Review articleMeasuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments
Introduction
Although there is increasing interest in the outcomes of involving patients in aspects of healthcare decisions, albeit with a recognition that a flexible approach is needed in practice [1], there is no agreed construct to describe ‘involvement’ [2]. ‘Patient-centredness’ is proving to be too ill-defined, [3] a method that in reality contains many constructs, and a recent comparison of instruments designed to measure it revealed the difficulty of achieving reliable tools [3], [4]. Although involving patients is an important element of patient-centred practice, patient participation in decision-making has not been defined in sufficient detail to allow rigorous evaluation. Research into the roles patients prefer within decision-making processes has been mostly based on hypothetical scenarios [5], [6] and reveals a spectrum of views. Hypothetical determinations may not equate with the views of patients who have experienced actual involvement in decision-making. There is evidence from studies on screening that the wishes of patients who are initially uninformed change after they have become aware of the harms and benefits of different treatment options [7]. This is likely to be especially true if the clinician is skilled at providing information and is sensitive to anxieties that may be generated by the potential responsibility of decision-making. It is also important to conceptualise patient involvement as a process that will inevitably vary from one consultation to another. We were unaware of a method to measure ‘involvement’, and therefore undertook a systematic search of the literature with the aim of appraising the instruments identified.
Patient involvement can be viewed as occurring along a spectrum, from paternalism at one end to complete autonomy at the other [8]. ‘Shared decision-making’ involves both the patient and the clinician being explicit about their values and treatment preferences [9]. The approach involves arriving at an agreed decision, to which both parties have contributed their views. The stages and skills of ‘shared decision-making’ are being investigated by firstly using qualitative methods to investigate how practitioners and patients conceptualise ‘involvement’, and secondly by an empirical study which analyses consultations that aim to ‘share decisions’ [10], [11], [12].
Two assumptions underpin this review. Firstly, that involvement in decision-making is a negotiated event that occurs between a clinician and patient, either explicitly, or as is more common, implicitly.
The second assumption is that choices legitimately exist in most clinical situations, and that it is acceptable — vital according to those who place autonomy first amongst ethical principles — to portray options to patients, at least to some level of detail (excepting extremis, intellectual impairment, unconsciousness and psychiatric risk). Any attempt to measure involvement in decision-making should therefore consider to what degree (if any) a health professional portrays choices and invites patients to participate in the decisions, along with other processes that may be associated (such as an exploration of views, concerns, and fears). Involvement is not considered as a rhetorical gesture. Successful ‘involvement’ starts from the position of respecting a patient’s right to autonomy and self-determination, even when a fully informed patient, aware of a contrary professional viewpoint, decides a divergent treatment or management plan. The ethical stance assumed here is one of optional autonomy rather than mandatory autonomy (where patient involvement in decision-making is a requirement) [13].
Decision-making in a clinical setting involves many factors, including prior experience, existing knowledge, trust and confidence in the clinician, personality traits, exposure and access to information, satisfaction with the consultation process, and the influence of family and others [13]. Despite this complex context, we consider that patient involvement in the decision-making process within the consultation is an important construct to measure accurately, for many reasons. It is necessary if we are to gauge how involvement contributes to determining adherence to treatment choices, and whether involvement per se contributes in other ways to potential health gain.
Section snippets
Objectives
Having first appraised the literature on how professionals should most appropriately involve patients in decision-making processes [14], and completed a qualitative study on the ‘competencies’ required [12], we undertook a systematic search for instruments that focused on an evaluation of the extent professionals involve patients in decision-making (and the quality) as observed by a third party. This is not to dismiss the literature that has focused on perceived involvement (as viewed by
Methods
The methods of systematic reviewing have been developed primarily to summarise research that investigates the effectiveness of interventions [18]. This review applies the concept of a systematic and explicit method of assessment to the area of instrumentation. There are agreed methods for both developing and confirming the validity and reliability of health measurement instruments, which will be used as the basis for assessing the quality of instruments in this review [19].
