Perceived shared decision making and satisfaction with care among children and adolescents with special healthcare needs and their parents: Cross-sectional evidence from the PART-CHILD Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare shared decision making (SDM) and satisfaction with care (SWC), an indicator of care quality, between children with special healthcare needs (CSHCN) and parents and to assess the association between SDM and SWC in both groups. METHODS: We recruited CSHCN ≥ 7 years and parents from 15 outpatient facilities that completed a paper questionnaire assessing SDM (highest vs. lower levels of SDM) and SWC. Differences in SDM and SWC were assessed with McNemar and paired t-tests. We used adjusted linear mixed models to investigate cross-sectional associations between SDM and SWC. RESULTS: Based on data from 275 CSHCN and 858 parents, 39% and 64% of CSHCN and parents reported the highest level of SDM (p < 0.0001). No difference in SWC was observed (p = 0.36). Perceived SDM was associated with SWC in both groups (both p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Associations between SDM and SWC reinforce the role of SDM for care quality. Large proportions of CSHCN and parents reporting suboptimal levels of SDM highlight the need for effective programs to promote SDM in the target population. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Until effective programs become available, healthcare professionals can use existing opportunities to involve CSHCN and parents in consultations (e.g., provide sufficient opportunities to ask questions).

Co-design of the EMBED-Care Framework as an intervention to enhance shared decision-making for people affected by dementia and practitioners, comprising holistic assessment, linked with clinical decision support tools: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision-making intends to align care provision with individuals' preferences. However, the involvement of people living with dementia in decision-making about their care varies. We aimed to co-design the EMBED-Care Framework, to enhance shared decision-making between people affected by dementia and practitioners. METHODS: A theory and evidence driven co-design study was conducted, using iterative workshops, informed by a theoretical model of shared decision-making and the EMBED-Care Framework (the intervention) for person-centred holistic palliative dementia care. The intervention incorporates a holistic outcome measure for assessment and review, linked with clinical decision-support tools to support shared decision-making. We drew on the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Participants included people with dementia of any type, current or bereaved family carers and practitioners. We recruited via established dementia groups and research and clinical networks. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis to explore how and when the intervention could enhance communication and shared decision-making, and the requirements for use, presented as a logic model. RESULTS: Five co-design workshops were undertaken with participants comprising people affected by dementia (n = 18) and practitioners (n = 36). Three themes were generated, comprising: (1) 'knowing the person and personalisation of care', involving the person with dementia and/or family carer identifying the needs of the person using a holistic assessment. (2) 'engaging and considering the perspectives of all involved in decision-making' required listening to the person and the family to understand their priorities, and to manage multiple preferences. (3) 'Training and support activities' to use the Framework through use of animated videos to convey information, such as to understand the outcome measure used to assess symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention developed sought to enhance shared decision-making with individuals affected by dementia and practitioners, through increased shared knowledge of individual priorities and choices for care and treatment. The workshops generated understanding to manage disagreements in determining priorities. Practitioners require face-to-face training on the intervention, and on communication to manage sensitive conversations about symptoms, care and treatment with individuals and their family. The findings informed the construction of a logic model to illustrate how the intervention is intended to work.

Working Towards Holistic Scar Assessment and Improved Shared Decision Making in Global Burn Care.

Cutaneous burn scars impact various aspects of life. Scar treatment is mainly evaluated on scar characteristics. Consensus is needed on which other outcomes to capture, ensuring they are relevant to patients, clinicians, and researchers. The aim of this study was to identify, discuss and analyze outcomes related to cutaneous burn scarring, incorporating the voice of patients and views of healthcare professionals. For this, a Delphi process consisting of two survey rounds and a consensus meeting was initiated. Burn scar-related outcomes were identified from an existing comprehensive list of 100 outcomes by an international panel of patients, healthcare professionals and researchers. Fifty-nine outcomes were identified from the Delphi process as related to scarring (≥60% votes). Outcomes less impactful in relation to scar outcomes included psychosocial issues, sense of normality, understanding of treatment, costs and systemic issues. To represent a holistic assessment of outcomes related to cutaneous burn scarring, this Delphi process established a battery of outcomes currently included in scar quality assessment tools, and an expanded set of less frequently considered outcomes. Future work in this area must include the patient voice from developing countries. This is essential to identify globally applicable outcomes related to scarring.

Shared decision-making in healthcare in mainland China: a scoping review.

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) facilitates the participation of healthcare professionals and patients in treatment decisions. We conducted a scoping review to assess SDM's current status in mainland China, referencing the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF). Methods: Our review encompassed extensive searches across six English and four Chinese databases, and various gray literature until April 30, 2021. Results were synthesized using thematic analysis. Results: Out of the 60 included studies, we identified three key themes based on the ODSF framework: decisional needs, decision support, and decisional outcomes. However, there appears to be a lack of comprehensive understanding of concepts related to decisional needs in China. Only a few studies have delved into feasibility, preference, choice, and outcome factors in the SDM process. Another challenge emerges from an absence of uniform standards for developing patient decision aids (PDAs). Furthermore, regarding health outcome indicators, their predominant focus remains on physiological needs. Conclusion: SDM is in its infancy in mainland China. It is important to explore the concept and expression of decisional needs in the context of Chinese culture. Subsequent studies should focus on constructing a scientifically rigorous and systematic approach for the development of PDAs, and considering the adaptation of SDM steps to the clinical context in China during SDM implementation. Concurrently, The focus on health outcomes in Chinese SDM studies, driven by the unique healthcare resource landscape, underscores the necessity of prioritizing basic needs within limited resources. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/?s=202130021.

Finding Your Way - A shared decision making resource developed by and for Aboriginal people in Australia: Perceived acceptability, usability, and feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Finding Your Way is a culturally adapted shared decision making (SDM) resource for Aboriginal (First Nations) people of Australia. It integrates the Eight Ways of Aboriginal Learning (8 Ways) and was created by Aboriginal health workers and community members in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceived acceptability, usability, and feasibility of Finding Your Way as a SDM resource for Aboriginal people making health and wellbeing decisions. METHODS: The web-based resources were disseminated using social media, professional networks, publications, and the 'Koori grapevine'. Thirteen 'champions' also promoted the resources. An online questionnaire was available on the website for three months. Framework analysis determined early indications of its acceptability, usability, and feasibility. Web and social media analytics were also analysed. Partnership with and leadership by Aboriginal people was integrated at all phases of the project. RESULTS: The main landing page was accessed 5219 times by 4259 users. 132 users completed the questionnaire. The non-linear and visual aspects of the resources 'speak to mob' and identified with Aboriginal culture. The inclusion of social and emotional well-being, and the holistic approach were well received by the small number of users who opted to provide feedback. They suggested that non-digital formats and guidance on the resources are required to support use in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The 8 Ways enabled the development of a culturally safe SDM resource for Aboriginal people, which was well received by users who took the time to provide feedback after a brief dissemination process. Additional accessible formats, practice guides and training are required to support uptake in clinical practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Finding Your Way could be used to help improve experiences, health literacy, decision making quality and outcomes of healthcare for Aboriginal Australians.

