Supporting shared decision making using an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee in an interface musculoskeletal clinic: A stepped wedge trial

Development and evaluation of shared decision-making tools in rheumatology: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) tools are facilitators of decision-making through a collaborative process between patients/caregivers and clinicians. These tools help clinicians understand patient's perspectives and help patients in making informed decisions based on their preferences. Despite their usefulness for both patients and clinicians, SDM tools are not widely implemented in everyday practice. One barrier is the lack of clarity on the development and evaluation processes of these tools. Such processes have not been previously described in the field of rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development and evaluation processes of shared decision-making (SDM) tools used in rheumatology.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (e.g., EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched for relevant articles. Guidelines for the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews were followed. Studies included were: addressing SDM among adults in rheumatology, focusing on development and/or evaluation of SDM tool, full texts, empirical research, and in the English language.

RESULTS

Of the 2030 records screened, forty-six reports addressing 36 SDM tools were included. Development basis and evaluation measures varied across the studies. The most commonly reported development basis was the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria (19/36, 53 %). Other developmental foundations reported were: The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) (6/36, 16 %), Informed Medical Decision Foundation elements (3/36, 8 %), edutainment principles (2/36, 5.5 %), and others (e.g. DISCERN and MARKOV Model) (9/31,29 %). The most commonly used evaluation measures were the Decisional Conflict Scale (18/46, 39 %), acceptability and knowledge (7/46, 15 %), and the preparation for decision-making scale (5/46,11 %).

CONCLUSION

For better quality and wider implementation of such tools, there is a need for detailed, transparent, systematic, and consistent reporting of development methods and evaluation measures. Using established checklists for reporting development and evaluation is encouraged.

My anesthesia Choice-HF: development and preliminary testing of a tool to facilitate conversations about anesthesia for hip fracture surgery

BACKGROUND

Patients often desire involvement in anesthesia decisions, yet clinicians rarely explain anesthesia options or elicit preferences. We developed My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture, a conversation aid about anesthesia options for hip fracture surgery and tested its preliminary efficacy and acceptability.

METHODS

We developed a 1-page, tabular format, plain-language conversation aid with feedback from anesthesiologists, decision scientists, and community advisors. We conducted an online survey of English-speaking adults aged 50 and older. Participants imagined choosing between spinal and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Before and after viewing the aid, participants answered a series of questions regarding key outcomes, including decisional conflict, knowledge about anesthesia options, and acceptability of the aid.

RESULTS

Of 364/409 valid respondents, mean age was 64 (SD 8.9) and 59% were female. The proportion indicating decisional conflict decreased after reviewing the aid (63-34%, P < 0.001). Median knowledge scores increased from 50% correct to 67% correct (P < 0.001). 83% agreed that the aid would help them discuss options and preferences. 76.4% would approve of doctors using it.

CONCLUSION

My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture decreased decisional conflict and increased knowledge about anesthesia choices for hip fracture surgery. Respondents assessed it as acceptable for use in clinical settings.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Use of clinical decision aids may increase shared decision-making; further testing is warranted.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table.

RESULTS

We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table.

CONCLUSION

We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Exploration of adverse consequences of total knee arthroplasty by patients and knee specialists: a qualitative study

Objectives

A successful outcome according to the knee specialist is not a guarantee for treatment success as perceived by patients. In this study, we aimed to explore outcome expectations and experiences of patients with OA before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery and knee specialists that might contribute to the negative appraisal of its effect, and differences in views between patients and knee specialists.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were held in Belgium and the Netherlands. Twenty-five patients (2 without indications for TKA, 11 on the waiting list for TKA and 12 postoperative TKA) and 15 knee specialists (9 orthopaedic surgeons, 1 physician assistant, 1 nurse practitioner and 4 physiotherapists) were interviewed. Conversations were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis following the grounded theory approach. Separate analyses were conducted for patients and knee specialists.

Results

Patients were focused on the arduous process of getting used to the prosthesis, lingering pain, awareness of the artificial knee and limitations they experience during valued and daily activities, whereas knee specialists put emphasis on surgical failure, unexplained pain, limited walking ability and impairments that limit the physical functioning of patients.

Conclusion

This study provides a comprehensive overview of potential adverse consequences from the perspective of both patients and knee specialists. Improving patients' awareness and expectations of adaptation to the knee prosthesis needs to be considered.

The impact of adding cost information to a conversation aid to support shared decision making about low-risk prostate cancer treatment: Results of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Decision aids help patients consider the benefits and drawbacks of care options but rarely include cost information. We assessed the impact of a conversation-based decision aid containing information about low-risk prostate cancer management options and their relative costs.

METHODS

We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in outpatient urology practices within a US-based academic medical center. We randomised five clinicians to four intervention sequences and enroled patients newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Primary patient-reported outcomes collected postvisit included the frequency of cost conversations and referrals to address costs. Other patient-reported outcomes included: decisional conflict postvisit and at 3 months, decision regret at 3 months, shared decision-making postvisit, financial toxicity postvisit and at 3 months. Clinicians reported their attitudes about shared decision-making pre- and poststudy, and the intervention's feasibility and acceptability. We used hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient outcomes. The clinician was included as a random effect; fixed effects included education, employment, telehealth versus in-person visit, visit date, and enrolment period.

RESULTS

Between April 2020 and March 2022, we screened 513 patients, contacted 217 eligible patients, and enroled 117/217 (54%) (51 in usual care, 66 in the intervention group). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was not associated with cost conversations (β = .82, p = .27), referrals to cost-related resources (β = -0.36, p = .81), shared decision-making (β = -0.79, p = .32), decisional conflict postvisit (β = -0.34, p= .70), or at follow-up (β = -2.19, p = .16), decision regret at follow-up (β = -9.76, p = .11), or financial toxicity postvisit (β = -1.32, p = .63) or at follow-up (β = -2.41, p = .23). Most clinicians and patients had positive attitudes about the intervention and shared decision-making. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, patients in the intervention group experienced more transient indecision (p < .02) suggesting increased deliberation between visit and follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Despite enthusiasm from clinicians, the intervention was not significantly associated with hypothesised outcomes, though we were unable to robustly test outcomes due to recruitment challenges. Recruitment at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted eligibility, sample size/power, study procedures, and increased telehealth visits and financial worry, independent of the intervention. Future work should explore ways to support shared decision-making, cost conversations, and choice deliberation with a larger sample. Such work could involve additional members of the care team, and consider the detail, quality, and timing of addressing these issues.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and clinicians were engaged as stakeholder advisors meeting monthly throughout the duration of the project to advise on the study design, measures selected, data interpretation, and dissemination of study findings.

Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS).

METHODS

We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS.

DISCUSSION

The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

Adaptation and Implementation of a Shared Decision-Making Tool From One Health Context to Another: Partnership Approach Using Mixed Methods

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of pain and disability. Knee osteoarthritis accounts for nearly four-fifths of the burden of osteoarthritis internationally, and 10% of adults in the United Kingdom have the condition. Shared decision-making (SDM) supports patients to make more informed choices about treatment and care while reducing inequities in access to treatment. We evaluated the experience of a team adapting an SDM tool for knee osteoarthritis and the tool's implementation potential within a local clinical commissioning group (CCG) area in southwest England. The tool aims to prepare patients and clinicians for SDM by providing evidence-based information about treatment options relevant to disease stage.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the experiences of a team adapting an SDM tool from one health context to another and the implementation potential of the tool in the local CCG area.

METHODS

A partnership approach using mixed methods was used to respond to recruitment challenges and ensure that study aims could be addressed within time restrictions. A web-based survey was used to obtain clinicians' feedback on experiences of using the SDM tool. Qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone or video call with a sample of stakeholders involved in adapting and implementing the tool in the local CCG area. Survey findings were summarized as frequencies and percentages. Content analysis was conducted on qualitative data using framework analysis, and data were mapped directly to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

RESULTS

Overall, 23 clinicians completed the survey, including first-contact physiotherapists (11/23, 48%), physiotherapists (7/23, 30%), specialist physiotherapists (4/23, 17%), and a general practitioner (1/23, 4%). Eight stakeholders involved in commissioning, adapting, and implementing the SDM tool were interviewed. Participants described barriers and facilitators to the adaptation, implementation, and use of the tool. Barriers included a lack of organizational culture that supported and resourced SDM, lack of clinician buy-in and awareness of the tool, challenges with accessibility and usability, and lack of adaptation for underserved communities. Facilitators included the influence of clinical leaders' belief that SDM tools can improve patient outcomes and National Health Service resource use, clinicians' positive experiences of using the tool, and improving awareness of the tool. Themes were mapped to 13 of the 14 TDF domains. Usability issues were described, which did not map to the TDF domains.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights barriers and facilitators to adapting and implementing tools from one health context to another. We recommend that tools selected for adaptation should have a strong evidence base, including evidence of effectiveness and acceptability in the original context. Legal advice should be sought regarding intellectual property early in the project. Existing guidance for developing and adapting interventions should be used. Co-design methods should be applied to improve adapted tools' accessibility and acceptability.

Opportunities for shared decision-making about major surgery with high-risk patients: a multi-method qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the opportunities for shared decision-making when older high-risk patients are offered major surgery. This study examines how, when, and why clinicians and patients can share decision-making about major surgery.

METHODS

This was a multi-method qualitative study, combining video recordings of preoperative consultations, interviews, and focus groups (33 patients, 19 relatives, 36 clinicians), with observations and documentary analysis in clinics in five hospitals in the UK undertaking major orthopaedic, colorectal, and/or cardiac surgery.

RESULTS

Three opportunities for shared decision-making about major surgery were identified. Resolution-focused consultations (cardiac/colorectal) resulted in a single agreed preferred option related to a potentially life-threatening problem, with limited opportunities for shared decision-making. Evaluative and deliberative consultations offered more opportunity. The former focused on assessing the likelihood of benefits of surgery for a presenting problem that was not a threat to life for the patient (e.g., orthopaedic consultations) and the latter (largely colorectal) involved discussion of a range of options while also considering significant comorbidities and patient preferences. The extent to which opportunities for shared decision-making were available, and taken up by surgeons, was influenced by the nature of the presenting problem, clinical pathway, and patient trajectory.

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions about major surgery were not always shared between patients and doctors. The nature of the presenting problem, comorbidities, clinical pathways, and patient trajectories all informed the type of consultation and opportunities for sharing decision-making. Our findings have implications for clinicians, with shared decision-making about major surgery most feasible when the focus is on life-enhancing treatment.

Shared decision-making and the duration of medical consultations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

1) determine whether increased levels of Shared Decision-Making (SDM) affect consultation duration, 2) investigate the intervention characteristics involved.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were systematically searched for experimental and cross-sectional studies up to December 2021. A best-evidence synthesis was performed, and interventions characteristics that increased at least one SDM-outcome, were pooled and descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies were selected: 28 randomized clinical trials, 8 quasi-experimental studies, and 27 cross-sectional studies. Overall, pooling of data was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity. No differences in consultation duration were found more often than increased or decreased durations. . Consultation times (minutes:seconds) were significantly increased only among interventions that: 1) targeted clinicians only (Mean Difference [MD] 1:30, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0:24-2:37); 2) were performed in primary care (MD 2:05, 95%CI 0:11-3:59; 3) used a group format (MD 2:25, 95%CI 0:45-4:05); 4) were not theory-based (MD 4:01, 95%CI 0:38-7:23).

CONCLUSION

Applying SDM does not necessarily require longer consultation durations. Theory-based, multilevel implementation approaches possibly lower the risk of increasing consultation durations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The commonly heard concern that time hinders SDM implementation can be contradicted, but implementation demands multifaceted approaches and space for training and adapting work processes.

Effect of Information Content and General Practitioner Recommendation to Exercise on Treatment Beliefs and Intentions for Knee Osteoarthritis: An Online Multi-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effects of general osteoarthritis (OA) information in addition to a treatment option grid and general practitioner (GP) recommendation to exercise on treatment beliefs and intentions.

METHODS

An online randomized trial of 735 people 45 years old or older without OA who were recruited from a consumer survey network. Participants read a hypothetical scenario about visiting their GP for knee problems and were randomized to the following: i) 'general information', ii) 'option grid' (general information plus option grid), or iii) 'option grid plus recommendation' (general information plus option grid plus GP exercise recommendation). The primary outcome was an agreement that exercise is the best management option (0-10 numeric rating scale; higher scores indicating higher agreement that exercise is best). The secondary outcomes were beliefs about other management options and management intentions. Linear regression models estimated the mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) between-group difference in postintervention scores, adjusted for baseline.

RESULTS

Option grid plus recommendation led to higher agreement that exercise is the best management by a mean of 0.4 units (95% CI: 0.1-0.6) compared with general information. There were no other between-group differences for the primary outcome. Option grid led to higher agreement that surgery was best, and x-rays were necessary, compared with general information (mean between-group differences: 0.7 [CI: 0.2-1.1] and 0.5 [CI: 0.1-1.0], respectively) and option grid plus recommendation (0.5 [CI: 0.1-0.9] and 0.9 [CI: 0.4-1.3]).

CONCLUSION

Addition of an option grid and GP exercise recommendation to general OA information led to more favorable views that exercise was best for the hypothetical knee problem. However, differences were small and of unclear clinical importance.

Novel pictograms to improve pharmacist understanding of the number needed to treat (NNT)

INTRODUCTION

Number needed to treat (NNT) is a clinically useful "yardstick" used to gauge the efficacy of therapeutic interventions. The objective of this project was to develop and pilot a series of pictograms and assess their impact on pharmacist understanding of the NNT.

METHODS

Three decision aids containing NNT pictograms were developed following a preliminary literature review and three focus groups with current Australian-registered pharmacists and pharmacist interns. Pharmacists then tested the pictograms in a research pilot in clinical encounters until (1) ≥ 3 sessions had occurred or (2) a two-week period had elapsed from commencement. Knowledge assessment was administered both pre- and post-pilot. Transcription and inductive thematic analysis were applied to focus group data. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed rank, and McNemar's tests were used to analyse the pilot data.

RESULTS

Six core themes regarding NNT decision aid development were identified with >80% consensus across three focus groups (N = 11). Comparison of the pre-post measures (n = 10) showed an increase in median scores after use of NNT decision aids, correlating to a moderate Cohen classified effect size (d = 0.54). Wilcoxon matched pairs test demonstrated a statistically insignificant influence of NNT pictograms on the knowledge assessment survey (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

While the NNT is not a new concept, its incorporation as part of pictograms for health practitioner enrichment is novel. This pilot study suggests that utilizing decision aids with NNT pictograms as counselling adjuncts appears promising in the realm of enhancing pharmacists' understanding of the NNT.

Assessing the use of a clinical decision support tool for pain management in primary care

Objective

Given time constraints, poorly organized information, and complex patients, primary care providers (PCPs) can benefit from clinical decision support (CDS) tools that aggregate and synthesize problem-specific patient information. First, this article describes the design and functionality of a CDS tool for chronic noncancer pain in primary care. Second, we report on the retrospective analysis of real-world usage of the tool in the context of a pragmatic trial.

Materials and methods

The tool known as OneSheet was developed using user-centered principles and built in the Epic electronic health record (EHR) of 2 health systems. For each relevant patient, OneSheet presents pertinent information in a single EHR view to assist PCPs in completing guideline-recommended opioid risk mitigation tasks, review previous and current patient treatments, view patient-reported pain, physical function, and pain-related goals.

Results

Overall, 69 PCPs accessed OneSheet 2411 times (since November 2020). PCP use of OneSheet varied significantly by provider and was highly skewed (site 1: median accesses per provider: 17 [interquartile range (IQR) 9-32]; site 2: median: 8 [IQR 5-16]). Seven "power users" accounted for 70% of the overall access instances across both sites. OneSheet has been accessed an average of 20 times weekly between the 2 sites.

Discussion

Modest OneSheet use was observed relative to the number of eligible patients seen with chronic pain.

Conclusions

Organizations implementing CDS tools are likely to see considerable provider-level variation in usage, suggesting that CDS tools may vary in their utility across PCPs, even for the same condition, because of differences in provider and care team workflows.

The development and utility of a multicriteria patient decision aid for people contemplating treatment for osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

There are a range of treatment options for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee and hip, each with a unique profile of risks and benefits. Patient decision aids can help incorporate patient preferences in treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to develop and test the utility of a patient decision aid for OA that was developed using a multicriteria decision analytic framework.

METHODS

People contemplating treatment for OA who had accessed the website myjointpain.org.au were invited to participate in the study by using the online patient decision aid. Two forms of the patient decision aid were created: A shorter form and a longer form, which allowed greater customization that was offered to respondents after they had completed the shorter form. Respondents also completed questions asking about their experience using the patient decision aid.

RESULTS

A total of 625 self-selected respondents completed the short-form and 180 completed the long-form. Across both forms, serious side effects, pain and function were rated as the most important treatment outcomes. Most respondents (64%) who completed the longer form reported that using the tool was a positive experience, 38% reported that using the tool had changed their mind and 48% said that using the tool would improve the quality of their decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the findings suggest that this patient decision aid may be of use to a substantial number of people in facilitating appropriate treatment decision-making.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Service users of myjointpain.org.au were involved through their participation in the study, and their feedback will guide the development of future iterations of the tool.

Effectiveness of end-stage renal disease communication skills training for healthcare personnel: a single-center, single-blind, randomized study

BACKGROUND

Given that the consequences of treatment decisions for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are long-term and significant, good communication skills are indispensable for health care personnel (HCP) working in nephrology. However, HCP have busy schedules that make participation in face-to-face courses difficult. Thus, online curricula are a rising trend in medical education. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of online ESRD communication skills training (CST) concerning the truth-telling confidence and shared decision-making (SDM) ability of HCP.

METHODS

For this single-center, single-blind study, 91 participants (nephrologists and nephrology nurses) were randomly assigned to two groups, the intervention group (IG) (n = 45) or the control group (CG) (n = 46), with the IG participating in ESRD CST and the CG receiving regular in-service training. Truth-telling confidence and SDM ability were measured before (T0), 2 weeks after (T1), and 4 weeks after (T2) the intervention. Group differences over the study period were analyzed by generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

IG participants exhibited significantly higher truth-telling confidence at T1 than did CG participants (t = 2.833, P = .006, Cohen's d = 0.59), while there were no significant intergroup differences in the confidence levels of participants in the two groups at T0 and T2. Concerning SDM ability, there were no significant intergroup differences at any of the three time points. However, IG participants had high levels of satisfaction (n = 43, 95%) and were willing to recommend ESRD CST to others (n = 41, 91.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

ESRD CST enhanced short-term truth-telling confidence, though it is unclear whether this was due to CST content or the online delivery. However, during pandemics, when face-to-face training is unsuitable, online CST is an indispensable tool. Future CST intervention studies should carefully design interactive modules and control for method of instruction.

Improving shared decision-making in vascular surgery: a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

For various vascular surgical disorders different treatment options are available and feasible. Hence, vascular surgery seems an area par excellence for shared decision-making (SDM), in which clinicians incorporate patients' preferences into the final treatment decision. However, current SDM-levels in vascular surgical outpatient clinics is below expectations. To improve this, different decision support tools (DSTs) were developed: online patient decision aids, consultation cards and decision cards.

METHODS

This stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial was conducted in 13 Dutch hospitals. Besides the developed DSTs, a training on how to apply SDM during the clinician-patient encounter was used in this study. Data were obtained via questionnaires and audio-recordings. Primary outcome was the OPTION-5 score, an objective tool to assess the level of SDM, expressed as a percentage of exemplary performance. Main secondary outcomes were: patients' disease-specific knowledge, consultation duration, and treatment choice. Factors influencing OPTION-5 scores were studied using linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

We included 342 patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA); n=87, intermittent claudication (IC); n=143, or varicose veins (VV); n=112. Audiotapes of 395 consultations were analysed. Overall mean OPTION-5 score significantly improved from 28.7% to 37.8% (mean difference 9.1%, 95%CI: 6.5-11.8%) after implementation of the DSTs. Also patient knowledge increased significantly (median increase: 13%, effect size: 0.13, p=.025). The number of patients choosing non-surgical treatment choices increased with 21.4% to 28.8% for AAA-patients and doubled (16.0% to 32.0%) among IC-patients. For surgeons, the SDM-training and for patients the decision aid significantly and independently increased OPTION-5 scores (p<.001 and p=.047, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Introducing DSTs improves the level of shared decision-making in vascular surgery, improves patient knowledge, and shifts their preference towards more non-surgical treatments. The SDM-training for clinicians and the decision aid for patients appeared the most effective means for improving SDM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR6487.

Potential impact of encounter patient decision aids on the patient-clinician dialogue: a qualitative study on Dutch and American medical specialists' experiences

OBJECTIVES

To examine the experiences among Dutch and American clinicians on the impact of using encounter patient decision aids (ePDAs) on their clinical practice, and subsequently to formulate recommendations for sustained ePDA use in clinical practice.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with clinicians who used 11 different ePDAs (applicable to their specialty) for 3 months after a short training. The verbatim transcribed interviews were coded with thematic analysis by six researchers via ATLAS.ti.

SETTING

Nine hospitals in the Netherlands and two hospitals in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five clinicians were interviewed: 16 Dutch medical specialists from four different disciplines (gynaecologists, ear-nose-throat specialists, neurologists and orthopaedic surgeon), 5 American gynaecologists and 4 American gynaecology medical trainees.

RESULTS

The interviews showed that the ePDA potentially impacted the patient-clinician dialogue in several ways. We identified six themes that illustrate this: that is, (1) communication style, for example, structuring the conversation; (2) the patient's role, for example, encouraging patients to ask more questions; (3) the clinician's role, for example, prompting clinicians to discuss more information; (4) workflow, for example, familiarity with the ePDA's content helped to integrate it into practice; (5) shared decision-making (SDM), for example, mixed experiences whether the ePDA contributed to SDM; and (6) content of the ePDA. Recommendations to possibly improve ePDA use based on the clinician's experiences: (1) add pictorial health information to the ePDA instead of text only and (2) instruct clinicians how to use the ePDA in a flexible (depending on their discipline and setting) and personalised way adapting the ePDA to the patients' needs (e.g., mark off irrelevant options).

CONCLUSIONS

ePDAs contributed to the patient-clinician dialogue in several ways according to medical specialists. A flexible and personalised approach appeared appropriate to integrate the use of ePDAs into the clinician's workflow, and customise their use to individual patients' needs.

The Need for Brevity During Shared Decision Making (SDM) for Cancer Screening: Veterans' Perspectives on an "Everyday SDM" Compromise

Introduction. Detailed or “full” shared decision making (SDM) about cancer screening is difficult in the primary care setting. Time spent discussing cancer screening is time not spent on other important issues. Given time constraints, brief SDM that is incomplete but addresses key elements may be feasible and acceptable. However, little is known about how patients feel about abbreviated SDM. This study assessed patient perspectives on a compromise solution (“everyday SDM”): 1) primary care provided makes a tailored recommendation, 2) briefly presents qualitative information on key tradeoffs, and 3) conveys full support for decisional autonomy and desires for more information. Methods. We recruited a stratified random sample of Veterans from an academic Veterans Affairs medical center who were eligible for lung cancer screening, oversampling women and minority patients, to attend a 6-hour deliberative focus group. Experts informed participants about cancer screening, factors that influence screening benefits, and the role of patient preferences. Then, facilitator-led small groups elicited patient questions and informed opinions about the everyday SDM proposal, its acceptability, and their recommendations for improvement. Results. Thirty-six Veterans with a heavy smoking history participated (50% male, 83% white). There was a strong consensus that everyday SDM was acceptable if patients were the final deciders and could get more information on request. Participants broadly recommended that clinicians only mention downsides directly related to screening and avoid discussion of potential downstream harms (such as biopsies). Discussion. Although further testing in more diverse populations and different conditions is needed, these patients found the everyday SDM approach to be acceptable for routine lung cancer screening discussions, despite its use of an explicit recommendation and presentation of only qualitative information.

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.

Effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of a Patient Decision Aid (PtDA) for knee osteoarthritis.

METHOD

Randomized controlled trial, in which 193 patients were allocated to the PtDA or usual care. Outcome measures were the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), knowledge of osteoarthritis and arthroplasty, satisfaction with the decision-making process (SDMP) and treatment preference, assessed immediately after the intervention. At 6 months, the same measures were applied in non-operated patients, whereas those who underwent arthroplasty completed the SDMP and the Decisional Regret Scale (DRS).

RESULTS

The PtDA produced a significant immediate improvement of decisional conflict (MD = -11.65, 95%CI: -14.93, -8.37), objective knowledge (MD = 10.37, 99%IC: 3.15, 17.70) and satisfaction (MD = 6.77, 99%CI: 1.19, 12.34), and a different distribution of preferences (χ² = 8.74, p = 0.033). Patients with less than secondary education obtained a stronger effect on decisional conflict (p = 0.015 for the interaction) but weaker for knowledge (p = 0.051). At 6 months, there were no significant differences in any variable, including the rate of total knee replacement. Operated patients showed a low level of regret, which was not affected by the intervention.

CONCLUSION

The PtDA is effective immediately after its application, but it shows no effects in the medium-term. Future research should investigate which subgroups of patients could benefit more from this intervention, as well as the longitudinal evolution of decision-related psychological variables.

Patient Engagement Approaches in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Review of Two Decades

Patient engagement is a comprehensive approach to health care where the physician inspires confidence in the patient to be involved in their own care. Most research studies of patient engagement in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) have come in the past 5 years (2015-2020), with no reviews investigating the different patient engagement methods in TJA. The primary purpose of this review is to examine patient engagement methods in TJA. The search identified 31 studies aimed at patient engagement methods in TJA. Based on our review, the conclusions therein strongly suggest that patient engagement methods in TJA demonstrate benefits throughout care delivery through tools focused on promoting involvement in decision making and accessible care delivery (eg, virtual rehabilitation, remote monitoring). Future work should understand the influence of social determinants on patient involvement in care, and overall cost (or savings) of engagement methods to patients and society.

Tested communication strategies for providing information to patients in medical consultations: A scoping review and quality assessment of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To systematize the scientific knowledge of empirically tested strategies for verbally providing medical information in patient-physician consultations.

METHODS

A scoping review searching for terms related to physician, information, oral communication, and controlled study. Four pairs of reviewers screened articles. For each selected study, we assessed the quality and summarized aspects on participants, study, intervention, and outcomes. Information provision strategies were inductively classified by types and main categories.

RESULTS

After screening 9422 articles, 39 were included. The methodological quality was moderate. We identified four differently used categories of strategies for providing information: cognitive aid (n = 13), persuasive (n = 8), relationship- (n = 3), and objectivity-oriented strategies (n = 4); plus, one "mixed" category (n = 11). Strategies were rarely theoretically derived.

CONCLUSIONS

Current research of tested strategies for verbally providing medical information is marked by great heterogeneity in methods and outcomes, and lack of theory-driven approaches. The list of strategies could be used to analyse real life communication.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings may aid the harmonization of future efforts to develop empirically-based information provision strategies to be used in clinical and teaching settings.

Development of three different decision support tools to support shared decision-making in vascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is known to improve quality of care. Particularly in vascular surgery treatment options are often preference-sensitive. Unfortunately, vascular surgeons infrequently apply SDM. Decision support tools (DSTs) have been shown to be helpful in SDM.

OBJECTIVE

This article describes the development process of three different DSTs to help vascular surgeons and patients apply SDM.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

Patients' information needs were obtained via focus group meetings. Fifty-two patients and eighteen vascular surgeons not involved in the development process evaluated the comprehensibility and usability of the DST-prototypes.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary steering group commissioned the development of the three DSTs according to international standards.

RESULTS

Digital decision aids and paper-based consultation cards and decision cards were developed for patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid artery disease, intermittent claudication or varicose veins. Patients preferred the use of the decision aids followed by consultation cards, whereas vascular surgeons preferred to use decision cards followed by decision aids.

