The limits of shared decision making

Impact of Shared Decision-Making on Opioid Prescribing Among Patients With Chronic Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Shared decision-making (SDM) involving patient and physician is a desirable goal that is recommended in chronic pain management guidelines. This study measured whether SDM affects opioid prescribing frequency for chronic low back pain. A retrospective cohort study involving 1,478 participants was conducted within a national pain research registry. The patient participation and patient orientation (PPPO) scale of the Communication Behavior Questionnaire was used to measure SDM, including the classification of greater SDM (PPPO scale score ≥ 80) or lesser SDM (PPPO scale score < 80). Opioid prescribing frequency was measured at quarterly intervals from enrollment through 12 months. Baseline and longitudinal covariates were collected to adjust for potential confounding using generalized estimating equations. The mean age of participants was 53.1 (SD, 13.2) years, and 1,098 (74.3%) were female. A total of 473 (32.0%) participants were prescribed opioids at baseline. Participants completed 5,968 encounters wherein multivariable analyses demonstrated that PPPO scale scores were associated with more frequent opioid prescribing (β = .013; 95% CI, .005-.021; P < .001). Greater SDM was associated with more frequent opioid prescribing than lesser SDM (β = .441; 95% CI, .160-.722; P = .002). Opioids were prescribed in 34.3% versus 25.2% of encounters with greater versus lesser SDM (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.17-2.06). SDM remained associated with more frequent opioid prescribing in a series of sensitivity analyses. Although SDM is desirable in chronic pain management, complex issues and challenging patient conversations may arise during serial assessments of the appropriateness of opioid therapy. Physicians need better education and training to address such difficult situations. PERSPECTIVE: The more frequent use of opioid therapy among patients who reported greater SDM with their physicians underscores the need for better medical education and training in dealing with the complex issues and challenges pertaining to serial assessments of the appropriateness of opioid therapy for chronic pain.

Medical Care as Flea Market Bargaining? An International Interdisciplinary Study of Varieties of Shared Decision Making in Physician-Patient Interactions

Phenomenon: Shared decision making (SDM) is a core ideal in the interaction between healthcare providers and patients, but the implementation of the SDM ideal in clinical routines has been a relatively slow process. Approach: In a sociological study, 71 interactions between physicians and simulated patients enacting chronic heart failure were video-recorded in China, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey as part of a quasi-experimental research design. Participating physicians varied in specialty and level of experience. The secondary analysis presented in this article used content analysis to study core components of SDM in all of the 71 interactions and a grounded theory approach to observe how physicians responded actively to patients even though they did not actively employ the SDM ideal. Findings: Full realization of the SDM ideal remains an exception, but various aspects of SDM in physician-patient interaction were observed in all four locations. Analyses of longer interactions show dynamic processes of interaction that sometimes surprised both patient and physician. We observed varieties of SDM that differ from the SDM ideal but arguably achieve what the SDM ideal is intended to achieve. Our analysis suggests a need to revisit the SDM ideal-to consider whether varieties of SDM may be acceptable, even valuable, in their own right. Insights: The gap between the SDM ideal and SDM as implemented in clinical practice may in part be explained by the tendency of medicine to define and teach SDM through a narrow lens of checklist evaluations. The authors support the argument that SDM defies a checklist approach. SDM is not uniform, but nuanced, dependent on circumstances and setting. As SDM is co-produced by patients and physicians in a dynamic process of interaction, medical researchers should consider and medical learners should be exposed to varieties of SDM-related practice rather than a single idealized model. Observing and discussing worked examples contributes to the physician's development of realistic expectations and personal professional growth.

Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care: A systematic review and metasynthesis

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is a key element of person-centred care and promoted as the favoured model in preference-sensitive decision-making. Limitations to implementation have been observed, and barriers and limitations, both generally and in the palliative setting, have been highlighted. More knowledge about the process of shared decision-making in palliative cancer care would assist in addressing these limitations.

AIM

To identify and synthesise qualitative data on how people with cancer, informal carers and healthcare professionals experience and perceive shared decision-making in palliative cancer care.

DESIGN

A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies. We analysed data using inductive thematic analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus) from inception until June 2023, supplemented by backward searches.

RESULTS

We identified and included 23 studies, reported in 26 papers. Our analysis produced four analytical themes; (1) Overwhelming situation of 'no choice', (2) Processes vary depending on the timings and nature of the decisions involved, (3) Patient-physician dyad is central to decision-making, with surrounding support and (4) Level of involvement depends on interactions between individuals and systems.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care is a complex process of many decisions in a challenging, multifaceted and evolving situation where equipoise and choice are limited. Implications for practice: Implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice requires (1) clarifying conceptual confusion, (2) including members of the interprofessional team in the shared decision-making process and (3) adapting the approach to the ambiguous, existential situations which arise in palliative cancer care.

Patient-reported effects of hospital-wide implementation of shared decision-making at a university medical centre in Germany: a pre-post trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the SHARE TO CARE (S2C) programme, a complex intervention designed for hospital-wide implementation of shared decision-making (SDM).

DESIGN

Pre-post study.

SETTING

University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel Campus.

PARTICIPANTS

Healthcare professionals as well as inpatients and outpatients from 22 departments of the Kiel Campus of UKSH.

INTERVENTIONS

The S2C programme is a comprehensive implementation strategy including four core modules: (1) physician training, (2) SDM support training for and support by nurses as decision coaches, (3) patient activation and (4) evidence-based patient decision aid development and integration into patient pathways. After full implementation, departments received the S2C certificate.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

In this paper, we report on the feasibility and effectiveness outcomes of the implementation. Feasibility was judged by the degree of implementation of the four modules of the programme. Outcome measures for effectiveness are patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). The primary outcome measure for effectiveness is the Patient Decision Making subscale of the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICSPDM). Pre-post comparisons were done using t-tests.

RESULTS

The implementation of the four components of the S2C programme was able to be completed in 18 of the 22 included departments within the time frame of the study. After completion of implementation, PICSPDM showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.01) between the means compared with baseline. This difference corresponds to a small to medium yet clinically meaningful positive effect (Hedges' g=0.2). Consistent with this, the secondary PREMs (Preparation for Decision Making and collaboRATE) also showed statistically significant, clinically meaningful positive effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The hospital-wide implementation of SDM with the S2C-programme proved to be feasible and effective within the time frame of the project. The German Federal Joint Committee has recommended to make the Kiel model of SDM a national standard of care.

Exploring dental treatment decision-making experiences of people living with dementia and family carers

INTRODUCTION

People living with dementia can have complex dental care needs. Dentists and patients should make treatment decisions together, yet some people living with dementia may be unable to make their own decisions about their dental care. Dental treatment decision-making and patients' experiences of this process have not been comprehensively researched.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the dental treatment decision-making perspectives and experiences of people living with dementia and their family members.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 8 people living with dementia and 17 family caregivers. A constructivist grounded theory approach was adopted, using a maximum variation sample. Qualitative data collection and analysis occurred concurrently. Data underwent initial open coding followed by more focused coding, supported by reflexive memo writing, which supported data categorisation.

RESULTS

People living with dementia reported wanting to be understood as unique individuals with specific needs. All participants described wanting to be actively involved in dental treatment decisions. However, many felt that they were insufficiently involved in treatment decision-making. This perceived underinvolvement meant that some people living with dementia and family members felt the treatment outcomes they sought were neither discussed nor considered.

CONCLUSION

People living with dementia and carers had specific expectations of dental care yet felt passive in decision-making despite their desire to be involved in this process. Dentists should seek to actively establish patients' preferences, regardless of mental capacity and consider these in discussions and decisions about dental treatment.

Social support and therapeutic relationships intertwine to influence exercise behavior in people with sport-related knee injuries

OBJECTIVE

Explore how social support influences exercise therapy participation and adherence before and after enrolling in an education and exercise therapy intervention (Stop OsteoARthritis, SOAR).

METHODS

Study design: Interpretative description. We sampled participants with sport-related knee injuries from the SOAR randomized controlled trial. SOAR is a virtual, physiotherapist-guided, education and exercise therapy-based knee health program that targets individuals at risk of early osteoarthritis. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were completed, and an inductive approach was guided by Braun & Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen participants (67% female, median age 26 [19-35] years) were interviewed. Three themes were generated that encapsulated participants' social support experiences that fostered exercise participation: 1) Treat me as a whole person represented the value of social support that went beyond participants' physical needs, 2) Work with me highlighted the working partnership between the clinician and the participant, and 3) Journey with me indicated a need for on-going support is necessary for the long-term management of participants' knee health. A theme of the therapeutic relationship was evident across the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Insight was gained into how and why perceived support may be linked to exercise behavior, with the therapeutic relationship being potentially linked to perceived support. Social support strategies embedded within an education and exercise therapy program may boost exercise adherence after sport-related knee injuries.

Analysis of factors that promote the participation of patients with chronic diseases in shared decision making on medication: a cross-sectional survey in Hubei Province, China

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) improves the health status of patients with chronic diseases, especially in the condition of poly-medicated patients. This study aims to find the factors associated with participation of patients with chronic diseases in SDM on medication.

METHODS

A total of 1,196 patients with chronic diseases were selected in Hubei Province of China using cluster sampling methods. The random forest method was applied to rank the importance of independent variables by Mean Decrease Gini and out-of- bag (OOB) curve. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore the independent variables' effect direction and relative hazard.

