scholarly journals Clinical Application and Efficiency Analysis of Shared Decision Making (SDM) in the Treatment of Stable Angina

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Hao-Min Cheng ◽  
Hsiao-Fen Hsu ◽  
Chih-Yi Lee ◽  
Hong- Di Chang ◽  
Hsin-Chan Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
P Value ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Application Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Medical Aids ◽  
Artery Disease

Background: Cardiac disease is the second leading causes of death in Taiwan in 2018 and coronary artery disease is one of the main reasons.Aims: The purpose of this study was to estimate whether Shared decision making (SDM) could lower the anxiety of the patient in the treatment of cardiac catheterization and improve the intension of medical decision or not.Methods: One-group pretest-posttest design.Using the public medical aids opinion questionnaire that was developed by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare. STROBE guidelines have been adhered to in the reporting of this study.Results: The anxiety level decrease after the SDM from 3.5 to 2.1 points (p-value<0.05) and the proportions of the intension to choose medication and surgery increase from 34% to 66%. Results show that SDM has positive influence in the relief of anxiety.Conclusion: SDM has positive influence in lowering patient’s anxiety and improve the intension of medical decision, the hesitation of patient and deficiency of time are two of the main barriers during the application process. 

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.

scholarly journals Navigating the Decision Space: Shared Medical Decision Making as Distributed Cognition

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 1035-1048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine D. Lippa ◽  
Markus A. Feufel ◽  
F. Eric Robinson ◽  
Valerie L. Shalin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Distributed Cognition ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Decision Space

Despite increasing prominence, little is known about the cognitive processes underlying shared decision making. To investigate these processes, we conceptualize shared decision making as a form of distributed cognition. We introduce a Decision Space Model to identify physical and social influences on decision making. Using field observations and interviews, we demonstrate that patients and physicians in both acute and chronic care consider these influences when identifying the need for a decision, searching for decision parameters, making actionable decisions Based on the distribution of access to information and actions, we then identify four related patterns: physician dominated; physician-defined, patient-made; patient-defined, physician-made; and patient-dominated decisions. Results suggests that (a) decision making is necessarily distributed between physicians and patients, (b) differential access to information and action over time requires participants to transform a distributed task into a shared decision, and (c) adverse outcomes may result from failures to integrate physician and patient reasoning. Our analysis unifies disparate findings in the medical decision-making literature and has implications for improving care and medical training.

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 Treatment Choice in Adolescents With Cleft Lip and/or Palate: The Importance of Shared Decision-Making

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (9) ◽  
pp. 1220-1229
Author(s):  
Francesca Wogden ◽  
Alyson Norman ◽  
Louise Dibben
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Young People ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Pediatric Dentist ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Inductive Thematic Analysis

Objective: Limited research has studied the involvement of children in medical decision-making. The aim of the study was to understand the involvement of adolescents with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) in decisions about elective surgeries and treatments. Design: Parents and professionals completed mixed-methods questionnaires about the degree to which children had been involved in choices about elective treatments. Data were analyzed using content analysis. Young people aged 12 to 25 years were asked to take part in semistructured interviews. The data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Setting: Questionnaire data collection took place online, and interview data were collected via messenger or telephone-based interviews. Participants: The study employed 30 participants; 11 young people (3 male, 8 female), 17 parents (13 mothers, 4 fathers), and 5 professionals (2 surgeons, 2 speech and language therapists, and 1 pediatric dentist). Results: Five main themes were identified. These reflected participants feeling that with increasing age should come increased involvement in decision-making and that it was important for adolescents to “have a voice” during decision-making. Parents, peers, and health professionals were identified as influencing decisions. Most adolescents reported overall satisfaction with their involvement in decision-making but sometimes felt “left in the dark” by professionals or under pressure from parents. A desire to improve speech and/or appearance was as an area where adolescents wanted to be more involved in decision-making. Conclusions: Shared decision-making is an important factor for psychological well-being by promoting autonomy and self-esteem among adolescents with CL/P.

Does shared decision making for PSA screening empower patients?

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. e549-e549
Author(s):  
James Austin Talcott ◽  
Maureen Bezuhly ◽  
Gina Aharanoff ◽  
Jessica Herzstein ◽  
Michael P. Osborne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Screening Guideline

