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

Systematic review of barriers, facilitators, and tools to promote shared decision making in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to systematically review all studies focusing on barriers, facilitators, and tools currently available for shared decision making (SDM) in emergency departments (EDs).

BACKGROUND

Implementing SDM in EDs seems particularly challenging, considering the fast-paced environment and sometimes life-threatening situations. Over 10 years ago, a previous review revealed only a few patient decision aids (PtDAs) available for EDs.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library, up to November 2023. Observational and interventional studies were included to address barriers or facilitators for SDM or to investigate effects of PtDAs on the level of SDM for patients visiting an ED.

RESULTS

We screened 1946 studies for eligibility, of which 33 were included. PtDAs studied in EDs address chest pain, syncope, analgesics usage, lumbar puncture, ureterolithiasis, vascular access, concussion/brain bleeding, head-CT choice, coaching for elderly people, and activation of patients with appendicitis. Only the primary outcome was meta-analyzed, showing that PtDAs significantly increased the level of SDM (18.8 on the 100-point OPTION scale; 95% CI 12.5-25.0). PtDAs also tended to increase patient knowledge, decrease decisional conflict and decrease health care services usage, with no obvious effect on overall patient satisfaction. Barriers and facilitators were identified on three levels: (1) patient level-emotions, health literacy, and their own proactivity; (2) clinician level-fear of medicolegal consequences, lack of SDM skills or knowledge, and their ideas about treatment superiority; and (3) system level-time constraints, institutional guidelines, and availability of PtDAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Circumstances in EDs are generally less favorable for SDM. However, PtDAs for conditions seen in EDs are helpful in overcoming barriers to SDM and are welcomed by patients. Even in EDs, SDM is feasible and supported by an increasing number of tools for patients and physicians.

Understanding how a personalized risk prediction tool (VALUE-PERSARC) supports informed treatment decisions of soft-tissue sarcomas patients in daily clinical practice - A mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

Risk prediction models (RPM) can help soft-tissue sarcoma(STS) patients and clinicians make informed treatment decisions by providing them with estimates of (disease-free) survival for different treatment options. However, it is unknown how RPMs are used in the clinical encounter to support decision-making. This study aimed to understand how a PERsonalised SARcoma Care (PERSARC) RPM is used to support treatment decisions and which barriers and facilitators influence its use in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

A convergent mixed-methods design is used to understand how PERSARC is integrated in the clinical encounter in three Dutch sarcoma centers. Data were collected using qualitative interviews with STS patients (n = 15) and clinicians (n = 8), quantitative surveys (n = 50) and audiotaped consultations (n = 30). Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis and integrated with quantitative data through merging guided by the SEIPS model.

RESULTS

PERSARC was generally used to support clinicians' proposed treatment plan and not to help patients weigh available treatment options. Use of PERSARC in decision-making was hampered by clinician's doubts about whether there were multiple viable treatment options,the accuracy of risk estimates, and time constraints. On the other hand, use of PERSARC facilitated clinicians to estimate and communicate the expected benefit of adjuvant therapy to patients.

CONCLUSION

PERSARC was not used to support informed treatment decision-making in STS patients. Integrating RPMs into clinical consultations requires acknowledgement of their benefits in facilitating clinicians' estimation of the expected benefit of adjuvant therapies and information provision to patients, while also considering concerns regarding RPM quality and treatment options' viability.

The role of shared decision-making in enhancing patient experience: Insights from a cohort of curative head and neck cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) is on the NHS policy agenda, and the preferred model for preference-sensitive decisions. This study establishes baseline patient-perceived SDM in a radical head and neck cohort, and explores patients' views on SDM in a large, specialist trust.

METHODS

An SDM questionnaire was distributed to all radical head and neck radiotherapy patients (N = 165), June-December 2023. This combined a well-validated instrument for measuring SDM from the patient perspective, SDM-Q-9, with additional questions exploring patient views. Thematic analysis was used to construct and interpret themes.

RESULTS

65/165 (39%) questionnaires were returned. SDM-Q-9 mean standardised score was 78.6 (SD 26.3). There was a moderate ceiling effect (26%). Scores were not sensitive to sex (p = 0.64) or age (ρ = 0.1). Higher levels of SDM were perceived by participants who stated SDM was very important (51/65, 79%) than somewhat or not at all important (82.4 vs. 62.7; p = 0.02; Cohen d = 0.75). Individuals who discussed their personal priorities with the clinician (46/65, 70.8%), were more likely to be very satisfied with their involvement in SDM (89.1% vs. 52.9%). Thematic analysis generated three themes: Control, Desire for Transparency and Understanding, and Doctor as the Expert.

CONCLUSION

Patient-perceived SDM levels are high for head and neck patients. Participants who value SDM also perceive higher levels of SDM. Patient satisfaction increases when individuals discuss their personal priorities. The modest response rate and self-selection bias affect the generalisability of the results. Only radiotherapy patients were included; those who chose alternative treatment may perceive different levels of SDM. The moderate ceiling effect may limit the use of SDM-Q-9 to measure impact of future interventions to improve SDM.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

SDM-Q-9 should be combined with an objective, observer measure of SDM.

Discordant Care and Decision Quality: Patients' Reasons for Not Receiving Their Initial Test of Choice in Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Concordance between a person's values and the test or treatment they ultimately receive is widely considered to be an essential outcome for good decision quality. There is little research, however, on why patients receive "discordant" care. A large, randomized trial of decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening provided an opportunity to assess why some patients received a different test than the one they preferred at an earlier time point.

METHODS

Of 688 patients who participated in the trial, 43 received a different CRC screening test than the one they selected after viewing a decision aid 6 mo prior. These patients answered 2 brief, open-ended questions about the reasons for this discordance. The research team analyzed their answers using qualitative description.

RESULTS

Patient responses reflected 6 major categories: barriers or risks of initially favored test, benefits of alternative test, costs or health insurance coverage, discussion with family or friends, provider factors or recommendation, and health issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the patients' explanations fit well with the informed concordance approach, which infers poor decision quality from the existence of discordant care, since in these cases it appears that the patient's values and preferences were not adequately respected. Other statements suggest that the patient had an informed rationale for changing their mind about which test to undergo. These cases may reflect high-quality decision making, despite the existence of discordance as measured in the trial. This analysis highlights a major challenge to a popular approach for assessing decision quality, the difficulty of normatively assessing the quality of decision making when apparent discordant care has been provided, and the need to assess patient values and preference over time.

HIGHLIGHTS

Value-choice concordance is an accepted measure for assessing decision quality in decision aid trials, but greater exploration of apparently discordant care challenges key assumptions of this method; this study provides evidence that discordance as typically measured may not always reflect low-quality patient decision making.Researchers evaluating decision aids and assessing decision quality should consider the use of qualitative methods to supplement measures of decision quality and consider assessing patient preferences at multiple time points.

Shared Decision-Making with Latinx Caregivers During Community Implemented Evidence-Based Practices: Determinants and Associations with Alliance

OBJECTIVE

The current observational study examined shared decision-making (SDM) with caregivers of Latinx youth within the delivery of multiple evidence-based practices (EBPs) in community mental health services. The aims of the study were to (1) Identify therapist and client factors associated with increased SDM within EBP sessions and (2) Examine the association between SDM and therapeutic alliance between community therapists and Latinx caregivers.

METHOD

The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION) instrument measured SDM in 210 audio-recorded therapy sessions with 62 community therapists (91.94% female; 69.35% Latinx) and 109 Latinx caregivers (91.43% female) of youth who were an average age of 8.26 years (SD = 3.59). We used the Therapy Process Observational Coding System for Child Psychotherapy-Alliance scale to measure the caregiver-therapist alliance observationally. Multilevel linear regressions were conducted to examine research questions.

RESULTS

Greater SDM was observed within sessions where therapists targeted conduct problems versus trauma (B = -8.79, 95% CI[-14.09, -3.49], p = .001). There was a trend that SDM was higher in English-language sessions compared to Spanish. We found that the global measurement of SDM (B = .04, 95% CI[.01, .08], p = .03) and the OPTION item Integrate Preferences (B = .69, 95% CI[.07, 1.32], p = .03) were positively associated with alliance.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM may help foster Latinx caregiver engagement within EBP delivery. Provider training in SDM may be warranted with consideration of the specific clinical contexts (e.g., by presenting problem) that are appropriate for collaborative treatment planning. More research is needed to further establish the benefits of SDM in youth psychotherapy.

