Cathy Charles

Shared Decision-making in the Medical Encounter: What Does It Mean? (Or, It Takes at Least Two to Tango)

Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated as an ideal model of treatment decision-making in the medical encounter. To date, the concept has been rather poorly and loosely defined. This paper attempts to provide greater conceptual clarity about shared treatment decision-making, identify some key characteristics of this model, and discuss measurement issues. The particular decision-making context that we focus on is potentially life threatening illnesses, where there are important decisions to be made at key points in the disease process, and several treatment options exist with different possible outcomes and substantial uncertainty. We suggest as key characteristics of shared decision-making (1) that at least two participants-physician and patient be involved; (2) that both parties share information; (3) that both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment; and (4) that an agreement is reached on the treatment to implement. Some challenges to measuring shared decision-making are discussed as well as potential benefits of a shared decision-making model for both physicians and patients.

Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model.

In this paper we revisit and add elements to our earlier conceptual framework on shared treatment decision-making within the context of different decision-making approaches in the medical encounter (Charles, C., Gafni, A., Whelan, T., 1997. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or, it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine 44, 681 692.). This revised framework (1) explicitly identifies different analytic steps in the treatment decision-making process; (2) provides a dynamic view of treatment decision-making by recognizing that the approach adopted at the outset of a medical encounter may change as the interaction evolves; (3) identifies decision-making approaches which lie between the three predominant models (paternalistic, shared and informed) and (4) has practical applications for clinical practice, research and medical education. Rather than advocating a particular approach, we emphasize the importance of flexibility in the way that physicians structure the decision-making process so that individual differences in patient preferences can be respected.

A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: The case of diabetes

In this paper, we discuss the Charles et al. approach to shared treatment decision‐making (STDM) as applied to patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians. We perceive differences between the type of treatment decisions (e.g. end‐of‐life care, surgical treatment of cancer) that generated existing approaches of shared decision‐making for acute care conditions (including the Charles et al. model) and the treatment decisions that patients with chronic conditions need to make and revisit on an ongoing basis. For instance, treatment decisions in the chronic care setting are more likely to require a more active patient role in carrying out the decision and to offer a longer window of opportunity to make decisions and to revisit and reverse them without important loss than acute care decisions. The latter may require minimal patient participation to realize, are often urgent, and may be irreversible. Given these differences, we explore the applicability of the Charles et al. model of STDM in the chronic care context, especially chronic care that relies heavily on patient self‐management (e.g. diabetes). To apply the Charles et al. model in this clinical context, we suggest the need to emphasize the patient–clinician relationship as one of partners in making difficult treatment choices and to add a new component to the shared decision‐making approach: the need for an ongoing partnership between the clinical team (not just the clinician) and the patient. In the last section of the paper, we explore potential healthcare system barriers to STDM in chronic care delivery. Throughout the discussion we identify areas for further research.

Doing Nothing is No Choice: Lay Constructions of Treatment Decision-Making Among Women with Early-stage Breast Cancer

Open-ended personal interviews were conducted with 20 women with early stage breast cancer attending a regional cancer centre in Southwestern Ontario. We explored three related issues: (1) the extent to which these women perceived that they had treatment options; (2) their understanding of treatment benefits and risks; and (3) the role they wanted for themselves and their oncologists in treatment decision-making. We found, first, that many women who were presented with the choice to undergo some form of adjuvant treatment versus no treatment felt that ‘doing nothing was no choice’. Second, when interpreting probabilistic information on treatment benefits and risks, some women retained the idea of probability but thought that they personally would beat the odds. Others transformed the information to make it more personally meaningful, and still others assessed their risk status by comparing themselves with friends or relatives having the same disease. Third, many women preferred some form of shared treatment decision-making process with their oncologists. Women perceived treatment decisions as either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ which raised the issue of blame for a ‘bad’ decision should the cancer return. Implications of these findings for clinical practice and for models of treatment decision-making are discussed.

Physician–patient–companion communication and decision-making: A systematic review of triadic medical consultations

OBJECTIVE To systematically review quantitative and qualitative studies exploring physician-adult patient-adult companion (triadic) communication and/or decision-making within all medical encounters. METHODS Studies were identified via database searches and reference lists. One author assessed eligibility of studies, verified by two co-authors. Data were extracted by one author and cross-checked for accuracy. Two authors assessed the quality of included articles using standardized criteria. RESULTS Of the 8409 titles identified, 52 studies were included. Summary statements and tables were developed for each of five identified themes. Results indicated companions regularly attended consultations, were frequently perceived as helpful, and assumed a variety of roles. However, their involvement often raised challenges. Patients with increased need were more often accompanied. Some companion behaviours were felt to be more helpful (e.g. informational support) and less helpful (e.g. dominating/demanding behaviours), and preferences for involvement varied widely. CONCLUSION Triadic communication in medical encounters can be helpful but challenging. Based on analysis of included studies, preliminary strategies for health professionals are proposed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Preliminary strategies for health professionals include (i) encourage/involve companions, (ii) highlight helpful companion behaviours, (iii) clarify and agree upon role preferences of patient/companions. Future studies should develop and evaluate specific strategies for optimizing triadic consultations.

