Assessment of patient empowerment--a systematic review of measures

BACKGROUND

Patient empowerment has gained considerable importance but uncertainty remains about the best way to define and measure it. The validity of empirical findings depends on the quality of measures used. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of studies assessing psychometric properties of questionnaires purporting to capture patient empowerment, evaluate the methodological quality of these studies and assess the psychometric properties of measures identified.

METHODS

Electronic searches in five databases were combined with reference tracking of included articles. Peer-reviewed articles reporting psychometric testing of empowerment measures for adult patients in French, German, English, Portuguese and Spanish were included. Study characteristics, constructs operationalised and psychometric properties were extracted. The quality of study design, methods and reporting was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed using Terwee's 2007 criteria.

FINDINGS

30 studies on 19 measures were included. Six measures are generic, while 13 were developed for a specific condition (N=4) or specialty (N=9). Most studies tested measures in English (N=17) or Swedish (N=6). Sample sizes of included studies varied from N=35 to N=8261. A range of patient empowerment constructs was operationalised in included measures. These were classified into four domains: patient states, experiences and capacities; patient actions and behaviours; patient self-determination within the healthcare relationship and patient skills development. Quality assessment revealed several flaws in methodological study quality with COSMIN scores mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of psychometric properties of included measures was intermediate to positive. Certain psychometric properties were not tested for most measures.

DISCUSSION

Findings provide a basis from which to develop consensus on a core set of patient empowerment constructs and for further work to develop a (set of) appropriately validated measure(s) to capture this. The methodological quality of psychometric studies could be improved by adhering to published quality criteria.

Can shared decision-making reduce medical malpractice litigation? A systematic review

Background

To explore the likely influence and impact of shared decision-making on medical malpractice litigation and patients’ intentions to initiate litigation.

Methods

We included all observational, interventional and qualitative studies published in all languages, which assessed the effect or likely influence of shared decision-making or shared decision-making interventions on medical malpractice litigation or on patients’ intentions to litigate. The following databases were searched from inception until January 2014: CINAHL, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, HMIC, Lexis library, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Open SIGLE, PsycINFO and Web of Knowledge. We also hand searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. Downs & Black quality assessment checklist, the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme qualitative tool, and the Critical Appraisal Guidelines for single case study research were used to assess the quality of included studies.

Results

6562 records were screened and 19 articles were retrieved for full-text review. Five studies wee included in the review. Due to the number and heterogeneity of included studies, we conducted a narrative synthesis adapted from the ESRC guidance for narrative synthesis. Four themes emerged. The analysis confirms the absence of empirical data necessary to determine whether or not shared decision-making promoted in the clinical encounter can reduce litigation. Three out of five included studies provide retrospective and simulated data suggesting that ignoring or failing to diagnose patient preferences, particularly when no effort has been made to inform and support understanding of possible harms and benefits, puts clinicians at a higher risk of litigation. Simulated scenarios suggest that documenting the use of decision support interventions in patients’ notes could offer some level of medico-legal protection. Our analysis also indicated that a sizeable proportion of clinicians prefer ordering more tests and procedures, irrespective of patient informed preferences, as protection against litigation.

Conclusions

Given the lack of empirical data, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not shared decision-making and the use of decision support interventions can reduce medical malpractice litigation. Further investigation is required.

Trial registration

This review was registered on PROSPERO. Registration number: CRD42012002367.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0823-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Minimum standards for the certification of patient decision support interventions: feasibility and application

OBJECTIVE

Patient decision support interventions are not currently subject to standardized quality control. The current study aims to assess the feasibility of applying a proposed set of minimum standards (previously developed as part of a possible certification process) to a selection of existing patient decision support interventions.

METHODS

A convenience sample of interventions selected from those included in the 2009 Cochrane systematic review of patient decision aids was scored by trained raters using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) instrument. Scores were then evaluated against the published proposed minimum standards.

RESULTS

Twenty-five out of thirty included interventions met all qualifying criteria while only three met the proposed certification criteria. The changes required for an intervention to meet the proposed certification standards were relatively minor. There was considerable variation between raters' mean scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Most interventions did not meet the certification criteria due to lack of information on modifiable items such as update policy and funding source.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Specifying minimum standards for patient decision support interventions is a feasible development. However, it remains unclear whether the minimum standards can be applied to interventions designed for use within clinical encounters and to those that target screening and diagnostic tests.

