Audit and feedback using the brief Decision Support Analysis Tool (DSAT-10) to evaluate nurse-standardized patient encounters

Feasibility and acceptability of the ShareD dEciSIon making for patients with kidney failuRE to improve end-of-life care intervention: A pilot multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background

Kidney failure is associated with a high disease burden and high mortality rates. National and international guidelines recommend health professionals involve patients with kidney failure in making decisions about end-of-life care, but implementation of these conversations within kidney services varies. We developed the DESIRE (ShareD dEciSIon-making for patients with kidney failuRE to improve end-of-life care) intervention from our studies investigating multiple decision maker needs and experiences of end-of-life care in kidney services. The DESIRE intervention's three components are a training programme for health professionals, a patient decision aid, and a kidney service consultation held to facilitate shared decision-making conversations about planning end-of-life care.

Objectives

To assess the feasibility and acceptability of integrating the DESIRE intervention within kidney services.

Design

A pilot study using a multicentre randomised controlled design.

Setting

Four Danish nephrology departments.

Participants

Patients with kidney failure who were 75 years of age or above, their relatives, and health professionals.

Methods

Patients were randomised to either the intervention or usual care. Feasibility data regarding delivering the intervention, the trial design, and outcome measures were collected through questionnaires and audio recordings at four points in time: before, during, post, and 3 months after the intervention. Acceptability data were collected through semi-structured interviews with patients and relatives, as well as a focus group with health professionals post the intervention.

Results

Twenty-seven patients out of the 32 planned were randomised either to the intervention (n= 14) or usual care (n= 13). In addition, four relatives and 12 health professionals participated. Follow-up was completed by 81 % (n= 22) of patient participants. We found that both feasibility and acceptability data suggested health professionals improved their decision support and shared decision-making skills via the training. Patient and relative participants experienced the intervention as supporting a shared decision-making process; from audio recordings, we showed health professionals were able to support proactively decision-making about end-of-life care within these consultations. All stakeholders perceived the intervention to be effective in promoting shared decision-making and relevant for supporting end-of-life care planning.

Conclusions

Participant feedback indicated that the DESIRE intervention can be integrated into practice to support patients, relatives, and health professionals in planning end-of-life care alongside the management of worsening kidney failure. Minimising exhaustion and enhancing engagement with the intervention should be a focus for subsequent refinement of the intervention.

Registration

The study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier: NCT05842772. Date of first recruitment: March 20, 2023.

Decision coaching for people with kidney failure: A case study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the usefulness of decision coaching for people with kidney failure facing decisions about end-of-life care.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate experiences of people with kidney failure who received decision coaching for end-of-life care decisions.

DESIGN

We conducted a prospective case study bound by time (September to December 2021), location (one nephrology department), and guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with kidney failure facing end-of-life care decisions.

MEASUREMENTS

A nurse trained in decision coaching screened for unmet decisional needs with the SURE test and provided decision coaching using the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide. Postcoaching, the participants were rescreened using the SURE test and interviewed to explore their experience with decision coaching. Change in SURE test findings was analysed descriptively and systematic text condensation was used for the analysis of interviews. Recorded decision coaching sessions underwent content analysis using the Decision Support Analysis Tool.

RESULTS

Decision coaching was provided to four adults with kidney failure. Median pre-SURE test score was 2.5 (range 2-4) and posttest score was 3 (range 3-4), indicating a decrease in decisional needs. Participants described that decision coaching provided an overview of features of options to consider, identified remaining decisional needs for further discussion with relatives and health professionals and clarified next steps. Median Decision Support Analysis Tool score was 9 (range 8-9).

CONCLUSIONS

After decision coaching, results suggest that the participants experienced fewer decisional needs and seemed clearer about the next steps in the decision making process.

Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Shared decision-making is increasingly embraced in health care and recommended in cardiovascular guidelines. Patient involvement in health care decisions, patient-clinician communication, and models of patient-centered care are critical to improve health outcomes and to promote equity, but formal models and evaluation in cardiovascular care are nascent. Shared decision-making promotes equity by involving clinicians and patients, sharing the best available evidence, and recognizing the needs, values, and experiences of individuals and their families when faced with the task of making decisions. Broad endorsement of shared decision-making as a critical component of high-quality, value-based care has raised our awareness, although uptake in clinical practice remains suboptimal for a range of patient, clinician, and system issues. Strategies effective in promoting shared decision-making include educating clinicians on communication techniques, engaging multidisciplinary medical teams, incorporating trained decision coaches, and using tools (ie, patient decision aids) at appropriate literacy and numeracy levels to support patients in their cardiovascular decisions. This scientific statement shines a light on the limited but growing body of evidence of the impact of shared decision-making on cardiovascular outcomes and the potential of shared decision-making as a driver of health equity so that everyone has just opportunities. Multilevel solutions must align to address challenges in policies and reimbursement, system-level leadership and infrastructure, clinician training, access to decision aids, and patient engagement to fully support patients and clinicians to engage in the shared decision-making process and to drive equity and improvement in cardiovascular outcomes.

