Different patients, different preferences: A multicenter assessment of patients' personality traits and anxiety in shared decision making.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-centered care and shared decision making (SDM) are generally recognized as the gold standard for medical consultations, especially for preference-sensitive decisions. However, little is known about psychological patient characteristics that influence patient-reported preferences. We set out to explore the role of personality and anxiety for a preference-sensitive decision in bladder cancer patients (choice of urinary diversion, UD) and to determine if anxiety predicts patients' participation preferences. METHODS: We recruited a sample of bladder cancer patients (N = 180, primarily male, retired) who awaited a medical consultation on radical cystectomy and their choice of UD. We asked patients to fill in a set of self-report questionnaires before this consultation, including measures of treatment preference, personality (BFI-10), anxiety (STAI), and participation preference (API and API-Uro), as well as sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Most patients (79%) indicated a clear preference for one of the treatment options (44% continent UD, 34% incontinent UD). Patients who reported more conscientiousness were more likely to prefer more complex methods (continent UD). The majority (62%) preferred to delegate decision making to healthcare professionals. A substantial number of patients reported elevated anxiety (32%), and more anxiety was predictive of higher participation preference, specifically for uro-oncological decisions (ß = 0.207, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide insight into the role of psychological patient characteristics for SDM. Aspects of personality such as conscientiousness influence treatment preferences. Anxiety contributes to patients' motivation to be involved in pertinent decisions. Thus, personality and negative affect should be considered to improve SDM.

Shared Decision Making during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic pushed some of the most well-developed health care systems to their limits. In many cases, this has challenged patient-centered care. We set out to examine individuals' attitudes toward shared decision making (SDM) and to identify predictors of participation preference during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey with a large convenience sample (N = 1061). Our main measures of interest were participants' generic and COVID-19-related participation preference as well as their acceptance and distress regarding a triage vignette. We also assessed anxiety, e-health literacy, and aspects of participants' health. We conducted group comparisons and multiple linear regression analyses on participation preference as well as triage acceptance. RESULTS: In generic decision making, most participants expressed a strong need for information and a moderate participation preference. In the hypothetical case of COVID-19 infection, most preferred physician-led decisions. Generic participation preference was the strongest predictor of COVID-19-related participation preference, followed by age, education, and anxiety. Furthermore, both higher generic and COVID-19-related participation preferences predicted lower triage acceptance. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate potential health care recipients' attitudes toward SDM during a severe health care crisis and emphasize that participation preference varies according to the context.

Dealing With the COVID-19 Infodemic: Distress by Information, Information Avoidance, and Compliance With Preventive Measures.

In the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, media reports have caused anxiety and distress in many. In some individuals, feeling distressed by information may lead to avoidance of information, which has been shown to undermine compliance with preventive health behaviors in many health domains (e.g., cancer screenings). We set out to examine whether feeling distressed by information predicts higher avoidance of information about COVID-19 (avoidance hypothesis), and whether this, in turn, predicts worse compliance with measures intended to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (compliance hypothesis). Thus, we conducted an online survey with a convenience sample (N = 1,059, 79.4% female) and assessed distress by information, information avoidance, and compliance with preventive measures. Furthermore, we inquired about participants' information seeking behavior and media usage, their trust in information sources, and level of eHealth literacy, as well as generalized anxiety. We conducted multiple linear regression analyses to predict distress by information, information avoidance, and compliance with preventive measures. Overall, distress by information was associated with better compliance. However, distress was also linked with an increased tendency to avoid information (avoidance hypothesis), and this reduced compliance with preventive measures (compliance hypothesis). Thus, distress may generally induce adaptive behavior in support of crisis management, unless individuals respond to it by avoiding information. These findings provide insights into the consequences of distress by information and avoidance of information during a global health crisis. These results underscore that avoiding information is a maladaptive response to distress by information, which may ultimately interfere with effective crisis management. Consequently, we emphasize the need to develop measures to counteract information avoidance.