BACKGROUND: Important barriers to the wider implementation of shared decision making remain. The experiences of professionals who are skilled in this approach may identify how to overcome these barriers. AIMS: To identify the experiences and views of professionals skilled in shared decision making and risk communication, exploring the opportunities and challenges for implementation. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study. SETTING: Gwent Health Authority. METHOD: Exit interviews using focus group methodology with 20 GPs who had been in practice between 1 and 10 years, and participated in an explanatory trial lasting 6 months. The trial interventions comprised training in shared decision-making skills and the use of risk communication materials. The doctors consulted with up to 48 patients each (mean = 40, half of them audiotaped) for the study. RESULTS: The GPs indicated positive attitudes towards involving patients and described positive effects on their consultations. However, the frequency of applying the new skills and tools was limited outside the trial. Doctors were selective about when they felt greater patient involvement was appropriate and feasible, rather than seeking to apply the approaches to the majority of consultations. They felt they often responded to consumer preferences for low levels of involvement in decision making. Time limitations were important in not implementing the approach more widely. CONCLUSION: The promotion of 'patient involvement' appears likely to continue. Professionals appear receptive to this, and willing to acquire the relevant skills. Strategies for wider implementation of patient involvement could address how consultations are scheduled in primary care, and raise consumers' expectations or desires for involvement.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Important barriers to the wider implementation of shared decision making remain. The experiences of professionals who are skilled in this approach may identify how to overcome these barriers. AIMS: To identify the experiences and views of professionals skilled in shared decision making and risk communication, exploring the opportunities and challenges for implementation. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study. SETTING: Gwent Health Authority. METHOD: Exit interviews using focus group methodology with 20 GPs who had been in practice between 1 and 10 years, and participated in an explanatory trial lasting 6 months. The trial interventions comprised training in shared decision-making skills and the use of risk communication materials. The doctors consulted with up to 48 patients each (mean = 40, half of them audiotaped) for the study. RESULTS: The GPs indicated positive attitudes towards involving patients and described positive effects on their consultations. However, the frequency of applying the new skills and tools was limited outside the trial. Doctors were selective about when they felt greater patient involvement was appropriate and feasible, rather than seeking to apply the approaches to the majority of consultations. They felt they often responded to consumer preferences for low levels of involvement in decision making. Time limitations were important in not implementing the approach more widely. CONCLUSION: The promotion of 'patient involvement' appears likely to continue. Professionals appear receptive to this, and willing to acquire the relevant skills. Strategies for wider implementation of patient involvement could address how consultations are scheduled in primary care, and raise consumers' expectations or desires for involvement.
Authors: S Molenaar; M A Sprangers; F C Postma-Schuit; E J Rutgers; J Noorlander; J Hendriks; H C de Haes Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2000 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Diane Valade; Catherine Orlowski; Catherine Draus; Barbara Nabozny-Valerio; Susan Keiser Journal: Health Expect Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Ruth E Davis; Gina Dolan; Sue Thomas; Christine Atwell; Donna Mead; Sarah Nehammer; Laurie Moseley; Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn Journal: Health Expect Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Charlotte Gry Harmsen; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Pia Veldt Larsen; Jørgen Nexøe; Henrik Støvring; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Jesper Bo Nielsen; Adrian Edwards; Dorte Ejg Jarbøl Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Axel C Mühlbacher; Uwe Junker; Christin Juhnke; Edgar Stemmler; Thomas Kohlmann; Friedhelm Leverkus; Matthias Nübling Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2014-06-21
Authors: Andrea Charise; Holly Witteman; Sarah Whyte; Erica J Sutton; Jacqueline L Bender; Michael Massimi; Lindsay Stephens; Joshua Evans; Carmen Logie; Raza M Mirza; Marie Elf Journal: Health Expect Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 3.377