Does shared decision making respect a patient's relational autonomy?

Sharing a medical decision

During the last decades, shared decision making (SDM) has become a very popular model for the physician-patient relationship. SDM can refer to a process (making a decision in a shared way) and a product (making a shared decision). In the literature, by far most attention is devoted to the process. In this paper, I investigate the product, wondering what is involved by a medical decision being shared. I argue that the degree to which a decision to implement a medical alternative is shared should be determined by taking into account six considerations: (i) how the physician and the patient rank that alternative, (ii) the individual preference scores the physician and the patient (would) assign to that alternative, (iii) the similarity of the preference scores, (iv) the similarity of the rankings, (v) the total concession size, and (vi) the similarity of the concession sizes. I explain why shared medical decisions are valuable, and sketch implications of the analysis for the physician-patient relationship.

Women's autonomy for managing labour pain in a relational context: An interpretive description study

AIM

To describe how women perceived relational autonomy for decision-making during childbirth pain and illuminate influencing factors.

BACKGROUND

Most women report challenging pain during birth. Circumstances can affect their ability to engage in pain management decisions.

DESIGN

We used an interpretative description approach to conduct this study.

METHOD

A purposive sample of ten women who reported pain during childbirth participated in semi-structured interviews. The study was conducted between July 2019 and November 2020 and reported according to the COREQ checklist.

RESULTS

Circumstances during childbirth, such as women's expectations and relationships, influenced their efforts to engage in relational autonomy. Care providers dealt with the unpredictability of childbirth and challenges with pain management using decision-making practices that could disrupt women's expectations, undermine women's trust, demonstrate disrespect for women and rely on inadequate communication. Women who felt dependent on others were less likely to participate in decision-making. When care providers' perceptions about pain differed from women's reports of pain, participants became distressed because care providers did not acknowledge their subjective pain experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Women regarded their relationships and communication with care providers as foundational to relational autonomy in decision-making about pain management during childbirth.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Study findings can support care providers' considerations of the complexity of childbirth pain and factors affecting women's relational autonomy in decision-making about pain. In particular, the findings highlight the importance of women's expectations and care providers' recognition of women's experiences of pain.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Women who shared their stories of childbirth pain contributed to the data collected. The chief nursing officers in the data collection setting facilitated the recruitment and data collection.

Perspective; recommendations for improved patient participation in decision-making for geriatric patients in acute surgical settings

Geriatric patients often present to the hospital in acute surgical settings. In these settings, shared decision-making as equal partners can be challenging. Surgeons should recognize that geriatric patients, and frail patients in particular, may sometimes benefit from de-escalation of care in a palliative setting rather than curative treatment. To provide more person-centred care, better strategies for improved shared decision-making need to be developed and implemented in clinical practice. A shift in thinking from a disease-oriented paradigm to a patient-goal-oriented paradigm is required to provide better person-centred care for older patients. We may greatly improve the collaboration with patients if we move parts of the decision-making process to the pre-acute phase. In the pre-acute phase appointing legal representatives, having goals of care conversations, and advance care planning can help give physicians an idea of what is important to the patient in acute settings. When making decisions as equal partners is not possible, a greater degree of physician responsibility may be appropriate. Physicians should tailor the "sharedness" of the decision-making process to the needs of the patient and their family.

The factors affecting implementing shared decision-making in clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey of clinical research coordinators' perceptions in Japan

BACKGROUND

The shared decision-making model has been proposed as the ideal treatment decision-making process in medical encounters. However, the decision to participate in clinical trials rarely involves shared decision-making. In this study, we investigated the perceptions of Japanese clinical research coordinators who routinely support the informed consent process.

