Training family physicians in shared decision making for the use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections: a pilot clustered randomized controlled trial

Barriers and Facilitators Affecting Long-Term Antibiotic Prescriptions for Acne Treatment

Importance

Dermatologists prescribe more oral antibiotics per clinician than clinicians in any other specialty. Despite clinical guidelines that recommend limitation of long-term oral antibiotic treatments for acne to less than 3 months, there is little evidence to guide the design and implementation of an antibiotic stewardship program in clinical practice.

Objective

To identify salient barriers and facilitators to long-term antibiotic prescriptions for acne treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study assessed data collected from stakeholders (including dermatologists, infectious disease physicians, dermatology resident physicians, and nonphysician clinicians) via an online survey and semistructured video interviews between March and August 2021. Data analyses were performed from August 12, 2021, to January 20, 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Online survey and qualitative video interviews developed with the Theoretical Domains Framework. Thematic analyses were used to identify salient themes on barriers and facilitators to long-term antibiotic prescriptions for acne treatment.

Results

Among 30 participants (14 [47%] males and 16 [53%] females) who completed the study requirements and were included in the analysis, knowledge of antibiotic guideline recommendations was high and antibiotic stewardship was believed to be a professional responsibility. Five salient themes were to be affecting long-term antibiotic prescriptions: perceived lack of evidence to justify change in dermatologic practice, difficulty navigating patient demands and satisfaction, discomfort with discussing contraception, iPLEDGE-related barriers, and the absence of an effective system to measure progress on antibiotic stewardship.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this qualitative study indicate that multiple salient factors affect long-term antibiotic prescribing practices for acne treatment. These factors should be considered in the design and implementation of any future outpatient antibiotic stewardship program for clinical dermatology.

Randomized Experiments to Reduce Overuse of Health Care: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Health care overuse is pervasive in countries with advanced health care delivery systems. We hypothesize that effective interventions to reduce low-value care that targets patients or clinicians are mediated by psychological and cognitive processes that change behaviors and that interventions targeting these processes are varied. Thus, we performed a scoping review of experimental studies of interventions, including the interventions' objectives and characteristics, to reduce low-value care that targeted psychological and cognitive processes.

METHODS

We systematically searched databases for experimental studies of interventions to change cognitive orientations and affective states in the setting of health care overuse. Outcomes included observed overuse or a stated intention to use services. We used existing frameworks for behavior change and mechanisms of change to categorize the interventions and the mediating processes.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studied the provision of information to patients or clinicians, with most providing cost information. Six studies used educational interventions, including the provision of feedback about individual practice. Studies rarely used counseling, behavioral nudges, persuasion, and rewards. Mechanisms for behavior change included gain in knowledge or confidence and motivation by social norms.

CONCLUSIONS

In this scoping review, we found few experiments testing interventions that directly target the psychological and cognitive processes of patients or clinicians to reduce low-value care. Most studies provided information to patients or clinicians without measuring or considering mediating factors toward behavior change. These findings highlight the need for process-driven experimental designs, including trials of behavioral nudges and persuasive language involving a trusting patient-clinician relationship, to identify effective interventions to reduce low-value care.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Perceptions of shared decision making in gastroenterology and inflammatory bowel disease: A qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is the partnership and discussion between clinicians and patients to make an appropriate decision based on scientific evidence and patient preferences. Many benefits are associated with SDM; however, little is known about its awareness or use by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinicians in gastroenterology departments across Israel. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators in implementing SDM as standard practice to achieve optimal disease management and personalized care for patients with IBD.

METHODS

Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with IBD clinicians across Israel to identify the barriers and facilitators for SDM use. An interview guide was developed, based on the systematic approach of the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF). Interview transcripts were coded into theoretical domains to identify factors that may impact SDM.

RESULTS

Sixteen gastroenterologists from nine different hospitals were interviewed. Common TDF domains that presented as barriers were: knowledge, skills, social/professional role and identity, environmental context and resources, and reinforcement. Most participants had never heard the precise term "shared decision making" and lacked formal training on SDM.

CONCLUSION

This study identified key barriers and facilitators to SDM in IBD clinics across Israel. Main barriers of SDM include limited or nonexistent training; clinicians were unaware of SDM guidelines or techniques. The main facilitators of SDM were clinicians' social and professional role and identity and their beliefs about the influence of IBD and/or CD.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These influencing factors and TDF domains identified provide a basis for developing future interventions to improve the implementation of SDM within IBD management.

Shared decision-making training in general practice: a rapid review

Introduction

Although shared decision-making (SDM) is key to providing patient-centred care, SDM is lacking in primary care. Training programmes seeking to improve GP SDM have yet to be reviewed. Therefore, a rapid review of the literature was conducted to evaluate GP SDM training methods and their outcomes.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Results of the studies included were synthesised narratively. Study quality was appraised using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

Results

Seven studies were identified. Study quality was high, with a mean MERSQI score of 17.2/18 (range 16-18). Theory/presentation was the most prevalent training method (n=6). Of the five studies assessing the impact of SDM training on patient outcomes, only one yielded positive results. Contrastingly, both studies assessing clinician behaviour produced positive results.

Conclusions

SDM training improved GP behaviour but the effects on patient outcomes were lacking. SDM training programmes that utilised teaching methods targeting practical SDM skills, such as role play, observed some positive findings. However, because their prevalence was lacking, further research into these methods, and their cost-effectiveness, are needed.

Evaluation of more than one billion outpatient prescriptions and eight-year trend showing a remarkable reduction in antibiotic prescription in Turkey: A success model of governmental interventions at national level

PURPOSE

To present the antibiotic prescription trend between 2011-2018 at primary healthcare in Turkey in order to evaluate the effects of interventions at national level for providing rational prescription of antibiotics.

METHODS

Electronic prescription data of the family physicians collected from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2018 in 81 provinces of Turkey were recorded through the Prescription Information System and screened for the antimicrobial drugs. The interventions to promote rational antibiotic use during 2011-2018 in Turkey includes reminding the legislation to stop access of antibiotics without prescription, monitoring of antibiotic prescription behaviors of primary healthcare physicians, and education of healthcare workers and the public on the appropriate use of antibiotics.

RESULTS

A total of 1 054 261 396 prescriptions for outpatients of all age groups were recorded during this period. Of the prescriptions written by family physcians, 34.94% were containing at least one antibiotic in 2011, which declined to 24.55% in 2018. Antibiotics constituted 13.99% of all the items in prescriptions in 2011 and 10.47% in 2018. Percentage of total antibiotic expenditure to the total drug expanditure decreased from 14.14% to 4.12% during 2011-2018. The most commonly prescribed antibiotics were amoxicillin and enzyme inhibitor combination, cefdinir, and cefuroxime during 2011-2018, with an increasing trend for prescription of first-line antibiotic, amoxicillin, in recent years.

CONCLUSIONS

Governmental interventions at national level have contributed to reducing antibiotic prescription and increasing preference of first-line antibiotics at primary healthcare level in Turkey over a course of 8 years. Turkey's model of governmental interventions may set an example for other countries with high consumption of antibiotics, and contribute to the actions against antimicrobial resistance worldwide.

Describing pre-appointment written materials as an intervention in the context of children's NHS therapy services: A national survey

CONTEXT

Pre-appointment written materials, including letters and leaflets, are commonly used by healthcare organisations to deliver professional-patient interactions. The written materials potentially change patients' knowledge and behaviour as part of a healthcare intervention but have received little investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the content of pre-appointment written materials through a behaviour change intervention perspective.

DESIGN

Mixed methods study with an online questionnaire about pre-appointment written materials and an analysis of actual materials. Questionnaire data were analysed descriptively and pre-appointment materials by qualitative framework analysis.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Children's community/outpatient occupational therapy, physiotherapy and/or speech and language therapy services across the UK. Service managers/clinical leads provided data.

INTERVENTION

Pre-appointment written materials.

RESULTS

Questionnaire responses were received from n = 110 managers/clinical leads from n = 58 NHS organisations. Written materials (n = 64) were received from n = 24 organisations. Current materials are used by therapy services as a conduit to convey the therapy service's expectations related to: accessing the service, decision-making about care and help-giving. The materials enrol the parent and child to the therapy services' expectations by behaviour change techniques. The materials configure the parent/child expectations, knowledge and behaviour towards the therapy services' operational procedures.

