Validation of a tool to assess health practitioners' decision support and communication skills

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

Survey of patients and physicians on shared decision-making in treatment selection in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a key component of patient-centered healthcare. SDM is particularly pertinent in the relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) setting, in which numerous treatment options can present challenges for identifying optimal care. However, few studies have assessed the extent and relevance of SDM and patient-centered communication (PCC) in RRMM. To describe treatment decision-making patterns between physicians and patients in the RRMM setting, we conducted online surveys of patients and physicians in the USA to compare their perspectives on the process of treatment decision-making. We analyzed the surveys descriptively. Two hundred hematologists/oncologists and 200 patients with RRMM receiving second-line (n = 89), third-line (n = 65), and fourth-line (n = 46) therapy participated. Top treatment goals for physicians and patients included extending overall survival (among 76% and 83% of physicians and patients, respectively) and progression-free survival (among 54% and 77% of physicians and patients, respectively), regardless of the number of prior relapses. Thirty percent of physicians believed patients preferred a shared approach to treatment decision-making, while 40% of patients reported most often preferring a shared role in treatment decision-making. One-fourth of patients most often preferred physicians to make the final treatment decision after seriously considering their opinion. Thirty-two percent of physicians and 16% of patients recalled ≥3 treatment options presented at first relapse. Efficacy was a primary treatment goal for patients and physicians. Discrepancies in their perceptions during RRMM treatment decision-making exist, indicating that communication tools are needed to facilitate SDM and PCC.

Is Sociodemographic Status Associated with Empathic Communication and Decision Quality in Diabetes Care?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relationship between empathic communication, shared decision-making, and patient sociodemographic factors of income, education, and ethnicity in patients with diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study from five primary care practices in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada, participating in a randomized controlled trial of a diabetes goal setting and shared decision-making plan. Participants included 30 patients with diabetes and 23 clinicians (physicians, nurses, dietitians, and pharmacists), with a sample size of 48 clinical encounters. Clinical encounter audiotapes were coded using the Empathic Communication Coding System (ECCS) and Decision Support Analysis Tool (DSAT-10).

RESULTS

The most frequent empathic responses among encounters were "acknowledgement with pursuit" (28.9%) and "confirmation" (30.0%). The most frequently assessed DSAT components were "stage" (86%) and knowledge of options (82.0%). ECCS varied by education (p=0.030) and ethnicity (p=0.03), but not income. Patients with only a college degree received more empathic communication than patients with bachelor's degrees or more, and South Asian patients received less empathic communication than Asian patients. DSAT varied with ethnicity (p=0.07) but not education or income. White patients experienced more shared decision-making than those in the "other" category.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a new relationship between ECCS, education and ethnicity, as well as DSAT and ethnicity. Limitations include sample size, heterogeneity of encounters, and predominant white ethnicity. These associations may be evidence of systemic biases in healthcare, with hidden roots in medical education.

Shared decision making process measures and patient problems

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To compare CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires when appreciating patient-perceived level of shared decision-making (SDM) in doctor-patient consultations.

METHODS

Data were harvested from five separate studies on SDM, conducted in three university and one large community hospital in the Netherlands, using Dutch versions of both questionnaires. CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 scores were expressed as percentages. Correlation was assessed using Spearman's Rho coefficient. Bland&Altman analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement. Top scores were calculated to assess possible ceiling effects.

RESULTS

The five studies included 442 patients. Median CollaboRATE scores (88.9%, IQR 81.5-100%) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than SDM-Q-9 scores (80.0%, IQR 64.4-100%). Correlation was moderate (Rho=0.53, p < 0.001). A systematic, 12.5-point higher score was found across the range of scores when using CollaboRATE. Top scores for CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 were present in 37.5% and 17% of questionnaires, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires showed a high level of patient-perceived SDM. However, CollaboRATE only moderately correlated with SDM-Q-9 and had a stronger ceiling effect.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When choosing a SDM-measurement tool, its benefits and limitations should be weighed. These metrics should be combined with objective scores of SDM, as these may differ from the patients' subjective interpretation.

Ottawa Decision Support Framework to Improve Iranian Nurses' Decision Coaching Skills

Introduction

Nurses play an important role in providing decision coaching (DC) and developing informed decision-making in families of patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs). Therefore, taking necessary measures to develop nurses' DC skills is essential. The present study was conducted to analyze the application of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) in developing Iranian nurses' DC skills.

Methodology

In this experimental pretest-posttest study, two hospitals (Imam Reza and Shahid Kamyab hospitals) in the city of Mashhad were randomly placed in either the experimental or the control group. Based on a simple random sampling method, 60 ICU nurses were selected. For nurses in the experimental group, a 2-day workshop was conducted based on the ODSF, whereas nurses in the control group received no intervention. Using the SPSS-16 software and statistical tests of paired-samples t-test, independent-samples t-test, and Chi-square test (p <0.05), the data were analyzed.

Results

Before the intervention, no difference was observed in the mean DC scores obtained by the nurses in the experimental and control groups (p = 0.891). However, after the intervention, a significant difference was observed in the mean DC scores obtained by the nurses in the experimental and control groups (p <0.001).

Conclusion

The results indicated that applying the ODSF is effective in improving Iranian nurses' DC skills. It was also indicated that the concepts presented in this framework are consistent with Iranian nurses' cultural backgrounds. Accordingly, the application of the ODSF is offered in Iranian nurses' continuing education programs to improve their DC skills.

How to cite this article

Moghadam ES, Manzari ZS, Ghalenow HR, Sanchooli HN. Ottawa Decision Support Framework to Improve Iranian Nurses' Decision Coaching Skills. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(2):199-203.

Facilitating treatment engagement for early psychosis through peer-delivered decision support: intervention development and protocol for pilot evaluation

BACKGROUND

Emerging adults with early psychosis demonstrate high rates of service disengagement from critical early intervention services. Decision support interventions and peer support have both been shown to enhance service engagement but are understudied in this population. The purposes of this article are to describe the development of a novel peer-delivered decision coaching intervention for this population and to report plans for a pilot study designed to gather preliminary data about its feasibility, acceptability, and potential impact.

METHODS

The intervention was developed based on formative qualitative data and in collaboration with a diverse team of researchers, key stakeholders, and expert consultants. The pilot trial will utilize a single-group (N = 20), pre-post, convergent mixed-methods design to explore whether and how the intervention addresses decision-making needs (the primary intervention target). The impact of the intervention on secondary outcomes (e.g., engagement in the program) will also be assessed. Additionally, through observation and feedback from the peer decision coach and study participants, we will evaluate the feasibility of research and intervention procedures, and the acceptability of information and support from the peer decision coach.

DISCUSSION

The peer-delivered decision coaching intervention holds promise for assisting young people with making informed and values-consistent decisions about their care, and potentially enhancing service engagement within this traditionally difficult-to-engage population. If the intervention demonstrates feasibility and acceptability, and pilot data show its potential for improving treatment decision-making, our work will also lay the foundation for a new evidence base regarding roles for peer specialists on early intervention teams.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04532034 ) on 28 August 2020 as Temple University Protocol Record 261047, Facilitating Engagement in Evidence-Based Treatment for Early Psychosis.

Shared Decision-Making Measures: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Evaluation of Communication Skills Among Physicians: A Systematic Review of Existing Assessment Tools

OBJECTIVE

The importance of physician training in communication skills for motivating patients to adopt a healthy life-style and optimize clinical outcomes is increasingly recognized. This study inventoried and systematically reviewed the psychometric properties of, and the skills assessed by, existing assessment tools used to evaluate communication skills among physicians.

METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42018091932). Four databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and SCOPUS) were searched up to December 2018, generating 3902 unique articles, which were screened by two authors. A total of 57 articles met the inclusion criteria and underwent full data extraction.

RESULTS

Forty-five different assessment tools were identified. Only 47% of the studies mentioned underlying theories or models for designing the tool. Fifteen communication skills were assessed across the tools, the five most prevalent were information giving (46%) or gathering (40%), eliciting patients' perspectives (44%), planning/goal setting (37%), and closing the session (32%). Most tools (93%) assessed communication skills using in-person role play exercises with standardized (61%) or real (32%) patients, but only 54% described the expertise of the raters who performed the evaluations. Overall, reporting of the psychometric properties of the assessment tools was poor-moderate (4.5 ± 1.3 out of 9).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying several existing physician communication assessment tools, a high degree of heterogeneity between these tools, in terms of skills assessed and study quality, was observed, and most have been poorly validated. Research is needed to rigorously develop and validate accessible, convenient, "user-friendly," and easy to administer and score communication assessment tools.

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

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

Development and validation of the Children's Competence in Decision-Making Scale

BACKGROUND

Measuring competence in children's ability to make decisions about their care is laden with conceptual problems. Although there are a variety of tools to measure competence, no scales have been identified that measured competence in children.

AIM

To develop, test and validate a scale that measured competence in the decision-making process of children aged 8-12 years with long-term conditions, called the Children's Competence in Decision-Making (CCD-M) Scale.

METHOD

A convergent, sequential, mixed-methods validation design was used. Four stages of scale development were used following recommended procedures. The qualitative arm explored the experiences of being involved in decision-making and these insights were used to develop the scale which was then subject to psychometric testing.

RESULTS

Cronbach's α of the overall scale was 0.86, which shows good internal validity. Additionally, the α analysis when items were deleted showed no considerable variation and had no value below 0.7, showing excellent internal validity throughout. No substantial increase in α could be achieved.

CONCLUSION

The CCD-M Scale offers practitioners the ability to test the competence levels of children to decide the extent to which they may want to be involved in the decision-making process. This, in turn, may help to plan care in a more effective way and may have an effect on adherence levels in self-management of illness.

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

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

Role competency scale on shared decision-making nurses: Development and psychometric properties

Objectives

This study aimed to develop a scale that can measure the role competency of oncology nurses during shared decision-making process.

Methods

A total of 226 oncology nurses who actively provide direct care to patients from inpatient and outpatient oncology units in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest completed the online or mail survey. Exploratory factor analysis and parallel analysis showed the multidimensionality of the role competency scale on shared decision-making nurses.

Results

The role competency scale on shared decision-making nurses revealed four dimensions: knowledge, attitudes, communication, and adaptability. The 22 items have excellent internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.91. The four subscales also have adequate reliability with Cronbach's alpha >0.70 as well as greater than 0.70 Spearman-Brown's correlation coefficients in split-half reliability testing for each subscale.

Conclusion

The new scale has the potential to be used as a clinical tool to assess the need for shared decision-making education and training in oncology nurses.

Shared Decision-Making in Youth Mental Health Care: Using the Evidence to Plan Treatments Collaboratively

The shared decision-making (SDM) model is one in which providers and consumers of health care come together as collaborators in determining the course of care. The model is especially relevant to youth mental health care, when planning a treatment frequently entails coordinating both youth and parent perspectives, preferences, and goals. The present article first provides the historical context of the SDM model and the rationale for increasing our field's use of SDM when planning psychosocial treatments for youth and families. Having established the potential utility of SDM, the article then discusses how to apply the SDM model to treatment planning for youth psychotherapy, proposing a set of steps consistent with the model and considerations when conducting SDM with youth and families.

Involvement of Family Members and Professionals in Older Women's Post-Fall Decision Making

This exploratory, descriptive study examined involvement of family members and professionals in older women's post-fall decision making. We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 older women who had recently fallen and 11 individuals these women identified as being engaged in their post-fall decision-making processes. Qualitative data analysis involved open and axial coding and development of themes. After experiencing a fall, these older women's openness to others' opinions and advice; their assessments of types and credibility of potential information sources; and the communication practices they established with these sources influenced how they accessed, accepted, or rejected information from family members and professionals. Increased awareness of the involvement of others in post-fall decision making could enhance communication with older women who fall. Developing and implementing practical strategies to help family members and professionals initiate and engage in conversations about falls and their consequences could lead to more open decision making and improved post-fall quality of life among older women.

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.

Understanding the influences and impact of patient-clinician communication in cancer care

BACKGROUND

Patient-clinician communication is thought to be central to care outcomes, but when and how communication affects patient outcomes is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

We propose a conceptual model and classification framework upon which the empirical evidence base for the impact of patient-clinician communication can be summarized and further built.

DESIGN

We use the proposed model and framework to summarize findings from two recent systematic reviews, one evaluating the use of shared decision making (SDM) on cancer care outcomes and the other evaluating the role of physician recommendation in cancer screening use.

KEY RESULTS

Using this approach, we identified clusters of studies with positive findings, including those relying on the measurement of SDM from the patients' perspective and affective-cognitive outcomes, particularly in the context of surgical treatment decision making. We also identify important gaps in the literature, including the role of SDM in post-surgical treatment and end-of-life care decisions, and those specifying particular physician communication strategies when recommending cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Transparent linkages between key conceptual domains and the influence of methodological approaches on observed patient outcomes are needed to advance our understanding of how and when patient-clinician communication influences patient outcomes. The proposed conceptual model and classification framework can be used to facilitate the translation of empirical evidence into practice and to identify critical gaps in knowledge regarding how and when patient-clinician communication impacts care outcomes in the context of cancer and health care more broadly.

Using formal methods for content validation of medical procedure documents

OBJECTIVE

We propose the use of a formal approach to support content validation of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for a therapeutic intervention. Such an approach provides a useful tool to identify ambiguities, omissions and inconsistencies, and improves the applicability and efficacy of documents in the health settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We apply and evaluate a methodology originally proposed for the verification of software specification documents to a specific SOP. The verification methodology uses the graph formalism to model the document. Semi-automatic analysis identifies possible problems in the model and in the original document. The verification is an iterative process that identifies possible faults in the original text that should be revised by its authors and/or specialists.

RESULTS

The proposed method was able to identify 23 possible issues in the original document (ambiguities, omissions, redundant information, and inaccuracies, among others). The formal verification process aided the specialists to consider a wider range of usage scenarios and to identify which instructions form the kernel of the proposed SOP and which ones represent additional or required knowledge that are mandatory for the correct application of the medical document.

CONCLUSION

By using the proposed verification process, a simpler and yet more complete SOP could be produced. As consequence, during the validation process the experts received a more mature document and could focus on the technical aspects of the procedure itself.

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care--systematic decision aid development and study protocol

BACKGROUND

Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework.

METHODS

1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice.2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness.3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity.4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis.5. Iterative refinement: Throughout the development process, the toolkit will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign.

DISCUSSION

Interprofessional shared decision-making regarding priority-setting with the use of a decision aid toolkit may help prioritize care of individuals with multiple comorbid conditions. Adhering to principles of user-centered design, we will develop and refine a toolkit to assess the feasibility of this approach.

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

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

What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

Recent guidelines on cancer screening have provided not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians' support, must decide whether to get screened, which modality to use, and how often to undergo screening. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision-making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. A total of 73 decision aids concerning screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers were reviewed. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need of more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real-world setting. Most studies used sound study designs. Significant variation existed in the setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over one-third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted with regard to which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision-making. Little information was available regarding the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. In this review, the implications for future research, as well as what clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice, are discussed.

Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument

BACKGROUND

We have no clear overview of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in the decision-making process during consultations. The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument (OPTION) was designed to assess this.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review studies that used the OPTION instrument to observe the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making across a range of clinical contexts, including different health professions and lengths of consultation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We conducted online literature searches in multiple databases (2001-12) and gathered further data through networking.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

(i) OPTION scores as reported outcomes and (ii) health-care providers and patients as study participants. For analysis, we only included studies using the revised scale.

DATA EXTRACTION

Extracted data included: (i) study and participant characteristics and (ii) OPTION outcomes (scores, statistical associations and reported psychometric results). We also assessed the quality of OPTION outcomes reporting.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 33 eligible studies, 29 of which used the revised scale. Overall, we found low levels of patient-involving behaviours: in cases where no intervention was used to implement shared decision making (SDM), the mean OPTION score was 23 ± 14 (0-100 scale). When assessed, the variables most consistently associated with higher OPTION scores were interventions to implement SDM (n = 8/9) and duration of consultations (n = 8/15).

CONCLUSIONS

Whatever the clinical context, few health-care providers consistently attempt to facilitate patient involvement, and even fewer adjust care to patient preferences. However, both SDM interventions and longer consultations could improve this.

Evaluation of a method to improve the consent process: improved data retention with stagnant comprehension

Our study explored whether a simple, cost-effective intervention directed only at physicians could improve patient comprehension with informed consent process. In our medical university oncology clinic, we performed a baseline survey on 69 patients receiving new therapy, testing for comprehension of the important components of the informed consent process. We then instituted a three-part intervention, including (1) physician education, (2) an available toxicity list, and (3) a checklist to ensure physician compliance. We repeated the survey on 54 consecutive patients who consented for treatment, evaluating four outcomes. The intervention produced a 38 % improvement in patients' listing of toxicities (p = 0.0003) and no significant improvements in the understanding of therapeutic goals, likelihood of achieving those goals, and confidence in their understanding of treatment. Our three-part intervention, directed solely at physicians, improved patients' recall of toxicity data but did not influence the other important areas of patient comprehension within the informed consent process.

Decision Support for Patients

Providing a patient with decision support involves helping that person to choose among two or more elective health care options. “Values Clarification” and “Preference Elicitation” are integral to the full decision-support process. During values clarification, the patient and clinician gain insight into the importance that the patient ascribes to the options’ positive and negative characteristics. During preference elicitation, the patient identifies which options are, overall, personally most favored (and, by corollary, which are least favored). This article identifies the roles that values clarification/preference elicitation (VC/PE) play in the full process of patients’ decision support, outlines various approaches to fostering VC/PE, and poses some fundamental and applied research questions about VC/PE. It also argues that, in order to proceed to answer the posed research questions, investigators in the field of patients’ decision support require a systematic set of criteria for comparing the performance of different VC/PE techniques.

Parent participation in decision-making in health-care services for children: an integrative review

AIM

To describe and synthesize previous research on parents' perceptions of their participation in decision making in child health-care services.

BACKGROUND

Health policy in the area of user involvement emphasizes parent participation in decision-making (DM), thus ensuring that services are provided in accordance with their child's needs and enhancing parents' control over their child's health-care services.

METHOD

A systematic literature search, covering the period January 2000 to February 2011, found 18 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The analysis process involved data extraction, reduction, comparison and synthesizing.

FINDINGS

Three themes emerged: (1) relational factors and interdependence, (2) personal factors and attitudes and (3) organisational factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents highlighted the importance of the parent-health professional relationship, professionals' competence and the possibility of varying the degree of participation in decision making. Challenges involved asymmetry in authority and power, professionals' attitudes and competence and organisational shortcomings in health-care services. Health professionals need to become more aware of their critical role and responsibility in involving parents in DM.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Health professionals' attitudes and competence can be improved by knowledge of user involvement and research and facilitating the inclusion of parents in decision making by influencing the culture, routines and resources in the health service.

Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire--physician version (SDM-Q-Doc)

OBJECTIVE

To develop and psychometrically test a brief instrument for assessing the physician's perspective of the shared decision-making process in clinical encounters.

METHODS

We adapted the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) for patients to generate a new version for physicians (SDM-Q-Doc). The physician version was tested in clinical encounters between 29 physicians and 324 patients in German outpatient care contexts. Analyses of the extent to which the instrument was accepted, the reliability of the instrument, and the factorial structure of the scale were performed.

RESULTS

Physicians showed a high level of acceptance toward the SDM-Q-Doc. Item discrimination parameters were above .4 for all but one item. An analysis of internal consistency yielded a Cronbach's α of .88. Factor analysis confirmed a one-dimensional structure.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that the SDM-Q-Doc is a well-accepted and reliable instrument for assessing the physician's perspective during SDM processes in clinical encounters. To our knowledge, the SDM-Q-Doc is the first psychometrically tested scale available for assessing the physician's perspective.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The SDM-Q-Doc can be used in studies that analyze the effectiveness of the implementation of SDM and as a quality indicator in quality assurance programs and health service assessments.

Patient and observer ratings of physician shared decision making behaviors in breast cancer consultations

OBJECTIVE

Explore the validity of using patient reports to measure shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

178 patients diagnosed with breast cancer obtained SDM assistance in a university-based clinic. Trained observers rated physician SDM behaviors and surveyed patients. We calculated the frequency with which patients and observers reported maximum SDM behaviors for each survey item. We also calculated agreement frequency between patients and observers.

RESULTS

Over 90% of patients rated doctors as reflecting SDM competencies. Patients reported doctors making recommendations more than soliciting their preferred choice (90% vs. 69%, p<0.001). Patients heard benefits discussed "a lot" more often than they heard risks and side effects discussed "a lot" (81% vs. 58%, p<0.001). Agreement between patients and observers was 75%. In cases of disagreement, patients more frequently perceived SDM behaviors than did observers (15% vs. 9%, p=0.002), suggesting a possible agreement bias.

CONCLUSIONS

High agreement supports further investigation into using patients as efficient and effective raters of SDM. Patient ratings may be inflated by agreement bias.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Doctors presentations may be biased toward discussing benefits more than risks. Policy makers can solicit patient ratings of SDM as long as they are aware of possibly inflated ratings due to agreement bias.

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

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

The OPTION scale for the assessment of shared decision making (SDM): methodological issues

BACKGROUND

Promoting patient involvement in medical decision making has become a desirable goal in medical consultations. Reliable and valid measures are necessary to evaluate interventions designed to promote shared decision making and to understand determinants and associations. The OPTION ("observing patient involvement") scale is the most prominent observation instrument for assessing the extent to which clinicians actively involve patients in decision making.

OBJECTIVE

This paper discusses psychometric and methodological characteristics of the OPTION scale.

RESULTS

There is little support for the purported unidimensional structure. Although reliabilities are acceptable, results are highly heterogeneous across studies. There is also little evidence concerning validity. In particular, studies mainly failed to support convergent validity. Additional issues pertain to lack of item independence, restriction of range, and failure to consider dyadic aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

Given these findings, a number of methodological and conceptual issues still need to be addressed for the effective measurement of patient involvement. Directions for future research are discussed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Shared decision making: prostate cancer patients' appraisal of treatment alternatives and oncologists' eliciting and responding behavior, an explorative study

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinicians' use of shared decision making (SDM) skills, enabling patient treatment evaluations (appraisals); and varieties of patient appraisals and clinicians' preceding and following utterances.

METHODS

Two coders rated videotaped initial visits of 25 early-stage prostate cancer patients to their radiation oncologist. SDM skills were assessed using the Decision Analysis System for Oncology (DAS-O); appraisals and clinicians' utterances were labeled using qualitative methodology.

RESULTS

Clinicians offered a treatment choice to 10 patients. They informed 15/25 about pros and 20/25 about cons of options. Patients expressed 67 appraisals (median/visit=2; range, 0-12). Half of appraisals were favorable and one-fourth was unfavorable toward treatment options. One-fifth referred to explicit tradeoffs. One-third of appraisals followed clinician requests; 58% followed clinician information. Clinicians approved almost half of appraisals. They contested, ignored or highlighted a minority.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians infrequently offered patients a choice or explored appraisals. Most appraisals supported rather than challenged treatment options. Clinicians most often legitimized appraisals, thereby helping patients to feel good about the decision. Exploring appraisals may help patients in forming more stable preferences, thus benefiting patients in the long run.

PRACTICE IMPLICATION

Clinicians should request patient appraisals and ascertain whether these seem well-informed before making treatment recommendations.