The impact of adding cost information to a conversation aid to support shared decision making about low-risk prostate cancer treatment: Results of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids help patients consider the benefits and drawbacks of care options but rarely include cost information. We assessed the impact of a conversation-based decision aid containing information about low-risk prostate cancer management options and their relative costs. METHODS: We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in outpatient urology practices within a US-based academic medical center. We randomised five clinicians to four intervention sequences and enroled patients newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Primary patient-reported outcomes collected postvisit included the frequency of cost conversations and referrals to address costs. Other patient-reported outcomes included: decisional conflict postvisit and at 3 months, decision regret at 3 months, shared decision-making postvisit, financial toxicity postvisit and at 3 months. Clinicians reported their attitudes about shared decision-making pre- and poststudy, and the intervention's feasibility and acceptability. We used hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient outcomes. The clinician was included as a random effect; fixed effects included education, employment, telehealth versus in-person visit, visit date, and enrolment period. RESULTS: Between April 2020 and March 2022, we screened 513 patients, contacted 217 eligible patients, and enroled 117/217 (54%) (51 in usual care, 66 in the intervention group). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was not associated with cost conversations (ß = .82, p = .27), referrals to cost-related resources (ß = -0.36, p = .81), shared decision-making (ß = -0.79, p = .32), decisional conflict postvisit (ß = -0.34, p= .70), or at follow-up (ß = -2.19, p = .16), decision regret at follow-up (ß = -9.76, p = .11), or financial toxicity postvisit (ß = -1.32, p = .63) or at follow-up (ß = -2.41, p = .23). Most clinicians and patients had positive attitudes about the intervention and shared decision-making. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, patients in the intervention group experienced more transient indecision (p < .02) suggesting increased deliberation between visit and follow-up. DISCUSSION: Despite enthusiasm from clinicians, the intervention was not significantly associated with hypothesised outcomes, though we were unable to robustly test outcomes due to recruitment challenges. Recruitment at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted eligibility, sample size/power, study procedures, and increased telehealth visits and financial worry, independent of the intervention. Future work should explore ways to support shared decision-making, cost conversations, and choice deliberation with a larger sample. Such work could involve additional members of the care team, and consider the detail, quality, and timing of addressing these issues. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and clinicians were engaged as stakeholder advisors meeting monthly throughout the duration of the project to advise on the study design, measures selected, data interpretation, and dissemination of study findings.

Colorectal cancer treatment guidelines and shared decision making quality and reporting assessment: Systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Physicians must share decisions and choose personalised treatments regarding patients´ beliefs and values. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the quality of the recommendations about shared decision making (SDM) in colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer treatment clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs). METHODS: Guidelines were systematically reviewed following prospective registration (Prospero: CRD42021286146) without language restrictions searching 15 databases and 59 professional society websites from January 2010 to November 2021. A validated 31-item SDM quality assessment tool was employed to extract data in duplicate. RESULTS: We identified 134 guidelines. Only 46/134 (34.3 %) mentioned SDM. Fifteen (11.1 %) made clear, precise and actionable recommendations, while 9/134 (6.7 %) indicated the strength of the SDM-related recommendations. CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews reported SDM more often than those based on consensus or reviews (35.9 % vs 32.0 %; p = 0.031). Guidelines that reported following quality tools (i.e., AGREE II) more commonly commented about SDM than when it was not reported (75.0 % vs 32.0 %; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Most of the CRC and anal treatment guidelines did not mention SDM and it was superficial. Guidelines based on systematic reviews and those using quality tools demonstrated better reporting of SDM. Recommendations about SDM in these guidelines merit urgent improvement.

Shared Decision-making Lowers Medical Expenditures and the Effect Is Amplified in Racially-Ethnically Concordant Relationships.

BACKGROUND: Racial-ethnic disparities are pervasive in health care. One mechanism that may underlie disparities is variation in shared decision-making (SDM), which encompasses high-quality clinician-patient communication, including deliberative discussions about treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether SDM has causal effects on outcomes and whether these effects are stronger within racial-ethnic concordant clinician-patient relationships. RESEARCH DESIGN: We use instrumental variables to estimate the causal effect of SDM on outcomes. SUBJECTS: A total of 60,584 patients from the 2003-2017 Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Years 2018 and 2019 were excluded due to changes in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey that omitted essential parts of the SDM index. MEASURES: Our key variable of interest is the SDM index. Outcomes included total, outpatient, and drug expenditures; physical and mental health; and the utilization of inpatient and emergency services. RESULTS: SDM lowers annual total health expenditures for all racial-ethnic groups, but this effect is only moderated among Black patients seen by Black clinicians, more than doubling in size relative to Whites. A similar SDM moderation effect also occurs for both Black patients seen by Black clinicians and Hispanic patients seen by Hispanic clinicians with regard to annual outpatient expenditures. There was no significant effect of SDM on self-reported physical or mental health. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality SDM can reduce health expenditures without negatively impacting overall physical or mental health, supporting a business case for health care organizations and systems to improve racial-ethnic clinician-patient concordance for Black and Hispanic patients.

