Can consumers learn to ask three questions to improve shared decision making? A feasibility study of the ASK (AskShareKnow) Patient-Clinician Communication Model(®) intervention in a primary health-care setting

A Decision Aid for Patients Considering Surgery for Sciatica: Codesign and User-Testing With Patients and Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Surgery can help patients with leg pain caused by sciatica recover faster, but by 12 months outcomes are similar to nonsurgical management. For many the decision to have surgery may require reflection, and patient decision aids are an evidence-based clinical tool that can help guide patients through this decision.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and refine a decision aid for patients with sciatica who are deciding whether to have surgery or 'wait and see' (i.e., try nonsurgical management first).

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews with think-aloud user-testing protocol.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty clinicians and 20 patients with lived experience of low back pain or sciatica.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Items from Technology Acceptance Model, Preparation for Decision Making Scale and Decision Quality Instrument for Herniated Disc 2.0 (knowledge instrument).

METHODS

The prototype integrated relevant research with working group perspectives, decision aid standards and health literacy guidelines. The research team refined the prototype through seven rounds of user-testing, which involved discussing user-testing feedback and implementing changes before progressing to the next round.

RESULTS

As a result of working group feedback, the decision aid was divided into sections: before, during and after a visit to the surgeon. Across all rounds of user-testing, clinicians rated the resource 5.9/7 (SD = 1.0) for perceived usefulness, and 6.0/7 for perceived ease of use (SD = 0.8). Patients reported the decision aid was easy to understand, on average correctly answering 3.4/5 knowledge questions (SD = 1.2) about surgery for sciatica. The grade reading score for the website was 9.0. Patients scored highly on preparation for decision-making (4.4/5, SD = 0.7), suggesting strong potential to empower patients. Interview feedback showed that patients and clinicians felt the decision aid would encourage question-asking and help patients reflect on personal values.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians found the decision aid acceptable, patients found it was easy to understand and both groups felt it would empower patients to actively engage in their care and come to an informed decision that aligned with personal values. Input from the working group and user-testing was crucial for ensuring that the decision aid met patient and clinician needs.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and clinicians contributed to prototype development via the working group.

Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening

BACKGROUND

In breast cancer screening programmes, women may have discussions with a healthcare provider to help them decide whether or not they wish to join the breast cancer screening programme. This process is called shared decision-making (SDM) and involves discussions and decisions based on the evidence and the person's values and preferences. SDM is becoming a recommended approach in clinical guidelines, extending beyond decision aids. However, the overall effect of SDM in women deciding to participate in breast cancer screening remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of SDM on women's satisfaction, confidence, and knowledge when deciding whether to participate in breast cancer screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 8 August 2023. We also screened abstracts from two relevant conferences from 2020 to 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing interventions targeting various components of SDM. The focus was on supporting women aged 40 to 75 at average or above-average risk of breast cancer in their decision to participate in breast cancer screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and conducted data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Review outcomes included satisfaction with the decision-making process, confidence in the decision made, knowledge of all options, adherence to the chosen option, women's involvement in SDM, woman-clinician communication, and mental health.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies with 64,215 randomised women, mostly with an average to moderate risk of breast cancer. Two studies covered all aspects of SDM; six examined shortened forms of SDM involving communication on risks and personal values; and 11 focused on enhanced communication of risk without other SDM aspects. SDM involving all components compared to control The two eligible studies did not assess satisfaction with the SDM process or confidence in the decision. Based on a single study, SDM showed uncertain effects on participant knowledge regarding the age to start screening (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.28; 133 women; very low certainty evidence) and frequency of testing (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.04; 133 women; very low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Abbreviated forms of SDM with clarification of values and preferences compared to control Of the six included studies, none evaluated satisfaction with the SDM process. These interventions may reduce conflict in the decision made, based on two measures, Decisional Conflict Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% CI -4.21 to 0.87; conflict scale from 0 to 100; 4 studies; 1714 women; very low certainty evidence) and the proportion of women with residual conflict compared to control at one to three months' follow-up (rate of women with a conflicted decision, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99; 1 study; 1001 women, very low certainty evidence). Knowledge of all options was assessed through knowledge scores and informed choice. The effect of SDM may enhance knowledge (MDs ranged from 0.47 to 1.44 higher scores on a scale from 0 to 10; 5 studies; 2114 women; low certainty evidence) and may lead to higher rates of informed choice (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; 4 studies; 2449 women; low certainty evidence) compared to control at one to three months' follow-up. These interventions may result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.54, 95% -0.96 to 2.14; scale from 20 to 80; 2 studies; 749 women; low certainty evidence) and the number of women with worries about cancer compared to control at four to six weeks' follow-up (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 1 study, 639 women; low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Enhanced communication about risks without other SDM aspects compared to control Of 11 studies, three did not report relevant outcomes for this review, and none assessed satisfaction with the SDM process. Confidence in the decision made was measured by decisional conflict and anticipated regret of participating in screening or not. These interventions, without addressing values and preferences, may result in lower confidence in the decision compared to regular communication strategies at two weeks' follow-up (MD 2.89, 95% CI -2.35 to 8.14; Decisional Conflict Scale from 0 to 100; 2 studies; 1191 women; low certainty evidence). They may result in higher anticipated regret if participating in screening (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41) and lower anticipated regret if not participating in screening (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.14). These interventions increase knowledge (MD 1.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.62; scale from 0 to 10; 4 studies; 2510 women; high certainty evidence), while it is unclear if there is a higher rate of informed choice compared to regular communication strategies at two to four weeks' follow-up (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.92; 2 studies; 1805 women; low certainty evidence). These interventions result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.33, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.99; scale from 20 to 80) and depression (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.45; scale from 0 to 21; 2 studies; 1193 women; high certainty evidence) and lower cancer worry compared to control (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.08; scale from 1 to 4; 1 study; 838 women; high certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies using abbreviated forms of SDM and other forms of enhanced communications indicated improvements in knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. However, uncertainty remains about the effect of SDM on supporting women's decisions. Most studies did not evaluate outcomes considered important for this review topic, and those that did measured different concepts. High-quality randomised trials are needed to evaluate SDM in diverse cultural settings with a focus on outcomes such as women's satisfaction with choices aligned to their values.

The Evidence-Based Practice Process Steps 4, 5, and 6: Integration, Evaluation, and Dissemination

This is the final column in a series of columns that began with the January/February 2021 issue of Neonatal Network, describing the evidence-based practice (EBP) project. The series has taken the reader through sparking the spirit of inquiry, asking a compelling question, and searching and critically appraising the literature. This column will briefly describe the final three steps: step 4, the integration of evidence with clinical expertise and patient/family preferences; step 5, the evaluation of outcomes of practice changes based on evidence; and step 6, the dissemination of the outcomes of the EBP change.

Patient Partnership Tools to Support Medication Safety in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Protocol for a Nonrandomized Stepped Wedge Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Preventable harms from medications are significant threats to patient safety in community settings, especially among ambulatory older adults on multiple prescription medications. Patients may partner with primary care professionals by taking on active roles in decisions, learning the basics of medication self-management, and working with community resources.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the impact of a set of patient partnership tools that redesign primary care encounters to encourage and empower patients to make more effective use of those encounters to improve medication safety.

METHODS

The study is a nonrandomized, cross-sectional stepped wedge cluster-controlled trial with 1 private family medicine clinic and 2 public safety-net primary care clinics each composing their own cluster. There are 2 intervention sequences with 1 cluster per sequence and 1 control sequence with 1 cluster. Cross-sectional surveys will be taken immediately at the conclusion of visits to the clinics during 6 time periods of 6 weeks each, with a transition period of no data collection during intervention implementation. The number of visits to be surveyed will vary by period and cluster. We plan to recruit patients and professionals for surveys during 405 visits. In the experimental periods, visits will be conducted with two partnership tools and associated clinic process changes: (1) a 1-page visit preparation guide given to relevant patients by clinic staff before seeing the provider, with the intention to improve communication and shared decision-making, and (2) a library of short educational videos that clinic staff encourage patients to watch on medication safety. In the control periods, visits will be conducted with usual care. The primary outcome will be patients' self-efficacy in medication use. The secondary outcomes are medication-related issues such as duplicate therapies identified by primary care providers and assessment of collaborative work during visits.

RESULTS

The study was funded in September 2019. Data collection started in April 2023 and ended in December 2023. Data was collected for 405 primary care encounters during that period. As of February 15, 2024, initial descriptive statistics were calculated. Full data analysis is expected to be completed and published in the summer of 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will assess the impact of patient partnership tools and associated process changes in primary care on medication use self-efficacy and medication-related issues. The study is powered to identify types of patients who may benefit most from patient engagement tools in primary care visits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05880368; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05880368.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/57878.

Understanding barriers to using long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in primary care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) are highly effective. In primary care, LARCs are prescribed less frequently than user-dependent contraceptives despite higher efficacy rates. Unplanned pregnancies are rising in the UK, and LARCs may have a role in reducing these through and redressing inequitable contraceptive access. To provide contraceptive services that offer maximal choice and patient benefit, we must understand what contraception users and healthcare professionals (HCPs) think about LARCs and uncover barriers to their use.

METHODS

A systematic search using CINAHL, MEDLINE via Ovid, PsycINFO, Web of Science and EMBASE identified research about LARC use for pregnancy prevention in primary care. The approach adhered to the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' methodology, critically appraised the literature, and used NVivo software to organise data and perform thematic analysis to determine key themes.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies met our inclusion criteria. Three themes were identified: (1) trustworthiness (where and from whom participants obtained information regarding LARCs), (2) control (whether LARCs detract from personal autonomy) and (3) systems (how HCPs influenced LARC access). Misgivings about LARCs frequently arose from social networks and fears of surrendering control over fertility were prominent. HCPs perceived access issues and lack of familiarity or training as the main barriers to prescribing LARCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care plays a key role in improving access to LARC but barriers need to be addressed especially those involving misconception and misinformation. Access to LARC removal services are key to empower choice and prevent coercion. Facilitating trust within patient-centred contraceptive consult is essential.

Decision aids to assist patients and professionals in choosing the right treatment for kidney failure

Background

Kidney services vary in the way they involve people with kidney failure (PwKF) in treatment decisions as management needs change. We discuss how decision-science applications support proactively PwKF to make informed decisions between treatment options with kidney professionals.

Methods

A conceptual review of findings about decision making and use of decision aids in kidney services, synthesized with reference to: the Making Informed Decisions-Individually and Together (MIND-IT) multiple stakeholder decision makers framework; and the Medical Research Council-Complex Intervention Development and Evaluation research framework.

Results

This schema represents the different types of decision aids that support PwKF and professional reasoning as they manage kidney disease individually and together; adjustments at micro, meso and macro levels supports integration in practice.

Conclusion

Innovating services to meet clinical guidelines on enhancing shared decision making processes means enabling all stakeholders to use decision aids to meet their goals within kidney pathways at individual, service and organizational levels.

Communication and shared decision-making after stillbirth: Results of the ShaDeS study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is included in guidelines for bereavement care after a stillbirth, as it can improve women's long-term health and wellbeing. SDM within the stillbirth context is still not common, and Italy does not yet have standardised guidelines.

AIM

The ShaDeS (Shared Decision-Making in Stillbirth) study aims to investigate how Italian women with a stillbirth perceive their own centrality in decision-making processes around bereavement care and how this might impact satisfaction of care.

METHODS

The ShaDeS study is a cross-sectional study based on a web survey consisted of four sections: sociodemographic information and medical history, communication of bad news and bereavement care, decisions about childbirth (SDM-Q-9, SHARED, and DCS), and decisions and communication about autopsy (CPS).

FINDINGS

187 women answered the survey. For the 41.1% of women that did not have an emergency childbirth, the SDM-Q-9 median score was 66.6 (0-100 range), and the SHARED median score was 3.5 (1-5 range). 29.4% of participants reached the proposed cutoff of 37.5 in the DCS (0-100 range) suggesting a difficulty in reaching decisions. Satisfaction scores were lower for those with such difficulties (p < 0.0001). Of the 64.5% of women that discussed autopsy, 28.3% were involved in an SDM approach, despite this being associated with higher levels of satisfaction of care (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

An SDM approach is only moderately widespread amongst our participants, despite it being significantly related to higher levels of satisfaction. Further studies should investigate the tools that both patients and healthcare professionals need for an SDM approach.

Randomized Trial of the Choosing Wisely Consumer Questions and a Shared Decision-Making Video Intervention on Decision-Making Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions.

METHODS

We evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM.

RESULTS

A total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P < 0.001, d = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ANZCTR376477.

HIGHLIGHTS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.

Do health service waiting areas contribute to the health literacy of consumers? A scoping review

Health service waiting areas commonly provide health information, resources and supports for consumers; however, the effect on health literacy and related outcomes remains unclear. This scoping review of the literature aimed to explore the use of waiting areas as a place to contribute to the health literacy and related outcomes of consumers attending health appointments. Articles were included if they focussed on health literacy or health literacy responsiveness (concept) in outpatient or primary care health service waiting areas (context) for adult consumers (population) and were published after 2010. Ten bibliographic databases, one full-text archive, dissertation repositories and web sources were searched. The search yielded 5095 records. After duplicate removal, 3942 title/abstract records were screened and 360 full-text records assessed. Data were charted into a standardized data extraction tool. A total of 116 unique articles (published empirical and grey literature) were included. Most articles were set in primary and community care (49%) waiting areas. A diverse range of health topics and resource types were available, but results demonstrated they were not always used by consumers. Outcomes measured in intervention studies were health knowledge, intentions and other psychological factors, self-reported and observed behaviours, clinical outcomes and health service utilization. Intervention studies overall demonstrated positive trends in health literacy-related outcomes, although the benefit declined after 3-6 months. Research on using waiting areas for health literacy purposes is increasing globally. Future research investigating the needs of consumers to inform optimal intervention design is needed.

What does high value care for musculoskeletal conditions mean and how do you apply it in practice? A consensus statement from a research network of physiotherapists in New South Wales, Australia

OBJECTIVES

To develop a physiotherapist-led consensus statement on the definition and provision of high-value care for people with musculoskeletal conditions.

DESIGN

We performed a three-stage study using Research And Development/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method methodology. We reviewed evidence about current definitions through a rapid literature review and then performed a survey and interviews with network members to gather consensus. Consensus was finalised in a face-to-face meeting.

SETTING

Australian primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Registered physiotherapists who are members of a practice-based research network (n=31).

RESULTS

The rapid review revealed two definitions, four domains of high value care and seven themes of high-quality care. Online survey responses (n=26) and interviews (n=9) generated two additional high-quality care themes, a definition of low-value care, and 21 statements on the application of high value care. Consensus was reached for three working definitions (high value, high-quality and low value care), a final model of four high value care domains (high-quality care, patient values, cost-effectiveness, reducing waste), nine high-quality care themes and 15 statements on application.

CONCLUSION

High value care for musculoskeletal conditions delivers most value for the patient, and the clinical benefits outweigh the costs to the individual or system providing the care. High-quality care is evidence based, effective and safe care that is patient-centred, consistent, accountable, timely, equitable and allows easy interaction with healthcare providers and healthcare systems.

Assessing the impact of patient-involvement healthcare strategies on patients, providers, and the healthcare system: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient involvement has become an important and lively field of research, yet existing findings are fragmented and often contested. Without a synthesis of the research field, these findings are of limited use to scholars, healthcare providers, or policy-makers.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the body of knowledge on patient involvement to determine what is known, contested, and unknown about benefits, risks, and effective implementation strategies.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

Patients were not involved.

METHODS

Systematic literature review of 99 journal articles using a conceptual model integrating three levels: health systems, health providers, and patients. We extracted individual research findings and organized them into the structure of our model to provide a holistic picture of patient involvement.

RESULTS

The review highlights overlaps and conflicts between various patient involvement approaches. Our results show benefits for individual patients and the health system as a whole. At the provider level, however, we identified clear barriers to patient involvement.

