Patients' Views of Shared Decision-making and Decisional Conflict in Otolaryngologic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Video-Based Decision Aids Improve Sleep Surgery Decision-Making: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Decisional conflict (DC) is high in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) surgical candidates interested in positive airway pressure (PAP) alternatives. We evaluated the impact of pre-consultation video decision aids on patient DC and decision readiness.

METHODS

Prior to consultation for PAP alternatives, adult OSA patients were enrolled and completed a questionnaire querying DC (scored 0 [no conflict]-100 [high conflict]) and decision readiness. Those considering ≥3 treatment options were categorized as "high-conflict." Patients were randomized to either an intervention group with video review about PAP and surgical options prior to their visit or to a control group that received no video review. Audio recordings of clinic visits were analyzed for patient engagement.

RESULTS

Twenty-five participants (control: n = 12, intervention: n = 13) were found to have comparably high DC (mean score: 40.0). Both groups experienced post-visit improvements in DC scores (post-consult: 25.2, p = 0.003) which did not differ between the two groups (intervention: 20.5 ± 15.1 vs. control: 11.7 ± 12.1 points, p = 0.13). The intervention group showed significant improvement in decision-making stage after the visit, with 72.7% "close to selecting an option" (p = 0.04) versus 41.7% in the control group. Use of videos was not associated with any differences in patient satisfaction, engagement, or decision to pursue surgery (all p > 0.05). High-conflict patients (n = 5) who reviewed pre-visit videos (intervention sub-group) spoke fewer words during the visit (687 ± 139 vs. 1120 ± 389 words, p = 0.047) and had shorter visit times (18.7 ± 2.9 vs. 24.3 ± 3.1 min, p = 0.02) than high-conflict control patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients have high levels of DC when considering PAP alternatives. Use of video decision aids prior to sleep surgery consultation may improve the treatment decision-making process.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 Laryngoscope, 134:2958-2963, 2024.

Decisional Conflict and Decision Regret in Head and Neck Oncology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Head and neck cancer (HNC) often requires treatment with a major impact on quality of life. Treatment decision-making is often challenging, as it involves balancing survival against the preservation of quality of life and choosing among treatments with comparable outcomes but variation in morbidity and adverse events; consequently, the potential for decisional conflict (DC) and decision regret (DR) is high.

Objectives

To summarize the literature on DC and DR in HNC, to give an overview of its prevalence and extent, and to advise on clinical practice and future research.

Data Sources

Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched up to February 24, 2023, including all years of publication.

Study Selection

Eligible studies addressed DC and/or DR as primary or secondary outcomes with any instrument in HNC, except cutaneous tumors. Two mutually blinded researchers conducted screening and inclusion with support of an artificial intelligence assistant and conducted risk of bias (ROB) assessment.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed for data extraction. ROB assessments were done using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (qualitative) and CLARITY (quantitative). Meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to obtain pooled prevalence estimates for DC and DR when at least 4 sufficiently clinically homogeneous studies were available.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Prevalence of DC (qualitative, Decisional Conflict Scale, SURE questionnaire) and DR (qualitative, study-specific questionnaires, Decision Regret Scale, Shame and Stigma Scale).

Results

Overall, 28 studies were included, with 16 included in meta-analyses for DR prevalence. The pooled prevalence of clinically relevant DR above the cutoff score for validated questionnaires (11 studies; 2053 participants) was 71% (95% CI, 58%-82%; I2 = 94%), while for study-specific questionnaires (5 studies; 674 participants) it was 11% (95% CI, 5%-22%; I2 = 92%). Only 4 studies investigated DC, showing a prevalence of 22.6% to 47.5% above cutoff values. Derived overarching themes found in qualitative studies were preparation, shared decision-making roles, information, time pressure, stress of diagnosis, and consequences.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although limited data on DC and DR were available, the studies performed indicated that DC and DR are highly prevalent issues in HNC. Results suggest that study-specific questionnaires underestimated DR. The findings underscore the rationale to improve counseling and shared decision-making for this patient population.

Decision Self-Efficacy and Decisional Conflict on Reintubation among Surrogates of Ventilated Patients Undergoing Planned Extubation

PURPOSE

Although the medical decision-making process can be overwhelming for some surrogates, there is a lack of understanding regarding their experiences. The objectives of this study were to examine the decision self-efficacy and decisional conflict experienced by surrogates in intensive care units (ICUs) when faced with the decision of whether to reintubate patients with respiratory failure after a planned extubation. In addition, predictors and mediators influencing these decision-making processes were identified.

METHODS

This study utilized a cross-sectional design to investigate the decision-making processes of 174 surrogates who were faced with the decision of whether to reintubate patients with respiratory failure after a planned extubation in the internal ICU of a medical center between August 2021 and February 2022. Structured questionnaires were administered to collect data on the surrogates' background information, decision self-efficacy, decisional conflict, and positive and negative affect. The patients' background information was also collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to model the data.

RESULTS

The mean decision self-efficacy score of the surrogates was 82.41 points, and 20.7% surrogates had decisional conflict scores exceeding 37.5 points, suggesting that they faced challenges in the decision-making process. Surrogates' employment status and negative affect significantly predicted their decision self-efficacy. In addition, patients' activities of daily living prior to hospitalization and the decision self-efficacy of the surrogate significantly predicted surrogate decisional conflict. The impact of surrogates' negative affect on decisional conflict was fully mediated by decision self-efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Surrogate decision self-efficacy mediates the relationship between negative affect and decisional conflict. Providing clinical care interventions that focus on enhancing surrogate self-efficacy and reducing negative affect can help alleviate decisional conflict in this population.

Shared Decision-Making in Patients Seeking Surgery for Facial Trauma: The Role of Decisional Conflict and Perceived Discrimination

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) may facilitate challenging discussions between patients with facial trauma and reconstructive surgeons. Objective: To determine among patients seeking surgical evaluation for facial trauma, whether patient demographics, decisional conflict (DC), or experiences of discrimination in health care are associated with patient perceptions of SDM, as measured by scored responses on the CollaboRATE-10 questionnaire. Methods: English-speaking adults who presented to the offices of five facial trauma surgeons were contacted by telephone after their visit to complete a cross-sectional survey. Results: After screening 247 patients, 131 patients were recruited (53.0%). DC and history of discrimination were associated with lower perceived SDM (p < 0.001 and p = 0.048, respectively). After adjusting for age, sex, race, education, initial emergency department presentation, DC, and past discrimination, patients of older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.09) and non-White race (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.1-11.4) had higher perceptions of SDM; patients with DC (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.01-0.20) reported less SDM. Conclusions: Patients who present to clinic for surgical evaluation after facial trauma feel that their physicians involve them less when deciding on a treatment plan if they have experienced discrimination in health care settings in the past, or if they have significant difficulty deciding between treatment options.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures in Rhinoplasty: Need for Use and Implementation

Patient-reported outcome metrics (PROMs) are increasingly utilized to capture data about patients' quality of life. PROMs play an important role in the value-based health care movement by providing a patient-centered metric of quality. There are many barriers to the implementation of PROMs, and widespread adoption requires buy-in from numerous stakeholders including patients, clinicians, institutions, and payers. Several validated PROMs have been utilized by facial plastic surgeons to measure both functional and aesthetic outcomes among rhinoplasty patients. These PROMs can help clinicians and rhinoplasty patients participate in shared decision making (SDM), a process via which clinicians and patients arrive at treatment decisions together through a patient-centered approach. However, widespread adoption of PROMs and SDM has not yet been achieved. Further work should focus on overcoming barriers to implementation and engaging key stakeholders to increase the utilization of PROMs in rhinoplasty.

Association Between Patient Satisfaction With Their Patient-Physician Relationship and Completion of Bariatric Surgery by Race and Ethnicity Among US Adults

IMPORTANCE

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is an effective and safe treatment for obesity and its comorbidities, but less than 50% of those who are eligible and referred for MBS complete the procedure. The patient-physician relationship could be a decisive factor in the decision to complete MBS; however, this relationship has not been explored, particularly among racially and ethnically diverse populations.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between patient-reported satisfaction with their patient-physician relationship and MBS completion by self-reported racial and ethnic group.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective cohort study included 408 patients who were referred to a bariatric surgeon or obesity medicine program between July 24, 2019, and May 19, 2022.

EXPOSURE

Patient satisfaction with their physician was measured by 7 dimensions (general satisfaction, technical quality, interpersonal manner, communication, financial aspects, time spent with physician, and accessibility and convenience) using the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Completion status for MBS (yes or no).

