Can consumers learn to ask three questions to improve shared decision making? A feasibility study of the ASK (AskShareKnow) Patient-Clinician Communication Model(®) intervention in a primary health-care setting

Skills for Shared Decision-Making: Evaluation of a Health Literacy Program for Consumers with Lower Literacy Levels

Background:

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been found to be significantly and positively associated with improved patient outcomes. For an SDM process to occur, patients require functional, communicative, and critical health literacy (HL) skills.

Objective:

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a program to improve health literacy skills for SDM in adults with lower literacy.

Methods:

An HL program including an SDM component (HL + SDM) and teaching of the three “AskShareKnow” questions was delivered in adult basic education settings in New South Wales, Australia. The program was evaluated using a partially cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing it to standard language, literacy, and numeracy (LLN) training. We measured the effect of these programs on (1) HL skills for SDM (conceptual knowledge, graphical literacy, health numeracy), (2) types of questions considered important for health decision-making, (3) preferences for control in decision-making, and (4) decisional conflict. We also measured AskShareKnow question recall, use, and evaluation in HL + SDM participants.

Key Results:

There were 308 participants from 28 classes enrolled in the study. Most participants had limited functional HL (71%) and spoke a language other than English at home (60%). In the primary analysis, the HL + SDM program compared with the standard LLN program significantly increased conceptual knowledge (19.1% difference between groups in students achieving the competence threshold; p = .018) and health numeracy (10.9% difference; p = .032), but not graphical literacy (5.8% difference; p = .896). HL + SDM participants were significantly more likely to consider it important to ask questions that would enable SDM compared to standard LLN participants who prioritized nonmedical procedural questions (all p < .01). There was no difference in preferences for control in decision-making or in decisional conflict. Among HL + SDM participants, 79% (n = 85) correctly recalled at least one of the AskShareKnow questions immediately post-intervention, and 35% (n = 29) after 6 months.

Conclusions:

Teaching SDM content increased participants' HL skills for SDM and changed the nature of the questions they would ask health care professionals in a way that would enable shared health decisions. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(Suppl.):S58–S74.]

Plain Language Summary:

We developed a health literacy program that included a shared decision-making (SDM) section. The program was delivered in adult basic education classes by trained educators and compared to standard language, literacy, and numeracy training. Teaching SDM content increased participants' health literacy skills for SDM and changed the nature of the questions they would ask health care professionals.

Implementation of the three good questions-A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments

Objectives

To determine the feasibility of pragmatic implementation strategies for three good questions (in Dutch: Drie Goede Vragen; 3GV. What are my options; what are the risks and benefits related to these options; and what does this mean for my situation?) to increase shared decision‐making (SDM) efforts in Dutch secondary care, and identify barriers and facilitators of implementation.

Methods

Convergent mixed‐method design: pre‐post surveys with patients attending one of six clinical departments in a Dutch Hospital, post‐intervention interviews with patients and health‐care professionals. Primary outcomes: feasibility (reach, use of 3GV). Secondary outcomes: SDM, experiences with 3GV and decision making. Interviews focused on barriers and facilitators of 3GV use. Interviews were content coded and categorized into determinants of behaviour change.

Results

35% of the respondents who had heard of 3GV (52%) used all three questions. 3GV use did not lead to more SDM (SDMQ9 M = Δ0.3;SE = 2.2) but patients felt empowered to decide (88%) and to SDM (86%). Barriers were as follows: time investment, other SDM projects and perception that the need to use 3GV differs per patient/consultation. Respondents preferred to use 3GV as they saw fit for the consultation, instead of literally asking them. Facilitators: easy, accessible information materials that can be flexibly used.

Conclusion

Implementation of 3GV seemed feasible, although influenced by contextual characteristics (eg type of decisions, patients, on‐going interventions). 3GV contributed to important elements of SDM, and respondents were willing to apply them in a way that suited their situation.

Practice implications

We recommend continuation of current and new implementation strategies to enable 3GV implementation in secondary care.

Shared decision-making about cardiovascular disease medication in older people: a qualitative study of patient experiences in general practice

OBJECTIVES

To explore older people's perspectives and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) about medication for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Semi-structured interviews with 30 general practice patients aged 75 years and older in New South Wales, Australia, who had elevated CVD risk factors (blood pressure, cholesterol) or had received CVD-related lifestyle advice. Data were analysed by multiple researchers using Framework analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty eight participants out of 30 were on CVD prevention medication, half with established CVD. We outlined patient experiences using the four steps of the SDM process, identifying key barriers and challenges: Step 1. Choice awareness: taking medication for CVD prevention was generally not recognised as a decision requiring patient input; Step 2. Discuss benefits/harms options: CVD prevention poorly understood with emphasis on benefits; Step 3. Explore preferences: goals, values and preferences (eg, length of life vs quality of life, reducing disease burden vs risk reduction) varied widely but generally not discussed with the general practitioner; Step 4. Making the decision: overall preference for directive approach, but some patients wanted more active involvement. Themes were similar across primary and secondary CVD prevention, different levels of self-reported health and people on and off medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrate how older participants vary widely in their health goals and preferences for treatment outcomes, suggesting that CVD prevention decisions are preference sensitive. Combined with the fact that the vast majority of participants were taking medications, and few understood the aims and potential benefits and harms of CVD prevention, it seems that older patients are not always making an informed decision. Our findings highlight potentially modifiable barriers to greater participation of older people in SDM about CVD prevention medication and prevention in general.

Experienced barriers in shared decision-making behaviour of orthopaedic surgery residents compared with orthopaedic surgeons

INTRODUCTION

In shared decision-making (SDM), physicians encourage the patient to participate in the care process. The theory of planned behaviour describes that behaviour is dependent on intention. In its turn, intention is explained by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. In orthopaedics, little is known about current SDM behaviour and how to promote it.The aim of the present study was to gain insight into the SDM behaviour of orthopaedic residents and supervisors by measuring levels of intention, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Furthermore, we aimed to determine the predictors of intention for SDM.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey study was conducted among orthopaedic surgeons and residents working in the care of hip and knee osteoarthritis, to determine their intentions, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control regarding SDM.

RESULTS

Of the 385 physicians approached, 71 residents and 64 orthopaedic surgeons participated. Residents and the supervisors alike had positive intentions regarding SDM. Intention for SDM behaviour was explained by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control, with perceived behavioural control having the strongest association. In residents, the intention to engage in SDM was more hampered by a lower level of perceived behavioural control than in surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians are willing to perform SDM and consider SDM as favourable in the orthopaedic clinic. The implementation of SDM is mainly hampered by experienced barriers that they cannot control. These findings underline the importance of incorporating SDM in the curriculum of postgraduates. Possibilities for efficient SDM implementation should be explored, to overcome perceived barriers.

OMERACT Development of a Core Domain Set of Outcomes for Shared Decision-making Interventions

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Shared Decision Making (SDM) Working Group aims to determine the core outcome domain set for measuring the effectiveness of SDM interventions in rheumatology trials.

METHODS

A white paper was developed to clarify the draft core domain set. It was then used to prepare for interviews to investigate reasons for lack of consensus on it and to suggest further improvements.

RESULTS

OMERACT scientists/clinicians (n = 13) and patients (n = 10) suggested limiting the core domain set to outcome domains, removing process domains, and clarifying remaining domains.

CONCLUSION

A revised core domain set will undergo further consensus-building.

Communicating with diverse patients: How patient and clinician factors affect disparities

OBJECTIVE

Patient-clinician communication (PCC) may generate or reduce healthcare disparities. This paper is based on the 2017 International Conference on Communication in Healthcare keynote address and reviews PCC literature as a research area for the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD).

METHODS

A narrative review of selected evidence on disparities in PCC experienced by race and ethnic minorities, associations between PCC and poor health outcomes, and patient and clinician factors related to PCC.

RESULTS

Factors associated with poor quality PCC on the patient level include being a member of racial/ethnic minority, having limited English proficiency, and low health and digital literacy; on the clinician level, being less culturally competent, lacking communication skills to facilitate shared decision-making, and holding unconscious biases. Recommendations include offering patient- and/or clinician-targeted interventions to guard against unconscious biases and improve PCC, screening patients for health literacy and English proficiency, integrating PCC in performance processes, and leveraging health information technologies to address unconscious biases.

CONCLUSION

EffectivePCC is a pathway to decrease health disparities and promote health equity.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Standardized collection of social determinants of health in the Electronic Health Record is an importantfirst step in promoting more effective PCC.

