OMERACT Development of a Core Domain Set of Outcomes for Shared Decision-making Interventions

Objective.The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Shared Decision Making (SDM) Working Group aims to determine the core outcome domain set for measuring the effectiveness of SDM interventions in rheumatology trials.Methods.A white paper was developed to clarify the draft core domain set. It was then used to prepare for interviews to investigate reasons for lack of consensus on it and to suggest further improvements.Results.OMERACT scientists/clinicians (n = 13) and patients (n = 10) suggested limiting the core domain set to outcome domains, removing process domains, and clarifying remaining domains.Conclusion.A revised core domain set will undergo further consensus-building.

Download Full-text

Endorsement of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials: Results from a multi-stepped consensus-building approach

Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism ◽

10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.03.017 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Karine Toupin-April ◽

Simon Décary ◽

Maarten de Wit ◽

Alexa Meara ◽

Jennifer L. Barton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Consensus Building ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Core Domain ◽

Core Domain Set

Download Full-text

Recovery Orientation as the Clinical Matrix

10.1093/med/9780190610999.003.0001 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Hunter L. McQuistion

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Personal Development ◽

Human Services ◽

Mental Illnesses ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Shared Decision ◽

The Core ◽

Recovery Orientation ◽

Human Services Professionals

At the core of working with people who experience mental illnesses is a collaboration in pursuit of helping them actualize their goals in work and love. Their recovery is therefore a unique process of personal development, with psychiatrists and other human services professionals practicing with recovery orientation. Specific skills, techniques, and services are identified as recovery oriented. In this chapter, through relating one person’s story, the reader can understand how recovery orientation becomes operational in a clearly systematic manner, using such techniques as motivational interviewing, shared decision-making, rehabilitative focus, person-centered treatment planning, and the use of peer supports. In this way, it is illustrated how recovery orientation is not only richly humanitarian but also evidence-based.

Download Full-text

AUA White Paper on Implementation of Shared Decision Making into Urological Practice

Urology Practice ◽

10.1016/j.urpr.2015.10.006 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 3 (5) ◽

pp. 355-363 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Danil V. Makarov ◽

Kristin Chrouser ◽

John L. Gore ◽

Jodi Maranchie ◽

Matthew E. Nielsen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

White Paper ◽

Shared Decision

Download Full-text

Healthcare Decisions

What About the Family? ◽

10.1093/med/9780190624880.003.0010 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 118-136

Author(s):

Ulrik Kihlbom ◽

Christian Munthe

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Clinical Care ◽

Decision Making Process ◽

Shared Decision ◽

The Core ◽

Person Centered Care ◽

Centered Care ◽

Core Idea

The aim of this chapter is to outline how different relational aspects of families may ground obligations on the part of healthcare professionals toward patients and their families in the decision-making process. The exploration starts from the core idea within person-centered care of having patients’ general life situation, experiences, wants, and values to be a substantial topic of concern in a process of shared decision making. If relational decision-making paradigms are to be minimally functional, healthcare professionals’ stances need to involve complex schemes of including people closely related to patients, who will have to be recognized as legitimate stakeholders and partners in, as well as resources for, clinical care.

Download Full-text

Toward the Development of a Core Set of Outcome Domains to Assess Shared Decision-making Interventions in Rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting

The Journal of Rheumatology ◽

10.3899/jrheum.161241 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 44 (10) ◽

pp. 1544-1550 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Karine Toupin-April ◽

Jennifer Barton ◽

Liana Fraenkel ◽

Linda C. Li ◽

Peter Brooks ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Group Process ◽

Consensus Meeting ◽

Delphi Survey ◽

Nominal Group ◽

Shared Decision ◽

The Core ◽

Core Set ◽

Participant Characteristics

Objective.The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Working Group was to determine the core set of outcome domains and subdomains for measuring the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in rheumatology clinical trials.Methods.Following the OMERACT Filter 2.0, and based on a previous literature review of SDM outcome domains and a nominal group process at OMERACT 2014, (1) an online Delphi survey was conducted to gather feedback on the draft core set and refine its domains and subdomains, and (2) a workshop was held at the OMERACT 2016 meeting to gain consensus on the draft core set.Results.A total of 170 participants completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, and 116 completed Round 2. Respondents came from 29 countries, with 49% being patients/caregivers. Results showed that 14 out of the 17 subdomains within the 7 domains exceeded the 70% criterion (endorsement ranged from 83% to 100% of respondents). At OMERACT 2016, only 8% of the 96 attendees were patients/caregivers. Despite initial votes of support in breakout groups, there was insufficient comfort about the conceptualization of these 7 domains and 17 subdomains for these to be endorsed at OMERACT 2016 (endorsement ranged from 17% to 68% of participants).Conclusion.Differences between the Delphi survey and consensus meeting may be explained by the manner in which the outcomes were presented, variations in participant characteristics, and the context of voting. Further efforts are needed to address the limited understanding of SDM and its outcomes among OMERACT participants.

Download Full-text

Persons over models: shared decision-making for person-centered medicine

European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare ◽

10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1864 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (3) ◽

pp. 355

Author(s):

Marco Annoni ◽

Charlotte Blease

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Clinical Decision Making ◽

Clinical Care ◽

Clinical Decision ◽

The Other ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Patient Relationship ◽

New Paradigm ◽

The Core

In the last decades “shared decision-making” has been hailed as the new paradigm for the doctor-patient relationship. However, different models of clinical decision-making appear to be compatible with the core tenets of “shared decision-making”. Reconsidering Emanuel and Emanuel (1992) classic analysis, in this paper we distinguish five possible models of clinical decision-making: (i) the ‘instrumental’; (ii) the ‘paternalistic’; (iii) the ‘informative’; (iv) the ‘interpretative’; and (v) the ‘persuasive’ models. For each model we present its fundamental assumptions as well as the role that patients and doctors are expected to play with respect to value-laden dilemmas. We argue that, with the exception of the instrumental model, each of the other four models may be appropriate depending on the circumstances. We conclude by highlighting the importance of structuring clinical care around actual persons - and their unique lives and philosophies - rather than around abstract frameworks.

Download Full-text

Shared decision making in healthcare

Faculty Dental Journal ◽

10.1308/204268514x14017784505970 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 5 (3) ◽

pp. 124-127 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Fiona Ryan ◽

Susan Cunningham

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision ◽

The Core ◽

New Look

Shared decision making is at the core of the new-look NHS. Everyone will be familiar with ‘no decision about me without me’ but how familiar are we with actually making shared decisions in practice?

Download Full-text

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

Perspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its Instrumentation ◽

10.1044/arri21.1.15 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

pp. 15-23 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Helen Pryce ◽

Amanda Hall

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Behavior Changes ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Patient Centered ◽

Treatment Information ◽

Centered Care ◽

Potential Risks ◽

Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

Download Full-text