A qualitative study of family involvement in decisions about life support in the intensive care unit

We explored family involvement in decisions about life support interventions in the intensive care unit study using a critical incident technique to focus on specific case exemplars contributed by participants. A total of 6 family members and 9 health care professionals were interviewed. Participants described 2 options (life support or comfort care) and values associated with options: maintaining quality of life, surviving critical illness, minimizing pain and suffering, not being attached to machines, needing adjustment time, and judicious health care resource use. Barriers to involvement included not being offered alternative options; no specific trigger to initiate decision making; dominant influence of professionals' values; and families lacking understandable information. Family members are unlikely to engage in decision making unless professionals identify the decision and address other barriers to family involvement.

Assessment of medical students' shared decision-making in standardized patient encounters

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making, in which physicians and patients openly explore beliefs, exchange information, and reach explicit closure, may represent optimal physician-patient communication. There are currently no universally accepted methods to assess medical students' competence in shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize medical students' shared decision-making with standardized patients (SPs) and determine if students' use of shared decision-making correlates with SP ratings of their communication.

DESIGN

Retrospective study of medical students' performance with four SPs.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty fourth-year medical students.

MEASUREMENTS

Objective blinded coding of shared decision-making quantified as decision moments (exploration/articulation of perspective, information sharing, explicit closure for a particular decision); SP scoring of communication skills using a validated checklist.

RESULTS

Of 779 decision moments generated in 240 encounters, 312 (40%) met criteria for shared decision-making. All students engaged in shared decision-making in at least two of the four cases, although in two cases 5% and 12% of students engaged in no shared decision-making. The most commonly discussed decision moment topics were medications (n = 98, 31%), follow-up visits (71, 23%), and diagnostic testing (44, 14%). Correlations between the number of decision moments in a case and students' communication scores were low (rho = 0.07 to 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Although all students engaged in some shared decision-making, particularly regarding medical interventions, there was no correlation between shared decision-making and overall communication competence rated by the SPs. These findings suggest that SP ratings of students' communication skill cannot be used to infer students' use of shared decision-making. Tools to determine students' skill in shared decision-making are needed.

Sharing decisions in breast cancer care: Development of the Decision Analysis System for Oncology (DAS-O) to identify shared decision making during treatment consultations

BACKGROUND

Shared Decision Making (SDM) is widely accepted as the preferred method for reaching treatment decisions in the oncology setting including those about clinical trial participation: however, there is some disagreement between researchers over the components of SDM. Specific standardized coding systems are needed to help overcome this difficulty.

OBJECTIVE

The first objective was to describe the development of an oncology specific SDM coding system, the DAS-O. The second objective was to provide reliability and validity data supporting the DAS-O.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Consultation data were available from tertiary cancer center out patient oncology clinics in: Australia, New Zealand (ANZ), Switzerland, Germany and Austria (SGA). Patients were women with a confirmed diagnosis of early stage breast cancer. Reliability data were from 18 randomly selected coded transcripts drawn from ANZ and SGA. Concurrent validity data are from 55 (ANZ) consultations.

MEASUREMENT

Inter and Intra rater reliability data was evaluated using Kappa correlation statistics and correlation coefficients. Correlation coefficients were used to assess concurrent validity between the DAS-O and two other SDM coding systems, OPTION and DSAT.

RESULTS

Inter and Intra rater reliability for the system were high with average Kappas of 0.58 and 0.65 respectively. Correlation coefficients between DAS-O and OPTION was 0.73 and >0.5 for DSAT.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a reliable and valid coding system for identifying and rating the quality of SDM in breast cancer consultations.

Effective continuing professional development for translating shared decision making in primary care: A study protocol

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the healthcare professional and the patient. SDM is the essential element of patient-centered care, a core concept of primary care. However, SDM is seldom translated into primary practice. Continuing professional development (CPD) is the principal means by which healthcare professionals continue to gain, improve, and broaden the knowledge and skills required for patient-centered care. Our international collaboration seeks to improve the knowledge base of CPD that targets translating SDM into the clinical practice of primary care in diverse healthcare systems.

METHODS

Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), our project is to form an international, interdisciplinary research team composed of health services researchers, physicians, nurses, psychologists, dietitians, CPD decision makers and others who will study how CPD causes SDM to be practiced in primary care. We will perform an environmental scan to create an inventory of CPD programs and related activities for translating SDM into clinical practice. These programs will be critically assessed and compared according to their strengths and limitations. We will use the empirical data that results from the environmental scan and the critical appraisal to identify knowledge gaps and generate a research agenda during a two-day workshop to be held in Quebec City. We will ask CPD stakeholders to validate these knowledge gaps and the research agenda.

DISCUSSION

This project will analyse existing CPD programs and related activities for translating SDM into the practice of primary care. Because this international collaboration will develop and identify various factors influencing SDM, the project could shed new light on how SDM is implemented in primary care.

