Katreine Dierckx1, Myriam Deveugele, Philip Roosen, Ignaas Devisch. 1. K. Dierckx, PT, MSc, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Ghent University, Belgium-Artevelde University College, De Pintelaan 185, B9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) reduces the asymmetrical power between the therapist and the patient. Patient involvement improves patient satisfaction, adherence, and health outcomes and is a prerequisite for good clinical practice. The opportunities for using SDM in physical therapy have been previously considered. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the status of SDM in physical therapy, patients' preferred levels of involvement, and the agreement between therapist perception and patient preferred level of involvement. DESIGN: This was an observational study of real consultations in physical therapy. METHODS: In total, 237 consultations, undertaken by 13 physical therapists, were audiorecorded, and 210 records were analyzed using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) instrument. Before the consultation, the patient and therapist completed the Control Preference Scale (CPS). Multilevel analysis was used to study the association between individual variables and the level of SDM. Agreement on preferences was calculated using kappa coefficients. RESULTS: The mean OPTION score was 5.2 (SD=6.8), out of a total score of 100. Female therapists achieved a higher OPTION score (b=-0.86, P=0.01). In total, 36.7% of the patients wanted to share decisions, and 36.2% preferred to give their opinion before delegating the decisions. In the majority of cases, therapists believed that they had to decide. The kappa coefficient for agreement was poor at .062 (95% confidence interval=-.018 to .144). LIMITATIONS: Only 13 out of 125 therapists who were personally contacted agreed to participate. CONCLUSION: Shared decision making was not applied; although patients preferred to share decisions or at least provide their opinion about the treatment, physical therapists did not often recognize this factor. The participating physical therapists were more likely to make decisions in the best interest of their patients; that is, these therapists tended to apply a paternalistic approach rather than involving the patient.
BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) reduces the asymmetrical power between the therapist and the patient. Patient involvement improves patient satisfaction, adherence, and health outcomes and is a prerequisite for good clinical practice. The opportunities for using SDM in physical therapy have been previously considered. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the status of SDM in physical therapy, patients' preferred levels of involvement, and the agreement between therapist perception and patient preferred level of involvement. DESIGN: This was an observational study of real consultations in physical therapy. METHODS: In total, 237 consultations, undertaken by 13 physical therapists, were audiorecorded, and 210 records were analyzed using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) instrument. Before the consultation, the patient and therapist completed the Control Preference Scale (CPS). Multilevel analysis was used to study the association between individual variables and the level of SDM. Agreement on preferences was calculated using kappa coefficients. RESULTS: The mean OPTION score was 5.2 (SD=6.8), out of a total score of 100. Female therapists achieved a higher OPTION score (b=-0.86, P=0.01). In total, 36.7% of the patients wanted to share decisions, and 36.2% preferred to give their opinion before delegating the decisions. In the majority of cases, therapists believed that they had to decide. The kappa coefficient for agreement was poor at .062 (95% confidence interval=-.018 to .144). LIMITATIONS: Only 13 out of 125 therapists who were personally contacted agreed to participate. CONCLUSION: Shared decision making was not applied; although patients preferred to share decisions or at least provide their opinion about the treatment, physical therapists did not often recognize this factor. The participating physical therapists were more likely to make decisions in the best interest of their patients; that is, these therapists tended to apply a paternalistic approach rather than involving the patient.
Authors: Constance H Fung; Cathy Alessi; Cindy Truong; Karen Josephson; Ron D Hays; Nananda Col; Emily S Patterson; Jennifer L Martin Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 2.964
Authors: Amy M Pastva; Pamela W Duncan; Gordon R Reeves; M Benjamin Nelson; David J Whellan; Christopher M O'Connor; Joel D Eggebeen; Leigh Ann Hewston; Karen M Taylor; Robert J Mentz; Paul B Rosenberg; Dalane W Kitzman Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Nienke M de Vries; J Bart Staal; Steven Teerenstra; Eddy M M Adang; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden Journal: Trials Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 2.279