The impact of a patient decision aid on shared decision-making behaviour in oncology care and pulmonary medicine-A field study based on real-life observations

Scientific Communication and oncology - "The bridge between knowledge and patients"

The communication of scientific knowledge to patients and society as a whole has never been more central than in modern times. Thanks to the recent pandemic, it has become evident how Scientific Communication (SC) has evolved over time, increasingly diverging from common language. However, it is also clear that it must be properly used by healthcare professionals to avoid comprehension issues that could be severe for the audience. Presently, science and technology are at the heart of progress and innovation; therefore, the proper dissemination of accurate yet accessible information to the population is vital to ensure that no one is left behind and to promote cohesive social advancement. This review aims to analyze the notions of SC and Scientific Method (SM), examining the relationships between them and providing suggestions on how to integrate them properly in both a broader context and the specific field of communication with oncology patients.

The impact of decision tools during oncological consultation with lung cancer patients: A systematic review within the I3LUNG project

INTRODUCTION

To date, lung cancer is one of the most lethal diagnoses worldwide. A variety of lung cancer treatments and modalities are available, which are generally presented during the patient and doctor consultation. The implementation of decision tools to facilitate patient's decision-making and the management of their healthcare process during medical consultation is fundamental. Studies have demonstrated that decision tools are helpful to promote health management and decision-making of lung cancer patients during consultations. The main aim of the present work within the I3LUNG project is to systematically review the implementation of decision tools to facilitate medical consultation about oncological treatments for lung cancer patients.

METHODS

In the present study, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. We used an electronic computer-based search involving three databases, as follows: Embase, PubMed, and Scopus. 10 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included. They explicitly refer to decision tools in the oncological context, with lung cancer patients.

RESULTS

The discussion highlights the most encouraging results about the positive role of decision aids during medical consultations about oncological treatments, especially regarding anxiety, decision-making, and patient knowledge. However, no one main decision aid tool emerged as essential. Opting for a more recent timeframe to select eligible articles might shed light on the current array of decision aid tools available.

CONCLUSION

Future review efforts could utilize alternative search strategies to explore other lung cancer-specific outcomes during medical consultations for treatment decisions and the implementation of decision aid tools. Engaging with experts in the fields of oncology, patient decision-making, or health communication could provide valuable insights and recommendations for relevant literature or research directions that may not be readily accessible through traditional search methods. The development of guidelines for future research were provided with the aim to promote decision aids focused on patients' needs.

Shared decision making with breast cancer patients - does it work? Results of the cluster-randomized, multicenter DBCG RT SDM trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient engaging process advocated especially for preference-sensitive decisions, such as adjuvant treatment after breast cancer. An increasing call for patient engagement in decision making highlights the need for a systematic SDM approach. The objective of this trial was to investigate whether the Decision Helper (DH), an in-consultation patient decision aid, increases patient engagement in decisions regarding adjuvant whole breast irradiation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Oncologists at four radiotherapy units were randomized to practice SDM using the DH versus usual practice. Patient candidates for adjuvant whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery for node-negative breast cancer were eligible. The primary endpoint was patient-reported engagement in the decision process assessed with the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) (range 0-100, 4 points difference considered clinical relevant). Other endpoints included oncologist-reported patient engagement, decisional conflict, fear of cancer recurrence, and decision regret after 6 months.

RESULTS

Of the 674 included patients, 635 (94.2%) completed the SDM-Q-9. Patients in the intervention group reported higher level of engagement (median 80; IQR 68.9 to 94.4) than the control group (71.1; IQR 55.6 to 82.2; p < 0.0001). Oncologist-reported patient engagement was higher in the invention group (93.3; IQR 82.2 to 100) compared to control group (73.3; IQR 60.0 to 84.4) (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Patient engagement in medical decision making was significantly improved with the use of an in-consultation patient decision aid compared to standard. The DH on adjuvant whole breast irradiation is now recommended as standard of care in the Danish guideline.

Impact of timing and format of patient decision aids for breast cancer patients on their involvement in and preparedness for decision making - the IMPACTT randomised controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

After curative surgery for early-stage breast cancer, patients face a decision on whether to undergo surgery alone or to receive one or more adjuvant treatments, which may lower the risk of recurrence. Variations in survival outcomes are often marginal but there are differences in the side effects and other features of the options that patients may value differently. Hence, the patient's values and preferences are critical in determining what option to choose. It is well-researched that the use of shared decision making and patient decision aids can support this choice in a discussion between patient and clinician. However, it is still to be investigated what impact the timing and format of the patient decision aid have on shared decision making outcomes. In this trial, we aim to investigate the impact of a digital pre-consult compared to a paper-based in-consult patient decision aid on patients' involvement in shared decision making, decisional conflict and preparedness to make a decision.

METHODS

The study is a randomised controlled trial with 204 patients at two Danish oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients are newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and offered adjuvant treatments after curative surgery to lower the risk of recurrence. Participants will be randomised to receive either an in-consult paper-based patient decision aid or a pre-consult digital patient decision aid. Data collection includes patient and clinician-reported outcomes as well as observer-reported shared decision making based on audio recordings of the consultation. The primary outcome is the extent to which patients are engaged in a shared decision making process reported by the patient. Secondary aims include the length of consultation, preparation for decision making, preferred role in shared decision making and decisional conflict.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first known randomised, controlled trial comparing a digital, pre-consult patient decision aid to an identical paper-based, in-consult patient decision aid. It will contribute evidence on the impact of patient decision aids in terms of investigating if pre-consult digital patient decisions aids compared to in-consult paper-based decision aids support the cancer patients in being better prepared for decision making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05573022).

Development, implementation and evaluation of patient decision aids supporting shared decision making in women with recurrent ovarian cancer

Objective

Shared decision making (SDM) and use of patient decision aids (PtDAs) are key components in patient-centered care in relapsed ovarian cancer. This paper describes the development and implementation process of PtDAs into a clinical routine in three departments.

Methods

Two PtDAs were developed in collaboration between patients and clinicians. Acceptability and usability of the PtDAs were tested on clinicians and patients using items from the internationally validated questionnaire "Preparation for Decision Making Scale".

Results

Ten patients and 15 clinicians participated in the study. Most patients indicated that PtDAs would be helpful as preparation for the decision-making process with the clinicians. Ten (75%) of the clinicians responded that the PtDAs helped the patients to understand the benefits and disadvantages of each treatment option. Generally, the clinicians indicated that they would use SDM if they had a PtDA tailored to the clinical situation.

Conclusions

Two PtDAs were systematically developed, tested, and implemented thereby supporting an SDM intervention. The PtDAs are still in use at the participating departments.

Innovation

This study was successful in reusing a generic template for a patient decision aid (PtDA) developed at one institution and implemented in two other institutions. This was guided by a well-described systematic development process for PtDAs.

A retrospective study of differences in patients’ anxiety and satisfaction between paper-based and computer-based tools for “Shared Decision-Making”

We aimed to investigate differences in patients’ anxiety and satisfaction between patients undergoing paper-based patient decision aid (PDA) for shared decision-making (SDM) and those receiving computer-based PDA. We retrospectively collected questionnaires before and after SDM. Basic demographic data as well as anxiety, satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and participation in SDM were recorded. We divided our population into subgroups according to use of paper-based or computer-based PDA. In addition, Pearson correlation analysis was applied to assess the relationships among variables. In total, 304 patients who visited our Division of Nephrology were included in the final analysis. Overall, over half of the patients felt anxiety (n = 217, 71.4%). Near half of the patients felt a reduction in anxiety after SDM (n = 143, 47.0%) and 281 patients (92.4%) were satisfied with the whole process of SDM. When we divided all the patients based on use of paper-based or computer-based PDA, the reduction of anxiety level was greater in the patients who underwent paper-based PDA when compared with that of those who underwent computer-based PDA. However, there was no significant difference in satisfaction between the two groups. Paper-based PDA was as effective as computer-based PDA. Further studies comparing different types of PDA are warranted to fill the knowledge gaps in the literature.

