Hargraves, Ian

AbstractBackgroundReflecting (“stop‐and‐think”) before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self‐reported SDM measures.MethodsWe asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3‐item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open‐ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient.ResultsIn Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores (“less” SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001).ConclusionReflection‐before‐quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient‐reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.

AbstractPeople with diabetes often live with other chronic conditions and lead complicated lives. Determining what is the best management decision for a patient requires consideration of each individual's personal, social and biomedical context, what he or she values, the reasons he or she has to value the available options, and the relative contribution of each option in terms of benefits, harms, costs and inconveniences. Empathic conversations between patients and clinicians to diagnose the patient situation that necessitates action and the range of evidence‐based actions that best address the situation, so‐called shared decision‐making, are essential to the personalized care of people with diabetes. The aim of the present review was to present key elements of shared decision‐making and propose three different approaches for its application. The first approach focuses on transferring information to patients so that they can make decisions. The second approach, choice, focuses on cultivating the individual's ability to give voice to which choice is best for them. The third approach, conversation, establishes an empathic conversational environment through which the individual with diabetes and their clinician think and talk through how to address the problems of living with diabetes and related illnesses. These approaches are manifest in the design of evidence‐based decision aids created to support shared decision‐making. In randomized trials, decision aids can efficiently improve patient's knowledge, satisfaction, risk awareness, decisional conflict and involvement. Further research, however, is needed to better understand when and how to promote the empathic conversations, patient, clinician and service and policy contexts necessary to routinely implement shared decision‐making in different at scale healthcare systems. In the interim, sufficient evidence and tools exist for persons with diabetes and their clinicians to gain expertise in making decisions together.