Are Cancer-Related Decision Aids Effective? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE Decision aids (DAs) have been developed to improve communication between health professionals and patients, and to involve patients in decisions about their health care. Cancer-related decisions can be difficult due to problems in communicating complex information about prognosis and the modest benefits of available treatments. We conducted a systematic review of cancer-related DAs. METHODS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer-related DAs about screening, prevention, and treatment decision making were included. We completed a comprehensive literature search and conducted both qualitative and quantitative analyses. We also conducted a meta regression to explore heterogeneity of effect estimates. RESULTS We identified 34 RCTs of DAs in a screening (n = 22 trials) or preventive/treatment (n = 12 trials) context. DAs significantly improved knowledge about screening options when compared to usual practice (weighted average effect size, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.73; P < .0001). A similar effect on knowledge was also found for preventive/treatment options (weighted average effect size, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.70; P < .0001). Overall, general anxiety was not increased in most trials and was significantly reduced in a screening context. Decisional conflict was reduced overall but not when screening and preventive/treatment studies were analyzed separately. There were few differences between different types of DAs. CONCLUSION Cancer-related DAs are effective in increasing patient knowledge compared with usual practice without increasing anxiety particularly in the area of cancer screening. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of DAs in the prevention and treatment context.

Self‐reported use of shared decision‐making among breast cancer specialists and perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing this approach

Background  Physicians are increasingly urged to practice shared decision‐making with their patients. Using a cross‐sectional survey, we explored the extent to which Ontario breast cancer specialists report practising shared decision‐making with their patients, their comfort level with this approach, and perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation.

How to improve communication between doctors and patients : Learning more about the decision making context is important

General practice p 1246 Communication difficulties between doctors and patients have been looked at by researchers from several disciplines who have tried to explore why these occur. Mishler, for example, has argued that doctors and patients talk to each other with different voices.1 The voice of medicine is characterised by medical terminology, objective descriptions of physical symptoms, and the classification of these within a reductionist biomedical model.1 The voice of patients, on the other hand, is characterised by non-technical discourse about the subjective experience of illness within the context of social relationships and the patients everyday world. Typically, doctors have more power than patients to structure the nature of the interaction between them. As a consequence, patients may feel that their voice is overridden, silenced, or stripped of personal meaning and social context. To improve communications between doctors and patients we need also to understand the nature of the decision making that is taking place in the consultation. Two recent papers in the BMJ , one of them published this week (p 1246),focus on the type and frequency of communication misunderstandings experienced by general practitioners and their patients in 20 English general practices.2 …

Treatment decision aids: conceptual issues and future directions.

Background  In the last 10 years, there has been a major growth in the development of treatment decision aids. Multiple goals have been identified for these tools. However, the rationale for and meaning of these goals at the conceptual level, the mechanisms through which decision aids are intended to achieve these goals, and value assumptions underlying the design of aids and associated values clarification exercises have often not been made explicit.

Women’s perceptions about treatment decision making for ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES To identify in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer who had just undergone surgery the extent to which they (1) perceived that they had treatment options, (2) understood the treatment related risks and benefits, and (3) preferred to participate in the treatment decision-making process. METHODS This qualitative study included women who underwent initial surgery for stage 3 or 4 ovarian cancer and who had received less than two cycles of chemotherapy. In depth semistructured interviews were conducted with 21 patients between June 1999 and February 2001. The interviews were content analyzed according to the themes that arose in the interview. RESULTS Five themes were identified. (1) Knowledge of treatment benefits and risks. Women understood that the treatment had both survival and quality of life benefits. Women could clearly articulate the risks of chemotherapy. (2) Readiness to make a decision. When making treatment decisions, women described being overwhelmed by the effects of concurrent drugs like analgesics, the severity of the illness, unexpected diagnosis of cancer and grief, and feeling pressured into a decision. (3) Perception of a treatment choice. Most women felt that they made their treatment decision; however, most women did not perceive that they had a treatment choice. Thus, treatment decision making is really a process of coming to terms with the disease and the recommended treatment. (4) Physician-patient relationship. All women suggest that their doctor knew the right treatment for them and they felt confident in their cancer physician. (5) Social supports. Women described supports through decision-making processes that included individuals who advocated for them, faith, and past experience with the cancer system. Hindrances to decision making included people who were negative, the cancer label, and employers. CONCLUSIONS Women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer did not describe the treatment decision-making process as shared; rather they described an interaction that was directed largely by the physician. These women attribute this form of decision-making to their advanced age, severity of illness, immediate ramification of treatment choices, and lack of advocacy for a different model of interaction. Thus, the onus is on the physician to ensure that there is an environment for shared decision-making in the event that the patient is interested in such an interaction.