A blended learning for general practitioners and nurses on skills to support shared decision-making with patients about palliative cancer treatment: A one-group pre-posttest study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a newly developed blended learning programme for general practitioners (GPs) and nurses in supporting shared decision making (SDM) about palliative cancer treatment in a simulated setting.

METHODS

In a pre-posttest study, healthcare professionals (HCPs) participated in the blended learning (i.e. e-learning and (online) training session). HCPs filled out surveys (T0 (baseline), T1 (after e-learning) and T2 (after full blended learning)) and engaged in simulated consultations at T0 and T2. The primary outcome was observed SDM support (Triple-S; DSAT-10 for validation). Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, knowledge about and attitude towards SDM support. Repeated measures General Linear Models were conducted.

RESULTS

33 HCPs (17 GPs and 16 nurses) participated. SDM support significantly improved after training (Triple-S; medium effect). Observers' overall rating of SDM support (medium effect) as well as HCPs' knowledge (large effect) and beliefs about their capabilities (medium effect) improved after training. There was no difference in decision support skills (DSAT-10), HCPs' other clinical behavioural intentions and satisfaction. HCPs evaluated the training positively.

CONCLUSION

Blended learning for HCPs on supporting SDM in palliative cancer care improved their skills, knowledge and confidence in simulated consultations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These first findings are promising for evaluating interprofessional SDM in clinical practice.

Healthcare professional education in shared decision making in the context of chronic kidney disease: a scoping review

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative effort between healthcare professionals, individuals with CKD whereby clinical evidence, expected outcomes and potential side-effects are balanced with individual values and beliefs to provide the best mutually decided treatment option. Meaningful SDM is supported by effective training and education. We aimed to identify the available evidence on SDM training and education of healthcare professionals caring for people with chronic kidney disease. We aimed to identify existing training programs and to explore what means are used to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of these educational efforts.

METHODOLOGY

We performed a scoping review to study the effectiveness of training or education about shared decision making of healthcare professionals treating patients with kidney disease. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and APA PsycInfo were searched.

RESULTS

After screening of 1190 articles, 24 articles were included for analysis, of which 20 were suitable for quality appraisal. These included 2 systematic reviews, 1 cohort study, 7 qualitative studies, and 10 studies using mixed methods. Study quality was varied with high quality (n = 5), medium quality (n = 12), and low quality (n = 3) studies. The majority of studies (n = 11) explored SDM education for nurses, and physicians (n = 11). Other HCP profiles included social workers (n = 6), dieticians (n = 4), and technicians (n = 2). Topics included education on SDM in withholding of dialysis, modality choice, patient engagement, and end-of-life decisions.

LIMITATIONS

We observed significant heterogeneity in study design and varied quality of the data. As the literature search is restricted to evidence published between January 2000 and March 2021, relevant literature outside of this time window has not been taken into account.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on training and education of SDM for healthcare professionals taking care of patients with CKD is limited. Curricula are not standardized, and educational and training materials do not belong to the public domain. The extent to which interventions have improved the process of shared-decision making is tested mostly by pre-post testing of healthcare professionals, whereas the impact from the patient perspective for the most part remains untested.

Effectiveness of Shared Decision-making Training Programs for Health Care Professionals Using Reflexivity Strategies: Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) leads to better health care processes through collaboration between health care professionals and patients. Training is recognized as a promising intervention to foster SDM by health care professionals. However, the most effective training type is still unclear. Reflexivity is an exercise that leads health care professionals to question their own values to better consider patient values and support patients while least influencing their decisions. Training that uses reflexivity strategies could motivate them to engage in SDM and be more open to diversity.

OBJECTIVE

In this secondary analysis of a 2018 Cochrane review of interventions for improving SDM by health care professionals, we aimed to identify SDM training programs that included reflexivity strategies and were assessed as effective. In addition, we aimed to explore whether further factors can be associated with or enhance their effectiveness.

METHODS

From the Cochrane review, we first extracted training programs targeting health care professionals. Second, we developed a grid to help identify training programs that used reflexivity strategies. Third, those identified were further categorized according to the type of strategy used. At each step, we identified the proportion of programs that were classified as effective by the Cochrane review (2018) so that we could compare their effectiveness. In addition, we wanted to see whether effectiveness was similar between programs using peer-to-peer group learning and those with an interprofessional orientation. Finally, the Cochrane review selected programs that were evaluated using patient-reported or observer-reported outcome measurements. We examined which of these measurements was most often used in effective training programs.

RESULTS

Of the 31 training programs extracted, 24 (77%) were interactive, among which 10 (42%) were considered effective. Of these 31 programs, 7 (23%) were unidirectional, among which 1 (14%) was considered effective. Of the 24 interactive programs, 7 (29%) included reflexivity strategies. Of the 7 training programs with reflexivity strategies, 5 (71%) used a peer-to-peer group learning strategy, among which 3 (60%) were effective; the other 2 (29%) used a self-appraisal individual learning strategy, neither of which was effective. Of the 31 training programs extracted, 5 (16%) programs had an interprofessional orientation, among which 3 (60%) were effective; the remaining 26 (84%) of the 31 programs were without interprofessional orientation, among which 8 (31%) were effective. Finally, 12 (39%) of 31 programs used observer-based measurements, among which more than half (7/12, 58%) were effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM training programs that include reflexivity strategies. Its conclusions open avenues for enriching future SDM training programs with reflexivity strategies. The grid developed to identify training programs that used reflexivity strategies, when further tested and validated, can guide future assessments of reflexivity components in SDM training.

Shared decision making process measures and patient problems

OBJECTIVES

Purposeful SDM posits four modes of shared decision making (SDM). The use of each mode depends on the type of problem of care that is being addressed. We sought to identify how current observer-based SDM measures apply to each mode of Purposeful SDM.

METHODS

Four coders, working independently, evaluated 192 items pertaining to 12 observer-based SDM process measures. They classified the items into 6 themes that vary across Purposeful SDM modes and then into one of the four modes (weighing, negotiating, problem-solving, developing insight). Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

The items were classified as pertaining to the following themes: problem (28), roles/participation (84), options (62), preferences (21), decision (15), and evaluation (6). They were then classified as pertaining particularly to the SDM modes of weighing (54), negotiating (5), problem-solving (0), and developing insight (0) modes, with 191 items applying broadly to all modes of Purposeful SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Observer-based SDM measures describe behaviors pertinent to all modes but lack items sensitive to behaviors particular to some modes of SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

New or revised observer-based measures of the SDM process could help estimate the extent to which the appropriate SDM mode is being used to address the patient's problem.

Developing a web-based oncofertility tool for reproductive-age women with breast cancer based on social support framework

PURPOSE

To develop electronic systems for oncofertility support, and to examine the comprehensibility, feasibility, usability, and effects on social support and preparation for decision-making.

METHODS

The study steps were guided, tested, and utilized to (a) identify the requirements of a patient, (b) guide the development of support interventions, and (c) evaluate the quality of web-based oncofertility support. Alpha testing and beta testing were used to ensure the quality of the web-based oncofertility support tool. The effectiveness was evaluated using the Preparation for Decision-Making Scale and Social Support Questionnaire.

RESULTS

At the alpha testing phase, the mean (± standard deviation) values of the comprehensibility and usability for reproductive-age women with breast cancer were 4.24 (± 0.47) and 4.42 (± 0.57); and the mean values of the acceptability and usability for healthcare providers were 4.04 (± 0.67) and 3.99 (± 0.66), respectively. At the beta testing phase, the mean values of the feasibility for patients and healthcare providers were 3.93 (± 0.67) and 4.17 (± 0.78), respectively. The corresponding mean Preparation for Decision-Making Scale scores were 3.78 ± 0.82 and 4.11 ± 0.93, respectively. The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed that the informational and instrumental support scores improved significantly compared with the pre-test data (informational support: 8.94 ± 3.28 vs. 10.06 ± 1.91, p < 0.01; instrumental support: 7.44 ± 2.90 vs. 8.75 ± 2.57, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The oncofertility support website demonstrated acceptable comprehensibility, feasibility, and usability, in addition to informational and instrumental support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05100498, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05100498.

Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Interventions to change health professionals’ behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

Methods

We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under “what materials?” we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses.

Results

Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: “brief name” (87/87, 100%), “why” (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and “what” (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were “materials” (29/87, 33%), “who” (23/87, 26%), and “when and how much” (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: “tailoring” (8/87, 9%), “modifications” (3/87, 4%), and “how well (actual)” (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported “How”, (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%.

Conclusions

Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.

Assessing the quality of shared decision making for elective orthopedic surgery across a large healthcare system: cross-sectional survey study

Background

Clinical guidelines recommend engaging patients in shared decision making for common orthopedic procedures; however, limited work has assessed what is occurring in practice. This study assessed the quality of shared decision making for elective hip and knee replacement and spine surgery at four network-affiliated hospitals.

Methods

A cross-sectional sample of 875 adult patients undergoing total hip or knee joint replacement (TJR) for osteoarthritis or spine surgery for lumbar herniated disc or lumbar spinal stenosis was selected. Patients were mailed a survey including measures of Shared Decision Making (SDMP scale) and Informed, Patient-Centered (IPC) decisions. We examined decision-making across sites, surgeons, and conditions, and whether the decision-making measures were associated with better health outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for clustering of patients within surgeons.

Results

Six hundred forty-six surveys (74% response rate) were returned with sufficient responses for analysis. Patients who had TJR reported lower SDMP scores than patients who had spine surgery (2.2 vs. 2.8; p < 0.001). Patients who had TJR were more likely to make IPC decisions (OA = 70%, Spine = 41%; p < 0.001). SDMP and IPC scores varied widely across surgeons, but the site was not predictive of SDMP scores or IPC decisions (all p > 0.09). Higher SDMP scores and IPC decisions were associated with larger improvements in global health outcomes for patients who had TJR, but not patients who had spine surgery.

Conclusions

Measures of shared decision making and decision quality varied among patients undergoing common elective orthopedic procedures. Routine measurement of shared decision making provides insight into areas of strength across these different orthopedic conditions as well as areas in need of improvement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04853-x.

The validity and reliability of clinical judgement and decision-making skills assessment in nursing: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

To appraise the validity and reliability of approaches to assessing the clinical decision-making skills of nurses, and use findings to inform the assessment of students as they transition to newly qualified nurses.

DESIGN

The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct the review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, CINAHL and the British Nursing Index were searched from inception to November 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies were grouped according to their assessment approach following a competency framework with findings presented as a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

38 articles were included in the review which assessed clinical decision-making in a variety of settings; clinical practice, simulation, written examinations and self-assessment. Multi-level rubric and checklist approaches demonstrated good validity and reliability in practice and simulation settings, and the former was effective at differentiating between students at different stages of their training. Written, case study examinations were also effective at assessing clinical decision-making, although an optimum structure for their presentation was not possible to discern. Students tended to score themselves more highly than faculty staff when undertaking rubric-based self-assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that the best approach to assess clinical decision-making for final year students is to use several low-stakes, snap-shot summative assessments in practice environments, which are marked using a multi-level observational rubric. To assure reliability, it is recommended that a small team of expert practice assessors undergo regular training and peer review, have protected time to complete their assessor role and are appropriately supported.

Shared Decision-Making Measures: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This review used the recent COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) rating system, which gives the reader the ability to find appropriate instruments in a simple way. Shared decision-making (SDM) is part of health professionals', nurses', and patients' interaction about fundamental and special nursing care issues. The objective of this study was to critically appraise instruments that measure SDM in health care-related decisions according to the COSMIN criteria.

METHODS

This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline. A thorough search identified SMD measures via PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EBSCO Host, Ovid journals, SAGE journals, and Google Scholar search engine through November 2018 and updated on March 24, 2019. A rating system with "very good," "adequate," "doubtful," or "inadequate" for COSMIN was used.

RESULTS

The 17 instruments reported in this review are varied in the measured perspectives; observer-based viewpoint, patient questionnaires, provider questionnaires, and physician questionnaires, or even mixed perspectives. Only one instrument (OPTION 12 Scale) received an excellent rating across all 5 COSMIN validity rating sections in content, structural, and criterion validity.

CONCLUSION

Most of the instruments scored poorly on the COSMIN checklist. Despite the vast number of instruments measuring SDM, researchers must undertake critical appraisal before selecting an acceptable instrument that meets the specific research goal, as well as the quality requirements.

20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 2 Subanalysis of a Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids

Background. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has guided the development of patient decision aids (PtDAs) for 20 years and needs updating across a range of decisions and hypothesized outcomes. Purpose. To determine the effectiveness of ODSF-developed PtDAs on hypothesized outcomes and to recommend framework changes. Data Source. A subanalysis of randomized controlled trials included in the 2017 Cochrane review of PtDAs comparing PtDAs to usual care in adults considering health treatment or screening decisions (searched to 2015). Study Selection. Trials in the original review that evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Data Synthesis. Meta-analyses of ODSF outcomes with similar measurements and descriptions of other reported outcomes. Results. Of 105 trials, 24 evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Compared with usual care, ODSF PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference [MD] 13.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.32−17.37; 14 trials), increased accurate risk perceptions (risk ratio [RR] 2.41; 95% CI 1.66−3.48; 7 trials), and increased congruence between informed values and chosen options (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09−1.59; 4 trials). They reduced perceived decisional needs as measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale (MD −5.92; 95% CI −8.58 to −3.26; 15 trials) and the proportion of undecided patients (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.50−0.83; 13 trials). Non-ODSF PtDAs, designed with or without a specific framework, also outperformed usual care. Few ODSF trials measured secondary outcomes. Limitations. The included trials had heterogeneity. Conclusion. ODSF PtDAs address decisional needs and improve decision quality; the best indicator of addressing perceived uncertainty is “proportion undecided.” Secondary ODSF outcomes should be reduced to adherence to one’s chosen option and use/costs of health services, which warrant further research.

Development and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention for low risk prostate cancer patients

Objectives

Development and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention to help men with early‐stage prostate cancer choose among active surveillance, surgery, and radiation.

Methods

We developed a decision aid featuring long‐term survival and side effects data, based on focus group input and stakeholder endorsement. We trained premedical students to administer the intervention to newly diagnosed men with low‐risk prostate cancer seen at the University of California, San Francisco. Before the intervention, and after the consultation with a urologist, we administered the Decision Quality Instrument for Prostate Cancer (DQI‐PC). We hypothesized increases in two knowledge items from the DQI‐PC: How many men diagnosed with early‐stage prostate cancer will eventually die of prostate cancer? How much would waiting 3 months to make a treatment decision affect chances of survival? Correct answers were: “Most will die of something else” and “A little or not at all.”

Results

The development phase involved 6 patients, 1 family member, 2 physicians, and 5 other health care providers. In our pilot test, 57 men consented, and 44 received the decision support intervention and completed knowledge surveys at both timepoints. Regarding the two knowledge items of interest, before the intervention, 35/56 (63%) answered both correctly, compared to 36/44 (82%) after the medical consultation (P = .04 by chi‐square test).

Conclusions

The intervention was associated with increased patient knowledge. Data from this pilot have guided the development of a larger scale randomized clinical trial to improve decision quality in men with prostate cancer being treated in community settings.

