Health literacy integrates with the three-talk model for shared decision making
Shared decision making is one component of the process reflecting the quality of care. In order to improve the performance of the shared decision making approach, Elwyn and colleagues have proposed an easy-to-remember model depicting the conversational steps, portrayed in a visual format. The model is initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences (Elwyn et al., 2017).
There are several barriers to shared decision making such as lack of time, scarce trustworthy information, the attitude of clinicians. From the patient’s perspective, limited health literacy has been reported as a significant barrier to clear communication and appropriate decision making (Griffey et al., 2016). In the system approach, the health literacy of hospitals is critically important in implementing the shared decision making process (Hernandez, 2012). Health literacy should be integrated into every step of the model, from “team talk”, “option talk”, to “decision talk”. Therefore, simplifying the model, together with increasing the health literacy of patients and hospitals could contribute to improving the effectiveness of the decisions made.
Elwyn, G., Durand, M. A., Song, J., Aarts, J., Barr, P. J., Berger, Z., . . . Van der Weijden, T. (2017). A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ, 359, j4891. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4891
Griffey, R. T., McNaughton, C. D., McCarthy, D. M., Shelton, E., Castaneda-Guarderas, A., Young-Brinn, A., . . . Grudszen, C. (2016). Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department among patients with Limited Health Literacy: Beyond Slower and Louder. Academic Emergency Medicine, 23(12), 1403–1409. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acem.13104
Hernandez, L. M. (2012). How Can Health Care Organizations Become More Health Literate?: Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US).
Competing interests: No competing interests