Shared Decision-Making Measures: A Systematic Review

Ahmad, Muayyad; Tabar, Nazih Abu; Othman, Elham H; Abdelrahim, Zakaria

doi:10.1097/qmh.0000000000000250

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…22,23 Patients valued a shared approach to decision-making for choosing the right treatment option and emphasised the importance of enhanced communication with healthcare professionals. 24 Finally, global values were expressed, such as autonomy, self-image and intimacy. 25,26 Our study provides valuable insights into patients' values for health treatment decisions within rheumatoid arthritis care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Matters to Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis When Facing Medical or Non-Medical Treatment Decisions?

Cornelissen¹,

Mark²,

Pennings³

et al. 2021

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In rheumatoid arthritis care, patients and healthcare professionals regularly face health treatment decisions. Sorting out what matters to a patient as being relevant to a specific decision is therefore essential. Methods: An explorative mixed-methods study was performed to investigate patients' values for health treatment decisions and their importance in order to develop a future decision aid on value clarification. Ten semi-structured interviews with patient partners were conducted followed by an online survey among the broader population of patients. Qualitative content analysis was performed. Data from the online survey were analysed descriptively and quantitatively. Results: According to patients, 17 important health treatment decisions in rheumatoid arthritis care can occur. The most commonly reported decisions concerned the use of medication. A variety of values may guide patients' health treatment decisions. We found 66 values among four domains of values -decisional, situational, external and global. Among decisional values, reported main values were a) effectiveness of treatment on inflammation, functioning, pain and fatigue; b) avoiding negative side-effects; and c) keeping in good physical condition. In addition, situational values turned out to be a) staying independent; b) being able to meet people; and c) leading as normal a life as possible. Furthermore, patients prefer healthcare professionals who a) take comorbidity into account, b) have enough time, and c) take the patient seriously in their choicesthe external values. Finally, as global values were expressed a) autonomy; b) self-image, and c) intimacy. All values are specified by underlying quotes, for example, the value effectiveness on inflammation; "That inflammation has got to go, because you've then got the risk that you'll develop all kinds of things in the course of time". Conclusion:A variety of values may guide patients' health treatment decisions within rheumatoid arthritis care. Patients and professionals should discuss patients' values continuously.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Matters to Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis When Facing Medical or Non-Medical Treatment Decisions?

Cornelissen¹,

Mark²,

Pennings³

et al. 2021

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To improve the identification of unwarranted practice variation future studies should not only measure patient preference but should focus on the implementation of shared decision making. Recent literature shows that several shared decision making measures are available which could be included in the study design of medical practice variation studies [ 34 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design characteristics of studies on medical practice variation of caesarean section rates: a scoping review

Vink

Bekker

Koolman

et al. 2020

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Medical practice variation in caesarean section rates is the most studied type of practice variation in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology. This has not resulted in increased homogeneity of treatment between geographic areas or healthcare providers. Our study aim was to evaluate whether current study designs on medical practice variation of caesarean section rates were optimized to identify the unwarranted share of practice variation and could contribute to the reduction of unwarranted practice variation by meeting criteria for audit and feedback. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCO/CINAHL and Wiley/Cochrane Library from inception to March 24th, 2020. Studies that compared the rate of caesarean sections between individuals, institutions or geographic areas were included. Study design was assessed on: selection procedure of study population, data source, case-mix correction, patient preference, aggregation level of analysis, maternal and neonatal outcome, and determinants (professional and organizational characteristics). Results: A total of 284 studies were included. Most studies (64%) measured the caesarean section rate in the entire study population instead of using a sample (30%). (National) databases were most often used as information source (57%). Case-mix correction was performed in 87 studies (31%). The Robson classification was used in 20% of the studies following its endorsement by the WHO in 2015. The most common levels of aggregation were hospital level (35%) and grouped hospitals (35%) e.g. private versus public. The percentage of studies that assessed the relationship between variation in caesarean section rates and maternal outcome was 9%, neonatal outcome 19%, determinants (professional and organizational characteristics) 21% and patient preference 2%. Conclusions: Study designs of practice variation in caesarean sections varied considerably, raising questions about their appropriateness. Studies focused on measuring practice variation, rather than contributing to the reduction of unwarranted practice variation. Future studies should correct for differences in patient characteristics (case-mix) and patient preference to identify unwarranted practice variation. Practice variation studies could be used for audit and feedback if results are presented at lower levels of aggregation, and appeal to intrinsic motivation of physicians, for example by including the health effects on mother and child.

show abstract

“…Instruments to measure SDM are essential for research on the development of tools to facilitate SDM, implementation of SDM in clinical care, evaluation of professional development activities to promote SDM, and determination of the effect of SDM on health outcomes. 2,[31][32][33][34] Most instruments are based on key Choice under risk and uncertainty are typically viewed through a cognitive and consequentialist framework. However, affect experienced at the moment of decision-making can diverge from cognitive assessments.…”

Section: Measures Of Sdmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Himmelfarb¹,

Beckie²,

Allen³

et al. 2023

Circulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shared decision-making is increasingly embraced in health care and recommended in cardiovascular guidelines. Patient involvement in health care decisions, patient-clinician communication, and models of patient-centered care are critical to improve health outcomes and to promote equity, but formal models and evaluation in cardiovascular care are nascent. Shared decision-making promotes equity by involving clinicians and patients, sharing the best available evidence, and recognizing the needs, values, and experiences of individuals and their families when faced with the task of making decisions. Broad endorsement of shared decision-making as a critical component of high-quality, value-based care has raised our awareness, although uptake in clinical practice remains suboptimal for a range of patient, clinician, and system issues. Strategies effective in promoting shared decision-making include educating clinicians on communication techniques, engaging multidisciplinary medical teams, incorporating trained decision coaches, and using tools (ie, patient decision aids) at appropriate literacy and numeracy levels to support patients in their cardiovascular decisions. This scientific statement shines a light on the limited but growing body of evidence of the impact of shared decision-making on cardiovascular outcomes and the potential of shared decision-making as a driver of health equity so that everyone has just opportunities. Multilevel solutions must align to address challenges in policies and reimbursement, system-level leadership and infrastructure, clinician training, access to decision aids, and patient engagement to fully support patients and clinicians to engage in the shared decision-making process and to drive equity and improvement in cardiovascular outcomes.

show abstract

Shared Decision-Making Measures: A Systematic Review

Cited by 16 publications

References 27 publications

What Matters to Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis When Facing Medical or Non-Medical Treatment Decisions?

What Matters to Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis When Facing Medical or Non-Medical Treatment Decisions?

Design characteristics of studies on medical practice variation of caesarean section rates: a scoping review

Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About