Do Shared Decision-Making Measures Reflect Key Elements of Shared Decision Making? A Content Review of Coding Schemes

Background. There is a growing need for valid shared decision-making (SDM) measures. We aimed to determine whether the items of extant SDM observer-based coding schemes assess the 4 key elements of SDM. Methods. Items of SDM coding schemes were extracted and categorized. Except for the 4 key elements of SDM (fostering choice awareness, informing about options, discussing patient preferences, and making a decision), (sub)categories were created inductively. Two researchers categorized items independently and in duplicate. Results. Five of 12 coding schemes assessed all 4 SDM elements. Seven schemes did not measure “fostering choice awareness,” and 3 did not measure “discussing patient preferences.” Seventy of 194 items (36%) could not be classified into one of the key SDM elements. Items assessing key SDM elements most often assessed “informing about options” (n = 57/124, 46%). Conclusion. Extant SDM coding schemes often do not assess all key SDM elements and have a strong focus on information provision while other crucial elements of SDM are underrepresented. Caution is therefore needed in reporting and interpreting the resulting SDM scores.

Implementation Research on Shared Decision Making in Primary Care: Inventory of Intracluster Correlation Coefficients

Background. Cluster randomized trials are important sources of information on evidence-based practices in primary care. However, there are few sources of intracluster correlation coefficients (ICCs) for designing such trials. We inventoried ICC estimates for shared decision-making (SDM) measures in primary care. Methods. Data sources were studies led by the Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Transition. Eligible studies were conducted in primary care, included at least 2 hierarchical levels, included SDM measures for individual units nested under any type of cluster (area, clinic, or provider), and were approved by an ethics committee. We classified measures into decision antecedents, decision processes, and decision outcomes. We used Bayesian random-effect models to estimate mode ICCs and the 95% highest probability density interval (HPDI). We summarized estimates by calculating median and interquartile range (IQR). Results. Six of 14 studies were included. There were 97 ICC estimates for 17 measures. ICC estimates ranged from 0 to 0.5 (median, 0.03; IRQ, 0-0.07). They were higher for process measures (median, 0.03; IQR, 0-0.07) than for antecedent measures (0.02; 0-0.07) or outcome measures (0.02; 0-0.06), for which, respectively, "decisional conflict" (mode, 0.48; 95% HPDI, 0.39-0.57), "reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients" (0.5; 0.11-0.89), and "quality of the decision" (0.45; 0.14-0.84) had the highest ICCs. ICCs for provider-level clustering (median, 0.06; IQR, 0-0.13) were higher than for other levels. Limitations. This convenience sample of studies may not reflect all potential ICC ranges for primary care SDM measures. Conclusions. Our inventory of ICC estimates for SDM measures in primary care will improve the ease and accuracy of power calculations in cluster randomized trials and inspire its further expansion in SDM contexts.

Skills Training to Support Patients considering place of End-Of-Life Care: A Randomized Control Trial

The effect of a program to train clinicians to support patients making decisions about place of end-of-life care was evaluated. In all, 88 oncology and/or palliative care nursing and allied health providers from three Ontario health networks were randomly assigned to an education or control condition. Quality of decision support provided to standardized patients was measured before and after training, as were participants’ perceptions about the acceptability of the training program and their intentions to engage in patient decision support. Compared to controls, intervention group members improved the quality of decision support provided and were more likely to address a wider range of decision-making needs. Intervention group members scored higher on a knowledge test of decision support than controls and rated the components as acceptable. Improvements in the quality of decision support can be made by providing training and practical tools such as a patient decision aid.

Translation, transcultural adaptation, and validation of two questionnaires on shared decision making

Objective

To translate, transcultural adapt, and validate the “CollaboRATE” measure and the “Ask 3 Questions” intervention in Argentina, allowing us to quantify the degree of use and implementation of shared decision making (SDM).

Design

Cross‐sectional study.

Setting and Participants

Data were collected in an academic hospital in Buenos Aires. Physician–patient pairs were invited to participate following their scheduled outpatient visits.

Measurements

Two processes were carried out as follows: (a) The translation and transcultural adaptation process, in which translations were produced and then adapted to Spanish. (b) The validation process, in which questionnaires were completed by patient–physician pairs, the results of which were subsequently analysed. Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) and construct validity (principal component analysis) were assessed.

Results

The final Spanish versions of “CollaboRATE” and “Ask 3 Questions” were tested in a primary care sample of 56 participants. Both instruments presented adequate reliability and validity. Internal consistency yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 98.3 for the “CollaboRATE” measure and 0.77 and 0.69 for the patients and physicians versions of the “Ask 3 Questions” intervention. Principal components analysis showed eigenvalues of first component >1.

Discussion and Conclusions

We obtained valid and reliable Spanish versions of the “CollaboRATE” measure and the “Ask 3 Questions” intervention. These versions can be used for the assessment of SDM in clinical visits, and to obtain new information which could help the monitoring of its implementation.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies.

METHODS

In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397.

RESULTS

We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.

An evaluation of two interventions to enhance patient-physician communication using the observer OPTION5 measure of shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate interventions to enhance patient-physician communication and shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

We used Observer OPTION⁵ to evaluate primary care visits within a cluster randomized controlled trial in a California delivery organization. Trial interventions included Open Communication (OpenComm), combining patient activation and physician coaching, and AskShareKnow, a patient activation tool, and were compared to a usual care arm. Scores were analyzed with descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equation analysis for 40 visits containing 200 decision topics.

RESULTS

The mean overall OPTION⁵ score was 26.5 out of 100 (s.d.=15.2). Compared to visits in the usual care arm, OpenComm visits had higher mean item scores (0-4 scale) for eliciting (mean=1.0 vs 0.8) and integrating patient preferences (mean=1.0 vs 0.8). OpenComm and AskShareKnow visits had higher scores for presenting options (mean=1.5, 1.5 vs 1.3). AskShareKnow visits had higher scores for discussing pros/cons (mean=1.5 vs 1.1). Lower patient education attainment was associated with lower scores.

CONCLUSIONS

OpenComm and AskShareKnow were associated with improved SDM relative to usual care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Results suggest targeting patient and physician behaviors promotes SDM better than patient activation only. Improving SDM for less educated patients is crucial.

Decision Support for a Woman Considering Continuing Extended Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Case Study

This case study evaluated decision coaching with a breast cancer survivor considering continuing extended endocrine therapy from eight years to 10 years. The survivor, aged 58 years and who completed surgery and chemotherapy eight years ago, was concerned about side effects of endocrine therapy. Decision coaching based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework involved an oncology nurse using the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide. Compared to baseline (2 out of 4), decisional comfort improved (3 out of 4) post decision coaching. The survivor felt more certain, but wanted further advice from her oncologist. She was leaning toward discontinuing endocrine therapy given she valued quality of life over a small risk of recurrence. Audio-recording analysis using the Decision Support Analysis Tool revealed high decision coaching quality (10/10). Breast cancer survivors facing preference-sensitive decisions about extended endocrine therapy could be supported with decision coaching by oncology nurses to ensure informed values-based decisions.

The psychometric properties of Observer OPTION(5), an observer measure of shared decision making

OBJECTIVES

Observer OPTION(5) was designed as a more efficient version of OPTION(12), the most commonly used measure of shared decision making (SDM). The current paper assesses the psychometric properties of OPTION(5).

METHODS

Two raters used OPTION(5) to rate recordings of clinical encounters from two previous patient decision aid (PDA) trials (n=201; n=110). A subsample was re-rated two weeks later. We assessed discriminative validity, inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, and concurrent validity.

RESULTS

OPTION(5) demonstrated discriminative validity, with increases in SDM between usual care and PDA arms. OPTION(5) also demonstrated concurrent validity with OPTION(12), r=0.61 (95%CI 0.54, 0.68) and intra-rater reliability, r=0.93 (0.83, 0.97). The mean difference in rater score was 8.89 (95% Credibility Interval, 7.5, 10.3), with intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.67 (95% Credibility Interval, 0.51, 0.91) for the accuracy of rater scores and 0.70 (95% Credibility Interval, 0.56, 0.94) for the consistency of rater scores across encounters, indicating good inter-rater reliability. Raters reported lower cognitive burden when using OPTION(5) compared to OPTION(12).

CONCLUSIONS

OPTION(5) is a brief, theoretically grounded observer measure of SDM with promising psychometric properties in this sample and low burden on raters.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

OPTION(5) has potential to provide reliable, valid assessment of SDM in clinical encounters.

Development of a Draft Core Set of Domains for Measuring Shared Decision Making in Osteoarthritis: An OMERACT Working Group on Shared Decision Making

OBJECTIVE

Despite the importance of shared decision making for delivering patient-centered care in rheumatology, there is no consensus on how to measure its process and outcomes. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group is to determine the core set of domains for measuring shared decision making in intervention studies in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), from the perspectives of patients, health professionals, and researchers.

METHODS

We followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 method to develop a draft core domain set by (1) forming an OMERACT working group; (2) conducting a review of domains of shared decision making; and (3) obtaining opinions of all those involved using a modified nominal group process held at a session activity at the OMERACT 12 meeting.

RESULTS

In all, 26 people from Europe, North America, and Australia, including 5 patient research partners, participated in the session activity. Participants identified the following domains for measuring shared decision making to be included as part of the draft core set: (1) identifying the decision, (2) exchanging information, (3) clarifying views, (4) deliberating, (5) making the decision, (6) putting the decision into practice, and (7) assessing the effect of the decision. Contextual factors were also suggested.

CONCLUSION

We proposed a draft core set of shared decision-making domains for OA intervention research studies. Next steps include a workshop at OMERACT 13 to reach consensus on these proposed domains in the wider OMERACT group, as well as to detail subdomains and assess instruments to develop a core outcome measurement set.

Implementation of a cystic fibrosis lung transplant referral patient decision aid in routine clinical practice: an observational study

Background

The decision to have lung transplantation as treatment for end-stage lung disease from cystic fibrosis (CF) has benefits and serious risks. Although patient decision aids are effective interventions for helping patients reach a quality decision, little is known about implementing them in clinical practice. Our study evaluated a sustainable approach for implementing a patient decision aid for adults with CF considering referral for lung transplantation.

