Ability of observer and self-report measures to capture shared decision-making in clinical practice in the UK: a mixed-methods study

Decision regret following surgical management of pilonidal disease

AIM

Surgical decision making in the context of pilonidal disease (PD) can be challenging. Current evidence for the management of PD is inadequate and optimum treatment is not clear. This paper reports on patient experience of shared decision making (SDM) and decision regret following surgical management of PD.

METHOD

The Pilonidal Trial. Studying the Treatment Options (PITSTOP) study (ISRCTN95551898) is a prospective cohort study of patients with PD treated between May 2019 and March 2022. This subanalysis reports the results of quantitative data capture between baseline and 6 months post-procedure. Baseline data consisted of patient and disease characteristics, surgical procedure and impression of SDM. Post-procedure data consisted of operative outcomes and decision regret. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyse the relationship between clinical outcomes and decision regret.

RESULTS

Overall, 677 patients were included, and follow-up data to 6 months were available for 476 (71%). Most (59.5%) patients underwent major excisional surgery; 45.1% of patients experienced a postoperative complication. Participant impression of SDM was positive, with a median CollaboRATE mean-score response of 3 (interquartile range: 3-4). Of the patients who underwent a 'leave open' approach, 20.6% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their treatment. Postoperative complications (β = 3.21, 95% CI: -12.75 to 7.25, p < 0.001) and disease recurrence (β = 11.5, 95% CI: -10.6 to 9.4, p < 0.001) were both associated with higher rates of decision regret.

CONCLUSION

The clinical outcomes, postoperative complications and recurrence, were associated with higher levels of decision regret. Surgeons treating patients with PD should practice SDM and ensure that patient priorities inform treatment approach.

Treatment options for patients with pilonidal sinus disease: PITSTOP, a mixed-methods evaluation

Background

There is no consensus on optimal management of pilonidal disease. Surgical practice is varied, and existing literature is mainly single-centre cohort studies of varied disease severity, interventions and outcome assessments.

Objectives

A prospective cohort study to determine: • disease severity and intervention relationship • most valued outcomes and treatment preference by patients • recommendations for policy and future research.

Design

Observational cohort study with nested mixed-methods case study. Discrete choice experiment. Clinician survey. Three-stage Delphi survey for patients and clinicians. Inter-rater reliability of classification system.

Setting

Thirty-one National Health Service trusts.

Participants

Patients aged > 16 years referred for elective surgical treatment of pilonidal disease.

Interventions

Surgery.

Main outcome measures

Pain postoperative days 1 and 7, time to healing and return to normal activities, complications, recurrence. Outcomes compared between major and minor procedures using regression modelling, propensity score-based approaches and augmented inverse probability weighting to account for measured potential confounding features.

Results

Clinician survey: There was significant heterogeneity in surgeon practice preference. Limited training opportunities may impede efforts to improve practice. Cohort study: Over half of patients (60%; N = 667) had a major procedure. For these procedures, pain was greater on day 1 and day 7 (mean difference day 1 pain 1.58 points, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.01 points, n = 536; mean difference day 7 pain 1.53 points, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.95 points, n = 512). There were higher complication rates (adjusted risk difference 17.5%, 95% confidence interval 9.1 to 25.9%, n = 579), lower recurrence (adjusted risk difference -10.1%, 95% confidence interval -18.1 to -2.1%, n = 575), and longer time to healing (>34 days estimated difference) and time to return to normal activities (difference 25.9 days, 95% confidence interval 18.4 to 33.4 days). Mixed-methods analysis: Patient decision-making was influenced by prior experience of disease and anticipated recovery time. The burden involved in wound care and the gap between expected and actual time for recovery were the principal reasons given for decision regret. Discrete choice experiment: The strongest predictors of patient treatment choice were risk of infection/persistence (attribute importance 70%), and shorter recovery time (attribute importance 30%). Patients were willing to trade off these attributes. Those aged over 30 years had a higher risk tolerance (22.35-34.67%) for treatment failure if they could experience rapid recovery. There was no strong evidence that younger patients were willing to accept higher risk of treatment failure in exchange for a faster recovery. Patients were uniform in rejecting excision-and-leave-open because of the protracted nursing care it entailed. Wysocki classification analysis: There was acceptable inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.61). Consensus exercise: Five research and practice priorities were identified. The top research priority was that a comparative trial should broadly group interventions. The top practice priority was that any interventions should be less disruptive than the disease itself.

Limitations

Incomplete recruitment and follow-up data were an issue, particularly given the multiple interventions. Assumptions were made regarding risk adjustment.

Conclusions and future work

Results suggest the burden of pilonidal surgery is greater than reported previously. This can be mitigated with better selection of intervention according to disease type and patient desired goals. Results indicate a framework for future higher-quality trials that stratify disease and utilise broad groupings of common interventions with development of a patient-centred core outcome set.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN95551898.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/17/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 33. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of decision making interventions on increasing perceptions of shared decision making occurring in advanced cancer consultations

OBJECTIVE

To determine how decision making interventions for use in advanced cancer treatment consultations function and whether they increase perceptions of shared decision making (SDM) behaviours within consultations.

