Reduction in uptake of PSA tests following decision aids: systematic review of current aids and their evaluations

Barriers and facilitators of shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening in primary care: A systematic review

Objective

To identify barriers and facilitators of the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) on PSA testing in primary care.

Design

Systematic review of articles.

Data sources

PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science.

Eligibility criteria

Original studies published in English or Spanish that assessed the barriers to and facilitators of SDM before PSA testing in primary care were included. No time restrictions were applied.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two review authors screened the titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion, and assessed the quality of the included studies. A thematic synthesis of the results were performed and developed a framework. Quality assessment of the studies was based on three checklists: STROBE for quantitative cross-sectional studies, GUIDED for intervention studies and SRQR for qualitative studies.

Results

The search returned 431 articles, of which we included 13: five cross-sectional studies, two intervention studies, five qualitative studies and one mixed methods study. The identified barriers included lack of time (healthcare professionals), lack of knowledge (healthcare professionals and patients), and preestablished beliefs (patients). The identified facilitators included decision-making training for professionals, education for patients and healthcare professionals, and dissemination of information.

Conclusions

SDM implementation in primary care seems to be a recent field. Many of the barriers identified are modifiable, and the facilitators can be leveraged to strengthen the implementation of SDM.

Effectiveness of interprofessional shared decision-making training: A mixed-method study

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the learning effects and examined the participants' perceptions of an interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM) training program.

METHODS

This mixed-method study used a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design in the quantitative phase and semi-structured interviews in the qualitative phase. The 6-week curriculum design, based on Kolb's experiential learning cycle, consisted of two simulated objective structured clinical examinations with standardized patients and blended teaching methods through various course modules.

RESULTS

A total of 39 multidisciplinary healthcare personnel completed the 6-week training program, and 32 of them participated in qualitative interviews. The IP-SDM training program effectively improved the SDM process competency of the participants from the perspectives of the participants, standardized patients, and clinical teachers. The interviews illustrated how the curriculum design enhanced learning; the effectiveness results indicated improvements in learners' attitude, knowledge, skills, and teamwork.

CONCLUSION

This IP-SDM training program improved multidisciplinary healthcare personnel's competency, self-efficacy, and intention to engage in IP-SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Applying Kolb's experiential learning cycle and blended teaching methods to develop and implement the IP-SDM training program can improve multidisciplinary healthcare personnel's knowledge, attitude, skills, and teamwork in IP-SDM.

Decision aid and cost compensation influence uptake of PSA-based early detection without affecting decisional conflict: a cluster randomised trial

International guidelines recommend to inform men about the benefits and harms of prostate specific antigen (PSA) based early detection of prostate cancer. This study investigates the influence of a transactional decision aid (DA) or cost compensation (CC) for a PSA test on the decisional behaviour of men. Prospective, cluster-randomised trial to compare two interventions in a 2 × 2 factorial design: DA versus counselling as usual, and CC versus noCC for PSA-testing. 90 cluster-randomised physicians in the administrative district of Muenster, Germany recruited 962 participants aged 55-69 yrs. in 2018. Primary endpoint: the influence of the DA and CC on the decisional conflict. Secondary endpoints: factors which altered the involvement of the men regarding their decision to take a PSA-test. The primary endpoint was analysed by a multivariate regression model. The choice to take the PSA test was increased by CC and reduced by the DA, the latter also reduced PSA uptake in men who were offered CC. The DA led to an increase of the median knowledge about early detection, changed willingness to perform a PSA test without increasing the level of shared decision, giving participants a stronger feeling of having made the decision by themselves. The DA did not alter the decisional conflict, as it was very low in all study groups. DA reduced and CC increased the PSA uptake. The DA seemed to have a greater impact on the participants than CC, as it led to fewer PSA tests even if CC was granted.Trial registration: German Clinical Trial Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien DRKS00007687). Registered: 06/05/2015. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00007687 .

Cost talk: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of an intervention helping patients and urologic surgeons discuss costs of care for slow-growing prostate cancer during shared decision-making

BACKGROUND

Costs of care are important to patients making cancer treatment decisions, but clinicians often do not feel prepared to discuss treatment costs. We aim to (1) assess the impact of a conversation-based decision aid (Option Grid) containing cost information about slow-growing prostate cancer management options, combined with urologic surgeon training, on the frequency and quality of patient-urologic surgeon cost conversations, and (2) examine the impact of the decision aid and surgeon training on decision quality.

METHODS

We will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in outpatient urology practices affiliated with a large academic medical center in the USA. We will randomize five urologic surgeons to four intervention sequences and enroll their patients with a first-time diagnosis of slow-growing prostate cancer independently at each period. Primary outcomes include frequency of cost conversations, initiator of cost conversations, and whether or not a referral is made to address costs. These outcomes will be collected by patient report (post-visit survey) and by observation (audio-recorded clinic visits) with consent. Other outcomes include the following: patient-reported decisional conflict post-visit and at 3-month follow-up, decision regret at 3-month follow-up, shared decision-making post-visit, communication post-visit, and financial toxicity post-visit and at 3-month follow-up; clinician-reported attitudes about shared decision-making before and after the study, and feasibility of sustained intervention use. We will use hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient-level outcomes, including urologic surgeon as a random effect to account for clustering of patient participants.

DISCUSSION

This study evaluates a two-part intervention to improve cost discussions between urologic surgeons and patients when deciding how to manage slow-growing prostate cancer. Establishing the effectiveness of the strategy under study will allow for its replication in other clinical decision contexts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397016 . Registered on 21 May 2020.

Modelling tool to support decision-making in the NHS Health Check programme: workshops, systematic review and co-production with users

BACKGROUND

Local authorities in England commission the NHS Health Check programme to invite everyone aged 40-74 years without pre-existing conditions for risk assessment and eventual intervention, if needed. However, the programme's effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity impact remain uncertain.

AIM

To develop a validated open-access flexible web-based model that enables local commissioners to quantify the cost-effectiveness and potential for equitable population health gain of the NHS Health Check programme.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were as follows: (1) co-produce with stakeholders the desirable features of the user-friendly model; (2) update the evidence base to support model and scenario development; (3) further develop our computational model to allow for developments and changes to the NHS Health Check programme and the diseases it addresses; (4) assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity of alternative strategies for implementation to illustrate the use of the tool; and (5) propose a sustainability and implementation plan to deploy our user-friendly computational model at the local level.

DESIGN

Co-production workshops surveying the best-performing local authorities and a systematic literature review of strategies to increase uptake of screening programmes informed model use and development. We then co-produced the workHORSE (working Health Outcomes Research Simulation Environment) model to estimate the health, economic and equity impact of different NHS Health Check programme implementations, using illustrative-use cases.

SETTING

Local authorities in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Stakeholders from local authorities, Public Health England, the NHS, the British Heart Foundation, academia and other organisations participated in the workshops. For the local authorities survey, we invited 16 of the best-performing local authorities in England.

INTERVENTIONS

The user interface allows users to vary key parameters that represent programme activities (i.e. invitation, uptake, prescriptions and referrals). Scenarios can be compared with each other.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Disease cases and case-years prevented or postponed, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, net monetary benefit and change in slope index of inequality.

RESULTS

The survey of best-performing local authorities revealed a diversity of effective approaches to maximise the coverage and uptake of NHS Health Check programme, with no distinct 'best buy'. The umbrella literature review identified a range of effective single interventions. However, these generally need to be combined to maximally improve uptake and health gains. A validated dynamic, stochastic microsimulation model, built on robust epidemiology, enabled service options analysis. Analyses of three contrasting illustrative cases estimated the health, economic and equity impact of optimising the Health Checks, and the added value of obtaining detailed local data. Optimising the programme in Liverpool can become cost-effective and equitable, but simply changing the invitation method will require other programme changes to improve its performance. Detailed data inputs can benefit local analysis.

LIMITATIONS

Although the approach is extremely flexible, it is complex and requires substantial amounts of data, alongside expertise to both maintain and run.

