2009; 29; 61 originally published online Feb 4, 2009;. Med Decis Making ... Annette M. O'Connor, PhD, France Le´gare´,
Medical Decision Making http://mdm.sagepub.com
Decisional Conflict in Patients and Their Physicians: A Dyadic Approach to Shared Decision Making Annie LeBlanc, David A. Kenny, Annette M. O'Connor and France Légaré Med Decis Making 2009; 29; 61 originally published online Feb 4, 2009; DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08327067 The online version of this article can be found at: http://mdm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/1/61
Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Medical Decision Making
Additional services and information for Medical Decision Making can be found at: Email Alerts: http://mdm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://mdm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://mdm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/1/61
Downloaded from http://mdm.sagepub.com at CAPES on April 7, 2009
SHARED DECISION MAKING
Decisional Conflict in Patients and Their Physicians: A Dyadic Approach to Shared Decision Making Annie LeBlanc, MSc, David A. Kenny, PhD, Annette M. O’Connor, PhD, France Le´gare´, MD, PhD
Background. Decisional conflict is defined as personal uncertainty about which course of action to take when choice among competing options involves risk, regret, or challenge to personal life values. It is influenced by inadequate knowledge, unclear values, inadequate support, and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made. Until recently, it has been studied at the individual level, which ignores the interpersonal system between patients and physicians. Objective. To explore the effect of feeling uninformed, unclear values, inadequate support, and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made on one own’s outcome (actor effect) and on the other person’s outcome (partner effect). Methods. After a clinical encounter, modifiable deficits and personal uncertainty were measured in physicians and patients using the Decisional Conflict Scale. Structural equation modeling was used to measure the parameters of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Results. A total of 112 dyads of physicians and patients were included in the analysis. For both
patients and physicians, 2 actor effects, unclear values (P < 0:0001) and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made (P < 0:0001), were found to be positively correlated with personal uncertainty. One partner effect, feeling uninformed (P = 0:03), was found to be negatively correlated with personal uncertainty. Conclusions. Personal uncertainty of patients and physicians is influenced not only by their respective deficits but also by the deficits of the other member of the dyad. Our results indicate that the more unclear the expression of their own values and the more they perceive that an ineffective choice had been made, the more both physicians and patients experience personal uncertainty. They also indicate that the less uninformed they feel, the more both physicians and patients experience personal uncertainty. Key words: shared decision making; relationship-centered care; dyadic decision making; physician-patient relationship; decisional conflict; Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. (Med Decis Making 2009;29:61–68)
T
of the individual rather than at the level of the dyad, thus ignoring the interpersonal system that is at play.9 12 Individuals involved in dyadic interactions, even brief ones, can, and often do, influence each other’s cognitions, emotions, and behaviors.13 Moreover, in most of the current shared decisionmaking research programs, predictor variables and outcomes assessed on the patient’s side are typically different from those assessed on the provider’s side.
he decision-making process in the clinical encounter is influenced by its inherent uncertainty and by the reaction of physicians and patients to this uncertainty.1 3 Given this context of uncertainty, decisional conflict is one of the key elements in decision making in clinical settings.4 Decisional conflict is defined as an individual perception of uncertainty about which course of action to take when choice among competing options involves risk, loss, regret, or challenge to personal life values.5 In lay terms, decisional conflict refers to the level of comfort that an individual experiences when facing a difficult decision. Decisional conflict should not be confused with the uncertainty inherent in the nature of the available scientific evidence.6 Until recently, decisional conflict in patients7 as well as in physicians8 had been studied at the level
Address correspondence to France Le´gare´, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Que´bec, Hoˆpital St-Franc¸ois d’Assise, 10 rue de l’Espinay, Que´bec (Que´bec), Canada G1L3L5; telephone: (418)525-4437; fax: (418)525-4194; e-mail: France.Le´gare´@ mfa.ulaval.ca. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08327067
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING/JAN–FEB 2009 Downloaded from http://mdm.sagepub.com at CAPES on April 7, 2009
61
LEBLANC AND OTHERS
For example, a patient’s preferred role in decision making may be assessed as a predictor and satisfaction with the decision as an outcome. On the provider’s side, gender may be assessed as a predictor and performance in shared decision making as an outcome. Several modifiable deficits can increase or decrease the level of uncertainty perceived by individuals facing health-related decisions. Among them are 1) the perception that they have inadequate knowledge or understanding of the advantages/benefits and disadvantages/risks associated with all options, including doing nothing (i.e., feeling uninformed); 2) unclear values of the users regarding the relative desirability or importance of the benefit versus harm of the available options; 3) inadequate support the user feels, including undue pressure; and 4) the overall perception that a poor quality or ineffective decision has been made.14 Thus, combining the patient and the physician perspectives regarding the uncertainty associated with a specific decision has the potential for improving the understanding of the decisional process that occurs during a clinical encounter.8 The ActorPartner Interdependence Model (APIM) is a model for dyadic data analysis that explains the interdependence between 2 individuals. Using data from a previous implementation trial of shared decision making, the aim of the present study was to explore the effect of feeling uninformed, unclear values, inadequate support, and the perception that an ineffective decision has been made on personal uncertainty in both patients and their physicians.
Received 31 January 2008 from the Research Center, Hoˆpital SaintFranc¸ois d’Assise, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Que´bec, Universite´ Laval, Que´bec, Canada (AL); the Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT (DAK); the Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada (AMO); and the Faculty of Medicine, Universite´ Laval, Que´bec, Canada (FL). AL holds a doctoral scholarship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). FL conceived the main study, which provided the data that were used for this secondary analysis. She supervised AL’s graduate student project, validated the methods, and participated in the interpretation of the results and in the writing of the paper. AL conceived the analytical framework, analyzed and interpreted the data, and participated in the writing of the paper. DAK is the coinventor of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model and thus provided expertise and support in the analysis and interpretation of results. He reviewed the paper and provided insightful comments. AMO is the author of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and was a coauthor of the main study. She reviewed the paper and provided insightful comments. FL is its guarantor. All authors declare that they have no conflicting financial interests. Revision accepted for publication 16 June 2008.
METHODS Data Source Data originated from a before-and-after study for which the overall goal was to implement shared decision making in clinical primary care practices.11 The previous study assessed the impact of shared decision making on the agreement between physicians’ and their patients’ decisional conflict using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Briefly, at baseline and then after training sessions on shared decision making, clinical teachers and residents (n = 112) from 5 Family Practice Teaching Units (FPTUs) and their patients completed a postclinical encounter questionnaire that assessed their respective level of decisional conflict regarding the decision that had been made. Clinical teachers and residents had to be members of one of the 5 FPTUs and be involved in outpatient clinical activities in order to be eligible for the study. Patients who made a decision with their physician regarding any given condition were eligible for the study. Sociodemographic characteristics, preference in decisionmaking style,15 and decisional conflict16 data were collected using self-administered questionnaires. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee, and participants, both physicians and patients, signed an informed consent form. For the present study, we used data from the first clinical encounter for each physician in the original study. Therefore, data used for this secondary analysis resulted in a standard dyadic design of 112 dyads. In other words, each patient and each physician was a member of one and only one dyad. This limited the possibility of a learning effect on the provider’s side. Data Collected To assess decisional conflict, both physicians and patients completed the DCS after the clinical encounter. The DCS for both patients and physicians had the same items. The DCS is a multidimensional scale of 16 items divided into 5 subscales: personal uncertainty (3 items) and its modifiable deficits of feeling uninformed (3 items), unclear values (3 items), inadequate support (3 items), and perception that an ineffective choice has been made (4 items).16,17 Each item was scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). Each one of the 5 subscale scores was calculated as follows: the sum of the corresponding items was computed and then divided by the number of items.
62 • MEDICAL DECISION MAKING/JAN–FEB 2009 Downloaded from http://mdm.sagepub.com at CAPES on April 7, 2009
DYADIC APPROACH TO SHARED DECISION MAKING
In this present study, we did not use the total DCS score (16 items). However, the total DCS score correlates with knowledge scores, intention to accept influenza vaccine or breast cancer screening and delay in the decision to be immunized.16 Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach a) for the total DCS score from previous studies ranged from 0.78 to 0.92 in the patient version and from 0.78 to 0.90 in the physician version of this scale.10;16 Furthermore, comparison of the respective structures of the patient and physician versions of the DCS showed that the subscales appear to have the same meaning for both physicians and patients (data available from corresponding author).
