Page - 113 - in Applied Interdisciplinary Theory in Health Informatics - Knowledge Base for Practitioners

potentially preference sensitive, implying that physicians should always consider the patient’s perspective, even in cases of decisions about issues that may appear value- neutral at first glance [10]. N # & > & 1.3. Shared decision making (SDM) Modern-day health care practice offers people an increasing amount of healthcare options, from preconception to end-of-life care. Advances in medical knowledge and health innovation have also resulted in increasingly complex decisions regarding personal health. Most (if not all) of us face some through personal health choices throughout our life courses. Not only do (preference-sensitive) medical decisions often involve high-stakes and trade-offs between potential benefits and harms of different options (such as between quantity and quality of life, or between treatment efficacy and treatment burden), as patients we also often face emotionally charged, unanticipated and novel situations. To optimize personal health choices, new information needs to be integrated with personal values, life goals and circumstances. People vary widely in how they value the matters at stake in trade-offs. For each individual patient, the suitability of each of the medical treatment options depends on the individual patient’s unique values, preferences and circumstances. This makes it essential to involve patients in the decisions that concern their life and well-being, as patients also indicate themselves – about 80% of people want to be actively involved in the medical decision-making process involving invasive medical procedures [11]. Another example that illustrates the need for more active patient engagement in treatment decision making comes from a recent study in the Netherlands, which revealed that one in three prostate cancer patients was dissatisfied with the amount of information they received about their treatment options [12]. Shared decision making is not only aimed at physical health, but also applies to mental health [13]. SDM is often characterized as a meeting between two experts: A medical and an existential expert. The medical expert, that is, the healthcare provider, can bring in professional expertise, such as information about the medical condition from which a patient is suffering, the medical treatment options for which a patient is eligible and the evidence about the pros and cons associated with those options, according to available medical evidence and the healthcare provider’s own expertise. The existential expert, that is, the patient (and in some cases, such as in aged care, also their loved ones), can bring in information about his or her unique circumstances, personal values and (life) goals, which are essential for interpreting the medical evidence in light of what matters most from the patient’s perspective. Even if a patient does not want to make a final decision, SDM can help a health care provider to make a decision that is sensitive to the patient’s values and context. The ideal of SDM has been called “the pinnacle of patient- centered care” [14]. However, despite SDM being embraced as the gold standard, its implementation is lagging behind and health care practice still widely deviates from this norm. For example, in a study published in 2012, less than 50% of patients reported that their healthcare providers had considered their personal goals or concerns [15]. M.deVriesetal. /FosteringSharedDecisionMakingwithHealth Informatics Interventions 113