Does shared decision making results in better health related outcomes for individuals with painful musculoskeletal disorders? A systematic review

Tousignant-Laflamme, Yannick; Christopher, Shefali; Clewley, Derek; Ledbetter, Leila; Cook, Christian Jaeger; Cook, Chad

doi:10.1080/10669817.2017.1323607

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are some studies that suggest that SDM (measured with other tools) might be associated with better outcomes related to decisional conflict and patient satisfaction but it is unclear whether this relates to clinical outcomes …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translation, transcultural adaptation, and validation of two questionnaires on shared decision making

Barani

Franco

Peña

et al. 2018

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To translate, transcultural adapt, and validate the “CollaboRATE” measure and the “Ask 3 Questions” intervention in Argentina, allowing us to quantify the degree of use and implementation of shared decision making (SDM). Design Cross‐sectional study. Setting and Participants Data were collected in an academic hospital in Buenos Aires. Physician–patient pairs were invited to participate following their scheduled outpatient visits. Measurements Two processes were carried out as follows: (a) The translation and transcultural adaptation process, in which translations were produced and then adapted to Spanish. (b) The validation process, in which questionnaires were completed by patient–physician pairs, the results of which were subsequently analysed. Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) and construct validity (principal component analysis) were assessed. Results The final Spanish versions of “CollaboRATE” and “Ask 3 Questions” were tested in a primary care sample of 56 participants. Both instruments presented adequate reliability and validity. Internal consistency yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 98.3 for the “CollaboRATE” measure and 0.77 and 0.69 for the patients and physicians versions of the “Ask 3 Questions” intervention. Principal components analysis showed eigenvalues of first component >1. Discussion and Conclusions We obtained valid and reliable Spanish versions of the “CollaboRATE” measure and the “Ask 3 Questions” intervention. These versions can be used for the assessment of SDM in clinical visits, and to obtain new information which could help the monitoring of its implementation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translation, transcultural adaptation, and validation of two questionnaires on shared decision making

Barani

Franco

Peña

et al. 2018

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the last decade, the term ‘Shared Decision Making’ (SDM) has gained increasing attention in physiotherapy research (Hoffmann et al, 2014; Parsons et al, 2012; Topp, Westenhöfer, Scholl, & Hahlweg, 2017; Tousignant‐Laflamme et al, 2017), with a recent claim that it should be an integral part of physiotherapy practice (Hoffmann, Lewis, & Maher, 2020). Shared Decision Making can be defined as: A consultation process where a clinician and patient jointly participate in making a health decision, having discussed the options and their benefits and harms, and having considered the patient's values, preferences and circumstances (Hoffmann et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a Swedish qualitative study on physiotherapy for musculoskeletal problems, all participants described a preference for participating in the clinical decision making process (Bernhardsson, Larsson, Johansson, & Öberg, 2017). In contrast, a systematic review reported a lack of studies showing a true effect on patient reported outcomes and questions the efficacy of SDM in a population with musculoskeletal pain (Tousignant‐Laflamme et al, 2017). This conclusion is supported by a recent clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) with patients with low back pain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do patients with low back pain remember physiotherapists' advice? A mixed‐methods study on patient‐therapist communication

Supp

Schoch

Baumstark

et al. 2020

Physiotherapy Res Intl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The primary aim of this study was to determine if the advice physiotherapists think they provide to patients with low back pain (LBP) is what the patients remember and take away from the clinical encounter. The secondary aim was to determine which factors may influence the retention of this advice. Methods: The first component of the study used questionnaires completed by patients and therapists after the initial visit. Related questionnaires of patients and therapists were screened for inconsistencies. The second component of the study involved semi-structured interviews. Results: Ninety pairs of questionnaires were completed. Therapists provided patients with one (N = 90), two (N = 85) or three (N = 51) items of advice regarding the management of their LBP. All patients remembered the first item of advice, 92% remembered a second, and 67% remembered the third piece of advice. All items of advice were deemed either 'relevant' or 'very relevant' by 97% of the patients. After the analysis of 14 interviews, data saturation was reached. Four themes emerged from the data analysis of the interviews: (a) Evaluation type, (b) Exercise factors, (c) Patient concerns about their diagnosis, and (d) Patient expectations. Discussion: In most cases, patients remembered what therapists told them and considered that the advice provided was relevant. Based on the qualitative data, patients were more likely to remember what therapists said when: (a) shared decision making was used during the initial encounter, (b) prescribed exercises were simple to perform and few in number, (c) patients' concerns about their diagnosis were addressed, and (d) patients' expectations were identified and addressed. K E Y W O R D S communication, low back pain, shared decision making 1 | INTRODUCTION Communication is at the heart of any interaction between a healthcare professional and a patient (Moore & Jull, 2015), with communication skills being identified as critical in the therapeutic encounter between physiotherapists and patients (O'Keeffe et al., 2016). A positive patient-therapist interaction has been linked with reduced pain and disability, and higher satisfaction with treatment (Hall, Ferreira, Maher, Latimer, & Ferreira, 2010). In its turn, enhanced therapeutic alliance and good patient adherence with suggested management strategies leads to superior outcomes (Escolar-Reina et al.

show abstract

“…These have been labeled consumerist, informative, informed, autonomous, or engineering models [3,7,[13][14][15][16]. Despite being touted as the ultimate model, several systematic reviews of shared decision making reveal a dearth of supportive evidence, leaving their impact on empirical health outcomes uncertain [10,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiencing Positive Health, as a Family, While Living With a Rare Complex Disease: Bringing Participatory Medicine Through Collaborative Decision Making Into the Real World (Preprint)

Poduri¹,

Devinsky²,

Tabacinic³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

UNSTRUCTURED Physician–patient collaboration was recognized as a critical core of participatory medicine more than a century ago. However, the subsequent focus on scientific research to enable cures and increased dominance of physicians in health care subordinated patients to a passive role. This paternalistic model weakened in the past 50 years—as women, minorities, and the disabled achieved greater rights, and as incurable chronic diseases and unrelieved pain disorders became more prevalent—promoting a more equitable role for physicians and patients. By 2000, a <i>shared decision-making model</i> became the pinnacle for clinical decisions, despite a dearth of data on health outcomes, or the model’s reliance on single patient or solo practitioner studies, or evidence that no single model could fit all clinical situations. We report about a young woman with intractable epilepsy due to a congenital brain malformation whose family and medical specialists used a <i>collaborative decision-making approach</i>. This model positioned the health professionals as supporters of the proactive family, and enabled them all to explore and co-create knowledge beyond the clinical realm. Together, they involved other members of the community in the decisions, while harnessing diverse relationships to allow all family members to achieve positive levels of health, despite the resistance of the seizures to medical treatment and the incurable nature of the underlying disease.

show abstract

Does shared decision making results in better health related outcomes for individuals with painful musculoskeletal disorders? A systematic review

Cited by 21 publications

References 44 publications

Translation, transcultural adaptation, and validation of two questionnaires on shared decision making

Translation, transcultural adaptation, and validation of two questionnaires on shared decision making

Do patients with low back pain remember physiotherapists' advice? A mixed‐methods study on patient‐therapist communication

Experiencing Positive Health, as a Family, While Living With a Rare Complex Disease: Bringing Participatory Medicine Through Collaborative Decision Making Into the Real World (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About