DISCUSSION

Patient involvement requires collaboration among health systems, healthcare providers, and patients. We showed that increasing patient responsibility and health literacy requires policy-maker interventions. This includes incentives for patient education by providers, adapting medical education curricula, and building a database of reliable health information and decision support for patients. Furthermore, policies supporting a common infrastructure for digital health data and managed patient data exchange will foster provider collaboration.

PRACTICAL VALUE

Our review shows how an approach integrating health systems, healthcare providers, and patients can make patient involvement more effective than isolated interventions. Such systematic patient involvement is likely to improve population health literacy and healthcare quality.

Trends and differences in perceptions of patient-centered communication among adults in the US

OBJECTIVE

Patient-centered communication (PCC) is a key indicator of healthcare quality and is critical to patient-centered care. The purpose of this study is to examine the trends in PCC over the past decade and determine if differences in PCC by subpopulation remain METHODS: We used nationally representative survey data from the Health Information National Trends Study (HINTS) to examine PCC. We conducted trend and multivariate regression analyses to understand the changes of PCC scores and differences in PCC by key sociodemographic groups.

RESULTS

PCC reported among adults minimally increased with the largest increases in participants involved in making decisions regarding their healthcare. Participants who were non-Hispanic Black, older, had less than a high school education, or rural residents reported more positive perceptions of PCC CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate improvements to PCC over time. These findings also indicate that differences in patients' perceptions of PCC continue to persist and it's possible that personal expectations may influence a person's perception of the quality of PCC experienced PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study highlights the continued need for provider education in patient emotional support and providing patients with the skills and resources to engage in high quality PCC.

Comprehensive Implementation of Shared Decision Making in a Neuromedical Center Using the SHARE TO CARE Program

PURPOSE

SHARE TO CARE (S2C) is a comprehensive, multi-module implementation program for shared decision making (SDM). It is currently applied at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany, and among general practitioners at the Federal State of Bremen. This study examines the results of the full implementation of S2C in terms of effectiveness within the Kiel Neuromedical Center comprising the departments of neurology and neurosurgery.

METHOD AND DESIGN

The S2C program consists of four combined intervention modules: 1) multimodal training of physicians; 2) a patient activation campaign including the ASK-3 method; 3) digital evidence-based patient decision aids; and 4) SDM support by nurses, e.g., as decision coaches. The SDM level before and immediately after implementation was retrospectively assessed in consecutively selected patients on the subscale "Patient Decision Making" of the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS_PDM). Mean scores were compared with t-tests.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine percent of all physicians (N = 56) completed the SDM training. We developed a total of 12 evidence-based digital decision aids in the center, educated two decision coaches to support patients' decision processes by using decision aids. Physicians adjusted patients' pathways to incorporate the use of decision aids. Patients (n = 261) reported a significant increase in participation (p<0.001; Hedges' g = 0.49) in medical decision making.

CONCLUSION

The S2C program has been successfully implemented within the entire Neuromedical Center. Patients reported a medium to small increase of perceived involvement in decision making demonstrating the effectiveness of the implementation. For future research, it might be interesting to investigate the sustainability of the effects of S2C. In addition, it seems useful to complement the patient-based evaluation with observer-based data.

Patient prompts in surgical consultations: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Quality communication has been found to improve patient outcomes. Despite good communication, information may still be forgotten or misunderstood by patients. A question prompt list is a document to help patients ask questions. Question prompt lists are well perceived by various stakeholders and have been found of benefit to patients. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of patient question prompting documents in surgical outpatient consultations.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO were searched on September 13, 2021. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate. We included English studies that investigated the use of question prompt lists and their influence on patient outcomes. We excluded studies that did not have a comparator group. Because of heterogeneity of outcome measures, meta-analysis was precluded. This study was registered with PROSPERO (identification number: CRD42021279058).

RESULTS

Searches identified 107 suitable studies; however, only 7 studies met eligibility criteria. All included studies were randomized controlled trials, but the designs of studies were heterogenous. Three out of 7 included studies were at a high risk of bias. The included studies investigated different outcomes that could be broadly categorized into 5 themes: consultation characteristics, patient engagement, patient well-being, information exchange, and patient satisfaction. None of the studies looked at patient recall of information. Aside from length of consultation, the overall results for each category were mixed.

CONCLUSION

Current literature has suggested that question prompt lists are a low-risk intervention that could improve patient engagement and patient-doctor communication; however, there is limited evidence at present to conclusively promote their usage in perioperative surgical consultations.

Sustainability of large-scale implementation of shared decision making with the SHARE TO CARE program

Introduction

SHARE TO CARE (S2C) is a comprehensive implementation program for shared decision making (SDM). It is run at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH) in Kiel, Germany, and consists of four combined intervention modules addressing healthcare professionals and patients: (1) multimodal training of physicians (2) patient activation campaign including the ASK3 method, (3) online evidence-based patient decision aids (4) SDM support by nurses. This study examines the sustainability of the hospital wide SDM implementation by means of the Neuromedical Center comprising the Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery.

Methods

Between 2018 and 2020, the S2C program was applied initially within the Neuromedical Center: We implemented the patient activation campaign, trained 89% of physicians (N = 56), developed 12 patient decision aids and educated two decision coaches. Physicians adjusted the patients' pathways to facilitate the use of decision aids. To maintain the initial implementation, the departments took care that new staff members received training and decision aids were updated. The patient activation campaign was continued. To determine the sustainability of the initial intervention, the SDM level after a maintenance phase of 6-18 months was compared to the baseline level before implementation. Therefore, in- and outpatients received a questionnaire via mail after discharge. The primary endpoint was the "Patient Decision Making" subscale of the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS_PDM). Secondary endpoints were an additional scale measuring SDM (CollaboRATE), and the PrepDM scale, which determines patients' perceived health literacy while preparing for decision making. Mean scale scores were compared using t-tests.

Results

Patients reported a significantly increased SDM level (PICS_PDM p = 0.02; Hedges' g = 0.33; CollaboRATE p = 0.05; Hedges' g = 0.26) and improved preparation for decision making (PrepDM p = 0.001; Hedges' g = 0.34) 6-18 months after initial implementation of S2C.

Discussion

The S2C program demonstrated its sustainability within the Neuromedical Center at UKSH Kiel in terms of increased SDM and health literacy. Maintaining the SDM implementation required a fraction of the initial intensity. The departments took on the responsibility for maintenance. Meanwhile, an additional health insurance-based reimbursement for S2C secures the continued application of the program.

Conclusion

SHARE TO CARE promises to be suitable for long-lasting implementation of SDM in hospitals.

Shared decision-making in patients with multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic and progressive neurological disorder impacting physical, cognitive, and psychosocial health. The disease course, severity, and presence of symptoms differ within and between persons over time and are unpredictable. Given the preference-sensitive nature of many key decisions to be made, and the increasing numbers of disease-modifying therapies, shared decision-making (SDM) with patients seems to be key in offering optimum care and outcomes for people suffering from MS. In this paper, we describe our perspective on how to achieve SDM in patients with MS, following key SDM-elements from established SDM-frameworks. As for deliberation in the clinical encounter, SDM communication training of professionals and feedback on their current performance are key aspects, as well as encouraging patients to participate. Concerning information for patients, it is important to provide balanced, evidence-based information about the benefits and the harms of different treatment options, including the option of surveillance only. At the same time, attention is needed for the optimal dosage of that information, given the symptoms of cognitive dysfunction and fatigue among MS-patients, and the uncertainties they have to cope with. Finally, for broader communication, a system is required that assures patient preferences are actually implemented by multidisciplinary MS-teams. As SDM is also being implemented in many countries within the context of value-based health care, we consider the systematic use of outcome information, such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient Decision Aids, as an opportunity to achieve SDM.

Quantitative interpretation of utterances and movements from videoed interactions between rheumatology nurses and patients commencing methotrexate: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Educating patients about methotrexate is a core role of rheumatology nurses. We have previously reported the scoring of videoed interviews of rheumatology nurses educating patients prior to commencing methotrexate in comparison with the Calgary-Cambridge consultation model, and the qualitative analysis of the transcripts (Robinson et al. Musculoskeletal Care 2021). We were interested to investigate what could be learned from a more quantitative analysis of utterances and movements in these consultations and how they related to the qualitative interpretations.

AIM

To investigate the frequency of utterances and body movements during interactions between rheumatology nurses and patients commencing methotrexate and to relate these to the qualitative interpretations of the interviews.

METHODS

Video-recordings of ten patients receiving methotrexate education from four different rheumatology nurses were available from the previous study. They were analysed using the Medical Interaction Process System (MIPS). This involved coding all utterances and body movements minute-by-minute by multiple inspections of the recordings. The first 10 min of each consultation was coded. The utterances and movements of the nurses and patients were compared. The thematic analysis based on the structure and content of the Calgary-Cambridge (C-C) consultation model was available from the previous study. This enabled the results from the MIPS to be compared between the interviews that scored higher on the C-C model and those scoring lower.

RESULTS

The inter-rater reliability between 2 raters for one video was satisfactory (80-100% agreement). Numerically, giving information dominated the nurse contribution and assent by positive utterances and head nodding dominated for the patients. The results were consistent with the nurse agenda dominating the interaction with little opportunity for patient involvement. Nurses in high-scoring interviews made more illustrative gestures and fewer batonic movements while patients did the opposite. Nurses in high-scoring consultations asked more open questions, with more checking of understanding and summarising but fewer interruptions. Patients in low-scoring consultations were much more animated with head movements and illustrative gestures. Patients also checked and interrupted more.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study, the MIPS was usable and demonstrated verbal and non-verbal behaviours consistent with the qualitative assessments. It also showed some behaviours that are not intuitive but may indicate how effectively the interview was progressing. Some nurse behaviours identified that were associated with the higher scoring interviews may be useful indictors for training including making illustrative rather than batonic gestures and checking understanding. Patient behaviours, such as greater animation, were exhibited in low-scoring consultations, and could indicate that the interview was not addressing the patient perspective. Quantification of utterances and movements can be done and may give insights into the consultation process.

Unacceptable pain in oncology: The patients' perspective on reasons for absence of pain interventions

Objective

Around 40% of oncology patients receive inadequate pain treatment. A previous study reported pain interventions for only 70% of patients who reported unacceptable pain at the self‐service registration desk. The aim of this study is to gain insight in reasons for the absence of pain intervention among oncology patients who reported unacceptable pain.

Methods

In this mixed methods study, 20 patients visiting the oncology outpatient clinic were selected via patient record assessment and interviewed about their perceived reasons for absence of pain intervention.

Results

The reasons mentioned by the patients for absence of pain intervention included reluctance of the patient to discuss pain, no treatment preferred by the patient, focus of the physician on treatment of the disease, pain treatment difficult or impossible, and the perception that pain is an inevitable consequence of the cancer treatment. Almost 50% of the patients considered the physician responsible for the absence of pain intervention.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a variety of reasons for absence of pain intervention are reported by patients, including patient‐related and health professional‐related reasons. Improvements can be made by promoting regular discussion of pain during hospital visits and empowerment of patients.

Implementing shared decision-making in Australia

Person-centred care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) are part of national clinical standards for an increasing number of areas of health care delivery. In addition to existing standards for accrediting hospitals, day surgery facilities, public dental services and medical education in Australia, new standards governing primary health care and digital mental health services have been added. Implementation and measurement of PCC and SDM to comply with standards, and training of health professionals, remain challenges for the Australian health sector. Consumer involvement in health research, policy and clinical service governance continues to increase and the National Health and Medical Research Council has begun to encourage consumer and community involvement in health and medical research. This increased consumer engagement and moves towards more PCC provision is reflected in a focus on encouraging patients to ask questions during their clinical care and supports improvements in consumer health literacy. SDM support tools are now being culturally adapted whilst a need for more systemic approaches to their development and implementation persists. With increasing resources and tools for all aspects of PCC and SDM challenges to find sustainable solutions to ensure tools are kept up to date with the best available evidence remain.

Question prompt lists and endorsement of question-asking support patients to get the information they seek-A longitudinal qualitative study

Introduction

Question prompt lists (QPLs) have been found to support patients to ask questions and improve the information they receive from doctors. However, some QPL tools, which have been available online for almost 15 years, have little published data on their impact in real‐world settings. This study's aim was to understand patients' attitudes and experiences accessing health information and to assess the impact of introducing two generic QPLs over 3 months.

Methods

A longitudinal qualitative study consisting of three semi‐structured interviews over a three‐month period was conducted with 31 purposively selected participants, adults ≥18 years, recruited online and through social media. Participants were introduced to two different QPLs currently available online (‘Question Builder’; ‘AskShareKnow’). Inductive thematic analysis of a total of 92 semi‐structured telephone interviews was conducted during May–November 2020.

Results

Three main themes are described. (1) Participants described barriers and facilitators to accessing health information: navigating a complex health system; difficulty asking questions of their healthcare professionals and that they value doctors with good communication skills. (2) QPLs helped some participants recognize the role of question‐asking in consultations, made them feel more empowered and helped them prepare and prioritize. (3) Participants wanted QPLs to be easier to use, be accessible when needed and that question‐asking and QPLs should be normalized in medical consultations.

Conclusions

Well‐designed and easily accessible QPLs can empower people to ask questions and be more involved in decisions about their health care. Endorsement of question‐asking in consultations by healthcare professionals and providing QPL tools at the point of contact with health services will be key to realizing the potential of QPLs.

Patient or Public Contribution

This study was completed in conjunction with a reference group consisting of a consumer representative, representatives from the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Healthdirect Australia Ltd., and the research team.

Shared Decision-Making and Short-Course Radiotherapy for Operable Rectal Adenocarcinoma: A Patient's Right to Choose

BACKGROUND

As new treatment options for colorectal cancer (CRC) emerge, physicians and WOC nurses must be prepared to assist patients to choose care that meets their needs and preferences. A patient with T2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma was offered the US current standard of practice; he was not offered alternative treatment options. This case study emphasizes the need to ensure patients are offered all reasonable options for treatment. Shared decision-making is a process that helps patients actively participate in their heath choices rather than exclusively relying on the judgment of a health care provider.

CASE

Mr J was a 70-year-old man with operable CRC who sought care at a health care facility in his community. He was offered a single option, based on standard of care for this tumor stage: long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and additional chemotherapy. After seeking a second opinion at a cancer care center in another state, Mr J chose to undergo a viable alternative treatment option (short-course radiotherapy, followed by surgery, with chemotherapy contingent on his nodal status post-surgery). No nodal involvement was found post- surgery (T2N0M0) enabling him to avoid postoperative chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This case illustrates the need for all health care providers and carers to regularly engage in shared decision-making when choosing among treatment options. In this case, short-course radiotherapy offered Mr J a shorter duration of treatment and avoided the risk for adverse side effects associated with chemotherapy, resulting in improved health-related quality of life. Initial omission to disclose all treatment options to Mr J may have reflected the preferences of the surgeon, institutional financial pressures, or discomfort with shared decision-making, but it failed to provide him with full range of options, given his diagnosis and tumor stage. All members of the patient's care team, including the WOC nurse, play a pivotal role in ensuring transparency in medical care, including advocating for shared decision-making where patients are made aware of all viable treatments, followed by supporting the patient as they reach a decision.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Assessing Existing Food Safety Resources with United Kingdom-Based Chemotherapy Patients and Family Caregivers for Future Learning Purposes

ABSTRACT

Because the incidence of foodborne infection is more prevalent among cancer patients and the domestic kitchen is a contributor to foodborne infection, appropriate domestic food safety practices are needed to safeguard this at-risk population. Although patients are aware of the increased risk of infection, previous self-reported data indicate potential food safety malpractices among patients and family caregivers, thus suggesting the need for targeted food safety information. However, existing United Kingdom resources provide inconsistent and insufficient food safety information. Involvement of intended end users in the cocreation of interventions increases potential effectiveness. Qualitative data were collated from in-depth interviews and a focus group with United Kingdom chemotherapy patients and family caregivers (n = 35) to determine perceptions and preferences for food safety information by evaluating existing food safety resources from international providers (n = 12). Although participants liked digital interventions (e.g., Web sites and videos), traditional paper-based leaflets were perceived as the most beneficial because they could be referred to on repeated occasions. Despite the drawbacks associated with some resources, combining approaches in a multiresource intervention was favored by patients and family caregivers. Ensuring patients are not overwhelmed with excessive information was important. Short, logical, engaging, educational, and entertaining information to evoke an interest in the topic was preferred. Utilization of graphics to supplement descriptive information may enhance comprehensibility. Interventions need to be appropriate for patients and caregivers, and delivery by trusted health care professionals may enhance the credibility of the message. Preferred approaches to facilitate targeted food safety communication were identified, and these findings can be utilized to cocreate targeted food safety interventions for chemotherapy patients and family caregivers.

