The Perception of Shared Decision-Making in Hematology by Patients and Physicians Seems Satisfactory, but Important Steps are Still Ahead of Us

Patients with a hematologic malignancy increasingly prefer to be actively involved in treatment decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM), a process that supports decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions, fits well with this need. A decision is preference sensitive when well-informed patients considerably differ in their trade-offs between the pros and cons of one option, or if more equal treatment options are available, including no treatment. SDM involves several steps: the first is choice talk, where the professional informs the patient that a decision needs to be made between the various relevant options and that the patient's opinion is important. The second is option talk, where the professional explains the options and their pros and cons. In the third step, preference talk, the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences. The professional supports the patient in deliberation. The final step is decision talk, where the professional and patient discuss the patient's decisional role preference, make or defer the decision and discuss possible follow-up

Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making

OBJECTIVE: To compare CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires when appreciating patient-perceived level of shared decision-making (SDM) in doctor-patient consultations. METHODS: Data were harvested from five separate studies on SDM, conducted in three university and one large community hospital in the Netherlands, using Dutch versions of both questionnaires. CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 scores were expressed as percentages. Correlation was assessed using Spearman's Rho coefficient. Bland&Altman analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement. Top scores were calculated to assess possible ceiling effects. RESULTS: The five studies included 442 patients. Median CollaboRATE scores (88.9%, IQR 81.5-100%) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than SDM-Q-9 scores (80.0%, IQR 64.4-100%). Correlation was moderate (Rho=0.53, p < 0.001). A systematic, 12.5-point higher score was found across the range of scores when using CollaboRATE. Top scores for CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 were present in 37.5% and 17% of questionnaires, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires showed a high level of patient-perceived SDM. However, CollaboRATE only moderately correlated with SDM-Q-9 and had a stronger ceiling effect. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: When choosing a SDM-measurement tool, its benefits and limitations should be weighed. These metrics should be combined with objective scores of SDM, as these may differ from the patients' subjective interpretation

Meer dan alleen CML

Item does not contain fulltex