CONCLUSIONS

Our project showed that the workHORSE model could be used to estimate the health, economic and equity impact comprehensively at local authority level. It has the potential for further development as a commissioning tool and to stimulate broader discussions on the role of these tools in real-world decision-making.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should focus on improving user interactions with the model, modelling simulation standards, and adapting workHORSE for evaluation, design and implementation support.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019132087.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Prostate Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Although screening recommendations for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen testing often include shared decision making, the effect of patient decision aids on patients' intention and uptake is unclear. This study aimed to review the effect of decision aids on men's screening intention, screening utilization, and the congruence between intentions and uptake.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Data sources were searched through April 6, 2018, and included MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, CT.gov, Cochrane report, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and reference lists. This study included RCTs and observational studies of decision aids that measured prostate screening intention or behavior. The analysis was completed in April 2018.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eighteen studies (13 RCTs, four before-after studies, and one non-RCT) reported data on screening intention for ≅8,400 men and screening uptake for 2,385 men. Compared with usual care, the use of decision aids in any format results in fewer men (aged ≥40 years) planning to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing (risk ratio=0.88, 95% CI=0.81, 0.95, p=0.006, I²=66%, p<0.001, n=8). Many men did not follow their screening intentions during the first year after using a decision aid; however, most men who were planning to undergo screening did so (probability that men who wanted to be screened would receive screening was 95%).

CONCLUSIONS

Integration of decision aids in clinical practice may result in a decrease in the number of men who elect prostate-specific antigen testing, which may in turn reduce screening uptake. To ensure high congruence between intention and screening utilization, providers should not delay the shared decision-making discussion after patients use a decision aid.

The use of decision aids on early detection of prostate cancer: views of men and general practitioners

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

While decision support tools such as decision aids can contribute to shared decision making, implementing these tools in daily practice is challenging. To identify and address issues around the use of decision support tools in routine care, this study explores the views of men and general practitioners on using a DA for early detection of prostate cancer.

METHODS, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Group discussions and semi-structured interviews were carried out with 43 men and 16 general practitioners familiar with a previously developed decision aid. Data were analysed using qualitative description.

RESULTS

Views on using the decision support tool could be classified into four categories: no need for decision making, need for support, perceived benefit and practical barriers. For each category, several underlying themes could be identified that reflect the absence or presence of prerequisites to successful decision support delivery.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

While men and general practitioners generally have positive attitudes to shared decision making, for both parties attitudes such as not agreeing that there is a decision to be made and doubts on the beneficence of using DAs were identified as factors that may hinder the use of a DA in clinical practice. Participants formulated strategies to support the use of DAs, mainly supplementing DAs with short tools and investing in both training programmes and large-scale awareness raising of the general public.

Teaching Shared Decision Making to Family Medicine Residents: A Descriptive Study of a Web-Based Tutorial

BACKGROUND

DECISION+2, a Web-based tutorial, was designed to train family physicians in shared decision making (SDM) regarding the use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). It is currently mandatory for second-year family medicine residents at Université Laval, Quebec, Canada. However, little is known about how such tutorials are used, their effect on knowledge scores, or how best to assess resident participation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to describe the usage of this Web-based training platform by family medicine residents over time, evaluate its effect on their knowledge scores, and identify what kinds of data are needed for a more comprehensive analysis of usage and knowledge acquisition.

METHODS

We identified, collected, and analyzed all available data about participation in and current usage of the tutorial and its before-and-after 10-item knowledge test. Residents were separated into 3 log-in periods (2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015) depending on the day of their first connection. We compared residents' participation rates between entry periods (Cochran-Armitage test), assessed the mean rank of the difference in total scores and category scores between pre- and posttest (Wilcoxon signed-rank test), and compared frequencies of each. Subsequent to analyses, we identified types of data that would have provided a more complete picture of the usage of the program and its effect on knowledge scores.

RESULTS

The tutorial addresses 3 knowledge categories: diagnosing ARIs, treating ARIs, and SDM regarding the use of antibiotics for treating ARIs. From July 2012 to July 2015, all 387 second-year family medicine residents were eligible to take the Web-based tutorial. Out of the 387 eligible residents, 247 (63.8%) logged in at least once. Their participation rates varied between entry periods, most significantly between the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 cohorts (P=.006). For the 109 out of 387 (28.2%) residents who completed the tutorial and both tests, total and category scores significantly improved between pre- and posttest (all P values <.001). However, the frequencies of those answering correctly on 2 of the 3 SDM questions did not increase significantly (P>.99, P=.25). Distribution of pre- or posttest total and category scores did not increase between entry periods (all P values >.1). Available data were inadequate for evaluating the associations between the tutorial and its impact on the residents' scores and therefore could tell us little about its effect on increasing their knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Residents' use of this Web-based tutorial appeared to increase between entry periods following the changes to the SDM program, and the tutorial seemed less effective for increasing SDM knowledge scores than for diagnosis or treatment scores. However, our results also highlight the need to improve data availability before participation in Web-based SDM tutorials can be properly evaluated or knowledge scores improved.

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

The idea of shared decision making (SDM) between patient and physician grew out of a generalized challenge to traditional social hierarchies that occurred in the middle of the last century. Governments have espoused SDM, thousands of articles about it have been published, and evidence has shown that it improves some of the healthcare processes as well as patient outcomes. Yet it has not been widely adopted. From their cross-disciplinary perspective (practical theology and clinical medicine), the authors locate this reluctance in the unfolding of scientific paradigm shifts, summarize the perceived risks and benefits of SDM and the evidence for each, and suggest practical, achievable approaches for clinicians. Finally, they explore some important emerging territories for SDM.

The Role of Personalised Choice in Decision Support: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Online Decision Aid for Prostate Cancer Screening

Importance

Decision support tools can assist people to apply population-based evidence on benefits and harms to individual health decisions. A key question is whether “personalising” choice within decisions aids leads to better decision quality.

Objective

To assess the effect of personalising the content of a decision aid for prostate cancer screening using the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test.

Design

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting

Australia.

Participants

1,970 men aged 40–69 years were approached to participate in the trial.

Intervention

1,447 men were randomly allocated to either a standard decision aid with a fixed set of five attributes or a personalised decision aid with choice over the inclusion of up to 10 attributes.

Outcome Measures

To determine whether there was a difference between the two groups in terms of: 1) the emergent opinion (generated by the decision aid) to have a PSA test or not; 2) self-rated decision quality after completing the online decision aid; 3) their intention to undergo screening in the next 12 months. We also wanted to determine whether men in the personalised choice group made use of the extra decision attributes.

Results

5% of men in the fixed attribute group scored ‘Have a PSA test’ as the opinion generated by the aid, as compared to 62% of men in the personalised choice group (χ² = 569.38, 2df, p< 0001). Those men who used the personalised decision aid had slightly higher decision quality (t = 2.157, df = 1444, p = 0.031). The men in the personalised choice group made extensive use of the additional decision attributes. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of their stated intention to undergo screening in the next 12 months.

Conclusions

Together, these findings suggest that personalised decision support systems could be an important development in shared decision-making and patient-centered care.

Trial Registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12612000723886

Impact of a printed decision aid on patients' intention to undergo prostate cancer screening: a multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations against systematic screening for prostate cancer, 70% of patients still request prostate-specific antigen testing.

AIM

To assess the impact of a decision aid on patients' intention to undergo prostate cancer screening.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Randomised controlled trial with two-arm parallel groups in 86 general practices in urban and rural areas in France.

METHOD

Males aged 50-75 years were randomised to receive either the decision aid (intervention group) or usual care (control group). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients' intending to undergo prostate cancer screening, assessed immediately after reading the decision aid. The reasons underlying their choice were elicited and the proportion of patients citing each reason to undergo, or not undergo, prostate cancer screening were compared between the two arms.

RESULTS

A total of 1170 patients were randomised (588 in the intervention arm) from November 2012 to February 2013. The proportion of patients who intended to be tested for prostate cancer in the intervention arm (123 patients [20.9%]) was significantly reduced compared with the control arm (57 patients [9.8%]) (difference 11.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.0 to 15.2, P<0.0001). In the intervention group, a lower proportion of individuals expressed that cancer screening would protect them from the disease, compared with the control group (P<0.0001), while a greater proportion of individuals stated that prostate cancer screening would not benefit their health (P<0.0001) and may involve procedures with harmful side effects (P = 0.0005).

CONCLUSION

The decision aid improved participants' informed decision making and reduced their intent to undergo prostate cancer screening.

A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial for PSA Screening Decision Support Interventions in Two Primary Care Settings

BACKGROUND

Decision support interventions (DESIs) provide a mechanism to translate comparative effectiveness research results into clinical care so that patients are able to make informed decisions. Patient decision support interventions for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have been shown to promote informed decision making and reduce PSA testing in efficacy trials, but their impact in real world settings is not clear.

OBJECTIVE

We performed an effectiveness trial of PSA decision support interventions in primary care.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial of three distribution strategies was compared to a control.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants included 2,550 men eligible for PSA testing (76.6 % of the eligible population) and 2001 survey respondents (60.1 % survey response rate).

INTERVENTIONS

The intervention groups were: 1) mailed the DESI in DVD format, 2) offered a shared medical appointment (SMA) to view the DESI with other men and discuss, and 3) both options.

MAIN MEASURES

We measured PSA testing identified via electronic medical record at 12 months and DESI use by self-report 4 months after the intervention mailing.

KEY RESULTS

We found no differences in PSA testing across the three distribution strategies over a year-long follow-up period: 21 %, 24 %, 22 % in the DESI, SMA, and combined group respectively, compared to 21 % in the control group (p = 0.51). Self-reported DESI use was low across all strategies at 4 months: 16 % in the mailed DESI group, 6 % in the SMA group, and 15 % in the combined group (p = < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mailing PSA decision support interventions or inviting men to shared medical appointments unrelated to a primary care office visit do not appear to promote informed decision making, or change PSA testing behavior.

A comparison of Web-based and small-group palliative and end-of-life care curricula: a quasi-randomized controlled study at one institution

PURPOSE

Few studies have compared the effect of Web-based eLearning versus small-group learning on medical student outcomes. Palliative and end-of-life (PEOL) education is ideal for this comparison, given uneven access to PEOL experts and content nationally.

METHOD

In 2010, the authors enrolled all third-year medical students at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine into a quasi-randomized controlled trial of Web-based interactive education (eDoctoring) compared with small-group education (Doctoring) on PEOL clinical content over two months. Students participated in three 3-hour PEOL sessions with similar content. Outcomes included a 24-item PEOL-specific self-efficacy scale with three domains (diagnosis/treatment [Cronbach alpha=0.92; CI: 0.91-0.93], communication/prognosis [alpha=0.95; CI: 0.93-0.96], and social impact/self-care [alpha=0.91; CI: 0.88-0.92]); 8 knowledge items; 10 curricular advantage/disadvantages; and curricular satisfaction (both students and faculty).

RESULTS

Students were randomly assigned to Web-based eDoctoring (n=48) or small-group Doctoring (n=71) curricula. Self-efficacy and knowledge improved equivalently between groups (e.g., prognosis self-efficacy, 19%; knowledge, 10%-42%). Student and faculty ratings of the Web-based eDoctoring curriculum and the small-group Doctoring curriculum were equivalent for most goals, and overall satisfaction was equivalent for each, with a trend toward decreased eDoctoring student satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings showed equivalent gains in self-efficacy and knowledge between students participating in a Web-based PEOL curriculum in comparison with students learning similar content in a small-group format. Web-based curricula can standardize content presentation when local teaching expertise is limited, but it may lead to decreased user satisfaction.

Developing a two-sided intervention to facilitate shared decision-making in haemophilia: decision boxes for clinicians and patient decision aids for patients

BACKGROUND

People with haemophilia face many treatment decisions, which are largely informed by evidence from observational studies. Without evidence-based 'best' treatment options, patient preferences play a large role in decisions regarding therapy. The shared decision-making (SDM) process allows patients and health care providers to make decisions collaboratively based on available evidence, and patient preferences. Decision tools can help the SDM process. The objective of this project was to develop two-sided decision tools, decision boxes for physicians and patient decision aids for patients, to facilitate SDM for treatment decisions in haemophilia.

METHODS

Development of the decision tools comprised three phases: topic selection, prototype development and usability testing with targeted end-users. Topics were selected using a Delphi survey. Tool prototypes were based on a previously validated framework and were informed by systematic literature reviews. Patients, through focus groups, and physicians, through interviews, reviewed the prototypes iteratively for comprehensibility and usability.

RESULTS

The chosen topics were: (i) prophylactic treatment: when to start and dosing, (ii) choosing factor source and (iii) immunotolerance induction: when to start and dosing. Intended end users (both health care providers and haemophilia patients and caregivers) were engaged in the development process. Overall perception of the decision tools was positive, and the purpose of using the tools was well received.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing decision tools for haemophilia treatment decisions. It also provides anecdotal evidence of positive perceptions of such tools. Future directions include assessment of the tools' practical value and impact on clinical practice.

Effects of USPSTF guidelines on patterns of screening and treatment outcomes for prostate cancer

The updated United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for prostate cancer in 2012 recommends against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening for men of all ages. Prostate cancer is the second most common and second most deadly cancer in American men. PSA screening for prostate cancer has been present since 1994 leading to an over diagnosis and over treatment of low volume disease. There is an overall agreement of men towards the guidelines but even with the understanding of the USPSTF, these men tend to follow more personal beliefs that have been influenced by their knowledge of the disease process and physician influence. Physicians also followed the directions of the patients and opted not to change their current practice of PSA screening despite the new guidelines. Time, legal, and ethical issues were some of the barriers that physicians faced in tailoring their practice towards screening. The importance of informed consent is highlighted by both the patients and the physicians and clearly more effective when the patient was pre-informed of the disease process and prompted the physicians to initiate conversation of informed screening. Younger patients were inclined towards aggressive treatment and older patients opted towards watchful waiting both with emphasis on the importance of evidence-based information provided by the physician. Decision aids were useful in making informed decisions and could be used to educate patients on screening purposes and treatment options. However, even with well-created decision aids and physician influence, patients’ own belief system played a major part in healthcare decision making in either screening or treatment for prostate cancer.

The impact of recent screening recommendations on prostate cancer screening in a large health care system

PURPOSE

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended against routine prostate cancer screening, stating that the risks of screening outweigh the benefits. We determined the impact of this recommendation on prostate cancer screening in a large health system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We obtained data on all screening prostate specific antigen tests performed at University Hospitals Case Medical Center and affiliated hospitals in northeastern Ohio from January 2008 to December 2012. We examined the total number of prostate specific antigen tests ordered with time and adjusted for patient volume by fitting a regression line. The overall trend was examined and stratified by location (urban, suburban or rural), patient age and provider type (primary care or urology).

RESULTS

A total of 43,498 screening prostate specific antigen tests were performed from January 2008 to December 2012. Most tests were ordered by specialists in internal medicine (64.9%), followed by family medicine (23.7%), urology (6.1%) and hematology/oncology (1.3%). Prostate specific antigen screening increased with time until March 2009, when initial screening trials were published. Prostate specific antigen testing then decreased significantly and continued to decrease after the task force recommendations. Similar patterns were noted in almost all subgroups. The greatest decrease in screening was observed by urologists and in patients in the intermediate age group (50 to 59 years).

CONCLUSIONS

United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations appeared to have decreased prostate cancer screening. The greatest impact was seen for urologists and patients in the intermediate age group. Further study is needed to determine the long-term effects of these recommendations on the screening, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of this prevalent malignancy.

Pairing physician education with patient activation to improve shared decisions in prostate cancer screening: a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Most expert groups recommend shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Most primary care physicians, however, routinely order a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test with little or no discussion about whether they believe the potential benefits justify the risk of harm. We sought to assess whether educating primary care physicians and activating their patients to ask about prostate cancer screening had a synergistic effect on shared decision making, rates and types of discussions about prostate cancer screening, and the physician's final recommendations.

METHODS

Our study was a cluster randomized controlled trial among primary care physicians and their patients, comparing usual education (control), with physician education alone (MD-Ed), and with physician education and patient activation (MD-Ed+A). Participants included 120 physicians in 5 group practices, and 712 male patients aged 50 to 75 years. The interventions comprised a Web-based educational program for all intervention physicians and MD-Ed+A patients compared with usual education (brochures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The primary outcome measure was patients' reported postvisit shared decision making regarding prostate cancer screening; secondary measures included unannounced standardized patients' reported shared decision making and the physician's recommendation for prostate cancer screening.

RESULTS

Patients' ratings of shared decision making were moderate and did not differ between groups. MD-Ed+A patients reported that physicians had higher prostate cancer screening discussion rates (MD-Ed+A = 65%, MD-Ed = 41%, control=38%; P <.01). Standardized patients reported that physicians seeing MD-Ed+A patients were more neutral during prostate cancer screening recommendations (MD-Ed+A=50%, MD-Ed=33%, control=15%; P <.05). Of the male patients, 80% had had previous PSA tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Although activating physicians and patients did not lead to significant changes in all aspects of physician attitudes and behaviors that we studied, interventions that involved physicians did have a large effect on their attitudes toward screening and in the discussions they had with patients, including their being more likely than control physicians to engage in prostate cancer screening discussions and more likely to be neutral in their final recommendations.

Implementing clinical practice guidelines about health promotion and disease prevention through shared decision making

Clinical practice guidelines aim to improve the health of patients by guiding individual care in clinical settings. Many guidelines specifically about health promotion or primary disease prevention are beginning to support informed patient choice, and suggest that clinicians and patients engage in shared discussions to determine how best to tailor guidelines to individuals. However, guidelines generally do not address how to translate evidence from the population to the individual in clinical practice, or how to engage patients in these discussions. In addition, they often fail to reconcile patients' preferences and social norms with best evidence. Shared decision making (SDM) is one solution to bridge guidelines about health promotion and disease prevention with clinical practice. SDM describes a collaborative process between patients and their clinicians to reach agreement about a health decision involving multiple medically appropriate treatment options. This paper discusses: 1) a brief overview of SDM; 2) the potential role of SDM in facilitating the implementation of prevention-focused practice guidelines for both preference-sensitive and effective care decisions; and 3) avenues for future empirical research to test how best to engage individual patients and clinicians in these complex discussions about prevention guidelines. We suggest that SDM can provide a structure for clinicians to discuss clinical practice guidelines with patients in a way that is evidence-based, patient-centered, and incorporates patients' preferences. In addition to providing a model for communicating about uncertainty at the individual level, SDM can provide a platform for engaging patients in a conversation. This process can help manage patients' and clinicians' expectations about health behaviors. SDM can be used even in situations with strong evidence for benefits at the level of the population, by helping patients and clinicians prioritize behaviors during time-pressured medical encounters. Involving patients in discussions could lead to improved health through better adherence to chosen options, reduced practice variation about preference-sensitive options, and improved care more broadly. However, more research is needed to determine the impact of this approach on outcomes such as morbidity and mortality.

Decision boxes for clinicians to support evidence-based practice and shared decision making: the user experience

BACKGROUND

This project engages patients and physicians in the development of Decision Boxes, short clinical topic summaries covering medical questions that have no single best answer. Decision Boxes aim to prepare the clinician to communicate the risks and benefits of the available options to the patient so they can make an informed decision together.

METHODS

Seven researchers (including four practicing family physicians) selected 10 clinical topics relevant to primary care practice through a Delphi survey. We then developed two one-page prototypes on two of these topics: prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen test, and prenatal screening for trisomy 21 with the serum integrated test. We presented the prototypes to purposeful samples of family physicians distributed in two focus groups, and patients distributed in four focus groups. We used the User Experience Honeycomb to explore barriers and facilitators to the communication design used in Decision Boxes. All discussions were transcribed, and three researchers proceeded to thematic content analysis of the transcriptions. The coding scheme was first developed from the Honeycomb's seven themes (valuable, usable, credible, useful, desirable, accessible, and findable), and included new themes suggested by the data. Prototypes were modified in light of our findings.

RESULTS

Three rounds were necessary for a majority of researchers to select 10 clinical topics. Fifteen physicians and 33 patients participated in the focus groups. Following analyses, three sections were added to the Decision Boxes: introduction, patient counseling, and references. The information was spread to two pages to try to make the Decision Boxes less busy and improve users' first impression. To try to improve credibility, we gave more visibility to the research institutions involved in development. A statement on the boxes' purpose and a flow chart representing the shared decision-making process were added with the intent of clarifying the tool's purpose. Information about the risks and benefits according to risk levels was added to the Decision Boxes, to try to ease the adaptation of the information to individual patients.

CONCLUSION

Results will guide the development of the eight remaining Decision Boxes. A future study will evaluate the effect of Decision Boxes on the integration of evidence-based and shared decision making principles in clinical practice.

Development of PRIDe: a tool to assess physicians' preference of role in clinical decision making

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate items for inclusion in PRIDe (Preferred Role in Decision Making), a new tool to assess changes of role preference among professionals exposed to training in shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

This study was part of a pilot trial to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM training on the doctors' prescription of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. Thirty-nine family physicians were randomized to immediate exposure to training or to delayed exposure. Potential items for PRIDe and a questionnaire about physicians' intention to engage in SDM were administered at baseline and at follow-up.

RESULTS

Following analysis, we retained five items that captured a change in physicians' preference. The items' scores were pooled and the resulting tool showed limited internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.41) but significant test-retest reliability (immediate group: P = 0.03; delayed group: P = 0.008) and acceptable discriminant validity, with patients involved in decision making more actively after training than before (Fisher's test, P = .02).

CONCLUSION

This initial step to develop an evaluation tool to assess changes in doctors' preference of role in decision making following SDM training shows promising results. The next step is to develop more clinical vignettes followed by questions inspired from this analysis.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The PRIDe instrument can be used in the assessment of health professionals' attitude towards shared decision making after training in shared decision making. Additional research is needed to evaluate its validity before it can be recommended for use.

Training family physicians in shared decision-making to reduce the overuse of antibiotics in acute respiratory infections: a cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Few interventions have proven effective in reducing the overuse of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. We evaluated the effect of DECISION+2, a shared decision-making training program, on the percentage of patients who decided to take antibiotics after consultation with a physician or resident.

METHODS

We performed a randomized trial, clustered at the level of family practice teaching unit, with 2 study arms: DECISION+2 and control. The DECISION+2 training program included a 2-hour online tutorial followed by a 2-hour interactive seminar about shared decision-making. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who decided to use antibiotics immediately after consultation. We also recorded patients' perception that shared decision-making had occurred. Two weeks after the initial consultation, we assessed patients' adherence to the decision, repeat consultation, decisional regret and quality of life.

RESULTS

We compared outcomes among 181 patients who consulted 77 physicians in 5 family practice teaching units in the DECISION+2 group, and 178 patients who consulted 72 physicians in 4 family practice teaching units in the control group. The percentage of patients who decided to use antibiotics after consultation was 52.2% in the control group and 27.2% in the DECISION+2 group (absolute difference 25.0%, adjusted relative risk 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.68). DECISION+2 was associated with patients taking a more active role in decision-making (Z = 3.9, p < 0.001). Patient outcomes 2 weeks after consultation were similar in both groups.

INTERPRETATION

The shared decision-making program DECISION+2 enhanced patient participation in decision-making and led to fewer patients deciding to use antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. This reduction did not have a negative effect on patient outcomes 2 weeks after consultation. ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT01116076.

Information on pros and cons of prostate-specific antigen testing to men prior to blood draw: a study from the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden

Objective. Recent guidelines on serum testing of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in asymptomatic men emphasize the importance of an informed decision. This study assessed the proportion of men who had received written or oral information on the possible consequences of testing of serum levels of PSA before blood draw. Material and methods. From the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) in Sweden, 600 men per year were randomly selected out of all men with T1c prostate cancer who were diagnosed in the work-up of a PSA test as a part of health examination in 2006–2008. In a mailed questionnaire these men were asked whether and how they had been informed about the pros and cons of a PSA test prior to blood draw. Results. In total, 1621 out of 1800 men (90.1%) responded to the questionnaire; 39/1563 (2.5%) reported that they had received only written information before testing, 179/1563 (11.5%) had received both oral and written information, 763/1563 (48.8%) had received oral information only, 423/1563 (27.1%) had not received any information and 159/1563 (10.2%) were not aware of that a PSA test had been performed. Conclusions. The proportion of men who had received written information on the pros and cons of a PSA test before blood draw in the setting of a health examination was low. Improved routines for giving information to the patient before a PSA test are warranted.

The landscape of knowledge translation interventions in cancer control: what do we know and where to next? A review of systematic reviews

Background

Effective implementation strategies are needed to optimize advancements in the fields of cancer diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care. We conducted a review of systematic reviews to better understand the evidentiary base of implementation strategies in cancer control.

Methods

Using three databases, we conducted a search and identified English-language systematic reviews published between 2005 and 2010 that targeted consumer, professional, organizational, regulatory, or financial interventions, tested exclusively or partially in a cancer context (primary focus); generic or non-cancer-specific reviews were also considered. Data were extracted, appraised, and analyzed by members of the research team, and research ideas to advance the field were proposed.

Results

Thirty-four systematic reviews providing 41 summaries of evidence on 19 unique interventions comprised the evidence base. AMSTAR quality ratings ranged between 2 and 10. Team members rated most of the interventions as promising and in need of further research, and 64 research ideas were identified.

Conclusions

While many interventions show promise of effectiveness in the cancer-control context, few reviews were able to conclude definitively in favor of or against a specific intervention. We discuss the complexity of implementation research and offer suggestions to advance the science in this area.

Toward shared decision making: using the OPTION scale to analyze resident-patient consultations in family medicine

PURPOSE

Do residents in family medicine practice share decision making with patients during consultations? This study used a validated scale to score family medicine residents' shared decision-making (SDM) skills in primary care consultations and to determine whether residents' demographic characteristics were correlated with their scores.

METHOD

Between January 2009 and April 2010 at two Canadian academic health centers, the authors recruited unique dyads of patients consulting in primary care and family medicine residents. They recorded, transcribed, and assessed consultations using the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) scale, which measures 12 SDM-specific behaviors on a scale of 0% to 100% (high score = better SDM). They calculated descriptive and inferential statistics for the scores.

RESULTS

From 212 eligible residents, the authors recruited 152 unique patient-resident dyads (participation rate = 75%): 68 dyads from 13 clinics in London, Ontario, and 84 from six family medicine units in Quebec City, Quebec. The mean global OPTION score was 24% ± 8%; the mean score for each of the 12 items ranged from 4% to 37%. Five of the 12 behaviors obtained a mean score below "a minimal attempt is made to exhibit the behavior" (i.e., <25%). There was a positive correlation between the score and the duration of the consultation (r = 0.24, P = .003), with longer consultations producing higher scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Participating family medicine residents have not integrated SDM behaviors, which may also pertain to residencies elsewhere. Interventions are required to foster family medicine residents' practice of SDM.

Translating medical evidence to promote informed health care decisions

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of a community-based intervention on decisions about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening using multiple measures of informed decision making (IDM).

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Nonequivalent control group time series design collecting primary data in late 2004 and 2005.

STUDY DESIGN

We developed a multimodal intervention designed to convey the medical uncertainty about the benefits of PSA screening and early treatment and the limited predictive ability of both the PSA test and pathological specimens collected from prostate biopsy. We examined (1) patients' recognition that there is a decision to be made about PSA screening, (2) prostate cancer knowledge levels, (3) their preferred and actual levels of participation in decision making about screening at three points in time, and (4) screening decision.

DATA COLLECTION

Baseline data collection occurred in community-based organizations. These organizations served as recruiting sources and as sites for the intervention. We collected follow-up data by mail with telephone reminders.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our intervention was associated with greater recognition of the PSA test as a decision to be made, levels of knowledge, both preferred and actual levels of involvement in decision making, but did not have an impact on the screening decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Community-based interventions can influence key measures of IDM about PSA screening.

Can shared decision making increase the uptake of evidence in clinical practice?

Despite copious research and clear policies in many healthcare systems, evidence based practice has yet to be widely adopted. Part of the problem is insufficient consideration of the patient-clinician consultation, which lies at the heart of clinical practice and is where most decisions are made. Shared decision making (SDM)-the interactive process in which patients and clinicians decide on healthcare together-capitalises on the consultation to better translate the best evidence into clinical decisions while taking the patient's values and preferences into account. This paper takes stock of interventions that seek to embed SDM in clinical practice, such as patient decision aids that target both patients and clinicians. It also presents challenges that remain: among others, the paucity of evidence on effective implementation strategies and the lack of consideration of how SDM works when care is delivered by interprofessional teams. The paper then reviews current initiatives to improve and disseminate SDM across the healthcare continuum, and discusses why SDM should be encouraged as a means to leverage evidence based practice. The evidence suggests that finding ways to overcome the challenges and promote SDM will accelerate the uptake of evidence in gastroenterology and hepatology clinical practice.

Development and pilot testing of an online screening decision aid for men with a family history of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop and pilot test an online screening decision aid (DA) for men with a family history of prostate cancer.

METHODS

Eligible men (with no previous prostate cancer diagnosis) were recruited through relatives attending a urology outpatient clinic. Men evaluated the DA in two stages. First, they appraised a paper-based version using a questionnaire (n=22). Second, the same men were asked to reflect on an interactive web-based version via a semi-structured telephone interview (n=20).

RESULTS

Men evaluated both forms of the DA positively. Of the paper-based version, the majority of participants found the DA useful (91%), and that it contained enough information to make a screening decision (73%). All participants reported that the online DA was easy to use and navigate. Most participants reported that a website was their preferred mode of receiving prostate cancer screening information (70%).

CONCLUSION

The developed DA may represent the first online decision-making tool designed specifically for men with a family history prostate cancer that presents age and risk specific information to the user.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Comprehensive evaluations of the efficacy and impact of educational interventions such as this are crucial to improve services for individuals making informed screening decisions.

Developing and user-testing Decision boxes to facilitate shared decision making in primary care--a study protocol

Background

Applying evidence is one of the most challenging steps of evidence-based clinical practice. Healthcare professionals have difficulty interpreting evidence and translating it to patients. Decision boxes are summaries of the most important benefits and harms of diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive health interventions provided to healthcare professionals before they meet the patient. Our hypothesis is that Decision boxes will prepare clinicians to help patients make informed value-based decisions. By acting as primers, the boxes will enhance the application of evidence-based practices and increase shared decision making during the clinical encounter. The objectives of this study are to provide a framework for developing Decision boxes and testing their value to users.

Methods/Design

We will begin by developing Decision box prototypes for 10 clinical conditions or topics based on a review of the research on risk communication. We will present two prototypes to purposeful samples of 16 family physicians distributed in two focus groups, and 32 patients distributed in four focus groups. We will use the User Experience Model framework to explore users' perceptions of the content and format of each prototype. All discussions will be transcribed, and two researchers will independently perform a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic qualitative analysis of the data. The coding scheme will be developed a priori from the User Experience Model's seven themes (valuable, usable, credible, useful, desirable, accessible and findable), and will include new themes suggested by the data (inductive analysis). Key findings will be triangulated using additional publications on the design of tools to improve risk communication. All 10 Decision boxes will be modified in light of our findings.

