Patient participation and shared decision making in Germany – history, agents and current transfer to practice

Härter, Martin; Müller, Hardy; Dirmaier, Jörg; Donner-Banzhoff, Norbert; Bieber, Christiane; Eich, Wolfgang

doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2011.04.002

Cited by 60 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Descriptions of 3 programs from 3 countries, including their underlying conceptual models, were discussed: (1) the MAGIC (Making Good Decisions in Collaboration) program, (United Kingdom); 18 (2) The Patient as Partner program (Germany) 6,19–21 and (3) The Ottawa Shared Decision Making Training Program (Canada). 22–25 These training programs showed remarkable variability in how and what they deliver.…”

Section: What Were the Key Issues Addressed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Core Competencies for Shared Decision Making Training Programs: Insights From an International, Interdisciplinary Working Group

Légaré

Moumjid-Ferdjaoui

Drolet

et al. 2013

Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shared decision making is now making inroads in health care professionals’ continuing education curriculum, but there is no consensus on what core competencies are required by clinicians for effectively involving patients in health-related decisions. Ready-made programs for training clinicians in shared decision making are in high demand, but existing programs vary widely in their theoretical foundations, length, and content. An international, interdisciplinary group of 25 individuals met in 2012 to discuss theoretical approaches to making health-related decisions, compare notes on existing programs, take stock of stakeholders concerns, and deliberate on core competencies. This article summarizes the results of those discussions. Some participants believed that existing models already provide a sufficient conceptual basis for developing and implementing shared decision making competency-based training programs on a wide scale. Others argued that this would be premature as there is still no consensus on the definition of shared decision making or sufficient evidence to recommend specific competencies for implementing shared decision making. However, all participants agreed that there were 2 broad types of competencies that clinicians need for implementing shared decision making: relational competencies and risk communication competencies. Further multidisciplinary research could broaden and deepen our understanding of core competencies for shared decision making training.

show abstract

Section: What Were the Key Issues Addressed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Core Competencies for Shared Decision Making Training Programs: Insights From an International, Interdisciplinary Working Group

Légaré

Moumjid-Ferdjaoui

Drolet

et al. 2013

Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients' rights were recently stressed by the enactment of a patients' rights act ("Patientenrechtegesetz") in 2013. Training programs on shared decision making have been initiated, and the German government endorses the issue of patient participation by funding research programs in this subject area [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Expertise and Patient Involvement: A Multiperspective Qualitative Observation Study of the Patient's Role in Oncological Decision Making

Salloch

Ritter²,

Wäscher

et al. 2014

The Oncologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Decision making in oncology poses intricate ethical questions because treatment decisions should account not only for evidence-based standards but also for the patient's individual values and preferences. However, there is a scarcity of empirical knowledge about patient involvement in oncological decision making. Methods. Direct, nonparticipant observation was used as a qualitative research method to gain an understanding of the interplay between medical expertise and patient participation in oncological decision making. Based on a multiperspective approach, observations were performed in three settings (tumor conference, ward round, and outpatient clinic) in the oncology department of a German university hospital. The observation transcripts were analyzed using central features of qualitative data analysis. Results. Major differences were identified regarding the decision-making processes in the three settings related to

show abstract

“…Such decision support services are already underway in many different countries, including the U.S. (25), Canada (26), the United Kingdom (27), and Germany (28). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of measuring strength-of-preference scores for health care options in preference-sensitive care

Crump

Llewellyn‐Thomas

2012

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The objective was to determine whether a paired-comparison/leaning scale method: a) could feasibly be used to elicit strength-of-preference scores for elective health care options in large community-based survey settings; and b) could reveal preferential sub-groups that would have been overlooked if only a categorical-response format had been used. Study Design Medicare beneficiaries in four different regions of the United States were interviewed in person. Participants considered 8 clinical scenarios, each with 2 to 3 different health care options. For each scenario, participants categorically selected their favored option, then indicated how strongly they favored that option relative to the alternative on a paired-comparison bi-directional Leaning Scale. Results Two hundred and two participants were interviewed. For 7 of the 8 scenarios, a clear majority (> 50%) indicated that, overall, they categorically favored one option over the alternative(s). However, the bi-directional strength-of-preference Leaning Scale scores revealed that, in 4 scenarios, for half of those participants, their preference for the favored option was actually “weak” or “neutral”. Conclusion Investigators aiming to assess population-wide preferential attitudes towards different elective health care scenarios should consider gathering ordinal-level strength-of-preference scores and could feasibly use the paired-comparison/bi-directional Leaning Scale to do so.

show abstract

Patient participation and shared decision making in Germany – history, agents and current transfer to practice

Cited by 60 publications

References 31 publications

Core Competencies for Shared Decision Making Training Programs: Insights From an International, Interdisciplinary Working Group

Core Competencies for Shared Decision Making Training Programs: Insights From an International, Interdisciplinary Working Group

Medical Expertise and Patient Involvement: A Multiperspective Qualitative Observation Study of the Patient's Role in Oncological Decision Making

The importance of measuring strength-of-preference scores for health care options in preference-sensitive care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About