Is Shared Decision Making a Utopian Dream or an Achievable Goal?

Procedural Detailing: A Patient's Practice for Normalizing Routine Behaviors

In palliative care in the UK, occupational and/or physiotherapists consult with patients to assess how they are managing their activities for daily living in light of their life-limiting condition(s), and to identify any activities that might benefit from therapeutic intervention. In this paper we use conversation analysis to describe a patient's practice in these consultations, which we call "procedural detailing," whereby they produce a step-by-step description of how they do some everyday activity, such that it is depicted as adequate, stable, and unproblematic. Based on a collection of 15 cases identified in video recordings of consultations in a large English hospice, we demonstrate how patients use this practice to normalize their routine conduct and thereby reject or rule out an actual or anticipated therapeutic recommendation. Our analysis suggests that such descriptions let patients participate in shared decision-making by revealing their preference for routines that preserve their level of independence and dignity.

Patients' experiences of and roles in interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care: a constructivist grounded theory study

AIM

This constructivist grounded theory study aimed to (1) explore patients' experiences of and roles in interprofessional collaborative practice for chronic conditions in primary care and (2) consider the relevance and alignment of an existing theoretical framework on patients' roles and based on the experiences of patient advocates.

BACKGROUND

High-quality management of chronic conditions requires an interprofessional collaborative practice model of care considering an individual's mental, physical, and social health situation. Patients' experiences of this model in the primary care setting are relatively unknown.

METHODS

A constructivist grounded theory approach was taken. Interview data were collected from primary care patients with chronic conditions across Australia in August 2020 - February 2022. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed by (1) initial line-by-line coding, (2) focused coding, (3) memo writing, (4) categorisation, and (5) theme and sub-theme development. Themes and sub-themes were mapped against an existing theoretical framework to expand and confirm the results from a previous study with a similar research aim.

FINDINGS

Twenty adults with chronic conditions spanning physical disability, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, autoimmune, and mental health conditions participated. Two themes were developed: (1) Adapting to Change with two sub-themes describing how patients adapt to interprofessional team care and (2) Shifting across the spectrum of roles, with five sub-themes outlining the roles patients enact while receiving care. The findings suggest that patients' roles are highly variable and fluid in interprofessional collaborative practice, and further work is recommended to develop a resource to support greater patient engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice.

Perceptions of shared decision making in gastroenterology and inflammatory bowel disease: A qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is the partnership and discussion between clinicians and patients to make an appropriate decision based on scientific evidence and patient preferences. Many benefits are associated with SDM; however, little is known about its awareness or use by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinicians in gastroenterology departments across Israel. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators in implementing SDM as standard practice to achieve optimal disease management and personalized care for patients with IBD.

METHODS

Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with IBD clinicians across Israel to identify the barriers and facilitators for SDM use. An interview guide was developed, based on the systematic approach of the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF). Interview transcripts were coded into theoretical domains to identify factors that may impact SDM.

RESULTS

Sixteen gastroenterologists from nine different hospitals were interviewed. Common TDF domains that presented as barriers were: knowledge, skills, social/professional role and identity, environmental context and resources, and reinforcement. Most participants had never heard the precise term "shared decision making" and lacked formal training on SDM.

CONCLUSION

This study identified key barriers and facilitators to SDM in IBD clinics across Israel. Main barriers of SDM include limited or nonexistent training; clinicians were unaware of SDM guidelines or techniques. The main facilitators of SDM were clinicians' social and professional role and identity and their beliefs about the influence of IBD and/or CD.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These influencing factors and TDF domains identified provide a basis for developing future interventions to improve the implementation of SDM within IBD management.

Effects and Working Mechanisms of a Multilevel Implementation Program for Applying Shared Decision-Making while Discussing Systemic Treatment in Breast Cancer

Background: Enhancing the application of shared decision-making (SDM) is critical for integrating patient preferences in breast cancer treatment choices. We investigated the effect of an adapted multilevel SDM implementation program in breast cancer care. Methods: Breast cancer patients qualifying for (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment were included in a multicenter before−after study. Consultations were audio recorded between June 2018 and July 2019 and analyzed using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-5) instrument to score SDM application by clinicians. The Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) was used to rate patients’ perceived SDM level. Consultation duration, decision types, number of options discussed and consultations per patient were monitored. Regression analysis was used to investigate the correlated variables and program components. Results: Mean OPTION-5 scores increased from 33.9 (n = 63) before implementation to 54.3 (n = 49) after implementation (p < 0.001). The SDM-Q-9 scores did not change: 91.1 (n = 51) at baseline versus 88.9 (n = 23) after implementation (p = 0.81). Without increasing consultation time, clinicians discussed more options after implementation. The regression analysis showed that exposure to the implementation program, redistribution of tasks and discussing feedback from consultations was associated with a higher level of SDM. Conclusion: The multilevel program helped clinicians achieve clinically relevant improvement in SDM, especially when it is tailored to (individuals in) teams and includes (e-)training, discussing feedback on consultations and redistribution of tasks.

Implementation strategies within a complex environment: A qualitative study of a shared decision-making intervention during childbirth

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) may improve communication, teamwork, patient experience, respectful maternity care, and safety during childbirth. Despite these benefits, SDM is not widely implemented, and strategies for implementing SDM interventions are not well described. We assessed the acceptability and feasibility of TeamBirth, an SDM solution that centers the birthing person in decision-making through simple tools that structure communication among the care team. We identified and described implementation strategies that bridge the gap between knowledge and practice.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study among four hospitals in the United States to understand the acceptability and feasibility of TeamBirth. We interviewed 103 clinicians and conducted 16 focus group discussions with 52 implementers between June 2018 and October 2019. We drew on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to understand acceptability and feasibility, and to identify and describe the underlying contextual factors that affected implementation.

RESULTS

We found that clinicians and implementers valued TeamBirth for promoting clarity about care plans among the direct care team and for centering the birthing person in decision-making. Contextual factors that affected implementation included strength of leadership, physician practice models, and quality improvement culture. Effective implementation strategies included regular data feedback and adapting "flexible" components of TeamBirth to the local context.

DISCUSSION

By identifying and describing TeamBirth's contextual factors and implementation strategies, our findings can help bridge the implementation gap of SDM interventions. Our in-depth analysis offers tangible lessons for other labor and delivery unit leaders as they seek to integrate SDM practices in their own settings.

General dental practitioners' perceptions of shared decision making: a qualitative study

Introduction As patient-centred care becomes more of the focus in healthcare, informed consent is receiving more attention in dental practice as the pinnacle principle in patient care. Shared decision making or person-centred care appears to be taking a back foot in dentistry.Aim This study aims to gain insight into the current views and perceptions of shared decision making by general dental practitioners and how it can be utilised in daily practice.Method Empirical qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews of nine dentists working in general practice, with an average of 30 minutes for each interview. The data were analysed using thematic analysis.Results Overall, there was a misunderstanding of what constitutes shared decision making among dental practitioners, with communication focused more on information provision rather than collaborative discussion. There were barriers which prevented full discussions with patients from occurring, some of which directly conflicted with the focus of shared decision making.Conclusion There is a need to provide more clarity of what shared decision making is and how it can facilitate person-centred care in dental practice. Dental practitioners felt that standards and guidelines were not clear; therefore, they were confused as to what was expected of them with regards to communication. More support, in the form of standardised decision-making aids, is needed to assist dental practitioners to streamline the delivery of shared decision making in primary care.

Practitioners' Dilemmas and Strategies in Decision-Making Conversations Where Patients and Companions Take Divergent Positions on a Healthcare Measure: An Observational Study Using Conversation Analysis

The presence of companions adds complexity to healthcare interactions. Few studies have characterized challenges arising when interactions involve healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients, and companions, or how those challenges are managed. Using conversation analysis, we examined recorded episodes where patients and companions adopt divergent positions on healthcare measures (e.g., walking aids, homecare, medications). We found nine such episodes within a dataset of 37 palliative care consultations with 37 patients, their companions, and ten healthcare practitioners (HCPs) - doctors, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. Palliative care is one of several healthcare domains where companions substantially contribute to care, consultations, and decision making. We propose that, when patients and companions adopt divergent positions, HCPs face a 'dilemma of affiliation' wherein taking a position on the healthcare measure (e.g., recommending it) entails siding with one party, against the other. By examining what happens in the face of patient-companion divergence, we characterize HCPs' strategies and substantiate our proposal that these reflect an underlying dilemma. We show that: HCPs do not immediately take a position on the healthcare measure after patient-companion divergence emerges; and when HCPs take a position later in the consultation, they do so without ostensibly siding with the party who previously supported the healthcare measure. Further, once an HCP takes a position, the party who supports the measure can treat the HCP as an ally. We offer insights and propose implications for: palliative care; the interactional complexities of healthcare decision-making; and consultations in which companions participate.

Assessing dentist and dental student knowledge of and attitudes towards shared decision-making in the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a partnership between healthcare professionals and patients when choosing care.

AIM

To measure knowledge of, and attitudes to, SDM amongst undergraduate dental students and dentists in the UK.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional online questionnaire for 4th and 5th year dental students and dentists in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The questionnaire included attitudinal questions, knowledge of SDM relative to the evidence base and preferred approach to decision-making. The questionnaire identified perceived learning needs and preferred method for SDM teaching for dentists and dental students. Respondents were invited to participate via social media, mailing lists and CPD courses.

RESULTS

Respondents included 266 undergraduates and 130 dentists. SDM was defined by the people involved, components of the discussion, approach to decision-making and expected outcome. Attitudes to SDM were generally positive although concerns were expressed about patients wanting professionals to make the decision, straying from the professionals' preferred option and compatibility with clinical guidelines. Respondents reported a preference for decision-making to involve patients, but this tended to be an informative rather than deliberative approach. Respondents were least sure of the evidence about the impact of SDM on adherence, choices and health outcomes, and the best approach to risk communication. Respondents from both groups reported an interest in learning more about SDM and its integration into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of, and attitude to, SDM in UK dentists and dental undergraduates is generally positive; however, a demand for further SDM training was identified.

What will make patients use a patient decision aid? A qualitative study on patients' perspectives on implementation barriers and facilitators

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Few studies focus on patients' views on factors influencing implementation of patient decision aids (PDAs). This study aims to explore patients' views on the factors influencing implementation of an "insulin choice" PDA in a primary care setting.

METHODS

This study used a descriptive qualitative study design. Interviews were conducted using a semistructured interview guide developed based on the theoretical domains framework. Nine in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with patients with type 2 diabetes who have been advised to start insulin or were currently using insulin and those who had been seeking diabetes treatment in the clinic for more than 1 year. Interviews were conducted after the participants were familiarized with the PDA. Data were analysed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged from the data analysis: (a) trust in the physician (patients preferred physicians to other health care providers in delivering the insulin PDA to them as they trusted physicians more when it comes to making decisions such as starting insulin), (b) physician's attitude (patients were more likely to trust a physician who is friendly and sympathetic hence would be more willing to use the insulin PDA), (c) physician's communication style (patients were more willing to use the insulin PDA if the physicians would take time and guide them in the PDA use), (d) conducive environment (patients preferred to read the PDA at home), and (e) cost (patients would not be willing to pay to use the insulin PDA unless they needed it).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients want physicians to play a major role in the implementation of the insulin PDA; physicians' communication style and commitment may influence implementation outcomes. Health care authorities need to create a conducive environment and provide patients with free access to PDA to promote effective implementation.

Implementation of patient involvement methods in the clinical setting: A qualitative study exploring the health professional perspective

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Patient involvement is increasingly recognized as a key component on the international health care agenda. This attention has brought a need for developing generic and standardized open-source methods, tools, and guidelines on how to systematically implement patient involvement initiatives in the clinical setting. The large-scale project the User-involving Hospital was initiated to implement two systematic methods for patient involvement at a Danish university hospital, but the required methods can only be implemented if embraced by the health professionals. This evaluation study aimed to explore the health professional perspective on the development and implementation of shared decision making (SDM) and user-led health care. Specifically, the objectives were to identify the most crucial preconditions for success and to translate the findings into practice recommendations.

METHOD

The study was based on a simple questionnaire survey and a qualitative descriptive analysis of semistructured focus group interviews with representatives of 21 multidisciplinary clinical teams (nine interviews) and 18 health professional department managers (six interviews).

RESULTS

Two years after the initiation of the User-involving Hospital, 13 out of 21 developed patient involvement initiatives were fully incorporated into clinical practice. Five domains were found significant for successful development and implementation of the patient involvement methods: the patients' perspectives, composition of multidisciplinary teams, bottom-up and skill building, support from management, and information sharing with colleagues.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings draw attention to several significant factors for successful implementation of large-scale patient involvement initiatives in hospitals, including the importance of having both a top-down and bottom-up approach and of active listening to the patients' perspectives. On the basis of these findings, the study outlines four recommendations incorporating the five identified key domains, which may inspire future projects on systematic development and implementation of patient-involvement initiatives based on either shared decision making or user-led health care in the clinical setting.

Patient Satisfaction With Decision Making Does Not Correlate With Patient Centeredness of Surgeons

BACKGROUND

High-quality decision making is important in patient-centered care. Although patient involvement in decision making varies widely, most patients desire to share in decision making. The Press-Ganey Patient Satisfaction survey includes questions that measure patients' perceptions of their providers' efforts to involve them in decision making (PGDM). We hypothesized that higher PGDM scores would correlate with higher scores on a validated measure of patient centeredness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Surgical providers at a university hospital who routinely receive Press-Ganey scores received a survey that included the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS), a validated tool that measures the provider's orientation toward patient centeredness on a continuous six-point scale: score ≥5 = high, 4.57-5 = moderate, and <4.57 = low and includes nine-item "caring" or "sharing" subscales. We compared PPOS scores to PGDM scores, averaged from April 2015 to January 2016.

RESULTS

Eighty-six of 112 (75%) of surgical providers responded to the survey. Fifty-two (46%) had PGDM scores available and 26% achieved a perfect score on the PGDM. The overall PPOS scores were low, with a mean of 4.2 (SD = 0.5). The PPOS was not correlated with the PGDM, correlation coefficient (rs) = -0.07 (CI: -0.34-0.21, P = 0.63). Similarly, the two subscales of the PPOS did not correlate with the PGDM with rs = -0.15 (CI: -0.41-0.13, P = 0.29) for "caring" and rs = -0.04 (CI: -0.31-0.23, P = 0.76) for "sharing".

CONCLUSIONS

Although surgical providers scored low in patient centeredness using the PPOS, over one-quarter (26%) of them rank in the top 1% on the PGDM. No correlation was found between providers' patient centeredness and their patients' perceptions of efforts to include them in decision making.

Nurses' articulations of the patients' role when the vision is partnership: A qualitative study

Although principles such as 'patient participation' and 'patient involvement' have become ideals in health-care, they have proven to be difficult to apply in practice. In 2014, one Danish region issued an official document that included the vision of 'the patient as partner'. However, little is known about how such a vision affects clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to investigate nurses' views on how partnerships between them and patients are established considering this vision. We conducted semi-structured interviews with eight nurses working in Danish hospitals. Then, we analysed the interviews in a Norman Fairclough-inspired critical discourse analysis. During this three-dimensional analysis, we identified three discourses. We found that a liberalistic discourse wins hegemony based on the nurses' expectations of the patient's role. Nurses construct a picture of the patient's role, expecting the patient to be responsible and to participate. For the partnership to arise as envisioned, the patient is perceived as being dependent on the nurse's professional knowledge. Surprisingly, the nurses' articulations of the patient's role were identical to the vision's elements. Therefore, we suggest that the vision reflects prevailing societal norms for individuals, thereby reflecting society's attitude towards people's responsibility for their own lives.

A Learning Loop Model of Collaborative Decision-Making in Chronic Illness

Shared decision-making is a core attribute of quality health care that has proved challenging to implement and assess in pediatric practice. Current models of shared decision-making are limited, including their capacity to incorporate multiple stakeholders; to integrate downstream effects of subacute or minor decisions; and to account for the context(s) in which such decisions are being made and enacted. Based on a review of literature from organizational psychology, cognitive sciences, business, and medicine, we propose an iterative decision-making model of care planning and identify targets at several levels of influence warranting measurement in future studies. Our learning loop model posits the relationship between pediatric patients, their parents, and their clinicians as central to the collaborative decision-making process in the setting of chronic illness. The model incorporates the evolution of both context and developmental capacity over time. It suggests that "meta-learning" from the experience of and outcomes from iterative decision is a key factor that may influence relationships and thus continued engagement in collaboration by patients, their parents, and their clinicians. We consider the model in light of the needs of children with special health care needs, for whom understanding the ongoing iterative effects of decision making and clinician-parent-child dynamics are likely to be particularly important in influencing outcomes.

Promoting Shared Decision-Making Behaviors During Inpatient Rounds: A Multimodal Educational Intervention

PURPOSE

To estimate the effectiveness of a multimodal educational intervention to increase use of shared decision-making (SDM) behaviors by inpatient pediatric and internal medicine hospitalists and trainees at teaching hospitals at Stanford University and the University of California, San Francisco.

METHOD

The 8-week Patient Engagement Project Study intervention, delivered at four services between November 2014 and January 2015, included workshops, campaign messaging, report cards, and coaching. For 12-week pre- and postintervention periods, clinician peers used the nine-point Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD) to evaluate rounding teams' SDM behaviors with patients during ward rounds. Eligible teams included a hospitalist and at least one trainee (resident, intern, medical student), in addition to nonphysicians. Random-effects models were used to estimate intervention effects based on RPAD scores that sum points on nine SDM behaviors per patient encounter.

RESULTS

In total, 527 patient encounters were scored during 175 rounds led by 49 hospitalists. Patient and team characteristics were similar across pre- and postintervention periods. Improvement was observed on all nine SDM behaviors. Adjusted for the hierarchical study design and covariates, the mean RPAD score improvement was 1.68 points (95% CI, 1.33-2.03; P < .001; Cohen d = 0.82), with intervention effects ranging from 0.7 to 2.5 points per service. Improvements were associated with longer patient encounters and a higher percentage of trainees per team.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention increased behaviors supporting SDM during ward rounds on four independent services. The findings recommend use of clinician-focused interventions to promote SDM adoption in the inpatient setting.

Patient decision aid for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for use in the consultation: a feasibility study

Background

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (cpm) continue to rise internationally despite evidence-based guidance strongly discouraging its use in most women with unilateral breast cancer. The purpose of the present study was to develop and assess the feasibility of a knowledge translation tool [a patient decision aid (da)] designed to enhance evidence-informed shared decision-making about cpm.

Methods

A consultation da was developed using the Ottawa Patient Decision Aid Development eTraining in consultation with clinicians and knowledge translation experts. The final da was then assessed for feasibility with health care professionals and patients across Canada. The assessment involved a survey completed online (health care professionals) or by telephone (patients). Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for closed-ended questions and qualitative content analysis for open-ended questions.

Results

The 51 participants who completed the survey included 39 health care professionals and 12 patients. The da was acceptable; 88% of participants viewed it as having the right amount of information or slightly more or less information than they would like. Almost all participants (98%) felt that the da would prepare patients to make better decisions. The aid was perceived to be usable, with 73% of participants stating that they would be willing to use or share the da.

Conclusions

The cpm patient da developed for the present study was viewed by health care professionals and patients across Canada to be acceptable and usable during the clinical consultation. It holds promise as a knowledge translation tool to be used by clinicians in consultation with women who have unilateral breast cancer to enhance evidence-informed and shared decision-making with respect to undergoing cpm.

Does lack of deeper understanding of shared decision making explains the suboptimal performance on crucial parts of it? An example from breast cancer care

PURPOSE

Although most of the clinicians in breast cancer care seem to approve of shared decision making (SDM), actual implementation is limited. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences, issues and concerns of early-adopter professionals with regards to shared decision making.

METHODS

This qualitative descriptive study was part of a pilot study aimed at implementing SDM in breast cancer teams. We interviewed 27 clinicians; 9 breast cancer surgeons, 11 nurse practitioners and 7 nurses. The teams were exposed to a multifaceted implementation programme, among others: a patient decision aid (PtDA), a procedure to disseminate the PtDA and advice on redesigning the clinical pathway.

RESULTS

Participants considered SDM, including the delivery of the PtDA, to be a team effort, in which every professional should take responsibility. Most clinicians primarily focused on the first steps of SDM ignoring preference and decision talk. The remaining steps, like the uptake of the PtDA in the clinical pathway, were regarded as challenging, with surgeons, intentionally or unconsciously, delegating this responsibility to nurses. One barrier to successfully implementing SDM seems to lie in the fact that clinicians were unaware of their lack of competency regarding SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

A deeper understanding is needed among clinicians of what SDM actually is and how a PtDA contributes to this process. Nurses play an important role in the delivery of the PtDA, but their role is not clearly defined. Teams should consider a clear realignment of tasks between surgeons and nurses, which implies redesign of the pathway.

Decision role preferences for return of results from genome sequencing amongst young breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To better understand decision role preferences in women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age for return of results of genome sequencing in research and clinical settings.

METHODS

Participants were surveyed about communication and decision-making preferences related to genome sequencing results and factors that may affect these preferences. The primary outcome was decision role preference (Control Preference Scale) for selecting what results to receive within medical care or within a research study.

RESULTS

For results returned as part of medical care, most patients preferred a collaborative (N = 481, 45%) or active (N = 488, 45%) role with only 107 (10%) choosing a passive role. When making the decision as part of a research study, most patients preferred an active role (N = 617, 57%), 350 (33%) choosing a collaborative role, and110 (10%) choosing a passive role.

CONCLUSION

Most women in this study preferred to share in decision making. Participants had somewhat different role preferences for clinical and research contexts, with greater preference for active roles in the research context.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We advocate for practice guidelines that incorporate discussion of decision role as an integral part of patient centered care and shared decision-making and recognize that more work is needed to inform guidelines.

Primary health care decision making in pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVES

This qualitative descriptive study explored the primary health care decisions of a group of 12 Australians in Stages 3B to 5 with chronic kidney disease in the preservation of kidney health.

METHODS

Questioning within the qualitative interviews focused on gaining an understanding of the participants' perceptions of their kidney health and the decisions made as a consequence of their interaction within the Australian primary health care system.

RESULTS

Participants were dependent on their General Practitioner to recognise their symptoms, make the correct diagnosis and authorise the correct referral for specialist nephrology care. Three pathways in this process were identified: 'easy'; 'difficult' and 'protracted'. Clinician failure to correctly attribute symptoms to chronic kidney disease influenced the 'difficult' pathway, while failure to adequately communicate kidney health status influenced the 'protracted' pathway. Use of the language of 'recovery', 'stability' and 'protection' held meaning to the participants in gaining an understanding of their kidney health.

DISCUSSION

Identifying pathways to diagnosis and referral can raise awareness of the challenges kidney health consumers face in their participation within the primary health care arena. Using consumer meaningful language improves the capacity of these consumers to engage in their own primary health care agenda.

A conversation approach based on shared goal-setting and shared decision-making for nurses in cancer aftercare: A developmental study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop and pretest a systematic conversation approach for nurses to tailor aftercare to oncology patient's goals, unmet needs and wishes.

METHODS

We used an iterative developmental process for complex interventions: 1. Identifying problems 2. Identifying overall objectives 3. Designing the intervention 4. Pretesting and adapting the intervention.

RESULTS

The main results of the problem identification were: non-systematic and incomplete screening of potential issues, caveats in providing information, and shared decision-making. The overall objective formulated was: To develop a model for aftercare conversations based on shared goal-setting and decision-making. The conversation approach consists of four phases: 1. Preparation of the consultation including a questionnaire, 2. Shared goal-setting by means of a tool visualizing domains of life, and 3. Shared care planning by means of an overview of possible choices in aftercare, a database with health care professionals and a cancer survivorship care plan. 4.

EVALUATION

The results of the pretest revealed that the conversation approach needs to be flexible and tailored to the patient and practice setting, and embedded in the care processes. The conversation approach was perceived as enhancing patient-centeredness and leading to more in-depth consultations.

CONCLUSION

The conversation approach was developed in co-creation with stakeholders. The results of the pretest revealed important implications and suggestions for implementation in routine care. The aftercare conversation approach can be used by nurses to provide tailored patient-centered evidence-based aftercare. Tailored aftercare should support oncology patient's goals, unmet needs and wishes. Further tailoring is needed.

Is Financial Literacy a Determinant of Health?

Changes in economic conditions and healthcare delivery models have shifted more healthcare costs to patients, resulting in greater patient financial responsibilities. As a result, it is important to understand the potential impact of financial literacy on patients' healthcare behavior. With the focus on delivering better health outcomes at lower costs, factors that influence patient behavior are important considerations for healthcare providers. Although researchers have proposed a variety of conceptual models that identify influential factors, those models do not fully address financial literacy and its potential impact patients' healthcare decisions. This article examines existing models of patient healthcare decision-making and current research on factors affecting patient decision-making and behavior and then presents recommendations for closing the identified gap in our current knowledge.

Using Complexity Theory to Guide Medical School Evaluations

Contemporary medical school evaluations are narrow in focus and often do not consider the wider systems implications of the relationship between learning and teaching, research, clinical care, and community engagement. The result is graduates who lack the necessary knowledge and skills for the modern health care system and an educational system that is limited in its ability to learn and change.To address this issue, the authors apply complexity theory to medical school evaluation, using four key factors-nesting, diversity, self-organization, and emergent outcomes. To help medical educators apply this evaluation approach in their own settings, the authors offer two tools-a modified program logic model and sensemaking. In sensemaking, they use the organic metaphor of the medical school as a neuron situated within a complex neural network to enable medical educators to reframe the way they think about program evaluation. The authors then offer practical guidance for applying this model, including describing the example of addressing graduates' engagement in the health care system. The authors consider the input of teachers, the role of culture and curriculum, and the clinical care system in this example.Medical school evaluation is reframed as an improvement science for complex social interventions (medical school is such an intervention) in this model. With complexity theory's focus on emergent outcomes, evaluation takes on a new focus, reimagining medical students as reaching their future potential as change agents, who transform health systems and the lives of patients.

Translating Evidence to Facilitate Shared Decision Making: Development and Usability of a Consult Decision Aid Prototype

AIM

The purpose of this study was to translate evidence from Cochrane Reviews into a format that can be used to facilitate shared decision making during the consultation, namely patient decision aids.

METHODS

A systematic development process (a) established a stakeholder committee; (b) developed a prototype according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards; (c) applied the prototype to a Cochrane Review and used an interview-guided survey to evaluate acceptability/usability; (d) created 12 consult decision aids; and (e) used a Delphi process to reach consensus on considerations for creating a consult decision aid.

RESULTS

The 1-page prototype includes (a) a title specifying the decision; (b) information on the health condition, options, benefits/harms with probabilities; (c) an explicit values clarification exercise; and (d) questions to screen for decisional conflict. Hyperlinks provide additional information on definitions, probabilities presented graphically, and references. Fourteen Cochrane Consumer Network members and Cochrane Editorial Unit staff participated. Thirteen reported that it would help patient/clinician discussions and were willing to use and/or recommend it. Seven indicated the right amount of information, six not enough, and one too much. Changes to the prototype were more links to definitions, more white space, and details on GRADE evidence ratings. Creating 12 consult decision aids took about 4 h each. We identified ten considerations when selecting Cochrane Reviews for creating consult decision aids.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a systematic process, we developed a consult decision aid prototype to be populated with evidence from Cochrane Reviews. It was acceptable and easy to apply. Future studies will evaluate implementation of consult decision aids.

Information provision and attentive listening as determinants of patient perceptions of shared decision-making around chronic illnesses

Background

While chronic illnesses are a major concern of the health system worldwide, little is known about patients–physicians communication. Growing demand for patient-centered care and shared decision-making have increased the interest for patients–physicians communication. Based on previous literature, we propose a model in which the effect of information provision and attentive listening over patients’ perceptions of shared decision-making (PPSDM) is mediated by the variables self-efficacy and proactivity. Primary data were collected between April and August 2014 through an online survey of patients with haemophilia. Haemophilia is a chronic disease in which many options of treatment are available. The right option depends, to some extent, on patient’s preferences. In this context, great uncertainty exists when choosing treatment option and shared decision-making plays an essential role.

Results

A total of 181 patients with haemophilia participated in the survey. The psychometric properties of the measurement scales were evaluated by means of a confirmatory factor analysis. A structural equation model was designed. Results show that provision of information and attentive listening determine PPSDM through patients’ self-efficacy and proactivity in requesting information.

Conclusions

It is important to incorporate communication training in medical education, particularly provision of information and attentive listening. These skills help the healthcare professional to gain a deeper understanding of the patient. Furthermore, provision of information and attentive listening are fundamental in helping patients not to undervalue their personal knowledge and expertise in relation to their doctors. These strategies encourage them to adopt a more active position in requesting information. Encouraging a proactive behaviour of patients and their relatives helps them to realize the need to participate and to make them feel that they are part of the decision-making process.

Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences

BACKGROUND

The ethical argument that shared decision-making is "the right" thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences.

MAIN ARGUMENT

To date, many more studies have evaluated patient decision aids rather than other approaches to shared decision-making, and the outcomes measured have typically been focused on short-term cognitive and affective outcomes, for example knowledge and decisional conflict. From a clinicians perspective, the shared decision-making process could be viewed as either intrinsically rewarding and protective, or burdensome and impractical, yet studies have not focused on the impact on professionals, either positive or negative. At interactional levels, group, team, and microsystem, the potential long-term consequences could include the development of a culture where deliberation and collaboration are regarded as guiding principles, where patients are coached to assess the value of interventions, to trade-off benefits versus harms, and assess their burdens-in short, to new social norms in the clinical workplace. At organizational levels, consistent shared decision-making might boost patient experience evaluations and lead to fewer complaints and legal challenges. In the long-term, shared decision-making might lead to changes in resource utilization, perhaps to reductions in cost, and to modification of workforce composition. Despite the gradual shift to value-based payment, some organizations, motivated by continued income derived from achieving high volumes of procedures and contacts, will see this as a negative consequence.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that a broader conceptualization and measurement of shared decision-making would provide a more substantive evidence base to guide implementation. We outline a framework which illustrates a hypothesized set of proximal, distal, and distant consequences that might occur if collaboration and deliberation could be achieved routinely, proposing that well-informed preference-based patient decisions might lead to safer, more cost-effective healthcare, which in turn might result in reduced utilization rates and improved health outcomes.

Breaking Barriers to Effective Type 2 Diabetes Management: Findings from the use of the OPTIMA© Questionnaire in Clinical Practice

Background

The OPTIMA© (MSD, Courbevoie, France) questionnaire was developed to promote shared decisions and the set-up of specific micro-objectives in clinical practice by optimizing communication between type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients and their physicians. The present study aimed to assess OPTIMA in clinical practice.

Methods

A cross-sectional multicenter observational study was conducted in France from 2012 to 2014. During routine consultation, patients completed one of the five modules of the OPTIMA questionnaire (Physical activity, Diet, Treatment, Knowledge of the disease or Self-monitoring of blood glucose). The rate of SMART (specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic, timely) micro-objective set-up following the use of the questionnaire was assessed. Data on how patients felt about their diabetes management (beliefs concerning actions, how easy they were to do and how often they were done in practice) were gathered. Finally, patients’ and physicians’ opinions on OPTIMA were assessed using the PRAgmatic Content and face validity Test (PRAC-Test© (Mapi, Lyon, France) evaluation questionnaire.

Results

Overall, 807 patients were included by 186 physicians. While 92.7 % of consultations led to the set-up of a micro-objective, only 22.3 % were SMART micro-objectives: Physical activity module (34.3 %), Diet module (9.6 %), Treatment module (16.4 %), Knowledge of the disease module (25.2 %), and self-monitoring of blood glucose module (29.5 %). Among patients completing the Physical activity module, 79.0 % reported that they believed physical activity was useful, 35.0 % that it was easy, and 25.8 % that they regularly practised it. PRAC-Test results showed that OPTIMA was a useful and easy-to-use questionnaire that promotes communication between physicians and their patients according to 92.8 % of patients and 69.4 % of physicians.

Conclusion

The OPTIMA questionnaire facilitates communication between patients and their physicians and promotes the set-up of micro-objectives concerning T2DM management. The Physical activity module was the most likely of the five modules in the questionnaire to lead to the set-up of SMART micro-objectives.

Funding

MSD France.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0341-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Combating antibiotic resistance, mitigating future threats and ongoing initiatives

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To emphasise the impact of antibiotic resistance as a persistent, global health threat and highlight efforts to improve this complex problem.

BACKGROUND

Political agendas, legislation, development of therapies and educational initiatives are essential to mitigate the increasing rate of antibiotic resistance.

DESIGN

Original manuscript.

RESULTS

Prescribers, policymakers and researchers are charged with the complex task of mitigating antibiotic resistance in an era when new treatments for bacterial infections are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring, surveillance and incentivising of practice, policy and new treatments provide solutions to antibiotic resistance in both the human and agricultural sectors.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This article emphasises the complexity of antibiotic resistance and highlights the need for a multifaceted approach to improve health care outcomes.

Efficacy and effectiveness trials have different goals, use different tools, and generate different messages

The discussion about the optimal design of clinical trials reflects the perspectives of theory-based scientists and practice-based clinicians. Scientists compare the theory with published results. They observe a continuum from explanatory to pragmatic trials. Clinicians compare the problem they want to solve by completing a clinical trial with the results they can read in the literature. They observe a mixture of what they want and what they get. None of them can solve the problem without the support of the other. Here, we summarize the results of discussions with scientists and clinicians. All participants were interested to understand and analyze the arguments of the other side. As a result of this process, we conclude that scientists tell what they see, a continuum from clear explanatory to clear pragmatic trials. Clinicians tell what they want to see, a clear explanatory trial to describe the expected effects under ideal study conditions and a clear pragmatic trial to describe the observed effects under real-world conditions. Following this discussion, the solution was not too difficult. When we accept what we see, we will not get what we want. If we discuss a necessary change of management, we will end up with the conclusion that two types of studies are necessary to demonstrate efficacy and effectiveness. Efficacy can be demonstrated in an explanatory, ie, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) completed under ideal study conditions. Effectiveness can be demonstrated in an observational, ie, a pragmatic controlled trial (PCT) completed under real-world conditions. It is impossible to design a trial which can detect efficacy and effectiveness simultaneously. The RCTs describe what we may expect in health care, while the PCTs describe what we really observe.