Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Research

The factors affecting implementing shared decision-making in clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey of clinical research coordinators’ perceptions in Japan

Authors: Miho Fujita, Yuki Yonekura, Kazuhiro Nakayama

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The shared decision-making model has been proposed as the ideal treatment decision-making process in medical encounters. However, the decision to participate in clinical trials rarely involves shared decision-making. In this study, we investigated the perceptions of Japanese clinical research coordinators who routinely support the informed consent process.

Methods

This study aimed to (1) identify clinical research coordinators’ perceptions of the current status of shared decision-making implementation and its influencing factors, and (2) obtain suggestions to enhance the shared decision-making process in clinical trials. A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a web questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned behaviour. Invitations were sent to 1087 Japanese medical institutions, and responses from the participants were captured via the web. The shared decision-making process in clinical trials was defined according to the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire for Doctors. The effect of the attitudes toward shared decision-making, clinical research coordinators’ subjective norms towards its implementation, perceived barriers to autonomous decision-making, and the number of difficult steps in the shared decision-making process on the shared decision-making current status as the shared decision-making intention was assessed by multiple regression analysis.

Results

In total, 373 clinical research coordinators responded to the questionnaire. Many believed that they were already implementing shared decision-making. Attitudes toward shared decision-making (t = 3.400, p < .001), clinical research coordinators’ subjective norms towards its implementation (t = 2.239, p = .026), perceived barriers to autonomous decision-making (t = 3.957, p < .001), and the number of difficult steps in the shared decision-making process (t = 3.317, p = .001) were found to significantly influence current status (Adjusted R2 = .123). However, results on perceived barriers to autonomous decision-making and the number of difficult steps in the shared decision-making process indicate a lack of knowledge of shared decision-making and decision-support skills among clinical research coordinators.

Conclusions

Clinical research coordinators might positively perceive shared decision-making based on normative beliefs without sufficient knowledge of it. Therefore, providing appropriate training on shared decision-making to clinical research coordinators and increasing awareness among stakeholders could enable its improvement.

