[Patient-partnership in a comprehensive cancer centre: Establishment and roles of a patients and caregivers committee]

In oncology, the place of patients has a natural and strong legitimacy. Cancer is a common disease, with many singularities but also common features between pathologies, with issues ranging from prevention to possible palliative phases or post-cancer, and conducive to both individual and collective decision-making processes. Patient engagement is now essential at all levels of the healthcare system, from simple information to real involvement (co-construction). For 20 years, Gustave-Roussy, a comprehensive cancer centre in Villejuif, has implemented specific reflection and actions, embodied by the creation of a patients and caregivers committee and complemented by an institutional steering body that illustrates the transformation of "working for" into "working with". At the level of direct care, the main works promoted concern shared-decision-making between patient and professional and accompanying patients. At the institutional level, we find the expertise of hospital projects or services, the development of institutional documents (information and advance directives form, etc.), and internal evaluation (audit). At the political level, participation in Unicancer's patient-experience working group has allowed for a better coordinated deployment with other centers. Unicancer has developed a lexical guide defining patient resources, peer helpers, trainers, evaluators and coordinators. This partnership approach is beneficial for patients, their loved ones, caregivers, and must be amplified and give rise to new research work.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of decision making interventions on increasing perceptions of shared decision making occurring in advanced cancer consultations

OBJECTIVE

To determine how decision making interventions for use in advanced cancer treatment consultations function and whether they increase perceptions of shared decision making (SDM) behaviours within consultations.

METHODS

A systematic search of five literature databases was conducted. Evaluations of decision making interventions where participants faced active treatment decisions for stage 4 or otherwise incurable cancer were included. Intervention descriptions were coded using Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) to provide a narrative of how the interventions function. A narrative synthesis of interventions effect on perceptions of SDM behaviours compared to usual care was conducted.

RESULTS

Four studies presenting different interventions were included. Education, training, modelling and enablement intervention functions were identified. Oncologist SDM training alone and combined with a patient communication aid demonstrated the only significant effect (p < 0.05) on SDM behaviours in advanced cancer consultations.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professional (HCP) SDM training which includes modelling and enablement functions may be effective in increasing clinician motivation, capability and opportunity to facilitate SDM in advanced cancer consultations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Implementing HCP SDM training into practice may encourage greater uptake of SDM which may lead to treatment decisions concordant with the goals of care of people with advanced cancer.

Person-centred medicine in the care home setting: development of a complex intervention

BACKGROUND

Person-centred medicine is recommended in the care of older patients. Yet, involvement of care home residents and relatives in medication processes remains limited in routine care. Therefore, we aimed to develop a complex intervention focusing on resident and relative involvement and interprofessional communication to support person-centred medicine in the care home setting.

METHODS

The development took place from October 2021 to March 2022 in the Municipality of Aarhus, Denmark. The study followed the Medical Research Council guidance on complex intervention development using a combination of theoretical, evidence-based, and partnership approaches. The patient involvement tool, the PREparation of Patients for Active Involvement in medication Review (PREPAIR), was included in a preliminary intervention model. Study activities included developing programme theory, engaging stakeholders, and exploring key uncertainties through interviews, co-producing workshops, and testing with end-users to develop the intervention and an implementation strategy. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Interprofessional Shared Decision Making Model were used. Data were analysed using a rapid analysis approach.

RESULTS

Before the workshops, six residents and four relatives were interviewed. Based on their feedback, PREPAIR was modified to the PREPAIR care home to fit the care home population. In total, ten persons participated in the co-producing workshops, including health care professionals and municipal managerial and quality improvement staff. The developed intervention prototype was tested for three residents and subsequently refined to the final intervention, including two fixed components (PREPAIR care home and an interprofessional medication communication template) delivered in a flexible three-stage workflow. Additionally, a multi-component implementation strategy was formed. In line with the developed programme theory, the intervention supported health care professionals´ awareness about resident and relative involvement. It provided a structure for involvement, empowered the residents to speak, and brought new insights through dialogue, thereby supporting involvement in medication-related decisions. The final intervention was perceived to be relevant, acceptable, and feasible in the care home setting.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that the final intervention may be a viable approach to facilitate person-centred medicine through resident and relative involvement. This will be further explored in a planned feasibility study.

Taking the Patient's Preferences into Account in the Anticoagulation Decision: Largely Lip-Service?

