Objectives To describe the range of collaborative approaches to shared decision-making (SDM) observed in clinical encounters of patients with diabetes and their clinicians.Design A secondary... Show moreObjectives To describe the range of collaborative approaches to shared decision-making (SDM) observed in clinical encounters of patients with diabetes and their clinicians.Design A secondary analysis of videorecordings obtained in a randomised trial comparing usual diabetes primary care with or without using a within-encounter conversation SDM tool.Setting Using the purposeful SDM framework, we classified the forms of SDM observed in a random sample of 100 video-recorded clinical encounters of patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care.Main outcome measures We assessed the correlation between the extent to which each form of SDM was used and patient involvement (OPTION12-scale).Results We observed at least one instance of SDM in 86 of 100 encounters. In 31 (36%) of these 86 encounters, we found only one form of SDM, in 25 (29%) two forms, and in 30 (35%), we found ≥3 forms of SDM. In these encounters, 196 instances of SDM were identified, with weighing alternatives (n=64 of 196, 33%), negotiating conflicting desires (n=59, 30%) and problemsolving (n=70, 36%) being similarly prevalent and developing existential insight accounting for only 1% (n=3) of instances. Only the form of SDM focused on weighing alternatives was correlated with a higher OPTION12-score. More forms of SDM were used when medications were changed (2.4 SDM forms (SD 1.48) vs 1.8 (SD 1.46); p=0.050).Conclusions After considering forms of SDM beyond weighing alternatives, SDM was present in most encounters. Clinicians and patients often used different forms of SDM within the same encounter. Recognising a range of SDM forms that clinicians and patients use to respond to problematic situations, as demonstrated in this study, opens new lines of research, education and practice that may advance patient-centred, evidence-based care. Show less
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... Show moreObjective: 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. Show less
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... Show moreObjectives: 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.(c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
Kunneman, M.; Hargraves, I.G.; Sivly, A.L.; Branda, M.E.; LaVecchia, C.M.; Labrie, N.H.M.; ... ; Montori, V. 2022
Objective: To evaluate how the use of a within-encounter SDM tool (compared to usual care in a randomized trial) contributes to care plans that make sense to patients with atrial fibrillation... Show moreObjective: To evaluate how the use of a within-encounter SDM tool (compared to usual care in a randomized trial) contributes to care plans that make sense to patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation. Methods: In a planned subgroup of the trial, 123 patients rated post-encounter how much sense their decided-upon care plan made to them and explained why. We explored how sense ratings related to observed patient involvement (OPTION12), patient's decisional conflict, and adherence to their plan based on pharmacy records. We analyzed patient motives using Burke's pentad. Results: Plan sensibility was similarly high in both arms (Usual care n = 62: mean 9.4/10 (SD 1.0) vs SDM tool n = 61: 9.2/10 (SD 1.5); p = .8), significantly and weakly correlated to decisional conflict (rho = -0.28, p = .002), but not to OPTION12 or adherence. Plans made sense to most patients given their known efficacy, safety and what is involved in implementing them. Conclusion: Adding an effective intervention to promote SDM did not affect how much, or why, care plans made sense to patients receiving usual care, nor patient adherence to them. Practice Implications: Evaluating the extent to which care plans make sense can improve SDM assessments, particularly when SDM extends beyond selecting from a menu of options. Show less
Objectives: To assess the extent to which shared decision making (SDM) can take place in telemedicine (remote SDM). Methods: We searched Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus from 2010 until August 7th,... Show moreObjectives: To assess the extent to which shared decision making (SDM) can take place in telemedicine (remote SDM). Methods: We searched Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus from 2010 until August 7th, 2020 for articles on remote SDM in the care of any patient using any technology. We also conducted a search for telemedicine articles citing key reports on SDM outcome measures. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full text eligible studies, and synthesized their content using thematic analysis. Results: Of the 12 eligible articles, most were European with patients with chronic disease or mental and behavioral health. 8 articles used synchronous remote SDM and 1 used asynchronous remote SDM. Themes related to interactional workability of both telemedicine technologies and SDM emerged, namely access to broadband, digital literacy, and satisfaction with the convenience of remote visits. Conclusions: Telemedicine technologies may foster virtual interactions that support remote SDM, which, in turn, may promote productive patient-clinician interactions and patient-centered care. Practice implications: Digitally-mediated consultations surged amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The extent to which SDM frameworks developed for in-person use need any adaptation for remote SDM remains unclear. Investment in innovation, design, implementation, and effectiveness research to advance remote SDM are needed. Show less
