A history of patient education by health professionals in Europe and North America: From authority to shared decision making education

2010 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciska Hoving ◽  
Adriaan Visser ◽  
Patricia Dolan Mullen ◽  
Bart van den Borne
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Education ◽  
North America ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
History Of

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 2128
Author(s):  
Marta Maes-Carballo ◽  
Manuel Martín-Díaz ◽  
Luciano Mignini ◽  
Khalid Saeed Khan ◽  
Rubén Trigueros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Professional Societies ◽  
New Policies

Objectives: To assess shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge, attitude and application among health professionals involved in breast cancer (BC) treatment. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study based on an online questionnaire, sent by several professional societies to health professionals involved in BC management. There were 26 questions which combined demographic and professional data with some items measured on a Likert-type scale. Results: The participation (459/541; 84.84%) and completion (443/459; 96.51%) rates were high. Participants strongly agreed or agreed in 69.57% (16/23) of their responses. The majority stated that they knew of SDM (mean 4.43 (4.36–4.55)) and were in favour of its implementation (mean 4.58 (4.51–4.64)). They highlighted that SDM practice was not adequate due to lack of resources (3.46 (3.37–3.55)) and agreed on policies that improved its implementation (3.96 (3.88–4.04)). The main advantage of SDM for participants was patient satisfaction (38%), and the main disadvantage was the patients’ paucity of knowledge to understand their disease (24%). The main obstacle indicated was the lack of time and resources (40%). Conclusions: New policies must be designed for adequate training of professionals in integrating SDM in clinical practice, preparing them to use SDM with adequate resources and time provided.

scholarly journals Mental health professionals’ experiences with shared decision-making for patients with psychotic disorders: a qualitative study

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Espen W. Haugom ◽  
Bjørn Stensrud ◽  
Gro Beston ◽  
Torleif Ruud ◽  
Anne S. Landheim
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Psychotic Disorders ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Practical Training ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Antipsychotic Medications

Abstract Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process whereby clinicians and patients work together to select treatments based on both the patient’s preferences and clinical evidence. Although patients with psychotic disorders want to participate more in decisions regarding their care, they have limited opportunities to do so because of various barriers. Knowing about health professionals’ experiences with SDM is important toward achieving successful implementation. The study aim was to describe and explore health professionals’ SDM experiences with patients with psychotic disorders. Methods Three focus group interviews were conducted, with a total of 18 health professionals who work at one of three Norwegian community mental health centres where patients with psychotic disorders are treated. We applied a descriptive and exploratory approach using qualitative content analysis. Results Health professionals primarily understand the SDM concept to mean giving patients information and presenting them with a choice between different antipsychotic medications. Among the barriers to SDM, they emphasized that patients with psychosis have a limited understanding of their health situation and that time is needed to build trust and alliances. Health professionals mainly understand patients with psychotic disorders as a group with limited abilities to make their own decisions. They also described the concept of SDM with little consideration of presenting different treatment options. Psychological or social interventions were often presented as complementary to antipsychotic medications, rather than as an alternative to them. Conclusion Health professionals’ understanding of SDM is inconsistent with the definition commonly used in the literature. They consider patients with psychotic disorders to have limited abilities to participate in decisions regarding their own treatment. These findings suggest that health professionals need more theoretical and practical training in SDM.

scholarly journals A personalized, web-based breast cancer decision making application: a pre-post survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirk D. Wyatt ◽  
Sarah M. Jenkins ◽  
Matthew F. Plevak ◽  
Marcia R. Venegas Pont ◽  
Sandhya Pruthi
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Education ◽  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Mobile Applications ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Point Scale ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Amount Of Information

Abstract Background Every case of breast cancer is unique, and treatment must be personalized to incorporate a woman’s values and preferences. We developed an individually-tailored mobile patient education application for women with breast cancer. Methods Pre-post surveys were completed by 255 women who used the tool. Results Patients thought the application included helpful information (N = 184, 72%) and was easy to navigate (N = 156, 61%). Most patients thought the amount of information in the tool was “about right” (N = 193, 87%). Decision making confidence increased by an average of 0.8 points (10-point scale) following a consultation and use of the tool (p < 0.001). Conclusions Tailored mobile applications may optimize care by facilitating shared decision making and knowledge transfer, and they may also enhance the experience of patients as they navigate through their breast cancer journey.

Approaches to shared decision-making for PSA screening in primary care practice.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 33-33
Author(s):  
Cara B Litvin ◽  
Steven M. Ornstein ◽  
Lynne Nemeth
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Education ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Care Practices ◽  
Primary Care Practices

33 Background: In April 2017, the United States Preventive Services Task Force published a draft statement recommending that clinicians inform men ages 55 to 65 about the potential benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer. The HIT-OVERUSE study is an ongoing 2 year group randomized study in 20 primary care practices to test a practice-based intervention to reduce overuse, including avoidance of routine PSA screening without shared decision making. The purpose of this report is to present qualitative findings about approaches participating practices have adopted to facilitate shared decision-making for PSA screening. Methods: Eleven practices in ten states randomized to the HIT-OVERUSE intervention group have hosted on-site visits for academic detailing and participatory planning and sent two practice representatives to a one day meeting to share ‘best practices.’ Detailed notes from site visits, follow-up emails, and the ‘best practice’ meeting were reviewed to identify strategies adopted by practices to facilitate shared decision-making for PSA screening for prostate cancer screening. Results: All practices adopted at least one strategy to promote shared-decision making for PSA screening. Four practices removed standing orders for routine PSA screening. Four practices educated their clinical staff about the test; three developed scripts for staff to use when asked by patients about the test. Six practices began using patient education handouts about PSA screening. One provider started showing a brief YouTube video with patients, while another practice developed a slide show to show in the waiting room. Most providers in nearly all practices reported modifying their conversation about PSA screening with patients to include some discussion about the benefits and the harms of screening. Conclusions: Primary care practices participating an intervention to reduce overuse have adopted varied approaches to facilitate shared-decision making for prostate cancer screening. While having face-to-face conversations is one approach, other strategies may employ staff or utilize patient education or videos to convey the benefits and harms of screening.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document