BackgroundThe ethical argument that shared decision-making is “the right” thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences.Main argumentTo date, many more studies have evaluated patient decision aids rather than other approaches to shared decision-making, and the outcomes measured have typically been focused on short-term cognitive and affective outcomes, for example knowledge and decisional conflict. From a clinicians perspective, the shared decision-making process could be viewed as either intrinsically rewarding and protective, or burdensome and impractical, yet studies have not focused on the impact on professionals, either positive or negative. At interactional levels, group, team, and microsystem, the potential long-term consequences could include the development of a culture where deliberation and collaboration are regarded as guiding principles, where patients are coached to assess the value of interventions, to trade-off benefits versus harms, and assess their burdens—in short, to new social norms in the clinical workplace. At organizational levels, consistent shared decision-making might boost patient experience evaluations and lead to fewer complaints and legal challenges. In the long-term, shared decision-making might lead to changes in resource utilization, perhaps to reductions in cost, and to modification of workforce composition. Despite the gradual shift to value-based payment, some organizations, motivated by continued income derived from achieving high volumes of procedures and contacts, will see this as a negative consequence.ConclusionWe suggest that a broader conceptualization and measurement of shared decision-making would provide a more substantive evidence base to guide implementation. We outline a framework which illustrates a hypothesized set of proximal, distal, and distant consequences that might occur if collaboration and deliberation could be achieved routinely, proposing that well-informed preference-based patient decisions might lead to safer, more cost-effective healthcare, which in turn might result in reduced utilization rates and improved health outcomes.

BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is poorly implemented in routine care, despite being promoted by health policies. No reviews have solely focused on an in-depth synthesis of the literature around organizational- and system-level characteristics (i.e., characteristics of healthcare organizations and of healthcare systems) that may affect SDM implementation. A synthesis would allow exploration of interventions to address these characteristics. The study aim was to compile a comprehensive overview of organizational- and system-level characteristics that are likely to influence the implementation of SDM, and to describe strategies to address those characteristics described in the literature.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. The search strategy included an electronic search and a secondary search including gray literature. We included publications reporting on projects that promoted implementation of SDM or other decision support interventions in routine healthcare. We screened titles and abstracts, and assessed full texts for eligibility. We used qualitative thematic analysis to identify organizational- and system-level characteristics.ResultsAfter screening 7745 records and assessing 354 full texts for eligibility, 48 publications on 32 distinct implementation projects were included. Most projects (N = 22) were conducted in the USA. Several organizational-level characteristics were described as influencing the implementation of SDM, including organizational leadership, culture, resources, and priorities, as well as teams and workflows. Described system-level characteristics included policies, clinical guidelines, incentives, culture, education, and licensing. We identified potential strategies to influence the described characteristics, e.g., examples how to facilitate distribution of decision aids in a healthcare institution.ConclusionsAlthough infrequently studied, organizational- and system-level characteristics appear to play a role in the failure to implement SDM in routine care. A wide range of characteristics described as supporting and inhibiting implementation were identified. Future studies should assess the impact of these characteristics on SDM implementation more thoroughly, quantify likely interactions, and assess how characteristics might operate across types of systems and areas of healthcare. Organizations that wish to support the adoption of SDM should carefully consider the role of organizational- and system-level characteristics. Implementation and organizational theory could provide useful guidance for how to address facilitators and barriers to change.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0731-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Women need to understand the link between human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer in order to make appropriate, evidence-based choices among existing prevention strategies (Pap test, HPV DNA test, and HPV vaccine). Assessment of the public's knowledge in nationally representative samples is a high priority for cervical cancer control. Objectives: To assess factors associated with U.S. women's awareness of HPV and knowledge about its link to cervical cancer. Methods: Analyzed cross-sectional data from women ages 18 to 75 years old responding to the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey (n = 3,076). Results: Among the 40% of women who had ever heard about HPV, <50% knew it caused cervical cancer; knowledge that HPV was sexually transmitted and caused abnormal Pap

This study examined whether perceived risks of heart attack, cancer, and stroke were higher among smokers than nonsmokers; whether smokers were more likely to underestimate these risks; and the demographic correlates of unrealistic risk estimation among smokers. Two thousand seven hundred eight-five patients from 12 North Carolina family practices completed a questionnaire including a health risk appraisal and questions concerning smoking behavior and perceived risks of heart attack, cancer, and stroke. While most smokers accurately perceived their health risks to be greater than nonsmokers', smokers were also more likely to underestimate their risks. This optimistic distortion of risk was associated with age, gender, and education levels. Smokers may not yet understand the magnitude of health risks posed by smoking. These data suggest the need for renewed attention to perceptions of the health risks of smoking. As long as smokers underestimate their risks, they underestimate the imperative to quit.

PURPOSE Recent clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test (PSA screening) have recommended that clinicians practice shared decision making-a process involving clinician-patient discussion of the pros, cons, and uncertainties of screening. We undertook a study to determine the prevalence of shared decision making in both PSA screening and nonscreening, as well as patient characteristics associated with shared decision making.METHODS A nationally representative sample of 3,427 men aged 50 to 74 years participating in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey responded to questions on the extent of shared decision making (past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, and scientific uncertainty associated with PSA screening), PSA screening intensity (tests in past 5 years), and sociodemographic and health-related characteristics.RESULTS Nearly two-thirds (64.3%) of men reported no past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, or scientific uncertainty (no shared decision making); 27.8% reported discussion of 1 to 2 elements only (partial shared decision making); 8.0% reported discussion of all 3 elements (full shared decision making). Nearly one-half (44.2%) reported no PSA screening, 27.8% reported low-intensity (less-than-annual) screening, and 25.1% reported high-intensity (nearly annual) screening. Absence of shared decision making was more prevalent in men who were not screened; 88% (95% CI, 86.2%-90.1%) of nonscreened men reported no shared decision making compared with 39% (95% CI, 35.0%-43.3%) of men undergoing high-intensity screening. Extent of shared decision making was associated with black race, Hispanic ethnicity, higher education, health insurance, and physician recommendation. Screening intensity was associated with older age, higher education, usual source of medical care, and physician recommendation, as well as with partial vs no or full shared decision making.CONCLUSIONS Most US men report little shared decision making in PSA screening, and the lack of shared decision making is more prevalent in nonscreened than in screened men. Screening intensity is greatest with partial shared decision making, and different elements of shared decision making are associated with distinct patient characteristics. Shared decision making needs to be improved in decisions for and against PSA screening.

A lower proportion of PCPs recommend extending screening intervals to 3 years with an HPV cotest than those screening with the Pap test alone. Implementation of effective interventions and strategies that improve physician adherence to recommendations will be important for efficient screening practices.

No abstract

Conflicting expert recommendations regarding cancer screening and prevention are growing in number, visibility, and importance, but their impact are not well understood. In this study, we examined the impact of conflicting recommendations about mammography screening on women's mammography behavior and perceptions. We conducted a secondary analysis of longitudinal data from the 1995 Maximizing Mammography Participation Trial, a large randomized interventional trial examining the effectiveness of patient reminders in increasing mammography utilization among women ages 50 to 79. Using the decision theory concept of ''ambiguity'' as an analytic framework, we tested several predictions about the effects of conflicting recommendations regarding mammography recommendations on behavior, cognitions, and emotions related to mammography screening. We found high perceived ambiguity about mammography recommendations to be associated with both diminished uptake of mammography over time [odds ratio (OR), 0.42; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.23-0.76; P < 0.0001] and lower intentions for future mammography (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20-0.55; P < 0.0001). High perceived ambiguity also predicted greater mammography-related worry over time (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.79-3.78; P < 0.0001). These findings suggest that conflicting recommendations regarding cancer screening and prevention have important effects, and we discuss the implications of these findings for future research. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(3):458 -66)