Results
The searching strategy identified a total of 4929 abstracts from the following databases: combined listing from Medline, Psychlit and Embase, 2460; CinAHl, 2395; ASSIA, 74. After dual and independent assessments, a total of 107 articles were retrieved for detailed appraisal. Information and articles were received from 29 of the 60 authors contacted (see acknowledgements); 52 consultation assessment instruments that met only the first inclusion criterion of this review are listed in Table 3.
Principal findings
Existing instrumentation in the field of professional–patient interaction research and evaluation does not enable the construct of patient involvement to be measured comprehensively. Although an important finding, it is not a surprising one. None of the instruments we found (and included) were designed specifically to measure ‘patient involvement’. The study of interactive communication within clinical consultations was pioneered in the 1960s, and many instruments have been developed since to
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Vikki Entwistle and Sharon Caple for the advice and comments received on the drafting of this paper. We thank the following researchers for responding to our request for information and their willingness to contribute further materials: E Callahan, A Coulter, C Charles, R Deber, L Degner, V Entwistle, M Holmes-Rovner, R Hulsman, G Makoul, D Mazur, B Molewijk, L Ong, D Pendleton, R Pill, R Savage, T Schofield, WB Stiles, R Street, M Stewart, N Stott, A Stiggelbout, J
References (88)
- et al.
Decision-making in the physician–patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model
Soc Sci Med
(1999) - et al.
Measuring patient-centredness: a comparison of three observation-based instruments
Patient Educ Couns
(2000) - et al.
Patient participation in decision-making
Soc Sci Med
(1998) - et al.
Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to tango)
Soc Sci Med
(1997) - et al.
The physician–patient encounter: the physician as a perfect agent for the patient versus the informed decision-making model
Soc Sci Med
(1998) - et al.
Patient–physician communication assessment instruments: 1986–1996 in review
Patient Educ Couns
(1998) Doctor–patient communication and the quality of care
Soc Sci Med
(1991)- et al.
Multi-dimensional interaction analysis: a collaborative approach to the study of medical discourse
Soc Sci Med
(1994) - et al.
Exploration of doctor and patient agendas in general practice consultations
Soc Sci Med
(1992) Towards constructive innovation and rigorous evaluation: a new series on methods for promoting and evaluating participation
Health Expectations
(1999)
Patients’ preferences for participation in clinical decision-making: a review of published surveys
Behav Med
The impact of informed consent on patient interest in prostate-specific antigen screening
Arch Intern Med
Four models of the physician–patient relationship
JAMA
Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision-making
BMJ
Shared decision-making: the neglected second half of the consultation
BJGP
Patient and visit characteristics related to physicians’ participatory decision-making style
Med Care
Towards a feasible model for shared decision-making: a focus group study with general practice registrars
BMJ
Comparative rating of consultation performance: a preliminary study and proposal for collaborative research
J R College Gen Pract
An observation methodology for the study of interactive clinical problem-solving behaviour in primary care settings
Med Care
Levels of physician involvement with patients and their families: a model for teaching and research
J Fam Pract
How doctors and patients discuss routine clinical decisions: informed decision-making in the outpatient setting
J Gen Inter Med
The Calgary–Cambridge Referenced Observation Guides: an aid to defining the curriculum and organising the teaching in communication training programmes
Med Educ
Reliability and feasibility of measuring medical interviewing skills: the revised Maastricht history-taking and advice checklist
Med Educ
Developmental levels in family-centred medical care
Fam Med
Patient-centredness in the consultation. 1: a method for assessment
Fam Pract
Enhancing medication adherence through communication and informed collaborative choice
Health Commun
Problems and prospects for health service research on provider-patient communication
Med Care
Cited by (192)
Evaluation of the shared decision-making process scale in cancer screening and medication decisions
2023, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :Measuring the extent to which this is achieved in practice can be difficult. Systematic reviews have identified several instruments designed to measure SDM, but there is no consistency across measures nor is there an established gold standard for researchers to compare their measure against to determine validity [6–10]. Although one systematic review found 40 measures of SDM in the literature, the authors concluded that few of these measures reached their standard of validity [11].
Shared decision-making in vascular surgery
2019, Journal of Vascular SurgeryPurposeful SDM: A problem-based approach to caring for patients with shared decision making
2019, Patient Education and CounselingHeading in a new direction? Recommendations for future research on patient decision aids
2019, Patient Education and Counseling