Mary C Politi1, Jamie L Studts, John W Hayslip. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, CB 8100, St. Louis, Missouri 63110, USA. mpoliti@wustl.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest by patients, policy makers, and clinicians in shared decision making (SDM) as a means to involve patients in health decisions and translate evidence into clinical practice. However, few clinicians feel optimally trained to implement SDM in practice, and many patients report that they are less involved than they desire to be in their cancer care decisions. SDM might help address the wide practice variation reported for many preference-sensitive decisions by incorporating patient preferences into decision discussions. METHODS: This paper provides a perspective on how to incorporate SDM into routine oncology practice to facilitate patient-centered communication and promote effective treatment decisions. Oncology practice is uniquely positioned to lead the adoption of SDM because of the vast number of preference-sensitive decisions in which SDM can enhance the clinical encounter. RESULTS: Clinicians can facilitate cancer decision making by: (a) determining the situations in which SDM is critical; (b) acknowledging the decision to a patient; (c) describing the available options, including the risks, benefits, and uncertainty associated with options; (d) eliciting patients' preferences; and (e) agreeing on a plan for the next steps in the decision-making process. CONCLUSION: Given recent policy movements toward incorporating SDM and translating evidence into routine clinical practice, oncologists are likely to continue expanding their use of SDM and will have to confront the challenges of incorporating SDM into their clinical workflow. More research is needed to explore ways to overcome these challenges such that both quality evidence and patient preferences are appropriately translated and incorporated into oncology care decisions.
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest by patients, policy makers, and clinicians in shared decision making (SDM) as a means to involve patients in health decisions and translate evidence into clinical practice. However, few clinicians feel optimally trained to implement SDM in practice, and many patients report that they are less involved than they desire to be in their cancer care decisions. SDM might help address the wide practice variation reported for many preference-sensitive decisions by incorporating patient preferences into decision discussions. METHODS: This paper provides a perspective on how to incorporate SDM into routine oncology practice to facilitate patient-centered communication and promote effective treatment decisions. Oncology practice is uniquely positioned to lead the adoption of SDM because of the vast number of preference-sensitive decisions in which SDM can enhance the clinical encounter. RESULTS: Clinicians can facilitate cancer decision making by: (a) determining the situations in which SDM is critical; (b) acknowledging the decision to a patient; (c) describing the available options, including the risks, benefits, and uncertainty associated with options; (d) eliciting patients' preferences; and (e) agreeing on a plan for the next steps in the decision-making process. CONCLUSION: Given recent policy movements toward incorporating SDM and translating evidence into routine clinical practice, oncologists are likely to continue expanding their use of SDM and will have to confront the challenges of incorporating SDM into their clinical workflow. More research is needed to explore ways to overcome these challenges such that both quality evidence and patient preferences are appropriately translated and incorporated into oncology care decisions.
Authors: Phyllis Butow; James D Harrison; Ellis T Choy; Jane M Young; Andrew Spillane; Alison Evans Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Annette M O'Connor; Carol Bennett; Robert G Newcombe; Mary Politi; Marie-Anne Durand; Elizabeth Drake; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Sara Khangura; Anton Saarimaki; Stephanie Sivell; Mareike Stiel; Steven J Bernstein; Nananda Col; Angela Coulter; Karen Eden; Martin Härter; Margaret Holmes Rovner; Nora Moumjid; Dawn Stacey; Richard Thomson; Tim Whelan; Trudy van der Weijden; Adrian Edwards Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David Sanford; Rachel Kyle; Alejandro Lazo-Langner; Anargyros Xenocostas; Ian Chin-Yee; Kang Howson-Jan; Cyrus C Hsia Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Kristina Demas Woodhouse; Katie Tremont; Anil Vachani; Marilyn M Schapira; Neha Vapiwala; Charles B Simone; Abigail T Berman Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Sarah F D'Ambruoso; Anne Coscarelli; Sara Hurvitz; Neil Wenger; David Coniglio; Dusty Donaldson; Christopher Pietras; Anne M Walling Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Elizabeth Spellman; Nadiyah Sulayman; Susan Eggly; Beth N Peshkin; Claudine Isaacs; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Anthony M Louder; Amitabh Singh; Kim Saverno; Joseph C Cappelleri; Aaron J Aten; Andrew S Koenig; Margaret K Pasquale Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2016-04