Data Analysis Descriptive data analysis of participants’ characteristics was performed using mean ± SD for continuous variables and percentage for categorical data. The APIM served as the analytical framework, as this model takes into account the interdependence between observations without losing possible valuable information about what each member contributes to the dyad.13;18;19 The APIM allows for the concurrent evaluation of a person’s predictor variables on his or her own outcome (actor effect) and on the other person’s outcome (partner effect) (Figure 1). Statistical analysis was done by means of structural equation modeling (SEM) with a maximum likelihood estimation. The dependent variable (outcome) was personal uncertainty. The predictor variables were the modifiable factors contributing to personal uncertainty (i.e., feeling uninformed, unclear values, inadequate support, and perception that an ineffective choice has been made). Results are presented as regression weights. An initial APIM model was first constructed that allowed all paths (effects) to be estimated. Then a second model was built, where all corresponding actor and partner paths for both patient and physician were set to be equal, thereby assessing how similar the effects were between physicians and patients. If the w2 difference test of the second model was not statistically different from the initial model, then this second simpler/less elaborate model was retained. Measures of model fit calculated included the w2 , the comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).20;21 A nonsignificant w2 , a CFI ≥ 0.95, and a RMSEA value ≤ 0.06 all indicate a good model fit. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS (version 12.0, Chicago, IL) and AMOS (version 6.0, SPSS) software.
Er1 a
PREDICTOR person 1 f
d PREDICTOR person 2
1 OUTCOME person 1 e
c
b
OUTCOME person 2 1 Er2
Figure 1 The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. The actor effects are represented by paths a and b and estimate the effect that a predictor variable of a person has on the outcome variable of that same person. Paths c and d represent partner effects that estimate the effect of the predictor of one person on the outcome of the other person in the dyad. The f curved line with doubleheaded arrows represents the correlation between the 2 predictor variables, and the e curved line with double-headed arrows represents the residual nonindependence not explained by actor and partner effects.13
RESULTS Characteristics of Participants A total of 112 physicians in family medicine (63 clinical teachers and 49 residents) and a single patient for each (n = 112) were included in the present study. Characteristics of participants are detailed in Tables 1 and 2. Scores for each of the subscales of the DCS are presented in Table 3. For both physicians and patients, all scores are under 2.5, indicating an overall low level of personal uncertainty and its modifiable factors. When asked what would be their preference in decision-making style, ‘‘sharing the decision’’ was the preferred style for 36.6% of physicians and for 34.8% of patients (Tables 1 and 2).
Actor-Partner Interdependence Model The initial model tested, which included all possible actor and partner effects, is saturated with zero degree of freedom, so the fit cannot be evaluated. Constraining corresponding actor and partner paths across both physician and patient resulted in a w2 with 8 df = 11.2, P = 0:191, which was not statistically different from the initial model (CFI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.06). Hence our final model includes equality of corresponding paths and is
63
SHARED DECISION MAKING Downloaded from http://mdm.sagepub.com at CAPES on April 7, 2009
LEBLANC AND OTHERS
Table 1 Characteristics of Physicians Characteristic
Age, y Years in practice (physicians only, n = 63) Hours per week spent in professional activities Female Status Residents Clinical teachers in family medicine Preference in decision-making style Patient alone Patient after considering my opinion Patient and myself Myself after considering the patient’s opinion Myself alone Did not answer
Table 2 Characteristics of Patients
Physicians (n = 112) a
35.5+9.3 13.9+8.5a 43.1+12.7a 75 (67)b b
49 (43.8) 63 (56.2)b
12 (10.7)b 39 (34.8)b 41 (36.6)b 17 (15.2)b 0 (0)b 3 (2.7)b
a. Data in mean+SD. b. Data in number (%).
Characteristic
Patients (n = 112)
Age, y Female Schooling University degree Secondary school or college degree Primary school degree Preference in decision-making style Myself alone Myself after considering the opinion of my physician Physician and myself Physician after considering my opinion Physician alone Did not answer
48.4+17.2a 61 (55)b 34 (30)b 61 (55)b 17 (15)b 5 (4.5)b 36 (32.1)b 39 (34.8)b 20 (17.9)b 6 (5.4)b 6 (5.4)b
a. Data in mean+SD. b. Data in number (%).
