How can continuing professional development better promote shared decision-making? Perspectives from an international collaboration.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Shared decision-making is not widely implemented in healthcare. We aimed to set a research agenda about promoting shared decision-making through continuing professional development.Methods
Thirty-six participants met for two days.Results
Participants suggested ways to improve an environmental scan that had inventoried 53 shared decision-making training programs from 14 countries. Their proposed research agenda included reaching an international consensus on shared decision-making competencies and creating a framework for accrediting continuing professional development initiatives in shared decision-making.Conclusions
Variability in shared decision-making training programs showcases the need for quality assurance frameworks.
SUBMITTER: Legare F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3154854 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
How can continuing professional development better promote shared decision-making? Perspectives from an international collaboration.
Légaré France F Bekker Hilary H Desroches Sophie S Drolet Renée R Politi Mary C MC Stacey Dawn D Borduas Francine F Cheater Francine M FM Cornuz Jacques J Coutu Marie-France MF Ferdjaoui-Moumjid Nora N Griffiths Frances F Härter Martin M Jacques André A Krones Tanja T Labrecque Michel M Neely Claire C Rodriguez Charo C Sargeant Joan J Schuerman Janet S JS Sullivan Mark D MD
Implementation science : IS 20110705
<h4>Background</h4>Shared decision-making is not widely implemented in healthcare. We aimed to set a research agenda about promoting shared decision-making through continuing professional development.<h4>Methods</h4>Thirty-six participants met for two days.<h4>Results</h4>Participants suggested ways to improve an environmental scan that had inventoried 53 shared decision-making training programs from 14 countries. Their proposed research agenda included reaching an international consensus on sha ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn this study, we sought to assess healthcare professionals' acceptance of and satisfaction with a shared decision making (SDM) educational workshop, its impact on their intention to use SDM, and their perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation of SDM in clinical settings in Iran.MethodsWe conducted an observational quantitative study that involved measurements before, during, and immediately after the educational intervention at stake. We invited healthcare professionals affiliated with Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, East Azerbaijan, Iran, to attend a half-day workshop on SDM in December 2016. Decisions about prenatal screening and knee replacement surgery was used as clinical vignettes. We provided a patient decision aid on prenatal screening that complied with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards and used illustrate videos. Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and a questionnaire to assess their familiarity with SDM, a questionnaire based on theoretical domains framework to assess their intention to implement SDM, a questionnaire about their perceived facilitators and barriers of implementing SDM in their clinical practice, continuous professional development reaction questionnaire, and workshop evaluation. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively and with multiple linear regression.ResultsAmong the 60 healthcare professionals invited, 41 participated (68%). Twenty-three were female (57%), 18 were specialized in family and emergency medicine, or community and preventive medicine (43%), nine were surgeons (22%), and 14 (35%) were other types of specialists. Participants' mean age was 37.51 ± 8.64 years with 8.09 ± 7.8 years of clinical experience. Prior to the workshop, their familiarity with SDM was 3.10 ± 2.82 out of 9. After the workshop, their belief that practicing SDM would be beneficial and useful (beliefs about consequences) (beta = 0.67, 95% CI 0.27, 1.06) and beliefs about capability of using SDM (beta = 0.32, 95% CI -0.08, 0.72) had the strongest influence on their intention of practicing SDM. Participants perceived the main facilitator and barrier to perform SDM were training and high patient load, respectively.ConclusionsParticipants thought the workshop was a good way to learn SDM and that they would be able to use what they had learned in their clinical practice. Future studies need to study the level of intention of participants in longer term and evaluate the impact of cultural differences on practicing SDM and its implementation in both western and non-western countries.
| S-EPMC7953598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient decision aids are increasingly regarded as important components of clinical practice that enable shared decision making (SDM) and evidence based patient choice. Despite broad acceptance of their value, there remains little evidence of their successful implementation in primary care settings.MethodsHealth care practitioners from five general practice surgeries in northern England participated in focus group sessions around the themes of patient decision aids, patient and practitioner preferences and SDM. Participants included general practitioners (n = 19), practice nurses (n = 5) and auxiliary staff (n = 3). Transcripts were analysed using a framework approach.ResultsWe report a) practitioners' discussion of the current impetus towards sharing decisions and their perspectives on barriers to SDM, and b) the implementation of patient decision aids in practice and impediments such as lack of an evidence base and time available in consultations.ConclusionWe demonstrate two orientations to sharing decisions: practitioner-centred and patient-centred with the former predominating. We argue that it is necessary to rethink the changes required in practice for the implementation of SDM.
