Building ground for didactics in a patient decision aid for hip osteoarthritis. Exploring patient-related barriers and facilitators towards shared decision-making

Brembo, Espen Andreas; Eide, Hilde; Lauritzen, Mirjam; Dulmen, Sandra van; Kasper, Jürgen

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2020.02.003

Cited by 10 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… 29 , 30 , 31 Additionally, patients with better physical health, decision‐making skills and high health literacy are more easily involved in the adoption of SDM. 32 , 33 , 34 Patients with open, honest, polite, confident personalities, higher self‐efficacy and self‐awareness are more likely to make decisions. 35 , 36 , 37 Also, patients who are younger, less susceptible to racial prejudice and have few language barriers are considered more likely to participate in SDM.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision‐making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure–process–outcome model

Tang

Wang

2022

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Shared decision-making (SDM) as a multicollaborative approach is vital for facilitating patient-centred care. Considering the limited clinical practice, we attempted to synthesize the motivations and resistances, and investigate their mutual relationships for advancing the implementation of SDM.Methods: A comprehensive systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed. 'Shared decision making' was searched as the mesh term through PubMed, Web of Science and EBSCO from 2000 to 2021, and the quality of literature was appraised using the QualSyst Tool. Motivations and resistances were categorized based on content analysis and the 'structure-process-outcome' model.Results: From 8319 potential citations, 105 were included, comprising 53 qualitative studies (the average quality score is 0.92) and 52 quantitative studies (the average quality score is 0.95). A total of 42 categories of factors were identified into 11 themes and further grouped into three dimensions: structure, process and outcome.The structure dimension comprised six themes (71.43%), the process dimension contained four themes (11.01%) and the outcome dimension covered only one theme. Across all categories, decision-making time and patients' decision preparedness in the process dimension were the most reported, followed by physicians' communication skills and health care environment in the structure dimension.Analysis of implementation of SDM among various types of diseases showed that more influencing factors were extracted from chronic diseases and unspecified disease decisions. Conclusions:The major determinants for the implementation of SDM are focused on the structural dimension, which challenges the health systems of both developed and low-and middle-income countries. Furthermore, we consider it important to

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision‐making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure–process–outcome model

Tang

Wang

2022

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Halvparten av kvinnene i veiledningsgruppen tok et informert valg, mens ingen av de valgene som ble tatt i kontrollgruppen, oppfylte kriteriene for informerte valg. I Norge er det utviklet ere samvalgsverktøy (13,(18)(19)(20), som er publisert på helsenorge.no. DAfactory har laget en veileder for hvordan samvalgsverktøy kan utvikles og implementeres mens de utvikles.…”

Section: Integrering Av Beslutningsstøtte Til Pasienter I Grunnleggenunclassified

Sykepleiere trenger kompetanse i samvalg

Kienlin¹,

Smedsrød²,

Eide³

et al. 2020

Sykepleien

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is caused by the patient’s emotional state, like feeling tense or overwhelmed, the perceived time pressure, uncertainty about their own understanding, not wanting to be bothersome, remembering questions only after the consultation and also the attitude of the professional [ 2 – 4 ]. Furthermore, patients are hindered by the power imbalance [ 5 ], or their inability to change the agenda in the consultation [ 6 ]. Although medical specialists are increasingly trained in communication skills, transfer to real consultations is still limited [ 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient coaching: What do patients want? A mixed methods study in waiting rooms of outpatient clinics

Alders¹,

Smits²,

Brand

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Effective communication in specialist consultations is difficult for some patients. These patients could benefit from support from a coach who accompanies them to and during medical specialist consultations to improve communication in the consultation room. This study aims to investigate patients’ perspective on interest in support from a patient coach, what kind of support they would like to receive and what characterizes an ideal patient coach. Methods We applied a mixed method design to obtain a realistic understanding of patients’ perspectives on a patient coach. Patients in the waiting rooms of outpatient clinics were asked to fill out a short questionnaire which included questions about demographic characteristics, perceived efficacy in patient-provider interaction and patients’ interest in support from a patient coach. Subsequently, patients interested in a patient coach were asked to participate in a semi-structured interview. The quantitative data were examined using univariate analysis and the qualitative interview data were analysed using content analysis. Results The survey was completed by 154 patients and eight of them were interviewed. Perceived efficacy in patient-physician interactions was the only variable that showed a significant difference between patients with and without an interest in support from a patient coach. The interviews revealed that a bad communication experience was the main reason for having an interest in support from a patient coach. Before the consultation, a patient coach should take the time to get to know the patient, build trust, and help the patient create an agenda, so take the patient seriously and recognize the patient as a whole person. During the consultation, a patient coach should support the patient by intervening and mediating when necessary to elicit the patient’s agenda. After the consultation, a patient coach should be able to explain and discuss medical information and treatment consequences. An ideal patient coach should have medical knowledge, a strong personality and good communication skills. Conclusion Especially patients who had a bad communication experience in a specialist consultation would like support from a patient coach. The kind of support they valued most was intervening and mediating during the consultation. To build the necessary trust, patient coaches should take time to get to know the patient and take the patient seriously. Medical knowledge, good communication skills and a strong personality were considered prerequisites for patient coaches to be capable to intervene in specialist consultations.

show abstract

Building ground for didactics in a patient decision aid for hip osteoarthritis. Exploring patient-related barriers and facilitators towards shared decision-making

Cited by 10 publications

References 25 publications

Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision‐making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure–process–outcome model

Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision‐making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure–process–outcome model

Sykepleiere trenger kompetanse i samvalg

Patient coaching: What do patients want? A mixed methods study in waiting rooms of outpatient clinics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About