OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and refinement of a scheme, detail of essential elements and participants in shared decision making (DEEP-SDM), for coding shared decision making (SDM) while reporting on the characteristics of decisions in a sample of patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: The evidence-based patient choice instrument was modified to reflect Makoul and Clayman's integrative model of SDM. Coding was conducted on video recordings of 20 women at the first visit with their medical oncologists after suspicion of disease progression. Noldus Observer XT v.8, a video coding software platform, was used for coding. RESULTS: The sample contained 80 decisions (range: 1-11), divided into 150 decision making segments. Most decisions were physician-led, although patients and physicians initiated similar numbers of decision-making conversations. CONCLUSION: DEEP-SDM facilitates content analysis of encounters between women with metastatic breast cancer and their medical oncologists. Despite the fractured nature of decision making, it is possible to identify decision points and to code each of the essential elements of shared decision making. Further work should include application of DEEP-SDM to non-cancer encounters. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A better understanding of how decisions unfold in the medical encounter can help inform the relationship of SDM to patient-reported outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and refinement of a scheme, detail of essential elements and participants in shared decision making (DEEP-SDM), for coding shared decision making (SDM) while reporting on the characteristics of decisions in a sample of patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: The evidence-based patient choice instrument was modified to reflect Makoul and Clayman's integrative model of SDM. Coding was conducted on video recordings of 20 women at the first visit with their medical oncologists after suspicion of disease progression. Noldus Observer XT v.8, a video coding software platform, was used for coding. RESULTS: The sample contained 80 decisions (range: 1-11), divided into 150 decision making segments. Most decisions were physician-led, although patients and physicians initiated similar numbers of decision-making conversations. CONCLUSION: DEEP-SDM facilitates content analysis of encounters between women with metastatic breast cancer and their medical oncologists. Despite the fractured nature of decision making, it is possible to identify decision points and to code each of the essential elements of shared decision making. Further work should include application of DEEP-SDM to non-cancer encounters. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A better understanding of how decisions unfold in the medical encounter can help inform the relationship of SDM to patient-reported outcomes.
Authors: Fania R Gärtner; Hanna Bomhof-Roordink; Ian P Smith; Isabelle Scholl; Anne M Stiggelbout; Arwen H Pieterse Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sandra A Hartasanchez; Stuart W Grande; Victor M Montori; Marleen Kunneman; Juan P Brito; Sarah McCarthy; Ian G Hargraves Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2021-11-08
Authors: Kate Breckenridge; Hillary L Bekker; Elizabeth Gibbons; Sabine N van der Veer; Denise Abbott; Serge Briançon; Ron Cullen; Liliana Garneata; Kitty J Jager; Kjersti Lønning; Wendy Metcalfe; Rachael L Morton; Fliss E M Murtagh; Karl Prutz; Susan Robertson; Ivan Rychlik; Steffan Schon; Linda Sharp; Elodie Speyer; Francesca Tentori; Fergus J Caskey Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Kirk D Wyatt; Megan E Branda; Ryan T Anderson; Laurie J Pencille; Victor M Montori; Erik P Hess; Henry H Ting; Annie LeBlanc Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 7.327