HIGHLIGHTS

Effect of a waiting room communication strategy on imaging rates and awareness of public health messages for low back pain

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated the effects of waiting room communication strategies on health-care behavior.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the effect of a waiting room communication strategy, designed to raise awareness of potential harms of unnecessary imaging, on lumbar imaging rates in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We conducted a controlled experimental study with a replicated time series design. The design included a 6-week run-in time. Following this there were alternating 1-week intervention and control periods. The intervention group received a communication strategy describing the potential harms of unnecessary imaging for low back pain, shown on a 55" LCD screen positioned in the ED waiting room. The communication strategy was designed by a creative innovation agency and included five digital posters and a patient leaflet. The control group received standard messaging for the waiting room at the time, shown on the same 55" LCD screen, and access to the patient leaflet. The primary outcome was the number and proportion of people presenting to ED with low back pain who received at least one lumbar imaging test, measured using routinely collected ED data. Secondary patient-reported outcomes (patient satisfaction and awareness of campaign messages) were collected from a sample of people presenting for any condition who responded to a text-message-based survey.

RESULTS

For the imaging outcome, 337 people presenting to ED with low back pain were included over a 4-month period (intervention n = 99; control n = 238). All had available data on lumbar imaging. Use of lumbar imaging was 25% in those exposed to the communication strategy [95% confidence interval (CI) = 18% to 35%] compared with 29% in those exposed to the standard waiting room messaging [95% CI = 23% to 35%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.49 to 1.41]. For the patient-reported outcomes, 349 patients presenting to ED for any condition responded to the survey (intervention n = 170; control n = 179; response rate = 33%). There was uncertain evidence that the intervention increased awareness of the communication strategy leaflet (OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 0.90 to 4.47). Other measures did not suggest between-group differences in patient satisfaction or awareness of the campaign messages.

CONCLUSION

A communication strategy displayed in the ED waiting room may slightly reduce the proportion of patients with low back pain who receive lumbar imaging, although there is uncertainty due to imprecision. The campaign did not appear to increase awareness of campaign messages or affect patient satisfaction in a sample of patients presenting to the ED for any reason. Larger studies should investigate whether simple, low-cost waiting room communication strategies can raise awareness of unnecessary healthcare and influence health-care quality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12620000300976, 05/03/2020.

Engaging Patients to Ask More Questions: What's the Best Way? A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Hand conditions are common, and often require a discussion of the tradeoffs of different treatment options. Our goal was to evaluate whether providing patients with a Question Prompt List (QPL) for common hand conditions improves their perceived involvement in care compared with providing patients with 3 generic questions.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, single-center, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. We created a QPL pamphlet for patients with common hand conditions. New patients with common hand conditions were enrolled between April 2019 and July 2019 and were randomized into either the QPL group (with 35 hand-specific questions) or the AskShareKnow group (3 generic questions: [1] What are my options? [2] What are the possible benefits and harms of those options? [3] How likely are each of these benefit and harms to happen to me?). Both groups received the questions prior to meeting with their surgeon. We used the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS), a validated instrument designed to evaluate patient participation in decision-making, as our primary outcome. The maximum PICS score is 13, and a higher score indicates higher perceived involvement.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-six patients participated in the study, with 63 patients in the QPL group and 63 patients in the AskShareKnow group. The demographic characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The mean AskShareKnow group PICS score was 8.3 ± 2.2 and the mean QPL PICS score was 7.5 ± 2.8, which was not deemed clinically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The QPLs do not increase perceived involvement in care in patients with hand conditions compared with providing patients with 3 generic questions.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Various approaches have been evaluated to help improve patient involvement in their care. In hand surgery, 3 generic questions were no different than a lengthy QPL with respect to patient involvement in their care.

Doctors' Attitudes to Patient Question Asking, Patient-Generated Question Lists, and Question Prompt Lists: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Participation by patients in their own health care improves quality and safety. Question prompt lists (QPLs) can improve participation, particularly with doctors' endorsement. Few data have explored doctors' attitudes on these tools. We sought the experiences and attitudes of general practitioners and other specialists toward patient question asking and QPLs in their practice.

METHODS

In-depth, semistructured interviews and focus groups with purposively selected Australian doctors were conducted. Interview guides were used to explore doctors' experiences of patient question asking, patients' lists, and a sample QPL created using an Australian government-funded online tool, "Question Builder." Recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analyzed thematically using the method by Braun and Clarke.

RESULTS

Focus groups with 3 to 9 participants and a further 17 individual interviews were conducted. There was a total of 40 participants, 23 general practitioners and 17 other specialists (e.g., physicians, surgeons, pediatricians). Our analysis was summarized into several themes. 1) The doctors expected, encouraged, and had significant experience of patient question asking and patients' lists. They described many barriers for patients and their efforts to ensure patients had the information they needed. 2) The doctors felt responsible for creating an environment conducive to patient question asking, the delivery of answers, having strategies for unanswered questions, and balancing the agendas of both parties in the consultation. 3) Structured QPLs that prepared patients and facilitated the consultation agenda were viewed positively. The degree of time pressures participating doctors experienced in their context had a strong influence on how they responded to the sample QPL.

CONCLUSION

Doctors in this study expected patients to ask questions and endorsed the benefits of QPLs. However, there were more diverse views about the feasibility of implementing them in practice. Designing QPLs to fit within current workflows, via more succinct and tailored designs, may result in wider doctor acceptance and endorsement, hence maximizing the benefits of QPLs with improved patient participation and patient safety.

Shared decision making in pediatric dermatology: context, opportunities, and practical examples

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Shared decision making (SDM) is an important part of patient-centered care. However, it is neither widely practiced nor researched in pediatric dermatology. In this article, we provide practical examples of how to engage in SDM in pediatric dermatology, and identify future areas of research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Children and parents/guardians desire SDM in clinical encounters. The process is applicable to discussions of medical as well as surgical care. Additionally, SDM can help prepare children for the transition from pediatric to adult/general providers. Clinicians often want more guidance on its implementation, and there is a dearth of research on SDM or decision tools specific to pediatric dermatology.

SUMMARY

SDM is underused and understudied in pediatric dermatology. This article highlights how to engage in SDM and presents opportunities for research and implementation in pediatric dermatology.

Does a Question Prompt List Improve Perceived Involvement in Care in Orthopaedic Surgery Compared with the AskShareKnow Questions? A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Most conditions in orthopaedic surgery are preference-sensitive, where treatment choices are based on the patient's values and preferences. One set of tools increasingly used to help align treatment choices with patient preferences are question prompt lists (QPLs), which are comprehensive lists of potential questions that patients can ask their physicians during their encounters. Whether or not a comprehensive orthopaedic-specific question prompt list would increase patient-perceived involvement in care more effectively than might three generic questions (the AskShareKnow questions) remains unknown; learning the answer would be useful, since a three-question list is easier to use compared with the much lengthier QPLs.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

Does an orthopaedic-specific question prompt list increase patient-perceived involvement in care compared with the three generic AskShareKnow questions?

METHODS

We performed a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of all new patients visiting a multispecialty orthopaedic clinic. A pragmatic design was used to mimic normal clinical care that compared two clinically acceptable interventions. New patients with common orthopaedic conditions were enrolled between August 2019 and November 2019 and were randomized to receive either the intervention QPL handout (orthopaedic-specific QPL with 45 total questions, developed with similar content and length to prior QPLs used in hand surgery, oncology, and palliative care) or a control handout (the AskShareKnow model questions, which are: "What are my options? What are the benefits and harms of those options? How likely are each of those benefits and harms to happen to me?") before their visits. A total of 156 patients were enrolled, with 78 in each group. There were no demographic differences between the study and control groups in terms of key variables. After the visit, patients completed the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS), a validated instrument designed to evaluate patient-perceived involvement in their care, which served as the primary outcome measure. This instrument is scored from 0 to 13, with higher scores indicating higher perceived involvement.

RESULTS

There was no difference in mean PICS scores between the intervention and control groups (QPL 8.3 ± 2.3, control 8.5 ± 2.3, mean difference 0.2 [95% CI -0.53 to 0.93 ]; p = 0.71.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery, a QPL does not increase patient-perceived involvement in care compared with providing patients the three AskShareKnow questions. Implementation of the three AskShareKnow questions can be a more efficient way to improve patient-perceived involvement in their care compared with a lengthy QPL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

Evaluation of the "3 Good Questions" program for shared decision-making in pediatric medicine: a feasibility study

The "3 Good Questions" program was developed to increase shared decision making. The current pilot-study determined the feasibility of these questions to increase shared decision-making in Dutch pediatric medicine. Pre-/postintervention surveys were used to include children (10-18 years) at pediatric outpatient clinics of four hospitals in the Netherlands. After their appointment, two different groups of children completed the questionnaires. Group 1 filled in the survey before the intervention; group 2 completed the survey after active implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program. The primary outcome was to determine the feasibility (reach, applicability). Secondary outcomes were related to patient involvement in healthcare and treatment decisions and decision-making process between child and healthcare professional. In total, 168 and 114 children in groups 1 and 2 (61 vs 63% female, P = 0.68; age 13.3 ± 2.4 vs 13.8 ± 2.4 years, P = 0.72), respectively, completed the questionnaire. In group 2, 44% of children were aware of the "3 Good Questions", of whom 18% posed ≥ 1 of the "3 Good Questions" during their appointment (feasibility). The "3 Good Questions" program led to more shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9: P = < 0.001;95%CI: - 2.43 to - 1.17). The majority of children who have read or heard of the "3 Good Questions" would recommend this program to other children.Conclusion: Implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program seemed feasible, although it is necessary to further explore the implementation of this program at national level as a simple way for children and healthcare professionals to share decisions in practice. What is known • Children have the right to be included in decision-making, and inclusion can improve patient satisfaction and quality of care, and reduce costs. • The "3 Good Questions" program was successfully implemented in adult healthcare to increase shared decision making, and therefore these "3 Good Questions" have been adapted to a child version. What is new • In this pilot study, we found that the implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program to increase shared decision-making in pediatric medicine seemed feasible. Although it is necessary to further explore the implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program at national level as a simple way for children and healthcare professionals to share decisions in practice.

Shared Decision Making With Young People at Ultra High Risk of Psychotic Disorder

Introduction: While the majority of young people who meet the criteria for being considered at increased risk of psychosis do not go on to develop a psychotic disorder, young people are currently being identified and treated in early intervention services. Ethical concerns have been raised concerning the decision about whether or not to provide treatment, and if so, what type of treatment. This study sought to support young people themselves to make these decisions with support from their clinician through a shared decision-making approach, facilitated by an online decision aid. Methods: This project used the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) to guide the development and piloting of an online decision aid across two phases: (1) qualitative, semi-structured focus groups with young people who were past clients and clinicians from an early psychosis service; and (2) pilot testing of the decision aid with clinicians and young people who were current clients to finalize the development. Results: Issues discussed by clinicians in the focus group were grouped into three main areas: (1) engagement phase; (2) assessment and priorities for treatment; and (3) initial and ongoing decision making. Clients focused on the context in which the decisions were made, including as they experienced initial feelings of resistance, and then acceptance of efforts made to describe and treat their mental health challenges. Clients highlighted the need for collaboration between themselves and their clinician, and the need to be equipped with the knowledge and tools to take care of themselves. These focus group data were used to refine the online decision aid. Pilot testing revealed that while it was overall useful and relevant, important limitations were noted by both clients and clinicians. Discussion: The use of a decision aid to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) in this area is feasible and has utility for both clients and clinicians. Use of such a tool can help to address the need to uphold the rights of young people as decision makers about their own care. Future efforts should embed decision aids within complex SDM interventions, and research to understand issues relating to implementation of these interventions.

Shared Decision Making in Endodontics

Engaging patients in shared decision making (SDM) is a professional requirement since the Montgomery ruling in 2015. Endodontic treatments present a specific challenge to achieving SDM, both for the clinician and the patient. The treatments are often perceived as more challenging to complete by the clinician, and the assessment of risk and likely outcome requires a deep understanding of the (limited) evidence base. For the patient, decisions can be required at a time of acute symptoms and prolonged treatments. There are health literacy demands in comparison to some less complex dental treatments. Treatment decisions may be based more on inherent biases and prior experiences than objective probabilities. This article discusses options and supports effective shared decision making in endodontic treatment.

Patients' perceptions on shared decision making during prescription of subcutaneous biological drug treatments for inflammatory arthritis: The RHEU-LIFE survey

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore the preferences of patients with rheumatic diseases and their perceived experience regarding participation in shared decision making (SDM) when they were prescribed a subcutaneous (SC) biological drug.

METHODS

A printed survey was handed to 1,000 patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases treated with SC biological drug. The survey included closed questions about preferences regarding decision making and about patients' experience when they were prescribed an SC biological drug. Descriptive statistics were performed with stratification by patient profiles, using chi-square for comparisons between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 592 surveys were received (response rate 59.2%, mean age 51.7 years, 57.6% women). Some 28.2% of patients reported preferring to take part in treatment selection, a percentage that was higher in younger patients, in those with higher academic degree and in those who search information in sources different to that of health care professionals. Over half of patients (56.3%) perceived that the rheumatologist considered their opinion when prescribing an SC biological drug, a percentage higher in younger people. Only in 40.8% of cases did the patients' preference match their perception of their participation in the process. No differences were observed by sex, disease or number of biologics.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases want information about their treatments but mostly leave the prescription decision to the rheumatologist. Younger people, or those with higher academic degree, more often want to participate in the SDM. There are discrepancies between patient preferences and perceptions of this process.

Making shared decision-making (SDM) a reality: protocol of a large-scale long-term SDM implementation programme at a Northern German University Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) is not yet widely used when making decisions in German hospitals. Making SDM a reality is a complex task. It involves training healthcare professionals in SDM communication and enabling patients to actively participate in communication, in addition to providing sound, easy to understand information on treatment alternatives in the form of evidence-based patient decision aids (EbPDAs). This project funded by the German Innovation Fund aims at designing, implementing and evaluating a multicomponent, large-scale and integrative SDM programme-called SHARE TO CARE (S2C)-at all clinical departments of a University Hospital Campus in Northern Germany within a 4-year time period.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

S2C tackles the aforementioned components of SDM: (1) training physicians in SDM communication, (2) activating and empowering patients, (3) developing EbPDAs in the most common/relevant diseases and (4) training other healthcare professionals in SDM coaching. S2C is designed together with patients and providers. The physicians' training programme entails an online and an in situ training module. The decision coach training is based on a similar but less comprehensive approach. The development of online EbPDAs follows the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and includes written, graphical and video-based information. Validated outcomes of SDM implementation are measured in a preintervention and postintervention evaluation design. Process evaluation accompanies programme implementation. Health economic impact of the intervention is investigated using a propensity-score-matched approach based on potentially preference-sensitive hospital decisions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics committee review approval has been obtained from Medical Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel. Project information and results will be disseminated at conferences, on project-hosted websites at University Hospital Medical Center Schleswig Holstein and by S2C as well as in peer-reviewed and professional journals.

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of Ask 3 Questions - a simple and generic intervention to foster patient empowerment

BACKGROUND

Patients are often not actively engaged in medical encounters. Short interventions like Ask 3 Questions (Ask3Q) can increase patient participation in decision-making. Up to now, Ask3Q was not available in German.

