Nav: Home

Focus on treatment decisions: Doctor and patient should decide together

October 23, 2015

Doctor and patient decide together which treatment to perform--this ideal is now anchored in the Law on Patient Rights and the Professional Code for Physicians in Germany. Shared decision making, in which doctor and patient exchange knowledge concerning the patient's disease and its treatments, discuss treatment options, and jointly choose one, is the gold standard. This edition of Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, which focuses on patient involvement, contains two original articles investigating the following questions: Do patients benefit from shared decision making? Is treatment more effective as a result? How do physicians gain from training in shared decision making?

In their systematic review, Katarina Hauser et al. (Dtsch Arztebl Int 2015; 112: 665-71) investigate studies in which some patients took part in shared decision making, while the treatment decisions of others were made in the conventional way. They used disease-relevant endpoints in order to compare the efficacy of treatment in the two patient groups. Treatment outcomes were found to improve after shared decision making in just under half of the studies. However, the authors state that they were unable to reach a definite conclusion regarding shared decision making because it was only possible to evaluate a small number of papers: just 22 studies met the inclusion criteria.

Martin Härter et al. (Dtsch Arztebl Int 2015; 112: 672-9) conducted a randomized controlled trial to analyze whether physicians were better prepared for consultations on treatment decisions with their cancer patients after 12 hours of training in shared decision making, and whether the patients benefited as a result. Patients were interviewed immediately before and three months after their doctor-patient consultations, using a questionnaire which included questions concerning their confidence in and satisfaction with their treatment decisions. This revealed that patients of physicians who had been trained in shared decision making were no more confident in their decisions than those of physicians who had not. However, after training, the physicians' shared decision-making skills were better, and their patients had slightly lower scores for anxiety and depression. The authors point out that physicians participating in shared decision making training programs have many hurdles to overcome and therefore only 23 of the 900 originally contacted physicians completed the whole trial. They call for the promotion and funding of studies on shared decision-making training and evaluation.

Deutsches Aerzteblatt International

Related Decisions Articles:

How do brains remember decisions?
Mammal brains -- including those of humans -- store and recall impressive amounts of information based on our good and bad decisions and interactions in an ever-changing world.
How the brain helps us make good decisions -- and bad ones
A prevailing theory in neuroscience holds that people make decisions based on integrated global calculations that occur within the frontal cortex of the brain.
How we make complex decisions
MIT neuroscientists have identified a brain circuit that helps break complex decisions down into smaller pieces.
Opposites attract and, together, they can make surprisingly gratifying decisions
Little is known about how consumers make decisions together. A new study by researchers from Boston College, Georgia Tech and Washington State University finds pairs with opposing interpersonal orientations -- the selfish versus the altruistic -- can reach amicable decisions about what to watch on TV, or where to eat, for example.
Group decisions: When more information isn't necessarily better
Modular -- or cliquey -- group structure isolates the flow of communication between individuals, which might seem counterproductive to survival.
More Decisions News and Decisions Current Events

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Erasing The Stigma
Many of us either cope with mental illness or know someone who does. But we still have a hard time talking about it. This hour, TED speakers explore ways to push past — and even erase — the stigma. Guests include musician and comedian Jordan Raskopoulos, neuroscientist and psychiatrist Thomas Insel, psychiatrist Dixon Chibanda, anxiety and depression researcher Olivia Remes, and entrepreneur Sangu Delle.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#537 Science Journalism, Hold the Hype
Everyone's seen a piece of science getting over-exaggerated in the media. Most people would be quick to blame journalists and big media for getting in wrong. In many cases, you'd be right. But there's other sources of hype in science journalism. and one of them can be found in the humble, and little-known press release. We're talking with Chris Chambers about doing science about science journalism, and where the hype creeps in. Related links: The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study Claims of causality in health news: a randomised trial This...