Problem‐based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps

Health Expectations, vol. 26, pp. 282–289

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms. METHODS: We assessed 100 randomly selected video-recorded primary care encounters, obtained as part of a randomized trial of an SDM intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Two coders, working independently, noted each instance of SDM, classified it as one of four problem-based forms to SDM (weighing alternatives, negotiating conflicting issues, solving problems, or developing existential insight), and noted the occurrence and timing of each of the four canonical SDM steps: fostering choice awareness, providing information, stating preferences, and deciding. Descriptive analyses sought to determine the relative frequency of these steps across each of the four SDM forms within each encounter. RESULTS: There were 485 SDM steps noted (mean 4.85 steps per encounter), of which providing information and stating preferences were the most common. There were 2.7 (38 steps in 14 encounters) steps per encounter observed in encounters with no discernible SDM form, 3.4 (105 steps in 31 encounters) with one SDM form, 5.2 (129 steps in 25 encounters) with two SDM forms, and 7.1 (213 steps in 30 encounters) when ≥3 SDM forms were observed within the encounter. The prescribed order of the four SDM steps was observed in, at best, 16 of the 100 encounters. Stating preferences was a common step when weighing alternatives (38%) or negotiating conflicts (59.3%) but less common when solving problems (29.2%). The distribution of SDM steps was similar to usual care with or without the SDM intervention. CONCLUSION: The normative steps of SDM are infrequently observed in their prescribed order regardless of whether an SDM intervention was used. Some steps are more likely in some SDM forms but no pattern of steps appears to distinguish among SDM forms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01293578.

Authors 5

1. Víctor M. Montori

   Mayo Clinic

   Affiliation as printed

   Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit Mayo Clinic Rochester Rochester Minnesota USA

   Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

2. Merel M. Ruissen Aachen Department of Biomedical Data Sciences Section of Medical Decision Making Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands Department of Medicine Division of Endocrinology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden Zuid‐Holland The Netherlands Department of Biomedical Data Sciences Section of Medical Decision Making Department of Medicine Division of Endocrinology, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden University · Mayo Clinic · Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Section of Medical Decision Making Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands

   Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden Zuid‐Holland The Netherlands

   Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit Mayo Clinic Rochester Rochester Minnesota USA

   Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Section of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

   Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

   Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

3. Megan E. Branda

   Mayo Clinic

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA

   Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit Mayo Clinic Rochester Rochester Minnesota USA

   Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

   Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

4. Ian G Hargraves

   Mayo Clinic

   Affiliation as printed

   Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit Mayo Clinic Rochester Rochester Minnesota USA

   Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

5. Marleen Kunneman corresponding Aachen Department of Biomedical Data Sciences Section of Medical Decision Making Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands Department of Biomedical Data Sciences Section of Medical Decision Making

   Leiden University · Mayo Clinic · Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Section of Medical Decision Making Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands

   Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit Mayo Clinic Rochester Rochester Minnesota USA

   Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Section of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

   Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA