Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice

Impact of resistance training on fatigue among breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The effects of aerobic exercise interventions for reducing fatigue after cancer treatment are well-established, and the effect of resistance training remains uncertain. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aim to analyze the effect of resistance training and combined resistance and endurance training on cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

A systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted on the PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Embase, and Cochrane databases, focusing on the effect of supervised resistance training and combined supervised resistance and endurance training on CRF. Random-effect models were employed for calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD). Risk of bias was assessed with risk of bias 2 (RoB2), and certainty of evidence was judged according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

A total of 9 RCTs with 1512 participants were included, and data from 866 participants in 8 RCTs were used for the meta-analysis. The risk of bias was deemed low in seven studies, while one study exhibited attrition bias, and one showed possible selection bias. Resistance training probably reduce the total fatigue (SMD= -0.30, 95% CI -0.52, -0.08, p=0.008), with individual studies showing small effects on physical and emotional CRF. A combined resistance and endurance training reduce total fatigue (SMD= -0.34, 95% CI -0.51, -0.17, p= 0.0001), with individual studies indicating moderate effects on physical fatigue, in daily life fatigue, and small effects on emotional and cognitive CRF.

CONCLUSION

Both supervised resistance training and combined resistance and endurance training have a small effect on total CRF. There is a trend towards an influence of intensity, with higher intensity potentially resulting in lower total CRF.

Developing attributes and attribute-levels for subacromial pain syndrome: A systematic review and qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), the most common cause of shoulder pain, can be treated through different treatments with similar effects. Therefore, in terms of deciding on the right treatment fit, patient preferences need to be understood. We aimed to identify treatment characteristics that delineate interventions (attributes) and corresponding sets of specific categorical range (attribute-levels) for SAPS.

METHODS

This multiple method study systematically reviewed both qualitative and quantitative studies on patient preferences for treatment of SAPS, which informed semi-structured interviews with 9 clinicians and 14 patients. The qualitative data from the interviews was analyzed using the framework analysis formulated by Ritchie and Spencer. Attributes and attribute levels of the systematic review and interviews were summarized and categorized.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 2607 studies, 16 of which met the eligibility criteria. The review identified 120 potential attributes, which were synthesized into 25 potential attributes. Fourteen new potential attributes were identified through the interviews, equaling a total of 39 attributes across 11 categories. Levels for 37 attributes were identified through systematic review and interviews, we were unable to identify levels for 2 attributes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified attributes and attribute levels for the treatment of SAPS. There was a discrepancy in the frequency of the represented attributes between the literature and interviews. This study may improve the understanding of patient preferences for the treatment of SAPS and help individualize care. Our study informs a future discrete choice experiment and supports shared decision-making in clinical practice.

A systematic review of shared decision making training programs for general practitioners

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) has been presented as the preferred approach for decisions where there is more than one acceptable option and has been identified a priority feature of high-quality patient-centered care. Considering the foundation of trust between general practitioners (GPs) and patients and the variety of diseases in primary care, the primary care context can be viewed as roots of SDM. GPs are requesting training programs to improve their SDM skills leading to a more patient-centered care approach. Because of the high number of training programs available, it is important to overview these training interventions specifically for primary care and to explore how these training programs are evaluated.

METHODS

This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. Eight different databases were used in December 2022 and updated in September 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using ICROMS. Training effectiveness was analyzed using the Kirkpatrick evaluation model and categorized according to training format (online, live or blended learning).

RESULTS

We identified 29 different SDM training programs for GPs. SDM training has a moderate impact on patient (SMD 0.53 95% CI 0.15-0.90) and observer reported SDM skills (SMD 0.59 95%CI 0.21-0.97). For blended training programs, we found a high impact for quality of life (SMD 1.20 95% CI -0.38-2.78) and patient reported SDM skills (SMD 2.89 95%CI -0.55-6.32).

CONCLUSION

SDM training improves patient and observer reported SDM skills in GPs. Blended learning as learning format for SDM appears to show better effects on learning outcomes than online or live learning formats. This suggests that teaching facilities designing SDM training may want to prioritize blended learning formats. More homogeneity in SDM measurement scales and evaluation approaches and direct comparisons of different types of educational formats are needed to develop the most appropriate and effective SDM training format.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: A systematic review of shared-decision making training programs in a primary care setting. PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023393385 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023393385 .

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Effectiveness of Shared Decision-making Training Programs for Health Care Professionals Using Reflexivity Strategies: Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) leads to better health care processes through collaboration between health care professionals and patients. Training is recognized as a promising intervention to foster SDM by health care professionals. However, the most effective training type is still unclear. Reflexivity is an exercise that leads health care professionals to question their own values to better consider patient values and support patients while least influencing their decisions. Training that uses reflexivity strategies could motivate them to engage in SDM and be more open to diversity.

OBJECTIVE

In this secondary analysis of a 2018 Cochrane review of interventions for improving SDM by health care professionals, we aimed to identify SDM training programs that included reflexivity strategies and were assessed as effective. In addition, we aimed to explore whether further factors can be associated with or enhance their effectiveness.

METHODS

From the Cochrane review, we first extracted training programs targeting health care professionals. Second, we developed a grid to help identify training programs that used reflexivity strategies. Third, those identified were further categorized according to the type of strategy used. At each step, we identified the proportion of programs that were classified as effective by the Cochrane review (2018) so that we could compare their effectiveness. In addition, we wanted to see whether effectiveness was similar between programs using peer-to-peer group learning and those with an interprofessional orientation. Finally, the Cochrane review selected programs that were evaluated using patient-reported or observer-reported outcome measurements. We examined which of these measurements was most often used in effective training programs.

RESULTS

Of the 31 training programs extracted, 24 (77%) were interactive, among which 10 (42%) were considered effective. Of these 31 programs, 7 (23%) were unidirectional, among which 1 (14%) was considered effective. Of the 24 interactive programs, 7 (29%) included reflexivity strategies. Of the 7 training programs with reflexivity strategies, 5 (71%) used a peer-to-peer group learning strategy, among which 3 (60%) were effective; the other 2 (29%) used a self-appraisal individual learning strategy, neither of which was effective. Of the 31 training programs extracted, 5 (16%) programs had an interprofessional orientation, among which 3 (60%) were effective; the remaining 26 (84%) of the 31 programs were without interprofessional orientation, among which 8 (31%) were effective. Finally, 12 (39%) of 31 programs used observer-based measurements, among which more than half (7/12, 58%) were effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM training programs that include reflexivity strategies. Its conclusions open avenues for enriching future SDM training programs with reflexivity strategies. The grid developed to identify training programs that used reflexivity strategies, when further tested and validated, can guide future assessments of reflexivity components in SDM training.

Development of prediction models for complications after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty: a single-centre retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop prediction models for patients with total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to predict the risk for surgical complications based on personal factors, comorbidities and medication use.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary care in outpatient clinic of university medical centre.

PARTICIPANTS

3776 patients with a primary THA or TKA between 2004 and 2018.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Multivariable logistic regression models were developed for primary outcome surgical site infection (SSI), and secondary outcomes venous thromboembolism (VTE), postoperative bleeding (POB), luxation, delirium and nerve damage (NER).

RESULTS

For SSI, age, smoking status, body mass index, presence of immunological disorder, diabetes mellitus, liver disease and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were included. An area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 71.9% (95% CI=69.4% to 74.4%) was found. For this model, liver disease showed to be the strongest predictor with an OR of 10.7 (95% CI=2.4 to 46.6). The models for POB and NER showed AUCs of 73.0% (95% CI=70.7% to 75.4%) and 76.6% (95% CI=73.2% to 80.0%), respectively. For delirium an AUC of 85.9% (95% CI=83.8% to 87.9%) was found, and for the predictive algorithms for luxation and VTE we found least favourable results (AUC=58.4% (95% CI=55.0% to 61.8%) and AUC=66.3% (95% CI=62.7% to 69.9%)).

CONCLUSIONS

Discriminative ability was reasonable for SSI and predicted probabilities ranged from 0.01% to 51.0%. We expect this to enhance shared decision-making in considering THA or TKA since current counselling is predicated on population-based probability of risk, rather than using personalised prediction. We consider our models for SSI, delirium and NER appropriate for clinical use when taking underestimation and overestimation of predicted risk into account. For VTE and POB, caution concerning overestimation exceeding a predicted probability of 0.08 for VTE and 0.05 for POB should be taken into account. Furthermore, future studies should evaluate clinical impact and whether the models are feasible in an external population.

Perspectives of Clinicians on Shared Decision Making in Pediatric CKD: A Qualitative Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Clinical decision-making priorities may differ among children, their parents, and their clinicians. This study describes clinicians' perspectives on shared decision making in pediatric chronic kidney disease (CKD) and identifies opportunities to improve shared decision making and care for children with CKD and their families.

STUDY DESIGN

Semistructured interviews.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Fifty clinicians participated, including pediatric nephrologists, nurses, social workers, surgeons, dietitians, and psychologists involved in providing care to children with CKD. They worked at 18 hospitals and 4 university research departments across 11 countries (United States of America, Canada, Australia, People's Republic of China, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Lithuania, New Zealand, and Singapore).

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

We identified 4 themes: (1) striving to blend priorities (minimizing treatment burden, emphasizing clinical long-term risks, achieving common goals), (2) focusing on medical responsibilities (carrying decisional burden and pressure of expectations, working within system constraints, ensuring safety is foremost concern), (3) collaborating to achieve better long-term outcomes (individualizing care, creating partnerships, encouraging ownership and participation in shared decision making, sensitive to parental distress), and (4) forming cumulative knowledge (balancing reassurance and realistic expectations, building understanding around treatment, harnessing motivation for long-term goals).

LIMITATIONS

Most clinicians were from high-income countries, so the transferability of the findings to other settings is uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians reported striving to minimize treatment burden and working with children and their families to manage their expectations and support their decision making. However, they are challenged with system constraints and sometimes felt the pressure of being responsible for the child's long-term outcomes. Further studies are needed to test whether support for shared decision making would promote strategies to establish and improve the quality of care for children with CKD.

The submissive silence of others: Examining definitions of shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to use critical discourse analysis (CDA) to examine the most widely cited definitions of shared decision making so that we can evaluate how language is used to position participants. Based on our conceptual understanding, we presumed that shared decision making involves acts of communication where processes are collaborative.

METHODS

We used a CDA lens to closely examine the phrases, semantics, syntax, implied functions, and the social actions proposed in SDM definition texts. We conducted a systematic search guided by the PRISMA guidelines, to identify the most widely cited definitions of SDM.

RESULTS

A total of 72 studies met our inclusion criteria. While SDM is not consistently defined, it was striking to find that clinicians are constructed as active whereas patients were viewed to be passive participants. The definitions construct SDM to be a gift that the clinician has the power to offer, and the relationship in the definitions appears asymmetric, in which only one party seems to speak.

CONCLUSIONS

The SDM definitions examined convey a process characterized by a clinician who speaks, while a patient mostly listens, and is invited to contribute. An alternative definition might be constructed through references to joint activity via sentences in active voice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians may be influenced by definitions of SDM that reinforce the positionality of active speaker versus passive recipient. Clearer definitions that address the constructs of power and roles may help support the implementation of SDM.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease: Why Earlier Use Makes Shared Decision Making Important

Introduction

As deep brain stimulation (DBS) has shifted to being used earlier during Parkinson’s disease (PD), data is lacking regarding patient specific attitudes, preferences, and factors which may influence the timing of and decision to proceed with DBS in the United States. This study aims to identify and compare attitudes and preferences regarding the earlier use of DBS in Parkinson’s patients who have and have not undergone DBS.

Methods

We developed an online survey concerning attitudes about DBS and its timing in PD. The survey was distributed nationally in the United States via the Michael J. Fox Foundation Trial Finder, the American Parkinson Disease Association flyers, and as a link on the Parkinson Alliance website. Differences in responses between PD DBS and non-DBS patients were assessed.

Results

A total of 445 patients with PD met eligibility criteria for the survey of which 160 self-identified as having undergone DBS. Fifty-five percent (n = 124) of non-DBS patients believed that DBS for PD should only be considered after all medication options have been tried. Patients favoring early DBS had fewer concerns regarding the surgery than those favoring later DBS.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight a variety of important considerations and concerns patients have regarding DBS and its timing. These viewpoints are important aspects of shared decision-making, as they help to identify patients’ preferences, values, and goals, which should enable providers to better navigate, with their patients, the decision path for therapeutic options to consider.

Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Interventions to change health professionals’ behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

Methods

We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under “what materials?” we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses.

Results

Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: “brief name” (87/87, 100%), “why” (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and “what” (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were “materials” (29/87, 33%), “who” (23/87, 26%), and “when and how much” (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: “tailoring” (8/87, 9%), “modifications” (3/87, 4%), and “how well (actual)” (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported “How”, (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%.

Conclusions

Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.

Practitioners' views on shared decision-making implementation: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) refers to the collaboration between patients and their healthcare providers to make clinical decisions based on evidence and patient preferences, often supported by patient decision aids (PDAs). This study explored practitioner experiences of SDM in a context where SDM has been successfully implemented. Specifically, we focused on practitioners' perceptions of SDM as a paradigm, factors influencing implementation success, and outcomes.

METHODS

We used a qualitative approach to examine the experiences and perceptions of 10 Danish practitioners at a cancer hospital experienced in SDM implementation. A semi-structured interview format was used and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data was analyzed through thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Prior to SDM implementation, participants had a range of attitudes from skeptical to receptive. Those with more direct long-term contact with patients (such as nurses) were more positive about the need for SDM. We identified four main factors that influenced SDM implementation success: raising awareness of SDM behaviors among clinicians through concrete measurements, supporting the formation of new habits through reinforcement mechanisms, increasing the flexibility of PDA delivery, and strong leadership. According to our participants, these factors were instrumental in overcoming initial skepticism and solidifying new SDM behaviors. Improvements to the clinical process were reported. Sustaining and transferring the knowledge gained to other contexts will require adapting measurement tools.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying SDM in clinical practice represents a major shift in mindset for clinicians. Designing SDM initiatives with an understanding of the underlying behavioral mechanisms may increase the probability of successful and sustained implementation.

Engaging Patients with Late-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Shared Decision Making about Treatment

Few treatment decision support interventions (DSIs) are available to engage patients diagnosed with late-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in treatment shared decision making (SDM). We designed a novel DSI that includes care plan cards and a companion patient preference clarification tool to assist in shared decision making. The cards answer common patient questions about treatment options (chemotherapy, chemotherapy plus immunotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, clinical trial participation, and supportive care). The form elicits patient treatment preference. We then conducted interviews with clinicians and patients to obtain feedback on the DSI. We also trained oncology nurse educators to implement the prototype. Finally, we pilot tested the DSI among five patients with NSCLC at the beginning of an office visit scheduled to discuss treatment with an oncologist. Analyses of pilot study baseline and exit survey data showed that DSI use was associated with increased patient awareness of the alternatives' treatment options and benefits/risks. In contrast, patient concern about treatment costs and uncertainty in treatment decision making decreased. All patients expressed a treatment preference. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to assess DSI implementation feasibility and efficacy in clinical care.

Clinician Factors Rather Than Patient Factors Affect Discussion of Treatment Options

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making aims to combine what matters most to a patient with clinician expertise to develop a personalized health strategy. It is a dialogue between patient and clinician in which preferences are expressed, misconceptions reoriented, and available options are considered. To improve patient involvement, it would help to know more about specific barriers and facilitators of patient-clinician communication. Health literacy, the ability to obtain, process, and understand health information, may affect patient participation in decision-making. If the patient is quiet, deferential, and asks few questions, the clinician may assume a more paternalistic style. A patient with greater agency and engagement could be the catalyst for shared decisions.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We assessed (1) whether effective clinician communication and effort is related to patient health literacy, and (2) if there are other factors associated with effective clinician communication and effort.

METHODS

We combined a prospective, cross-sectional cohort of 86 audio-recorded visits of adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem at an urban community hospital in the Netherlands with a cohort of 72 audio-recorded hand surgery visits from a tertiary hospital in the United States collected for a prior study. The American cohort represents a secondary use of data from a set of patients from a separate study using audio-recorded visits and administering similar questionnaires that assessed different endpoints. In both cohorts, adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem were screened. In total, 165 patients were initially screened, of which 96% (158) participated. Eight percent (13) of visits were excluded since the final diagnosis remained unclear, 8% (12) since it was not the first consultation for the current problem, 5% (8) in which only one treatment option was available, and < 1% (1) since there was a language barrier. A total of 123 patients were analyzed, 68 from the Netherlands and 55 from the United States. The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy test, validated in both English and Dutch, measures the ability to use health information and is based on a nutrition label from an ice cream container. It was used to assess patient health literacy on a scale ranging from 0 (low) to 6 (high). The 5-item Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) instrument is commonly used to assess the quality of patient-clinician discussion of options. Scores may be influenced by clinician effort to involve patients in decision-making as well as patient engagement and agency. Each item is scored from 0 (no effort) to 4 (maximum effort), with a total maximum score of 20. Two independent raters reached agreement (kappa value 0.8; strong agreement), after which all recordings were scored by one investigator. Visit duration and patient questions were assessed using the audio recordings. Patients had a median (interquartile range) age of 54 (38 to 66) years, 50% were men, 89% were white, 66% had a nontraumatic diagnosis, median (IRQ) years of education was 16 (12 to 18) years, and median (IQR) health literacy score was 5 (2 to 6). Median (IQR) visit duration was 9 (7 to 12) minutes. Cohorts did not differ in important ways. The number of visits per clinician ranged from 14 to 29, and the mean overall communication effectiveness and effort score for the visits was low (8.5 ± 4.2 points of 20 points). A multivariate linear regression model was used to assess factors associated with communication effectiveness and effort.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between health literacy and clinician communication effectiveness and effort (r = 0.087 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.26]; p = 0.34), nor was there a difference in means (SD) when categorizing health literacy as inadequate (7.8 ± 3.8 points) and adequate (8.9 ± 4.5 points; mean difference 1.0 [95% CI -2.6 to 0.54]; p = 0.20). After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, patient questions, and health literacy, we found that longer visit duration (per 1 minute increase: r2 = 0.31 [95% CI -0.14 to 0.48]; p < 0.001), clinician 3 (compared with clinician 1: OR 33 [95% CI 4.8 to 229]; p < 0.001) and clinician 5 (compared with clinician 1: OR 11 [95% CI 1.5 to 80]; p = < 0.02) were independently associated with more effective communication and effort, whereas clinician 6 was associated with less effective communication and effort (compared with clinician 1: OR 0.08 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.75]; p = 0.03). Clinicians' communication strategies (the clinician variable on its own) accounted for 29% of the variation in communication effectiveness and effort, longer visit duration accounted for 11%, and the full model accounted for 47% of the variation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The finding that the overall low mean communication effectiveness and effort differed between clinicians and was not influenced by patient factors including health literacy suggests clinicians may benefit from training that moves them away from a teaching or lecturing style where patients receive rote directives regarding their health. Clinicians can learn to adapt their communication to specific patient values and needs using a guiding rather than directing communication style (motivational interviewing).Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study.

Psychometric evaluation of the Health-Risk Attitude Scale (HRAS-13): assessing the reliability, dimensionality and validity in the general population and a patient population

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the reliability, dimensionality and validity of the self-report questionnaire Health-Risk Attitude Scale (HRAS-13) in a sample of the general population and a patient population.

METHODS

Sample 1 (n = 930) was recruited from the general population aged 18-65 years in the Netherlands. Sample 2 (n = 486) was recruited from the population of knee and hip osteoarthritis patients aged 45 and over, also from the Netherlands. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, average inter-item correlation and item-total correlations. Dimensionality was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), principal component analysis (PCA) and bifactor analysis. Validity was assessed by performing known-group analysis using ANOVA tests.

RESULTS

Cronbach's alphas of the HRAS-13 were 0.73 in sample 1 and 0.69 in sample 2. Reliability and dimensionality analyses differed slightly between the samples, and suggest that a short version of the HRAS may capture a general component of health-risk attitude. Validity assessment of known groups showed that the HRAS-13 and a likely HRAS-6 distinguished between subgroups of respondents based on most of the assessed characteristics, but not all.

DISCUSSION

These findings are a preliminary indication that the HRAS-13 is a promising multidimensional instrument for measuring health-risk attitude. However, further research in various samples on decisions where health risks play a role is warranted to confirm the dimensionality of the HRAS-13 and the items to be retained in a full or a shorter version.

Sex and gender considerations in implementation interventions to promote shared decision making: A secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) in healthcare is an approach in which health professionals support patients in making decisions based on best evidence and their values and preferences. Considering sex and gender in SDM research is necessary to produce precisely-targeted interventions, improve evidence quality and redress health inequities. A first step is correct use of terms. We therefore assessed sex and gender terminology in SDM intervention studies.

Materials and methods

We performed a secondary analysis of a Cochrane review of SDM interventions. We extracted study characteristics and their use of sex, gender or related terms (mention; number of categories). We assessed correct use of sex and gender terms using three criteria: “non-binary use”, “use of appropriate categories” and “non-interchangeable use of sex and gender”. We computed the proportion of studies that met all, any or no criteria, and explored associations between criteria met and study characteristics.

Results

Of 87 included studies, 58 (66.7%) mentioned sex and/or gender. The most mentioned related terms were “female” (60.9%) and “male” (59.8%). Of the 58 studies, authors used sex and gender as binary variables respectively in 36 (62%) and in 34 (58.6%) studies. No study met the criterion “non-binary use”. Authors used appropriate categories to describe sex and gender respectively in 28 (48.3%) and in 8 (13.8%) studies. Of the 83 (95.4%) studies in which sex and/or gender, and/or related terms were mentioned, authors used sex and gender non-interchangeably in 16 (19.3%). No study met all three criteria. Criteria met did not vary according to study characteristics (p>.05).

Conclusions

In SDM implementation studies, sex and gender terms and concepts are in a state of confusion. Our results suggest the urgency of adopting a standardized use of sex and gender terms and concepts before these considerations can be properly integrated into implementation research.

The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis

Risk communication is a significant research domain with practical importance in supporting societal risk governance and informed private decision making. In this article, a high-level analysis of the risk communication research domain is performed using scientometrics methods and visualization tools. Output trends and geographical patterns are identified, and patterns in scientific categories determined. A journal distribution analysis provides insights into dominant journals and the domain's intellectual base. Thematic clusters and temporal evolution of focus topics are obtained using a terms analysis, and a co-citation analysis provides insights into the evolution of research fronts and key documents. The results indicate that the research volume grows exponentially, with by far most contributions originating from Western countries. The domain is highly interdisciplinary, rooted in psychology and social sciences, and branching mainly into medicine and environmental sciences. Narrative themes focus on risk communication in medical and societal risk governance contexts. The domain originated from public health and environmental concerns, with subsequent research fronts addressing risk communication concepts and models. Applied research fronts are associated with environmental hazards, public health, medical risks, nuclear power, and emergency response to various natural hazards. Based on the results, various avenues for future research are described.

Physicians' perspective on shared decision-making in Dubai: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an integral part of patient-centered delivery of care. Maximizing the opportunity of patients to participate in decisions related to their health is an expectation in care delivery nowadays. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of physicians in regard to SDM in a large private hospital network in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

METHODS

This study utilized a cross-sectional design, where a survey questionnaire was assembled to capture quantitative and qualitative data on the perception of physicians in relation to SDM. The survey instrument included three sections: the first solicited physicians' personal and professional information, the second entailed a 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), and the third included an open-ended section. Statistical analysis assessed whether the average SDM-Q-9 score differed significantly by gender, age, years of experience, professional status-generalist versus specialist, and work location-hospitals versus polyclinics. Non-parametric analysis (two independent variables) with the Mann-Whitney test was utilized. The qualitative data was thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty physicians from various specialties participated in this study (25 of each gender-85% response rate). Although the quantitative data analysis revealed that most physicians (80%) rated themselves quite highly when it comes to SDM, qualitative analysis underscored a number of barriers that limited the opportunity for SDM. Analysis identified four themes that influence the acceptability of SDM, namely physician-specific (where the physicians' extent of adopting SDM is related to their own belief system and their perception that the presence of evidence negates the need for SDM), patient-related (e.g., patients' unwillingness to be involved in decisions concerning their health), contextual/environmental (e.g., sociocultural impediments), and relational (the information asymmetry and the power gradient that influence how the physician and patient relate to one another).

CONCLUSIONS

SDM and evidence-based management (EBM) are not mutually exclusive. Professional learning and development programs targeting caregivers should focus on the consolidation of the two perspectives. We encourage healthcare managers and leaders to translate declared policies into actionable initiatives supporting patient-centered care. This could be achieved through the dedication of the necessary resources that would enable SDM, and the development of interventions that are designed both to improve health literacy and to educate patients on their rights.

Shared decision making about blood tests: secondary analysis of video-recorded primary care consultations

BACKGROUND

Awareness of the importance of shared decision making (SDM) is widespread; however, little research has focused on discussions surrounding investigations, despite increasing laboratory testing in primary care.

AIM

To explore the discussion of blood tests in routine primary care consultations.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A secondary analysis of 50 video-recorded routine primary care consultations, linked surveys, and records data (all from the One in a Million [OiaM] archive). The consultations were taken by 22 GPs across 12 practices.

METHOD

A coding scheme was developed, using qualitative content analysis, to explore discussion of blood tests in transcripts of recorded consultations. Codes focused on instigating testing, the extent of SDM, and how results were explained. Survey data were used to compare patients' pre-visit expectations with consultation content. Medical records were reviewed to compare tests discussed with those ordered.

RESULTS

In 36 out of 50 consultations that discussed ordering blood tests, 11 patients (31%) hinted that they wanted a blood test; however, none asked explicitly. Only four patients (11%) were offered alternative options. In 29 cases (81%) the GP gave some explanation of the indication, but only in six cases (17%) were the limitations of testing explained. Only 10 out of 31 patients (32%) were informed about all blood tests ordered. Of the 23 out of 50 consultations in which results were conveyed, the GP gave no explanation of the results in six cases (26%). Thirteen patients (57%) were only informed of an assessment of the results (for example, 'normal'), rather than the actual results.

CONCLUSION

A lack of information dissemination and SDM exists around ordering tests and conveying results. Promoting SDM could reduce unnecessary testing and improve patient-centred care.

Meaningful shared decision-making: complex process demanding cognitive and emotional skills

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) takes place when clinicians help patient identify best course of action in the context of their preferences.

METHODS

The aim of this paper is a narrative review of the literature with special focus on the humanistic dimensions of SDM.

RESULTS

We show that SDM is largely underused in practice, because of many barriers such as time constraints and poor skills.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that listening and empathy are key challenges in communicating uncertainty, which require emotional intelligence and trust building skills. To promote implementation, we propose the development of tools, simulation-based training and the design of improved measures for SDM quality. While essential for patients, we believe that SDM may restore meaning in healthcare.

Crafting Care That Fits: Workload and Capacity Assessments Complementing Decision Aids in Implementing Shared Decision Making

About 42% of adults have one or more chronic conditions and 23% have multiple chronic conditions. The coordination and integration of services for the management of patients living with multimorbidity is important for care to be efficient, safe, and less burdensome. Minimally disruptive medicine may optimize this coordination and integration. It is a patient-centered approach to care that focuses on achieving patient goals for life and health by seeking care strategies that fit a patient’s context and are minimally disruptive and maximally supportive. The cumulative complexity model practically orients minimally disruptive medicine–based care. In this model, the patient workload-capacity imbalance is the central mechanism driving patient complexity. These elements should be accounted for when making decisions for patients with chronic conditions. Therefore, in addition to decision aids, which may guide shared decision making, we propose to discuss and clarify a potential workload-capacity imbalance.

Teaching Conflicts of Interest and Shared Decision-Making to Improve Risk Communication: a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Risk communication is a core aspect of a physician's work and a fundamental prerequisite for successful shared decision-making. However, many physicians are not able to adequately communicate risks to patients due to a lack of understanding of statistics as well as inadequate management of conflicts of interest (COI).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of an integrated curriculum encompassing COI and shared decision-making on the participants' risk communication competence, that is, their competence to advise patients on the benefits and harms of diagnostic or therapeutic interventions.

DESIGN

A rater-blind randomized controlled trial with a 30 (± 1)-week follow-up conducted from October 2016 to June 2017 at two German academic medical centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-three medical students in their fourth or fifth year.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received either a newly developed 15-h curriculum or a course manual adapted from teaching as usual.

MAIN MEASURES

Primary outcome: change in risk communication performance in a video-observed structured clinical examination (VOSCE).

KEY RESULTS

Participants were 25.7 years old on average (SD 3.6); 73% (46/63) were female. Increase in risk communication performance was significantly higher in the intervention group with post-intervention Cohen's d of 2.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.62 to 3.01, p < 0.01) and of 1.83 (CI 1.13 to 2.47, p < 0.01) 30 (± 1) weeks later. Secondary outcomes with the exception of frequency of interactions with the pharmaceutical industry also showed relevant improvements in the intervention as compared with the control group (d between 0.91 and 2.04 (p < 0.001)).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that an integrated curriculum encompassing COI and risk communication leads to a large and sustainable increase in risk communication performance. We interpret the large effect sizes to be a result of the integration of topics that are usually taught separately, leading to a more effective organization of knowledge.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered in the International Clinical Trials Registry with the trial number DRKS00010890.

Development of a program theory for shared decision-making: a realist synthesis

BACKGROUND

Shared Decision-making (SDM), a medical decision-making model, was popularized in the late 1980s in reaction to then predominate paternalistic decision-making, aiming to better meet the needs of patients. Extensive research has been conducted internationally examining the benefits of SDM implementation; however, existing theory on how SDM works, for whom, in which circumstances, and why is limited. While literature has shown positive patient, health care provider, and system benefits (SDM outputs), further research is required to understand the nuances of this type of decision-making. As such, we set out to address: "In which situations, how, why, and for whom does SDM between patients and health care providers contribute to improved engagement in the Shared Decision-making process?"

METHODS

To achieve our study goals we conducted a seven-step realist synthesis process, which included: (1) preliminary program theory development, (2) search strategy development, (3) selection and appraisal of literature in accordance with realist methodology, (4) data extraction, (5) identification of relevant formal theories, (6) data analysis and synthesis, and (7) formation of a revised program theory with the input of stakeholders. This process was done in accordance with RAMESES guidelines and publication standards for a realist synthesis. Expert consultations were also held to ensure consistency within the SDM literature.

RESULTS

Through our realist synthesis, we developed a program theory of SDM which includes three contexts (pre-existing relationship, difficulty of decision, and system support), eight mechanism sets (anxiety, trust, perception of other party capacity, perception of time, self-efficacy, world view, perception of capacity to external support, and recognition of decision), and one outcome (engagement in SDM).

CONCLUSIONS

As far as the authors of this paper are aware, this paper is the first to begin unpacking how SDM works, for whom, in which circumstances, and why. By examining key mechanism sets and exploring how they facilitate or inhibit SDM, we have produced a program theory that may assist health care professionals, policy makers, and patients. While further research is suggested to further unpack the concepts identified within this paper, this provides an initial understanding into the theory behind SDM.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42017062609.

Shared decision-making for delivery mode: An OPTION scale observer-based evaluation

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) may help to reduce the rate of Cesarean Delivery (CD). The aim of the study was to evaluate the extent to which pregnant women are involved in SDM about the mode of delivery, applying the Italian version of the OPTION¹² scale to obstetric consultations.

METHODS

Fifty-eight outpatient consultations were rated; statistical associations between OPTION¹² scores and sociodemographic data of both patient and physicians were determined.

RESULTS

The OPTION¹² total scores showed a skewed distribution in the lower range of total scores. Total scores in a percentage basis ranged from 0 to 69, with a mean of 21.2 (±19.84) and a median of 13.5. Mean and median scores for all the 12 OPTION¹² items never reached the minimum skill level.

CONCLUSION

A low level of patient involvement in deciding between a CD and a Vaginal Delivery (VD) was demonstrated. Interventions aiming at educating obstetricians as well as the adoption of decision aids are requested.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The OPTION¹² scale may prove useful for testing the extent of pregnant women's involvement in deciding between CD and VD. The awareness of a low patient involvement seems mandatory to improve SDM and may lead to medico-legal protection.

Shared Decision-Making Training in Internal Medicine: A Multisite Intervention Study

BACKGROUND

Research shows that when patients and health care providers share responsibility for clinical decisions, both patient satisfaction and quality of care increase, and resource use decreases. Yet few studies have assessed how to train residents to use shared decision-making (SDM) in their practice.

OBJECTIVE

We developed and evaluated a SDM training program in internal medicine.

METHODS

Senior internal medicine residents from 3 hospitals in Switzerland were assessed shortly before and 2 months after completing a program that included a 2-hour workshop and pocket card use in clinical practice. Encounters with standardized patients (SPs) were recorded and SDM performance was assessed using a SDM completeness rating scale (scores ranging from 0 to 100), a self-reported questionnaire, and SPs rating the residents.

RESULTS

Of 39 eligible residents, 27 (69%) participated. The mean (SD) score improved from 65 (SD 13) to 71 (SD 12; effect size [ES] 0.53; P = .011). After training, participants were more comfortable with their SDM-related knowledge (ES 1.42, P < .001) and skills (ES 0.91, P < .001), and with practicing SDM (ES 0.96, P < .001). Physicians applied SDM concepts more often in practice (ES 0.71, P = .001), and SPs felt more comfortable with how participants discussed their care (ES 0.44, P = .031).

CONCLUSIONS

The SDM training program improved the competencies of internal medicine residents and promoted the use of SDM in clinical practice. The approach may be of interest for teaching SDM to residents in other disciplines and to medical students.

Promoting Shared Decision-Making Behaviors During Inpatient Rounds: A Multimodal Educational Intervention

PURPOSE

To estimate the effectiveness of a multimodal educational intervention to increase use of shared decision-making (SDM) behaviors by inpatient pediatric and internal medicine hospitalists and trainees at teaching hospitals at Stanford University and the University of California, San Francisco.

METHOD

The 8-week Patient Engagement Project Study intervention, delivered at four services between November 2014 and January 2015, included workshops, campaign messaging, report cards, and coaching. For 12-week pre- and postintervention periods, clinician peers used the nine-point Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD) to evaluate rounding teams' SDM behaviors with patients during ward rounds. Eligible teams included a hospitalist and at least one trainee (resident, intern, medical student), in addition to nonphysicians. Random-effects models were used to estimate intervention effects based on RPAD scores that sum points on nine SDM behaviors per patient encounter.

RESULTS

In total, 527 patient encounters were scored during 175 rounds led by 49 hospitalists. Patient and team characteristics were similar across pre- and postintervention periods. Improvement was observed on all nine SDM behaviors. Adjusted for the hierarchical study design and covariates, the mean RPAD score improvement was 1.68 points (95% CI, 1.33-2.03; P < .001; Cohen d = 0.82), with intervention effects ranging from 0.7 to 2.5 points per service. Improvements were associated with longer patient encounters and a higher percentage of trainees per team.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention increased behaviors supporting SDM during ward rounds on four independent services. The findings recommend use of clinician-focused interventions to promote SDM adoption in the inpatient setting.

Decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision making in chronic illnesses: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered approach in which clinicians and patients work together to find and choose the best course of action for each patient's particular situation. Six SDM key elements can be identified: situation diagnosis, choice awareness, option clarification, discussion of harms and benefits, deliberation of patient preferences, and making the decision. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) require that a decision aid (DA) support these key elements. Yet, the extent to which DAs support these six key SDM elements and how this relates to their impact remain unknown.

METHODS

We searched bibliographic databases (from inception until November 2017), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, and experts for randomized controlled trials of DAs in patients with cardiovascular, or chronic respiratory conditions or diabetes. Reviewers worked in duplicate and independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial, and DA characteristics, and evaluated the quality of each trial.

RESULTS

DAs most commonly clarified options (20 of 20; 100%) and discussed their harms and benefits (18 of 20; 90%; unclear in two DAs); all six elements were clearly supported in 4 DAs (20%). We found no association between the presence of these elements and SDM outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

DAs for selected chronic conditions are mostly designed to transfer information about options and their harms and benefits. The extent to which their support of SDM key elements relates to their impact on SDM outcomes could not be ascertained.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016050320 .

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

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

Development of a Patient Decision Aid on the Choice of Diabetes Medication for Filipino Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To develop a locally adapted patient decision aid (PtDA) on treatment intensification among Filipino patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and to test the feasibility of using PtDAs in a low middle-income country.

METHODOLOGY

A qualitative approach and an iterative process of development of a PtDA were employed for this study. We describe the process of developing a Filipino version of the Diabetes Medication Decision Aid. This PtDA was designed to help the patient choose the appropriate treatment intensification based on his own values and preferences, in consultation with his physician. The process involved decisional needs assessment through focus group discussions and key informant interviews, systematic literature review, iterative process of the development of a PtDA with clinical encounters (pilot testing), and preliminary field testing.

RESULTS

Decisional needs assessment revealed that Filipino patients are open to participate in shared decision-making if given the opportunity, including those with low socioeconomic status who likely have low health literacy. Physicians prefer to have visual aid tools to help them support their patient's decision-making. A PtDA prototype of a set of flash cards in Filipino was created and revised in an iterative method. We developed a more visually appealing tool after inputs from the expert panel and patient advisory group. Its use during clinical encounters provided additional insights from patients and clinicians on how to improve the PtDA. Preliminary field testing showed that its use is feasible in the target patient population.

CONCLUSION

Filipino patients, clinicians, and diabetes nurse educators have contributed to the creation of the first Filipino PtDA for diabetes treatment intensification.

Supporting shared decision-making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis

Background

Health-care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision-making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; this is particularly the case for older people with complex needs.

Objectives

To provide a context-relevant understanding of how models to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs and how they might be applied to integrated care models.

Design

Realist synthesis following Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards.

Participants

Twenty-four stakeholders took part in interviews.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google and Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). Lateral searches were also carried out. All types of evidence were included.

Review methods

Iterative stakeholder-driven, three-stage approach, involving (1) scoping of the literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, (2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories and (3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11).

Results

We included 88 papers, of which 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four theories (context–mechanism–outcome configurations) that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care; organising systems to support and prioritise SDM; supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM; and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that create trust between those involved, allow service users to feel that they are respected and understood, and engender confidence to engage in SDM.

Limitations

There is a lack of evidence on interventions to promote SDM in older people with complex needs or on interprofessional approaches to SDM.

Conclusions

Models of SDM for older people with complex health and care needs should be conceptualised as a series of conversations that patients, and their family carers, may have with a variety of different health and care professionals. To embed SDM in practice requires a shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers are likely to need support, both in terms of the way services are organised and delivered and in terms of their own continuing professional development. Older people with complex needs may need support to engage in SDM. How this support is best provided needs further exploration, although face-to-face interactions and ongoing patient–professional relationships are key.

Future work

There is a need for further work to establish how organisational structures can be better aligned to meet the requirements of older people with complex needs. This includes a need to define and evaluate the contribution that different members of health and care teams can make to SDM for older people with complex health and care needs.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039013.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis

BACKGROUND

Health care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; particularly for older people with complex needs. The aim of this review was to provide a context relevant understanding of how interventions to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs, and how they might be applied in integrated care models.

METHODS

Iterative, stakeholder driven, realist synthesis following RAMESES publication standards. It involved: 1) scoping literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, 2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories, and 3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11). We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google, Google Scholar, and undertook lateral searches. All types of evidence were included.

RESULTS

We included 88 papers; 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four context-mechanism-outcome configurations that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs. This includes: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care, organising systems to support and prioritise SDM, supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that allow older people to feel that they are respected and understood, and that engender confidence to engage in SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

To embed SDM in practice requires a radical shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers will need support to change their professional behaviour and to better organise and deliver services. Face to face interactions, permission and space to discuss options, and continuity of patient-professional relationships are key in supporting older people with complex needs to engage in SDM. Future research needs to focus on inter-professional approaches to SDM and how families and carers are involved.

An Innovative Shared Decision-Making Curriculum for Internal Medicine Residents: Findings From the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) is a core competency in health policy and guidelines. Most U.S. internal medicine residencies lack an SDM education curriculum. A standardized patient (SP)-based curriculum teaching key concepts and skills of SDM was developed.

METHOD

This curriculum consisted of an innovative seven-step SDM model and a skills-focused SP case, integrated into the ambulatory rotation for senior medicine residents at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in 2015. Evaluation consisted of pre/postcurriculum surveys assessing residents' knowledge of and attitudes toward SDM. Skills development was assessed via pre/postcurricular audio recordings of clinical decision making.

RESULTS

Thirty-six residents completed the curriculum (survey participation rate 88%). There was significant improvement in residents' knowledge (median score pre 75%, post 100%, P < .01); confidence (median composite score pre 2.87, post 3.0, P < .01, where 1 = not confident/important, 4 = very confident/important); and importance of SDM (median composite score pre 3.14, post 3.5, P < .01). Forty-four clinical recordings (31 pre, 13 post) were assessed using the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making scale. Improvement in use of SDM skills was seen among all residents (mean increase 1.84 points, P = .27). When data were stratified post hoc by U.S. versus international medical graduates, there was significant improvement in total score (mean increase of 5.15 points, P = .01) among U.S. graduates only.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is teachable, and this skill-based curricular intervention resulted in improvement in senior medicine residents' knowledge of, attitudes toward, and demonstration of SDM skills.

The availability and effectiveness of tools supporting shared decision making in metastatic breast cancer care: a review

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) in the management of metastatic breast cancer care is associated with positive patient outcomes. In daily clinical practice, however, SDM is not fully integrated yet. Initiatives to improve the implementation of SDM would be helpful. The aim of this review was to assess the availability and effectiveness of tools supporting SDM in metastatic breast cancer care.

Methods

Literature databases were systematically searched for articles published since 2006 focusing on the development or evaluation of tools to improve information-provision and to support decision-making in metastatic breast cancer care. Internet searches and experts identified additional tools. Data from included tools were extracted and the evaluation of tools was appraised using the GRADE grading system.

Results

The literature search yielded five instruments. In addition, two tools were identified via internet searches and consultation of experts. Four tools were specifically developed for supporting SDM in metastatic breast cancer, the other three tools focused on metastatic cancer in general. Tools were mainly applicable across the care process, and usable for decisions on supportive care with or without chemotherapy. All tools were designed for patients to be used before a consultation with the physician. Effects on patient outcomes were generally weakly positive although most tools were not studied in well-designed studies.

Conclusions

Despite its recognized importance, only two tools were positively evaluated on effectiveness and are available to support patients with metastatic breast cancer in SDM. These tools show promising results in pilot studies and focus on different aspects of care. However, their effectiveness should be confirmed in well-designed studies before implementation in clinical practice. Innovation and development of SDM tools targeting clinicians as well as patients during a clinical encounter is recommended.

Communicating risk in dementia care: Survey of health and social care professionals

Supporting people to live at home in line with community care policies requires increasing attention to assessing, communicating and managing risks. There is a challenge in supporting client choices that include risk-taking while demonstrating professional accountability. Risk communication becomes increasingly important with the need to engage clients and families in meaningful shared decision-making. This presents particular challenges in dementia services. This survey of risk communication in dementia care was administered to all health and social care professionals in community dementia services in Northern Ireland: June-September 2016. Of 270 professionals, 70 questionnaires were fully completed, with 55 partial completions. Scores on the Berlin Numeracy Test plus Schwartz items was low-moderate (mean 2.79 out of 7). This study did not find a significant association between numeracy and accurate perceptions of risk likelihoods in practice-based scenarios. Although 86% reported using numeric information in practice (mostly from assessment tools), respondents rarely communicated themselves using numbers. As in other domains, participants' responses were widely variable on numeric estimates of verbal terms for likelihood. In relation to medication side effects, few participants provided responses that were concordant with those in the guidance of the European Union. The risks most commonly encountered in practice were (in rank order): falls, depression, poor personal hygiene, medicines mismanagement, leaving home unsupervised, financial mismanagement, malnutrition, swallowing difficulties, abuse from others, risks to others, home appliance accidents and refusing equipment. Respondents generally overestimated the likelihood of serious harmful events by approximately 10-fold (having a missing person's report filed with the police; having a fall resulting in hospitalisation) and by approximately double (being involved in a car accident; causing a home fire), and with wide variation between respondents. There is potential in icon arrays for communicating risks. Risk literacy among dementia care practitioners needs to be developed.

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

RATIONAL

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

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

The role of digital communication in patient–clinician communication for NHS providers of specialist clinical services for young people [the Long-term conditions Young people Networked Communication (LYNC) study]: a mixed-methods study

Background

Young people (aged 16–24 years) with long-term health conditions tend to disengage from health services, resulting in poor health outcomes. They are prolific users of digital communications. Innovative UK NHS clinicians use digital communication with these young people. The NHS plans to use digital communication with patients more widely.

Objectives

To explore how health-care engagement can be improved using digital clinical communication (DCC); understand effects, impacts, costs and necessary safeguards; and provide critical analysis of its use, monitoring and evaluation.

Design

Observational mixed-methods case studies; systematic scoping literature reviews; assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); public and patient involvement; and consensus development through focus groups.

Setting

Twenty NHS specialist clinical teams from across England and Wales, providing care for 13 different long-term physical or mental health conditions.

Participants

One hundred and sixty-five young people aged 16–24 years living with a long-term health condition; 13 parents; 173 clinical team members; and 16 information governance specialists.

Interventions

Clinical teams and young people variously used mobile phone calls, text messages, e-mail and voice over internet protocol.

Main outcome measures

Empirical work – thematic and ethical analysis of qualitative data; annual direct costs; did not attend, accident and emergency attendance and hospital admission rates plus clinic-specific clinical outcomes. Scoping reviews–patient, health professional and service delivery outcomes and technical problems. PROMs: scale validity, relevance and credibility.

Data sources

Observation, interview, structured survey, routinely collected data, focus groups and peer-reviewed publications.

Results

Digital communication enables access for young people to the right clinician when it makes a difference for managing their health condition. This is valued as additional to traditional clinic appointments. This access challenges the nature and boundaries of therapeutic relationships, but can improve them, increase patient empowerment and enhance activation. Risks include increased dependence on clinicians, inadvertent disclosure of confidential information and communication failures, but clinicians and young people mitigate these risks. Workload increases and the main cost is staff time. Clinical teams had not evaluated the impact of their intervention and analysis of routinely collected data did not identify any impact. There are no currently used generic outcome measures, but the Patient Activation Measure and the Physicians’ Humanistic Behaviours Questionnaire are promising. Scoping reviews suggest DCC is acceptable to young people, but with no clear evidence of benefit except for mental health.

Limitations

Qualitative data were mostly from clinician enthusiasts. No interviews were achieved with young people who do not attend clinics. Clinicians struggled to estimate workload. Only eight full sets of routine data were available.

Conclusions

Timely DCC is perceived as making a difference to health care and health outcomes for young people with long-term conditions, but this is not supported by evidence that measures health outcomes. Such communication is challenging and costly to provide, but valued by young people.

Future work

Future development should distinguish digital communication replacing traditional clinic appointments and additional timely communication. Evaluation is needed that uses relevant generic outcomes.

Study registration

Two of the reviews in this study are registered as PROSPERO CRD42016035467 and CRD42016038792.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

A randomized controlled trial of a skills training for oncologists and a communication aid for patients to stimulate shared decision making about palliative systemic treatment (CHOICE): study protocol

BACKGROUND

Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes little benefit while the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require Shared Decision Making (SDM). The CHOICE trial examines the separate and combined effect of oncologist training and a patient communication aid on SDM in consultations about palliative systemic treatment.

METHODS

A RCT design with four parallel arms will be adopted. Patients with metastatic or irresectable cancer with a median life expectancy <12 months who meet with a medical oncologist to discuss the start or continuation of palliative systemic treatment are eligible. A total of 24 oncologists (in training) and 192 patients will be recruited. The oncologist training consists of a reader, two group sessions (3.5 h; including modelling videos and role play), a booster feedback session (1 h) and a consultation room tool. The patient communication aid consists of a home-sent question prompt list and a value clarification exercise to prepare patients for SDM in the consultation. The control condition consists of care as usual. The primary outcome is observed SDM in audio-recorded consultations. Secondary outcomes include patient and oncologist evaluation of communication and decision-making, the decision made, quality of life, potential adverse outcomes such as anxiety and hopelessness, and consultation duration. Patients fill out questionnaires at baseline (T0), before (T1) and after the consultation (T2) and at 3 and 6 months (T3 and T4). All oncologists participate in two standardized patient assessments (before-after training) prior to the start of patient inclusion. They will fill out a questionnaire before and after these assessments, as well as after each of the recorded consultations in clinical practice.

DISCUSSION

The CHOICE trial will enable evidence-based choices regarding the investment in SDM interventions targeting either oncologists, patients or both in the advanced cancer setting. The trial takes into account the immediate effect of the interventions on observed communication, but also on more distal and potential adverse patient outcomes. Also, the trial provides evidence regarding the assumption that SDM about palliative cancer treatment results in less aggressive treatment and more quality of life in the final period of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry number NTR5489 (prospective; 15 Sep 2015).

