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
Aim To provide insight into the basic characteristics of decision making in the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (SSAS) in Dutch heart centres with specific emphasis on the evaluation of frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL]. Methods A questionnaire was used that is based on the European and American guidelines for SSAS treatment. The survey was administered to physicians and non-physicians in Dutch heart centres involved in the decision-making pathway for SSAS treatment. Results All 16 Dutch heart centres participated. Before a patient case is discussed by the heart team, heart centres rarely request data from the referring hospital regarding patients’ functionality (n = 5), frailty scores (n = 0) and geriatric consultation (n = 1) as a standard procedure. Most heart centres ‘often to always’ do their own screening for frailty (n = 10), cognition/mood (n = 9), nutritional status (n = 10) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). During heart team meetings data are ‘sometimes to regularly’ available regarding frailty (n = 5), cognition/mood (n = 11), nutritional status (n = 8) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). After assessment in the outpatient clinic patient cases are re-discussed ‘sometimes to regularly’ in heart team meetings (n = 10). Conclusions Dutch heart centres make an effort to evaluate frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL for decision making regarding SSAS treatment. However, these patient data are not routinely requested from the referring hospital and are not always available for heart team meetings. Incorporation of these important data in a structured manner early in the decision-making process may provide additional useful information for decision making in the heart team meeting.
LINK
Background: Patient decision aids (PDAs) can support the treatment decision making process and empower patients to take a proactive role in their treatment pathway while using a shared decision-making (SDM) approach making participatory medicine possible. The aim of this study was to develop a PDA for prostate cancer that is accurate and user-friendly. Methods: We followed a user-centered design process consisting of five rounds of semi-structured interviews and usability surveys with topics such as informational/decisional needs of users and requirements for PDAs. Our userbase consisted of 8 urologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 2 oncology nurses, 8 general practitioners, 19 former prostate cancer patients, 4 usability experts and 11 healthy volunteers. Results: Informational needs for patients centered on three key factors: treatment experience, post-treatment quality of life, and the impact of side effects. Patients and clinicians valued a PDA that presents balanced information on these factors through simple understandable language and visual aids. Usability questionnaires revealed that patients were more satisfied overall with the PDA than clinicians; however, both groups had concerns that the PDA might lengthen consultation times (42 and 41%, respectively). The PDA is accessible on http://beslissamen.nl/. Conclusions: User-centered design provided valuable insights into PDA requirements but challenges in integrating diverse perspectives as clinicians focus on clinical outcomes while patients also consider quality of life. Nevertheless, it is crucial to involve a broad base of clinical users in order to better understand the decision-making process and to develop a PDA that is accurate, usable, and acceptable.
DOCUMENT
Background: Research into termination of long-term psychosocial treatment of mental disorders is scarce. Yearly 25% of people in Dutch mental health services receive long-term treatment. They account for many people, contacts, and costs. Although relevant in different health care systems, (dis)continuation is particularly problematic under universal health care coverage when secondary services lack a fixed (financially determined) endpoint. Substantial, unaccounted, differences in treatment duration exist between services. Understanding of underlying decisional processes may result in improved decision making, efficient allocation of scarce resources, and more personalized treatment.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Many older patients with cancer have their family members, often their adult children, involved in a process of treatment decision-making. Despite the growing awareness that family members can facilitate a process of shared decision-making, strategies for involving family members are scarce. Furthermore, literature about shared decision-making pays little attention to family involvement or to the impact that family relations have on the decision process. The purpose of this study was to explore how surgeons and nurses perceive the involvement of adult children of older patients with cancer in treatment decision-making. Subsequently, it identified strategies to ensure family involvement in the decision-making process, used in clinical practice.METHODS: Qualitative open in-depth interviews were conducted with 13 surgeons and 13 nurses working in a university or general hospital. Qualitative content analysis was conducted according to the steps of thematic analysis.RESULTS: Both nurses and surgeons indicated that adult children's involvement in decision-making about treatment increases when patients become frail. They mentioned several characteristics of adult children's behaviour during the decision-making process. Most of these characteristics are beneficial, but they also can be challenging. The distinct nature of adult children's involvement can help older patients with cancer reach better-informed treatment decisions. Health professionals reported six strategies to support positive family involvement in decision-making about treatment.CONCLUSION: Adult children may facilitate a process of shared decision-making and help patients reach well-informed treatment decisions. Health professionals' strategies deliberately support positive family involvement.
DOCUMENT
Many older patients with cancer depend on their family members for care and support and involve their family members in treatment decision-making in different stages of the cancer trajectory. Although family involvement is advocated in person-centered care, little is known about family involvement in decision-making specifically for older patients, and evidence-based strategies are scarce. The aim of this scoping review is to provide deeper understanding of factors influencing family involvement in treatment decision-making for older patients with cancer. Four databases were searched for quantitative-, qualitative- and mixed-method empirical studies describing factors influencing family involvement in treatment decision-making for older patients with cancer: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Three independent researchers reviewed the papers for eligibility and quality and contributed to the data extraction and analysis. Twenty-seven papers were included, sixteen quantitative studies, nine qualitative studies and two mixed-method studies. Five categories of factors influencing family involvement emerged: 1) patient characteristics, 2) family member characteristics, 3) family system characteristics, 4) physician’s role and 5) cultural influences. These factors affect the level of family control in decision-making, treatment choice, decision agreement, and levels of stress and coping strategies of patients and family members. This review reveals a complex interplay of factors influencing family involvement in treatment decision-making for older patients with cancer that is rooted in characteristics of the family system. The findings underscore the need for development and implementation of evidence-based strategies for family involvement in treatment decision-making as part of patient-centered care for older patients with cancer.
DOCUMENT
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
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
Background and purpose: Many older patients with cancer have their family members, often their adult children, involved in a process of treatment decision making. Despite the growing awareness that family members can facilitate a process of shared decision making (SDM), literature about SDM pays little attention to family relations and strategies to facilitate family involvement in decision making processes. Therefor this study aimed to 1. explore surgeons' and nurses' perceptions about involvement of adult children in treatment decision-making for older patients; and 2. identify strategies surgeons' and nurses use to ensure positive family involvement. Methods: This study used a qualitative open in-depth interview design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 surgical oncologists and 13 oncology nurses in two hospitals in the Netherlands. Qualitative content analysis was conducted according to the steps of thematic analysis. Results: Surgeons and nurses indicated that adult children's involvement in decision-making increases when patients become frail. They reported beneficial and challenging characteristics of this involvement. Subsequently, six strategies to stimulate positive involvement of adult children in the decision-making process were revealed: 1. Focus on the patient; 2. Actively involve adult children; 3. Acknowledge different perspectives; 4. Get to know the family system; 5. Check that the patient and family members understand the information; and 6. Stimulate communication and deliberation with adult children.Conclusions and implications: Surgeons and nurses perceive involvement of adult children in treatment decision making for older patients with cancer as beneficial. Adult children can help these patients reach well-informed treatment decisions. Therefor surgeons and nurses stimulate the communication and deliberation between these patients and their adult children. However, involving family in treatment decision making also triggers specific complexities and challenges in treatment decision conversations that seem to call for the development and implementation of practical patient and family-centered strategies.
DOCUMENT
Background: The majority of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are in a position to choose between having a mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation therapy (breast-conserving therapy). Since the long-term survival rates for mastectomy and for lumpectomy with radiation therapy are comparable, patients’ informed preferences are important for decision-making. Although most clinicians believe that they do include patients in the decision-making process, the information that women with breast cancer receive regarding the surgical options is often rather subjective, and does not invite patients to express their preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) is meant to help patients clarify their preferences, resulting in greater satisfaction with their final choice. Patient decision aids can be very supportive in SDM. We present the protocol of a study to β test a patient decision aid and optimise strategies for the implementation of SDM regarding the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the actual clinical setting. Methods/design: This paper concerns a preimplementation and post-implementation study, lasting from October 2014 to June 2015. The intervention consists of implementing SDM using a patient decision aid. The intervention will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative measures, acquired prior to, during and after the implementation of SDM. Outcome measures are knowledge about treatment, perceived SDM and decisional conflict. We will also conduct face-to-face interviews with a sample of these patients and their care providers, to assess their experiences with the implementation of SDM and the patient decision aid.
DOCUMENT
