Co-creating sensible care plans using shared decision making
| Autor: | Sarah R. Brand-McCarthy, Victor M. Montori, Ian Hargraves, Nanon Labrie, Marleen Kunneman, Megan E. Branda, Angela L. Sivly, Christina M. LaVecchia |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Communication, Network Institute, APH - Quality of Care, APH - Personalized Medicine |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2022 |
| Předmět: |
SDG 16 - Peace
Decision Making Reflection Decisional conflict Affect (psychology) law.invention Anticoagulation Nursing Randomized controlled trial law Care plan Intervention (counseling) Humans Shared decision making Communication SDG 16 - Peace Justice and Strong Institutions General Medicine Atrial fibrillation Justice and Strong Institutions Medication uptake Decision aid Usual care Patient Compliance Conversation aid Patient Participation Psychology Decision Making Shared |
| Zdroj: | Kunneman, M, Hargraves, I G, Sivly, A L, Branda, M E, LaVecchia, C M, Labrie, N H M, Brand-McCarthy, S & Montori, V 2022, ' Co-creating sensible care plans using shared decision making : Patients’ reflections and observations of encounters ', Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 105, no. 6, pp. 1539-1544 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.10.003 Patient Education and Counseling, 105(6), 1539-1544. ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD Patient Education and Counseling, 105(6), 1539-1544. Elsevier Ireland Ltd |
| ISSN: | 0738-3991 |
| Popis: | Objective: To evaluate how the use of a within-encounter SDM tool (compared to usual care in a randomized trial) contributes to care plans that make sense to patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation. Methods: In a planned subgroup of the trial, 123 patients rated post-encounter how much sense their decided-upon care plan made to them and explained why. We explored how sense ratings related to observed patient involvement (OPTION12), patient's decisional conflict, and adherence to their plan based on pharmacy records. We analyzed patient motives using Burke's pentad. Results: Plan sensibility was similarly high in both arms (Usual care n = 62: mean 9.4/10 (SD 1.0) vs SDM tool n = 61: 9.2/10 (SD 1.5); p = .8), significantly and weakly correlated to decisional conflict (rho = -0.28, p = .002), but not to OPTION12 or adherence. Plans made sense to most patients given their known efficacy, safety and what is involved in implementing them. Conclusion: Adding an effective intervention to promote SDM did not affect how much, or why, care plans made sense to patients receiving usual care, nor patient adherence to them. Practice Implications: Evaluating the extent to which care plans make sense can improve SDM assessments, particularly when SDM extends beyond selecting from a menu of options. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. CC_BY_NC_ND_4.0 |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect