How does decision complexity affect shared decision making? An analysis of patient-provider antiretroviral initiation dialogue

‘We want it all’: ART preferences assessed by D esirability of O utcome R anking

OBJECTIVES

Understanding how people living with HIV (PLWH) view antiretroviral therapy (ART) prescribing choices is fundamental to patient-centred care. We used the Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) approach to explore patient ART preferences.

METHODS

Seventy-four PLWH entered the study, 20 into the 'pilot study', and 54 in the 'comparative study'. Participants ranked five different hypothetical patient stories by desirability. Each story comprised five narrative lines, each line addressing one treatment characteristic drawn from one of five pre-selected domains (treatment failure, treatment difficulty, adverse effects, long-term complications, life events). Narrative lines could be favourable or adverse. In the pilot study the number of adverse domains varied from one to five. Comparative study stories were fixed at two adverse versus three favourable domains, to test the relative ranking of different domains.

RESULTS

The pilot study identified a relationship between the number of adverse domains and rank (R²  = 0.54; p < 0.0001, Friedman test), however pairwise differences in ranking were not significant beyond three adverse domains. In the comparative study, all domains were ranked equally across the cohort (p = 0.88; Friedman test). In pre-defined demographic subgroup analyses, women ranked the 'treatment failure' domain significantly less desirable than men (p = 0.0014, Mann-Whitney test).

CONCLUSIONS

People living with HIV appear to care equally about all aspects of ART. The observation that male and female PLWH have different treatment priorities merits further investigation in larger studies. Interindividual differences highlight the importance of individualized shared decision-making and treatment personalization. DOOR may have a role as a pre-treatment assessment tool as well as a research technique.

What makes difficult decisions so difficult?: An activity theory analysis of decision making for physicians treating children with medical complexity

OBJECTIVE

Shared Decision-Making (SDM) has been advocated as an ideal model of decision-making in the medical encounter. Much of the research into SDM has focused on measuring if SDM is happening, or facilitating SDM by developing specific models and tools. Understanding SDM as an activity in context, has remained mostly absent from the research. This study sought to garner details on the actions, judgements and motives that comprise the activity of making a decision, in the context of a shared process between physicians and families of Children with Medical Complexity (CMC).

METHODS

11 physicians who treat CMC were interviewed. Activity Theory framework was employed to understand the complexity of the decision-making process in context.

RESULTS

Ambiguous information, conflicting rules, and beliefs on roles all contribute to the difficulty of decision-making. A decision is achieved by allocating the decision to one party.

CONCLUSION

Lack of tools, rules or beliefs that would assist sharing the decision between the physician and patient/family, contributes to the need to allocate the decision to one party.

PRACTICE IMPLICATION

In developing SDM policies and tools, one must consider all aspects of the SDM activity system, and how they influence each other and the activity as a whole.

An expanded framework to define and measure shared decision-making in dialogue: A 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approach

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to develop a comprehensive, descriptive framework to measure shared decision making (SDM) in clinical encounters.

METHODS

We combined a top-down (theoretical) approach with a bottom-up approach based on audio-recorded dialogue to identify all communication processes related to decision making. We coded 55 pediatric otolaryngology visits using the framework and report interrater reliability.

RESULTS

We identified 14 clinician behaviors and 5 patient behaviors that have not been previously described, and developed a new SDM framework that is descriptive (what does happen) rather than normative (what should happen). Through the bottom-up approach we identified three broad domains not present in other SDM frameworks: socioemotional support, understandability of clinician dialogue, and recommendation-giving. We also specify the ways in which decision-making roles are assumed implicitly rather than discussed explicitly. Interrater reliability was >75% for 92% of the coded behaviors.

CONCLUSION/PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This SDM framework allows for a more expansive understanding and analysis of how decision making takes place in clinical encounters, including new domains and behaviors not present in existing measures. We hope that this new framework will bring attention to a broader conception of SDM and allow researchers to further explore the new domains and behaviors identified.