DISCUSSION

Decision aids, consultation cards and decision cards for four vascular diseases are now available to all vascular surgeons and patients in the Netherlands. The DSTs were well received by both surgeons and patients. English versions are also available.

Overcoming Overuse Part 5: Is Shared Decision Making Our Excalibur?

Shared decision making is recommended as a strategy to help patients identify what matters most to them and make informed decisions about musculoskeletal care. In part 5 of the Overcoming Overuse series, we look at the evidence supporting shared decision making as a strategy to help curb overuse. Using shared decision making in clinical consultations may help to reduce the overuse of options that are not beneficial and to increase use of care supported by evidence. Shared decision making could support clinicians in promoting uptake of active rehabilitation options with a favorable balance of benefits to harms. Shared decision making facilitates conversations about unnecessary tests or treatments and could be a key strategy for overcoming overuse. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(2):53-56. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0103.

Shared Decision-making in Orthopaedic Surgery

Shared decision-making (SDM) is the process by which the physician and the patient collaborate to arrive at the evidence-based treatment that best aligns with the patient's individual goals of care. The implementation of SDM practices is especially important when an invasive surgical procedure is among the treatment options. Ideally, the variation in the patient treatment choice would mirror the variability in patient goals rather than variation in a physician's ability to communicate effectively. Potentially aiding in these communication efforts, decision aids are tools gaining popularity for their ability to help physicians facilitate the SDM process with patients. This article is intended to give the practicing orthopaedic surgeon an understanding of the concept of SDM and how it can improve physician-patient communication. We will explore the key elements of SDM, attendant benefits, indications, and barriers to implementation and propose steps to begin the incorporation of SDM into practice.

What matters most: Randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata

Background

Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with early‐stage breast cancer are more likely to report poorer physician‐patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery, lower involvement in decision making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. The objective of this study was to understand how to support women across socioeconomic strata in making breast cancer surgery choices.

Methods

We conducted a 3‐arm (Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, and usual care), multisite, randomized controlled superiority trial with surgeon‐level randomization. The Option Grid (text only) and Picture Option Grid (pictures plus text) conversation aids were evidence‐based summaries of available breast cancer surgery options on paper. Decision quality (primary outcome), treatment choice, treatment intention, shared decision making (SDM), anxiety, quality of life, decision regret, and coordination of care were measured from T0 (pre‐consultation) to T5 (1‐year after surgery.

Results

Sixteen surgeons saw 571 of 622 consented patients. Patients in the Picture Option Grid arm (n = 248) had higher knowledge (immediately after the visit [T2] and 1 week after surgery or within 2 weeks of the first postoperative visit [T3]), an improved decision process (T2 and T3), lower decision regret (T3), and more SDM (observed and self‐reported) compared to usual care (n = 257). Patients in the Option Grid arm (n = 66) had higher decision process scores (T2 and T3), better coordination of care (12 weeks after surgery or within 2 weeks of the second postoperative visit [T4]), and more observed SDM (during the surgical visit [T1]) compared to usual care arm. Subgroup analyses suggested that the Picture Option Grid had more impact among women of lower SES and health literacy. Neither intervention affected concordance, treatment choice, or anxiety.

Conclusions

Paper‐based conversation aids improved key outcomes over usual care. The Picture Option Grid had more impact among disadvantaged patients.

Lay Summary

The objective of this study was to understand how to help women with lower incomes or less formal education to make breast cancer surgery choices.

Compared with usual care, a conversation aid with pictures and text led to higher knowledge. It improved the decision process and shared decision making (SDM) and lowered decision regret. A text‐only conversation aid led to an improved decision process, more coordinated care, and higher SDM compared to usual care. The conversation aid with pictures was more helpful for women with lower income or less formal education.

Conversation aids with pictures and text helped women make better breast cancer surgery choices.

A paper‐based pictorial conversation aid (pictures plus text) is beneficial to all patients with early‐stage breast cancer and particularly to disadvantaged patients. Between‐surgeon variation suggests that the maximal impact of such interventions requires standardized physician training combined with these interventions.

Text-only and picture conversation aids both supported shared decision making for breast cancer surgery: Analysis from a cluster randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine if two encounter conversation aids for early-stage breast cancer surgery increased observed and patient-reported shared decision making (SDM) compared with usual care and if observed and patient-reported SDM were associated.

METHODS

Surgeons in a cluster randomized trial at four cancer centers were randomized to use an Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, or usual care. We used bivariate statistics, linear regression, and multilevel models to evaluate the influence of trial arm, patient socioeconomic status and health literacy on observed SDM (via OPTION-5) and patient-reported SDM (via collaboRATE).

RESULTS

From 311 recordings, OPTION-5 scores were 73/100 for Option Grid (n = 40), 56.3/100 for Picture Option Grid (n = 144), and 41.0/100 for usual care (n = 127; p < 0.0001). Top collaboRATE scores were 81.6 % for Option Grid, 80.0 % for Picture Option Grid, and 56.4 % for usual care (p < 0.001). Top collaboRATE scores correlated with an 8.60 point (95 %CI 0.66, 13.7) higher OPTION-5 score (p = 0.008) with no correlation in the multilevel analysis. Patients of lower socioeconomic status had lower OPTION-5 scores before accounting for clustering.

CONCLUSIONS

Both conversation aids led to meaningfully higher observed and patient-reported SDM. Observed and patient-reported SDM were not strongly correlated.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Healthcare providers could implement these conversation aids in real-world settings.

Dealing with the Lack of Time for Detailed Shared Decision-making in Primary Care: Everyday Shared Decision-making

Policymakers and researchers are strongly encouraging clinicians to support patient autonomy through shared decision-making (SDM). In setting policies for clinical care, decision-makers need to understand that current models of SDM have tended to focus on major decisions (e.g., surgeries and chemotherapy) and focused less on everyday primary care decisions. Most decisions in primary care are substantive everyday decisions: intermediate-stakes decisions that occur dozens of times every day, yet are non-trivial for patients, such as whether routine mammography should start at age 40, 45, or 50. Expectations that busy clinicians use current models of SDM (here referred to as "detailed" SDM) for these decisions can feel overwhelming to clinicians. Evidence indicates that detailed SDM is simply not realistic for most of these decisions and without a feasible alternative, clinicians usually default to a decision-making approach with little to no personalization. We propose, for discussion and refinement, a compromise approach to personalizing these decisions (everyday SDM). Everyday SDM is based on a feasible process for supporting patient autonomy that also allows clinicians to continue being respectful health advocates for their patients. We propose that alternatives to detailed SDM are needed to make progress toward more patient-centered care.

Improving shared decision-making in vascular surgery by implementing decision support tools: study protocol for the stepped-wedge cluster-randomised OVIDIUS trial

Background

Shared decision-making improves the quality of patient care. Unfortunately, shared decision-making is not yet common practice among vascular surgeons. Thus, decision support tools were developed to assist vascular surgeons and their patients in using shared decision-making. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of decision support tools to improve shared decision-making during vascular surgical consultations in which a treatment decision is to be made.

Methods

The study design is a multicentre stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Eligible patients are adult patients, visiting the outpatient clinic of a participating medical centre for whom several treatment options are feasible and who face a primary treatment decision for their abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid artery disease, intermittent claudication, or varicose veins. Patients and vascular surgeons in the intervention group receive decision support tools that may help them adopt shared decision-making when making the final treatment decision. These decision support tools are decision aids, consultation cards, decision cards, and a practical training. Decision aids are informative websites that help patients become more aware of the pros and cons of the treatment options and their preferences regarding the treatment choice. Consultation cards with text or decision cards with images are used by vascular surgeons during consultation to determine which aspect of a treatment is most important to their patient. In the training vascular surgeons can practice shared decision-making with a patient actor, guided by a medical psychologist. This trial aims to include 502 vascular surgical patients to achieve a clinically relevant improvement in shared decision-making of 10 out of 100 points, using the 5-item OPTION instrument to score the audio-recordings of consultations.

Discussion

In the OVIDIUS trial the available decision support tools for vascular surgical patients are implemented in clinical practice. We will evaluate whether these tools actually improve shared decision-making in the consultation room. The stepped-wedge cluster-randomised study design will ensure that at the end of the study all participating centres have implemented at least some of the decision support tools and thereby a certain level of shared decision-making.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR6487. Registered 7 June 2017. URL: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=6487

Initial User Testing of Decision Aids for Multiple Sclerosis Disease-Modifying Therapies

BACKGROUND

Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are the cornerstone of multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment. DMT treatment is a preference-sensitive decision in which shared decision making is indicated.

METHODS

We used qualitative methods to explore usability of MS decision aids in people aged 18 to 70 years diagnosed with MS. Semistructured interviews aimed to assess patients' overall reaction to using the decision aids. This included specific aspects of the user experience to improve readability, format, content, and patient opinions about whether the integration of the decision aids into visits with MS clinicians would be feasible and assist with making better DMT selections.

RESULTS

Twenty-three interviews were completed with eligible patients with MS aged 18 to 70 years to improve readability. Using thematic analysis, 5 themes emerged from the analysis including decision aids are easy and understandable, include cost, prioritize side effects and tests, increase font size, and have a simpler injectable grid. We also identified areas for improvement including formatting, side effects of DMT options, transparency of data sources, research, and development.

CONCLUSION

Overall findings suggest that the decision aids are usable, easy to understand, and helpful to facilitate shared decision making for DMT selection. This work will help guide further modifications to the prototype MS decision aids before publication and can inform the growing body of knowledge regarding the development of high-quality decision aids.

Decision Aid Implementation and Patients' Preferences for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Treatment: Insights from the High Value Healthcare Collaborative

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) research has emphasized the role of decision aids (DAs) for helping patients make treatment decisions reflective of their preferences, yet there have been few collaborative multi-institutional efforts to integrate DAs in orthopedic consultations and primary care encounters.

OBJECTIVE

In the context of routine DA implementation for SDM, we investigate which patient-level characteristics are associated with patient preferences for surgery versus medical management before and after exposure to DAs. We explored whether DA implementation in primary care encounters was associated with greater shifts in patients' treatment preferences after exposure to DAs compared to DA implementation in orthopedic consultations.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

10 High Value Healthcare Collaborative (HVHC) health systems.

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

A total of 495 hip and 1343 adult knee osteoarthritis patients who were exposed to DAs within HVHC systems between July 2012 to June 2015.

RESULTS

Nearly 20% of knee patients and 17% of hip patients remained uncertain about their treatment preferences after viewing DAs. Older patients and patients with high pain levels had an increased preference for surgery. Older patients receiving DAs from three HVHC systems that transitioned DA implementation from orthopedics into primary care had lower odds of preferring surgery after DA exposure compared to older patients in seven HVHC systems that only implemented DAs for orthopedic consultations.

CONCLUSION

Patients' treatment preferences were largely stable over time, highlighting that DAs for SDM largely do not necessarily shift preferences. DAs and SDM processes should be targeted at older adults and patients reporting high pain levels. Initiating treatment conversations in primary versus specialty care settings may also have important implications for engagement of patients in SDM via DAs.

The Electronic Pain Management Life History Calendar: Development and Usability

BACKGROUND

Changes over time to self-managed chronic pain treatments are not a routine part of pain management discussions and might provide insight into adjustments that improve pain outcomes.

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to develop and test an electronic pain management life history calendar (ePMLHC) for use with older adults with chronic pain.

DESIGN

An instrument development design was used to develop and test the ePMLHC.

METHODS

Twenty-four community-dwelling older adults with osteoarthritis pain completed the ePMLHC describing their pain treatment regimens and treatment response history. Accuracy of the ePMLHC data was examined through post-ePMLHC audiorecorded interviews, with the older adults describing their pain treatment history. Feedback on use of the ePMLHC was also measured. An iterative process was used to refine and retest the ePMLHC. The final ePMLHC version was examined with the remaining 12 older adults.

RESULTS

Significant differences between data reported via the ePMLHC and interviews did not support feasibility of independently reported data via the ePMLHC. Older adults reported that completing the ePMLHC helped them more fully self-reflect on their pain self-management.

CONCLUSIONS

The ePMLHC has the potential to enhance communication about past pain management treatments and promote more personalized pain treatment regimens, but further development is required.

Qualitative Evaluation of Evidence-Based Online Decision Aid and Resources for Osteoarthritis Management: Understanding Patient Perspectives

OBJECTIVE

To qualitatively examine the experiences with, and impact of, evidence-based online resources in self-management among Australians with osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Telephone interviews were conducted with 36 users of a novel osteoarthritis resource, the Osteoarthritis Awareness Hub. Rogers' 5 attributes of innovation (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability) and outcomes guided the semistructured interview and analysis. Maximum variation sampling was used, and data saturation occurred after 33 interviews. A coding scheme was agreed upon and all interview data were entered into NVivo for qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Study participants had high levels of literacy and health literacy. For adoption and implementation of an innovation, the participants' narratives confirmed and underscored the fact that it was important that it come from an authoritative and trusting voice and that its perceived benefits align with participants' values and existing practices (relative advantage and compatibility). The participants also valued seeing the practical benefits of the innovation, such as its capacity to impart quality and balanced new insights and information, and to maintain and monitor their personal progress. Notably, many participants spoke about the mental and physical health benefits that they derived from engagement with the online resources.

CONCLUSION

Our study findings confirm that web-based tools can be a useful adjunct to patients adopting self-management strategies. Rogers' theory provides a framework for a deeper appreciation of the how, why, and what questions concerning the adoption and implementation processes, especially among people with good technology and health literacy.

Implementation of the uterine fibroids Option Grid patient decision aids across five organizational settings: a randomized stepped-wedge study protocol

BACKGROUND

Uterine fibroids are non-cancerous overgrowths of the smooth muscle in the uterus. As they grow, some cause problems such as heavy menstrual bleeding, pelvic pain, discomfort during sexual intercourse, and rarely pregnancy complications or difficulty becoming pregnant. Multiple treatment options are available. The lack of comparative evidence demonstrating superiority of any one treatment means that choosing the best option is sensitive to individual preferences. Women with fibroids wish to consider treatment trade-offs. Tools known as patient decision aids (PDAs) are effective in increasing patient engagement in the decision-making process. However, the implementation of PDAs in routine care remains challenging. Our aim is to use a multi-component implementation strategy to implement the uterine fibroids Option Grid™ PDAs at five organizational settings in the USA.

METHODS

We will conduct a randomized stepped-wedge implementation study where five sites will be randomized to implement the uterine fibroid Option Grid PDA in practice at different time points. Implementation will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Normalization Process Theory (NPT). There will be a 6-month pre-implementation phase, a 2-month initiation phase where participating clinicians will receive training and be introduced to the Option Grid PDAs (available in text, picture, or online formats), and a 6-month active implementation phase where clinicians will be expected to use the PDAs with patients who are assigned female sex at birth, are at least 18 years of age, speak fluent English or Spanish, and have new or recurrent symptoms of uterine fibroids. We will exclude postmenopausal patients. Our primary outcome measure is the number of eligible patients who receive the Option Grid PDAs. We will use logistic and linear regression analyses to compare binary and continuous quantitative outcome measures (including survey scores and Option Grid use) between the pre- and active implementation phases while adjusting for patient and clinician characteristics.

DISCUSSION

This study may help identify the factors that impact the implementation and sustained use of a PDA in clinic workflow from various stakeholder perspectives while helping patients with uterine fibroids make treatment decisions that align with their preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT03985449. Registered 13 July 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03985449.

The impact and utility of encounter patient decision aids: Systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of encounter patient decision aids (PDAs) as evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and conduct a narrative synthesis of non-randomized studies assessing feasibility, utility and their integration into clinical workflows.

METHODS

Databases were systematically searched for RCTs of encounter PDAs to enable the conduct of a meta-analysis. We used a framework analysis approach to conduct a narrative synthesis of non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs and 30 non-randomized studies. Encounter PDAs significantly increased knowledge (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI 0.30, 0.55), lowered decisional conflict (SMD= -0.33; 95% CI -0.56, -0.09), increased observational-based assessment of shared decision making (SMD = 0.94; 95% CI 0.40, 1.48) and satisfaction with the decision-making process (OR = 1.78; 95% CI 1.19, 2.66) without increasing visit durations (SMD= -0.06; 95% CI -0.29, 0.16). The narrative synthesis showed that encounter tools have high utility for patients and clinicians, yet important barriers to implementation exist (i.e. time constraints) at the clinical and organizational level.

CONCLUSION

Encounter PDAs have a positive impact on patient-clinician collaboration, despite facing implementation barriers.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The potential utility of encounter PDAs requires addressing the systemic and structural barriers that prevent adoption in clinical practice.

Healthcare Options for People Experiencing Depression (HOPE*D): the development and pilot testing of an encounter-based decision aid for use in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To develop and pilot an encounter-based decision aid (eDA) for people with depression for use in primary care.

DESIGN

We developed an eDA for depression through cognitive interviews and pilot tested it using a one-group pretest, post-test design in primary care. Feasibility, fidelity of eDA use and acceptability were assessed using recruitment rates and semistructured interviews with patients, medical assistants and clinicians. Treatment choice and shared decision-making (SDM) were also assessed.

SETTING

Interviews with adult patients and the public were conducted in a mall and library in Grafton County, New Hampshire, while clinician interviews took place by phone or at the clinician's office. Pilot testing occurred in a New Hampshire primary care practice.

PARTICIPANTS

Cognitive interviews were conducted with adults, ≥18 years, who could read English from the following stakeholder groups: history of depression, the public and clinicians. Patients with a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of ≥5 were recruited for piloting.

RESULTS

Three stages of cognitive interviews were conducted (n=28). Changes to eDA included moving the combination therapy information and access to treatment information, adding colour, modifying pictograms and editing the talk-therapy description. Clinician concerns about patient health literacy were not reflected in patient interviews. Of 59 patients who reviewed study information, 56 were eligible and agreed to participate in pilot testing; however, only 29 could be reached for follow-up. The eDA was widely accepted, though clinicians did not always use it as intended. We found no impact of eDA use on SDM, though patients chose a wider range of treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated the feasibility of the use of an eDA for depression in primary care that was widely accepted. Further research is needed to improve the fidelity with which the eDA is used and to assess its impact on SDM and related health outcomes.

Experienced barriers in shared decision-making behaviour of orthopaedic surgery residents compared with orthopaedic surgeons

INTRODUCTION

In shared decision-making (SDM), physicians encourage the patient to participate in the care process. The theory of planned behaviour describes that behaviour is dependent on intention. In its turn, intention is explained by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. In orthopaedics, little is known about current SDM behaviour and how to promote it.The aim of the present study was to gain insight into the SDM behaviour of orthopaedic residents and supervisors by measuring levels of intention, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Furthermore, we aimed to determine the predictors of intention for SDM.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey study was conducted among orthopaedic surgeons and residents working in the care of hip and knee osteoarthritis, to determine their intentions, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control regarding SDM.

RESULTS

Of the 385 physicians approached, 71 residents and 64 orthopaedic surgeons participated. Residents and the supervisors alike had positive intentions regarding SDM. Intention for SDM behaviour was explained by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control, with perceived behavioural control having the strongest association. In residents, the intention to engage in SDM was more hampered by a lower level of perceived behavioural control than in surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians are willing to perform SDM and consider SDM as favourable in the orthopaedic clinic. The implementation of SDM is mainly hampered by experienced barriers that they cannot control. These findings underline the importance of incorporating SDM in the curriculum of postgraduates. Possibilities for efficient SDM implementation should be explored, to overcome perceived barriers.

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of encounter decision aids in breast cancer care

Purpose

Shared decision-making is currently not widely implemented in breast cancer care. Encounter decision aids support shared decision-making by helping patients and physicians compare treatment options. So far, little was known about adaptation needs for translated encounter decision aids, and encounter decision aids for breast cancer treatments were not available in Germany. This study aimed to adapt and evaluate the implementation of two encounter decision aids on breast cancer treatments in routine care.

Methods

We conducted a multi-phase qualitative study: (1) translation of two breast cancer Option Grid™ decision aids; comparison to national clinical standards; cognitive interviews to test patients’ understanding; (2) focus groups to assess acceptability; (3) testing in routine care using participant observation. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Physicians and patients reacted positively to the idea of encounter decision aids, and reported being interested in using them; patients were most receptive. Several adaptation cycles were necessary. Uncertainty about feasibility of using encounter decision aids in clinical settings was the main physician-reported barrier. During real-world testing (N = 77 encounters), physicians used encounter decision aids in one-third of potentially relevant encounters. However, they did not use the encounter decision aids to stimulate dialogue, which is contrary to their original scope and purpose.

Conclusions

The idea of using encounter decision aids was welcomed, but more by patients than by physicians. Adaptation was a complex process and required resources. Clinicians did not follow suggested strategies for using encounter decision aids. Our study indicates that production of encounter decision aids alone will not lead to successful implementation, and has to be accompanied by training of health care providers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00404-018-5035-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Gaps in appropriate use of treatment strategies in osteoarthritis

Optimal management of osteoarthritis (OA) requires a combination of therapies, with behavioral (e.g., exercise and weight management) and rehabilitative components at the core, accompanied by pharmacological treatments and, in later stages, consideration of joint replacement surgery. Although multiple sets of OA treatment guidelines have been developed, there are gaps in the implementation of these recommendations. Key areas of concern include the underuse of exercise, weight management, and other behavioral and rehabilitation strategies as well as the overuse of opioid analgesics. In this review, we describe the major categories of treatment strategies for OA, including self-management, physical activity, weight management, physical therapy and other rehabilitative therapies, pharmacotherapies, and joint replacement surgery. For each category, we discuss the current evidence base to report on appropriate use, data regarding adherence to treatment recommendations, and potential approaches to optimize use.