Shared Decision-Making in Growth Hormone Therapy-Implications for Patient Care

Several studies have shown that adherence to growth hormone therapy (GHT) is not optimal. There are several reasons why patients may not fully adhere to their treatment regimen and this may have implications on treatment success, patient outcomes and healthcare spending and resourcing. A change in healthcare practices, from a physician paternalistic to a more patient autonomous approach to healthcare, has encouraged a greater onus on a shared decision-making (SDM) process whereby patients are actively encouraged to participate in their own healthcare decisions. There is growing evidence to suggest that SDM may facilitate patient adherence to GHT. Improved adherence to therapy in this way may consequently positively impact treatment outcomes for patients. Whilst SDM is widely regarded as a healthcare imperative, there is little guidance on how it should be best implemented. Despite this, there are many opportunities for the implementation of SDM during the treatment journey of a patient with a GH-related disorder. Barriers to the successful practice of SDM within the clinic may include poor patient education surrounding their condition and treatment options, limited healthcare professional time, lack of support from clinics to use SDM, and healthcare resourcing restrictions. Here we discuss the opportunities for the implementation of SDM and the barriers that challenge its effective use within the clinic. We also review some of the potential solutions to overcome these challenges that may prove key to effective patient participation in treatment decisions. Encouraging a sense of empowerment for patients will ultimately enhance treatment adherence and improve clinical outcomes in GHT.

Factors associated with confidence in decision making and satisfaction with risk communication among patients with atrial fibrillation

Background:

Atrial fibrillation is a prevalent cardiac arrhythmia. Effective communication of risks (e.g. stroke risk) and benefits of treatment (e.g. oral anticoagulants) is crucial for the process of shared decision making.

Aim:

The aim of this study was to explore factors associated with confidence in decision making and satisfaction with risk communication after a follow-up visit among patients who three months earlier had visited an emergency room for atrial fibrillation related symptoms.

Methods:

A cross-sectional design was used and 322 patients (34% women), mean age 66.1 years (SD 10.5 years) with atrial fibrillation were included in the south of Sweden. Clinical examinations were done post an atrial fibrillation episode. Self-rating scales for communication (Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication and Treatment Decision Making Effectiveness), uncertainty in illness (Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale–Community), mastery of daily life (Mastery Scale), depressive symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and vitality, physical health and mental health (36-item Short Form Health Survey) were used to collect data.

Results:

Decreased vitality and mastery of daily life, as well as increased uncertainty in illness, were independently associated with lower confidence in decision making. Absence of hypertension and increased uncertainty in illness were independently associated with lower satisfaction with risk communication. Clinical atrial fibrillation variables or depressive symptoms were not associated with satisfaction with confidence in decision making or satisfaction with risk communication. The final models explained 29.1% and 29.5% of the variance in confidence in decision making and satisfaction with risk communication.

Conclusion:

Confidence in decision making is associated with decreased vitality and mastery of daily life, as well as increased uncertainty in illness, while absence of hypertension and increased uncertainty in illness are associated with risk communication satisfaction.

A systematic review of decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision-making in chronic illnesses: a review protocol

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a patient-centred approach in which clinicians and patients work side-by-side to decide together on the best course of action for each patient's particular situation. Six key elements of SDM can be distinguished: situation diagnosis, choice awareness, option clarification, discussion of harms and benefits, deliberation of patient preferences and making the decision. Decision aids (DAs) are tools that facilitate SDM. The impact of DAs for chronic illnesses on SDM, clinical and patient reported outcomes remains uncertain.

METHODS

We will perform a systematic review aiming to describe (a) which SDM elements are incorporated in DAs for adult patients with chronic conditions and (b) the effects of DA use on SDM, clinical and patient reported outcomes. This manuscript reports on the protocol for this systematic review. The following databases will be searched for relevant articles: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO, from their inception to October 2016. We will ascertain ongoing research by querying experts and searching trial registries. To enhance feasibility, we will limit the review to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including patients with chronic cardiovascular and/or respiratory diseases and/or diabetes. SDM elements incorporated in DAs, DA effects and DA itself will be described.

DISCUSSION

This study will characterize DAs for chronic illness and will provide an overview of their effects on SDM, clinical and patient reported outcomes. We anticipate this review will bring to light knowledge gaps and inform further research into the design and use of DAs for patients with chronic conditions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016050320 .

Factors associated with shared decision making among primary care physicians: Findings from a multicentre cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Despite growing recognition that shared decision making (SDM) is central for patient-centred primary care, adoption by physicians remains limited in routine practice.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the characteristics of physicians, patients and consultations associated with primary care physicians' SDM behaviours during routine care.

METHODS

A multicentre cross-sectional survey study was conducted with 114 unique patient-physician dyads recruited from 17 primary care clinics in Quebec and Ontario, Canada. Physicians' SDM behaviours were assessed with the 12-item OPTION scale scored by third observers using audio-recordings of consultations. Independent variables included 21 physician, patient and consultation characteristics. We assessed factors associated with OPTION scores using multivariate linear regression models.

RESULTS

On the OPTION scale, where higher scores indicated greater SDM behaviours, physicians earned an overall mean score of 25.7±9.8 of 100. In the final adjusted regression model, higher OPTION scores were associated with physicians' social participation (involvement in one committee β=5.75, P=.04; involvement in two or more committees β=7.74, P=.01), patients' status as employed (β=6.48, P=.02), clinically significant decisional conflict in patients (β=7.15, P=.002) and a longer duration of consultations (β=0.23, P=.002).

CONCLUSION

Physicians' social participation, patients' employment status and decisional conflict and the duration of consultations were associated with primary care physicians' SDM behaviours in routine care. These factors should be considered when designing strategies to implement SDM and promote more patient-centred care in primary care.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Shared Decision Making and the Use of Decision Aids

BACKGROUND

In shared decision making (SDM), the patient and the physician reach decisions in partnership. We conducted a trial of SDM training for physicians who treat patients with cancer.

METHODS

Physicians who treat patients with cancer were invited to participate in a cluster-randomized trial and carry out SDM together with breast or colon cancer patients who faced decisions about their treatment. Decision-related physician-patient conversations were recorded. The patients filled out questionnaires immediately after the consultations (T1) and three months later (T2). The primary endpoints were the patients' confidence in and satisfaction with the decisions taken. The secondary endpoints were the process of decision making, anxiety, depression, quality of life, and externally assessed physician competence in SDM. The physicians in the intervention group underwent 12 hours of training in SDM, including the use of decision aids.

RESULTS

Of the 900 physicians invited to participated in the trial, 105 answered the invitation. 86 were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group (44 and 42 physicians, respectively); 33 of the 86 physicians recruited at least one patient for the trial. A total of 160 patients participated in the trial, of whom 55 were treated by physicians in the intervention group. There were no intergroup differences in the primary endpoints. Trained physicians were more competent in SDM (Cohen's d = 0.56; p<0.05). Patients treated by trained physicians had lower anxiety and depression scores immediately after the consultation (d = -0.12 and -0.14, respectively; p<0.10), and markedly lower anxiety and depression scores three months later (d = -0.94 and -0.67, p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

When physicians treating cancer patients improve their competence in SDM by appropriate training, their patients may suffer less anxiety and depression. These effects merit further study.

Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department Among Patients With Limited Health Literacy: Beyond Slower and Louder

Although studies suggest that patients with limited health literacy and/or low numeracy skills may stand to gain the most from shared decision making (SDM), the impact of these conditions on the effective implementation of SDM in the emergency department (ED) is not well understood. In this article from the proceedings of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department we discuss knowledge gaps identified and propose consensus-driven research priorities to help guide future work to improve SDM for this patient population in the ED.