scholarly journals Independence of Coping Styles With the Patient–Doctor Relationship and Shared Decision-Making in People With Parkinson’s Disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 1271-1277
Author(s):  
Cynthia Sarabia-Tapia ◽  
Teresa Corona ◽  
Susana Lopez-Alamillo ◽  
Etienne Resendiz-Henriquez ◽  
Amin Cervantes-Arriaga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Coping Style ◽  
Coping Styles ◽  
Mediating Effect ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional

Introduction: Coping styles have a mediating effect on several clinical outcomes. The patient–doctor relationship and the patient’s role in decision-making process might be influenced by the way the patient reacts to certain stressors or problems due to the evolution of their disease. Objective: To assess the role of coping strategies on the patient–doctor relationship and the patient’s role in decision-making in a group of people with Parkinson’s disease (PD). Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out. The Coping Style Questionnaire (CSQ-40), the 9-item Patient–Doctor Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ-9), and the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) were applied. Results: A total of 36 women and 64 men with PD were included. The predominant coping style in women was rational. In men, the detachment style was more frequent. The SDM-Q-9 mean score was 33.2 ± 11.2 (transformed median score of 80). The PDRQ-9 average score was 2.9 ± 1 (sum score of 26.1 ± 8.7). No association was found between the CSQ-40 with the PDRQ-9 or SDM-Q-9. On the other hand, the PDRQ-9 mean score and the transformed SDM-Q-9 score highly correlated ( r = 0.62, P < .001). Conclusion: Patient–doctor relationship and shared decision-making are independent of the coping style in people with PD.

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 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

Usability and Perceived Usefulness of the AFib 2gether™ Mobile App in a Clinical Setting: Single-Arm Intervention Study (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alok Kapoor ◽  
Anna Hayes ◽  
Jay Patel ◽  
Harshal Patel ◽  
Andreza Andrade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Mobile App ◽  
Perceived Usefulness ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Item Questionnaire

BACKGROUND Although the American Heart Association and other professional societies have recommended shared decision-making as a way for patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) to reach informed decisions about using anticoagulation (AC), the best method of facilitating shared decision-making remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to assess the AFib 2gether™ mobile app for usability, perceived usefulness, and extent and nature of shared decision making that occurred for clinical encounters between patients with AF and their cardiology providers in which the app was used. METHODS We identified patients coming to see a cardiology provider from October 2019 until May 2020. We measured usability from patients and providers through the mobile app rating scale (MARS). From the eight items of the MARS, we report the average score (out of 5) for domains of functionality, aesthetics, and overall quality. We administered a three-item questionnaire to patients relating to their perceived usefulness and a separate three-item questionnaire to providers to measure their perceived usefulness. We performed a chart review to track AC starts occurring within 6 months of the index visit. We also audio-recorded a subset of encounters to identify evidence of shared decision-making. RESULTS We facilitated shared decision-making visits for 37 patients seeing 13 providers. In terms of usability, patients’ ratings of functionality, aesthetics, and overall quality were (average ± standard deviation): 4.51 ± 0.61, 4.26 ± 0.51, and 4.24 ± 0.89, respectively. In terms of usefulness, 40% of patients agreed that the app improved their knowledge regarding AC and 62% agreed that the app helped clarify to their provider, their preferences regarding AC. Among providers, 79% agreed that the app helped clarify their patients’ preferences; 82% agreed that the app saved them time; and 59% agreed that the app helped their patients make decisions about AC. Additionally, 12 patients started AC after their shared decision-making visits. We audio-recorded 25 encounters. Of these encounters, 84% included mention of AC for AF, 44% included discussion of multiple options for AC, 72% included a provider recommendation for AC, and 48% included evidence of patient involvement in the discussion. CONCLUSIONS Patients and providers rated the app with high usability and perceived usefulness. Moreover, a third of patients began AC and in nearly ½ the encounters, there was evidence of patient involvement in decision-making. In the future, we plan to study the effect of the app in a larger sample and with a controlled study design. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04118270. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-21986

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document