A Review of the Literature for Individualizing Women's Care Through Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.

Breast cancer is well recognized as a leading type of cancer affecting women in the United States. Although breast cancer screening is well supported in the literature, there is a lack of clear agreement regarding which breast cancer risk calculating tools should be used to develop personalized screening regimens. In this review of 11 primary articles published from 2017 through 2022, we assess current evidence on breast cancer risk assessment in outpatient clinic and mammography settings and the pivotal role of health care providers in influencing patients' choices regarding individualized screenings. Risk assessment is strongly recommended by multiple clinical practice guidelines, yet there is inadequate evidence to endorse one risk assessment tool as best practice. Further research is needed to integrate risk assessment within the clinic workflow and screening encounters. Patient-centered communication and shared decision-making are critical components for managing each woman's perceived risk and objective risk for breast cancer.

Facilitating Shared Decision Making Among Black Patients at Risk for Sudden Cardiac Arrest : A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation are multifactorial and are partly explained by higher refusal rates. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a video decision support tool for Black patients eligible for an ICD. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial conducted between September 2016 and April 2020. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02819973). SETTING: Fourteen academic and community-based electrophysiology clinics in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Black adults with heart failure who were eligible for a primary prevention ICD. INTERVENTION: An encounter-based video decision support tool or usual care. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the decision regarding ICD implantation. Additional outcomes included patient knowledge, decisional conflict, ICD implantation within 90 days, the effect of racial concordance on outcomes, and the time patients spent with clinicians. RESULTS: Of the 330 randomly assigned patients, 311 contributed data for the primary outcome. Among those randomly assigned to the video group, assent to ICD implantation was 58.6% compared with 59.4% in the usual care group (difference, -0.8 percentage point [95% CI, -13.2 to 11.1 percentage points]). Compared with usual care, participants in the video group had a higher mean knowledge score (difference, 0.7 [CI, 0.2 to 1.1]) and a similar decisional conflict score (difference, -2.6 [CI, -5.7 to 0.4]). The ICD implantation rate within 90 days was 65.7%, with no differences by intervention. Participants randomly assigned to the video group spent less time with their clinician than those in the usual care group (mean, 22.1 vs. 27.0 minutes; difference, -4.9 minutes [CI, -9.4 to -0.3 minutes]). Racial concordance between video and study participants did not affect study outcomes. LIMITATION: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented a requirement for shared decision making for ICD implantation during the study. CONCLUSION: A video-based decision support tool increased patient knowledge but did not increase assent to ICD implantation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Associations between perceptions of shared decision making and health among hysterectomy patients: A prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient and clinical factors that are associated with perceptions of shared decision making between hysterectomy patients and surgeons and to evaluate associations between shared decision making and postoperative health. METHODS: This study is based on a prospective cohort scheduled for hysterectomy for benign conditions in Vancouver, Canada. Validated patient-reported outcomes assessed shared decision making, pelvic health, depression, and pain. Regression analyses measured the association between perceptions of shared decision making with patient and clinical factors. Then, associations between shared decision making with postoperative pelvic health, pain and depression were evaluated using regression analysis and adjusted for patient and clinical factors. RESULTS: In this study, 308 participants completed preoperative measures, and a subset of 146 participants also completed the postoperative measures. More than 50% of participants reported less than optimal shared decision making scores. No significant associations were identified between patients' perceptions of shared decision making with patients' age, comorbidities, socioeconomic factors, indication for surgery, or preoperative depression and pain. Regression analyses found that higher/better self-reported shared decision making scores were associated with fewer postoperative pelvic organ symptoms (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Many patients' reporting lower than optimal scores on the shared decision making instrument highlight the opportunity to improve surgeon-patient communication in this surgical cohort. Strengthening shared decision making between surgeons and their patients may be associated with improved self-reported postoperative health.

Epistemic justice is the basis of shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence that share decision-making (SDM) is being successfully implemented, with a significant gap between theory and clinical practice. In this article we look at SDM explicitly acknowledging its social and cultural situatedness and examine it as a set of practices (e.g. actions, such as communicating, referring, or prescribing, and decisions relating to them). We study clinicians' communicative performance as anchored in the context of professional and institutional practice and within the expected behavioural norms of actors situated in clinical encounters. DISCUSSION: We propose to see conditions for shared decision-making in terms of epistemic justice, an explicit acknowledgment and acceptance of the legitimacy of healthcare users and their accounts and knowledges. We propose that shared decision-making is primarily a communicative encounter which requires both participants to have equal communicative rights. It is a process that is started by the clinician's decision and requires the suspension of their inherent interactional advantage. CONCLUSION: The epistemic-justice perspective we adopt leads to at least three implications for clinical practices. First, clinical training must go beyond the development of communication skills and focus more on an understanding of healthcare as a set of social practices. Second, we suggest medicine develop a stronger relationship with humanities and the social sciences. Third, we advocate that shared decision-making has issues of justice, equity, and agency at its core.

A protocol for a cluster randomized trial of care delivery models to improve the quality of smoking cessation and shared decision making for lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Patients eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) are those at high risk of lung cancer due to their smoking histories and age. While screening for LCS is effective in lowering lung cancer mortality, primary care providers are challenged to meet beneficiary eligibility for LCS from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, including a patient counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit with the use of patient decision aid(s) prior to screening. METHODS: We will use an effectiveness-implementation type I hybrid design to: 1) identify effective, scalable smoking cessation counseling and SDM interventions that are consistent with recommendations, can be delivered on the same platform, and are implemented in real-world clinical settings; 2) examine barriers and facilitators of implementing the two approaches to delivering smoking cessation and SDM for LCS; and 3) determine the economic implications of implementation by assessing the healthcare resources required to increase smoking cessation for the two approaches by delivering smoking cessation within the context of LCS. Providers from different healthcare organizations will be randomized to usual care (providers delivering smoking cessation and SDM on site) vs. centralized care (smoking cessation and SDM delivered remotely by trained counselors). The primary trial outcomes will include smoking abstinence at 12-weeks and knowledge about LCS measured at 1-week after baseline. CONCLUSION: This study will provide important new evidence about the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel care delivery model for addressing the leading cause of lung cancer deaths and supporting high-quality decisions about LCS. GOV PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: NCT04200534 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04200534.

Decision Analysis in SHared decision making for Thromboprophylaxis during Pregnancy (DASH-TOP): a sequential explanatory mixed-methods pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into formal methods of integrating patient preferences and clinical evidence to inform treatment decisions, we explored patients' experience with a personalised decision analysis intervention, for prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in the antenatal period. DESIGN: Mixed-methods explanatory sequential pilot study. SETTING: Hospitals in Canada (n=1) and Spain (n=4 sites). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted part of the study virtually. PARTICIPANTS: 15 individuals with a prior venous thromboembolism who were pregnant or planning pregnancy and had been referred for counselling regarding LMWH. INTERVENTION: A shared decision-making intervention that included three components: (1) direct choice exercise; (2) preference elicitation exercises and (3) personalised decision analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire to evaluate decision quality (decisional conflict, self-efficacy and satisfaction). Semistructured interviews were then conducted to explore their experience and perceptions of the decision-making process. RESULTS: Participants in the study appreciated the opportunity to use an evidence-based decision support tool that considered their personal values and preferences and reported feeling more prepared for their consultation. However, there were mixed reactions to the standard gamble and personalised treatment recommendation. Some participants could not understand how to complete the standard gamble exercises, and others highlighted the need for more informative ways of presenting results of the decision analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the challenges and opportunities for those who wish to incorporate decision analysis to support shared decision-making for clinical decisions.