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients (mean [SD] age, 47.3 [11.6] years; among 366 with data available, 317 [86.6%] women and 49 [13.4%] men) were included in the study. Of 363 patients with data available on race and ethnicity, 66 were Hispanic/Latinx (18.2%), 136 (37.5%) were non-Hispanic Black, 146 (40.2%) were non-Hispanic White, and 15 (4.1%) were other race or ethnicity. A total of 124 patients (30.4%) completed MBS. Overall, the mean (SD) patient satisfaction score was significantly greater in MBS completers vs noncompleters (3.86 [0.56] vs 3.61 [0.64]; P < .001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed technical quality was the most significant factor for MBS completion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.99 [95% CI, 1.24-3.19]), followed by communication (aOR, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.16-2.72]) and accessibility and convenience (aOR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.03-2.53]). The interaction between racial and ethnic groups and patient satisfaction was not significant (eg, mean [SD] score for Hispanic/Latinx completers, 3.95 [0.55] vs 3.77 [0.60] for non-Hispanic White completers; P = .46 for interaction).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there is an association between patient satisfaction with the patient-physician relationship and the decision to complete MBS regardless of race and ethnicity. These findings have important implications for strategies to improve the proportion of qualified patients who complete MBS to achieve improved health outcomes.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry

Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting “Decisional Uncertainty” provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for “Decisional Conflicts” included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals.

Differences in Stakeholders' Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Care and Decision-Making

Background: Pandemics are related to changes in clinical management. Factors that are associated with individual perceptions of related risks and decision-making processes focused on prevention and vaccination, but perceptions of other healthcare consequences are less investigated. Different perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians on consequences regarding clinical management, decisional criteria, and burden were compared. Study Design: Cross-sectional OnCoVID questionnaire studies. Methods: Data that involved 1231 patients, physicians, and nurses from 11 German institutions that were actively involved in clinical treatment or decision-making in oncology or psychiatry were collected. Multivariate statistical approaches were used to analyze the stakeholder comparisons. Results: A total of 29.2% of professionals reported extensive changes in workload. Professionals in psychiatry returned severe impact of pandemic on all major aspects of their clinical care, but less changes were reported in oncology (p < 0.001). Both patient groups reported much lower recognition of treatment modifications and consequences for their own care. Decisional and pandemic burden was intensively attributed from professionals towards patients, but less in the opposite direction. Conclusions: All of the groups share concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare management and clinical processes, but to very different extent. The perception of changes is dissociated in projection towards other stakeholders. Specific awareness should avoid the dissociated impact perception between patients and professionals potentially resulting in impaired shared decision-making.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Patient Perspective

(1) Background: Uncertainty is typical for a pandemic or similar healthcare crisis. This affects patients with resulting decisional conflicts and disturbed shared decision making during their treatment occurring to a very different extent. Sociodemographic factors and the individual perception of pandemic-related problems likely determine this decisional dilemma for patients and can characterize vulnerable groups with special susceptibility for decisional problems and related consequences. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional data from the OnCoVID questionnaire study were used involving 540 patients from 11 participating institutions covering all major regions in Germany. Participants were actively involved in clinical treatment in oncology or psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, perception of consequences for patients) and very basic demographic data (age, gender, stage of treatment and educational background). Decision uncertainties and distress were operationalized using equidistant five-point scales. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and various multivariate approaches. (3) Results: A total of 11.5% of all patients described intensive uncertainty in their clinical decisions that was significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. Younger and female patients and those of higher educational status and treatment stage had the highest values for these stressors (p < 0.001). Only 15.3% of the patients (14.9% oncology, 16.2% psychiatry; p = 0.021) considered the additional risk of COVID-19 infections as very important for their disease-related decisions. Regression analysis identified determinants for patients at risk of a decisional dilemma, including information availability, educational level, age group and requirement of treatment decision making. (4) Conclusions: In patients, the COVID-19 pandemic induced specific decisional uncertainty and distress accompanied by intensified stress and psychological disturbances. Determinants of specific vulnerability were related to female sex, younger age, education level, disease stages and perception of pandemic-related treatment modifications, whereas availability of sufficient pandemic-related information prevented these problems. The most important decisional criteria for patients under these conditions were expected side effects/complications and treatment responses.