"SDM:HOSP"- a generic model for hospital-based implementation of shared decision making

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a core element in the meeting between patient and healthcare professionals, but has proved difficult to implement and sustain in routine clinical practice. One of five Danish regions set out to succeed and to develop a model that ensures lasting SDM based on learnings from large-scale real-world implementation initiatives that go beyond the 'barriers' and 'facilitators' research approach. This paper describes this process and development of a generic implementation model, SDM:HOSP.

METHODS

This project was carried out in the Region of Southern Denmark with five major hospital units. Based on existing theory of SDM, SDM implementation, implementation science and improvement methodology, a process of four phases were described; development of conceptual elements, field-testing, evaluation, and development of the final implementation model. The conceptual elements developed aimed to prepare leaders, train SDM teachers, teach clinicians to perform SDM, support development of patient decision aids, and support systematic planning, execution and follow-up. Field testing was done including continuous participant evaluations and an overall evaluation after one year.

RESULTS

Data from field testing and learnings from the implementation process, illustrated the need for a dynamic and easy adjustable model. The final SDM:HOSP model included four themes; i)Training of Leaders, ii) Training of Teachers and Clinicians, iii) Decision Helper, and iv) 'Process', each with details in three levels, 1) shared elements, 2) recommendations, and 3) local adaption.

CONCLUSIONS

A feasible and acceptable model for implementation of SDM across hospitals and departments that accounts for different organizations and cultures was developed. The overall design can easily be adapted to other organizations and can be adjusted to fit the specific organization and culture. The results from the ongoing and overall evaluation suggest promising avenues for future work in further testing and research of the usability of the model.

Shared decision making in recurrent ovarian cancer: Implementation of patient decision aids across three departments of oncology in Denmark

Objective

Patients with relapsed ovarian cancer are offered multiple treatment options. To match treatment with the individual patient's life situation and preferences, healthcare professionals can apply shared decision making (SDM) including patient decision aids (PtDAs).This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of two different PtDAs in consultations with patients suffering from relapsed ovarian cancer.

Methods

We analyzed the following data before and after implementation of the PtDAs: 1) observed SDM using the OPTION instrument, 2) physician treatment recommendations, and 3) patients' and physicians' evaluations of SDM in consultations using the CollaboRATE, SDM-Q-9, and SDM-Q-Doc.

Results

Significant improvement in observed SDM was found after the implementation (p = 0.002). Improvement of SDM was detected in consultations conducted by physicians reporting more than two hours of SDM-training (p < 0.001), but not when physicians reported less than two hours of SDM-training.No before/after differences in treatment recommendations and in patients' and physicians' evaluations were found.

Conclusion

Implementation of PtDAs improved the level of observed SDM. Training of physicians in SDM is necessary for improved SDM practice.

Innovation

Discussing oncological treatment options with the use of PtDAs is not standard practice in Denmark. The present study is one of the first Danish studies focusing on how to implement SDM and PtDAs in oncological consultations.

Decisional needs of patients with recurrent high-grade glioma and their families

Background

High-grade gliomas are aggressive and life-threatening brain tumors. At the time of recurrence, the patients and their families need to decide on future treatment. None of the treatment options are curative, and tradeoffs between benefits and harms must be made. This study aimed to explore the patients’ and family members’ decisional needs when making the decision.

Methods

We performed semi-structured individual interviews with patients and family members to explore their experiences during the decision making. A phenomenological hermeneutical analysis was conducted.

Results

A total of 15 patients and 14 family members aged 22-79 years participated in the study. Most of the family members were partners to the patient. The findings were centered around three interrelated and concurrently occurring themes: (I) A patient- and family-centered decision making, including the subtheme of being a supportive family member; (II) Balanced information and a trustful professional encounter; and (III) The value of hope. We found that both the patients and family members preferred to be involved in the decision making and that a trustful relationship with the surgeon, balanced and tailored information, and sufficient time to make the decision were essential. The experience of hope had a significant influence on patients’ decisions.

Conclusion

This study found that patient and family involvement, balanced information, and hope were the primary decisional needs of patients and family members at the time of recurrent high-grade glioma. Patients and family members can have different decisional needs, making individual needs assessment essential to decisional support.