Pain Self-Efficacy Can Improve During a Visit With an Orthopedic Surgeon

BACKGROUND

Greater pain self-efficacy (PSE) is associated with reduced pain, fewer limitations, and increased quality of life after treatment for orthopedic conditions. The aims of this study were to (1) assess if PSE improves during a visit with an orthopedic surgeon and (2) identify modifiable visit factors that are associated with an increase in PSE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study of orthopedic clinic visits at a multispecialty clinic from February to May 2022. New patients who presented to one of six orthopedic surgeons were approached for the study. Patients who provided consent completed a pre-visit questionnaire including the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) and demographic questions. A trained research member recorded the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making Instrument (OPTION-5) score, number of questions asked, and visit duration. Immediately after the visit, patients completed a post-visit questionnaire consisting of the PSEQ and Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS).

RESULTS

Of 132 patients enrolled, 61 (46%) had improved PSE after the orthopedic visit, with 38 (29%) having improvement above a clinically significant threshold. There were no significant differences between patients with increased PSE and those without increased PSE when comparing the PICS, OPTION-5, questions asked, or visit duration.

CONCLUSION

Almost half of the patients had improvement in PSE during an orthopedic visit. The causal pathway to how to improve PSE and the durability of the improved PSE have implications in strategies to improve patient outcomes in orthopedic surgery, such as communication methods and shared decision-making. Future research can focus on studying different interventions that facilitate improving PSE. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(4):e197-e203.].

Effects of a multicomponent communication training to involve older people in decisions to DEPRESCRIBE cardiometabolic medication in primary care (CO-DEPRESCRIBE): protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing of medication for cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes has been incorporated in clinical guidelines but proves to be difficult to implement in primary care. Training of healthcare providers is needed to enhance deprescribing in eligible patients. This study will examine the effects of a blended training program aimed at initiating and conducting constructive deprescribing consultations with patients.

METHODS

A cluster-randomized trial will be conducted in which local pharmacy-general practice teams in the Netherlands will be randomized to conducting clinical medication reviews with patients as usual (control) or after receiving the CO-DEPRESCRIBE training program (intervention). People of 75 years and older using specific cardiometabolic medication (diabetes drugs, antihypertensives, statins) and eligible for a medication review will be included. The CO-DEPRESCRIBE intervention is based on previous work and applies models for patient-centered communication and shared decision making. It consists of 5 training modules with supportive tools. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients with at least 1 cardiometabolic medication deintensified. Secondary outcomes include patient involvement in decision making, healthcare provider communication skills, health/medication-related outcomes, attitudes towards deprescribing, medication regimen complexity and health-related quality of life. Additional safety and cost parameters will be collected. It is estimated that 167 patients per study arm are needed in the final intention-to-treat analysis using a mixed effects model. Taking loss to follow-up into account, 40 teams are asked to recruit 10 patients each. A baseline and 6-months follow-up assessment, a process evaluation, and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted.

DISCUSSION

The hypothesis is that the training program will lead to more proactive and patient-centered deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. By a comprehensive evaluation, an increase in knowledge needed for sustainable implementation of deprescribing in primary care is expected.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT05507177).

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact of timing and format of patient decision aids for breast cancer patients on their involvement in and preparedness for decision making - the IMPACTT randomised controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

After curative surgery for early-stage breast cancer, patients face a decision on whether to undergo surgery alone or to receive one or more adjuvant treatments, which may lower the risk of recurrence. Variations in survival outcomes are often marginal but there are differences in the side effects and other features of the options that patients may value differently. Hence, the patient's values and preferences are critical in determining what option to choose. It is well-researched that the use of shared decision making and patient decision aids can support this choice in a discussion between patient and clinician. However, it is still to be investigated what impact the timing and format of the patient decision aid have on shared decision making outcomes. In this trial, we aim to investigate the impact of a digital pre-consult compared to a paper-based in-consult patient decision aid on patients' involvement in shared decision making, decisional conflict and preparedness to make a decision.

METHODS

The study is a randomised controlled trial with 204 patients at two Danish oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients are newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and offered adjuvant treatments after curative surgery to lower the risk of recurrence. Participants will be randomised to receive either an in-consult paper-based patient decision aid or a pre-consult digital patient decision aid. Data collection includes patient and clinician-reported outcomes as well as observer-reported shared decision making based on audio recordings of the consultation. The primary outcome is the extent to which patients are engaged in a shared decision making process reported by the patient. Secondary aims include the length of consultation, preparation for decision making, preferred role in shared decision making and decisional conflict.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first known randomised, controlled trial comparing a digital, pre-consult patient decision aid to an identical paper-based, in-consult patient decision aid. It will contribute evidence on the impact of patient decision aids in terms of investigating if pre-consult digital patient decisions aids compared to in-consult paper-based decision aids support the cancer patients in being better prepared for decision making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05573022).

Current level of shared decision-making in hepatobiliary surgical oncology (SAPACHA)

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) may improve patient autonomy and health outcomes. This study assessed the level of SDM at both ends of the spectrum of hepatobiliary surgery to identify needs and opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study was performed. Consultations regarding surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) or hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) were prospectively included between September 2020 and December 2022. The level of patient involvement in treatment decision-making was assessed objectively by analysis of audio-recorded consultations using the OPTION-5 instrument. The perceived level of SDM was appreciated by patients (SDM-Q-9) and surgeons (SDM-Q-doc) through questionnaires. Higher scores indicated higher levels of SDM. Outcomes were compared between patient groups and two focus groups were held.

RESULTS

Ten pCCA- and nine HCA-patients were included in the quantitative part of the study. Median OPTION-5, SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-doc scores were 35% (IQR: 25-45%), 86% (IQR: 76-96%), and 73% (IQR: 71-78%), respectively. SDM-Q-9 scores among HCA-patients (79% [IQR: 71-82%]) were significantly lower than in pCCA-patients (96% [IQR: 93-100%], p < 0.001). In focus groups, patients reported a lack of information, support, and expressed positive attitudes towards decision support tools (DSTs).

CONCLUSION

Patient involvement and information provision among HPB-surgical patients show room for improvement, particularly for HCA-patients. DSTs may be helpful for this purpose.

Shared decision-making performance of general practice residents: an observational study combining observer, resident, and patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is considered fundamental to person-centred care. However, applying SDM may be a challenge for residents in general practice, since it is a complex competence that requires the integration of knowledge and skills from several competency domains.

OBJECTIVE

To support learning of SDM during medical residency, we aimed to gain insight in Dutch residents' observed and perceived SDM performance in general practice.

METHODS

We evaluated residents' SDM performance from an observer, resident, and patient perspective. Consultations of first- and third-year residents were recorded. Trained observers used the validated Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) scale to assess observed SDM performance of residents in 98 actual recorded consultations. Perceived SDM performance was evaluated by residents and patients completing validated SDM questionnaires, supplemented with questions about (the context of) the consultation and perceived relevance of SDM immediately after the consultation. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics (mean, SD, minimums, and maximums) and explorative bivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The residents' observed mean SDM performance was 19.1 (range, 0-100, SD = 10.9), mean resident self-reported SDM performance was 56.9 (range, 0-100, SD = 18.5), and mean patient-reported SDM performance was 73.3 (range, 0-100, SD = 26.8). We found a significant and positive correlation between observed SDM performance and residents' perceived relevance of SDM for the consultation (t = 4.571, P ≤ 0.001) and the duration of the consultation (r = 0.390, P ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that there is room for increasing awareness of the potential incongruence between observed and perceived SDM performance during medical residency, in order to facilitate the implementation of SDM in clinical practice.

Shared decision-making between paediatric haematologists, children with sickle cell disease and their parents: an exploratory study

Children with sickle cell disease (SCD) face various healthcare choices to be made during the disease process that may impact their lives. Shared decision-making (SDM) could improve their health outcomes. We assessed if, and to what extent, paediatricians engage children with SCD and/or their parents in the decision-making process. In this observational cross-sectional study, paediatric SCD patients and their parents visiting the outpatient paediatrics clinic of a university hospital participated in a SDM baseline measurement. Two evaluators independently and objectively analysed the level of patient involvement in decision-making from the audio-recordings of the consultations using the OPTION-5 instrument, a 0-20-point scale from which scores are usually expressed as a percentage of ideal SDM. The level of SDM, as perceived by patients, parents and paediatricians, was appreciated using the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc questionnaires, respectively. Scores could range from 0% (no SDM) to 100% (exemplary SDM). Twenty-four consultations in which a decision needed to be made about SCD treatment were audiotaped and analysed; six were from each paediatrician. The group consisted of 17 male and 7 female patients from various cultural backgrounds between 2 and 17 years old, with a mean age of 9.4 years (SD 4.2). Median OPTION-5 scores were 25.0% [IQR] 20.0-40.0%; range 0-55%). Median SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc scores were 56.7% (IQR 39.4-88.9%) and 68.9% (IQR 57.8-77.8%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although subjective scores of SDM were fair, the objectively scored level of SDM among children suffering from SCD leaves room for improvement. This may be realized by increasing knowledge about the benefits of SDM, child-centred SDM interventions and SDM-training for paediatricians that takes into account the complexity of intercultural challenges and risk communication between stakeholders.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Children that suffer from sickle cell disease (SCD) are more vulnerable to factors that negatively impact the care that they receive as well as suboptimal health outcomes. • Shared decision-making (SDM) can help children participate in a collaborative decision-making process about their preferred treatment options and improve their health outcomes.

WHAT IS NEW

• The level of participation in the decision-making process for patients suffering from SCD and the families that they belong to leaves room for improvement. The impact of intercultural challenges and the quality and consistency of risk-communication between stakeholders in paediatric SDM needs further exploration. • Paediatricians are more confident about their ability to involve the child and parents compared to how children and their parents experience their level of involvement in a shared decision-making process.

The patient's first point of contact (PINPOINT) - protocol of a prospective multicenter study of communication and decision-making during patient assessments by primary care registered nurses

BACKGROUND

A major challenge for primary care is to set priorities and balance demands with available resources. The registered nurses in this study are practice nurses working in primary care offices, playing a large role in initial assessments. The overall objective of this research is to investigate practices of communication and decision-making during nurses' initial assessment of patients' health problems in primary care, examine working mechanisms in good practices and develop feasible solutions.

METHODS

Project PINPOINT aims for a prospective multicenter study using various methods for data collection and analysis. A purposive sample of 150 patient‒nurse consultations, including 30 nurses and 150 patients, will be recruited at primary care centers in three different geographic areas of southwest Sweden. The study will report on outcomes of communication practices in relation to patient-reported expectations and experiences, communication processes and patient involvement, assessment and decision-making, related priorities and value conflicts with data from patient questionnaires, audio-recorded real-time communication, and reflective interviews with nurses.

DISCUSSION

This research will contribute to the knowledge needed for the guidance of first-line decision-making processes to best meet patient and public health needs. This knowledge is necessary for the development of assessments and decisions to be better aligned to patients and to set priorities. Insights from this research can empower patients and service providers and help understand and enhance feasible person-centered communication strategies tailored to patients' level of health literacy. More specifically, this research will contribute to knowledge that can strengthen nurses' communication, assessments, and clinical decision-making in primary care. In the long term, this will contribute to how the competencies of practice nurses and other professionals are organized and carried out to make the best use of the resources within primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06067672.

(Cost-)effectiveness of an individualised risk prediction tool (PERSARC) on patient's knowledge and decisional conflict among soft-tissue sarcomas patients: protocol for a parallel cluster randomised trial (the VALUE-PERSARC study)

INTRODUCTION

Current treatment decision-making in high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) care is not informed by individualised risks for different treatment options and patients' preferences. Risk prediction tools may provide patients and professionals insight in personalised risks and benefits for different treatment options and thereby potentially increase patients' knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. The VALUE-PERSARC study aims to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (PERSARC) to increase patients' knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and to reduce decisional conflict in comparison with usual care in high-grade extremity STS patients.

METHODS

The VALUE-PERSARC study is a parallel cluster randomised control trial that aims to include at least 120 primarily diagnosed high-grade extremity STS patients in 6 Dutch hospitals. Eligible patients (≥18 years) are those without a treatment plan and treated with curative intent. Patients with sarcoma subtypes or treatment options not mentioned in PERSARC are unable to participate. Hospitals will be randomised between usual care (control) or care with the use of PERSARC (intervention). In the intervention condition, PERSARC will be used by STS professionals in multidisciplinary tumour boards to guide treatment advice and in patient consultations, where the oncological/orthopaedic surgeon informs the patient about his/her diagnosis and discusses benefits and harms of all relevant treatment options. The primary outcomes are patients' knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) 1 week after the treatment decision has been made. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using questionnaires, 1 week and 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment decision. Data will be analysed following an intention-to-treat approach using a linear mixed model and taking into account clustering of patients within hospitals.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Medical Ethical Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (METC-LDD) approved this protocol (NL76563.058.21). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-review journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL9160, NCT05741944.

Shared decision making between community therapists and Latinx caregivers during evidence-based practice delivery in publicly-funded children's mental health services

OBJECTIVES

This observational study examined shared decision-making (SDM) with caregivers of Latinx youth within the delivery of multiple evidence-based practices (EBPs) in community mental health services. Study aims were to (1) Characterize therapist use of SDM strategies and (2) Describe the types of treatment decisions that were the focus of therapist use of SDM.

METHODS

The OPTION instrument was used to measure SDM in 210 audio-recorded therapy sessions with 62 community therapists and 109 Latinx caregivers; frequency and mean ratings of OPTION items were examined. Qualitative analysis on the descriptions of treatment decisions being deliberated was also conducted.

RESULTS

Results revealed that therapists used at least one SDM step in most sessions (N = 192; 91.43%) with a mean composite score of 32.78 (SD=17.79; range: 6.25-81.25). Four superordinate categories of decisions were: (1) Treatment planning, (2) Evidence-based Parenting Strategies, (3) Addressing Youth Functioning, and (4) Addressing Family Psychosocial Needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that community therapists serving Latinx families are naturalistically engaging in SDM steps about a variety of decisions during most EBP sessions, but only at modest levels.

Toward an operational definition of shared decision making: A conceptual analysis

RATIONALE

Shared decision making has been widely advocated and evaluated in diverse ways for 4 decades.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

But there is scant evidence that it is commonly accepted by or has influence on practitioners' behaviour or that it positively affects patient health outcomes. This situation may be due in part to the absence of a commonly agreed operational definition of the construct. This is admitted in the literature and has led to multiple approaches to evaluation.

METHOD

An operational definition is proposed based on ethical parity among parties, sharing of mutually interacting expectations and analysis of decisions as commitment to action rather than information.

RESULTS

Shared decision making occurs when two autonomous and uncoerced agents both commit to actions that neither has reason to want to change based on their understanding of anticipated outcomes given the situation at hand and of the intended actions of the other party.

CONCLUSION

It is a broader concept than providing information regarding treatment alternatives in the office.

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.

Management reasoning and patient-clinician interactions: Insights from shared decision-making and simulated outpatient encounters

PURPOSE

To expand understanding of patient-clinician interactions in management reasoning.

METHODS

We reviewed 10 videos of simulated patient-clinician encounters to identify instances of problematic and successful communication, then reviewed the videos again through the lens of two models of shared decision-making (SDM): an 'involvement-focused' model and a 'problem-focused' model. Using constant comparative qualitative analysis we explored the connections between these patient-clinician interactions and management reasoning.

RESULTS

Problems in patient-clinician interactions included failures to: encourage patient autonomy; invite the patient's involvement in decision-making; convey the health impact of the problem; explore and address concerns and questions; explore the context of decision-making (including patient preferences); meet the patient where they are; integrate situational preferences and priorities; offer >1 viable option; work with the patient to solve a problem of mutual concern; explicitly agree to a final care plan; and build the patient-clinician relationship. Clinicians' 'management scripts' varied along a continuum of prioritizing clinician vs patient needs. Patients also have their own cognitive scripts that guide their interactions with clinicians. The involvement-focused and problem-focused SDM models illuminated distinct, complementary issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Management reasoning is a deliberative interaction occurring in the space between individuals. Juxtaposing management reasoning alongside SDM generated numerous insights.

Factors influencing the implementation of shared decision-making in breast cancer care: protocol for a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

Chile is committed to actively involving patients in their healthcare. However, little is known about how this is translated into clinical encounters. Breast cancer (BC) is the first cause of cancer-related death in Chilean women. National policy guarantees standard care, and treatment decisions should be made along this process that can have long-term consequences for women. So, BC is a particularly well-suited case study to understand the complexity of patient participation in decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the factors that affect the active involvement of patients in the BC treatment decision-making process, considering the perspectives and practices of health professionals and women facing the disease.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a mixed-method study through a convergent parallel design in three stages: (1) A qualitative study: non-participant observation of the tumour board (TB) meetings; semi-structured interviews with key informants from TBs; documentary analyses; semi-structured interviews with women facing BC; and non-participant observations of clinical encounters; (2) a cross-sectional study with 445 women facing BC stages I-III from three hospitals in Santiago, Chile. We will measure the level of expected participation, experienced participation, decisional conflict, quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction with healthcare. Descriptive analysis will be performed, and multivariable binary logistic regression models will be adjusted to identify factors associated with high levels of QoL or satisfaction; (3) an integration study will bring together the data through a joint display technique.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been conceived and will be conducted according to international and local agreements for ethical research. Ethical approval has been granted by two Ethics Committees in Chile.The results will be disseminated to scientific and lay audiences (publications in scientific journals and conferences, seminars and a website for plain language dissemination).

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.

Identifying Patterns in Preoperative Communication about High-Risk Surgical Intervention: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons are entrusted with providing patients with information necessary for deliberation about surgical intervention. Ideally, surgical consultations generate a shared understanding of the treatment experience and determine whether surgery aligns with a patient's overall health goals. In-depth assessment of communication patterns might reveal opportunities to better achieve these objectives.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of audio-recorded consultations between surgeons and patients considering high-risk surgery. For 43 surgeons, we randomly selected 4 transcripts each of consultations with patients aged ≥60 y with at least 1 comorbidity. We developed a coding taxonomy, based on principles of informed consent and shared decision making, to categorize surgeon speech. We grouped transcripts by treatment plan and recorded the treatment goal. We used box plots, Sankey diagrams, and flow diagrams to characterize communication patterns.

RESULTS

We included 169 transcripts, of which 136 discussed an oncologic problem and 33 considered a vascular (including cardiac and neurovascular) problem. At the median, surgeons devoted an estimated 8 min (interquartile range 5-13 min) to content specifically about intervention including surgery. In 85.5% of conversations, more than 40% of surgeon speech was consumed by technical descriptions of the disease or treatment. "Fix-it" language was used in 91.7% of conversations. In 79.9% of conversations, no overall goal of treatment was established or only a desire to cure or control cancer was expressed. Most conversations (68.6%) began with an explanation of the disease, followed by explanation of the treatment in 53.3%, and then options in 16.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Explanation of disease and treatment dominate surgical consultations, with limited time spent on patient goals. Changing the focus of these conversations may better support patients' deliberation about the value of surgery.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.

HIGHLIGHTS

In decision-making conversations about high-risk surgical intervention, surgeons emphasize description of the patient's disease and potential treatment, and the use of "fix-it" language is common.Surgeons dedicated limited time to eliciting patient preferences and goals, and 79.9% of conversations resulted in no explicit goal of treatment.Current communication practices may be inadequate to support deliberation about the value of surgery for individual patients and their families.

Patient-guided dose reduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukaemia (RODEO study): study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, single-arm trial

BACKGROUND

Dose reduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) with an optimal response to TKIs may support cost-effective medication use by maintaining therapeutic effectiveness while reducing adverse events and medication costs. As the choice for dose reduction depends on patients' individual needs and preferences, a patient-centred approach is warranted. Therefore, a study to evaluate the effectiveness of patient-guided dose reduction in patients with CML who are in a major or deep molecular response is designed.

METHODS

This study is a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study. 147 patients with CML (aged ≥ 18 years) in chronic phase, who are treated with imatinib, bosutinib, dasatinib, nilotinib or ponatinib, and have reached at least major molecular response (defined as having BCR-ABL levels < 0.1% for an uninterrupted period of 6 months) are eligible. Patients will use an online patient decision aid and a shared decision making consultation will be held, after which patients who choose to will receive a personalised, lower TKI dose. Primary outcome is the proportion of patients with intervention failure at 12 months after dose reduction, defined as patients who have restarted their initial dose due to (expected) loss of major molecular response. For this, BCR-ABL1 levels will be analysed from blood samples drawn at baseline, 6 weeks after dose reduction and 3-monthly thereafter. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients with intervention failure at 6 and 18 months after dose reduction. Other outcomes include differences before and after dose reduction regarding the number and severity of patient-reported side effects; quality of life; beliefs about medicines; and medication adherence. Patients' level of decisional conflict and regret after choosing dose reduction will be assessed, as will the decisional process experienced by patients and healthcare providers.

DISCUSSION

Outcomes of this trial using a personalised approach will provide clinical and patient-reported data to guide future dose reduction of TKIs in CML. If the strategy appears to be effective, it may be implemented as another valid option to offer next to standard of care to prevent potential unnecessary exposure to higher TKI doses in this selected group of patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT number 2021-006581-20.

Evaluation of the shared decision-making process scale in cancer screening and medication decisions

OBJECTIVES

Examine reliability and validity of the Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Process scale for cancer screening and medication decisions.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis from 6174 participants who made decisions about cancer screening (breast, colon or prostate) or medication (menopause, depression, hypertension or high cholesterol). Key measures included the SDM Process scale, decisional conflict, decision regret, and decision quality. Construct validity was examined by testing whether higher SDM Process scores were associated with lower regret, lower decisional conflict and higher decision quality. Meta-analyses summarized data across studies. Some studies assessed the scale's reliability.

RESULTS

Average SDM Process scores ranged from 1.2 to 2.5. There was a moderate-to-large, positive association between scores and lack of decisional conflict (cancer screening: d=0.61, CI(0.38, 0.84), p < .001; medications: d=0.36, CI(0.29, 0.44), p < .001). High scores were associated with lower decision regret (cancer screening: d=-0.24, CI(-0.37, -0.11), p < .001; medications: d=-0.30, CI(-0.40,-0.20), p < .001). There was no relationship with decision quality. Retest reliability was acceptable (ICC>0.7) for seven of eight clinical samples.

CONCLUSIONS

The SDM Process scale demonstrated construct validity and retest reliability in cancer screening and medication decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The validated SDM Process scale is a short, patient reported metric to evaluate the current state of SDM.

Effects of a shared decision making intervention for older adults with multiple chronic conditions: the DICO study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effects of a shared decision making (SDM) intervention for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs).

METHODS

A pragmatic trial evaluated the effects of the SDM^MCC intervention, existing of SDM training for nine geriatricians in two hospitals and a preparatory tool for patients. A prospective pre-intervention post-intervention multi-center clinical study was conducted in which an usual care group of older patients with MCC and their informal caregivers was included before the implementation of the intervention and a new cohort of patients and informal caregivers after the implementation of the intervention. SDM was observed using the OPTION^MCC during video-recorded consultations. Patient- and caregivers reported outcomes regarding their role in SDM, involvement, perceived SDM and decisional conflict were measured. The differences between groups regarding the level of observed SDM (OPTION^MCC) were analyzed with a mixed model analysis. Dichotomous patient-reported outcomes were analyzed with a logistic mixed model.

RESULTS

From two outpatient geriatric clinics 216 patients with MCCs participated. The mean age was 77.3 years, and 56.3% of patients were female. No significant difference was found in the overall level of SDM as measured with the OPTION^MCC or in patient-reported outcomes. However, at item level the items discussing 'goals', 'options', and 'decision making' significantly improved after the intervention. The items discussing 'partnership' and 'evaluating the decision-making process' showed a significant decrease. Fifty-two percent of the patients completed the preparatory tool, but the results were only discussed in 12% of the consultations.

CONCLUSION

This study provides scope for improvement of SDM in geriatrics. Engaging older adults with MCCs and informal caregivers in the decision making process should be an essential part of SDM training for geriatricians, beyond the SDM steps of explaining options, benefits and harms. More attention should be paid to the integration of preparatory work in the consultation.

Application of the skills network approach to measure physician competence in shared decision making based on self-assessment

Several approaches to and definitions of 'shared decision making' (SDM) exist, which makes measurement challenging. Recently, a skills network approach was proposed, which conceptualizes SDM competence as an organized network of interacting SDM skills. With this approach, it was possible to accurately predict observer-rated SDM competence of physicians from the patients' assessments of the physician's SDM skills. The aim of this study was to assess whether using the skills network approach allows to predict observer-rated SDM competence of physicians from their self-reported SDM skills. We conducted a secondary data analysis of an observational study, in which outpatient care physicians rated their use of SDM skills with the physician version of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-Doc) during consultations with chronically ill adult patients. Based on the estimated association of each skill with all other skills, an SDM skills network for each physician was constructed. Network parameters were used to predict observer-rated SDM competence, which was determined from audio-recorded consultations using three widely used measures (OPTION-12, OPTION-5, Four Habits Coding Scheme). In our study, 28 physicians rated consultations with 308 patients. The skill 'deliberating the decision' was central in the population skills network averaged across physicians. The correlation between parameters of the skills networks and observer-rated competence ranged from 0.65 to 0.82 across analyses. The use and connectedness of the skill 'eliciting treatment preference of the patient' showed the strongest unique association with observer-rated competence. Thus, we found evidence that processing SDM skill ratings from the physicians' perspective according to the skills network approach offers new theoretically and empirically grounded opportunities for the assessment of SDM competence. A feasible and robust measurement of SDM competence is essential for research on SDM and can be applied for evaluating SDM competence during medical education, for training evaluation, and for quality management purposes. [A plain language summary of the study is available at https://osf.io/3wy4v.].

Veterinarians' use of shared decision making during on-farm interactions with dairy and beef producers

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this study were to explore the level of shared decision making (SDM) between veterinarians and dairy and beef producers during on-farm interactions and to identify factors associated with veterinarians' use of SDM behaviours.

METHODS

A cross-sectional sample of food-animal veterinarians and their clients were recruited in Ontario, Canada. Their on-farm interactions were audio-video recorded. The recordings were analysed using the 'Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making' (observer OPTION5 ) instrument to determine the level of SDM utilised during preference-sensitive decisions. A logistic regression model was developed to assess factors associated with a preference-sensitive decision occurring. Meanwhile, a linear regression model was developed to identify factors associated with the level of SDM used.

RESULTS

Forty-one veterinarians participated, and 186 unique veterinarian-producer interactions were audio-video recorded and OPTION5 score was calculated. SDM scores were low and comparable to other studies using the OPTION5 instrument. The only factor associated with whether a preference-sensitive decision occurred was the length of the veterinarian and producer's relationship (in years). As the length of their relationship increased, a preference-sensitive decision was less likely to occur. The use of SDM behaviours was found to decrease as veterinarian burnout score increased. These findings demonstrate that SDM behaviours are being used by food-animal veterinarians, yet an opportunity exists to further implement more producer-centred SDM skills into on-farm interactions.

LIMITATIONS

Small portions of veterinarian-producer conversation occurred outside of audio-video-recorded interactions and were not included in the analysis.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study aid in further understanding on-farm interactions between veterinarians and producers and can help to further improve veterinary communication curricula.

Shared decision making: A novel approach to personalized treatment in obstructive sleep apnea

Study objectives

i) To describe a novel approach of phenotyping by shared decision making (SDM) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) discharge consultations ii) to describe correlation between patient and observer based evaluations of SDM and iii) to describe treatment adherence.

Methods

Consecutive patients referred to the otorhinolaryngology department at Akershus University Hospital with suspected OSA between 2015 and 2016 participated. Patients with body mass index >30 were oversampled. Four male communication-trained doctors aged from 30 to 60 years participated. SDM was evaluated by modified content analysis and by the CollaboRATE self-report questionnaire and the "Observer OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5]" rating scale. Positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment adherence and weight reduction was assessed by interview at six year follow-up.

Results

Eighteen consultations were video filmed. The content analysis revealed that the patient perspectives only briefly were explored. PAP was chosen by 17 of 18 patients. Median CollaboRATE questionnaire score was 29 (26, 30). Mean OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5] score was 65.6 (SD 6.6, range 55-80). The correlation between SDM assessed by CollaboRATE self-report and by the "Observer OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5]" rating scale was low (Pearson's r = 0.09). At follow up, 11 patients (64.7%) were PAP adherent and no one achieved 10% weight loss.

Conclusions

Despite a high degree of SDM compared to studies of non-OSA populations, the sub-optimal exploration of the patient perspective by communication-trained doctors precluded identification of patients willing to cope actively. SDM assessed by self-report and by a rating scale may represent two different constructs. PAP adherence was good.

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.

Determining the Development Strategy and Suited Adoption Paths for the Core Competence of Shared Decision-Making Tasks through the SAA-NRM Approach

Shared decision making (SDM) is an interactive process that involves patients and their healthcare professionals reaching joint decisions about medical care through negotiation. As the initiators of medical decision-making in daily routine, physicians should be aware of and concerned about the SDM process. Thus, professional competency development for SDM has become increasingly critical for physicians' training. Therefore, this study investigates the professional competency and the important competency development aspects/criteria of SDM tasks through expert interviews and literature research. The study adopts the SAA (satisfaction-attention analysis) method to assess the status of competency development aspects/criteria and determine the NRM (network relation map) based on the DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory) technique. The results demonstrate that the CE (concept and evaluation) aspect is the dominant aspect, and the CR (communication and relationship) aspect is the aspect being dominated. The CE aspect influences the aspects of SP (skill and practice), JM (joint information and decision making) and CR, and the SP aspect affects the aspects of JM and CR. Then, the JM aspect affects the CR aspect. The study also suggests suitable adoption paths of competency development for SDM tasks using the NRM approach. It provides recommendations and strategic directions for SDM competency development and sustainable training programs.

Veterinary technicians contribute to shared decision-making during companion animal veterinary appointments

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare veterinary professionals' use of shared decision-making during companion animal appointments.

DESIGN

Multi-practice cross-sectional study.

SAMPLE

A purposive sample of 4 companion animal veterinary clinics in a group practice in Texas.

PROCEDURES

A convenience sample of veterinary appointments were recorded January to March 2018 and audio-recordings were analyzed using the Observer OPTION5 instrument to assess shared decision-making. Each decision was categorized by veterinary professional involvement.

RESULTS

A total of 76/85 (89%) appointments included at least 1 decision between the client and veterinary professional(s), with a total of 129 shared decisions. Decisions that involved both a veterinary technician and veterinarian scored significantly higher for elements of shared decision-making (OPTION5 = 29.5 ± 8.4; n = 46), than veterinarian-only decisions (OPTION5 = 25.4 ± 11.50; P = .040; n = 63), and veterinary technician-only decisions (OPTION5 = 22.5 ± 7.15; P = .001; n = 20). Specific elements of shared decision-making that differed significantly based on veterinary professional involvement included educating the client about options (OPTION5 Item 3; P = .0041) and integrating the client's preference (OPTION5 Item 5; P = .0010).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Findings suggest that clients are more involved in decision making related to their pet's health care when both the veterinary technician and veterinarian communicate with the client. Veterinary technicians' communication significantly enhanced client engagement in decision-making when working collaboratively with the veterinarian.

Effectiveness of question prompt lists in patients with breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of a question prompt list (QPL) in decision self-efficacy, decision-making participation, patient-physician communication, decisional conflict or regret, and health status in patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

A total of 240 patients with breast cancer were randomly assigned to a QPL group or control group (n = 120 each). The intervention and control groups received an additional educational QPL booklet and routine care, respectively.

RESULTS

The intervention group exhibited significant improvements in decision self-efficacy, perceived patient-physician interactions, and patient-physician communication compared with the control group. Multilevel modeling analyses revealed significant group-time interaction effects on decision self-efficacy (β = 9.99, P < 0.01), perceived patient-physician interactions (β = 8.10, P < 0.01), patient-physician communication (β = 5.02, P < 0.01), and anxiety status (β = -3.78, P < 0.05). The QPL intervention exerted more favorable effects than routine care, with repeated measurements of the same patients and the data of patients under the care of the same surgeons accounted for.

CONCLUSIONS

The QPL intervention exerted multidimensional effects on decision-making outcomes among patients with breast cancer.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians can integrate a QPL into routine care for patients with breast cancer.

Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Proponents of shared decision-making (SDM) advocate the elicitation of the patient's perspective. This scoping review explores if, and to what extent, the personal perspectives of patients are elicited during a clinical encounter, as part of a SDM process. We define personal perspective elicitation (PPE) as: the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or context.

METHODS

A search was conducted in five literature databases from inception dates up to July 2020, to identify empirical studies about SDM (with/without SDM instrument).

RESULTS

The search identified 4562 abstracts; 263 articles were read in full text, resulting in 99 included studies. Studies reported low levels of PPE. Integration of personal perspectives into the conversation or a future care plan was largely absent. The majority of the discussed content related to physical health, while social and psychological topics were mostly unaddressed.

CONCLUSIONS

PPE occurs on a very low level in efforts to achieve SDM according to evaluation studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PPE is advocated but rarely achieved in SDM evaluation studies. Causes should be identified, followed by designing interventions to improve this aspect of SDM.

'A basic understanding'; evaluation of a blended training programme for healthcare providers in hospital-based palliative care to improve communication with patients with limited health literacy

BACKGROUND

The non-curative setting makes communication and shared decision-making in palliative care extremely demanding. This is even more so for patients with limited health literacy. So far, research in palliative care focusing on shared decision-making with patients with limited health literacy is lacking. Recent research from our team indicates that the assessment of these patients' understanding of their situation and the implementation of shared decision-making in palliative care, needs improvement.

METHODS

To improve communication and decision-making, especially with patients with limited health literacy, we developed and evaluated a blended training programme for healthcare providers. The training programme comprised of an e-learning and a team training. The evaluation was performed by 1. conducting interviews (n = 15) focused on evaluating the whole programme and, 2. coding video-recorded outpatient consultations on the extent to which providers involved patients in decision-making before (n = 19) and after (n = 20) the intervention, using the 5-item OPTION coding instrument.

RESULTS

The interviews showed that healthcare providers valued the skills they had learned during the e-learning and team training. Providers specifically valued the teach-back technique, learned to use simpler wording and felt better able to recognize patients with limited health literacy. Many providers reported a change in communication behaviour as a consequence of the training programme. Suggestions for improvement for both e-learning and training were, amongst others, a follow-up team training course and a new scenarios for the e-learning about discussing palliative care. For both the pre- and the post-measurement, involving patients in decision-making lies between a minimal and a moderate effort; differences were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The e-learning and team training were valued positively by the healthcare providers. Adaptations to the e-learning have been made after evaluation. The e-learning has been implemented in several hospitals and medical education. To improve shared decision-making in practice a more sustained effort is needed.

Practices and perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals on shared decision-making in nephrology

Background

Given the complexity and variety in treatment options for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), shared decision-making (SDM) can be a challenge. SDM is needed for making decisions that best suit patients’ needs and their medical and living situations. SDM might be experienced differently by different stakeholders. This study aimed to explore clinical practice and perspectives on SDM in nephrology from three angles: observers, patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).

Methods

An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used. First, in the quantitative part of the study, outpatient consultations with patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (eGFR < 20 ml/min) were video recorded and SDM was assessed using the OPTION⁵ instrument. Subsequently, in the qualitative part, patients and HCPs reflected on their own SDM behaviour during individual stimulated recall interviews which were analysed using deductive thematic content analysis.

Results

Twenty nine consultations were recorded and observed in seven hospitals. The mean SDM score was 51 (range 25–80), indicating that SDM was applied to a moderate extent. The stimulated recall interviews with patients showed that they rely on the information provision and opinion of HCPs, expect consistency and support, and desire a proactive role. They also expect to be questioned by the HCP about their SDM preferences. HCPs said they were willing to incorporate patients’ preferences in SDM, as long as there are no medical contraindications. They also prefer patients to take a prominent role in SDM. HCPs ascribe various roles to themselves in supporting patients’ decision-making.

Conclusions

Although SDM was applied by HCPs to a moderate extent, improvement is needed, especially in helping patients get the information they need and in making sure that every patient is involved in SDM. This is even more important given the complex nature of the disease and the relatively high prevalence of limited health literacy among patients with chronic kidney disease.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02887-4.

Shared decision making, patient-centered communication and patient satisfaction - A cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

The integration of shared decision making (SDM) and patient-centered communication (PCC) is needed to actively involve patients in decision making. This study examined the relationship between shared decision making and patient-centered communication.

METHODS

In 82 videotaped hospital outpatient consultations by 41 medical specialists from 18 disciplines, we assessed the extent of shared decision making by the OPTION⁵ score and patient-centered communication by the Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS), and analyzed the occurrence of a high versus low degree (above or below median) of SDM and/or PCC, and its relation to patient satisfaction scores.

RESULTS

In comparison to earlier studies, we observed comparable 4HCS scores and relatively low OPTION⁵ scores. The correlation between the two was weak (r = 0.29, p = 0.009). In 38% of consultations, we observed a combination of high SDM and low PCC scores or vice versa. The combination of a high SDM and high PCC, which was observed in 23% of consultations, was associated with significantly higher patient satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision making and patient-centered communication are not synonymous and do not always co-exist.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The value of integrated training of shared decision making and patient-centered communication should be further explored.

Randomized evaluation of decision support interventions for atrial fibrillation: Rationale and design of the RED-AF study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) improves the likelihood that patients will receive care in a manner consistent with their priorities. To facilitate SDM, decision aids (DA) are commonly used, both to prepare a patient before their clinician visit, as well as to facilitate discussion during the visit. However, the relative efficacy of patient-focused or encounter-based DAs on SDM and patient outcomes remains largely unknown. We aim to directly estimate the comparative effectiveness of two DA's on SDM observed in encounters to discuss stroke prevention strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

The study aims to recruit 1200 adult patients with non-valvular AF who qualify for anticoagulation therapy, and their clinicians who manage stroke prevention strategies, in a 2x2 cluster randomized multi-center trial at six sites. Two DA's were developed as interactive, online, non-linear tools: a patient decision aid (PDA) to be used by patients before the encounter, and an encounter decision aid (EDA) to be used by clinicians with their patients during the encounter. Patients will be randomized to PDA or usual care; clinicians will be randomized to EDA or usual care.

RESULTS

Primary outcomes are quality of SDM, patient decision making, and patient knowledge. Secondary outcomes include anticoagulation choice, adherence, and clinical events.

CONCLUSION

This trial is the first randomized, head-to-head comparison of the effects of an EDA versus a PDA on SDM. Our results will help to inform future SDM interventions to improve patients' AF outcomes and experiences with stroke prevention strategies.

Shared Decision Making with Acutely Hospitalized, Older Poly-Medicated Patients: A Mixed-Methods Study in an Emergency Department

Shared decision making (SDM) about medicine with older poly-medicated patients is vital to improving adherence and preventing medication-related hospital admissions, but it is difficult to achieve in practice. This study’s primary aim was to provide insight into the extent of SDM in medication decisions in the Emergency Department (ED) and to compare how it aligns with older poly-medicated patients’ preferences and needs. We applied a mixed-methods design to investigate SDM in medication decisions from two perspectives: (1) observational measurements with the observing patient involvement (OPTION 5) instrument of healthcare professionals’ SDM behavior in medication decisions and (2) semi-structured interviews with older poly-medicated patients. A convergent parallel analysis was performed. Sixty-five observations and fourteen interviews revealed four overall themes: (1) a low degree of SDM about medication, (2) a variation in the pro-active and non-active patients approach to conversations about medicine, (3) no information on side effects, and (4) a preference for medication reduction. The lack of SDM with older patients in the ED may increase inequality in health. Patients with low health literacy are at risk of safety threats, nonadherence, and preventable re-admissions. Therefore, healthcare professionals should systematically investigate older poly-medicated patients’ preferences and discuss the side effects and the possibility of reducing harmful medicine.

Surgeon Use of Shared Decision-making for Older Adults Considering Major Surgery: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Because major surgery carries significant risks for older adults with comorbid conditions, shared decision-making is recommended to ensure patients receive care consistent with their goals. However, it is unknown how often shared decision-making is used for these patients.

Objective

To describe the use of shared decision-making during discussions about major surgery with older adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study is a secondary analysis of conversations audio recorded during a randomized clinical trial of a question prompt list. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 31, 2018, from 43 surgeons and 446 patients 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity at outpatient surgical clinics at 5 academic centers.

Interventions

Patients received a question prompt list brochure that contained questions they could ask a surgeon.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The 5-domain Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-making (OPTION5) score (range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater shared decision-making) was used to measure shared decision-making.

Results

A total of 378 surgical consultations were analyzed (mean [SD] patient age, 71.9 [7.2] years; 206 [55%] male; 312 [83%] White). The mean (SD) OPTION5 score was 34.7 (20.6) and was not affected by the intervention. The mean (SD) score in the group receiving the question prompt list was 36.7 (21.2); in the control group, the mean (SD) score was 32.9 (19.9) (effect estimate, 3.80; 95% CI, -0.30 to 8.00; P = .07). Individual surgeon use of shared decision-making varied greatly, with a lowest median score of 10 (IQR, 10-20) to a high of 65 (IQR, 55-80). Lower-performing surgeons had little variation in OPTION5 scores, whereas high-performing surgeons had wide variation. Use of shared decision-making increased when surgeons appeared reluctant to operate (effect estimate, 7.40; 95% CI, 2.60-12.20; P = .003). Although longer conversations were associated with slightly higher OPTION5 scores (effect estimate, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001), 57% of high-scoring transcripts were 26 minutes long or less. On multivariable analysis, patient age and gender, patient education, surgeon age, and surgeon gender were not significantly associated with OPTION5 scores.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that although shared decision-making is important to support the preferences of older adults considering major surgery, surgeon use of shared decision-making is highly variable. Skillful shared decision-making can be done in less than 30 minutes; however, surgeons who engage in high-scoring shared decision-making are more likely to do so when surgical intervention is less obviously beneficial for the patient.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.

Decision making about anti-TNF therapy: A pilot trial of a shared decision-making intervention

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a pre-post pilot trial to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a multi-component intervention (pre-clinic letter, shared decision making cards and follow-up phone call) designed to facilitate SDM in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

We recruited physicians (n = 11) caring for IBD patients and families (n = 36) expected to discuss anti-tumor necrosis treatment. We measured feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, observed SDM, perceived SDM, decision conflict, and regret. Medical records were used to assess clinical outcomes, time to decision and adherence. We compared all outcomes between the usual care and intervention study arms.

RESULTS

Two out of three intervention components were feasible. Visit length increased significantly in the intervention arm. Parents and patients rated the intervention as acceptable, as did most physicians. The intervention was associated with a higher-level of observed SDM. There was no difference perceived SDM, decision conflict, regret or quality of life outcomes between arms. Physician global assessment improved over time in the intervention arm.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot trial provides important guidance for developing a larger scale trial of a modified intervention.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Overall, our intervention shows promise in supporting SDM and engaging both parents and patients in pediatric IBD decisions.

Experience of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity: a multicentre mixed-methods study embedded in the OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial

BACKGROUND

A patient-centred approach to medicines optimisation is considered essential. The OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial evaluated the effectiveness of medication review with shared decision-making (SDM) in older people with multimorbidity. Beyond evaluating the clinical effectiveness, exploring the patient experience facilitates a better understanding of contextual factors and mechanisms affecting medication review effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To explore experiences of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre mixed-methods study, embedded in the OPERAM trial, combining semi-structured interviews and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) with a purposive sample of 48 patients (70-94 years) from four European countries. Interviews were analysed using the Framework approach. Trial implementation data on SDM were collected and the 9-item SDM questionnaire was conducted with 17 clinicians.

RESULTS

Patients generally displayed positive attitudes towards medication review, yet emphasised the importance of long-term, trusting relationships such as with their general practitioners for medication review. Many patients reported a lack of information and communication about medication changes and predominantly experienced paternalistic decision-making. Patients' beliefs that 'doctors know best', 'blind trust', having limited opportunities for questions, use of jargon terms by clinicians, 'feeling too ill', dismissive clinicians, etc highlight the powerlessness some patients felt during hospitalisation, all representing barriers to SDM. Conversely, involvement of companions, health literacy, empathetic and trusting patient-doctor relationships, facilitated SDM. Paradoxical to patients' experiential accounts, clinicians reported high levels of SDM. The BMQ showed that most patients had high necessity and low concern beliefs about medicines. Beliefs about medicines, experiencing benefits or harms from medication changes, illness perception, trust and balancing advice between different healthcare professionals all affected acceptance of medication changes.

CONCLUSION

To meet patients' needs, future medicines optimisation interventions should enhance information exchange, better prepare patients and clinicians for partnership in care and foster collaborative medication reviews across care settings.

Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: results of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is preferred by many patients in cancer care. However, despite scientific evidence and promotion by health policy makers, SDM implementation in routine health care lags behind. This study aimed to evaluate an empirically and theoretically grounded implementation program for SDM in cancer care.

METHODS

In a stepped wedge design, three departments of a comprehensive cancer center sequentially received the implementation program in a randomized order. It included six components: training for health care professionals (HCPs), individual coaching for physicians, patient activation intervention, patient information material/decision aids, revision of quality management documents, and reflection on multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Outcome evaluation comprised four measurement waves. The primary endpoint was patient-reported SDM uptake using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Several secondary implementation outcomes were assessed. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted to evaluate reach and fidelity. Data were analyzed using mixed linear models, qualitative content analysis, and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 2,128 patient questionnaires, 559 questionnaires from 408 HCPs, 132 audio recordings of clinical encounters, and 842 case discussions from 66 MDTMs were evaluated. There was no statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint SDM uptake. Patients in the intervention condition were more likely to experience shared or patient-lead decision-making than in the control condition (d=0.24). HCPs in the intervention condition reported more knowledge about SDM than in the control condition (d = 0.50). In MDTMs the quality of psycho-social information was lower in the intervention than in the control condition (d = - 0.48). Further secondary outcomes did not differ statistically significantly between conditions. All components were implemented in all departments, but reach was limited (e.g., training of 44% of eligible HCPs) and several adaptations occurred (e.g., reduced dose of coaching).

CONCLUSIONS

The process evaluation provides possible explanations for the lack of statistically significant effects in the primary and most of the secondary outcomes. Low reach and adaptations, particularly in dose, may explain the results. Other or more intensive approaches are needed for successful department-wide implementation of SDM in routine cancer care. Further research is needed to understand factors influencing implementation of SDM in cancer care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 , registered 8 January 2018.

Patient Perceived Involvement in Their Treatment is Influenced by Factors Other Than Independently Rated Clinician Communication Effectiveness

We analyzed (1) the correspondence of patient and clinician perceived patient involvement in decision making and ratings made by independent observer's independent ratings, as well as (2), factors associated with patient-perceived involvement, among patients seeking hand specialty care. During 63 visits, the patient, their hand specialist, and 2 independent observers each rated patient involvement in decision making using the 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire for patients and clinicians, and the 5-item observing patient involvement scale (OPTION-5). We also measured health literacy (Newest Vital Sign), patient and visit characteristics (gender, age, race, years of education, occupation, marital status, and family present). There was no correlation (ρ = 0.17; P = .17) between patient (median 42, IQR 36-44.5) and clinician (38, IQR 35-43) ratings of patient involvement in decision making. Independently rated patient involvement correlated moderately with a specialist (ρ = 0.35, P <.01), but not patient (ρ = 0.22, P = .08) ratings. The finding that patient perception of their involvement in decision making has little or no relationship to independently rated clinician communication effectiveness and effort, suggests that other aspects of the encounter-such as empathy and trust-may merit investigation as mediators of the patient agency.