Table 3 Decisional Conflict Scale (DSC) Subscale Scores for Physicians and Patients
presented in Figure 2. The proportion of variance explained by this model (square multiple correlation) is 42% for the physician’s personal uncertainty and 47% for the patients’ personal uncertainty. Actor effects. Actor effects estimate the effect that a person’s predictor variable has on the outcome variable of that same person. In this study, it refers to whether one’s own modifiable deficits (feeling uninformed, unclear values, inadequate support, and perception that an ineffective choice has been made) have an influence on one’s own personal uncertainty. Two actor effects have a statistically significant effect on personal uncertainty (Table 4). For both physicians and patients, unclear values and perception that an ineffective choice has been made are positively related to personal uncertainty (P < 0:0001). The predictors feeling uninformed and inadequate support have no statistically significant actor effect on personal uncertainty. Partner effects. Partner effects estimate the effect of a person’s predictor on the outcome of the other person in the dyad. In this study, it refers to whether one’s own modifiable deficits (feeling uninformed, unclear values, inadequate support, and perception that an ineffective choice has been made) have an influence on the level of personal uncertainty in the
DCS Subscale Scores
Personal uncertainty Feeling uninformed Unclear about personal values Inadequate support in decision making Perception that one has made an ineffective decision
Physicians (n = 112)
Patients (n = 112)
1.85+0.74 1.69+0.53 1.78+0.58
1.46+0.62 1.46+0.57 1.40+0.46
1.89+0.57
1.60+0.64
1.71+0.47
1.34+0.43
other member of the dyad. Only one statistically significant reciprocal partner effect was observed for both patients and physicians; one’s own perception of feeling uninformed was negatively related with the personal uncertainty of the other member of the dyad (Table 4). Note that this effect is negative: the more one’s partner felt uniformed, the less personal uncertainly the person felt. No other significant partner effects were observed for the other predictors. DISCUSSION To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to explore the effects of the modifiable deficits of personal uncertainty (i.e., feeling uninformed, unclear
64 • MEDICAL DECISION MAKING/JAN–FEB 2009 Downloaded from http://mdm.sagepub.com at CAPES on April 7, 2009
DYADIC APPROACH TO SHARED DECISION MAKING
Feeling uninformed (MD)
Unclear values (MD)
P1
A1 A2
P2 Inadequate support (MD)
A3 P3
A4
Ineffective decision (MD)
Personal uncertainty (MD) Er1
P4 P1
Feeling uninformed (PT)
P2
P3 Unclear values (PT)
A1 A2
P4 A3 Inadequate support (PT)
Er2
Personal uncertainty (PT)
A4
Ineffective decision (PT)
Figure 2 The model used to test the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model for personal uncertainty and its modifiable deficits. Actor effects are represented by A and partner effects by P. The equality of actor and partner paths is represented by the arrows numbered A1 to A4 and P1 to P4. The curved lines with double-headed arrows represent the correlation between actor and partner variables, except for the curved line between Er1 and Er2, which represents residual nonindependence. MD = physicians; PT = patients; Er1 and Er2 = variance not explained by the model.
values, inadequate support, and perception that an effective decision has been made) on personal uncertainty in both patients and physicians. Hence, dyadic analysis of decisional conflict through assessment of the association between personal uncertainty and its modifiable deficits in both patients and physicians and between patients and physicians allows the identification of actor and partner effects that might have important practical implications. One of the most interesting and important findings of this study is the presence of a similar partner effect for patients and physicians. Indeed, we found that feeling uninformed had a significant negative
partner effect on personal uncertainty. These results suggest that the more informed one felt (physician or patient), the more personal uncertainty the other member of the dyad experienced. In other words, the less one’s partner feels informed, the more certain one is. Taking into consideration that increasing knowledge is a major component of shared decision-making programs (i.e., decision aids), this is of utmost importance because it suggests that intervening to increase one’s own feeling of being informed in order to decrease one’s own personal uncertainty might in fact increase personal uncertainty in the
65
SHARED DECISION MAKING Downloaded from http://mdm.sagepub.com at CAPES on April 7, 2009
LEBLANC AND OTHERS
Table 4 Actor and Partner Estimates for Physicians and Patients for the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (N = 112 dyads)
Modifiable Deficits
Feeling uninformed Actor effect Partner effect Unclear values Actor effect Partner effect Inadequate support Actor effect Partner effect Ineffective decision Actor effect Partner effect
Estimate of Regression Weighta
P Value
0.07 −0.18
0.40 0.03
0.38 0.02
