Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review

Navigating Power Imbalances and Stigma in Mental Healthcare. Patient-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Shared Decision-Making in Mental Health Care, a Qualitative Meta-Summary

BACKGROUND

The use of shared decision-making (SDM) in mental healthcare has been viewed as at least as important as its use in non-mental healthcare settings, but it still does not routinely take place in this setting. To further explore SDM processes with people with lived experience, we provide a qualitative meta-summary on patient-reported barriers and facilitators to participation in SDM within the context of mental healthcare.

METHODS

Within the set of selected studies for a larger qualitative meta-summary, using five databases, we selected the studies that had surveyed patients with mental illness for further analysis in this paper. Search terms were based on the concepts: 'decision making', 'patient participation', 'patient perceptions' and 'study design' of patient reporting, including patient surveys, interviews and focus groups.

RESULTS

Out of the 90 studies that had been selected for the larger review, we selected 13 articles concerning mental illness for more detailed analysis in this review. In total, we identified 29 different influencing factors and we found 6 major barriers: 'Lack of choice', 'Not being respected as a person', 'Feeling stigma from physician', 'Disease burden', 'Power imbalance' and 'Low self-efficacy to participate'. 'Clear information provision about options', 'Being respected as a person, being taken into account', 'Good physician-patient relationship' and 'Belief in the importance of one's own role' were the main facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

Stigma and self-stigma still seem to persist in mental healthcare and continue to suppress patients' self-efficacy to participate in SDM in this setting. There is much discussion of inclusion and diversity worldwide, and these themes are just as topical for patients with mental health problems. Further work seems necessary to eradicate all stigma and self-stigma in this setting when striving for care that could be 'as shared as possible'.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The authors wish to thank Mr. Walter Geuens, a person with lived experience in mental healthcare, for his careful reading and thorough feedback on the final paper.

Integrated oncological treatment decision-making: Creating a practice of patient-centred decision-making

The growing burden of cancer, with its costly and difficult to endure therapies, underscores the urgent need for individualized care that enhances patients' quality of life. Effective individualized treatment planning requires collaboration between healthcare professionals and patients (and their relatives), focusing on patients' personal values and preferences through shared decision-making. In practice, oncology care predominantly follows clinical guidelines, which, while reducing practice variation, may not account for individual patient differences in health status and preferences. Moreover, guidelines often emphasize medical endpoints such as disease-free survival, overlooking quality of life and treatment burden considerations crucial to many patients. This can result in unfitting treatment choices and decisional regret. The Integrated Oncological Decision-making Model (IODM) addresses these challenges by incorporating three essential domains for treatment decision-making: medical treatment options, patient goals and preferences, and general health status. The IODM aims to integrate these domains into the decision-making process, ensuring that treatment plans are tailored to individual patient needs. Initial implementation of the IODM is shown promising results, with a significant proportion of patients receiving less invasive, more appropriate treatments without compromising survival outcomes. The IODM has demonstrated its potential to facilitate patient-centred care, reduce unnecessary treatments, and improve patient outcomes. Continued implementation and evaluation of the IODM across various oncological settings are essential to refine the model and ensure its integration into routine clinical practice, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of cancer care.

Autonomy support in prenatal consultation: A quantitative observation study in maternity care

INTRODUCTION

Maternity care professionals need to guide women through an increasing number of decision-making processes during pregnancy. Professionals tend to focus more on providing information than on decision support. According to the self-determination theory (SDT), professionals could help women make their own choices by fulfilling their three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness through autonomy-supportive interactions. This study aimed to quantify autonomy-supportive and autonomy-thwarting interactions that professionals use during prenatal consultations and their association with women's perceptions of the healthcare climate during consultations.

METHODS

A quantitative observation study with a cross-sectional design was conducted in the Netherlands from March to October 2020. Twenty-three maternity care professionals in 2 hospitals and 16 midwifery practices were purposefully sampled. During 104 prenatal consultations, professional interactions were audiotaped and coded using the Coding and Observing Need-Supportive Consultation in Maternity Care Consultations. The woman's perceived healthcare climate was assessed using the Healthcare Climate Questionnaire.

RESULTS

We observed that professionals derive their autonomy-supportive interactions from a small repertoire. They tend to use more autonomy-supportive interactions (mean=2.31, SD=0.58) that give room to the woman than interactions that stimulate active engagement (mean=1.41, SD=0.80). During structuring interactions, they tend to use more informative (mean=1.81, SD=0.59) than supportive interactions (mean=0.94, SD=0.55). Women generally perceived the healthcare climate as positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Women were rarely stimulated to be actively engaged in the consultations, while active woman engagement is vital in offering women-centered decision-making support. Professionals could improve their autonomy-supportive consultation climate by paying explicit attention to interactions involving women and offering structure.

Shared decision-making in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of patients' preferences and healthcare providers' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is crucial for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management due to the complexity of treatment options. This systematic review sought to understand T2DM patients' preferences and diabetes care providers' perspectives regarding SDM, and the barriers and facilitators to SDM.

METHODS

Five databases were searched from 2000 to 2023 (Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Embase). All included papers were quantitative and qualitative studies regarding preferences of patients with T2DM for SDM, perspectives of providers on SDM, and their barriers and facilitators to SDM. Quantitative findings were extracted as percentages, and qualitative findings were extracted as presented in the original research paper. Study selection was carried out independently by two authors, with discrepancies resolved by consensus and by consultation with the supervisor. The Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Qualitative Research and for Cross Sectional Studies was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included papers.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were included in this review; 22 focused on T2DM patients' decision-making preferences, 7 focused on perspectives of diabetes care providers, and 5 addressed both. Of the 27 studies of T2DM patients, 20 (ten quantitative and ten qualitative studies) reported that respondents preferred and valued SDM and wanted to make decisions in collaboration with a provider. Of the 12 studies of providers, only 5 reported that providers had positive views towards SDM and preferred to involve patients in decision-making. A comprehensive list of SDM facilitators and barriers included patient factors (facilitators like higher health literacy and motivation, and barriers like blind trust in physicians and poor health), provider factors (facilitators like a physician's information-giving behavior and medical knowledge/technical skills, and barriers like a paternalistic attitude and poor interpersonal style), and context factors (facilitators like physician accessibility and availability, and barriers like a lack of system support and low continuity).

CONCLUSION

Although SDM is important for most patients living with diabetes, the evidence from included studies suggest that providers in diabetes practice do not universally express positive views towards SDM. Because T2DM patients and their providers need to work together to implement the SDM approach satisfactorily, there is a need to encourage more providers to do so.

Shared challenges and opportunities: Uncovering common ground in patient participation across different healthcare settings and patient groups. A qualitative meta-summary on patient-reported barriers and facilitators to participation in shared decision-making

OBJECTIVE

We aim to provide an updated literature overview on patient-reported barriers and facilitators to participation in SDM across different patient groups and healthcare settings to uncover the 'common ground' and to reach for a more generalizable, uniform and inclusive insight in patients' perspective on participation in SDM.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a qualitative meta-summary, using five databases. Search terms were based on the concepts: 'decision-making', 'patient participation', 'patient perceptions' and 'study design' (of patient reporting).

RESULTS

We found 9265 unique references, selected 209 studies for further sampling and finally withheld 90 studies for further analysis in this review. In total, we identified 34 different barriers and facilitators. Based on most frequently reported barriers and facilitators, we defined four broad analytical themes corresponding to patients' shared expectations concerning doctors', patients' and others' facilitative roles in SDM: (1) 'Doctors explaining well', (2) 'Doctors listening well, and fostering a trusting relationship', (3) 'Patients being assertive, (4) 'Patients being socially supported'.

CONCLUSION

The majority of barriers and facilitators we found transcended differences in patient characteristics or healthcare setting, suggesting that patients are, overall, facing shared challenges and opportunities in SDM, that are mostly generalizable and irrespective of variabilities in decisional setting or patient group. We uncovered new trends such as patients' growing openness to assertiveness and the involvement of significant others, and highlighted some culture-based nuances, compared to earlier literature.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These new insights need to be integrated in SDM strategies so that they may serve the ethical imperative of a greater equality and inclusion of diverse patient groups in different SDM settings.

Visual decision aids to support communication and shared decision-making: How are they valued and used in practice?

BACKGROUND

It is unknown how visual decision aids support communication and shared decision-making in everyday clinical practice, and how they are perceived by patients with varying levels of health literacy and their healthcare providers. Recently, three visual decision aids have been developed for renal replacement treatment, osteoarthritis of the knee, and osteoarthritis of the hip. This study aims to explore how patients and healthcare providers use and value these visual decision aids.

METHODS

The evaluation of the visual decision aids was performed by coding video-recorded outpatient consultations (n = 35), by conducting reflective practice interviews with healthcare providers (n = 9), and through interviews with patients (n = 29). Consultations were coded using the 5-item OPTION instrument to measure shared decision-making, and self-developed items based on the visual decision aids and user guide.

RESULTS

Both healthcare providers and patients valued the use of the visual decision aids, especially the overview page with all treatment options. Accordingly, it was observed that most providers mainly used the overview page. However, providers in nephrology discussed the individual treatment pages more often than providers in osteoarthritis care. This study also showed that most providers were unfamiliar with the user guide for the visual decision aids.

CONCLUSION

Visual decision aids for nephrology and osteoarthritis care seem particularly useful for patients with limited health literacy. Healthcare providers in this study mainly used the overview page of the visual decision aids. Although this is valued by both providers and patients, it is also important to discuss the individual treatment pages, including the pros and cons, with patients. This study also points to differences between outpatient clinics or departments in the use and implementation of the visual decision aids. The visual decision aids for osteoarthritis are used to a limited extent. In nephrology clinics, the visual decision aid is implemented.

Patient Preferences Influencing Treatment Decision-Making in Early-Stage Breast Cancer in Germany, Italy, and Japan

Purpose

Patients with early breast cancer (eBC) are increasingly provided with different options, which may involve a sequence of different treatments and treatment modalities, and eligibility for certain adjuvant treatments depending upon pre-surgical and surgical outcomes. This study examined patient preferences around aspects of treatment decision-making in eBC.

Patients and Methods

A total of 452 patients with self-reported eBC in Germany (n=151), Italy (n=151), and Japan (n=150) completed an online survey about physician interactions and treatment side effects. The survey included best-worst scaling (BWS) to assess prioritization of 13 statements reflecting aspects of treatment decision-making. In a series of choice tasks, participants chose their most and least preferred options among subsets of 4 statements. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to estimate BWS preference scores for each statement. BWS scores were based on the number of times a statement was chosen as most versus least preferred; scores total 100 for each patient.

Results

The most preferred aspects of treatment decision-making were "treatment aggressiveness matches personal risk" (mean BWS score = 13.49), "being told about what is coming" (13.18), deciding based on "own surgical outcome" (11.90), "avoiding unnecessary treatment" (10.35), and "involving in treatment decisions" (9.44). The least preferred aspects were "not being asked about treatment decisions along the way" (3.27) and "receiving the same treatment as other patients" (3.41). Patients in Japan preferred "being told about what is coming", "deciding based on own surgical outcome", "avoiding unnecessary treatment", and being "involved in decisions" more than patients in Italy and Germany. Patients in Germany were more satisfied with their physician interactions and care, although their outcomes were not always better than those in Italy and Japan.

Conclusion

Patients value individualized treatment tailored to their risk of recurrence and tolerance of side effects, highlighting the need for focused patient education about options, to encourage their engagement.

Experiences of Clients and Professionals with the Recovery Oriented Intake

The Recovery Oriented Intake (ROI) integrates recovery principles from the start of treatment, and involves peer experts, unlike the intake as usual (IAU). This study compared experiences with ROI and IAU among 127 clients and 391 professionals, consisting of practitioners and peer experts. Intake's quality, measured with questionnaires, showed no differences in experiences between ROI and IAU clients. However, practitioners experienced ROI as more recovery-oriented than IAU. The ROI Fidelity Check (RFC) revealed that clients' RFC-scores, but not practitioners', predicted their valuation of intake's quality. This underscores the need for (re)training and peer supervision for professionals to ensure adherence to ROI's principles. Discrepancies between clients' and professionals' experiences at the start of treatment are consistent with literature on working alliance and Shared Decision Making (SDM). Differences between ROI and IAU professionals may stem from heightened awareness of recovery principles due to training and the presence of peer experts during intake.

