IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i4p430-438.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared Decision Making during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Anja K. Köther

    (Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)

  • Katharina U. Siebenhaar

    (Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)

  • Georg W. Alpers

    (Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)

Abstract

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic pushed some of the most well-developed health care systems to their limits. In many cases, this has challenged patient-centered care. We set out to examine individuals’ attitudes toward shared decision making (SDM) and to identify predictors of participation preference during the pandemic. Methods We conducted an online survey with a large convenience sample ( N = 1061). Our main measures of interest were participants’ generic and COVID-19–related participation preference as well as their acceptance and distress regarding a triage vignette. We also assessed anxiety, e-health literacy, and aspects of participants’ health. We conducted group comparisons and multiple linear regression analyses on participation preference as well as triage acceptance. Results In generic decision making, most participants expressed a strong need for information and a moderate participation preference. In the hypothetical case of COVID-19 infection, most preferred physician-led decisions. Generic participation preference was the strongest predictor of COVID-19–related participation preference, followed by age, education, and anxiety. Furthermore, both higher generic and COVID-19–related participation preferences predicted lower triage acceptance. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate potential health care recipients’ attitudes toward SDM during a severe health care crisis and emphasize that participation preference varies according to the context.

Suggested Citation

  • Anja K. Köther & Katharina U. Siebenhaar & Georg W. Alpers, 2021. "Shared Decision Making during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 430-438, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:4:p:430-438
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211004147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211004147
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211004147?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. Flynn, Kathryn E. & Smith, Maureen A. & Vanness, David, 2006. "A typology of preferences for participation in healthcare decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1158-1169, September.
    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.
    2. Md Altab Hossin & Lie Chen & Md Sajjad Hosain & Isaac Owusu Asante, 2022. "Does COVID-19 Fear Induce Employee Innovation Performance Deficiency? Examining the Mediating Role of Psychological Stress and Moderating Role of Organizational Career Support," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-22, August.

    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. Julie P. W. Bynum & Laura Barre & Catherine Reed & Honor Passow, 2014. "Participation of Very Old Adults in Health Care Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(2), pages 216-230, February.
    2. Semra Özdemir & Ateesha F. Mohamed & F. Reed Johnson & A. Brett Hauber, 2010. "Who pays attention in stated‐choice surveys?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 111-118, January.
    3. Meinow, Bettina & Parker, Marti G. & Thorslund, Mats, 2011. "Consumers of eldercare in Sweden: The semblance of choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(9), pages 1285-1289.
    4. Sophia Fischer & Katja Soyez & Sebastian Gurtner, 2015. "Adapting Scott and Bruce’s General Decision-Making Style Inventory to Patient Decision Making in Provider Choice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 525-532, May.
    5. Eric Reither & Robert Hauser & Karen Swallen, 2009. "Predicting adult health and mortality from adolescent facial characteristics in yearbook photographs," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 46(1), pages 27-41, February.
    6. Rachael Gooberman-Hill, 2012. "Qualitative Approaches to Understanding Patient Preferences," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 215-223, December.
    7. Melanie Meyer, 2017. "Is Financial Literacy a Determinant of Health?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(4), pages 381-387, August.

    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:41:y:2021:i:4:p:430-438. 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.