IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i3p352-363.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relationships among Antecedents, Processes, and Outcomes for Shared Decision Making: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Chia-Hsien Chen

    (Department of Orthopedics, Taipei Medical University, Shuang Ho Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Taipei City
    Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei City
    Graduate Institute of Biomedical Materials and Tissue Engineering, College of Biomedical Engineering, Taipei Medical University, Taipei City)

  • Hsin-Yi Chuang

    (Master Program in Long-Term Care, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taipei City)

  • Yen Lee

    (Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, USA
    School of Education, Edgewood College, Madison, WI, USA)

  • Glyn Elwyn

    (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
    Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Cochrane Institute for Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK)

  • Wen-Hsuan Hou

    (Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei City
    School of Gerontology Health Management and Master Program in Long-Term Care, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taipei City
    Cochrane Taiwan, Taipei City)

  • Ken N. Kuo

    (Cochrane Taiwan, Taipei City
    Taipei Medical University, Taipei City
    Department of Orthopedic Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City)

Abstract

Background Among musculoskeletal disorders, lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) is the leading cause of total disability-adjusted life years globally. Clinical guidelines for LDD describe multiple treatment options in which shared decision making becomes appropriate. Objectives To explore the relationships among measures of decision antecedents, process, and outcomes in patients with LDD. Methods Patients with LDD were recruited from outpatient clinics in a teaching hospital in Taiwan and administered surveys to collect measures of decision antecedents, processes, and outcomes. Multiple linear regression was conducted to assess the association between decision antecedents and the decision making process. Hierarchical linear regression was conducted to assess the relationships among decision antecedents, the decision making process, and decision outcomes. Results A total of 132 patients (mean age, 61 years) completed the survey. After adjustment for personal factors, 2 decision antecedents (namely, decision making self-efficacy and readiness) significantly predicted patients’ experiences of engaging in shared decision making (SDM). Decision making readiness and process were associated with fewer decisional conflicts and greater decision satisfaction. Limitations Models derived from cross-sectional surveys cannot establish causal relationships among decision antecedents, decision making processes, and decision outcomes. Conclusions Our results support the SDM framework, which proposes relationships among decision antecedents, the decision making process, and decision outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Chia-Hsien Chen & Hsin-Yi Chuang & Yen Lee & Glyn Elwyn & Wen-Hsuan Hou & Ken N. Kuo, 2022. "Relationships among Antecedents, Processes, and Outcomes for Shared Decision Making: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 352-363, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:352-363
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211024980
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211024980
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211024980?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sumayah Rodenburg-Vandenbussche & Arwen H Pieterse & Pieter M Kroonenberg & Isabelle Scholl & Trudy van der Weijden & Gre P M Luyten & Roy F P M Kruitwagen & Henk den Ouden & Ingrid V E Carlier & Iren, 2015. "Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Annie LeBlanc & David A. Kenny & Annette M. O'Connor & France Légaré, 2009. "Decisional Conflict in Patients and Their Physicians: A Dyadic Approach to Shared Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(1), pages 61-68, January.
    3. France Légaré & Annette M. O'Connor & Ian D. Graham & Georges A. Wells & Stéphane Tremblay, 2006. "Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 373-390, July.
    4. Dana L. Alden & John Friend & Ping Yein Lee & Yew Kong Lee & Lyndal Trevena & Chirk Jenn Ng & Sorapop Kiatpongsan & Khatijah Lim Abdullah & Miho Tanaka & Supanida Limpongsanurak, 2018. "Who Decides: Me or We? Family Involvement in Medical Decision Making in Eastern and Western Countries," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 14-25, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scherr, Sebastian & Reifegerste, Doreen & Arendt, Florian & van Weert, Julia C.M. & Alden, Dana L., 2022. "Family involvement in medical decision making in Europe and the United States: A replication and extension in five Countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    2. Fanni Rencz & Béla Tamási & Valentin Brodszky & László Gulácsi & Miklós Weszl & Márta Péntek, 2019. "Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 43-55, June.
    3. Yuexi Yang & Tingting Qu & Jinyue Yang & Ben Ma & Anli Leng, 2022. "Confucian Familism and Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Cancers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-14, August.
    4. Semra Ozdemir & Isha Chaudhry & Si Ning Germaine Tan & Irene Teo & Chetna Malhotra & Rahul Malhotra & Eric Andrew Finkelstein, 2023. "Variation in Patient-Reported Decision-Making Roles in the Last Year of Life among Patients with Metastatic Cancer: A Longitudinal Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(2), pages 203-213, February.
    5. Sophi Tatlock & Kate Sully & Anjali Batish & Chelsea Finbow & William Neill & Carol Lines & Roisin Brennan & Nicholas Adlard & Tamara Backhouse, 2023. "Individual Differences in the Patient Experience of Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (RMS): A Multi-Country Qualitative Exploration of Drivers of Treatment Preferences Among People Living with RMS," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(4), pages 345-357, July.
    6. Kenny, David A. & Veldhuijzen, Wemke & Weijden, Trudy van der & LeBlanc, Annie & Lockyer, Jocelyn & Légaré, France & Campbell, Craig, 2010. "Interpersonal perception in the context of doctor-patient relationships: A dyadic analysis of doctor-patient communication," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 763-768, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:352-363. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.