The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Care: A Values-Based Guide for Shared Decision Making.

Clinical applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, including in the field of oncology, have the potential to advance diagnosis and treatment. The literature suggests that patient values should be considered in decision making when using AI in clinical care; however, there is a lack of practical guidance for clinicians on how to approach these conversations and incorporate patient values into clinical decision making. We provide a practical, values-based guide for clinicians to assist in critical reflection and the incorporation of patient values into shared decision making when deciding to use AI in clinical care. Values that are relevant to patients, identified in the literature, include trust, privacy and confidentiality, non-maleficence, safety, accountability, beneficence, autonomy, transparency, compassion, equity, justice, and fairness. The guide offers questions for clinicians to consider when adopting the potential use of AI in their practice; explores illness understanding between the patient and clinician; encourages open dialogue of patient values; reviews all clinically appropriate options; and makes a shared decision of what option best meets the patient's values. The guide can be used for diverse clinical applications of AI.

Application of the skills network approach to measure physician competence in shared decision making based on self-assessment.

Several approaches to and definitions of 'shared decision making' (SDM) exist, which makes measurement challenging. Recently, a skills network approach was proposed, which conceptualizes SDM competence as an organized network of interacting SDM skills. With this approach, it was possible to accurately predict observer-rated SDM competence of physicians from the patients' assessments of the physician's SDM skills. The aim of this study was to assess whether using the skills network approach allows to predict observer-rated SDM competence of physicians from their self-reported SDM skills. We conducted a secondary data analysis of an observational study, in which outpatient care physicians rated their use of SDM skills with the physician version of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-Doc) during consultations with chronically ill adult patients. Based on the estimated association of each skill with all other skills, an SDM skills network for each physician was constructed. Network parameters were used to predict observer-rated SDM competence, which was determined from audio-recorded consultations using three widely used measures (OPTION-12, OPTION-5, Four Habits Coding Scheme). In our study, 28 physicians rated consultations with 308 patients. The skill 'deliberating the decision' was central in the population skills network averaged across physicians. The correlation between parameters of the skills networks and observer-rated competence ranged from 0.65 to 0.82 across analyses. The use and connectedness of the skill 'eliciting treatment preference of the patient' showed the strongest unique association with observer-rated competence. Thus, we found evidence that processing SDM skill ratings from the physicians' perspective according to the skills network approach offers new theoretically and empirically grounded opportunities for the assessment of SDM competence. A feasible and robust measurement of SDM competence is essential for research on SDM and can be applied for evaluating SDM competence during medical education, for training evaluation, and for quality management purposes. [A plain language summary of the study is available at https://osf.io/3wy4v.].

Treatment Decision-Making Preferences of Older Depressed Minority Primary Care Patients.

Little research examined the decision-making preferences of older, racially and ethnically diverse minority patients with untreated depression. The study's aims were to identify decision-making preferences and the characteristics associated with a more active preference in the decision-making process for general medical and depression treatment decisions. We assessed the preferred involvement in making general medical and depression treatment decisions of 201 older primary care patients with untreated depression. Linear regressions examined the association of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with decision-making preference for both decision types. Majority of patients preferred shared decision-making for general medical and depression treatments. Female gender was associated with a preference for active decision-making for depression treatment. For this sample older depressed patients preferred sharing the decision-making responsibilities with physicians. To improve communication and the initiation and adherence to mental health care, physicians must consider older, minority patients' preferences for involvement in the decision-making process.