Psychological predictors of medical residents' perspectives on shared decision-making with patients: a cross-sectional study

Bounded rationality in healthcare: unraveling the psychological factors behind patient satisfaction in China

Introduction

Patient satisfaction is a crucial metric to gauge the quality of medical services, but the psychological factors influencing patient satisfaction remain insufficiently explored.

Methods

This study examines these psychological factors by applying the theory of bounded rationality to 1,442 inpatients in Hangzhou, China, whose data were collected using a questionnaire. One-way ANOVA, correlation analysis, and hierarchical regression were used to analyze patient satisfaction and its associated factors. Additionally, the path analysis of the structural equation model revealed the mechanisms behind the key psychological factors that influenced patient satisfaction.

Results

Medical risk perception, the social cognition of the medical environment, and social desirability bias had significant positive impacts on patient satisfaction. By contrast, negative emotions had a significant negative impact on patient satisfaction. Notably, patients' negative emotions had both a suppressive effect and a positive moderating effect on the relationship between medical risk perception and patient satisfaction. Similarly, social desirability bias had a suppressive effect on the correlation between the social cognition of the medical environment and patient satisfaction, albeit with a negative moderating effect.

Discussion

These results suggest that when evaluating and improving patient satisfaction, accounting only for the factors that directly influence medical service quality is insufficient, as the indirect and moderating effects of patients' negative emotions and the social cognition of the medical environment must also be considered. Medical service providers should thus address patients' negative emotions, establish good doctor-patient relationships, optimize service environments, provide managers with medical risk education and training on negative emotions, and prioritize patient-centered care. Additionally, the government and relevant health departments should optimize medical policies, enhance fairness and accessibility, and create a positive social cognitive environment through public education and awareness campaigns.

Assessing the impact of patient-involvement healthcare strategies on patients, providers, and the healthcare system: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient involvement has become an important and lively field of research, yet existing findings are fragmented and often contested. Without a synthesis of the research field, these findings are of limited use to scholars, healthcare providers, or policy-makers.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the body of knowledge on patient involvement to determine what is known, contested, and unknown about benefits, risks, and effective implementation strategies.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

Patients were not involved.

METHODS

Systematic literature review of 99 journal articles using a conceptual model integrating three levels: health systems, health providers, and patients. We extracted individual research findings and organized them into the structure of our model to provide a holistic picture of patient involvement.

RESULTS

The review highlights overlaps and conflicts between various patient involvement approaches. Our results show benefits for individual patients and the health system as a whole. At the provider level, however, we identified clear barriers to patient involvement.

DISCUSSION

Patient involvement requires collaboration among health systems, healthcare providers, and patients. We showed that increasing patient responsibility and health literacy requires policy-maker interventions. This includes incentives for patient education by providers, adapting medical education curricula, and building a database of reliable health information and decision support for patients. Furthermore, policies supporting a common infrastructure for digital health data and managed patient data exchange will foster provider collaboration.

PRACTICAL VALUE

Our review shows how an approach integrating health systems, healthcare providers, and patients can make patient involvement more effective than isolated interventions. Such systematic patient involvement is likely to improve population health literacy and healthcare quality.

Return of individual genomic research results within the PRAEGNANT multicenter registry study

PURPOSE

The PRAEGNANT study is a registry study for metastatic breast cancer patients, focusing on biomarker detection. Recently, within this study, genetic alterations in 37 breast cancer predisposition genes were analyzed and genetic findings were detected for 396 participants. The aim of this project was to return genetic results to the physicians and to analyze actions taken (e.g., disclosure of results to patients, validation of results, clinical impact, and impact on the patient's quality of life) using a questionnaire.

METHODS

235 questionnaires were sent out to the study centers, with each questionnaire representing one patient with a genetic finding. The questionnaire consisted of twelve questions in the German language, referring to the disclosure of results, validation of test results, and their impact on treatment decisions and on the patient's quality of life.

RESULTS

135 (57.5%) questionnaires were completed. Of these, 46 (34.1%) stated that results were returned to the patients. In 80.0% (N = 36) of cases where results were returned, the patient had not been aware of the finding previously. For 27 patients (64.3%), genetic findings had not been validated beforehand. All validation procedures (N = 15) were covered by the patients' health insurance. For 11 (25.0%) patients, physicians reported that the research results influenced current or future decision-making on treatment, and for 37.8% (N = 17) the results influenced whether family members will be genetically tested.

CONCLUSION

This study provides novel insights into the return of research results and into clinical and personal benefits of disclosure of genetic findings within a German registry.

Facilitators and barriers to implementing shared decision making: A cross-sectional study of physicians in Japan

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative process in which patients and healthcare providers jointly make a medical decision. This cross-sectional study aimed to identify the facilitators and barriers to self-reported implementation of SDM in Japan, and to explore if there is effect modification by hospital types.

METHODS

A total of 129 physicians in Japan completed a questionnaire that asked about their perception of SDM based on SDM-Q-Doc and its facilitators and barriers, which corresponded to each construct of the integrated behavioral model (IBM). The association between facilitators and barriers and SDM-Q-doc score was assessed using linear regression analysis. Stratified analysis by hospital types was also performed.

RESULTS

Significant facilitators included physicians' attitude, injunctive norm, intention and habit. Significant barriers included physicians' unfavorable attitude, lack of self-efficacy, knowledge, salience and experience. Moreover, experiential attitude (concerning patient characteristics), injunctive norm (concerning patient preferences), and physician's habit were significant facilitators for physicians working in university hospitals when compared to those working in municipal hospitals.

CONCLUSION

The facilitators and barriers to implementing SDM in Japan were identified.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

More opportunities for training on SDM are needed to provide knowledge and skills, which will enhance salience and contribute their habitual practice.

Why do medical residents prefer paternalistic decision making? An interview study

BACKGROUND

Although shared decision making is championed as the preferred model for patient care by patient organizations, researchers and medical professionals, its application in daily practice remains limited. We previously showed that residents more often prefer paternalistic decision making than their supervisors. Because both the views of residents on the decision-making process in medical consultations and the reasons for their 'paternalism preference' are unknown, this study explored residents' views on the decision-making process in medical encounters and the factors affecting it.

METHODS

We interviewed 12 residents from various specialties at a large Dutch teaching hospital in 2019-2020, exploring how they involved patients in decisions. All participating residents provided written informed consent. Data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection in an iterative process informing adaptations to the interview topic guide when deemed necessary. Constant comparative analysis was used to develop themes. We ceased data collection when information sufficiency was achieved.

RESULTS

Participants described how active engagement of patients in discussing options and decision making was influenced by contextual factors (patient characteristics, logistical factors such as available time, and supervisors' recommendations) and by limitations in their medical and shared decision-making knowledge. The residents' decision-making behavior appeared strongly affected by their conviction that they are responsible for arriving at the correct diagnosis and providing the best evidence-based treatment. They described shared decision making as the process of patients consenting with physician-recommended treatment or patients choosing their preferred option when no best evidence-based option was available.

CONCLUSIONS

Residents' decision making appears to be affected by contextual factors, their medical knowledge, their knowledge about SDM, and by their beliefs and convictions about their professional responsibilities as a doctor, ensuring that patients receive the best possible evidence-based treatment. They confuse SDM with acquiring informed consent with the physician's treatment recommendations and with letting patients decide which treatment they prefer in case no evidence based guideline recommendation is available. Teaching SDM to residents should not only include skills training, but also target residents' perceptions and convictions regarding their role in the decision-making process in consultations.

Using DEMATEL Technique to Identify the Key Success Factors of Shared Decision-Making Based on Influential Network Relationship Perspective

In the field of medicine, shared decision-making (SDM) is an important issue primarily aimed at resolving the problem of information asymmetry between clinicians and patients in the selection of treatment options and follow-up nursing plans. Most previous studies on this topic have focused on key elements and the development and implementation of SDM scales. This study used the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method to establish a network of influence relationships among factors that are keys to the success of the SDM process. Survey data were obtained from a well-known brain hospital in China. The key factors of success included tailor information, flexibility approach, check understanding patient, document (discussion about) decision, present evidence, make or explicitly defer decision, and patient values and preferences. We determined that clinicians should provide a series of treatment options and follow-up care plans based on a patientʼs conditions and preferences. Clinicians should also actively communicate with patients and their families to ensure a thorough understanding of the entire treatment and nursing process. This study also highlights the academic value of the cross-disciplinary integration of medical decision issues and multiple attribute decision-making methodologies.