scholarly journals Shared Decision-Making and Information Needs among People with Generalized Anxiety Disorder

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 423-435
Author(s):  
Vanesa Ramos-García ◽  
Amado Rivero-Santana ◽  
Andrea Duarte-Díaz ◽  
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez ◽  
Wenceslao Peñate-Castro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Generalized Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Generalized Anxiety ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Related Information

Shared decision making (SDM) aims to involve patients in the decisions about their care, considering their preferences, values and concerns about the different treatment options. However, research shows that people with mental health problems have considerable unmet information needs about their condition. This community-based cross-sectional study explores the SDM process and information needs among people with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), as an initial step in the design and development of a Patient Decision Aid for this population. Seventy participants completed an online survey with the Control Preference Scale, and questions about the perceived difficulty of past treatment decisions and the use of the Internet for searching for GAD-related information. Most participants preferred an active (42.9%) or collaborative role (41.4%) in the SDM process, and 53% did not perceive their preferred role. Information provided by healthcare professionals was considered insufficient by 28% of the sample, and over 30% reported using the Internet to look for GAD-related information at least once a week or more. The most relevant GAD-related information needs were general information (71.4%), information on self-help groups (65.7%), recommendations on how to face this disorder (61.4%) and information on treatment options (50%). Exploratory analyses showed that patients who perceived an active participation were more likely to search for information frequently (p = 0.038), and those who felt more involved than desired tended to search for more themes (p = 0.049). In summary, the study showed that a considerable percentage of GAD patients have unmet needs related to decision-making participation and information.

scholarly journals Cancer patients’ perspective on shared decision-making and decision aids in oncology

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena Josfeld ◽  
Christian Keinki ◽  
Carolina Pammer ◽  
Bijan Zomorodbakhsch ◽  
Jutta Hübner
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Conclusive Evidence ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Oncological Patients ◽  
The Individual

Abstract Purpose Shared Decision-Making (SDM) enhances patients’ satisfaction with a decision, which in turn increases compliance with and adherence to cancer treatment. SDM requires a good patient-clinician relationship and communication, patients need information matching their individual needs, and clinicians need support on how to best involve the individual patient in the decision-making process. This survey assessed oncological patients’ information needs and satisfaction, their preferred information in patient decision aids (PDAs), and their preferred way of making decisions regarding their treatment. Methods Questionnaires were distributed among attendees of a lecture program on complementary and alternative medicine in oncology of which 220 oncological patients participated. Results Participants reported a generally high need for information—correlating with level of education—but also felt overwhelmed by the amount. The latter proved particularly important during consultation. Use of PDAs increased satisfaction with given information but occurred in less than a third of the cases. Most requested contents for PDAs were pros and cons of treatment options and lists of questions to ask. The vast majority of patients preferred SDM to deciding alone. None wanted their physician to decide for them. Conclusions There is a high demand for SDM but a lack of conclusive evidence on the specific information needs of different types of patients. Conversation between patients and clinicians needs encouragement and support. PDAs are designed for this purpose and have the potential to increase patient satisfaction. Their scarce use in consultations calls for easier access to and better information on PDAs for clinicians.

Partnerships with Patients: The Pros and Cons of Shared Clinical Decision-Making

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Coulter
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Pros And Cons

The traditional style of medical decision-making in which doctors take sole responsibility for treatment decisions is being challenged. Attempts are being made to promote shared decision-making in which patients are given the opportunity to express their values and preferences and to participate in decisions about their care. Critics of shared decision-making argue that most patients do not want to participate in decisions; that revealing the uncertainties inherent in medical care could be harmful; that it is not feasible to provide information about the potential risks and benefits of all treatment options; and that increasing patient involvement in decision-making will lead to greater demand for unnecessary, costly or harmful procedures which could undermine the equitable allocation of health care resources. This article examines the evidence for and against these claims. There is considerable evidence that patients want more information and greater involvement, although knowledge about the circumstances in which shared decision-making should be encouraged, and the effects of doing so, is sparse. There is an urgent need for more research into patients' information needs and preferences and for the development and evaluation of decision-support mechanisms to enable patients to become informed participants in treatment decisions.

