Objective: To construct the underlying value structure of shared decision making (SDM) models. Method: We included previously identified SDM models (n = 40) and 15 additional ones. Using a thematic analysis, we coded the data using Schwartz’s value theory to define values in SDM and to investigate value relations. Results: We identified and defined eight values and developed three themes based on their relations: shared control, a safe and supportive environment, and decisions tailored to patients. We constructed a value structure based on the value relations and themes: the interplay of healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) and patients’ skills [Achievement], support for a patient [Benevolence], and a good relationship between HCP and patient [Security] all facilitate patients’ autonomy [Self-Direction]. These values enable a more balanced relationship between HCP and patient and tailored decision making [Universalism]. Conclusion: SDM can be realized by an interplay of values. The values Benevolence and Security deserve more explicit attention, and may especially increase vulnerable patients’ Self-Direction. Practice implications: This value structure enables a comparison of values underlying SDM with those of specific populations, facilitating the incorporation of patients’ values into treatment decision making. It may also inform the development of SDM measures, interventions, education programs, and HCPs when practicing.
Introduction: Shared decision-making is considered to be a key aspect of woman-centered care and a strategy to improve communication, respect, and satisfaction. This scoping review identified studies that used a shared decision-making support strategy as the primary intervention in the context of perinatal care. Methods: A literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases was completed for English-language studies conducted from January 2000 through November 2019 that examined the impact of a shared decision-making support strategy on a perinatal decision (such as choice of mode of birth after prior cesarean birth). Studies that only examined the use of a decision aid were excluded. Nine studies met inclusion criteria and were examined for the nature of the shared decision-making intervention as well as outcome measures such as decisional evaluation, including decisional conflict, decisional regret, and certainty. Results: The 9 included studies were heterogeneous with regard to shared decision-making interventions and measured outcomes and were performed in different countries and in a variety of perinatal situations, such as women facing the choice of mode of birth after prior cesarean birth. The impact of a shared decision-making intervention on women’s perception of shared decision-making and on their experiences of the decision-making process were mixed. There may be a decrease in decisional conflict and regret related to feeling informed, but no change in decisional certainty. Discussion: Despite the call to increase the use of shared decision-making in perinatal care, there are few studies that have examined the effects of a shared decision-making support strategy. Further studies that include antepartum and intrapartum settings, which include common perinatal decisions such as induction of labor, are needed. In addition, clear guidance and strategies for successfully integrating shared decision-making and practice recommendations would help women and health care providers navigate these complex decisions.
In the decision-making environment of evidence-based practice, the following three sources of information must be integrated: research evidence of the intervention, clinical expertise, and the patient’s values. In reality, evidence-based practice usually focuses on research evidence (which may be translated into clinical practice guidelines) and clinical expertise without considering the individual patient’s values. The shared decision-making model seems to be helpful in the integration of the individual patient’s values in evidence-based practice. We aim to discuss the relevance of shared decision making in chronic care and to suggest how it can be integrated with evidence-based practice in nursing. We start by describing the following three possible approaches to guide the decision-making process: the paternalistic approach, the informed approach, and the shared decision-making approach. Implementation of shared decision making has gained considerable interest in cases lacking a strong best-treatment recommendation, and when the available treatment options are equivalent to some extent. We discuss that in chronic care it is important to always invite the patient to participate in the decision-making process. We delineate the following six attributes of health care interventions in chronic care that influence the degree of shared decision making: the level of research evidence, the number of available intervention options, the burden of side effects, the impact on lifestyle, the patient group values, and the impact on resources. Furthermore, the patient’s willingness to participate in shared decision making, the clinical expertise of the nurse, and the context in which the decision making takes place affect the shared decision-making process. A knowledgeable and skilled nurse with a positive attitude towards shared decision making – integrated with evidence-based practice – can facilitate the shared decision-making process. We conclude that nurses as well as other health care professionals in chronic care should integrate shared decision making with evidence- based practice to deliver patient-centred care.
The energy transition is a highly complex technical and societal challenge, coping with e.g. existing ownership situations, intrusive retrofit measures, slow decision-making processes and uneven value distribution. Large scale retrofitting activities insulating multiple buildings at once is urgently needed to reach the climate targets but the decision-making of retrofitting in buildings with shared ownership is challenging. Each owner is accountable for his own energy bill (and footprint), giving a limited action scope. This has led to a fragmented response to the energy retrofitting challenge with negligible levels of building energy efficiency improvements conducted by multiple actors. Aggregating the energy design process on a building level would allow more systemic decisions to happen and offer the access to alternative types of funding for owners. “Collect Your Retrofits” intends to design a generic and collective retrofit approach in the challenging context of monumental areas. As there are no standardised approaches to conduct historical building energy retrofits, solutions are tailor-made, making the process expensive and unattractive for owners. The project will develop this approach under real conditions of two communities: a self-organised “woongroep” and a “VvE” in the historic centre of Amsterdam. Retrofit designs will be identified based on energy performance, carbon emissions, comfort and costs so that a prioritisation strategy can be drawn. Instead of each owner investing into their own energy retrofitting, the neighbourhood will invest into the most impactful measures and ensure that the generated economic value is retained locally in order to make further sustainable investments and thus accelerating the transition of the area to a CO2-neutral environment.
The IMPULS-2020 project DIGIREAL (BUas, 2021) aims to significantly strengthen BUAS’ Research and Development (R&D) on Digital Realities for the benefit of innovation in our sectoral industries. The project will furthermore help BUas to position itself in the emerging innovation ecosystems on Human Interaction, AI and Interactive Technologies. The pandemic has had a tremendous negative impact on BUas industrial sectors of research: Tourism, Leisure and Events, Hospitality and Facility, Built Environment and Logistics. Our partner industries are in great need of innovative responses to the crises. Data, AI combined with Interactive and Immersive Technologies (Games, VR/AR) can provide a partial solution, in line with the key-enabling technologies of the Smart Industry agenda. DIGIREAL builds upon our well-established expertise and capacity in entertainment and serious games and digital media (VR/AR). It furthermore strengthens our initial plans to venture into Data and Applied AI. Digital Realities offer great opportunities for sectoral industry research and innovation, such as experience measurement in Leisure and Hospitality, data-driven decision-making for (sustainable) tourism, geo-data simulations for Logistics and Digital Twins for Spatial Planning. Although BUas already has successful R&D projects in these areas, the synergy can and should significantly be improved. We propose a coherent one-year Impuls funded package to develop (in 2021): 1. A multi-year R&D program on Digital Realities, that leads to, 2. Strategic R&D proposals, in particular a SPRONG/sleuteltechnologie proposal; 3. Partnerships in the regional and national innovation ecosystem, in particular Mind Labs and Data Development Lab (DDL); 4. A shared Digital Realities Lab infrastructure, in particular hardware/software/peopleware for Augmented and Mixed Reality; 5. Leadership, support and operational capacity to achieve and support the above. The proposal presents a work program and management structure, with external partners in an advisory role.
The purpose of this project was to create a roadmap with selected mechanisms to assist destination management organisations to optimize the benefits generated by tourism for their destination communities and ensure that it is shared equitably. By providing tools to identify and address inequality in terms of access to the benefits and value tourism generates, it is envisaged that a more equitable tourism model can be implemented leading to the fair distribution of benefits in destination communities, potentially increasing the value for previously excluded or underserved groups. To produce the roadmap, the study team will explore the range of challenges that hinder the equitable distribution of tourism-induced benefits in destinations as well as the enabling factors that influence the extent to which this is achieved. The central question the research team has set out to answer is the following: What does an equitable tourism model look like for destination communities?Societal issueHowever, while those directly involved in tourism will gain the most, the burden of hosting visitors is widely felt by local communities. This imbalance has, unsurprisingly, sparked civil mobilisations and protests in destinations around the world. It’s clear that placemaking and benefit-sharing must be part of the future of destination management to maintain public support. This project addressed issues around equity (environmental, economic, spatial, cultural and tourism experience). In line with the intentions set out in the CELTH Agenda Conscious Destinations.Benefit to societyBased on 25 case studies around 40 mechanisms were identified that can grow or better distribute the value from tourism, so that more people in destination communities benefit. These mechanisms are real-world practices already in use. DMOs and NTOs can consider introducing the mechanisms that best fit their destination context, pulling levers such as: taxes and revenue sharing, business incubation and training, licencing and zoning, community enterprises and volunteering, and product development..This report also outlines a pathway to an Equity-Driven Management (EDM) approach, which is grounded in participatory decision-making principles and aims to create a more equitable tourism system by strengthening the hand of destination governance and retaining control of local resources.Collaborative partnersNBTC, the Travel Foundation, Destination Think, CELTH, ETFI, HZ.
