scholarly journals Designing a portal to patient-centered care? Let�s start with the patient. A cross-sectional survey. (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Alfons Van den Bulck ◽  
Rosella Hermens ◽  
Karin Slegers ◽  
Bert Vandenberghe ◽  
Geert Goderis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Patient Portal ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Centered Care

BACKGROUND In recent literature, patient portals are considered as important tools for the delivery of patient-centered care. Yet, it is not clear how patients would conceptualize a patient portal and which health information needs they have when doing so. OBJECTIVE 1) To investigate health information needs, expectations and attitudes towards a patient portal. 2) To assess if determinants such as patient characteristics, health literacy and empowerment status can predict two different variables, namely the importance people attribute to obtaining health information when using a patient portal and the expectations concerning personal healthcare when using a patient portal. METHODS A cross-sectional survey was performed in the Flemish population on what patients prefer to know about their digital health data and on their expectations and attitudes towards using a patient portal to access their Electronic Health Record. People were invited to participate in the survey through newsletters, social media and magazines. We used a questionnaire including demographics, health characteristics, health literacy, patient empowerment and patient portal characteristics. RESULTS We received 433 completed surveys. The health information needs included features such as being notified when one’s health changes (93.7%, 371/396), being notified when physical parameters rise to dangerous levels (93.7%, 370/395), to see connections between one’s symptoms/diseases/biological parameters (85.2%, 339/398), to view the evolution of one’s health in function of time (84.5%, 333/394) and to view information about the expected effect of treatment (88.4%, 349/395). Almost 90% (369/412) of respondents were interested in using a patient portal. Determinants of patients’ attachment to obtaining health information on a patient portal were 1) age between 45 and 54 years (P = .047); 2) neutral (P = .030) or interested attitude (P = .008) towards shared decision-making; 3) commitment to question the physicians’ decisions (P = .030). (R2 = .122) Determinants of patients’ expectations on improved healthcare by accessing a patient portal were 1) lower education level (P = .040); 2) neutral (P = .030) or interested attitude (P = .008) towards shared decision-making; 3) problems in understanding health information (P = .037). (R2 = .106) CONCLUSIONS The interest in using a patient portal is considerable in Flanders. People report they would like to receive alerts or some form of communication from a patient portal in case they need to take action to manage their health. Determinants such as education, attached importance to shared decision-making, difficulties in finding relevant health information and the attached importance to questioning the decisions of physicians need to be taken into account in the design of a patient portal.

How to Provide Accessible Hearing Health Information to Promote Patient-Centered Care

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-180
Author(s):  
Rebecca Kelly-Campbell ◽  
Vinaya Manchaiah
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centeredness ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Hearing Health

Purpose This clinical focus article focuses on accessible hearing health information and is written in twofold. First, it outlines the connection between factors of patient-centered care, shared decision making, and health literacy on health outcomes. Second, it provides some practical strategies for providing and assessing accessible health information to promote patient-centeredness and shared decision making. Conclusion Health information accessibility will positively influence the treatment choices made by patients and the way in which they self-manage their health. Hearing health care professionals need to take proactive measures to ensure that the information provided in different mediums have easily readable language, adequate quality, suitability, understandability, and actionability to ensure accessibility of hearing health information.

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Behavior Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

scholarly journals US-based cross-sectional survey of clinicians’ knowledge and attitudes about shared decision-making across healthcare professions and specialties

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel C Forcino ◽  
Renata West Yen ◽  
Maya Aboumrad ◽  
Paul J Barr ◽  
Danielle Schubbe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Knowledge And Attitudes ◽  
Positive Attitudes

ObjectiveIn this study, we aim to compare shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge and attitudes between US-based physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians across surgical and family medicine specialties.SettingWe administered a cross-sectional, web-based survey between 20 September 2017 and 1 November 2017.Participants272 US-based NPs, PA and physicians completed the survey. 250 physicians were sent a generic email invitation to participate, of whom 100 completed the survey. 3300 NPs and PAs were invited, among whom 172 completed the survey. Individuals who met the following exclusion criteria were excluded from participation: (1) lack of English proficiency; (2) area of practice other than family medicine or surgery; (3) licensure other than physician, PA or NP; (4) practicing in a country other than the US.ResultsWe found few substantial differences in SDM knowledge and attitudes across clinician types, revealing positive attitudes across the sample paired with low to moderate knowledge. Family medicine professionals (PAs) were most knowledgeable on several items. Very few respondents (3%; 95% CI 1.5% to 6.2%) favoured a paternalistic approach to decision-making.ConclusionsRecent policy-level promotion of SDM may have influenced positive clinician attitudes towards SDM. Positive attitudes despite limited knowledge warrant SDM training across occupations and specialties, while encouraging all clinicians to promote SDM. Given positive attitudes and similar knowledge across clinician types, we recommend that SDM is not confined to the patient-physician dyad but instead advocated among other health professionals.

scholarly journals Shared decision-making as a cost-containment strategy: US physician reactions from a cross-sectional survey

BMJ Open ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e004027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon C Tilburt ◽  
Matthew K Wynia ◽  
Victor M Montori ◽  
Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir ◽  
Jason S Egginton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cost Containment ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Containment Strategy

scholarly journals Patient autonomy in dental medical decision making – demonstrating the need for shared decision making

