scholarly journals An absence of equipoise: Examining surgeons’ decision talk during encounters with women considering breast cancer surgery

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e0260704
Author(s):  
Mary C. Politi ◽  
Catherine H. Saunders ◽  
Victoria F. Grabinski ◽  
Renata W. Yen ◽  
Amy E. Cyr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Breast Conserving Surgery ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Breast Cancer Surgery ◽  
Shared Decision

Shared decision-making is recommended for decisions with multiple reasonable options, yet clinicians often subtly or explicitly guide choices. Using purposive sampling, we performed a secondary analysis of 142 audio-recorded encounters between 13 surgeons and women eligible for breast-conserving surgery with radiation or mastectomy. We trained 9 surgeons in shared decision-making and provided them one of two conversation aids; 4 surgeons practiced as usual. Based on a published taxonomy of treatment recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, assertions), we examined how surgeons framed choices with patients. Many surgeons made assertions providing information and advice (usual care 71% vs. intervention 66%; p = 0.54). Some made strong pronouncements (usual care 51% vs. intervention 36%; p = .09). Few made proposals and offers, leaving the door open for deliberation (proposals usual care 21% vs. intervention 26%; p = 0.51; offers usual care 40% vs. intervention 40%; p = 0.98). Surgeons were significantly more likely to describe options as comparable when using a conversation aid, mentioning this in all intervention group encounters (usual care 64% vs. intervention 100%; p<0.001). Conversation aids can facilitate offers of comparable options, but other conversational actions can inhibit aspects of shared decision-making.

Use of an Atrial Fibrillation Medication Decision Aid Improves Knowledge and Process for Decision Making (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Beinfeld ◽  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Michael Barry ◽  
Erika Poole ◽  
Adam Kunin
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Anticoagulant Therapy ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Baseline Group

BACKGROUND A rural community-based Cardiology practice implemented shared decision making supported by an evidence-based decision aid booklet to improve the quality of anticoagulant therapy decisions in patients with atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVE To develop a practical workflow for implementation of an anticoagulant therapy decision aid and to assess the impact on patients’ knowledge and process for anticoagulant medication decision making. METHODS The organization surveyed all patients with atrial fibrillation being seen at Copley Hospital to establish a baseline level of knowledge, certainty about the decision and process for decision making. The intervention surveys included the same knowledge, certainty, process and demographic questions as the baseline surveys, but also included questions asking for feedback on the decision aid booklet. Stroke risk scores (CHA2DS2-VASc score) were calculated by Copley staff for both groups using EMR data. RESULTS We received 46 completed surveys in the baseline group (64% response rate) and 50 surveys in the intervention group (72% response rate). The intervention group had higher knowledge score than the baseline group (3.6 out of 4 correct answers vs 3.1, p=0.036) and Decision Process Score (2.89 out of 4 vs 2.09, p=0.0023) but similar scores on the SURE scale (3.12 out of 4 vs 3.17, p=0.79). Knowledge and Process score differences were sustained even after adjusting for co-variates in stepwise linear regression analyses. Patients with high school or lower education appeared to benefit the most from shared decision making, as demonstrated by their knowledge scores. CONCLUSIONS It is feasible and practical to implement shared decision making supported by decision aids in a community-based Cardiology practice. Shared decision making can improve knowledge and process for decision making for patients with atrial fibrillation. CLINICALTRIAL None

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.

Shared decision making for supporting women’s decisions about breast cancer screening

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Riganti ◽  
M. Victoria Ruiz Yanzi ◽  
Camila Micaela Escobar Liquitay ◽  
Karin S Kopitowski ◽  
Juan VA Franco
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document