| S-EPMC2248564 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1117549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEndometriosis, a systemic chronic inflammatory condition which has no cure, has a high symptom burden that can negatively impact every facet of life. Given the absence of a gold-standard treatment, the best symptom management regimen in endometriosis is heavily reliant on a patient's values and preferences, making shared decision-making (SDM) vital. However, a comprehensive patient decision aid (PtDA) intervention that could facilitate patient decision-making and promote SDM is lacking in endometriosis, and there is little research on the decisional support needs of individuals with this condition. This qualitative study aimed to explore healthcare professional (HP) perspectives of their clients' decisional support needs when choosing treatments to manage endometriosis symptoms, with a view to evaluating the need for a PtDA.MethodsAustralian HPs identified as specialising in endometriosis care (N = 13) were invited to participate in a short interview over the Internet by phone. Questions focussed on perceived facilitators and challenges of decision-making when choosing treatments for endometriosis. Transcribed qualitative data were thematically analysed and verified by multiple coders, using the template approach.ResultsFour themes were identified: (1) Identifying and setting priorities; (2) HPs' lack of time and perceived lack of knowledge; (3) Patient-centred care and SDM, including patient capacity; and (4) Decision-making blinded by hope. This is the first known study to explore HPs' perspectives on patient decision-making challenges in endometriosis.DiscussionFindings draw attention to the difficulties people with endometriosis experience when assessing and choosing treatments, highlighting the need for a comprehensive PtDA intervention to support this decision-making.
| S-EPMC11295683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceShared decision-making (SDM) is a key component of the provision of ethical care, but prior reviews have indicated that clinical practice guidelines seldom promote or facilitate SDM. It is currently unknown whether these findings extend to contemporary cardiovascular guidelines.ObjectiveTo identify and characterize integration of SDM in contemporary cardiovascular guideline recommendations using a systematic classification system.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study assessed the latest guidelines or subsequent updates that included pharmacotherapy recommendations and were published between January 2012 and December 2022 by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Data were analyzed from February 21 to July 21, 2023.Main outcomes and measuresAll pharmacotherapy recommendations were identified within each guideline. Recommendations that incorporated SDM were rated according to a systematic rating framework to evaluate the quality of SDM incorporation based on directness (range, 1-3; assessing whether SDM was incorporated directly and impartially into the recommendation's text, with 1 indicating direct and impartial incorporation of SDM into the recommendation's text) and facilitation (range, A-D; assessing whether decision aids or quantified benefits and harms were provided, with A indicating that a decision aid quantifying benefits and harms was provided). The proportion of recommendations incorporating SDM was also analyzed according to guideline society and category (eg, general cardiology, heart failure).ResultsAnalyses included 65 guideline documents, and 33 documents (51%) incorporated SDM either in a general statement or within specific recommendations. Of 7499 recommendations, 2655 (35%) recommendations addressed pharmacotherapy, and of these, 170 (6%) incorporated SDM. By category, general cardiology guidelines contained the highest proportion of pharmacotherapy recommendations incorporating SDM (86 of 865 recommendations [10%]), whereas heart failure and myocardial disease contained the least (9 of 315 recommendations [3%]). The proportion of pharmacotherapy recommendations incorporating SDM was comparable across societies (ACC: 75 of 978 recommendations [8%]; CCS: 29 of 333 recommendations [9%]; ESC: 67 of 1344 recommendations [5%]), with no trend for change over time. Only 5 of 170 SDM recommendations (3%) were classified as grade 1A (impartial recommendations for SDM supported by a decision aid), whereas 114 of 170 recommendations (67%) were grade 3D (SDM mentioned only in supporting text and without any tools or information to facilitate SDM).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study across guidelines published by 3 major cardiovascular societies over the last decade, 51% of guidelines mentioned the importance of SDM, yet only 6% of recommendations incorporated SDM in any form, and fewer adequately facilitated SDM.
