Cargando…

Problem‐based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms. METHODS: We assessed 100 randomly selected video‐recorded primary care encounters, obtained as part of a randomized trial of an SDM inter...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Montori, Victor M., Ruissen, Merel M., Branda, Megan E., Hargraves, Ian G., Kunneman, Marleen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9854321/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36448245
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13654
_version_ 1784873092927979520
author Montori, Victor M.
Ruissen, Merel M.
Branda, Megan E.
Hargraves, Ian G.
Kunneman, Marleen
author_facet Montori, Victor M.
Ruissen, Merel M.
Branda, Megan E.
Hargraves, Ian G.
Kunneman, Marleen
author_sort Montori, Victor M.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms. METHODS: We assessed 100 randomly selected video‐recorded primary care encounters, obtained as part of a randomized trial of an SDM intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Two coders, working independently, noted each instance of SDM, classified it as one of four problem‐based forms to SDM (weighing alternatives, negotiating conflicting issues, solving problems, or developing existential insight), and noted the occurrence and timing of each of the four canonical SDM steps: fostering choice awareness, providing information, stating preferences, and deciding. Descriptive analyses sought to determine the relative frequency of these steps across each of the four SDM forms within each encounter. RESULTS: There were 485 SDM steps noted (mean 4.85 steps per encounter), of which providing information and stating preferences were the most common. There were 2.7 (38 steps in 14 encounters) steps per encounter observed in encounters with no discernible SDM form, 3.4 (105 steps in 31 encounters) with one SDM form, 5.2 (129 steps in 25 encounters) with two SDM forms, and 7.1 (213 steps in 30 encounters) when ≥3 SDM forms were observed within the encounter. The prescribed order of the four SDM steps was observed in, at best, 16 of the 100 encounters. Stating preferences was a common step when weighing alternatives (38%) or negotiating conflicts (59.3%) but less common when solving problems (29.2%). The distribution of SDM steps was similar to usual care with or without the SDM intervention. CONCLUSION: The normative steps of SDM are infrequently observed in their prescribed order regardless of whether an SDM intervention was used. Some steps are more likely in some SDM forms but no pattern of steps appears to distinguish among SDM forms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01293578.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9854321
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98543212023-01-24 Problem‐based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps Montori, Victor M. Ruissen, Merel M. Branda, Megan E. Hargraves, Ian G. Kunneman, Marleen Health Expect Original Articles OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms. METHODS: We assessed 100 randomly selected video‐recorded primary care encounters, obtained as part of a randomized trial of an SDM intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Two coders, working independently, noted each instance of SDM, classified it as one of four problem‐based forms to SDM (weighing alternatives, negotiating conflicting issues, solving problems, or developing existential insight), and noted the occurrence and timing of each of the four canonical SDM steps: fostering choice awareness, providing information, stating preferences, and deciding. Descriptive analyses sought to determine the relative frequency of these steps across each of the four SDM forms within each encounter. RESULTS: There were 485 SDM steps noted (mean 4.85 steps per encounter), of which providing information and stating preferences were the most common. There were 2.7 (38 steps in 14 encounters) steps per encounter observed in encounters with no discernible SDM form, 3.4 (105 steps in 31 encounters) with one SDM form, 5.2 (129 steps in 25 encounters) with two SDM forms, and 7.1 (213 steps in 30 encounters) when ≥3 SDM forms were observed within the encounter. The prescribed order of the four SDM steps was observed in, at best, 16 of the 100 encounters. Stating preferences was a common step when weighing alternatives (38%) or negotiating conflicts (59.3%) but less common when solving problems (29.2%). The distribution of SDM steps was similar to usual care with or without the SDM intervention. CONCLUSION: The normative steps of SDM are infrequently observed in their prescribed order regardless of whether an SDM intervention was used. Some steps are more likely in some SDM forms but no pattern of steps appears to distinguish among SDM forms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01293578. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9854321/ /pubmed/36448245 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13654 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Montori, Victor M.
Ruissen, Merel M.
Branda, Megan E.
Hargraves, Ian G.
Kunneman, Marleen
Problem‐based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps
title Problem‐based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps
title_full Problem‐based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps
title_fullStr Problem‐based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps
title_full_unstemmed Problem‐based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps
title_short Problem‐based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps
title_sort problem‐based shared decision making: the role of canonical sdm steps
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9854321/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36448245
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13654
work_keys_str_mv AT montorivictorm problembasedshareddecisionmakingtheroleofcanonicalsdmsteps
AT ruissenmerelm problembasedshareddecisionmakingtheroleofcanonicalsdmsteps
AT brandamegane problembasedshareddecisionmakingtheroleofcanonicalsdmsteps
AT hargravesiang problembasedshareddecisionmakingtheroleofcanonicalsdmsteps
AT kunnemanmarleen problembasedshareddecisionmakingtheroleofcanonicalsdmsteps