ReviewKnowledge is not power for patients: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making
Introduction
Shared decision making (SDM) is viewed as fundamental to safe and effective healthcare when there are legitimate options available to patients [1]. “No decision about me without me” [2], [3] encapsulates the ambition of a more patient-centered healthcare system that promotes SDM, but this ambition is yet to be realized routinely. Despite some successes with SDM implementation (mainly concerning embedding decision support tools, securing policy support, training clinicians, and organizational buy-in) [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], implementation efforts still face considerable difficulties [9], [10], [11]. It is also not clear what role decision support tools play in preparing and enabling patients to engage in a decision-making discussion with a clinician [12]. Implementation researchers well recognize the clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators [4], [6], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Surprisingly, implementation work has not considered the patient perspective in detail. This review examines what patients think helps or hinders them from being involved in making healthcare decisions.
An initial literature search identified several studies seeking to understand patients’ perceptions of the factors promoting or hindering their involvement [17], [18], [19], [20]. A comprehensive synthesis of data from these studies could complement the well-cited taxonomy of clinician barriers and facilitators [13]. Previous work identified factors influencing patients’ preferences for involvement in medical decision-making [21], but most studies examined associations between patient characteristics (e.g. age, coping style) and desired levels of involvement, not actual patients’ views. Whilst we acknowledge that factors affecting patient involvement in decision-making can also be identified through observational methods, which rely on a third party observer, only direct enquiry with patients will afford opportunities to understand why they view particular factors as barriers or facilitators.
One of the earliest papers in this field described what SDM involves: at least two participants, a clinician and patient [22]. However, implementation researchers seem to have overlooked that “it takes at least two to tango” when conducting implementation work. Previous work has identified the powerful influence of long-standing normative beliefs, such as patients being passive and not “rocking the boat” [20], [23]. Implementation researchers need to address these attitudinal issues if other efforts on embedding decision support tools and addressing clinician- and organizational-level barriers are to be more effective. Clinician and organizational perspectives are critically important for implementation efforts, but SDM will not become the “norm” in healthcare, without simultaneously addressing patient-reported barriers. We aimed to systematically review and thematically synthesize patient-reported barriers and facilitators to SDM, seeking to develop a taxonomy to inform implementation work alongside efforts to address clinician and organizational aspects of SDM.
Section snippets
Search strategies & selection criteria
We searched nine electronic databases: (from database inception, no language restrictions): ASSIA (1987>); CINAHL (1982>); BNI (1985>); Embase (1947>); Medline (1946>); Medline in Process; PsycINFO (1806>); Scopus (1966>); Web of Knowledge (1981>). Search strategies combined free-text words and MeSH, or database equivalent, derived from the following broad topic areas: decision-making, barriers/facilitators, and patient-reported (see Appendix A for Medline search strategy). Follow-up searches
Included studies
Electronic and follow-up searches yielded 2956 unique references; 289 full-text articles were retrieved for detailed evaluation. Forty-five articles from forty-four unique studies met inclusion criteria. Fig. 1 describes progress through the review. Studies originated from 15 countries, most published between 2005 and 2012. Thirty of the forty-five articles examined both barriers and facilitators. Full study characteristics are reported in Table 1, including design, methods, and data collection
Discussion
The results suggest that a large number of patients currently can’t participate in healthcare, due to various structural, pre-disposing, interactional, and preparatory factors, rather than the more common view among clinicians that patients won’t participate because they don’t want to. Patient-reported barriers and facilitators to SDM relate to how the healthcare system is organized (i.e. time available, continuity of care, organization of workflow and the setting itself) and to what happens in
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Cochrane Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University. We are grateful to Mala Mann, Information Specialist, for her guidance on the development of electronic search strategies, and to the Cochrane Healthcare Quality research group at Cardiff for their valuable comments.
References (79)
- et al.
Implementing decision and communication aids to facilitate patient-centered care in breast cancer: a case study
Patient Educ Couns
(2009) - et al.
Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions
Patient Educ Couns
(2008) - et al.
Implementing shared decision making in the UK
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes [German J Evid Qual Healthcare]
(2011) - et al.
Patients’ preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review
Patient Educ Couns
(2006) The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: a taxonomy
Soc Sci Med
(2007)- et al.
Patient assertiveness in ethnically diverse older women with breast cancer: challenging stereotypes of the elderly
J Aging Stud
(1998) - et al.
When is a patient with heart failure adequately informed? A study of patients’ knowledge of and attitudes toward medical information
Heart Lung
(2004) Choice cuts: an exploratory study of patients’ views about participation in decision-making in a day surgery unit
Int J Nurs Stud
(1994)- et al.
Older people's preferences for involvement in their own care: a qualitative study in primary health care in 11 European countries
Patient Educ Couns
(2007) - et al.
‘They do what they think is the best for me.’ Frail elderly patients’ preferences for participation in their care during hospitalization
Patient Educ Couns
(2010)
Involvement in treatment decision-making: its meaning to people with diabetes and implications for conceptualisation
Soc Sci Med
Communication barriers perceived by older patients and nurses
Int J Nurs Stud
The theory of planned behavior
Org Behav Hum Decis Process
Decision-making in the physician–patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model
Soc Sci Med
Race and shared decision-making: perspectives of African-Americans with diabetes
Soc Sci Med
Unraveling triadic communication in hospital consultations with adolescents with chronic conditions: the added value of mixed methods research
Patient Educ Couns
What are the external influences on information exchange and shared decision-making in healthcare consultations: a meta-synthesis of the literature
Patient Educ Couns
Three questions that patients can ask to improve the quality of information physicians give about treatment options: a cross-over trial
Patient Educ Couns
Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patients’ preferences matter
Brit Med J
Making shared decision making a reality: no decision about me without me
Liberating the NHS: no decision about me without me
Conducting implementation research in community-based primary care: a qualitative study on integrating patient decision support interventions for cancer screening into routine practice
Health Expect
Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals (Review)
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
The Health Foundation Implementing shared decision making: clinical teams’ experiences of implementing shared decision making as part of the MAGIC programme. London
The MAGIC programme: evaluation. London
Many miles to go… A systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Patchy ‘coherence’: using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)
Implement Sci
Implementing shared decision-making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities
Health Expect
What are the essential elements to enable patient participation in medical decision making
J Gen Intern Med
Patient factors in the implementation of decision aids in general practice: a qualitative study
Health Expect
Conditions for patient participation and non-participation in health care
Nurs Ethics
Authoritarian physicians and patients’ fear of being labeled ‘difficult’ among key obstacles to shared decision making
Health Aff (Millwood)
Doing Nothing is No Choice: lay constructions of treatment decision-making among women with early-stage breast cancer
Sociol Health Ill
‘Permission to participate?’ A qualitative study of participation in patients from differing socio-economic backgrounds
J Health Psychol
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
BMC Med Res Methodol
Cited by (801)
Sharing decision-making in knee osteoarthritis using the AHP-FMCGP method
2024, Expert Systems with ApplicationsWomen's experiences of consent to induction of labour: A qualitative study
2024, Sexual and Reproductive HealthcareShared decision-making in food allergy: Navigating an exciting era
2024, Annals of Allergy, Asthma and ImmunologyCognitive processes in pharmacists’ clinical decision-making
2024, Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy