Shared Decision‐Making During Virtual Care Regarding Rheumatologic and Chronic Conditions: Qualitative Study of Benefits, Pitfalls, and Optimization

• Published in: ACR open rheumatology Vol. 6; no. 1; pp. 32 - 42
• Main Authors: Zickuhr, Lisa, McCarthy, Catherine, Nolan‐Thomas, Emma, Westrich‐Robertson, Tiffany, Baker, Elizabeth A., Hanson, Janice L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Boston, USA Wiley Periodicals, Inc 01.01.2024; John Wiley & Sons, Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: Arthritis; Chronic illnesses; Clinical decision making; Connective tissue; Decision making; Disease; Ethnicity; Females; Focus groups; Gender; Interviews; Original; Patients; Qualitative research; Rheumatology; White people; United States > US
• ISSN: 2578-5745; 2578-5745
• DOI: 10.1002/acr2.11633

Objective Virtual care (VC) is an accepted modality of care delivery, and shared decision‐making (SDM) benefits patients with rheumatologic and chronic conditions (RCCs). Unfortunately, research suggests reduced quality of SDM during VC. This study explores the benefits and shortcomings of SDM regarding RCCs during VC with suggestions for optimally using VC during SDM. Methods Following Stiggelbout's framework for SDM, we conducted focus groups of patients with RCCs and providers to understand their experiences with SDM during VC, probing for facilitating and challenging factors. We conducted content analysis of the transcripts, defining themes, and inductively reasoned to identify relationships among themes. We summarized the facilitators, barriers, and opportunities for improving SDM during VC that participants proposed. Results Virtual SDM shares several similarities with in‐person practice, as both draw upon trusting patient‐provider relationships, following the same general steps, and relying on effective communication. VC presents solutions for known barriers to in‐person SDM, expanding time for making decisions and access to care. Technology and virtual health systems introduce new barriers to SDM, and participants list opportunities for overcoming these concerns. Conclusion VC is a tool that can enhance and even support superior SDM compared with in‐person visits when implemented successfully, a condition requiring the development of nuanced skills to correctly identify when and how to best use VC for SDM as well as technology and health care structures that integrate SDM into VC. Therefore, patients, providers, insurance carriers, and policy makers all contribute to the success of SDM among RCCs during VC.