Abstract
Background
Shared decision making (SDM) implementation remains challenging. The factors that promote or hinder implementation of SDM tools for use during the consultation, including contextual factors such as clinician burnout and organizational support, remain unclear. We explored these factors in the context of a practical multicenter randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of an SDM conversation tool for patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation therapy.
Methods
In this cross-sectional study, we recruited clinicians who were regularly involved in conversations with patients regarding anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. Clinicians reported their characteristics and burnout symptoms using the two-item Maslach Burnout Inventory. Clinicians were trained in using the SDM tool, and they recorded their perceptions of the tool’s normalization potential using the Normalization MeAsure Development (NoMAD) survey instrument and verbally reflected on their answers to these survey questions. When possible, the training sessions and clinicians’ verbal responses to the conversation tool were recorded.
Results
Our study comprised 183 clinicians recruited into the trial (168 with survey responses and 112 with recordings). Overall, clinicians gave high scores to the normalization potential of the intervention; they endorsed all domains of normalization to the same extent, regardless of site, clinician characteristics, or burnout ratings. In interviews, clinicians paid significant attention to making sense of the tool. Tool buy-in seemed to depend heavily on their ability to see the tool as accurate and “evidence-based” and their perceptions of having time in the consultation to use it.
Conclusions
While time in the consultation remains a barrier, we did not find a significant association between burnout symptoms and normalization of an SDM conversation tool. Possible areas for improving the normalization of SDM conversation tools in clinical practice include enabling collaboration among clinicians to implement the tool and reporting how clinicians elsewhere use the tool. Direct measures of normalization (i.e., observing how often clinicians access the tool in practice outside of the clinical trial) may further elucidate the role that contextual factors, such as clinician burnout, play in the implementation of SDM.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02905032. Registered on 9 September 2016.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Mayo Clinic, Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Rochester, USA (GRID:grid.66875.3a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0459 167X); Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956)
2 Mayo Clinic, Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Rochester, USA (GRID:grid.66875.3a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0459 167X)
3 Mayo Clinic, Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Rochester, USA (GRID:grid.66875.3a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0459 167X); Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, CONEVID (Unidad de Conocimiento y Evidencia), Lima, Peru (GRID:grid.11100.31) (ISNI:0000 0001 0673 9488)
4 Mayo Clinic, Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Rochester, USA (GRID:grid.66875.3a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0459 167X); Leiden University Medical Center, Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden, Netherlands (GRID:grid.10419.3d) (ISNI:0000000089452978)
5 Mayo Clinic, Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Rochester, USA (GRID:grid.66875.3a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0459 167X); Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Rochester, USA (GRID:grid.66875.3a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0459 167X)
6 Mayo Clinic, Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Rochester, USA (GRID:grid.66875.3a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0459 167X); Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Rochester, USA (GRID:grid.66875.3a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0459 167X); University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Colorado School of Public Health, Denver, USA (GRID:grid.430503.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 0703 675X)
7 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK (GRID:grid.8991.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 0425 469X)