Noseworthy, P.A.; Branda, M.E.; Kunneman, M.; Hargraves, I.G.; Sivly, A.L.; Brito, J.P.; ... ; SDM4AFib Shared Decision-Making At 2022
BACKGROUND Guidelines promote shared decision-making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within-encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC)... Show moreBACKGROUND Guidelines promote shared decision-making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within-encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision-making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. METHODS AND RESULTS We conducted a multicenter, encounter-level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow-up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. CONCLUSIONS In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Show less
Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes.... Show moreShared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs. Show less
Kamath, C.C.; Giblon, R.; Kunneman, M.; Lee, A.I.; Branda, M.E.; Hargraves, I.G.; ... ; Shared Decision Ma 2021
IMPORTANCE How patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and their clinicians consider cost in forming care plans remains unknown.OBJECTIVE To identify factors that inform conversations regarding... Show moreIMPORTANCE How patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and their clinicians consider cost in forming care plans remains unknown.OBJECTIVE To identify factors that inform conversations regarding costs of anticoagulants for treatment of AF between patients and clinicians and outcomes associated with these conversations.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study of recorded encounters and participant surveys at 5 US medical centers (including academic, community, and safety-net centers) from the SDM4AFib randomized trial compared standard AF care with and without use of a shared decisionmaking (SDM) tool. Included patients were considering anticoagulation treatment and were recruited by their clinicians between January 30, 2017, and June 27, 2019. Data were analyzed between August and November 2019.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The incidence of and factors associated with cost conversations, and the association of cost conversations with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden and their choice of anticoagulation. RESULTS A total of 830 encounters (out of 922 enrolled participants) were recorded. Patients' mean (SD) age was 71.0 (10.4) years; 511 patients (61.6%) were men, 704 (86.0%) were White, 303 (40.9%) earned between $40 000 and $99 999 in annual income, and 657 (79.2%) were receiving anticoagulants. Clinicians' mean (SD) agewas 44.8 (13.2) years; 75 clinicians (53.2%) were men, and 111 (76%) practiced as physicians, with approximately half (69 [48.9%]) specializing in either internal medicine or cardiology. Cost conversations occurred in 639 encounters (77.0%) andwere more likely in the SDM arm (378 [90%] vs 261 [64%]; OR, 9.69; 95% CI, 5.77-16.29). In multivariable analysis, cost conversations were more likely to occur with female clinicians (66 [47%]; OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.216.71); consultants vs in-training clinicians (113 [75%]; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.4-11.1); clinicians practicing family medicine (24 [16%]; OR, 12.12; 95% CI, 2.75-53.38]), internal medicine (35 [23%]; OR, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.25-11.70), or other clinicians (21 [14%]; OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 1.32-18.16) when compared with cardiologists; and for patients with an annual household income between $ 40 000 and $99 999 (249 [82.2%]; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29) compared with income below $ 40 000 or above $99 999. More patients who had cost conversations reported cost as a factor in their decision (244 [89.1%] vs 327 [69.0%]; OR 3.66; 95% CI, 2.43-5.50), but cost conversations were not associated with the choice of anticoagulation agent.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Cost conversations were common, particularly for middle-income patients and with female and consultant-level primary care clinicians, aswell as in encounters using an SDM tool; they were associated with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden but not final treatment choice. With increasing costs of care passed on to patients, these findings can inform efforts to promote cost conversations in practice. Show less
Kunneman, M.; Branda, M.E.; Hargraves, I.G.; Sivly, A.L.; Lee, A.T.; Gorr, H.; ... ; Shared Decision Making 2020