CONCLUSION

Pre-appointment written materials configure patients to organisations' operational procedures. The written materials currently lack support for parent/child empowerment, shared decision-making and self-management to improve health.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

Four parents of children accessing therapy services were involved in the study. The parents shared their experiences to highlight the importance of the topic and contributed to the final research design and methods.

Educational Animations to Inform Transplant Candidates About Deceased Donor Kidney Options: An Efficacy Randomized Trial

Background

Transplant candidates struggle making decisions about accepting kidneys with variable kidney donor profile index (KDPI) and increased risk donor (IRD) status.

Methods

This single site, pilot randomized controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of 2 animations to improve KDPI/IRD knowledge, decisional self-efficacy, and willingness. Kidney candidates were randomly assigned to animation viewing plus standard nurse discussion (intervention) or standard nurse discussion alone (control). Linear regression was used to test the significance of animation exposure after controlling for covariates (α < 0.1).

Results

Mean age was 60 years, and 27% were African American. Both intervention (n = 42) and control (n = 38) groups received similar education at similar duration (12.8 versus 11.8 min, respectively), usually by the same dedicated nurse educator (85% versus 75%, respectively). On multivariate analysis, the intervention group (versus control) exhibited significantly increased knowledge (β = 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.77) and IRD willingness (β = 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.86). There were no between-group differences in KDPI >85% willingness or distribution of KDPI/IRD decisional self-efficacy. Over 90% of participants provided positive ratings on each of 11 acceptability items.

Conclusions

Supporting conventional IRD and KDPI education with educational animations can improve knowledge and IRD willingness compared with standard methods.

Evidence-based medicine, shared decision making and the hidden curriculum: a qualitative content analysis

INTRODUCTION

Medical education should portray evidence-based medicine (EBM) and shared decision making (SDM) as central to patient care. However, misconceptions regarding EBM and SDM are common in clinical practice, and these biases might unintentionally be transmitted to medical trainees through a hidden curriculum. The current study explores how assumptions of EBM and SDM can be hidden in formal curriculum material such as PowerPoint slides.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative content analysis using a purposive sample of 18 PowerPoints on the management of upper respiratory tract infections. We identified concepts pertaining to decision making using theory-driven codes taken from the fields of EBM and SDM. We then re-analyzed the coded text using a constructivist latent thematic approach to develop a rich description of conceptualizations of decision making in relation to EBM and SDM frameworks.

RESULTS

PowerPoint slides can relay a hidden curriculum, which can normalize: pathophysiological reasoning, unexplained variations in clinical care, the use of EBM mimics, defensive medicine, an unrealistic portrayal of benefits, and paternalism.

DISCUSSION

Addressing the hidden curriculum in formal curricular material should be explored as a novel strategy to foster a positive attitude towards EBM and SDM and to improve patient outcomes by encouraging the use of these skills.

Training Interventions to Equip Health Care Professionals With Shared Decision-Making Skills: A Systematic Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

To support the development, implementation, and evaluation of shared decision-making (SDM) training programs, this article maps the relevant evidence in terms of training program design and content as well as evaluation outcomes.

METHOD

A systematic scoping review methodology was used. To identify studies, the databases PubMed, Medline, and CINAHL were searched from 2009 to 2019, and reference lists of included studies were examined. After removal of duplicates, 1367 articles were screened for inclusion. To be included, studies were to be published in peer-reviewed journals, and should not merely be descriptive but report on evaluation outcomes. Articles were reviewed for inclusion by both authors, and data were extracted using a purposely designed data charting form implemented using REDCap.

RESULTS

The review identified 49 studies evaluating 36 unique SDM training programs. There was considerable variation in terms of program design and duration. Most programs included an overview of SDM theories and key competencies, as well as SDM skill development through role plays. Few programs provided training in reflective practice, in identifying and working with patients' individually preferred decision-making style, or in relation to SDM in a context of medical uncertainty or ambiguity. Most programs were evaluated descriptively, mostly using mixed methods, and there were 18 randomized controlled trials, showing that training was feasible, well received, and improved participants' knowledge and skills, but was limited in its impact on patients.

DISCUSSION

Although there is limited capacity to comment on which types of training programs are most effective, overall training was feasible, well received, and improved participants' knowledge and skills.

Implementation Research on Shared Decision Making in Primary Care: Inventory of Intracluster Correlation Coefficients

Background. Cluster randomized trials are important sources of information on evidence-based practices in primary care. However, there are few sources of intracluster correlation coefficients (ICCs) for designing such trials. We inventoried ICC estimates for shared decision-making (SDM) measures in primary care. Methods. Data sources were studies led by the Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Transition. Eligible studies were conducted in primary care, included at least 2 hierarchical levels, included SDM measures for individual units nested under any type of cluster (area, clinic, or provider), and were approved by an ethics committee. We classified measures into decision antecedents, decision processes, and decision outcomes. We used Bayesian random-effect models to estimate mode ICCs and the 95% highest probability density interval (HPDI). We summarized estimates by calculating median and interquartile range (IQR). Results. Six of 14 studies were included. There were 97 ICC estimates for 17 measures. ICC estimates ranged from 0 to 0.5 (median, 0.03; IRQ, 0-0.07). They were higher for process measures (median, 0.03; IQR, 0-0.07) than for antecedent measures (0.02; 0-0.07) or outcome measures (0.02; 0-0.06), for which, respectively, "decisional conflict" (mode, 0.48; 95% HPDI, 0.39-0.57), "reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients" (0.5; 0.11-0.89), and "quality of the decision" (0.45; 0.14-0.84) had the highest ICCs. ICCs for provider-level clustering (median, 0.06; IQR, 0-0.13) were higher than for other levels. Limitations. This convenience sample of studies may not reflect all potential ICC ranges for primary care SDM measures. Conclusions. Our inventory of ICC estimates for SDM measures in primary care will improve the ease and accuracy of power calculations in cluster randomized trials and inspire its further expansion in SDM contexts.

Shared decision-making aid for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: moving from informative patient education to interactive critical thinking

OBJECTIVES

To develop and evaluate an illustrated, stand-alone, interactive evidence-based shared decision making (SDM) aid for JIA children; its ability to produce positive perceived involvement of JIA patients in their own management and its impact on their adherence to therapy, school absenteeism and treatment outcomes.

METHODS

The SDM aid was developed to offer information about the disease, risks and benefits of treatment. A multidisciplinary team defined SDM criteria based on international standards (IPDAS). Eight categories emerged as highly important for SDM. Each category was supported by simple illustrations in an interactive style. At the end of each category, the child is asked to make a decision in view of the information given. Ninety-four JIA children were provided with the tool, in a randomised controlled study, in comparison to a control group of 95 JIA patients treated according to standard protocols.

RESULTS

A total of 97.5% of the study children reported comprehensibility of more than 90%. The patients' adherence to therapy was significantly (p < 0.01) higher in the SDM group, whereas stopping DMARDs for intolerability was significantly higher in the control group at 12 months of treatment. There was a significant improvement in the patient-reported outcomes in the SDM group, and absence from school was significantly higher in the control group (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The developed SDM aid offered the children evidence-based information about the pros and cons of treatment options and improved their understanding of the disease and their ability to make an informed decision that is reflected on their adherence to therapy and better treatment outcomes. Key Points • This work represents the second generation of shared decision-making tools. • The developed tool adopts an interactive style and enhances critical thinking, giving the patients the facility of making their own decision regarding their management. • The work gives an example of core domain set of outcomes which can be used for shared decision-making interventions.

Patient Education and Continuing Medical Education to Promote Shared Decision-Making. A Systematic Literature Review

Background: Over recent years, the use of decision aids to promote shared decision-making have been examined. Studies on patient education and on continuing medical education for physicians are less common. This review analyzes intervention and evaluation studies on patient education and continuing medical education which aim to enhance shared decision-making. The following study parameters are of interest: Study designs, objectives, numbers of participants in the education courses, interventions, primary results, and quality of the studies. Methods: We systematically searched for suitable studies in two databases (Pubmed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) from the beginning of April through to mid-June 2016. Results: 16 studies from a total of 462 hits were included: Three studies on patient education and 13 studies on continuing medical education for physicians. Overall, the study parameters were heterogeneous. Major differences were found between the courses; how the courses were conducted, their length, and participants. Conclusions: The differences found in the studies made it difficult to compare the interventions and the results. There is a need for studies that systematically evaluate and further develop interventions in this area to promote shared decision-making.

Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies

DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating healthcare provider (HCP) trainings in shared decision-making (SDM) to analyse their evaluation strategies.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

HCP trainings in SDM from all healthcare settings.

METHODS

We searched scientific databases (Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL), performed reference and citation tracking, contacted experts in the field and scanned the Canadian inventory of SDM training programmes for healthcare professionals. We included articles reporting data of summative evaluations of HCP trainings in SDM. Two reviewers screened records, assessed full-text articles, performed data extraction and assessed study quality with the integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS) tool. Analysis of evaluation strategies included data source use, use of unpublished or published measures and coverage of Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels. An evaluation framework based on Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels and the Quadruple Aim framework was used to categorise identified evaluation outcomes.

RESULTS

Out of 7234 records, we included 41 articles reporting on 30 studies: cluster-randomised (n=8) and randomised (n=9) controlled trials, controlled (n=1) and non-controlled (n=7) before-after studies, mixed-methods (n=1), qualitative (n=1) and post-test (n=3) studies. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n=9), Germany (n=8) or Canada (n=7) and evaluated physician trainings (n=25). Eleven articles met ICROMS quality criteria. Almost all studies (n=27) employed HCP-reported outcomes for training evaluation and most (n=19) additionally used patient-reported (n=12), observer-rated (n=10), standardised patient-reported (n=2) outcomes or training process and healthcare data (n=10). Most studies employed a mix of unpublished and published measures (n=17) and covered two (n=12) or three (n=10) Kirkpatrick's levels. Identified evaluation outcomes covered all categories of the proposed framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to evaluate HCP trainings in SDM varied largely. The proposed evaluation framework maybe useful to structure future evaluation studies, but international agreement on a core set of outcomes is needed to improve evidence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016041623.

A Review of Decision Aids for Patients Considering More Than One Type of Invasive Treatment

With continuous advances in medicine, patients are faced with several medical or surgical treatment options for their health conditions. Decision aids may be useful in helping patients navigate these options and choose based on their goals and values. We reviewed the literature to identify decision aids and better understand the effect on patient decision-making. We identified 107 decision aids designed to help patients make decisions between medical treatment or screening options; 39 decision aids were used to help patients choose between a medical and surgical treatment, and five were identified that aided patients in deciding between a major open surgical procedure and a less invasive option. Many of the decision aids were used to help patients decide between prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer screening or treatment options. Although most decision aids were not associated with a significant effect on the actual decision made, they were largely associated with increased patient knowledge, decreased decisional conflict, more accurate perception of risks, increased satisfaction with their decision, and no increase in anxiety surrounding their decision. These data identify a gap in use of decision aids in surgical decision-making and highlight the potential to help surgical patients make value-based, knowledgeable decisions regarding their treatment.

Impact of decision aids used during clinical encounters on clinician outcomes and consultation length: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinicians' satisfaction with encounter decision aids is an important component in facilitating implementation of these tools. We aimed to determine the impact of decision aids supporting shared decision making (SDM) during the clinical encounter on clinician outcomes.

METHODS

We searched nine databases from inception to June 2017. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of decision aids used during clinical encounters with an unaided control group were eligible for inclusion. Due to heterogeneity among included studies, we used a narrative evidence synthesis approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-five papers met inclusion criteria including 22 RCTs and 3 qualitative or mixed-methods studies nested in an RCT, together representing 23 unique trials. These trials evaluated healthcare decisions for cardiovascular prevention and treatment (n=8), treatment of diabetes mellitus (n=3), treatment of osteoporosis (n=2), treatment of depression (n=2), antibiotics to treat acute respiratory infections (n=3), cancer prevention and treatment (n=4) and prenatal diagnosis (n=1). Clinician outcomes were measured in only a minority of studies. Clinicians' satisfaction with decision making was assessed in only 8 (and only 2 of them showed statistically significantly greater satisfaction with the decision aid); only three trials asked if clinicians would recommend the decision aid to colleagues and only five asked if clinicians would use decision aids in the future. Outpatient consultations were not prolonged when a decision aid was used in 9 out of 13 trials. The overall strength of the evidence was low, with the major risk of bias related to lack of blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors.

CONCLUSION

Decision aids can improve clinicians' satisfaction with medical decision making and provide helpful information without affecting length of consultation time. Most SDM trials, however, omit outcomes related to clinicians' perspective on the decision making process or the likelihood of using a decision aid in the future.

Tailoring and evaluating an intervention to improve shared decision-making among seniors with dementia, their caregivers, and healthcare providers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia raises new challenges to ensure that healthcare decisions are informed by research evidence and reflect what is important for seniors and their caregivers. Therefore, we aim to evaluate a tailored intervention to help healthcare providers empower seniors and their caregivers in making health-related decisions.

Methods

In two phases, we will: (1) design and tailor the intervention; and (2) implement and evaluate it. We will use theory and user-centered design to tailor an intervention comprising a distance professional training program on shared decision-making and five shared decision-making tools dealing with difficult decisions often faced by seniors with dementia and their caregivers. Each tool will be designed in two versions, one for clinicians and one for patients. We will recruit 49 clinicians and 27 senior/caregiver to participate in three cycles of design-evaluation-feedback of each intervention components. Besides think-aloud and interview approaches, users will also complete questionnaires based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to identify the factors most likely to influence their adoption of shared decision-making after exposure to the intervention. We will then modify the intervention by adding/enhancing behavior-change techniques targeting these factors. We will evaluate the effectiveness of this tailored intervention before/after implementation, in a two-armed, clustered randomized trial. We will enroll a convenience sample of six primary care clinics (unit of randomization) in the province of Quebec and recruit the clinicians who practice there (mostly family physicians, nurses, and social workers). These clinics will then be randomized to immediate exposure to the intervention or delayed exposure. Overall, we will recruit 180 seniors with dementia, their caregivers, and their healthcare providers. We will evaluate the impact of the intervention on patient involvement in the decision-making process, decisional comfort, patient and caregiver personal empowerment in relation to their own healthcare, patient quality of life, caregiver burden, and decisional regret.

Discussion

The intervention will empower patients and their caregivers in their healthcare, by fostering their participation as partners during the decision-making process and by ensuring they make informed decisions congruent with their values and priorities.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.org, NCT02956694. Registered on 31 October 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2697-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Preparing Parents to Make An Informed Choice About Antibiotic Use for Common Acute Respiratory Infections in Children: A Randomised Trial of Brief Decision Aids in a Hypothetical Scenario

BACKGROUND

Childhood acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for primary care consultations and for receiving an antibiotic. Public awareness of antibiotic benefit and harms for these conditions is low. To facilitate informed decision making, ideally in collaboration with their doctor, parents need clear communication about benefits and harms. Decision aids may be able to facilitate this process.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three decision aids about antibiotic use for common ARIs in children.

METHODS

Adult parents of children aged 1-16 years (n = 120) were recruited from community settings and then randomised using a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive a decision aid (n = 60) or fact sheet (n = 60). Allocation was concealed and used sealed and opaque sequentially numbered envelopes. Participants self-completed questionnaires at baseline and immediately post-intervention. The primary outcome was informed choice (conceptual and numerical knowledge; attitudes towards, and intention to use, antibiotics for a future ARI). Secondary outcomes were decisional conflict, decisional self-efficacy, and material acceptability.

RESULTS

After reading the information, significantly more intervention group participants made an informed choice [57%] compared with control group participants [29%] [difference 28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11-45%, p < 0.01], and had higher total knowledge [mean difference (MD) 2.8, 95% CI 2.2-3.5, p < 0.01], conceptual knowledge (MD 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.1, p < 0.01) and numerical knowledge (MD 2.1, 95% CI 1.6-2.5, p < 0.01). Between-group differences in attitudes or intention to use antibiotics were not significant. Most intervention group participants found the information understandable and liked the aids' format and features.

CONCLUSION

The decision aids prepared parents to make an informed choice about antibiotic use more than fact sheets, in a hypothetical situation. Their effect within a consultation needs to be evaluated. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ACTRN12615000843550.

Face-to-face communication between patients and family physicians in Canada: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Patient-provider communication is critical in primary care. Canada's unique health system, population distribution, and cultural context suggest there is value in addressing the topic in the Canadian context. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize recent Canadian literature to inform practice in primary care settings and identify research agendas for patient-provider communication in Canada.

METHODS

Using Arksey and O'Malley's framework we searched four literature databases: Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and EMBASE. We extracted 21,932 articles published between 2010 and 2017. A total of 108 articles met the inclusion criteria. The articles were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis to identify major themes.

RESULTS

Four major themes were identified: information sharing, relationships, health system challenges, and development and use of communication tools.

CONCLUSION

Our review identified a need for Canadian research regarding: communication in primary care with Aboriginal, immigrant, and rural populations; the impact of medical tourism on primary care; and how to improve communication to facilitate continuity of care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Challenges providers face in primary care in Canada include: communicating with linguistically and culturally diverse populations; addressing issues that emerge with the rise of medical tourism; a need for decision aids to improve communication with patients.

Developing a framework to evaluate knowledge into action interventions

BACKGROUND

There are many challenges in delivering and evaluating knowledge for healthcare, but the lack of clear routes from knowledge to practice is a root cause of failures in safety within healthcare. Various types and sources of knowledge are relevant at different levels within the healthcare system. These need to be delivered in a timely way that is useful and actionable for those providing services or developing policies. How knowledge is taken up and used through networks and relationships, and the difficulties in attributing change to knowledge-based interventions, present challenges to understanding how knowledge into action (K2A) work influences healthcare outcomes. This makes it difficult to demonstrate the importance of K2A work, and harness support for its development and resourcing. This paper presents the results from a project commissioned by NHS Education for Scotland (NES) and Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) to create an evaluation framework to help understand the NHS Scotland Knowledge into Action model.

METHODS

The team took a developmental approach to creating an evaluation framework that would be useful and practical. This included a literature review to ensure the evaluation was evidence-based; adaptation of contribution analysis for K2A project; action research with K2A project leads to refine the work and develop suitable measures.

RESULTS

Principles for evaluation and an evaluation framework based on contribution analysis were developed and implemented on a trial project. An outcomes chain was developed for the K2A programme and specific projects. This was used to design, collect and collate evidence of the K2A intervention. Data collected routinely by the intervention was supplemented with specific feedback measures from K2A project users.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation approach allowed for scrutiny of both processes and outcomes and was adaptable to projects on different scales. This framework has proved useful as a planning, reflecting and evaluation tool for K2A, and could be more widely used to evidence the ways in which knowledge to action work helps improve healthcare outcomes.

Shared Decision-Making with Parents of Acutely Ill Children: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) has mostly been used with adults and parents in the primary care setting, and there is limited knowledge on the use of SDM with parents of acutely ill children. The objective of this study was to review the literature on SDM with parents in the management of acutely ill children.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for English language studies published from the time of database inception to February, 2017. Study eligibility criterion was use of SDM with parents for children aged 18 years or younger with an acute medical problem.

RESULTS

We identified 2 ongoing clinical trials and 10 published studies that met inclusion criteria: 2 using hypothetical SDM scenarios, 1 mixed methods study, and 7 intervention studies. Only 1 study compared an SDM intervention with usual care in a randomized controlled trial. The limited literature shows that parents of acutely ill children have differing preferences for testing and/or treatment, and that they generally want the opportunity to express those preferences through an SDM process. Use of SDM often results in acutely ill children undergoing fewer and/or less intensive testing or treatment, although the effect on outcomes is unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents welcome participation in SDM for management decisions with their acutely ill child. Further investigation is needed to determine how best to implement SDM with parents of acutely ill children and to assess the effect of SDM on outcomes.

Antimicrobial stewardship programmes: bedside rationing by another name?

Antimicrobial therapy is a cornerstone of therapy in critically ill patients; however, the wide use of antibiotics has resulted in increased antimicrobial resistance and outbreaks of resistant disease. To counter this, many hospitals have instituted antimicrobial stewardship programmes as a way to reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics. However, uptake of antimicrobial stewardship programmes has been variable, as many clinicians fear that they may put individual patients at risk of treatment failure. In this paper, I argue that antimicrobial stewardship programmes are indeed a form of bedside rationing, and explore the risks and benefits of such programmes for individual patients in the intensive care unit, and the critically ill population in general. Using Norman Daniels' Accountability for Reasonableness as a framework for evaluating resource allocation policies, I conclude that antimicrobial stewardship programmes are an ethically sound form of bedside rationing.

Clinician-targeted interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections in primary care: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide health threat. Interventions that reduce antibiotic prescribing by clinicians are expected to reduce antibiotic resistance. Disparate interventions to change antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) have been trialled and meta-analysed, but not yet synthesised in an overview. This overview synthesises evidence from systematic reviews, rather than individual trials.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the existing evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions aimed at influencing clinician antibiotic prescribing behaviour for ARIs in primary care.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index to June 2016. We also searched the reference lists of all included reviews. We ran a pre-publication search in May 2017 and placed additional studies in 'awaiting classification'.We included both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any clinician-focussed intervention on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in primary care. Two overview authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool, with disagreements reached by consensus or by discussion with a third overview author. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence in included reviews. The results are presented as a narrative overview.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight reviews in this overview: five Cochrane Reviews (33 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (11 included trials). Three reviews (all Cochrane Reviews) scored low risk across all the ROBIS domains in Phase 2 and low risk of bias overall. The remaining five reviews scored high risk on Domain 4 of Phase 2 because the 'Risk of bias' assessment had not been specifically considered and discussed in the review Results and Conclusions. The trials included in the reviews varied in both size and risk of bias. Interventions were compared to usual care.Moderate-quality evidence indicated that C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92, 3284 participants, 6 trials), shared decision making (odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.75, 3274 participants, 3 trials; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.84, 4623 participants, 2 trials; risk difference -18.44, 95% CI -27.24 to -9.65, 481,807 participants, 4 trials), and procalcitonin-guided management (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14, 1008 participants, 2 trials) probably reduce antibiotic prescribing in general practice. We found moderate-quality evidence that procalcitonin-guided management probably reduces antibiotic prescribing in emergency departments (adjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43, 2605 participants, 7 trials). The overall effect of these interventions was small (few achieving greater than 50% reduction in antibiotic prescribing, most about a quarter or less), but likely to be clinically important.Compared to usual care, shared decision making probably makes little or no difference to reconsultation for the same illness (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, 1860 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence), and may make little or no difference to patient satisfaction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, 1110 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). Similarly, CRP testing probably has little or no effect on patient satisfaction (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08, 689 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence) or reconsultation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27, 5132 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence). Procalcitonin-guided management probably results in little or no difference in treatment failure in general practice compared to normal care (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24, 1008 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence), however it probably reduces treatment failure in the emergency department compared to usual care (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95, 2605 participants, 7 trials, moderate-quality evidence).The quality of evidence for interventions focused on clinician educational materials and decision support in reducing antibiotic prescribing in general practice was either low or very low (no pooled result reported) and trial results were highly heterogeneous, therefore we were unable draw conclusions about the effects of these interventions. The use of rapid viral diagnostics in emergency departments may have little or no effect on antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.22, 891 participants, 3 trials, low-quality evidence) and may result in little to no difference in reconsultation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25, 200 participants, 1 trial, low-quality evidence).None of the trials in the included reviews reported on management costs for the treatment of an ARI or any associated complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence that CRP testing, shared decision making, and procalcitonin-guided management reduce antibiotic prescribing for patients with ARIs in primary care. These interventions may therefore reduce overall antibiotic consumption and consequently antibiotic resistance. There do not appear to be negative effects of these interventions on the outcomes of patient satisfaction and reconsultation, although there was limited measurement of these outcomes in the trials. This should be rectified in future trials.We could gather no information about the costs of management, and this along with the paucity of measurements meant that it was difficult to weigh the benefits and costs of implementing these interventions in practice.Most of this research was undertaken in high-income countries, and it may not generalise to other settings. The quality of evidence for the interventions of educational materials and tools for patients and clinicians was either low or very low, which prevented us from drawing any conclusions. High-quality trials are needed to further investigate these interventions.

Shared Decision-Making and Children With Disabilities: Pathways to Consensus

Shared decision-making (SDM) promotes family and clinician collaboration, with ultimate goals of improved health and satisfaction. This clinical report provides a basis for a systematic approach to the implementation of SDM by clinicians for children with disabilities. Often in the discussion of treatment plans, there are gaps between the child's/family's values, priorities, and understanding of perceived "best choices" and those of the clinician. When conducted well, SDM affords an appropriate balance incorporating voices of all stakeholders, ultimately supporting both the child/family and clinician. With increasing knowledge of and functional use of SDM skills, the clinician will become an effective partner in the decision-making process with families, providing family-centered care. The outcome of the process will support the beneficence of the physician, the authority of the family, and the autonomy and well-being of the child.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Patient-centered Treatment Decisions for Urethral Stricture: Conjoint Analysis Improves Surgical Decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the use of a choice-based conjoint analysis (CA) exercise decreased patients' decisional conflict about treatment preferences for surgical management of urethral stricture disease. Understanding patient preferences for treatment decisions assists in shared decision-making and emphasizes patient-centered outcomes. CA offers a method to understand what risks patients are willing to take for what gains.

METHODS

The CA methodology was used by providing participants with case-based choices to elucidate the relative importance that individuals place on various treatment aspects. Patients' decisional conflict regarding surgery for urethral stricture was assessed before and after the CA exercise to assess the impact the exercise had on their decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Completion of the CA exercise resulted in a significant decrease in decisional conflict (P < .001). The majority (59.5%) of participants with decisional conflict before the CA exercise experienced a decrease in decisional conflict afterwards, with only a minority (16.5%) experiencing new decisional conflict after the exercise. Participants felt the choice-based CA exercise was helpful in deciding what was important in making treatment decisions (70%) and in expressing their priorities and treatment preferences (82%). The number needed to counsel to achieve a decrease in decisional conflict was 1.69 and to achieve no decisional conflict was 3.65.

CONCLUSION

Choice-based CA improves patients' ability to express their treatment preferences and decreases decisional conflict. CA may be a new tool that physicians and patients can use to aid in shared decision-making with a focus on patient-centered outcomes.

Inappropriate prescription of antibiotics in pediatric practice: Analysis of the prescriptions in primary care

Misuse of antibiotics is largely responsible for the emergence of bacterial resistance. Children represent a subset of the population who frequently receive antibiotics. The objectives were to calculate the frequency of antibiotic prescriptions that do not comply with best practice recommendations in paediatrics primary care and to examine the thoughts and feelings of physicians and parents about antibiotic prescription and recommendations from the national health authorities. We included children admitted at the paediatric emergency room (PER) of the NANTES university hospital between June 2011 and October 2012 and who were under antibiotic drugs. Two independent experts evaluated the compliance with the national recommendations. Parents and general practitioner (GP) who prescribed the antibiotic before admission to PER were called to collect their thoughts and feeling about antibiotic prescription. The median age of the 88 included children was 2.8 years. The upper respiratory tract infection motivated the prescription of antibiotic in 59%. Seventy-six per cent of the prescriptions analysed were inappropriate, 72% of the antibiotics had a too broad spectrum, and one-third was not indicated. Ninety-one per cent of the interviewed parents thought that the antibiotic prescribed to their child was adequate. Among the 77 prescribing GP who were called, 33% agreed that they lacked time during consultation to explain to parents that no antibiotics were required. Antibiotic prescriptions were too often inadequate in this sample of children admitted in a French PER. Efforts have to be made with physicians and general public to optimize the antibiotic drug use.

Translating Evidence to Facilitate Shared Decision Making: Development and Usability of a Consult Decision Aid Prototype

AIM

The purpose of this study was to translate evidence from Cochrane Reviews into a format that can be used to facilitate shared decision making during the consultation, namely patient decision aids.

METHODS

A systematic development process (a) established a stakeholder committee; (b) developed a prototype according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards; (c) applied the prototype to a Cochrane Review and used an interview-guided survey to evaluate acceptability/usability; (d) created 12 consult decision aids; and (e) used a Delphi process to reach consensus on considerations for creating a consult decision aid.

RESULTS

The 1-page prototype includes (a) a title specifying the decision; (b) information on the health condition, options, benefits/harms with probabilities; (c) an explicit values clarification exercise; and (d) questions to screen for decisional conflict. Hyperlinks provide additional information on definitions, probabilities presented graphically, and references. Fourteen Cochrane Consumer Network members and Cochrane Editorial Unit staff participated. Thirteen reported that it would help patient/clinician discussions and were willing to use and/or recommend it. Seven indicated the right amount of information, six not enough, and one too much. Changes to the prototype were more links to definitions, more white space, and details on GRADE evidence ratings. Creating 12 consult decision aids took about 4 h each. We identified ten considerations when selecting Cochrane Reviews for creating consult decision aids.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a systematic process, we developed a consult decision aid prototype to be populated with evidence from Cochrane Reviews. It was acceptable and easy to apply. Future studies will evaluate implementation of consult decision aids.

More primary care patients regret health decisions if they experienced decisional conflict in the consultation: a secondary analysis of a multicenter descriptive study

Background

We sought to estimate the extent of decision regret among primary care patients and identify risk factors associated with regret.

Methods

Secondary analysis of an observational descriptive study conducted in two Canadian provinces. Unique patient-physician dyads were recruited from 17 primary care clinics and data on patient, physician and consultation characteristics were collected before, during and immediately after consultations, as well as two weeks post-consultation, when patients completed the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). We examined the DRS score distribution and performed ordinal logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of regret.

Results

Among 258 unique patient-physicians dyads, mean ± standard deviation of decision regret scores was 11.7 ± 15.1 out of 100. Overall, 43 % of patients reported no regret, 45 % reported mild regret and 12 % reported moderate to strong regret. In multivariate analyses, higher decision regret was strongly associated with increased decisional conflict and less significantly associated with patient age and education, as well with male (vs. female) physicians and residents (vs. teachers).

Conclusion

After consulting family physicians, most primary care patients experience little decision regret, but some experience more regret if there is decisional conflict. Strategies for reducing decisional conflict in primary care, such as shared decision-making with decision aids, seem warranted.

Prevalence of clinically significant decisional conflict: an analysis of five studies on decision-making in primary care

OBJECTIVES

Unresolved clinically significant decisional conflict (CSDC) in patients following a consultation with health professionals is often the result of inadequate patient involvement in decision-making and may result in poor outcomes. We sought to identify the prevalence of CSDC in studies on decision-making in primary care and to explore its risk factors.

SETTING

We performed a secondary analysis of existing data sets from studies conducted in Primary Care Practice-Based Research Networks in Québec and Ontario, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible studies included a patient-reported measure on the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) following a decision made with a healthcare professional with no study design restriction.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

CSDC was defined as a score ≥25/100 on the DCS. The prevalence of CSDC was stratified by sex; and patient-level logistic regression analysis was performed to explore its potential risk factors. Data sets of studies were analysed individually and qualitatively compared.

RESULTS

5 projects conducted between 2003 and 2010 were included. They covered a range of decisions: prenatal genetic screening, antibiotics for acute respiratory infections and miscellaneous. Altogether, the 5 projects gathered data from encounters with a total of 1338 primary care patients (69% female; range of age 15-83). The prevalence of CSDC in patients varied across studies and ranged from 10.3% (95% CI 7.2% to 13.4%) to 31.1% (95% CI 26.6% to 35.6%). Across the 5 studies, risk factors of CSDC included being male, living alone and being 45 or older.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of CSDC in patients who had enrolled in studies conducted in primary care contexts was substantial and appeared to vary according to the type of decision as well as to patient characteristics such as sex, living arrangement and age. Patients presenting risk factors of CSDC should be offered tools to increase their involvement in decision-making.

College students, shared decision making, and the appropriate use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review examines shared decision making to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics for college students with respiratory tract infections.

PARTICIPANTS/METHODS

CINAL, Cochrane, PubMed, EBSCO, and PsycNET were searched in October 2014 using the following criteria: English language, human subjects, peer-reviewed, shared decision making for respiratory tract infections, adult patients or college students, and antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections. Twelve articles were selected for final review.

RESULTS

College students and younger, more educated, adults prefer shared decision making. Shared decision making shows promise for decreasing antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections. Education, understanding, and provider-patient communication are important to the shared decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision making shows promise to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections in college students and could be considered for future studies.

Extent and Predictors of Decision Regret about Health Care Decisions: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

People often face difficult decisions about their health and may later regret the choice that they made. However, little is known about the extent of decision regret in health care or its predictors. We systematically reviewed evidence about the extent of decision regret and its risk factors among individuals making health decisions.

METHODS

The data sources were Medline, Embase, and reverse citation searches in Google Scholar and Web of Science. Studies using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) to measure decision regret among individuals making nonhypothetical health decisions were included. There were no restrictions on study design, setting, or language. We extracted characteristics of included studies, measures of central tendency for DRS scores (0 = no regret, 100 = high regret), and all risk factors from published analyses. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis was performed owing to the heterogeneity of studies.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 372 unique titles, and 59 studies were included. The overall mean DRS score across studies was 16.5, and the median of the mean scores was 14.3 (standard deviation range = 2.2-34.5) (n = 44 studies). The risk factors most frequently reported to be associated with decision regret in multivariate analyses included higher decisional conflict, lower satisfaction with the decision, adverse physical health outcomes, and greater anxiety levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The extent of decision regret as assessed with the DRS in nonhypothetical health decisions was often low but reached high levels for some decisions. Several risk factors related to the decision-making process significantly predicted decision regret. Additional research into the psychometrics of the DRS and the relevance of scores for clinicians and patients would increase the validity of decision regret as a patient-reported outcome.

Effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) for type 2 diabetes on knowledge, decisional self-efficacy, and decisional conflict

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) often have poor glycemic control on first-line pharmacologic therapy and require treatment intensification. Intensification decisions can be difficult because of many available options and their many benefits and risks. The American Diabetes Association recommends patient-centered, evidence-based tools supporting shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. We developed a patient decision aid (PDA) targeting decisions about treatment intensification for T2DM. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of this PDA for patients with T2DM on metformin who require treatment intensification.

METHODS

This study was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial conducted in 27 US primary care and endocrinology clinics. Subjects were English-speaking adults with T2DM receiving metformin with persistent hyperglycemia who were recommended to consider medication intensification. Subjects were randomized to receive either the PDA or usual care (UC). Main outcome measures were change in knowledge, decisional self-efficacy, and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Of 225 subjects enrolled, 114 were randomized to the PDA and 111 to UC. Mean [SD] age was 52 [1] years, time since T2DM diagnosis was 6 [+/-6] years, 45.3% were male, and most (55.5%) were non-Caucasian. Compared to UC, PDA users had significantly larger knowledge gains (35.0% [22.3] vs 9.9% [22.2]; P < 0.0001) and larger improvements in self-efficacy (3.7 [16.7] vs-3.9 [19.2]; P < 0.0001) and decisional conflict (-22.2 [20.6] vs-7.5 [16.6]; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The PDA resulted in substantial and significant improvements in knowledge, decisional conflict and decisional self-efficacy. Decisional conflict scores after PDA use were within the range that correlates with effective decision-making. This PDA has the potential to facilitate shared-decision-making for patients with T2DM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02110979.

The Impact of Patient Participation in Health Decisions Within Medical Encounters

Background: Although there are compelling moral arguments for patient participation in medical decisions, the link to health outcomes has not been systematically explored. Objective: Assess the extent to which patient participation in decision making within medical encounters is associated with measured patient outcomes. Methods: We conducted a primary search in PubMed—excluding non-English and animal studies—for articles on decision making in the context of the physician–patient relationship published through the end of February 2015, using the MeSH headings (Physician-Patient Relations [MeSH] OR Patient Participation [MeSH]) and the terms (decision OR decisions OR option OR options OR choice OR choices OR alternative OR alternatives) in the title or abstract. We also conducted a secondary search of references in all articles that met the inclusion criteria. Results: A thorough search process yielded 116 articles for final analysis. There was wide variation in study design, as well as measurement of patient participation and outcomes, among the studies. Eleven of the 116 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Interventions increased patient involvement in 10 (91%) of the 11 RCTs. At least one positive outcome was detected in 5 (50%) of the 10 RCTs reporting increased participation; the ratio of positive results among all outcome variables measured in these studies was much smaller. Although proportions differed, similar patterns were found across the 105 nonrandomized studies. Conclusions: Very few RCTs in the field have measures of participation in decision making and at least one health outcome. Moreover, extant studies exhibit little consistency in measurement of these variables, and results are mixed. There is a great need for well-designed, reproducible research on clinically relevant outcomes of patient participation in medical decisions.

Interventions to facilitate shared decision making to address antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in primary care

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making is an important component of patient-centred care. It is a set of communication and evidence-based practice skills that elicits patients' expectations, clarifies any misperceptions and discusses the best available evidence for benefits and harms of treatment. Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for consulting in primary care and obtaining prescriptions for antibiotics. However, antibiotics offer few benefits for ARIs, and their excessive use contributes to antibiotic resistance - an evolving public health crisis. Greater explicit consideration of the benefit-harm trade-off within shared decision making may reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making increase or reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to December 2014) and Web of Science (1985 to December 2014). We searched for other published, unpublished or ongoing trials by searching bibliographies of published articles, personal communication with key trial authors and content experts, and by searching trial registries at the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (individual level or cluster-randomised), which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions that promote shared decision making (as the focus or a component of the intervention) about antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. Antibiotic prescribing was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included clinically important adverse endpoints (e.g. re-consultations, hospital admissions, mortality) and process measures (e.g. patient satisfaction). We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and the quality of evidence. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information where available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 published reports of nine original RCTs (one report was a long-term follow-up of the original trial) in over 1100 primary care doctors and around 492,000 patients.The main risk of bias came from participants in most studies knowing whether they had received the intervention or not, and we downgraded the rating of the quality of evidence because of this.We meta-analysed data using a random-effects model on the primary and key secondary outcomes and formally assessed heterogeneity. Remaining outcomes are presented narratively.There is moderate quality evidence that interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic use for ARIs in primary care (immediately after or within six weeks of the consultation), compared with usual care, from 47% to 29%: risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.68. Reduction in antibiotic prescribing occurred without an increase in patient-initiated re-consultations (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, moderate quality evidence) or a decrease in patient satisfaction with the consultation (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, low quality evidence). There were insufficient data to assess the effects of the intervention on sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing, adverse clinical outcomes (such as hospital admission, incidence of pneumonia and mortality), or measures of patient and caregiver involvement in shared decision making (such as satisfaction with the consultation; regret or conflict with the decision made; or treatment compliance following the decision). No studies assessed antibiotic resistance in colonising or infective organisms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care in the short term. Effects on longer-term rates of prescribing are uncertain and more evidence is needed to determine how any sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing affects hospital admission, pneumonia and death.

Shared Decision Making in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of interventions to support shared decision making (SDM) with pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the efficacy of SDM interventions in pediatrics on patient-centered outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Ovid PsycInfo from database inception to December 30, 2013, and performed an environmental scan.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included interventions designed to engage pediatric patients, parents, or both in a medical decision, regardless of study design or reported outcomes.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

We reviewed all studies in duplicate for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was performed on 3 outcomes: knowledge, decisional conflict, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Sixty-one citations describing 54 interventions met eligibility criteria. Fifteen studies reported outcomes such that they were eligible for inclusion in meta-analysis. Heterogeneity across studies was high. Meta-analysis revealed SDM interventions significantly improved knowledge (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 2.17, P = .01) and reduced decisional conflict (SMD -1.20, 95% CI -2.01 to -0.40, P = .003). Interventions showed a nonsignificant trend toward increased satisfaction (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.78, P = .08).

LIMITATIONS

Included studies were heterogeneous in nature, including their conceptions of SDM.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

A limited evidence base suggests that pediatric SDM interventions improve knowledge and decisional conflict, but their impact on other outcomes is unclear.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42013004761 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013004761).

Antimicrobial stewardship in outpatient settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the effect of outpatient antimicrobial stewardship programs on prescribing, patient, microbial outcomes, and costs.

DESIGN

Systematic review

METHODS

Search of MEDLINE (2000 through November 2013), Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies. We included English language studies with patient populations relevant to the United States (eg, infectious conditions, prescription services) evaluating stewardship programs in outpatient settings and reporting outcomes of interest. Data regarding study characteristics and outcomes were extracted and organized by intervention type.

