scholarly journals A Novel Tool to Improve Shared Decision Making and Adherence in Multiple Sclerosis: Development and Preliminary Testing

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 238146831987913
Author(s):  
Nananda Col ◽  
Enrique Alvarez ◽  
Vicky Springmann ◽  
Carolina Ionete ◽  
Idanis Berrios Morales ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Beta Testing

Background. Most people with multiple sclerosis (MS) want to be involved in medical decision making about disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but new approaches are needed to overcome barriers to participation. Objectives. We sought to develop a shared decision-making (SDM) tool for MS DMTs, evaluate patient and provider responses to the tool, and address challenges encountered during development to guide a future trial. Methods. We created a patient-centered design process informed by image theory to develop the MS-SUPPORT SDM tool. Development included semistructured interviews and alpha and beta testing with MS patients and providers. Beta testing assessed dissemination and clinical integration strategies, decision-making processes, communication, and adherence. Patients evaluated the tool before and after a clinic visit. Results. MS-SUPPORT combines self-assessment with tailored feedback to help patients identify their treatment goals and preferences, correct misperceptions, frame decisions, and promote adherence. MS-SUPPORT generates a personal summary of their responses that patients can share with their provider to facilitate communication. Alpha testing (14 patients) identified areas needing improvement, resulting in reorganization and shortening of the tool. MS-SUPPORT was highly rated in beta testing (15 patients, 4 providers) on patient-provider communication, patient preparation, adherence, and other endpoints. Dissemination through both patient and provider networks appeared feasible. All patient testers wanted to share the summary report with their provider, but only 60% did. Limitations. Small sample size, no comparison group. Conclusions. The development process resulted in a patient-centered SDM tool for MS that may facilitate patient involvement in decision making, help providers understand their patients’ preferences, and improve adherence, though further testing is needed. Beta testing in real-world conditions was critical to prepare the tool for future testing and inform the design of future studies.

scholarly journals Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure

2020 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2097787
Author(s):  
K. D. Valentine ◽  
Ha Vo ◽  
Floyd J. Fowler ◽  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Michael J. Barry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Decision Quality ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Partial Credit ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Process Scale

Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity. Method Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results. Results Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality ( d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores ( d = 0.57, P < 0.001), and lower decision regret ( d = −0.34, P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was present in all validity analyses. Limitations Included studies all focused on surgical decisions, several had small sample sizes, and many were retrospective. Conclusion SDM Process scores showed resilience to coding changes, and a scheme using the short, partial credit, with equal weights was adopted. The SDM Process scores demonstrated a small, positive relationship with decision quality and were consistently related to lower decision conflict and less regret, providing evidence of validity across several surgical decisions.

scholarly journals Patient autonomy in dental medical decision making – demonstrating the need for shared decision making

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mareike Benecke ◽  
Jürgen Kasper ◽  
Christoph Heesen ◽  
Nina Schäffler ◽  
Daniel Reissmann
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Study Results

Abstract Background: Evidence-based Dentistry (EBD), decision aids, patient preferences and autonomy preferences (AP) play an important role in shared decision making (SDM) and are useful tools in the process of medical and dental decisions as well as in developing of quality criteria for decision making in many fields of health care. However, there aren’t many studies on SDM and AP in the field of dentistry. This study aimed at exploring patients’ autonomy preferences in dentistry in comparison to other medical domains. Methods: As a first step, a consecutive sample of 100 dental patients and 16 dentists was recruited at a university-based prosthodontic clinic to assess and compare patients’ and dentists’ preferences regarding their roles in dental decision making for commonly performed diagnostic and treatment decisions using the Control Preference Scale (CPS). This was followed by a cross sectional survey to study autonomy preferences in three cohorts of 100 patients each recruited from general practices, a multiple sclerosis clinic, and a university-based prosthodontic clinic . A questionnaire with combined items from the Autonomy Preference Index (API) to assess general and the CPS to assess specific preferences was used in this process. Results: Dentists were slightly less willing to deliver control than patients willing to enact autonomy. Decisions about management of tooth loss were however considered relevant for a shared decision making by both parties. Highest AP was expressed by people with multiple sclerosis, lowest by patients in dentistry (CPS means: dentistry 2.5, multiple sclerosis 2.1, general practice 2.4, p=.035). Patients analysis showed considerable differences in autonomy preferences referring to different decision types (p<.001). More autonomy was needed for treatment decisions in comparison to diagnostic decisions, for trivial compared to severe conditions, and for dental care compared to general practice (all: p<.001). Conclusion: The study results showed substantial relevance of patient participation in decision making in dentistry. Furthermore, a need has been discovered to refer to specific medical decisions instead of assessing autonomy preferences in general.