Results from a focus group evaluating TrialTALK, a designed conversation to facilitate cancer treatment shared decision making.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 34-34
Author(s):  
Toby Christopher Campbell ◽  
Erin Kennedy ◽  
Selina Schmocker
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

34 Background: Cancer treatment decision making involves timely, high-risk, shared decision-making conversations between patients, their families, and their oncologists. These conversations are a prime target for a carefully designed, easy to interpret approach to facilitate preference-sensitive decision-making. The TrialTALK approach has two core elements: a verbal approach and a pen & paper diagram. The diagram includes the diagnosis with prognostic implications, available treatment options along with estimates for efficacy and anticipated impact on daily life. The verbal conversation corresponds to the diagram and includes a phrase to encourage deliberation and empathic responses. Here, we report the results of a focus group conducted in Toronto comparing two approaches to a cancer decision making conversation. Methods: Our focus group was comprised of 9 patients, all with incurable malignancy. They observed a live reading of an actual transcript of a cancer treatment decision making conversation between a patient and oncologist who presented three options: observation, chemotherapy, and a clinical trial. The investigators re-organized the conversation, reusing as many words as possible, into the TrialTALK framework. No new information was introduced. After watching each scene, participants discussed and rated the conversation for information needs and indicated the decision. Results: Three (33%) said rated the standard conversation as meeting their informational needs while 7/9 (78%) reported needs were met by the designed approach. Decision making preferences following the conversations are shown in the table. Patients reported feeling the physician in the designed conversation was more prepared; they felt greater trust and confidence; they valued the paper diagram; they felt more empowered and engaged in the decision. Conclusions: A designed conversation may improve patient understanding, influence decision making, while also enhancing the patient-physician relationship. Clinical trial information: NCT03656276. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Identifying patient decisions and related information needs during decision making related to total knee arthroplasty

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (16) ◽  
pp. 1153-1166
Author(s):  
William Benjamin Nowell ◽  
Shilpa Venkatachalam ◽  
Christine Stake ◽  
Erik Harden ◽  
Liana Fraenkel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Online Community ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Total Knee

Aim: Research regarding decisions patients make about total knee arthroplasty, apart from having the procedure or not, are limited. Understanding patient decision making and related information needs is essential for shared decision making. Methods: Focus groups with an online community-based sample identified decisions about total knee arthroplasty beyond the decision to have the surgery itself. An online survey was used to determine relative importance of five major decisions and evaluate related information available. Results: Patients did not feel they have enough information to make important decisions of surgeon, device type, surgical approach, facility, or timing, for their total knee arthroplasty. Conclusion: Although further research is needed to generalize these findings, physicians should consider these questions during shared decision making with patients considering total knee arthroplasty.

scholarly journals Patient decision aid based on multi-criteria decision analysis for disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis: prototype development

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I. E. H. Kremer ◽  
P. J. Jongen ◽  
S. M. A. A. Evers ◽  
E. L. J. Hoogervorst ◽  
W. I. M. Verhagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Disease Modifying Drugs ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Further Development

