A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

Zagt, Anne C.; Bos, Nanne; Bakker, Max; de Boer, Dolf; Friele, Roland D.; de Jong, Judith D.

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2023.108030

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 301 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The clear mismatch between the observed and perceived levels of SDM seen in the SHOUT-BC data has also been reported in other studies (e.g., [26,27]). An explanation for this finding is that patients take different factors into account (e.g., satisfaction with the clinician) [28], meaning a mismatch in the construct being measured by perceived and observed SDM instruments ("self-report bias"). It is important to create awareness of these discrepancies among HCPs using PtDAs in different settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Implementation of the Dutch Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid including Personalized Risk Estimates in the SHOUT-BC Study: A Mixed Methods Approach

Ankersmid,

Engelhardt,

Lansink Rotgerink

et al. 2024

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To improve Shared decision-making (SDM) regarding personalized post-treatment surveillance, the Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid (BCS-PtDA), integrating personalized risk information, was developed and implemented in eight hospitals. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to (1) assess the implementation and participation rates, (2) identify facilitators and barriers for use by health care professionals (HCPs), (3) quantify the observed level of SDM, and (4) evaluate risk communication and SDM application in consultations. Methods: Implementation and participation rates and patients’ BCS-PtDA use were calculated using hospital registry data and BCS-PtDA log data. HCPs’ perspective on facilitators and barriers were collected using the MIDI framework. Observed SDM levels in consultation transcripts were quantified using the OPTION-5 scale. Thematic analysis was performed to assess consultation content. Results: The average PtDA implementation and participation rates were, respectively, 26% and 61%. HCPs reported that the PtDA supported choice awareness. Reported barriers for implementation were mainly increased workload and a lack of perceived benefits. The consultation analysis (n = 64) showed patients were offered a choice, but deliberation was lacking. Risk communication was generally adequate. Discussion: When the BCS-PtDA was used, patients were clearly given a choice regarding their post-treatment surveillance, but information provision and SDM application can be improved.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Implementation of the Dutch Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid including Personalized Risk Estimates in the SHOUT-BC Study: A Mixed Methods Approach

Ankersmid,

Engelhardt,

Lansink Rotgerink

et al. 2024

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Longitudinal Assessment of Communication With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Lung Cancer Screening

Slatore,

Golden,

Schweiger

et al. 2024

CHEST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Shared Decision Making in Differentiated Antiretroviral Therapy Service in Northwest Ethiopia: Implications for Policy and Practice

Belay,

Yitayal,

Atnafu

et al. 2024

MDM Policy & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Shared decision making (SDM) for patients enrolling in differentiated antiretroviral therapy (DART) is crucial. Empirical evidence is lacking regarding factors promoting or hindering SDM implementation in DART provision in Ethiopia. Hence, this study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM for patients enrolled in DART in Northwest Ethiopia. Methods. A qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews among 17 patients and 15 providers at health facilities providing DART service was conducted. The MAXQDA version 20 software was used for inductive coding. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results. Ten themes emerged at 4 levels related to SDM in the provision of DART: patient, provider, organizational, and health system. At the patient level, 1) trust in providers (facilitator) and 2) patient’s level of education (barrier) emerged as themes. At the provider level, 3) lack of familiarity with DART models (barrier) and 4) patient-provider relationship (barrier and facilitator) were emerged themes. At the organizational level, 5) workload (barrier) and 6) resources (barrier and facilitator) emerged as themes. At the health system level, 7) availability of DART models (facilitator), 8) not involving providers while initiating DART models (barrier), 9) other providers’ involvement (facilitator), and 10) presence of other implementing partners (barrier) emerged as themes. Conclusions. Numerous barriers and facilitators influence the implementation of SDM in the provision of DART. Based on these findings, the following steps are recommended. Providing access to patient decision aids shall be in place to assist patients in making decisions about their preferred DART models. Health care workers shall be trained, and patients shall be given education to enhance the SDM process. Policy makers and program managers shall consider the resource context (training and size of human resources and convenience of rooms) for the delivery of ART service to have an appropriate implementation of SDM in clinical practice. Highlights Shared decision making in DART is influenced by various barriers and facilitators present at the patient, provider, organizational, and health system levels. Patients need education, and health care staff need regular training to improve SDM in DART service provision. Patient access to decision support tools that aid in the selection of the preferred DART model in health facilities is critical. Policy makers and program managers shall consider the availability of adequate and trained human resources as well as provide adequate space and private rooms for SDM in the implementation of DART.

show abstract

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

Cited by 3 publications

References 301 publications

Evaluation of the Implementation of the Dutch Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid including Personalized Risk Estimates in the SHOUT-BC Study: A Mixed Methods Approach

Evaluation of the Implementation of the Dutch Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid including Personalized Risk Estimates in the SHOUT-BC Study: A Mixed Methods Approach

Longitudinal Assessment of Communication With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Lung Cancer Screening

Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Shared Decision Making in Differentiated Antiretroviral Therapy Service in Northwest Ethiopia: Implications for Policy and Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About