Knowledge mobilisation: an ethnographic study of the influence of lay mindlines on eczema self-management in primary care in the UK

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the way in which mindlines, 'collectively reinforced, internalised tacit guidelines', are constructed among lay people with eczema in primary care.

DESIGN

Ethnographic study.

SETTING

Observation in one general practice in the UK and interviews across central England.

PARTICIPANTS

In observation, patients in the participating general practice regardless of presenting complaint and in interviews, people with eczema or parents of children with eczema (n=16).

RESULTS

Observation of over 250 hours and interview data were combined and analysed using an ethnographic approach through the lenses of mindlines and self-management. Four themes were identified: doctor knows best; not worth bothering the doctor; I need to manage this myself; and how I know what to do. Themes were set within the context of four broad typologies of lay people's approach to self-management: content to self-manage; content to accept practitioner management; self-managing by default; and those referred to secondary care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to examine how lay eczema mindlines are developed and to recognise typologies of people with different need for, and receptiveness to, information. Lay eczema mindlines are constructed in many ways. The outstanding challenge is to find strategies to revise or modify these mindlines by adding reliable and useful knowledge and by erasing outdated or inaccurate information.

Improving shared decision-making in a clinical obstetric ward by using the three questions intervention, a pilot study

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an important aspect of modern health care. Many studies evaluated different interventions to improve SDM, however, none in an inpatient clinical setting. A tool that has been proven effective in an outpatient department is the three questions intervention. These questions are created for patients to get optimal information from their medical team and to make an informed medical decision. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of this simple intervention on SDM in the obstetric inpatient department of a university hospital in the Netherlands.

Method

This is a clinical pilot before and after study, using mixed methods with quantitative and qualitative data collection. The three questions were stated on a card; (i.e. 1) What are my options; 2) What are the possible benefits and harms of those options; 3) How likely are each of those benefits and harms to happen to me?). The study period lasted 6 weeks in which all patients admitted to the obstetric ward were asked to participate in the study. In the first 3 weeks patients did not receive the three questions intervention (pre-intervention group). In the final 3 weeks all patients included received the intervention (intervention group). The main quantitative outcome measure was the level of SDM measured using the SDM-Q9 questionnaire at discharge (range 0–100). In addition, interviews with four patients of the intervention group were conducted and qualitatively analyzed.

Results

Thirty-three patients were included in the pre-intervention group, 29 patients in the intervention group. The mean score of the SDM-Q9 in the pre-intervention group was 65.5 (SD 22.83) and in the intervention group 63.2 (SD 20.21), a not statistically significant difference. In the interviews, patients reported the three questions to be very useful. They used the questions mainly as a prompt and encouragement to ask more specific questions.

Discussion

No difference in SDM was found between the two groups, possibly because of a small sample size. Yet the intervention appeared to be feasible and simple to use in an inpatient department. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of implementation of these three questions on a larger scale.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-1921-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies.

METHODS

In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397.

RESULTS

We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.

Developing Verbal Health Literacy with Adult Learners Through Training in Shared Decision-Making

Background

Health literacy skills are often assessed in relation to written health materials; however, many important communications are in other formats, especially verbal communication with health care providers.

Objective

This qualitative study sought to examine adult learners' experiences of developing verbal health literacy skills within an Australian adult basic education program, and to explore verbal communication and shared decision-making as a constituent domain of health literacy.

Methods

We conducted a semi-structured qualitative interview study between September and November 2014 with adult learners who had participated in a single-semester health literacy program that included an integrated shared decision-making component. We analyzed interviews using the Framework method; a matrix-based approach to thematic analysis. A hybrid process of inductive and deductive coding was used to interpret raw data.

Key Results

Interviewees were 22 students from six health literacy classes and ranged in age from 18 to 74 years (mean, 48.3). The majority were women (n = 15) and born outside Australia (n = 13). Health literacy was generally limited according to the Newest Vital Sign screening tool (n = 17). The health literacy program appeared to serve two key functions. First, it stimulated awareness that patients have the right to participate in decision-making concerning their treatment and care. Second, it facilitated verbal skill development across the domains of functional (e.g., communicating symptoms), communicative (e.g., asking questions to extract information about treatment options), and critical (e.g., integrating new knowledge with preferences) health literacy.

