Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeDecisional conflict refers to the degree to which patients are engaged in and feel comfortable about important clinical decisions. Until now, the concept has received little attention in mental health care. We investigate the level of decisional conflict in mental health care and whether this is influenced by socio-demographics, treatment setting, diagnoses, and locus of control.MethodsCross-sectional study among 186 patients in Dutch specialist mental health care using the Decisional Conflict Scale, which measures five dimensions of decisional conflict: information, support, clarification of values, certainty, and decisional quality. Descriptive statistics and forward stepwise linear regression analyses were used.ResultsPatients report relatively high levels of decisional conflict, especially those with more external locus of control. Having a personality disorder and higher education also increases decisional conflict on the dimensions support and clarification of values, respectively. Less decisional conflict was experienced by patients with psychotic disorders on the dimension certainty and by women on the information domain.ConclusionsDecisional conflict is common among patients in specialist mental health care and is very useful for assessing the quality of clinical decision making. Measuring decisional conflict and knowledge about influencing factors can be used to improve patients’ participation in clinical decision making, adherence to treatment and clinical outcomes.

Background. Older adults receiving home care services often face decisions related to aging, illness, and loss of autonomy. To inform tailored shared decision making interventions, we assessed their decisional needs by asking about the most common difficult decisions, measured associated decisional conflict, and identified factors associated with it. Methods. In March 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey with a pan-Canadian Web-based panel of older adults (≥65 y) receiving home care services. For a difficult decision they had faced in the past year, we evaluated clinically significant decisional conflict (CSDC) using the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (score 0–100) with a >37.5 cutoff. To identify factors associated with CSDC, we performed descriptive, bivariable, and multivariable analyses using the stepwise selection method with an assumed entry and exit significance level of 0.15 and 0.20, respectively. Final model selection was based on the Bayesian information criterion. Results. Among 460 participants with an average age of 72.5 y, difficult decisions were, in order of frequency, about housing and safety (57.2%), managing health conditions (21.8%), and end-of-life care (8.3%). CSDC was experienced by 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5%, 18.1%) of respondents on all decision points. Factors associated with CSDC included household size = 1 (OR [95% CI]: 1.81 [0.99, 3.33]; P = 0.27), household size = 3 (2.66 [0.78, 8.98]; P = 0.83), and household size = 4 (6.91 [2.23, 21.39]; P = 0.014); preferred option not matching the decision made (4.05 [2.05, 7.97]; P < 0.001); passive role in decision making (5.13 [1.78, 14.77]; P = 0.002); and lower quality of life (0.70 [0.57, 0.87]; P<0.001). Discussion. Some older adults receiving home care services in Canada experience CSDC when facing difficult decisions. Shared decision-making interventions could mitigate associated factors. Highlights This is the first study in Canada to assess the decisional needs of older adults receiving care at home and to identify their most common difficult decisions. Difficult decisions most frequently made were about housing and safety. The most significant decisional conflict was experienced by people making decisions about palliative care. When their quality-of-life score was low, older adults experienced clinically significant decision conflict. Graphical Abstract This is a visual representation of the abstract.

Making decisions about chronic pain care is often challenging due to uncertainties, leading to decisional conflict when individuals do not receive the support and information they need. Shared decision-making interventions can help meet these needs; however, their effectiveness is inconsistent in the context of chronic pain. This study aimed to identify the decisional needs influencing decisional conflict among adults with chronic pain in Canada, to guide the development of more comprehensive interventions. In this pan-Canadian online survey, we measured decisional conflict related to the most difficult decision using the Decisional Conflict Scale (≥ 37.5 indicating clinically significant conflict) and assessed decisional needs based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Of the 1,649 participants, 1,373 reported a Decisional Conflict Scale score. The mean age was 52 (SD = 16.4), with half of respondents being men (49.5%) and pain duration ranging from 3 months to 59 years. One-third (33.7%) experienced clinically significant decisional conflict. Seventeen risk factors were identified, including difficulty understanding healthcare information (OR = 2.43) and lack of prior knowledge of available options (OR = 2.03), while role congruence in decision-making was associated with reduced conflict (OR = 0.57). Future SDM interventions could be enhanced by targeting multiple risk factors of decisional conflict.

