Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-03-04 DOI:10.1177/0272989x241231721
Sascha M. Keij, Megan E. Branda, Victor M. Montori, Juan P. Brito, Marleen Kunneman, Arwen H. Pieterse
{"title":"Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data","authors":"Sascha M. Keij, Megan E. Branda, Victor M. Montori, Juan P. Brito, Marleen Kunneman, Arwen H. Pieterse","doi":"10.1177/0272989x241231721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundThe occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.ObjectiveTo assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed.Main MeasuresIn the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION<jats:sup>12 item</jats:sup>) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION<jats:sup>12</jats:sup> as a dependent variable.ResultsWe included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION<jats:sup>12</jats:sup> scores was 7.7 of 100 points ( P &lt; 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION<jats:sup>12</jats:sup> score except for education level ( p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION<jats:sup>12</jats:sup> score ( P = 0.033).ConclusionsMost characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used.HighlightsMost sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making. Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used. SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x241231721","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundThe occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.ObjectiveTo assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed.Main MeasuresIn the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION12 item) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION12 as a dependent variable.ResultsWe included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION12 scores was 7.7 of 100 points ( P < 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION12 score except for education level ( p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION12 score ( P = 0.033).ConclusionsMost characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used.HighlightsMost sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making. Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used. SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者特征与临床医生让患者参与决策的程度:汇总数据的二次分析
背景共同决策(SDM)在日常实践中的应用仍然有限。我们对 10 项研究的数据进行了二次分析,这些研究比较了使用(干预)或未使用(对照)会内 SDM 对话工具的成年患者护理情况。在原始研究中,我们使用了 "观察患者参与决策 12 项 "量表(OPTION12 项)来对临床医生在临床接触中让患者参与 SDM 的程度进行编码。我们以患者特征(年龄、性别、种族、教育程度、婚姻状况、每日用药次数、一般健康状况、健康素养)为自变量,以 OPTION12 为因变量进行了多变量分析。两组患者的 OPTION12 评分相差 7.7 分(P < 0.001)。我们没有发现任何患者特征与 OPTION12 评分之间存在关联,除了教育水平(P = 0.030),教育水平与 OPTION12 评分之间的关联非常小(教育水平最低者与教育水平最高者之间的关联为 2.8 分),主要由对照组(6.5 分)贡献,且仅在对照组中具有显著性。一项中风预防试验的子分析表明,年龄与 OPTION12 评分呈正相关(P = 0.033)。在未使用 SDM 对话工具的情况下,临床医生会更多地让受教育程度较高的患者参与进来,而在使用该工具时则未观察到这一差异。临床医生在让教育程度较低的患者参与决策方面投入的精力较少,而在使用共同决策对话工具时并未观察到这一差异。SDM 对话工具可以帮助临床医生更好地让患者参与进来,并确保患者无论教育背景如何都能平等地参与进来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Recalibrating an Established Microsimulation Model to Capture Trends and Projections of Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality. Development of a Microsimulation Model to Project the Future Prevalence of Childhood Cancer in Ontario, Canada. How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities. Communicating on Vaccine Benefit-Risk Ratios: A Discrete-Choice Experiment among Health Care Professionals and the General Population in France. A Parsimonious Approach to Remediate Concerns about QALY-Based Discrimination.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1