Stacey Dawn, Hill Sophie, McCaffery Kirsten, Boland Laura, Lewis Krystina B, Horvat Lidia
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Canada.
School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;240:263-283.
Basic health literacy is required for making health decisions. The aim of this chapter is to discuss the use of shared decision making interventions for supporting patient involvement in making health decisions. The chapter provides a definition of shared decision making and discusses the link between shared decision making and the three levels of health literacy: functional, communicative/interactive, and critical. The Interprofessional Shared Decision Making Model is used to identify the various players involved: the patient, the family/surrogate/significant others, decision coach, and health care professionals. When patients are involved in shared decision making, they have better health outcomes, better healthcare experiences, and likely lower costs. Yet, their degree of involvement is influenced by their level of health literacy. Interventions to facilitate shared decision making are patient decision aids, decision coaching, and question prompt lists. Patient decision aids have been shown to improve knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and chosen options congruent with patients' values. Decision coaching improves knowledge and patient satisfaction. Question prompts also improve satisfaction. When shared decision making interventions have been evaluated with patients presumed to have lower health literacy, they appeared to be more beneficial to disadvantaged groups compared to those with higher literacy or better socioeconomic status. However, special attention needs to be applied when designing these interventions for populations with lower literacy. Two case exemplars are provided to illustrate the design and choice of interventions to better support patients with varying levels of health literacy. Despite evidence indicating these interventions are effective for involving patients in shared decision making, few are used in routine clinical practice. To increase their uptake, implementation strategies need to overcome barriers interfering with their use. Implementation strategies include training health care professionals, adopting SDM interventions that target patients, such as patient decision aids, and monitor patients' decisional comfort using the SURE test. Integrating health literacy principles is important when developing interventions that facilitate shared decision making and essential to avoid inadvertently producing higher inequalities between patients with varying levels of health literacy.
做出健康决策需要具备基本的健康素养。本章旨在讨论如何运用共同决策干预措施来支持患者参与健康决策。本章给出了共同决策的定义,并探讨了共同决策与健康素养三个水平之间的联系:功能性健康素养、沟通/互动性健康素养和批判性健康素养。跨专业共同决策模型用于确定涉及的各方人员:患者、家庭/替代决策者/重要他人、决策教练和医疗保健专业人员。当患者参与共同决策时,他们会有更好的健康结果、更好的医疗体验,而且成本可能更低。然而,他们的参与程度受到其健康素养水平的影响。促进共同决策的干预措施包括患者决策辅助工具、决策指导和问题提示清单。研究表明,患者决策辅助工具能提高知识水平、准确的风险认知,并使所选方案符合患者价值观。决策指导能提高知识水平和患者满意度。问题提示也能提高满意度。当对健康素养较低的患者进行共同决策干预措施评估时,与健康素养较高或社会经济地位较好的患者相比,这些措施对弱势群体似乎更有益。然而,在为低识字率人群设计这些干预措施时需要特别注意。文中提供了两个案例示例,以说明如何设计和选择干预措施,以便更好地支持不同健康素养水平的患者。尽管有证据表明这些干预措施能有效让患者参与共同决策,但在常规临床实践中很少使用。为了提高其采用率,实施策略需要克服阻碍其使用的障碍。实施策略包括培训医疗保健专业人员、采用针对患者的共同决策干预措施(如患者决策辅助工具),并使用 SURE 测试监测患者的决策舒适度。在制定促进共同决策的干预措施时,融入健康素养原则很重要,这对于避免在不同健康素养水平的患者之间无意中产生更大的不平等至关重要。