Shared decision-making in Malaysia: Legislation, patient involvement, implementation and the impact of COVID-19.

Shared decision making (SDM) activities in Malaysia began around 2010. The rise in the numbers of patients with chronic disease in Malaysia underscores a growing need for doctors to practice patient-centred care and SDM as more Malaysians come into regular contact with health decision-making scenarios. Recent guidelines for medical professionalism have emphasized that options and risks be discussed in consultations, especially for procedures with risk of adverse outcomes. Although SDM is not legally required, principles of SDM are applied in legal judgements on informed consent. Research on SDM has grown to include the adoption of patient and public involvement in research, an increased emphasis on incorporating local cultural values in SDM, and implementation of SDM in Malaysia's health system and organizational culture. While COVID-19 hindered the progress of SDM research, one positive development was that vaccination choices heightened public consciousness about personal decisional autonomy and the need to discuss pros and cons with doctors before making a medical decision.

Shared decision-making in Canada: Update on integration of evidence in health decisions and patient-centred care government mandates.

In Canada, government mandates for patient-centred care (PCC) vary across the 10 provinces and three territories. Although basic medical and hospital services are provided for all, health care options for patients also depend on having private insurance. Thus, the current design of the Canadian healthcare system has several implications for PCC and shared decision-making (SDM). Since 2007, this is our fourth update on SDM in Canada. The aim of this paper is to provide an update on the current state of SDM and patient and public involvement in Canada. Overall, we still observed the difficulty of implementing any sort of national strategy partly because of the decentralized nature of the healthcare system. Second, national professional education programs are complicated by licensure and scope of practice variations across jurisdictions. Third, there are variations in the availability of different options covered by universal healthcare. Canada has experienced some favorable development as PCC is now explicitly articulated in the policies of most provinces and territories and there are increased efforts to give patients more access to their electronic health records. However, patient and public engagement (PPE) reform in health programs and governance remains an exception, and continuing centralization of governance structures may reduce their responsiveness to patient priorities. In a 2018 survey, 47.2% of respondents reported that they were not told by their health professional that they had a choice about treatment. Nonetheless, decision aids and decision coaching are increasingly available for health-related decisions and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute's decision aid inventory has ensured continued leadership in this area. Diverse jurisdictions are starting to embed decision aids into care pathways, with some decision aids being included in clinical practice guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic may have had a negative impact on SDM by removing decision choices due to emergency public health mandates, but stimulated new research and decision aids. Canada continues to assign health research funding to SDM and PCC, and a program dedicated to patient-oriented research is central to this effort. Guides and frameworks are increasingly available for planning and evaluating PPE. Finally, various initiatives are attempting to involve and empower Indigenous peoples through PPE and SDM.