IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i1p76-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Through the Eyes of Patients: The Effect of Training General Practitioners and Nurses on Perceived Shared Decision-Making Support

Author

Listed:
  • Danique W. Bos – van den Hoek

    (Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Quality of Care Program, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Ellen M. A. Smets

    (Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Quality of Care Program, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Rania Ali

    (Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Dorien Tange

    (Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organizations (NFK), Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven

    (Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Inge Henselmans

    (Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Quality of Care Program, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Purpose To examine the effects of training general practitioners and nurses in shared decision-making (SDM) support as perceived by cancer patients and survivors. Design An innovative, experimental design was adopted that included analogue patients (APs), that is, people who have or have had cancer and who imagine themselves in the position of the actor-patient presented in a video. Each AP assessed a video-recorded simulated consultation of a health care professional (HCP) conducted before or after an SDM support training program. The primary outcome was the APs’ perceived SDM support with 13 self-developed items reflecting the perceived patient benefit of SDM support as well as the perceived HCP support behavior. Secondary outcomes included an overall rating of SDM support, AP-reported extent of SDM (CollaboRATE), satisfaction with the communication (Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire), conversation appreciation and helpfulness, as well as decision-making satisfaction and confidence (visual analog scale, 0–100). In addition, patient and HCP characteristics associated with AP-perceived SDM support were examined. Results APs ( n  = 131) did not significantly differentiate trained from untrained HCPs in their perceptions of SDM support nor in secondary outcomes. Agreement between APs’ perceptions was poor. The higher the perceived comparability of the consultation with APs’ previous personal experiences, the higher their rating of SDM support. Limitations We used a nonvalidated primary outcome and an innovative study design that should be tested in future work. Conclusions Despite the limitations of the study design, the training seemed to not affect cancer patients’ and survivors’ perceived SDM support. Implications The clinical relevance of the training on SDM support needs to be established. The variation in APs’ assessments suggests patients differ in their perception of SDM support, stressing the importance of patient-tailored SDM support. Highlights Cancer patients and survivors did not significantly differentiate trained from untrained HCPs when evaluating SDM support, and agreement between their perceptions was poor. The clinical relevance of training GPs and nurses in SDM support needs to be established. Patient-tailored SDM support may be recommended, given the variation in APs’ assessments and their possible diverging perceptions of SDM support. This innovative study design (having patients watch and assess videos of simulated consultations made in the context of training evaluation) needs to be further developed.

Suggested Citation

  • Danique W. Bos – van den Hoek & Ellen M. A. Smets & Rania Ali & Dorien Tange & Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven & Inge Henselmans, 2024. "Through the Eyes of Patients: The Effect of Training General Practitioners and Nurses on Perceived Shared Decision-Making Support," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(1), pages 76-88, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:76-88
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231203693
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231203693
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231203693?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gisèle Diendéré & Imen Farhat & Holly Witteman & Ruth Ndjaboue, 2021. "Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 51-59, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      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:44:y:2024:i:1:p:76-88. 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.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.