scholarly journals Patient autonomy in dental medical decision making – is there a need for shared decision making?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mareike Benecke ◽  
Jürgen Kasper ◽  
Christoph Heesen ◽  
Nina Schäffler ◽  
Daniel Reissmann
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Study Results

Abstract Background: Evidence-based Dentistry (EBD), decision aids, patient preferences and autonomy preferences (AP) play an important role in shared decision making (SDM) and are useful tools in the process of medical and dental decisions as well as in developing of quality criteria for decision making in many fields of health care. However, there aren’t many studies on SDM and AP in the field of dentistry. This study aimed at exploring patients’ autonomy preferences in dentistry in comparison to other medical domains. Methods: As a first step, a consecutive sample of 100 dental patients and 16 dentists was recruited at a university-based prosthodontic clinic to assess and compare patients’ and dentists’ preferences regarding their roles in dental decision making for commonly performed diagnostic and treatment decisions using the Control Preference Scale (CPS). This was followed by a cross sectional survey to study autonomy preferences in three cohorts of 100 patients each recruited from general practices, a multiple sclerosis clinic, and a university-based prosthodontic clinic. A questionnaire with combined items from the Autonomy Preference Index (API) to assess general and the CPS to assess specific preferences was used in this process. Results: Dentists were slightly less willing to deliver control than patients willing to enact autonomy. Decisions about management of tooth loss were however considered relevant for a shared decision making by both parties. Highest AP was expressed by people with multiple sclerosis, lowest by patients in dentistry (CPS means: dentistry 2.5, multiple sclerosis 2.1, general practice 2.4, p=.035). Patients analysis showed considerable differences in autonomy preferences referring to different decision types (p<.001). More autonomy was needed for treatment decisions in comparison to diagnostic decisions, for trivial compared to severe conditions, and for dental care compared to general practice (all: p<.001). Conclusion: The study results showed substantial relevance of patient participation in decision making in dentistry. Furthermore, a need has been discovered to refer to specific medical decisions instead of assessing autonomy preferences in general.

scholarly journals Shared Decision Making and Autonomy Among US Participants with Multiple Sclerosis in the NARCOMS Registry

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 303-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacey S. Cofield ◽  
Nina Thomas ◽  
Tuula Tyry ◽  
Robert J. Fox ◽  
Amber Salter
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Research Committee ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

Background: Treatment decisions in multiple sclerosis (MS) are affected by many factors and are made by the patient, doctor, or both. With new disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) emerging, the complexity surrounding treatment decisions is increasing, further emphasizing the importance of understanding decision-making preferences. Methods: North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry participants completed the Fall 2014 Update survey, which included the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). The CPS consists of five images showing different patient/doctor roles in treatment decision making. The images were collapsed to three categories: patient-centered, shared, and physician-centered decision-making preferences. Associations between decision-making preferences and demographic and clinical factors were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of 7009 participants, 79.3% were women and 93.5% were white (mean [SD] age, 57.6 [10.3] years); 56.7% reported a history of relapses. Patient-centered decision making was most commonly preferred by participants (47.9%), followed by shared decision making (SDM; 42.8%). SDM preference was higher for women and those taking DMTs and increased with age and disease duration (all P &lt; .05). Patient-centered decisions were most common for respondents not taking a DMT at the time of the survey and were preferred by those who had no DMT history compared with those who had previously taken a DMT (P &lt; .0001). There was no difference in SDM preference by current MS disease course after adjusting for other disease-related factors. Conclusions: Responders reported most commonly considering their doctor's opinion before making a treatment decision and making decisions jointly with their doctor. DMT use, gender, and age were associated with decision-making preference.

scholarly journals Examining Interventions Designed to Support Shared Decision Making and Subsequent Patient Outcomes in Palliative Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawon Baik ◽  
Hwayoung Cho ◽  
Ruth M. Masterson Creber
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a key attribute of patient-centered care, which empowers palliative care patients to be able to make optimal medical decisions about end-of-life treatments based on their own values and preferences. Aim: The aim of this systematic literature review is to detail and compare interventions supporting SDM over the last 10 years (January 2008 to December 2017) and to analyze patient/caregiver outcomes at the end of life. Methods: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched with key search terms: SDM, decision aid, decision support, palliative care, and hospice care. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Results: The initial search yielded 2705 articles, and 12 studies were included in the final review. The quality of the studies was modest and technology-enabled delivery modes (e.g., video, DVD, web-based tool) were most commonly used. Patient/caregiver knowledge of end-of-life care was the most common primary outcome across studies. The strength of the association between the SDM interventions and patient/caregiver outcomes varied. Conclusion: The findings from the studies that examined the effects of the SDM intervention on patient outcomes were inconsistent, highlighting the need for further SDM intervention studies among diverse patient populations using consistent measures. Given the availability of health technologies, future studies should focus on developing individual-tailored, technology-enabled interventions to support patient-centered medical decision making.