Explorative observational study of Dutch patient-clinician interactions: operationalisation of personal perspective elicitation as part of shared decision-making in real-life audio-recorded consultations

OBJECTIVES

Patients' preferences, values and contexts are important elements of the shared decision-making (SDM) process. We captured those elements into the concept of 'personal perspective elicitation' (PPE), which reflects the need to elicit patients' preferences, values and contexts in patient-clinician conversations. We defined PPE as: 'the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or contexts potentially relevant to decision-making'. Our goal was to operationalise the concept of PPE through the evaluation of preferences, values and contexts and explore how PPE occurs in clinical encounters.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study: observational coding based on a novel coding scheme of audio-recorded outpatient clinical encounters where encounter patient decision aids were applied.

SETTING

We audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions at three Dutch outpatient clinics. PPE was analysed using a novel observational coding scheme, distinguishing preferences, contexts and four Armstrong taxonomy value types (global, decisional, external and situational). We measured SDM using the Observer OPTION5.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians.

RESULTS

We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION5 score was 57.5 (SD:10.1). The audio-recordings gave a rich illustration of preferences, values and contexts that were discussed in the patient-clinician interactions. Examples of identified global values: appearance, beliefs, personality traits. Decisional values were related to the process of decision-making. External values related to asking advice from for example, the clinician or significant others. An identified situational value: a new job ahead. Contexts related to how the illness impacted the life (eg, sexuality, family, sports, work life) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The operationalisation of PPE, an important aspect of SDM, explores which preferences, values and contexts were discussed during patient-clinician interactions where an ePDA was used. The coding scheme appeared feasible to apply but needs further refinement.

Incorporating parental values in complex paediatric and perinatal decisions

Incorporating parental values in complex medical decisions for young children is important but challenging. In this Review, we explore what it means to incorporate parental values in complex paediatric and perinatal decisions. We provide a narrative overview of the paediatric, ethics, and medical decision-making literature, focusing on value-based and ethically complex decisions for children who are too young to express their own preferences. We explain key concepts and definitions, discuss paediatric-specific features, reflect on challenges in learning and expressing values for both parents and health-care providers, and provide recommendations for clinical practice. Decisional values are informed by global and external values and could relate to the child, the parents, and the whole family. These values should inform preferences and assure value-congruent choices. Additionally, parents might hold various meta values on the process of decision making itself. Complex decisions for young children are emotionally taxing, ethically difficult, and often surrounded by uncertainty. These contextual factors make it more likely that values and preferences are initially absent or unstable and need to be constructed or stabilised. Health-care professionals and parents should work together to construct and clarify values and incorporate them into personalised decisions for the child. An open communication style, with unbiased and tailored information in a supportive environment, is helpful. Dedicated training in communication and shared decision making could help to improve the incorporation of parental values in complex decisions for young children.

Codesign of Lynch ChoicesTM : Using implementation science to create a clinically deliverable patient decision support website to transform cancer genetics care pathways

BACKGROUND

Resources including Patient Decision Aids (PtDA) are useful and valued by patients and clinicians to provide information and complement shared decision-making. Despite their promise, few PtDA exist for patients with genetic cancer susceptibility facing difficult decisions about risk management. We aimed to fill this gap, partnering with patients to codesign Lynch ChoicesTM , a PtDA website for families with Lynch Syndrome. In addition to a Patient Reference Panel, we purposively invited an international stakeholder panel including charities, public bodies, clinical and academic experts. Implementation strategies and frameworks were employed to optimise translation of research findings to improve care.

METHODS

Patient/stakeholder suggestions were incorporated in a transparent Table of Changes and prioritised using the Person-Based Approach throughout planning and codesign of Lynch ChoicesTM . An interactive stakeholder meeting was convened to identify barriers and facilitators to clinical implementation of the PtDA.

RESULTS

Patient and stakeholder partnerships drove the direction of the research throughout codesign, resulting in several iterative refinements to the PtDA prior to roll out including the addition of illustrations/videos, clearer presentation of cancer risks and increased accessibility for lower literacy. Barriers and facilitators identified from stakeholders were used to create an implementation process map.

CONCLUSIONS

Creating an effective, engaging PtDA is not enough. Systematic uptake in real world clinical practice, with its resource limitations, is needed to optimise benefit to patients and clinicians. Assessment of speed and breadth of dissemination and usage will be collected to further evidence the benefit of embedding implementation science methods from the outset to translate research findings into clinical practice.

