Kimberly A Fisher1, Andy S L Tan2, Daniel D Matlock3, Barry Saver4, Kathleen M Mazor5, Arwen H Pieterse6. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA; Meyers Primary Care Institute, A joint Endeavor Between the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health, Worcester, MA, USA. Electronic address: Kimberly.Fisher@umassmemorial.org. 2. Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; VA Eastern Colorado Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Denver, CO, USA. 4. Swedish Family Medicine Residency Cherry Hill, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA; Meyers Primary Care Institute, A joint Endeavor Between the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health, Worcester, MA, USA. 6. Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine situations where shared decision making (SDM) in practice does not achieve the goal of a patient-centered decision. METHODS: We explore circumstances in which elements necessary to realize SDM - patient readiness to participate and understanding of the decision - are not present. We consider the influence of contextual factors on decision making. RESULTS: Patients' preference and readiness for participation in SDM are influenced by multiple interacting factors including the patient's comprehension of the decision, their emotional state, the strength of their relationship with the clinician, and the nature of the decision. Uncertainty often inherent in information can lead to misconceptions and ill-formed opinions that impair patients' understanding. In combination with cognitive biases, these factors may result in decisions that are incongruent with patients' preferences. The impact of suboptimal understanding on decision making may be augmented by the context. CONCLUSIONS: There are circumstances in which basic elements required for SDM are not present and therefore the clinician may not achieve the goal of a patient-centered decision. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A flexible and tailored approach that draws on the full continuum of decision making models and communication strategies is required to achieve the goal of a patient-centered decision.
OBJECTIVE: To examine situations where shared decision making (SDM) in practice does not achieve the goal of a patient-centered decision. METHODS: We explore circumstances in which elements necessary to realize SDM - patient readiness to participate and understanding of the decision - are not present. We consider the influence of contextual factors on decision making. RESULTS:Patients' preference and readiness for participation in SDM are influenced by multiple interacting factors including the patient's comprehension of the decision, their emotional state, the strength of their relationship with the clinician, and the nature of the decision. Uncertainty often inherent in information can lead to misconceptions and ill-formed opinions that impair patients' understanding. In combination with cognitive biases, these factors may result in decisions that are incongruent with patients' preferences. The impact of suboptimal understanding on decision making may be augmented by the context. CONCLUSIONS: There are circumstances in which basic elements required for SDM are not present and therefore the clinician may not achieve the goal of a patient-centered decision. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A flexible and tailored approach that draws on the full continuum of decision making models and communication strategies is required to achieve the goal of a patient-centered decision.
Authors: Rik T Gerritsen; José G M Hofhuis; Matty Koopmans; Meta van der Woude; Laura Bormans; Aly Hovingh; Peter E Spronk Journal: Chest Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Johannes Hamann; Christiane Bieber; Glyn Elwyn; Eva Wartner; Elisabeth Hörlein; Werner Kissling; Christfried Toegel; Hendrik Berth; Klaus Linde; Antonius Schneider Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2011-08-25 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Dan D Matlock; Carolyn T Nowels; Frederick A Masoudi; William H Sauer; David B Bekelman; Deborah S Main; Jean S Kutner Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Arwen H Pieterse; Marieke de Vries; Marleen Kunneman; Anne M Stiggelbout; Deb Feldman-Stewart Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Mary F Wyman; Daniel Liebzeit; Corrine I Voils; Barbara J Bowers; Elizabeth N Chapman; Andrea Gilmore-Bykovskyi; Korey A Kennelty; Amy J H Kind; Julia Loosen; Nicole Rogus-Pulia; Melissa Dattalo Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2020-02-15
Authors: Annerieke Stoop; Manon Lette; Eliva A Ambugo; Erica Wirrmann Gadsby; Nick Goodwin; Julie MacInnes; Mirella Minkman; Gerald Wistow; Nick Zonneveld; Giel Nijpels; Caroline A Baan; Simone R de Bruin Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: Jody L Lin; Ellen A Lipstein; Eve Wittenberg; Djin Tay; Robert Lundstrom; Gari Lyn Lundstrom; Saadia Sediqzadah; Davene R Wright Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2021-10-29
Authors: Laura E Brotzman; Danielle M Crookes; Jessica D Austin; Alfred I Neugut; Rachel C Shelton Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-10-23 Impact factor: 3.626