IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v26y2006i4p373-390.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict

Author

Listed:
  • France Légaré

    (Department of Family Medicine, Laval University, Hôpital St. François d'Assise, 10, rue de l'Espinay, Québec G1L 3L5, Canada france.legare@mfa.ulaval.ca.)

  • Annette M. O'Connor
  • Ian D. Graham
  • Georges A. Wells

    (University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

  • Stéphane Tremblay

Abstract

Background . The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) provides a process that facilitates shared decision making. Objective . To assess the impact of implementing the ODSF on the agreement and the difference between patients' and physicians' decisional conflict scores. Design . In total, 120 physicians and 903 patients enrolled in this before-and-after study. Implementation of the ODSF was composed of an interactive workshop, feedback, and a reminder at the point of care. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) was completed by physicians and patients after a clinical encounter. Results . The intraclass correlation coefficient was–0.205 ± 0.096 (95% confidence interval [CI]= – 0.224 to –0.186) before implementing the ODSF and– 0.013 ± 0.114 (95% CI = – 0.036 to 0.009) after. At the patient level, the following factors were significantly associated with the difference between the patients' and physicians' DCS: unemployed (P = 0.023), implementing the ODSF (P = 0.008), high school degree (P = 0.04), male (P = 0.03), and unilateral role in decision making (P = 0.03). At the physician level, provincial committee (P = 0.001), national committee (P = 0.045), clinical site (P = 0.016), reluctance to share uncertainty (P = 0.023), and anxiety due to uncertainty (P = 0.017) were significantly associated with this outcome. Conclusion . After implementing the ODSF, there was less dissimilarity between patients' and physicians' DSC than expected by chance than before. Implementing the ODSF was also found to be associated with the difference between patients' and physicians' DSC. The physician level explained a significant amount of the variance in this outcome, thus emphasizing the importance of an intervention at this level.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:4:p:373-390
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06290492
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06290492
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06290492?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. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    2. Mead, Nicola & Bower, Peter, 2000. "Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(7), pages 1087-1110, October.
    3. Starfield, B. & Wray, C. & Hess, K. & Gross, R. & Birk, P.S. & D'Lugoff, B.C., 1981. "The influence of patient-practitioner agreement on outcome of care," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 71(2), pages 127-132.
    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. 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.

    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. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    2. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    3. Jennifer Chamberlain-Salaun & Kim Usher & Jane Mills, 2020. "Outsiders in the Experts’ World: A Grounded Theory Study of Consumers and the Social World of Health Care," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    4. Hardman, Doug & Geraghty, Adam W.A. & Lown, Mark & Bishop, Felicity L., 2020. "Subjunctive medicine: Enacting efficacy in general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    5. Diamond-Brown, Lauren, 2018. "“It can be challenging, it can be scary, it can be gratifying”: Obstetricians’ narratives of negotiating patient choice, clinical experience, and standards of care in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 48-54.
    6. Smith, Sian K. & Dixon, Ann & Trevena, Lyndal & Nutbeam, Don & McCaffery, Kirsten J., 2009. "Exploring patient involvement in healthcare decision making across different education and functional health literacy groups," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1805-1812, December.
    7. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    8. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    9. Mitchell, Ellen M.H. & Kwizera, Amata & Usta, Momade & Gebreselassie, Hailemichael, 2010. "Choosing early pregnancy termination methods in Urban Mozambique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 62-70, July.
    10. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    11. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    12. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    13. Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    14. Meike Müller-Engelmann & Norbert Donner-Banzhoff & Heidi Keller & Lydia Rosinger & Carsten Sauer & Kerstin Rehfeldt & Tanja Krones, 2013. "When Decisions Should Be Shared," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 37-47, January.
    15. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    16. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    17. Manzer, Jamie L. & Bell, Ann V., 2022. "The limitations of patient-centered care: The case of early long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) removal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    18. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    19. Ruth Astbury & Ashley Shepherd & Helen Cheyne, 2017. "Working in partnership: the application of shared decision‐making to health visitor practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1-2), pages 215-224, January.
    20. May, Carl & Rapley, Tim & Moreira, Tiago & Finch, Tracy & Heaven, Ben, 2006. "Technogovernance: Evidence, subjectivity, and the clinical encounter in primary care medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 1022-1030, February.

    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:26:y:2006:i:4:p:373-390. 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.