Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

A Comparison between Perceptions of Psychiatric Outpatients and Psychiatrists Regarding Benzodiazepine Use and Decision Making for Its Discontinuation: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Japan

BACKGROUND

Although long-term use of benzodiazepines and z-drugs (BZDs) is not recommended, little is known about the stakeholders' perceptions. This study aimed to assess and compare the perceptions of BZD use and decision making regarding its discontinuation between psychiatric outpatients and psychiatrists.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted.

RESULTS

Of 104 outpatients, 92% were taking hypnotics and 96% were taking anxiolytics for ≥a year, while 49% were willing to taper hypnotic/anxiolytics within a year of starting. Most psychiatrists felt that "patient and psychiatrist make the decision together on an equal basis" compared to patients (p < 0.001), while more patients felt that "the decision is (was) made considering the psychiatrists' opinion" compared to psychiatrists (p < 0.001). Of 543 psychiatrists, 79% reported "patients were not willing to discontinue hypnotic/anxiolytic" whereas a certain number of patients conveyed "psychiatrists did not explain in enough detail about hypnotic/anxiolytic discontinuation such as procedure (18.3%), timing (19.2%), and appropriate condition (14.4%)".

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the majority of psychiatric outpatients were taking hypnotic/anxiolytics for a long time against their will. There might be a difference in perceptions toward hypnotic/anxiolytic use and decision making for its discontinuation between psychiatric outpatients and psychiatrists. Further research is necessary to fill this gap.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Experiences of Inuit in Canada who travel from remote settings for cancer care and impacts on decision making

BACKGROUND

Inuit experience the highest cancer mortality rates from lung cancer in the world with increasing rates of other cancers in addition to other significant health burdens. Inuit who live in remote areas must often travel thousands of kilometers to large urban centres in southern Canada and negotiate complex and sometimes unwelcoming health care systems. There is an urgent need to improve Inuit access to and use of health care. Our study objective was to understand the experiences of Inuit in Canada who travel from a remote to an urban setting for cancer care, and the impacts on their opportunities to participate in decisions during their journey to receive cancer care.

METHODS

We are an interdisciplinary team of Steering Committee and researcher partners ("the team") from Inuit-led and/or -specific organizations that span Nunavut and the Ontario cancer health systems. Guided by Inuit societal values, we used an integrated knowledge translation (KT) approach with qualitative methods. We conducted semi-structured interviews with Inuit participants and used process mapping and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We mapped the journey to receive cancer care and related the findings of client (n = 8) and medical escort (n = 6) ("participant") interviews in four themes: 1) It is hard to take part in decisions about getting health care; 2) No one explains the decisions you will need to make; 3) There is a duty to make decisions that support family and community; 4) The lack of knowledge impacts opportunities to engage in decision making. Participants described themselves as directed, with little or no support, and seeking opportunities to collaborate with others on the journey to receive cancer care.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the journey to receive cancer care as a "decision chain" which can be described as a series of events that lead to receiving cancer care. We identify points in the decision chain that could better prepare Inuit to participate in decisions related to their cancer care. We propose that there are opportunities to build further health care system capacity to support Inuit and enable their participation in decisions related to their cancer care while upholding and incorporating Inuit knowledge.