Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 6/2013

01-06-2013 | Reviews

Implementing Clinical Practice Guidelines About Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Through Shared Decision Making

Authors: Mary C. Politi, PhD, Kathleen Y. Wolin, ScD, France Légaré, MD, PhD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 6/2013

Login to get access

ABSTRACT

Clinical practice guidelines aim to improve the health of patients by guiding individual care in clinical settings. Many guidelines specifically about health promotion or primary disease prevention are beginning to support informed patient choice, and suggest that clinicians and patients engage in shared discussions to determine how best to tailor guidelines to individuals. However, guidelines generally do not address how to translate evidence from the population to the individual in clinical practice, or how to engage patients in these discussions. In addition, they often fail to reconcile patients’ preferences and social norms with best evidence. Shared decision making (SDM) is one solution to bridge guidelines about health promotion and disease prevention with clinical practice. SDM describes a collaborative process between patients and their clinicians to reach agreement about a health decision involving multiple medically appropriate treatment options. This paper discusses: 1) a brief overview of SDM; 2) the potential role of SDM in facilitating the implementation of prevention-focused practice guidelines for both preference-sensitive and effective care decisions; and 3) avenues for future empirical research to test how best to engage individual patients and clinicians in these complex discussions about prevention guidelines. We suggest that SDM can provide a structure for clinicians to discuss clinical practice guidelines with patients in a way that is evidence-based, patient-centered, and incorporates patients’ preferences. In addition to providing a model for communicating about uncertainty at the individual level, SDM can provide a platform for engaging patients in a conversation. This process can help manage patients’ and clinicians’ expectations about health behaviors. SDM can be used even in situations with strong evidence for benefits at the level of the population, by helping patients and clinicians prioritize behaviors during time-pressured medical encounters. Involving patients in discussions could lead to improved health through better adherence to chosen options, reduced practice variation about preference-sensitive options, and improved care more broadly. However, more research is needed to determine the impact of this approach on outcomes such as morbidity and mortality.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Field MJ, Lohr KN. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program, Institute of Medicine Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Washington: National Academies Press; 1990. Field MJ, Lohr KN. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program, Institute of Medicine Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Washington: National Academies Press; 1990.
2.
go back to reference Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eckles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318:527–30.PubMedCrossRef Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eckles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318:527–30.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Tetroe J. Implementing clinical guidelines: current evidence and future implications. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004;24:S31–7.PubMedCrossRef Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Tetroe J. Implementing clinical guidelines: current evidence and future implications. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004;24:S31–7.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Grol R. Improving the quality of medical care: building bridges among professional pride, payer profit, and patient satisfaction. JAMA. 2001;286:2578–85.PubMedCrossRef Grol R. Improving the quality of medical care: building bridges among professional pride, payer profit, and patient satisfaction. JAMA. 2001;286:2578–85.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Pearson TA, Blair SN, Daniels SR, et al. AHA Guidelines for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke: 2002 Update Consensus Panel Guide to Comprehensive Risk Reduction for Adult Patients Without Coronary or Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Diseases. Circulation. 2002;106:388–91.PubMedCrossRef Pearson TA, Blair SN, Daniels SR, et al. AHA Guidelines for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke: 2002 Update Consensus Panel Guide to Comprehensive Risk Reduction for Adult Patients Without Coronary or Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Diseases. Circulation. 2002;106:388–91.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:157–60.CrossRef U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:157–60.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282.
10.
go back to reference Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4. Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4.
11.
go back to reference Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:301–12.PubMedCrossRef Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:301–12.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Coylewright M, Montori V, Ting HH. Patient-centered shared decision making: a public imperative. Am J Med. 2012;125:545–7.PubMedCrossRef Coylewright M, Montori V, Ting HH. Patient-centered shared decision making: a public imperative. Am J Med. 2012;125:545–7.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. Shared Decision Making: A Model for Clinical Practice. 2012;27(10):1361–7. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. Shared Decision Making: A Model for Clinical Practice. 2012;27(10):1361–7.
15.
go back to reference Mann DM, Ponieman D, Montori VM, et al. The Statin Choice decision aid in primary care: a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:138–40.PubMedCrossRef Mann DM, Ponieman D, Montori VM, et al. The Statin Choice decision aid in primary care: a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:138–40.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, et al. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341. Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, et al. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341.
19.
go back to reference Legare F, Stacey D, Forest P-G. Shared decision-making in Canada: update, challenges and where next. Ger J Qual Health Care. 2007;101:213–21. Legare F, Stacey D, Forest P-G. Shared decision-making in Canada: update, challenges and where next. Ger J Qual Health Care. 2007;101:213–21.
20.