Trial registration

Not applicable.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Miller FG, Rosenstein DL. The therapeutic orientation to clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1383–6.CrossRefPubMed Miller FG, Rosenstein DL. The therapeutic orientation to clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1383–6.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–92.CrossRefPubMed Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–92.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making—pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:780–1.CrossRefPubMed Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making—pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:780–1.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Härter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:94–9.CrossRefPubMed Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Härter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:94–9.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH, De Haes JC. Shared decision making: concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98:1172–9.CrossRefPubMed Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH, De Haes JC. Shared decision making: concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98:1172–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Lewis J. Does shared decision making respect a patient’s relational autonomy? J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25:1063–9.CrossRefPubMed Lewis J. Does shared decision making respect a patient’s relational autonomy? J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25:1063–9.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986. ((Japanese edition: Hata Y, Sakai T. Japan: Misuzu -shobou; 1994, 2007)). Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986. ((Japanese edition: Hata Y, Sakai T. Japan: Misuzu -shobou; 1994, 2007)).
8.
go back to reference Childress JF. Needed: a more rigorous analysis of models of decision making and a richer account of respect for autonomy. Am J Bioeth. 2017;17:52–4.CrossRefPubMed Childress JF. Needed: a more rigorous analysis of models of decision making and a richer account of respect for autonomy. Am J Bioeth. 2017;17:52–4.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Hallinan ZP, Forrest A, Uhlenbrauck G, Young S, McKinney R Jr. Barriers to change in the informed consent process: a systematic literature review. IRB. 2016;38:1–10.PubMed Hallinan ZP, Forrest A, Uhlenbrauck G, Young S, McKinney R Jr. Barriers to change in the informed consent process: a systematic literature review. IRB. 2016;38:1–10.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, Kondilis BK, Peppas G. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg. 2009;198:420–35.CrossRefPubMed Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, Kondilis BK, Peppas G. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg. 2009;198:420–35.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Montalvo W, Larson E. Participant comprehension of research for which they volunteer: a systematic review. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2014;46:423–31.CrossRefPubMed Montalvo W, Larson E. Participant comprehension of research for which they volunteer: a systematic review. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2014;46:423–31.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Tam NT, Huy NT, le Thoa TB, Long NP, Trang NTH, Hirayama K, et al. Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93:186–98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tam NT, Huy NT, le Thoa TB, Long NP, Trang NTH, Hirayama K, et al. Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93:186–98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Nielsen ZE, Berthelsen CB. Cancer patients’ perceptions of factors influencing their decisions on participation in clinical drug trials: a qualitative meta-synthesis. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28:2443–61.CrossRefPubMed Nielsen ZE, Berthelsen CB. Cancer patients’ perceptions of factors influencing their decisions on participation in clinical drug trials: a qualitative meta-synthesis. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28:2443–61.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Speicher LA, Fromell G, Avery S, Brassil D, Carlson L, Stevens E, et al. The critical need for academic health centers to assess the training, support, and career development requirements of clinical research coordinators: recommendations from the Clinical and Translational Science Award Research Coordinator Taskforce. Clin Transl Sci. 2012;5:470–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Speicher LA, Fromell G, Avery S, Brassil D, Carlson L, Stevens E, et al. The critical need for academic health centers to assess the training, support, and career development requirements of clinical research coordinators: recommendations from the Clinical and Translational Science Award Research Coordinator Taskforce. Clin Transl Sci. 2012;5:470–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Shiono YN, Zheng YF, Kikuya M, Kawai M, Ishida T, Kuriyama S, et al. Participants’ understanding of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) through informed consent procedures in the RCT for breast cancer screening. J-START Trials. 2014;15:375.CrossRefPubMed Shiono YN, Zheng YF, Kikuya M, Kawai M, Ishida T, Kuriyama S, et al. Participants’ understanding of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) through informed consent procedures in the RCT for breast cancer screening. J-START Trials. 2014;15:375.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Miyata K, Sato K. Attitude of patients toward clinical trials, they were approached about entering a clinical trial. Jpn J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;45:11–5 ((in Japanese)).CrossRef Miyata K, Sato K. Attitude of patients toward clinical trials, they were approached about entering a clinical trial. Jpn J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;45:11–5 ((in Japanese)).CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Fujita M. Needs assessment for the development of the decision aid for considering participation in clinical trials, using patient blog posts in Japan. Jpn J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;48:1097–100 ((in Japanese)). Fujita M. Needs assessment for the development of the decision aid for considering participation in clinical trials, using patient blog posts in Japan. Jpn J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;48:1097–100 ((in Japanese)).
19.
go back to reference Moulton H, Moulton B, Lahey T, Elwyn G. Can consent to participate in clinical research involve shared decision making? AMA J Ethics. 2020;22:365–71.CrossRef Moulton H, Moulton B, Lahey T, Elwyn G. Can consent to participate in clinical research involve shared decision making? AMA J Ethics. 2020;22:365–71.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Buchholz A, Härter M. Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire—physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88:284–90.CrossRefPubMed Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Buchholz A, Härter M. Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire—physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88:284–90.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Goto Y, Miura H, Son D, Scholl I, Kriston L, Härter M, et al. Association between physicians’ and patients’ perspectives of shared decision making in primary care settings in Japan: the impact of environmental factors. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0246518.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Goto Y, Miura H, Son D, Scholl I, Kriston L, Härter M, et al. Association between physicians’ and patients’ perspectives of shared decision making in primary care settings in Japan: the impact of environmental factors. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0246518.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Thompson-Leduc P, Clayman ML, Turcotte S, Légaré F. Shared decision-making behaviours in health professionals: a systematic review of studies based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Health Expect. 2015;18:754–74.CrossRefPubMed Thompson-Leduc P, Clayman ML, Turcotte S, Légaré F. Shared decision-making behaviours in health professionals: a systematic review of studies based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Health Expect. 2015;18:754–74.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Godin G, Bélanger-Gravel A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Healthcare professionals’ intentions and behaviours: a systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories. Implement Sci. 2008;3:36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Godin G, Bélanger-Gravel A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Healthcare professionals’ intentions and behaviours: a systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories. Implement Sci. 2008;3:36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211.CrossRef Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Gulbrandsen P, Clayman ML, Beach MC, Han PK, Boss EF, Ofstad EH, et al. Shared decision-making as an existential journey: aiming for restored autonomous capacity. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99:1505–10.CrossRefPubMed Gulbrandsen P, Clayman ML, Beach MC, Han PK, Boss EF, Ofstad EH, et al. Shared decision-making as an existential journey: aiming for restored autonomous capacity. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99:1505–10.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Sasahara T, Miyashita M, Kawa M, Kazuma K. Difficulties encountered by nurses in the care of terminally ill cancer patients in general hospitals in Japan. Palliat Med. 2003;17:520–6.CrossRefPubMed Sasahara T, Miyashita M, Kawa M, Kazuma K. Difficulties encountered by nurses in the care of terminally ill cancer patients in general hospitals in Japan. Palliat Med. 2003;17:520–6.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Onodera M, Kumata M, Ogiri N, Asano R, Ogasawara K, Goto A, et al. Development of scale to measure nurses’ difficulty with cancer care (NDCC). Palliat Care Res. 2013;8:240–7 ((in Japanese with English abstract)).CrossRef Onodera M, Kumata M, Ogiri N, Asano R, Ogasawara K, Goto A, et al. Development of scale to measure nurses’ difficulty with cancer care (NDCC). Palliat Care Res. 2013;8:240–7 ((in Japanese with English abstract)).CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Fukushima Y, Nakahara A, Nakano S. Stressful situations and related factors experienced by clinical research coordinators (CRCs) in Japan. Jpn J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:69–80 ((in Japanese)). Fukushima Y, Nakahara A, Nakano S. Stressful situations and related factors experienced by clinical research coordinators (CRCs) in Japan. Jpn J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:69–80 ((in Japanese)).
29.
go back to reference Fujita M, Yonekura Y, Osaka W, Nakayama K. Current status and issues of informed consent forms from the quality standards of decision aid: including interviews with stakeholders. Jpn J Clin Pharmacol Ther [Rinsho yakuri]. 2019;50:247–57 ((in Japanese with English abstract)).CrossRef Fujita M, Yonekura Y, Osaka W, Nakayama K. Current status and issues of informed consent forms from the quality standards of decision aid: including interviews with stakeholders. Jpn J Clin Pharmacol Ther [Rinsho yakuri]. 2019;50:247–57 ((in Japanese with English abstract)).CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Kline RB. Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2015. Kline RB. Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2015.
31.
go back to reference Gravel K, Légaré F, Graham ID. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Implement Sci. 2006;1:16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gravel K, Légaré F, Graham ID. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Implement Sci. 2006;1:16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Légaré F, Ratté S, Gravel K, Graham ID. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:526–35.CrossRefPubMed Légaré F, Ratté S, Gravel K, Graham ID. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:526–35.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The factors affecting implementing shared decision-making in clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey of clinical research coordinators’ perceptions in Japan
Authors
Miho Fujita
Yuki Yonekura
Kazuhiro Nakayama
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02138-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2023 Go to the issue