Any change that is proposed for the busy clinical context is always assumed to add more time to the consultation [42]. Time constraints are among the most frequently reported barriers to clinical change, including to shared decision making [12] and [42]. However, no evidence has yet been produced to support the claim selleck products that shared decision making takes too much time. A 2014 Cochrane systematic review analyzed 115
decision aids, ten of which were embedded in interventions that measured consultation lengths. Two studies found that shared decision making interventions took longer than usual care; one found that it took less time than a traditional consultation, and six found no statistically significant difference in consultation lengths Selleck Pifithrin �� [17]. The Cochrane review showed that the effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from −8 min to +23 min
(median 2.5 min). Therefore, decision aids have a variable effect on length of consultation, and there is a need to further reflect on which contexts are associated with longer duration, shorter duration and no impact. One of the most surprising comments reported over and over again regarding shared decision making is that integrating the patient’s values and preferences into their health decisions, as well as considering the best medical evidence, is already occurring. Yet a systematic review of 33 studies assessing shared decision making in clinical practice using observer-based outcomes indicates that it has not many yet been adopted in clinical practice (mean score on OPTION = 23 ± 14%) [16]. This failure to adopt shared decision making does not appear to be a systematic refusal on the part of clinicians. First, there may be a lack of understanding of all the facets of shared decision making. Second,
there may be some confusion between shared decision making and the more broadly defined patient centered approach. Third, in the minds of some healthcare professionals, the mandatory informed consent process may be synonymous with shared decision making. In other words, clinicians may already partly engage their patients, but they do not engage them enough [43]. Notwithstanding the performance of patient decision aids, they usually do not differ significantly from usual care with regard to satisfaction with decision making, anxiety, and health outcomes, thus confirming that implementation of shared decision making may not equate solely with the delivery of decision aids to clients [44]. As defined by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration, patient decision aids are “tools designed to help people participate in decision making about health care options.