“I need to know what makes somebody tick …”: Challenges and Strategies of Implementing Shared Decision-Making in Individualized Oncology

Author:

Haltaufderheide Joschka1,Wäscher Sebastian2,Bertlich Bernhard3,Vollmann Jochen1,Reinacher-Schick Anke3,Schildmann Jan4

Affiliation:

1. Department for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr-University, Bochum, Germany

2. Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland

3. Department of Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, St. Josef-Hospital, Ruhr-University, Bochum, Germany

4. Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittengerg, Germany

Abstract

Abstract Background Shared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as an ethical framework for decision-making in cancer care. According to SDM, patients make decisions in light of their values and based on the available evidence. However, SDM is difficult to implement in cancer care. A lack of applicability in practice is often reported. This empirical-ethical study explores factors potentially relevant to current difficulties in translating the concept of SDM into clinical practice. Methods This study was conducted with nonparticipant observation of the decision-making process in patients with gastrointestinal cancers for whom the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was uncertain according to clinical guidelines. Triangulation of qualitative data analysis was conducted by means of semistructured interviews subsequent to the observation. Observation notes and interview transcripts were analyzed according to the principles of grounded theory. Results Deviating from the concept of SDM, oncologists initiated a process of eliciting values and medical information prior to conveying information. The purpose of this approach was to select and individualize information relevant to the treatment decision. In doing so, the oncologists observed used two strategies: “biographical communication” and a “metacommunicative approach.” Both strategies could be shown to be effective or to fail depending on patients’ characteristics such as their view of the physicians’ role and the relevance of value-related information for medical decision-making. Conclusion In contrast to the conceptual account of SDM, oncologists are in need of patient-related information prior to conveying information. Both strategies observed to elicit such information are in principle justifiable but need to be adapted in accordance with patient preferences and decision-making styles. Implications for Practice This study showed that knowledge of patients’ values and preferences is very important to properly adapt the giving of medical information and to further the process of shared decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM) trainings should consider different strategies of talking about values. The right strategy depends largely on the patient's preferences in communication. To be aware of the role of values in SDM and to be able to switch communicative strategies might prove to be of particular value. A more systematic evaluation of the patient's decision-making preferences as part of routine procedures in hospitals might help to reduce value-related barriers in communication.

Funder

Georgius Agricola Stiftung Ruhr

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology

Reference36 articles.

1. Is risk stratification ever the same as ‘profiling’?;Braithwaite;J Med Ethics,2016

2. Disclosing the uncertainty associated with prognostic estimates in breast cancer;Engelhardt;Med Decis Making,2017

3. The prospects for personalized medicine;Yurki;Hastings Cent Rep,2012

4. Personalized oncology: Recent advances and future challenges;Kalia;Metabolism,2013

5. Physician attitudes toward shared decision making: A systematic review;Pollard;Patient Educ Counsel,2015

Cited by 16 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3