go back to reference Street RL. Aiding medical decision making: a communication perspective. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:550–3.PubMedCrossRef Street RL. Aiding medical decision making: a communication perspective. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:550–3.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Wennberg J. Time to tackle unwarranted variations in practice. BMJ. 2011;342:d1513.CrossRef Wennberg J. Time to tackle unwarranted variations in practice. BMJ. 2011;342:d1513.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Sirovich B, Gallager PM, Wennberg DE, et al. Discretionary decision making by primary care physicians and the cost of U.S. health care. Heal Aff. 2008;27:813–23.CrossRef Sirovich B, Gallager PM, Wennberg DE, et al. Discretionary decision making by primary care physicians and the cost of U.S. health care. Heal Aff. 2008;27:813–23.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Evans R, Edwards A, Brett J, et al. Reduction in uptake of PSA tests following decision aids: systematic review of current aids and their evaluations. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;58:13–26.PubMedCrossRef Evans R, Edwards A, Brett J, et al. Reduction in uptake of PSA tests following decision aids: systematic review of current aids and their evaluations. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;58:13–26.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Politi MC, Han PKJ, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:681–95.PubMedCrossRef Politi MC, Han PKJ, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:681–95.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Steiner JF. Talking about treatment: the language of populations and the language of individuals. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:618–22.PubMedCrossRef Steiner JF. Talking about treatment: the language of populations and the language of individuals. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:618–22.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Djulbegovic B, Paul A. From efficacy to effectiveness in the face of uncertainty. JAMA. 2011;305:2005–6.PubMedCrossRef Djulbegovic B, Paul A. From efficacy to effectiveness in the face of uncertainty. JAMA. 2011;305:2005–6.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Lewis CL, Golin CE, DeLeon C, et al. A targeted decision aid for the elderly to decide whether to undergo colorectal cancer screening: development and results of an uncontrolled trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2010;10:54.CrossRef Lewis CL, Golin CE, DeLeon C, et al. A targeted decision aid for the elderly to decide whether to undergo colorectal cancer screening: development and results of an uncontrolled trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2010;10:54.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Boivin A, Legare F, Gagnon MP. Competing norms: Canadian rural family physicians’ perceptions of clinical practice guidelines and shared decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13:79–84.PubMedCrossRef Boivin A, Legare F, Gagnon MP. Competing norms: Canadian rural family physicians’ perceptions of clinical practice guidelines and shared decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13:79–84.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Johnson CG, Levenkron JC, Suchman AL, et al. Does physician uncertainty affect patient satisfaction? J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3:144–9.PubMedCrossRef Johnson CG, Levenkron JC, Suchman AL, et al. Does physician uncertainty affect patient satisfaction? J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3:144–9.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Parascandola M, Hawkins J, Danis M. Patient autonomy and the challenge of clinical uncertainty. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2002;12:245–64.PubMedCrossRef Parascandola M, Hawkins J, Danis M. Patient autonomy and the challenge of clinical uncertainty. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2002;12:245–64.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Tosteson AN, Grove MR, Hammond CS, et al. Early discontinuation of treatment for osteoporosis. Am J Med. 2003;115:209–16.PubMedCrossRef Tosteson AN, Grove MR, Hammond CS, et al. Early discontinuation of treatment for osteoporosis. Am J Med. 2003;115:209–16.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Frosch D, Rollnick S. Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions. Implement Sci. 2009;4:75.PubMedCrossRef Elwyn G, Frosch D, Rollnick S. Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions. Implement Sci. 2009;4:75.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference O’Connor AM, Bennett C, Stacey D, et al. Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:554–74.PubMedCrossRef O’Connor AM, Bennett C, Stacey D, et al. Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:554–74.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Joosten EAG, DeFuentes-Merillasa L, de Weertc GH, et al. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom. 2008;77:219–26.PubMedCrossRef Joosten EAG, DeFuentes-Merillasa L, de Weertc GH, et al. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom. 2008;77:219–26.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Legare F, Ratte S, Gravel K, et al. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;73:526–35.CrossRef Legare F, Ratte S, Gravel K, et al. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;73:526–35.CrossRef
39.
40.
go back to reference Say R, Murtagh M, Thomson R. Patients’ preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:102–14.PubMedCrossRef Say R, Murtagh M, Thomson R. Patients’ preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:102–14.PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patients’ preferences for risk disclosure and role in decision making for invasive medical procedures. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:114–7.PubMedCrossRef Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patients’ preferences for risk disclosure and role in decision making for invasive medical procedures. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:114–7.PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Crawford ED, Bennett CL, Stone NN, et al. Comparison of perspectives on prostate cancer: analyses of survey data. Urology. 1997;50:366–72.PubMedCrossRef Crawford ED, Bennett CL, Stone NN, et al. Comparison of perspectives on prostate cancer: analyses of survey data. Urology. 1997;50:366–72.PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Rockhill B. Theorizing about causes at the individual level while estimating effects at the population level: implications for prevention. Epidemiol Soc. 2005;16:124–9.CrossRef Rockhill B. Theorizing about causes at the individual level while estimating effects at the population level: implications for prevention. Epidemiol Soc. 2005;16:124–9.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Frosch D, Volandes AE, et al. Investing in deliberation: a definition and classification of decision support interventions for people facing difficult health decisions. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:701–11.PubMedCrossRef Elwyn G, Frosch D, Volandes AE, et al. Investing in deliberation: a definition and classification of decision support interventions for people facing difficult health decisions. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:701–11.PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference van der Weijden T, Boivin A, Burgers J, et al. Clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids. An inevitable relationship. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:584–9.PubMedCrossRef van der Weijden T, Boivin A, Burgers J, et al. Clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids. An inevitable relationship. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:584–9.PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:54–9.PubMedCrossRef Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:54–9.PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Drake RE, Deegan PE. Shared decision making Is an ethical imperative. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60:1009.CrossRef Drake RE, Deegan PE. Shared decision making Is an ethical imperative. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60:1009.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Implementing Clinical Practice Guidelines About Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Through Shared Decision Making
Authors
Mary C. Politi, PhD
Kathleen Y. Wolin, ScD
France Légaré, MD, PhD
Publication date
01-06-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 6/2013
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2321-0

Other articles of this Issue 6/2013

Journal of General Internal Medicine 6/2013 Go to the issue

Healing Arts: Materia Medica

Open Wide

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.