Shared Decision Making or Physician Advocate for a Particular Treatment Option: A Spectrum of Approaches to Decision Making about Disease Modifying Therapies in Sickle Cell Disease

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 4757-4757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nitya Bakshi ◽  
Cynthia Sinha ◽  
Diana Ross ◽  
Kirshma Khemani ◽  
George Loewenstein ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The decision-making process regarding therapeutic options in Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) can be complex. Disease modifying therapies such as hydroxyurea (HU), bone marrow transplantation (BMT) or chronic blood transfusion (CBT) are heterogeneous in their therapeutic intent, efficacy in preventing progression of disease, costs, acute complications, patient burden and long-term side effects. Both healthcare provider and patient-related factors may influence decision-making regarding these treatment options. That a majority of patients with SCD belong to minority underserved populations adds to the complexity of the decision-making in this group of patients. Shared decision making (SDM), a collaborative process that allows patients and their providers to make health care decisions together is preferred since it takes into account the best clinical evidence available, as well as the patient's values and preferences. There is a paucity of data on how physicians approach their conversations with patients regarding therapeutic options. The objective of this study was to determine the perspective of physicians with expertise in SCD and BMT regarding decision making about disease modifying therapy. Methods We enrolled a geographically diverse and nationally representative sample of physicians with expertise in the clinical management of SCD in this mixed methods study. We conducted and analyzed qualitative interviews focused on the physician perspective of patients' values, preferences and decisional needs in decision making regarding disease-modifying therapeutic options in SCD. These interviews were part of a larger study to understand decisional needs of patients with SCD in order to develop a decision aid for the therapeutic options in SCD. Open-ended semi-structured interviews were used to collect data. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used NVivo10 for analysis of qualitative data. We sought to understand the framework of discussion used by physicians for the various therapeutic options. Our analysis concentrated on how physicians engaged in discussions related to therapeutic options to reveal whether physicians facilitate the patient's decision process or intend to convince the patient of a treatment plan. Results We interviewed 37 physicians who were experts in pediatric or adult SCD or BMT. Twenty of the 37 were female. Physician narratives reflected high concern for the well-being of the patient and caregivers. Using content analysis, we categorized the physicians' narratives on a spectrum based on their degree of involvement in guiding decision making regarding disease modifying therapies. Narratives placed on one end of the spectrum were those where the physician frequently discussed patient involvement in the decision-making process. On the other end of the spectrum, we categorized physicians who were explicitly advocating for a particular treatment plan for the patient. Thus, the assumption was that this latter group of physicians entered into physician-patient conversations with a recommended therapeutic plan. We further analyzed the content of this spectrum to reveal what patient attributes influenced the physician's narrative. While all of the physicians in our study were advocates of patient education and active involvement, more than half of the narratives were explicitly promoting a particular therapeutic plan. Our analysis revealed that the degree of physician involvement was influenced by the perception of patient compliance, socio-economic barriers, and the patient's current clinical condition. Physicians who advocated a treatment option were more likely to discuss patient non-compliance and barriers as influencing their treatment decision. Moreover, many of these physicians were less likely to discuss all available treatment options, such as BMT. Conclusions Decision making regarding disease modifying therapy in SCD is complex and the approach of physicians ranges from SDM model to that of a physician advocating for a particular treatment. These data suggest the need for greater awareness of and education about the SDM model for patients and physicians. They provide the rationale for creating of decision support systems regarding disease-modifying therapies for SCD. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1581-1589
Author(s):  
Marisa P McGinley ◽  
Philip A Cola ◽  
Robert J Fox ◽  
Jeffrey A Cohen ◽  
John J Corboy ◽  
...  

Background: Therapeutic research in multiple sclerosis (MS) has focused on the development of treatments with little investigation regarding the possibility of discontinuation of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). Objective: To understand the opinion of individuals with MS concerning stopping DMTs and the factors that influence the decision-making process. Methods: A mixed method approach was used starting with three focus groups from which a survey was developed. This survey was sent to 1000 participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis registry who met inclusion criteria (age ⩾45 years; on most recent DMT for ⩾5 years). Descriptive analysis and structural equation modeling were used. Results: Of 1000 participants receiving the survey, 377 provided complete responses and met inclusion criteria. Only 11.9% of participants reported that if their disease was considered stable, they would consider coming off medications. A high level of external locus of control in influential others such as physicians significantly decreased the likelihood of considering discontinuation. Conclusions: Most individuals with MS report being unlikely to consider stopping MS therapy if their disease was considered “non-active.” As the results of studies concerning DMT discontinuation are obtained, information from providers will be an important part of individuals’ decision-making process.


2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 467-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bella Etingen ◽  
Jennifer N Hill ◽  
Laura J Miller ◽  
Alan Schwartz ◽  
Sherri L LaVela ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective To describe current practices used by Veterans Administration (VA) mental health (MH) providers involved in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment planning to support engagement of veterans with PTSD in shared decision-making (SDM). Methods Semi-structured interviews with MH providers (n = 9) were conducted at 1 large VA, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed deductively, guided by a published account of the integral SDM components for MH care. Results While discussing forming a cohesive team with patients, providers noted the importance of establishing rapport and assessing treatment readiness. Providers’ clinical knowledge/expertise, knowledge of the facility’s treatment options, knowledge of how to navigate the VA MH care system, and patient factors (goals/preferences, factors influencing treatment engagement) were noted as important to consider when patients and providers exchange information. When negotiating the treatment plan, providers indicated that conversations should include treatment recommendations and concurrent opportunities for personalization. They also emphasized the importance of discussions to finalize a mutually agreeable patient- and provider-informed treatment plan and measure treatment impact. Conclusion These results offer a preliminary understanding of VA MH providers’ facilitation of SDM for PTSD care. Findings may provide insights for MH providers who wish to engage patients with PTSD in SDM.


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6-6
Author(s):  
Jhosselini Cardenas Mori

6 Background: We aim to explore medical information-sharing and decision-making preferences of Hispanic patients in the Bronx. Methods: We are recruiting cancer patients who self-identify as Hispanic and are waiting at the oncology clinic at Montefiore Medical Center Cancer Center before an appointment. Results: To date we have interviewed 110 patients. The majority (60, 52.6%) preferred shared decision-making with their doctors, families or both, while 45 (39.5%) had an active decision-making style. A minority (9, 7.9%) had a passive decision-making style, deferring to their families and only 1 (0.9%) had a passive decision-making style deferring to the physician. The only demographic characteristic that was associated with decision-making preference was language; those who are English-speaking were more likely to endorse an active decision-making style (Chi2 = 7.06, p = 0.029) and less likely to endorse shared decision-making (Chi2 = 6.33, p = 0.042). The majority of patients agreed or strongly agreed that they wanted to hear all of the information regarding their diagnosis, treatment options, treatment expectation and treatment risks and benefits. Conclusions: These results confirm our hypothesis that most Hispanic patients prefer either an active or shared decision-making process rather than a passive decision-making process. Most patients prefer disclosure of diagnosis, prognosis and plan.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 17-18
Author(s):  
Amanda B. Blair ◽  
Kate Nammacher ◽  
Anne Jacobson ◽  
Jeffrey D Carter ◽  
Tamar Sapir

