IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i3p279-288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient and Cardiologist Perspectives on Shared Decision Making in the Treatment of Older Adults Hospitalized for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Author

Listed:
  • Eleonore V. Grant

    (Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA)

  • Jenny Summapund

    (NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA)

  • Daniel D. Matlock

    (University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Victoria Vaughan Dickson

    (NYU Meyers College of Nursing, New York, NY, USA)

  • Sohah Iqbal

    (NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA)

  • Sonal Patel

    (NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA)

  • Stuart D. Katz

    (NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA)

  • Sarwat I. Chaudhry

    (Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA)

  • John A. Dodson

    (NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA)

Abstract

Background. Medical and interventional therapies for older adults with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) reduce mortality and improve outcomes in selected patients, but there are also risks associated with treatments. Shared decision making (SDM) may be useful in the management of such patients, but to date, patients’ and cardiologists’ perspectives on SDM in the setting of AMI remain poorly understood. Accordingly, we performed a qualitative study eliciting patients’ and cardiologists’ perceptions of SDM in this scenario. Methods. We conducted 20 in-depth, semistructured interviews with older patients (age ≥70) post-AMI and 20 interviews with cardiologists. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using ATLAS.ti. Two investigators independently coded transcripts using the constant comparative method, and an integrative, team-based process was used to identify themes. Results. Six major themes emerged: 1) patients felt their only choice was to undergo an invasive procedure; 2) patients placed a high level of trust and gratitude toward physicians; 3) patients wanted to be more informed about the procedures they underwent; 4) for cardiologists, patients’ age was not a major contraindication to intervention, while cognitive impairment and functional limitation were; 5) while cardiologists intuitively understood the concept of SDM, interpretations varied; and 6) cardiologists considered SDM to be useful in the setting of non-ST elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) but not ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI). Conclusions. Patients viewed intervention as “the only choice,†whereas cardiologists saw a need for balancing risks and benefits in treating older adults post-NSTEMI. This discrepancy implies there is room to improve communication of risks and benefits to older patients. A decision aid informed by the needs of older adults could help to better convey patient-specific risk and increase choice awareness.

Suggested Citation

  • Eleonore V. Grant & Jenny Summapund & Daniel D. Matlock & Victoria Vaughan Dickson & Sohah Iqbal & Sonal Patel & Stuart D. Katz & Sarwat I. Chaudhry & John A. Dodson, 2020. "Patient and Cardiologist Perspectives on Shared Decision Making in the Treatment of Older Adults Hospitalized for Acute Myocardial Infarction," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 279-288, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:3:p:279-288
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20912293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20912293
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20912293?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:3:p:279-288. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.