7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Future of Health Is Self-Production and Co-Creation Based on Apomediative Decision Support

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cultural changes are needed in medicine if the benefits of technological advances are to benefit healthcare users. The Digital Health Manifesto of ‘medical futurist’ doctor Bertalan Meskó and ‘e-patient’ Dave deBronkart, The Patient Will See You Now by Eric Topol and The Patient as CEO by Robin Farmanfarmaian, are among the proliferating warnings of the approaching paradigm shift in medicine, resulting, above all, from technological advances that gives users independent access to exponentially increasing amounts of information about themselves. We question their messages only in suggesting they do not sufficiently shift the focus from ‘patient’ to ‘person’ and consequently fail to recognise the need for the credible, efficient, ethical and independent decision support that can ensure the ‘democratisation of knowledge’ is person empowering, not overpowering. Such decision support can ensure the ‘democratisation of decision,’ leading to higher quality decisions and fully-informed and preference-based consent to health provider actions. The coming paradigm will therefore be characterised by apomediative (‘direct-to-consumer’) decision support tools, engaged with by the person in the community to help them make health production decisions for themselves (including whether to consult a healthcare professional or provider), as well as intermediative (‘direct-from-clinician’) tools, delivered by a health professional in a ‘shared decision making’ or ‘co-creation of health’ process. This vision paper elaborates on the implementation of these preference-sensitive decision support tools through the technique of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Defining health by addressing individual, social, and environmental determinants: New opportunities for health care and public health

          The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) mobilized global commitments to promote health, socioeconomic, and sustainable development. Trends indicate that the health MDGs may not be achieved by 2015, in part because of insufficient coordination across related health, socioeconomic, and environmental initiatives. Explicitly acknowledging the need for such collaboration, the Meikirch Model of Health posits that: Health is a state of wellbeing emergent from conducive interactions between individuals' potentials, life's demands, and social and environmental determinants. Health results throughout the life course when individuals' potentials – and social and environmental determinants – suffice to respond satisfactorily to the demands of life. Life's demands can be physiological, psychosocial, or environmental, and vary across contexts, but in every case unsatisfactory responses lead to disease. This conceptualization of the integrative nature of health could contribute to ongoing efforts to strengthen cooperation across actors and sectors to improve individual and population health – leading up to 2015 and beyond.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Causes and effects of my disturbing little book.

            P E Meehl (1986)
            Review and reflection indicate that no more than 5% of what was written in the 1954 book entitled, Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction (Meehl, 1984), needs to be retracted 30 years later. If anything, these retractions would result in the book's being more actuarial than it was. Seven factors appear to account for the failure of mental health professionals to apply in practice the strong and clearly supported empirical generalizations demonstrating the superiority of actuarial over clinical prediction.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Peering into the black box: a meta-analysis of how clinicians use decision aids during clinical encounters

              Objective To quantify the extent to which clinicians use clinically-efficacious decision aids as intended during implementation in practice and how fidelity to usage instructions correlates with shared decision making (SDM) outcomes. Methods Participant-level meta-analysis including six practice-based randomized controlled trials of SDM in various clinical settings encompassing a range of decisions. Results Of 339 encounters in the SDM intervention arm of the trials, 229 were video recorded and available for analysis. The mean proportion of fidelity items observed in each encounter was 58.4% (SD = 23.2). The proportion of fidelity items observed was significantly associated with patient knowledge (p = 0.01) and clinician involvement of the patient in decision making (p <0.0001), while no association was found with patient decisional conflict or satisfaction with the encounter. Conclusion Clinicians’ fidelity to usage instructions of point-of-care decision aids in randomized trials was suboptimal during their initial implementation in practice, which may have underestimated the potential efficacy of decision aids when used as intended.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Med Sci (Basel)
                Med Sci (Basel)
                medsci
                Medical Sciences
                MDPI
                2076-3271
                22 August 2018
                September 2018
                : 6
                : 3
                : 66
                Affiliations
                [1 ]London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15–17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK
                [2 ]University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 9B, 5000 Odense C, Denmark; mkaltoft@ 123456health.sdu.dk
                [3 ]Odense University Hospital Svendborg, Valdemarsgade 53, 5700 Svendborg, Denmark
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: jack.dowie@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk ; Tel.: +44-7703-963023
                Article
                medsci-06-00066
                10.3390/medsci6030066
                6165271
                30135365
                28031300-d06d-4c72-a83f-4f4775a652fb
                © 2018 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 18 July 2018
                : 20 August 2018
                Categories
                Perspective

                medical futurists,paradigm change,disintermediation,apomediation,intermediation,patient preferences,decision support tool,decision aid,multi-criteria decision analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article