Reflections on Shared Decision Making

2018 ◽  
Vol 159 (5) ◽  
pp. 809-810
Author(s):  
John J. Chi
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Patient Adherence ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Values And Beliefs

Decisions about medical and surgical treatment can be complex—even for health care providers, who can struggle with which treatment option to offer their patients. In the current landscape of patient-centric value-based health care, the need for appropriate medical decision making to maximize treatment outcomes is evermore important. Shared decision making is a process in which clinicians and patients make decisions together using the best available evidence while accounting for the patients’ values and beliefs. A patient-centered approach has been associated with improved patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and patient adherence to treatment. Only by taking a collaborative care approach among patients, physicians, and caregivers can we hope to deliver the best possible care and improve our outcomes for each and every patient.

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
John D. Lantos
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Health Care Environment ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
History Of ◽  
Forgoing Treatment

Shared decision making between doctors and patients has become the norm in medical decision making. There are three good reasons why there has been a shift from the traditional paternalistic model to a more bilateral and patient-centered model. First, the nature of medical knowledge has changed. Better understanding of the natural history of disease led to situations in which doctors had knowledge about their patients’ illnesses before the patients themselves had any symptoms of disease. In those situations, doctors need to disclose the diagnosis and the risks of forgoing treatment. Second, many modern therapies are initially worse than the diseases they treat. Again, explanations are necessary to convince the patient that the short-term risks and side effects are worth it to achieve the long-term benefits. Finally, there is often no single best treatment. Reasonable people can disagree about whether they’d trade off a slight increase in the chance of long-term survival for a worse quality of life. All of these changes create a health care environment in which both doctors and patients have more information than they have ever had before. That information makes decisions more complex. This chapter introduces the chapters in this book by which clinicians and philosophers try to clarify, critique, and understand the concept of shared decision making. In doing so, they use terms like “labyrinth,” “overwhelming,” “uncertainty,” and “dread.” Shared decision making as an ideal is inspiring and empowering but also frightening and somewhat ambiguous. This book tries to help doctors and patients navigate the complexities.

scholarly journals OpenNotes and shared decision making: a growing practice in clinical transparency and how it can support patient-centered care

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 1153-1159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan J Fossa ◽  
Sigall K Bell ◽  
Catherine DesRoches
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Clinical Notes ◽  
Binomial Regression ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Efficient Information

Abstract Objective Prior studies suggest inviting patients to read their visit notes (OpenNotes) has important benefits for patient engagement. We utilized survey data to investigate our hypothesis that patients who read more notes would report greater shared decision making (SDM). Materials and Methods Our survey focused on the safety and quality implications of OpenNotes. 24 722 patients at an urban healthcare organization were invited to complete the survey, which included an item assessing the number of notes read and the CollaboRATE scale to measure SDM. We used log-binomial regression to estimate the relative probability of top CollaboRATE scores across number of notes read while controlling for several covariates. Results 6913 patients responded (28% response rate). Patients reading 4+ clinical notes in the past 12 months were 17% more likely to have top CollaboRATE scores when compared to patients who had not read a note in the previous 12 months (RR: 1.17, 95%CI: 1.04-1.32). Discussion There is a clear relationship between what SDM requires and the transparency OpenNotes provides. Access to clinicians’ notes can support the SDM model, which relies on efficient information exchange between clinicians and well-informed patients. Conclusion Our study showed evidence of a relationship between note reading and perceived SDM. Implementation of SDM is likely to expand, given its association with improved patient satisfaction, adherence, and medical decision making. Findings from this study highlight OpenNotes as a policy that institutions can implement as a facilitator of SDM and a manifestation of their commitment to patient autonomy and transparency.

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Behavior Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

Prudence in Shared Decision-Making: The Missing Link between the “Technically Correct” and the “Morally Good” in Medical Decision-Making

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Muleli Kioko ◽  
Pablo Requena Meana
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Autonomy ◽  
Intellectual Ability ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Physician Patient Relationship ◽  
Good Healing ◽  
The Right ◽  
Physician Patient

Abstract Shared Decision-Making is a widely accepted model of the physician–patient relationship providing an ethical environment in which physician beneficence and patient autonomy are respected. It acknowledges the moral responsibility of physician and patient by promoting a deliberative collaboration in which their individual expertise—complementary in nature, equal in importance—is emphasized, and personal values and preferences respected. Its goal coincides with Pellegrino and Thomasma’s proximate end of medicine, that is, a technically correct and morally good healing decision for and with a particular patient. We argue that by perfecting the intellectual ability to apprehend the complexity of clinical situations, and through a perfection of the application of the first principles of practical reason, prudence is able to point toward the right and good shared medical decision. A prudent shared medical decision is therefore always in keeping with the kind of person the physician and the patient have chosen to be.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document