Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Decisions and the involvement of cancer patient survivors: a moral imperative

Purpose

The aim of this study was to review the experiences of direct involvement in patient survivorship for treatment and research.

Methods

This is a narrative-focused review of the following two recent experiences of patient involvement: the Chordoma Foundation and the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation.

Results

These two examples represent concrete experiences that patients have built to favor a real involvement in the care and treatment of tumors. These experiences are profoundly modifying how cancer research is conducted and draw attention to the psychosocial dimensions of health care.

Conclusion

These examples represent the new scenario in which modern medicine faces completely new challenges, copes with new needs, and cooperates with new health care professionals.

Implications

Involving patients in a new perspective raises practical and ethical challenges for organizations to work together, for health providers to be professionally skilled and for the government to promote safeguarding policies.

Direct to consumer advertising of robotic heart bypass surgery: effectiveness, patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes

Purpose

Robotic coronary artery bypass (rCABG) is a relatively novel and less invasive form of surgery. A yearlong direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) campaign was initiated to provide the community with information regarding rCABG, increase awareness and recruit patients. To optimize information content and ensure appropriate messaging for future campaigns, this study aims to analyze the campaign effectiveness and compared service quality perceptions and clinical outcomes, following surgery across DTCA-responder and control groups.

Design/methodology/approach

The institution initiated an rCABG program and one-year DTCA campaign. The authors prospectively documented all rCABG referrals prompted by these ads (DTCA-responder group) and concurrent referrals from medical providers (controls). Groups were compared according to baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, patient satisfaction (HCAHPS survey) and functional capacity at three weeks (Duke Activity Status Index). At six months, both groups were surveyed for patient satisfaction and unmet expectations.

Findings

There were 103 DTCA responders and 77 controls. The subset of responders that underwent rCABG (n = 54) had similar characteristics to controls, except they were younger, less likely to have lung disease or to be scheduled as an urgent case. Both groups had similar 30-day clinical outcomes, functional capacity recovery and overall satisfaction at three weeks. Follow-up interviews at six months and four years revealed that the DTCA group reported more unmet expectations regarding the “size of the skin incisions” and “recovery time” but no concern about “expertise of their surgeon”.

Practical implications

The DTCA campaign was effective at recruiting patients. The specific focus of the ads and narrow timeframe for decision-making about CABG lends confidence that the incremental cases seen during the campaign were prompted primarily by DTCA. However, differences in unmet expectations underscore the need to better understand the impact of message content on patients recruited via DTCA campaigns.

Originality/value

This is one of the first studies to provide real-world direct empirical evidence of patients’ clinical and attitudinal outcomes for DTCA campaigns. Furthermore, the findings contradict prevailing beliefs that DTCA is ineffective for prompting surgical referrals.

Toward Optimal Decision Making among Vulnerable Patients Referred for Cardiac Surgery: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient and Provider Perspectives

OBJECTIVES

Comprehension of risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options has been shown to be poor among patients referred for cardiac interventions. Patients' values and preferences are rarely explicitly sought. An increasing proportion of frail and older patients are undergoing complex cardiac surgical procedures with increased risk of both mortality and prolonged institutional care. We sought input from patients and caregivers to determine the optimal approach to decision making in this vulnerable patient population.

METHODS

Focus groups were held with both providers and former patients. Three focus groups were convened for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG), Valve, or CABG +Valve patients ≥ 70 y old (2-y post-op, ≤ 8-wk post-op, complicated post-op course) (n = 15). Three focus groups were convened for Intermediate Medical Care Unit (IMCU) nurses, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) nurses, surgeons, anesthesiologists and cardiac intensivists (n = 20). We used a semi-structured interview format to ask questions surrounding the informed consent process. Transcribed audio data was analyzed to develop consistent and comprehensive themes.

RESULTS

We identified 5 main themes that influence the decision making process: educational barriers, educational facilitators, patient autonomy and perceived autonomy, patient and family expectations of care, and decision making advocates. All themes were influenced by time constraints experienced in the current consent process. Patient groups expressed a desire to receive information earlier in their care to allow time to identify personal values and preferences in developing plans for treatment. Both groups strongly supported a formal approach for shared decision making with a decisional coach to provide information and facilitate communication with the care team.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying the barriers and facilitators to patient and caretaker engagement in decision making is a key step in the development of a structured, patient-centered SDM approach. Intervention early in the decision process, the use of individualized decision aids that employ graphic risk presentations, and a dedicated decisional coach were identified by patients and providers as approaches with a high potential for success. The impact of such a formalized shared decision making process in cardiac surgery on decisional quality will need to be formally assessed. Given the trend toward older and frail patients referred for complex cardiac procedures, the need for an effective shared decision making process is compelling.

Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Decision aids prepare patients to make decisions about healthcare options consistent with their preferences. Helping patients choose among available options for colorectal cancer screening is important because rates are lower than screening for other cancers. This systematic review describes studies evaluating patient decision aids for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults and their impact on knowledge, screening intentions, and uptake.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid PsycINFO through July 21, 2015, pertinent reference lists, and Cochrane review of patient decisions aids. Reviewers independently selected studies that quantitatively evaluated a decision aid compared to one or more conditions or within a pre-post evaluation. Using a standardized form, reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Analysis was conducted in August 2015.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-three articles representing 21 trials including 11,900 subjects were eligible. Patients exposed to a decision aid showed greater knowledge than those exposed to a control condition (mean difference=18.3 of 100; 95% CI=15.5, 21.1), were more likely to be interested in screening (pooled relative risk=1.5; 95% CI=1.2, 2.0), and more likely to be screened (pooled relative risk=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.4). Decision aid patients had greater knowledge than patients receiving general colorectal cancer screening information (pooled mean difference=19.3 of 100; 95% CI=14.7, 23.8); however, there were no significant differences in screening interest or behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids improve knowledge and interest in screening, and lead to increased screening over no information, but their impact on screening is similar to general colorectal cancer screening information.

Role of Psychosocial Factors and Health Literacy in Pregnant Women's Intention to Use a Decision Aid for Down Syndrome Screening: A Theory-Based Web Survey

BACKGROUND

Deciding about undergoing prenatal screening is difficult, as it entails risks, potential loss and regrets, and challenges to personal values. Shared decision making and decision aids (DAs) can help pregnant women give informed and values-based consent or refusal to prenatal screening, but little is known about factors influencing the use of DAs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify the influence of psychosocial factors on pregnant women's intention to use a DA for prenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS). We also added health literacy variables to explore their influence on pregnant women's intention.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of pregnant women in the province of Quebec (Canada) using a Web panel. Eligibility criteria included age >18 years, >16 weeks pregnant, low-risk pregnancy, and having decided about prenatal screening for the current pregnancy. We collected data based on an extended version of the Theory of Planned Behavior assessing 7 psychosocial constructs (intention, attitude, anticipated regret, subjective norm, descriptive norm, moral norm, and perceived control), 3 related sets of beliefs (behavioral, normative, and control beliefs), 4 health literacy variables, and sociodemographics. Eligible women watched a video depicting the behavior of interest before completing a Web-based questionnaire. We performed descriptive, bivariate, and ordinal logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 383 eligible pregnant women who agreed to participate, 350 pregnant women completed the Web-based questionnaire and 346 were retained for analysis (completion rate 350/383, 91.4%; mean age 30.1, SD 4.3, years). In order of importance, factors influencing intention to use a DA for prenatal screening for DS were attitude (odds ratio, OR, 9.16, 95% CI 4.02-20.85), moral norm (OR 7.97, 95% CI 4.49-14.14), descriptive norm (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.63-4.92), and anticipated regret (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.71-3.46). Specific attitudinal beliefs significantly related to intention were that using a DA would reassure them (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.73-4.01), facilitate their reflections with their spouse (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.05-2.29), and let them know about the advantages of doing or not doing the test (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.05-2.24). Health literacy did not add to the predictive power of our model (P values range .43-.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation interventions targeting the use of a DA for prenatal screening for DS by pregnant women should address a number of modifiable factors, especially by introducing the advantages of using the DA (attitude), informing pregnant women that they might regret not using it (anticipated regret), and presenting the use of DAs as a common practice (descriptive norm). However, interventions on moral norms related to the use of DA should be treated with caution. Further studies that include populations with low health literacy are needed before decisive claims can be made.

Informed decision making before prostate-specific antigen screening: Initial results using the American Cancer Society (ACS) Decision Aid (DA) among medically underserved men

BACKGROUND

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends men have the opportunity to make an informed decision about screening for prostate cancer (PCa). The ACS developed a unique decision aid (ACS-DA) for this purpose. However, to date, studies evaluating the efficacy of the ACS-DA are lacking. The authors evaluated the ACS-DA among a cohort of medically underserved men (MUM).

METHODS

A multiethnic cohort of MUM (n = 285) was prospectively included between June 2010 and December 2014. The ACS-DA was presented in a group format. Levels of knowledge on PCa were evaluated before and after the presentation. Participants' decisional conflict and thoughts about the presentation also were evaluated. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with having an adequate level of knowledge.

RESULTS

Before receiving the ACS-DA, 33.1% of participants had adequate knowledge on PCa, and this increased to 77% after the DA (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, higher education level (odds ratio, 11.19; P = .001) and history of another cancer (odds ratio, 7.45; P = .03) were associated with having adequate knowledge after receiving the DA. Levels of decisional conflict were low and were correlated with levels of knowledge after receiving the DA. The majority of men also rated the presentation as favorable and would recommend the ACS-DA to others.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the ACS-DA was feasible among MUM and led to increased PCa knowledge. This also correlated with low levels of decisional conflict. The ACS-DA presented to groups of men may serve as a feasible tool for informed decision making in a MUM population. Cancer 2017;123:583-591. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

A qualitative study of decision-making about the implantation of cardioverter defibrillators and deactivation during end-of-life care

Background

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death or for survivors of cardiac arrest. All ICDs combine a shock function with a pacing function to treat fast and slow heart rhythms, respectively. The pacing function may be very sophisticated and can provide so-called cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure using a pacemaker (cardiac resynchronisation therapy with pacemaker) or combined with an ICD [cardiac resynchronisation therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D)]. Decision-making about these devices involves considering the benefit (averting sudden cardiac death), possible risks (inappropriate shocks and psychological problems) and the potential need for deactivation towards the end of life.

Objectives

To explore patients’/relatives’ and clinicians’ views/experiences of decision-making about ICD and CRT-D implantation and deactivation, to establish how and when ICD risks, benefits and consequences are communicated to patients, to identify individual and organisational facilitators and barriers to discussions about implantation and deactivation and to determine information and decision-support needs for shared decision-making (SDM).

Data sources

Observations of clinical encounters, in-depth interviews and interactive group workshops with clinicians, patients and their relatives.

Methods

Observations of consultations with patients being considered for ICD or CRT-D implantation were undertaken to become familiar with the clinical environment and to optimise the sampling strategy. In-depth interviews were conducted with patients, relatives and clinicians to gain detailed insights into their views and experiences. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently. Interactive workshops with clinicians and patients/relatives were used to validate our findings and to explore how these could be used to support better SDM.

Results

We conducted 38 observations of clinical encounters, 80 interviews (44 patients/relatives, seven bereaved relatives and 29 clinicians) and two workshops with 11 clinicians and 11 patients/relatives. Patients had variable knowledge about their conditions, the risk of sudden cardiac death and the clinical rationale for ICDs, which sometimes resulted in confusion about the potential benefits. Clinicians used various metaphors, verbal descriptors and numerical risk methods, including variable disclosure of the potential negative impact of ICDs on body image and the risk of psychological problems, to convey information to patients/relatives. Patients/relatives wanted more information about, and more involvement in, deactivation decisions, and expressed a preference that these decisions be addressed at the time of implantation. There was no consensus among clinicians about the initiation or timing of such discussions, or who should take responsibility for them. Introducing deactivation discussions prior to implantation was thus contentious; however, trigger points for deactivation discussions embedded within the pathway were suggested to ensure timely discussions.

Limitations

Only two patients who were prospectively considering deactivation and seven bereaved relatives were recruited. The study also lacks the perspectives of primary care clinicians.

Conclusions

There is discordance between patients and clinicians on information requirements, in particular the potential consequences of implantation on psychological well-being and quality of life in the short and long term (deactivation). There were no agreed points across the care pathway at which to discuss deactivation. Codesigned information tools that present balanced information on the benefits, risks and consequences, and SDM skills training for patients/relative and clinicians, would support better SDM about ICDs.

Future work

Multifaceted SDM interventions that focus on skills development for SDM combined with decision-support tools are warranted, and there is a potential central role for heart failure nurses and physiologists in supporting and preparing patients/relatives for such discussions.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Social support plays a role in the attitude that people have towards taking an active role in medical decision-making

BACKGROUND

There is a growing emphasis towards including patients in medical decision-making. However, not all patients are actively involved in such decisions. Research has so far focused mainly on the influence of patient characteristics on preferences for active involvement. However, it can be argued that a patient's social context has to be taken into account as well, because social norms and resources affect behaviour. This study aims to examine the role of social resources, in the form of the availability of informational and emotional support, on the attitude towards taking an active role in medical decision-making.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to members of the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel (response 70 %; n = 1300) in June 2013. A regression model was then used to estimate the relation between medical and lay informational support and emotional support and the attitude towards taking an active role in medical decision-making.

RESULTS

Availability of emotional support is positively related to the attitude towards taking an active role in medical decision-making only in people with a low level of education, not in persons with a middle and high level of education. The latter have a more positive attitude towards taking an active role in medical decision-making, irrespective of the level of emotional support available. People with better access to medical informational support have a more positive attitude towards taking an active role in medical decision-making; but no significant association was found for lay informational support.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that social resources are associated with the attitude towards taking an active role in medical decision-making. Strategies aimed at increasing patient involvement have to address this.

Primary care professional's perspectives on treatment decision making for depression with African Americans and Latinos in primary care practice

Increasing interest has been shown in shared decision making (SDM) to improve mental health care communication between underserved immigrant minorities and their providers. Nonetheless, very little is known about this process. The following is a qualitative study of fifteen primary care providers at two Federally Qualified Health Centers in New York and their experience during depression treatment decision making. Respondents described a process characterized in between shared and paternalistic models of treatment decision making. Barriers to SDM included discordant models of illness, stigma, varying role expectations and decision readiness. Respondents reported strategies used to overcome barriers including understanding illness perceptions and the role of the community in the treatment process, dispelling stigma using cultural terms, orienting patients to treatment and remaining available regarding the treatment decision. Findings from this study have implications for planning SDM interventions to guide primary care providers through treatment engagement for depression.

Balance Sheets Versus Decision Dashboards to Support Patient Treatment Choices: A Comparative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Growing recognition of the importance of involving patients in preference-driven healthcare decisions has highlighted the need to develop practical strategies to implement patient-centered shared decision-making. The use of tabular balance sheets to support clinical decision-making is well established. More recent evidence suggests that graphic, interactive decision dashboards can help people derive deeper a understanding of information within a specific decision context. We therefore conducted a non-randomized trial comparing the effects of adding an interactive dashboard to a static tabular balance sheet on patient decision-making.

METHODS

The study population consisted of members of the ResearchMatch registry who volunteered to participate in a study of medical decision-making. Two separate surveys were conducted: one in the control group and one in the intervention group. All participants were instructed to imagine they were newly diagnosed with a chronic illness and were asked to choose between three hypothetical drug treatments, which varied with regard to effectiveness, side effects, and out-of-pocket cost. Both groups made an initial treatment choice after reviewing a balance sheet. After a brief "washout" period, members of the control group made a second treatment choice after reviewing the balance sheet again, while intervention group members made a second treatment choice after reviewing an interactive decision dashboard containing the same information. After both choices, participants rated their degree of confidence in their choice on a 1 to 10 scale.

