Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions

被引:186
作者
Elwyn, Glyn [1 ]
Frosch, Dominick [2 ]
Rollnick, Stephen [1 ]
机构
[1] Cardiff Univ, Sch Med, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Clin Epidemiol Interdisciplinary Res Grp, Cardiff CF14 4YS, S Glam, Wales
[2] Palo Alto Med Fdn, Res Inst, Dept Hlth Serv Res, Palo Alto, CA 94301 USA
来源
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE | 2009年 / 4卷
关键词
20-YEAR FOLLOW-UP; SELF-MANAGEMENT; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; CHRONIC DISEASE; AIDS; QUALITY; CONSULTATIONS; MASTECTOMY; FRAMEWORK; CONSENSUS;
D O I
10.1186/1748-5908-4-75
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: There is increasing interest in interventions that can support patients who face difficult decisions and individuals who need to modify their behaviour to achieve better outcomes. Evidence for effectiveness is used to categorise patients care. Effective care is where evidence of benefit outweighs harm: patients should always receive this type of care, where indicated. Preference-sensitive care describes a situation where the evidence for the superiority of one treatment over another is either not available or does not allow differentiation; in this situation, there are two or more valid approaches, and the best choice depends on how individuals value the risks and benefits of treatments. Discussion: Preference-sensitive decisions are defined by equipoise: situations where options need to be deliberated. Moreover, where both healthcare professionals and patients agree that equipoise exists, situations may be regarded as having 'dual equipoise'. Such conditions are ideal for shared decision making. However, there are many situations in medicine where dual equipoise does not exist, where health professionals hold the view that scientific evidence for benefit strongly outweighs harm. This is often the case where people suffer from chronic conditions, and where behaviour change is recommended to improve outcomes. However, some patients, are either ambivalent or find it difficult to sustain optimal behaviours, i.e., patients will be in varying degrees of equipoise. Therefore, situations where dual equipoise exists (or not) help to clarify the definitions of two classes of support, namely, decision and behaviour change support interventions. Decision support interventions help people think about choices they face; they describe where and why choice exists, in short, conditions of dual equipoise; they provide information about options, including, where reasonable, the option of taking no action. These interventions help people to deliberate, independently or in collaboration with others, about options by considering relevant attributes; they support people to forecast how they might feel about short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes that have relevant consequences, in ways that help the process of constructing preferences and eventual decision making appropriate to their individual situation. Whereas, behavioural support interventions describe, justify, and recommend actions that, over time, lead to predictable outcomes over short, intermediate, and long-term timeframes, and that have relevant and important consequences for those who are considering behaviour change. Summary: Decision and behaviour support interventions have divergent aims, different relationships to equipoise, and form two classes of interventions.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   Patients' unvoiced agendas in general practice consultations: qualitative study [J].
Barry, CA ;
Bradley, CP ;
Britten, N ;
Stevenson, FA ;
Barber, N .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 320 (7244) :1246-1250
[2]   WATCHFUL WAITING VS IMMEDIATE TRANS-URETHRAL RESECTION FOR SYMPTOMATIC PROSTATISM - THE IMPORTANCE OF PATIENTS PREFERENCES [J].
BARRY, MJ ;
MULLEY, AG ;
FOWLER, FJ ;
WENNBERG, JW .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1988, 259 (20) :3010-3017
[3]  
Bekker H, 1999, Health Technol Assess, V3, P1
[4]  
Bekker H.L., 2009, Shared decision-making in health care-Achieving evidence-based patient choice, P45
[5]   Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care [J].
Bodenheimer, T ;
Lorig, K ;
Holman, H ;
Grumbach, K .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2002, 288 (19) :2469-2475
[6]   Public involvement in guideline development [J].
Boivin, Antoine ;
Legare, France .
CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2007, 176 (09) :1308-1309
[7]  
CAMPBELL NC, 2007, BMJ-BRIT MED J, P455
[8]   On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect [J].
Dijksterhuis, A ;
Bos, MW ;
Nordgren, LF ;
van Baaren, RB .
SCIENCE, 2006, 311 (5763) :1005-1007
[9]   Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies [J].
Durand, Marie-Anne ;
Stiel, Mareike ;
Boivin, Jacky ;
Elwyn, Glyn .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2008, 71 (01) :125-135
[10]  
Elwyn G, 2000, BRIT J GEN PRACT, V50, P892