OBJECTIVE: To establish the rates of self-reported shared decision-making (SDM) and decision aid use among practicing urologists. Additionally, we aim to determine the practice factors that influence SDM use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study uses data from the 2019 American Urological Association Annual Census SDM module. Urologists were presented with a rubric of 7 preference sensitive clinical situations and asked to choose the elements of SDM that they regularly use for the diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to evaluate factors contributing to the use of SDM. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred and nineteen urologists responded. Of these, 77% reported that they regularly use SDM in at least 1 preference sensitive clinical scenario. Between 40% and 58% regularly gave patients decision aids. Urologists who reported barriers to SDM had a decreased odds of reporting SDM (adjusted odds ratio OR [aOR] 0.80 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.91]). Those practicing in academic settings (aOR 0.78 [95% CI 0.69-0.88]) were less likely than those in private practice to report SDM use. The number of patient visits per week was inversely associated with SDM use, with greater than 76 visits per week having decreased odds (aOR 0.65 [95% CI 0.57-0.74]). CONCLUSION: In this sample of practicing urologists in the United States, the majority report regularly using SDM. However, rates of SDM varied by training, practice setting and clinical volume. Our findings highlight specific opportunities to improve in SDM in urology.
OBJECTIVE: To establish the rates of self-reported shared decision-making (SDM) and decision aid use among practicing urologists. Additionally, we aim to determine the practice factors that influence SDM use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study uses data from the 2019 American Urological Association Annual Census SDM module. Urologists were presented with a rubric of 7 preference sensitive clinical situations and asked to choose the elements of SDM that they regularly use for the diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to evaluate factors contributing to the use of SDM. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred and nineteen urologists responded. Of these, 77% reported that they regularly use SDM in at least 1 preference sensitive clinical scenario. Between 40% and 58% regularly gave patients decision aids. Urologists who reported barriers to SDM had a decreased odds of reporting SDM (adjusted odds ratio OR [aOR] 0.80 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.91]). Those practicing in academic settings (aOR 0.78 [95% CI 0.69-0.88]) were less likely than those in private practice to report SDM use. The number of patient visits per week was inversely associated with SDM use, with greater than 76 visits per week having decreased odds (aOR 0.65 [95% CI 0.57-0.74]). CONCLUSION: In this sample of practicing urologists in the United States, the majority report regularly using SDM. However, rates of SDM varied by training, practice setting and clinical volume. Our findings highlight specific opportunities to improve in SDM in urology.
Authors: Elyn H Wang; Cary P Gross; Jon C Tilburt; James B Yu; Paul L Nguyen; Marc C Smaldone; Nilay D Shah; Robert Abouassally; Maxine Sun; Simon P Kim Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Clarence Braddock; Pamela L Hudak; Jacob J Feldman; Sylvia Bereknyei; Richard M Frankel; Wendy Levinson Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Jeffrey S Montgomery; David R Rovner; Laura D Scherer; Jesse Whitfield; Valerie C Kahn; Edgar C Merkle; Peter A Ubel; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Marie Anne Durand; Julia Song; Johanna Aarts; Paul J Barr; Zackary Berger; Nan Cochran; Dominick Frosch; Dariusz Galasiński; Pål Gulbrandsen; Paul K J Han; Martin Härter; Paul Kinnersley; Amy Lloyd; Manish Mishra; Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez; Isabelle Scholl; Kounosuke Tomori; Lyndal Trevena; Holly O Witteman; Trudy Van der Weijden Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-11-06
Authors: Lindsay A Hampson; Anne M Suskind; Benjamin N Breyer; Matthew R Cooperberg; Rebecca L Sudore; Salomeh Keyhani; I Elaine Allen; Louise C Walter Journal: J Urol Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: David A Ossin; Emily C Carter; Rufus Cartwright; Philippe D Violette; Shilpa Iyer; Geraldine T Klein; Sangeeta Senapati; Zachary Klaassen; Sylvia M Botros Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Giulia I Lane; Ajith Dupati; Ji Qi; Stephanie Ferrante; Rodney L Dunn; Roshan Paudel; Daniela Wittmann; Lauren Wallner; Donna L Berry; Chad Ellimoottil; James Montie; J Quentin Clemens Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2022-01-01
Authors: Roshan Paudel; Stephanie Ferrante; Ji Qi; Rodney L Dunn; Donna L Berry; Alice Semerjian; Christopher M Brede; Arvin K George; Brian R Lane; Kevin B Ginsburg; James E Montie; Giulia I Lane Journal: Urology Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 2.633