Literature DB >> 26915314

Shared decision making in endocrinology: present and future directions.

Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez1, Michael R Gionfriddo2, Naykky Singh Ospina3, Spyridoula Maraka3, Shrikant Tamhane3, Victor M Montori3, Juan P Brito4.   

Abstract

In medicine and endocrinology, there are few clinical circumstances in which clinicians can accurately predict what is best for their patients. As a result, patients and clinicians frequently have to make decisions about which there is uncertainty. Uncertainty results from limitations in the research evidence, unclear patient preferences, or an inability to predict how treatments will fit into patients' daily lives. The work that patients and clinicians do together to address the patient's situation and engage in a deliberative dialogue about reasonable treatment options is often called shared decision making. Decision aids are evidence-based tools that facilitate this process. Shared decision making is a patient-centred approach in which clinicians share information about the benefits, harms, and burden of different reasonable diagnostic and treatment options, and patients explain what matters to them in view of their particular values, preferences, and personal context. Beyond the ethical argument in support of this approach, decision aids have been shown to improve patients' knowledge about the available options, accuracy of risk estimates, and decisional comfort. Decision aids also promote patient participation in the decision-making process. Despite accumulating evidence from clinical trials, policy support, and expert recommendations in endocrinology practice guidelines, shared decision making is still not routinely implemented in endocrine practice. Additional work is needed to enrich the number of available tools and to implement them in practice workflows. Also, although the evidence from randomised controlled trials favours the use of this shared decision making in other settings, populations, and illnesses, the effect of this approach has been studied in a few endocrine disorders. Future pragmatic trials are needed to explore the effect and feasibility of shared decision making implementation into routine endocrinology and primary care practice. With the available evidence, however, endocrinologists can now start to practice shared decision making, partner with their patients, and use their expertise to formulate treatment plans that reflect patient preferences and are more likely to fit into the context of patients' lives. In this Personal View, we describe shared decision making, the evidence behind the approach, and why and how both endocrinologists and their patients could benefit from this approach.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26915314     DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00468-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol        ISSN: 2213-8587            Impact factor:   32.069


  36 in total

1.  Personalizing Second-Line Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Selection: Combining Network Meta-analysis, Individualized Risk, and Patient Preferences for Unified Decision Support.

Authors:  Sung Eun Choi; Seth A Berkowitz; John S Yudkin; Huseyin Naci; Sanjay Basu
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Development and validation of Risk Equations for Complications Of type 2 Diabetes (RECODe) using individual participant data from randomised trials.

Authors:  Sanjay Basu; Jeremy B Sussman; Seth A Berkowitz; Rodney A Hayward; John S Yudkin
Journal:  Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 32.069

3.  Decisional conflict and regret: shared decision-making about pregnancy affected by β-thalassemia major in Southeast of Iran.

Authors:  Zahra Moudi; Zenab Phanodi; Hossein Ansari; Mostafa Montazer Zohour
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 3.172

4.  Risk Factors for Severe Hypoglycemia in Black and White Adults With Diabetes: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study.

Authors:  Alexandra K Lee; Clare J Lee; Elbert S Huang; A Richey Sharrett; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 5.  Glycemic Control for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Our Evolving Faith in the Face of Evidence.

Authors:  René Rodríguez-Gutiérrez; Victor M Montori
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2016-08-23

6.  Patients' knowledge about the outcomes of thyroid biopsy: a patient survey.

Authors:  Naykky Singh Ospina; Ana Castaneda-Guarderas; Russell Ward; Juan P Brito; Spyridoula Maraka; Claudia Zeballos Palacios; Kathleen J Yost; Diana S Dean; Victor M Montori
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2018-06-16       Impact factor: 3.633

Review 7.  Comparative efficacy of parathyroidectomy and active surveillance in patients with mild primary hyperparathyroidism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  N Singh Ospina; S Maraka; R Rodriguez-Gutierrez; A E Espinosa de Ycaza; S Jasim; M Gionfriddo; A Castaneda-Guarderas; J P Brito; A Al Nofal; P Erwin; R Wermers; V Montori
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

Authors:  Melanie J Davies; David A D'Alessio; Judith Fradkin; Walter N Kernan; Chantal Mathieu; Geltrude Mingrone; Peter Rossing; Apostolos Tsapas; Deborah J Wexler; John B Buse
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 10.122

9.  Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Implications for Use of Continuous Data in Daily Diabetes Management.

Authors:  Irl B Hirsch; Elizabeth Nardacci; Carol A Verderese
Journal:  Diabetes Spectr       Date:  2019-11

10.  Eliciting the Patient's Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters.

Authors:  Naykky Singh Ospina; Kari A Phillips; Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez; Ana Castaneda-Guarderas; Michael R Gionfriddo; Megan E Branda; Victor M Montori
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.