Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments

Implementation suggestions for shared decision-making: results from a comparative study of inpatients and outpatients experience surveys

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is crucial in patient-centered healthcare services, but its integration into routine medical care remains limited. This study aimed to investigate patients' experience with SDM in both outpatient and inpatient settings, exploring how the quality of care provided by doctors and patient's trust in doctors influence SDM across different contexts.

METHODS

This study utilized data from the regional cross-sectional surveys, including the 2019 Inpatient Experience and the 2021 Specialist Outpatient Experience survey in Hong Kong. Multivariable logistic regression and path analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 20,675 participants were included (inpatients: n = 8,275; outpatients: n = 12, 400) in this study. The results indicated that inpatients perceiving better quality of doctor's care were significantly more likely to participate in SDM (OR = 1.29, 95%CI = 1.26-1.47, p < 0.001), with trust in doctors significantly moderating this association. Conversely, among outpatients, a higher quality of doctor's care was significantly associated with decreased SDM involvement (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.88-1.00, p = 0.04), with trust in doctors serving as a mediator in suppressing this association. Additionally, both subsets indicated that females, the elderly, individuals with good health status, less-educated people, and those living alone were less likely to engage in SDM.

CONCLUSION

These findings underscore the importance of tailoring SDM implementation to specific contexts, acknowledging the different challenges within outpatient and inpatient settings. Building trust is key to promoting SDM, with added support for vulnerable groups to ensure their involvement in decision-making.

Patient participation in self-monitoring regarding healthcare of heart failure: an integrated systematic review

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring in cases of heart failure (HF) can lead to improved health and early detection of states of illness, potentially avoiding unnecessary hospitalisation. Legislation emphasizes the importance of patient participation in health care. This is possible and simplified due to the ongoing digitalisation within the healthcare system. The aim of this study was therefore to describe existing research knowledge on patient participation in self-monitoring regarding healthcare of HF, in the context of digitalisation of healthcare.

METHODS

A systematic literature review with an integrative approach was conducted February 2021 (6 years) and April 2024 (9 years). The review consisted of 12 articles accumulated from four databases. The review was performed in line with the standards of the PRISMA statement, registration number: PROSPERO 2021:244,252.

RESULTS

A total of twelve studies were included, both quantitative and qualitative research. The studies had a wide international spread and included a total of n = 1393 patients aged between 52-77 years, predominantly men. Various aspects of patient participation are the three themes: 'Self-care ability', 'Interaction with healthcare professionals', and 'Empowerment and Individual preferences'. The results indicate that self-monitoring has a predominantly positive effect on self-care behavior and satisfaction with care. Increased awareness and confidence in patients´ own self-care abilities were reported especially in qualitative studies. Through the use of self-monitoring, information and knowledge about HF led to increased control of the disease. Additionally, differences between qualitative and quantitative studies are demonstrated even in this partial result. The qualitative studies showed an increased understanding of disease situations, but corresponding conformity is not shown in quantitative research, and an increased level of knowledge is not yet proven.

CONCLUSIONS

The fact that there is a lack of empirical data in this field of research and that the available data is not coherent indicates that additional studies are required. In step with increased digitalisation and that great responsibility is placed on patient participation, there is a demand for patient studies that embrace a pronounced patient perspective with individual components of self-monitoring.

Exploratory analysis of factors influencing hospital preferences among the Lebanese population: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this research is to uncover the underlying factors that shape hospital selection criteria among individuals in Lebanon.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A survey was circulated across social media platforms and messaging applications in Lebanon from February to May 2023. This questionnaire aimed to gauge participants' opinions on the importance of various factors in their hospital selection process.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 746 participants filled out the survey. We targeted Lebanese adults who were not hospitalised at the time of survey submission.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We performed an exploratory factor analysis to examine the underlying structure of our 70-question survey. Reliability analysis was conducted using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Factor scores were derived by aggregating raw scores and computing the mean.

RESULTS

The survey results identified eight key factors that accounted for 58.02% of the total variance, with excellent sampling adequacy (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin=0.921, Bartlett's p<0.001). These factors exhibited good internal consistency, as indicated by Cronbach's alpha values for each factor. Ranked by importance for hospital selection, the factors are: staff qualities (α=0.773), administrative services (α=0.801), reputation (α=0.773), ease of access (α=0.704), room attributes (α=0.796), architectural and physical surroundings (α=0.828), luxury amenities (α=0.849) and affiliation and ownership (α=0.661).

CONCLUSION

This paper highlights the hospital characteristics that people may value before selecting a hospital. This insight provides an opportunity for hospital managers to refine their services, ensuring better resonance with people's anticipations. Beyond this, it sheds light on areas where hospitals could strategically invest to elevate their competitive edge in the healthcare market.

Shared decision-making in long-term care: A systematic review of assessment instruments

This systematic review explored the instruments used to measure Shared Decision Making (SDM) within long-term care (LTC) settings. Relevant publications from the period between January 2000 and October 2022 were searched across five databases. Thirty-six SDM assessment instruments were identified, which encompassed those measuring SDM for LTC recipients/family caregivers and/or healthcare providers. These instruments were either specifically tailored for LTC settings or more broadly applicable across healthcare contexts, including LTC. In terms of psychometric properties of the instruments, internal consistency reliability, content validity, structural validity, and hypothesis testing were commonly tested. The findings of this research can aid health researchers, managers, and scholars in choosing suitable instruments for assessing SDM in specific LTC scenarios, considering factors such as measurement scope, assessment methods, and instrument reliability. Additionally, these findings offer valuable insights for the future development of high-quality SDM assessment instruments in LTC field.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

Real-world patient data: Can they support decision making and patient engagement?

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) capture data related to patients' perception of their health status and aspects of health care delivery. In parallel, digital innovations have advanced the administration, storage, processing, and accessibility of PROs, allowing these data to become actively incorporated in day-to-day clinical practice along the entire patient care pathway. Further, the emergence of shared decision making, where patients are engaged in informed treatment selection aligned with their preferences, values, and needs, can be realized by PROs and technology. This technology-enabled, data-driven approach provides insights which, when actioned, can enhance musculoskeletal care of patients and populations, while enriching the clinician-patient experience of decision making. In this review, we provide an overview of the opportunities enabled by PROs and technology for the cycle of orthopedic care.

What Motivates You to Share? The Effect of Interactive Tailored Information Aids on Information Sharing about Clinical Trials

Cancer patients learn about research studies outside of the clinical environment, including websites, print and online advertisements, and interpersonal interactions. When cancer patients share credible information about clinical trials, they also frequently help clarify misunderstandings that may exist in their social networks. The present study investigated how an interactive tailored information aid on clinical trial participation motivated patients' information sharing behaviors. In this study of 312 cancer patients and survivors, an interactive tailored information aid improved patients' likelihood of sharing online and offline information more than a non-interactive tool. Information sharing was directly predicted by cognitive absorption and perceived visual informativeness. In addition, perceived utility and ease of use indirectly impact information sharing positively through the antecedent factors of user engagement and design esthetics. Education level further moderated this effect; information sharing was higher among patients with more education. The implications of these findings are discussed and recommendations for future research are provided.

Shared decision making and patient-centeredness for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care-results of the cluster-randomised controlled DEBATE trial

Background

We investigate whether an educational intervention of GPs increases patient-centeredness and perceived shared decision making in the treatment of patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus?

Methods

We performed a cluster-randomized controlled trial in German primary care. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus defined as HbA1c levels ≥ 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) at the time of recruitment (n = 833) from general practitioners (n = 108) were included. Outcome measures included subjective shared decision making (SDM-Q-9; scale from 0 to 45 (high)) and patient-centeredness (PACIC-D; scale from 1 to 5 (high)) as secondary outcomes. Data collection was performed before intervention (baseline, T0), at 6 months (T1), at 12 months (T2), at 18 months (T3), and at 24 months (T4) after baseline.

Results

Subjective shared decision making decreased in both groups during the course of the study (intervention group: -3.17 between T0 and T4 (95% CI: -4.66, -1.69; p < 0.0001) control group: -2.80 (95% CI: -4.30, -1.30; p = 0.0003)). There were no significant differences between the two groups (-0.37; 95% CI: -2.20, 1.45; p = 0.6847). The intervention's impact on patient-centeredness was minor. Values increased in both groups, but the increase was not statistically significant, nor was the difference between the groups.

Conclusions

The intervention did not increase patient perceived subjective shared decision making and patient-centeredness in the intervention group as compared to the control group. Effects in both groups might be partially attributed to the Hawthorne-effect. Future trials should focus on patient-based intervention elements to investigate effects on shared decision making and patient-centeredness.

Trial registration

The trial was registered on March 10^th, 2011 at ISRCTN registry under the reference ISRCTN70713571.

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.

Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure

BACKGROUND

The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity.

METHOD

Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results.

RESULTS

Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality (d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores (d = 0.57, P < 0.001), and lower decision regret (d = -0.34, P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was present in all validity analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Included studies all focused on surgical decisions, several had small sample sizes, and many were retrospective.

CONCLUSION

SDM Process scores showed resilience to coding changes, and a scheme using the short, partial credit, with equal weights was adopted. The SDM Process scores demonstrated a small, positive relationship with decision quality and were consistently related to lower decision conflict and less regret, providing evidence of validity across several surgical decisions.

Which instruments are used to measure shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals? A systematic review protocol

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a dialogical relationship where the physician and the patient define the problem, discuss the available options according to the patient’s values and preferences, and co-construct the treatment plan. Undertaking SDM in a clinical setting with patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating cognitive capacity may prove challenging. Supported (defined “Assisted” in the Irish context) decision-making describes how people with impaired or fluctuating capacity remain in control of their healthcare-related choices through mechanisms which build and maximise capacity.

Supported and assisted decision-making (ADM) within healthcare settings is theoretically and practically novel. Therefore, there is a knowledge gap about the validity of psychometric instruments used to assess ADM and its components within clinical settings. This systematic review aims to identify and characterise instruments currently used to assess shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients with limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals.

Methods: A systematic review and narrative synthesis will be performed using a search strategy involving the following databases (PubMed, Cinahl, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO). Quantitative studies published in the last decade and describing psychometric instruments measuring SDM, supported decision-making and ADM with people having limited or fluctuating capacity will be considered eligible for inclusion. Title and abstract screening will be followed by full-text eligibility screening, data extraction, synthesis and analysis. This review will be structured and reported according to the PRISMA checklist. The COSMIN Risk of bias checklist will be used to assess the quality of the instruments.

Discussion: The results will inform and be useful to HCPs and policymakers interested in having updated knowledge of the available instruments to assess SDM, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals.

Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018105360; registered on 10/08/2018.

The OPTION Scale: Measuring Patients' Perceptions of Shared Decision-Making in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Background

Involving patients in the decision-making process is now widely accepted as appropriate and ethical during consultations, particularly when several options are available. The aim of this study is to measure the patients’ perceptions of shared decision-making practices during clinical encounters in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

This study employs a quantitative cross-sectional design. The OPTION scale was translated to Arabic. The questionnaire’s content validity was assessed using an expert panel review. The questionnaire was then administered to 291 participants through online recruitment.

Results

Participants reported positive perceptions of shared decision-making practices in Saudi Arabia. The lowest perceived shared decision-making scores were from patients who visited the internal medicine department (f = 2.163, P = 0.009). Participants who received care from female physicians reported significantly higher levels of involvement in the shared decision-making process compared to male physicians (t = −2.732, P = 0.007). Although the majority of the participants in the study were from Eastern Province, this province documented the lowest mean perceived decision-making score by the patients compared to other provinces within Saudi Arabia (f = 3.613, P = 0.007). Female participants in the study had a higher shared decision-making score than the male participants (t = −3.644, P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Generally, the study results confirmed that shared decision-making in the Saudi health system includes significant patient involvement. Interventions that enhance the culture of shared decision-making in Saudi Arabia are necessary to ensure better adherence to treatment plans and thus better health outcomes.

Shared decision making in surgery: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) has been increasingly implemented to improve health-care outcomes. Despite the mixed efficacy of SDM to provide better patient-guided care, its use in surgery has not been studied. The aim of this study was to systematically review SDM application in surgery.

DESIGN

The search strategy, developed with a medical librarian, included nine databases from inception until June 2019. After a 2-person title and abstract screen, full-text publications were analysed. Data collected included author, year, surgical discipline, location, study duration, type of decision aid, survey methodology and variable outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional studies, as well as RCTs, were included.

RESULTS

A total of 6060 studies were retrieved. A total of 148 were included in the final review. The majority of the studies were in plastic surgery, followed by general surgery and orthopaedics. The use of SDM decreased surgical intervention rate (12 of 22), decisional conflict (25 of 29), and decisional regret (5 of 5), and increased decisional satisfaction (17 of 21), knowledge (33 of 35), SDM preference (13 of 16), and physician trust (4 of 6). Time increase per patient encounter was inconclusive. Cross-sectional studies showed that patients prefer shared treatment and surgical treatment varied less. The results of SDM per type of decision aid vary in terms of their outcome.

CONCLUSION

SDM in surgery decreases decisional conflict, anxiety and surgical intervention rates, while increasing knowledge retained decisional satisfaction, quality and physician trust. Surgical patients also appear to prefer SDM paradigms. SDM appears beneficial in surgery and therefore worth promoting and expanding in use.

What instruments should we use to assess paediatric decision-making interventions? A narrative review

There is an increasing number of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in paediatrics. However, there is little consensus as to the best instruments to assess the feasibility and impact of these interventions. This narrative review aims to answer: (1) what feasibility, knowledge and decision-making instruments have been used to assess paediatric SDM interventions and (2) what are the psychometric properties of used decision-making instruments, guided by the 'consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instrument' criteria. We conducted a review of the peer-reviewed literature. We identified 23 studies that evaluated a paediatric intervention to facilitate SDM for a specific health decision. Eighteen studies assessed intervention feasibility, with a wide variability in assessment between studies. Twelve studies assessed objective knowledge, and four studies assessed subjective knowledge with all but one study aggregating correct responses. We identified nine decision-making instruments that had been assessed psychometrically, although few had been thoroughly evaluated. The Decisional Conflict Scale was the most commonly-used instrument and the only instrument evaluated in paediatrics. Our study revealed a lack of consistency in the instruments used to evaluate decision-making interventions in paediatrics, making it difficult to compare interventions. We provide several recommendations for researchers to improve the assessment of SDM interventions in paediatrics.

Interventions to facilitate shared decision-making using decision aids with patients in Primary Health Care: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process within the physician-patient relationship applicable to any clinical action, whether diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive in nature. It has been defined as a process of mutual respect and participation between the doctor and the patient. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of decision aids (DA) in primary care based on changes in adherence to treatments, knowledge, and awareness of the disease, conflict with decisions, and patients' and health professionals' satisfaction with the intervention.

METHODS

A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials as study design; use of SDM with DA as an intervention; primary care as clinical context; written in English, Spanish, and Portuguese; and published between January 2007 and January 2019. The risk of bias of the included studies in this review was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.

RESULTS

Twenty four studies were selected out of the 201 references initially identified. With the use of DA, the use of antibiotics was reduced in cases of acute respiratory infection and decisional conflict was decreased when dealing with the treatment choice for atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis. The rate of determination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the prostate cancer screening decreased and colorectal cancer screening increased. Both professionals and patients increased their knowledge about depression, type 2 diabetes, and the perception of risk of acute myocardial infarction at 10 years without statins and with statins. The satisfaction was greater with the use of DA in choosing the treatment for depression, in cardiovascular risk management, in the treatment of low back pain, and in the use of statin therapy in diabetes. Blinding of outcomes assessment was the most common bias.

CONCLUSIONS

DA used in primary care are effective to reduce decisional conflict and improve knowledge on the disease and treatment options, awareness of risk, and satisfaction with the decisions made. More studies are needed to assess the impact of shared decision making in primary care.

Defining and assessing key behavioral indicators of the Shifting Cultural Lenses model of cultural competence

Models of cultural competence highlight the importance of the sociocultural world that is inhabited by patients, and the question of how best to integrate sociocultural factors into clinical assessment and intervention. However, one significant limitation of such approaches is that they leave unclear what type of in-session therapist behaviors actually reflect cultural competence. We draw on the Shifting Cultural Lenses model to operationalize culturally competent in-session behaviors. We argue that a key component of cultural competence is the collaborative relationship between therapists and patients, in which therapists shift between their own cultural lenses and those of their clients, as they co-construct shared narratives together. Accordingly, we propose that culturally competent therapist behaviors include accessing the client's views, explicitly presenting their own views as mental health care professionals, and working towards a shared understanding. We further specify the latter set of behaviors as including the practitioner's integration of the patient's view, their encouragement of the patient to consider their professional view, and the negotiation of a shared view. We developed a coding system to identify these therapist behaviors and examined the reliability of raters across 11 couple and 4 individual therapy sessions. We assessed whether the behavioral codes varied in expected ways over the first 3 sessions of 2 therapists' couple therapy as well. Operationalizing the behavioral indicators of the Shifting Cultural Lenses model opens the door to the integration of both process- and content-oriented approaches to cultural competence.

Shared Decision Making: From Decision Science to Data Science

Background. Accurate diagnosis of patients' preferences is central to shared decision making. Missing from clinical practice is an approach that links pretreatment preferences and patient-reported outcomes. Objective. We propose a Bayesian collaborative filtering (CF) algorithm that combines pretreatment preferences and patient-reported outcomes to provide treatment recommendations. Design. We present the methodological details of a Bayesian CF algorithm designed to accomplish 3 tasks: 1) eliciting patient preferences using conjoint analysis surveys, 2) clustering patients into preference phenotypes, and 3) making treatment recommendations based on the posttreatment satisfaction of like-minded patients. We conduct a series of simulation studies to test the algorithm and to compare it to a 2-stage approach. Results. The Bayesian CF algorithm and 2-stage approaches performed similarly when there was extensive overlap between preference phenotypes. When the treatment was moderately associated with satisfaction, both methods made accurate recommendations. The kappa estimates measuring agreement between the true and predicted recommendations were 0.70 (95% confidence interval = 0.052-0.88) and 0.73 (0.56-0.90) under the Bayesian CF and 2-stage approaches, respectively. The 2-stage approach failed to converge in settings in which clusters were well separated, whereas the Bayesian CF algorithm produced acceptable results, with kappas of 0.73 (0.56-0.90) and 0.83 (0.69-0.97) for scenarios with moderate and large treatment effects, respectively. Limitations. Our approach assumes that the patient population is composed of distinct preference phenotypes, there is association between treatment and outcomes, and treatment effects vary across phenotypes. Findings are also limited to simulated data. Conclusion. The Bayesian CF algorithm is feasible, provides accurate cluster treatment recommendations, and outperforms 2-stage estimation when clusters are well separated. As such, the approach serves as a roadmap for incorporating predictive analytics into shared decision making.

Elderly patients' decision-making embedded in the social context: a mixed-method analysis of subjective norms and social support

Background

Older patients are increasingly encouraged to be actively involved but how they perceive their role in the decision-making process varies according to their health care providers and their health situation. Their role could be influenced by their social context but more specifically by subjective norms (i.e. patients’ view of the role that significant others expect them to play in the decision-making process) and perceived social support. We explore how social context (i.e. subjective norms and social support) relates to how the patient perceives their role in the decision-making process. Also, we explore the level of alignment on subjective norms between patients and their informal caregivers and nurses.

Methods

Mixed-method study among older patients, informal caregivers and nurses. For the quantitative questionnaire, a home care organisation randomly selected patients. The patients were asked to identify their informal caregiver and the home care organisation was asked to identify the nurse who was most involved in their care. In total 133 patients, 64 informal caregivers and 72 nurses were questioned. Participants for the qualitative interviews were selected using convenience sampling, resulting in the inclusion of ten patients, five informal caregivers and six nurses. Subjective norms were based on a previous study. Social support was measured with the ‘social support for health scale’ of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. The Control Preference Scale was used as outcome variable. The interviews focused on subjective norms, social support and how the patient perceived their role. Quantitative analysis included the calculation of subjective norm difference scores between respondent groups, one-way analysis of variance and multinomial logistic regression analysis. Directed content analysis was applied to the interviews using Atlas TI.

Results

Lower difference scores were found for patient-informal caregiver dyads (mean = 0.95), implying more alignment than in patient-nurse dyads (mean = 2.12). Patients perceiving themselves to have a shared or passive role tend to believe that they are expected to leave decision-making to the health care provider. Higher social support scores related more to a shared role. Alignment relates to: familiarity with the patient’s preferences, overprotectiveness or valuing the care provider’s opinion and the severity of the patient’s medical history.

Conclusion

Patients and informal caregivers align on whether the patient should make decisions. The more patients believe that they are expected to leave decision-making to the health care provider, the more they perceive themselves as having a passive role. The more patients who feel they have support, the more they perceive themselves as having a shared role. Patients and caregivers could be facilitated to make role expectations explicit. Examining support resources in the social network is desirable.

Purposeful SDM: A problem-based approach to caring for patients with shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

Patient involvement focused the growth of Shared Decision Making (SDM) in contemporary healthcare practice, research, and education. Whilst important, securing appropriate patient involvement or equipping patients to choose is not necessarily the principal purpose of SDM. The purpose of SDM like all medical decision making is to act well in response to a patient's problem, broadly conceived. In which situations and how SDM addresses patient problems is unclear. We seek to develop a purposeful approach to SDM that is oriented to the kinds of problems that SDM might help resolve.

METHODS

Through vignettes of the experience of a patient, Rachel we demonstrate different kinds of situations in which Rachel, her family, and clinicians need to make decisions together.

RESULTS

Different methods of SDM are needed in situations of: CONCLUSION: SDM may be understood as a range of methods that vary substantially with patients' situations and the purpose that they pursue.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians struggle to adopt SDM when they do not see it as relevant to clinical work. Orienting SDM to the problems that patients and clinicians routinely face may further SDM adoption, education, and research.

Ability of observer and self-report measures to capture shared decision-making in clinical practice in the UK: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

To examine how observer and self-report measures of shared decision-making (SDM) evaluate the decision-making activities that patients and clinicians undertake in routine consultations.

DESIGN

Multi-method study using observational and self-reported measures of SDM and qualitative analysis.

SETTING

Breast care and predialysis teams who had already implemented SDM.

PARTICIPANTS

Breast care consultants, clinical nurse specialists and patients who were making decisions about treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Predialysis clinical nurse specialists and patients who needed to make dialysis treatment decisions.

METHODS

Consultations were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. SDM was measured using Observer OPTION-5 and a dyadic SureScore self-reported measure.

RESULTS

Twenty-two breast and 21 renal consultations were analysed. SureScore indicated that clinicians and patients felt SDM was occurring, but scores showed ceiling effects for most participants, making differentiation difficult. There was mismatch between SureScore and OPTION-5 score data, the latter showing that each consultation lacked at least some elements of SDM. Highest scoring items using OPTION-5 were 'incorporating patient preferences into decisions' for the breast team (mean 18.5, range 12.5-20, SD 2.39) and 'eliciting patient preferences to options' for the renal team (mean 16.15, range 10-20, SD 3.48). Thematic analysis identified that the SDM encounter is difficult to measure because decision-making is often distributed across encounters and time, with multiple people, it is contextually adapted and can involve multiple decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported measures can broadly indicate satisfaction with SDM, but do not tell us about the quality of the interaction and are unlikely to capture the multi-staged nature of the SDM process. Observational measures provide an indication of the extent to which elements of SDM are present in the observed consultation, but cannot explain why some elements might not be present or scored lower. Findings are important when considering measuring SDM in practice.

Which instruments are used to measure shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals? A systematic review protocol

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a dialogical relationship where the physician and the patient define the problem, discuss the available options according to the patient’s values and preferences, and co-construct the treatment plan. Undertaking SDM in a clinical setting with patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating cognitive capacity may prove challenging. Supported (defined “Assisted” in the Irish context) decision-making describes how people with impaired or fluctuating capacity remain in control of their healthcare-related choices through mechanisms which build and maximise capacity. Supported and assisted decision-making (ADM) within healthcare settings is theoretically and practically novel. Therefore, there is a knowledge gap about the validity of psychometric instruments used to assess ADM and its components within clinical settings. This systematic review aims to identify and characterise instruments currently used to assess shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients with limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals. Methods: A systematic review and narrative synthesis will be performed using a search strategy involving the following databases (PubMed, Cinahl, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO). Quantitative studies published in the last decade and describing psychometric instruments measuring SDM, supported decision-making and ADM with people having limited or fluctuating capacity will be considered eligible for inclusion. Title and abstract screening will be followed by full-text eligibility screening, data extraction, synthesis and analysis. This review will be structured and reported according to the PRISMA checklist. The COSMIN Risk of bias checklist will be used to assess the quality of the instruments. Discussion: The results will inform and be useful to HCPs and policymakers interested in having updated knowledge of the available instruments to assess SDM, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018105360; registered on 10/08/2018.

Development and Validation of the MiPrep Survey: An Instrument Assessing Patients' Perceived Preparation for Medical Interventions Including Medical Imaging, Radiotherapy, and Surgery

BACKGROUND

Adequately preparing patients for medical interventions is an important component of quality healthcare. Nevertheless, few instruments for assessing patients' preparation exist.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a psychometrically rigorous instrument to assess patients' perceptions of the quality of preparation.

METHODS

An instrument to measure patients' preparation for medical interventions (MiPrep) was developed and tested with patients undergoing medical imaging, radiotherapy, or surgery. Patients were recruited and asked to complete 2 surveys. Survey A assessed patient and intervention characteristics. Survey B (postintervention) contained MiPrep to assess validity (face, content, and construct) and reliability (internal consistency and test-retest).

RESULTS

A total of 869 (85%) patients consented to participate and 551 (63%) returned the postintervention survey. Face and content validity were demonstrated. Exploratory factor analysis identified 2 survey modules: receipt and adequacy of information (2 domains) and overall appraisal of patient-centered care (1 domain). Reliability was evidenced by adequate internal consistency (Cronbach α 0.81-0.89) and item-total correlations higher than 0.20. Nevertheless, individual item test-retest reliability requires further confirmation. The final instrument contained 27 items.

CONCLUSIONS

The MiPrep instrument has evidence of being a valid and reliable instrument of preparation for medical interventions. Healthcare providers can use the instrument as a quality assurance tool to identify areas for improvement and areas of excellence in patients' preparation. Future studies should verify these findings in other populations and examine the divergent and predictive validity of the instrument.

Shared decision-making in vascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Ideally, patients' decision-making regarding surgical options should reflect myriad implicit values. The informed consent process is meant to ensure that patients' values mirror clinical decisions regarding expectations for outcomes, such as quality of life, life expectancy, and subsequent pain and suffering. However, surgeons are not always equipped to discuss patients' values.

METHODS

Shared decision-making is a method that could help surgeons elicit patients' values and subsequently improve the patient's knowledge and satisfaction, among other important outcomes. Yet, several barriers hinder implementation of shared decision-making in the clinic, such as time, interpersonal characteristics, and trust. To address concerns, several tools and approaches have been developed to increase shared decision-making in the clinic. This article highlights two strategies: the three-talk model and decision aids.

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision-making is a tool that could be especially valuable in discussions regarding elective surgery. Further research is needed to determine how best to implement shared decision-making in the surgical setting. Without full integration of patients' values into discussions of surgical options, there will continue to be a disconnect between the surgical procedures, outcomes, and patients' values.

Heading in a new direction? Recommendations for future research on patient decision aids

Decision aids can improve a number of patient outcomes, but they are not commonly used in clinical practice. This commentary paper provides suggestions for potential next steps of decision aid research, with the aim to facilitate their implementation. We suggest to further standardise clinically meaningful outcomes and outcome measures that should be used to examine the impact of decision aids. Second, using mediation analysis and active control groups could help tease out and explore variables that influence decision aids' effectiveness to help healthcare providers decide when and how to use them in clinical practice. Third, effectiveness trials should be clearly reported and replicated to investigate under what circumstances decision aids work best. Specific checklists for decision aid trials should be used to ensure that all relevant factors are reported in detail. Addressing the above issues will help identify what specific components of decision aids are effective and should be implemented. We can then move towards conducting implementation trials which help increase the use of decision aids in "real-world" healthcare.

Development of a "Patient Rights" Subscale to Measure Informed Decision-Making Within the Dyadic Decisional Conflict Scale for Obstetric Care

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A modified Dyadic Decisional Conflict Scale (D-DCS) and new Patient Rights subscale to measure perceptions of informed decision-making regarding use of epidural analgesia during childbirth are tested.

METHODS

Thirty-five primiparous women and 52 providers from three hospitals tested the modified instrument. Cronbach's α coefficient assessed reliability. Mokken scale, principal components, and correlation analyses assessed unidimensionality of subscales.

RESULTS

Internal reliability was demonstrated for the D-DCS-Patient (Cronbach's α = 0.846) and D-DCS-Provider (α = 0.888). Further analyses suggest the Patient Rightssubscale has potential to make a unique contribution to the D-DCS.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified D-DCS and Patient Rights subscale allow for a more comprehensive study of informed healthcare decision-making that includes legal and ethical elements, which may aid development of targeted interventions to improve decision-making.

The different perspectives of patients, informal caregivers and professionals on patient involvement in primary care teams. A qualitative study

Background

Patient involvement in the decision‐making process, especially for chronically ill elderly patients, has become an important element of patient‐centred primary care in many countries, including the Netherlands. This study openly explores different perspectives of patients, informal caregivers and primary care professionals on patient involvement in primary care team interactions.

Methods

Sixty‐four qualitative semi‐structured interviews with chronically ill elderly patients, informal caregivers and primary care professionals from various disciplines. Underpinned by a phenomenology approach, this study used conventional content analysis for data analysis.

Results

Participants have different views of the roles of patients and informal caregivers in the primary care team and thus different expectations of the extent and level of patient involvement. Three challenges impact patient involvement in the team: (a) patients feel misunderstood and less involved that they would like when professionals take control, (b) patients have to balance the conflicting opinions of different professionals and (c) informal caregivers act undesirably as team leaders due to their own view of the level of patient involvement.

Discussion and conclusion

Patient involvement is formed in complex interactions between patients, informal caregivers and multiple professionals whose perspectives and expectations can be misaligned. Recognizing the value of patients and informal caregivers on the team could help professionals to understand them better and thus limit the likelihood of challenges arising in team interactions.

Health Democracy Index: Development and Validation of a Self-Reported Instrument for Measuring Patient Participation in Health Policy

Introduction: Patient participation has emerged as a preponderant theme in contemporary health and healthcare; however there is a dearth of research on the degree and impact of collective patient participation on shaping health policy. In this frame, the current study endeavored to validate a scale for assessing patients' association (PA) participation in health policy processes. Furthermore, PAs' participation in health policy decision making in Greece was explored.

Materials and Methods: The Health Democracy Index (HDI) is an eight-item scale enquiring about PAs' participation in important facets of health policy. To investigate its psychometric properties, 414 members of PAs in Greece were randomly recruited. By employing a self-reported questionnaire, construct validity was examined through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, while convergent validity was investigated through an additional question asking respondents to rate the degree of their association's participation in health policy processes. Moreover, the internal consistency of the scale and its test-retest reliability were explored.

Results: The scale showed high internal consistency (Cronbach a = 0.85) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.89, p < 0,001). Exploratory factor analysis suggested a unidimensional construct; while confirmatory factor analysis indicated an adequate fit of the one-factor model (RMSEA = 0.079, CFI = 0.976, and GFI = 0.972). Regarding convergent validity, the HDI composite score displayed strong and positive correlation with the item asking respondents to rate the degree of PA participation in health policy processes (rho = 0.73, p < 0.0001). Concerning the pattern of results in Greece, PAs' participation was found to be low. The lowest level was observed for the item enquiring about PA participation in the national parliament and the highest for panels at influential health-related organizations.

Conclusion: The HDI is a valid and reliable tool that can be utilized to serve policy-related as well as research purposes. PAs' participation in Greece is weak and thus efforts should be made to enhance it.

Genetic Counselors' Perspectives About Cell-Free DNA: Experiences, Challenges, and Expectations for Obstetricians

The expansion of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening for a larger and diverse set of genetic variants, in addition for use among the low-risk obstetric population, presents important clinical challenges for all healthcare providers involved in the delivery of prenatal care. It is unclear how to leverage the different members of the healthcare team to respond to these challenges. We conducted interviews with 25 prenatal genetic counselors to understand their experience with the continued expansion of cfDNA screening. Participants supported the use of cfDNA screening for the common autosomal aneuploidies, but noted some reservations for its use to identify fetal sex and microdeletions. Participants reported several barriers to ensuring that patients have the information and support to make informed decisions about using cfDNA to screen for these different conditions. This was seen as a dual-sided problem, and necessitated additional education interventions that addressed patients seeking cfDNA screening, and obstetricians who introduce the concepts of genetic risk and cfDNA to patients. In addition, participants noted that they have a professional responsibility to educate obstetricians about cfDNA so they can be prepared to be gatekeepers of counseling and education about this screening option for use among the general obstetric population.

An advance care plan decision support video before major surgery: a patient- and family-centred approach

OBJECTIVE

Video-based advanc care planning (ACP) tools have been studied in varied medical contexts; however, none have been developed for patients undergoing major surgery. Using a patient- and family-centredness approach, our objective was to implement human-centred design (HCD) to develop an ACP decision support video for patients and their family members when preparing for major surgery.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The study investigators partnered with surgical patients and their family members, surgeons and other health professionals to design an ACP decision support video using key HCD principles. Adapting Maguire's HCD stages from computer science to the surgical context, while also incorporating Elwyn et al's specifications for patient-oriented decision support tool development, we used a six-stage HCD process to develop the video: (1) plan HCD process; (2) specify where video will be used; (3) specify user and organisational requirements; (4) produce and test prototypes; (5) carry out user-based assessment; (6) field test with end users.

RESULTS

Over 450 stakeholders were engaged in the development process contributing to setting objectives, applying for funding, providing feedback on the storyboard and iterations of the decision tool video. Throughout the HCD process, stakeholders' opinions were compiled and conflicting approaches negotiated resulting in a tool that addressed stakeholders' concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Our patient- and family-centred approach using HCD facilitated discussion and the ability to elicit and balance sometimes competing viewpoints. The early engagement of users and stakeholders throughout the development process may help to ensure tools address the stated needs of these individuals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02489799.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology, Part 8: Shared Decision Making—Impact, Incentives, and Instruments

In our previous installment, we introduced shared decision making (SDM) as a collaborative process in which patients, families, and clinicians develop a mutually optimized treatment plan when more than 1 reasonable treatment option exists. In this subsequent installment of our Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Series, we expand on the topic of SDM, including the related current state of clinical decision making, the impact of SDM on health care utilization and patient satisfaction, the potential role of system and society changes, the experience with SDM as it relates to race and ethnicity, existing financial incentives, and the validated instruments that assess the extent to which SDM occurs.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Health Literacy and Health-Care Engagement as Predictors of Shared Decision-Making Among Adult Information Seekers in the USA: a Secondary Data Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey

The objective of this study is to examine the relationship between health literacy, health-care engagement, and shared decision-making (SDM). We analyzed Health Information National Trends Survey 4 (cycle 3) data for 1604 information seekers who had one or more non-emergency room health-care visits in the previous year. SDM was more than two times higher among adults who "always" versus "usually/sometimes/never" take health information to doctor visits (OR = 2.54; 95 % CI 1.19-5.43). There was a twofold increase in SDM among adults who were "completely/very confident" versus "somewhat/a little/not confident" about finding health information (OR = 2.03; 95 % CI 1.37-3.02). Differences in SDM between adults who understood health information and those who had difficulty understanding health information were not statistically significant (OR = 1.39; 95 % CI 0.93-2.07). A Healthy People 2020 goal is to increase SDM. Previous research has suggested that SDM may improve health outcomes across the continuum of care. Only about half of adults report always being involved in health-care decisions. Even more alarming is the fact that SDM has not increased from 2003 to 2013. Our findings suggest that increasing health literacy has the potential to increase health-care engagement and subsequently increase SDM. Effective intervention strategies are needed to improve health literacy and promote health-care engagement.

Assessing Patient Organization Participation in Health Policy: A Comparative Study in France and Italy

BACKGROUND

Even though there are many patient organizations across Europe, their role in impacting health policy decisions and reforms has not been well documented. In line with this, the present study endeavours to fill this gap in the international literature. To this end, it aims to validate further a previously developed instrument (the Health Democracy Index - HDI) measuring patient organization participation in health policy decision-making. In addition, by utilizing this tool, it aims to provide a snapshot of the degree and impact of cancer patient organization (CPO) participation in Italy and France.

METHODS

A convenient sample of 188 members of CPOs participated in the study (95 respondents from 10 CPOs in Italy and 93 from 12 CPOs in France). Participants completed online a self-reported questionnaire, encompassing the 9-item index and questions enquiring about the type and impact of participation in various facets of health policy decisionmaking. The psychometric properties of the scale were explored by performing factor analysis (construct validity) and by computing Cronbach α (internal consistency).

RESULTS

Findings indicate that the index has good internal consistency and the construct it taps is unidimensional. The degree and impact of CPO participation in health policy decision-making were found to be low in both countries; however in Italy they were comparatively lower than in France.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the HDI can be effectively used in international policy and research contexts. CPOs participation is low in Italy and France and concerted efforts should be made on upgrading their role in health policy decision-making.

Preferences for Depression Treatment Including Internet-Based Interventions: Results From a Large Sample of Primary Care Patients

Background: To date, little is known about treatment preferences for depression concerning new media. This study aims to (1) investigate treatment preferences for depression including internet-based interventions and (2) examine subgroup differences concerning age, gender and severity of depression as well as patient-related factors associated with treatment preferences. Methods: Data were derived from the baseline assessment of the @ktiv-trial. Depression treatment preferences were assessed from n = 641 primary care patients with mild to moderate depression regarding the following treatments: medication, psychotherapy, combined treatment, alternative treatment, talking to friends and family, exercise, self-help literature, and internet-based interventions. Depression severity was specified by GPs according to ICD-10 criteria. Ordinal logistic regression models were conducted to identify associated factors of treatment preferences. Results: Patients had a mean age of 43.9 years (SD = 13.8) and more than two thirds (68.6%) were female. About 43% of patients had mild depression while 57% were diagnosed with moderate depression. The majority of patients reported strong preferences for psychotherapy, talking to friends and family, and exercise. About one in five patients was very likely to consider internet-based interventions in case of depression. Younger patients expressed significantly stronger treatment preferences for psychotherapy and internet-based interventions than older patients. The most salient factors associated with treatment preferences were the patients' education and perceived self-efficacy. Conclusions: Patients with depression report individually different treatment preferences.Our results underline the importance of shared decision-making within primary care. Future studies should investigate treatment preferences for different types of internet-based interventions.

Translation and cultural adaption of the decisions module for colorectal cancer screening into a Swedish version - the SCREESCO questionnaire

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is suitable for population screening due to its high incidence and the recognizable and treatable prephase, and the present study is part of the larger study; Screening for Swedish Colons (SCREESCO). In Sweden, there is, to our knowledge, no questionnaire assessing shared decision making (SDM) with regard to CRC screening and, therefore, the aim of the study was to translate and culturally adapt the CRC screening module of the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS) into a Swedish context.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A qualitative design inspired by guidelines based on methods for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires was used. In addition, focus group discussions, individual interviews and think-aloud (TA) sessions were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 54 items included in the original DECISION survey, 32 were excluded, 22 were modified, and three were added as a result of the qualitative study. How the health care organization communicated and CRC screening knowledge was communicated were found to be the most important cultural differences between Sweden and the USA. The final questionnaire consists of 24 items.

CONCLUSION

The process of translation and cultural adaptation of the CRC screening module of the DECISIONS survey resulted in the removal and modifying of a considerable number of items. The major rationale for the removal and modifying of items can be explained by the different cultural traditions between Sweden and the USA when communicating with the health care system regarding screening participation and how CRC screening information and knowledge is communicated.

Health literacy and chronic disease management: drawing from expert knowledge to set an agenda

Understanding the nature and impact of health literacy is a priority in health promotion and chronic disease prevention and treatment. Health literacy comprises the application of a broad set of skills to access, comprehend, evaluate, communicate and act on health information for improved health and well-being. A complex concept, it involves multiple participants and is enacted across a wide variety of contexts. Health literacy's complexity has given rise to challenges achieving a standard definition and developing means to measure all its dimensions. In May 2013, a group of health literacy experts, clinicians and policymakers convened at an Expert Roundtable to review the current state of health literacy research and practice, and make recommendations about refining its definition, expanding its measurement and integrating best practices into chronic disease management. The four-day knowledge exchange concluded that the successful integration of health literacy into policy and practice depends on the development of a more substantial evidence base. A review of the successes and gaps in health literacy research, education and interventions culminated in the identification of key priorities to further the health literacy agenda. The workshop was funded by the UBC Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, Vancouver.

The Relationship of Patient-Provider Communication on Quality of Life among African-American and White Cancer Survivors

Prior research has demonstrated poorer patient-provider communication ratings among African American compared to White patients. The quality of patient-provider communication has been shown to impact treatment outcomes among cancer patients. A secondary data analysis design was used to determine the relationship of six patient-provider communication variables on the physical health quality of life (PHQOL) and mental health quality of life (MHQOL) of African American and White cancer patients (N = 479). We also examined whether the relationship between communication patterns and QOL differed based on race/ethnicity. Mean physical and mental health QOL scores for the sample were 69.8 and 77.6, respectively. After controlling for significant sociodemographic, clinical, and hospital variables, results showed that patients who experienced fewer interpersonal communication barriers who were more satisfied with the information given by providers had higher PHQOL and MHQOL scores. Additionally, patients who felt more comfort in asking questions or had fewer unmet information needs had higher MHQOL. A stratified analysis showed that the relationship of overall satisfaction with information on MHQOL was stronger among African American patients than White patients. Future research should focus on the development of interventions to improve patient-provider communication as a means for enhancing QOL outcomes among cancer survivors.

Strategies for implementing shared decision making in elective surgery by healthcare practitioners: a systematic review protocol

REVIEW OBJECTIVES/QUESTIONS

The objectives of the review are to:Specifically, the review questions are.

Relationships of Shared Decision Making with Parental Perceptions of Child Mental Health Functioning and Care

Experts encourage parents and practitioners to engage in shared decision making (SDM) to provide high quality child mental health care. However, little is known regarding SDM among families of children with common mental health conditions. The objectives of this study were to examine associations between parental report of SDM and parental perceptions of (a) receiving child mental health care and (b) child mental health functioning. We analyzed cross-sectional data on children with a common mental health condition (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional-defiant or conduct disorder, anxiety, or depression) from the 2009/2010 National Survey of Children with Special Healthcare Needs (N = 9,434). The primary independent variable was parent-reported SDM, and the dependent variables were parental perception of (a) their child receiving all needed mental health care (b) their children's impairment in school attendance and extracurricular activity participation, and (c) severity of their children's mental health condition. Multivariate logistic and multinomial regression analyses were conducted. Greater parent-reported SDM was associated with parental perceptions of receiving all needed child mental health care and children not having school or extracurricular impairment. Greater SDM was also associated with perceptions of children having a mild mental health condition compared to children having a moderate or severe condition. Findings provide a basis for future longitudinal and intervention studies to examine the benefit of SDM for improving parental perceptions of the quality of child mental health care and mental health functioning among children with common mental health conditions.

Assessing Patient Participation in Health Policy Decision-Making in Cyprus

Although the importance of patient participation in the design and evaluation of health programs and services is well-documented, there is scarcity of research with regard to patient association (PA) participation in health policy decision-making processes. To this end, the present study aimed to validate further a previously developed instrument as well as to investigate the degree of PA participation in health policy decision-making in Cyprus. A convenient sample of 114 patients-members of patients associations took part in the study. Participants were recruited from an umbrella organization, the Pancyprian Federation of Patient Associations and Friends (PFPA). PA participation in health policy decision-making was assessed with the Health Democracy Index (HDI), an original 8-item tool. To explore its psychometric properties, Cronbach α was computed as regards to its internal consistency, while its convergent validity was tested against a self-rated question enquiring about the degree of PA participation in health policy decision-making. The findings revealed that the HDI has good internal consistency and convergent validity. Furthermore, PAs were found to participate more in consultations in health-related organizations and the Ministry of Health (MoH) as well as in reforms or crucial decisions in health policy. Lower levels were documented with regard to participation in hospital boards, ethics committees in clinical trials and health technology assessment (HTA) procedures. Overall, PA participation levels were found to be lower than the mid-point of the scale. Targeted interventions aiming to facilitate patients' involvement in health policy decision-making processes and to increase its impact are greatly needed in Cyprus.

Shared decision making in Swedish community mental health services - an evaluation of three self-reporting instruments

BACKGROUND

Despite the potential impact of shared decision making on users satisfaction with care and quality in health care decisions, there is a lack of knowledge and skills regarding how to work with shared decision making among health care providers.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of three instruments that measure varied dimensions of shared decision making, based on self-reports by clients, in a Swedish community mental health context.

METHOD

The study sample consisted of 121 clients with experience of community mental health care, and involved in a wide range of decisions regarding both social support and treatment. The questionnaires were examined for face and content validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity.

RESULTS

The instruments displayed good face and content validity, satisfactory internal consistency and a moderate to good level of stability in test-retest reliability with fair to moderate construct correlations, in a sample of clients with serious mental illness and experience of community mental health services in Sweden.

CONCLUSIONS

The questionnaires are considered to be relevant to the decision making process, user-friendly and appropriate in a Swedish community mental health care context. They functioned well in settings where non-medical decisions, regarding social and support services, are the primary focus. The use of instruments that measure various dimensions of the self-reported experience of clients, can be a key factor in developing knowledge of how best to implement shared decision making in mental health services.

Interprofessional simulation to improve patient participation in transitional care

BACKGROUND

Educating and training healthcare professionals is known to improve the quality of transitional care for older adults. Arranging interprofessional meetings for healthcare professionals might be useful to improve patient participation skills in transitional care.

AIM

To describe the learning activities used in The Meeting Point programme, focusing on patient participation in transitional care, and assess whether they increase healthcare professionals' awareness of and competencies relating to patient participation in the transitional care of older patients.

DESIGN

Data were collected as part of an educational intervention programme, The Meeting Point, including three seminars on 'Patient participation in the transitional care of older patients' and four follow-up meetings. Participants were nurses, care assistants, doctors, physiotherapists, patient coordinators and administrative personnel from hospital, nursing homes and home-based care services.

METHOD

The Meeting Point was organised around four pillars: introduction, teaching session, group work activity and plenary discussion. Qualitative data included log reports, summaries of meetings, notes from group work activities, and reports from participants and from follow-up meetings.

RESULTS

Feedback from participants shows that they were satisfied with meeting healthcare professionals from other units of care. A film scenario was perceived relevant for group work activity and useful in focusing participants' attention to patient participation. Follow-up meetings show that some nursing home wards, the emergency department and one medical ward at the hospital continued with ongoing work to improve quality of care. Efforts included implementation of an observational waiting room with comfortable chairs, planning for discharge in hospital admission, a daily patient flow registration system and motivational interviewing during admission to nursing home.

CONCLUSIONS

The description of the learning activities used at The Meeting Point seminars shows that they were useful to increase awareness of and competencies on patient participation in transitional care.

Shared decision-making on a 'life-and-care plan' in long-term care facilities: research protocol

AIM

To determine whether the number of residents' preferences and needs together with the actions taken to satisfy them recorded into their 'life-and-care plans' will increase and the process of shared decision-making will improve the residents' psychosocial well-being.

