When attitudes and beliefs get in the way of shared decision-making: A mediation analysis of participation preference

Barriers and facilitators of healthcare professionals in integrating shared decision-making in pancreatic cancer treatment: A network approach

PURPOSE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is crucial in pancreatic cancer treatment due to its choice-sensitive nature and limited prognosis. Treatment of pancreatic cancer is organized in a network approach. Several obstacles exist on different levels-patient, healthcare professional, organizational, societal-that impede integration of SDM. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators to SDM implementation within a comprehensive cancer network.

METHODS

A qualitative research design was applied, involving interviews and focus groups on barriers and facilitators with healthcare professionals involved in the implementation of SDM. In one comprehensive cancer network in the Netherlands, including seven hospitals, a project was initiated with the goal of empowering patients and healthcare professionals in SDM throughout primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare settings. A total of 17 participants were assessed. Directed qualitative content analysis was performed by two researchers.

RESULTS

Main findings revealed barriers such as time constraints, lack of priority of physicians, little involvement of general practitioners, and insufficient social context of patients in referrals, alongside facilitators including learning communities with practical SDM examples, metro mapping, involvement of case manager in implementation and patient empowerment strategies.

CONCLUSION

Addressing cultural, systemic barriers and developing innovative strategies are of importance to enhance SDM in pancreatic cancer treatment in a network approach. This study provides understanding of SDM implementation in complex healthcare settings and offers valuable guidance for future interventions seeking to improve decision-making processes in pancreatic cancer treatment and beyond.

What is meant by 'integrated personalized diabetes management': A view into the future and what success should look like

Integrated personalized diabetes management (IPDM) has emerged as a promising approach to improving outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). This care approach emphasizes the integration and coordination of different providers, including physicians, nurses, dietitians, social workers and pharmacists. The goal of IPDM is to provide patients with personalized care that is tailored to their needs. This review addresses the concept of integrated care and the use of technology (including data, software applications and artificial intelligence) as well as managerial, regulatory and financial aspects. The implementation and upscaling of digitally enabled IPDM are discussed, with elaboration of successful practices and related evidence. Finally, recommendations are made. It is concluded that the adoption of digitally enabled IPDM on a global level is inevitable, considering the challenges created by an increasing prevalence of patients with DM and the need for better outcomes and improvement of health system sustainability.

Reflections from the 'Hold the door open' project: Inviting older adults across the UK to shape dissemination of health research findings

BACKGROUND

This project sought to expand patient and public involvement (PPI) practices to the development of research finding dissemination with people aged 55+ years. The project is innovative due to its UK-wide approach and use of PPI to plan better ways to share findings of health research with older adults, extending PPI beyond research project initiation to support dissemination activities.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to understand how to develop effective public engagement activities with older adults to disseminate findings of health research. We hope to promote greater inclusivity and advance our understanding of this demographic.

METHODS

This project combined three approaches: (i) an online questionnaire to ask what activities older adults enjoy; (ii) online planning workshops seeking public contributors' input in event planning and (iii) community events to share research findings and raise awareness of PPI. Activities were carried out in Cardiff, Belfast, Glasgow and Tewkesbury.

RESULTS

The planning workshops clarified that in-person activities and offering options for activities were important. Based on feedback from our contributors, all our events focused around a talk and question and answer session. Other short activities included light exercise and a writing activity.

DISCUSSION

Our multiphase approach helped us develop informative activities that reflected the questionnaire results and the feedback from the workshops, as we tailored our events to each location. A phased approach allowed both researchers and contributors to gradually deepen their understanding.

CONCLUSION

Further awareness raising is needed to develop the role older adults currently hold in health research activities. Working closely with existing communities can help broaden diversity.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Thirty-three public contributors helped facilitate this project. Two of these also contributed to this article by writing a reflection of their experiences, one of whom also provided feedback for the article.

Getting specific: participation preference in urooncological decision-making

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is the gold standard for good clinical practice, and thus, psychometric instruments have been established to assess patients' generic preference for participation (e.g., the Autonomy Preference Index, API). However, patients' preferences may vary depending on the specific disease and with respect to the specific decision context. With a modified preference index (API-Uro), we assessed patients' specific participation preference in preference-sensitive decisions pertaining to urological cancer treatments and compared this with their generic participation preference.

METHODS

In Study 1, we recruited (N = 469) urological outpatients (43.1% urooncological) at a large university hospital. Participation preference was assessed with generic measures (API and API case vignettes) and with the disease-specific API-Uro (urooncological case vignettes describing medical decisions of variable difficulty). A polychoric exploratory factor analysis was used to establish factorial validity and reduce items. In Study 2, we collected data from N = 204 bladder cancer patients in a multicenter study to validate the factorial structure with confirmatory factor analysis. Differences between the participation preference for different decision contexts were analyzed.

RESULTS

Study 1: Scores on the specific urooncological case vignettes (API-Uro) correlated with the generic measure (r = .44) but also provided incremental information. Among the disease-specific vignettes of the API-Uro, there were two factors with good internal consistency (α ≥ .8): treatment versus diagnostic decisions. Patients desired more participation for treatment decisions (77.8%) than for diagnostic decisions (22%), χ²(1) = 245.1, p ≤ .001. Study 2: Replicated the correlation of the API-Uro with the API (r = .39) and its factorial structure (SRMR = .08; CFI = .974). Bladder cancer patients also desired more participation for treatment decisions (57.4%) than for diagnostic decisions (13.3%), χ²(1) =84, p ≤ .001.

CONCLUSIONS

The desire to participate varies between treatment versus diagnostic decisions among urological patients. This underscores the importance of assessing participation preference for specific contexts. Overall, the new API-Uro has good psychometric properties and is well suited to assess patients' preferences. In routine care, measures of participation preference for specific decision contexts may provide incremental, allowing clinicians to better address their patients' individual needs.