RESULTS

We identified 50 studies eligible for inclusion, with most (29 of 50; 58%) reporting on respiratory tract infections, followed by multiple/unspecified infections (17 of 50; 34%). We found medium-strength evidence that stewardship programs incorporating communication skills training and laboratory testing are associated with reductions in antimicrobial use, and low-strength evidence that other stewardship interventions are associated with improved prescribing. Patient-centered outcomes, which were infrequently reported, were not adversely affected. Medication costs were generally lower with stewardship interventions, but overall program costs were rarely reported. No studies reported microbial outcomes, and data regarding outpatient settings other than primary care clinics are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Low- to moderate-strength evidence suggests that antimicrobial stewardship programs in outpatient settings improve antimicrobial prescribing without adversely effecting patient outcomes. Effectiveness depends on program type. Most studies were not designed to measure patient or resistance outcomes. Data regarding sustainability and scalability of interventions are limited.

Dyadic validity of the Decisional Conflict Scale: common patient/physician measures of patient uncertainty were identified

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the dyadic validity of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) for assessing shared decision making in clinical consultations. We applied dyadic criteria, which consider the patient and physician as an interactive dyad instead of as independent individuals, to identify common patient/physician measures of patient uncertainty.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Patients and their physicians, participating in a randomized clustered trial, completed separately an adapted version of the DCS with five subscales. We performed factor analysis on the full DCS and each subscale independently. We defined a measure as dyadic when measurement invariance across patients and physicians was supported.

RESULTS

We analyzed 332 paired responses (physicians with adults or with parents and children) at study entry and 339 at exit. Factor analysis showed that the full DCS is not a valid dyadic measure. However, independent analysis of each subscale showed measurement invariance for values clarity, support, and effective decision (comparative fit index range, 0.93-1; root mean square error of approximation range, 0-0.07; and P-value > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Application of our dyadic validation criterion indicated that the full DCS cannot be considered a dyadic measure. However, three of its subscales, values clarity, support and effective decision, are valid dyadic measures.

Educational interventions to improve prescription and dispensing of antibiotics: a systematic review

Background

Excessive and inappropriate antibiotic use contributes to growing antibiotic resistance, an important public-health problem. Strategies must be developed to improve antibiotic-prescribing. Our purpose is to review of educational programs aimed at improving antibiotic-prescribing by physicians and/or antibiotic-dispensing by pharmacists, in both primary-care and hospital settings.

Methods

We conducted a critical systematic search and review of the relevant literature on educational programs aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing and dispensing practice in primary-care and hospital settings, published in January 2001 through December 2011.

Results

We identified 78 studies for analysis, 47 in primary-care and 31 in hospital settings. The studies differed widely in design but mostly reported positive results. Outcomes measured in the reviewed studies were adherence to guidelines, total of antibiotics prescribed, or both, attitudes and behavior related to antibiotic prescribing and quality of pharmacy practice related to antibiotics. Twenty-nine studies (62%) in primary care and twenty-four (78%) in hospital setting reported positive results for all measured outcomes; fourteen studies (30%) in primary care and six (20%) in hospital setting reported positive results for some outcomes and results that were not statistically influenced by the intervention for others; only four studies in primary care and one study in hospital setting failed to report significant post-intervention improvements for all outcomes. Improvement in adherence to guidelines and decrease of total of antibiotics prescribed, after educational interventions, were observed, respectively, in 46% and 41% of all the reviewed studies. Changes in behaviour related to antibiotic-prescribing and improvement in quality of pharmacy practice was observed, respectively, in four studies and one study respectively.

Conclusion

The results show that antibiotic use could be improved by educational interventions, being mostly used multifaceted interventions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1276) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the empirical evidence linking patient outcomes and SDM, when the decision-making process has been explicitly measured, and to identify under what measurement perspectives SDM is associated with which types of patient outcomes (affective-cognitive, behavioral, and health).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (through December 2012) and hand search of article bibliographies.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they empirically 1) measured SDM in the context of a patient-clinician interaction and 2) evaluated the relationship between SDM and at least 1 patient outcome.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study results were categorized by SDM measurement perspective (patient-reported, clinician-reported, or observer-rated) and outcome type (affective-cognitive, behavioral, or health).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-three used patient-reported measures of SDM, 6 used observer-rated measures, and 2 used clinician-reported measures. Ninety-seven unique patient outcomes were assessed; 51% affective-cognitive, 28% behavioral, and 21% health. Only 43% of assessments (n = 42) found a significant and positive relationship between SDM and the patient outcome. This proportion varied by SDM measurement perspective and outcome category. It was found that 52% of outcomes assessed with patient-reported SDM were significant and positive, compared with 21% with observer-rated and 0% with clinician-reported SDM. Regardless of measurement perspective, SDM was most likely to be associated with affective-cognitive patient outcomes (54%), compared with 37% of behavioral and 25% of health outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

The relatively small number of studies precludes meta-analysis. Because the study inclusion and exclusion criteria required both an empirical measure of SDM and an assessment of the association between that measure and a patient outcome, most included studies were observational in design.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM, when perceived by patients as occurring, tends to result in improved affective-cognitive outcomes. Evidence is lacking for the association between empirical measures of SDM and patient behavioral and health outcomes.

The impact of DECISION+2 on patient intention to engage in shared decision making: secondary analysis of a multicentre clustered randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Training health professionals in shared decision making (SDM) may influence their patients' intention to engage in SDM.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of DECISION+2, a SDM training programme for family physicians about the use of antibiotics to treat acute respiratory infections (ARIs), on their patients' intention to engage in SDM in future consultations.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a multicentre clustered randomized trial.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Three hundred and fifty-nine patients consulting family physicians about an ARI in nine family practice teaching units (FPTUs).

INTERVENTION

DECISION+2 (two-hour online tutorial, two-hour workshop, and decision support tools) was offered in the experimental group (five FPTUs, 162 physicians, 181 patients). Usual care was provided in the control group (four FPTUs, 108 physicians, 178 patients).

OUTCOME MEASURE

Change in patients' intention scores (range -3 to +3) between pre- and post-consultation.

RESULTS

The mean ± SD [median] scores of intention to engage in SDM were high in both study groups before consultation (DECISION+2 group: 1.4 ± 1.0 [1.7]; control group: 1.5 ± 1.1 [1.7]) and increased in both groups after consultation (DECISION+2 group: 2.1 ± 1.1 [2.7]; control group: 1.9 ± 1.2 [2.3]). Change of intention, classified as either increased, stable or decreased, was not statistically associated with the exposure to the DECISION+2 programme after adjusting for the cluster design (proportional odds ratio = 1.5; 95% confidence interval = 0.8-3.0).

CONCLUSION

DECISION+2 had no significant impact on patients' intention to engage in SDM for choosing to use antibiotics or not to treat an ARI in future consultations. Patient-targeted interventions may be necessary to achieve this purpose.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Impact of DECISION + 2 on patient and physician assessment of shared decision making implementation in the context of antibiotics use for acute respiratory infections

BACKGROUND

DECISION + 2, a training program for physicians, is designed to implement shared decision making (SDM) in the context of antibiotics use for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs). We evaluated the impact of DECISION + 2 on SDM implementation as assessed by patients and physicians, and on physicians' intention to engage in SDM.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2011, a multi-center, two-arm, parallel randomized clustered trial appraised the effects of DECISION + 2 on the decision to use antibiotics for patients consulting for ARTIs. We randomized 12 family practice teaching units (FPTUs) to either DECISION + 2 or usual care. After the consultation, both physicians and patients independently completed questionnaires based on the D-Option scale regarding SDM behaviors during the consultation. Patients also answered items assessing the role they assumed during the consultation (active/collaborative/passive). Before and after the intervention, physicians completed a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to measure their intention to engage in SDM. To account for the cluster design, we used generalized estimating equations and generalized linear mixed models to assess the impact of DECISION + 2 on the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 270 physicians (66% women) participated in the study. After DECISION + 2, patients' D-Option scores were 80.1 ± 1.1 out of 100 in the intervention group and 74.9 ± 1.1 in the control group (p = 0.001). Physicians' D-Option scores were 79.7 ± 1.8 in the intervention group and 76.3 ± 1.9 in the control group (p = 0.2). However, subgroup analyses showed that teacher physicians D-Option scores were 79.7 ± 1.5 and 73.0 ± 1.4 respectively (p = 0.001). More patients reported assuming an active or collaborative role in the intervention group (67.1%), than in the control group (49.2%) (p = 0.04). There was a significant relation between patients' and physicians' D-Option scores (p < 0.01) and also between patient-reported assumed roles and both D-Option scores (as assessed by patients, p < 0.01; and physicians, p = 0.01). DECISION + 2 had no impact on the intention of physicians to engage in SDM.