Abstract Background Since decision making about treatment with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is preference sensitive, shared decision making between patient and healthcare professional should take place. Patient decision aids could support this shared decision making process by providing information about the disease and the treatment options, to elicit the patient’s preference and to support patients and healthcare professionals in discussing these preferences and matching them with a treatment. Therefore, a prototype of a patient decision aid for MS patients in the Netherlands—based on the principles of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) —was developed, following the recommendations of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. MCDA was chosen as it might reduce cognitive burden of considering treatment options and matching patient preferences with the treatment options. Results After determining the scope to include DMDs labelled for relapsing-remitting MS and clinically isolated syndrome, users’ informational needs were assessed using focus groups (N = 19 patients) and best-worst scaling surveys with patients (N = 185), neurologists and nurses (N = 60) to determine which information about DMDs should be included in the patient decision aid. Next, an online format and computer-based delivery of the patient decision aid was chosen to enable embedding of MCDA. A literature review was conducting to collect evidence on the effectiveness and burden of use of the DMDs. A prototype was developed next, and alpha testing to evaluate its comprehensibility and usability with in total thirteen patients and four healthcare professionals identified several issues regarding content and framing, methods for weighting importance of criteria in the MCDA structure, and the presentation of the conclusions of the patient decision aid ranking the treatment options according to the patient’s preferences. Adaptations were made accordingly, but verification of the rankings provided, validation of the patient decision aid, evaluation of the feasibility of implementation and assessing its value for supporting shared decision making should be addressed in further development of the patient decision aid. Conclusion This paper aimed to provide more transparency regarding the developmental process of an MCDA-based patient decision aid for treatment decisions for MS and the challenges faced during this process. Issues identified in the prototype were resolved as much as possible, though some issues remain. Further development is needed to overcome these issues before beta pilot testing with patients and healthcare professionals at the point of clinical decision-making can take place to ultimately enable making conclusions about the value of the MCDA-based patient decision aid for MS patients, healthcare professionals and the quality of care.

Shared Decision Making

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apurupa Ballamudi ◽  
John Chi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Benefit Patient ◽  
Risk And Benefit

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process in which patients and providers work together to make medical decisions with a patient-centric focus, considering available evidence, treatment options, the patient’s values and goals, and risks and benefits. It is important for all providers to understand how to effectively use SDM in their interactions with patients to improve patients’ experiences throughout their healthcare journey. There are strategies to improve communication between patients and their providers, particularly when communicating quantitative data, risks and benefits, and treatment options. Decision aids (DAs) can help patients understand complex medical information and make an informed decision. This review contains 9 figures, 4 tables and 45 references Key words: Shared decision-making, decision-making, communication, risk and benefit, patient-centered, health literacy, quality of life, decision aids, option grid, pictographs.

Depressed Latinx Older Adults’ Shared Decision-Making Preferences

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Romero ◽  
Patrick Raue ◽  
Andrew Rasmussen
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Puerto Rican ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Medical Conditions ◽  
Depression Severity ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Health Related

The shared decision-making (SDM) model is the optimal patient-centered approach to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities in primary care settings. This study examined decision-making preferences and the desire to be knowledgeable of health-related information of a multiheritage group of depressed older Latinx primary care patients. The primary aim was to determine differences in treatment preferences for both general medical conditions and depression and desire to be knowledgeable of health-related information between older Puerto Rican adults compared to older non-Puerto Rican Latinx adults. We also examined whether depression severity moderated those relationships. A sample of 178 older Latinx patients were assessed on measures of decision-making preferences, information-seeking desires, and depression severity. Regression models indicated depression severity moderated the relationship between Latinx heritage and decision-making preferences that relate to general medical decisions, but not depression treatment. Specifically, Puerto Ricans with high levels of depression preferred to be more active in making decisions related to general medical conditions compared to non-Puerto Rican patients who preferred less active involvement. There was no difference between groups at low levels of depression as both groups preferred to be similarly active in the decision-making process. This investigation adds to the literature by indicating between-group differences within a Latinx older adult sample regarding decision-making preferences and the desire to be informed of health-related information. Future research is needed to identify other sociocultural characteristics that contribute to this disparity between Latinx heritage groups in their desires to participate in the decision-making process with their primary care provider.

scholarly journals An Exploratory Pilot Study to Describe Shared Decision-Making for PTSD Treatment Planning: The Provider Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 467-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bella Etingen ◽  
Jennifer N Hill ◽  
Laura J Miller ◽  
Alan Schwartz ◽  
Sherri L LaVela ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Treatment Readiness ◽  
Ptsd Treatment

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document