RESULTS

In this study, 5.18% of patients used patient-directed decision making (PDM, a decision-making model led by patients), 37.79% of patients used SDM (a collaborative decision-making model by patients and doctors), and 57.02% of patients used doctor-directed decision making (DDM, or paternalistic decision making, a decision-making model led by doctors). The random forest analysis demonstrated that the top 5 important factors were age, education, exercise, disease course, and medication knowledge. The OOB curve showed that the error rate reached minimum when top 5 variables in importance ranking composed an optimal variable combination. In multivariate logistic regression, we chose SDM as a reference group, and identified medication knowledge (OR = 2.737, 95%CI = 1.524 ~ 4.916) as the influencing factor between PDM and SDM. Meanwhile, the influencing factors between DDM and SDM were age (OR = 0.636, 95%CI = 0.439 ~ 0.921), education (OR = 1.536, 95%CI = 1.122 ~ 2.103), exercise (OR = 1.443, 95%CI = 1.109 ~ 1.877), disease course (OR = 0.750, 95%CI = 0.584 ~ 0.964), and medication knowledge (OR = 1.446, 95%CI = 1.120 ~ 1.867).

CONCLUSION

Most Chinese patients with chronic diseases used DDM during their medication decision-making, and some patients used PDM and SDM. The participation in SDM should be taken seriously among elderly patients with lower education levels. The SDM promotion should focus on transformation of patients' traditional perception and enhance their medication knowledge.

BONEcheck: A digital tool for personalized bone health assessment

Objectives

Osteoporotic fracture is a significant public health burden associated with increased mortality risk and substantial healthcare costs. Accurate and early identification of high-risk individuals and mitigation of their risks is a core part of the treatment and prevention of fractures. Here we introduce a digital tool called 'BONEcheck' for personalized assessment of bone health.

Methods

The development of BONEcheck primarily utilized data from the prospective population-based Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study and the Danish Nationwide Registry. BONEcheck has 3 modules: input data, risk estimates, and risk context. Input variables include age, gender, prior fracture, fall incidence, bone mineral density (BMD), comorbidities, and genetic variants associated with BMD.

Results

Based on the input variables, BONEcheck estimates the probability of any fragility fracture and hip fracture within 5 years, subsequent fracture risk, skeletal age, and time to reach osteoporosis. The probability of fracture is shown in both numeric and human icon array formats. The risk is also contextualized within the framework of treatment and management options on Australian guidelines, with consideration given to the potential fracture risk reduction and survival benefits. Skeletal age was estimated as the sum of chronological age and years of life lost due to a fracture or exposure to risk factors that elevate mortality risk.

Conclusions

BONEcheck is an innovative tool that empowers doctors and patients to engage in well-informed discussions and make decisions based on the patient's risk profile. Public access to BONEcheck is available via https://bonecheck.org and in Apple Store (iOS) and Google Play (Android).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for Prescribing Opioids, 2022-Need for Integrating Dosing Benchmarks With Shared Decision-Making

This viewpoint evaluates the CDC’s 2022 clinical practice guideline for prescribing opioids and suggests a model for supplemented shared decision-making between patients and clinicians about long-term opioid therapy.

Uncertainty in complex healthcare settings - The need for a comprehensive approach

Uncertainty is increasingly recognized as a crucial phenomenon throughout medical practice. Research on uncertainty so far has been scattered across disciplines, leading to a lack of consensus about what uncertainty represents and minimal integration of knowledge obtained within isolated disciplines. Currently, a comprehensive view of uncertainty which does justice to normatively or interactionally challenging healthcare settings is lacking. This impedes research teasing apart when and how uncertainty manifests, how all stakeholders experience and value it, and how it affects medical communication and decision-making. In this paper, we argue that we need a more integrated understanding of uncertainty. We illustrate our argument using the context of adolescent transgender care, in which uncertainty occurs in myriad ways. We first sketch how theories of uncertainty have emerged from isolated disciplines, leading to a lack of conceptual integration. Subsequently, we emphasize why it is problematic that no comprehensive approach to uncertainty has yet been developed, using examples from adolescent transgender care. Finally, we advocate an integrated approach of uncertainty to further advance empirical research and to ultimately benefit clinical practice.

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.

Shared Decision-Making in Acute Pain Services

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) in acute pain services (APS) is still in its infancies especially when compared to other medical fields.

RECENT FINDINGS

Emerging evidence fosters the value of SDM in various acute care settings. We provide an overview of general SDM practices and possible advantages of incorporating such concepts in APS, point out barriers to SDM in this setting, present common patient decisions aids developed for APS and discuss opportunities for further development. Especially in the APS setting, patient-centred care is a key component for optimal patient outcome. SDM could be included into everyday clinical practice by using structured approaches such as the "seek, help, assess, reach, evaluate" (SHARE) approach, the 3 "MAking Good decisions In Collaboration"(MAGIC) questions, the "Benefits, Risks, Alternatives and doing Nothing"(BRAN) tool or the "the multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision-making"(MAPPIN'SDM) as guidance for participatory decision-making. Such tools aid in the development of a patient-clinician relationship beyond discharge after immediate relief of acute pain has been accomplished. Research addressing patient decision aids and their impact on patient-reported outcomes regarding shared decision-making, organizational barriers and new developments such as remote shared decision-making is needed to advance participatory decision-making in acute pain services.