Clinical guidelines for the assessment and management of atrial fibrillation emphasize the importance of taking the patient's preferences into account. A detailed examination of those from the National Institute for Excellence in Health and Social Care (NICE) raise serious questions about whether the recommendations embed preferences about crucial trade-offs that pre-empt those of the patient; do not stress the need to provide them with the information on option consequences necessary for them to become an informed patient; and characterise them as 'concordant' or 'discordant' rather than independently valid. American and European guidelines do not differ significantly in these respects.

Do Shared Decision-Making and Patient Decision Aids Take Patient's Preferences Seriously?

Most clinical guidelines for the assessment and management of atrial fibrillation emphasize the importance of decision support provided by Patients Decision Aids, but they are to be used and evaluated only in the context of Shared Decision-Making. Detailed examination of 10 clinical decision support tools reveals that many do not engage with patient's preferences at all. Only two take them seriously in terms of their formation, elicitation and processing, aimed at identifying the optimal personalised decision for the patient. This failure is traced to a reluctance to accept the ontological nature of preferences, as instantiations of comparative magnitudes, and to set them in an analytical framework that facilitates their transparent integration with individualised evidence.

An interactive, online decision aid assessing patient goals and preferences for treatment of aortic stenosis to support physician-led shared decision-making: Early feasibility pilot study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend shared decision making when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis but implementation has lagged. We assessed the feasibility and impact of a novel decision aid for severe aortic stenosis at point-of-care.

METHODS

This prospective multi-site pilot cohort study included adults with severe aortic stenosis and their clinicians. Patients were referred by their heart team when scheduled to discuss treatment options. Outcomes included shared decision-making processes, communication quality, decision-making confidence, decisional conflict, knowledge, stage of decision making, decision quality, and perceptions of the tool. Patients were assessed at baseline (T0), after using the intervention (T1), and after the clinical encounter (T2); clinicians were assessed at T2. Before the encounter, patients reviewed the intervention, Aortic Valve Improved Treatment Approaches (AVITA), an interactive, online decision aid. AVITA presents options, frames decisions, clarifies patient goals and values, and generates a summary to use with clinicians during the encounter.

RESULTS

30 patients (9 women [30.0%]; mean [SD] age 70.4 years [11.0]) and 14 clinicians (4 women [28.6%], 7 cardiothoracic surgeons [50%]) comprised 28 clinical encounters Most patients [85.7%] and clinicians [84.6%] endorsed AVITA. Patients reported AVITA easy to use [89.3%] and helped them choose treatment [95.5%]. Clinicians reported the AVITA summary helped them understand their patients' values [80.8%] and make values-aligned recommendations [61.5%]. Patient knowledge significantly improved at T1 and T2 (p = 0.004). Decisional conflict, decision-making stage, and decision quality improved at T2 (p = 0.0001, 0.0005, and 0.083, respectively). Most patients [60%] changed treatment preference between T0 and T2. Initial treatment preferences were associated with low knowledge, high decisional conflict, and poor decision quality; final preferences were associated with high knowledge, low conflict, and high quality.

CONCLUSIONS

AVITA was endorsed by patients and clinicians, easy to use, improved shared decision-making quality and helped patients and clinicians arrive at a treatment that reflected patients' values.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial ID: NCT04755426, Clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

Exploring shared decision-making needs in lung cancer screening among high-risk groups and health care providers in China: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The intricate balance between the advantages and risks of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) impedes the utilization of lung cancer screening (LCS). Guiding shared decision-making (SDM) for well-informed choices regarding LCS is pivotal. There has been a notable increase in research related to SDM. However, these studies possess limitations. For example, they may ignore the identification of decision support and needs from the perspective of health care providers and high-risk groups. Additionally, these studies have not adequately addressed the complete SDM process, including pre-decisional needs, the decision-making process, and post-decision experiences. Furthermore, the East-West divide of SDM has been largely ignored. This study aimed to explore the decisional needs and support for shared decision-making for LCS among health care providers and high-risk groups in China.

METHODS

Informed by the Ottawa Decision-Support Framework, we conducted qualitative, face-to-face in-depth interviews to explore shared decision-making among 30 lung cancer high-risk individuals and 9 health care providers. Content analysis was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 4 decisional needs that impair shared decision-making: (1) LCS knowledge deficit; (2) inadequate supportive resources; (3) shared decision-making conceptual bias; and (4) delicate doctor-patient bonds. We identified 3 decision supports: (1) providing information throughout the LCS process; (2) providing shared decision-making decision coaching; and (3) providing decision tools.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers valuable insights into the decisional needs and support required to undergo LCS among high-risk individuals and perspectives from health care providers. Future studies should aim to design interventions that enhance the quality of shared decision-making by offering LCS information, decision tools for LCS, and decision coaching for shared decision-making (e.g., through community nurses). Simultaneously, it is crucial to assess individuals' needs for effective deliberation to prevent conflicts and regrets after arriving at a decision.

Rhetoric of research: a call for renaming the clinical research partnership

OBJECTIVE

Research cannot advance without the voluntary participation of human participants.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Full participation of research participants is often restrained by the traditional research framework, which relegates them to a predefined participant role and allows them only quasi-scripted opportunities to contribute to research processes and outcomes. Terms commonly used to refer to research participants do not reflect their significant role or send a clear message about their value. The authors propose a shift from 'patient participant' to 'participant partner.' Recognition of the true partnership between the participant and the research team, from the consent process to the trial's end, will encourage and enable fuller participation.

CONCLUSION

Changing the rhetoric of research in the labelling of research participants will require dialogue. 'Respect for persons' demands it, and the research process will be better for it.

Explorative observational study of Dutch patient-clinician interactions: operationalisation of personal perspective elicitation as part of shared decision-making in real-life audio-recorded consultations

OBJECTIVES

Patients' preferences, values and contexts are important elements of the shared decision-making (SDM) process. We captured those elements into the concept of 'personal perspective elicitation' (PPE), which reflects the need to elicit patients' preferences, values and contexts in patient-clinician conversations. We defined PPE as: 'the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or contexts potentially relevant to decision-making'. Our goal was to operationalise the concept of PPE through the evaluation of preferences, values and contexts and explore how PPE occurs in clinical encounters.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study: observational coding based on a novel coding scheme of audio-recorded outpatient clinical encounters where encounter patient decision aids were applied.

SETTING

We audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions at three Dutch outpatient clinics. PPE was analysed using a novel observational coding scheme, distinguishing preferences, contexts and four Armstrong taxonomy value types (global, decisional, external and situational). We measured SDM using the Observer OPTION5.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians.

RESULTS

We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION5 score was 57.5 (SD:10.1). The audio-recordings gave a rich illustration of preferences, values and contexts that were discussed in the patient-clinician interactions. Examples of identified global values: appearance, beliefs, personality traits. Decisional values were related to the process of decision-making. External values related to asking advice from for example, the clinician or significant others. An identified situational value: a new job ahead. Contexts related to how the illness impacted the life (eg, sexuality, family, sports, work life) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The operationalisation of PPE, an important aspect of SDM, explores which preferences, values and contexts were discussed during patient-clinician interactions where an ePDA was used. The coding scheme appeared feasible to apply but needs further refinement.

Patient-Centered Adult Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Patient-centered care is gaining widespread acceptance by the medical and lay communities and is increasingly recognized as a goal of high-quality health care delivery. Patient-centered care is based on ethical principles and aims at establishing a partnership between the health care team and patient, family member, or both in the care planning and decision-making process. Patient-centered care involves providing respectful care by tailoring management decisions to patients' beliefs, preferences, and values. A collaborative care approach can enhance patient engagement, foster shared decision-making that aligns with patient values and goals, promote more personalized and effective cardiovascular care, and potentially improve patient outcomes. The objective of this scientific statement is to inform health care professionals and stakeholders about the role and impact of patient-centered care in adult cardiovascular medicine. This scientific statement describes the background and rationale for patient-centered care in cardiovascular medicine, provides insight into patient-oriented medication management and patient-reported outcome measures, highlights opportunities and strategies to overcome challenges in patient-centered care, and outlines knowledge gaps and future directions.

Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening

BACKGROUND

In breast cancer screening programmes, women may have discussions with a healthcare provider to help them decide whether or not they wish to join the breast cancer screening programme. This process is called shared decision-making (SDM) and involves discussions and decisions based on the evidence and the person's values and preferences. SDM is becoming a recommended approach in clinical guidelines, extending beyond decision aids. However, the overall effect of SDM in women deciding to participate in breast cancer screening remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of SDM on women's satisfaction, confidence, and knowledge when deciding whether to participate in breast cancer screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 8 August 2023. We also screened abstracts from two relevant conferences from 2020 to 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing interventions targeting various components of SDM. The focus was on supporting women aged 40 to 75 at average or above-average risk of breast cancer in their decision to participate in breast cancer screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and conducted data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Review outcomes included satisfaction with the decision-making process, confidence in the decision made, knowledge of all options, adherence to the chosen option, women's involvement in SDM, woman-clinician communication, and mental health.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies with 64,215 randomised women, mostly with an average to moderate risk of breast cancer. Two studies covered all aspects of SDM; six examined shortened forms of SDM involving communication on risks and personal values; and 11 focused on enhanced communication of risk without other SDM aspects. SDM involving all components compared to control The two eligible studies did not assess satisfaction with the SDM process or confidence in the decision. Based on a single study, SDM showed uncertain effects on participant knowledge regarding the age to start screening (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.28; 133 women; very low certainty evidence) and frequency of testing (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.04; 133 women; very low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Abbreviated forms of SDM with clarification of values and preferences compared to control Of the six included studies, none evaluated satisfaction with the SDM process. These interventions may reduce conflict in the decision made, based on two measures, Decisional Conflict Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% CI -4.21 to 0.87; conflict scale from 0 to 100; 4 studies; 1714 women; very low certainty evidence) and the proportion of women with residual conflict compared to control at one to three months' follow-up (rate of women with a conflicted decision, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99; 1 study; 1001 women, very low certainty evidence). Knowledge of all options was assessed through knowledge scores and informed choice. The effect of SDM may enhance knowledge (MDs ranged from 0.47 to 1.44 higher scores on a scale from 0 to 10; 5 studies; 2114 women; low certainty evidence) and may lead to higher rates of informed choice (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; 4 studies; 2449 women; low certainty evidence) compared to control at one to three months' follow-up. These interventions may result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.54, 95% -0.96 to 2.14; scale from 20 to 80; 2 studies; 749 women; low certainty evidence) and the number of women with worries about cancer compared to control at four to six weeks' follow-up (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 1 study, 639 women; low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Enhanced communication about risks without other SDM aspects compared to control Of 11 studies, three did not report relevant outcomes for this review, and none assessed satisfaction with the SDM process. Confidence in the decision made was measured by decisional conflict and anticipated regret of participating in screening or not. These interventions, without addressing values and preferences, may result in lower confidence in the decision compared to regular communication strategies at two weeks' follow-up (MD 2.89, 95% CI -2.35 to 8.14; Decisional Conflict Scale from 0 to 100; 2 studies; 1191 women; low certainty evidence). They may result in higher anticipated regret if participating in screening (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41) and lower anticipated regret if not participating in screening (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.14). These interventions increase knowledge (MD 1.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.62; scale from 0 to 10; 4 studies; 2510 women; high certainty evidence), while it is unclear if there is a higher rate of informed choice compared to regular communication strategies at two to four weeks' follow-up (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.92; 2 studies; 1805 women; low certainty evidence). These interventions result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.33, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.99; scale from 20 to 80) and depression (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.45; scale from 0 to 21; 2 studies; 1193 women; high certainty evidence) and lower cancer worry compared to control (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.08; scale from 1 to 4; 1 study; 838 women; high certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies using abbreviated forms of SDM and other forms of enhanced communications indicated improvements in knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. However, uncertainty remains about the effect of SDM on supporting women's decisions. Most studies did not evaluate outcomes considered important for this review topic, and those that did measured different concepts. High-quality randomised trials are needed to evaluate SDM in diverse cultural settings with a focus on outcomes such as women's satisfaction with choices aligned to their values.

Patients as teachers: a within-subjects randomized pilot experiment of patient-led online learning modules for health professionals

PURPOSE

Many health professions education programs involve people with lived experience as expert speakers. Such presentations may help learners better understand the realities of living with chronic illness or experiencing an acute health problem. However, lectures from only one or a small number of people may not adequately illustrate the perspectives and experiences of a diverse patient cohort. Additionally, logistical constraints such as public health restrictions or travel barriers may impede in-person presentations, particularly among people who have more restrictions on their time. Health professions education programs may benefit from understanding the potential effects of online patient-led presentations with a diverse set of speakers. We aimed to explore whether patient-led online learning modules about diabetes care would influence learners' responses to clinical scenarios and to collect learners' feedback about the modules.

METHOD

This within-subjects randomized experiment involved 26 third-year medical students at Université Laval in Quebec, Canada. Participation in the experiment was an optional component within a required course. Prior to the intervention, participating learners responded to three clinical scenarios randomly selected from a set of six such scenarios. Each participant responded to the other three scenarios after the intervention. The intervention consisted of patient-led online learning modules incorporating segments of narratives from 21 patient partners (11 racialized or Indigenous) describing why and how clinicians could provide patient-centered care. Working with clinical teachers and psychometric experts, we developed a scoring grid based on the biopsychosocial model and set 0.6 as a passing score. Independent evaluators, blinded to whether each response was collected before or after the intervention, then scored learners' responses to scenarios using the grid. We used Fisher's Exact test to compare proportions of passing scores before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

Learners' overall percentage of passing scores prior to the intervention was 66%. Following the intervention, the percentage of passing scores was 76% (p = 0.002). Overall, learners expressed appreciation and other positive feedback regarding the patient-led online learning modules.

DISCUSSION

Findings from this experiment suggest that learners can learn to provide better patient-centered care by watching patient-led online learning modules created in collaboration with a diversity of patient partners.

Shared decision-making in psoriasis care: Evaluation of how patients' perception of clinicians' delivery of care changes by age and sex

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) refers to a collaborative process in which clinicians assist patients in making medically informed, evidence-based decisions that align with their values and preferences. There is a paucity of literature on SDM in dermatology.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to assess whether male and female psoriasis patients evaluate their clinicians' engagement in SDM differently across different age groups.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study using data from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS).

RESULTS

A weighted total of 7,795,608 psoriasis patients were identified. SDM Scores ranged from 1 to 4, with 4 representing the most favorable patient evaluation of their clinicians' engagement in SDM. We conducted multivariate linear regression to compare mean SDM Scores in male psoriasis patients versus female psoriasis patients across different patient age groups. Female patients ages 60-69 perceived significantly greater clinician engagement in SDM compared to age-matched male patients (female patient perception of SDM 3.65 [95%CI:3.61-3.69] vs. male patient perception of SDM 3.50 [95%CI:3.43-3.58], p<0.005). The same trend of older female patients evaluating their clinicians' engagement in SDM significantly higher than their age-matched male counterparts exists for the age group >70 (p<0.005). No significant differences between male and female patients' evaluations of their clinicians' engagement in SDM were demonstrated in subjects younger than 60. All calculations were adjusted for demographic and clinical factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to older male psoriasis patients, older female psoriasis patients evaluated their clinicians to be more engaged in shared decision-making.

Patients' experiences of and roles in interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care: a constructivist grounded theory study

AIM

This constructivist grounded theory study aimed to (1) explore patients' experiences of and roles in interprofessional collaborative practice for chronic conditions in primary care and (2) consider the relevance and alignment of an existing theoretical framework on patients' roles and based on the experiences of patient advocates.

BACKGROUND

High-quality management of chronic conditions requires an interprofessional collaborative practice model of care considering an individual's mental, physical, and social health situation. Patients' experiences of this model in the primary care setting are relatively unknown.

METHODS

A constructivist grounded theory approach was taken. Interview data were collected from primary care patients with chronic conditions across Australia in August 2020 - February 2022. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed by (1) initial line-by-line coding, (2) focused coding, (3) memo writing, (4) categorisation, and (5) theme and sub-theme development. Themes and sub-themes were mapped against an existing theoretical framework to expand and confirm the results from a previous study with a similar research aim.

FINDINGS

Twenty adults with chronic conditions spanning physical disability, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, autoimmune, and mental health conditions participated. Two themes were developed: (1) Adapting to Change with two sub-themes describing how patients adapt to interprofessional team care and (2) Shifting across the spectrum of roles, with five sub-themes outlining the roles patients enact while receiving care. The findings suggest that patients' roles are highly variable and fluid in interprofessional collaborative practice, and further work is recommended to develop a resource to support greater patient engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice.

Patient, caregiver and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patient engagement and integrated knowledge translation (iKT) processes improve health outcomes and care experiences through meaningful partnerships in consensus-building initiatives and research. Consensus-building is essential for engaging a diverse group of experienced knowledge users in co-developing and supporting a solution where none readily exists or is less optimal. Patients and caregivers provide invaluable insights for building consensus in decision-making around healthcare, policy and research. However, despite emerging evidence, patient engagement remains sparse within consensus-building initiatives. Specifically, our research has identified a lack of opportunity for youth living with chronic health conditions and their caregivers to participate in developing consensus on indicators/benchmarks for transition into adult care. To bridge this gap and inform our consensus-building approach with youth/caregivers, this scoping review will synthesise the extent of the literature on patient and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Following the scoping review methodology from Joanna Briggs Institute, published literature will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from inception to July 2023. Grey literature will be hand-searched. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of articles in a two-stage process, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Included studies must be consensus-building studies within the healthcare context that involve patient engagement strategies. Data from eligible studies will be extracted and charted on a standardised form. Abstracted data will be analysed quantitatively and descriptively, according to specific consensus methodologies, and patient engagement models and/or strategies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review protocol. The review process and findings will be shared with and informed by relevant knowledge users. Dissemination of findings will also include peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The results will offer new insights for supporting patient engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/beqjr.

Associations between knowledge of health issues and health care satisfaction and propensity to complain: a cross-sectional survey of adult men in Denmark

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to investigate associations between knowledge of health issues and healthcare satisfaction and propensity to complain including the association between knowledge and greater patient involvement.

DESIGN

The present study is a secondary analysis of a larger cross-sectional case vignette survey.

SETTING

Survey conducted in adult Danish men.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants included 6755 men aged 45-70 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants responded to a survey with scenarios illustrating prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and different information provision.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Using Likert scales (scored 1-5), participants rated their satisfaction with the care described and their inclination to complain and responded to a short quiz (scored 0-3) assessing their knowledge about the PSA test.

RESULTS

Satisfaction with healthcare increased with better quiz performance (Likert difference 0.13 (95% CI .07 to 0.20), p <0.001, totally correct vs totally incorrect responders) and correspondingly, the desire to complain significantly decreased (Likert difference -0.34 (95% CI 0.40 to -0.27), p <0.001). Respondents with higher education performed better (mean quiz score difference 0.59 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.67), p <0.001, most educated vs least educated). Responders who received information about the PSA test generally performed better (quiz score difference 0.41 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.47), p<0.001, neutral vs no information). Overestimation of PSA merits was more common than underestimation (7.9% vs 3.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Mens' knowledge of the benefits of screening varies with education, predicts satisfaction with care and the desire to complain, and may be improved through greater involvement in decision-making.

The experience of clinical study and trial participation in rare diseases: A scoping review of centronuclear myopathy and other neuromuscular disorders

The design of a clinical trial for a rare disease can be challenging. An optimal study design is required to effectively study the clinical outcomes for possible therapies for these types of disorders. Understanding the study participants' experiences as well as barriers and facilitators of participation are important to optimize future research and to inform clinical trial management. Centronuclear myopathies (CNMs) including X-linked myotubular myopathy (XLMTM) are a group of rare congenital myopathies for which there is no cure currently. Since 2014, a number of natural history studies and clinical trials have been conducted in CNMs. Two trials have been prematurely terminated because of severe adverse events. Since no research has been conducted regarding trial experience in CNM, we performed a scoping literature research on clinical trial experience of patients with neuromuscular disorders in general. The most common barriers to trial participation of patients comprise concerns about potential harmful effects, opportunity loss and the expected burden on daily life. The most common facilitators were an expected benefit on the disease course, altruism and collateral benefit. While several results are in line with trial experiences of other types of patients, for example oncological patients, distinctions can be made for patients with CNM and other neuromuscular disorders. However, the limited availability of relevant literature suggests that future (qualitative) research should focus on trial experiences in CNM patients.

Development and Testing of a Chronic-Disease Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox

BACKGROUND

Stakeholders increasingly expect research and care delivery to be guided by and to optimize patient experiences. However, standardized tools to engage patients to gather high-quality data about their experiences, priorities, and desired outcomes are not publicly available. The objective of this study was to develop and test a Toolbox with a disease-agnostic interview guide template and accompanying resources to assist researchers in engaging patients living with chronic disease in a dialogue about their experiences.

METHODS

Guided by a multidisciplinary workgroup, a targeted literature review (PubMed) was conducted, followed by group discussions to identify/thematically organize patient experience concepts, development of a conceptual model, and drafting of an interview guide template and patient-facing visual. Materials were tested/refined via cognitive (n = 5) and pilot (n = 30) interviews conducted virtually with US patients diagnosed with chronic/potentially disabling conditions from December 2020 to April 2021. Patient-facing tools were reviewed by health literacy experts for applicability/accessibility. English-speaking adults who self-reported receiving a chronic condition diagnosis at least 6 months prior participated in a 60-90 min interview.

RESULTS

Patient experience concepts were organized thematically under three domains: (1) life before a diagnosis, (2) experiences getting a diagnosis, and (3) experiences living with a diagnosis. A plain language consent sheet template, interview guide template, and patient experience conceptual model were developed and revised based on input from interviewees, interviewers, and the workgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

A disease-agnostic patient-engagement Toolbox was developed and tested to capture patient experience data. These materials can be customized based on study objectives and leveraged by various stakeholders to identify opportunities to enhance the patient centricity of healthcare delivery and research.

How does patient-centered communication influence patient trust?: The roles of patient participation and patient preference

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of patient-centered communication, patient participation, and patient preference on patient trust in the context of China.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted involving 217 cancer patients in China. Mediation and moderation analyses were performed to examine the relationships among the study variables.

RESULTS

First, patient-centered communication increased patient participation in decision-making, which, in turn, enhanced patient trust. Second, patient-centered communication did not have a direct effect on patient trust. Third, patient preference for a passive role in decision-making weakened the relationship between patient participation and patient trust.

CONCLUSION

The results underscore the significant effect of facilitating patient participation in linking patient-centered communication to patient trust. However, medical communication should also respond to patients' preferred roles in the decision-making process.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Doctors should provide patients with opportunities to ask questions and express their concerns. In addition, they should evaluate patients' preferred degree of involvement before inviting them to contribute so as to respect their preferences and values.

Unpacking the relationship between shared decision-making and decisional quality, decision to screen, and screening completion in lung cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer screening is a complex and individualized decision. To understand how best to support patients in this decision, we must understand how shared decision-making is associated with both decisional and behavioral outcomes.

METHODS

Observational cohort study combining patient survey data with electronic health record data of lung screening-eligible patients who recently engaged in a shared decision-making discussion about screening with a primary care clinician.

RESULTS

Using multivariable analysis (n = 529), factors associated with higher lung cancer screening decisional quality include higher knowledge (OR = 1.33, p < .0001), lower perceived benefits (OR = 0.90, p = .0004), higher perceived barriers (OR = 1.07, p < .0001), higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.13, p < .0001), and higher levels of perceiving the discussion was shared (OR = 1.04, p < .0001). Factors associated with the patient's decision to screen include older age (OR = 1.12, p = .0050) and higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.11, p = .0407). Factors associated with screening completion included older age (OR = 1.05, p = .0050), higher knowledge (OR = 1.24, p = .0045), and higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.12, p = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision-making in lung cancer screening is a dyadic process between patient and clinician. As we continue to strive for high-quality patient-centered care, patient decision quality may be enhanced by targeting key factors such as high-quality knowledge, self-efficacy, and fostering a shared discussion to support patient engagement in lung cancer screening decisions.

["He does not know it yet"-Triadic communication and its pitfalls exemplified by an oncological ward round consultation]

Medical communication is an effective instrument for the medical practice. Due to the low status that medical communication still has within medicine and medical education, many physicians do not know how to use this instrument professionally. Using medical communication in a way that patients are well informed and involved is a prerequisite for them to make self-determined decisions. In this paper I analyze a consultation in an oncology ward to show the pitfalls of medical communication, especially in triadic communication, based on a case study to work out suggestions for optimization from the transcript. Mistakes in conducting conversations, which can be recognized as such in theory, unfortunately still happen in practice, which is why this case study is intended as an invitation to critically reflect on one's own conduct of conversations. The conclusion contains suggestions for the preparation as well as the conduct of the consultation during medical rounds.