CONCLUSION

DECISION + 2 positively influenced SDM behaviors as assessed by patients and teacher physicians. Physicians' intention to engage in SDM was not affected by DECISION + 2.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov trials register no. NCT01116076.

Theory-based interventions to reduce prescription of antibiotics--a randomized controlled trial in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are the most common reason for consulting a GP and for receiving an antibiotic prescription, although evidence shows poor benefit but rather increasing antibiotic resistance. Interventions addressing physicians have to take into consideration the complexity of prescribing behaviour.

OBJECTIVE

To study whether interventions based on behavioural theories can reduce the prescribing of antibiotics against URTIs in primary care. Setting and subjects. GPs at 19 public primary health care centres in southern Sweden.

METHODS

We performed a randomized controlled study using two behavioural theory-based interventions, the persuasive communication intervention (PCI) and the graded task intervention (GTI), which emerged from social cognitive theory and operant learning theory. GPs were randomized to a control group or one of two intervention groups (PCI and GTI).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Changes in the rate of prescription of antibiotics against URTIs in primary care patients of all ages and in patients aged 0-6 years.

RESULTS

No significant differences were seen in the prescription rates before and after the interventions when patients of all ages were analysed together. However, for patients aged 0-6 years, there was a significant lower prescription rate in the PCI group (P = 0.037), but not the GTI group, after intervention.

CONCLUSION

Theory-based interventions have limited impact on reducing the prescription of antibiotics against URTIs in primary care. Future studies are needed to draw firm conclusions about their effects.

Validation of SURE, a four-item clinical checklist for detecting decisional conflict in patients

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine the psychometric properties of SURE, a 4-item checklist designed to screen for clinically significant decisional conflict in clinical practice.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of a clustered randomized trial assessing the effect of DECISION+2, a 2-hour online tutorial followed by a 2-hour interactive workshop on shared decision making, on decisions to use antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. Patients completed SURE and also the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), as the gold standard, after consultation. We evaluated internal consistency of SURE using the Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient (KR-20). We compared DCS and SURE scores using the Spearman correlation coefficient. We assessed sensitivity and specificity of SURE scores (cut-off score ≤3 out of 4) by identifying patients with and without clinically significant decisional conflict (DCS score >37.5 on a scale of 0-100).

RESULTS

Of the 712 patients recruited during the trial, 654 completed both tools. SURE scores showed adequate internal consistency (KR-20 coefficient of 0.7). There was a significant correlation between DCS and SURE scores (Spearman's ρ = -0.45, P < 0.0001). The prevalence of clinically significant decisional conflict as estimated by the DCS was 5.2% (95% CI 3.7-7.3). Sensitivity and specificity of SURE ≤3 were 94.1% (95% CI 78.9-99.0) and 89.8% (95% CI 87.1-92.0), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SURE shows adequate psychometric properties in a primary care population with a low prevalence of clinically significant decisional conflict. SURE has the potential to be a useful screening tool for practitioners, responding to the growing need for detecting clinically significant decisional conflict in patients.

Opportunities for shared decision making in kidney transplantation

Health researchers and policy-makers increasingly urge both patient and clinician engagement in shared decision making (SDM) to promote patient-centered care. Although SDM has been examined in numerous clinical settings, it has received little attention in solid organ transplantation. This paper describes the application of SDM to the kidney transplantation context. Several distinctive features of kidney transplantation present challenges to SDM including fragmented patient-provider relationships, the time-sensitive and unpredictable nature of deceased organ offers, decision-making processes by transplant providers serving as both organ guardians (given the organ scarcity) versus advocates for specific patients seeking transplantation, variable clinical practices and policies among transplant centers, and patients' potentially compromised cognitive status and literacy levels. We describe potential barriers to and opportunities for SDM, and posit that SDM is feasible, warranting encouragement in kidney transplantation. We propose strategies to promote and overcome obstacles to SDM in kidney transplantation. We contend that engagement in SDM can be facilitated by re-organization of clinical care, communication and education of providers and patients.

Shared decision making does not influence physicians against clinical practice guidelines

Background

While shared decision making (SDM) and adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are important, some believe they are incompatible. This study explored the mutual influence between physicians’ intention to engage in SDM and their intention to follow CPGs.

Methods

Embedded within a clustered randomized trial to assess the impact of training physicians in SDM about using antibiotics to treat acute respiratory tract infections, this study evaluated physicians’ intentions to both engage in SDM and follow CPGs. A self-administered questionnaire based on the theory of planned behavior evaluated both behavioral intentions and their respective determinants (attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control) at study entry and exit. We used path analysis to explore the relationships between the intentions. We conducted statistical analyses using the maximum likelihood method and the variance-covariance matrix. Goodness of fit indices encompassed the chi-square statistic, the comparative fit index and the root mean square error of approximation.

Results

We analyzed 244 responses at entry and 236 at exit. In the control group, at entry we observed that physicians’ intention to engage in SDM (r = 0, t = 0.03) did not affect their intention to follow CPGs; however, their intention to follow CPGs (r = −0.31 t = −2.82) did negatively influence their intention to engage in SDM. At exit, neither behavioral intention influenced the other. In the experimental group, at entry neither behavioral intention influenced the other; at exit, the intention to engage in SDM still did not influence the intention to use CPGs, although the intention to follow CPGs (r = −0.15 t = −2.02) slightly negatively influenced the intention to engage in SDM, but this was not clinically significant.

Conclusion

Physicians’ intention to engage in SDM does not affect their intention to adopt CPGs even after SDM training. Physicians’ intention to adopt CPGs had no clinically significant influence on intention to engage in SDM.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01116076

Healthcare providers' intentions to engage in an interprofessional approach to shared decision-making in home care programs: a mixed methods study

In an interprofessional approach to shared decision-making (IP-SDM), an interprofessional team collaborates in identifying best options and helps patients determine their preferences, enabling them to take more control over the treatment plan. However, little is known about fostering IP-SDM in Canada's healthcare system. Therefore, we sought to evaluate health professionals' intentions to engage in IP-SDM in home care and explore the factors associated with this intention. A total of 272 eligible home care providers completed a questionnaire based on the theory of planned behavior. Eight managers and one healthcare team caring for the frail elderly were interviewed about possible barriers and facilitators. Analysis involved descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis of quantitative data and content analysis of qualitative data. On a scale of − 3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree), the mean intention to engage in IP-SDM was positive (1.42 ± 1.39). The intention was influenced by the following theory-based determinants (R² = 57%; p ≤ 0.002), i.e. cognitive attitude (p < 0.001) subjective norm (p < 0.0001) and perceived behavioral control (p < 0.0001), with variations depending on the type of provider. Barriers included lack of time, poor team cohesion and high staff turnover. Facilitators included team cohesion and shared tools. Future programs implementing IP-SDM could address these barriers and facilitators.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing Decision Boxes in primary healthcare teams to facilitate shared decisionmaking: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Decision Boxes are summaries of the most important benefits and harms of health interventions provided to clinicians before they meet the patient, to prepare them to help patients make informed and value-based decisions. Our objective is to explore the barriers and facilitators to using Decision Boxes in clinical practice, more precisely factors stemming from (1) the Decision Boxes themselves, (2) the primary healthcare team (PHT), and (3) the primary care practice environment.

METHODS/DESIGN

A two-phase mixed methods study will be conducted. Eight Decision Boxes relevant to primary care, and written in both English and in French, will be hosted on a website together with a tutorial to introduce the Decision Box. The Decision Boxes will be delivered as weekly emails over a span of eight weeks to clinicians of PHTs (family physicians, residents and nurses) in five primary care clinics located across two Canadian provinces. Using a web-questionnaire, clinicians will rate each Decision Box with the Information Assessment Method (cognitive impacts, relevance, usefulness, expected benefits) and with a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to study the determinants of clinicians' intention to use what they learned from that Decision Box in their patient encounter (attitude, social norm, perceived behavioral control). Web-log data will be used to monitor clinicians' access to the website. Following the 8-week intervention, we will conduct semi-structured group interviews with clinicians and individual interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Decision Boxes. Data collected from questionnaires, focus groups and individual interviews will be combined to identify factors potentially influencing implementation of Decision Boxes in clinical practice by clinicians of PHTs.

CONCLUSIONS

This project will allow tailoring of Decision Boxes and their delivery to overcome the specific barriers identified by clinicians of PHTs to improve the implementation of shared decision making in this setting.