Background Evidence-based guidelines for hemophilia management support shared decision-making (SDM) as a method for personalizing treatment decisions and achieving hemophilia control. Using a validated collaborative learning model (Sapir 2017), we evaluated patient and healthcare provider (HCP) perceptions regarding SDM and hemophilia treatment. Methods From April to June 2020, 161 patients and caregivers of patients with hemophilia and 66 HCPs participated in 1 of 6 live, virtual collaborative learning sessions developed with the National Hemophilia Foundation (Table 1). Before and after the sessions, patients and their providers completed tethered surveys to assess alignments and discordances in preferences, experiences, and concerns around hemophilia treatment and SDM. Results Patients and HCPs differed in their estimates of how often providers engage their patients in components of SDM (Figure 1; all comparisons P < 0.01). Relative to patients' responses, HCPs were more likely to report that they usually or always: askhow hemophilia is affecting the patient's quality of life (50% vs 71%), ask about the patient's goals for treatment (48% vs 67%), explain their goals for hemophilia treatment (48% vs 67%), describe different treatment options (46% vs 67%), explain the pros/cons of each treatment option (45% vs 71%), and work with the patient to create a treatment plan that fits the patient's needs and goals (52% vs 74%). When asked why patients are not more involved in treatment decisions, HCPs were more likely than patients to select the following reasons: patients trust the care team to make decisions on their behalf (42% HCPs, 26% patients), patients lack knowledge about hemophilia and available therapies (30% HCPs, 15% patients), and patients feel too overwhelmed to make decisions (27% HCPs, 5% patients). Conversely, HCPs were less likely to report that patients are already fully involved in treatment decisions (15% HCPs, 46% patients). In addition, 10% of patients reported that they are not more involved in treatment decisions because their care team never asks about their treatment goals and priorities. Patients and HCPs held discordant beliefs about the degree of patients' progress toward treatment goals. While HCPs estimated that 79% of their patients are on track to meet their goals, only 49% of patients described themselves similarly; instead, 51% reported that they are only somewhat on track, not on track, or unsure about their degree of progress. Notably, during the past year, 49% of patients treated 2 or more bleeds at home and 22% had 2 or more bleeds treated at an ER. Regarding switching hemophilia treatments, HCPs overestimated patients' concerns about whether a new plan will work for the patient's type of hemophilia (39% HCPs, 25% patients) and fear of side effects (30% HCPs, 22% patients). By comparison, providers correctly estimated patients' low degree of concern about adapting to a new treatment schedule (9% HCPs, 11% patients) and knowing how to treat a bleed (9% HCPs, 7% patients), but underestimated patients' concern about affording different treatment (3% HCPs, 8% patients). In total, providers underestimated how many patients would not worry about switching treatment (8% HCPs, 19% patients). Following the collaborative learning sessions, patients set goals to talk to their care team about their treatment goals (45%), consider their treatment options more closely (40%), take a more active role in treatment decision-making (38%), and notify their care team with concerns about their treatment (31%). HCPs made commitments to engage their patients more frequently in SDM (52%), increase the variety of educational materials they provide to patients (52%), educate their patients about wellness strategies and self-care (33%), and conduct additional small-group education sessions with their patients (30%). Conclusions Patients with hemophilia and their HCPs differed in their experiences, perceptions, and beliefs related to SDM and other key aspects of patient-centered care. Collaborative education can support improved knowledge, communication, and understanding between patients and providers, leading to greater engagement in SDM around personalized hemophilia care. Study Sponsor Statement The study reported in this abstract was funded by an independent educational grant from Genentech. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Rheumatology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (8) ◽  
pp. 2052-2061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Spierings ◽  
Femke C C van Rhijn-Brouwer ◽  
Carolijn J M de Bresser ◽  
Petra T M Mosterman ◽  
Arwen H Pieterse ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives To examine the treatment decision-making process of patients with dcSSc in the context of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Methods A qualitative semi-structured interview study was done in patients before or after HSCT, or patients who chose another treatment than HSCT. Thematic analysis was used. Shared decision-making (SDM) was assessed with the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Results Twenty-five patients [16 male/nine female, median age 47 (range 27–68) years] were interviewed: five pre-HSCT, 16 post-HSCT and four following other treatment. Whereas the SDM-Q-9 showed the decision-making process was perceived as shared [median score 81/100 (range 49–100)], we learned from the interviews that the decision was predominantly made by the rheumatologist, and patients were often steered towards a treatment option. Strong guidance of the rheumatologist was appreciated because of a lack of accessible, reliable and SSc-specific information, due to the approach of the decision-making process of the rheumatologist, the large consequence of the decision and the trust in their doctor. Expectations of outcomes and risks also differed between patients. Furthermore, more than half of patients felt they had no choice but to go for HSCT, due to rapid deterioration of health and the perception of HSCT as ‘the holy grail’. Conclusion This is the first study that provides insight into the decision-making process in dcSSc. This process is negatively impacted by a lack of disease-specific education about treatment options. Additionally, we recommend exploring patients’ preferences and understanding of the illness to optimally guide decision-making and to provide tailor-made information.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 5968-5968 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Ross ◽  