Discussion

This study will produce a robust framework for developing and testing Decision boxes that will serve healthcare professionals and patients alike. It is the first step in the development and implementation of a new tool that should facilitate decision making in clinical practice.

Training family physicians in shared decision making for the use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections: a pilot clustered randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Experts estimate that the prevalence of antibiotics use exceeds the prevalence of bacterial acute respiratory infections (ARIs).

OBJECTIVE

To develop, adapt and validate DECISION+ and estimate its impact on the decision of family physicians (FPs) and their patients on whether to use antibiotics for ARIs.

DESIGN

Two-arm parallel clustered pilot randomized controlled trial.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Four family medicine groups were randomized to immediate DECISION+ participation (the experimental group) or delayed DECISION+ participation (the control group). Thirty-three FPs and 459 patients participated.

INTERVENTION

DECISION+ is a multiple-component, continuing professional development program in shared decision making that addresses the use of antibiotics for ARIs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Throughout the pilot trial, DECISION+ was adapted in response to participant feedback. After the consultation, patients and FPs independently self-reported the decision (immediate use, delayed use, or no use of antibiotics) and its quality. Agreement between their decisional conflict was assessed. Two weeks later, patients assessed their decisional regret and health status.

RESULTS

Compared to the control group, the experimental group reduced its immediate use of antibiotics (49 vs. 33% absolute difference = 16%; P = 0.08). Decisional conflict agreement was stronger in the experimental group (absolute difference of Pearson's r = 0.26; P = 0.06). Decisional regret and perceptions of the quality of the decision and of health status in the two groups were similar.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

DECISION+ was developed successfully and appears to reduce the use of antibiotics for ARIs without affecting patients' outcomes. A larger trial is needed to confirm this observation.

Helping men make an informed decision about prostate cancer screening: a pilot study of telephone counseling

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate a computer-assisted telephone counseling (CATC) decision aid for men considering a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test.

METHODS

Eligible men were invited by their primary care providers (PCPs) to participate. Those consenting received an educational booklet followed by CATC. The counselor assessed stage of readiness, reviewed booklet information, corrected knowledge deficits and helped with a values clarification exercise. The materials presented advantages and disadvantages of being screened and did not advocate for testing or for not testing. Outcome measures included changes in stage, decisional conflict, decisional satisfaction, perceived vulnerability and congruence of a PSA testing decision with a pros/cons score. Baseline and final surveys were administered by telephone.

RESULTS

There was an increase in PSA knowledge (p<0.001), and in decisional satisfaction (p<0.001), a decrease in decisional conflict (p<0.001), and a general consistency of those decisions with the man's values. Among those initially who had not made a decision, 83.1% made a decision by final survey with decisions equally for or against screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention provides realistic, unbiased and effective decision support for men facing a difficult and confusing decision.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our intervention could potentially replace a discussion of PSA testing with the PCP for most men.

A conceptual framework for interprofessional shared decision making in home care: protocol for a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is fundamental to informed consent and client-centered care. So far, SDM frameworks have been limited to the client-physician dyad, even though care is increasingly delivered by interprofessional (IP) teams. IP collaboration is especially essential in home care, one of health care's most rapidly growing areas. This study will assess whether it is possible to practice SDM in IP home care.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will use a qualitative case study and a quantitative survey to capture the macro, meso and micro levels of stakeholders in home care. The case study will follow the knowledge-to-action process framework to evaluate the work of an IP home care team at a Quebec City health center. Sources of data will include one-on-one interviews with patients, family caregivers or surrogates and significant others, and administrators; a focus group of home care health professionals; organizational documents; and government policies and standards. The interview guide for the interviews and the focus group will explore current practices and clinical problems addressed in home care; factors that could influence the implementation of the proposed IP approach to SDM; the face and content validity of the approach; and interventions to facilitate the implementation and evaluation of the approach. The survey will ask 300 health professionals working in home care at the health center to complete a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour that measures their intentions to engage in an IP approach to SDM. We will use our analysis of the individual interviews, the focus group and the survey to elaborate a toolkit for implementing an IP approach to SDM in home care. Finally, we will conduct a pilot study in Alberta to assess the transferability of our findings.

DISCUSSION

We believe that developing tools to implement IP SDM in home care is essential to strengthening Canada's healthcare system and furthering patient-centered care. This study will contribute to the evaluation of IP SDM delivery models in home care. It will also generate practical, policy-oriented knowledge regarding the barriers and facilitators likely to influence the practice of IP SDM in home care.

Effective continuing professional development for translating shared decision making in primary care: A study protocol

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the healthcare professional and the patient. SDM is the essential element of patient-centered care, a core concept of primary care. However, SDM is seldom translated into primary practice. Continuing professional development (CPD) is the principal means by which healthcare professionals continue to gain, improve, and broaden the knowledge and skills required for patient-centered care. Our international collaboration seeks to improve the knowledge base of CPD that targets translating SDM into the clinical practice of primary care in diverse healthcare systems.

METHODS

Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), our project is to form an international, interdisciplinary research team composed of health services researchers, physicians, nurses, psychologists, dietitians, CPD decision makers and others who will study how CPD causes SDM to be practiced in primary care. We will perform an environmental scan to create an inventory of CPD programs and related activities for translating SDM into clinical practice. These programs will be critically assessed and compared according to their strengths and limitations. We will use the empirical data that results from the environmental scan and the critical appraisal to identify knowledge gaps and generate a research agenda during a two-day workshop to be held in Quebec City. We will ask CPD stakeholders to validate these knowledge gaps and the research agenda.

DISCUSSION

This project will analyse existing CPD programs and related activities for translating SDM into the practice of primary care. Because this international collaboration will develop and identify various factors influencing SDM, the project could shed new light on how SDM is implemented in primary care.

Supporting informed decision making for prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing on the web: an online randomized controlled trial

Background

Men considering the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer, an increasingly common male cancer, are encouraged to make informed decisions, as the test is limited in its accuracy and the natural history of the condition is poorly understood. The Web-based PSA decision aid, Prosdex, was developed as part of the UK Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme in order to help men make such informed decisions.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the Web-based PSA decision aid, Prosdex, on informed decision making.

Methods

A Web-based randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Wales, United Kingdom. Men aged 50 to 75 who had not previously had a PSA test were randomly allocated to two intervention and two control groups. Participants in the intervention groups either viewed Prosdex or were given a paper version of the text. The main outcome measures were the three components of informed decision making: (1) knowledge of prostate cancer and PSA, (2) attitude toward PSA testing, (3) behavior using a proxy measure, intention to undergo PSA testing. Decisional conflict and anxiety were also measured as was uptake of the PSA test. Outcomes were measured by means of an online questionnaire for the Prosdex group, the paper version group, and one of two control groups. Six months later, PSA test uptake was ascertained from general practitioners’ records, and the online questionnaire was repeated. Results are reported in terms of the Mann-Whitney U-statistic divided by the product of the two sample sizes (U/mm), line of no effect 0.50.

Results

Participants were 514 men. Compared with the control group that completed the initial online questionnaire, men in the Prosdex group had increased knowledge about the PSA test and prostate cancer (U/mn 0.70; 95% CI 0.62 - 0.76); less favourable attitudes to PSA testing (U/mn 0.39, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.47); were less likely to undergo PSA testing (U/mn 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 - 0.48); and had less decisional conflict (U/mn 0.32, 95% CI 0.25 - 0.40); while anxiety level did not differ (U/mn 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 - 0.58). For these outcomes there were no significant differences between men in the Prosdex group and the paper version group. However, in the Prosdex group, increased knowledge was associated with a less favourable attitude toward testing (Spearman rank correlation [ρ] = -0.49, P < .001) and lower intention to undergo testing (ρ = -0.27, P = .02). After six months, PSA test uptake was lower in the Prosdex group than in the paper version and the questionnaire control group (P = .014). Test uptake was also lower in the control group that did not complete a questionnaire than in the control group that did, suggesting a possible Hawthorne effect of the questionnaire in favour of PSA testing.