Implementation of patient-centred care in Denmark: The way forward with shared decision-making

LEGAL AND POLITICAL LANDSCAPE IN SHARED DECISION MAKING

Current Danish legislation empowers patients in securing their rights, but there are no present legislative developments in Denmark to support patient involvement. Policy initiatives within health care, however, show positive trends by, for example, including recommendations for shared decision making (SDM) in national clinical guidelines and the allocation of resources to fund projects in SDM. Within the last five years, three out of five regions have launched centers in patient involvement and SDM to focus on training, implementation of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and to foster the cultural change in SDM. A national dissemination of a template for easy building of PtDAs accessible via an online platform is one of the latest initiatives.

THE WAY FORWARD

Although the political discourse on SDM is gathering speed, an unclear definition and purpose of SDM is a barrier to real-life implementation. Politicians, leaders and clinicians seem to be moving at different paces and in different directions and are lacking consensus on SDM as a paradigm requiring training, leadership and a patient-centered mindset.

CONCLUSION

Many relevant initiatives are underway. However, SDM is also challenged by the lack of legislation and a central push for real SDM implementation in Denmark.

Shared Decision Making with Acutely Hospitalized, Older Poly-Medicated Patients: A Mixed-Methods Study in an Emergency Department

Shared decision making (SDM) about medicine with older poly-medicated patients is vital to improving adherence and preventing medication-related hospital admissions, but it is difficult to achieve in practice. This study’s primary aim was to provide insight into the extent of SDM in medication decisions in the Emergency Department (ED) and to compare how it aligns with older poly-medicated patients’ preferences and needs. We applied a mixed-methods design to investigate SDM in medication decisions from two perspectives: (1) observational measurements with the observing patient involvement (OPTION 5) instrument of healthcare professionals’ SDM behavior in medication decisions and (2) semi-structured interviews with older poly-medicated patients. A convergent parallel analysis was performed. Sixty-five observations and fourteen interviews revealed four overall themes: (1) a low degree of SDM about medication, (2) a variation in the pro-active and non-active patients approach to conversations about medicine, (3) no information on side effects, and (4) a preference for medication reduction. The lack of SDM with older patients in the ED may increase inequality in health. Patients with low health literacy are at risk of safety threats, nonadherence, and preventable re-admissions. Therefore, healthcare professionals should systematically investigate older poly-medicated patients’ preferences and discuss the side effects and the possibility of reducing harmful medicine.

A scattered landscape: assessment of the evidence base for 71 patient decision aids developed in a hospital setting

Background

Recent publications reveal shortcomings in evidence review and summarization methods for patient decision aids. In the large-scale “Share to Care (S2C)” Shared Decision Making (SDM) project at the University Hospital Kiel, Germany, one of 4 SDM interventions was to develop up to 80 decision aids for patients. Best available evidence on the treatments’ impact on patient-relevant outcomes was systematically appraised to feed this information into the decision aids. Aims of this paper were to (1) describe how PtDAs are developed and how S2C evidence reviews for each PtDA are conducted, (2) appraise the quality of the best available evidence identified and (3) identify challenges associated with identified evidence.

Methods

The quality of the identified evidence was assessed based on GRADE quality criteria and categorized into high-, moderate-, low-, very low-quality evidence. Evidence appraisal was conducted across all outcomes assessed in an evidence review and for specific groups of outcomes, namely mortality, morbidity, quality of life, and treatment harms. Challenges in evidence interpretation and summarization resulting from the characteristics of decision aids and the type and quality of evidence are identified and discussed.

Results

Evidence reviews assessed on average 25 systematic reviews/guidelines/studies and took about 3 months to be completed. Despite rigorous review processes, nearly 70% of outcome-specific information derived for decision aids was based on low-quality and mostly on non-directly comparative evidence. Evidence on quality of life and harms was often not provided or not in sufficient form/detail. Challenges in evidence interpretation for use in decision aids resulted from, e.g., a lack of directly comparative evidence or the existence of very heterogeneous evidence for the diverse treatments being compared.