RESULTS

Members of the dashboard intervention group were more likely to change their choice of preferred drug (10.2 versus 7.5%; p = 0.054) and had a larger increase in decision confidence than the control group (0.67 versus 0.075; p < 0.03). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in decisional conflict or decision aid acceptability.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that clinical decision dashboards may be an effective point-of-care decision-support tool. Further research to explore this possibility is warranted.

'It made you think twice' - an interview study of women's perception of a web-based decision aid concerning screening and diagnostic testing for fetal anomalies

Background

Enabling women to make informed decisions is a key objective in the guidelines governing prenatal screening and diagnostics. Despite efforts to provide information, research shows that women’s choice of prenatal screening is often not based on informed decisions. The aim of this study was to investigate pregnant women’s perceptions of the use of an interactive web-based DA, developed to initiate a process of reflection and deliberate decision-making concerning screening and testing for fetal anomalies.

Methods

A qualitative study was applied and individual interviews were conducted. Seventeen pregnant women attending antenatal healthcare in Uppsala County, Sweden, who had access to the decision aid were interviewed. Eleven opted to use the decision aid and six did not. Data were analysed by systematic text condensation.

Results

Women appreciated the decision aid, as it was easily accessible; moreover, they emphasised the importance of a reliable source. It helped them to clarify their own standpoints and engaged their partner in the decision-making process. Women described the decision aid as enhancing their awareness that participating in prenatal screening and diagnostics was a conscious choice. Those who chose not to use the web-based decision aid when offered reported that they already had sufficient knowledge.

Conclusions

The decision aid was able to initiate a process of deliberate decision-making in pregnant women as a result of their interaction with the tool. Access to a web-based decision aid tool can be valuable to expectant parents in making quality decisions regarding screening for fetal anomalies.

Patients' Preferences for Information About the Benefits and Risks of Second-Line Palliative Chemotherapy and Their Oncologist's Awareness of These Preferences

Communication about palliative treatment options requires a balance between providing patients with sufficient information and not providing unwanted information. Surveys have indicated that many patients with advanced cancer express a wish to receive detailed information. In this prospective multicenter study, the information desire of patients with advanced breast or colorectal cancer was further investigated by offering treatment-related information to patients using a decision aid (DA). In addition, this study explored oncologists' awareness of their patients' information desire. Seventy-seven patients with advanced breast or colorectal cancer facing the decision whether to start second-line palliative chemotherapy were offered a DA by a nurse. This DA contained information on adverse events, tumor response, and survival. The nurse asked the patient whether each information item was desired. Ninety-five percent of patients chose to receive information on adverse events, 91 % chose to receive information on tumor response, and 74 % chose to receive information on survival. Oncologists' judgment of patients' information desire was 100, 97, and 81 %, respectively. For all three information items together, oncologists correctly judged the information desire of 62 % of patients. This study confirms that many patients with advanced cancer wish to receive detailed information on the benefits and risks of palliative treatment options when the information is actually available. Oncologists were adequately aware of this high information desire, but had some difficulty judging the information desire of individual patients. A stepped approach to giving information ("preview, ask, tell, ask") may help to better meet patients' information needs.

Patients learning to read their doctors' notes: the importance of reminders

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether patients invited to review their clinicians' notes continue to access them and to assess the impact of reminders on whether patients continued to view notes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We followed OpenNotes trial participants for 2 years at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Geisinger Health System (GHS). Electronic invitations alerting patients to signed notes stopped at GHS after year 1, creating a natural experiment to assess the impact of reminders. We used generalized linear models to measure whether notes were viewed within 30 days of availability.

RESULTS

We identified 14 360 patients (49 271 visits); mean age 52.2; 57.8% female. In year 1, patients viewed 57.5% of their notes, and their interest in viewing notes persisted over time. In year 2, BIDMC patients viewed notes with similar frequency. In contrast, GHS patients viewed notes far less frequently, a change starting when invitations ceased (RR 0.29 [0.26-0.32]) and persisting to the end of the study (RR 0.20 [0.17-0.23]). A subanalysis of BIDMC patients revealed that black and other/multiracial patients also continued to view notes, although they were overall less likely to view notes compared with whites (RR 0.75 [0.67-0.83] and 0.93 [0.89-0.98], respectively).

DISCUSSION

As millions of patients nationwide increasingly gain access to clinicians' notes, explicit email invitations to review notes may be important for fostering patient engagement and patient-doctor communication.

CONCLUSION

Note viewing persists when accompanied by email alerts, but may decline substantially in their absence. Non-white patients at BIDMC viewed notes less frequently than whites, although their interest also persisted.

Use of a web-based survey to facilitate shared decision making for patients eligible for cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) during preventive visits by utilizing a web-based survey system to offer colorectal cancer (CRC) and prostate cancer screening decision aids (DAs) to appropriately identified patients prior to the visit.

METHODS

Patients completed a web-based questionnaire before their preventive medicine appointment. Age- and gender-appropriate patients completed additional questions to determine eligibility for CRC or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Eligible patients were offered a choice of video or print DA, and completed questions assessing their knowledge, values, and preferences regarding the screening decision. Responses were summarized and fed forward to clinician and patient reports.

RESULTS

Overall, 11,493 CRC and 4,384 PSA questionnaires were completed. Patient responses were used to identify those eligible for cancer-screening DAs: 2,187 (19 %) for CRC and 2,962 (68 %) for PSA; 15 % of eligible patients requested a DA. Many patients declined a DA because they indicated they "already know enough to make their decision" (34 % for CRC, 46 % for PSA).

CONCLUSION

A web-based questionnaire provides an efficient means to identify patients eligible for cancer screening decisions and to offer them DAs before an appointment. Pre-visit use of DAs along with reports giving feedback to patients and clinicians provides an opportunity for SDM to occur at the visit.

Supporting shared decision making beyond consumer-prescriber interactions: Initial development of the CommonGround fidelity scale

Shared decision-making has become a central tenet of recovery-oriented, person-centered mental health care, yet the practice is not always transferred to the routine psychiatric visit. Supporting the practice at the system level, beyond the interactions of consumers and medication prescribers, is needed for successful adoption of shared decision-making. CommonGround is a systemic approach, intended to be part of a larger integration of shared decision-making tools and practices at the system level. We discuss the organizational components that CommonGround uses to facilitate shared decision-making, and we present a fidelity scale to assess how well the system is being implemented.

Study protocol: a mixed methods study to assess mental health recovery, shared decision-making and quality of life (Plan4Recovery)

Background

Recovery in mental health care is complex, highly individual and can be facilitated by a range of professional and non-professional support. In this study we will examine how recovery from mental health problems is promoted in non-medical settings. We hypothesise a relationship between involvement in decisions about care, social support and recovery and quality of life outcomes.

Methods

We will use standardised validated instruments of involvement in decision-making, social contacts, recovery and quality of life with a random sample of people accessing non-statutory mental health social care services in Wales. We will add to this important information with detailed one to one case study interviews with people, their family members and their support workers. We will use a series of these interviews to examine how people build recovery over time to help us understand more about their involvement in decisions and the social links they build.

Discussion

We want to see how being involved in decisions about care and the social links people have are related to recovery and quality of life for people with experience of using mental health support services. We want to understand the different perspectives of the people involved in making recovery possible. We will use this information to guide further studies of particular types of social interventions and their use in helping recovery from mental health problems.

“There were more decisions and more options than just yes or no”: Evaluating a decision aid for advanced cancer patients and their family caregivers

Objective:

Few decision aids are available for patients with a serious illness who face many treatment and end-of-life decisions. We evaluated the Looking Ahead: Choices for Medical Care When You're Seriously Ill® patient decision aid (PtDA), one component of an early palliative care clinical trial.