e549 Background: Participant characteristics affect shared decision making. In a randomized trial of physician (MD) educational interventions to improve cancer screening guideline compliance, we studied patient (PT) and MD recall of discussions and how PT characteristics affected recall. Methods: In a cluster-randomized trial of educational supports for MDs, we are enrolling an age- (30-89 years) and sex-stratified sample of 216 PTs who underwent a physical examination at two urban hospitals, 18 for each of 12 primary care MDs. Screening guideline formatting (color-coding) and academic detailing were randomly assigned in a 2x2 design. Immediate post-encounter surveys recorded PT and MD recall of screening discussions. Results: Of the first 174 participants, 92 were men. PTs were diverse (69% white) and well educated (73% college degree). When MDs reported a prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening discussion, 32% of PTs did not, and 26% of MDs disagreed when PTs reported the discussion occurred. Further, when the MD reported recommending screening, 26% of PTs disagreed, and 33% of MDs disagreed when their patients reported a recommendation. Overall, agreement between all PTs and MDs on whether screening was recommended was fair (kappa = 0.29) but there was no agreement for PTs over 70 years (kappa = -0.03). PTs reported more elements of shared decision making than MDs (data not shown). When both PT and MD or the MD alone reported that all elements of shared medical decision making had occurred, agreement on whether screening was recommended improved (kappa = 0.54 and 0.45, respectively). When PTs disagreed with their MD, they more often reported recommending for screening not against (11 vs. 4). Conclusions: In a highly educated, diverse PT population, PTs and MDs surveyed immediately after their encounter often disagreed on whether PSA screening was discussed and recommended. Disagreement was worse with older PT age but improved when both PT and MD or the MD alone reported all shared decision making elements. Clinical trial information: NCT02430948.

scholarly journals Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans ◽  
Dima Mohammed
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Institutional Constraints ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
The Ideal

In this paper it is first investigated to what extent the institutional goal and basic principles of shared decision making are compatible with the aim and rules for critical discussion. Next, some techniques that doctors may use to present their own treatment preferences strategically in a shared decision making process are discussed and evaluated both from the perspective of the ideal of shared decision making and from that of critical discussion.

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 Achieving inclusive research priority-setting: what do people with lived experience and the public think is essential?

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Engagement of people with lived experience and members of the public is an ethically and scientifically essential component of health research. Authentic engagement means they are involved as full partners in research projects. Yet engagement as partnership is uncommon in practice, especially during priority-setting for research projects. What is needed for agenda-setting to be shared by researchers and people with lived experience and/or members of the public (or organisations representing them)? At present, little ethical guidance exists on this matter, particularly that which has been informed by the perspectives of people with lived experience and members of the public. This article provides initial evidence about what they think are essential foundations and barriers to shared decision-making in health research priority-setting and health research more broadly. Methods An exploratory, qualitative study was conducted in 2019. 22 semi-structured interviews were performed with key informants from the UK and Australia. Results Three main types of foundations were thought to be essential to have in place before shared decision-making can occur in health research priority-setting: relational, environmental, and personal. Collectively, the three types of foundations addressed many (but not all) of the barriers to power sharing identified by interviewees. Conclusions Based on study findings, suggestions are made for what researchers, engagement practitioners, research institutions, and funders should do in their policy and practice to support meaningful engagement. Finally, key international research ethics guidelines on community engagement are considered in light of study findings.

scholarly journals Interprofessioal collaboration among Speech Language Pathologists and Nurses in Acute Care in Pakistan

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fariha Ambreen Ch ◽  
Muhammad Naveed Babur ◽  
Sajid Rashid ◽  
Maria Liaqat
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
T Test ◽  
P Value ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Mean Differences

Objective: To find out inter-professional collaboration among speech-language pathologists and nurses in acute care in Pakistan. Methods: This was a cross sectional study which was conducted in all government and private hospitals of Islamabad and Rawalpindi having facility of ICUs after taking consent from authorities. The duration of study was six months from October 2018 to February 2019. A total number of 350 participants (200 nurses, 150 speech language pathologists) working in ICU of different private and government hospitals of Pakistan were included in the study. Standardized questionnaire of “assessment of inter-professioal collaboration scale” (AITCS) was circulated to nurses and speech language pathologists (SLPS) working in ICU with its subscale’s partnership, coordination, cooperation and shared decision making on a 5-point likert scale. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 21. Measure of mean was obtained by independent sample t-test. P-Value less than 0.05 was considered as significant. Results: Statistical analysis showed measures of mean differences obtained by t-test revealed significant differences at p<0.001 level between partnership scores of SLPS and nurses. This reveals good partnership between two disciplines. Measures of mean differences obtained by t-test revealed significant differences at p<0.001 level between partnership scores of SLPS and nurses. Both do not value each other in cooperation. Measures of mean differences obtained by t-test showed significant differences at p<0.001 level amongst coordination scores of SLPS and nurses. Both have good coordination. Measures of mean differences obtained by t-test revealed significant differences at p<0.001 level amongst shared decision-making scores of SLPS and nurses. Both are involved in shared decision making. Conclusion: Results show significant difference in partnership, coordination, and shared decision making. There is no significant difference in cooperation. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.2.3545 How to cite this:Ch FA, Babur MN, Rashid S, Liaqat M. Interprofessioal collaboration among Speech Language Pathologists and Nurses in Acute Care in Pakistan. Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(2):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.2.3545 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document