OBJECTIVE

To translate Ask3Q and evaluate its acceptability and feasibility.

METHODS

We translated and adapted several English versions of Ask3Q using a team translation protocol and cognitive interviews. Acceptability and feasibility of the final German Ask3Q version were assessed via focus groups and interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Data were analysed via qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Translation and adaptation were successful. Participants of focus groups and interviews perceived Ask3Q as a tool to empower patients to ask more questions. Moreover, it was seen as a guideline for physicians not to forget conveying important information. Several characteristics of patients, HCPs, the clinical setting and the intervention were identified as facilitators and barriers for an effective implementation of Ask3Q.

CONCLUSION

We provide the German version of Ask3Q. According to participants, implementation of Ask3Q in the German healthcare system is feasible. Future studies should evaluate if positive effects of Ask3Q can be replicated for patient participation and communication behaviour of HCPs in Germany.

Improving treatment decision-making in bipolar II disorder: a phase II randomised controlled trial of an online patient decision-aid

BACKGROUND

Many patients with bipolar II disorder (BPII) prefer to be more informed and involved in their treatment decision-making than they currently are. Limited knowledge and involvement in one's treatment is also likely to compromise optimal BPII management. This Phase II RCT aimed to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and safety of a world-first patient decision-aid website (e-DA) to improve treatment decision-making regarding options for relapse prevention in BPII. The e-DA's potential efficacy in terms of improving quality of the decision-making process and quality of the decision made was also explored.

METHODS

The e-DA was based on International Patient Decision-Aid Standards and developed via an iterative co-design process. Adults with BPII diagnosis (n = 352) were recruited through a specialist outpatient clinical service and the social media of leading mental health organisations. Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive standard information with/without the e-DA (Intervention versus Control). At baseline (T0), post-treatment decision (T1) and at 3 months' post-decision follow-up (T2), participants completed a series of validated and purpose-designed questionnaires. Self-report and analytics data assessed the acceptability (e.g., perceived ease-of-use, usefulness; completed by Intervention participants only), safety (i.e., self-reported bipolar and/or anxiety symptoms), and feasibility of using the e-DA (% accessed). For all participants, questionnaires assessed constructs related to quality of the decision-making process (e.g., decisional conflict) and quality of the decision made (e.g., knowledge of treatment options and outcomes).

RESULTS

Intervention participants endorsed the e-DA as acceptable and feasible to use (82.1-94.6% item agreement); most self-reported using the e-DA either selectively (51.8%; relevant sections only) or thoroughly (34%). Exploratory analyses indicated the e-DA's potential efficacy to improve decision-making quality; most between-group standardised mean differences (SMD) were small-to-moderate. The largest potential effects were detected for objective treatment knowledge (- 0.69, 95% CIs - 1.04, - 0.33 at T1; and - 0.57, 95% CIs - 0.99,-0.14 at T2), decisional regret at T2 (0.42, 95% CIs 0.01, 0.84), preparation for decision-making at T1 (- 0.44, 95% CIs - 0.81, - 0.07), and the Decisional Conflict Scale Uncertainty subscale (0.42, 95% CIs 0.08, 0.08) and Total (0.36, 95% CIs 0.30, 0.69) scores, with all SMDs favouring the Intervention over the Control conditions. Regarding safety, e-DA use was not associated with worse bipolar symptoms or anxiety.

CONCLUSION

The e-DA appears to be acceptable, feasible, safe and potentially efficacious at improving patients' decision-making about BPII treatment. Findings also support the future adoption of the e-DA into patient care for BPII to foster treatment decisions based on the best available evidence and patient preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000840381 (prospectively registered 07/06/2017).

Building ground for didactics in a patient decision aid for hip osteoarthritis. Exploring patient-related barriers and facilitators towards shared decision-making

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to explore patient-related barriers and facilitators towards shared decision-making (SDM) during routine orthopedic outpatient consultations as part of the process of developing a patient decision aid (PDA) for patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Consultations comprising nineteen hip OA patients referred to an orthopedic surgeon for treatment decision-making were observed, audio recorded and transcribed. Iterative thematic analysis proceeded, based on a taxonomy of generic patient-related barriers towards SDM grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).

RESULTS

A targeted taxonomy provided a structured overview of 26 factors influencing hip OA patients' intention to engage in SDM. Patients' perceived ability to change the agenda of the visit emerged as seminal factor and was added to the generic taxonomy.

CONCLUSION

Using a TPB-based taxonomy, we were able to identify and structure generic and context specific SDM barriers. Addressing patients' communication self-efficacy should be included as didactic feature in PDAs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PDAs for hip OA should be designed for the broad spectrum of decision-making support needs occurring throughout the continuum of the disease. The provided taxonomy may contribute as guidance within implementation strategies that aim to support patients' intentions to engage in SDM.

Exploring the Vast Choice of Question Prompt Lists Available to Health Consumers via Google: Environmental Scan

Background

There is increasing interest in shared decision making (SDM) in Australia. Question prompt lists (QPLs) support question asking by patients, a key part of SDM. QPLs have been studied in a variety of settings, and increasingly the internet provides a source of suggested questions for patients. Environmental scans have been shown to be useful in assessing the availability and quality of online SDM tools.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the number and readability of QPLs available to users via Google.com.au.

Methods

Our environmental scan used search terms derived from literature and reputable websites to search for QPLs available via Google.com.au. Following removal of duplicates from the 4000 URLs and 22 reputable sites, inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to create a list of unique QPLs. A sample of 20 QPLs was further assessed for list length, proxy measures of quality such as a date of review, and evidence of doctor endorsement. Readability of the sample QPL instructions and QPLs themselves was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores.

Results

Our environmental scan identified 173 unique QPLs available to users. Lists ranged in length from 1 question to >200 questions. Of our sample, 50% (10/20) had a listed date of creation or update, and 60% (12/20) had evidence of authorship or source. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores for instructions were higher than for the QPLs (grades 10.3 and 7.7, respectively). There was over a 1 grade difference between QPLs from reputable sites compared with other sites (grades 4.2 and 5.4, respectively).

Conclusions

People seeking questions to ask their doctor using Google.com.au encounter a vast number of question lists that they can use to prepare for consultations with their doctors. Markers of the quality or usefulness of various types of online QPLs, either surrogate or direct, have not yet been established, which makes it difficult to assess the value of the abundance of lists. Doctor endorsement of question asking has previously been shown to be an important factor in the effectiveness of QPLs, but information regarding this is not readily available online. Whether these diverse QPLs are endorsed by medical practitioners warrants further investigation.

What patients want to ask their doctors: Data analysis from Question Builder, an online question prompt list tool

OBJECTIVES

Question prompt lists (QPLs) are one strategy to increase patient participation in healthcare decisions but the extent to which consumers might access them in the 'real world' is largely unknown. This study measured usage of a passively-promoted, government-funded web-based patient-generated QPL tool, called Question Builder (Australia) (QB) hosted on healthdirect.gov.au, a consumer health information website.

METHODS

12.5months of post-launch Google Analytics data from QB were analysed. Two existing coding frameworks (RIAS and ACEPP) were used to code QB questions thematically and 107 user-generated lists were analysed further to determine the questions chosen and prioritised.

RESULTS

QB was accessed 8915 times, 4000 question lists were commenced and 1271 lists completed. Most lists were for general practice (GP) consultations (2444) rather than specialist consultations (1556). The most frequently chosen question was "Do I need any tests?". Shared decision-making questions (SDM) made up 40% of questions prioritised e.g. "Do I need any treatment and what are my treatment options?"

CONCLUSIONS

There is active use of this online QPL, with strong interest in creating lists for GP consultations. Question Builder users prioritised questions which facilitate SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

More research is required to assess the utilisation of QB in practice and health professionals' views of QB.

