scholarly journals Decision aids to prepare patients for shared decision making: Two randomized controlled experiments on the impact of awareness of preference‐sensitivity and personal motives

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Korger ◽  
Marie Eggeling ◽  
Ulrike Cress ◽  
Joachim Kimmerle ◽  
Martina Bientzle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Controlled Experiments ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Impact

The impact of patient narratives on medical students’ perceptions of shared decision making: A randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Bientzle ◽  
Marie Eggeling ◽  
Simone Korger ◽  
Joachim Kimmerle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Information Text ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND: Successful shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice requires that future clinicians learn to appreciate the value of patient participation as early as in their medical training. Narratives, such as patient testimonials, have been successfully used to support patients’ decision-making process. Previous research suggests that narratives may also be used for increasing clinicians’ empathy and responsiveness in medical consultations. However, so far, no studies have investigated the benefits of narratives for conveying the relevance of SDM to medical students.METHODS: In this randomized controlled experiment, N = 167 medical students were put into a scenario where they prepared for medical consultation with a patient having Parkinson disease. After receiving general information, participants read either a narrative patient testimonial or a fact-based information text. We measured their perceptions of SDM, their control preferences (i.e., their priorities as to who should make the decision), and the time they intended to spend for the consultation.RESULTS: Participants in the narrative patient testimonial condition referred more strongly to the patient as the one who should make decisions than participants who read the information text. Participants who read the patient narrative also considered SDM in situations with more than one treatment option to be more important than participants in the information text condition. There were no group differences regarding their control preferences. Participants who read the patient testimonial indicated that they would schedule more time for the consultation.CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that narratives can potentially be useful for imparting the relevance of SDM and patient-centered values to medical students. We discuss possible causes of this effect and implications for training and future research.

Abstract 27: Patients' Perspectives on a Decision Aid to Facilitate Cost-sensitive Decisions for Sacubitril-Valsartan

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea R Mitchell ◽  
Grace Venechuk ◽  
Larry A Allen ◽  
Dan D Matlock ◽  
Miranda Moore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cost Information ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
The Impact

Background: Decision aids frequently focus on decisions that are preference-sensitive due to an absence of superior medical option or qualitative differences in treatments. Out of pocket cost can also make decisions preference-sensitive. However, cost is infrequently discussed with patients, and cost has not typically been considered in developing approaches to shared decision-making or decision aids. Determining a therapy’s value to a patient requires an individualized assessment of both benefits and cost. A decision aid addressing cost for sacubitril-valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was developed because this medication has clear medical benefits but can entail appreciable out-of-pocket cost. Objective: To explore patients’ perspectives on a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF. Methods: Twenty adults, ages 32-73, with HFrEF who met general eligibility for sacubitril-valsartan were recruited from outpatient HF clinics and inpatient services at 2 geographically-distinct academic health systems. In-depth interviews were conducted by trained interviewers using a semi-structured guide after patients reviewed the decision aid. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed; qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted using a template analytic method. Results: Participants confirmed that cost was relevant to this decision and that cost discussions with clinicians are infrequent but welcomed. Participants cited multiple ways that this decision aid could be helpful beyond informing a choice; these included serving as a conversation starter, helping inform questions, and serving as a reference later. The decision aid seemed balanced; several participants felt that it was promotional, while others wanted a more “positive” presentation. Participants valued the display of benefits of sacubitril-valsartan but had variable views about how to apply data to themselves and heterogenous interpretations of a 3% absolute reduction in mortality over 2 years. None felt this benefit was overwhelming; about half felt it was very small. The decision aid incorporated a novel “gist statement” to contextualize benefits and counter tendencies to dismiss this mortality reduction as trivial. Several participants liked this statement; few had strong impressions. Conclusion: Out of pocket cost should be part of shared decision-making. These data suggest patients are receptive to inclusion of cost in decision aids and that a “middle ground” between being promotional and negative may exist. The data, however, raise concerns regarding potential dismissal of clinically meaningful benefits and illustrate challenges identifying appropriate contextualizing language. The impact of various framings warrants further study, as does integration of decision aids with patient-specific out-of-pocket cost information during clinical encounters.

Decision aids to prepare patients for shared decision making: Two randomized controlled experiments on the impact of awareness of preference-sensitivity and personal motives

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Eggeling ◽  
Simone Korger ◽  
Ulrike Cress ◽  
Joachim Kimmerle ◽  
Martina Bientzle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Decision Strategies ◽  
The Impact

Objective: To participate in shared decision-making (SDM), patients need to understand their options and develop trust in their own decision-making abilities. Two experiments investigated the potential of decision aids (DAs) in preparing patients for SDM by raising awareness of preference-sensitivity (Study 1) and showing possible personal motives for decision-making (Study 2) in addition to providing information about the treatment options.Methods: Participants (Study 1: N=117; Study 2: N=217) were put into two scenarios (Study 1: cruciate ligament rupture; Study 2: contraception), watched a consultation video, and were randomized into one of three groups where they received additional information in the form of 1) narrative patient testimonials; 2) non-narrative decision strategies; 3) an unrelated text (control group). Results: Participants who viewed the patient testimonials or decision strategies felt better prepared for a decision (Study 1: P<.001, η²p=0.43; Study 2: P<.001, η²p=0.57) and evaluated the decision-making process more positively (Study 2: P<.001, η²p=0.13) than participants in the control condition. Decision certainty (Study 1: P<.001, η2p=0.05) and satisfaction (Study 1: P<.001, η2p=0.11; Study 2: P=.003, d=0.29) were higher across all conditions after watching the consultation video, and certainty and satisfaction were lower in the control condition (Study 2: P<.001, η²p=0.05).Discussion: DAs that explain preference-sensitivity and personal motives can be beneficial for improving people’s feelings of being prepared and their perception of the decision-making process. To reach decision certainty and satisfaction, being well informed of one’s options is particularly relevant. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and the design of DAs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document