IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i4p2128-d503661.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Maes-Carballo

    (Unidad de Patología Mamaria del Servicio de Cirugía General, Complexo Universitario Hospitalario de Ourense, 32005 Ourense, Spain
    Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, 18014 Granada, Spain)

  • Manuel Martín-Díaz

    (Hospital Básico Santa Ana de Motril, 18600 Granada, Spain)

  • Luciano Mignini

    (Unidad de Mastología del Grupo Oroño, 2000 Rosario, Argentina)

  • Khalid Saeed Khan

    (Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, 18014 Granada, Spain
    CIBER of Epidimiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain)

  • Rubén Trigueros

    (Department of Language and Education, University of Antonio de Nebrija, 28015 Madrid, Spain)

  • Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas

    (Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, 18014 Granada, Spain
    CIBER of Epidimiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain
    Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria (IBS), 18012 Granada, Spain)

Abstract

Objectives: To assess shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge, attitude and application among health professionals involved in breast cancer (BC) treatment. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study based on an online questionnaire, sent by several professional societies to health professionals involved in BC management. There were 26 questions which combined demographic and professional data with some items measured on a Likert-type scale. Results: The participation (459/541; 84.84%) and completion (443/459; 96.51%) rates were high. Participants strongly agreed or agreed in 69.57% (16/23) of their responses. The majority stated that they knew of SDM (mean 4.43 (4.36–4.55)) and were in favour of its implementation (mean 4.58 (4.51–4.64)). They highlighted that SDM practice was not adequate due to lack of resources (3.46 (3.37–3.55)) and agreed on policies that improved its implementation (3.96 (3.88–4.04)). The main advantage of SDM for participants was patient satisfaction (38%), and the main disadvantage was the patients’ paucity of knowledge to understand their disease (24%). The main obstacle indicated was the lack of time and resources (40%). Conclusions: New policies must be designed for adequate training of professionals in integrating SDM in clinical practice, preparing them to use SDM with adequate resources and time provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Maes-Carballo & Manuel Martín-Díaz & Luciano Mignini & Khalid Saeed Khan & Rubén Trigueros & Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas, 2021. "Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:2128-:d:503661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/2128/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/2128/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shan-Fu Yu & Hui-Ting Wang & Meng-Wei Chang & Tien-Tsai Cheng & Jia-Feng Chen & Chia-Li Lin & Hsing-Tse Yu, 2022. "Determining the Development Strategy and Suited Adoption Paths for the Core Competence of Shared Decision-Making Tasks through the SAA-NRM Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Marta Maes-Carballo & Yolanda Gómez-Fandiño & Carlos Roberto Estrada-López & Ayla Reinoso-Hermida & Khalid Saeed Khan & Manuel Martín-Díaz & Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas, 2021. "Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators in Spain: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-14, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:2128-:d:503661. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.