Shared decision making and other variables as correlates of satisfaction with health care decisions in a United States national survey

Glass, Katherine; Wills, Celia E.; Holloman, Christopher; Olson, Jacklyn; Hechmer, Catherine; Miller, Carla K.; Duchemin, Anne‐Marie

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2012.02.010

Cited by 91 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to the findings from studies about other populations, [263][264][265][266][267] the clinicians in this study reported that communication about ADRs was generally important in clinical practice. However, in specific cases they described filtering the information that they discussed with families.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

ADRIC: Adverse Drug Reactions In Children – a programme of research using mixed methods

Smyth

Peak

Turner

et al. 2014

Programme Grants for Applied Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsTo comprehensively investigate the incidence, nature and risk factors of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in a hospital-based population of children, with rigorous assessment of causality, severity and avoidability, and to assess the consequent impact on children and families. We aimed to improve the assessment of ADRs by development of new tools to assess causality and avoidability, and to minimise the impact on families by developing better strategies for communication.Review methodsTwo prospective observational studies, each over 1 year, were conducted to assess ADRs in children associated with admission to hospital, and those occurring in children who were in hospital for longer than 48 hours. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of ADRs in children. We used the findings from these studies to develop and validate tools to assess causality and avoidability of ADRs, and conducted interviews with parents and children who had experienced ADRs, using these findings to develop a leaflet for parents to inform a communication strategy about ADRs.ResultsThe estimated incidence of ADRs detected in children on admission to hospital was 2.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5% to 3.3%]. Of the reactions, 22.1% (95% CI 17% to 28%) were either definitely or possibly avoidable. Prescriptions originating in the community accounted for 44 out of 249 (17.7%) of ADRs, the remainder originating from hospital. A total of 120 out of 249 (48.2%) reactions resulted from treatment for malignancies. Off-label and/or unlicensed (OLUL) medicines were more likely to be implicated in an ADR than authorised medicines [relative risk (RR) 1.67, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.02;p < 0.001]. When medicines used for the treatment of oncology patients were excluded, OLUL medicines were not more likely to be implicated in an ADR than authorised medicines (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.48;p = 0.830). For children who had been in hospital for > 48 hours, the overall incidence of definite and probable ADRs based on all admissions was 15.9% (95% CI 15.0 to 16.8). Opiate analgesic drugs and drugs used in general anaesthesia (GA) accounted for > 50% of all drugs implicated in ADRs. The odds ratio of an OLUL drug being implicated in an ADR compared with an authorised drug was 2.25 (95% CI 1.95 to 2.59;p < 0.001). Risk factors identified were exposure to a GA, age, oncology treatment and number of medicines. The systematic review estimated that the incidence rates for ADRs causing hospital admission ranged from 0.4% to 10.3% of all children [pooled estimate of 2.9% (95% CI 2.6% to 3.1%)] and from 0.6% to 16.8% of all children exposed to a drug during hospital stay. New tools to assess causality and avoidability of ADRs have been developed and validated. Many parents described being dissatisfied with clinician communication about ADRs, whereas parents of children with cancer emphasised confidence in clinician management of ADRs and the way clinicians communicated about medicines. The accounts of children and young people largely reflected parents’ accounts. Clinicians described using all of the features of communication that parents wanted to see, but made active decisions about when and what to communicate to families about suspected ADRs, which meant that communication may not always match families’ needs and expectations. We developed a leaflet to assist clinicians in communicating ADRs to parents.ConclusionThe Adverse Drug Reactions In Children (ADRIC) programme has provided the most comprehensive assessment, to date, of the size and nature of ADRs in children presenting to, and cared for in, hospital, and the outputs that have resulted will improve the management and understanding of ADRs in children and adults within the NHS. Recommendations for future research: assess the values that parents and children place on the use of different medicines and the risks that they will find acceptable within these contexts; focusing on high-risk drugs identified in ADRIC, determine the optimum drug dose for children through the development of a gold standard practice for the extrapolation of adult drug doses, alongside targeted pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies; assess the research and clinical applications of the Liverpool Causality Assessment Tool and the Liverpool Avoidability Assessment Tool; evaluate, in more detail, morbidities associated with anaesthesia and surgery in children, including follow-up in the community and in the home setting and an assessment of the most appropriate treatment regimens to prevent pain, vomiting and other postoperative complications; further evaluate strategies for communication with families, children and young people about ADRs; and quantify ADRs in other settings, for example critical care and neonatology.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

ADRIC: Adverse Drug Reactions In Children – a programme of research using mixed methods

Smyth

Peak

Turner

et al. 2014

Programme Grants for Applied Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…35,36 Further, research suggests that SDM does not adversely affect patient outcomes 34 and may in fact improve outcomes such as adherence to treatment 21 and satisfaction with care. 20 Though past research 14,24,25 has shown an impact of personal characteristics, such as age and race, on SDM, these relationships were not significant in the present study. However, the effect sizes obtained in past research were generally small, except for marriage, which had a moderately strong relationship.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 81%

“…For patients who do not have specific preferences, 19 provider consultations must provide them with enough time to explore options and match preferences to treatment. Patient perceptions about the quality of SDM can impact care outcomes, including satisfaction 20 and treatment adherence. 21 Further, patients may see a direct connection between time spent with the provider and the ability to truly share in the decision-making process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of Shared Decision Making Among Patients with Spinal Cord Injuries/Disorders

Locatelli

Etingen

Heinemann

et al. 2016

Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Therefore, SDM directly aims to increase patient knowledge. In addition, recent investigations have shown that SDM improves patient attitudes toward their disease, treatment options, and healthcare providers by increasing patient satisfaction, satisfaction with the treatment decision, patient participation, emotional status, and by reducing decisional conflict, within various decision contexts (57,(60)(61)(62)(63)(64).…”

Section: The Role For Shared Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The burden of nonadherence among adults with asthma: a role for shared decision‐making

Pollard

Bansback

FitzGerld

et al. 2017

Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To cite this article: Pollard S, Bansback N, FitzGerld JM, Bryan S. The burden of nonadherence among adults with asthma: a role for shared decision-making. AbstractA shared approach to decision-making framework has been suggested for chronic disease management especially where multiple treatment options exist. Shared decision-making (SDM) requires that both physician and patients are actively engaged in the decision-making process, including information exchange; expressing treatment preferences; as well as agreement over the final treatment decision. Although SDM appears well supported by patients, practitioners and policymakers alike, the current challenge is to determine how best to make SDM a reality in everyday clinical practice. Within the context of asthma, adherence rates are poor and are linked to outcomes such as reduced asthma control, increased symptoms, healthcare expenditures, and lower patient quality of life. It has been suggested that SDM can improve treatment adherence and that ignoring patients' personal goals and preferences may result in reduced rates of adherence. Furthermore, understanding predictors of poor treatment adherence is a necessary step toward developing effective strategies to improve the patient-reported and clinically important outcomes. Here, we describe why a shared approach to treatment decision-making for asthma has the potential to be an effective tool for improving adherence, with associated clinical and patient-related outcomes. In addition, we explore insights into the reasons why SDM has not been implemented into routine clinical practice.

show abstract

Shared decision making and other variables as correlates of satisfaction with health care decisions in a United States national survey

Cited by 91 publications

References 11 publications

ADRIC: Adverse Drug Reactions In Children – a programme of research using mixed methods

ADRIC: Adverse Drug Reactions In Children – a programme of research using mixed methods

Perceptions of Shared Decision Making Among Patients with Spinal Cord Injuries/Disorders

The burden of nonadherence among adults with asthma: a role for shared decision‐making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About