Methods

A prospective pragmatic observational study was guided by the Knowledge-to-Action Framework. Healthcare professionals in all 23 Canadian CF clinics were eligible. We surveyed participants regarding perceived barriers and facilitators to patient decision aid use. Interventions tailored to address modifiable identified barriers included training, access to decision aids, and conference calls. The primary outcome was >80% use of the decision aid in year 2.

Results

Of 23 adult CF clinics, 18 participated (78.2%) and 13 had healthcare professionals attend training. Baseline barriers were healthcare professionals’ inadequate knowledge for supporting patients making decisions (55%), clarifying patients’ values for outcomes of options (58%), and helping patients handle conflicting views of others (71%). Other barriers were lack of time (52%) and needing to change how transplantation is discussed (42%). Baseline facilitators were healthcare professionals feeling comfortable discussing bad transplantation outcomes (74%), agreeing the decision aid would be easy to experiment with (71%) and use in the CF clinic (87%), and agreeing that using the decision aid would not require reorganization of the CF clinic (90%). After implementing the decision aid with interventions tailored to the barriers, decision aid use increased from 29% at baseline to 85% during year 1 and 92% in year 2 (p < 0.001). Compared to baseline, more healthcare professionals at the end of the study were confident in supporting decision-making (p = 0.03) but continued to feel inadequate ability with supporting patients to handle conflicting views (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Most Canadian CF clinics agreed to participate in the study. Interventions were used to target identified modifiable barriers to using the patient decision aid in routine CF clinical practice. CF clinics reported using it with almost all patients in the second year.

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

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) can reduce overuse of options not associated with benefits for all and respects patient rights, but has not yet been widely adopted in practice.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched for primary studies in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialsied Register and PsycINFO for the period March 2009 to August 2012. We searched the Clinical Trials.gov registry and the proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference. We scanned the bibliographies of relevant papers and studies. We contacted experts in the field to identify papers published after August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM where the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based outcome measures (OBOM) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The three overall categories of intervention were: interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. Studies in each category were compared to studies in the same category, to studies in the other two categories, and to usual care, resulting in nine comparison groups. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes separately. We calculated the median of the standardized mean difference (SMD), or risk difference, and range of effect across studies and categories of intervention. We assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were included, 38 randomised and one non-randomised controlled trial. Categorical measures did not show any effect for any of the interventions. In OBOM studies, interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals had a positive effect compared to usual care (SMD of 2.83) and compared to interventions targeting patients alone (SMD of 1.42). Studies comparing interventions targeting patients with other interventions targeting patients had a positive effect, as did studies comparing interventions targeting healthcare professionals with usual care (SDM of 1.13 and 1.08 respectively). In PROM studies, only three comparisons showed any effect, patient compared to usual care (SMD of 0.21), patient compared to another patient (SDM of 0.29) and healthcare professional compared to another healthcare professional (SDM of 0.20). For all comparisons, interpretation of the results needs to consider the small number of studies, the heterogeneity, and some methodological issues. Overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes, assessed with the GRADE tool, ranged from low to very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether interventions to improve adoption of SDM are effective given the low quality of the evidence. However, any intervention that actively targets patients, healthcare professionals, or both, is better than none. Also, interventions targeting patients and healthcare professionals together show more promise than those targeting only one or the other.

A systematic process for creating and appraising clinical vignettes to illustrate interprofessional shared decision making

Vignettes and written case simulations have been widely used by educators and health services researchers to illustrate plausible situations and measure processes in a wide range of practice settings. We devised a systematic process to create and appraise theory-based vignettes for illustrating an interprofessional approach to shared decision making (IP-SDM) for health professionals. A vignette was developed in six stages: (1) determine IP-SDM content elements; (2) choose true-to-life clinical scenario; (3) draft script; (4) appraise IP-SDM concepts illustrated using two evaluation instruments and an interprofessional concept grid; (5) peer review script for content validity; and (6) retrospective pre-/post-test evaluation of video vignette by health professionals. The vignette contained six scenes demonstrating the asynchronous involvement of five health professionals with an elderly woman and her daughter facing a decision about location of care. The script scored highly on both evaluation scales. Twenty-nine health professionals working in home care watched the vignette during IP-SDM workshops in English or French and rated it as excellent (n = 6), good (n = 20), fair (n = 0) or weak (n = 3). Participants reported higher knowledge of IP-SDM after the workshops compared to before (p < 0.0001). Our video vignette development process resulted in a product that was true-to-life and as part of a multifaceted workshop it appears to improve knowledge among health professionals. This could be used to create and appraise vignettes targeting IP-SDM in other contexts.

