Literature DB >> 30190300

"I need to know what makes somebody tick …": Challenges and Strategies of Implementing Shared Decision-Making in Individualized Oncology.

Joschka Haltaufderheide1, Sebastian Wäscher2, Bernhard Bertlich3, Jochen Vollmann4, Anke Reinacher-Schick3, Jan Schildmann5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as an ethical framework for decision-making in cancer care. According to SDM, patients make decisions in light of their values and based on the available evidence. However, SDM is difficult to implement in cancer care. A lack of applicability in practice is often reported. This empirical-ethical study explores factors potentially relevant to current difficulties in translating the concept of SDM into clinical practice.
METHODS: This study was conducted with nonparticipant observation of the decision-making process in patients with gastrointestinal cancers for whom the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was uncertain according to clinical guidelines. Triangulation of qualitative data analysis was conducted by means of semistructured interviews subsequent to the observation. Observation notes and interview transcripts were analyzed according to the principles of grounded theory.
RESULTS: Deviating from the concept of SDM, oncologists initiated a process of eliciting values and medical information prior to conveying information. The purpose of this approach was to select and individualize information relevant to the treatment decision. In doing so, the oncologists observed used two strategies: "biographical communication" and a "metacommunicative approach." Both strategies could be shown to be effective or to fail depending on patients' characteristics such as their view of the physicians' role and the relevance of value-related information for medical decision-making.
CONCLUSION: In contrast to the conceptual account of SDM, oncologists are in need of patient-related information prior to conveying information. Both strategies observed to elicit such information are in principle justifiable but need to be adapted in accordance with patient preferences and decision-making styles. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study showed that knowledge of patients' values and preferences is very important to properly adapt the giving of medical information and to further the process of shared decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM) trainings should consider different strategies of talking about values. The right strategy depends largely on the patient's preferences in communication. To be aware of the role of values in SDM and to be able to switch communicative strategies might prove to be of particular value. A more systematic evaluation of the patient's decision-making preferences as part of routine procedures in hospitals might help to reduce value-related barriers in communication. © AlphaMed Press 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chemotherapy; Decision‐making; Ethics; Shared decision‐making; Uncertainty

Year:  2018        PMID: 30190300      PMCID: PMC6459243          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0615

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  31 in total

1.  Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model.

Authors:  C Charles; A Gafni; T Whelan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  Shared decision making in the medical encounter: are we all talking about the same thing?

Authors:  Nora Moumjid; Amiram Gafni; Alain Brémond; Marie-Odile Carrère
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango).

Authors:  C Charles; A Gafni; T Whelan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 4.  Physician attitudes toward shared decision making: A systematic review.

Authors:  Samantha Pollard; Nick Bansback; Stirling Bryan
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2015-05-23

5.  Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices.

Authors:  G Elwyn; A Edwards; P Kinnersley; R Grol
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 6.  Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice.

Authors:  France Légaré; Holly O Witteman
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 7.  Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument.

Authors:  Nicolas Couët; Sophie Desroches; Hubert Robitaille; Hugues Vaillancourt; Annie Leblanc; Stéphane Turcotte; Glyn Elwyn; France Légaré
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Shared Decision-Making in Oncology - A Qualitative Analysis of Healthcare Providers' Views on Current Practice.

Authors:  Wiebke Frerichs; Pola Hahlweg; Evamaria Müller; Christine Adis; Isabelle Scholl
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Knowledge acquired, satisfaction attained and attitudes towards shared decision making in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Francisco J Garcia-Alonso; María Hernández Tejero; Daniel Bonillo Cambrodón; Fernando Bermejo
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-09-30

10.  Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration.

Authors:  A H Pieterse; M C M Baas-Thijssen; C A M Marijnen; A M Stiggelbout
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Discussing Prognosis with Empathy to Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Sophie Lelorain
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2021-03-14       Impact factor: 5.075

2.  Health locus of control in cancer patient and oncologist decision-making: An exploratory qualitative study.

Authors:  Keren Dopelt; Osnat Bashkin; Noam Asna; Nadav Davidovitch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.