Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Dec;23(12):1417-1427.
doi: 10.1111/acem.13043. Epub 2016 Nov 25.

The Physician-as-Stakeholder: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of Physicians' Motivations for Using Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department

Affiliations

The Physician-as-Stakeholder: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of Physicians' Motivations for Using Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department

Elizabeth M Schoenfeld et al. Acad Emerg Med. 2016 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly recognized as an important facet of patient-centered care. Despite growing interest in SDM in the emergency department (ED), little is known about emergency physicians' (EPs') motivations for using SDM. Understanding current patterns of SDM use and EP's rationale for using SDM is essential for the development of interventions to increase use.

Objectives: Recognizing the EP as an important stakeholder in SDM research, we sought to identify and explore factors that may motivate EPs' engagement in SDM.

Methods: In this qualitative study, informed by the Theory of Planned Behavior and Social Cognitive Theory, we conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of EPs. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Using a directed qualitative content analysis approach, three members of the research team performed open coding of the transcripts in an iterative process, building a provisional code book as coding progressed. Respondent validation was employed to ensure methodologic rigor.

Results: Fifteen EPs, ages 31-65, from both academic and community practice settings, were interviewed. Several had not heard of the specific phrase "shared decision making," but all understood the concept and felt that they used SDM techniques to some degree. Most noted they had often had an agenda when they used SDM, which often motivated them to have the conversation. Agendas described included counteracting an algorithmic or defensive approach to diagnosis and treatment, avoiding harmful tests, or sharing uncertainty. All participants believed that patients benefited from SDM in terms of satisfaction, engagement, or education. Nearly all participants identified research outcomes that they felt would encourage their use of SDM (e.g., improvements in patient engagement, mitigation of risk) and many prioritized patient-centered outcomes over systems outcomes such as improved resource utilization. Little consensus was seen, however, regarding the importance of individual outcomes: of eight potential research outcomes participants endorsed, no single outcome was endorsed by even half of the physicians interviewed.

Conclusion: Emergency physicians identified many factors that motivated them to use SDM. This study informs current research on SDM in the ED, particularly regarding the motivations of the physician-as-stakeholder.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no potential conflicts to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The theoretical framework (Integrative Model: Social Cognitive Theory & Theory of Planned Behavior) demonstrating how various factors affect a behavior (shared decision making).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Trikalinos TA, Wieland LS, Adam GP, Zgodic A, Ntzani EE. Decision Aids for Cancer Screening and Treatment. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 145. AHRQ Publication No. 15-EHC002-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014. Dec. - PubMed
    1. Hess EP, Knoedler MA, Shah ND, et al. The chest pain choice decision aid: a randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012;5:251–9. - PubMed
    1. Oshima Lee E, Emanuel EJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N Engl J Med 2013;368:6–8. - PubMed
    1. Durand M-A, Carpenter L, Dolan H, et al. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9:e94670–13. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Davidson L Bending the Curve: Technical Documentation. The Lewin Group; 2008:1–108. Available at: http://www.lewin.com/content/dam/Lewin/Resources/Site_Sections/Publicati.... Accessed Jan 15, 2015.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources