IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i24p4966-d295230.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared Decision Making and Choice for Bariatric Surgery

Author

Listed:
  • Yi-Chih Lee

    (Department of International Business, Chien Hsin University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan 32097, Taiwan)

  • Wei-Li Wu

    (Department of International Business, Chien Hsin University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan 32097, Taiwan)

Abstract

The number of people undergoing bariatric surgery is increasing every year, and their expectations for surgery often differ greatly. The purpose of this study was to develop a patient-centered decision-making aid to help people define their weight loss goals and assist them in discussing their surgical treatment with surgeons. Before the operation, the patients were asked to read the shared decision-making text and conduct a self-assessment. After the operation, we evaluated the program using survey questionnaires. A total of 103 patients were formally included in this study. The results show that patients were very satisfied with the use of patient decision aids (PDAs), with a score of 4.3 points (±0.6), and the postoperative decision-making satisfaction was also very high, at 4.4 points (±0.5), while the postoperative regret score was low, at 1.6 points (±0.6). Their satisfaction with surgical decision making and decision regret were statistically significantly negatively correlated ( r = −0.711, p < 0.001). The experience of using PDAs was statistically significantly negatively correlated with decision regret ( r = −0.451, p < 0.001); the experience of PDA use was statistically positively correlated with decision satisfaction ( r = 0.522, p < 0.001). Patient decision aids are a means of helping patients make informed choices before they seek to undergo bariatric surgery.

Suggested Citation

  • Yi-Chih Lee & Wei-Li Wu, 2019. "Shared Decision Making and Choice for Bariatric Surgery," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:24:p:4966-:d:295230
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/24/4966/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/24/4966/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Jill Kroll & Neal Schmitt & David R. Rovner & M. Lynn Breer & Marilyn L. Rothert & Georgia Padonu & Geraldine Talarczyk, 1996. "Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 58-64, February.
    2. Jamie C. Brehaut & Annette M. O'Connor & Timothy J. Wood & Thomas F. Hack & Laura Siminoff & Elisa Gordon & Deb Feldman-Stewart, 2003. "Validation of a Decision Regret Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(4), pages 281-292, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shan-Fu Yu & Hui-Ting Wang & Meng-Wei Chang & Tien-Tsai Cheng & Jia-Feng Chen & Chia-Li Lin & Hsing-Tse Yu, 2022. "Determining the Development Strategy and Suited Adoption Paths for the Core Competence of Shared Decision-Making Tasks through the SAA-NRM Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-23, October.

    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. Sean T. O’Leary & Steven Lockhart & Juliana Barnard & Anna Furniss & Miriam Dickinson & Amanda F. Dempsey & Shannon Stokley & Steven Federico & Michael Bronsert & Allison Kempe, 2018. "Exploring Facilitators and Barriers to Initiation and Completion of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Series among Parents of Girls in a Safety Net System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Yueh-Ling Liao & Tsae-Jyy Wang & Chien-Wei Su & Shu-Yuan Liang & Chieh-Yu Liu & Jun-Yu Fan, 2023. "Efficacy of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Related to Hepatocellular Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 32(1), pages 233-243, January.
    3. Sjaak Molenaar & Mirjam A.G. Sprangers & Fenna C.E. Postma-Schuit & Emiel J. Th. Rutgers & Josje Noorlander & Joop Hendriks & Hanneke C.J.M. De Haes, 2000. "Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 112-127, January.
    4. Blanca Lumbreras & Lucy Anne Parker & Pablo Alonso-Coello & Javier Mira-Bernabeu & Luis Gómez-Pérez & Juan Pablo Caballero-Romeu & Salvador Pertusa-Martínez & Ana Cebrián-Cuenca & Irene Moral-Peláez &, 2022. "PROSHADE Protocol: Designing and Evaluating a Decision Aid for Promoting Shared Decision Making in Opportunistic Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Mix-Method Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-9, July.
    5. Maya Kylén & Ulla-Karin Schön & Hélène Pessah-Rasmussen & Marie Elf, 2022. "Patient Participation and the Environment: A Scoping Review of Instruments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-17, February.
    6. Mookherjee, Satadruta & Lee, Jennifer J. & Sung, Billy, 2021. "Multichannel presence, boon or curse?: A comparison in price, loyalty, regret, and disappointment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 429-440.
    7. Omar Shamieh & Ghadeer Alarjeh & Mohammad Al Qadire & Waleed Alrjoub & Mahmoud Abu-Nasser & Fadi Abu Farsakh & Abdelrahman AlHawamdeh & Mohammad Al-Omari & Zaid Amin & Omar Ayaad & Amal Al-Tabba & Dav, 2023. "Decision-Making Preferences among Advanced Cancer Patients in a Palliative Setting in Jordan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(8), pages 1-13, April.
    8. Richard L. Street JR & Becky Voigt, 1997. "Patient Participation in Deciding Breast Cancer Treatment and Subsequent Quality of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(3), pages 298-306, July.
    9. Hemmerich, Joshua A. & Elstein, Arthur S. & Schwarze, Margaret L. & Moliski, Elizabeth Ghini & Dale, William, 2012. "Risk as feelings in the effect of patient outcomes on physicians' future treatment decisions: A randomized trial and manipulation validation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 367-376.
    10. Christian Gollier, 2020. "Aversion to risk of regret and preference for positively skewed risks," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(4), pages 913-941, November.
    11. Wood, Matthew S. & Williams, David W. & Drover, Will, 2017. "Past as prologue: Entrepreneurial inaction decisions and subsequent action judgments," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-127.
    12. García-Pola, Bernardo, 2020. "Do people minimize regret in strategic situations? A level-k comparison," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 82-104.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:24:p:4966-:d:295230. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.