Exploring Provider Reactions to Decision Aid Distribution and Shared Decision Making: Lessons from Two Specialties

被引:14
|
作者
Hsu, Clarissa [1 ]
Liss, David T. [2 ]
Frosch, Dominick L. [3 ,4 ]
Westbrook, Emily O. [1 ]
Arterburn, David [1 ]
机构
[1] Grp Hlth Res Inst, 1730 Minor Ave,Ste 1600, Seattle, WA 98103 USA
[2] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[3] Palo Alto Med Fdn, Res Inst, Palo Alto, CA 94301 USA
[4] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Med, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
关键词
qualitative methods; decision aids; shared decision making; health service research; decision aids-tools; BREAST-CANCER SURGERY; SUPPORT INTERVENTIONS; CLINICAL-PRACTICE; PRIMARY-CARE; HEALTH; IMPLEMENTATION; ENCOUNTER; KNOWLEDGE; CHOICE;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X16671933
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. A critical component of shared decision making (SDM) is the role played by health care providers in distributing decision aids (DAs) and initiating SDM conversations. Existing literature indicates that decisions about designing and implementing DAs must take provider perspectives into account. However, little is known about how differences in provider attitudes across specialties may impact DA implementation and how provider attitudes may shift after DA implementation. Group Health's Decision Aid Implementation project was carried out in six specialties using 12 video-based DAs for preference-sensitive conditions; this study focused on two of the six specialties. Design. In-depth, qualitative interviews with specialty care providers in two specialties-orthopedics and cardiology-at two time points during DA implementation. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Results. We interviewed 19 care providers in orthopedics and cardiology. All respondents believed that providing patients with accurate information on their health conditions and treatment options was important and that most patients wanted an active role in decision making. However, respondents diverged in decision-making styles and views on the practicality and appropriateness of using the DAs and SDM. For example, cardiology specialists were ambivalent about DAs for coronary artery disease because many viewed DAs and SDM as unnecessary or inappropriate for this clinical condition. Provider attitudes towards DAs and SDM were generally stable over two years. Limitations. Limitations include a lack of patient perspectives, social desirability bias, and possible selection bias. Conclusions. Successfully implementing DAs in clinical practice to promote SDM requires addressing individual provider attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of SDM by specialty. During DA development and implementation, providers should be asked for input about the specific conditions and care processes that are most appropriate for SDM.
引用
收藏
页码:113 / 126
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Development and validation of a patient decision aid for prostate Cancer therapy: from paternalistic towards participative shared decision making
    Ankolekar, Anshu
    Vanneste, Ben G. L.
    Bloemen-van Gurp, Esther
    van Roermund, Joep G.
    van Limbergen, Evert J.
    van de Beek, Kees
    Marcelissen, Tom
    Zambon, Victor
    Oelke, Matthias
    Dekker, Andre
    Roumen, Cheryl
    Lambin, Philippe
    Berlanga, Adriana
    Fijten, Rianne
    BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2019, 19 (1)
  • [42] Development and validation of a patient decision aid for prostate Cancer therapy: from paternalistic towards participative shared decision making
    Anshu Ankolekar
    Ben G. L. Vanneste
    Esther Bloemen-van Gurp
    Joep G. van Roermund
    Evert J. van Limbergen
    Kees van de Beek
    Tom Marcelissen
    Victor Zambon
    Matthias Oelke
    Andre Dekker
    Cheryl Roumen
    Philippe Lambin
    Adriana Berlanga
    Rianne Fijten
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 19
  • [43] Shared decision making for eczema patients and caregivers is not dependent on length of relationship with a provider or provider specialty
    Loiselle, Allison R.
    Thibau, Isabelle
    Johnson, Jessica K.
    Begolka, Wendy Smith
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, 2023, 188
  • [44] EXPLORING SHARED DECISION-MAKING IN CHILDREN WITH NEURODEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS
    Hubner, L. M.
    Huffman, L. C.
    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE MEDICINE, 2015, 63 (01) : 111 - 111
  • [45] Lessons from COVID-19: Time for shared decision making in nursing practice
    Taylor, Kathryn S.
    Hladek, Melissa D.
    Elias, Sabrina D.
    Jenkins, Emerald
    Robinson, Kelley N.
    Smith, Owen W.
    Szanton, Sarah L.
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2022, 78 (11) : E147 - E149
  • [46] Building ground for didactics in a patient decision aid for hip osteoarthritis. Exploring patient -related barriers and facilitators towards shared decision -making
    Brembo, Espen Andreas
    Eide, Hilde
    Lauritzen, Mirjam
    van Dulmen, Sandra
    Kasper, Jurgen
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2020, 103 (07) : 1343 - 1350
  • [47] Development of a novel shared decision making aid for primary immunodeficiency diseases
    Tzivelekis, Spiros
    Orange, Jordan
    Poulos, Christine
    Meckley, Lisa M.
    Peay, Holly
    Sutphin, Jessie
    Hernandez-Trujillo, Vivian P.
    Wasserman, Richard L.
    IMMUNOTHERAPY, 2023, 15 (09) : 647 - 656
  • [48] COVID-19 and Uncertainty: Lessons from the Frontline for Promoting Shared Decision Making
    Soares Barreto-Filho, Jose Augusto
    Veiga, Andre
    Correia, Luis Claudio
    ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE CARDIOLOGIA, 2020, 115 (02) : 149 - 151
  • [49] Lessons Learned From Shared Decision-Making With OralAnticoagulants:Viewpoint on Suggestions for the Developmentof Oral Chemotherapy Decision Aids
    McLoughlin, Daniel E.
    Echevarria, Fabiola M. Moreno
    Badawy, Sherif M.
    JMIR CANCER, 2024, 10
  • [50] Shared decision-making aid to increase equity in the management of PPROM
    Huysman, Bridget C.
    Thayer, Sydney M.
    Kernberg, Annessa
    Frolova, Antonina I.
    Rampersad, Roxane M.
    Odibo, Anthony O.
    Raghuraman, Nandini
    Carter, Ebony B.
    Kelly, Jeannie C.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2023, 228 (01) : S277 - S277