Elements of informed consent and decision quality were poorly correlated in informed consent documents

OBJECTIVES

Although informed consent (IC) documents must contain specific elements, inclusion of these elements may be insufficient to encourage high-quality decision making. We assessed the extent to which documents conform to IC standards and how well conformity to decision quality (DQ) standards can be predicted by IC standards, IC document characteristics, and study characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We obtained 139 IC documents for trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov from study investigators. Using a four-point scale, two raters independently assessed each IC document on 36 IC standard items and 9 DQ items.

RESULTS

Overall agreement between raters across all 45 items was 93%. Across the 36 IC standards items, conformity was generally quite high but variable, with 20 items showing conformity of 80% or more and seven items showing conformity of 50% or lower. IC standards concordance, overall length of the IC document, and country of study were all significant predictors of DQ standards but together accounted for less than 20% of the variance in DQ standards.

CONCLUSION

Conformity to recommendations for improving IC documents was relatively high but variable. The extent to which an IC document conformed to these recommendations was only moderately related to whether it conformed to recommendations for improving DQ. Existing IC regulations may not describe the optimal approach to helping people make good study participation decisions.

Measuring organisational readiness for patient engagement (MORE): an international online Delphi consensus study

Background

Widespread implementation of patient engagement by organisations and clinical teams is not a reality yet. The aim of this study is to develop a measure of organisational readiness for patient engagement designed to monitor and facilitate a healthcare organisation’s willingness and ability to effectively implement patient engagement in healthcare.

Methods

The development of the MORE (Measuring Organisational Readiness for patient Engagement) scale was guided by Weiner’s theory of organisational readiness for change. Weiner postulates that an organisation’s readiness is determined by both the willingness and ability to implement the change (i.e. in this context: patient engagement). A first version of the scale was developed based on a literature search and evaluation of pre-existing tools. We invited multi-disciplinary stakeholders to participate in a two-round online Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each proposed item, and to comment on the proposed domains and items. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and were asked to re-rate the importance of the revised, new and unchanged items, and to provide comments.

Results

The first version of the scale contained 51 items divided into three domains: (1) Respondents’ characteristics; (2) the organisation’s willingness to implement patient engagement; and (3) the organisation’s ability to implement patient engagement. 131 respondents from 16 countries (health care managers, policy makers, clinicians, patients and patient representatives, researchers, and other stakeholders) completed the first survey, and 72 of them also completed the second survey. During the Delphi process, 34 items were reworded, 8 new items were added, 5 items were removed, and 18 were combined. The scale’s instructions were revised. The final version of MORE totalled 38 items; 5 on stakeholders, 13 on an organisation’s willingness to implement, and 20 on an organisation’s ability to implement patient engagement in healthcare.

Conclusions

The Delphi technique was successfully used to refine the scale’s instructions, domains and items, using input from a broad range of international stakeholders, hoping that MORE can be applied in a variety of healthcare contexts worldwide. Further assessment is needed to determine the psychometric properties of the scale.

Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens

Decision aids can help shared decision making, but most have been hard to produce, onerous to update, and are not being used widely. Thomas Agoritsas and colleagues explore why and describe a new electronic model that holds promise of being more useful for clinicians and patients to use together at the point of care

Shared decision making for treatment of cancer: challenges and opportunities

Treatment recommendations are based on complicated clinical information that is revealed variably over time after initial diagnosis. Integrating this information into a treatment plan is challenging, as different specialists direct the various treatments.

Patient Decision Aids: A Case for Certification at the National Level in the United States

Patient decision aids enable patients to be better informed about the potential benefits and harms of their healthcare options. Certification of patient decision aids at the national level in the United States is a critical step towards responsible governance-primarily as a quality measure that increases patients' safety, as mandated in the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Certification would provide a verification process to identify conflicts of interest that may otherwise bias the scientific evidence presented in decision aids. Certification also benefits clinicians who may otherwise face malpractice claims based on harm to patients caused by possible reliance on patient decision aids that are inaccurate, incomplete, or presented in a manner that biases the patient's decision. Existing work by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration could guide the establishment of a certification process within the U.S. This article argues for national certification of patient decision aids and discusses how that may be achieved.

