Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Increasing patient engagement in healthcare has become a health policy priority. However, there has been concern that promoting supported shared decision-making could increase health inequalities.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on disadvantaged groups and health inequalities.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

Data Sources

CINAHL, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Open SIGLE, PsycINFO and Web of Knowledge were searched from inception until June 2012.

Study Eligibility Criteria

We included all studies, without language restriction, that met the following two criteria: (1) assess the effect of shared decision-making interventions on disadvantaged groups and/or health inequalities, (2) include at least 50% of people from disadvantaged groups, except if a separate analysis was conducted for this group.

Results

We included 19 studies and pooled 10 in a meta-analysis. The meta-analyses showed a moderate positive effect of shared decision-making interventions on disadvantaged patients. The narrative synthesis suggested that, overall, SDM interventions increased knowledge, informed choice, participation in decision-making, decision self-efficacy, preference for collaborative decision making and reduced decisional conflict among disadvantaged patients. Further, 7 out of 19 studies compared the intervention's effect between high and low literacy groups. Overall, SDM interventions seemed to benefit disadvantaged groups (e.g. lower literacy) more than those with higher literacy, education and socioeconomic status. Interventions that were tailored to disadvantaged groups' needs appeared most effective.

Conclusion

Results indicate that shared decision-making interventions significantly improve outcomes for disadvantaged patients. According to the narrative synthesis, SDM interventions may be more beneficial to disadvantaged groups than higher literacy/socioeconomic status patients. However, given the small sample sizes and variety in the intervention types, study design and quality, those findings should be interpreted with caution.

Option Grids to facilitate shared decision making for patients with Osteoarthritis of the knee: protocol for a single site, efficacy trial

BACKGROUND

Despite policy interest, an ethical imperative, and evidence of the benefits of patient decision support tools, the adoption of shared decision making (SDM) in day-to-day clinical practice remains slow and is inhibited by barriers that include culture and attitudes; resources and time pressures. Patient decision support tools often require high levels of health and computer literacy. Option Grids are one-page evidence-based summaries of the available condition-specific treatment options, listing patients' frequently asked questions. They are designed to be sufficiently brief and accessible enough to support a better dialogue between patients and clinicians during routine consultations. This paper describes a study to assess whether an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee (OA of the knee) facilitates SDM, and explores the use of Option Grids by patients disadvantaged by language or poor health literacy.

METHODS/DESIGN

This will be a stepped wedge exploratory trial involving 72 patients with OA of the knee referred from primary medical care to a specialist musculoskeletal service in Oldham. Six physiotherapists will sequentially join the trial and consult with six patients using usual care procedures. After a period of brief training in using the Option Grid, the same six physiotherapists will consult with six further patients using an Option Grid in the consultation. The primary outcome will be efficacy of the Option Grid in facilitating SDM as measured by observational scores using the OPTION scale. Comparisons will be made between patients who have received the Option Grid and those who received usual care. A Decision Quality Measure (DQM) will assess quality of decision making. The health literacy of patients will be measured using the REALM-R instrument. Consultations will be observed and audio-recorded. Interviews will be conducted with the physiotherapists, patients and any interpreters present to explore their views of using the Option Grid.

DISCUSSION

Option Grids offer a potential solution to the barriers to implementing traditional decision aids into routine clinical practice. The study will assess whether Option Grids can facilitate SDM in day-to-day clinical practice and explore their use with patients disadvantaged by language or poor health literacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN94871417.

Pharmacist-led interventions to reduce unplanned admissions for older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE

medication problems are thought to cause between 10 and 30% of all hospital admissions in older people. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions led by hospital or community pharmacists in reducing unplanned hospital admissions for older people.

METHODS

eighteen databases were searched with a customised search strategy. Relevant websites and reference lists of included trials were checked. Randomised controlled trials were included that evaluated pharmacist-led interventions compared with usual care, with unplanned admissions or readmissions as an outcome. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality.

RESULTS

twenty-seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified; seven trials were excluded. The 20 included trials comprised 16 for older people and 4 for older people with heart failure. Interventions led by hospital pharmacists (seven trials) or community pharmacists (nine trials) did not reduce unplanned admissions in the older population (risk ratios 0.97 95% CI: 0.88, 1.07; 1.07 95% CI: 0.96, 1.20). Three trials in older people with heart failure showed that interventions delivered by a hospital pharmacist reduced the relative risk of admissions. However, these trials were heterogeneous in intensity and duration of follow-up. One trial had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

evidence from three randomised controlled trials suggests that interventions led by hospital pharmacists reduce unplanned hospital admissions in older patients with heart failure, although these trials were heterogeneous. Data from 16 trials do not support the concept that interventions led by hospital or community pharmacists for the general older population reduces unplanned admissions.

Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making (SDM) and develop a taxonomy of patient-reported barriers.

METHODS

Systematic review and thematic synthesis. Study findings/results for each included paper were extracted verbatim and entered into qualitative software for inductive analysis.

RESULTS

Electronic and follow-up searches yielded 2956 unique references; 289 full-text articles were retrieved, of which 45 articles from 44 unique studies met inclusion criteria. Key descriptive themes were grouped under two broad analytical themes: how the healthcare system is organized (4 descriptive themes) and what happens during the decision-making interaction (4 descriptive themes, 10 sub-themes). Predominant emergent themes related to patients' knowledge and the power imbalance in the doctor-patient relationship. Patients need knowledge and power to participate in SDM - knowledge alone is insufficient and power is more difficult to attain.

CONCLUSION

Many barriers are potentially modifiable, and can be addressed by attitudinal changes at the levels of patient, clinician/healthcare team, and the organization. The results support the view that many patients currently can't participate in SDM, rather than they won't participate because they do not want to.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Future implementation efforts should address patient-reported factors together with known clinician-reported barriers and the wider organizational context.

External validation of the UKPDS risk engine in incident type 2 diabetes: a need for new type 2 diabetes-specific risk equations

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Risk Engine (UKPDS-RE) for predicting the 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease end points in an independent cohort of U.K. patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using routine health care data collected between April 1998 and October 2011 from ∼350 U.K. primary care practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Participants comprised 79,966 patients aged between 35 and 85 years (388,269 person-years) with 4,984 cardiovascular events. Four outcomes were evaluated: first diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, fatal CHD, and fatal stroke.

RESULTS

Accounting for censoring, the observed versus predicted 10-year event rates were as follows: CHD 6.1 vs. 16.5%, fatal CHD 1.9 vs. 10.1%, stroke 7.0 vs. 10.1%, and fatal stroke 1.7 vs. 1.6%, respectively. The UKPDS-RE showed moderate discrimination for all four outcomes, with the concordance index values ranging from 0.65 to 0.78.

CONCLUSIONS

The UKPDS stroke equations showed calibration ranging from poor to moderate; however, the CHD equations showed poor calibration and considerably overestimated CHD risk. There is a need for revised risk equations in type 2 diabetes.

Undetermined impact of patient decision support interventions on healthcare costs and savings: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of studies that assessed the potential of patient decision support interventions (decision aids) to generate savings.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

After registration with PROSPERO, we searched 12 databases, from inception to 15 March 2013, using relevant MeSH terms and text words. Included studies were assessed with Cochrane's risk of bias method and Drummond's quality checklist for economic studies. Per patient costs and projected savings associated with introducing patient decision support interventions were calculated, as well as absolute changes in treatment rates after implementation.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included if they contained quantitative economic data, including savings, spending, costs, cost effectiveness analysis, cost benefit analysis, or resource utilization. We excluded studies that lacked quantitative data on savings, costs, monetary value, and/or resource utilization.

RESULTS

After reviewing 1508 citations, we included seven studies with eight analyses. Of these seven studies, four analyses predicted system-wide savings, with two analyses from the same study. The predicted savings range from $8 (£5, €6) to $3068 (£1868, €2243) per patient. Larger savings accompanied reductions in treatment utilization rates. The impact on utilization rates was mixed. Authors used heterogeneous methods to allocate costs and calculate savings. Quality scores were low to moderate (median 4.5, range 0-8 out of 10), and risk of bias across the studies was moderate to high (3.5, range 3-6 out of 6), with studies predicting the most savings having the highest risk of bias. The range of issues identified in the studies included the relative absence of sensitivity analyses, the absence of incremental cost effectiveness ratios, and short time periods.

CONCLUSION

Although there is evidence to show that patients choose more conservative approaches when they become better informed, there is insufficient evidence, as yet, to be confident that the implementation of patient decision support interventions leads to system-wide savings. Further work-with sensitivity analyses, longer time horizons, and more contexts-is required to avoid premature or unrealistic expectations that could jeopardize implementation and lead to the loss of already proved benefits.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration CRD42012003421.

The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process

BACKGROUND

Patient-centered health care is a central component of current health policy agendas. Shared decision making (SDM) is considered to be the pinnacle of patient engagement and methods to promote this are becoming commonplace. However, the measurement of SDM continues to prove challenging. Reviews have highlighted the need for a patient-reported measure of SDM that is practical, valid, and reliable to assist implementation efforts. In consultation with patients, we developed CollaboRATE, a 3-item measure of the SDM process.

OBJECTIVE

There is a need for scalable patient-reported measure of the SDM process. In the current project, we assessed the psychometric properties of CollaboRATE.

METHODS

A representative sample of the US population were recruited online and were randomly allocated to view 1 of 6 simulated doctor-patient encounters in January 2013. Three dimensions of SDM were manipulated in the encounters: (1) explanation of the health issue, (2) elicitation of patient preferences, and (3) integration of patient preferences. Participants then completed CollaboRATE (possible scores 0-100) in addition to 2 other patient-reported measures of SDM: the 9-item Shared Decision Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the Doctor Facilitation subscale of the Patient's Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS). A subsample of participants was resurveyed between 7 and 14 days after the initial survey. We assessed CollaboRATE's discriminative, concurrent, and divergent validity, intrarater reliability, and sensitivity to change.

RESULTS

The final sample consisted of 1341 participants. CollaboRATE demonstrated discriminative validity, with a significant increase in CollaboRATE score as the number of core dimensions of SDM increased from zero (mean score: 46.0, 95% CI 42.4-49.6) to 3 (mean score 85.8, 95% CI 83.2-88.4). CollaboRATE also demonstrated concurrent validity with other measures of SDM, excellent intrarater reliability, and sensitivity to change; however, divergent validity was not demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

The fast and frugal nature of CollaboRATE lends itself to routine clinical use. Further assessment of CollaboRATE in real-world settings is required.

Exploring consumer values of comparative performance information for hospital choice

BACKGROUND

In many countries, market orientation in healthcare has resulted in the publication of comparative performance information (CPI). Most of the research in this field is oriented towards the content and the presentation format of CPI while little is known about how consumers value CPI and the use of this information.

AIM

The aim of this study was to clarify the perceived value that CPI brings for consumers of healthcare. Methods Qualitative research using six focus group interviews. Twenty-seven healthcare consumers were recruited using a mailing list and by personal invitation. Data from focus group interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis undertaken.

RESULTS

Most participants were unaware of CPI, and valued alternative sources of information more than CPI. Through discussion with other consumers and by means of examples of CPI, respondents were able to express the values and perceived effects of CPI. Numerous underlying values hindered consumers' use of CPI, and therefore clarification of consumer values gave insights into the current non-usage of CPI.

CONCLUSIONS

CPI is marginally valued, partly because of conflicting values expressed by consumers and, as such, it does not yet provide a useful information source on hospital choice beyond consumers' current selection routines in healthcare. Future research should be more focused on the values of consumers and their impact on the use of CPI.

Managing expectations of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Communication experts have suggested that it is good practice to ask patients' directly whether they expect to receive antibiotics as part of asking about the triad of ideas, concerns, and expectations for health care. Our aim was to explore the views and experiences of family physicians about using this strategy with their patients, focusing the interview on the problem of eliciting expectations of antibiotics as a possible treatment for upper respiratory tract infections.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with 20 family physicians in South Wales, United Kingdom, and performing thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Family physicians assumed most patients or parents wanted antibiotics, as well as wanting to be "checked out" to make sure the illness was "nothing serious." Physicians said they did not ask direct questions about expectations, as that might lead to confrontation. They preferred to elicit expectations for antibiotics in an indirect manner, before performing a physical examination. The majority described reporting their findings of the examination as a "running commentary" so as to influence expectations and help avoid generating resistance to a soon-to-be-made-explicit plan not to prescribe antibiotics. The physicians used the running commentary to preserve and enhance the physician-patient relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world family physicians use indirect methods to explore expectations for treatment and, on the basis of their physical examination, build an argument for reassuring the patient or parent. In contrast to proposed models in the communication literature, interventions to promote appropriate antibiotic prescribing might include a focus on training in communication skills that (1) integrates these indirect methods as part of building collaborative physician-patient relationships and (2) uses the running commentary of examination findings to facilitate participation in clinical decisions.

Development and evaluation of a risk communication curriculum for medical students

OBJECTIVE

To develop, pilot, and evaluate a curriculum for teaching clinical risk communication skills to medical students.

METHODS

A new experience-based curriculum, "Risk Talk," was developed and piloted over a 1-year period among students at Tufts University School of Medicine. An experimental study of 2nd-year students exposed vs. unexposed to the curriculum was conducted to evaluate the curriculum's efficacy. Primary outcome measures were students' objective (observed) and subjective (self-reported) risk communication competence; the latter was assessed using an Observed Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) employing new measures.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight 2nd-year students completed the curriculum, and exhibited significantly greater (p<.001) objective and subjective risk communication competence than a convenience sample of 24 unexposed students. New observational measures of objective competence in risk communication showed promising evidence of reliability and validity. The curriculum was resource-intensive.

CONCLUSION

The new experience-based clinical risk communication curriculum was efficacious, although resource-intensive. More work is needed to develop the feasibility of curriculum delivery, and to improve the measurement of competence in clinical risk communication.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Risk communication is an important advanced communication skill, and the Risk Talk curriculum provides a model educational intervention and new assessment tools to guide future efforts to teach and evaluate this skill.

Don't blame patients, engage them: transforming health systems to address health literacy

The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is affirming a new era for health care delivery in the United States, with an increased focus on patient engagement. The field of health literacy has important contributions to make, and there are opportunities to achieve much more synergy between these seemingly different perspectives. Systems need to be designed in a user-centered way that is responsive to patients at all levels of health literacy. Similarly, strategies are needed to ensure that patients are supported to become engaged, at the level they desire, instead of the status quo, in which patients are rarely actively empowered and encouraged to engage in health care decisions, where preferences are rarely elicited, and where there is a lack of interest in how their life circumstances shape their priorities.

Ten years of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration: evolution of the core dimensions for assessing the quality of patient decision aids

In 2003, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration was established to enhance the quality and effectiveness of patient decision aids by establishing an evidence-informed framework for improving their content, development, implementation, and evaluation. Over this 10 year period, the Collaboration has established: a) the background document on 12 core dimensions to inform the original modified Delphi process to establish the IPDAS checklist (74 items); b) the valid and reliable IPDAS instrument (47 items); and c) the IPDAS qualifying (6 items), certifying (6 items + 4 items for screening), and quality criteria (28 items). The objective of this paper is to describe the evolution of the IPDAS Collaboration and discuss the standardized process used to update the background documents on the theoretical rationales, evidence and emerging issues underlying the 12 core dimensions for assessing the quality of patient decision aids.

"Many miles to go …": a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Two decades of research has established the positive effect of using patient-targeted decision support interventions: patients gain knowledge, greater understanding of probabilities and increased confidence in decisions. Yet, despite their efficacy, the effectiveness of these decision support interventions in routine practice has yet to be established; widespread adoption has not occurred. The aim of this review was to search for and analyze the findings of published peer-reviewed studies that investigated the success levels of strategies or methods where attempts were made to implement patient-targeted decision support interventions into routine clinical settings.

METHODS

An electronic search strategy was devised and adapted for the following databases: ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, HMIC, Medline, Medline-in-process, OpenSIGLE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Social Services Abstracts, and the Web of Science. In addition, we used snowballing techniques. Studies were included after dual independent assessment.

RESULTS

After assessment, 5322 abstracts yielded 51 articles for consideration. After examining full-texts, 17 studies were included and subjected to data extraction. The approach used in all studies was one where clinicians and their staff used a referral model, asking eligible patients to use decision support. The results point to significant challenges to the implementation of patient decision support using this model, including indifference on the part of health care professionals. This indifference stemmed from a reported lack of confidence in the content of decision support interventions and concern about disruption to established workflows, ultimately contributing to organizational inertia regarding their adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems too early to make firm recommendations about how best to implement patient decision support into routine practice because approaches that use a 'referral model' consistently report difficulties. We sense that the underlying issues that militate against the use of patient decision support and, more generally, limit the adoption of shared decision making, are under-investigated and under-specified. Future reports from implementation studies could be improved by following guidelines, for example the SQUIRE proposals, and by adopting methods that would be able to go beyond the 'barriers' and 'facilitators' approach to understand more about the nature of professional and organizational resistance to these tools. The lack of incentives that reward the use of these interventions needs to be considered as a significant impediment.