Exploring cancer treatment decision-making by patients: a descriptive study

OBJECTIVE

Using an interview-guided survey, our descriptive study aimed to document the extent to which cancer patients perceive they are involved in making treatment decisions and the factors that influence patient involvement.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Our study enrolled patients from a Canadian ambulatory oncology program who were undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy, or both, for cancer. The adapted Control Preferences Scale was used to survey perceived and preferred roles in decision-making. The study survey also included items from the Decisional Conflict Scale and the Preparation for Decision-Making Scale.

RESULTS

Of 192 participants, 98 (51%) perceived that they were offered treatment choices. Of those 98, 47 (48%) thought that the options were presented equally. Compared with the patients not offered choices, those who were given choices were less passive (4% vs. 29%, p < 0.001) and more satisfied (100% vs. 95%, p < 0.03) in decision-making. Participants whose preferred and perceived roles were different would have preferred more involvement in decision-making. To attain the preferred involvement, patients wanted to receive more information on treatment options, to be given a choice, to have more discussion with the health care team, and to have providers better listen to their needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Only half of surveyed patients thought that they were offered choices for their cancer treatment. When offered choices, patients were more active in decision-making. Further initiatives are required to determine approaches for supporting patients with cancer so that they can be more involved in decision-making.

Shared decision making in oncology: assessing oncologist behaviour in consultations in which adjuvant therapy is considered after primary surgical treatment

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision making (SDM) is now considered a desirable goal in health care, yet little is known about current practice in cancer care, and its impact on patient outcomes. This study aimed to develop an oncology-specific coding system for SDM, explore variations in SDM according to patient and disease characteristics, determine the relationship between SDM and patient satisfaction with the consultation, and explore the impact of SDM on patient anxiety.

METHODS

Sixty-three medical and radiation oncology consultations with patients with primary cancer involving consideration of adjuvant therapy after surgery were audio-taped, transcribed and coded. Intra and inter-rater reliability of the coding system was 95 and 90% respectively. Patients completed questionnaires before and after the consultation.

RESULTS

Construct validity of the SDM coding system was successfully conducted. Oncologists demonstrated on average under 11 of 18 SDM behaviours. Behaviours seeking patient preferences were particularly rare. SDM behaviours were more apparent in consultations involving female breast cancer patients. SDM behaviour scores in combination with patient involvement preference could predict achievement of patient involvement preference but not overall patient satisfaction. Although there was no overall relationship between patient anxiety and SDM scores, it did appear that physicians may change SDM behaviour according to patient factors including anxiety.

CONCLUSION

Our findings reinforce the importance of the doctor in facilitating shared decision making in oncology consultations.

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

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the practitioner and the patient and is said to be the crux of patient-centred care. Policy makers perceive SDM as desirable because of its potential to a) reduce overuse of options not clearly associated with benefits for all (e.g., prostate cancer screening); b) enhance the use of options clearly associated with benefits for the vast majority (e.g., cardiovascular risk factor management); c) reduce unwarranted healthcare practice variations; d) foster the sustainability of the healthcare system; and e) promote the right of patients to be involved in decisions concerning their health. Despite this potential, SDM has not yet been widely adopted in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 March 2009: Cochrane Library (1970-), MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1976-), CINAHL (1982-) and PsycINFO (1965-). We found additional studies by reviewing a) the bibliographies of studies and reviews found in the electronic databases; b) the clinicaltrials.gov registry; and c) proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference and the conferences of the Society for Medical Decision Making. We included all languages of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well-designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses) that evaluated any type of intervention that aimed to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of shared decision making. We defined adoption as the extent to which healthcare professionals intended to or actually engaged in SDM in clinical practice or/and used interventions known to facilitate SDM. We deemed studies eligible if the primary outcomes were evaluated with an objective measure of the adoption of SDM by healthcare professionals (e.g., a third-observer instrument).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers independently screened each abstract for inclusion and abstracted data independently using a modified version of the EPOC data collection checklist. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes. We computed the standard effect size for each outcome separately with a 95% confidence interval. We evaluated global effects by calculating the median effect size and the range of effect sizes across studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The reviewers identified 6764 potentially relevant documents, of which we excluded 6582 by reviewing titles and abstracts. Of the remainder, we retrieved 182 full publications for more detailed screening. From these, we excluded 176 publications based on our inclusion criteria. This left in five studies, all RCTs. All five were conducted in ambulatory care: three in primary clinical care and two in specialised care. Four of the studies targeted physicians only and one targeted nurses only. In only two of the five RCTs was a statistically significant effect size associated with the intervention to have healthcare professionals adopt SDM. The first of these two studies compared a single intervention (a patient-mediated intervention: the Statin Choice decision aid) to another single intervention (also patient-mediated: a standard Mayo patient education pamphlet). In this study, the Statin Choice decision aid group performed better than the standard Mayo patient education pamphlet group (standard effect size = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.50). The other study compared a multifaceted intervention (distribution of educational material, educational meeting and audit and feedback) to usual care (control group) (standard effect size = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.90). This study was the only one to report an assessment of barriers prior to the elaboration of its multifaceted intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this Cochrane review do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about the most effective types of intervention for increasing healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. Healthcare professional training may be important, as may the implementation of patient-mediated interventions such as decision aids. Given the paucity of evidence, however, those motivated by the ethical impetus to increase SDM in clinical practice will need to weigh the costs and potential benefits of interventions. Subsequent research should involve well-designed studies with adequate power and procedures to minimise bias so that they may improve estimates of the effects of interventions on healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. From a measurement perspective, consensus on how to assess professionals' adoption of SDM is desirable to facilitate cross-study comparisons.