Nitya Bakshi ◽  
Kirshma Khemani ◽  
Cynthia Sinha ◽  
George Loewenstein ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Medical decisions regarding disease modifying therapy for sickle cell disease (SCD) such as chronic blood transfusion, hydroxyurea, and bone marrow transplantation are complex and have many short and long term implications for the patient's health. Shared decision-making, a collaborative process that allows patients and healthcare providers to make health care decisions collaboratively taking into account the best clinical evidence available as well as the patient's values and preferences, is considered the preferred process in complex medical decisions. There is a paucity of information regarding perspectives of patients with SCD and their caregivers regarding shared decision-making. The objective of this study was to determine the perspective of patients and their caregivers regarding shared decision making in disease modifying therapy for SCD. Methods We conducted qualitative interviews of patients with SCD as well as their caregivers from a geographically diverse population recruited from attendees at regional and national conferences for SCD. A semi-structured open-ended interview guide was used to collect data. Interview guide focussed on determining the expectations of patients and caregivers in their interaction with their physician and their involvement in decision making regarding disease modifying therapy. Interviews lasted 30-60 minutes and were recorded. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using qualitative content analysis with NVivo 10. Results Participants were African American, average age was 40 (SD 10.8), 18 of 19 were female, one had a high school degree, eight had some college, and 10 had either a bachelor's or graduate degree.Qualitative analyses yielded the following themes: 1. Patients prefer decision making to occur as a collaborative process between a patient or caregiver and the physician. They indicated that physician and patient each brings their own expertise to the table when discussing treatment. They strongly endorsed that patients should make an informed decision based on ability to comply and personal goals, preferences, and beliefs. 2. Patients prefer that the physician provide information about SCD, including complications and expected long-term outcomes based on the literature as well as personal knowledge of the patient. Patients indicated a desire to receive information in an unbiased fashion. Participants felt that it is the physician's responsibility to provide verbal and written information as well as referral to websites of value in learning. 3. Participants felt that physicians should be aware of their patient's medical history and personal preferences for care. 3. Patients prefer to receive detailed information on side effects and expectations of the impact of treatment on the patient based on the literature and physician experience. 4. Patients would like for the physician to listen to the patient and attempt to understand the patient perspective regarding self-care. 5. Patients have the responsibility to understand SCD and its complications, including expected long-term outcomes of SCD. Participants also underlined the importance of patients making an effort to understand the treatment being offered, including intended purpose, expected outcome, risks, and benefits. Participants felt that patients need time to do their own research and learning before making a decision. 6. Multiple sources for learning about SCD and treatment options. These include education by the physician and asking questions, talking to other patients, doing research on the internet, and personal knowledge of their medical history to including the way their body responded to past treatment. 7. Nurses, and social workers can have a supportive role in decision-making, and can address past medical history and provide guidance regarding socioeconomic barriers to care. 8. Extended family, unless living with the patient, plays a supportive role but is not part of the decision-making team. Conclusion The perspective of patients and their caregivers suggests strong support for shared decision making collaboratively with the physician, supported by high quality information and based on the patient's personal values and preferences. These data provide a rationale for developing and implementing measures to facilitate shared decision making for disease modifying therapy for SCD. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 201-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Duffin ◽  
Srikant Sarangi

