Supporting effective shared decision-making in surgical context: Why framing of choices matters for high-risk patients and clinicians.

Abstract

AIM: In the context of high-risk surgery, shared decision-making (SDM) is important. However, the effectiveness of SDM can be hindered by misalignment between patients and clinicians in their expectations of postoperative outcomes. This study investigated the extent and the effects of this misalignment, as well as its amenability to interventions that encourage perspective-taking. METHOD: Lay participants with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≥4 (representing patients) and surgeons and anaesthetists (representing doctors) were recruited. During an online experiment, subjects in both groups forecast their expectations regarding short-term (0, 1 and 3 months after treatment) and long-term (6, 9 and 12 months after treatment) outcomes of different treatment options for one of three hypothetical clinical scenarios - ischaemic heart disease, colorectal cancer or osteoarthritis of the hip - and then chose between surgical or non-surgical treatment. Subjects in both groups were asked to consider the scenarios from their own perspective (Estimation task), and then to adopt the perspective of subjects in the other study group (Perspective task). The decisions of all participants (surgery vs. non-surgical alternative) were analysed using binomial generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: In total, 55 lay participants and 54 doctors completed the online experiment. Systematic misalignment in expectations between high-risk patients and doctors was observed, with patients expecting better surgical outcomes than clinicians. Patients forecast a significantly higher likelihood of engaging in normal activities in the long term (β = -1.09, standard error [SE] = 0.20, t = -5.38, p < 0.001), a lower likelihood of experiencing complications in the long term (β = 0.92, SE = 0.21, t = 4.45, p < 0.001) and a lower likelihood of experiencing depression in both the short term and the long term (β = 1.01, SE = 0.19, t = 5.38, p < 0.001), than did doctors. Compared with doctors, patients forecast higher estimates of experiencing complications in the short term when a non-surgical alternative was selected (β = -0.91, SE = 0.26, t = -3.50, p = 0.003). Despite this misalignment, in both groups surgical treatment was strongly preferred (estimation task: 88.7% of doctors and 80% of patients; perspective task: 82.2% of doctors and 90.1% of patients). CONCLUSION: When high-risk surgery is discussed, a non-surgical option may be viewed as 'doing nothing', hence reducing the sense of agency and control. This biases the decision-making process, regardless of the expectations that doctors and patients might have about the outcomes of surgery. Therefore, to improve SDM and to increase the agency and control of patients regarding decisions about their care, we advocate framing the non-surgical treatment options in a way that emphasizes action, agency and change.