What matters most: Randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata

Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? A Scoping Review of the Impact of Visual Aids on Patients Undergoing Surgery

OBJECTIVE

While graphics are commonly used by clinicians to communicate information to patients, the impact of using visual media on surgical patients is not understood. This review seeks to understand the current landscape of research analyzing impact of using visual aids to communicate with patients undergoing surgery, as well as gaps in the present literature.

DESIGN

A comprehensive literature search was performed across 4 databases. Search terms included: visual aids, diagrams, graphics, surgery, patient education, informed consent, and decision making. Inclusion criteria were (i) full-text, peer-reviewed articles in English; (ii) evaluation of a nonelectronic visual aid(s); and (iii) surgical patient population.

RESULTS

There were 1402 articles identified; 21 met study criteria. Fifteen were randomized control trials and 6 were prospective cohort studies. Visual media assessed comprised of diagrams as informed consent adjuncts (n = 6), graphics for shared decision-making conversations (n = 3), other preoperative educational graphics (n = 8), and postoperative educational materials (n = 4). There was statistically significant improvement in patient comprehension, with an increase in objective knowledge recall (7.8%-29.6%) using illustrated educational materials (n = 10 of 15). Other studies noted increased satisfaction (n = 4 of 6), improvement in shared decision-making (n = 2 of 4), and reduction in patient anxiety (n = 3 of 6). For behavioral outcomes, visual aids improved postoperative medication compliance (n = 2) and lowered postoperative analgesia requirements (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of visual aids to enhance the surgical patient experience is promising in improving knowledge retention, satisfaction, and reducing anxiety. Future studies ought to consider visual aid format, and readability, as well as patient language, race, and healthcare literacy.

Clinician-Spoken Plain Language in Health Care Encounters: A Qualitative Analysis to Assess Measurable Elements

PURPOSE

Good communication and use of plain language in health care encounters improve outcomes, including emotional health, symptom resolution, and functional status. Yet there is limited research on how to measure and report spoken plain language, which is the use of familiar, clear language. The authors aimed to describe key, measurable elements of spoken plain language that can be assessed and reported back to clinicians for self-reflection.

METHOD

The authors conducted secondary analysis of transcripts from recorded encounters between breast cancer surgeons and patients with early-stage breast cancer. Two coders used a hybrid qualitative analysis with a framework based on U.S. Federal Plain Language Guidelines. To develop major themes, they examined (1) alignment with the Guidelines and (2) code frequencies within and across transcripts. They also noted minor themes.

RESULTS

From 74 transcripts featuring 13 surgeons, the authors identified 2 major themes representing measurable elements of spoken plain language: (1) clinicians had a propensity to use both explained and unexplained medical terms, and (2) clinicians delivered information using either short turns (one unit of someone speaking) with 1 topic or long turns with multiple topics. There were 3 minor themes that were not indicative of whether or not clinicians used spoken plain language. First, clinicians regularly used absolute risk communication techniques. Second, question-asking techniques varied and included open-ended, close-ended, and comprehension checks. Third, some clinicians used imagery to describe complex topics.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians' propensity to use medical terms with and without explanation and parse encounters into shorter or longer turns are measurable elements of spoken plain language. These findings will support further research on the development of a tool that can be used in medical education and other settings. This tool could provide direct and specific feedback to improve the plain language practices of clinicians in training and beyond.

[Patient-partnership in a comprehensive cancer centre: Establishment and roles of a patients and caregivers committee]

In oncology, the place of patients has a natural and strong legitimacy. Cancer is a common disease, with many singularities but also common features between pathologies, with issues ranging from prevention to possible palliative phases or post-cancer, and conducive to both individual and collective decision-making processes. Patient engagement is now essential at all levels of the healthcare system, from simple information to real involvement (co-construction). For 20 years, Gustave-Roussy, a comprehensive cancer centre in Villejuif, has implemented specific reflection and actions, embodied by the creation of a patients and caregivers committee and complemented by an institutional steering body that illustrates the transformation of "working for" into "working with". At the level of direct care, the main works promoted concern shared-decision-making between patient and professional and accompanying patients. At the institutional level, we find the expertise of hospital projects or services, the development of institutional documents (information and advance directives form, etc.), and internal evaluation (audit). At the political level, participation in Unicancer's patient-experience working group has allowed for a better coordinated deployment with other centers. Unicancer has developed a lexical guide defining patient resources, peer helpers, trainers, evaluators and coordinators. This partnership approach is beneficial for patients, their loved ones, caregivers, and must be amplified and give rise to new research work.

Explorative observational study of Dutch patient-clinician interactions: operationalisation of personal perspective elicitation as part of shared decision-making in real-life audio-recorded consultations

OBJECTIVES

Patients' preferences, values and contexts are important elements of the shared decision-making (SDM) process. We captured those elements into the concept of 'personal perspective elicitation' (PPE), which reflects the need to elicit patients' preferences, values and contexts in patient-clinician conversations. We defined PPE as: 'the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or contexts potentially relevant to decision-making'. Our goal was to operationalise the concept of PPE through the evaluation of preferences, values and contexts and explore how PPE occurs in clinical encounters.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study: observational coding based on a novel coding scheme of audio-recorded outpatient clinical encounters where encounter patient decision aids were applied.

SETTING

We audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions at three Dutch outpatient clinics. PPE was analysed using a novel observational coding scheme, distinguishing preferences, contexts and four Armstrong taxonomy value types (global, decisional, external and situational). We measured SDM using the Observer OPTION5.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians.

RESULTS

We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION5 score was 57.5 (SD:10.1). The audio-recordings gave a rich illustration of preferences, values and contexts that were discussed in the patient-clinician interactions. Examples of identified global values: appearance, beliefs, personality traits. Decisional values were related to the process of decision-making. External values related to asking advice from for example, the clinician or significant others. An identified situational value: a new job ahead. Contexts related to how the illness impacted the life (eg, sexuality, family, sports, work life) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The operationalisation of PPE, an important aspect of SDM, explores which preferences, values and contexts were discussed during patient-clinician interactions where an ePDA was used. The coding scheme appeared feasible to apply but needs further refinement.

My anesthesia Choice-HF: development and preliminary testing of a tool to facilitate conversations about anesthesia for hip fracture surgery

BACKGROUND

Patients often desire involvement in anesthesia decisions, yet clinicians rarely explain anesthesia options or elicit preferences. We developed My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture, a conversation aid about anesthesia options for hip fracture surgery and tested its preliminary efficacy and acceptability.

METHODS

We developed a 1-page, tabular format, plain-language conversation aid with feedback from anesthesiologists, decision scientists, and community advisors. We conducted an online survey of English-speaking adults aged 50 and older. Participants imagined choosing between spinal and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Before and after viewing the aid, participants answered a series of questions regarding key outcomes, including decisional conflict, knowledge about anesthesia options, and acceptability of the aid.

RESULTS

Of 364/409 valid respondents, mean age was 64 (SD 8.9) and 59% were female. The proportion indicating decisional conflict decreased after reviewing the aid (63-34%, P < 0.001). Median knowledge scores increased from 50% correct to 67% correct (P < 0.001). 83% agreed that the aid would help them discuss options and preferences. 76.4% would approve of doctors using it.

CONCLUSION

My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture decreased decisional conflict and increased knowledge about anesthesia choices for hip fracture surgery. Respondents assessed it as acceptable for use in clinical settings.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Use of clinical decision aids may increase shared decision-making; further testing is warranted.

The factors involved in surgical decision-making in younger women diagnosed with breast cancer in Aotearoa New Zealand: A qualitative analysis

Women diagnosed with breast cancer must make important surgical decisions. The decision-making process for younger women is complex, with this group more likely to have an advanced diagnosis and life-stage considerations that can impact on treatment. This study investigated the decision-making process of women aged <50 years who had undergone breast cancer surgery within the preceding 12 months in Aotearoa New Zealand. Twelve women participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews to explore the factors that influenced treatment decisions. Thematic analysis resulted in three themes. Fear was the main concept identified as the primary influence on initial decision-making. Good quality shared decision-making between patient and clinician was found to provide essential support during the diagnosis to treatment period. In addition, women expressed a need for multi-modal presentation of medical information and more material reflecting younger women. These findings inform provision for younger women making surgical decisions when diagnosed with breast cancer.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Increasing access to fertility preservation for women with breast cancer: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in France

BACKGROUND

With the increase in the number of long-term survivors, interest is shifting from cancer survival to life and quality of life after cancer. These include consequences of long-term side effects of treatment, such as gonadotoxicity. Fertility preservation is becoming increasingly important in cancer management. International recommendations agree on the need to inform patients prior to treatments about the risk of fertility impairment and refer them to specialized centers to discuss fertility preservation. However, the literature reveals suboptimal access to fertility preservation on an international scale, and particularly in France, making information for patients and oncologists a potential lever for action. Our overall goal is to improve access to fertility preservation consultations for women with breast cancer through the development and evaluation of a combined intervention targeting the access and diffusion of information for these patients and brief training for oncologists.

METHODS

Firstly, we will improve existing information tools and create brief training content for oncologists using a qualitative, iterative, user-centred and participatory approach (objective 1). We will then use these tools in a combined intervention to conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (objective 2) including 750 women aged 18 to 40 newly treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer at one of the 6 participating centers. As the primary outcome of the trial will be the access to fertility preservation counselling before and after using the combined intervention (brochures and brief training for oncologists), we will compare the rate of fertility preservation consultations between the usual care and intervention phases using linear regression models. Finally, we will analyse our approach using a context-sensitive implementation analysis and provide key elements for transferability to other contexts in France (objective 3).

DISCUSSION

We expect to observe an increase in access to fertility preservation consultations as a result of the combined intervention. Particular attention will be paid to the effect of this intervention on socially disadvantaged women, who are known to be at greater risk of inappropriate treatment. The user-centred design principles and participatory approaches used to optimize the acceptability, usability and feasibility of the combined intervention will likely enhance its impact, diffusion and sustainability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05989776. Date of registration: 7th September 2023. URL: https://classic.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ct2/show/NCT05989776 .

PROTOCOL VERSION

Manuscript based on study protocol version 2.0, 21st may 2023.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Unpacking the Public Health Triad of Social Inequality in Health, Health Literacy, and Quality of Life-A Scoping Review of Research Characteristics

Social inequalities in health, health literacy, and quality of life serve as distinct public health indicators, but it remains unclear how and to what extent they are applied and combined in the literature. Thus, the characteristics of the research have yet to be established, and we aim to identify and describe the characteristics of research that intersects social inequality in health, health literacy, and quality of life. We conducted a scoping review with systematic searches in ten databases. Studies applying any design in any population were eligible if social inequality in health, health literacy, and quality of life were combined. Citations were independently screened using Covidence. The search yielded 4111 citations, with 73 eligible reports. The reviewed research was mostly quantitative and aimed at patient populations in a community setting, with a scarcity of reports specifically defining and assessing social inequality in health, health literacy, and quality of life, and with only 2/73 citations providing a definition for all three. The published research combining social inequality in health, health literacy, and quality of life is heterogeneous regarding research designs, populations, contexts, and geography, where social inequality appears as a contextualizing variable.

Authenticity and the argument from testability: a bottom-up approach : Author

Jesper Ahlin Marceta published an article in this journal in which he formulated his "argument from testability", stating that it is impossible, at least practically, to operationalize procedural authenticity. That is, using procedural accounts of authenticity, one cannot reliably differentiate between authentic and inauthentic desires. There are roughly two ways to respond to the argument from testability: top-down and bottom-up. Several authors have endeavored the top-down approach by trying to show that some conceptions of authenticity might be operationalizable after all. At present, however, the bottom-up approach has not been put to the test. That is, no attempt has been made to use a currently existing assessment tool to guide the development of an account of authenticity. In this paper, I will investigate what it means to develop an account of authenticity bottom-up based on measures of concordance. More specifically, I will investigate the following three research questions. First, how do concordance and authenticity relate at a conceptual level? As crucial similarities exist between these concepts, concordance measures seem to offer a good starting point for the bottom-up approach. Second, how do judgements of concordance differ from judgements of authenticity? Both their scope and the way they are justified will turn out to be different. This suggests novel ways to react to Marceta's argument from testability. Third, should we develop a theory of concordance? The positive answer to this question will point towards a central limitation of the bottom-up approach.

Adaptation and Implementation of Pictorial Conversation Aids for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Surgery and Reconstruction: A Quality Improvement Study

Purpose

After a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer, women of lower socioeconomic position (SEP) report worse outcomes than women of higher SEP. A pictorial conversation aid was shown to improve decision outcomes in controlled contexts. No such intervention existed in France. In Phase 1, our aim was to adapt, for use in France, two pictorial conversation aids for breast cancer surgery and reconstruction. In Phase 2, our aim was to implement them in a regional cancer center serving a diverse population.

Patients and Methods

In phase 1, we used iterative qualitative methods to adapt the conversation aids with a convenience sample of patients and health professionals. In phase 2, we tested their implementation using PDSA cycles with volunteer surgeons.

Results

In phase 1, we interviewed 10 health professionals and 5 patients to reach thematic data saturation. They found the conversation aids usable and very acceptable (especially patients) and suggested small changes to further simplify the layout and content (including a glossary). In phase 2, three surgeons started the first PDSA cycle, for 4 weeks. Only one additional surgeon agreed to take part in the second cycle. The third cycle was cancelled since no new surgeon agreed to take part. Time was a barrier for 2 out of 4 surgeons, potentially explaining the difficulty recruiting for the third cycle. The evaluation was otherwise positive. The surgeons found the conversation aids very useful during their consultations and all intended to continue using them in the future.

Conclusion

It was possible to adapt, for use in France, pictorial conversation aids proven to be effective elsewhere. While the adapted conversation aids were deemed usable by health professionals and very acceptable to patients, their implementation using PDSA cycles proved slow.

The Costs of Implementing a Conversation Aid for Uterine Fibroids in Multiple Health Care Settings

BACKGROUND

Health care organizations considering adopting a conversation aid (CA), a type of patient decision aid innovation, need information about the costs of implementation.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to: (1) calculate the costs of introducing a CA in a study of supported implementation in 5 gynecologic settings that manage individuals diagnosed with uterine fibroids and (2) estimate the potential costs of future clinical implementation efforts in hypothetical settings.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We used time-driven activity-based costing to estimate the costs of CA implementation at multiple steps: integration with an electronic health record, preimplementation, implementation, and sustainability. We then estimated costs for 2 disparate hypothetical implementation scenarios.

SUBJECTS AND DATA COLLECTION

We conducted semistructured interviews with participants and examined internal documentation.

RESULTS

We interviewed 41 individuals, analyzed 51 documents and 100 emails. Overall total implementation costs over ∼36 months of activities varied significantly across the 5 settings, ranging from $14,157 to $69,134. Factors influencing costs included size/complexity of the setting, urban/rural location, practice culture, and capacity to automate patient identification. Initial investments were substantial, comprising mostly personnel time. Settings that embedded CA use into standard workflows and automated identification of appropriate patients had the lowest initial investment and sustainability costs. Our estimates of the costs of sustaining implementation were much lower than initial investments and mostly attributable to CA subscription fees.

CONCLUSION

Initiation and implementation of the interventions require significant personnel effort. Ongoing costs to maintain use are much lower and are a small fraction of overall organizational operating costs.

The impact of adding cost information to a conversation aid to support shared decision making about low-risk prostate cancer treatment: Results of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Decision aids help patients consider the benefits and drawbacks of care options but rarely include cost information. We assessed the impact of a conversation-based decision aid containing information about low-risk prostate cancer management options and their relative costs.

METHODS

We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in outpatient urology practices within a US-based academic medical center. We randomised five clinicians to four intervention sequences and enroled patients newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Primary patient-reported outcomes collected postvisit included the frequency of cost conversations and referrals to address costs. Other patient-reported outcomes included: decisional conflict postvisit and at 3 months, decision regret at 3 months, shared decision-making postvisit, financial toxicity postvisit and at 3 months. Clinicians reported their attitudes about shared decision-making pre- and poststudy, and the intervention's feasibility and acceptability. We used hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient outcomes. The clinician was included as a random effect; fixed effects included education, employment, telehealth versus in-person visit, visit date, and enrolment period.

RESULTS

Between April 2020 and March 2022, we screened 513 patients, contacted 217 eligible patients, and enroled 117/217 (54%) (51 in usual care, 66 in the intervention group). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was not associated with cost conversations (β = .82, p = .27), referrals to cost-related resources (β = -0.36, p = .81), shared decision-making (β = -0.79, p = .32), decisional conflict postvisit (β = -0.34, p= .70), or at follow-up (β = -2.19, p = .16), decision regret at follow-up (β = -9.76, p = .11), or financial toxicity postvisit (β = -1.32, p = .63) or at follow-up (β = -2.41, p = .23). Most clinicians and patients had positive attitudes about the intervention and shared decision-making. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, patients in the intervention group experienced more transient indecision (p < .02) suggesting increased deliberation between visit and follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Despite enthusiasm from clinicians, the intervention was not significantly associated with hypothesised outcomes, though we were unable to robustly test outcomes due to recruitment challenges. Recruitment at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted eligibility, sample size/power, study procedures, and increased telehealth visits and financial worry, independent of the intervention. Future work should explore ways to support shared decision-making, cost conversations, and choice deliberation with a larger sample. Such work could involve additional members of the care team, and consider the detail, quality, and timing of addressing these issues.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and clinicians were engaged as stakeholder advisors meeting monthly throughout the duration of the project to advise on the study design, measures selected, data interpretation, and dissemination of study findings.

Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS).

METHODS

We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS.

DISCUSSION

The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

Not Too Little, Not Too Much: Optimizing More Versus Less Locoregional Treatment for Older Patients With Breast Cancer

Although undertreatment of older women with aggressive breast cancers has been a concern for years, there is increasing recognition that some older women are overtreated, receiving therapies unlikely to improve survival or reduce morbidity. De-escalation of surgery may include breast-conserving surgery over mastectomy for appropriate candidates and omitting or reducing extent of axillary surgery. Appropriate patients to de-escalate surgery are those with early-stage breast cancer, favorable tumor characteristics, are clinically node-negative, and who may have other major health issues. De-escalation of radiation includes reducing treatment course length through hypofractionation and ultrahypofractionation regimens, reducing treatment volumes through partial breast irradiation, omission of radiation for select patients, and reducing radiation dose to normal tissues. Shared decision making, which aims to facilitate patients making decisions concordant with their values, can guide health care providers and patients through complicated decisions optimizing breast cancer care.

Communicating the Gynecologic Brachytherapy Experience (CoGBE): Clinician perceived benefits of a graphic narrative discussion guide

PURPOSE

Many current radiotherapy patient education materials are not patient-centered. An interprofessional team developed Communicating the Gynecologic Brachytherapy Experience (CoGBE), a graphic narrative discussion guide for cylinder, intracavitary, and interstitial high-dose-rate (HDR) gynecologic brachytherapy. This study assesses perceived clinical benefits, usability, and anxiety-reduction of CoGBE.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An electronic survey was sent to members of the American Brachytherapy Society. Participants were assigned to assess one of the three modality-specific CoGBE versions using a modified Systems Usability Scale (SUS), modified state-trait anxiety index (mSTAI), and Likert-type questions. Free response data was analyzed using modified grounded theory.

RESULTS

Median modified SUS score was 76.3 (interquartile range [IQR], 71.3-82.5) and there were no significant differences between guide types. Median mSTAI was 40 (IQR, 40-43.3) for all guides collectively. The cylinder guide had a significantly higher median mSTAI than the intracavitary and interstitial guides (41.6 vs. 40.0 and 40.0; p = 0.04) suggesting the cylinder guide may have less impact on reducing anxiety. Most respondents reported that CoGBE was helpful (72%), would improve patient understanding (77%) and consultation memorability (82%), and was at least moderately likely to be incorporated into their practice (80%). Qualitative analysis themes included personalization and relatability (positive); generalizability (negative); illustrations (both).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians rate CoGBE as usable with potential to reduce patient anxiety, especially with more invasive treatment modalities including intracavitary or interstitial high-dose-rate. CoGBE has the potential to improve patient-clinician communication for a wider range of patients due to its accessible, adaptable, and patient-centered design.

Improving shared decision making in virtual breast cancer surgery consultations

With the COVID19 pandemic, use of telehealth has expanded rapidly in subspecialties with limited prior telehealth experience. While telehealth offers many opportunities to improve patient convenience, access, and comfort, the virtual platform poses unique challenges for shared decision making. In this review article, we describe what occurs within a standard in-person breast surgery consult and propose a model for an ideal virtual breast surgery consult, including strategies to foster patient engagement and shared decision making. Our model incorporates pre-visit preparation, deliberate pauses, and targeted engagement as ways to encourage patients to integrate information and actively participate in treatment decisions. Intentional strategies such as these must be adopted to improve shared decision making on the virtual platform.

Effectiveness of patient decision aid supported shared decision-making intervention in in-person and virtual hybrid pulmonary rehabilitation in older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A pilot randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Tele-pulmonary rehabilitation is increasingly advocated but cannot completely substitute for in-person services for chronic conditions. Adherence to Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) remains low in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Shared decision-making (SDM) promotes patients' participation in PR decisions and helps patients and healthcare providers to jointly make decisions that patients are informed and aligned with patient preferences and values, which are critical for patient adherence to PR.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop a hybrid in-person and virtual model of home-based PR services for older COPD patients and study the effectiveness of the patient decision aid (PDA)-supported recurring SDM intervention on patient adherence to PR, rehabilitation outcomes, and decision-related outcomes, as well as to explore the mechanisms of the intervention on PR adherence.

METHODS

A total of 78 older COPD patients were randomly assigned to the PR group (n = 39) or PDA-PR group (n = 39). Both groups were conducted hybrid in-person and virtual PR intervention for 3 months. The primary outcomes were patients' quality of life and PR adherence. The secondary outcomes were dyspnea symptoms, exercise self-efficacy, knowledge, and decision-related outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 72 participants completed the 3-month PR program. There were statistically significant differences in PR adherence (p = 0.033), COPD assessment test (CAT) scores (p = 0.016), PR knowledge (p < 0.001), decision self-efficacy (p < 0.001), decision conflict (p < 0.001), and decision regret scores (p = 0.027) between the two groups. The modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea scale (mMRC) score was significantly decreased only in PDA-PR group (p = 0.011). No statistically significant differences were observed in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (p = 0.078), Exercise Self-Regulatory Efficacy Scale (Ex-SRES) score (p = 0.29) and COPD knowledge (p = 0.086) between the two groups. PR value score had a significant effect on adherence to PR (p = 0.007) and CAT score (p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

PDA supported recurring SDM intervention was helpful in maintaining older COPD patients' PR adherence and had advantages in improving quality of life, enhancing PR knowledge, decision self-efficacy, and reducing decision conflict and decision regret, but did not improve SGRQ and Ex-SRES. PR value score influenced patients' rehabilitation adherence and quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR): ChiCTR1900028563; http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/default.aspx.

Lung Cancer Screening Penetration in an Urban Underserved County

PURPOSE

To compare residential geography, sex, socioeconomic status (SES), and race/ethnicity of patients screened at Montefiore's Lung Cancer Screening Program with those of patients diagnosed with lung cancer, assessing whether screening efforts are appropriately focused.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study involved patients within a multisite urban medical center undergoing lung cancer screening or diagnosed with lung cancer from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. Inclusion criteria were residence within the Bronx, NY and age between 55 and 80 years. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon two-sample t test and χ².

RESULTS

The cohorts comprised 1568 (50.3%) women and 1551 (49.7%) men (mean age 65.6 ± 6.16). The Southeast Bronx had the most diagnosed lung cancers (29.96%) and screenings (31.22%). Sex did not significantly differ (p = 0.053). Cancer and screening cohorts were from impoverished neighborhoods with mean SES of - 3.11 ± 2.78 and - 3.44 ± 2.80 (p < 0.01). The lower tier SES neighborhoods demonstrated more patients in the screening cohort than cancer cohort (p = 0.01). Both cohorts included a majority of Hispanic patients, although race/ethnicity differed significantly (p = 0.01). Lower SES neighborhoods showed no significant difference in race/ethnicity between cancer and screening cohorts (p = 0.262).

CONCLUSION

Though statistically significant differences were found between cohorts, likely due to sample size, few clinically meaningful differences were found, implying our lung cancer screening program was effective in reaching the desired population. Demographics-based programs should be considered in global efforts to screen vulnerable populations.

Surgical Informed Consent: A Scoping Review of Physician-facing Decision Support Tools

Objectives

Physician-facing decision support tools facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) during informed consent, but it is unclear whether they are comprehensive in the domains they measure. In this scoping review, we aimed to (1) identify the physician-facing tools used during SDM; (2) assess the patient-centered domains measured by these tools; (3) determine whether tools are available for older adults and for use in various settings (elective vs. emergent); and (4) characterize domains future tools should measure.

Methods

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews, Embase, Medline, and Web of Science were queried for articles published between January 2000 and September 2022. Articles meeting inclusion criteria underwent title and abstract review. Eligible studies underwent data abstraction by two reviewers.

Results

Of 4365 articles identified, 160 were eligible. Tools to aid in surgical SDM focus on elective procedures (79%) and the outpatient setting (71%). Few tools are designed for older adults (5%) or for nonelective procedures (9%). Risk calculators were most common, followed by risk indices, prognostic nomograms, and communication tools. Of the domains measured, prognosis was more commonly measured (85%), followed by alternatives (28%), patient goals (36%), and expectations (46%). Most tools represented only one domain (prognosis, 33.1%) and only 6.7% represented all four domains.

Conclusions and Implications

Tools to aid in the surgical SDM process measure short-term prognosis more often than patient-centered domains such as long-term prognosis, patient goals, and expectations. Further research should focus on communication tools, the needs of older patients, and use in diverse settings.

The CONFIDENT study protocol: a randomized controlled trial comparing two methods to increase long-term care worker confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines

BACKGROUND

Clinical and real-world effectiveness data for the COVID-19 vaccines have shown that they are the best defense in preventing severe illness and death throughout the pandemic. However, in the US, some groups remain more hesitant than others about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. One important group is long-term care workers (LTCWs), especially because they risk infecting the vulnerable and clinically complex populations they serve. There is a lack of research about how best to increase vaccine confidence, especially in frontline LTCWs and healthcare staff. Our aims are to: (1) compare the impact of two interventions delivered online to enhanced usual practice on LTCW COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other pre-specified secondary outcomes, (2) determine if LTCWs' characteristics and other factors mediate and moderate the interventions' effect on study outcomes, and (3) explore the implementation characteristics, contexts, and processes needed to sustain a wider use of the interventions.

METHODS

We will conduct a three-arm randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 2) trial, with randomization at the participant level. Arm 1 is a dialogue-based webinar intervention facilitated by a LTCW and a medical expert and guided by an evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine decision tool. Arm 2 is a curated social media web application intervention featuring interactive, dynamic content about COVID-19 and relevant vaccines. Arm 3 is enhanced usual practice, which directs participants to online public health information about COVID-19 vaccines. Participants will be recruited via online posts and advertisements, email invitations, and in-person visits to care settings. Trial data will be collected at four time points using online surveys. The primary outcome is COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Secondary outcomes include vaccine uptake, vaccine and booster intent for those unvaccinated, likelihood of recommending vaccination (both initial series and booster), feeling informed about the vaccines, identification of vaccine information and misinformation, and trust in COVID-19 vaccine information provided by different people and organizations. Exploration of intervention implementation will involve interviews with study participants and other stakeholders, an in-depth process evaluation, and testing during a subsequent sustainability phase.

DISCUSSION

Study findings will contribute new knowledge about how to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence and effective informational modalities for LTCWs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05168800 at ClinicalTrials.gov, registered December 23, 2021.

On the relation between decision quality and autonomy in times of patient-centered care: a case study

It is commonplace that care should be patient-centered. Nevertheless, no universally agreed-upon definition of patient-centered care exists. By consequence, the relation between patient-centered care as such and ethical principles cannot be investigated. However, some research has been performed on the relation between specific models of patient-centered care and ethical principles such as respect for autonomy and beneficence. In this article, I offer a detailed case study on the relationship between specific measures of patient-centered care and the ethical principle of respect for autonomy. Decision Quality Instruments (DQIs) are patient-centered care measures that were developed by Karen Sepucha and colleagues. The model of patient-centered care that guided the development of these DQIs pays special attention to the ethical principle of respect for autonomy. Using Jonathan Pugh's theory of rational autonomy, I will investigate how the DQIs relate to patient autonomy. After outlining Pugh's theory of rational autonomy and framing the DQIs accordingly (Part I), I will investigate whether the methodological choices made while developing these DQIs align with respect for autonomy (Part II). My analysis will indicate several tensions between DQIs and patient autonomy that could result in what I call "structural paternalism." These tensions offer us sufficient reasons, especially given the importance of the ethical principle of respect for autonomy, to initiate a more encompassing debate on the normative validity of Decision Quality Instruments. The aim of the present paper is to highlight the need for, and to offer a roadmap to, this debate.

"Something for us": Co-development of the COVID-19 Social Site, a web app for long-term care workers

Background

Improving confidence in and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and boosters among long-term care workers (LTCWs) is a crucial public health goal, given their role in the care of elderly people and people at risk. While difficult to reach with workplace communication interventions, most LTCWs regularly use social media and smartphones. Various social media interventions have improved attitudes and uptake for other vaccines and hold promise for the LTCW population.

Objective

We aimed to develop a curated social web application (interactive website) to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence (a 3-arm randomized trial is underway).

Methods

Following user-centric design and participatory research approaches, we undertook the following 3 steps: (1) content identification, (2) platform development, and (3) community building. A LTCW and stakeholder advisory group provided iterative input. For content identification (step 1), we identified topics of concern about COVID-19 vaccines via desktop research (published literature, public opinion polls, and social media monitoring), refined by interviewing and polling LTCWs. We also conducted a national online panel survey. We curated and fact-checked posts from popular social media platforms that addressed the identified concerns. During platform development (step 2), we solicited preferences for design and functionality via interviews and user experience testing with LTCWs. We also identified best practices for online community building (step 3).

Results

In the interviews (n=9), we identified 3 themes: (1) LTCWs are proud of their work but feel undervalued; (2) LTCWs have varying levels of trust in COVID-19–related information; and (3) LTCWs would welcome a curated COVID-19 resource that is easy to understand and use-"something for us". Through desktop research, LTCW interviews, and our national online panel survey (n=592) we found that participants are interested in information about COVID-19 in general, vaccine benefits, vaccine risks, and vaccine development. Content identification resulted in 434 posts addressing these topic areas, with 209 uploaded to the final web application. Our LTCW poll (n=8) revealed preferences for personal stories and video content. The platform we developed is an accessible WordPress-based social media web application, refined through formal (n=3) and informal user experience testing. Users can sort posts by topic or subtopic and react to or comment on posts. To build an online community, we recruited 3 LTCW “community ambassadors” and instructed them to encourage discussion, acknowledge concerns, and offer factual information on COVID-19 vaccines. We also set “community standards” for the web application.

Conclusions

An iterative, user-centric, participatory approach led to the launch of an accessible social media web application with curated content for COVID-19 vaccines targeting LTCWs in the United States. Through our trial, we will determine if this approach successfully improves vaccine confidence. If so, a similar social media resource could be used to develop curated social media interventions in other populations and with other public health goals.

Decision quality and regret with treatment decisions in women with breast cancer: Pre-operative breast MRI and breast density

PURPOSE

We evaluated self-report of decision quality and regret with breast cancer surgical treatment by pre-operative breast MRI use in women recently diagnosed with breast cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a survey with 957 women aged 18 + with stage 0-III breast cancer identified in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Participants self-reported receipt of pre-operative breast MRI. Primary outcomes were process measures in the Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Quality Instrument (BCS-DQI) (continuous outcome) and Decision Regret Scale (dichotomized outcome as any/none). Generalized estimating equations with linear and logit link were used to estimate adjusted associations between breast MRI and primary outcomes. All analyses were also stratified by breast density.

RESULTS

Survey participation rate was 27.9% (957/3430). Study population was primarily > 60 years, White, college educated, and diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Pre-operative breast MRI was reported in 46% of women. A higher proportion of women who were younger age (< 50 years), commercially insured, and self-detected their breast cancer reported pre-operative breast MRI use. In adjusted analysis, pre-operative breast MRI use compared with no use was associated with a small but statistically significantly higher decision quality scores (69.5 vs 64.7, p-value = 0.043). Decision regret did not significantly differ in women who reported pre-operative breast MRI use compared with no use (54.2% v. 48.7%, respectively, p-value = 0.11). Study results did not vary when stratified by breast density for either primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Breast MRI use in the diagnostic work-up of breast cancer does not negatively alter women's perceptions of surgical treatment decisions in early survivorship.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03029286.

Influencing factors of lung cancer patients' participation in shared decision-making: a cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate and analyze the level of actual participation and perceived importance of shared decision-making on treatment and care of lung cancer patients, to compare their differences and to explore their influencing factors.

METHODS

A total of 290 lung cancer patients were collected from oncology and thoracic surgery departments of a comprehensive medical center in Qingdao from October 2018 to December 2019. Participants completed a cross-sectional questionnaire to assess their actual participation and perceived importance in shared decision-making on treatment and care. Descriptive analysis and non-parametric tests were carried out to assess the status quo of patients' shared decision-making on treatment and care. Binary logistic regression analysis with a stepwise back-wards was applied to predict factors that affected patients' participation in shared decision-making.

RESULTS

The results showed that patients with lung cancer had a low degree of participation in shared decision-making. There were significant differences between actual participation and perceived importance of shared decision-making on treatment and care. Education level, age, gender, income, marital status, personality, the course of the disease (> 6 months), and the pathological TNM staging (III) affected patient's level of participation in shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Actual participation in shared decision-making on the treatment and care of lung cancer patients was low and considered unimportant. We could train oncology nurses to use patient decision aids to help patients and families participate in shared decision-making on patients' value, preferences and needs.

Copper-based theranostic nanocatalysts for synergetic photothermal-chemodynamic therapy

Chemodynamic therapy (CDT) has aroused extensive attention as a potent therapeutic modality. However, its practical application is severely restricted by the strong acidity requirement for Fenton reaction and upregulated antioxidant defense within metastatic breast cancer. Herein, a copper-based single-site nanocatalyst functionalized with carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (CAI) was constructed for magnetic resonance/photoacoustic imaging (MRI/PA)-guided synergetic photothermal therapy (PTT) and CDT. Once reaching tumor sites, the nanocatalyst can be recognized by tumor cell membranes-overexpressed carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX). Subsequently, the single-site Cu^II can be reduced to Cu^I by the tumor-overexpressed glutathione (GSH), which simultaneously impaired the tumor antioxidant defense system and triggered CAI release for inducing intracellular H⁺ accumulation. Further, the decreased intracellular pH can accelerate the nanocatalyst biodegradation to release more Cu^II and CAI to participate in next-cycle GSH-depletion and cytoplasm acidification, respectively, thereby continuously supplying Cu^I and H⁺ for self-cyclically amplified CDT. Upon laser irradiation, the nanocatalyst can generate local heat, which not only permits PTT but also enhances the nanocatalyst-mediated CDT. Moreover, the suppression of CA IX can hinder the tumor extracellular matrix degradation to prevent tumor metastasis. Overall, this work highlighted the great application prospect in enhancing CDT via tumor acidic/redox microenvironment remodeling, and provides an insightful paradigm for inhibiting breast cancer metastasis. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: The practical application of chemodynamic therapy (CDT) is severely restricted by the strong acidity requirement for Fenton reaction and upregulated antioxidant defense within cancer. Herein, we developed a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (CAI)-functionalized Cu-based nanocatalyst. Once reaching tumor sites, the Cu^II can be reduced to Cu^I by the tumor-overexpressed glutathione (GSH), which simultaneously impaired the tumor antioxidant system and triggered CAI release for inducing intracellular H⁺ accumulation. Further, the decreased intracellular pH can accelerate the nanocatalyst biodegradation to release more Cu^II and CAI to participate in next-cycle GSH-depletion and cytoplasm acidification, respectively, thus continuously supplying Cu^I and H⁺ for self-cyclically amplified CDT. Upon laser irradiation, the nanocatalyst not only permits PTT but also enhances the CDT.

Effect of patient decision aids on decisional conflict and regret associated with breast cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with breast cancer encounter difficulties in making surgical treatment decisions. Shared decision-making (SDM) with patient decision aids (PDAs) can minimize patients' decisional conflicts. However, the effect of PDAs in Asia remains inconclusive. This study investigated the effect of SDM assisted by PDAs on the decisional conflict of patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

In this two-group, outcome assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial, 151 patients diagnosed as having breast cancer were assigned to the PDA (SDM with PDA) group or the standard (SDM without PDA) group. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed to identify variables affecting the treatment choice. The patients' decision-making difficulties were evaluated using the four-item SURE scale during preoperative hospitalization, and decisional conflicts were examined using the five-item Decision Regret scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) 1 month after surgery.

RESULTS

The choice of breast conservation therapy and mastectomy did not significantly differ between the PDA and standard groups. The PDA group had a higher level of depression after making decisions (P = 0.029) than did the standard group. No significant difference in the total scores of the SURE scale and Decision Regret scale were noted between the groups.

CONCLUSION

PDAs did not assist the patients with breast cancer in making breast surgery-related decisions. Clinicians should focus on SDM grounded in evidence-based medicine with care and help patients consider their individual preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03105076; April 7, 2017 ( http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov ).

How could perioperative anxiety be addressed via surgical team communication approaches? Findings from a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Surgical patients and their families experience high rates of perioperative anxiety, which determine a negative impact on their surgery-related outcomes. Understanding what communicational aspects positively impact perioperative anxiety may help promote more efficient, patient-centered communication approaches which could address this issue. The aim of this scoping review was to synthesize published research on communication between surgical employees and adult patients and their relatives, and its role in managing perioperative anxiety.

METHODS

A scoping review approach was used across four international databases to search for publications detailing communicational interventions and approaches employed in surgical contexts and their impact on surgical patients' and their caregivers' perioperative anxiety levels. Results were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included in this scoping review, which were grouped according to their communication intervention into one of five categories: technology-assisted interventions, interpersonal communication, educational programs, tools for facilitating exchange of information and theory-derived communication strategies. Records reported mixed results in terms of reducing perioperative anxiety. Facilitating and hindering factors in interpersonal communication in this context were further synthesized.

CONCLUSION

A multitude of communicational approaches and their effect on anxiety have been investigated within surgical settings, with varying results. Existing evidence suggests that it is vital to address surgical patients' anxiety through personalized empathetic communication, tailored to an individual's case, preferences, and needs. Key aspects of patient-healthcare professional communication which may impact perioperative anxiety were identified and may be utilized in future trainings for communication skills among surgical teams.

Unexpected Outcomes of Measuring Decision Regret: Using a Breast Cancer Decision-Making Case Example

Shared decision making can help patients feel supported and empowered when deciding between healthcare options. Decision regret can be a meaningful measure of the quality of that encounter. However, in a patient-engaged research study examining shared decision making for breast cancer surgery, decision regret was a difficult construct to assess, and asking questions about decision regret caused the patient to experience that emotion upon reflection. In this article, we consider the complexity of decision regret, and discuss the difficulty of measuring that emotion through existing instruments. We call for clarity in definitions of decision regret and offer suggestions for developing a set of questions that can capture regret in a more meaningful way.

An absence of equipoise: Examining surgeons' decision talk during encounters with women considering breast cancer surgery

Shared decision-making is recommended for decisions with multiple reasonable options, yet clinicians often subtly or explicitly guide choices. Using purposive sampling, we performed a secondary analysis of 142 audio-recorded encounters between 13 surgeons and women eligible for breast-conserving surgery with radiation or mastectomy. We trained 9 surgeons in shared decision-making and provided them one of two conversation aids; 4 surgeons practiced as usual. Based on a published taxonomy of treatment recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, assertions), we examined how surgeons framed choices with patients. Many surgeons made assertions providing information and advice (usual care 71% vs. intervention 66%; p = 0.54). Some made strong pronouncements (usual care 51% vs. intervention 36%; p = .09). Few made proposals and offers, leaving the door open for deliberation (proposals usual care 21% vs. intervention 26%; p = 0.51; offers usual care 40% vs. intervention 40%; p = 0.98). Surgeons were significantly more likely to describe options as comparable when using a conversation aid, mentioning this in all intervention group encounters (usual care 64% vs. intervention 100%; p<0.001). Conversation aids can facilitate offers of comparable options, but other conversational actions can inhibit aspects of shared decision-making.

How Does Patient Socioeconomic Position Affect Breast Cancer Surgical Treatment and Mortality?: A Rapid Review

Background

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of death in women across the world. Despite significant improvements in overall breast cancer survival, disparities still exist. Research shows that socioeconomic position (SEP) plays a strong role in disparities in breast cancer care. Lower SEP can be a predictor of poorer breast cancer health outcomes and treatment received. No recent review has focused on SEP and breast cancer surgery outcomes. We conducted a rapid review assessing how patient SEP affects breast cancer surgical outcomes.

Methods

We developed and ran the search strategy in Ovid MEDLINE in January 2021. We assessed study eligibility using an adapted version of PICOS criteria. We included observational studies that assessed the relationship between SEP and breast cancer surgery treatment, including outcomes like surgery choice, survival, and wait time to surgery. We independently reviewed each article and independently extracted data using a pre-designed form. One reviewer narratively synthesized the data extracted from the included articles.

Results

We found twelve articles that met inclusion criteria. Eight out of 12 articles showed a difference in breast cancer surgery outcomes based on at least one measure of SEP. Six out of eight articles that collected surgery choice data found that women with lower SEP had lower rates of breast conserving surgery. One out of three articles that collected survival data found that higher SEP had a positive effect on survival. Additionally, one article that collected wait time to surgery data found a significant correlation between lower SEP and longer delays to surgical treatment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our rapid review of SEP and breast cancer surgery outcomes found that there is a relationship between SEP and breast cancer surgery choice. This rapid review did not find enough evidence to see a relationship with overall survival and wait time to surgery.

Shared decision making in pediatric dermatology: context, opportunities, and practical examples

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Shared decision making (SDM) is an important part of patient-centered care. However, it is neither widely practiced nor researched in pediatric dermatology. In this article, we provide practical examples of how to engage in SDM in pediatric dermatology, and identify future areas of research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Children and parents/guardians desire SDM in clinical encounters. The process is applicable to discussions of medical as well as surgical care. Additionally, SDM can help prepare children for the transition from pediatric to adult/general providers. Clinicians often want more guidance on its implementation, and there is a dearth of research on SDM or decision tools specific to pediatric dermatology.

SUMMARY

SDM is underused and understudied in pediatric dermatology. This article highlights how to engage in SDM and presents opportunities for research and implementation in pediatric dermatology.

Using Mixed Methods With Multiple Stakeholders to Inform Development of a Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Women With Limited Health Literacy

Background. When stakeholders offer divergent input, it can be unclear how to prioritize information for decision aids (DAs) on mammography screening. Objectives. This analysis triangulates perspectives (breast cancer screening experts, primary care providers [PCPs], and patients with limited health literacy [LHL]) to understand areas of divergent and convergent input across stakeholder groups in developing a breast cancer screening DA for younger women with LHL. Design. A modified online Delphi panel of 8 experts rated 57 statements for inclusion in a breast cancer screening DA over three rounds. Individual interviews with 25 patients with LHL and 20 PCPs from a large safety net hospital explored informational needs about mammography decision making. Codes from the qualitative interviews and open-ended responses from the Delphi process were mapped across stakeholders to ascertain areas where stakeholder preferences converged or diverged. Results. Four themes regarding informational needs were identified regarding 1) the benefits and harms of screening, 2) different screening modalities, 3) the experience of mammography, and 4) communication about breast cancer risk. Patients viewed pain as the primary harm, while PCPs and experts emphasized the harm of false positives. Patients, but not PCPs or experts, felt that information about the process of getting a mammogram was important. PCPs believed that mammography was the only evidence-based screening modality, while patients believed breast self-exam was also important for screening. All stakeholders described incorporating personal risk information as important. Limitations. As participants came from one hospital, perceptions may reflect local practices. The Delphi sample size was small. Conclusions. Patients, experts, and PCPs had divergent views on the most important information needed for screening decisions. More evidence is needed to guide integration of multiple stakeholder perspectives into the content of DAs.

Universal social needs assessment in gynecologic oncology: An important step toward more informed and targeted care in the public safety net

BACKGROUND

Social needs are actionable mediators of social determinants of health. Along with distress, they affect quality of life and survival in patients with cancer. The objectives of this study were to identify the most common social needs and distress in a largely immigrant gynecologic oncology patient population at a public safety-net hospital and to evaluate for specific needs associated with distress and poor outcomes.

METHODS

This was a prospective, survey-based cohort study of patients who participated in a performance-improvement initiative offering social needs assessment and distress screening. Patients provided sociodemographic information and completed validated surveys adapted from the Health Leads Social Needs Screening Toolkit, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer, and the Emotion Thermometers Tool. Associations between social needs, distress, and treatment outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 135 women were included. Of these, 65.2% had at least 1 unmet social need, and 36.3% screened positive for distress. Help reading hospital materials (30.4%) was the most frequently reported need. Social isolation (odds ratio [OR], 3.65; 95% CI, 1.35-9.9; P = .01) and lack of safety at home (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.23-10.62; P = .0001) were associated with distress. Perceived lack of finances for medical care (OR, 5.69; 95% CI, 1.12-28.9; P = .036) and lack of transportation (OR, 20.5; 95% CI, 2.69-156.7; P = .004) were associated with nonadherence-related treatment interruption, whereas positive distress scores were associated with interruption because of comorbidities or treatment-related toxicities (OR, 20.5; 95% CI, 1.5-268.6; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Systematically identifying social needs and developing interventions aimed at mitigating them may lead to more actionable health care disparities research and affect treatment outcomes.

LAY SUMMARY

Social needs are individual-level social conditions that drive health disparities. In this survey-based study, the objective was to identify common social needs and how these relate to distress and poor health outcomes in a largely immigrant and underserved gynecologic oncology patient population. The authors found that greater than one-third of patients screened positive for distress, nearly two-thirds had at least 1 unmet social need, and these factors were associated with emergency room visits, hospital admissions, and treatment interruptions. These findings suggest that screening for universal social needs allows providers to identify unrecognized needs and implement interventions to mitigate distress and improve health outcomes.

Implementation and sustainability factors of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids in diverse practices

BACKGROUND

Conversation aids can facilitate shared decision-making and improve patient-centered outcomes. However, few examples exist of sustained use of conversation aids in routine care due to numerous barriers at clinical and organizational levels. We explored factors that will promote the sustained use of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids. We examined differences in opinions between the two conversation aids and across socioeconomic strata.

METHODS

We nested this study within a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of two early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, one text-based and one picture-based. These conversation aids facilitated more shared decision-making and improved the decision process, among other outcomes, across four health systems with socioeconomically diverse patient populations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patient participants across conversation aid assignment and socioeconomic status (SES) and collected observations and field notes. We interviewed trial surgeons and other stakeholders. Two independent coders conducted framework analysis using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development through Normalization Process Theory. We also conducted an inductive analysis. We conducted additional sub-analyses based on conversation aid assignment and patient SES.

RESULTS

We conducted 73 semi-structured interviews with 43 patients, 16 surgeons, and 14 stakeholders like nurses, cancer center directors, and electronic health record (EHR) experts. Patients and surgeons felt the conversation aids should be used in breast cancer care in the future and were open to various methods of giving and receiving the conversation aid (EHR, email, patient portal, before consultation). Patients of higher SES were more likely to note the conversation aids influenced their treatment discussion, while patients of lower SES noted more influence on their decision-making. Intervention surgeons reported using the conversation aids did not lengthen their typical consultation time. Most intervention surgeons felt using the conversation aids enhanced their usual care after using it a few times, and most patients felt it appeared part of their normal routine.

CONCLUSIONS

Key factors that will guide the future sustained implementation of the conversation aids include adapting to existing clinical workflows, flexibility of use, patient characteristics, and communication preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03136367 , registered on May 2, 2017.

What matters most: Randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata

Background

Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with early‐stage breast cancer are more likely to report poorer physician‐patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery, lower involvement in decision making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. The objective of this study was to understand how to support women across socioeconomic strata in making breast cancer surgery choices.

Methods

We conducted a 3‐arm (Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, and usual care), multisite, randomized controlled superiority trial with surgeon‐level randomization. The Option Grid (text only) and Picture Option Grid (pictures plus text) conversation aids were evidence‐based summaries of available breast cancer surgery options on paper. Decision quality (primary outcome), treatment choice, treatment intention, shared decision making (SDM), anxiety, quality of life, decision regret, and coordination of care were measured from T0 (pre‐consultation) to T5 (1‐year after surgery.

Results

Sixteen surgeons saw 571 of 622 consented patients. Patients in the Picture Option Grid arm (n = 248) had higher knowledge (immediately after the visit [T2] and 1 week after surgery or within 2 weeks of the first postoperative visit [T3]), an improved decision process (T2 and T3), lower decision regret (T3), and more SDM (observed and self‐reported) compared to usual care (n = 257). Patients in the Option Grid arm (n = 66) had higher decision process scores (T2 and T3), better coordination of care (12 weeks after surgery or within 2 weeks of the second postoperative visit [T4]), and more observed SDM (during the surgical visit [T1]) compared to usual care arm. Subgroup analyses suggested that the Picture Option Grid had more impact among women of lower SES and health literacy. Neither intervention affected concordance, treatment choice, or anxiety.

Conclusions

Paper‐based conversation aids improved key outcomes over usual care. The Picture Option Grid had more impact among disadvantaged patients.

Lay Summary

The objective of this study was to understand how to help women with lower incomes or less formal education to make breast cancer surgery choices.

Compared with usual care, a conversation aid with pictures and text led to higher knowledge. It improved the decision process and shared decision making (SDM) and lowered decision regret. A text‐only conversation aid led to an improved decision process, more coordinated care, and higher SDM compared to usual care. The conversation aid with pictures was more helpful for women with lower income or less formal education.

Conversation aids with pictures and text helped women make better breast cancer surgery choices.

A paper‐based pictorial conversation aid (pictures plus text) is beneficial to all patients with early‐stage breast cancer and particularly to disadvantaged patients. Between‐surgeon variation suggests that the maximal impact of such interventions requires standardized physician training combined with these interventions.