Research PaperEliciting patient preferences in shared decision-making (SDM): Comparing conversation analysis and SDM measurements
Introduction
Modern medicine is under increasing influence by the public and ethical imperative for shared decision-making (SDM) [1], [2]. In Norway, legislation mandates patients’ “right to participate in choosing between available and medically sound methods of examination and treatment” [3]. However, in practice, SDM has shown to be a complex concept to define, implement, and assess [4], [5], [6], and a recent review concludes that a “major gap in knowledge is whether and how shared decision making works” [7].
Recently, a small body of conversation analytic studies has started to empirically specify how patient involvement and SDM actually play out in authentic encounters; For instance, how patients are offered choice [8], [9], [10] and how patient preferences are dealt with [11], [12]. Our study develops this line of research further, by comparing conversation analysis (CA) with SDM measurements of the same data.
This study identifies and explores a conditional construction, a variant of ‘hypothetical questions’ [13], by which physicians formulate a hypothesis about the patient’s preference and then present a treatment option on the basis of that, taking the following basic form: “if you think X + we/you can do Y”. By preference we refer to patients’ view or stance on the desirability of some particular treatment or examination option. These hypothetical constructions make claims about the recipient’s epistemic domain, and such statements are shown to elicit (dis)confirmation from the recipient in response (so-called ‘statements about B-events’) [14], [15], [16]. Thus, making claims about others’ inner views and thoughts is a well-documented resource for eliciting this, which, as in this case, can be one way of eliciting patients’ treatment pReferences
The aim of this study is: (1) to describe how physicians formulate hypothetical patient preferences and the interactional consequences of this practice for patient involvement in decision-making, (2) compare qualitative analysis of this practice with quantitative assessments of the item ‘patient preferences’ and overall mean scores from two SDM measurements, and (3) discuss how this practice aligns with guidelines and objectives of the SDM component ‘patient preferences’.
Section snippets
Material and selection of data for the present study
147 video-recorded encounters from various non-psychiatric settings in a Norwegian Teaching Hospital, drawn from a larger dataset of 380 encounters [17], have been reviewed by the first two authors in relation with previous studies [18], [19]. The 147 encounters constitute a strategic, inductive sample aimed to include cases from disciplines in which patient participation seemed to be more prevalent. Decision-making sequences in 27 encounters, in which patients were actively involved, were
Conversation analysis of hypothetical formulations about patient preferences
By formulating hypotheses about patients’ preferences, physicians seek to uncover or clarify the recipient’s stance towards a treatment option or some other clinically relevant action. In our data, such hypotheses appear in situations where (1) the physician has presented a treatment recommendation, and (2) the patient has not yet accepted it, the delay in acceptance being potentially interpretable as passive resistance to the recommendation [23]. Below we analyze three types of formulations:
Discussion
This study has explored one way in which physicians elicit patients’ preferences or views towards some treatment: by formulating hypothetical patient stances (“if you think X”), followed by a decision-implicative component (“then Y”). Unfavorable stances are used for giving the patient a choice/possibility to reject the physician’s recommendation, while favorable stances are used as a device for pursuing acceptance to the physician’s recommended option.
In the investigated cases, the treatment
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Bård Fossli Jensen for collecting the videotaped encounters, John Heritage and Charles Antaki for comments on previous versions, and Jürgen Kasper, Simone Kienlin, Maria Kristiansen and Madeleine Latvala for coding the encounters with MAPPIN’SDM and OPTION(5). This work has been funded by the Research Council of Norway (Ref. 204529), and partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme, project number 223265.
References (27)
- et al.
Patient-centered Shared decision-making: a public imperative
Am. J. Med.
(2012) - et al.
An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters
Patient Educ. Couns.
(2006) - et al.
Measurement of shared decision making–a review of instruments
Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen
(2011) - et al.
Validation of the Norwegian version of MAPPIN’SDM, an observation-based instrument to measure shared decision-making in clinical encounters
Patient Educ. Couns.
(2017) - et al.
Offering patients choices: a pilot study of interactions in the seizure clinic
Epilepsy Behav.
(2011) - et al.
Whose decision? Negotiating epistemic and deontic rights in medical treatment decisions
J. Pragmat.
(2015) - et al.
Negotiating treatment preferences: physicians’ formulations of patients’ stance
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2016) - et al.
Using a ‘talk’ model of shared decision making to propose an observation-based measure: observer OPTION5 Item
Patient Educ. Couns.
(2013) - et al.
Patient involvement and language barriers: problems of agreement or understanding?
Patient Educ. Couns.
(2017) - et al.
Confusion in and about shared decision making in hospital outpatient encounters
Patient Educ. Couns.
(2014)
The limits of questioning: negative interrogatives and hostile question content
J. Pragmat.
Principles of Biomedical Ethics
Lov om pasient- og brukerrettigheter [Patients’ Rights Act]
Cited by (17)
Questions to promote child-centered care in racially discordant interactions in pediatric oncology
2024, Patient Education and CounselingBringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review
2022, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :Two studies reported median scores on item 4, being 1.0 (range: 0–3) and 1.5 (range not provided) [36,38]. One study mentioned a mean score for item 4 only, being 1.3 (SD: 0.6) [37]. One study used an adapted Observer OPTION instrument, where item 5 and 6 reflected PPE (see Supplementary file - Appendix C Table C2), with mean scores of 1.79 (SD: 1.27) and 1.63 (SD: 1.19) respectively [39].
"Do you want us to try to resuscitate?": Conversational practices generating patient decisions regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation
2022, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :As Excerpt 4 shows, such completion can be made possible by the particular syntactic construction under which is introduced the reference to hypothetical circumstances which make CPR relevant. Using hypothetical scenarios has also been documented in other clinical settings as an important interactional resource to discuss life decisions and its features have been reported in literature [29–36]. Our data shows that its organizational features allow patients and physicians to accomplish two things.
Pharmacists and patients sharing decisions about medicines: Development and feasibility of a conversation guide
2019, Research in Social and Administrative PharmacyCitation Excerpt :However, there is currently no formal structure embedding this into clinical practice and the extent to which a patient is involved may vary considerably. An important part of optimizing medications in an older person is to evaluate the evidence on potential benefits and harms of medicines in light of his or her values, overall health and goals, and to prioritize medicines accordingly.8–12 This is part of a shift towards goal-concordant care for older patients and people with multi-morbidity, relying less on disease-specific guidelines/treatment in decisions about health.13