scholarly journals Ready for shared decision making: Pretesting a training module for health professionals on sharing decisions with their patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 610-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Kienlin ◽  
Kari Nytrøen ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Jürgen Kasper
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Training Module

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.

Teaching argumentation theory to doctors

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Rubinelli ◽  
Claudia Zanini
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Decision Model ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Ideal Model ◽  
Points Of View ◽  
Interpretative Model

This paper supports the need for health professionals to be trained in argumentation theory, by illustrating the challenges that they face in interacting with patients and according to the different models of consultation that patients prefer. While there is no ideal model of consultation that can be promoted universally, the ability to construct arguments in support of health professionals’ points of view, as well as the ability to engage in critical discussion with patients, translate in essential skills for reaching patients’ agreement when communication develops through the interpretative model or the informed decision model or, eventually, shared decision-making.

scholarly journals Exploring women’s experiences of participation in shared decision-making during childbirth: a qualitative study at a reference hospital in Spain

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
María López-Toribio ◽  
Paulina Bravo ◽  
Anna Llupià
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Women’S Experiences ◽  
Birth Plan ◽  
Women's Experiences ◽  
Women's Participation ◽  
Reference Hospital

Abstract Background Women’s engagement in healthcare decision-making during childbirth has been increasingly emphasised as a priority in maternity care, since it increases satisfaction with the childbirth experience and provides health benefits for women and newborns. The birth plan was developed as a tool to facilitate communication between health professionals and women in Spain, but their value in routine practice has been questioned. Besides, little is known about women’s experiences of participation in decision-making in the Spanish context. Thus, this study aimed to explore women’s experiences of participation in shared decision-making during hospital childbirth. Methods An exploratory qualitative study using focus groups was carried out in one maternity unit of a large reference hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Participants were first-time mothers aged 18 years or older who had had a live birth at the same hospital in the previous 12 months. Data collected were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a six-phase inductive thematic analysis process. Results Twenty-three women participated in three focus groups. Three major themes emerged from the data: “Women’s low participation in shared decision-making”, “Lack of information provision for shared decision-making”, and “Suggestions to improve women’s participation in shared decision-making”. The women who were willing to take an active role in decision-making encountered barriers to achieving this and some women did not feel prepared to do so. The birth plan was experienced as a deficient method to promote women’s participation, as health professionals did not use them. Participants described the information given as insufficient and not offered at a timely or useful point where it could aid their decision-making. Potential improvements identified that could promote women’s participation were having a mutually respectful relationship with their providers, the support of partners and other members of the family and receiving continuity of a coordinated and personalised perinatal care. Conclusion Enhancing women’s involvement in shared decision-making requires the acquisition of skills by health professionals and women. The development and implementation of interventions that encompass a training programme for health professionals and women, accompanied by an effective tool to promote women’s participation in shared decision-making during childbirth, is highly recommended.

Person-centred Communications: How do People as Patients Want to be Spoken to?

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 192-196
Author(s):  
Joanna Groves
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Well Being ◽  
World Health ◽  
World Health Report ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Good Communication ◽  
Health Report

Background:The World Health Organization's (WHO) World Health Report of 2008 titled, “Primary Health Care – Now More Than Ever” put renewed emphasis on the values of achieving health for all and putting people at the centre of healthcare (1).  In order to do this it is necessary to understand what people expect and want from healthcare and pertinent communications so that health systems can be designed that can respond to patients' needs, wishes and preferences. Objectives:To consider the initiatives which are being taken forward by numerous national and global initiatives to further person-centred healthcare and consideration of the evidence for this approach with particular regard to the role of communication in enabling healthcare to meet people's needs, wishes and preferences.  Methods: Review of person-centred healthcare initiatives and evidence for its impact and consideration of principles of person-centred care as they relate to healthcare communications. Results:There is evidence for a person-centred approach to healthcare.  There are fundamental principles relating to how communications can impact on patients being empowered to make informed decisions about their healthcare.  Patient experiences and outcomes are improved when they have the opportunity for their wishes and preferences to inform shared decision-making in mutually trusting and equal partnerships with health professionals about their health and well being. Conclusions:Person-centred healthcare requires communication which enables respect for people's needs, preferences, dignity, values, autonomy and independence. Empowering patients and health professionals so that they can work in partnership to reach an informed decision on what the patient wants and expects from treatment should be the priority for policy-makers, health professionals and patients.  There are some fundamental principles and many tools and initiatives that can support good communication and enable shared decision-making. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document