Reflecting on shared decision making: A reflection-quantification study

"The Terminology Might Be Ahead of Practice": Embedding Shared Decision Making in Practice-Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of SDM in the Context of Maternity Care

Background. It is a patient's right to be included in decisions about their health care. Implementing shared decision making (SDM) is important to enable active communication between clinicians and patients. Although health policy makers are increasingly mandating SDM implementation, SDM adoption has been slow. This study explored stakeholders' organizational- and system-level barriers and facilitators to implementing policy mandated SDM in maternity care in Victoria, Australia. Method. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants including clinicians, health service administrators and decision makers, and government policy makers. Data were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to SDM implementation. Results. Factors identified as facilitating SDM implementation included using a whole-of-system approach, providing additional implementation resources, correct documentation facilitated by electronic medical records, and including patient outcomes in measurement. Barriers included health service lack of capacity, unclear policy definitions of SDM, and policy makers' lack of resources to track implementation. Conclusion. This is the first study to our knowledge to explore barriers and facilitators to SDM implementation from the perspective of multiple actors following policy mandating SDM in tertiary health services in Australia. The primary finding was that there are concerns that SDM implementation policy is outpacing practice. Nonclinical staff play a crucial role translating policy to practice. Addressing organizational- and system-level barriers and facilitators to SDM implementation should be a key concern of health policy makers, health services, and staff.

Highlights

New government policies require shared decision making (SDM) implementation in hospitals.There is limited evidence for how to implement SDM in hospital settings.There are concerns SDM implementation policy is outpacing practice.Understanding and capacity for SDM varies considerably among stakeholders.Whole of system approaches and electronic medical records are seen to facilitate SDM.

Co-creating sensible care plans using shared decision making: Patients' reflections and observations of encounters

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how the use of a within-encounter SDM tool (compared to usual care in a randomized trial) contributes to care plans that make sense to patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation.

METHODS

In a planned subgroup of the trial, 123 patients rated post-encounter how much sense their decided-upon care plan made to them and explained why. We explored how sense ratings related to observed patient involvement (OPTION12), patient's decisional conflict, and adherence to their plan based on pharmacy records. We analyzed patient motives using Burke's pentad.

RESULTS

Plan sensibility was similarly high in both arms (Usual care n = 62: mean 9.4/10 (SD 1.0) vs SDM tool n = 61: 9.2/10 (SD 1.5); p = .8), significantly and weakly correlated to decisional conflict (rho=-0.28, p = .002), but not to OPTION12 or adherence. Plans made sense to most patients given their known efficacy, safety and what is involved in implementing them.

CONCLUSION

Adding an effective intervention to promote SDM did not affect how much, or why, care plans made sense to patients receiving usual care, nor patient adherence to them.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Evaluating the extent to which care plans make sense can improve SDM assessments, particularly when SDM extends beyond selecting from a menu of options.

Patient and physician shared decision-making behaviors in oncology: Evidence on adequate measurement properties of the iSHARE questionnaires

OBJECTIVES

We have developed two Dutch questionnaires to assess the shared decision-making (SDM) process in oncology; the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician. In this study, we aimed to determine: scores, construct validity, test-retest agreement (iSHAREpatient), and inter-rater (iSHAREpatient-iSHAREphysician) agreement.

METHODS

Physicians from seven Dutch hospitals recruited cancer patients, and completed the iSHAREphysician and SDM-Questionnaire-physician version. Their patients completed the: iSHAREpatient, nine-item SDM-Questionnaire, Decisional Conflict Scale, Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision-making Effectiveness, and five-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions. We formulated, respectively, one (iSHAREphysician) and 10 (iSHAREpatient) a priori hypotheses regarding correlations between the iSHARE questionnaires and questionnaires assessing related constructs. To assess test-retest agreement patients completed the iSHAREpatient again 1-2 weeks later.

RESULTS

In total, 151 treatment decision-making processes with unique patients were rated. Dimension and total iSHARE scores were high both in patients and physicians. The hypothesis on the iSHAREphysician and 9/10 hypotheses on the iSHAREpatient were confirmed. Test-retest and inter-rater agreement were>.60 for most items.

CONCLUSIONS

The iSHARE questionnaires show high scores, have good construct validity, substantial test-retest agreement, and moderate inter-rater agreement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Results from the iSHARE questionnaires can inform both physician- and patient-directed efforts to improve SDM in clinical practice.