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is defined as a process where healthcare professionals and patients make decisions together, using the best available evidence. The aims of the present study were to assess the feasibility and acceptability of an SDM framework for care planning in long-term care facilities and its potential effectiveness on the proportion of dementia residents whose own preferences and needs and the related actions, are known, satisfied and documented in their 'life-and-care plans'.

DESIGN

The current project is a feasibility trial and it was approved in November 2013.

METHODS

Research subjects are triads composed of the resident with dementia, a family caregiver and the professional usually taking care for the resident. Professional caregivers of two nursing homes, one located in Italy and one in the Netherlands, will receive a specific training in SDM principles and will guide the SDM interview in the triad. The primary outcome will be the proportion of residents whose preferences and needs, together with the related actions to meet them, are known, documented and satisfied in their 'life-and-care plans'.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02118701.

Development of a survey instrument to measure patient experience of integrated care

BACKGROUND

Healthcare systems are working to move towards more integrated, patient-centered care. This study describes the development and testing of a multidimensional self-report measure of patients' experiences of integrated care.

METHODS

Random-digit-dial telephone survey in 2012 of 317 adults aged 40 years or older in the San Francisco region who had used healthcare at least twice in the past 12 months. One-time cross-sectional survey; psychometric evaluation to confirm dimensions and create multi-item scales. Survey data were analyzed using VARCLUS and confirmatory factor analysis and internal consistency reliability testing.

RESULTS

Scales measuring five domains were confirmed: coordination within and between care teams, navigation (arranging appointments and visits), communication between specialist and primary care doctor, and communication between primary care doctor and specialist. Four of these demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability. Mean scale scores indicated low levels of integration.

CONCLUSION

These scales measuring integrated care capture meaningful domains of patients' experiences of health care. The low levels of care integration reported by patients in the study sample suggest that these types of measures should be considered in ongoing evaluations of health system performance and improvement. Further research should examine whether differences in patient experience of integrated care are associated with differences in the processes and outcomes of care received.

Preparing patients for medical interventions: A systematic review of the psychometric qualities of published instruments

OBJECTIVE

Preparing patients for medical interventions improves patient outcomes and is an ethical and legal imperative. This review examines the characteristics and psychometric properties of published instruments which assess patients' preparation for medical interventions.

METHODS

Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO electronic databases were searched from the date of their inception to November 2015. Data-based publications describing the development or validation of a self-report instrument designed to assess the quality of adult patients' perceived preparation for a medical intervention were included.

RESULTS

Nine publications described the development or validation of seven instruments which met inclusion criteria. The psychometric qualities of the instruments varied. None met all of the accepted criteria for psychometric rigour. Although the Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile met the highest number (n=5) of the defined psychometric properties, the study sample size was less than 100. Overall, content validity of the included instruments was the most frequently assessed criteria.

CONCLUSION

Few instruments have been specifically developed to assess patients' self-reported preparation for medical interventions. Of the available instruments, none demonstrated adequate rigour across essential psychometric properties.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The need to develop instruments examining patient preparation for medical interventions is apparent given the limitations of the instruments reviewed.

Patient and public involvement: how much do we spend and what are the benefits?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is seen as a way of helping to shape health policy and ensure a patient-focused health-care system. While evidence indicates that PPI can improve health-care decision making, it also consumes monetary and non-monetary resources. Given the financial climate, it is important to start thinking about the costs and benefits of PPI and how to evaluate it in economic terms.

DESIGN

We conducted a literature review to assess the potential benefits and costs of involvement and the challenges in carrying out an economic evaluation of PPI.

RESULTS

The benefits of PPI include effects on the design of new projects or services, on NHS governance, on research design and implementation and on citizenship and equity. Economic evaluation of PPI activities is limited. The lack of an appropriate analytical framework, data recording and understanding of the potential costs and benefits of PPI, especially from participants' perspectives, represent serious constraints on the full evaluation of PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

By recognizing the value of PPI, health-care providers and commissioners can embed it more effectively within their organizations. Better knowledge of costs may prompt organizations to effectively plan, execute, evaluate and target resources. This should increase the likelihood of more meaningful activity, avoid tokenism and enhance organizational efficiency and reputation.

Shared decision making among parents of children with mental health conditions compared to children with chronic physical conditions

High quality care in pediatrics involves shared decision making (SDM) between families and providers. The extent to which children with common mental health disorders experience SDM is not well known. The objectives of this study were to examine how parent-reported SDM varies by child health (physical illness, mental health condition, and comorbid mental and physical conditions) and to examine whether medical home care attenuates any differences. We analyzed data on children (2-17 years) collected through the 2009/2010 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs. The sample consisted of parents of children in one of three child health categories: (1) children with a chronic physical illness but no mental health condition; (2) children with a common mental health condition but no chronic physical condition; and (3) children with comorbid mental and chronic physical conditions. The primary dependent variable was parent-report of provider SDM. The primary independent variable was health condition category. Multivariate linear regression analyses were conducted. Multivariate analyses controlling for sociodemographic variables and parent-reported health condition impact indicated lower SDM among children with a common mental health condition-only (B = -0.40; p < 0.01) and children with comorbid conditions (B = -0.67; p < 0.01) compared to children with a physical condition-only. Differences in SDM for children with a common mental health condition-only were no longer significant in the model adjusting for medical home care. However, differences in SDM for children with comorbid conditions persisted after adjusting for medical home care. Increasing medical home care may help mitigate differences in SDM for children with mental health conditions-only. Other interventions may be needed to improve SDM among children with comorbid mental and physical conditions.

A systematic review of reliable and valid tools for the measurement of patient participation in healthcare

INTRODUCTION

Patient participation in healthcare is recognised internationally as essential for consumer-centric, high-quality healthcare delivery. Its measurement as part of continuous quality improvement requires development of agreed standards and measurable indicators.

AIM

This systematic review sought to identify strategies to measure patient participation in healthcare and to report their reliability and validity. In the context of this review, patient participation was constructed as shared decision-making, acknowledging the patient as having critical knowledge regarding their own health and care needs and promoting self-care/autonomy.

METHODS

Following a comprehensive search, studies reporting reliability or validity of an instrument used in a healthcare setting to measure patient participation, published in English between January 2004 and March 2014 were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

From an initial search, which identified 1582 studies, 156 studies were retrieved and screened against inclusion criteria. Thirty-three studies reporting 24 patient participation measurement tools met inclusion criteria, and were critically appraised. The majority of studies were descriptive psychometric studies using prospective, cross-sectional designs. Almost all the tools completed by patients, family caregivers, observers or more than one stakeholder focused on aspects of patient-professional communication. Few tools designed for completion by patients or family caregivers provided valid and reliable measures of patient participation. There was low correlation between many of the tools and other measures of patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Few reliable and valid tools for measurement of patient participation in healthcare have been recently developed. Of those reported in this review, the dyadic Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (dyadic-OPTION) tool presents the most promise for measuring core components of patient participation. There remains a need for further study into valid, reliable and feasible strategies for measuring patient participation as part of continuous quality improvement.