Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Cognitive and emotional factors predicting decisional conflict among high-risk breast cancer survivors who receive uninformative BRCA1/2 results

OBJECTIVE

To investigate high-risk breast cancer survivors' risk reduction decision making and decisional conflict after an uninformative BRCA1/2 test.

DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal study of 182 probands undergoing BRCA1/2 testing, with assessments 1-, 6-, and 12-months postdisclosure.

MEASURES

Primary predictors were health beliefs and emotional responses to testing assessed 1-month postdisclosure. Main outcomes included women's perception of whether they had made a final risk management decision (decision status) and decisional conflict related to this issue.

RESULTS

There were four patterns of decision making, depending on how long it took women to make a final decision and the stability of their decision status across assessments. Late decision makers and nondecision makers reported the highest decisional conflict; however, substantial numbers of women--even early and intermediate decision makers--reported elevated decisional conflict. Analyses predicting decisional conflict 1- and 12-months postdisclosure found that, after accounting for control variables and decision status, health beliefs and emotional factors predicted decisional conflict at different timepoints, with health beliefs more important 1 month after test disclosure and emotional factors more important 1 year later.

CONCLUSION

Many of these women may benefit from decision making assistance.

Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in interventions that can support patients who face difficult decisions and individuals who need to modify their behaviour to achieve better outcomes. Evidence for effectiveness is used to categorize patients care. Effective care is where evidence of benefit outweighs harm: patients should always receive this type of care, where indicated. Preference-sensitive care describes a situation where the evidence for the superiority of one treatment over another is either not available or does not allow differentiation; in this situation, there are two or more valid approaches, and the best choice depends on how individuals value the risks and benefits of treatments.

DISCUSSION

Preference-sensitive decisions are defined by equipoise: situations where options need to be deliberated. Moreover, where both healthcare professionals and patients agree that equipoise exists, situations may be regarded as having 'dual equipoise'. Such conditions are ideal for shared decision making. However, there are many situations in medicine where dual equipoise does not exist, where health professionals hold the view that scientific evidence for benefit strongly outweighs harm. This is often the case where people suffer from chronic conditions, and where behaviour change is recommended to improve outcomes. However, some patients, are either ambivalent or find it difficult to sustain optimal behaviours, i.e., patients will be in varying degrees of equipoise. Therefore, situations where dual equipoise exists (or not) help to clarify the definitions of two classes of support, namely, decision and behaviour change support interventions. Decision support interventions help people think about choices they face; they describe where and why choice exists, in short, conditions of dual equipoise; they provide information about options, including, where reasonable, the option of taking no action. These interventions help people to deliberate, independently or in collaboration with others, about options by considering relevant attributes; they support people to forecast how they might feel about short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes that have relevant consequences, in ways that help the process of constructing preferences and eventual decision making appropriate to their individual situation. Whereas, behavioural support interventions describe, justify, and recommend actions that, over time, lead to predictable outcomes over short, intermediate, and long-term timeframes, and that have relevant and important consequences for those who are considering behaviour change.

SUMMARY

Decision and behaviour support interventions have divergent aims, different relationships to equipoise, and form two classes of interventions.

A systematic review of factors influencing decision-making in adults living with chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors influencing patient involvement in decision-making in the context of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and effective interventions to support their decision-making needs.

METHODS

A systematic review included studies and decision support tools that involved: (1) adults with CKD, (2) studies published from 1998-2008; and (3) a focus on patient decision-making needs, and/or barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making. Studies were quality appraised.

RESULTS

Forty studies were appraised. These studies mainly focused on the decisions patients with CKD faced around the choice of renal replacement therapy and withholding/withdrawing dialysis. Moreover, studies typically focused on health care professional's provision of information about the decision rather than identifying decisional conflict and supporting patients in decision-making. No studies were found that identified the patient's point of view about factors that might influence or inhibit quality decision-making. Factors influencing CKD patient's participation in decision included: (1) interpersonal relationships; (2) preservation of current well being, normality and quality of life; (3) need for control; and (4) personal importance on benefits and risks. Of the four patient decision aids identified, none had been evaluated for effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Patients with CKD face decisions that are likely to cause decisional conflict. Most studies focused on information needs related to renal replacement therapy and withdrawing or withholding dialysis. There was less focus on other decision-making needs in the context of those choices and across the trajectory of CKD. Although patient decision aids and implementation of shared decision-making have been evaluated in patients with other medical conditions, little is known about interventions to support patients with CKD making quality decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patients with CKD have decision-making needs across the trajectory of their illness. Although little is known about supporting patients with CKD decision-making, support could be provided with protocols and tools that have been developed for other chronic illness situations. Development of CKD-specific clinical practice guidelines that include decision support best practices could benefit CKD patients. Research priorities include development and evaluation of CKD focused decision support tools and processes.

A knowledge synthesis of patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: study protocol

Background

Failure to reconcile patient preferences and values as well as social norms with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations may hamper their implementation in clinical practice. However, little is known about patients and public involvement programs (PPIP) in CPGs development and implementation. This study aims at identifying what it is about PPIP that works, in which contexts are PPIP most likely to be effective, and how are PPIP assumed to lead to better CPGs development and implementation.

Methods and design

A knowledge synthesis will be conducted in four phases. In phase one, literature on PPIP in CPGs development will be searched through bibliographic databases. A call for bibliographic references and unpublished reports will also be sent via the mailing lists of relevant organizations. Eligible publications will include original qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods study designs reporting on a PPIP pertaining to CPGs development or implementation. They will also include documents produced by CPGs organizations to describe their PPIP. In phase two, grounded in the program's logic model, two independent reviewers will extract data to collect information on the principal components and activities of PPIP, the resources needed, the contexts in which PPIP were developed and tested, and the assumptions underlying PPIP. Quality assessment will be made for all retained publications. Our literature search will be complemented with interviews of key informants drawn from of a purposive sample of CPGs developers and patient/public representatives. In phase three, we will synthesize evidence from both the publications and interviews data using template content analysis to organize the identified components in a meaningful framework of PPIP theories. During a face-to-face workshop, findings will be validated with different stakeholder and a final toolkit for CPGs developers will be refined.

Discussion

The proposed research project will be among the first to explore the PPIP in CPGs development and implementation based on a wide range of publications and key informants interviews. It is anticipated that the results generated by the proposed study will significantly contribute to the improvement of the reconciliation of CPGs with patient preferences and values as well as with social norms.

Development and preliminary evaluation of a bowel cancer screening decision aid for adults with lower literacy

OBJECTIVE

Several countries have recently implemented national bowel cancer screening programs. To ensure equal access to screening, information is needed to suit adults ranging in literacy level. Decision aids are effective in providing balanced information and have been applied in screening. However, few have been designed for populations with lower education and literacy. This article describes the development and preliminary evaluation of a bowel cancer screening decision aid for this group.

METHOD

We conducted face-to-face interviews with adults of varying literacy ability, to develop the decision aid (Stage 1). We applied principles of plain language, created visual illustrations to support key textual messages, and used colour coding to direct the reader through the booklet. We then explored its acceptability and comprehension among consumers with higher and lower education (Stage 2). Participants were recruited from a community sample with lower education and a university alumni network.

RESULTS

A total of 75 participants were interviewed, 43 with lower educational attainment and 32 with university education. The decision aid was positively reviewed by both education groups. Results highlighted the need to clarify the purpose of the decision aid and the availability of choice in the context of screening, especially to those with lower education.

CONCLUSION

The 2 stage iterative development process identified important factors to consider in the development of decision tools for this target group, and is recommended.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our findings have implications for how to support people with lower education and literacy make informed screening decisions.

Establishing patient decision aids in primary care: update on the knowledge base

In recent years, many industrialised countries have moved forward initiatives to reinforce their primary healthcare sector. At the same time, there has been an increased emphasis on the engagement of patients as partners in their care. Consequently, the process by which patients are engaged to share their preferences and become involved in healthcare decisions is changing and pushing the needs for a new kind of knowledge tools, namely patients decision aids. We argue that for shared decision making to be adopted in primary care practices, patient decision aids will need to be embedded in routine clinical care. Subsequently, the objectives of this paper are twofold: to briefly review the knowledge base regarding the implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice and to identify the gaps in knowledge that will need to be addressed for the effective implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice to occur.

Multidisciplinary approach for the treatment of diabetes in the elderly

Elderly patients living with diabetes are a highly heterogeneous population with unique care needs. Unlike younger patients, elderly patients may experience an atypical presentation and nontraditional complications of diabetes. Diabetes management and education require greater individualization in elderly adults because of differences in goals of care, risks and benefits of intensive treatment and abilities to practically carry out care regimens. A multidisciplinary approach to diabetes care requires an in-depth knowledge of diabetes, an awareness of geriatric issues and access to decision and educational support. This approach may be the most successful way of delivering individualized diabetes care. Future trials of diabetes care innovations in the elderly will be required to confirm the clinical benefits of this approach.

Is There a Role for Decision Aids in Advanced Breast Cancer?

Background . A diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer (BC) forces patients and providers to make difficult treatment decisions. Objective . To pilot test a decision aid (DA) for advanced BC. Design . Pretest, posttest study. Setting . Two academic cancer centers in Boston, Massachusetts. Patients . Fifty patients diagnosed with advanced BC. Intervention . A patient DA that consisted of a 30-minute DVD and booklet. Measurements . Patients were surveyed at baseline, after the intervention, and at 3 months. Measures included use and acceptability of DA, distress, treatment goals, and preference for and actual participation in decisions. Physicians were surveyed at baseline and 3 months. Measures included treatment goals, assessment of patients' experience with treatments, and patients' preference for and actual participation in decisions. Results . Thirty-two patients (64%) enrolled and completed the baseline survey, 30 completed the postvideo survey, and 25 completed the 3-month survey. The DA was acceptable and did not increase distress. The majority desired to share decision making with their doctor. Only 38% achieved their desired level of participation. At baseline, agreement between patients and providers on the main goal of treatment (lengthen life v. relieve symptoms) was 50% (κ = —0.045, P = 0.71), and at 3 months it was 74% (κ = 0.125, P = 0.48). Conclusions . It is feasible to perform a clinical trial of a DA with advanced BC patients. Most participants wanted to participate in decisions about their care and found the DA acceptable. This study highlights several issues in developing and implementing DAs in this vulnerable population facing complex decisions.

EXACKTE(2): exploiting the clinical consultation as a knowledge transfer and exchange environment: a study protocol

Background

While the evidence suggests that the way physicians provide information to patients is crucial in helping patients decide upon a course of action, the field of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) is silent about how the physician and the patient influence each other during clinical interactions and decision-making. Consequently, based on a novel relationship-centered model, EXACKTE² (EXploiting the clinicAl Consultation as a Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Environment), this study proposes to assess how patients and physicians influence each other in consultations.

Methods

We will employ a cross-sectional study design involving 300 pairs of patients and family physicians from two primary care practice-based research networks. The consultation between patient and physician will be audio-taped and transcribed. Following the consultation, patients and physicians will complete a set of questionnaires based on the EXACKTE² model. All questionnaires will be similar for patients and physicians. These questionnaires will assess the key concepts of our proposed model based on the essential elements of shared decision-making (SDM): definition and explanation of problem; presentation of options; discussion of pros and cons; clarification of patient values and preferences; discussion of patient ability and self-efficacy; presentation of doctor knowledge and recommendation; and checking and clarifying understanding. Patients will be contacted by phone two weeks later and asked to complete questionnaires on decisional regret and quality of life. The analysis will be conducted to compare the key concepts in the EXACKTE² model between patients and physicians. It will also allow the assessment of how patients and physicians influence each other in consultations.

Discussion

Our proposed model, EXACKTE², is aimed at advancing the science of KTE based on a relationship process when decision-making has to take place. It fosters a new KTE paradigm by putting forward a relationship-centered perspective and has the potential to reveal unknown mechanisms that underline effective KTE in clinical contexts. This will result in better understanding of the mechanisms that may promote a new generation of knowledge transfer strategies.

Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi)

OBJECTIVES

To describe the development, validation and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to measure the quality of patient decision support technologies (decision aids).

DESIGN

Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing.

SETTING

There has been increasing use of decision support technologies--adjuncts to the discussions clinicians have with patients about difficult decisions. A global interest in developing these interventions exists among both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. It is therefore essential to have internationally accepted standards to assess the quality of their development, process, content, potential bias and method of field testing and evaluation.

METHODS

Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five researcher-members of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration worked together to develop the instrument (IPDASi). In the fourth Stage (reliability study), eight raters assessed thirty randomly selected decision support technologies.

RESULTS

IPDASi measures quality in 10 dimensions, using 47 items, and provides an overall quality score (scaled from 0 to 100) for each intervention. Overall IPDASi scores ranged from 33 to 82 across the decision support technologies sampled (n = 30), enabling discrimination. The inter-rater intraclass correlation for the overall quality score was 0.80. Correlations of dimension scores with the overall score were all positive (0.31 to 0.68). Cronbach's alpha values for the 8 raters ranged from 0.72 to 0.93. Cronbach's alphas based on the dimension means ranged from 0.50 to 0.81, indicating that the dimensions, although well correlated, measure different aspects of decision support technology quality. A short version (19 items) was also developed that had very similar mean scores to IPDASi and high correlation between short score and overall score 0.87 (CI 0.79 to 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

This work demonstrates that IPDASi has the ability to assess the quality of decision support technologies. The existing IPDASi provides an assessment of the quality of a DST's components and will be used as a tool to provide formative advice to DSTs developers and summative assessments for those who want to compare their tools against an existing benchmark.

Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment

Research endeavors to determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) have yielded mixed results. The conflicting evaluations are largely due to the different metrics used to assess the validity of judgments made using PtDAs. The different approaches can be characterized by Hammond’s (1996) two frameworks for evaluating judgments: correspondence and coherence. This paper reviews the literature on the effectiveness of PtDAs and recasts this argument as a renewed debate between these two meta-theories of judgment. Evaluation by correspondence criteria involves measuring the impact of patient decision aids on metrics for which there are objective, external, and empirically justifiable values. Evaluation on coherence criteria involves assessing the degree to which decisions follow the logical implications of internal, possibly subjective, value systems/preferences. Coherence can exist absent of correspondence and vice versa. Therefore, many of the seemingly conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of PtDAs can be reconciled by considering that the two meta-theories contribute unique perspectives. We argue that one approach cannot substitute for the other, and researchers should not deny the value of either approach. Furthermore, we suggest that future research evaluating PtDAs include both correspondence and coherence criteria.

Perceptions of breast cancer treatment among African-American women and men: implications for interventions

BACKGROUND

While breast cancer mortality has declined in recent years, the mortality gap between African-American and white women continues to grow. Current strategies to reduce this disparity focus on logistical and information needs, but contextual factors, such as concerns about racism and treatment side effects, may also represent significant barriers to improved outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize perceptions of breast cancer treatment among African-American women and men.

DESIGN

A qualitative study of African-American adults using focus group interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty women and 165 men who live in one of 15 contiguous neighborhoods on Chicago's South Side.

APPROACH

Transcripts were systematically analyzed using qualitative techniques to identify emergent themes related to breast cancer treatment.

RESULTS

The concerns expressed most frequently were mistrust of the medical establishment and federal government, the effect of racism and lack of health insurance on quality of care, the impact of treatment on intimate relationships, and the negative effects of surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to providing logistical and information support, strategies to reduce the breast cancer mortality gap should also address contextual factors important to quality of care. Specific interventions are discussed, including strategies to enhance trust, reduce race-related treatment differences, minimize the impact of treatment on intimate relationships, and reduce negative perceptions of breast cancer surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.

Knowledge translation: putting the "practice" in evidence-based practice

Knowledge translation (KT) is an iterative process that involves knowledge development, synthesis, contextualization, and adaptation, with the expressed purpose of moving the best evidence into practice that results in better health processes and outcomes for patients. Optimization of the process requires engaged interaction between knowledge developers and knowledge users. Knowledge users include consumers, clinicians, and policy makers. KT is highly reliant on understanding when research evidence needs to be moved into practice. Social, personal, policy, and system factors contribute to how and when change in practice can be accomplished. Evidence-based practitioners need to understand a conceptual basis for KT and the evidence indicating which specific KT strategies might help them move best evidence into action in practice. Audit and feedback, knowledge brokering, clinical practice guidelines, professional standards, and "active-learning" continuing education are examples of KT strategies.

Personal stories in publicly available patient decision aids

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the use of personal stories in publicly available patient decision aids (PtDAs).

METHODS

Descriptive study guided by a structured coding taxonomy based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, Ottawa Decision Support Framework, Decisional Conflict Scale and qualitative content analysis. Personal story was defined as an illustrative, first-person narrative in any format. Sampling from the 2007 Cochrane A to Z Inventory was stratified by developer and one-third of PtDAs were randomly sampled.

RESULTS

Of 200 publicly available PtDAs from 5 developers, 168 from 3 developers contained stories. A stratified sample of 56 PtDAs contained 260 stories. Thirty of 56 PtDAs presented an equal number of stories favouring or against the most intensive option. Thirty PtDAs described narrators' satisfaction with outcome(s): 21 contained only stories portraying satisfaction; 9 contained stories portraying satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Publicly available PtDAs vary in their use of stories. Most PtDAs balance the number of stories favouring and against the most intensive option presented; most PtDAs do not balance the number of stories portraying satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the outcome(s) of the decision.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Research is needed to better understand the impact of stories on patient decision making and to inform the guidelines for their inclusion in PtDAs.

International collaboration in shared decision-making: the International Shared Decision Making (ISDM) conference history and prospects

OBJECTIVE

Analyze the role of collaboration in the International Shared Decision Making organization (ISDM).

METHODS

Case study of the seven year history of ISDM as a professional network.

RESULTS

The International Shared Decision Making meeting Conference (ISDM) has held four biennial meetings since its inception in 2001. It is a freestanding professional meeting, with no permanent institutional support and no formal governance structure. In both its history and its prospects, collaboration among attendees has been pivotal to its growth. It both attracts and holds its "members" through the strength of the relationships formed during and between meetings. Exchanges in ISDM are informational, collegial, and indirectly economic.

CONCLUSION

ISDM's future rests on keeping all three functions healthy. It must maintain a focus on putting the shared decision making work first through becoming a "worknet". Technologies that promote shared decision making can then be assembled and developed that support transformation of health care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Innovative professional organizations need to develop their work through deliberate development of networking techniques to move innovation into practice.

Development of a clinical prediction model to calculate patient life expectancy: the measure of actuarial life expectancy (MALE)

OBJECTIVES

To develop a clinical prediction model enabling the calculation of an individual patient's life expectancy (LE) and survival probability based on age, sex, and comorbidity for use in the joint decision-making process regarding medical treatment.

METHODS

A computer software program was developed with a team of 3 clinicians, 2 professional actuaries, and 2 professional computer programmers. This incorporated statistical spreadsheet and database access design methods. Data sources included life insurance industry actuarial rating factor tables (public and private domain), Government Actuary Department UK life tables, professional actuarial sources, and evidence-based medical literature. The main outcome measures were numerical and graphical display of comorbidity-adjusted LE; 5-, 10-, and 15-year survival probability; in addition to generic UK population LE.

RESULTS

Nineteen medical conditions, which impacted significantly on LE in actuarial terms and were commonly encountered in clinical practice, were incorporated in the final model. Numerical and graphical representations of statistical predictions of LE and survival probability were successfully generated for patients with either no comorbidity or a combination of the 19 medical conditions included. Validation and testing, including actuarial peer review, confirmed consistency with the data sources utilized.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based actuarial data utilized in this computer program design represent a valuable resource for use in the clinical decision-making process, where an accurate objective assessment of patient LE can so often make the difference between patients being offered or denied medical and surgical treatment. Ongoing development to incorporate additional comorbidities and enable Web-based access will enhance its use further.

Can people find patient decision aids on the Internet?

OBJECTIVE

To determine if people could find patient decision aids (PtDAs) on the Internet using the most popular general search engines.

METHODS

We chose five medical conditions for which English language PtDAs were available from at least three different developers. The search engines used were: Google (www.google.com), Yahoo! (www.yahoo.com), and MSN (www.msn.com). For each condition and search engine we ran six searches using a combination of search terms. We coded all non-sponsored Web pages that were linked from the first page of the search results.

RESULTS

Most first page results linked to informational Web pages about the condition, only 16% linked to PtDAs. PtDAs were more readily found for the breast cancer surgery decision (our searches found seven of the nine developers). The searches using Yahoo and Google search engines were more likely to find PtDAs. The following combination of search terms: condition, treatment, decision (e.g. breast cancer surgery decision) was most successful across all search engines (29%).

CONCLUSION

While some terms and search engines were more successful, few resulted in direct links to PtDAs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Finding PtDAs would be improved with use of standardized labelling, providing patients with specific Web site addresses or access to an independent PtDA clearinghouse.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions

OBJECTIVE

To update a systematic review on the barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice as perceived by health professionals.

METHODS

From March to December 2006, PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, PsycINFO, and Dissertation Abstracts were searched. Studies were included if they reported on health professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in practice. Quality of the included studies was assessed. Content analysis was performed with a pre-established taxonomy.

RESULTS

Out of 1130 titles, 10 new eligible studies were identified for a total of 38 included studies compared to 28 in the previous version. The vast majority of participants (n=3231) were physicians (89%). The three most often reported barriers were: time constraints (22/38) and lack of applicability due to patient characteristics (18/38) and the clinical situation (16/38). The three most often reported facilitators were: provider motivation (23/38) and positive impact on the clinical process (16/38) and patient outcomes (16/38).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review update confirms the results of the original review.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interventions to foster implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice will need to address a range of factors.

A perspective on the patient's role in treatment decisions

There is considerable evidence, across different clinical contexts, that treatment decisions are characterized by poor communication, significant knowledge gaps, and a lack of attention to patients' preferences for different health states. Over the past two decades, patient decision aids have been shown to be an effective means to improve the quality of decisions. More recently, the Internet has increased expectations about the impact of information and decision aids on the involvement of patients in decisions. However, there are several challenges to effective dissemination and implementation of decision support interventions, through the Internet or other media. The authors recommend specific policy and research initiatives to facilitate the local and system-level changes necessary to support patients more effectively in making treatment choices. More attention to measurement and policy-level interventions will be required to increase the use of proven tools and to achieve significant improvements in the quality of treatment decisions.

Shared decision making in antipsychotic management

The similar efficacies of currently available antipsychotic medications (other than clozapine) make them appropriate for preference-sensitive care; therefore, prescribing these medications is amenable to shared decision-making. In this conceptual article, we describe the current state of antipsychotic prescribing based on a review of the literature from recent landmark studies and updated prescribing guidelines. Recent literature and guidelines on schizophrenia treatment in the United States do not reveal strong endorsement of the idea of shared decision-making. We suggest methods for incorporating shared decision-making into antipsychotic prescribing in the future, with an emphasis on the use of information technology.

Recent advances in shared decision making for mental health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Shared decision making (SDM) in nonmental health populations has documented positive services and health benefits. To advance integration of SDM into mental healthcare, researchers have outlined several priorities for future research. These include (1) clarifying the role of SDM in mental healthcare; (2) understanding patient and provider perspectives on SDM; (3) assessment of SDM practice in mental health settings; and (4) outcomes of SDM in mental health populations. This article will review recent advances in these areas.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current literature shows that SDM can play a role in the mental health treatment process from entry into care to recovery. Patients and providers find SDM acceptable and express a willingness to engage in SDM for reasons that are multifactorial. Barriers to SDM exist in mental health decision making including patient preferences and provider-level biases. Lastly, outcome research provides encouraging preliminary evidence for feasibility and effectiveness of SDM during the mental health encounter.

SUMMARY

Although there have not been a great number of SDM studies in mental health to date, the positive effects of SDM are comparable to those documented in general nonmental health patient groups, suggesting that future research has the potential to result in findings that are likely to be helpful for patients with psychiatric disorders.

So much to do, so little time: care for the socially disadvantaged and the 15-minute visit

There is so much to do in primary care, and so little time to do it. During 15-minute visits, physicians are expected to form partnerships with patients and their families, address complex acute and chronic biomedical and psychosocial problems, provide preventive care, coordinate care with specialists, and ensure informed decision making that respects patients' needs and preferences. This is a challenging task during straightforward visits, and it is nearly impossible when caring for socially disadvantaged patients with complex biomedical and psychosocial problems and multiple barriers to care. Consider the following scenario.

Patient decision aid on natural health products for menopausal symptoms: randomized controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate the impact of a patient decision aid (PDA) regarding the use of natural health products (NHPs) at menopause on decisional conflict, knowledge of NHPs, congruence between values and choice, persistence with an option, intention to disclose the use of NHPs to a physician or a pharmacist and intention to use decision support interventions in the future.

Study design

A randomized controlled trial in which 90 women, aged 45–64 years, facing a decision about using NHPs for menopausal symptoms, received a PDA (experimental group) or a general information brochure about menopause (control group).

Main outcome

Decisional conflict.

Measures

Women were evaluated at baseline and after a two-week period using the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Analysis of covariance was used to determine the differences between both groups on the DCS.

Results

Both groups experienced a statistically significant reduction on the DCS (−0.55 ± 0.59, P < 0.0001 versus −0.52 ± 0.73, P < 0.0001). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups ( P = 0.32). Both groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in knowledge of NHPs (0.86 ± 1.77, P = 0.002 versus 0.51 ± 1.47, P = 0.031). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups ( P = 0.162).

Conclusion

A PDA regarding the use of NHPs for menopausal symptoms impacted favourably on women's decisional conflict, but was not superior to a general information brochure on menopause.

Does outpatient telephone coaching add to hospital quality improvement following hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome?

BACKGROUND

Telephone counseling in chronic disease self-management is increasing, but has not been tested in studies that control for quality of medical care.

OBJECTIVE

To test the effectiveness of a six-session outpatient telephone-based counseling intervention to improve secondary prevention (behaviors, medication) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) following discharge from hospital, and impact on physical functioning and quality of life at 8 months post-discharge.

DESIGN

Patient-level randomized trial of hospital quality improvement (QI-only) versus quality improvement plus brief telephone coaching in three months post-hospitalization (QI-plus).

DATA

medical record, state vital records, patient surveys (baseline, three and eight months post-hospitalization).

ANALYSIS

pooled-time series generalized estimating equations to analyze repeated measures; intention-to-treat analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven hundred and nineteen patients admitted to one of five hospitals in two contiguous mid-Michigan communities enrolled; 525 completed baseline surveys.

MEASUREMENTS

We measured secondary prevention behaviors, physical functioning, and quality of life.

RESULTS

QI-plus patients showed higher self-reported physical activity (OR = 1.53; p = .01) during the first three months, with decline after active intervention was withdrawn. Smoking cessation and medication use were not different at 3 or 8 months; functional status and quality of life were not different at 8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Telephone coaching post-hospitalization for ACS was modestly effective in accomplishing short-term, but not long-term life-style behavior change. Previous positive results shown in primary care did not transfer to free-standing telephone counseling as an adjunct to care following hospitalization.

Patient consent--decision or assumption?

New guidance from the General Medical Council urges a change in approach

Modeling the information preferences of parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint experiment

Although materials informing parents about children's mental health (CMH) problems can improve outcomes, we know relatively little about the design factors that might influence their utilization of available resources. We used a discrete choice conjoint experiment to model the information preferences of parents seeking mental health services for 6 to 18 year olds. Parents completed 30 choice tasks presenting experimentally varied combinations of 20 four-level CMH information content, transfer process, and outcome attributes. Latent class analysis revealed three segments with different preferences. Parents in the Action segment (43%) chose materials providing step-by-step solutions to behavioral or emotional problems. They preferred weekly meetings with other parents and coaching calls from a therapist. The Information segment (41%) chose materials helping them understand rather than solve their child's problems. These parents were more sensitive to logistical factors such as receiving information in groups, the location where information was available, the modality in which the information was presented, and the time required to obtain and use the information. The Overwhelmed segment (16%) reported more oppositional and conduct problems, felt their children's difficulties exerted a greater adverse impact on family functioning, and reported higher personal depression scores than those in the Action or Information segments. Nonetheless, they did not choose information about, or solutions to, the problems their children presented. Simulations predicted that maximizing utilization and realizing the potential benefits of CMH information would require knowledge transfer strategies consistent with each segment's preferences.

Decision-making needs of patients with depression: a descriptive study

The study's purpose was to explore the decision-making needs of patients considering treatment options for their depression. Semi-structured interviews were guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Of 94 participants, 67 were uncertain about their decision. Common decisions identified were whether or not to take medications, attend support groups, undergo electroconvulsive therapy, and location of care. Those feeling certain were more likely to have made a decision (RR 1.37; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.78). However, 40 patients who had 'made a decision' in the recent past were uncertain about their decision. Compared with those who were certain, the uncertain group felt less informed (2.65 vs. 1.64; P < 0.001), less supported (2.63 vs. 1.88; P < 0.001) and less clear about how they valued the benefits and risks of options (2.57 vs. 1.69; P < 0.001). Other influential factors included concerns about confidentiality, distress from depression, embarrassment, panic attacks and lack of energy. Few patients wanted to defer decision making to their physician (n = 8) or family (n = 1). To support decision making, participants identified the need for: discussions with their psychiatrist, nurse or family doctor; access to printed information; and information provided by health professionals and health societies.

Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe the extent to which theory or theoretical frameworks informed the development and evaluation of decision support technologies (DSTs).

METHODS

The analysis was based on the decision technologies used in studies included in the Cochrane systematic review of patient decision aids for people facing health screening or treatment decisions. The assumption was made that DSTs evaluated by randomized controlled trials, and therefore included in the updated Cochrane review have been the most rigorously developed.

RESULTS

Of the 50 DSTs evaluated only 17 (34%) were based on a theoretical framework. Amongst these, 11 decision-making theories were described but the extent to which theory informed the development, field-testing and evaluation of these interventions was highly variable between DSTs. The majority of the 17 DSTs that relied on a theory was not explicit about how theory had guided their design and evaluation. Many had superficial descriptions of the theory or theories involved. Furthermore, based on the analysis of those 17 DSTs, none had reported field-testing prior to evaluation.

CONCLUSION

The use of decision-making theory in DST development is rare and poorly described. The lack of theoretical underpinning to the design and development of DSTs most likely reflects the early development stage of the DST field.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The findings clearly indicate the need to give more attention to how the most important decision-making theories could be better used to guide the design of key decision support components and their modes of action.

Interventions to improve risk communication in clinical genetics: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Effective risk communication may enable clients to participate effectively in decision-making about their health and health care. A systematic review of existing literature on risk communication in genetics, and its effects on key outcomes for clients, was undertaken.

METHOD

Systematic searching of six electronic databases and data extraction from included studies; narrative synthesis of results.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included, principally from cancer genetics. Sixteen communication interventions have been evaluated, generally showing improvements in cognitive outcomes for users, such as knowledge, understanding and risk perception, and without adverse effects on anxiety, cancer-related worry and depression. However, often it was the supportive or emotional elements of counselling that provided benefits to users, rather than the informational or educational elements. Similar results were found in 12 further studies of decision aids which also appear to achieve shorter consultations that can focus more on the supportive elements of counselling.

CONCLUSION

For both communication models and decision aids, the supportive or emotional elements of counselling provided more benefits to users than the informational or educational elements.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Debate is required on how to strike a balance between the medical model, its agenda and perceived requirements to disclose or discuss a range of issues and the sometimes competing goals of addressing users' concerns, needs for support, issues of loss and relationship problems.

