In the decision-making environment of evidence-based practice, the following three sources of information must be integrated: research evidence of the intervention, clinical expertise, and the patient’s values. In reality, evidence-based practice usually focuses on research evidence (which may be translated into clinical practice guidelines) and clinical expertise without considering the individual patient’s values. The shared decision-making model seems to be helpful in the integration of the individual patient’s values in evidence-based practice. We aim to discuss the relevance of shared decision making in chronic care and to suggest how it can be integrated with evidence-based practice in nursing. We start by describing the following three possible approaches to guide the decision-making process: the paternalistic approach, the informed approach, and the shared decision-making approach. Implementation of shared decision making has gained considerable interest in cases lacking a strong best-treatment recommendation, and when the available treatment options are equivalent to some extent. We discuss that in chronic care it is important to always invite the patient to participate in the decision-making process. We delineate the following six attributes of health care interventions in chronic care that influence the degree of shared decision making: the level of research evidence, the number of available intervention options, the burden of side effects, the impact on lifestyle, the patient group values, and the impact on resources. Furthermore, the patient’s willingness to participate in shared decision making, the clinical expertise of the nurse, and the context in which the decision making takes place affect the shared decision-making process. A knowledgeable and skilled nurse with a positive attitude towards shared decision making – integrated with evidence-based practice – can facilitate the shared decision-making process. We conclude that nurses as well as other health care professionals in chronic care should integrate shared decision making with evidence- based practice to deliver patient-centred care.
In this thesis several studies are presented that have targeted decision making about case management plans in probation. In a case management plan probation officers describe the goals and interventions that should help offenders stop reoffending, and the specific measures necessary to reduce acute risks of recidivism and harm. Such a plan is embedded in a judicial framework, a sanction or advice about the sanction in which these interventions and measures should be executed. The topic of this thesis is the use of structured decision support, and the question is if this can improve decision making about case management plans in probation and subsequently improve the effectiveness of offender supervision. In this chapter we first sketch why structured decision making was introduced in the Dutch probation services. Next we describe the instrument for risk and needs assessment as well as the procedure to develop case management plans that are used by the Dutch probation services and that are investigated in this thesis. Then we describe the setting of the studies and the research questions, and we conclude with an overview of this thesis.
Introduction: Shared decision-making is considered to be a key aspect of woman-centered care and a strategy to improve communication, respect, and satisfaction. This scoping review identified studies that used a shared decision-making support strategy as the primary intervention in the context of perinatal care. Methods: A literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases was completed for English-language studies conducted from January 2000 through November 2019 that examined the impact of a shared decision-making support strategy on a perinatal decision (such as choice of mode of birth after prior cesarean birth). Studies that only examined the use of a decision aid were excluded. Nine studies met inclusion criteria and were examined for the nature of the shared decision-making intervention as well as outcome measures such as decisional evaluation, including decisional conflict, decisional regret, and certainty. Results: The 9 included studies were heterogeneous with regard to shared decision-making interventions and measured outcomes and were performed in different countries and in a variety of perinatal situations, such as women facing the choice of mode of birth after prior cesarean birth. The impact of a shared decision-making intervention on women’s perception of shared decision-making and on their experiences of the decision-making process were mixed. There may be a decrease in decisional conflict and regret related to feeling informed, but no change in decisional certainty. Discussion: Despite the call to increase the use of shared decision-making in perinatal care, there are few studies that have examined the effects of a shared decision-making support strategy. Further studies that include antepartum and intrapartum settings, which include common perinatal decisions such as induction of labor, are needed. In addition, clear guidance and strategies for successfully integrating shared decision-making and practice recommendations would help women and health care providers navigate these complex decisions.
The ELSA AI lab Northern Netherlands (ELSA-NN) is committed to the promotion of healthy living, working and ageing. By investigating cultural, ethical, legal, socio-political, and psychological aspects of the use of AI in different decision-makingcontexts and integrating this knowledge into an online ELSA tool, ELSA-NN aims to contribute to knowledge about trustworthy human-centric AI and development and implementation of health technology innovations, including AI, in theNorthern region.The research in ELSA-NN will focus on developing and mapping ELSA knowledge around three general concepts of importance for the development, monitoring and implementation of trustworthy and human-centric AI: availability, use,and performance. These concepts will be explored in two lines of research: 1) use case research investigating the use of different AI applications with different types of data in different decision-making contexts at different time periods duringthe life course, and 2) an exploration among stakeholders in the Northern region of needs, knowledge, (digital) health literacy, attitudes and values concerning the use of AI in decision-making for healthy living, working and ageing. Specificfocus will be on investigating low social economic status (SES) perspectives, since health disparities between high and low SES groups are growing world-wide, including in the Northern region and existing health inequalities may increase with theintroduction and use of innovative health technologies such as AI.ELSA-NN will be integrated within the AI hub Northern-Netherlands, the Health Technology Research & Innovation Cluster (HTRIC) and the Data Science Center in Health (DASH). They offer a solid base and infrastructure for the ELSA-NNconsortium, which will be extended with additional partners, especially patient/citizens, private, governmental and researchrepresentatives, to have a quadruple-helix consortium. ELSA-NN will be set-up as a learning health system in which much attention will be paid to dialogue, communication and education.