METHODS

This study aimed to (1) identify clinical research coordinators' perceptions of the current status of shared decision-making implementation and its influencing factors, and (2) obtain suggestions to enhance the shared decision-making process in clinical trials. A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a web questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned behaviour. Invitations were sent to 1087 Japanese medical institutions, and responses from the participants were captured via the web. The shared decision-making process in clinical trials was defined according to the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire for Doctors. The effect of the attitudes toward shared decision-making, clinical research coordinators' subjective norms towards its implementation, perceived barriers to autonomous decision-making, and the number of difficult steps in the shared decision-making process on the shared decision-making current status as the shared decision-making intention was assessed by multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 373 clinical research coordinators responded to the questionnaire. Many believed that they were already implementing shared decision-making. Attitudes toward shared decision-making (t = 3.400, p < .001), clinical research coordinators' subjective norms towards its implementation (t = 2.239, p = .026), perceived barriers to autonomous decision-making (t = 3.957, p < .001), and the number of difficult steps in the shared decision-making process (t = 3.317, p = .001) were found to significantly influence current status (Adjusted R2 = .123). However, results on perceived barriers to autonomous decision-making and the number of difficult steps in the shared decision-making process indicate a lack of knowledge of shared decision-making and decision-support skills among clinical research coordinators.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical research coordinators might positively perceive shared decision-making based on normative beliefs without sufficient knowledge of it. Therefore, providing appropriate training on shared decision-making to clinical research coordinators and increasing awareness among stakeholders could enable its improvement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Decisional capacity determination and serious mental illness in oncology: Implications for equitable and beneficent care

BACKGROUND

Patients with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) have worse survival compared to cancer patients without SMI after controlling for delayed diagnosis. Decision-making capacity (DMC) may be impaired in both populations (cancer or SMI). DMC may be further impaired based on coupled vulnerability factors that challenge Shared Decision Making (SDM) for patients with cancer and SMI.

METHODS

Psychiatric consultations for DMC in hospitalized patients with cancer (n = 97) were consecutively evaluated across a single institution cancer center. SMI data, demographic, and cancer-related variables were obtained from the medical record. Descriptive data were contrasted in patients with and without DMC and used for logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

Overall, 42% had DMC with no significant differences based on SMI (χ²  = 2.60, p = 0.11). Patients with SMI were younger, receiving anticancer treatment, and were less likely facing end of life issues. Age (OR 1.03, p = 0.05) and no recent anticancer treatments (OR 0.34, p = 0.02) were associated with decisional incapacity. At 3 months post discharge, almost two-thirds were dead with no difference based on SMI (χ²  = 0.01, p = 0.91). But End of Life (EOL) concerns were documented in 63% of non-SMI patients and only 36% of SMI patients (χ²  = 5.63, p = 0.02). Healthcare proxy (16%), four determinates of DMC (22%), and repeated psychiatric DCM assessments (35%) were documented with no differences based on SMI.

CONCLUSION

SDM is not equitable for cancer patients with SMI. Advanced directives and a robust effort to provide value-congruent care for patient with SMI who develop cancer may lessen this health inequity for cancer patients with SMI.

[Not Available]

There is now broad agreement that ideas like person-centred care, patient expertise and shared decision-making are no longer peripheral to health discourse, fine ideals or merely desirable additions to sound, scientific clinical practice. Rather, their incorporation into our thinking and planning of health and social care is essential if we are to respond adequately to the problems that confront us: they need to be seen not as "ethical add-ons" but core components of any genuinely integrated, realistic and conceptually sound account of healthcare practice. This, the tenth philosophy thematic edition of the journal, presents papers conducting urgent research into the social context of scientific knowledge and the significance of viewing clinical knowledge not as something that "sits within the minds" of researchers and practitioners, but as a relational concept, the product of social interactions. It includes papers on the nature of reasoning and evidence, the on-going problems of how to 'integrate' different forms of scientific knowledge with broader, humanistic understandings of reasoning and judgement, patient and community perspectives. Discussions of the epistemological contribution of patient perspectives to the nature of care, and the crucial and still under-developed role of phenomenology in medical epistemology, are followed by a broad range of papers focussing on shared decision-making, analysing its proper meaning, its role in policy, methods for realising it and its limitations in real-world contexts.