Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making

A participant-level meta-analysis

Kirk D. Wyatt, Megan E. Branda, Jonathan W. Inselman, Henry H. Ting, Erik P. Hess, Victor Manuel Montori, Annie Leblanc

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Gender differences in communication styles between clinicians and patients have been postulated to impact patient care, but the extent to which the gender dyad structure impacts outcomes in shared decision making remains unclear.

Methods: Participant-level meta-analysis of 775 clinical encounters within 7 randomized trials where decision aids, shared decision making tools, were used at the point of care. Outcomes analysed include decisional conflict scale scores, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, concordance between stated decision and action taken, and degree of patient engagement by the clinician using the OPTION scale. An estimated minimal important difference was used to determine if nonsignificant results could be explained by low power.

Results: We did not find a statistically significant interaction between clinician/patient gender mix and arm for decisional conflict, satisfaction with the clinical encounter or patient engagement. A borderline significant interaction (p = 0.05) was observed for one outcome: concordance between stated decision and action taken, where encounters with female clinician/male patient showed increased concordance in the decision aid arm compared to control (8% more concordant encounters). All other gender dyads showed decreased concordance with decision aid use (6% fewer concordant encounters for same-gender, 16% fewer concordant encounters for male clinician/female patient).

Conclusions: In this participant-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, decision aids used at the point of care demonstrated comparable efficacy across gender dyads. Purported barriers to shared decision making based on gender were not detected when tested for a minimum detected difference.

Trial registrations. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00888537, NCT01077037, NCT01029288, NCT00388050, NCT00578981, NCT00949611, NCT00217061.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number81
JournalBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Volume14
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2 2014

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Decision Making
Decision Support Techniques
Point-of-Care Systems
Patient Participation
Patient Care
Communication

Keywords

  • Decision aids
  • Gender
  • Shared decision making

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Informatics
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making : A participant-level meta-analysis. / Wyatt, Kirk D.; Branda, Megan E.; Inselman, Jonathan W.; Ting, Henry H.; Hess, Erik P.; Montori, Victor Manuel; Leblanc, Annie.

In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Vol. 14, No. 1, 81, 02.09.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wyatt, Kirk D. ; Branda, Megan E. ; Inselman, Jonathan W. ; Ting, Henry H. ; Hess, Erik P. ; Montori, Victor Manuel ; Leblanc, Annie. / Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making : A participant-level meta-analysis. In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014 ; Vol. 14, No. 1.
@article{38b2ee9d914945c8b3b4ab3c76eb1d77,
title = "Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making: A participant-level meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background: Gender differences in communication styles between clinicians and patients have been postulated to impact patient care, but the extent to which the gender dyad structure impacts outcomes in shared decision making remains unclear.Methods: Participant-level meta-analysis of 775 clinical encounters within 7 randomized trials where decision aids, shared decision making tools, were used at the point of care. Outcomes analysed include decisional conflict scale scores, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, concordance between stated decision and action taken, and degree of patient engagement by the clinician using the OPTION scale. An estimated minimal important difference was used to determine if nonsignificant results could be explained by low power.Results: We did not find a statistically significant interaction between clinician/patient gender mix and arm for decisional conflict, satisfaction with the clinical encounter or patient engagement. A borderline significant interaction (p = 0.05) was observed for one outcome: concordance between stated decision and action taken, where encounters with female clinician/male patient showed increased concordance in the decision aid arm compared to control (8{\%} more concordant encounters). All other gender dyads showed decreased concordance with decision aid use (6{\%} fewer concordant encounters for same-gender, 16{\%} fewer concordant encounters for male clinician/female patient).Conclusions: In this participant-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, decision aids used at the point of care demonstrated comparable efficacy across gender dyads. Purported barriers to shared decision making based on gender were not detected when tested for a minimum detected difference.Trial registrations. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00888537, NCT01077037, NCT01029288, NCT00388050, NCT00578981, NCT00949611, NCT00217061.",
keywords = "Decision aids, Gender, Shared decision making",
author = "Wyatt, {Kirk D.} and Branda, {Megan E.} and Inselman, {Jonathan W.} and Ting, {Henry H.} and Hess, {Erik P.} and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and Annie Leblanc",
year = "2014",
month = "9",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1186/1472-6947-14-81",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
journal = "BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making",
issn = "1472-6947",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making

T2 - A participant-level meta-analysis

AU - Wyatt, Kirk D.

AU - Branda, Megan E.

AU - Inselman, Jonathan W.

AU - Ting, Henry H.

AU - Hess, Erik P.

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Leblanc, Annie

PY - 2014/9/2

Y1 - 2014/9/2

N2 - Background: Gender differences in communication styles between clinicians and patients have been postulated to impact patient care, but the extent to which the gender dyad structure impacts outcomes in shared decision making remains unclear.Methods: Participant-level meta-analysis of 775 clinical encounters within 7 randomized trials where decision aids, shared decision making tools, were used at the point of care. Outcomes analysed include decisional conflict scale scores, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, concordance between stated decision and action taken, and degree of patient engagement by the clinician using the OPTION scale. An estimated minimal important difference was used to determine if nonsignificant results could be explained by low power.Results: We did not find a statistically significant interaction between clinician/patient gender mix and arm for decisional conflict, satisfaction with the clinical encounter or patient engagement. A borderline significant interaction (p = 0.05) was observed for one outcome: concordance between stated decision and action taken, where encounters with female clinician/male patient showed increased concordance in the decision aid arm compared to control (8% more concordant encounters). All other gender dyads showed decreased concordance with decision aid use (6% fewer concordant encounters for same-gender, 16% fewer concordant encounters for male clinician/female patient).Conclusions: In this participant-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, decision aids used at the point of care demonstrated comparable efficacy across gender dyads. Purported barriers to shared decision making based on gender were not detected when tested for a minimum detected difference.Trial registrations. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00888537, NCT01077037, NCT01029288, NCT00388050, NCT00578981, NCT00949611, NCT00217061.

AB - Background: Gender differences in communication styles between clinicians and patients have been postulated to impact patient care, but the extent to which the gender dyad structure impacts outcomes in shared decision making remains unclear.Methods: Participant-level meta-analysis of 775 clinical encounters within 7 randomized trials where decision aids, shared decision making tools, were used at the point of care. Outcomes analysed include decisional conflict scale scores, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, concordance between stated decision and action taken, and degree of patient engagement by the clinician using the OPTION scale. An estimated minimal important difference was used to determine if nonsignificant results could be explained by low power.Results: We did not find a statistically significant interaction between clinician/patient gender mix and arm for decisional conflict, satisfaction with the clinical encounter or patient engagement. A borderline significant interaction (p = 0.05) was observed for one outcome: concordance between stated decision and action taken, where encounters with female clinician/male patient showed increased concordance in the decision aid arm compared to control (8% more concordant encounters). All other gender dyads showed decreased concordance with decision aid use (6% fewer concordant encounters for same-gender, 16% fewer concordant encounters for male clinician/female patient).Conclusions: In this participant-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, decision aids used at the point of care demonstrated comparable efficacy across gender dyads. Purported barriers to shared decision making based on gender were not detected when tested for a minimum detected difference.Trial registrations. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00888537, NCT01077037, NCT01029288, NCT00388050, NCT00578981, NCT00949611, NCT00217061.

KW - Decision aids

KW - Gender

KW - Shared decision making

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84907574012&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84907574012&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1472-6947-14-81

DO - 10.1186/1472-6947-14-81

M3 - Article

VL - 14

JO - BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

JF - BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

SN - 1472-6947

IS - 1

M1 - 81

ER -