Literature DB >> 28529122

Shared decision making, a buzz-word in the Netherlands, the pace quickens towards nationwide implementation….

Trudy van der Weijden1, Heleen Post2, Paul L P Brand3, Haske van Veenendaal4, Ton Drenthen5, Linda Aj van Mierlo6, Peep Stalmeier7, Olga C Damman8, Anne Stiggelbout9.   

Abstract

Currently, shared decision making (SDM) is on the agenda among target patient representative groups, policy makers and professional bodies. Although the International Conference for Shared Decision Making (ISDM) 2011 generated a positive boost, hesitation was also felt among Dutch clinicians, who are challenged by many new tasks. No hesitation is seen among the majority of patients, opting mostly for the SDM model. We haven't reached these patients' needs fully yet, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behaviour. There is plenty of room for improvement in daily practice, for which many best practices are being designed and increasingly implemented, such as national campaigns to empower patients, central governance of patient decision aids that are developed along clinical practice guidelines, postgraduate training, collaborative learning and system changes, and merging goal setting and SDM in complex care. This is explicitly supported by the Dutch government, the Ministry of Health, patient groups, professional bodies and health insurers. The culture shift in the minds and hearts of patients and clinicians has started but is still ongoing. Enthusiasm for this way of working could be undermined if SDM is defined and implemented in a simplistic, dogmatic manner leading to irresponsible transferring of the professionals' uncertainty, responsibility, and decisional stress to patients.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Implementierung; Patientenbeteiligung; implementation; medizinische Entscheidungshilfen; partizipative Entscheidungsfindung; patient decision aids; patient participation; shared decision making

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28529122     DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.05.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes        ISSN: 1865-9217


  25 in total

1.  Patient decision aid for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for use in the consultation: a feasibility study.

Authors:  J E Squires; D Stacey; M Coughlin; M Greenough; A Roberts; K Dorrance; M Clemons; J M Caudrelier; I D Graham; J Zhang; M Demery Varin; A Arnaout
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  A pragmatic approach for implementation of value-based healthcare in Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands.

Authors:  Florence A C J Heijsters; Fenna G F van Breda; Femke van Nassau; Marije K J van der Steen; Piet M Ter Wee; Margriet G Mullender; Martine C de Bruijne
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-04-25       Impact factor: 2.908

3.  Experiences and views of older people on their participation in a nurse-led health promotion intervention: "Community Health Consultation Offices for Seniors".

Authors:  Anne Esther Marcus-Varwijk; Dónya S Madjdian; Emely de Vet; Monique W M Mensen; Tommy L S Visscher; Adelita V Ranchor; Joris P J Slaets; Carolien H M Smits
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Goal setting is insufficiently recognised as an essential part of shared decision-making in the complex care of older patients: a framework analysis.

Authors:  Neeltje Vermunt; Glyn Elwyn; Gert Westert; Mirjam Harmsen; Marcel Olde Rikkert; Marjan Meinders
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  Developing quality criteria for patient-directed knowledge tools related to clinical practice guidelines. A development and consensus study.

Authors:  Trudy van der Weijden; Dunja Dreesens; Marjan J Faber; Nanne Bos; Ton Drenthen; Ingrid Maas; Sonja Kersten; Uriëll Malanda; Sander van der Scheur; Heleen Post; Anouk Knops
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2018-11-11       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Medical Students' Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Shared Decision Making: Results From a Multinational, Cross-Sectional Survey.

Authors:  Renata W Yen; Paul J Barr; Nan Cochran; Johanna W Aarts; France Légaré; Malcolm Reed; A James O'Malley; Peter Scalia; Geneviève Painchaud Guérard; Grant Backer; Clifford Reilly; Glyn Elwyn; Marie-Anne Durand
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2019-11-08

7.  Shared Decision Making in Practice and the Perspectives of Health Care Professionals on Video-Recorded Consultations With Patients With Low Health Literacy in the Palliative Phase of Their Disease.

Authors:  Ruud T J Roodbeen; Janneke Noordman; Gudule Boland; Sandra van Dulmen
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2021-07-02

8.  Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: study protocol of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.

Authors:  Isabelle Scholl; Pola Hahlweg; Anja Lindig; Carsten Bokemeyer; Anja Coym; Henning Hanken; Volkmar Müller; Ralf Smeets; Isabell Witzel; Levente Kriston; Martin Härter
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery.

Authors:  S M L de Mik; F E Stubenrouch; R Balm; D T Ubbink
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  The effects of shared decision-making compared to usual care for prostate cancer screening decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nahara Anani Martínez-González; Stefan Neuner-Jehle; Andreas Plate; Thomas Rosemann; Oliver Senn
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.