Conclusions

Our findings support the conceptualization of health literacy as a modifiable health asset that is subject to change and improvement as a result of deliberate intervention. Results reinforce verbal health literacy as an important component of health literacy, and draw attention to the hierarchy of verbal skills needed for consumers to become more actively involved in decisions about their health. We present a revised model of health literacy based on our findings. [Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2017;1(4):e257-e268.].

Plain Language Summary

We developed a health literacy program for adults with lower literacy to help learners develop skills to talk to health care providers and share health decisions. The program was taught in Australian adult education settings. The article explores the range of health literacy skills needed for communication and decision-making in this study, and presents a model in which verbal skills are an important part of health literacy.

[Why and how to promote decision-making autonomy of cancer patients?]

Involvement of patients in decision-making about their health has been promoted nationally and internationally since several years. Despite this, patient (and their relatives) participation remains insufficient and one of the objectives of the current French national cancer policy (Plan cancer 2014-2019) is to give everyone the possibility to play an active role in the management of their care. This overview focuses on decision-making autonomy of cancer patients through two main questions: why and how to promote it? After a brief review of the decision-making models described in the literature in the past decades insisting on the major role of the decisional context and the dynamic character of this context, this article presents a selection of published works which aimed to respond to those 2 questions.

Right For Me: protocol for a cluster randomised trial of two interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods

INTRODUCTION

Despite the observed and theoretical advantages of shared decision-making in a range of clinical contexts, including contraceptive care, there remains a paucity of evidence on how to facilitate its adoption. This paper describes the protocol for a study to assess the comparative effectiveness of patient-targeted and provider-targeted interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a 2×2 factorial cluster randomised controlled trial with four arms: (1) video+prompt card, (2) decision aids+training, (3) video+prompt card and decision aids+training and (4) usual care. The clusters will be clinics in USA that deliver contraceptive care. The participants will be people who have completed a healthcare visit at a participating clinic, were assigned female sex at birth, are aged 15-49 years, are able to read and write English or Spanish and have not previously participated in the study. The primary outcome will be shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. Secondary outcomes will be the occurrence of a conversation about contraception in the healthcare visit, satisfaction with the conversation about contraception, intended contraceptive method(s), intention to use a highly effective method, values concordance of the intended method(s), decision regret, contraceptive method(s) used, use of a highly effective method, use of the intended method(s), adherence, satisfaction with the method(s) used, unintended pregnancy and unwelcome pregnancy. We will collect study data via longitudinal patient surveys administered immediately after the healthcare visit, four weeks later and six months later.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We will disseminate results via presentations at scientific and professional conferences, papers published in peer-reviewed, open-access journals and scientific and lay reports. We will also make an anonymised copy of the final participant-level dataset available to others for research purposes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02759939.

Toward the Development of a Core Set of Outcome Domains to Assess Shared Decision-making Interventions in Rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Working Group was to determine the core set of outcome domains and subdomains for measuring the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in rheumatology clinical trials.

METHODS

Following the OMERACT Filter 2.0, and based on a previous literature review of SDM outcome domains and a nominal group process at OMERACT 2014, (1) an online Delphi survey was conducted to gather feedback on the draft core set and refine its domains and subdomains, and (2) a workshop was held at the OMERACT 2016 meeting to gain consensus on the draft core set.

RESULTS

A total of 170 participants completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, and 116 completed Round 2. Respondents came from 29 countries, with 49% being patients/caregivers. Results showed that 14 out of the 17 subdomains within the 7 domains exceeded the 70% criterion (endorsement ranged from 83% to 100% of respondents). At OMERACT 2016, only 8% of the 96 attendees were patients/caregivers. Despite initial votes of support in breakout groups, there was insufficient comfort about the conceptualization of these 7 domains and 17 subdomains for these to be endorsed at OMERACT 2016 (endorsement ranged from 17% to 68% of participants).

CONCLUSION

Differences between the Delphi survey and consensus meeting may be explained by the manner in which the outcomes were presented, variations in participant characteristics, and the context of voting. Further efforts are needed to address the limited understanding of SDM and its outcomes among OMERACT participants.

Status report from Norway: Implementation of patient involvement in Norwegian health care

Norway has traditionally high standards regarding civil rights particularly emphasizing equal access to societal resources including health care. This background and the health care system's centralized national organization make it perfectly suited for implementation of shared decision making (SDM). In recent years, great efforts have been made by policy- makers, regional health authorities and not least the patients to facilitate a process of change in health communication culture. SDM is currently even given highest priority in health care strategies on all system levels. SDM has been structurally implemented, e.g. by including corresponding guidance in the standard patient pathways. Moreover, SDM is established as an element of service on the national health portal hosting a constantly increasing number of decision aids. Essentially the Norwegian Knowledge Center for Health Services contributes by searching and providing information for use in decision aids. Implementation is now being rolled out unit by unit for a list of medical problems as a series production of SDM using decision aids and health professional training. Importantly, production of SDM begins and succeeds as a soundly structured communication with both clinical environments and patients. However, as communication training has not been implemented before now, there are no data demonstrating sufficient realization of SDM in current health care. Beyond making reasonable use of scientific achievements, the Norwegian movement's secret of success is the simultaneous commitment of all actors of the health system to a common idea.

Implementing shared decision making in the NHS: lessons from the MAGIC programme

Shared decision making requires a shift in attitudes at all levels but can become part of routine practice with the right support, say Natalie Joseph-Williams and colleagues

Factors influencing implementation of a patient decision aid in a developing country: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Most studies on barriers and facilitators to implementation of patient decision aids (PDAs) are conducted in the west; hence, the findings may not be transferable to developing countries. This study aims to use a locally developed insulin PDA as an exemplar to explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing PDAs in Malaysia, an upper middle-income country in Asia.

METHODS

Qualitative methodology was adopted. Nine in-depth interviews (IDIs) and three focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with policymakers (n = 6), medical officers (n = 13), diabetes educators (n = 5) and a nurse, who were involved in insulin initiation management at an academic primary care clinic. The interviews were conducted with the aid of a semi-structured interview guide based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged, and they were lack of shared decision-making (SDM) culture, role boundary, lack of continuity of care, impact on consultation time and reminder network. Healthcare providers' (HCPs) paternalistic attitude, patients' passivity and patient trust in physicians rendered SDM challenging which affected the implementation of the PDA. Clear role boundaries between the doctors and nurses made collaborative implementation of the PDA challenging, as nurses may not view the use of insulin PDA to be part of their job scope. The lack of continuity of care might cause difficulties for doctors to follow up on insulin PDA use with their patient. While time was the most commonly cited barrier for PDA implementation, use of the PDA might reduce consultation time. A reminder network was suggested to address the issue of forgetfulness as well as to trigger interest in using the PDA. The suggested reminders were peer reminders (i.e. HCPs reminding one another to use the PDA) and system reminders (e.g. incorporating electronic medical record prompts, displaying posters/notices, making the insulin PDA available and visible in the consultation rooms).

CONCLUSIONS

When implementing PDAs, it is crucial to consider the healthcare culture and system, particularly in developing countries such as Malaysia where concepts of SDM and PDAs are still novel.

What do young Australian women want (when talking to doctors about contraception)?

Background

Access to most contraceptives in Australia requires a prescription from a doctor, and it has been shown that doctors can influence women’s decision-making with respect to contraception. However, little research has documented how women experience their interactions with doctors within the context of a contraceptive consultation. Understanding such experiences may contribute to our knowledge of factors that may influence women’s contraceptive decisions more broadly.

Methods

We report on findings from the Contraceptive Use, Pregnancy Intentions and Decisions (CUPID) survey of young Australian women, a large-scale longitudinal study of 3,795 women aged 18–23 years. We performed a computer-assisted search for occurrences of words that indicated an interaction within the 1,038 responses to an open-ended question about contraception and pregnancy. We then applied a combination of conventional and summative content analysis techniques to the 158 comments where women mentioned an interaction about contraception with a doctor.

Results

Our analysis showed that women desire consistent and accurate contraception information from doctors, in addition to information about options other than the oral contraceptive pill. Some young women reported frustrations about the choice limitations imposed by doctors, perceived by these women to be due to their young age. Several women expressed disappointment that their doctor did not fully discuss the potential side-effects of contraceptives with them, and that doctors made assumptions about the woman’s reasons for seeking contraception. Some women described discomfort in having contraception-related discussions, and some perceived their doctor to be unsupportive or judgmental.