Adapting the coping in deliberation (CODE) framework: a multi-method approach in the context of familial ovarian cancer risk management

OBJECTIVE

To test whether the coping in deliberation (CODE) framework can be adapted to a specific preference-sensitive medical decision: risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in women at increased risk of ovarian cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search to identify issues important to women during deliberations about RRSO. Three focus groups with patients (most were pre-menopausal and untested for genetic mutations) and 11 interviews with health professionals were conducted to determine which issues mattered in the UK context. Data were used to adapt the generic CODE framework.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 49 relevant studies, which highlighted various issues and coping options important during deliberations, including mutation status, risks of surgery, family obligations, physician recommendation, peer support and reliable information sources. Consultations with UK stakeholders confirmed most of these factors as pertinent influences on deliberations. Questions in the generic framework were adapted to reflect the issues and coping options identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The generic CODE framework was readily adapted to a specific preference-sensitive medical decision, showing that deliberations and coping are linked during deliberations about RRSO.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Adapted versions of the CODE framework may be used to develop tailored decision support methods and materials in order to improve patient-centred care.

Collaborative deliberation: a model for patient care

OBJECTIVE

Existing theoretical work in decision making and behavior change has focused on how individuals arrive at decisions or form intentions. Less attention has been given to theorizing the requirements that might be necessary for individuals to work collaboratively to address difficult decisions, consider new alternatives, or change behaviors. The goal of this work was to develop, as a forerunner to a middle range theory, a conceptual model that considers the process of supporting patients to consider alternative health care options, in collaboration with clinicians, and others.

METHODS

Theory building among researchers with experience and expertise in clinician-patient communication, using an iterative cycle of discussions.

RESULTS

We developed a model composed of five inter-related propositions that serve as a foundation for clinical communication processes that honor the ethical principles of respecting individual agency, autonomy, and an empathic approach to practice. We named the model 'collaborative deliberation.' The propositions describe: (1) constructive interpersonal engagement, (2) recognition of alternative actions, (3) comparative learning, (4) preference construction and elicitation, and (5) preference integration.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe the model underpins multiple suggested approaches to clinical practice that take the form of patient centered care, motivational interviewing, goal setting, action planning, and shared decision making.

Naturally occurring peer support through social media: the experiences of individuals with severe mental illness using YouTube

Increasingly, people with diverse health conditions turn to social media to share their illness experiences or seek advice from others with similar health concerns. This unstructured medium may represent a platform on which individuals with severe mental illness naturally provide and receive peer support. Peer support includes a system of mutual giving and receiving where individuals with severe mental illness can offer hope, companionship, and encouragement to others facing similar challenges. In this study we explore the phenomenon of individuals with severe mental illness uploading videos to YouTube, and posting and responding to comments as a form of naturally occurring peer support. We also consider the potential risks and benefits of self-disclosure and interacting with others on YouTube. To address these questions, we used qualitative inquiry informed by emerging techniques in online ethnography. We analyzed n = 3,044 comments posted to 19 videos uploaded by individuals who self-identified as having schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder. We found peer support across four themes: minimizing a sense of isolation and providing hope; finding support through peer exchange and reciprocity; sharing strategies for coping with day-to-day challenges of severe mental illness; and learning from shared experiences of medication use and seeking mental health care. These broad themes are consistent with accepted notions of peer support in severe mental illness as a voluntary process aimed at inclusion and mutual advancement through shared experience and developing a sense of community. Our data suggest that the lack of anonymity and associated risks of being identified as an individual with severe mental illness on YouTube seem to be overlooked by those who posted comments or uploaded videos. Whether or not this platform can provide benefits for a wider community of individuals with severe mental illness remains uncertain.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) can reduce overuse of options not associated with benefits for all and respects patient rights, but has not yet been widely adopted in practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched for primary studies in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialsied Register and PsycINFO for the period March 2009 to August 2012. We searched the Clinical Trials.gov registry and the proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference. We scanned the bibliographies of relevant papers and studies. We contacted experts in the field to identify papers published after August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM where the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based outcome measures (OBOM) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The three overall categories of intervention were: interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. Studies in each category were compared to studies in the same category, to studies in the other two categories, and to usual care, resulting in nine comparison groups. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes separately. We calculated the median of the standardized mean difference (SMD), or risk difference, and range of effect across studies and categories of intervention. We assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were included, 38 randomised and one non-randomised controlled trial. Categorical measures did not show any effect for any of the interventions. In OBOM studies, interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals had a positive effect compared to usual care (SMD of 2.83) and compared to interventions targeting patients alone (SMD of 1.42). Studies comparing interventions targeting patients with other interventions targeting patients had a positive effect, as did studies comparing interventions targeting healthcare professionals with usual care (SDM of 1.13 and 1.08 respectively). In PROM studies, only three comparisons showed any effect, patient compared to usual care (SMD of 0.21), patient compared to another patient (SDM of 0.29) and healthcare professional compared to another healthcare professional (SDM of 0.20). For all comparisons, interpretation of the results needs to consider the small number of studies, the heterogeneity, and some methodological issues. Overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes, assessed with the GRADE tool, ranged from low to very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether interventions to improve adoption of SDM are effective given the low quality of the evidence. However, any intervention that actively targets patients, healthcare professionals, or both, is better than none. Also, interventions targeting patients and healthcare professionals together show more promise than those targeting only one or the other.

Narrowing the gap between organisational demands and the quest for patient involvement: The case for coordinated care pathways

To improve healthcare, we currently observe two major developments. On the one hand, there is an increasing emphasis on including the patients’ perspective, for example in treatment decision making, during development of clinical guidelines and evaluation of care delivery services. On the other hand, healthcare providers are moving towards evidence-based care and standardising operating procedures, exemplified by the development of documented coordinated care pathways. These pathways typically focus on organisational and system requirements, which usually do not refer to patient involvement, nor indicate the need to be sensitive to differing patient needs. As a result, the structured process of developing and documenting care pathways seems to be at odds with the call to personalise care around the needs and preferences of the individual patient. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the conspicuous mismatch and show promising opportunities to address it.

Comparative performance information plays no role in the referral behaviour of GPs

Background

Comparative performance information (CPI) about the quality of hospital care is information used to identify high-quality hospitals and providers. As the gatekeeper to secondary care, the general practitioner (GP) can use CPI to reflect on the pros and cons of the available options with the patient and choose a provider best fitted to the patient’s needs. We investigated how GPs view their role in using CPI to choose providers and support patients.

Method

We used a mixed-method, sequential, exploratory design to conduct explorative interviews with 15 GPs about their referral routines, methods of referral consideration, patient involvement, and the role of CPI. Then we quantified the qualitative results by sending a survey questionnaire to 81 GPs affiliated with a representative national research network.

Results

Seventy GPs (86% response rate) filled out the questionnaire. Most GPs did not know where to find CPI (87%) and had never searched for it (94%). The GPs reported that they were not motivated to use CPI due to doubts about its role as support information, uncertainty about the effect of using CPI, lack of faith in better outcomes, and uncertainty about CPI content and validity. Nonetheless, most GPs believed that patients would like to be informed about quality-of-care differences (62%), and about half the GPs discussed quality-of-care differences with their patients (46%), though these discussions were not based on CPI.

Conclusion

Decisions about referrals to hospital care are not based on CPI exchanges during GP consultations. As a gatekeeper, the GP is in a good position to guide patients through the enormous amount of quality information that is available. Nevertheless, it is unclear how and whether the GP’s role in using information about quality of care in the referral process can grow, as patients hardly ever initiate a discussion based on CPI, though they seem to be increasingly more critical about differences in quality of care. Future research should address the conditions needed to support GPs’ ability and willingness to use CPI to guide their patients in the referral process.

Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials

Background

Informed consent of trial participants is both an ethical and a legal requirement. When facing a decision about trial participation, potential participants are provided with information about the trial and have the opportunity to have any questions answered before their degree of ‘informed-ness’ is assessed, usually subjectively, and before they are asked to sign a consent form. Currently, standardised methods for assessing informed consent have tended to be focused on aspects of understanding and associated outcomes, rather than on the process of consent and the steps associated with decision-making.

Methods

Potential trial participants who were approached regarding participation in one of three randomised controlled trials were asked to complete a short questionnaire to measure their deliberation about trial participation. A total of 136 participants completed the 10-item questionnaire (DelibeRATE) before they made an explicit decision about trial participation (defined as signing the clinical trial consent form). Overall DelibeRATE scores were compared and investigated for differences between trial consenters and refusers.

Results

No differences in overall DelibeRATE scores were identified. In addition, there was no significant difference between overall score and the decision to participate, or not, in the parent trial.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively measure the deliberation stage of the informed consent decision-making process of potential trial participants across different conditions and clinical areas. Although there were no differences detected in overall scores or scores of trial consenters and refusers, we did identify some interesting findings. These findings should be taken into consideration by those designing trials and others interested in developing and implementing measures of potential trial participants decision making during the informed consent process for research.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register ISRCTN60695184 (date of registration: 13 May 2009), ISRCTN80061723 (date of registration: 8 March 2010), ISRCTN69423238 (date of registration: 18 November 2010)

Providing recording of clinical consultation to patients - a highly valued but underutilized intervention: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The benefits of providing patients with recorded clinical consultations have been mostly investigated in oncology settings, generally demonstrating positive outcomes. There has been limited synthesis of evidence about the practice in wider context. Our aim was to summarize, in a scoping review, the evidence about providing consultation recordings to patients.

METHODS

We searched seven literature databases. Full text articles meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved and reviewed. Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping studies guided the review process and thematic analysis was undertaken to synthesize extracted data.

RESULTS

Of 5492 abstracts, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. Between 53.6% and 100% (72% weighted average) of patients listened to recorded consultations. In 60% of reviewed studies patients shared the audio-recordings with others. Six themes identified in the study provided evidence for enhanced information recall and understanding by patients, and positive reactions to receiving recorded consultations. There has been limited investigation into the views of providers and organizations. Medico-legal concerns have been reported.

CONCLUSION

Patients place a high value on receiving audio-recordings of clinical consultations and majority benefit from listening to consultation recordings.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further investigation of the ethical, practical and medico-legal implications of routinely providing recorded consultations is needed.

Shared decision making and motivational interviewing: achieving patient-centered care across the spectrum of health care problems

Patient-centered care requires different approaches depending on the clinical situation. Motivational interviewing and shared decision making provide practical and well-described methods to accomplish patient-centered care in the context of situations where medical evidence supports specific behavior changes and the most appropriate action is dependent on the patient's preferences. Many clinical consultations may require elements of both approaches, however. This article describes these 2 approaches-one to address ambivalence to medically indicated behavior change and the other to support patients in making health care decisions in cases where there is more than one reasonable option-and discusses how clinicians can draw on these approaches alone and in combination to achieve patient-centered care across the range of health care problems.

A classification model of patient engagement methods and assessment of their feasibility in real-world settings

OBJECTIVE

Examine existing reviews of patient engagement methods to propose a model where the focus is on engaging patients in clinical workflows, and to assess the feasibility of advocated patient engagement methods.

METHODS

A literature search of reviews of patient engagement methods was conducted. Included reviews were peer-reviewed, written in English, and focused on methods that targeted patients or patient-provider dyads. Methods were categorized to propose a conceptual model. The feasibility of methods was assessed using an adapted rating system.

RESULTS

We observed that we could categorize patient engagement methods based on information provision, patient activation, and patient-provider collaboration. Methods could be divided by high and low feasibility, predicated on the extent of extra work required by the patient or clinical system. Methods that have good fit with existing workflows and that require proportional amounts of work by patients are likely to be the most feasible.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of patient engagement methods is likely to depend on finding a "sweet-spot" where demands required by patients generate improved knowledge and motivate active participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Attention should be given to those interventions and methods that advocate feasibility with patients, providers, and organizational workflows.