Shared decision making (SDM) as a corrective to paternalism - particularly in relation to treatment options - is a much-discussed theme in healthcare research and practice. The communicative/interactional dimensions of SDM have lately received scholarly attention, albeit limited to a few clinic sites. The Huntington's disease (HD) management clinic, which is the site of this study, involves the co-presence of family members in their carer role, since the patient with HD may lack the cognitive ability to participate adequately in the decision-making process. We closely examine 12 audio-recorded clinic consultation transcripts, using the combined framework of theme-orientated discourse analysis and activity analysis. Our analytical focus is on how decisions are formulated and shared, or not shared, by the co-participants (the consultant, the patient and the carers) and the extent to which the consultant and the carers negotiate their 'expert' assessments of the patient's current and future management scenarios. We first outline a step-wise structure of decision making - to include problem designation, problem confirmation, generation of options and their assessment, and formulation and confirmation of decision. Contrary to how SDM is represented in various models in the literature, these different steps are interactionally dispersed and become negotiable in particular clinic sessions. Our findingssuggest that the consultant routinely uses three main strategies to steer the decision-making process: foregrounding the decision itself, foregrounding the temporal dimension and foregrounding the person/ carer dimension. Moreover, carer participation differs depending on the carer's relationship with the patient and other contingent matters. -


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 5919-5919
Author(s):  
Lakshmanan Krishnamurti ◽  
Diana Ross ◽  
Nitya Bakshi ◽  
Kirshma Khemani ◽  
Cynthia Sinha ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Sickle cell disease (SCD) is associated with substantial morbidity, and premature mortality. Hydroxyurea (Hu), chronic blood transfusion and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) can modify the course of this disease, reduce complications, and improve survival. These interventions are diverse in their therapeutic intent, but are all associated with substantial burden of care, signfiicant side effects and the potential for late complications. The complexity inherent in making decisons about these disease modifying therapies is compounded by the socioeconomic disadvantage experienced by this largely minority, underserved population. That despite proven efficacy in clinical trials, uptake and adherence with HU remains poor, and that only a small proportion of eligible patients undergo HCT underscores the difficulty in making these decisions. The objective of this study was to use a theory based systematic approach to develop, implement and test a web based decision aid to support patients and caregivers in shared decision making regarding disease modifying therapies for SCD.The theoretical basis for this project is the Ottawa decision support framework( ODSF), an evidence-based, practical, mid-range theory for guiding patients making health or social decisions which uses a three-step process to assess client and practitioner determinants of decisions to identify decision support needs; provide decision support tailored to client needs and evaluate the decision making process and outcomes. Methods Following the ODSF, we conducted qualitative interviews of patients with SCD, their caregivers, policymakers, community advocates and healthcare providers and other stakeholders. Subjects were recruited at multiple regional and national SCD conferences which draw a mix of patients and professional audience. Interviews lasted 30-40 minutes and were transcribed verbatim, transcripts were coded using QSR NVivo 10 and analyzed using qualitative mixed methods. Themes from qualitative interviews were incorporated into the each of the following phases of the project: Phase 1: Qualitative interviews for needs assessment to facilitate the description of the participants' experiences in seeking information about and making decisions related to SCD and utilizing both open and closed-ended questions. Phase 2: Data synthesis, and construction of a storyboard, draft content, draft design and format for the decision aid. Phase 3: Alpha testing for quality and error correction. Extensive modifications were carried out systematically incorporating the recommendations received. Phase 4: Iterative cylces of Beta testing for feasibility, comprehensibility and usability with qualitative interviews and observations and incorporated recommendations. Phase5: Peer-review of the finalized decision aid by stakeholders who had not participated in the development of the instrument and had not previously examined the website. Results Needs assessment qualitative interviews with 205 individuals yielded information on decisional needs, preferences regarding content, presentation and ease of use as well as a distinct preference to learn from the experience of other patients and guided the devlopemnt of the decision aid. Alpha testing for quality and error correction was conducted with 51 patients / family members, clinicians, health educators and policy makers. Beta testing for feasiblity, comprehensibilty, and usability was completed by a total 111 participants. Peer review by 60 providers, patients and stakeholders of the final decision aid (www.sickleoptions.org) indicated a high level of satisfaction with the content, presentation, ease of use, use of graphics and the use of patient testimonials. We have enrolled and are gathering data on 120 subjects in a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the impact of the decion aid on clinical decision making. Conclusions This stiudy provides empirical evidence about the successful process of creating, implementing and testing a web based decision aid for patients to guide shared decision making in disease modifying therapy for SCD. It provides evidence of favorable patient and physician perceptions about the comprehensivility and usability of the decision aid. Results of an ongoing randomized clinical trial will generate additional information about the impact of the decision on clinical decision making. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document