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

Danique W. Bos – van den Hoek, Ellen M. A. Smets, Rania Ali, Dorien Tange, Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven and Inge Henselmans
Additional contact information
Danique W. Bos – van den Hoek: Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ellen M. A. Smets: Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Psychology, 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
Inge Henselmans: Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Medical Decision Making, 2024, vol. 44, issue 1, 76-88

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.

Keywords: shared decision making; continuing education; palliative care; neoplasms; patients; cancer survivors; general practitioners; nurses; communication (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231203693 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:76-88

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231203693

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().