Shared decision-making in older patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer: Determinants of patients' and observers' perceptions

Have a vital end-user been overlooked? Developing a shared decision intervention for patients with potential pancreatic cancer regarding the choice of surgery

Objective

To develop a patient decision aid facilitating shared decision making for patients with potential pancreatic cancer deciding about no treatment, surgical or medical treatment.

Methods

Based on a user-centred design by Wittemann et al., we developed a shared decision making intervention in three phases: 1) Understanding decision needs 2) Development of a patient decision aid (PtDA) based on a generic template 3) Assessment of the intervention from interviews with patients (n = 11), relatives (n = 11), nurses (n = 4) and surgeons (n = 2) analysed with thematic analysis, and measuring patients' perceptions of choice of options with the Decisional Conflict Scale.

Results

Results showed varying experiences with the use of the PtDA, with surgeons not finding PtDA useful as it was impractical and constraining with patients' conversations. There was no difference in patients' perceptions in choosing options for those being presented vs those patients not being presented for the PtDA.

Conclusion

The format and structure of the PtDA was not feasible for the surgeons as fundamental users in the present clinic.

Innovation

This study highlights the urgent need to consider clinical context before introducing a predefined tool and shows the importance of a multistakeholder approach. Research should focus on finding means to successful implement shared decision making.

Communication, understanding and engagement of patients with pancreatic cancer at time of diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Objectives: To investigate communication clarity and understanding at the time of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) diagnosis and whether they can influence patient engagement and compliance.

METHODS

Consecutive PDAC patients were enrolled at the time of diagnosis after obtaining informed consent in a single-center study. The patients completed a validated scale (PHE-s®), and the understanding rate was assessed using standardized tools. Patient compliance was evaluated, and the correlation between the PHE-s®, understanding, and compliance was calculated.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were enrolled (15 female) with a mean age 64.4, 13 were metastatic. The mean visit time was 31 min, being longer if visiting doctor was an oncologist (p = 0.002). The engagement level was high in 70% of the patients, and all but one were compliant. The analysis of doctor-patient interactions showed a median of 121 conversational turns for doctors, 75 for patients, and 20 for caregivers (p < 0.0001), and the median percentage of speaking time was 77% for doctors, 13% for patients, and 2% for caregivers (p < 0.0001). Female caregivers spent more time speaking than did male caregivers (median 11.6% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.06). There were 290 instances of problematic understanding, most of which occurred during the taking of patients' personal medical history for doctors, while for patients and caregivers, these occurred mainly during the discussion of diagnosis/treatment (p < 0.0001). In a multivariable analysis, only origin from central or southern Italy was associated with high engagement (p = 0.0087).

CONCLUSION

In this first attempt to measure clarity of communication and engagement in patients with PDAC, typical features of conversation and problematic understanding emerged, which deserves further investigation.

Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data

BACKGROUND

The occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

OBJECTIVE

To assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed.

MAIN MEASURES

In the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION12 item) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION12 as a dependent variable.

RESULTS

We included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION12 scores was 7.7 of 100 points (P < 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION12 score except for education level (p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION12 score (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Most characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used.

HIGHLIGHTS

Most sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making.Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used.SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.

Through the Eyes of Patients: The Effect of Training General Practitioners and Nurses on Perceived Shared Decision-Making Support

PURPOSE

To examine the effects of training general practitioners and nurses in shared decision-making (SDM) support as perceived by cancer patients and survivors.

DESIGN

An innovative, experimental design was adopted that included analogue patients (APs), that is, people who have or have had cancer and who imagine themselves in the position of the actor-patient presented in a video. Each AP assessed a video-recorded simulated consultation of a health care professional (HCP) conducted before or after an SDM support training program. The primary outcome was the APs' perceived SDM support with 13 self-developed items reflecting the perceived patient benefit of SDM support as well as the perceived HCP support behavior. Secondary outcomes included an overall rating of SDM support, AP-reported extent of SDM (CollaboRATE), satisfaction with the communication (Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire), conversation appreciation and helpfulness, as well as decision-making satisfaction and confidence (visual analog scale, 0-100). In addition, patient and HCP characteristics associated with AP-perceived SDM support were examined.

RESULTS

APs (n = 131) did not significantly differentiate trained from untrained HCPs in their perceptions of SDM support nor in secondary outcomes. Agreement between APs' perceptions was poor. The higher the perceived comparability of the consultation with APs' previous personal experiences, the higher their rating of SDM support.

LIMITATIONS

We used a nonvalidated primary outcome and an innovative study design that should be tested in future work.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of the study design, the training seemed to not affect cancer patients' and survivors' perceived SDM support.

IMPLICATIONS

The clinical relevance of the training on SDM support needs to be established. The variation in APs' assessments suggests patients differ in their perception of SDM support, stressing the importance of patient-tailored SDM support.

HIGHLIGHTS

Cancer patients and survivors did not significantly differentiate trained from untrained HCPs when evaluating SDM support, and agreement between their perceptions was poor.The clinical relevance of training GPs and nurses in SDM support needs to be established.Patient-tailored SDM support may be recommended, given the variation in APs' assessments and their possible diverging perceptions of SDM support.This innovative study design (having patients watch and assess videos of simulated consultations made in the context of training evaluation) needs to be further developed.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

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.

Real-world use and perceptions of shared decision-making for allergy and asthma care in a US population

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM), the process of engaging patients in their healthcare decisions, is an integral component of personalized medicine. The use of SDM in real-world allergy and asthma care in the United States (US) is unknown. Cross-sectional surveys of allergists and patients in a US population were conducted to assess the use and perceptions of SDM and SDM tools in real-world allergy and asthma care.

Methods

Allergists (N = 101) who were members of the American College of Allergy Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) and who were also Dynata (a marketing research firm) research partners or in the Allergy & Asthma Network customer database completed an online survey from February-March 2022. Adult patients (N = 110) with asthma, allergy, and/or eczema in the United States who were participants of online research panels hosted by Dynata completed on online survey from February 1-7, 2022.

Results

Based on their own definition, 98% of the allergists reported familiarity with SDM, and 79% reported using it frequently. Allergists reported using SDM with an average of 44% of their patients. The most commonly used tool was the Immunotherapy SDM toolkit (40%); 43% had not used any SDM tool. Among allergists not using SDM or using it infrequently (n = 19), 42% considered it too time-consuming and 37% believed their patients have low health literacy. Of the surveyed patients, 25% reported their provider used SDM "frequently" or "occasionally" when being treated for allergies, asthma, or eczema, and 22% reported using SDM tools with their provider at some point. The most commonly used tool was the Asthma and Allergy Symptom Test (60%). Among patients whose allergists used SDM infrequently or never (n = 56), 70% reported they would be likely to ask their allergist to use SDM more often.

Conclusion

Survey responses revealed a disconnect between allergists and patients regarding SDM use. Barriers to SDM are consistent with those across the healthcare industry. Patients clearly expressed their desire for SDM.

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.

Shared decision making for patients with breast and gynecologic malignancies undergoing chemotherapy associated with persistent alopecia

Objective

To assess patient-perceived involvement in shared decision making among those diagnosed with breast or gynecologic malignancies undergoing chemotherapy associated with persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia (pCIA). We also sought to identify factors that influence shared decision making.

Methods

We recruited patients from the Gynecologic Medical Oncology and Breast Medicine Services at a large academic center for this prospective cohort study. All patients were scheduled to start chemotherapy between June 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017. Following medical consultation, including discussion of the risk of pCIA, patients completed the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Clinical and sociodemographic information was also collected. Univariate analysis was used to evaluate SDM-Q-9 total scores and their constituents for all variables.

Results

Sixty-one patients completed the survey. The median total SDM-Q-9 score was 95.6 (95% CI: 90-100). Most patients (n = 57, 93%) reported a high level of involvement (SDM-Q-9 total score > 66). There was no difference in total scores between patients with breast compared with gynecologic cancer (P > .05). By individual item, the scores for item Q1 ("My doctor made clear that a decision needs to be made") were significantly lower for Black patients and those with advanced disease (P < .05).

Conclusions

Most patients indicated they were adequately involved in shared decision making regarding chemotherapy treatment options and their risk for pCIA. Patients from underrepresented populations and those with advanced disease may benefit from additional support from their clinicians to better address the anticipated psychosocial impacts of pCIA and facilitate the provision of optimal and equitable care.

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.

Kidney transplantation or dialysis in older adults-an interview study on the decision-making process

BACKGROUND

In older patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the choice between kidney transplantation (KT) and dialysis may be more complex than in younger patients because of a higher prevalence of comorbidities and frailty. This study aims to provide greater insight into the current decision-making process by exploring the expectations, experiences and health outcome priorities of all stakeholders.

METHODS

We performed semi-structured interviews with patients ≥65 years with ESKD (eGFR <15 ml/min/1.73m2, KT recipient or treated with dialysis), patients' relatives and healthcare professionals (nephrologists, nurses and medical social workers). Interviews were conducted until data saturation and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

We performed 36 interviews (patients n = 18, relatives n = 5, healthcare professionals n = 13). Thematic analysis revealed five themes. Older patients' health outcome priorities were mostly related to quality of life (QOL). Individual older patients showed marked differences in the preferred level of engagement during the decision-making process (varying from 'wants to be in the lead' to 'follows the nephrologist') and in informational needs (varying from evidence-based to experience-based). On the contrary, healthcare professionals were quite unanimous on all aspects. They focused on determining eligibility for KT as start of the decision-making process, on clear and extensive information provision and on classical, medical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision-making process could benefit from early identification of older patients' values, needs and health outcome priorities, in parallel with assessment of KT eligibility and before discussing the treatment options, and the explicit use of this information in further steps of the decision-making process.

How are patient-related characteristics associated with shared decision-making about treatment? A scoping review of quantitative studies

OBJECTIVES

To identify what patient-related characteristics have been reported to be associated with the occurrence of shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed articles in English or Dutch reporting on associations between patient-related characteristics and the occurrence of SDM for actual treatment decisions.

INFORMATION SOURCES

COCHRANE Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published until 25 March 2019.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5289 hits of which 53 were retained. Multiple categories of patient characteristics were identified: (1) sociodemographic characteristics (eg, gender), (2) general health and clinical characteristics (eg, symptom severity), (3) psychological characteristics and coping with illness (eg, self-efficacy) and (4) SDM style or preference. Many characteristics showed no association or unclear relationships with SDM occurrence. For example, for female gender positive, negative and, most frequently, non-significant associations were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

A large variety of patient-related characteristics have been studied, but for many the association with SDM occurrence remains unclear. The results will caution often-made assumptions about associations and provide an important step to target effective interventions to foster SDM with all patients.

"I pretty much followed the law, and there weren't any decisions to make": A qualitative study of self-advocacy experiences of men with cancer

Current conceptualizations of patient self-advocacy focus on women with cancer, leaving knowledge of male self-advocacy deficient. The purpose of this study is to describe the key components of self-advocacy among men with cancer. Adult (≥18 years old) men with a history of invasive cancer were recruited from cancer clinics and registries. Trained researchers led individual semi-structured interviews regarding participants' challenges, how they overcame those challenges, and barriers and facilitators to their self-advocacy. All interviews were analyzed using descriptive content analysis methods and synthesized into major themes. These themes were refined after receiving feedback from key stakeholders. Participants (N = 28) reported three major self-advocacy themes: (i) managing through information and planning; (ii) finding the best team and falling in line; and (iii) strategic social connections. These themes are richly described with representative quotations for each theme and subtheme. Based on these findings, existing models of patient self-advocacy should be adjusted to encompass how men self-advocate. Clinicians should consider how gender may impact how and why patients with cancer self-advocate so that they can best support their patients in achieving patient-centered care.

Health Care Disparities and the Future of Pancreatic Cancer Care

There have been tremendous advances in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer in the past decade, yet we are failing to achieve equitable outcomes for all patient populations. Disparities exist in the incidence, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of patients with pancreatic cancer. Inequities are based on racial and ethnic group, sex, socioeconomic status, and geography. To address disparities, future steps must focus on research methods, including collection and methodology, and policy measures, including access, patient tools, hospital incentives, and workforce diversity. Through these comprehensive efforts, we can begin to rectify inequitable care for treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer.

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.

The Multifocal Approach to Sharing in Shared Decision Making: A Critical Appraisal of the MAPPIN'SDM

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making integrates health care provider expertise with patient values and preferences. The MAPPIN'SDM is a recently developed measurement instrument that incorporates physician, patient, and observer perspectives during medical consultations. This review sought to critically appraise the development, sensibility, reliability, and validity of the MAPPIN'SDM and to determine in which settings it has been used.

METHODS

This critical appraisal was performed through a targeted review of the literature. Articles outlining the development or measurement property assessment of the MAPPIN'SDM or that used the instrument for predictor or outcome purposes were identified.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included. The MAPPIN'SDM was developed by both adapting and building on previous shared decision making measurement instruments, as well as through creation of novel items. Content validity, face validity, and item quality of the MAPPIN'SDM are adequate. Internal consistency ranged from 0.91 to 0.94 and agreement statistics from 0.41 to 0.92. The MAPPIN'SDM has been evaluated in several populations and settings, ranging from chronic disease to acute oncological settings. Limitations include high reading levels required for self-administered patient questionnaires and the small number of studies that have employed the instrument to date.

CONCLUSION

The MAPPIN'SDM generally shows adequate development, sensibility, reliability, and validity in preliminary testing and holds promise for shared decision making research integrating multiple perspectives. Further research is needed to develop its use in other patient populations and to assess patient understanding of complex item wording.

The potential use for patient reported outcome measures in people with pancreatic cancer, with a specific focus on older patients

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal malignancies and is characterised by high-unmet physical and psychological supportive care needs. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) represent a patient centred approach to address the high unmet supportive care need and improve the quality of care. PROMs have the potential to inform patients about the quality of life and symptom trajectory for different treatment approaches so that they can fully participate in shared decisions about treatment. Embedding the collection of PROMs into routine practice alongside clinical alerts and directed symptom interventions is acceptable and feasible for people with pancreatic cancer and has the potential to reduce symptom burden. There is also limited information on survival, quality of life and the holistic impact of treatment for older pancreatic cancer patients, therefore, PROMs provide an opportunity to understand the impact of treatment on older patients and better inform shared treatment decision-making.

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.

A skills network approach to physicians' competence in shared decision making

BACKGROUND

Measurement of physicians' competence in shared decision making (SDM) remains challenging with frequent disagreement between assessment methods.

OBJECTIVE

To conceptualize and measure physicians' SDM competence as an organized network of behavioural skills and to determine whether processing patient-reported data according to this model can be used to predict observer-rated competence.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of an observational study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Primary and specialty outpatient care physicians and consecutively recruited adult patients with a chronic condition who faced a treatment decision with multiple acceptable choices.

MEASURES

Network parameters constructed from patients' assessment of physicians' SDM skills as measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and observer-rated SDM competence of physicians measured by three widely used observer-rated instruments.

RESULTS

29 physicians (12 female, 17 male; mean age 50.3 years) recruited 310 patients (59.4% female, 40.6% male; mean age 54.0 years) facing a decision mainly regarding type 2 diabetes (36.4%), chronic back pain (32.8%) or depressive disorder (26.8%). Although most investigated skills were interrelated, elicitation of the patient's treatment preferences showed the strongest associations with the other skills. Network parameters of this skill were also decisive in predicting observer-rated competence. Correlation between predicted competence scores and observer-rated measurements ranged from 0.710 to 0.785.

CONCLUSIONS

Conceptualizing physicians' SDM competence as a network of interacting skills enables the measurement of observer-rated competence using patient-reported data. In addition to theoretical implications for defining and training medical competences, the findings open a new way to measure physicians' SDM competence under routine conditions.

Women and Partners' Information Need, Emotional Adjustment, and Breast Reconstruction Decision-Making Before Mastectomy

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to explore the differences between women and their partners on information need, emotional adjustment, and breast reconstruction (BR) decision-making after breast cancer diagnosis. A second aim was to explore these differences regarding surgery type (mastectomy vs immediate BR).

METHODS

Women newly diagnosed with a first nonmetastatic breast cancer and having a mastectomy were invited to fill out online questionnaires, in conjunction with their partners, before mastectomy. Questionnaires assessed their information need (Patient Information Need Questionnaire), emotional adjustment (Profile of Mood States), motivations to have BR or not, shared decision-making (Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire), and partner influence in BR decision-making.

RESULTS

Thirty (15 women and their partners) people took part in the study. Women and partners had similar levels of information need, emotional adjustment, and shared decision-making. However, partners did not entirely perceive why BR is wished or not by the women. Furthermore, partners of women having a mastectomy alone had higher scores of mood disturbance and a greater need for information, compared to partners of women having an immediate BR (P < .05). Likewise, men expressed a greater need for disease-oriented information than their loved ones (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to highlight differences in couples' experiences of breast cancer diagnosis and BR decision-making before mastectomy. Partners express an important need for information and do not entirely perceive why BR is wished or not by their loved ones. An online tool providing information to both women and partners could help them in breast cancer care pathway and BR decision-making.

COMMUNI.CARE (COMMUNIcation and Patient Engagement at Diagnosis of PAncreatic CAncer): Study Protocol

Background: In many cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the diagnosis comes as a surprise to the patient, who often faces a disease that is already at an advanced stage, with poor prognosis. The clinical visit during which the diagnosis is communicated together with the first information regarding the planned treatments is of paramount importance. We hypothesize that the clarity of such information can influence patients' engagement and thus their level of compliance.

Aims: This study aims to collect (a) quantitative data on the level of PDAC patient engagement, (b) data on the rate of understanding of the information received from the doctor, and (c) data on level of compliance; the possible associations between these variables will be analyzed.

Methods: This is a single-center, observational, cross-sectional cohort study on patients diagnosed with PDAC, approved by the Ethics Committee of the San Raffaele Hospital. As no preliminary data are available on the association between PDAC patients' understanding rate and their level of engagement and of compliance, no power calculation is possible. This is a pilot study, aimed at enrolling at least 45 PDAC patients during a period of 3 months.

Conclusion: COMMUNIcation and Patient Engagement at Diagnosis of PAncreatic CAncer (COMMUNI. CARE) will be the first study specifically investigating whether there is a relation between PDAC patients' engagement, rate of understanding at the time of diagnosis, and compliance.

Measuring shared decision making in oncology: Development and first testing of the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician questionnaires

BACKGROUND

Existing measures to assess shared decision making (SDM) have often been developed based on an ill-defined underlying construct, and many assess physician behaviours only or focus on a single patient-physician encounter.

OBJECTIVE

To (a) develop a patient and a physician questionnaire to measure SDM in oncology and (b) determine their content validity and comprehensibility.

METHODS

A systematic review of SDM models and an oncology-specific SDM model informed the domains of the SDM construct. We formulated items for each SDM domain. Cancer patients and physicians rated content validity in an online questionnaire. We assumed a formative measurement model and performed online field-testing in cancer patients to inform further item reduction. We tested item comprehension in cognitive interviews with cancer patients and physicians.

RESULTS

We identified 17 domains and formulated 132 items. Twelve cancer patients rated content validity at item level, and 11 physicians rated content validity at domain level. We field-tested the items among 131 cancer patients and conducted cognitive interviews with eight patients and five physicians. These phases resulted in the 15-item iSHAREpatient and 15-item iSHAREphysician questionnaires, covering 13 domains.

CONCLUSIONS

We thoroughly developed the iSHARE questionnaires. They both assess patient and physician behaviours and cover the entire SDM process rather than a single consultation.

Shared decision making in routine clinical care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an assessment of audio-recorded consultations

Objectives

Although shared decision making (SDM) is advocated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, it is largely unclear when, how and to what extent SDM is applied in routine clinical care of patients with RA. This study aimed to investigate the level of SDM in RA treatment from an observer perspective and to assess associations between the level of SDM and characteristics of the clinician, patient and consultation.

Methods

The level of SDM was investigated by scoring audio-recordings of 168 routine consultations with unique patients with the observer patient involvement (OPTION) scale (scale 0–100, higher OPTION scores indicating higher levels of SDM). Associations between the level of SDM and characteristics of the clinician, patient and consultation were assessed using multilevel modelling. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

Results

The mean OPTION score was 28.3 (SD=15.1). The multilevel model included four characteristics: clinician age, patient age, consultation duration and type of treatment decision. There were significant, positive associations between the level of SDM and the consultation duration (b=0.63, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.11), decision for stopping and/or starting medication (b=14.30, 95% CI 5.62 to 22.98), decision for adjusting medication doses (b=8.36, 95% CI 3.92 to 12.81) and decision for administering single dose glucocorticoids (b=15.03, 95% CI 9.12 to 20.93). Thus, a higher level of SDM was significantly associated with a longer consultation duration and the type of treatment decision. No other significant associations were found.

Conclusions

Overall, the level of SDM in RA treatment leaves room for improvement. To foster SDM in routine clinical care, training programmes on patient-centred communication skills may be helpful.

Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary

BACKGROUND

The nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) is one of the most frequently applied instruments for assessing patients' involvement in medical decision-making. Our objectives were to develop a Hungarian version of SDM-Q-9, to evaluate its psychometric properties and to compare its performance between primary and specialised care settings.

METHODS

In 2019, a sample of adults (n = 537) representative of the Hungarian general population in terms of age, gender and geographic region completed an online survey with respect to a recent health-related decision. Outcome measures included SDM-Q-9 and Control Preferences Scale-post (CPS_post). Item characteristics, internal consistency reliability and the factor structure of SDM-Q-9 were determined.

RESULTS

The overall ceiling and floor effects for SDM-Q-9 total scores were 12.3% and 2.2%, respectively. An excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.925) was demonstrated. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a one-factor model explaining 63.5% of the variance of SDM-Q-9. A confirmatory factor analysis supported the acceptability of this model. Known-groups validity was confirmed with CPS_post categories; mean SDM-Q-9 total scores were higher in the 'Shared decision' category (72.6) compared to both 'Physician decided' (55.1, p = 0.0002) and 'Patient decided' (57.2, p = 0.0086) categories. In most aspects of validity and reliability, there was no statistically significant difference between primary and specialised care.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall good measurement properties of the Hungarian SDM-Q-9 make the questionnaire suitable for use in both primary and specialised care settings. SDM-Q-9 may be useful for health policies targeting the implementation of shared decision-making and aiming to improve efficiency and quality of care in Hungary.

Decision-making under clinical uncertainty: An in-depth examination of provider perspectives on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer

OBJECTIVE

Decision-making about adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for stage II colon cancer is complex, particularly in light of clinical uncertainty regarding treatment benefits. Little is known about provider communication and factors influencing decision-making and recommendations in this setting.

METHODS

We recruited providers from six US cancer centers and hospitals who care for stage II colon cancer patients. Providers participated in a 30-45 minute interview. Transcripts of interviews were coded for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 42 providers (Oncologists: 52%; surgeons: 24%; nurses: 14%). Though most providers were aware of stage II colon cancer treatment guidelines, their use and communication of recommended guidelines was limited. Most reported tailoring delivery and content of their communication, often based on perceived patient education level, but patient involvement in decision-making varied. Findings highlight the complexity of, ACT decision-making, including the central role of providers and family members.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers are not consistently following recommended guidelines for communicating about ACT among stage II colon cancer patients or eliciting patient preferences for involvement in treatment decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Given clinical uncertainty surrounding use of ACT for stage II colon cancer, efforts are needed to enhance guideline implementation, provider education, and communication to facilitate decision-making.