The COVID-19 pandemic pushed some of the most well-developed health care systems to their limits. In many cases, this has challenged patient-centered care. We set out to examine individuals’ attitudes toward shared decision making (SDM) and to identify predictors of participation preference during the pandemic.
Methods
We conducted an online survey with a large convenience sample (N = 1061). Our main measures of interest were participants’ generic and COVID-19–related participation preference as well as their acceptance and distress regarding a triage vignette. We also assessed anxiety, e-health literacy, and aspects of participants’ health. We conducted group comparisons and multiple linear regression analyses on participation preference as well as triage acceptance.
Results
In generic decision making, most participants expressed a strong need for information and a moderate participation preference. In the hypothetical case of COVID-19 infection, most preferred physician-led decisions. Generic participation preference was the strongest predictor of COVID-19–related participation preference, followed by age, education, and anxiety. Furthermore, both higher generic and COVID-19–related participation preferences predicted lower triage acceptance.
Conclusion
Our findings demonstrate potential health care recipients’ attitudes toward SDM during a severe health care crisis and emphasize that participation preference varies according to the context.
NacotiMCioccaAGiupponiA, et al. At the epicenter of the Covid-19 pandemic and humanitarian crises in Italy: changing perspectives on preparation and mitigation. N Engl J Med. 2020;1(2).
5.
AbramsEMShakerMOppenheimerJDavisRSBuksteinDAGreenhawtM.The challenges and opportunities for shared decision making highlighted by COVID-19. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;8(8):2474–80.e1.
6.
ElwynGLaitnerSCoulterAWalkerEWatsonPThomsonR.Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146.
7.
PolitiMCLewisCLFroschDL.Supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence is low. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1):113–28.
ChewningBBylundCLShahBAroraNKGueguenJAMakoulG.Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(1):9–18.
10.
LevinsonWKaoAKubyAThistedRA.Not all patients want to participate in decision making: a national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(6):531–5.
11.
AroraNKMcHorneyCA.Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate?Med Care. 2000;38(3):335–41.
12.
StiggelboutAMKiebertGM.A role for the sick role: patient preferences regarding information and participation in clinical decision-making. Can Med Assoc J. 1997;157(4):383–9.
13.
DegnerLFSloanJA.Decision making during serious illness: what role do patients really want to play?J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(9):941–50.
BendauAPlagJKunasSWykaSStröhleAPetzoldMB.Longitudinal changes in anxiety and psychological distress, and associated risk and protective factors during the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Brain Behav. 2020;11(2):e01964.
16.
PaulusMPYuAJ.Emotion and decision-making: affect-driven belief systems in anxiety and depression. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012;16(9):476–83.
17.
MazzoccoKMasieroMCarrieroMCPravettoniG.The role of emotions in cancer patients’ decision-making. Ecancermedicalscience. 2019;13:914.
18.
HengenKMAlpersGW.What’s the risk? Fearful individuals generally overestimate negative outcomes and they dread outcomes of specific events. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1676.
van RandenborghAJong-MeyerRde, HüffmeierJ. Decision making in depression: differences in decisional conflict between healthy and depressed individuals. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2010;17(4):285–98.
21.
KötherAKAlpersGWBüdenbenderBLenhartMMichelMSKriegmairMC.Predicting decisional conflict: anxiety and depression in shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;S0738–3991(20)30599-1.
22.
TebejeTHKleinJ.Applications of e-Health to support person-centered health care at the time of COVID-19 pandemic. Telemed J E Health. 2021;27(2):150–8.
23.
NormanCDSkinnerHA.eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(4):e27.
24.
SørensenKPelikanJMRöthlinF, et al. Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU). Eur J Public Health. 2015;25(6):1053–8.
25.
IsersonKVMoskopJC.Triage in medicine, part I: concept, history, and types. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(3):275–81.
SpitzerRLKroenkeKWilliamsJBWLöweB.A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the Gad-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–7.
29.
EndeJKazisLAshAMoskowitzMA.Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4(1):23–30.
30.
SiebenhaarKUKötherAKAlpersGW.Dealing with the COVID-19 infodemic: distress by information, information avoidance, and compliance with preventive measures. Front Psychol. 2020;11:567905.
31.
Robert Koch-Institut. Informationen und Hilfestellungen für Personen mit einem höheren Risiko für einen schweren COVID-19-Krankheitsverlauf [Information and assistance for people at higher risk of developing severe progression of COVID-19 disease]. 2020. Available from: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Risikogruppen.html. Accessed June 18, 2020.
CarreteroMDChiswickACatalanJ.Whose health is it? The views of injecting drug users with HIV infection and their professional carers. AIDS Care. 1998;10(3):323–8.
34.
FlynnKESmithMAVannessD.A typology of preferences for participation in healthcare decision making. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(5):1158–69.
35.
PundtJ, ed. Patientenorientierung: Wunsch oder Wirklichkeit? [Patient orientation: wish or reality?]. 2nd ed.Bremen (Germany): Apollon University Press; 2016.
36.
LöweBSpitzerRLZipfelS.HerzogW.PHQ-D: Gesundheitsfragebogen für patienten; Manual Komplettversion und Kurzform [PHQ-D: Health questionnaire for patients; manual complete version and short form]. Karlsruhe: Pfizer; 2002.
37.
JohnsonSUUlvenesPGØktedalenTHoffartA.Psychometric properties of the General Anxiety Disorder 7-Item (GAD-7) Scale in a heterogeneous psychiatric sample. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1713.
38.
LöweBDeckerOMüllerSBrählerESchellbergDHerzogWHerzbergPY.Validation and standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the general population. Med Care. 2008;46(3):266–74.
39.
DuekIFlissDM.The COVID-19 pandemic—from great challenge to unique opportunity: Perspective. Ann Med Surg. 2020;59:68–71.
40.
Joseph-WilliamsNElwynGEdwardsA.Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(3):291–309.
41.
QianMWuQWuPHouZLiangYCowlingBJYuH.Psychological responses, behavioral changes and public perceptions during the early phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in China: a population based cross-sectional survey. medRxiv. 2020. 10.1101/2020.02.18.20024448.
42.
BublatzkyFGerdesABAlpersGW.The persistence of socially instructed threat: two threat-of-shock studies. Psychophysiology. 2014;51(10):1005–14.
43.
LoewensteinG.Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4S):49–56.
44.
CohenJ.Statistical power analysis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1992;1(3):98–101.
45.
MichaelisSKristonLHärterMWatzkeBSchulzHMelchiorH.Predicting the preferences for involvement in medical decision making among patients with mental disorders. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0182203.
46.
ColleyAHalpernJPaulS, et al. Factors associated with oncology patients’ involvement in shared decision making during chemotherapy. Psycho-Oncol. 2017;26(11):1972–9.
47.
BenbassatJPilpelDTidharM.Patients’ preferences for participation in clinical decision making: a review of published surveys. J Behav Med. 1998;24(2):81–8.
48.
StaceyDLudwigCArchambaultP, et al. Feasibility of rapidly developing and widely disseminating patient decision aids to respond to urgent decisional needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(2):233–9.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
