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
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.; Marijnen, C.A.M.; Baas-Thijssen, M.C.M.; Linden, Y.M. van der; Rozema, T.; Muller, K.; ... ; Pieterse, A.H. 2015