| S-EPMC10485733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOur objective was to elicit clinicians' and parents' perspectives about decision-making related to hospitalization for children with bronchiolitis and the use of shared decision-making (SDM) to guide these decisions.MethodsWe conducted individual, semistructured interviews with purposively sampled clinicians (pediatric emergency medicine physicians and nurses) at 2 children's hospitals and parents of children age <2 years with bronchiolitis evaluated in the emergency department at 1 hospital. Interviews elicited clinicians' and parents' perspectives on decision-making and SDM for bronchiolitis. We conducted an inductive analysis following the principles of grounded theory until data saturation was reached for both groups.ResultsWe interviewed 24 clinicians (17 physicians, 7 nurses) and 20 parents. Clinicians identified factors in 3 domains that contribute to hospitalization decision-making for children with bronchiolitis: demographics, clinical factors, and social-emotional factors. Although many clinicians supported using SDM for hospitalization decisions, most reported using a clinician-guided decision-making process in practice. Clinicians also identified several barriers to SDM, including the unpredictable course of bronchiolitis, perceptions of parents' preferences for engaging in SDM, and parents' emotions, health literacy, preferred language, and comfort with discharge. Parents wanted the opportunity to express their opinions during decision-making about hospitalization, although they often felt comfortable with the clinician's decision when adequately informed.ConclusionsAlthough clinicians and parents of children with bronchiolitis are supportive of SDM, most hospitalization decision-making is clinician guided. Future investigation should evaluate how to address barriers and implement SDM in practice, including training clinicians in this SDM approach.
| S-EPMC9647631 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMost knowledge translation models pay relatively little attention to patient-held knowledge and are largely based on the premise that researchers and clinicians hold all valuable knowledge, and patients are passive recipients of such knowledge. Counter to this clinician- and researcher-centred lens is a growing interest and awareness of patients as experts in their health. While naturopathic medicine is described and experienced as a patient-centred system of traditional medicine, the position of patient-held knowledge is unclear particularly when considered alongside their use of other more objective forms of knowledge such as research evidence.MethodsThis international online cross-sectional survey aimed to explore naturopathic practitioners' perceptions of the value and contribution of patient-shared knowledge and information within the context of naturopathic clinical consultations.ResultsThe survey was completed by 453 naturopathic practitioners (response rate: 74.3%). Approximately two-thirds (68.2%) of respondents reported using information shared by the patient. Most rated 'information provided by the patient' as either 'extremely important' (60.7%) or 'very important' (31.4%) to patients. Highest levels of trust were reported for information provided by the patient ('completely': 9.9%; 'a lot': 53.6%). Most practitioners indicated they trusted knowledge and information derived from the patient's personal health history 'completely' (n = 79; 21.8%) or 'a lot' (n = 226; 62.4%) from the patient's perspective of living with a health condition ('completely' [n = 63, 17.4%]; 'a lot' [n = 224, 61.9%]). Patients were the highest ranked stakeholder group (mean: 1.5) perceived to influence NP use of patient experience of living with a health condition to inform clinical decision-making.ConclusionResearchers and policy makers are increasingly focused on the value of the 'expert patient' in clinical decision-making, yet health professionals' report challenges and, in some cases, resistance to meaningfully engaging with patient-shared knowledge in practice. However, our study has found patient-shared knowledge - inclusive of patient experience of their health condition - is among the knowledge used and trusted by naturopathic practitioners to inform their clinical decision-making. This study both offers insights into the knowledge translation behaviours of an under-researched health profession and provides a novel contribution to the wider aim of adopting patient-shared knowledge into clinical care more generally.