Developing a dyadic OPTION scale to measure perceptions of shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to develop a measurement which enables research into the interdependent nature of clinical encounters. The prime objective was to develop an instrument capable of assessing the extent to which patients have been involved in (shared) decision making from two viewpoints-that of the patient and the clinician.

METHODS

To develop an initial 'dyadic OPTION' instrument, the twelve original third-person items were drafted in passive, first person plural forms. Using this version initially, three rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews were held. These were audio-recorded and analysed at the end of each round and the results used to revise the dyadic OPTION scale.

RESULTS

It was possible to modify the observer OPTION instrument into an instrument for completion by both clinicians and patients after a dyadic interaction. Cognitive debriefing revealed five areas of interpretative difficulty. Each item of the observer OPTION scale underwent modification in order to develop a dyadic version of the scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The dyadic OPTION scale is acceptable and comprehensible by both clinicians and public respondents. Cognitive debriefing adapted and refined an existing scale and provided confidence that the core constructs of the scale (perceived involvement in decisions making) were understood.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further validation of the dyadic OPTION scale is required prior to its use in research settings.

Shared decision making coding systems: how do they compare in the oncology context?

OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to evaluate three coding systems which have been used to assess shared decision making in oncology consultations (OPTION, Decision Support Analysis Tool (DSAT) and Decision Analysis System for Oncology (DAS-O)): (i) comparing their ability to identify competencies of shared decision making, and (ii) determining their ability to predict patient outcomes in a single data set.

METHOD

Twenty oncologists from Australia and New Zealand participated in the IBCSG Trial 33-03. The consultations of 55 women with early stage breast cancer were audio-taped, transcribed and then coded using the OPTION, DAS-O and DSAT coding systems by three different raters. Women completed the questionnaires 2 weeks and 4 months after their consultation.

RESULTS

DAS-O was strongly correlated with OPTION (r=0.73). DSAT was moderately correlated with DAS-O and OPTION (r<0.6). Decisional satisfaction and satisfaction with doctor SDM skills were significantly correlated with OPTION (r=0.39 and 0.42 respectively) and the latter variable was correlated with DAS-O (r=0.40). These relationships persisted in multiple linear regression analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

OPTION may be the most efficient and sensitive coding system for research purposes; however, DSAT appeared to document behaviours reducing decisional conflict and both DSAT and DAS-O offer more detailed feedback to doctors.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Optimal coding system will depend on research goals and training purposes.

Adjuncts or adversaries to shared decision-making? Applying the Integrative Model of behavior to the role and design of decision support interventions in healthcare interactions

Background

A growing body of literature documents the efficacy of decision support interventions (DESI) in helping patients make informed clinical decisions. DESIs are frequently described as an adjunct to shared decision-making between a patient and healthcare provider, however little is known about the effects of DESIs on patients' interactional behaviors-whether or not they promote the involvement of patients in decisions.

Discussion

Shared decision-making requires not only a cognitive understanding of the medical problem and deliberation about the potential options to address it, but also a number of communicative behaviors that the patient and physician need to engage in to reach the goal of making a shared decision. Theoretical models of behavior can guide both the identification of constructs that will predict the performance or non-performance of specific behaviors relevant to shared decision-making, as well as inform the development of interventions to promote these specific behaviors. We describe how Fishbein's Integrative Model (IM) of behavior can be applied to the development and evaluation of DESIs. There are several ways in which the IM could be used in research on the behavioral effects of DESIs. An investigator could measure the effects of an intervention on the central constructs of the IM - attitudes, normative pressure, self-efficacy, and intentions related to communication behaviors relevant to shared decision-making. However, if one were interested in the determinants of these domains, formative qualitative research would be necessary to elicit the salient beliefs underlying each of the central constructs. Formative research can help identify potential targets for a theory-based intervention to maximize the likelihood that it will influence the behavior of interest or to develop a more fine-grained understanding of intervention effects.

Summary

Behavioral theory can guide the development and evaluation of DESIs to increase the likelihood that these will prepare patients to play a more active role in the decision-making process. Self-reported behavioral measures can reduce the measurement burden for investigators and create a standardized method for examining and reporting the determinants of communication behaviors necessary for shared decision-making.