1
|
Valentine KD, Lipstein EA, Vo H, Cosenza C, Barry MJ, Mancini B, Brinkman WB, Sepucha K. Measure of Caregiver Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Knowledge Is Responsive to Decision Aid on Treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Acad Pediatr 2024; 24:417-423. [PMID: 37536452 PMCID: PMC11182372 DOI: 10.1016/j.acap.2023.07.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2023] [Revised: 07/20/2023] [Accepted: 07/27/2023] [Indexed: 08/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Adapt and test a measure of knowledge for caregivers of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and evaluate the impact of the information component of a decision aid (DA) on participant knowledge. METHODS A set of seven knowledge items were created based on prior knowledge measures and clinical guidelines. As part of a larger cross-sectional survey study of caregivers of children diagnosed with ADHD, caregivers were randomized to one of two arms: 1) a DA arm, where participants reviewed the information component of the Cincinnati Children's Hospital's DA, and 2) a control arm, where participants were not shown a DA. All participants completed the seven knowledge items. Knowledge items were assessed for difficulty, quality of distractors, acceptability, and redundancy. Total knowledge scores (0-100) for the DA and control arm were compared. RESULTS Caregivers were assigned to the DA arm (n = 243) or the control arm (n = 260). All 7 knowledge items were retained as no items were too difficult or too easy, all response options were used, there were little missing data, and no items were redundant. The overall knowledge score was normally distributed, and almost covered the full range of scores (5-100). Those who received the DA component had higher knowledge scores (M=68, SD=23) than those who did not receive the DA component (M=60, SD=19, P < .01, d=0.4). CONCLUSIONS The Caregiver ADHD Knowledge (CAKe) measure was acceptable and demonstrated construct validity as those who were assigned to review the DA component demonstrated greater knowledge than those who were not assigned to review the DA component.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathrene Diane Valentine
- Department of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital (KD Valentine, H Vo, MJ Barry, B Mancini, and K Sepucha), Boston; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School (KD Valentine, MJ Barry, and K Sepucha), Boston, Mass.
| | - Ellen A Lipstein
- Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (EA Lipstein and WB Brinkman), Cincinnati, Ohio; Department of Pediatrics (EA Lipstein and WB Brinkman), University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Ha Vo
- Department of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital (KD Valentine, H Vo, MJ Barry, B Mancini, and K Sepucha), Boston
| | - Carol Cosenza
- Center for Survey Research (C Cosenza), University of Massachusetts Boston
| | - Michael J Barry
- Department of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital (KD Valentine, H Vo, MJ Barry, B Mancini, and K Sepucha), Boston; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School (KD Valentine, MJ Barry, and K Sepucha), Boston, Mass
| | - Brittney Mancini
- Department of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital (KD Valentine, H Vo, MJ Barry, B Mancini, and K Sepucha), Boston
| | - William B Brinkman
- Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (EA Lipstein and WB Brinkman), Cincinnati, Ohio; Department of Pediatrics (EA Lipstein and WB Brinkman), University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Karen Sepucha
- Department of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital (KD Valentine, H Vo, MJ Barry, B Mancini, and K Sepucha), Boston; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School (KD Valentine, MJ Barry, and K Sepucha), Boston, Mass
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Opel DJ, Vo HH, Dundas N, Spielvogle H, Mercer A, Wilfond BS, Clark J, Heike CL, Weiss EM, Bryan MA, Shah SK, McCarty CA, Robinson JD, Blumenthal-Barby J, Tilburt J. Validation of a Process for Shared Decision-Making in Pediatrics. Acad Pediatr 2023; 23:1588-1597. [PMID: 36682451 DOI: 10.1016/j.acap.2023.01.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2022] [Revised: 01/10/2023] [Accepted: 01/16/2023] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We sought to confirm, refute, or modify a 4-step process for implementing shared decision-making (SDM) in pediatrics that involves determining 1) if the decision includes >1 medically reasonable option; 2) if one option has a favorable medical benefit-burden ratio compared to other options; and 3) parents' preferences regarding the options; then 4) calibrating the SDM approach based on other relevant decision characteristics. METHODS We videotaped a purposive sample of pediatric inpatient and outpatient encounters at a single US children's hospital. Clinicians from 7 clinical services (craniofacial, neonatology, oncology, pulmonary, pediatric intensive care, hospital medicine, and sports medicine) were eligible. English-speaking parents of children who participated in inpatient family care conferences or outpatient problem-oriented encounters with participating clinicians were eligible. We conducted individual postencounter interviews with clinician and parent participants utilizing video-stimulated recall to facilitate reflection of decision-making that occurred during the encounter. We utilized direct content analysis with open coding of interview transcripts to determine the salience of the 4-step SDM process and identify themes that confirmed, refuted, or modified this process. RESULTS We videotaped 30 encounters and conducted 53 interviews. We found that clinicians' and parents' experiences of decision-making confirmed each SDM step. However, there was variation in the interpretation of each step and a need for flexibility in implementing the process depending on specific decisional contexts. CONCLUSIONS The 4-step SDM process for pediatrics appears to be salient and may benefit from further guidance about the interpretation of each step and contextual factors that support a modified approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Douglas J Opel
- Division of Bioethics and Palliative and Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine and Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute (DJ Opel), Seattle, Wash.
| | - Holly Hoa Vo
- Division of Pulmonary and Sleep Medicine and Division of Bioethics and Palliative Care, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine and Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute (HH Vo and BS Wilfond), Seattle, Wash
| | - Nicolas Dundas
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute (N Dundas, H Spielvogle, and A Mercer), Seattle, Wash
| | - Heather Spielvogle
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute (N Dundas, H Spielvogle, and A Mercer), Seattle, Wash
| | - Amanda Mercer
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute (N Dundas, H Spielvogle, and A Mercer), Seattle, Wash
| | - Benjamin S Wilfond
- Division of Pulmonary and Sleep Medicine and Division of Bioethics and Palliative Care, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine and Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute (HH Vo and BS Wilfond), Seattle, Wash
| | - Jonna Clark
- Division of Critical Care Medicine and Division of Bioethics and Palliative Care, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine and Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute (J Clark), Seattle, Wash
| | - Carrie L Heike
- Division of Craniofacial Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine and Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute (CL Heike), Seattle, Wash
| | - Elliott M Weiss
- Division of Neonatology and Division of Bioethics and Palliative Care, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine and Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics (EM Weiss), Seattle, Wash
| | - Mersine A Bryan
- Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine and Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute (MA Bryan), Seattle, Wash
| | - Seema K Shah
- Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine; Bioethics Program, Lurie Children's Hospital (SK Shah), Chicago, Ill
| | - Carolyn A McCarty
- Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine and Center for Child Health, Behavior, and Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute (CA McCarty), Seattle, Wash
| | - Jeffrey D Robinson
- Department of Communication, Portland State University (JD Robinson), Portland, Ore
| | - Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine (J Blumenthal-Barby), Houston, Tex
| | - Jon Tilburt
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic (J Tilburt), Scottsdale, Ariz
| |
Collapse
|