BackgroundBoth patients and surrogate decision-makers experience decisional conflict when making a major medical treatment decision with life or death implications. The relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict while making a major medical treatment decision is not understood.ObjectiveTo identify the prevalence of individuals making major medical treatment decisions for themselves or someone else and to explore the relationships between decisional conflict and circumstances of the decision as well as the decision-maker.DesignTwo-phase survey study: in phase 1, we screened for who made a major treatment decision; in phase 2, we asked eligible respondents about their experience making the decision.ParticipantsAddress-based random sample of 4000 Wisconsin residents; 1072 completed phase 1 and 464 completed phase 2.Main MeasuresWe asked respondents about types of decisions made, the most difficult decision made, and characteristics of the decision-maker and the decision. We included the Decisional Conflict Scale and four domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. Open-ended questions also allowed respondents to describe their experiences.Key ResultsAbout 43% of respondents reported making a major medical treatment decision. Decisions about major surgery and life support were regarded as the most difficult decisions. Respondents who made the decision for a spouse/partner (β = 6.65, p = 0.012), parent (β = 9.27, p < 0.001), or someone else (β = 10.7, p < 0.001) had higher decisional conflict. Respondents who reported higher ability to actively engage with healthcare providers (β = − 5.24, p = 0.002) and to understand health information well enough to know what to do (β = − 6.12, p = 0.001) had lower decisional conflict.ConclusionsThe need to make major treatment decisions is likely to increase and making decisions on someone else’s behalf appeared to be especially difficult. Improving communication to encourage patient and family engagement in the decision-making conversation, particularly for individuals with limited health literacy, may be helpful.

Background Decision-making in palliative care can be complex due to the uncertain prognosis and general fear surrounding decisions. Decision-making in palliative care may be influenced by spiritual and cultural beliefs or values. Determinants of the decision-making process are not completely understood, and spirituality is essential for coping with illness. Thus, this study aims to explore the influence of spirituality on the perception of healthcare decision-making in palliative care outpatients. Methods A cross-sectional study was developed. A battery of tests was administered to 95 palliative outpatients, namely: sociodemographic questionnaire (SQ), Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being scale (FACIT-Sp), and a semi-structured interview (SSI) to study one’s perception of spirituality and autonomy in decision-making. Statistical analyses involved descriptive statistics for SQ and SSI. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare scale scores between groups and correlations were used for all scales and subscales. The analysis of patients’ definitions of spirituality was based on the interpretative phenomenological process. Results Spiritual wellbeing significantly correlated with greater levels of physical, emotional and functional wellbeing and a better quality of life. Greater spiritual wellbeing was associated with less decisional conflict, decreased uncertainty, a feeling of being more informed and supported and greater satisfaction with one’s decision. Most patients successfully implemented their decision and identified themselves as capable of early decision-making. Patients who were able to implement their decision presented lower decisional conflict and higher levels of spiritual wellbeing and quality of life. Within the 16 themes identified, spirituality was mostly described through family. Patients who had received spiritual care displayed better scores of spiritual wellbeing, quality of life and exhibited less decisional conflict. Patients considered spirituality during illness important and believed that the need to receive spiritual support and specialised care could enable decision-making when taking into consideration ones’ values and beliefs. Conclusion The impact of spiritual wellbeing on decision-making is evident. Spirituality is a key component of overall wellbeing and it assumes multidimensional and unique functions. Individualised care that promotes engagement in decision-making and considers patients’ spiritual needs is essential for promoting patient empowerment, autonomy and dignity.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of vaccination decision aids compared with usual care on vaccine uptake, vaccine attitudes, decisional conflict, intent to vaccinate and timeliness. Searches were conducted in OVID Medline, OVID Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library and SCOPUS. Randomised controlled trials were included if they evaluated the impact of decision aids as defined by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration. Where possible, meta-analysis was undertaken. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we conducted a narrative synthesis. Risk of bias in included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. Data were analysed using STATA. Five RCTs were identified that evaluated the effectiveness of decision aids in the context of vaccination decision making. Meta-analysis of four studies showed that decision aids may have slightly increased vaccination uptake, but this was reduced to no effect once studies with higher risk of bias were excluded. Meta-analysis of three studies showed that decision aids moderately increased intention to vaccinate. Narrative synthesis of two studies suggested that decision aids reduced decisional conflict. One study reported that decision aids decreased perceived risk of vaccination. Content, format and delivery method of the decision aids varied across the studies. It was not clear from the information reported whether these variations affected the effectiveness of the decision aids. Decision aids can assist in vaccine decision making. Future studies of decision aids could provide greater detail of the decision aids themselves, which would enable comparison of the effectiveness of different elements and formats. Standardising decision aids would also allow for easier comparison between decision aids.

The initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy for critically ill patients often requires complex and high-stakes decision-making by family members, who are frequently unprepared for such situations. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of decisional conflict among Chinese family caregivers prior to ECMO initiation and to examine associated biopsychosocial factors. A convenience sample of 169 family members of patients for whom ECMO initiation was deemed necessary by the treating team was recruited from a tertiary hospital in Jiangxi Province, China. Data were collected using validated instruments, including the Decisional Conflict Scale, Decision Preparedness Scale, Decision Fatigue Scale, Social Support Scale, and Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with decisional conflict. Decisional conflict was reported by 63.3% of participants. In univariate analyses, conflict was associated with family income, understanding of the patient’s condition and ECMO, decision fatigue, decision preparedness, physician trust, and social support (all P  < 0.05). In multivariate analyses, higher decision fatigue was associated with greater decisional conflict (OR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.00–2.06). Lower understanding of ECMO (OR = 0.18, 95% CI 0.06–0.58), lower physician trust scores (indicating higher trust; OR = 3.15, 95% CI 1.51–6.57), and lower social support (OR = 0.443, 95% CI 0.280–0.70) were significantly associated with increased decisional conflict. A substantial proportion of Chinese family caregivers of ECMO patients experience decisional conflict prior to treatment initiation. Clinical practice must uphold the ethical obligation of providing complete and comprehensible information to patients or surrogates. Beyond this baseline, structured communication strategies (e.g., family meetings, standardized ECMO information sheets) and decision-support tools may help families understand patients’ presumed wishes and reduce decisional conflict under time-pressured ICU conditions. Where feasible, interventions to alleviate decision fatigue, strengthen physician–family trust, and reinforce available social support resources may further support surrogate decision-making. Clinical trial number Not applicable.

This study aims to investigate decisional conflict and elucidate challenges in decision-making among perinatal women using or considering using antidepressant (AD) during pregnancy. A sequential, mixed-methods study was employed among pregnant and postnatal women in Norway who had been offered ADs in the last 5 years. Quantitative data were obtained through an electronic questionnaire. Decisional conflict in pregnancy was assessed using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) defined as either low (< 25) or moderate-high ( ≥ 25) (evaluated retrospectively for postnatal women). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with moderate–high decisional conflict. Qualitative data were collected through focus groups with pregnant and postnatal women, and an inductive approach was used for data analysis. Among 174 pregnant and 102 postnatal women, 67.8% and 69.6%, respectively, reported moderate–high decisional conflict during pregnancy. Unsatisfactory doctor-patient relationship was associated with greater likelihood of having moderate–high decisional conflict in pregnancy, both in pregnant (aOR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.00–1.44) and postnatal women (aOR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08–1.82). Reported barriers to decision-making regarding AD use in pregnancy encompassed five DCS subscales: uninformed knowledge following contradictory research and unfamiliarity with authorised resources, unclear values due to emotional blunting and fear associated with AD use, inadequate support, uncertainty in decisions and ineffective decisions due to difficulty in finding personalised treatment, and diverging recommendations by the healthcare providers (HCPs). The quality of the interaction with the HCP plays a crucial role in managing decisional conflict and supporting informed decisions in the management of perinatal mental illness. This study highlights the need for increased provision of clear, evidence-based information by HCPs to facilitate shared decision-making and create personalised treatments for perinatal women considering AD use during pregnancy.

Background One of the greatest concerns for cancer patients of reproductive age is fertility. Numerous studies have demonstrated that patients with cancer lack regular access to fertility preservation information. This study aimed to evaluate awareness of reproductive concerns related to infertility preservation among female cancer patients. Methods A cross‑sectional study was conducted between March and August 2024 at the gynecological oncology unit in collaboration with the assisted reproductive technology unit at Woman’s Health Hospital, Assiut University, Egypt. A purposive sample of 20 women aged 16–40 years with newly diagnosed early‑stage cancer who had not yet initiated treatment and had already received fertility counseling was recruited. Data were collected through structured face‑to‑face interviews via questionnaires covering personal, obstetrical, reproductive, and cancer‑related characteristics, in addition to the Infertility Knowledge Questionnaire, the Reproductive Concerns After Cancer Scale, the Fertility Intention Scale, and the Decisional Conflict Scale. Associations between study variables were examined via appropriate statistical analyses. Results Most women with cancer reported poor knowledge about fertility preservation, high reproductive concerns, strong fertility intentions, and low decisional conflict. Associations were observed between education level, infertility knowledge, and fertility intentions. Conclusion Most female cancer patients reported high reproductive concerns and strong fertility intentions despite limited knowledge about infertility and fertility preservation. Education level and selected obstetrical factors were associated with infertility knowledge, fertility intentions, and reproductive concerns.