Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

Decisional needs and interventions for young women considering contraceptive options: an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Although women face a wide range of contraceptive options, globally, young women are at risk of unintended pregnancies. Our umbrella review aimed to determine the decisional needs of nulligravida women aged 11 to 30 considering contraceptive options and identify effective interventions to support their involvement in making decisions about contraceptive use.

METHODS

We followed Joanna Briggs Institute methods for umbrella reviews, theoretically guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. We searched six electronic databases. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and appraised quality using AMSTAR2. We analysed findings descriptively.

RESULTS

Of 124 citations, we identified 11 reviews of variable quality (critically low to moderate quality): Six reported decisional needs and 5 reported on interventions. Decisional needs of young women were: (a) information needs about contraceptive options (e.g., mechanism of actions, eligibility, administration, side effects); (b) unclear values (concerns about hormone use) and features of different options (based on their religious values); and (c) need for support and resources (support from society and need for privacy). Compared to controls, decision support interventions including patient decision aids and patient education material increased knowledge and improved discussion of options with their clinicians.

CONCLUSION

Young women making contraceptive decisions experience unmet decisional needs. Effective interventions such as patient decision aids and general patient education materials may address their decisional needs and enhance their level of participation in making contraception decisions. Implications and contribution to the field: Young women's decisional needs when considering contraceptive use are informational needs, unclear values (including religious influences), need for support and resources when facing this decision. Interventions, such as patient decision aid and patient education material can, address decisional needs by improving young women's knowledge about contraceptive options.

Co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching: a mixed methods case study within a review

BACKGROUND

Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis.

RESULTS

We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.

Building Medication Profiles in the Elderly: a Qualitative Study Based on Medication Information Literacy in a Long-Term Care Facility

Purpose

Long-term care facilities are increasingly challenged with meeting the diverse healthcare needs of the elderly population, particularly concerning medication management. Understanding medication information literacy and behavior among this demographic is imperative. Therefore, this qualitative study aims to explore medication information literacy and develop distinct medication profiles among elderly long-term care residents.

Material and Methods

In this study, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 32 participants aged 65 or older residing in a long-term care facility. The interviews were designed to explore participants' understanding of medication information, medication management practices, and experiences with healthcare providers. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze the interview data, allowing for the identification of common patterns and themes related to medication-taking behavior among the elderly residents.

Results

The thematic analysis revealed four distinct medication behavior profiles among the elderly long-term care residents: (1) Proactive Health Self-Managers, (2) Medication Information Adherents, (3) Experience-Based Medication Users, and (4) Nonadherent Medication Users. These findings provide valuable insights into the diverse approaches to medication management within long-term care facilities and underscore the importance of tailored interventions to support the specific needs of each profile.

Conclusion

This study highlights the necessity for tailored medication education and support to optimize medication management for the elderly. With the aging population expansion, addressing the unique medication challenges within long-term care facilities becomes increasingly critical. This research contributes to ongoing endeavors to enhance healthcare services for the elderly, striving for safer and more effective medication-taking behavior.

Prostate Cancer Foundation Screening Guidelines for Black Men in the United States

BACKGROUND

In the United States, Black men are at highest risk for being diagnosed with and dying from prostate cancer. Given this disparity, we examined relevant data to establish clinical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening guidelines for Black men in the United States.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search identified 1848 unique publications for screening. Of those screened, 287 studies were selected for full-text review, and 264 were considered relevant and form the basis for these guidelines. The numbers were reported according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials provided Level 1 evidence that regular PSA screening of men 50 to 74 years of age of average risk reduced metastasis and prostate cancer death at 16 to 22 years of follow-up. The best available evidence specifically for Black men comes from observational and modeling studies that consider age to obtain a baseline PSA, frequency of testing, and age when screening should end. Cohort studies suggest that discussions about baseline PSA testing between Black men and their clinicians should begin in the early 40s, and data from modeling studies indicate prostate cancer develops 3 to 9 years earlier in Black men compared with non-Black men. Lowering the age for baseline PSA testing to 40 to 45 years of age from 50 to 55 years of age, followed by regular screening until 70 years of age (informed by PSA values and health factors), could reduce prostate cancer mortality in Black men (approximately 30% relative risk reduction) without substantially increasing overdiagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines recommend that Black men should obtain information about PSA screening for prostate cancer. Among Black men who elect screening, baseline PSA testing should occur between ages 40 and 45. Depending on PSA value and health status, annual screening should be strongly considered. (Supported by the Prostate Cancer Foundation.).

Aide à la décision pour le dépistage du cancer du sein: Étude de cas pré-test/post-test

Les lignes directrices canadiennes recommandent la prise de décision partagée aux femmes de moins de 50 ans qui envisagent de passer des examens de dépistage du cancer du sein. Les infirmières peuvent les épauler dans le processus de décision. La présente étude de cas, menée selon une approche pré-test/post-test auprès d’une seule participante, a mesuré le changement survenu dans le conflit décisionnel vécu par une femme de moins de 50 ans ayant reçu du soutien à la décision pour choisir de subir ou non une mammographie de dépistage. Avant l’étude, cette femme, âgée de 44 ans, présentait un risque de cancer du sein dans la moyenne et vivait un conflit décisionnel. Elle a obtenu un score de 1 sur 4 au test SURE, indiquant qu’elle n’était pas bien informée, que ses valeurs n’étaient pas clairement définies et qu’elle ne se sentait pas bien soutenue. Après avoir reçu le soutien d’une infirmière formée pour l’aider à choisir de procéder ou non à une mammographie de dépistage du cancer du sein, elle a obtenu un score de 4 au test SURE, un signe d’absence de conflit décisionnel. La participante a gagné la confiance nécessaire pour prendre une décision éclairée qui respecte ses valeurs, le soutien à la décision lui ayant permis d’améliorer ses connaissances et d’apaiser son conflit décisionnel.

Decision support for breast cancer screening decisions: A single case pre-/post-test study

Canadian guidelines recommend shared decision making for women less than 50 years old who are considering breast cancer screening. Nurses can support women in making these decisions. This single case pre-/post-test study measured change in decisional conflict after decision support for a woman less than 50 years old considering whether or not to initiate mammography screening. At baseline, a 44-year-old female at average risk of breast cancer was experiencing decisional conflict. She scored 1 out of 4 on the SURE test indicating feeling uninformed, unclear values, and inadequate support. After receiving decision coaching with a breast cancer screening decision aid by a nurse trained in decision coaching, she scored 4 on the SURE test indicating no decisional conflict. She reached an informed decision consistent with her values about mammography screening. Providing decisional support improved her knowledge, reduced her decisional conflict, and enhanced her confidence in making an informed decision that was consistent with her values.

Qualitative experiences, values, and decisional needs of patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism who suffer bleeding-"This pill will keep you alive tonight"

Background

Contemporary guidelines recommend extended-duration anticoagulation among patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). Little is known about whether this recommendation aligns with patient values after a bleeding complication.

Objectives

To explore the experiences, values, and decisional needs of patients with unprovoked VTE related to extended-duration treatment after an anticoagulant-associated bleed.

Methods

In this descriptive, qualitative study, face to face online semistructured interviews were conducted with patients with unprovoked VTE who had experienced bleeding and continued anticoagulant treatment in one academic hospital in Canada. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis to identify themes. Themes were mapped onto the Ottawa Decisional Support Framework to identify decisional needs.

Results

Between September and December 2021, 14 patients were interviewed (age 41-69 years; 9 females). Many patients were not aware of the option to stop anticoagulation and had limited understanding of the decision about treatment duration. Despite the negative quality-of-life impact of clinically relevant bleeding during VTE treatment, the majority continued anticoagulation due to emotional trauma of VTE diagnosis, a perception that bleeding would be more manageable than VTE recurrence, a desire to maintain a connection to subspecialty care or non-VTE related benefits (eg, cancer diagnosis, protection from COVID-19). Patients' decisional needs included lack of choice awareness, inadequate support for participation, lack of personalized risk stratification, and inadequate information on monitoring and managing heavy menstrual bleeding.

Conclusion

Despite the impact of anticoagulant-associated bleeding on quality of life, patients preferred continuing with anticoagulation for reasons extending beyond secondary VTE prevention. Effective decision-support interventions are needed to address unmet decisional needs.

Determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate informed values-based decision-making: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients' involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane' Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022338299.

Evidence-based modalities in the management of Psoriasis and Psoriatic arthritis

Psoriasis is a waxing and waning skin disorder, often associated with a plethora of co-morbidities, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a severe form of chronic inflammatory arthritis. All forms of psoriasis and PsA are immune-mediated diseases where the patient's immune system is overactive in the production of certain factors that stimulate and activate the function of certain immune cells. Recent evidence has uncovered an important role for cell-mediated immunity in the aetiology and course of psoriasis and PsA, with a critical role played by the pro-inflammatory IL-23/TH17 axis. Taken together, these new lines of evidence suggest new and improved therapeutic interventions for patients with psoriasis and PsA. The hypothesis-driven process of inquiry of the best available evidence and its implication, application and evaluation in the context of clinical practice pertains to the meta-science of evidence-based health care (EBHC). EBHC consists in the initial step of research synthesis and generation of the systematic review of the best available evidence, estimated both qualitatively and quantitatively (i.e., meta-analysis). Evidence-based decision-making, a process driven and controlled by the expertise of the clinician and by the clinical needs and personal wants of the patient, is the principal, most timely and critical aspect of evidence-based practice. Recent and systematic reviews for the treatment of psoriasis and PsA consistently updated for emerging new and revised data (i.e., living systematic reviews) confirm the efficacy and the effectiveness of methotrexate (MTX) in containing and controlling psoriasis. The outcomes of MTX intervention for PsA remain mixed and inconclusive.

Systematic review of shared decision-making interventions for people living with chronic respiratory diseases

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) supports patients to make informed and value-based decisions about their care. We are developing an intervention to enable healthcare professionals to support patients' pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) decision-making. To identify intervention components we needed to evaluate others carried out in chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs). We aimed to evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on patient decision-making (primary outcome) and downstream health-related outcomes (secondary outcome).

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review using the risk of bias (Cochrane ROB2, ROBINS-I) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tools.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCHINFO, CINAHL, PEDRO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, ISRCTN were search through to 11th April 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Trials evaluating SDM interventions in patients living with CRD using quantitative or mixed methods were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. A narrative synthesis, with reference to The Making Informed Decisions Individually and Together (MIND-IT) model, was undertaken.

RESULTS

Eight studies (n=1596 (of 17 466 citations identified)) fulfilled the inclusion criteria.Five studies included components targeting the patient, healthcare professionals and consultation process (demonstrating adherence to the MIND-IT model). All studies reported their interventions improved patient decision-making and health-related outcomes. No outcome was reported consistently across studies. Four studies had high risk of bias, three had low quality of evidence. Intervention fidelity was reported in two studies.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest developing an SDM intervention including a patient decision aid, healthcare professional training, and a consultation prompt could support patient PR decisions, and health-related outcomes. Using a complex intervention development and evaluation research framework will likely lead to more robust research, and a greater understanding of service needs when integrating the intervention within practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020169897.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review

Background

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a trained healthcare provider to help people prepare to actively participate in making healthcare decisions. This study aimed to understand how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions.

Methods

We followed the realist review methodology for this study. This study was built on a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness of decision coaching interventions for people facing healthcare decisions. It involved six iterative steps: (1) develop the initial program theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) select, appraise, and prioritize studies; (4) extract and organize data; (5) synthesize evidence; and (6) consult stakeholders and draw conclusions.

Results

We developed an initial program theory based on decision coaching theories and stakeholder feedback. Of the 2594 citations screened, we prioritized 27 papers for synthesis based on their relevance rating. To refine the program theory, we identified 12 context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Essential mechanisms for decision coaching to be initiated include decision coaches’, patients’, and clinicians’ commitments to patients’ involvement in decision making and decision coaches’ knowledge and skills (four CMOs). CMOs during decision coaching are related to the patient (i.e., willing to confide, perceiving their decisional needs are recognized, acquiring knowledge, feeling supported), and the patient-decision coach interaction (i.e., exchanging information, sharing a common understanding of patient’s values) (five CMOs). After decision coaching, the patient’s progress in making or implementing a values-based preferred decision can be facilitated by the decision coach’s advocacy for the patient, and the patient’s deliberation upon options (two CMOs). Leadership support enables decision coaches to have access to essential resources to fulfill their role (one CMOs).

Discussion

In the refined program theory, decision coaching works when there is strong leadership support and commitment from decision coaches, clinicians, and patients. Decision coaches need to be capable in coaching, encourage patients’ participation, build a trusting relationship with patients, and act as a liaison between patients and clinicians to facilitate patients’ progress in making or implementing an informed values-based preferred option. More empirical studies, especially qualitative and process evaluation studies, are needed to further refine the program theory.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-02007-0.

Difficult Decisions for Older Canadians Receiving Home Care, and Why They Are So Difficult: A Web-Based Decisional Needs Assessment

Background. Older adults receiving home care services often face decisions related to aging, illness, and loss of autonomy. To inform tailored shared decision making interventions, we assessed their decisional needs by asking about the most common difficult decisions, measured associated decisional conflict, and identified factors associated with it. Methods. In March 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey with a pan-Canadian Web-based panel of older adults (≥65 y) receiving home care services. For a difficult decision they had faced in the past year, we evaluated clinically significant decisional conflict (CSDC) using the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (score 0–100) with a >37.5 cutoff. To identify factors associated with CSDC, we performed descriptive, bivariable, and multivariable analyses using the stepwise selection method with an assumed entry and exit significance level of 0.15 and 0.20, respectively. Final model selection was based on the Bayesian information criterion. Results. Among 460 participants with an average age of 72.5 y, difficult decisions were, in order of frequency, about housing and safety (57.2%), managing health conditions (21.8%), and end-of-life care (8.3%). CSDC was experienced by 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5%, 18.1%) of respondents on all decision points. Factors associated with CSDC included household size = 1 (OR [95% CI]: 1.81 [0.99, 3.33]; P = 0.27), household size = 3 (2.66 [0.78, 8.98]; P = 0.83), and household size = 4 (6.91 [2.23, 21.39]; P = 0.014); preferred option not matching the decision made (4.05 [2.05, 7.97]; P < 0.001); passive role in decision making (5.13 [1.78, 14.77]; P = 0.002); and lower quality of life (0.70 [0.57, 0.87]; P<0.001). Discussion. Some older adults receiving home care services in Canada experience CSDC when facing difficult decisions. Shared decision-making interventions could mitigate associated factors.

Nurse-led decision coaching by specialized nurses for healthy BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers - adaptation and pilot testing of a curriculum for nurses: a qualitative study

Background

Women with BRCA1/2 mutations are at high risk to develop breast and ovarian cancer. To support these women to participate in shared decision-making, structured nurse-led decision coaching combined with an evidence-based decision aid may be employed.

In preparation of the interprofessional randomized controlled trial to evaluate a decision coaching program to support preventive decisions of healthy female BRCA 1/2 gene mutation carriers (EDCP-BRCA), we adapted and piloted an existing training program for specialized nurses and included elements from an existing physician communication training.

Methods

The training was adapted according to the six-step-approach for medical curriculum development. The educational design is based on experience- and problem-based learning.

Subsequently, we conducted a qualitative pilot study. Nurses were recruited from six German centers for familial breast and ovarian cancer. The acceptability and feasibility were assessed by structured class observations, field notes and participants’ feedback. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The training was revised according to the results.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the patient intervention was adapted as a virtual coaching and a brief additional training for nurses was added.

Results

The training consists of two modules (2 + 1 day) that teach competences in evidence-based medicine and patient information, (risk) communication and decision coaching. One pilot test was conducted with six nurses of which three were specialized and experienced in patient counselling. A final set of eight main categories was derived from the data: framework conditions; interaction; schedule, transparency of goals, content, methods, materials and practical relevance and feasibility. Overall, the training was feasible and comprehensible. Decision coaching materials were awkward to handle and decision coaching role plays were set too short. Therefore, materials will be sent out in advance and the training was extended.

Conclusions

Specialized nurses are rarely available and nurse-led counselling is not routinely implemented in the centers of familial breast and ovarian cancer. However, training of less qualified nurses seems feasible. Decision coaching in a virtual format seems to be a promising approach. Further research is needed to evaluate its feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness.

Trial registration

The main trial is registered under DRKS-ID: DRKS00015527.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-022-00810-8.

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.