Conclusions

Evidence reviews in this project were carefully conducted and summarized. However, the evidence identified for our decision aids was indeed a “scattered landscape” and often poor quality. Facing a high prevalence of low-quality, non-directly comparative evidence for treatment alternatives doesn’t mean it is not necessary to choose an evidence-based approach to inform patients. While there is an urgent need for high quality comparative trials, best available evidence nevertheless has to be appraised and transparently communicated to patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01777-x.

Prediction of recovery in trauma patients using Latent Markov models

PURPOSE

Patients' expectations during recovery after a trauma can affect the recovery. The aim of the present study was to identify different physical recovery trajectories based on Latent Markov Models (LMMs) and predict these recovery states based on individual patient characteristics.

METHODS

The data of a cohort of adult trauma patients until the age of 75 years with a length of hospital stay of 3 days and more were derived from the Brabant Injury Outcome Surveillance (BIOS) study. The EuroQol-5D 3-level version and the Health Utilities Index were used 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after injury. Four prediction models, for mobility, pain, self-care, and daily activity, were developed using LMMs with ordinal latent states and patient characteristics as predictors for the latent states.

RESULTS

In total, 1107 patients were included. Four models with three ordinal latent states were developed, with different covariates in each model. The prediction of the (ordinal) latent states in the LMMs yielded pseudo-R² values between 40 and 53% and between 21 and 41% (depending of the type R² used) and classification errors between 24 and 40%. Most patients seem to recover fast as only about a quarter of the patients remain with severe problems after 1 month.

CONCLUSION

The use of LMMs to model the development of physical function post-injury is a promising way to obtain a prediction of the physical recovery. The step-by-step prediction fits well with the outpatient follow-up and it can be used to inform the patients more tailor-made to manage the expectations.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Shared decision making in high-grade glioma patients-a systematic review

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) has proven to be a valuable approach in different patient populations when treatment decisions are called for. Along the disease trajectory of high-grade glioma (HGG), patients are presented with a series of treatment decisions. At the same time, HGG patients often experience cognitive deterioration and reduced decision-making capacity. This study aimed to review the current knowledge about shared decision making from the perspective of the HGG patient.

Methods

Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE. Studies were reviewed against the inclusion criteria and assessed for methodological quality. Descriptive data from the included studies were extracted and a narrative synthesis of the findings was performed.

Results

The searches resulted in 5051 original records. Four studies involving 178 HGG patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The narrative synthesis revealed that most HGG patients in the included studies appreciated an SDM approach and that sufficient information and involvement increased patients’ emotional well-being. The use of a patient decision aid showed the potential to increase knowledge, decrease uncertainty, and affect the treatment decision making of HGG patients.

Conclusion

The results indicate that many HGG patients prefer an SDM approach and that SDM can lead patients toward improved emotional well-being. The evidence is weak, however, and firm conclusions and practice guidelines concerning SDM in HGG patients cannot be made. Future research is warranted to improve decision support for HGG patients.

[Not Available]

There is now broad agreement that ideas like person-centred care, patient expertise and shared decision-making are no longer peripheral to health discourse, fine ideals or merely desirable additions to sound, scientific clinical practice. Rather, their incorporation into our thinking and planning of health and social care is essential if we are to respond adequately to the problems that confront us: they need to be seen not as "ethical add-ons" but core components of any genuinely integrated, realistic and conceptually sound account of healthcare practice. This, the tenth philosophy thematic edition of the journal, presents papers conducting urgent research into the social context of scientific knowledge and the significance of viewing clinical knowledge not as something that "sits within the minds" of researchers and practitioners, but as a relational concept, the product of social interactions. It includes papers on the nature of reasoning and evidence, the on-going problems of how to 'integrate' different forms of scientific knowledge with broader, humanistic understandings of reasoning and judgement, patient and community perspectives. Discussions of the epistemological contribution of patient perspectives to the nature of care, and the crucial and still under-developed role of phenomenology in medical epistemology, are followed by a broad range of papers focussing on shared decision-making, analysing its proper meaning, its role in policy, methods for realising it and its limitations in real-world contexts.