Ethical issues in cardiovascular risk management

Involving patients in decisions on primary prevention can be questioned from an ethical perspective, due to a tension between health promotion activities and patient autonomy. A nurse-led intervention for prevention of cardiovascular diseases, including counselling (risk communication, and elements of shared decision-making and motivational interviewing) and supportive tools such as a decision aid, was implemented in primary care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the nurse-led intervention from an ethical perspective by exploring in detail the experiences of patients with the intervention, and their views on the role of both the nurse and patient. The study had a qualitative design. 18 patients who had received the intervention participated. Data were gathered by in-depth interviews. The interviews were analysed using directed content analysis. The findings revealed that patients perceived the consultations not as an infringement on their autonomy, but as supportive to risk reduction efforts they tried but found hard to realise. They specifically emphasised the role of the nurse, and appreciated the nurse's realistic advice, encouragement, and help in understanding. Patients' views on and experiences with risk management are in line with notions of relational autonomy, caring cooperation and communicative action found in the literature. We conclude that patients define the relationship with the nurse as shared work in the process of developing a healthier lifestyle.

Using a 'talk' model of shared decision making to propose an observation-based measure: Observer OPTION 5 Item

OBJECTIVE

To propose a revised Observer OPTION measure of shared decision making.

METHODS

We analyzed published models to identify the core components of a parsimonious conceptual framework of shared decision making. By using this framework, we developed a revised measure combining data from an observational study of clinical practice in Canada with our experience of using Observer OPTION(12 Item).

RESULTS

Our conceptual framework for shared decision making composed of justifying deliberative work, followed by the steps of describing options, information exchange, preference elicitation, and preference integration. By excluding items in Observer OPTION(12 Item) that were seldom observed or not aligned to a robust construct, we propose Observer OPTION(5 Item).

CONCLUSION

Although widely used, Observer OPTION(12 Item) did not give sufficient attention to preference elicitation and integration, and included items that were not specific to a core construct of shared decision making. We attempted to remedy these shortcomings by proposing a shorter, more focused measure.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Observer OPTION(5 Item) requires evaluation; we hope that it will be useful as both a research tool and as a formative measure of clinical practice.

FlexiTerm: a flexible term recognition method

BACKGROUND

The increasing amount of textual information in biomedicine requires effective term recognition methods to identify textual representations of domain-specific concepts as the first step toward automating its semantic interpretation. The dictionary look-up approaches may not always be suitable for dynamic domains such as biomedicine or the newly emerging types of media such as patient blogs, the main obstacles being the use of non-standardised terminology and high degree of term variation.

RESULTS

In this paper, we describe FlexiTerm, a method for automatic term recognition from a domain-specific corpus, and evaluate its performance against five manually annotated corpora. FlexiTerm performs term recognition in two steps: linguistic filtering is used to select term candidates followed by calculation of termhood, a frequency-based measure used as evidence to qualify a candidate as a term. In order to improve the quality of termhood calculation, which may be affected by the term variation phenomena, FlexiTerm uses a range of methods to neutralise the main sources of variation in biomedical terms. It manages syntactic variation by processing candidates using a bag-of-words approach. Orthographic and morphological variations are dealt with using stemming in combination with lexical and phonetic similarity measures. The method was evaluated on five biomedical corpora. The highest values for precision (94.56%), recall (71.31%) and F-measure (81.31%) were achieved on a corpus of clinical notes.

CONCLUSIONS

FlexiTerm is an open-source software tool for automatic term recognition. It incorporates a simple term variant normalisation method. The method proved to be more robust than the baseline against less formally structured texts, such as those found in patient blogs or medical notes. The software can be downloaded freely at http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/flexiterm.

Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters

OBJECTIVE

Measuring the process of shared decision making is a challenge, which constitutes a barrier to research and implementation. The aim of the study was to report the development of CollaboRATE, brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making.

METHODS

We used the following stages: (1) item formulation; (2) cognitive interviews; (3) item refinement; and (4) pilot testing of final items. Participants were over 18 years old, recruited from the public areas of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.

RESULTS

The key finding of this study is that developing a brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making requires a move away from terms such as 'decisions', 'options' and 'preferences'. Although technically correct, these terms act as barriers. They are often unfamiliar, and they also implicitly assume that patients are willing to take active roles in decision making; whereas patients are often unaware that decisions are required, or have taken place, never mind feel that they could or should have participated in them.

CONCLUSION

These methods have allowed us to develop a brief, patient-reported measure of shared decision making that is highly accessible to intended users.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The potential strength of the CollaboRATE will be the ability for completion in less than 30s, and across a range of routine settings.

Patchy 'coherence': using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)

BACKGROUND

Implementing shared decision making into routine practice is proving difficult, despite considerable interest from policy-makers, and is far more complex than merely making decision support interventions available to patients. Few have reported successful implementation beyond research studies. MAking Good Decisions In Collaboration (MAGIC) is a multi-faceted implementation program, commissioned by The Health Foundation (UK), to examine how best to put shared decision making into routine practice. In this paper, we investigate healthcare professionals' perspectives on implementing shared decision making during the MAGIC program, to examine the work required to implement shared decision making and to inform future efforts.

METHODS

The MAGIC program approached implementation of shared decision making by initiating a range of interventions including: providing workshops; facilitating development of brief decision support tools (Option Grids); initiating a patient activation campaign ('Ask 3 Questions'); gathering feedback using Decision Quality Measures; providing clinical leads meetings, learning events, and feedback sessions; and obtaining executive board level support. At 9 and 15 months (May and November 2011), two rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals in three secondary care teams to explore views on the impact of these interventions. Interview data were coded by two reviewers using a framework derived from the Normalization Process Theory.

RESULTS

A total of 54 interviews were completed with 31 healthcare professionals. Partial implementation of shared decision making could be explained using the four components of the Normalization Process Theory: 'coherence,' 'cognitive participation,' 'collective action,' and 'reflexive monitoring.' Shared decision making was integrated into routine practice when clinical teams shared coherent views of role and purpose ('coherence'). Shared decision making was facilitated when teams engaged in developing and delivering interventions ('cognitive participation'), and when those interventions fit with existing skill sets and organizational priorities ('collective action') resulting in demonstrable improvements to practice ('reflexive monitoring'). The implementation process uncovered diverse and conflicting attitudes toward shared decision making; 'coherence' was often missing.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that implementation of shared decision making is more complex than the delivery of patient decision support interventions to patients, a portrayal that often goes unquestioned. Normalizing shared decision making requires intensive work to ensure teams have a shared understanding of the purpose of involving patients in decisions, and undergo the attitudinal shifts that many health professionals feel are required when comprehension goes beyond initial interpretations. Divergent views on the value of engaging patients in decisions remain a significant barrier to implementation.

Factors influencing the surgery intentions and choices of women with early breast cancer: the predictive utility of an extended theory of planned behaviour

Background

Women diagnosed with early breast cancer (stage I or II) can be offered the choice between mastectomy or breast conservation surgery with radiotherapy due to equivalence in survival rates. A wide variation in the surgical management of breast cancer and a lack of theoretically guided research on this issue highlight the need for further research into the factors influencing women’s choices. An extended Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) could provide a basis to understand and predict women’s surgery choices. The aims of this study were to understand and predict the surgery intentions and choices of women newly diagnosed with early breast cancer, examining the predictive utility of an extended TPB.

Methods

Sixty-two women recruited from three UK breast clinics participated in the study; 48 women, newly diagnosed with early breast cancer, completed online questionnaires both before their surgery and after accessing an online decision support intervention (BresDex). Questionnaires assessed views about breast cancer and the available treatment options using items designed to measure constructs of an extended TPB (i.e., attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, and anticipated regret), and women’s intentions to choose mastectomy or BCS. Objective data were collected on women’s choice of surgery via the clinical breast teams. Multiple and logistic regression analyses examined predictors of surgery intentions and subsequent choice of surgery.

Results

The extended TPB accounted for 69.9% of the variance in intentions (p <.001); attitudes and subjective norms were significant predictors. Including additional variables revealed anticipated regret to be a more important predictor than subjective norms. Surgery intentions significantly predicted surgery choices (p <.01).

Conclusions

These findings demonstrate the utility of an extended TPB in predicting and understanding women’s surgery intentions and choices for early breast cancer. Understanding these factors should help to identify key components of interventions to support women while considering their surgery options.

Toward Minimum Standards for Certifying Patient Decision Aids: A Modified Delphi Consensus Process

OBJECTIVE

The IPDAS Collaboration has developed a checklist and an instrument (IPDASi v3.0) to assess the quality of patient decision aids (PDAs) in terms of their development process and shared decision-making design components. Certification of PDAs is of growing interest in the US and elsewhere. We report a modified Delphi consensus process to agree on IPDASi (v3.0) items that should be considered as minimum standards for PDA certification, for inclusion in the refined IPDASi (v4.0).

METHODS

A 2-stage Delphi voting process considered the inclusion of IPDASi (v3.0) items as minimum standards. Item scores and qualitative comments were analyzed, followed by expert group discussion.

RESULTS

One hundred and one people voted in round 1; 87 in round 2. Forty-seven items were reduced to 44 items across 3 new categories: 1) qualifying criteria, which are required in order for an intervention to be considered a decision aid (6 items); 2) certification criteria, without which a decision aid is judged to have a high risk of harmful bias (10 items); and 3) quality criteria, believed to strengthen a decision aid but whose omission does not present a high risk of harmful bias (28 items).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides preliminary certification criteria for PDAs. Scoring and rating processes need to be tested and finalized. However, the process of appraising the quality of the clinical evidence reported by the PDA should be used to complement these criteria; the proposed standards are designed to rate the quality of the development process and shared decision-making design elements, not the quality of the PDA's clinical content.

Interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures

BACKGROUND

Achieving informed consent is a core clinical procedure and is required before any surgical or invasive procedure is undertaken.  However, it is a complex process which requires patients be provided with information which they can understand and retain, opportunity to consider their options, and to be able to express their opinions and ask questions.  There is evidence that at present some patients undergo procedures without informed consent being achieved.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on patients, clinicians and the healthcare system of interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare treatments and procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases using keywords and medical subject headings: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 5, 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to July 2011), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to July 2011) and PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2011). We applied no language or date restrictions within the search. We also searched reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised trials of interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures. We considered an intervention to be intended to promote informed consent when information delivery about the procedure was enhanced (either by providing more information or through, for example, using new written materials), or if more opportunity to consider or deliberate on the information was provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors assessed the search output independently to identify potentially-relevant studies, selected studies for inclusion, and extracted data. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the included trials, and meta-analyses of outcomes where there were sufficient data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 65 randomised controlled trials from 12 countries involving patients undergoing a variety of procedures in hospitals. Nine thousand and twenty one patients were randomised and entered into these studies. Interventions used various designs and formats but the main data for results were from studies using written materials, audio-visual materials and decision aids. Some interventions were delivered before admission to hospital for the procedure while others were delivered on admission.Only one study attempted to measure the primary outcome, which was informed consent as a unified concept, but this study was at high risk of bias.  More commonly, studies measured secondary outcomes which were individual components of informed consent such as knowledge, anxiety, and satisfaction with the consent process.  Important but less commonly-measured outcomes were deliberation, decisional conflict, uptake of procedures and length of consultation.Meta-analyses showed statistically-significant improvements in knowledge when measured immediately after interventions (SMD 0.53 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) I(2) 73%), shortly afterwards (between 24 hours and 14 days) (SMD 0.68 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.93) I(2) 85%) and at a later date (15 days or more) (SMD 0.78 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.06) I(2) 82%). Satisfaction with decision making was also increased (SMD 2.25 (95% CI 1.36 to 3.15) I(2) 99%) and decisional conflict was reduced (SMD -1.80 (95% CI -3.46 to -0.14) I(2) 99%). No statistically-significant differences were found for generalised anxiety (SMD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) I(2) 82%), anxiety with the consent process (SMD 0.01 (95% CI -0.21 to 0.23) I(2) 70%) and satisfaction with the consent process (SMD 0.12 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.32) I(2) 76%). Consultation length was increased in those studies with continuous data (mean increase 1.66 minutes (95% CI 0.82 to 2.50) I(2) 0%) and in the one study with non-parametric data (control 8.0 minutes versus intervention 11.9 minutes, interquartile range (IQR) of 4 to 11.9 and 7.2 to 15.0 respectively). There were limited data for other outcomes.In general, sensitivity analyses removing studies at high risk of bias made little difference to the overall results. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Informed consent is an important ethical and practical part of patient care.  We have identified efforts by researchers to investigate interventions which seek to improve information delivery and consideration of information to enhance informed consent.  The interventions used consistently improve patient knowledge, an important prerequisite for informed consent.  This is encouraging and these measures could be widely employed although we are not able to say with confidence which types of interventions are preferable. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the high levels of heterogeneity associated with many of the main analyses although we believe there is broad evidence of beneficial outcomes for patients with the pragmatic application of interventions. Only one study attempted to measure informed consent as a unified concept.