The effect of shared decision-making on recovery from non-chronic aspecific low back pain in primary care; a post-hoc analysis from the patient, physician and observer perspectives

Background

Although shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly accepted in healthcare and has demonstrated merits for several psychological outcomes, the effect on recovery from somatic conditions is still subject to debate. The objective of this study is to measure the effect of SDM on recovery from non-chronic aspecific low back pain (LBP).

Methods

This study is a post-hoc analysis of data from a cluster-randomised trial that evaluated the effectiveness of SDM on recovery in patients with non-chronic aspecific LBP. In this analysis, we re-evaluate the impact of SDM from three perspectives: that of external observers, participating GPs and participating patients. Recovery was measured with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and with the Roland Morris Disability questionnaire (RMD) and defined as a VAS < 30 and an RMD < 4. Logistic regression was used to analyse the effect of SDM on recovery at 6 and 26 weeks.

Results

At 26 weeks, 105 (74%) of all 176 included patients had recovered. No significant effect of SDM on recovery at 6 or 26 weeks after the consultation was found when considering SDM from an observer perspective or a patient perspective. From a GP perspective SDM had a significant effect on recovery, but at 26 weeks only, and with the lowest probability of recovery observed at a medium level of GP-perceived SDM.

Conclusions

We found no evidence that SDM as perceived by the patient or by external observation improves recovery from non-chronic aspecific low back pain. The long-term recovery may be better for patients in whom the GP perceives SDM during their consultations. Further research should highlight the hierarchy and the relation between the perspectives, which is needed to come to an integral effect evaluation of SDM.

Trial registration

The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) number: NTR1960.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01624-y.

Effect of Shared Decision-Making for Stroke Prevention on Treatment Adherence and Safety Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background Guidelines promote shared decision-making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within-encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision-making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter-level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow-up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.

Development and Test of a Decision Aid for Shared Decision Making in Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury

Background. Patients with anterior crucial ligament injury are faced with a choice between surgery or nonsurgical treatment with intensive rehabilitation. Patients must be involved in the decision making to choose a treatment that meets their individual values, lifestyle, and conditions. The aim of the study was to describe, develop, and evaluate a patient decision aid to support shared decision making. Methods. The development of a patient decision aid was based on international criteria, current literature, and former patients’ experiences and suggestions on how to optimize the decision-making process. The patient decision aid was evaluated by the SDM-Q9 questionnaire and semistructured interviews with patients and doctors. Results. On a scale from 0 to 5, patients experienced a high degree of shared decision making in their treatment decision both before (score 4.3) and after (score 4.3) implementation of the patient decision aid (P = .72). From interviews, patients expressed that they found the patient decision aid very useful. Reflection time was especially important for some patients. Doctors reported that the patient decision aid improved shared decision making by supporting the dialogue clarifying patients’ values concerning issues important for treatment choices. Conclusion. A systematic process involving patients with an anterior crucial ligament injury was successfully used to develop a patient decision aid for treatment options. No statistically significant difference in the SDM-Q9 score was found presumably caused by the ceiling effect. However, patients experienced the decision aid as very useful when making treatment decisions, and doctors reported that it improved the dialogue clarifying patients’ values important for the treatment options. The developing process and patient decision aid can be used as inspiration in similar situations to increase shared decision making in treatment choices.

Increasing risk-concordant cardiovascular care in diverse health systems: a mixed methods pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized implementation trial of shared decision making (SDM4IP)

BACKGROUND

The primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events is often less intense in persons at higher CV risk and vice versa. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that clinicians and patients use shared decision making (SDM) to arrive at an effective and feasible prevention plan that is congruent with each person's CV risk and informed preferences. However, SDM does not routinely happen in practice. This study aims to integrate into routine care an SDM decision tool (CV PREVENTION CHOICE) at three diverse healthcare systems in the USA and study strategies that foster its adoption and routine use.

