Ida Lund Lorenzen, Anne Louise Kjær Olesen, Christian Sander Danstrup, Nina Munk Lyhne
{"title":"Shared decision-making during surgical thyroid consultation.","authors":"Ida Lund Lorenzen, Anne Louise Kjær Olesen, Christian Sander Danstrup, Nina Munk Lyhne","doi":"10.61409/A03240213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Shared decision-making (SDM) enables individually tailored treatment plans. This survey explored patients' and surgeons' perceptions of SDM in consultations on thyroid nodules. Furthermore, we aimed to explore possible discrepancies between the groups, identify factors influencing patients' perceived levels of SDM and evaluate decisional regret.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective survey study was conducted among patients attending surgical consultations for thyroid nodules. Patients and surgeons completed SDM questionnaires to measure perceived levels of SDM. Six-month decisional regret was assessed by the Decisional Regret Scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median SDM scores were 86.7 (interquartile range (IQR) = 20) and 80.0 (IQR = 28.9) for patients and doctors, respectively, showing a significant mean difference of 7.9 (95% confidence interval: 4.0-11.8; p less-than 0.001) with higher scores for patients than surgeons. A high SDM score was positively associated with preliminary examinations (p = 0.04) but not with other consultation types or sociodemographic factors (SDF). A total of 12.2% of patients showed decisional regret. Regret was not correlated with the patient's SDM score (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient = -0.06; p = 0.6).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients and surgeons reported high levels of perceived SDM. Perceived levels of SDM and decisional regret were not associated with SDF, except for the consultation type. Factors affecting the perceived SDM level remain largely unknown and could be identified by adding objective SDM measures in future studies.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not relevant.</p>","PeriodicalId":11119,"journal":{"name":"Danish medical journal","volume":"71 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Danish medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61409/A03240213","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Shared decision-making (SDM) enables individually tailored treatment plans. This survey explored patients' and surgeons' perceptions of SDM in consultations on thyroid nodules. Furthermore, we aimed to explore possible discrepancies between the groups, identify factors influencing patients' perceived levels of SDM and evaluate decisional regret.
Methods: A prospective survey study was conducted among patients attending surgical consultations for thyroid nodules. Patients and surgeons completed SDM questionnaires to measure perceived levels of SDM. Six-month decisional regret was assessed by the Decisional Regret Scale.
Results: The median SDM scores were 86.7 (interquartile range (IQR) = 20) and 80.0 (IQR = 28.9) for patients and doctors, respectively, showing a significant mean difference of 7.9 (95% confidence interval: 4.0-11.8; p less-than 0.001) with higher scores for patients than surgeons. A high SDM score was positively associated with preliminary examinations (p = 0.04) but not with other consultation types or sociodemographic factors (SDF). A total of 12.2% of patients showed decisional regret. Regret was not correlated with the patient's SDM score (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient = -0.06; p = 0.6).
Conclusions: Patients and surgeons reported high levels of perceived SDM. Perceived levels of SDM and decisional regret were not associated with SDF, except for the consultation type. Factors affecting the perceived SDM level remain largely unknown and could be identified by adding objective SDM measures in future studies.
期刊介绍:
The Danish Medical Journal (DMJ) is a general medical journal. The journal publish original research in English – conducted in or in relation to the Danish health-care system. When writing for the Danish Medical Journal please remember target audience which is the general reader. This means that the research area should be relevant to many readers and the paper should be presented in a way that most readers will understand the content.
DMJ will publish the following articles:
• Original articles
• Protocol articles from large randomized clinical trials
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
• PhD theses from Danish faculties of health sciences
• DMSc theses from Danish faculties of health sciences.