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mareike Benecke ◽  
Jürgen Kasper ◽  
Christoph Heesen ◽  
Nina Schäffler ◽  
Daniel Reissmann
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Study Results

Abstract Background: Evidence-based Dentistry (EBD), decision aids, patient preferences and autonomy preferences (AP) play an important role in shared decision making (SDM) and are useful tools in the process of medical and dental decisions as well as in developing of quality criteria for decision making in many fields of health care. However, there aren’t many studies on SDM and AP in the field of dentistry. This study aimed at exploring patients’ autonomy preferences in dentistry in comparison to other medical domains. Methods: As a first step, a consecutive sample of 100 dental patients and 16 dentists was recruited at a university-based prosthodontic clinic to assess and compare patients’ and dentists’ preferences regarding their roles in dental decision making for commonly performed diagnostic and treatment decisions using the Control Preference Scale (CPS). This was followed by a cross sectional survey to study autonomy preferences in three cohorts of 100 patients each recruited from general practices, a multiple sclerosis clinic, and a university-based prosthodontic clinic . A questionnaire with combined items from the Autonomy Preference Index (API) to assess general and the CPS to assess specific preferences was used in this process. Results: Dentists were slightly less willing to deliver control than patients willing to enact autonomy. Decisions about management of tooth loss were however considered relevant for a shared decision making by both parties. Highest AP was expressed by people with multiple sclerosis, lowest by patients in dentistry (CPS means: dentistry 2.5, multiple sclerosis 2.1, general practice 2.4, p=.035). Patients analysis showed considerable differences in autonomy preferences referring to different decision types (p<.001). More autonomy was needed for treatment decisions in comparison to diagnostic decisions, for trivial compared to severe conditions, and for dental care compared to general practice (all: p<.001). Conclusion: The study results showed substantial relevance of patient participation in decision making in dentistry. Furthermore, a need has been discovered to refer to specific medical decisions instead of assessing autonomy preferences in general.

scholarly journals Shared Decision Making and Patient-Centered Care in Israel, Jordan, and the United States: Exploratory and Comparative Survey Study of Physician Perceptions (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaara Zisman-Ilani ◽  
Rana Obeidat ◽  
Lauren Fang ◽  
Sarah Hsieh ◽  
Zackary Berger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Comparative Survey

BACKGROUND Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model that evolved in Europe and North America and largely reflects the values and medical practices dominant in these areas. OBJECTIVE This study aims to understand the beliefs, perceptions, and practices related to SDM and patient-centered care (PCC) of physicians in Israel, Jordan, and the United States. METHODS A hypothesis-generating comparative survey study was administered to physicians from Israel, Jordan, and the United States. RESULTS A total of 36 surveys were collected via snowball sampling (Jordan: n=15; United States: n=12; Israel: n=9). SDM was perceived as a way to inform patients and allow them to participate in their care. Barriers to implementing SDM varied based on place of origin; physicians in the United States mentioned limited time, physicians in Jordan reported that a lack of patient education limits SDM practices, and physicians in Israel reported lack of communication training. Most US physicians defined PCC as a practice for prioritizing patient preferences, whereas both Jordanian and Israeli physicians defined PCC as a holistic approach to care and to prioritizing patient needs. Barriers to implementing PCC, as seen by US physicians, were mostly centered on limited appointment time and insurance coverage. In Jordan and Israel, staff shortage and a lack of resources in the system were seen as major barriers to PCC implementation. CONCLUSIONS The study adds to the limited, yet important, literature on SDM and PCC in areas of the world outside the United States, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe. The study suggests that perceptions of PCC might widely differ among these regions, whereas concepts of SDM might be shared. Future work should clarify these differences.

scholarly journals Partnerships to Improve Shared Decision Making for Patients with Hypertension: Health Equity Implications

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 97-102
Author(s):  
Aisha T. Langford ◽  
Stephen K. Williams ◽  
Melanie Applegate ◽  
Olugbenga Ogedegbe ◽  
Ronald S. Braithwaite
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Lifestyle Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Broad Array ◽  
Centered Care

Shared decision making (SDM) has increas­ingly become appreciated as a method to enhance patient involvement in health care decisions, patient-provider communication, and patient-centered care. Compared with cancer, the literature on SDM for hyperten­sion is more limited. This is notable because hypertension is the leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease and both conditions disproportionately affect certain subgroups of patients. However, SDM holds prom­ise for improving health equity by better engaging patients in their health care. For example, many reasonable options exist for treating uncomplicated stage-1 hyperten­sion. These options include medication and/ or lifestyle changes such as healthy eating, physical activity, and weight management. Deciding on “the best” plan of action for hypertension management can be challeng­ing because patients have different goals and preferences for treatment. As hyper­tension management may be considered a preference-sensitive decision, adherence to treatment plans may be greater if those plans are concordant with patient prefer­ences. SDM can be implemented in a broad array of care contexts, from patient-provider dyads to interprofessional collaborations. In this article, we argue that SDM has the potential to advance health equity and improve clinical care. We also propose a process to evaluate whether SDM has occurred and suggest future directions for research.Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 1):97- 102; doi:10.18865/ed.29.S1.97.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document