METHODS

This is a mixed method, hybrid type III stepped wedge cluster randomized study to estimate (a) the effectiveness of implementation strategies on SDM uptake and utilization and (b) the extent to which SDM results in prevention plans that are risk-congruent. Formative evaluation methods, including clinician and stakeholder interviews and surveys, will identify factors likely to impact feasibility, acceptability, and adoption of CV PREVENTION CHOICE as well as normalization of CV PREVENTION CHOICE in routine care. Implementation facilitation will be used to tailor implementation strategies to local needs, and implementation strategies will be systematically adjusted and tracked for assessment and refinement. Electronic health record data will be used to assess implementation and effectiveness outcomes, including CV PREVENTION CHOICE reach, adoption, implementation, maintenance, and effectiveness (measured as risk-concordant care plans). A sample of video-recorded clinical encounters and patient surveys will be used to assess fidelity. The study employs three theoretical approaches: a determinant framework that calls attention to categories of factors that may foster or inhibit implementation outcomes (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), an implementation theory that guides explanation or understanding of causal influences on implementation outcomes (Normalization Process Theory), and an evaluation framework (RE-AIM).

DISCUSSION

By the project's end, we expect to have (a) identified the most effective implementation strategies to embed SDM in routine practice and (b) estimated the effectiveness of SDM to achieve feasible and risk-concordant CV prevention in primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04450914 . Posted June 30, 2020 TRIAL STATUS: This study received ethics approval on April 17, 2020. The current trial protocol is version 2 (approved February 17, 2021). The first subject had not yet been enrolled at the time of submission.

Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices

BACKGROUND

Measuring shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice is important to improve the quality of health care. Measurement can be done by trained observers and by people participating in the clinical encounter, namely, patients. This study aimed to describe the correlations between patients' and observers' ratings of SDM using 2 validated and 2 nonvalidated SDM measures in clinical consultations.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 238 complete dyads of health professionals and patients in 5 university-affiliated family medicine clinics in Canada. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires before and after audio-recorded medical consultations. Observers rated the occurrence of SDM during medical consultations using both the validated OPTION-5 (the 5-item "observing patient involvement" score) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-observer). Patients rated SDM using both the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q9) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-patient).

RESULTS

Agreement was low between observers' and patients' ratings of SDM using validated OPTION-5 and SDM-Q9, respectively (ρ = 0.07; P = 0.38). Observers' ratings using RCVC-observer were correlated to patients' ratings using either SDM-Q9 (r_pb = -0.16; P = 0.01) or RCVC-patients (r_pb = 0.24; P = 0.03). Observers' OPTION-5 scores and patients' ratings using RCVC-questions were moderately correlated (r_φ = 0.33; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

There was moderate to no alignment between observers' and patients' ratings of SDM using both validated and nonvalidated measures. This lack of strong correlation emphasizes that observer and patient perspectives are not interchangeable. When assessing the presence, absence, or extent of SDM, it is important to clearly state whose perspectives are reflected.

Envisioning Shared Decision Making: A Reflection for the Next Decade

Despite the evolving evidence in favor of shared decision making (SDM) and of decades-long calls for its adoption, SDM remains uncommon in routine care. Reflecting on this lack of progress, we sought to reimagine the future of SDM and the path to take us there. In late 2017, a multidisciplinary and international group of six researchers were challenged by a senior SDM scholar to envision the future and, based on a provocatively critical view of the present, to write letters to themselves from the year 2028. Letters were exchanged and discussed electronically. The group then met in person to discuss the letters. Since the letters painted a dystopian picture, they triggered questions about the nature of SDM, who should benefit from SDM, how to measure its contribution to care, and what new ways can be invented to design and test interventions to implement SDM in routine care. Through contrasting the purposefully generated dystopias with an ideal future for SDM, we generated reflections on a research agenda for SDM. These reflections hinged on recognizing SDM's contributing to care, that is, as a way to advance the problematic human situation of patients. These focused on three distinct yet complimentary contributors to SDM: 1) the process of making decisions, 2) humanistic communication, and 3) fit-to-care of the resulting decision. The group then concluded that to move SDM from envisioned to routine practice, and to ensure it reaches all, particularly persons rendered vulnerable by current forms of health care, a substantial investment in implementation research is necessary. Perhaps the discussion of these reflections can contribute to a path forward that will improve the likelihood of the future we dream for SDM.

Reflecting on shared decision making: A reflection-quantification study

BACKGROUND

Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self-reported SDM measures.

METHODS

We asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3-item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open-ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient.

RESULTS

In Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores ("less" SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001).

CONCLUSION

Reflection-before-quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient-reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.

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

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