BMJ Open (Jun 2024)

Unravelling clinicians’ shared decision-making adoption: a qualitative exploration through the lens of diffusion of innovations theory

  • Didi Braat,
  • Fedde Scheele,
  • Johanna WM Aarts,
  • Laura Spinnewijn

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080765
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 6

Abstract

Read online

Objectives This study uses the diffusion of innovations (DOI) theory to comprehensively understand the adoption of shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical practice, specifically focusing on the ‘knowledge’ and ‘persuasion’ stages within DOI. We aim to understand the challenges and dynamics associated with SDM adoption, offering insights for more patient-centred decision-making in healthcare.Design This qualitative study employs a modified framework analysis approach, integrating ethnographic and interview data from prior research, along with additional interviews. The framework used is based on the DOI theory.Study setting and participants This study was conducted in the obstetrics and gynaecology department of a tertiary teaching hospital in the Eastern region of the Netherlands. It included interviews with 20 participants, including gynaecologists, obstetrics registrars and junior doctors currently practising in the department. Additionally, data from prior research conducted within the same department were incorporated, ensuring the maintenance of contextual consistency.Results Findings reveal a complex interplay between SDM’s benefits and challenges. Clinicians value SDM for upholding patient autonomy and enhancing medical practice, viewing it as valuable for medical decision-making. Decision aids are seen as advantageous in supporting treatment decisions. Challenges include compatibility issues between patient and clinician preferences, perceptions of SDM as time-consuming and difficult and limitations imposed by the rapid pace of healthcare and its swift decisions. Additionally, perceived complexity varies by situation, influenced by colleagues’ attitudes, with limited trialability and sparsely observed instances of SDM.Conclusions Clinicians’ decision to adopt or reject SDM is multifaceted, shaped by beliefs, cognitive processes and contextual challenges. Cognitive dissonance is critical as clinicians reconcile their existing practices with the adoption of SDM. Practical strategies such as practice assessments, open discussions about SDM’s utility and reflective practice through professional development initiatives empower clinicians to make the best informed decision to adopt or reject SDM.