Objective: To construct the underlying value structure of shared decision making (SDM) models. Method: We included previously identified SDM models (n = 40) and 15 additional ones. Using a thematic analysis, we coded the data using Schwartz’s value theory to define values in SDM and to investigate value relations. Results: We identified and defined eight values and developed three themes based on their relations: shared control, a safe and supportive environment, and decisions tailored to patients. We constructed a value structure based on the value relations and themes: the interplay of healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) and patients’ skills [Achievement], support for a patient [Benevolence], and a good relationship between HCP and patient [Security] all facilitate patients’ autonomy [Self-Direction]. These values enable a more balanced relationship between HCP and patient and tailored decision making [Universalism]. Conclusion: SDM can be realized by an interplay of values. The values Benevolence and Security deserve more explicit attention, and may especially increase vulnerable patients’ Self-Direction. Practice implications: This value structure enables a comparison of values underlying SDM with those of specific populations, facilitating the incorporation of patients’ values into treatment decision making. It may also inform the development of SDM measures, interventions, education programs, and HCPs when practicing.
DOCUMENT
In service design projects, collaboration between design consultant and service provider can be problematic. The nature of these projects requires a high level of shared understanding and commitment, which providers may not be used to. We studied designer-provider collaboration in multiple real-life cases, in order to uncover determinants for successful collaboration. The case studies involved six service innovation projects, performed by Dutch design agencies. Independent researchers closely monitored the projects. Additional interviews with designers and providers gave insights in how both parties experienced their collaboration in the innovation projects. During data analysis, a coding scheme was created inductively. The scheme supported us in formulating 12 themes for designer-provider collaboration, amongst them four contextual determinants of shared understanding and stakeholder commitment in SD-projects. The insights from this study were then grounded in literature. Knowledge gaps were identified on themes about agreements of responsibilities, the open-endedness of an SD-process, an opportunitysearching approach, and organizational change that is required for the successful implementation of innovative service concepts.
DOCUMENT
Most food & agribusiness stakeholders (entrepreneurs in particular) agree that it is not only difficult to innovate new products and technology, but also to realize its true market potential. A lack of market and/or supply partnerships, i.e. a robust and committed value chain, is often cited as the reason for the failure to achieve this potential. The key objective of this research is to understand the necessary elements needed for building a committed value chain and to suggest an approach to realize them. Our research shows that partnerships which combine the four key elements of aligned objectives and incentives and shared responsibilities and information are most likely to realize a committed value chain. The research further provide guidelines to developing these elements and achieving committed chains in practice. Finally, we demonstrate the relevance of the suggested approach using two real-life business cases; the first one is a business success story with a committed value chain, while the other is a story of a failure due to the lack of a committed chain
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
University teacher teams can work toward educational change through the process of team learning behavior, which involves sharing and discussing practices to create new knowledge. However, teachers do not routinely engage in learning behavior when working in such teams and it is unclear how leadership support can overcome this problem. Therefore, this study examines when team leadership behavior supports teacher teams in engaging in learning behavior. We studied 52 university teacher teams (281 respondents) involved in educational change, resulting in two key findings. First, analyses of multiple leadership types showed that team learning behavior was best supported by a shared transformational leadership style that challenges the status quo and stimulates team members’ intellect. Mutual transformational encouragement supported team learning more than the vertical leadership source or empowering and initiating structure styles of leadership. Second, moderator analyses revealed that task complexity influenced the relationship between vertical empowering team leadership behavior and team learning behavior. Specifically, this finding suggests that formal team leaders who empower teamwork only affected team learning behavior when their teams perceived that their task was not complex. These findings indicate how team learning behavior can be supported in university teacher teams responsible for working toward educational change. Moreover, these findings are unique because they originate from relating multiple team leadership types to team learning behavior, examining the influence of task complexity, and studying this in an educational setting.