'A good decision is the one that feels right for me': Codesign with patients to inform theoretical underpinning of a decision aid website

INTRODUCTION

Patient decision aids (PtDA) complement shared decision-making with healthcare professionals and improve decision quality. However, PtDA often lack theoretical underpinning. We are codesigning a PtDA to help people with increased genetic cancer risks manage choices. The aim of an innovative workshop described here was to engage with the people who will use the PtDA regarding the theoretical underpinning and logic model outlining our hypothesis of how the PtDA would lead to more informed decision-making.

METHODS

Short presentations about psychological and behavioural theories by an expert were interspersed with facilitated, small-group discussions led by patients. Patients were asked what is important to them when they make health decisions, what theoretical constructs are most meaningful and how this should be applied to codesign of a PtDA. An artist created a visual summary. Notes from patient discussions and the artwork were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The overarching theme was: It's personal. Contextual factors important for decision-making were varied and changed over time. There was no one 'best fit' theory to target support needs in a PtDA, suggesting an inductive, flexible framework approach to programme theory would be most effective. The PtDA logic model was revised based on patient feedback.

CONCLUSION

Meaningful codesign of PtDA including discussions about the theoretical mechanisms through which they support decision-making has the potential to lead to improved patient care through understanding the intricately personal nature of health decisions, and tailoring content and format for holistic care.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

Patients with lived experience were involved in codesign and coproduction of this workshop and analysis as partners and coauthors. Patient discussions were the primary data source. Facilitators provided a semi-structured guide, but they did not influence the patient discussions or provide clinical advice. The premise of this workshop was to prioritise the importance of patient lived experience: to listen, learn, then reflect together to understand and propose ideas to improve patient care through codesign of a PtDA.

'The way you talk, do I have a choice?' Patient narratives of medication decision-making during hospitalization

OBJECTIVE

Based on the principle of the autonomy of the patient, shared decision-making (SDM) is the ideal approach in clinical encounters. In SDM, patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) share knowledge and power when faced with the task of making decisions. However, patients are often not involved in the decision-making process. In this study, we explore medication decision-making during hospitalization and how power in the specific patient-HCP relationship is articulated, as analysed by Foucauldian theory.

METHODS

A qualitative case study, comprising observations of patient-HCP encounters at an internal medicines ward at a university hospital in Norway, followed by semi-structured interviews. The narratives (n = 4 patients) were selected from a larger study (n = 15 patients). The rationale behind the choice of these patients was to include diverse and rich accounts. The four patients in their 40s-70s were included close to the day of presumed discharge.

RESULTS

The narratives provide an insight into the patients as persons, their perspectives, including what mattered to them during their hospitalization, especially in relation to medications. Overall, SDM was not observed in this study. Even though all the participants actively tried to keep their autonomous capacity and to resist the HCPs' use of power, they were not able to change the established dynamics. Moreover, they were not allowed an equal voice to those of HCPs and thus not to escape the system's objectification and subjectification of them.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for HCPs to get more familiarized with SDM. The healthcare system and the individual HCP need to make more room for dialogue with the patients about their preferences. A part of this is also how health care systems are structured and scheduled, thus, it is important to empower patients and HCPs alike.

What does shared decision making ask from doctors? Uncovering suppressed qualities that could improve person-centered care

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is infrequently seen in clinical practice despite four decades of efforts. We propose a need to explore what SDM asks from doctors in terms of enabling competencies and necessary, underlying qualities, and how these can be nurtured or suppressed in medical training.

DISCUSSION

Key SDM tasks call for doctors to understand communication and decision mechanisms to carry them out well, including reflecting on what they know and do not know, considering what to say and how, and listening unprejudiced to patients. Different doctor qualities can support accomplishing these tasks; humility, flexibility, honesty, fairness, self-regulation, curiosity, compassion, judgment, creativity, and courage, all relevant to deliberation and decision making. Patient deference to doctors, lack of supervised training opportunities with professional feedback, and high demands in the work environment may all inflate the risk of only superficially involving patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified ten professional qualities and related competencies required for SDM, with each to be selected based on the specific situation. The competencies and qualities need to be preserved and nurtured during doctor identity building, to bridge the gap between knowledge, technical skills, and authentic efforts to achieve SDM.