Method:

Our participants included individuals with advanced cancer and their caregivers who had participated in the ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) early palliative care telehealth randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center, a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs medical center, and affiliated outreach clinics in rural New England. ENABLE included six weekly patient and three weekly family caregiver structured sessions. Participants watched the Looking Ahead PtDA prior to session 3, which covered content on decision making and advance care planning. Nurse coaches employed semistructured interviews to obtain feedback from consecutive patient and caregiver participants approximately one week after viewing the Looking Ahead PtDA program (booklet and DVD).

Results:

Between April 1, 2011, and October 31, 2012, 57 patients (mean age = 64), 42% of whom had lung and 23% gastrointestinal cancer, and 20 caregivers (mean age = 59), 80% of whom were spouses, completed the PtDA evaluation. Participants reported a high degree of satisfaction with the PtDA format, as well as with its length and clarity. They found the format of using patient interviews “validating.” The key themes were: (1) “the earlier the better” to view the PtDA; (2) feeling empowered, aware of different options, and an urgency to participate in advance care planning.

Significance of results:

The Looking Ahead PtDA was well received and helped patients with a serious illness realize the importance of prospective decision making in guiding their treatment pathways. We found that this PtDA can help seriously ill patients prior to the end of life to understand and discuss future healthcare decision making. However, systems to routinely provide PtDAs to seriously ill patients are yet not well developed.

Evaluating the quality of shared decision making during the patient-carer encounter: a systematic review of tools

BACKGROUND

The concept of shared decision making (SDM) has been developing in many countries since the 1990s. The main challenge of SDM, based on the principles of respect for the person's autonomy, is to improve patients' participation, should they so wish, in decisions concerning their personal health. To our knowledge, there is only one SDM evaluation tool validated in metropolitan French that does not measure the entire SDM construct. The aim of this review was to identify existing and validated SDM measurement tools to determine which of them could be adapted in French to cover all the dimensions of SDM.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted based on articles found in the PubMed and PsycINFO bibliographic databases and published between 2010 and 2014. Studies were included if the main goal of the article was the development and psychometric validation of an SDM measurement tool, not specific to any given disease or situation, in English, French and Spanish. We used the nine essential elements of the Makoul and Clayman's integrative model to describe the different existing tools.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included. Seven new tools had been published since Scholl's previous review in 2011. We observed a recent spread of the multi-appraiser approach, which combines points of view of patients, healthcare professionals and sometimes external observers. Several models were used for the development of the seven newly identified tools. None of the identified tools assessed the nine elements of the Makoul's model. Three of these elements, however, were systematically measured in each of the new tools: "defining/explaining the problem", "patient values/preferences", and "checking/clarifying understanding".

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several potentially interesting tools for the French context which could cover the whole elements of Makoul's model. The next step will be the development of a French-language instrument based on these tools.

Understanding physician-level barriers to the use of individualized risk estimates in percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The foundation of precision medicine is the ability to tailor therapy based upon the expected risks and benefits of treatment for each individual patient. In a prior study, we implemented a software platform, ePRISM, to execute validated risk-stratification models for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and found substantial variability in the use of the personalized estimates to tailor care. A better understanding of physicians' perspectives about the use of individualized risk-estimates is needed to overcome barriers to their adoption.

METHODS

In a qualitative research study, we conducted interviews, in-person or by telephone, with 27 physicians at 8 centers that used ePRISM until thematic saturation occurred. Data were coded using descriptive content analyses.

RESULTS

Three major themes emerged among physicians who did not use ePRISM to support decision making: (1) "Experience versus Evidence," physicians' preference to rely upon personal experience and subjective assessments rather than objective risk estimates; (2) "Omission of Therapy," the perception that the use of risk models leads to unacceptable omission of potentially beneficial therapy; and (3) "Unnecessary Information," the opinion that information derived from risk models is not needed because physicians' decision making is already sound and they already know the information.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers to the use of risk models in clinical practice include physicians' perceptions that their experience is sufficient, that models may lead to omission of therapy in patients that may benefit from therapy, and that they already provide good care. Anticipating and overcoming these barriers may improve the adoption of precision medicine.

The effect of simulated narratives that leverage EMR data on shared decision-making: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making can improve patient satisfaction and outcomes. To participate in shared decision-making, patients need information about the potential risks and benefits of treatment options. Our team has developed a novel prototype tool for shared decision-making called hearts like mine (HLM) that leverages EHR data to provide personalized information to patients regarding potential outcomes of different treatments. These potential outcomes are presented through an Icon array and/or simulated narratives for each "person" in the display. In this pilot project we sought to determine whether the inclusion of simulated narratives in the display affects individuals' decision-making. Thirty subjects participated in this block-randomized study in which they used a version of HLM with simulated narratives and a version without (or in the opposite order) to make a hypothetical therapeutic decision. After each decision, participants completed a questionnaire that measured decisional confidence. We used Chi square tests to compare decisions across conditions and Mann-Whitney U tests to examine the effects of narratives on decisional confidence. Finally, we calculated the mean of subjects' post-experiment rating of whether narratives were helpful in their decision-making.

RESULTS

In this study, there was no effect of simulated narratives on treatment decisions (decision 1: Chi squared = 0, p = 1.0; decision 2: Chi squared = 0.574, p = 0.44) or Decisional confidence (decision 1, w = 105.5, p = 0.78; decision 2, w = 86.5, p = 0.28). Post-experiment, participants reported that narratives helped them to make decisions (mean = 3.3/4).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that simulated narratives had no measurable effect on decisional confidence or decisions and most participants felt that the narratives were helpful to them in making therapeutic decisions. The use of simulated stories holds promise for promoting shared decision-making while minimizing their potential biasing effect.

How outcome prediction could affect patient decision making in knee replacements: a qualitative study

Background

There is approximately a 17 % dissatisfaction rate with knee replacements. Calls for tools that can pre-operatively identify patients at risk of being dissatisfied have been widespread. However, it is not known how to present such information to patients, how it would affect their decision making process, and at what part of the pathway such a tool should be used.

Methods

Using focus groups involving 12 participants and in-depth interviews with 10 participants, we examined how individual predictions of outcome could affect patients’ decision making by providing fictitious predictions to patients at different stages of treatment. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results

Our results demonstrate several interesting findings. Firstly, patients who have received information from friends and family are unwilling to adjust their expectation of outcome down (i.e. to a worse outcome), but highly willing to adjust it up (to a better outcome). This is an example of the optimism bias, and suggests that the effect on expectation of a poor outcome prediction would be blunted. Secondly, patients generally wanted a “bottom line” outcome, rather than lots of detail. Thirdly, patients who were earlier in their treatment for osteoarthritis were more likely to find the information useful, and it was more likely to affect their decision, than patients later in their treatment pathway.

Conclusion

This research suggest that an outcome prediction tool would have most effect targeted towards people at the start of their treatment pathway, with a “bottom line” prediction of outcome. However, any effect on expectation and decision making of a poor outcome prediction is likely to be blunted by the optimism bias. These findings merit replication in a larger sample size.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1165-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Mediators and Moderators of Improvements in Medication Adherence

OBJECTIVE

In a randomized controlled trial we compared two models of community health worker-led diabetes medication decision support for low-income Latino and African American adults with diabetes. Most outcomes were improved when community health workers used either an interactive e-Health tool or print materials. This article investigates mediators and moderators of improved medication adherence in these two models.

METHOD

Because both programs significantly improved satisfaction with medication information, medication knowledge, and decisional conflict, we examined whether improvements in each of these outcomes in turn were associated with improvements in self-reported medication adherence, and if so, whether these improvements were mediated by improvements in diabetes self-efficacy or diabetes distress. Potential moderators of improvement included gender, race/ethnicity, age, education, insulin use, health literacy, and baseline self-efficacy, diabetes distress, and A1c.

RESULTS

A total of 176 participants (94%) completed all assessments. After adjusting for potential confounders, only increased satisfaction with medication information was correlated with improved medication adherence ( p = .024). Improved self-efficacy, but not diabetes distress, was associated with improvements in both satisfaction with medication information and medication adherence. However, the Sobel-Goodman Mediation test did not support improvements in self-efficacy as a mechanism by which improved satisfaction led to better adherence. None of the examined variables achieved statistical significance as moderators.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in satisfaction with medication information but not in medication knowledge or decision conflict were associated with improvements in medication adherence. Interventions that target low-income ethnic and racial minorities may need to focus on increasing participants' satisfaction with information provided on diabetes medications and not just improving their knowledge about medications. Future research should explore in more depth other possible mediators and moderators of improvements in medication adherence in low-income minority populations.

Predictors of Treatment Decisions in Multidisciplinary Oncology Meetings: A Quantitative Observational Study

BACKGROUND

In many healthcare systems, treatment recommendations for cancer patients are formulated by multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs). Evidence suggests that interdisciplinary contributions to case reviews in the meetings are unequal and information-sharing suboptimal, with biomedical information dominating over information on patient comorbidities and psychosocial factors. This study aimed to evaluate how different elements of the decision process affect the teams' ability to reach a decision on first case review.

METHODS

This was an observational quantitative assessment of 1045 case reviews from 2010 to 2014 in cancer MTBs using a validated tool, the Metric for the Observation of Decision-making. This tool allows evaluation of the quality of information presentation (case history, radiological, pathological, and psychosocial information, comorbidities, and patient views), and contribution to discussion by individual core specialties (surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and specialist cancer nurses). The teams' ability to reach a decision was a dichotomous outcome variable (yes/no).

RESULTS

Using multiple logistic regression analysis, the significant positive predictors of the teams' ability to reach a decision were patient psychosocial information (odds ratio [OR] 1.35) and the inputs of surgeons (OR 1.62), radiologists (OR 1.48), pathologists (OR 1.23), and oncologists (OR 1.13). The significant negative predictors were patient comorbidity information (OR 0.83) and nursing inputs (OR 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary inputs into case reviews and patient psychosocial information stimulate decision making, thereby reinforcing the role of MTBs in cancer care in processing such information. Information on patients' comorbidities, as well as nursing inputs, make decision making harder, possibly indicating that a case is complex and requires more detailed review. Research should further define case complexity and determine ways to better integrate patient psychosocial information into decision making.

Assessment and improvement of HIV screening rates in a Midwest primary care practice using an electronic clinical decision support system: a quality improvement study

Background

Universal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening remains low in many clinical practices despite published guidelines recommending screening for all patients between ages 13–65. Electronic clinical decision support tools have improved screening rates for many chronic diseases. We designed a quality improvement project to improve the rate of universal HIV screening of adult patients in a Midwest primary care practice using a clinical decision support tool.

Methods

We conducted this quality improvement project in Rochester, Minnesota from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. Baseline primary care practice HIV screening data were acquired from January 1, 2014 to April 30, 2014. We surveyed providers and educated them about current CDC recommended screening guidelines. We then added an HIV screening alert to an existing electronic clinical decision support tool and post-intervention HIV screening rates were obtained from May 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. The primary quality outcome being assessed was change in universal HIV screening rates.

Results

Twelve thousand five hundred ninety-six unique patients were eligible for HIV screening in 2014; 327 were screened for HIV. 6,070 and 6,526 patients were seen before and after the intervention, respectively. 1.80 % of eligible patients and 3.34 % of eligible patients were screened prior to and after the intervention, respectively (difference of −1.54 % [−2.1 %, −0.99 %], p < 0.0001); OR 1.89 (1.50, 2.38). Prior to the intervention, African Americans were more likely to have been screened for HIV (OR 3.86 (2.22, 6.71; p < 0.001) than Whites, but this effect decreased significantly after the intervention (OR 1.90 (1.12, 3.21; p = 0.03).

Conclusions

These data showed that an electronic alert almost doubled the rates of universal HIV screening by primary care providers in a Midwestern practice and reduced racial disparities, but there is still substantial room for improvement in universal screening practices. Opportunities for universal HIV screening remain abundant, as many providers either do not understand the importance of screening average risk patients or do not remember to discuss it. Alerts to remind providers of current guidelines and help identify screening opportunities can be helpful.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0320-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Developing and Evaluating a Clinic-Based Decision Aid Delivery System

Background: Despite evidence of their benefits, decision aids (DAs) have not been widely adopted in clinical practice. Quality improvement methods could help embed DA delivery into primary care workflows and facilitate DA delivery and uptake, defined as reading or watching DA materials. Objectives: 1) Work with clinic staff and providers to develop and test multiple processes for DA delivery; 2) implement a systems approach to measuring delivery and uptake; 3) compare uptake and patient satisfaction across delivery models. Methods: We employed a microsystems approach to implement three DA delivery models into primary care processes and workflows: within existing disease management programs, by physician request, and by mail. We developed a database and tracking tools linked to our electronic health record and designed clinic-based processes to measure uptake and satisfaction. Results: A total of 1144 DAs were delivered. Depending on delivery method, 51% to 73% of patients returned to the clinic within 6 months. Nurses asked 67% to 75% of this group follow-up questions, and 65% to 79% recalled receiving the DA. Among them, uptake was 23% to 27%. Satisfaction among patients who recalled receiving the DA was high. Eighty-two to 93% of patients reported that they liked receiving this patient education information, and 82% to 91% reported that receiving patient education information like this is useful to them. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the realities of clinical practice. One fourth to one third of patients did not return for a follow-up visit. Although nurses were able to assess uptake in the course of their usual duties, the results did not achieve the standards typically expected of clinical research. Despite these limitations, uptake, though modest, was similar across delivery methods, suggesting that there are multiple strategies for implementing DAs in clinical practice.

Development of the Mexican Heart Team: The Long and Winding Road

Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Efforts to decrease HF mortality rates include a multidisciplinary approach management. Although evidence suggests that this has been an optimal strategy for treating HF, the model remains not widely implanted. The current article explores the rationale behind the formation of a Heart Team in a developing country and its development despite the lack of an allocated budget.

Decision Aids and Shared Decision-Making in Neurocritical Care: An Unmet Need in Our NeuroICUs

Improved resuscitation methods and advances in critical care have significantly increased the survival of patients presenting with devastating brain injuries compared to prior decades. After the patient's stabilization phase, families and patients are faced with "goals-of-care" decisions about continuation of aggressive intensive care unit care or comfort care only (CMO). Highly varying rates of CMO between centers raise the question of "self-fulfilling prophecies." Disease severity, the physician's communication and the family's understanding of projected outcomes, their uncertainties, complication risks with continued care, physician bias, and the patient's and surrogate's wishes and values all influence a CMO decision. Disease-specific decision support interventions, decision aids (DAs), may remedy these issues in the neurocritical care unit, potentially leading to better-informed and less-biased goals-of-care decisions in neurocritically ill patients, while increasing decision knowledge, confidence, and realistic expectations and decreasing decisional conflict and regret. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process that enhances patients' and proxies' understanding about prognosis, encourages them to actively weigh the risks and benefits of a treatment, and considers the patient's preferences and values to make better decisions. DAs are SDM tools, which have been successfully implemented for many other conditions to assist difficult decision-making. In this article, we summarize the purposes of SDM, the derivation of DAs, and their potential application in neurocritical care.

Does a strategy to promote shared decision-making reduce medical practice variation in the choice of either single or double embryo transfer after in vitro fertilisation? A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The hypothesis that shared decision-making (SDM) reduces medical practice variations is increasingly common, but no evidence is available. We aimed to elaborate further on this, and to perform a first exploratory analysis to examine this hypothesis. This analysis, based on a limited data set, examined how SDM is associated with variation in the choice of single embryo transfer (SET) or double embryo transfer (DET) after in vitro fertilisation (IVF). We examined variation between and within hospitals.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

5 hospitals in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

222 couples (woman aged <40 years) on a waiting list for a first IVF cycle, who could choose between SET and DET (ie, ≥2 embryos available).

INTERVENTION

SDM via a multifaceted strategy aimed to empower couples in deciding how many embryos should be transferred. The strategy consisted of decision aid, support of IVF nurse and the offer of reimbursement for an extra treatment cycle. Control group received standard IVF care.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Difference in variation due to SDM in the choice of SET or DET, both between and within hospitals.