DOCUMENT
University teacher teams can work toward educational change through the process of team learning behavior, which involves sharing and discussing practices to create new knowledge. However, teachers do not routinely engage in learning behavior when working in such teams and it is unclear how leadership support can overcome this problem. Therefore, this study examines when team leadership behavior supports teacher teams in engaging in learning behavior. We studied 52 university teacher teams (281 respondents) involved in educational change, resulting in two key findings. First, analyses of multiple leadership types showed that team learning behavior was best supported by a shared transformational leadership style that challenges the status quo and stimulates team members’ intellect. Mutual transformational encouragement supported team learning more than the vertical leadership source or empowering and initiating structure styles of leadership. Second, moderator analyses revealed that task complexity influenced the relationship between vertical empowering team leadership behavior and team learning behavior. Specifically, this finding suggests that formal team leaders who empower teamwork only affected team learning behavior when their teams perceived that their task was not complex. These findings indicate how team learning behavior can be supported in university teacher teams responsible for working toward educational change. Moreover, these findings are unique because they originate from relating multiple team leadership types to team learning behavior, examining the influence of task complexity, and studying this in an educational setting. https://www.scienceguide.nl/2021/06/leren-van-docentteams-vraagt-om-gezamenlijk-leiderschap/
LINK
Background: Shared decision-making is one key element of interprofessional collaboration. Communication is often considered to be the main reason for inefficient or ineffective collaboration. Little is known about group dynamics in the process of shared decision-making in a team with professionals, including the patient or their parent. This study aimed to evaluate just that. Methods: Simulation-based training was provided for groups of medical and allied health profession students from universities across the globe. In an overt ethnographic research design, passive observations were made to ensure careful observations and accurate reporting. The training offered the context to directly experience the behaviors and interactions of a group of people. Results: Overall, 39 different goals were defined in different orders of prioritizing and with different time frames or intervention ideas. Shared decision-making was lacking, and groups chose to convince the parents when a conflict arose. Group dynamics made parents verbally agree with professionals, although their non-verbal communication was not in congruence with that. Conclusions: The outcome and goalsetting of an interprofessional meeting are highly influenced by group dynamics. The vision, structure, process, and results of the meeting are affected by multiple inter- or intrapersonal factors.
DOCUMENT
Background: For most women, participation in decision-making during maternity care has a positive impact on their childbirth experiences. Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely advocated as a way to support people in their healthcare choices. The aim of this study was to identify quality criteria and professional competencies for applying shared decision-making in maternity care. We focused on decision-making in everyday maternity care practice for healthy women. Methods: An international three-round web-based Delphi study was conducted. The Delphi panel included international experts in SDM and in maternity care: mostly midwives, and additionally obstetricians, educators, researchers, policy makers and representatives of care users. Round 1 contained open-ended questions to explore relevant ingredients for SDM in maternity care and to identify the competencies needed for this. In rounds 2 and 3, experts rated statements on quality criteria and competencies on a 1 to 7 Likert-scale. A priori, positive consensus was defined as 70% or more of the experts scoring ≥6 (70% panel agreement). Results: Consensus was reached on 45 quality criteria statements and 4 competency statements. SDM in maternity care is a dynamic process that starts in antenatal care and ends after birth. Experts agreed that the regular visits during pregnancy offer opportunities to build a relationship, anticipate situations and revisit complex decisions. Professionals need to prepare women antenatally for unexpected, urgent decisions in birth and revisit these decisions postnatally. Open and respectful communication between women and care professionals is essential; information needs to be accurate, evidence-based and understandable to women. Experts were divided about the contribution of professional advice in shared decision-making and about the partner’s role. Conclusions: SDM in maternity care is a dynamic process that takes into consideration women’s individual needs and the context of the pregnancy or birth. The identified ingredients for good quality SDM will help practitioners to apply SDM in practice and educators to prepare (future) professionals for SDM, contributing to women’s positive birth experience and satisfaction with care.
MULTIFILE
Patients with a hematologic malignancy increasingly prefer to be actively involved in treatment decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM), a process that supports decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions, fits well with this need. A decision is preference sensitive when well-informed patients considerably differ in their trade-offs between the pros and cons of one option, or if more equal treatment options are available, including no treatment. SDM involves several steps: the first is choice talk, where the professional informs the patient that a decision needs to be made between the various relevant options and that the patient's opinion is important. The second is option talk, where the professional explains the options and their pros and cons. In the third step, preference talk, the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences. The professional supports the patient in deliberation. The final step is decision talk, where the professional and patient discuss the patient's decisional role preference, make or defer the decision and discuss possible follow-up.
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
