Sandra A Hartasanchez1, Stuart W Grande2, Victor M Montori1, Marleen Kunneman3, Juan P Brito1, Sarah McCarthy1, Ian G Hargraves4. 1. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Division of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, MN, USA. 3. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 4. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: hargraves.ian@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Purposeful SDM posits four modes of shared decision making (SDM). The use of each mode depends on the type of problem of care that is being addressed. We sought to identify how current observer-based SDM measures apply to each mode of Purposeful SDM. METHODS: Four coders, working independently, evaluated 192 items pertaining to 12 observer-based SDM process measures. They classified the items into 6 themes that vary across Purposeful SDM modes and then into one of the four modes (weighing, negotiating, problem-solving, developing insight). Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: The items were classified as pertaining to the following themes: problem (28), roles/participation (84), options (62), preferences (21), decision (15), and evaluation (6). They were then classified as pertaining particularly to the SDM modes of weighing (54), negotiating (5), problem-solving (0), and developing insight (0) modes, with 191 items applying broadly to all modes of Purposeful SDM. CONCLUSIONS: Observer-based SDM measures describe behaviors pertinent to all modes but lack items sensitive to behaviors particular to some modes of SDM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: New or revised observer-based measures of the SDM process could help estimate the extent to which the appropriate SDM mode is being used to address the patient's problem.
OBJECTIVES: Purposeful SDM posits four modes of shared decision making (SDM). The use of each mode depends on the type of problem of care that is being addressed. We sought to identify how current observer-based SDM measures apply to each mode of Purposeful SDM. METHODS: Four coders, working independently, evaluated 192 items pertaining to 12 observer-based SDM process measures. They classified the items into 6 themes that vary across Purposeful SDM modes and then into one of the four modes (weighing, negotiating, problem-solving, developing insight). Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: The items were classified as pertaining to the following themes: problem (28), roles/participation (84), options (62), preferences (21), decision (15), and evaluation (6). They were then classified as pertaining particularly to the SDM modes of weighing (54), negotiating (5), problem-solving (0), and developing insight (0) modes, with 191 items applying broadly to all modes of Purposeful SDM. CONCLUSIONS: Observer-based SDM measures describe behaviors pertinent to all modes but lack items sensitive to behaviors particular to some modes of SDM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: New or revised observer-based measures of the SDM process could help estimate the extent to which the appropriate SDM mode is being used to address the patient's problem.
Authors: Ian G Hargraves; Victor M Montori; Juan P Brito; Marleen Kunneman; Kevin Shaw; Christina LaVecchia; Michael Wilson; Laura Walker; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2019-07-19
Authors: Richard F Brown; Phyllis N Butow; Ilona Juraskova; Karin Ribi; Daniela Gerber; Jurg Bernhard; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: Health Expect Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Cleveland G Shields; Peter Franks; Kevin Fiscella; Sean Meldrum; Ronald M Epstein Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Fania R Gärtner; Hanna Bomhof-Roordink; Ian P Smith; Isabelle Scholl; Anne M Stiggelbout; Arwen H Pieterse Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michelle P Salyers; Marianne S Matthias; Sadaaki Fukui; Mark C Holter; Linda Collins; Nichole Rose; John Brandon Thompson; Melinda A Coffman; William C Torrey Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.084