What matters most: protocol for a randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery encounter decision aids across socioeconomic strata

Background

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in women. Mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) have equivalent survival for early stage breast cancer. However, each surgery has different benefits and harms that women may value differently. Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) diagnosed with early stage breast cancer are more likely to experience poorer doctor-patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery and decision-making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. They often play a more passive role in decision-making and are less likely to undergo BCS. Our aim is to understand how best to support women of lower SES in making decisions about early stage breast cancer treatments and to reduce disparities in decision quality across socioeconomic strata.

Methods

We will conduct a three-arm, multi-site randomized controlled superiority trial with stratification by SES and clinician-level randomization. At four large cancer centers in the United States, 1100 patients (half higher SES and half lower SES) will be randomized to: (1) Option Grid, (2) Picture Option Grid, or (3) usual care. Interviews, field-notes, and observations will be used to explore strategies that promote the interventions’ sustained use and dissemination. Community-Based Participatory Research will be used throughout. We will include women aged at least 18 years of age with a confirmed diagnosis of early stage breast cancer (I to IIIA) from both higher and lower SES, provided they speak English, Spanish, or Mandarin Chinese. Our primary outcome measure is the 16-item validated Decision Quality Instrument. We will use a regression framework, mediation analyses, and multiple informants analysis. Heterogeneity of treatment effects analyses for SES, age, ethnicity, race, literacy, language, and study site will be performed.

Discussion

Currently, women of lower SES are more likely to make treatment decisions based on incomplete or uninformed preferences, potentially leading to poorer decision quality, quality of life, and decision regret. This study hopes to identify solutions that effectively improve patient-centered care across socioeconomic strata and reduce disparities in decision and care quality.

Trial registration

NCT03136367 at ClinicalTrials.gov

Protocol version: Manuscript based on study protocol version 2.2, 7 November 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5109-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

On a learning curve for shared decision making: Interviews with clinicians using the knee osteoarthritis Option Grid

RATIONAL

Tools used in clinical encounters to illustrate to patients the risks and benefits of treatment options have been shown to increase shared decision making. However, we do not have good information about how these tools are viewed by clinicians and how clinicians think patients would react to their use.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to examine clinicians' views about the possible and actual use of tools designed to support patients and clinicians to collaborate and deliberate about treatment options, namely, Option Grid decision aids.

METHOD

We conducted a thematic analysis of qualitative interviews embedded in the intervention phase of a trial of an Option Grid decision aid for osteoarthritis of the knee. Interviews were conducted with 6 participating clinicians before they used the tool and again after clinicians had used the tool with 6 patients.

RESULTS

In the first interview, clinicians voiced concerns that the tool would lead to an increase in encounter duration, patient resistance regarding involvement in decision making, and potential information overload. At the second interview, after minimal training, the clinicians reported that the tool had changed their usual way of communicating, and it was generally acceptable and helpful to integrate it into practice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

After experiencing the use of Option Grids, clinicians became more willing to use the tools in their clinical encounters with patients. How best to introduce Option Grids to clinicians and adopt their use into practice will need careful consideration of context, workflow, and clinical pathways.

Shared decision-making in physical therapy: A cross-sectional study on physiotherapists' knowledge, attitudes and self-reported use

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed a) to investigate knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported use of shared decision-making (SDM) among physiotherapists in Germany, b) to explore their association with demographic characteristics, and c) to assess barriers to the implementation of SDM.

METHODS

We assessed above mentioned domains using an online survey. Two-level logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with knowledge, attitudes and self-reported use of SDM.

RESULTS

60.5% of a total sample of 357 participants reported to have had no knowledge on SDM before participating in the survey. Attitudes towards SDM were mostly positive, half of all participants expressed a preference for SDM. About two thirds of all participants reported to use a rather paternalistic approach in routine care. Knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported use of SDM were associated with several demographic characteristics.

CONCLUSION

SDM was perceived as an appropriate concept in physiotherapy. However, missing knowledge and limited self-reported use of SDM in routine care on the one hand and positive attitudes towards SDM on the other hand indicate a need for action.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to emphasize the use of SDM in physiotherapy efforts need to be undertaken in research, clinical practice and health policy.

Supporting Shared Decision-making for Children's Complex Behavioral Problems: Development and User Testing of an Option Grid™ Decision Aid

There is a lack of research to guide collaborative treatment decision-making for children who have complex behavioral problems, despite the extensive use of mental health services in this population. We developed and pilot-tested a one-page Option Grid™ patient decision aid to facilitate shared decision-making for these situations. An editorial team of parents, child psychiatrists, researchers, and other stakeholders developed the scope and structure of the decision aid. Researchers included information about a carefully chosen number of psychosocial and pharmacological treatment options, using descriptions based on the best available evidence. Using semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 18), we conducted user testing with four parents and four clinical prescribers and field testing with four parents, four clinical prescribers, and two clinic administrators. The researchers coded and synthesized the interview responses using mixed inductive and deductive methods. Parents, clinicians, and administrators felt the Option Grid had significant value, although they reported that additional training and other support would be required in order to successfully implement the Option Grid and achieve shared decision-making in clinical practice.

Online, Interactive Option Grid Patient Decision Aids and their Effect on User Preferences

Background. Randomized trials have shown that patient decision aids can modify users’ preferred healthcare options, but research has yet to identify the attributes embedded in these tools that cause preferences to shift. Objectives. The aim of this study was to investigate people’s preferences as they used decision aids for 5 health decisions and, for each of the following: 1) determine if using the interactive Option Grid led to a pre–post shift in preferences; 2) determine which frequently asked questions (FAQs) led to preference shifts; 3) determine the FAQs that were rated as the most important as users compared options. Methods. Interactive Option Grid decision aids enable users to view attributes of available treatment or screening options, rate their importance, and specify their preferred options before and after decision aid use. The McNemar–Bowker paired test was used to compare stated pre–post preferences. Multinomial logistic regressions were conducted to investigate possible associations between covariates and preference shifts. Results. Overall, 626 users completed the 5 most-used tools: 1) Amniocentesis test: yes or no? ( n = 73); 2) Angina: treatment options ( n = 88); 3) Breast cancer: surgical options ( n = 265); 4) Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test: yes or no? ( n = 82); 5) Statins for heart disease risk: yes or no? ( n = 118). The breast cancer, PSA, and statins Option Grid decision aids generated significant preference shifts. Generally, users shifted their preference when presented with the description of the available treatment options, and the risk associated with each option. Conclusion. The use of decision aids for some, but not all health decisions, was accompanied by a shift in user preferences. Users typically valued information associated with risks, and chose more risk averse options after completing the interactive tool.