Integrating patient perspectives in medical decision-making: a qualitative interview study examining potentials within the rare disease information exchange process in practice

BackgroundMany European countries have recently implemented national rare disease plans. Although the network is strengthening, especially on the macro and meso levels, patients still go a long way through healthcare systems, with many health professionals involved and scarce evidence to gather. Specifically, patient involvement in the form of shared decision-making can offer further potential to increase healthcare systems’ efficiency on a micro level. Therefore, we examine the implementation of the shared decision-making concept thus far, and explore whether efficiency potentials exist—which are particularly relevant within the rare disease field—and how they can be triggered.MethodsOur empirical evidence comes from 101 interviews conducted from March to September 2014 in Germany; 55 patients, 13 family members, and 33 health professionals participated in a qualitative interview study. Transcripts were analyzed using a directed qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe interviews indicate that the decision-making process is increasingly relevant in practice. In comparison, however, the shared decision-making agreement itself was rarely reported. A majority of interactions are dominated by individual, informed decision-making, followed by paternalistic approaches. The patient-physician relationship was characterized by a distorted trust-building process, which is affected by not only dependencies due to the diseases’ severity and chronic course, but an often-reported stigmatization of patients as stimulants. Moreover, participation was high due to a pronounced engagement of those affected, diminishing as patients’ strength vanish during their odyssey through health care systems. The particular roles of “expert patients” or “lay experts” in the rare disease field were revealed, with further potential in integrating the gathered information.ConclusionsThe study reveals the named efficiency potentials, which are unique for rare diseases and make the further integration of shared decision-making very attractive, facilitating diagnostics and disease management. It is noteworthy that integrating shared decision-making in the rare disease field does not only require strengthening the position of patients but also that of physicians. Efforts can be made to further integrate the concept within political frameworks to trigger the identified potential and assess the health-economic impact.

[1]  T. Dudding-Byth,et al.  A powerful team: the family physician advocating for patients with a rare disease. , 2015, Australian family physician.

[2]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[3]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision , 2006, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[4]  Ana Babac,et al.  Adopting Quality Criteria for Websites Providing Medical Information About Rare Diseases , 2016, Interactive journal of medical research.

[5]  Christine M. Cutillo,et al.  Future of Rare Diseases Research 2017–2027: An IRDiRC Perspective , 2017, Clinical and translational science.

[6]  Ana Babac,et al.  Information Needs of People with Rare Diseases - What Information Do Patients and their Relatives Require? , 2016 .

[7]  France Légaré,et al.  [Shared decision-making and communication theory: grounding the tango]. , 2010, Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen.

[8]  D. D'cruz,et al.  Physician–patient communication in rheumatology: a systematic review , 2018, Rheumatology International.

[9]  A Coulter,et al.  Partnerships with Patients: The Pros and Cons of Shared Clinical Decision-Making , 1997, Journal of health services research & policy.

[10]  Sophie Desroches,et al.  Shared decision making and chronic diseases , 2010, Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology : Official Journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

[11]  Martin Spraggon,et al.  Governance mechanisms in the physician–patient relationship: a literature review and conceptual framework , 2013, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[12]  David Snadden,et al.  Exploring medication use to seek concordance with 'non-adherent' patients: a qualitative study. , 2002, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[13]  J. Reyher,et al.  Paternalistic vs egalitarian physician styles: the treatment of patients in crisis. , 1985, The Journal of family practice.

[14]  Livio Garattini,et al.  Patient empowerment in Europe: is no further research needed? , 2018, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[15]  Roland Fischer,et al.  Publication trends of shared decision making in 15 high impact medical journals: a full-text review with bibliometric analysis , 2014, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[16]  Ségolène Aymé,et al.  Rare disease policies to improve care for patients in Europe. , 2015, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[17]  L. Dellve,et al.  Stress and well-being among parents of children with rare diseases: a prospective intervention study. , 2006, Journal of advanced nursing.

[18]  K. Steven,et al.  Shared Decision Making , 2012, Onkologische Welt.

[19]  Janice M Morse Qualitative Comparison: Appropriateness, Equivalence, and Fit , 2004, Qualitative health research.

[20]  Carolyn Rutter,et al.  Introducing decision aids at Group Health was linked to sharply lower hip and knee surgery rates and costs. , 2012, Health affairs.

[21]  Harry Torrance,et al.  Building Confidence in Qualitative Research , 2008 .