Initial Validation of an Analytical Tool to Support Decision-making on Chronic Illness Management

Introducción: el apoyo a la toma de decisiones en salud facilita el automanejo de personas con enfermedades crónicas (EC). Ob- jetivo: validar la versión en español del DSAT-cdm: herramienta de análisis del apoyo en las decisiones para el manejo de EC, desa- rrollada por Stacey (2006). Materiales y métodos: estudio descriptivo que aplica un proceso sistemático que considera, entre otros: traducción-contratraducción, desarrollo de escenarios de simulación, entrenamiento de evaluadores, entrenamiento pacientes simulados y capacitación para participantes. Muestra: 15 profesionales y 2 jueces, obteniéndose 60 DSAT-cdm versión español aplicado (pre y pos capacitación). Resultados: el instrumento presentó confiabilidad aceptable en la aplicación entre-jueces y detectó la mejora en la calidad del apoyo a la toma de decisiones en los profesionales. Sin embargo, no se obtuvieron resultados que aportaran a la validez de criterio concurrente. Conclusiones: este estudio es la primera evaluación del DSAT-cdm en idioma español, el resultado principal indica que se detecta un cambio en el desempeño de profesionales para apoyar el proceso de toma de decisiones de sus pacientes y, a pesar estos hallazgos favorables, es necesario seguir evaluando el instrumento.

Using a 'talk' model of shared decision making to propose an observation-based measure: Observer OPTION 5 Item

OBJECTIVE

To propose a revised Observer OPTION measure of shared decision making.

METHODS

We analyzed published models to identify the core components of a parsimonious conceptual framework of shared decision making. By using this framework, we developed a revised measure combining data from an observational study of clinical practice in Canada with our experience of using Observer OPTION(12 Item).

RESULTS

Our conceptual framework for shared decision making composed of justifying deliberative work, followed by the steps of describing options, information exchange, preference elicitation, and preference integration. By excluding items in Observer OPTION(12 Item) that were seldom observed or not aligned to a robust construct, we propose Observer OPTION(5 Item).

CONCLUSION

Although widely used, Observer OPTION(12 Item) did not give sufficient attention to preference elicitation and integration, and included items that were not specific to a core construct of shared decision making. We attempted to remedy these shortcomings by proposing a shorter, more focused measure.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Observer OPTION(5 Item) requires evaluation; we hope that it will be useful as both a research tool and as a formative measure of clinical practice.

Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters

OBJECTIVE

Measuring the process of shared decision making is a challenge, which constitutes a barrier to research and implementation. The aim of the study was to report the development of CollaboRATE, brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making.

METHODS

We used the following stages: (1) item formulation; (2) cognitive interviews; (3) item refinement; and (4) pilot testing of final items. Participants were over 18 years old, recruited from the public areas of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.

RESULTS

The key finding of this study is that developing a brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making requires a move away from terms such as 'decisions', 'options' and 'preferences'. Although technically correct, these terms act as barriers. They are often unfamiliar, and they also implicitly assume that patients are willing to take active roles in decision making; whereas patients are often unaware that decisions are required, or have taken place, never mind feel that they could or should have participated in them.

CONCLUSION

These methods have allowed us to develop a brief, patient-reported measure of shared decision making that is highly accessible to intended users.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The potential strength of the CollaboRATE will be the ability for completion in less than 30s, and across a range of routine settings.

Feasibility of training oncology residents in shared decision making: a pilot study

Although shared decision making (SDM) is the crux of patient-centered care, physicians are not formally trained in SDM. We conducted a pre-/post-test study with oncology residents to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a SDM training intervention. Of 20 medical residents approached, 11 participated and rated the SDM workshop favorably. Quality of SDM provided to simulated patients were median 3.5 out of 10 (range, 1-6) at baseline, eight (4-10) within 1 month, and four (2-10) within 3 months of the workshop with higher scores reflecting more elements of SDM demonstrated. Three months after the workshop, participants reported increased sense of control over providing SDM and higher perceived expectations from others to do so. It was feasible to provide SDM training and findings suggest it increased their SDM skills. Changes in behavioral intentions appear to be influenced through the pathways of perceived behavioral control and social norms.

MAPPIN'SDM--the multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making

BACKGROUND

The wide scale permeation of health care by the shared decision making concept (SDM) reflects its relevance and advanced stage of development. An increasing number of studies evaluating the efficacy of SDM use instruments based on various sub-constructs administered from different viewpoints. However, as the concept has never been captured in operable core definition it is quite difficult to link these parts of evidence. This study aims at investigating interrelations of SDM indicators administered from different perspectives.

METHOD

A comprehensive inventory was developed mapping judgements from different perspectives (observer, doctor, patient) and constructs (behavior, perception) referring to three units (doctor, patient, doctor-patient-dyad) and an identical set of SDM-indicators. The inventory adopted the existing approaches, but added additional observer foci (patient and doctor-patient-dyad) and relevant indicators hitherto neglected by existing instruments. The complete inventory comprising a doctor-patient-questionnaire and an observer-instrument was applied to 40 decision consultations from 10 physicians from different medical fields. Convergent validities were calculated on the basis of Pearson correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Reliabilities for all scales were high to excellent. No correlations were found between observer and patients or physicians neither for means nor for single items. Judgements of doctors and patients were moderately related. Correlations between the observer scales and within the subjective perspectives were high. Inter-perspective agreement was not related to SDM performance or patient activity.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates the contribution to involvement made by each of the relevant perspectives and emphasizes the need for an inter-subjective approach regarding SDM measurement.