title: Barriers and facilitators to implement shared decision making in multidisciplinary sciatica care: a qualitative study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The Dutch multidisciplinary sciatica guideline recommends that the team of professionals involved in sciatica care and the patient together decide on surgical or prolonged conservative treatment (shared decision making [SDM]). Despite this recommendation, SDM is not yet integrated in sciatica care. Existing literature concerning barriers and facilitators to SDM implementation mainly focuses on one discipline only, whereas multidisciplinary care may involve other barriers and facilitators, or make these more complex for both professionals and patients. Therefore, this qualitative study aims to identify barriers and facilitators perceived by patients and professionals for SDM implementation in multidisciplinary sciatica care.
  
  
  METHODS
  We conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with professionals involved in sciatica care (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons) and three focus groups among patients (six to eight per group). The interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Reported barriers and facilitators were classified according to the framework of Grol and Wensing. The software package Atlas.ti 7.0 was used for analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Professionals reported 53 barriers and 5 facilitators, and patients 35 barriers and 18 facilitators for SDM in sciatica care. Professionals perceived most barriers at the level of the organizational context, and facilitators at the level of the individual professional. Patients reported most barriers and facilitators at the level of the individual professional. Several barriers and facilitators correspond with barriers and facilitators found in the literature (e.g., lack of time, motivation) but also new barriers and facilitators were identified. Many of these new barriers mentioned by both professionals and patients were related to the multidisciplinary setting, such as lack of visibility, lack of trust in expertise of other disciplines, and lack of communication between disciplines.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study identified barriers and facilitators for SDM in the multidisciplinary sciatica setting, by both professionals and patients. It is clear that more barriers than facilitators are perceived for implementation of SDM in sciatica care. Newly identified barriers and facilitators are related to the multidisciplinary care setting. Therefore, an effective implementation strategy of SDM in a multidisciplinary setting such as in sciatica care should focus on these barriers and facilitators.
authors: Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 Leiden, ZA, The Netherlands. l.vanbodegom-vos@lumc.nl.
authors: Stefanie N
authors: SN
authors: Hofstede
authors: Perla J
authors: PJ
authors: Marang-van de Mheen
authors: Manon M
authors: MM
authors: Wentink
authors: Anne M
authors: AM
authors: Stiggelbout
authors: Carmen L A
authors: CL
authors: Vleggeert-Lankamp
authors: Thea P M
authors: TP
authors: Vliet Vlieland
authors: Leti
authors: L
authors: van Bodegom-Vos
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D017144:Focus Groups; D006282:Health Personnel; D006801:Humans; D033183:Interdisciplinary Communication; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009426:Netherlands; D036301:Qualitative Research; D020426:Sciatic Neuropathy / Q000628:therapy*
references: Aust Health Rev. 2007 Aug;31(3):330-1
references: 17669052
references: Psychol Health. 2010 Dec;25(10):1229-45
references: 20204937
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 05;(10):CD001431
references: 21975733
references: Med Educ. 2006 Apr;40(4):314-21
references: 16573666
references: Eur Spine J. 2011 Apr;20(4):513-22
references: 20949289
references: Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2007;101(4):241-6
references: 17601179
references: Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):526-35
references: 18752915
references: BMJ. 2000 Jan 1;320(7226):50-2
references: 10617534
references: Implement Sci. 2011 Jun 01;6:57
references: 21631933
references: BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):736-40
references: 14512487
references: Health Expect. 2006 Dec;9(4):321-32
references: 17083559
references: Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):268-75
references: 23381519
references: Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Feb;52(475):119-23
references: 11887877
references: Implement Sci. 2006 Aug 09;1:16
references: 16899124
references: BMJ. 2008 Jun 14;336(7657):1355-8
references: 18502911
references: Med J Aust. 2004 Mar 15;180(S6):S57-60
references: 15012583
references: J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Aug;17(4):554-64
references: 20695950
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Oct 15;33(22):2464-72
references: 18923325
references: J Interprof Care. 2005 May;19 Suppl 1:116-31
references: 16096150
references: BMJ. 1995 Jul 29;311(7000):299-302
references: 7633241
references: Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
references: 16204405
references: BMJ. 2008 Jun 14;336(7657):1351-4
references: 18502912
references: Implement Sci. 2012 Jun 15;7:55
references: 22704251
references: BMJ. 2010 Oct 14;341:c5146
references: 20947577
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):CD001350
references: 17443505