RESULTS

There was large variation in the choice of SET or DET between hospitals in the control group. Lower variation between hospitals was observed in the group with SDM. Within most hospitals, variation in the choice of SET or DET appeared to increase due to SDM. Variation particularly increased in hospitals where mainly DET was chosen in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although based on a limited data set, our study gives a first insight that including patients' preferences through SDM results in less variation between hospitals, and indicates another pattern of variation within hospitals. Variation that results from patient preferences could be potentially named the informed patient rate. Our results provide the starting point for further research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00315029; Post-results.

Decision aids to help older people make health decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Decision aids have been overall successful in improving the quality of health decision making. However, it is unclear whether the impact of the results of using decision aids also apply to older people (aged 65+). We sought to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids as compared to usual care or alternative intervention(s) for older adults facing treatment, screening or care decisions.

METHODS

A systematic search of (1) a Cochrane review of decision aids and (2) MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane library central registry of studies and Cinahl. We included published RCTs/CCTs of interventions designed to improve shared decision making (SDM) by older adults (aged 65+) and RCTs/CCTs that analysed the effect of the intervention in a subgroup with a mean age of 65+. Based on the International Patient Decision aid Standards (IPDAS), the primary outcomes were attributes of the decision and the decision process. Other behavioral, health, and health system effects were considered as secondary outcomes. If data could be pooled, a meta-analysis was conducted. Data for which meta-analysis was not possible were synthesized qualitatively.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 11,034 references. After abstract and full text screening, 22 papers were included. Decision aids performed better than control resp. usual care interventions by increasing knowledge and accurate risk perception in older people (decision attributes). With regard to decision process attributes, decision aids resulted in lower decisional conflict and more patient participation.

CONCLUSIONS

This review shows promising results on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults. Decision aids improve older adults' knowledge, increase their risk perception, decrease decisional conflict and seem to enhance participation in SDM. It must however be noted that the body of literature on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults is still in its infancy. Only one decision aid was specifically developed for older adults, and the mean age in most studies was between 65 and 70, indicating that the oldest-old were not included. Future research should expand on the design, application and evaluation of decision aids for older, more vulnerable adults.

A Review of Patient Preferences for Osteoporosis Drug Treatment

Poor medication adherence is a major problem in chronic diseases such as osteoporosis that may partially be due to unaddressed patient values and preferences. Data on patient preferences could help clinicians to improve medication adherence and could also be useful in policy decisions and guideline development. This paper aims to identify literature reporting on the preferences of patients for osteoporosis drug medications. Several methods have been used to elicit patient preferences for medications and their characteristics including qualitative research, survey with ranking/rating exercises, discrete-choice experiments and clinical studies (crossover designs, open-label study). All these studies revealed that osteoporotic patients have preferences for medications and their attributes, in particular for less-frequent dosing regimens. Interestingly, variations in the preferences of patients were observed in most studies, suggesting the importance to take into account individual preference in decision-making to improve osteoporosis care.

Development of patient decision support tools for motor neuron disease using stakeholder consultation: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Motor neuron disease (MND) is a terminal, progressive, multisystem disorder. Well-timed decisions are key to effective symptom management. To date, there are few published decision support tools, also known as decision aids, to guide patients in making ongoing choices for symptom management and quality of life. This protocol is to develop and validate decision support tools for patients and families to use in conjunction with health professionals in MND multidisciplinary care. The tools will inform patients and families of the benefits and risks of each option, as well as the consequences of accepting or declining treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study is being conducted from June 2015 to May 2016, using a modified Delphi process. A 2-stage, 7-step process will be used to develop the tools, based on existing literature and stakeholder feedback. The first stage will be to develop the decision support tools, while the second stage will be to validate both the tools and the process used to develop them. Participants will form expert panels, to provide feedback on which the development and validation of the tools will be based. Participants will be drawn from patients with MND, family carers and health professionals, support association workers, peak body representatives, and MND and patient decision-making researchers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the study has been granted by Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), approval number 5201500658. Knowledge translation will be conducted via publications, seminar and conference presentations to patients and families, health professionals and researchers.

The Role of Personalised Choice in Decision Support: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Online Decision Aid for Prostate Cancer Screening

Importance

Decision support tools can assist people to apply population-based evidence on benefits and harms to individual health decisions. A key question is whether “personalising” choice within decisions aids leads to better decision quality.

Objective

To assess the effect of personalising the content of a decision aid for prostate cancer screening using the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test.

Design

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting

Australia.

Participants

1,970 men aged 40–69 years were approached to participate in the trial.

Intervention

1,447 men were randomly allocated to either a standard decision aid with a fixed set of five attributes or a personalised decision aid with choice over the inclusion of up to 10 attributes.

Outcome Measures

To determine whether there was a difference between the two groups in terms of: 1) the emergent opinion (generated by the decision aid) to have a PSA test or not; 2) self-rated decision quality after completing the online decision aid; 3) their intention to undergo screening in the next 12 months. We also wanted to determine whether men in the personalised choice group made use of the extra decision attributes.

Results

5% of men in the fixed attribute group scored ‘Have a PSA test’ as the opinion generated by the aid, as compared to 62% of men in the personalised choice group (χ² = 569.38, 2df, p< 0001). Those men who used the personalised decision aid had slightly higher decision quality (t = 2.157, df = 1444, p = 0.031). The men in the personalised choice group made extensive use of the additional decision attributes. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of their stated intention to undergo screening in the next 12 months.

Conclusions

Together, these findings suggest that personalised decision support systems could be an important development in shared decision-making and patient-centered care.

Trial Registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12612000723886

Effects of Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods

Background. Diverse values clarification methods exist. It is important to understand which, if any, of their design features help people clarify values relevant to a health decision. Purpose. To explore the effects of design features of explicit values clarification methods on outcomes including decisional conflict, values congruence, and decisional regret. Data Sources. MEDLINE, all EBM Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, manual search of reference lists, and expert contacts. Study Selection. Articles were included if they described the evaluation of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. Data Extraction. We extracted details about the evaluation, whether it was conducted in the context of actual or hypothetical decisions, and the results of the evaluation. We combined these data with data from a previous review about each values clarification method’s design features. Data Synthesis. We identified 20 evaluations of values clarification methods within 19 articles. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous. Few studies reported values congruence or postdecision outcomes. The most promising design feature identified was explicitly showing people the implications of their values, for example, by displaying the extent to which each of their decision options aligns with what matters to them. Limitations. Because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Results should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions. Few values clarification methods have been evaluated experimentally. More research is needed to determine effects of different design features of values clarification methods and to establish best practices in values clarification. When feasible, evaluations should assess values congruence and postdecision measures of longer-term outcomes.

Can Decision Support Help Patients With Spinal Stenosis Make a Treatment Choice?: A Prospective Study Assessing the Impact of a Patient Decision Aid and Health Coaching

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized study on patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who received a decision support intervention to facilitate their treatment choice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of telephone health coaching (HC) in addition to a video decision aid (DA) compared with a DA alone for patients with spinal stenosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Treatment options for lumbar spinal stenosis include surgical and nonsurgical approaches. Patient DAs and HC have been shown to help patients make an informed treatment choice consistent with personal preferences.

METHODS

Eligible patients with spinal stenosis were identified by an orthopedic surgeon or a nonsurgical spine specialist. Consenting participants were randomly assigned to either a video DA or a video DA along with HC (DA + HC). Patients completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires at 2 weeks, and 6 months after the decision support intervention(s).

