Associations of Concordant and Shared Lung Cancer Screening Decision Making with Decisional Conflict: A Multi-Institution Cross-Sectional Analysis.

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2025-01-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683241309945
Donald R Sullivan, Sara E Golden, Liana Schweiger, Anne C Melzer, Santanu Datta, James M Davis, Renda Soylemez Wiener, Christopher G Slatore
{"title":"Associations of Concordant and Shared Lung Cancer Screening Decision Making with Decisional Conflict: A Multi-Institution Cross-Sectional Analysis.","authors":"Donald R Sullivan, Sara E Golden, Liana Schweiger, Anne C Melzer, Santanu Datta, James M Davis, Renda Soylemez Wiener, Christopher G Slatore","doi":"10.1177/23814683241309945","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction.</b> Many organizations recommend structured communication processes, including formal shared decision making (SDM), for patients undergoing lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). We sought to understand if concordant and shared LCS decision making was associated with decisional conflict. <b>Methods.</b> In this prospective, observational study, we enrolled patients from 3 medical centers (2 Veterans Health Administration, 1 academic facility) after a decision-making interaction about undergoing LCS but before receiving the LDCT. We included patients who indicated they accepted or declined to undergo the LDCT. We evaluated preferred and actual decision-making roles and used multivariable linear and logistic regression models to measure the association of concordant (congruence between actual and preferred roles) and shared LCS decision making with decisional conflict to report adjusted odds ratios (AOR). <b>Results.</b> Of the 409 participants with nonmissing information, 83% reported LCS decision-making role concordance. In addition, 223 (58%) reported an indeterminate level and 56 (14%) reported decisional conflict. LCS decision-making role concordance was not associated with decisional conflict (AOR = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38-1.94, <i>P</i> = 0.71) compared with role discordance. Participant-reported actual LCS SDM role was not associated with decisional conflict (AOR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.51-1.93, <i>P</i> = 0.98) compared with patient- or provider-controlled roles. <b>Conclusions.</b> LCS decisional conflict was uncommon, although many patients reported an indeterminate level of decisional conflict. Neither concordant nor shared LCS decision-making role was associated with decisional conflict. Clinicians may be unable to decrease LCS decisional conflict using efforts to enhance decision-making interactions.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>We evaluated patients' preferred and actual decision-making role and decisional conflict following a decision-making interaction about lung cancer screening (LCS).Concordant decision-making preference was not associated with decisional conflict.Actual decision-making role was also not associated with decisional conflict.Efforts to enhance decision-making interactions may not decrease LCS decisional conflict.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"10 1","pages":"23814683241309945"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11748413/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241309945","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. Many organizations recommend structured communication processes, including formal shared decision making (SDM), for patients undergoing lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). We sought to understand if concordant and shared LCS decision making was associated with decisional conflict. Methods. In this prospective, observational study, we enrolled patients from 3 medical centers (2 Veterans Health Administration, 1 academic facility) after a decision-making interaction about undergoing LCS but before receiving the LDCT. We included patients who indicated they accepted or declined to undergo the LDCT. We evaluated preferred and actual decision-making roles and used multivariable linear and logistic regression models to measure the association of concordant (congruence between actual and preferred roles) and shared LCS decision making with decisional conflict to report adjusted odds ratios (AOR). Results. Of the 409 participants with nonmissing information, 83% reported LCS decision-making role concordance. In addition, 223 (58%) reported an indeterminate level and 56 (14%) reported decisional conflict. LCS decision-making role concordance was not associated with decisional conflict (AOR = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38-1.94, P = 0.71) compared with role discordance. Participant-reported actual LCS SDM role was not associated with decisional conflict (AOR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.51-1.93, P = 0.98) compared with patient- or provider-controlled roles. Conclusions. LCS decisional conflict was uncommon, although many patients reported an indeterminate level of decisional conflict. Neither concordant nor shared LCS decision-making role was associated with decisional conflict. Clinicians may be unable to decrease LCS decisional conflict using efforts to enhance decision-making interactions.

Highlights: We evaluated patients' preferred and actual decision-making role and decisional conflict following a decision-making interaction about lung cancer screening (LCS).Concordant decision-making preference was not associated with decisional conflict.Actual decision-making role was also not associated with decisional conflict.Efforts to enhance decision-making interactions may not decrease LCS decisional conflict.

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
一致性和共享肺癌筛查决策与决策冲突的关联:一项多机构横断面分析。
介绍。许多组织推荐结构化的沟通过程,包括正式的共享决策(SDM),用于使用低剂量计算机断层扫描(LDCT)进行肺癌筛查(LCS)的患者。我们试图了解和谐和共享的LCS决策是否与决策冲突有关。方法。在这项前瞻性观察性研究中,我们招募了来自3个医疗中心(2个退伍军人健康管理局,1个学术机构)的患者,这些患者在接受LDCT之前接受了LCS的决策互动。我们纳入了接受或拒绝行LDCT的患者。我们评估了首选决策角色和实际决策角色,并使用多变量线性和逻辑回归模型来测量一致性(实际角色和首选角色之间的一致性)和共享LCS决策与决策冲突的关联,以报告调整优势比(AOR)。结果。在409名信息不缺失的参与者中,83%的人报告了LCS决策角色的一致性。此外,223人(58%)报告了不确定的水平,56人(14%)报告了决策冲突。与角色不一致性相比,LCS决策角色一致性与决策冲突不相关(AOR = 0.86, 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.38-1.94, P = 0.71)。与患者或提供者控制的角色相比,参与者报告的实际LCS SDM角色与决策冲突无关(AOR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.51-1.93, P = 0.98)。结论。LCS决策冲突并不常见,尽管许多患者报告了不确定水平的决策冲突。和谐型和共享型LCS决策角色与决策冲突均不相关。临床医生可能无法通过努力加强决策互动来减少LCS决策冲突。重点:我们评估了患者在肺癌筛查(LCS)决策互动后的首选和实际决策角色以及决策冲突。一致性决策偏好与决策冲突不相关。实际决策角色也与决策冲突无关。加强决策互动的努力可能不会减少LCS决策冲突。
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
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prioritizing Patients from the Most Deprived Areas on Elective Waiting Lists in the NHS in England: Estimating the Health and Health Inequality Impact. Optimizing Masks and Random Screening Test Usage within K-12 Schools. Associations of Concordant and Shared Lung Cancer Screening Decision Making with Decisional Conflict: A Multi-Institution Cross-Sectional Analysis. Implications of Diminishing Lifespan Marginal Utility for Valuing Equity in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Evaluation of the Soda Tax on Obesity and Diabetes in California: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
×
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