Interventions to support shared decision making for medication therapy in long term conditions: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

1) To examine the effectiveness of interventions to support shared decision making (SDM) for medication therapy in long term conditions on patient outcomes; 2) to identify characteristics of SDM interventions that are associated with positive patient outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic search for randomized controlled trials up to February 2019. A best evidence synthesis was performed. Intervention characteristics that are likely to be associated with positive patient outcomes were identified using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Twenty-five articles reporting 23 studies were included. Seventeen patient outcomes were assessed using a variety of measurement instruments. There was evidence for a positive effect of SDM interventions on risk estimation and involvement in decision making. Evidence for no effect was found on four outcomes (e.g. medication adherence) and conflicting evidence on ten outcomes (e.g. decisional conflict). Electronically delivered SDM interventions and those comprising value clarification exercises were likely to be associated with positive patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of evidence for a positive effect of SDM interventions on the majority of patient outcomes. The mode and content of SDM interventions seem to affect patient outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

There is a need for standardization of patient outcomes and measurement instruments to evaluate SDM interventions.

An Electronic Health Tool to Prepare for the First Orthopedic Consultation: Use and Usability Study

Background

The use of electronic health (eHealth) technology to prepare patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) for their first orthopedic consultation seems promising. Exploration of the use and usability of an educational eHealth tool may highlight potential modifications that could increase patient engagement and effectiveness.

Objective

This study aimed to (1) identify the use and usability of a stand-alone educational eHealth tool for patients with suspected hip or knee OA, (2) explore whether the recorded questions in the eHealth tool were in line with an existing widely used question prompt list, and (3) investigate whether user characteristics are related to use and usability.

Methods

We used data from 144 participants in the intervention group of a randomized controlled trial, who were asked to use the educational eHealth tool to prepare for their upcoming first orthopedic consultation. We defined users and nonusers based on whether they had opened the tool at least once. Users were characterized as active or superficial depending on the extent of their use of the tool. The recorded questions for the consultation preparation were categorized into themes fitting 3 predefined questions or in a remaining category. Usability was measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS, 0-100). Data were collected including the patient demographic and clinical characteristics, knowledge of OA, and internet and smartphone usage in daily life. The characteristics associated with users and nonusers were analyzed using a multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 116/144 (80.6%) participants used the educational eHealth tool, of whom 87/116 (75.0%) were active users. Of the three components of the tool (information, my consultation, and medication), medication was the least used (34%). On the basis of recorded questions of the users, the fourth predefined question could be proposed. The mean (SD) SUS score was 64.8 (16.0). No difference was found between the SUS scores of superficial and active users (mean difference 0.04, 95% CI −7.69 to 7.77). Participants with a higher baseline knowledge of OA (odds ratio [OR] 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.4) and who used the internet less frequently in their daily life (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.9) were more likely to use the educational eHealth tool. We found no differences between the demographics and clinical characteristics of the superficial and active users.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the use of an educational eHealth tool to prepare patients with hip and knee OA for the first orthopedic consultation is feasible. Our results suggest some improvements that should be made to the content of the tool to improve its usability. No clear practical implications were found to support the implementation of the educational eHealth tool in specific subgroups.

Trial Registration

Netherlands Trial Register NTR6262; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6262

Evaluation of the Choosing Wisely Australia 5 Questions resource and a shared decision-making preparation video: protocol for an online experiment

INTRODUCTION

Choosing Wisely, an international effort to reduce low value care worldwide, considers communication between clinicians and patients during routine clinical encounters a key mechanism for change. In Australia, Choosing Wisely has developed a 5 Questions resource to facilitate better conversations. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the Choosing Wisely Australia 5 Questions resource and a video designed to prepare patients for question-asking and participation in shared decision-making on (a) self-efficacy to ask questions and participate in shared decision-making, (b) intention to participate in shared decision-making and (c) a range of secondary outcomes. The secondary aim of this study is to determine whether participants' health literacy modifies the effects of the interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design (preparation video: yes, no × Choosing Wisely 5 Questions resource: yes, no × health literacy: adequate, inadequate). Participants will be recruited by an online market research company, presented with a hypothetical non-specific low back pain scenario, and randomised to study groups stratified by health literacy. Quantitative primary and secondary outcome data will be analysed as intention-to-treat using appropriate regression models (ie, linear regression for continuous outcomes, logistic regression for dichotomous categorical outcomes).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (protocol number: 2018/965). The results from this work will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international journals, conferences and updates with collaborating public health bodies. Resources developed for this study will be made available to patients and clinicians following trial completion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial has been registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (trial number: 376477) and the stage is Pre-results.

Investigation of factors influencing the implementation of two shared decision-making interventions in contraceptive care: a qualitative interview study among clinical and administrative staff

Background

There is limited evidence on how to implement shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in routine practice. We conducted a qualitative study, embedded within a 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial, to assess the acceptability and feasibility of two interventions for facilitating SDM about contraceptive methods in primary care and family planning clinics. The two SDM interventions comprised a patient-targeted intervention (video and prompt card) and a provider-targeted intervention (encounter decision aids and training).

Methods

Participants were clinical and administrative staff aged 18 years or older who worked in one of the 12 clinics in the intervention arm, had email access, and consented to being audio-recorded. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted upon completion of the trial. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data collection and thematic analysis were informed by the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework, which are relevant to the successful implementation of provider behaviour change interventions.

Results

Interviews (n = 29) indicated that the interventions were not systematically implemented in the majority of clinics. Participants felt the interventions were aligned with their role and they had confidence in their skills to use the decision aids. However, the novelty of the interventions, especially a need to modify workflows and change behavior to use them with patients, were implementation challenges. The interventions were not deeply embedded in clinic routines and their use was threatened by lack of understanding of their purpose and effect, and staff absence or turnover. Participants from clinics that had an enthusiastic study champion or team-based organizational culture found these social supports had a positive role in implementing the interventions.

Conclusions

Variation in capabilities and motivation among clinical and administrative staff, coupled with inconsistent use of the interventions in routine workflow contributed to suboptimal implementation of the interventions. Future trials may benefit by using implementation strategies that embed SDM in the organizational culture of clinical settings.

Skills for Shared Decision-Making: Evaluation of a Health Literacy Program for Consumers with Lower Literacy Levels

Background:

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been found to be significantly and positively associated with improved patient outcomes. For an SDM process to occur, patients require functional, communicative, and critical health literacy (HL) skills.

Objective:

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a program to improve health literacy skills for SDM in adults with lower literacy.

Methods:

An HL program including an SDM component (HL + SDM) and teaching of the three “AskShareKnow” questions was delivered in adult basic education settings in New South Wales, Australia. The program was evaluated using a partially cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing it to standard language, literacy, and numeracy (LLN) training. We measured the effect of these programs on (1) HL skills for SDM (conceptual knowledge, graphical literacy, health numeracy), (2) types of questions considered important for health decision-making, (3) preferences for control in decision-making, and (4) decisional conflict. We also measured AskShareKnow question recall, use, and evaluation in HL + SDM participants.

Key Results:

There were 308 participants from 28 classes enrolled in the study. Most participants had limited functional HL (71%) and spoke a language other than English at home (60%). In the primary analysis, the HL + SDM program compared with the standard LLN program significantly increased conceptual knowledge (19.1% difference between groups in students achieving the competence threshold; p = .018) and health numeracy (10.9% difference; p = .032), but not graphical literacy (5.8% difference; p = .896). HL + SDM participants were significantly more likely to consider it important to ask questions that would enable SDM compared to standard LLN participants who prioritized nonmedical procedural questions (all p < .01). There was no difference in preferences for control in decision-making or in decisional conflict. Among HL + SDM participants, 79% (n = 85) correctly recalled at least one of the AskShareKnow questions immediately post-intervention, and 35% (n = 29) after 6 months.

Conclusions:

Teaching SDM content increased participants' HL skills for SDM and changed the nature of the questions they would ask health care professionals in a way that would enable shared health decisions. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(Suppl.):S58–S74.]

Plain Language Summary:

We developed a health literacy program that included a shared decision-making (SDM) section. The program was delivered in adult basic education classes by trained educators and compared to standard language, literacy, and numeracy training. Teaching SDM content increased participants' health literacy skills for SDM and changed the nature of the questions they would ask health care professionals.