Should a colon cancer screening decision aid include the option of no testing? A comparative trial of two decision aids

Background

An important question in the development of decision aids about colon cancer (CRC) screening is whether to include an explicit discussion of the option of not being screened. We examined the effect of including or not including an explicit discussion of the option of deciding not to be screened in a CRC screening decision aid on subjective measures of decision aid content; interest in screening; and knowledge.

Methods

Adults ages 50–85 were assigned to view one of two versions of the decision aid. The two versions differed only in the inclusion of video segments of two men, one of whom decided against being screened. Participants completed questionnaires before and after viewing the decision aid to compare subjective measures of content, screening interest and intent, and knowledge between groups. Likert response categories (5-point) were used for subjective measures of content (eg. clarity, balance in favor/against screening, and overall rating), and screening interest. Knowledge was measured with a three item index and individual questions. Higher scores indicated favorable responses for subjective measures, greater interest, and better knowledge. For the subjective balance, lower numbers were associated with the impression of the decision aid favoring CRC screening.

Results

57 viewed the "with" version which included the two segments and 49 viewed the "without" version. After viewing, participants found the "without" version to have better subjective clarity about benefits of screening ("with" 3.4, "without" 4.1, p < 0.01), and to have greater clarity about downsides of screening ("with" 3.2, "without" 3.6, p = 0.03). The "with" version was considered to be less strongly balanced in favor of screening. ("with" 1.8, "without" 1.6, p = 0.05); but the "without" version received a better overall rating ("with" 3.5, "without" 3.8, p = 0.03). Groups did not differ in screening interest after viewing a decision aid or knowledge.

Conclusion

A decision aid with the explicit discussion of the option of deciding not to be screened appears to increase the impression that the program was not as strongly in favor of screening, but decreases the impression of clarity and resulted in a lower overall rating. We did not observe clinically important or statistically significant differences in interest in screening or knowledge.

Design and development of a decision aid to enhance shared decision making by patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

To design, develop, and evaluate an evidence-based decision aid (DA) for patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) to inform them about the pros and cons of their treatment options (ie, surgery or watchful observation) and to help them make a shared decision.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team defined criteria for the desired DA as to design, medical content and functionality, particularly for elderly users. Development was according to the international standard (IPDAS). Fifteen patients with an AAA, who were either treated or not yet treated, evaluated the tool.

RESULTS

A DA was developed to offer information about the disease, the risks and benefits of surgical treatment and watchful observation, and the individual possibilities and threats based on the patient's aneurysm diameter and risk profile. The DA was improved and judged favorably by physicians and patients.

CONCLUSION

This evidence-based DA for AAA patients, developed according to IPDAS criteria, is likely to be a simple, user-friendly tool to offer patients evidence-based information about the pros and cons of treatment options for AAA, to improve patients' understanding of the disease and treatment options, and may support decision making based on individual values.

Translating shared decision-making into health care clinical practices: proof of concepts

BACKGROUND

There is considerable interest today in shared decision-making (SDM), defined as a decision-making process jointly shared by patients and their health care provider. However, the data show that SDM has not been broadly adopted yet. Consequently, the main goal of this proposal is to bring together the resources and the expertise needed to develop an interdisciplinary and international research team on the implementation of SDM in clinical practice using a theory-based dyadic perspective.

METHODS

Participants include researchers from Canada, US, UK, and Netherlands, representing medicine, nursing, psychology, community health and epidemiology. In order to develop a collaborative research network that takes advantage of the expertise of the team members, the following research activities are planned: 1) establish networking and on-going communication through internet-based forum, conference calls, and a bi-weekly e-bulletin; 2) hold a two-day workshop with two key experts (one in theoretical underpinnings of behavioral change, and a second in dyadic data analysis), and invite all investigators to present their views on the challenges related to the implementation of SDM in clinical practices; 3) conduct a secondary analyses of existing dyadic datasets to ensure that discussion among team members is grounded in empirical data; 4) build capacity with involvement of graduate students in the workshop and online forum; and 5) elaborate a position paper and an international multi-site study protocol.

DISCUSSION

This study protocol aims to inform researchers, educators, and clinicians interested in improving their understanding of effective strategies to implement shared decision-making in clinical practice using a theory-based dyadic perspective.

Are patient decision aids the best way to improve clinical decision making? Report of the IPDAS Symposium

This article reports on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Symposium held in 2006 at the annual meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The symposium featured a debate regarding the proposition that "decision aids are the best way to improve clinical decision making.'' The formal debate addressed the theoretical problem of the appropriate gold standard for an improved decision, efficacy of decision aids, and prospects for implementation. Audience comments and questions focused on both theory and practice: the often unacknowledged roots of decision aids in expected utility theory and the practical problems of limited patient decision aid implementation in health care. The participants' vote on the proposition was approximately half for and half against.