Marleen Kunneman1, Michael R Gionfriddo2, Freddy J K Toloza3, Fania R Gärtner4, Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla5, Ian G Hargraves6, Patricia J Erwin7, Victor M Montori8. 1. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. Electronic address: Kunneman.Marleen@mayo.edu. 2. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Center for Pharmacy Innovation and Outcomes, Geisinger, Forty Fort, PA, USA. Electronic address: MGionfriddo@geisinger.edu. 3. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: TolozaBonilla.Freddy@mayo.edu. 4. Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. Electronic address: F.R.Gaertner@lumc.nl. 5. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, San Juan, PR, USA. Electronic address: Bonilla.Gabriella@mayo.edu. 6. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: Hargraves.Ian@mayo.edu. 7. Mayo Medical Libraries, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: Erwin.Patricia@mayo.edu. 8. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: Montori.Victor@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which evaluations of shared decision making (SDM) assess the extent and quality of humanistic communication (i.e., respect, compassion, empathy). METHODS: We systematically searched Web of Science and Scopus for prospective studies published between 2012 and February 2018 that evaluated SDM in actual clinical decisions using validated SDM measures. Two reviewers working independently and in duplicate extracted all statements from eligible studies and all items from SDM measurement instruments that referred to humanistic patient-clinician communication. RESULTS: Of the 154 eligible studies, 14 (9%) included ≥1 statements regarding humanistic communication, either in framing the study (N = 2), measuring impact (e.g., empathy, respect, interpersonal skills; N = 9), as patients'/clinicians' accounts of SDM (N = 2), in interpreting study results (N = 3), and in discussing implications of study findings (N = 3). Of the 192 items within the 11 SDM measurement instruments deployed in the included studies, 7 (3.6%) items assessed humanistic communication. CONCLUSION: Assessments of the quality of SDM focus narrowly on SDM technique and rarely assess humanistic aspects of patient-clinician communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Considering SDM as merely a technique may reduce SDM's patient-centeredness and undermine its' contribution to patient care.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which evaluations of shared decision making (SDM) assess the extent and quality of humanistic communication (i.e., respect, compassion, empathy). METHODS: We systematically searched Web of Science and Scopus for prospective studies published between 2012 and February 2018 that evaluated SDM in actual clinical decisions using validated SDM measures. Two reviewers working independently and in duplicate extracted all statements from eligible studies and all items from SDM measurement instruments that referred to humanistic patient-clinician communication. RESULTS: Of the 154 eligible studies, 14 (9%) included ≥1 statements regarding humanistic communication, either in framing the study (N = 2), measuring impact (e.g., empathy, respect, interpersonal skills; N = 9), as patients'/clinicians' accounts of SDM (N = 2), in interpreting study results (N = 3), and in discussing implications of study findings (N = 3). Of the 192 items within the 11 SDM measurement instruments deployed in the included studies, 7 (3.6%) items assessed humanistic communication. CONCLUSION: Assessments of the quality of SDM focus narrowly on SDM technique and rarely assess humanistic aspects of patient-clinician communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Considering SDM as merely a technique may reduce SDM's patient-centeredness and undermine its' contribution to patient care.
Authors: Marleen Kunneman; Megan E Branda; Ian G Hargraves; Angela L Sivly; Alexander T Lee; Haeshik Gorr; Bruce Burnett; Takeki Suzuki; Elizabeth A Jackson; Erik Hess; Mark Linzer; Sarah R Brand-McCarthy; Juan P Brito; Peter A Noseworthy; Victor M Montori Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Marleen Kunneman; Inge Henselmans; Fania R Gärtner; Hanna Bomhof-Roordink; Arwen H Pieterse Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Marleen Kunneman; Christina M LaVecchia; Naykky Singh Ospina; Abd Moain Abu Dabrh; Emma M Behnken; Patrick Wilson; Megan E Branda; Ian G Hargraves; Kathleen J Yost; Richard M Frankel; Victor M Montori Journal: Health Expect Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Melissa L Rethlefsen; Shona Kirtley; Siw Waffenschmidt; Ana Patricia Ayala; David Moher; Matthew J Page; Jonathan B Koffel Journal: J Med Libr Assoc Date: 2021-04-01
Authors: Marleen Kunneman; Megan E Branda; Ian G Hargraves; Angela L Sivly; Alexander T Lee; Haeshik Gorr; Bruce Burnett; Takeki Suzuki; Elizabeth A Jackson; Erik Hess; Mark Linzer; Sarah R Brand-McCarthy; Juan P Brito; Peter A Noseworthy; Victor M Montori Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873