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients were randomized to the DA + HC group and 101 to the DA-only group; 168 of 199 (84%) patients completed responses at all time points. Both groups showed improved understanding of spinal stenosis treatments and progress in decision making after watching the DA (P < 0.001). At 2 weeks, more patients in the coaching group had made a treatment decision (DA + HC 74% vs. DA only 52%, P < 0.01). At 6-month follow-up, the uptake of surgery was similar for both groups (DA + HC 21% had surgery vs. DA only 17%); satisfaction with the treatments received was similar for both groups (DA + HC, 84% satisfied vs. DA only, 85%).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that watching the video DA improved patient knowledge and reduced decisional uncertainty about their spinal stenosis treatment choice. The addition of telephone coaching helped some patients choose a treatment more quickly; 6-month decisional outcomes were similar for both groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Perceived Appropriateness of Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: A Survey Study

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to describe perceptions of practicing emergency physicians (EPs) regarding the appropriateness and medicolegal implications of using shared decision-making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EPs at a large, national professional meeting to assess perceived appropriateness of SDM for different categories of ED management (e.g., diagnostic testing, treatment, disposition) and in common clinical scenarios (e.g., low-risk chest pain, syncope, minor head injury). A 21-item survey instrument was iteratively developed through review by content experts, cognitive testing, and pilot testing. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

We approached 737 EPs; 709 (96%) completed the survey. Two-thirds (67.8%) of respondents were male; 51% practiced in an academic setting and 44% in the community. Of the seven management decision categories presented, SDM was reported to be most frequently appropriate for deciding on invasive procedures (71.5%), computed tomography (CT) scanning (56.7%), and post-ED disposition (56.3%). Among the specific clinical scenarios, use of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke was felt to be most frequently appropriate for SDM (83.4%), followed by lumbar puncture to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage (73.8%) and CT head for pediatric minor head injury (69.9%). Most EPs (66.8%) felt that using and documenting SDM would decrease their medicolegal risk while a minority (14.2%) felt that it would increase their risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance of SDM among EPs appears to be strong across management categories (diagnostic testing, treatment, and disposition) and in a variety of clinical scenarios. SDM is perceived by most EPs to be medicolegally protective.

Patient-Reported Barriers to High-Quality, End-of-Life Care: A Multiethnic, Multilingual, Mixed-Methods Study

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to empirically identify barriers reported by multiethnic patients and families in receiving high-quality end-of-life care (EOLC).

METHODS

This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study in Burmese, English, Hindi, Mandarin, Tagalog, Spanish, and Vietnamese was held in multiethnic community centers in five California cities. Data were collected in 2013-2014. A snowball sampling technique was used to accrue 387 participants-261 women, 126 men, 133 Caucasian, 204 Asian Americans, 44 African Americans, and 6 Hispanic Americans. Measured were multiethnic patient-reported barriers to high-quality EOLC. A development cohort (72 participants) of responses was analyzed qualitatively using grounded theory to identify the six key barriers to high-quality EOLC. A new validation cohort (315 participants) of responses was transcribed, translated, and back-translated for verification. The codes were validated by analyses of responses from 50 randomly drawn subjects from the validation cohort. All the 315 validation cohort transcripts were coded for presence or absence of the six barriers.

RESULTS

In the validation cohort, 60.6% reported barriers to receiving high-quality EOLC for persons in their culture/ethnicity. Primary patient-reported barriers were (1) finance/health insurance barriers, (2) doctor behaviors, (3) communication chasm between doctors and patients, (4) family beliefs/behaviors, (5) health system barriers, and (6) cultural/religious barriers. Age (χ(2) = 9.15, DF = 1, p = 0.003); gender (χ(2) = 6.605, DF = 1, p = 0.01); and marital status (χ(2) = 16.11 DF = 3, p = 0.001) were associated with reporting barriers; and women <80 years were most likely to report barriers to receiving high-quality EOLC. Individual responses of reported barriers were analyzed and only the participant's level of education (Friedman statistic = 2.16, DF = 10, p = 0.02) significantly influenced choices.

CONCLUSION

Multiethnic patients report that high-quality EOLC is important to them; but unfortunately, a majority state that they have encountered barriers to receiving such care. Efforts must be made to rapidly improve access to culturally competent EOLC for diverse populations.

"Negotiorum Gestio" in Family Medicine, Informed Consent Obtainment, and Disciplinary Responsibility

Introduction. Negotiorum gestio (NG) denotes an action where a person well intendedly acts on behalf of another without obtaining the latter's prior consent. In broad terms, NG-like actions have played a considerable role in health care provision. In some settings, health care delivery with only little or presumed patients' consent has been the rule rather than the exception. However, bioethical principles regarding patient autonomy and obtainment of the patient's informed consent (IC) before intervention are now increasingly materialized in the law of many countries. Aim. To study legal consequences of NG in family medicine and IC handling options. Methods. Case law examination. Results. A disciplinary board case is described concerning a family doctor conducting unlawful NG by not coming up to legal IC requirements. Discussion and Conclusion. The practical and legal implications of IC and possible role of novel Shared Decision-Making approaches in coming up to regulation and bioethical demands are discussed. It is concluded that a doctor may run an unnecessary legal risk when conducting NG in decision-competent patients and furthermore it is suggested that novel Shared Decision-Making approaches could help in obtaining a rightful and practicable IC.

Mining data when technology is applied to support patients and professional on the control of chronic diseases: the experience of the METABO platform for diabetes management

This chapter provides an overview of how healthcare institution could benefit from the usage of technologies and personal health systems. Clinical, Usage and Technical data are mined in different ways and with different methods to support users (patients, health professionals and informal caregivers) in taking decisions. As a case study, the solutions and the techniques adopted in a research project focused on the delivery of technologies to improve diabetes management are described.

Wilfully out of sight? A literature review on the effectiveness of cancer-related decision aids and implementation strategies

Background

There is evidence to suggest that decision aids improve a number of patient outcomes. However, little is known about the progression of research effort in this area over time. This literature review examined the volume of research published in 2000, 2007 and 2014 which tested the effectiveness of decision aids in improving cancer patient outcomes, coded by cancer site and decision type being targeted. These numbers were compared with the volume of research examining the effectiveness of strategies to increase the adoption of decision aids by healthcare providers.

Methods

A literature review of intervention studies was undertaken. Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The search was limited to human studies published in English, French, or German. Abstracts were assessed against eligibility criteria by one reviewer and a random sample of 20 % checked by a second. Eligible intervention studies in the three time periods were categorised by: i) whether they tested the effectiveness of decision aids, coded by cancer site and decision type, and ii) whether they tested strategies to increase healthcare provider adoption of decision aids.

Results

Over the three time points assessed, increasing research effort has been directed towards testing the effectiveness of decision aids in improving patient outcomes (p < 0.0001). The number of studies on decision aids for cancer screening or prevention increased statistically significantly (p < 0.0001) whereas the number of studies on cancer treatment did not (p = 1.00). The majority of studies examined the effectiveness of decision aids for prostate (n = 10), breast (n = 9) or colon cancer (n = 7). Only two studies assessed the effectiveness of implementation strategies to increase healthcare provider adoption of decision aids.

Conclusions

While the number of studies testing the effectiveness of decision aids has increased, the majority of research has focused on screening and prevention decision aids for only a few cancer sites. This neglects a number of cancer populations, as well as other areas of cancer care such as treatment decisions. Also, given the apparent effectiveness of decision aids, more effort needs to be made to implement this evidence into meaningful benefits for patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0273-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evidence for Health III: Making evidence-informed decisions that integrate values and context

Making evidence-informed decisions with the aim of improving the health of individuals or populations can be facilitated by using a systematic approach. While a number of algorithms already exist, and while there is no single ‘right’ way of summarizing or ordering the various elements that should be involved in making such health-related decisions, an algorithm is presented here that lays out many of the key issues that should be considered, and which adds a special emphasis on balancing the values of individual patients and entire populations, as well as the importance of incorporating contextual considerations. Indeed many different types of evidence and value judgements are needed during the decision-making process to answer a wide range of questions, including (1) What is the priority health problem? (2) What causes this health problem? (3) What are the different strategies or interventions that can be used to address this health problem? (4) Which of these options, as compared to the status quo, has an added benefit that outweighs the harms? (5) Which options would be acceptable to the individuals or populations involved? (6) What are the costs and opportunity costs? (7) Would these options be feasible and sustainable in this specific context? (8) What are the ethical, legal and social implications of choosing one option over another? (9) What do different stakeholders stand to gain or lose from each option? and (10) Taking into account the multiple perspectives and considerations involved, which option is most likely to improve health while minimizing harms? This third and final article in the ‘Evidence for Health’ series will go through each of the steps in the algorithm in greater detail to promote more evidence-informed decisions that aim to improve health and reduce inequities.