Conclusions

Both the content and the process of a contraceptive consultation are important to young Australian women, and may be relevant contributors to their choice and ongoing use of a contraceptive method. These findings provide useful insights into aspects of the patient-provider interaction that will enhance the efficacy of the contraceptive consultation. It is recommended that doctors adopt patient-centred, shared decision-making strategies to support women in making choices about contraception that suit their individual circumstances. We also acknowledge the need to involve other health care providers, other than doctors, in educating, informing, and assisting women to make the best contraceptive choice for themselves.

Key elements of optimal treatment decision-making for surgeons and older patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To identify key elements of optimal treatment decision-making for surgeons and older patients with colorectal (CRC) or pancreatic cancer (PC).

METHODS

Six focus groups with different participants were performed: three with older CRC/PC patients and relatives, and three with physicians. Supplementary in-depth interviews were conducted in another seven patients. Framework analysis was used to identify key elements in decision-making.

RESULTS

23 physicians, 22 patients and 14 relatives participated. Three interacting components were revealed: preconditions, content and facilitators of decision-making. To provide optimal information about treatments' impact on an older patient's daily life, physicians should obtain an overall picture and take into account patients' frailty. Depending on patients' preferences and capacities, dividing decision-making into more sessions will be helpful and simultaneously emphasize patients' own responsibility. GPs may have a valuable contribution because of their background knowledge and supportive role.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholders identified several crucial elements in the complex surgical decision-making of older CRC/PC patients. Structured qualitative research may also be of great help in optimizing other treatment directed decision-making processes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Surgeons should be trained in examining preconditions and useful facilitators in decision-making in older CRC/PC patients to optimize its content and to improve the quality of shared care.

Patient and family communication during consultation visits: The effects of a decision aid for treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effects of a decision aid on improving patients' and family members' information giving and question asking during consultations for prostate cancer treatment decision-making.

METHODS

This study is a secondary analysis of archived audio-recorded real-time consultation visits with participants from a randomized clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned into three groups: TD-intervention targeted patient-only; TS-intervention targeted patients and family members; and control-a handout on staying healthy during treatment. We conducted content analysis using a researcher-developed communication coding system. Using SAS 9.3, we conducted Chi-square/Fisher's exact test to examine whether information giving and question asking among patients and family members varied by groups when discussing different content/topics.

RESULTS

Compared with those in the TS and control groups, significantly higher percentages of participants in the TD group demonstrated information giving in discussing topics about diagnosis, treatment options, risks and benefits, and preferences; and engaged in question asking when discussing diagnosis, watchful waiting/active surveillance, risks and benefits, and preferences for treatment impacts.

CONCLUSION

Information support and communication skills training for patients were effective in improving communication during treatment decision-making consultations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providing information about prostate cancer and communication skills training empower patients and their family members.

Evaluation of an Australian health literacy training program for socially disadvantaged adults attending basic education classes: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

People with low literacy and low health literacy have poorer health outcomes. Literacy and health literacy are distinct but overlapping constructs that impact wellbeing. Interventions that target both could improve health outcomes.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a cluster randomised controlled trial with a qualitative component. Participants are 300 adults enrolled in basic language, literacy and numeracy programs at adult education colleges across New South Wales, Australia. Each adult education institute (regional administrative centre) contributes (at least) two classes matched for student demographics, which may be at the same or different campuses. Classes (clusters) are randomly allocated to receive either the health literacy intervention (an 18-week program with health knowledge and skills embedded in language, literacy, and numeracy training (LLN)), or the standard Language Literacy and Numeracy (LLN) program (usual LLN classes, specifically excluding health content). The primary outcome is functional health literacy skills - knowing how to use a thermometer, and read and interpret food and medicine labels. The secondary outcomes are self-reported confidence, more advanced health literacy skills; shared decision making skills, patient activation, health knowledge and self-reported health behaviour. Data is collected at baseline, and immediately and 6 months post intervention. A sample of participating teachers, students, and community health workers will be interviewed in-depth about their experiences with the program to better understand implementation issues and to strengthen the potential for scaling up the program.

DISCUSSION

Outcomes will provide evidence regarding real-world implementation of a health literacy training program with health worker involvement in an Australian adult education setting. The evaluation trial will provide insight into translating and scaling up health literacy education for vulnerable populations with low literacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000213448 .