[22]  Jörg Dirmaier,et al.  Comparing the nine‐item Shared Decision‐Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale – an attempt to establish convergent validity , 2015, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[23]  Ana Babac,et al.  Conceptualization and Implementation of the Central Information Portal on Rare Diseases: Protocol for a Qualitative Study , 2018, JMIR research protocols.

[24]  Stephan Schmitz,et al.  Patients’ Trust in Physician, Patient Enablement, and Health-Related Quality of Life During Colon Cancer Treatment , 2017, Journal of Cancer Education.

[25]  D. Mechanic,et al.  The functions and limitations of trust in the provision of medical care. , 1998, Journal of health politics, policy and law.

[26]  Domenica Taruscio,et al.  The need for worldwide policy and action plans for rare diseases , 2012, Acta paediatrica.

[27]  J. Powell,et al.  The doctor, the patient and the world-wide web: how the internet is changing healthcare. , 2003, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[28]  Tamandra K. Morgan,et al.  Using the Internet to Seek Information About Genetic and Rare Diseases: A Case Study Comparing Data From 2006 and 2011 , 2014, JMIR research protocols.

[29]  Kenneth L Kehl,et al.  Association of Actual and Preferred Decision Roles With Patient-Reported Quality of Care: Shared Decision Making in Cancer Care. , 2015, JAMA oncology.

[30]  G d'Elia [To know that the physician is really listening]. , 1999, Lakartidningen.

[31]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  Conceptualising patient empowerment: a mixed methods study , 2015, BMC Health Services Research.

[32]  Marianne S Matthias,et al.  Patients’ Understanding of Shared Decision Making in a Mental Health Setting , 2015, Qualitative health research.

[33]  Ingrid Mühlhauser,et al.  Implementation of shared decision-making in oncology: development and pilot study of a nurse-led decision-coaching programme for women with ductal carcinoma in situ , 2017, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[34]  Peter Salmon,et al.  The psychological processes involved in patient empowerment , 2012, Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases.

[35]  Roland M. Grad,et al.  Developing and user-testing Decision boxes to facilitate shared decision making in primary care - a study protocol , 2011, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[36]  Bob Schwartz,et al.  Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: the results of a combined analysis of two practice-based randomized controlled trials , 2012, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[37]  Victor M. Montori,et al.  Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making: a participant-level meta-analysis , 2014, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[38]  Carsten Schultz,et al.  How do patients with rare diseases experience the medical encounter? Exploring role behavior and its impact on patient-physician interaction. , 2012, Health policy.

[39]  Disciplinary Committee,et al.  Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain , 2002 .

[40]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  Assessments of the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument , 2015, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[41]  Ana Babac,et al.  Measuring patients’ priorities using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in comparison with Best-Worst-Scaling and rating cards: methodological aspects and ranking tasks , 2016, Health Economics Review.

[42]  Jianwen Cai,et al.  The effect of a decision aid intervention on decision making about coronary heart disease risk reduction: secondary analyses of a randomized trial , 2014, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[43]  C. Charles,et al.  Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[44]  M. McMullan Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. , 2006, Patient education and counseling.

[45]  S. Elo,et al.  Qualitative Content Analysis , 2014 .

[46]  Ana Babac,et al.  Shaping an Effective Health Information Website on Rare Diseases Using a Group Decision-Making Tool: Inclusion of the Perspectives of Patients, Their Family Members, and Physicians , 2017, Interactive journal of medical research.

[47]  M. Funnell,et al.  Patient Empowerment: Results of a randomized controlled trial , 1995, Diabetes Care.

[48]  Ségolène Aymé,et al.  Empowerment of patients: lessons from the rare diseases community , 2008, The Lancet.

[49]  David R. Cox,et al.  The Oxford Dictionary of Statistical Terms , 2006 .

[50]  Svenja Litzkendorf,et al.  Rare Diseases on the Internet: An Assessment of the Quality of Online Information , 2017, Journal of medical Internet research.

[51]  C. von der Lippe,et al.  Living with a rare disorder: a systematic review of the qualitative literature , 2017, Molecular genetics & genomic medicine.

[52]  Vibeke Zoffmann,et al.  A Person-Centered Communication and Reflection Model: Sharing Decision-Making in Chronic Care , 2008, Qualitative health research.

[53]  R. Thomson,et al.  Shared Decision Making: A Model for Clinical Practice , 2012, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[54]  Frank Klawonn,et al.  Diagnostic needs for rare diseases and shared prediagnostic phenomena: Results of a German-wide expert Delphi survey , 2017, PloS one.