict and anxiety, increasing knowledge and satisfaction, and creating a more whole, trusting relationship, SDM appears to be beneficial in surgery.

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.

scholarly journals US-based cross-sectional survey of clinicians’ knowledge and attitudes about shared decision-making across healthcare professions and specialties

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel C Forcino ◽  
Renata West Yen ◽  
Maya Aboumrad ◽  
Paul J Barr ◽  
Danielle Schubbe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Knowledge And Attitudes ◽  
Positive Attitudes

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.

scholarly journals EFFECTS OF A SHARED DECISION MAKING INTERVENTION FOR OLDER ADULTS WITH CHRONIC CONDITIONS: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S296-S297
Author(s):  
Ruth E Pel-Littel ◽  
Bianca Buurman ◽  
Marjolein van de Pol ◽  
Linda Tulner ◽  
Mirella Minkman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Abstract Shared decision making (SDM) in older patients is more complex when multiple chronic conditions (MCC) have to be taken into account. The aim of this research is to explore the effect of the evidence based implementation intervention SDMMCC on (1) the preferred and perceived participation (2) decisional conflict and (3) actual SDM during consultations. 216 outpatients participated in a video observational study. The intervention existed of a SDM training for geriatricians and a preparatory tool for patients. Consultations were videotaped and coded with the OPTIONMCC. Pre- and post-consultation questionnaires were completed. Participation was measured by the Patients’ perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS). Decisional conflict was measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The patients mean age was 77 years, 56% was female. The preparatory tool was completed by 56 older adults (52%), of which 64% rated the tool as positive. The preparatory tool was used in 12% of the consultations. The mean overall OPTIONMCC score showed no significant changes on the level of SDM(39.3 vs 39.3 P0.98), however there were significant improvements on discussing goals and options on sub-items of the scale. There were no significant differences found in the match on preferred and perceived participation (86.5% vs 85.0% P 0.595) or in decisional conflict (22.7 vs 22.9 P0.630). The limited use of the preparatory tool could have biased the effect of the intervention. In future research more attention must be paid towards the implementation of preparatory tools, not only among patients but also among geriatricians.

scholarly journals Adaption and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory for General Practice: qualitative review and cross-sectional surveys

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 516-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Sturgiss ◽  
Elizabeth Rieger ◽  
Emily Haesler ◽  
Matthew J Ridd ◽  
Kirsty Douglas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Working Alliance ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Social Desirability ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Working Alliance Inventory

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.

scholarly journals The Association Between Patients' eHealth Literacy and Satisfaction With Shared Decision-making and Well-being: Multicenter Cross-sectional Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Huan Xu ◽  
Ling-Ming Zhou ◽  
Eliza Lai-Yi Wong ◽  
Dong Wang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Background Characteristics ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Ehealth Literacy ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Relationship

BACKGROUND Although previous studies have shown that a high level of health literacy can improve patients’ ability to engage in health-related shared decision-making (SDM) and improve their quality of life, few studies have investigated the role of eHealth literacy in improving patient satisfaction with SDM (SSDM) and well-being. OBJECTIVE This study aims to assess the relationship between patients’ eHealth literacy and their socioeconomic determinants and to investigate the association between patients’ eHealth literacy and their SSDM and well-being. METHODS The data used in this study were obtained from a multicenter cross-sectional survey in China. The eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) and Investigating Choice Experiments Capability Measure for Adults were used to measure patients’ eHealth literacy and capability well-being, respectively. The SSDM was assessed by using a self-administered questionnaire. The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to compare the differences in the eHEALS, SSDM, and Investigating Choice Experiments Capability Measure for Adults scores of patients with varying background characteristics. Ordinary least square regression models were used to assess the relationship among eHealth literacy, SSDM, and well-being adjusted by patients’ background characteristics. RESULTS A total of 569 patients completed the questionnaire. Patients who were male, were highly educated, were childless, were fully employed, were without chronic conditions, and indicated no depressive disorder reported a higher mean score on the eHEALS. Younger patients (SSDM<sub>≥61 years</sub>=88.6 vs SSDM<sub>16-30 years</sub>=84.2) tended to show higher SSDM. Patients who were rural residents and were well paid were more likely to report good capability well-being. Patients who had a higher SSDM and better capability well-being reported a significantly higher level of eHealth literacy than those who had lower SSDM and poorer capability well-being. The regression models showed a positive relationship between eHealth literacy and both SSDM (<i>β</i>=.22; <i>P</i>&lt;.001) and well-being (<i>β</i>=.26; <i>P</i>&lt;.001) after adjusting for patients’ demographic, socioeconomic status, lifestyle, and health status variables. CONCLUSIONS This study showed that patients with a high level of eHealth literacy are more likely to experience optimal SDM and improved capability well-being. However, patients’ depressive status may alter the relationship between eHealth literacy and SSDM. CLINICALTRIAL

The Promise of Electronic Health Records to Promote Shared Decision Making: A Narrative Review and a Look Ahead

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (8) ◽  
pp. 1040-1045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alyce Mei-Shiuan Kuo ◽  
Berry Thavalathil ◽  
Glyn Elwyn ◽  
Zsuzsanna Nemeth ◽  
Stuti Dang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Electronic Health Records ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Look Ahead ◽  
The Face ◽  
Electronic Health ◽  
The Impact

Background. Shared decision making (SDM) involves the sharing of best available evidence between patients and providers in the face of difficult decisions. We examine outcomes that occur when electronic health records (EHRs) are purposefully used with the goal of improving SDM and detail which EHR functions can benefit SDM. Methods. A systematic search of PubMed yielded 1369 articles. Studies were included only if they used EHR interventions to support SDM and included results that showed impact on SDM. Articles were excluded if they did not measure the impact of the intervention on SDM or did not discuss how SDM had been supported by the EHR. Results. Five studies demonstrated improved clinical outcomes, positive lifestyle behavior changes, more deliberation from patients regarding use of imaging, and less decisional conflict about medication use among patients with use of EHRs aiding SDM. Discussion. Few EHRs have integrated SDM, and even fewer evaluations of these exist. EHRs have potential in supporting providers during all steps of SDM. The promise of EHRs to support SDM has yet to be fully exploited.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document