The Need for Brevity During Shared Decision Making (SDM) for Cancer Screening: Veterans' Perspectives on an "Everyday SDM" Compromise

被引:8
作者
Caverly, Tanner J. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Skurla, Sarah E. [1 ]
Robinson, Claire H. [1 ]
Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. [5 ]
Hayward, Rodney A. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Ctr Clin Management Res, Dept Vet Affairs, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[2] Univ Michigan, Inst Hlth Policy Innovat, Sch Med, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA
[3] Univ Michigan, Dept Learning Hlth Sci, Sch Med, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA
[4] Univ Michigan, Dept Internal Med TJC, Sch Med, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA
[5] Univ Michigan, Dept Hlth Behav & Hlth Educ, Sch Publ Hlth, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA
关键词
cancer screening; democratic deliberation; patient-centered care; shared decision making;
D O I
10.1177/23814683211055120
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction. Detailed or "full" shared decision making (SDM) about cancer screening is difficult in the primary care setting. Time spent discussing cancer screening is time not spent on other important issues. Given time constraints, brief SDM that is incomplete but addresses key elements may be feasible and acceptable. However, little is known about how patients feel about abbreviated SDM. This study assessed patient perspectives on a compromise solution ("everyday SDM"): 1) primary care provided makes a tailored recommendation, 2) briefly presents qualitative information on key tradeoffs, and 3) conveys full support for decisional autonomy and desires for more information. Methods. We recruited a stratified random sample of Veterans from an academic Veterans Affairs medical center who were eligible for lung cancer screening, oversampling women and minority patients, to attend a 6-hour deliberative focus group. Experts informed participants about cancer screening, factors that influence screening benefits, and the role of patient preferences. Then, facilitator-led small groups elicited patient questions and informed opinions about the everyday SDM proposal, its acceptability, and their recommendations for improvement. Results. Thirty-six Veterans with a heavy smoking history participated (50% male, 83% white). There was a strong consensus that everyday SDM was acceptable if patients were the final deciders and could get more information on request. Participants broadly recommended that clinicians only mention downsides directly related to screening and avoid discussion of potential downstream harms (such as biopsies). Discussion. Although further testing in more diverse populations and different conditions is needed, these patients found the everyday SDM approach to be acceptable for routine lung cancer screening discussions, despite its use of an explicit recommendation and presentation of only qualitative information.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [1] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, The SHARE Approach-Essential Steps of Shared Decision Making: Expanded Reference Guide with Sample Conversation Starters
  • [2] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Is lung cancer screening right for me?
  • [3] AHRQ Digital Healthcare Research, INF IMPR CAR QUAL SA
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2018, NAT QUAL PARTN PLAYB
  • [5] Shared Decision Making - The Pinnacle of Patient-Centered Care
    Barry, Michael J.
    Edgman-Levitan, Susan
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2012, 366 (09) : 780 - 781
  • [6] Beebe J., 2001, Rapid assessment process: An introduction
  • [7] What Is Public Deliberation?
    Blacksher, Erika
    Diebel, Alice
    Forest, Pierre-Gerlier
    Goold, Susan Dorr
    Abelson, Julia
    [J]. HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, 2012, 42 (02) : 14 - 17
  • [8] TRANSPARENCY - INFORMED CONSENT IN PRIMARY CARE
    BRODY, H
    [J]. HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, 1989, 19 (05) : 5 - 9
  • [9] The Placebo Phenomenon: Implications for the Ethics of Shared Decision-Making
    Brody, Howard
    Colloca, Luana
    Miller, Franklin G.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2012, 27 (06) : 739 - 742
  • [10] Dealing with the Lack of Time for Detailed Shared Decision-making in Primary Care: Everyday Shared Decision-making
    Caverly, Tanner J.
    Hayward, Rodney A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2020, 35 (10) : 3045 - 3049