IMPORTANCE Shared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear.OBJECTIVE To assess the extent... Show moreIMPORTANCE Shared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear.OBJECTIVE To assess the extent to which the use of an SDM tool affects the quality of SDM and anticoagulant treatment decisions in at-risk patients with AF.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This encounter-randomized trial recruited patients with nonvalvular AF who were considering starting or reviewing anticoagulant treatment and their clinicians at academic, community, and safety-net medical centers between January 30, 2017 and June 27, 2019. Encounters were randomized to either the standard care arm or care that included the use of an SDM tool (intervention arm). Data were analyzed from August 1 to November 30, 2019.INTERVENTIONS Standard care or care using the Anticoagulation Choice Shared Decision Making tool (which presents individualized risk estimates and compares anticoagulant treatment options across issues of importance to patients) during the clinical encounter.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Quality of SDM (which included quality of communication, patient knowledge about AF and anticoagulant treatment, accuracy of patient estimates of their own stroke risk [within 30% of their estimate], decisional conflict, and satisfaction), decisions made during the encounter, duration of the encounter, and clinician involvement of patients in the SDM process.RESULTS The clinical trial enrolled 922 patients (559 men [60.6%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [11] years) and 244 clinicians. A total of 463 patients were randomized to the intervention arm and 459 patients to the standard care arm. Participants in both arms reported high communication quality, high knowledge, and low decisional conflict, demonstrated low accuracy in their risk perception, and would similarly recommend the approach used in their encounter. Clinicians were significantly more satisfied after intervention encounters (400 of 453 encounters [88.3%] vs 277 of 448 encounters [61.8%]; adjusted relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.42-1.53). A total of 747 of 873 patients (85.6%) chose to start or continue receiving an anticoagulant medication. Patient involvement in decision-making (as assessed through video recordings of the encounters using the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-item scale) scores were significantly higher in the intervention arm (mean [SD] score, 33.0 [10.8] points vs 29.1 [13.1] points, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 4.2 points; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6 points). No significant between-arm difference was found in encounter duration (mean [SD] duration, 32 [16] minutes in the intervention arm vs 31 [17] minutes in the standard care arm; adjusted mean between-arm difference, 1.1; 95% CI, -0.3 to 2.5 minutes).CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE The use of an SDM encounter tool improved several measures of SDM quality and clinician satisfaction, with no significant effect on treatment decisions or encounter duration. These results help to calibrate expectations about the value of implementing SDM tools in the care of patients with AF. Show less
Hargraves, I.G.; Montori, V.M.; Brito, J.P.; Kunneman, M.; Shaw, K.; LaVecchia, C.; ... ; Thorsteinsdottir, B. 2019
Objective: Patient involvement focused the growth of Shared Decision Making (SDM) in contemporary healthcare practice, research, and education. Whilst important, securing appropriate patient... Show moreObjective: Patient involvement focused the growth of Shared Decision Making (SDM) in contemporary healthcare practice, research, and education. Whilst important, securing appropriate patient involvement or equipping patients to choose is not necessarily the principal purpose of SDM. The purpose of SDM like all medical decision making is to act well in response to a patient's problem, broadly conceived. In which situations and how SDM addresses patient problems is unclear. We seek to develop a purposeful approach to SDM that is oriented to the kinds of problems that SDM might help resolve.Methods: Through vignettes of the experience of a patient, Rachel we demonstrate different kinds of situations in which Rachel, her family, and clinicians need to make decisions together.Results: Different methods of SDM are needed in situations of:Uncertain harms and benefits.Intra or interpersonal conflict.Intellectual, practical, and emotional incoherence.Existential transition.Conclusion: SDM may be understood as a range of methods that vary substantially with patients' situations and the purpose that they pursue.Practice Implications: Clinicians struggle to adopt SDM when they do not see it as relevant to clinical work. Orienting SDM to the problems that patients and clinicians routinely face may further SDM adoption, education, and research. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
Kunneman, M.; LaVecchia, C.M.; Ospina, N.S.; Abu Dabrh, A.M.; Behnken, E.M.; Wilson, P.; ... ; Montori, V.M. 2019
Background Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self... Show moreBackground Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self-reported SDM measures. Methods We asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3-item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open-ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient. Results In Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores ("less" SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001). Conclusion Reflection-before-quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient-reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects. Show less
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... 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
Kunneman, M.; Gartner, F.R.; Hargraves, I.G.; Montori, V.M. 2018
