Leiden University Scholarly Publications

Persistent URL of this record https://hdl.handle.net/1887/88386

In Collections

This item can be found in the following collections:

Kunneman, M.; Gionfriddo, M.R.; Toloza, F.J.K.; Gartner, F.R.; Spencer-Bonilla, G.; Hargraves, I.G.; ... ; Montori, V.M. (2019)

Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making: A systematic review

Article / Letter to editor
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...Show moreObjective: 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. (c) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Show less
Shared decision making
Communication
Patient involvement
Humanism
All authors
Kunneman, M.; Gionfriddo, M.R.; Toloza, F.J.K.; Gartner, F.R.; Spencer-Bonilla, G.; Hargraves, I.G.; Erwin, P.J.; Montori, V.M.
Date
2019-03-01
Journal
Patient Education and Counseling
Volume
102
Issue
3
Pages
452 - 466
DOI
doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.11.003