Can we routinely measure patient involvement in treatment decision-making in chronic kidney care? A service evaluation in 27 renal units in the UK

Background

Shared decision making is considered an important aspect of chronic disease management. We explored the feasibility of routinely measuring kidney patients' involvement in making decisions about renal replacement therapy (RRT) in National Health Service settings.

Methods

We disseminated a 17-item paper questionnaire on involvement in decision-making among adult patients with established kidney failure who made a decision about RRT in the previous 90 days (Phase 1) and patients who had been receiving RRT for 90–180 days (Phase 2). Recruitment rates were calculated as the ratio between the number of included and expected eligible patients (I : E ratio). We assessed our sample's representativeness by comparing demographics between participants and incident patients in the UK Renal Registry.

Results

Three hundred and five (Phase 1) and 187 (Phase 2) patients were included. For Phase 1, the I : E ratio was 0.44 (range, 0.08–2.80) compared with 0.27 (range, 0.04–1.05) in Phase 2. Study participants were more likely to be white compared with incident RRT patients (88 versus 77%; P < 0.0001). We found no difference in age, gender or social deprivation. In Phases 1 and 2, the majority reported a collaborative decision-making style (73 and 69%), and had no decisional conflict (85 and 76%); the median score for shared decision-making experience was 12.5 (Phase 1) and 10 (Phase 2) out of 20.

Conclusion

Our study shows the importance of assessing the feasibility of data collection in a chronic disease context prior to implementation in routine practice. Routine measurement of patient involvement in established kidney disease treatment decisions is feasible, but there are challenges in selecting the measure needed to capture experience of involvement, reducing variation in response rate by service and identifying when to capture experience in a service managing people's chronic disease over time.

Anticipated regret in shared decision-making: a randomized experimental study

Background

Explicit consideration of anticipated regret is not part of the standard shared decision-making protocols. This pilot study aimed to compare decisions about a hypothetical surgery for breast cancer and examined whether regret is a consideration in treatment decisions.

Methods

In this randomized experimental study, 184 healthy female volunteers were randomized to receive a standard decision aid (control) or one with information on post-surgical regret (experimental). The main outcome measures were the proportion of subjects choosing lumpectomy vs. mastectomy and the proportion reporting that regret played a role in the decision made. We hypothesized that a greater proportion of the experimental group (regret-incorporated decision aid) would make a surgical treatment preference that favored the less regret-inducing option and that they would be more likely to consider regret in their decision-making process as compared to the control group.

Results

A significantly greater proportion of the experimental group subjects reported regret played a role in their decision-making process compared to the control counterparts (78 vs. 65 %; p = 0.039). Recipients of the regret-incorporated experimental decision aid had a threefold increased odds of choosing the less regret-inducing surgery (OR = 2.97; 95 % CI = 1.25, 7.09; p value = 0.014).

Conclusions

In this hypothetical context, the incorporation of regret in a decision aid for preference-sensitive surgery impacted decision-making. This finding suggests that keying in on anticipated regret may be an important element of shared decision-making strategies. Our results make a strong argument for applying this design and pursuing further research in a surgical patient population.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02563808.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13741-016-0031-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A patient decision aid for antidepressant use in pregnancy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Many women with depression experience significant difficulty making a decision about whether or not to use antidepressant medication in pregnancy. Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools that assist patients in making complex health decisions. PDAs can reduce decision-making difficulty and lead to better treatment outcomes. We describe the methods for a pilot randomized controlled trial of an interactive web-based PDA for women who are having difficulty deciding about antidepressant drug use in pregnancy.

Methods/Design

This is a pilot randomized controlled trial that aims to assess the feasibility of a larger, multi-center efficacy study. The PDA aims to help a woman: (1) understand why an antidepressant is being recommended, (2) be knowledgeable about potential benefits and risks of treatment and non-treatment with antidepressants, and (3) be clear about which benefits and risks are most important to her, with the goal of improving confidence in her decision-making. We include women aged 18 years or older who are: (1) planning a pregnancy or are pregnant (gestational age less than 30 weeks), (2) diagnosed with major depressive disorder, (3) deciding whether or not to use a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) antidepressant in pregnancy, and (4) having at least moderate decision-making difficulty as per a Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) Score ≥25. Participants are randomized to receive the PDA or an informational resource sheet via a secure website, and have access to the stated allocation until their final study follow-up. The primary outcomes of the pilot study are feasibility of recruitment and retention, acceptability of the intervention, and adherence to the trial protocol. The primary efficacy outcome is DCS score at 4 weeks post randomization, with secondary outcomes including depressive and anxiety symptoms.

Discussion

Our PDA represents a key opportunity to optimize the decision-making process for women around antidepressants in pregnancy, leading to effective decision-making and optimizing improved maternal and child outcomes related to depression in pregnancy. The electronic nature of the PDA will facilitate keeping it up-to-date, and allow for widespread dissemination after efficacy is demonstrated.

Trial registration

This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.Gov under the identifier NCT02308592 (first registered: 2 December 2014).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1233-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How did you choose a mode of birth? Experiences of nulliparous women from Turkey

BACKGROUND

One of the most important decisions that women have to make after becoming pregnant concerns their mode of birth, and these decisions are influenced by complex physiological, psychological and socio-cultural factors.

AIM

To obtain in-depth descriptions of nulliparous women's experiences during the decision-making process for their mode of birth and to reveal their beliefs, attitudes and values.

METHODS

This is a qualitative, phenomenological study that included 29 nulliparous women. Data were collected using semi-structured, face-to-face interviews and analysed using the constant comparison method and guidelines developed by Collaizi.

FINDINGS

The women's experiences during their decision-making process for their mode of birth were placed into one of four categories, "getting confused", "no matter what happens", "others influencing women's decisions" and "make a decision one way or the other". Vaginal births were considered under the theme "natural but hard way" and caesarean sections under the theme "easy choice". The women indicated that they wanted to have vaginal births, but that they were not offered knowledge and support about modes of birth from health care professionals and, as a result, they asked their relatives for support.

CONCLUSION

It is important to obtain pregnant women's preferences for modes of birth so that knowledge, support and care can be provided and so that they can be involved in the decision-making process. Therefore, health care professionals should understand pregnant women's experiences during the decision-making process for their mode of birth.

Development and validation of a patient-centered knowledge scale for left ventricular assist device placement

BACKGROUND

A central tenet of patient-centered health care advocated by the Institute of Medicine and the American Medical Association is to enhance informed decision-making in a way that incorporates patient values, knowledge and beliefs. Achievement of this goal is constrained by a lack of validated measures of patients' knowledge needs.

METHODS

In this study we present a comprehensive and valid methodology for developing a clinically informed and patient-centered measure of knowledge about left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy to facilitate discussion and measure candidate understanding of treatment options. Using structured interviews with patients, caregivers, candidates for LVAD treatment (New York Heart Association Class III and IV) and expert clinicians (n = 71), we identified top patient decisional needs and perspectives on essential knowledge needs for informed decision-making. From this list, we generated 20 knowledge scale question items to refine in cognitive interviews (n = 5) with patients and patient consultants.

RESULTS

Good internal consistency and reliability of the knowledge scale (Cronbach's α = 0.81) was seen in 30 LVAD patients and candidates. Knowledge was higher among patients currently with LVADs than candidates, regardless of receiving standard education (with education: 69.9 vs 50.1, adjusted p = 0.02; without education: 69.9 vs 37.6, adjusted p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The LVAD knowledge scale may be useful in clinical settings to identify gaps in knowledge among patient candidates considering LVAD treatment, and to better tailor education and discussion with patients and their caregivers, and to enhance informed decision-making before treatment decisions are made.