Decision Paralysis: Recognition and Patient-Centered Discourse
- PMID: 37046111
- PMCID: PMC10149428
- DOI: 10.1007/s13555-023-00921-3
Decision Paralysis: Recognition and Patient-Centered Discourse
Abstract
Decision paralysis (DP) can be defined as a patient's inability to commit to a physician and/or initiate appropriate treatment for their condition. An incessant search for greater physician opinions often leads to treatment delay, disease progression, and initiation of care at more advanced stages. Despite the harms associated with DP, a dearth of research on the issue remains. There are no guidelines that assist in both recognition and rectification of DP, leaving patients with chronic illnesses and diagnoses without well-characterized treatment algorithms especially vulnerable. This paper analyzes why patients are inclined toward DP and the clinical implications. Review of the literature affirms that the patient-physician relationship holds considerable influence; physicians identifying DP can improve therapeutic outcomes for their patients. Using these findings, we then propose a framework for broaching this topic with a method that supports patients while respecting their autonomy. A practical approach to both recognition and patient-centered discourse is introduced, providing a foundation for physicians to host these conversations and understand their patients' perspectives. This approach toward recognition and discourse on DP holds clinical importance, given that there is a paucity of established guidance. A future uniform approach may generate optimal patient care recommendations, which will hold far-reaching impact on both the patient-physician relationship and overall patient outcomes.
Keywords: Chronic disease; Chronic illness; Decision-making; Long-term care; Psychosocial oncology; Rare disease; Second opinion; Shared decision-making; Skin disease; Treatment delay.
© 2023. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Larisa J. Geskin has served as an investigator for and/or received research support from Helsinn Group, J&J, Mallinckrodt, Kyowa Kirin, Soligenix, Innate, Merck, BMS, and Stratpharma; on the speakers’ bureau for Helsinn Group and J&J; and on the scientific advisory board for Helsinn Group, J&J, Mallinckrodt, Sanofi, Regeneron, and Kyowa Kirin. Celine M. Schreidah, Lauren M. Fahmy, and Brigit A. Lapolla have nothing to disclose.
Figures
Similar articles
-
[The analysis of physicians' work: announcing the end of attempts at in vitro fertilization].Encephale. 2003 Jul-Aug;29(4 Pt 1):293-305. Encephale. 2003. PMID: 14615699 French.
-
A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10(58):4633-4646. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-432. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012. PMID: 27820528
-
Initiating decision-making conversations in palliative care: an ethnographic discourse analysis.BMC Palliat Care. 2014 Dec 23;13:63. doi: 10.1186/1472-684X-13-63. eCollection 2014. BMC Palliat Care. 2014. PMID: 25859161 Free PMC article.
-
Patient centered decision making in palliative cancer treatment: a world of paradoxes.Patient Educ Couns. 2003 May;50(1):43-9. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(03)00079-x. Patient Educ Couns. 2003. PMID: 12767584 Review.
-
Shared decision making in endocrinology: present and future directions.Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;4(8):706-716. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00468-4. Epub 2016 Feb 23. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016. PMID: 26915314 Review.
References
-
- The World Medical Association. WMA International Code of Medical Ethics. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-international-code-of-medical-ethics/. Accessed 22 Mar 2023.
-
- Madrid Declaration. WPA. https://www.wpanet.org/current-madrid-declaration. Accessed 22 Mar 2023.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources