Using incorpoRATE to examine clinician willingness to engage in shared decision making: A study of Family Medicine residents

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the willingness of Family Medicine residents to engage in SDM, before and after an educational intervention.

METHODS

We delivered a lecture and a workshop for residents on implementing SDM in preventive health care. Before the lecture (T1), participants completed a measure of their willingness to engage in SDM. Six months later, participants completed the measure a second time (T2).

RESULTS

At T1, 64 of 73 residents who attended the educational session completed incorpoRATE. Six months later, 44 of 64 participants completed the measure a second time (T2). The range of incorpoRATE sum scores at T1 was from 4.9 to 9.1 out of 10. Among the 44 participants who completed incorpoRATE at both time points, the mean scores were 7.0 ± 1.0 at T1 and 7.4 ± 1.0 at T2 (t = -2.833, p = 0.007, Cohen's D = 0.43).

CONCLUSION

Among Family Medicine residents, the willingness to engage in SDM is highly variable. This suggests a lack of consensus in the mind of these residents about SDM. Although mean scores at T2 were significantly higher, we question the educational importance of this change.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

incorpoRATE is a promising measure for educators. Understanding how willing a particular physician audience is to undertake SDM, and which elements require attention, could be helpful in designing more targeted curricula. Further research is needed to understand how the perceived stakes of a clinical situation influence physician willingness to engage in SDM.

A Rectal Cancer Surgical Decision Aid Is Not Enough: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer patients often face complex surgical treatment decisions, but there are few available tools to aid in decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify content and delivery preferences of rectal cancer patients and colorectal surgeons to guide future surgical decision aid creation.

DESIGN

Qualitative study: inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

In-person and phone interviews.

PATIENTS

We purposively sampled 15 rectal cancer survivors based on demographics and surgery type. Five caregivers also participated. We purposively selected 10 surgeons based on practice type and years of experience.

INTERVENTIONS

Semi-structured interviews.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Major and minor themes for survivors and surgeons with thematic saturation.

RESULTS

Interviews were a median of 61 minutes (41-93) for patients and 35 minutes (25-59) for surgeons. Nine survivors were younger than 65 years; 7 were female. Surgeons had been practicing for a mean of 10 years (SD 7.4), with 7 in academic and 3 in private settings. Participating survivors and surgeons wanted a comprehensive educational tool-not just a surgical decision aid. Survivors wanted more information on rectal cancer basics and lifestyle, care timelines, and resources during treatment. Surgeons thought patients mostly desired information about surgical options and bowel function. Both patients and surgeons wanted a tool that was personalized, simple, understandable, visually appealing, interactive, short, and in multiple formats.

LIMITATIONS

Results may not be generalizable due to selection bias of participants.

CONCLUSION

Rectal cancer survivors, their caregivers, and colorectal surgeons wanted an educational support tool that would address substantial educational needs through the continuum of disease rather than a surgical decision aid focusing on a discrete surgical choice only. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C20 .

UNA AYUDA PARA LA DECISIN QUIRRGICA DEL CNCER DE RECTO NO ES SUFICIENTE UN ESTUDIO CUALITATIVO

ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes con cáncer de recto a menudo enfrentan decisiones de tratamiento quirúrgico complejas, pero hay pocas herramientas disponibles para ayudar en la toma de decisiones.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue identificar el contenido y las preferencias de entrega de los pacientes con cáncer de recto y los cirujanos colorrectales para guiar la futura creación de ayuda para la toma de decisiones quirúrgicas.DISEÑO:Estudio cualitativo: análisis temático inductivo de entrevistas semiestructuradas.ESCENARIO:Entrevistas en persona y por teléfono.PACIENTES:Tomamos muestras intencionalmente de 15 sobrevivientes de cáncer de recto, según la demografía y el tipo de cirugía. También participaron cinco cuidadores. Seleccionamos intencionalmente a 10 cirujanos según el tipo de práctica y los años de experiencia.INTERVENCIONES:Entrevistas semiestructuradas.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Temas principales y secundarios para sobrevivientes y cirujanos con saturación temática.RESULTADOS:Las entrevistas tuvieron una mediana de 61 minutos (41-93) para pacientes y 35 minutos (25-59) para cirujanos. Nueve sobrevivientes tenían menos de 65 años; siete eran mujeres. Los cirujanos habían estado ejerciendo una media de 10 años (DE 7,4), con siete en entornos académicos y 3 en entornos privados. Los sobrevivientes y cirujanos participantes querían una herramienta educativa comprensible, no solo una ayuda para la decisión quirúrgica. Los sobrevivientes querían más información sobre los conceptos básicos y el estilo de vida del cáncer de recto, los plazos de atención y los recursos durante el tratamiento. Los cirujanos pensaron que los pacientes en su mayoría deseaban información sobre las opciones quirúrgicas y la función intestinal. Tanto los pacientes como los cirujanos querían una herramienta que fuera personalizada, simple, comprensible, visualmente atractiva, interactiva, corta y en múltiples formatos.LIMITACIONES:Los resultados pueden no ser generalizables debido al sesgo de selección de los participantes.CONCLUSIÓN:Los sobrevivientes de cáncer rectal, sus cuidadores y los cirujanos colorrectales querían una herramienta de apoyo educativo que cubriera las necesidades educativas sustanciales a lo largo del tratamiento de la enfermedad en lugar de una ayuda para la decisión quirúrgica que se centre solo en una opción quirúrgica discreta. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C20 . (Traducción-Dr. Yolanda Colorado ).

"Less is more": A design thinking approach to the development of the agenda-setting conversation cards for people with type 2 diabetes

Objectives

To report a design-thinking approach to a user-centred agenda-setting tool for use in type 2 diabetes clinics.

Methods

The study followed design-thinking phases: emphasizing, defining, and ideating an intervention, followed by iterative user-testing of prototypes. It was conducted at a Danish diabetes center using observations, interviews, workshops, focus groups, and questionnaires.

Results

Nurses wanted to put more emphasis on agenda-setting in status visits. During brainstorms the idea of using illustrated cards that listed key agenda topics was proposed and became the goal of this research. Adopting a design-thinking approach provided the basis for developing prototypes for iterative user-testing that led to a version that was acceptable to stakeholders. The resulting tool, Conversation Cards, was a set of cards that listed and illustrated seven key topics that were considered important to consider during diabetes status visits.

Conclusion

The goal of the Conversation Card intervention is to support collaborative agenda-setting in diabetes status visits. Further evaluation is needed to determine the utility and acceptability of the tool to nurses and to people with diabetes in routine settings.

Innovation

This novel tool is designed to trigger agenda-setting conversations and thereby prioritize individuals' choice of topics to talk about during diabetes status visits.

Urethral outcomes in metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender affirming surgery (MaPGAS) and vaginectomy: a systematic review

Background

There is currently a paucity of data on urethral-related outcomes in metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender affirming surgery (MaPGAS) with urethral lengthening (UL)and vaginectomy.

Methods

A systematic review was performed utilizing MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Europe PMC, OSF Preprints, and EMBASE. Methodologic quality was scored using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. Four independent reviewers performed the article evaluation, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment. Primary outcomes included standing to urinate/pee (STP), penile length, glanular meatus, urethral stricture, fistula, and flap necrosis. Results were summarized qualitatively with descriptive statistics.

Results

A total of 2,881 articles of which 11 retrospective reviews of 13 cohorts met criteria; 4.3/16 average (avg) MINORS score. Six metoidioplasty cohorts had an average penile length of 6 cm, 74% reported successful STP, and a quarter developed stricture or fistula. Phalloplasty cohorts included radial forearm flap (RF) and Anterolateral Thigh flap (ALT). Of the 4 RF studies nearly a third developed a stricture or fistula and only one study reported 99% STP with a glanular meatus. Three ALT studies reported no length but had 80-90% STP with a glanular meatus and a quarter with stricture or fistula.

Conclusions

Urethral complications in MaPGAS-UL in a cohort with prior vaginectomy are common and variably reported. Patient centered outcome measures as well as clearly defined outcome metrics created in partnership with community members are needed.

Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboards Within the Electronic Health Record to Support Shared Decision-making: Protocol for Co-design and Clinical Evaluation With Patients With Advanced Cancer and Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes-symptoms, treatment side effects, and health-related quality of life-are important to consider in chronic illness care. The increasing availability of health IT to collect patient-reported outcomes and integrate results within the electronic health record provides an unprecedented opportunity to support patients' symptom monitoring, shared decision-making, and effective use of the health care system.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study are to co-design a dashboard that displays patient-reported outcomes along with other clinical data (eg, laboratory tests, medications, and appointments) within an electronic health record and conduct a longitudinal demonstration trial to evaluate whether the dashboard is associated with improved shared decision-making and disease management outcomes.

METHODS

Co-design teams comprising study investigators, patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease, their care partners, and their clinicians will collaborate to develop the dashboard. Investigators will work with clinic staff to implement the co-designed dashboard for clinical testing during a demonstration trial. The primary outcome of the demonstration trial is whether the quality of shared decision-making increases from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal changes in satisfaction with care, self-efficacy in managing treatments and symptoms, health-related quality of life, and use of costly and potentially avoidable health care services. Implementation outcomes (ie, fidelity, appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, reach, adoption, and sustainability) during the co-design process and demonstration trial will also be collected and summarized.

RESULTS

The dashboard co-design process was completed in May 2020, and data collection for the demonstration trial is anticipated to be completed by the end of July 2022. The results will be disseminated in at least one manuscript per study objective.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol combines stakeholder engagement, health care coproduction frameworks, and health IT to develop a clinically feasible model of person-centered care delivery. The results will inform our current understanding of how best to integrate patient-reported outcome measures into clinical workflows to improve outcomes and reduce the burden of chronic disease on patients and health care systems.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/38461.

Eliciting patients' healthcare goals and concerns: Do questions influence responses?

There is increasing interest in asking patients questions before their visits to elicit goals and concerns, which is part of the move to support the concept of coproducing care. The phrasing and delivery of such questions differs across settings and is likely to influence responses. This report describes a study that (i) used a three-level model to categorize the goals and concerns elicited by two different pre-visit questions, and (ii) describes associations between responses elicited and the phrasing and delivery of the two questions. The questions were administered to patients with rheumatic disease, and patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Paper-based responses from 150 patients with rheumatic disease and 338 patients with IBD were analyzed (163 paper, 175 electronic). The goals and concerns elicited were primarily disease or symptom-specific. The specific goal and concern examples featured in one pre-visit question were more commonly reported in responses to that question, compared to the question without examples. Questions completed electronically before the visit were associated with longer responses than those completed on paper in the waiting room. In conclusion, how and when patients' goals and concerns are elicited appears to have an impact on responses and warrants further investigation.

Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Proponents of shared decision-making (SDM) advocate the elicitation of the patient's perspective. This scoping review explores if, and to what extent, the personal perspectives of patients are elicited during a clinical encounter, as part of a SDM process. We define personal perspective elicitation (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 context.

METHODS

A search was conducted in five literature databases from inception dates up to July 2020, to identify empirical studies about SDM (with/without SDM instrument).

RESULTS

The search identified 4562 abstracts; 263 articles were read in full text, resulting in 99 included studies. Studies reported low levels of PPE. Integration of personal perspectives into the conversation or a future care plan was largely absent. The majority of the discussed content related to physical health, while social and psychological topics were mostly unaddressed.

CONCLUSIONS

PPE occurs on a very low level in efforts to achieve SDM according to evaluation studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PPE is advocated but rarely achieved in SDM evaluation studies. Causes should be identified, followed by designing interventions to improve this aspect of SDM.

"Something for us": Co-development of the COVID-19 Social Site, a web app for long-term care workers

Background

Improving confidence in and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and boosters among long-term care workers (LTCWs) is a crucial public health goal, given their role in the care of elderly people and people at risk. While difficult to reach with workplace communication interventions, most LTCWs regularly use social media and smartphones. Various social media interventions have improved attitudes and uptake for other vaccines and hold promise for the LTCW population.

Objective

We aimed to develop a curated social web application (interactive website) to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence (a 3-arm randomized trial is underway).

Methods

Following user-centric design and participatory research approaches, we undertook the following 3 steps: (1) content identification, (2) platform development, and (3) community building. A LTCW and stakeholder advisory group provided iterative input. For content identification (step 1), we identified topics of concern about COVID-19 vaccines via desktop research (published literature, public opinion polls, and social media monitoring), refined by interviewing and polling LTCWs. We also conducted a national online panel survey. We curated and fact-checked posts from popular social media platforms that addressed the identified concerns. During platform development (step 2), we solicited preferences for design and functionality via interviews and user experience testing with LTCWs. We also identified best practices for online community building (step 3).

Results

In the interviews (n=9), we identified 3 themes: (1) LTCWs are proud of their work but feel undervalued; (2) LTCWs have varying levels of trust in COVID-19–related information; and (3) LTCWs would welcome a curated COVID-19 resource that is easy to understand and use-"something for us". Through desktop research, LTCW interviews, and our national online panel survey (n=592) we found that participants are interested in information about COVID-19 in general, vaccine benefits, vaccine risks, and vaccine development. Content identification resulted in 434 posts addressing these topic areas, with 209 uploaded to the final web application. Our LTCW poll (n=8) revealed preferences for personal stories and video content. The platform we developed is an accessible WordPress-based social media web application, refined through formal (n=3) and informal user experience testing. Users can sort posts by topic or subtopic and react to or comment on posts. To build an online community, we recruited 3 LTCW “community ambassadors” and instructed them to encourage discussion, acknowledge concerns, and offer factual information on COVID-19 vaccines. We also set “community standards” for the web application.

Conclusions

An iterative, user-centric, participatory approach led to the launch of an accessible social media web application with curated content for COVID-19 vaccines targeting LTCWs in the United States. Through our trial, we will determine if this approach successfully improves vaccine confidence. If so, a similar social media resource could be used to develop curated social media interventions in other populations and with other public health goals.

Interrupted opening statements in clinical encounters: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a scoping review of literature on the duration of patients' opening statements in clinical encounters, with or without an interruption.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to identify articles based on pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted study details and outcomes related to the length of patients' opening statements. A second reviewer verified this data.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies from 1185 citations reviewed. Encounters were in primary care clinics, specialty clinics, and hospitals. Across six studies, the mean time to interruption was 18.2 s. The mean length of uninterrupted opening statements was 45.9 s across nine studies.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians interrupting their patients' opening statements, compared to not interrupting, takes away time from the patient to fully present their concerns. Research has not focused on the nature of clinician interruptions. For instance, an interruption encouraging expansion or more detail facilitates understanding. Therefore, the impact these interruptions have on the clinical encounter remains unknown.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interrupting the average patient does not save time, so clinicians may benefit from allowing their patients to complete their opening statements.

Development of an adjective-selection measure evaluating clinicians' attitudes towards using patient decision aids: The ADOPT measure

BACKGROUND

The implementation of shared decision-making and patient decision aids (PDAs) is impeded by clinicians' attitudes.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a measure of clinician attitude towards PDAs.

METHODS

To develop the ADOPT measure, we used four stages, culminating in measure responses by medically qualified clinicians, 25 from each of the following specialties: emergency medicine, family medicine, oncology, obstetrics and gynaecology, orthopaedics, and psychiatry. To assess validity, we also posed three questions to assess the participants' attitudinal and behavioural endorsement of PDAs. Allocating a point per adjective, we calculated the sum as well as positive and negative scores. We used univariate logistic regression to determine associations between the scores and attitudinal or behavioural endorsements.

RESULTS

152 clinicians completed the measure. 'Time-saving' (39%) and 'easy' (34%) were the most frequently selected adjectives. 'Time-consuming' and 'unfamiliar' were the most frequently selected negative adjectives (both 19%). The sum scores were significantly associated with behavioural endorsement of PDAs.

DISCUSSION

Clinicians were able to respond to adjective-selection methods and the ADOPT measure could help assess clinician attitudes to PDAs. Validation will require further research.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The ADOPT measure could help identify the extent and source of attitudinal resistance.

The submissive silence of others: Examining definitions of shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to use critical discourse analysis (CDA) to examine the most widely cited definitions of shared decision making so that we can evaluate how language is used to position participants. Based on our conceptual understanding, we presumed that shared decision making involves acts of communication where processes are collaborative.

METHODS

We used a CDA lens to closely examine the phrases, semantics, syntax, implied functions, and the social actions proposed in SDM definition texts. We conducted a systematic search guided by the PRISMA guidelines, to identify the most widely cited definitions of SDM.

RESULTS

A total of 72 studies met our inclusion criteria. While SDM is not consistently defined, it was striking to find that clinicians are constructed as active whereas patients were viewed to be passive participants. The definitions construct SDM to be a gift that the clinician has the power to offer, and the relationship in the definitions appears asymmetric, in which only one party seems to speak.

CONCLUSIONS

The SDM definitions examined convey a process characterized by a clinician who speaks, while a patient mostly listens, and is invited to contribute. An alternative definition might be constructed through references to joint activity via sentences in active voice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians may be influenced by definitions of SDM that reinforce the positionality of active speaker versus passive recipient. Clearer definitions that address the constructs of power and roles may help support the implementation of SDM.

Psychometric assessment of the consideRATE questions, a new measure of serious illness experience, with an online simulation study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the psychometric properties of the consideRATE questions, a measure of serious illness experience.

METHODS

We recruited people at least 50 years old via paid panels online, with US-Census-based quotas. We randomized participants to a patient experience story at two time points. Participants completed a series of measures, including the consideRATE questions. We assessed convergent (Pearson's correlation), discriminative (one-way ANOVA with Tukey's test for multiple comparisons) and divergent (Pearson's correlation) validity. We also assessed intra-rater reliability (intra-class correlation) and responsiveness to change (t-tests).

RESULTS

We included 809 individuals in our analysis. We established convergent validity (r = 0.77; p < 0.001); discriminative validity (bad/neutral stories [mean diff=0.4; p < 0.001]; neutral/ good stories [mean diff=1.3; p < 0.001]) and moderate divergent validity (r = 0.57; p < 0.001). We established sensitivity to change in all stories (bad/good [mean diff=1.52; p < 0.001]; good/bad [mean diff= -1.68; p < 0.001]; neutral/bad [mean diff= -0.57; p < 0.001]; good/neutral [mean diff= -1.11; p < 0.001]; neutral/good [mean diff= 1.1; p < 0.001]) but one (bad/neutral [mean diff= 0.4; p < 0.07]). Intra-rater reliability was demonstrated between time points (r = 0.77; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

the consideRATE questions were reliable and valid in a simulated online test.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

the consideRATE questions may be a practical way to measure serious illness experience and the effectiveness of interventions to improve it.

Shared Decision-making in the U.S.: Evidence exists, but implementation science must now inform policy for real change to occur

Shared decision making (SDM) is defined as an approach in which clinicians and patients share the best available evidence when faced with the task of making decisions, and in which patients are supported to consider options to achieve informed preferences [1]. Over the past decade, SDM has been increasingly recognized as a component of value-based care in the US. There is greater acceptance overall that SDM is a key strategy for achieving patient-centered care, enhancing patient safety, and achieving the triple aim of better health, better care, and lower costs [2]. Essential elements of SDM include recognizing and acknowledging that a decision is required; knowing and understanding the best available evidence on risks and benefits; and incorporating the patient's values and preferences into the decision [3]. This paper provides an update of our previous review of SDM in the US published in 2017. We describe changes in healthcare policies to support SDM at the federal and state levels, the integration of SDM into clinical practice, and the role of implementation science to advance SDM. Finally, we discuss potential next steps to inform policies for SDM and facilitate uptake of SDM in clinical practice.

Patient involvement in rheumatoid arthritis care to improve disease activity-based management in daily practice: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of an intervention to improve disease activity-based management of RA in daily clinical practice by addressing patient level barriers.

METHODS

The DAS-pass strategy aims to increase patients' knowledge about DAS28 and to empower patients to be involved in treatment (decisions). It consists of an informational leaflet, a patient held record and guidance by a specialized rheumatology nurse. In a Randomized Controlled Trial, 199 RA patients were randomized 1:1 to intervention or control group. Outcome measures were patient empowerment (EC-17; primary outcome), attitudes towards medication (BMQ), disease activity (DAS28) and knowledge about DAS28.

RESULTS

Our strategy did not affect EC-17, BMQ, or DAS28 use. However it demonstrated a significant improvement of knowledge about DAS28 in the intervention group, compared to the control group. The intervention had an additional effect on patients with low baseline knowledge compared to patients with high baseline knowledge.

CONCLUSION

The DAS-pass strategy educates patients about (the importance of) disease activity-based management, especially patients with low baseline knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The strategy supports patient involvement in disease activity-based management of RA and can be helpful to reduce inequalities between patients in the ability to be involved in shared decision making.

A shared decision-making communications workshop improves internal medicine resident skill, risk-benefit education, and counseling attitude

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the impact of a workshop on first-year medicine residents (PGY1) shared decision-making (SDM) communication skill, risk-benefit education, and attitude.

METHODS

A SDM skills-focused workshop was integrated into an academic medical center PGY1 ambulatory rotation in 2016-2017. Pre/post recordings of virtual Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) with standardized patients sharing decisions were scored using OPTION5. Risk-benefit education, including decision aid use, was measured. Pre/post surveys assessed SDM practice attitudes and perceived barriers.

RESULTS

31 of 48 (65%) PGY1 workshop attendees completed pre/post OSCEs yielding 62 videos. OPTION5 scores improved from 27/100 pre to 56/100 post (p < 0.001). Pre/post increases in integration of qualitative (15/31 vs 31/31, p < 0.001) and quantitative (3/31 vs 31/31, p < 0.001) risk measures, and decision aids (1/3 vs 31/31, p < 0.001) were observed. Pro-SDM attitude of decisional neutrality increased 16.6% pre to 71.9% post-survey (P < 0.001). Barriers to SDM remain.

CONCLUSION

This PGY1 workshop with virtual OSCEs improved SDM communication skills, the ability to find and provide risk-benefit education, and SDM-facilitating attitude.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Residency programs can improve SDM skills, risk-benefit education, and attitudes with a workshop intervention. Perceived time constraints and cognitive biases regarding risk-benefit estimates should be addressed to ensure quality SDM in practice.

Shared decision-making interventions: An overview and a meta-analysis of their impact on vaccine uptake

BACKGROUND

The interest in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of patient decision aids have increased significantly. Research indicates that this approach has benefits, and yet, implementation remains a challenge. To illustrate this development, we focus on vaccine hesitancy which has become a serious public health challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Various strategies have been used in healthcare, with limited success, to help patients overcome vaccine hesitancy. It is unclear whether SDM interventions can increase vaccination rates.

AIMS

Our aim was two-fold: to provide an overview of SDM and the use of patient decision aids and to determine the effect of SDM interventions on vaccine uptake.

METHODS

To provide an overview, we drew on our knowledge of the field and summarized the most recent systematic reviews. We examined the impact on vaccine hesitancy by searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions, conducted a meta-analysis and calculated a pooled odds ratio. Additional outcomes were reported in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

SDM is viewed as the pinnacle of patient-centred care, supported by an ethical imperative and by empirical evidence of benefits. We found 10 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. SDM interventions significantly increased vaccine uptake compared to control groups (odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [1.17-1.80]; p < 0.01). Some RCTs also reported significantly decreased decisional conflict and increased decision confidence.

CONCLUSION

Future healthcare delivery systems will need to consider how to support the implementation of SDM. Interventions designed to facilitate this approach can represent a helpful, ethically defensible, strategy to increase vaccination rates.

Unexpected Outcomes of Measuring Decision Regret: Using a Breast Cancer Decision-Making Case Example

Shared decision making can help patients feel supported and empowered when deciding between healthcare options. Decision regret can be a meaningful measure of the quality of that encounter. However, in a patient-engaged research study examining shared decision making for breast cancer surgery, decision regret was a difficult construct to assess, and asking questions about decision regret caused the patient to experience that emotion upon reflection. In this article, we consider the complexity of decision regret, and discuss the difficulty of measuring that emotion through existing instruments. We call for clarity in definitions of decision regret and offer suggestions for developing a set of questions that can capture regret in a more meaningful way.

Potential impact of encounter patient decision aids on the patient-clinician dialogue: a qualitative study on Dutch and American medical specialists' experiences

OBJECTIVES

To examine the experiences among Dutch and American clinicians on the impact of using encounter patient decision aids (ePDAs) on their clinical practice, and subsequently to formulate recommendations for sustained ePDA use in clinical practice.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with clinicians who used 11 different ePDAs (applicable to their specialty) for 3 months after a short training. The verbatim transcribed interviews were coded with thematic analysis by six researchers via ATLAS.ti.

SETTING

Nine hospitals in the Netherlands and two hospitals in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five clinicians were interviewed: 16 Dutch medical specialists from four different disciplines (gynaecologists, ear-nose-throat specialists, neurologists and orthopaedic surgeon), 5 American gynaecologists and 4 American gynaecology medical trainees.

RESULTS

The interviews showed that the ePDA potentially impacted the patient-clinician dialogue in several ways. We identified six themes that illustrate this: that is, (1) communication style, for example, structuring the conversation; (2) the patient's role, for example, encouraging patients to ask more questions; (3) the clinician's role, for example, prompting clinicians to discuss more information; (4) workflow, for example, familiarity with the ePDA's content helped to integrate it into practice; (5) shared decision-making (SDM), for example, mixed experiences whether the ePDA contributed to SDM; and (6) content of the ePDA. Recommendations to possibly improve ePDA use based on the clinician's experiences: (1) add pictorial health information to the ePDA instead of text only and (2) instruct clinicians how to use the ePDA in a flexible (depending on their discipline and setting) and personalised way adapting the ePDA to the patients' needs (e.g., mark off irrelevant options).

CONCLUSIONS

ePDAs contributed to the patient-clinician dialogue in several ways according to medical specialists. A flexible and personalised approach appeared appropriate to integrate the use of ePDAs into the clinician's workflow, and customise their use to individual patients' needs.

Is Shared Decision-making Associated with Better Patient-reported Outcomes? A Longitudinal Study of Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Although shared decision-making (SDM) has knowledge and satisfaction benefits for patients and is promising, we lack data demonstrating that SDM is associated with better patient-reported functional outcomes. Such data would support the integration and prioritization of SDM into all aspects of orthopaedic care.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is a measure of SDM before total joint arthroplasty associated with better patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 1 year postoperatively? (2) What is the relationship between the measure of SDM and two measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and patient likelihood of recommending the provider) at 1 year postoperatively?

METHODS

In this observational longitudinal survey-based study, patients receiving an initial THA or TKA from a large, multispecialty medical group in the Midwestern United States were surveyed after they were scheduled for surgery and again at 12 months after their procedure. The three-item collaboRATE measure of SDM was added to existing patient surveys of PROMs. However, the surgeons and their department had no organized approach to SDM during this time. The surveys also included the Oxford knee or hip score and two validated measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and whether a patient would recommend the provider). Of the 2779 eligible primary joint arthroplasties that occurred from April 23, 2018 to May 1, 2019, 48% (1334 procedures; 859 TKAs and 485 THAs) of the patients responded to both the preoperative and 12-month postoperative surveys. Most of the patients who were included in the analytic sample were white (93%; 1255 of 1344), with only 3% (37) using Medicaid benefits at the time of surgery. Differences between responders and nonresponders were present and explored in an analysis. Patient responses were analyzed in regression models to estimate the association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford knee or hip scores, and patient experience measures 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

There was a moderate, positive association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford scores at 12 months, after adjustment for potential confounders such as patient age and preoperative functional score (β = 0.58; 95% CI 0.14-1.02; p = 0.01). Similarly, patients with preoperative collaboRATE scores had marginally higher patient experience scores at 12 months postoperatively (β = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05-0.24; p = 0.003) and were more likely to recommend their surgeon (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.84; p = 0.005). The patient experience measures were also modestly correlated with collaboRATE scores in cross-sectional associations, both preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively (0.29 ≤ r ≤ 0.54; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and Oxford hip or knee scores suggests that SDM could be one tool to encourage better outcomes. Although previous studies have shown that SDM can improve patient experience, the lack of a strong correlation in our study suggests that PROMs and experience measures are separate domains, at least partly. Improving preoperative SDM between the surgeon and patient might help improve surgical outcomes for patients undergoing TKA and THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

An absence of equipoise: Examining surgeons' decision talk during encounters with women considering breast cancer surgery

Shared decision-making is recommended for decisions with multiple reasonable options, yet clinicians often subtly or explicitly guide choices. Using purposive sampling, we performed a secondary analysis of 142 audio-recorded encounters between 13 surgeons and women eligible for breast-conserving surgery with radiation or mastectomy. We trained 9 surgeons in shared decision-making and provided them one of two conversation aids; 4 surgeons practiced as usual. Based on a published taxonomy of treatment recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, assertions), we examined how surgeons framed choices with patients. Many surgeons made assertions providing information and advice (usual care 71% vs. intervention 66%; p = 0.54). Some made strong pronouncements (usual care 51% vs. intervention 36%; p = .09). Few made proposals and offers, leaving the door open for deliberation (proposals usual care 21% vs. intervention 26%; p = 0.51; offers usual care 40% vs. intervention 40%; p = 0.98). Surgeons were significantly more likely to describe options as comparable when using a conversation aid, mentioning this in all intervention group encounters (usual care 64% vs. intervention 100%; p<0.001). Conversation aids can facilitate offers of comparable options, but other conversational actions can inhibit aspects of shared decision-making.