Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making

A systematic review

Marleen Kunneman, Michael R. Gionfriddo, Freddy J.K. Toloza, Fania R. Gärtner, Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla, Ian G. Hargraves, Patricia J. Erwin, Victor Manuel Montori

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess the extent to which evaluations of shared decision making (SDM) assess the extent and quality of humanistic communication (i.e., respect, compassion, empathy). Methods: We systematically searched Web of Science and Scopus for prospective studies published between 2012 and February 2018 that evaluated SDM in actual clinical decisions using validated SDM measures. Two reviewers working independently and in duplicate extracted all statements from eligible studies and all items from SDM measurement instruments that referred to humanistic patient-clinician communication. Results: Of the 154 eligible studies, 14 (9%) included ≥1 statements regarding humanistic communication, either in framing the study (N = 2), measuring impact (e.g., empathy, respect, interpersonal skills; N = 9), as patients’/clinicians’ accounts of SDM (N = 2), in interpreting study results (N = 3), and in discussing implications of study findings (N = 3). Of the 192 items within the 11 SDM measurement instruments deployed in the included studies, 7 (3.6%) items assessed humanistic communication. Conclusion: Assessments of the quality of SDM focus narrowly on SDM technique and rarely assess humanistic aspects of patient-clinician communication. Practice implications: Considering SDM as merely a technique may reduce SDM's patient-centeredness and undermine its’ contribution to patient care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalPatient Education and Counseling
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Decision Making
Communication
Patient Care
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • Communication
  • Humanism
  • Patient involvement
  • Shared decision making

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Kunneman, M., Gionfriddo, M. R., Toloza, F. J. K., Gärtner, F. R., Spencer-Bonilla, G., Hargraves, I. G., ... Montori, V. M. (Accepted/In press). Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.11.003

Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making : A systematic review. / Kunneman, Marleen; Gionfriddo, Michael R.; Toloza, Freddy J.K.; Gärtner, Fania R.; Spencer-Bonilla, Gabriela; Hargraves, Ian G.; Erwin, Patricia J.; Montori, Victor Manuel.

In: Patient Education and Counseling, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kunneman, Marleen ; Gionfriddo, Michael R. ; Toloza, Freddy J.K. ; Gärtner, Fania R. ; Spencer-Bonilla, Gabriela ; Hargraves, Ian G. ; Erwin, Patricia J. ; Montori, Victor Manuel. / Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making : A systematic review. In: Patient Education and Counseling. 2018.
@article{3f86496eeeee48a0937d203afd43aa4c,
title = "Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making: A systematic review",
abstract = "Objective: To assess the extent to which evaluations of shared decision making (SDM) assess the extent and quality of humanistic communication (i.e., respect, compassion, empathy). Methods: We systematically searched Web of Science and Scopus for prospective studies published between 2012 and February 2018 that evaluated SDM in actual clinical decisions using validated SDM measures. Two reviewers working independently and in duplicate extracted all statements from eligible studies and all items from SDM measurement instruments that referred to humanistic patient-clinician communication. Results: Of the 154 eligible studies, 14 (9{\%}) included ≥1 statements regarding humanistic communication, either in framing the study (N = 2), measuring impact (e.g., empathy, respect, interpersonal skills; N = 9), as patients’/clinicians’ accounts of SDM (N = 2), in interpreting study results (N = 3), and in discussing implications of study findings (N = 3). Of the 192 items within the 11 SDM measurement instruments deployed in the included studies, 7 (3.6{\%}) items assessed humanistic communication. Conclusion: Assessments of the quality of SDM focus narrowly on SDM technique and rarely assess humanistic aspects of patient-clinician communication. Practice implications: Considering SDM as merely a technique may reduce SDM's patient-centeredness and undermine its’ contribution to patient care.",
keywords = "Communication, Humanism, Patient involvement, Shared decision making",
author = "Marleen Kunneman and Gionfriddo, {Michael R.} and Toloza, {Freddy J.K.} and G{\"a}rtner, {Fania R.} and Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla and Hargraves, {Ian G.} and Erwin, {Patricia J.} and Montori, {Victor Manuel}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.pec.2018.11.003",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Patient Education and Counseling",
issn = "0738-3991",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Kunneman, Marleen

AU - Gionfriddo, Michael R.

AU - Toloza, Freddy J.K.

AU - Gärtner, Fania R.

AU - Spencer-Bonilla, Gabriela

AU - Hargraves, Ian G.

AU - Erwin, Patricia J.

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objective: To assess the extent to which evaluations of shared decision making (SDM) assess the extent and quality of humanistic communication (i.e., respect, compassion, empathy). Methods: We systematically searched Web of Science and Scopus for prospective studies published between 2012 and February 2018 that evaluated SDM in actual clinical decisions using validated SDM measures. Two reviewers working independently and in duplicate extracted all statements from eligible studies and all items from SDM measurement instruments that referred to humanistic patient-clinician communication. Results: Of the 154 eligible studies, 14 (9%) included ≥1 statements regarding humanistic communication, either in framing the study (N = 2), measuring impact (e.g., empathy, respect, interpersonal skills; N = 9), as patients’/clinicians’ accounts of SDM (N = 2), in interpreting study results (N = 3), and in discussing implications of study findings (N = 3). Of the 192 items within the 11 SDM measurement instruments deployed in the included studies, 7 (3.6%) items assessed humanistic communication. Conclusion: Assessments of the quality of SDM focus narrowly on SDM technique and rarely assess humanistic aspects of patient-clinician communication. Practice implications: Considering SDM as merely a technique may reduce SDM's patient-centeredness and undermine its’ contribution to patient care.

AB - Objective: To assess the extent to which evaluations of shared decision making (SDM) assess the extent and quality of humanistic communication (i.e., respect, compassion, empathy). Methods: We systematically searched Web of Science and Scopus for prospective studies published between 2012 and February 2018 that evaluated SDM in actual clinical decisions using validated SDM measures. Two reviewers working independently and in duplicate extracted all statements from eligible studies and all items from SDM measurement instruments that referred to humanistic patient-clinician communication. Results: Of the 154 eligible studies, 14 (9%) included ≥1 statements regarding humanistic communication, either in framing the study (N = 2), measuring impact (e.g., empathy, respect, interpersonal skills; N = 9), as patients’/clinicians’ accounts of SDM (N = 2), in interpreting study results (N = 3), and in discussing implications of study findings (N = 3). Of the 192 items within the 11 SDM measurement instruments deployed in the included studies, 7 (3.6%) items assessed humanistic communication. Conclusion: Assessments of the quality of SDM focus narrowly on SDM technique and rarely assess humanistic aspects of patient-clinician communication. Practice implications: Considering SDM as merely a technique may reduce SDM's patient-centeredness and undermine its’ contribution to patient care.

KW - Communication

KW - Humanism

KW - Patient involvement

KW - Shared decision making

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056623083&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056623083&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.pec.2018.11.003

DO - 10.1016/j.pec.2018.11.003

M3 - Article

JO - Patient Education and Counseling

JF - Patient Education and Counseling

SN - 0738-3991

ER -