| S-EPMC10354883 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLung cancer treatment decisions are typically made among clinical experts in a multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) based on clinical data and guidelines. The rise of artificial intelligence and cultural shifts towards patient autonomy are changing the nature of clinical decision-making towards personalized treatments. This can be supported by clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that generate personalized treatment information as a basis for shared decision-making (SDM). Little is known about lung cancer patients' treatment decisions and the potential for SDM supported by CDSSs. The aim of this study is to understand to what extent SDM is done in current practice and what clinicians need to improve it.ObjectiveTo explore (1) the extent to which patient preferences are taken into consideration in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment decisions; (2) clinician perspectives on using CDSSs to support SDM.DesignMixed methods study consisting of a retrospective cohort study on patient deviation from MTB advice and reasons for deviation, qualitative interviews with lung cancer specialists and observations of MTB discussions and patient consultations.Setting and participantsNSCLC patients (N = 257) treated at a single radiotherapy clinic and nine lung cancer specialists from six Dutch clinics.ResultsWe found a 10.9% (n = 28) deviation rate from MTB advice; 50% (n = 14) were due to patient preference, of which 85.7% (n = 12) chose a less intensive treatment than MTB advice. Current MTB recommendations are based on clinician experience, guidelines and patients' performance status. Most specialists (n = 7) were receptive towards CDSSs but cited barriers, such as lack of trust, lack of validation studies and time. CDSSs were considered valuable during MTB discussions rather than in consultations.ConclusionLung cancer decisions are heavily influenced by clinical guidelines and experience, yet many patients prefer less intensive treatments. CDSSs can support SDM by presenting the harms and benefits of different treatment options rather than giving single treatment advice. External validation of CDSSs should be prioritized.Patient or public contributionThis study did not involve patients or the public explicitly; however, the study design was informed by prior interviews with volunteers of a cancer patient advocacy group. The study objectives and data collection were supported by Dutch health care insurer CZ for a project titled 'My Best Treatment' that improves patient-centeredness and the lung cancer patient pathway in the Netherlands.
| S-EPMC9327823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) has the potential to improve hypertension care quality and equity. However, research lacks diverse representation and evidence about how race and ethnicity affect SDM. Therefore, this study aims to explore SDM in the context of hypertension management.Methods and resultsExplanatory sequential mixed-methods design was used. Quantitative data were sourced at baseline and 12-month follow up from RICH LIFE (Reducing Inequities in Care of Hypertension: Lifestyle Improvement for Everyone) participants (n=1212) with hypertension. Qualitative data were collected from semistructured individual interviews, at 12-month follow-up, with participants (n=36) selected based on their SDM scores and blood pressure outcome. Patients were cross- categorized based on high or low SDM scores and systolic blood pressure reduction of ≥10 or <10 mm Hg. Multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that predictors of SDM scores and blood pressure outcome were race and ethnicity (relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.64; P=0.029), age (RRR, 1.03; P=0.002), educational level (RRR, 1.87; P=0.016), patient activation (RRR, 0.98; P<0.001; RRR, 0.99; P=0.039), and hypertension knowledge (RRR, 2.2; P<0.001; and RRR, 1.57; P=0.045). Qualitative and mixed-methods findings highlight that provider-patient communication and relationship influenced SDM, being emphasized both as facilitators and barriers. Other facilitators were patients' understanding of hypertension; clinicians' interest in the patient, and clinicians' personality and attitudes; and barriers included perceived lack of compassion, relationship hierarchy, and time constraints.ConclusionsParticipants with different SDM scores and blood pressure outcomes varied in determinants of decision and descriptions of contextual factors influencing SDM. Results provide actionable information, are novel, and expand our understanding of factors influencing SDM in hypertension.
| S-EPMC11292762 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Shared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as a strategy for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. Our studies to date suggest that while the use of a novel computer-based decision aid facilitates several components of SDM from both the patient and provider perspective, there is a reluctance among providers to acquiesce to patient preferences for a particular screening strategy when its differs from their own. The overall objective of this study is to assess whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia influences clinical decision-making related to screening test selection and adherence within a SDM framework. Eligible subjects will be randomized to either an experimental arm, in which they will be asked to complete a 6-item risk assessment questionnaire known as the "Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia Index [ACNI]" after reviewing a web-based decision aid, or a control arm, in which they will only review the decision aid. Both interventions will take place just before a prearranged office visit with their provider. The primary outcome will be screening test ordered; secondary outcomes will include test completion rates, concordance between test preference and test ordered,, patient satisfaction with decision-making process, screening intentions, 6-month test completion rates and provider satisfaction. Outcomes will be evaluated using computerized tracking systems or validated instruments.
| 2125199 | ecrin-mdr-crc