Effectiveness of shared decision-making intervention in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of shared decision-making (SDM) intervention among patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs) in terms of decision self-efficacy, control preferences, SDM process, decision satisfaction, and conflict.

METHODS

A total of 130 outpatients with LDDs recruited from orthopedic or rehabilitation clinics were randomly assigned to the SDM intervention (n = 67) or comparison (n = 63) groups. Patients in the intervention group received decision aids (DAs) with decision coaching and those in controlled group received standard educational materials from a health educator. The primary outcome was decision self-efficacy, and secondary outcomes were control preference, SDM process, conflict, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

The SDM intervention significantly improved decision self-efficacy (mean difference [MD] = 7.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-12.5, partial η² = 0.05) and reduced conflict (MD = -7.0, 95% CI: -12.2 to -1.9, partial η² = 0.06), especially in patients without family involvement, compared with the health education group. However, no significant between-group differences were observed in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

SDM intervention improved SDM self-efficacy and reduced conflict in patients with LDDs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians can integrate DAs and decision coaching in SDM conversations. SDM intervention seems to engage patients in decision-making, especially those without family involvement.

Encounter decision aids to facilitate shared decision-making with women experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding or symptomatic uterine fibroids: A before-after study

OBJECTIVE

Is the level of shared decision-making (SDM) higher after introduction of a SDM package (including encounter decision aids on treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding and training for clinicians) than before?.

METHODS

This before-after study, performed in OB-GYN practice, compared consultations before and after introduction of a SDM package. The target sample size was 25 patients per group. Women seeking treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding were eligible. After their appointments, patients filled out a three-item patient-reported SDM measure. Treatment discussions were audio-recorded and rated for SDM using Observer OPTION⁵. Consultation transcripts in the 'after' group were checked for adherence to the steps required for intended use of decision aids.

RESULTS

16 gynaecologists participated. 25 patients participated before introduction of the decision aids and 28 after. The proportion of women reporting optimal SDM was higher after introduction (75 %) than before (50 %;p < 0.001). The mean observer-rated level of SDM was also significantly higher after than before (MD = 12.50,95 % CI 5.53-19.47).

CONCLUSION

The level of SDM was higher after the introduction of the package than before.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study was conducted in a real-life setting in three clinics, both large academic and small rural, offering opportunities for implementation in different type of organizations.

Decision making for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients with a hemoglobinopathy-Shared or not?

BACKGROUND

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) offers an established curative option for sickle cell disease (SCD) and thalassemia patients but is associated with significant risks. Decision making is a complex process and shared decision making (SDM) could be a fitting approach in case of such preference-sensitive decisions. This study investigated what level of SDM is used in conversations with hemoglobinopathy patients and/or their caregivers considering HSCT as a curative treatment option.

METHODS

Longitudinal, descriptive study using the Observing-Patient-Involvement-in-Decision-Making scale (OPTION⁵ ) scale to determine the level of SDM in conversations with 26 hemoglobinopathy patients and/or their caregivers.

RESULTS

The total mean OPTION⁵ score was 43%, which is a moderate SDM approach. There was no difference between conversations with thalassemia patients and SCD patients. Conversations needing an interpreter scored worse than nontranslated conversations. The best scoring OPTION⁵ item was item 3: "informing about the various treatment options" (mean score 2.3 on scale 0-4). For OPTION⁵ item 4: "eliciting patients' preferences" a more skilled effort was measured for SCD patients compared to thalassemia patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean OPTION⁵ score of "moderate" was achieved mainly by giving information on available options, which is primarily a one-way communication. The SDM process can be improved by actively inviting patients to deliberate about options and including their elicited preferences in decision making.

Evaluating shared decision-making between companion animal veterinarians and their clients using the Observer OPTION5 instrument

BACKGROUND

Communication practices used by veterinarians can impact client's involvement in decision-making. The objective of this study was to evaluate the level of client involvement in veterinary care decisions and factors impacting client involvement.

METHODS

A random sample of practising companion animal veterinarians and a convenience sample of pet owners were recruited. Each consultation was audio-video recorded and analyzed using the Observer OPTION⁵ instrument, adapted from human medicine, to assess veterinarians' level of shared decision-making. A mixed linear model was used to assess statistical associations between veterinarian, client and appointment-level factors and OPTION⁵ scores.

RESULTS

Sixty veterinarians and 909 of their clients were audio-video recorded during a consultation, of which 717 interactions included a decision identified for analysis using the OPTION⁵ instrument. Elements consistent with shared decision-making were uncommon, with a mean OPTION⁵ score of 22.6 (median = 20.0; sd = 13.05; range = 0-75) out of 100. OPTION⁵ scores were positively associated with the length of the appointment and negatively associated with the veterinarian's years in practice when controlling for statistical interaction between client income and appointment type.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest an opportunity exists for veterinarians to incorporate more client involvement through increased use of shared decision-making behaviours during veterinary consultations.

Preliminary Evaluation of a Breast Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making Aid Utilized Within the Primary Care Clinical Encounter

Introduction:

The US Preventative Services Task Force recommends shared decision-making (SDM) between women aged 40 and 49 years and their physician regarding timing of mammography screening. This preliminary study evaluates women’s and physician’s satisfaction using Breast Cancer Risk Estimator & Decision Aid (BCARE-DA), a shared decision aid utilized during the clinical encounter, and examines SDM quality for these encounters.

Methods:

Fifty-three women and their physician utilized BCARE-DA and completed surveys measuring satisfaction with Likert-type and open-ended items and women completed the Decision Conflict Scale. Clinic visit transcripts were evaluated for SDM quality using Observer OPTION-5 and Breast Cancer Screening Decision Core Components Checklist.

Results:

Women and physicians positively evaluated BCARE-DA. Women had low decision conflict. Physicians demonstrated moderate effort toward SDM, greatest in offering options, and lowest for team talk. Physicians demonstrated 2/3 of core SDM elements in 80% to 100% of encounters.

Conclusion:

Preliminary findings suggest specific promise for such Decision Aids to facilitate SDM through understanding of personal risks for breast cancer formulated within each screening option, while some SDM elements likely require additional facilitating.

Shared Decision Making in Practice and the Perspectives of Health Care Professionals on Video-Recorded Consultations With Patients With Low Health Literacy in the Palliative Phase of Their Disease

Introduction. An important goal of palliative care is improving the quality of life of patients and their partners/families. To attain this goal, requirements and preferences of patients need to be discussed, preferably through shared decision making (SDM). This enhances patient autonomy and patient-centeredness, requiring active participation by patients. This is demanding for palliative patients, and even more so for patients with limited health literacy (LHL). This study aimed to examine SDM in practice and assess health care professionals’ perspectives on their own SDM. Methods. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used. Video recordings were gathered cross-sectionally of palliative care consultations with LHL patients (n = 36) conducted by specialized palliative care clinicians and professionals integrating a palliative approach. The consultations were observed for SDM using the OPTION⁵ instrument. Potential determinants of SDM were examined using multilevel analysis. Sequentially, stimulated recall interviews were conducted assessing the perspectives of professionals on their SDM (n = 19). Interviews were examined using deductive thematic content analysis. Results. The average SDM score in practice was moderate, varying greatly between professionals, as shown by the multilevel analysis and by varying degrees of perceived patient involvement in SDM mentioned in the interviews. To improve this, professionals recommended 1) continuously discussing all options with patients, 2) allowing time for patients to talk, and 3) using strategic timing for involving patients in SDM. Discussion. The implementation of SDM for people with LHL in palliative care varies in quality and needs improvement. SDM needs to be enhanced in this care domain because decisions are complex and demanding for LHL patients. Future research is needed that focuses on supporting strategies for comprehensible SDM, best practices, and organizational adaptations.