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.

Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-59
Author(s):  
Gisèle Diendéré ◽  
Imen Farhat ◽  
Holly Witteman ◽  
Ruth Ndjaboue
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Risk Communication ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Values Clarification ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Consultations

Background Measuring shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice is important to improve the quality of health care. Measurement can be done by trained observers and by people participating in the clinical encounter, namely, patients. This study aimed to describe the correlations between patients’ and observers’ ratings of SDM using 2 validated and 2 nonvalidated SDM measures in clinical consultations. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 238 complete dyads of health professionals and patients in 5 university-affiliated family medicine clinics in Canada. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires before and after audio-recorded medical consultations. Observers rated the occurrence of SDM during medical consultations using both the validated OPTION-5 (the 5-item “observing patient involvement” score) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-observer). Patients rated SDM using both the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q9) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-patient). Results Agreement was low between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using validated OPTION-5 and SDM-Q9, respectively (ρ = 0.07; P = 0.38). Observers’ ratings using RCVC-observer were correlated to patients’ ratings using either SDM-Q9 ( rpb = −0.16; P = 0.01) or RCVC-patients ( rpb = 0.24; P = 0.03). Observers’ OPTION-5 scores and patients’ ratings using RCVC-questions were moderately correlated ( rφ = 0.33; P = 0.04). Conclusion There was moderate to no alignment between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using both validated and nonvalidated measures. This lack of strong correlation emphasizes that observer and patient perspectives are not interchangeable. When assessing the presence, absence, or extent of SDM, it is important to clearly state whose perspectives are reflected.

scholarly journals Patients Perception of Risks and Benefits of Biologic Therapy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kara Mari De Felice
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Personality Trait ◽  
Biologic Therapy ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Therapeutic Benefit ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Individualized Care

Abstract Biologic therapy continues to be underutilized despite its efficacy and overall favorable side effect profile when compared with corticosteroids. Siegel et al found in a well-done, cross-sectional study that patients perceived that corticosteroids were more beneficial, more familiar, and less dreadful than biologics despite perceiving that corticosteroids are more risky. They also found that perception of risk may be influenced by a patient’s personality trait. Patients who believe that their health is influenced by their own choices or behaviors perceived biologic therapy less scary compared with patients who believed their health is influenced by chance. Physicians and patients disagree about how much medication-related risk is tolerable for improvements on efficacy. However, they are both willing to accept risks for therapies that offer significant therapeutic benefit. Physicians are tasked to translate complex evidenced-based data accurately and should take into account a patient’s personality trait in order to provide individualized care and help guide shared decision-making. Future research should assess physician’s personality traits, treatment experiences, and perception of risks, benefits, and dread of IBD medications and how it influences shared-decision making.

scholarly journals Assessment of Physicians' Perspective of Shared Decision Making in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 119-124
Author(s):  
Hind Almudaimegh ◽  
Sarah Alkanhal ◽  
Futun Alanazi ◽  
Norah Alquraishi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Tertiary Care Hospital ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Hard Copy ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional

ABSTRACT Introduction Shared decision making is an essential component of a patient-centered healthcare system. Several studies have evaluated patients' perception of shared decision making; however, studies reporting physicians' perception of the shared decision-making process are lacking. The objective of this study was to assess physicians' perspectives on shared decision making with their patients in a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Methods This is a cross-sectional study, in which we adopted the nine-item physician version of the shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q-Doc) to assess physicians' perception of shared decision making. The questionnaire was distributed online and in hard copy form randomly to our institution's physicians. Results We collected a total of 125 responses from various specialties. Means and percentage of agreement were tested, with the highest percentage of agreement ranging from 88% to 96.8%. There were significant differences between the groups regarding age and medical degree. There were no significant differences noted for sex or department. Conclusion Our findings suggest that most physicians at our institution have a positive attitude toward the process of sharing medical decisions with their patients.

scholarly journals Factors associated with shared decision making among primary care physicians: Findings from a multicentre cross-sectional study

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 212-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Menear ◽  
Mirjam Marjolein Garvelink ◽  
Rhéda Adekpedjou ◽  
Maria Margarita Becerra Perez ◽  
Hubert Robitaille ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Factors Associated

scholarly journals Physicians’ perspective on shared decision-making in Dubai: a cross-sectional study

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamad Alameddine ◽  
Reem AlGurg ◽  
Farah Otaki ◽  
Alawi A. Alsheikh-Ali
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

scholarly journals Shared Decision-Making and Role Preference Among Patients With Schizophrenia in Malaysia: A Cross-Sectional Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamad Ayob Ismail ◽  
Marhani Midin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Asian Population ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
Role Preference

Introduction: Shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as a promising strategy for improving collaboration between clinicians and their patients in achieving recovery. In Malaysia, SDM among people with schizophrenia is still lacking both in practice and in research. This study aimed to determine the level of SDM and role preference and their associated factors among patients with schizophrenia in Malaysia.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 86 outpatient attendees with schizophrenia at a teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire and Control Preference Scale were used to assess perceived SDM experience and role preference, respectively. Linear and logistic regression models were used to analyze the factors associated with SDM and role preference, respectively. Factors with a p <0.25 from the simple regression analyses were controlled as the covariates in the multiple regression analyses.Results: The study respondents were predominantly female, single, and unemployed, with a mean age of 44 years. Only 35% of the participants reported having high SDM experiences, even though the majority (56%) preferred autonomous role preference. Among the participants who preferred autonomous roles, only 40% experienced high SDM. High SDM was found to be significantly associated with being younger (B = −0.33, 95% CI = −0.67 to −0.003) and being non-clozapine users (B = 19.90, 95% CI = 9.39–30.41), while autonomous role preference was significantly associated with a lower level of insight [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.72–0.99] and being on oral antipsychotic drugs only (AOR = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.10–7.82).Conclusion: The practice of SDM is still lacking in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia in Malaysia, even though many of them preferred to be involved in the decision-making pertaining to their treatment. This study indicates the need for clinicians to improve their patients' involvement in the treatment process. More research is needed on how SDM can be implemented in patients with schizophrenia, especially in Asian population settings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document