Conclusions

Exposure to Prosdex was associated with improved knowledge about the PSA test and prostate cancer. Men who had a high level of knowledge had a less favourable attitude toward and were less likely to undergo PSA testing. Prosdex appears to promote informed decision making regarding the PSA test.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN48473735; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN48473735 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5r1TLQ5nK)

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the practitioner and the patient and is said to be the crux of patient-centred care. Policy makers perceive SDM as desirable because of its potential to a) reduce overuse of options not clearly associated with benefits for all (e.g., prostate cancer screening); b) enhance the use of options clearly associated with benefits for the vast majority (e.g., cardiovascular risk factor management); c) reduce unwarranted healthcare practice variations; d) foster the sustainability of the healthcare system; and e) promote the right of patients to be involved in decisions concerning their health. Despite this potential, SDM has not yet been widely adopted in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 March 2009: Cochrane Library (1970-), MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1976-), CINAHL (1982-) and PsycINFO (1965-). We found additional studies by reviewing a) the bibliographies of studies and reviews found in the electronic databases; b) the clinicaltrials.gov registry; and c) proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference and the conferences of the Society for Medical Decision Making. We included all languages of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well-designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses) that evaluated any type of intervention that aimed to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of shared decision making. We defined adoption as the extent to which healthcare professionals intended to or actually engaged in SDM in clinical practice or/and used interventions known to facilitate SDM. We deemed studies eligible if the primary outcomes were evaluated with an objective measure of the adoption of SDM by healthcare professionals (e.g., a third-observer instrument).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers independently screened each abstract for inclusion and abstracted data independently using a modified version of the EPOC data collection checklist. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes. We computed the standard effect size for each outcome separately with a 95% confidence interval. We evaluated global effects by calculating the median effect size and the range of effect sizes across studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The reviewers identified 6764 potentially relevant documents, of which we excluded 6582 by reviewing titles and abstracts. Of the remainder, we retrieved 182 full publications for more detailed screening. From these, we excluded 176 publications based on our inclusion criteria. This left in five studies, all RCTs. All five were conducted in ambulatory care: three in primary clinical care and two in specialised care. Four of the studies targeted physicians only and one targeted nurses only. In only two of the five RCTs was a statistically significant effect size associated with the intervention to have healthcare professionals adopt SDM. The first of these two studies compared a single intervention (a patient-mediated intervention: the Statin Choice decision aid) to another single intervention (also patient-mediated: a standard Mayo patient education pamphlet). In this study, the Statin Choice decision aid group performed better than the standard Mayo patient education pamphlet group (standard effect size = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.50). The other study compared a multifaceted intervention (distribution of educational material, educational meeting and audit and feedback) to usual care (control group) (standard effect size = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.90). This study was the only one to report an assessment of barriers prior to the elaboration of its multifaceted intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this Cochrane review do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about the most effective types of intervention for increasing healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. Healthcare professional training may be important, as may the implementation of patient-mediated interventions such as decision aids. Given the paucity of evidence, however, those motivated by the ethical impetus to increase SDM in clinical practice will need to weigh the costs and potential benefits of interventions. Subsequent research should involve well-designed studies with adequate power and procedures to minimise bias so that they may improve estimates of the effects of interventions on healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. From a measurement perspective, consensus on how to assess professionals' adoption of SDM is desirable to facilitate cross-study comparisons.

Do continuing medical education articles foster shared decision making?

INTRODUCTION

Defined as reviews of clinical aspects of a specific health problem published in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed medical journals, offered without charge, continuing medical education (CME) articles form a key strategy for translating knowledge into practice. This study assessed CME articles for mention of evidence-based information on benefits and harms of available treatment and/or preventive options that are deemed essential for shared decision making (SDM) to occur in clinical practice.

METHODS

Articles were selected from 5 medical journals that publish CME articles and are provided free of charge to primary-care physicians of the Province of Quebec, Canada. Two individuals independently scored each article with the use of a 10-item checklist based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. In case of discrepancy, the item score was established by team consensus. Scores were added to produce a total article score ranging from 0 (no item present) to 10 (all items present).

RESULTS

Thirty articles (6 articles per journal) were selected. Total article scores ranged from 1 to 9, with a mean (+/- SD) of 3.1 +/- 2.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-4.3). Health conditions and treatment options were the items most frequently discussed in the articles; next came treatment benefits. Possible harms, the use of the same denominators for benefits and harms, and methods to facilitate the communication of benefits and harms to patients were almost never described. No significant differences between journals were observed.

DISCUSSION

The CME articles evaluated did not include the evidence-based information necessary to foster SDM in clinical practice. Peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed medical journals should require CME articles to include this type of information.

Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in interventions that can support patients who face difficult decisions and individuals who need to modify their behaviour to achieve better outcomes. Evidence for effectiveness is used to categorize patients care. Effective care is where evidence of benefit outweighs harm: patients should always receive this type of care, where indicated. Preference-sensitive care describes a situation where the evidence for the superiority of one treatment over another is either not available or does not allow differentiation; in this situation, there are two or more valid approaches, and the best choice depends on how individuals value the risks and benefits of treatments.

DISCUSSION

Preference-sensitive decisions are defined by equipoise: situations where options need to be deliberated. Moreover, where both healthcare professionals and patients agree that equipoise exists, situations may be regarded as having 'dual equipoise'. Such conditions are ideal for shared decision making. However, there are many situations in medicine where dual equipoise does not exist, where health professionals hold the view that scientific evidence for benefit strongly outweighs harm. This is often the case where people suffer from chronic conditions, and where behaviour change is recommended to improve outcomes. However, some patients, are either ambivalent or find it difficult to sustain optimal behaviours, i.e., patients will be in varying degrees of equipoise. Therefore, situations where dual equipoise exists (or not) help to clarify the definitions of two classes of support, namely, decision and behaviour change support interventions. Decision support interventions help people think about choices they face; they describe where and why choice exists, in short, conditions of dual equipoise; they provide information about options, including, where reasonable, the option of taking no action. These interventions help people to deliberate, independently or in collaboration with others, about options by considering relevant attributes; they support people to forecast how they might feel about short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes that have relevant consequences, in ways that help the process of constructing preferences and eventual decision making appropriate to their individual situation. Whereas, behavioural support interventions describe, justify, and recommend actions that, over time, lead to predictable outcomes over short, intermediate, and long-term timeframes, and that have relevant and important consequences for those who are considering behaviour change.

SUMMARY

Decision and behaviour support interventions have divergent aims, different relationships to equipoise, and form two classes of interventions.

A knowledge synthesis of patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: study protocol

Background

Failure to reconcile patient preferences and values as well as social norms with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations may hamper their implementation in clinical practice. However, little is known about patients and public involvement programs (PPIP) in CPGs development and implementation. This study aims at identifying what it is about PPIP that works, in which contexts are PPIP most likely to be effective, and how are PPIP assumed to lead to better CPGs development and implementation.

Methods and design

A knowledge synthesis will be conducted in four phases. In phase one, literature on PPIP in CPGs development will be searched through bibliographic databases. A call for bibliographic references and unpublished reports will also be sent via the mailing lists of relevant organizations. Eligible publications will include original qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods study designs reporting on a PPIP pertaining to CPGs development or implementation. They will also include documents produced by CPGs organizations to describe their PPIP. In phase two, grounded in the program's logic model, two independent reviewers will extract data to collect information on the principal components and activities of PPIP, the resources needed, the contexts in which PPIP were developed and tested, and the assumptions underlying PPIP. Quality assessment will be made for all retained publications. Our literature search will be complemented with interviews of key informants drawn from of a purposive sample of CPGs developers and patient/public representatives. In phase three, we will synthesize evidence from both the publications and interviews data using template content analysis to organize the identified components in a meaningful framework of PPIP theories. During a face-to-face workshop, findings will be validated with different stakeholder and a final toolkit for CPGs developers will be refined.

Discussion

The proposed research project will be among the first to explore the PPIP in CPGs development and implementation based on a wide range of publications and key informants interviews. It is anticipated that the results generated by the proposed study will significantly contribute to the improvement of the reconciliation of CPGs with patient preferences and values as well as with social norms.

EXACKTE(2): exploiting the clinical consultation as a knowledge transfer and exchange environment: a study protocol

Background

While the evidence suggests that the way physicians provide information to patients is crucial in helping patients decide upon a course of action, the field of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) is silent about how the physician and the patient influence each other during clinical interactions and decision-making. Consequently, based on a novel relationship-centered model, EXACKTE² (EXploiting the clinicAl Consultation as a Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Environment), this study proposes to assess how patients and physicians influence each other in consultations.

Methods

We will employ a cross-sectional study design involving 300 pairs of patients and family physicians from two primary care practice-based research networks. The consultation between patient and physician will be audio-taped and transcribed. Following the consultation, patients and physicians will complete a set of questionnaires based on the EXACKTE² model. All questionnaires will be similar for patients and physicians. These questionnaires will assess the key concepts of our proposed model based on the essential elements of shared decision-making (SDM): definition and explanation of problem; presentation of options; discussion of pros and cons; clarification of patient values and preferences; discussion of patient ability and self-efficacy; presentation of doctor knowledge and recommendation; and checking and clarifying understanding. Patients will be contacted by phone two weeks later and asked to complete questionnaires on decisional regret and quality of life. The analysis will be conducted to compare the key concepts in the EXACKTE² model between patients and physicians. It will also allow the assessment of how patients and physicians influence each other in consultations.

Discussion

Our proposed model, EXACKTE², is aimed at advancing the science of KTE based on a relationship process when decision-making has to take place. It fosters a new KTE paradigm by putting forward a relationship-centered perspective and has the potential to reveal unknown mechanisms that underline effective KTE in clinical contexts. This will result in better understanding of the mechanisms that may promote a new generation of knowledge transfer strategies.

Are Cancer-Related Decision Aids Effective? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Decision aids (DAs) have been developed to improve communication between health professionals and patients, and to involve patients in decisions about their health care. Cancer-related decisions can be difficult due to problems in communicating complex information about prognosis and the modest benefits of available treatments. We conducted a systematic review of cancer-related DAs.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer-related DAs about screening, prevention, and treatment decision making were included. We completed a comprehensive literature search and conducted both qualitative and quantitative analyses. We also conducted a meta regression to explore heterogeneity of effect estimates.

Results

We identified 34 RCTs of DAs in a screening (n = 22 trials) or preventive/treatment (n = 12 trials) context. DAs significantly improved knowledge about screening options when compared to usual practice (weighted average effect size, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.73; P < .0001). A similar effect on knowledge was also found for preventive/treatment options (weighted average effect size, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.70; P < .0001). Overall, general anxiety was not increased in most trials and was significantly reduced in a screening context. Decisional conflict was reduced overall but not when screening and preventive/treatment studies were analyzed separately. There were few differences between different types of DAs.

Conclusion

Cancer-related DAs are effective in increasing patient knowledge compared with usual practice without increasing anxiety particularly in the area of cancer screening. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of DAs in the prevention and treatment context.

[What do men between 50 and 70 know about the effectiveness, the benefits, and the risks of prostate cancer screening?]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the understanding of the population on prostate cancer screening.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

SETTING

Primary care teams in the province of Barcelona, Spain, from april to september 2005.

PARTICIPANTS AND CONTEXT

Men between 50 and 70 years old without prostate symptoms and seen in the clinics of 12 primary care teams.

METHOD

Systematic sample.

VARIABLES

age, marital status, educational level, and self-perceived health status. Appraisal of knowledge through a 14-question questionnaire referring to the key ideas, previously defined by a group of experts, requisite before deciding on prostate cancer screening.

RESULTS

N=221. Mean age, 59.9 (SD, 5.9); educational level, primary or lower: 63.4%; 89.1% (95% CI, 84.4-92.6) did not have sufficient knowledge about prostate cancer screening. In the questions on what PSA is and what it is for, over 50% said they did not know; 63.3% recognised that prostate cancer was a highly prevalent illness; 84.6% replied that early detection of prostate cancer avoids deaths; 49.8% did not know whether the doctor had doubts on this question; and 38.9% thought he didn't. There were no differences in knowledge for any of the variables studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Although prostate cancer screening is widely known about, the information of the population is scant and often wrong. Existing scientific uncertainty on the use of screening is the aspect that is least known by users.

Effectiveness of Decision Aids

Increased interest in health care consumerism has created an environment conducive to growth in the use of decision aids (DAs) to support patient decision making. The authors review the research literature published within the past 5 years that assesses the effects of DAs in the areas of screening and treatment. Multiple measures are used to evaluate the effectiveness of DAs, with mixed evidence of impacts. To date, most evidence from screening studies suggests that DAs are effective in increasing knowledge and are acceptable to patients, but patient uptake of screening has been mixed. Among treatment studies, there is some, but limited, evidence showing impact of DAs on immediate and long-term decisional conflict, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. Few studies provide assessment of impact on health outcomes, quality of care, utilization, or costs, all areas likely to be of growing interest to private purchasers, insurers, and public programs.

National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for Use of Tumor Markers in Testicular, Prostate, Colorectal, Breast, and Ovarian Cancers

Background: Updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the clinic have been developed.

Methods: Published reports relevant to use of tumor markers for 5 cancer sites—testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian—were critically reviewed.

Results: For testicular cancer, α-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase are recommended for diagnosis/case finding, staging, prognosis determination, recurrence detection, and therapy monitoring. α-Fetoprotein is also recommended for differential diagnosis of nonseminomatous and seminomatous germ cell tumors. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not recommended for prostate cancer screening, but may be used for detecting disease recurrence and monitoring therapy. Free PSA measurement data are useful for distinguishing malignant from benign prostatic disease when total PSA is &lt;10 μg/L. In colorectal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen is recommended (with some caveats) for prognosis determination, postoperative surveillance, and therapy monitoring in advanced disease. Fecal occult blood testing may be used for screening asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. For breast cancer, estrogen and progesterone receptors are mandatory for predicting response to hormone therapy, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 measurement is mandatory for predicting response to trastuzumab, and urokinase plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 may be used for determining prognosis in lymph node–negative patients. CA15-3/BR27–29 or carcinoembryonic antigen may be used for therapy monitoring in advanced disease. CA125 is recommended (with transvaginal ultrasound) for early detection of ovarian cancer in women at high risk for this disease. CA125 is also recommended for differential diagnosis of suspicious pelvic masses in postmenopausal women, as well as for detection of recurrence, monitoring of therapy, and determination of prognosis in women with ovarian cancer.

Conclusions: Implementation of these recommendations should encourage optimal use of tumor markers.

Using decision aids in community-based primary care: a theory-driven evaluation with ethnically diverse patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of informational brochures and video decision aids about cancer screening on patient intention to engage in shared decision-making and its predictors in a racially diverse sample.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from 13 community-based primary care practices serving racially and ethnically diverse patients in predominately economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Participants completed theory-based measures assessing attitudes, perceived social norms, self-efficacy and intentions for working with their physician to make a cancer screening decision after reviewing a brochure or video decision aid, but before seeing the physician. A post-questionnaire assessed screening decisions and participant knowledge.

RESULTS

Participants who reviewed a video decision aid had higher knowledge and were more likely to want to be the primary decision-maker. They reported lower perceived social norms, self-efficacy and intentions to work with their physicians than participants who reviewed a brochure. Participants who decided against cancer screening reported lower intentions to work with their physician in making a decision and were less likely to report having spoken with their physician about screening.

CONCLUSION

Participants who opted against cancer screening after reviewing a brochure or decision aid were less likely to discuss their decision with their physician. The tendency toward autonomous decision-making was stronger among participants who reviewed a video decision aid.