Julie Haesebaert1, Rhéda Adekpedjou1, Jordie Croteau1, Hubert Robitaille1, France Légaré2. 1. Centre de recherche sur les soins et services de première ligne de l'Université Laval, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, and Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Que. 2. Centre de recherche sur les soins et services de première ligne de l'Université Laval, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, and Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Que. France.Legare@mfa.ulaval.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite health policy that promotes shared decision-making, it is not yet the norm in clinical practice. We aimed to assess how much shared decision-making Canadians experienced in health-related decisions in 2017. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey in January 2018 with a Web-based panel of Canadians representing all 10 provinces. We assessed their involvement in health-related decisions made with a health care professional over the previous year by asking about 1) discussion of choice of treatment or care plan, 2) presentation of advantages and disadvantages, 3) exploration of ideas and preferences, 4) discussion of preferred option and 5) match between preferred and actual level of participation. We computed an average shared decision-making score (range 1 [never] to 5 [always]). We presented characteristics of participants and responses using descriptive statistics and explored variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, geographical areas and care settings (home care or not) using multivariate weighted regressions. RESULTS: Of the 1591 participants surveyed, 1010 (63.5%) reported receiving health care in the previous 12 months. The mean of the average shared decision-making score was 2.25/5 (standard deviation [SD] 1.16). After weighting, 42.8% of respondents reported that their health care professional often or always mentioned that they had a choice of treatment or care plan, 45.4% reported that advantages and disadvantages were often or always presented, 38.8% reported that they were often or always asked for their ideas or preferences, 40.2% reported that they were often or always asked about their preferred option, and 54.1% stated that their level of participation in decision-making often or always matched their preferred level of participation. Increasing age, rural setting, living in the province of Quebec and not being white significantly decreased the level of shared decision-making experienced. Older respondents (age ≥ 65 yr) receiving home care reported the least shared decision-making (mean score 1.7 [SD 0.5]). INTERPRETATION: Canadians in all 10 provinces experienced a low degree of shared decision-making in 2017, with variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, care settings and geographical areas. Further efforts to foster implementation of shared decision-making are needed and should take these variations into account. Copyright 2019, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
BACKGROUND: Despite health policy that promotes shared decision-making, it is not yet the norm in clinical practice. We aimed to assess how much shared decision-making Canadians experienced in health-related decisions in 2017. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey in January 2018 with a Web-based panel of Canadians representing all 10 provinces. We assessed their involvement in health-related decisions made with a health care professional over the previous year by asking about 1) discussion of choice of treatment or care plan, 2) presentation of advantages and disadvantages, 3) exploration of ideas and preferences, 4) discussion of preferred option and 5) match between preferred and actual level of participation. We computed an average shared decision-making score (range 1 [never] to 5 [always]). We presented characteristics of participants and responses using descriptive statistics and explored variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, geographical areas and care settings (home care or not) using multivariate weighted regressions. RESULTS: Of the 1591 participants surveyed, 1010 (63.5%) reported receiving health care in the previous 12 months. The mean of the average shared decision-making score was 2.25/5 (standard deviation [SD] 1.16). After weighting, 42.8% of respondents reported that their health care professional often or always mentioned that they had a choice of treatment or care plan, 45.4% reported that advantages and disadvantages were often or always presented, 38.8% reported that they were often or always asked for their ideas or preferences, 40.2% reported that they were often or always asked about their preferred option, and 54.1% stated that their level of participation in decision-making often or always matched their preferred level of participation. Increasing age, rural setting, living in the province of Quebec and not being white significantly decreased the level of shared decision-making experienced. Older respondents (age ≥ 65 yr) receiving home care reported the least shared decision-making (mean score 1.7 [SD 0.5]). INTERPRETATION: Canadians in all 10 provinces experienced a low degree of shared decision-making in 2017, with variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, care settings and geographical areas. Further efforts to foster implementation of shared decision-making are needed and should take these variations into account. Copyright 2019, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
Authors: Jan Ostermann; Derek S Brown; Janine A van Til; Nick Bansback; France Légaré; Deborah A Marshall; Meenakshi Bewtra Journal: Patient Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Guylène Thériault; Roland Grad; James A Dickinson; Pascale Breault; Harminder Singh; Neil R Bell; Olga Szafran Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Guylène Thériault; Roland Grad; James A Dickinson; Pascale Breault; Harminder Singh; Neil R Bell; Olga Szafran Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Noel Engels; Gretchen N de Graav; Paul van der Nat; Marinus van den Dorpel; Anne M Stiggelbout; Willem Jan Bos Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Marta Maes-Carballo; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Luciano Mignini; Khalid Saeed Khan; Rubén Trigueros; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Emma E Sypes; Chloe de Grood; Fiona M Clement; Jeanna Parsons Leigh; Liam Whalen-Browne; Henry T Stelfox; Daniel J Niven Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 7.327