METHODS

A systematic search of five literature databases was conducted. Evaluations of decision making interventions where participants faced active treatment decisions for stage 4 or otherwise incurable cancer were included. Intervention descriptions were coded using Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) to provide a narrative of how the interventions function. A narrative synthesis of interventions effect on perceptions of SDM behaviours compared to usual care was conducted.

RESULTS

Four studies presenting different interventions were included. Education, training, modelling and enablement intervention functions were identified. Oncologist SDM training alone and combined with a patient communication aid demonstrated the only significant effect (p < 0.05) on SDM behaviours in advanced cancer consultations.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professional (HCP) SDM training which includes modelling and enablement functions may be effective in increasing clinician motivation, capability and opportunity to facilitate SDM in advanced cancer consultations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Implementing HCP SDM training into practice may encourage greater uptake of SDM which may lead to treatment decisions concordant with the goals of care of people with advanced cancer.

Explorative observational study of Dutch patient-clinician interactions: operationalisation of personal perspective elicitation as part of shared decision-making in real-life audio-recorded consultations

OBJECTIVES

Patients' preferences, values and contexts are important elements of the shared decision-making (SDM) process. We captured those elements into the concept of 'personal perspective elicitation' (PPE), which reflects the need to elicit patients' preferences, values and contexts in patient-clinician conversations. We defined PPE as: 'the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or contexts potentially relevant to decision-making'. Our goal was to operationalise the concept of PPE through the evaluation of preferences, values and contexts and explore how PPE occurs in clinical encounters.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study: observational coding based on a novel coding scheme of audio-recorded outpatient clinical encounters where encounter patient decision aids were applied.

SETTING

We audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions at three Dutch outpatient clinics. PPE was analysed using a novel observational coding scheme, distinguishing preferences, contexts and four Armstrong taxonomy value types (global, decisional, external and situational). We measured SDM using the Observer OPTION5.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians.

RESULTS

We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION5 score was 57.5 (SD:10.1). The audio-recordings gave a rich illustration of preferences, values and contexts that were discussed in the patient-clinician interactions. Examples of identified global values: appearance, beliefs, personality traits. Decisional values were related to the process of decision-making. External values related to asking advice from for example, the clinician or significant others. An identified situational value: a new job ahead. Contexts related to how the illness impacted the life (eg, sexuality, family, sports, work life) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The operationalisation of PPE, an important aspect of SDM, explores which preferences, values and contexts were discussed during patient-clinician interactions where an ePDA was used. The coding scheme appeared feasible to apply but needs further refinement.

A shared decision-making intervention for individuals living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who are considering the menu of pulmonary rehabilitation treatment options; a feasibility study

OBJECTIVES

Shared Decision Making (SDM) has potential to support Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) decision-making when patients are offered a menu of centre- and home-based options. This study sought to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a three-component PR SDM intervention for individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and PR healthcare professionals.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from Dec 2021-Sep 2022. Healthcare professionals attended decision coaching training and used the consultation prompt during consultations. Individuals received the Patient Decision Aid (PtDA) at PR referral. Outcomes included recruitment capability, data completeness, intervention fidelity, and acceptability. Questionnaires assessed patient activation and decisional conflict pre and post-PR. Consultations were assessed using Observer OPTION-5. Optional interviews/focus groups were conducted.

RESULTS

13% of individuals [n = 31, 32% female, mean (SD) age 71.19 (7.50), median (IQR) MRC dyspnoea 3.50 (1.75)] and 100 % of healthcare professionals (n = 9, 78% female) were recruited. 28 (90.32%) of individuals completed all questionnaires. SDM was present in all consultations [standardised scores were mean (SD) = 36.97 (21.40)]. Six healthcare professionals and five individuals were interviewed. All felt consultations using the PtDA minimised healthcare professionals' bias of centre-based PR, increased individuals' self-awareness of their health, prompted consideration of how to improve it, and increased involvement in decision-making.

DISCUSSION

Results indicate the study processes and SDM intervention is feasible and acceptable and can be delivered with fidelity when integrated into the PR pathway.

Patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles, and observed patient involvement in videotaped encounters with medical specialists

OBJECTIVE

To assess how patients prefer and perceive medical decision making, which factors are associated with their preferred and perceived decision-making roles, and whether observed involvement reflects patients' perceived role.

METHODS

We asked 781 patients visiting a medical specialist from 18 different disciplines to indicate their preferred and perceived decision-making roles. Patient involvement in videotaped consultations was assessed with the OPTION5 instrument.

RESULTS

Most patients preferred and perceived decision making as shared (SDM; 58% and 43%, respectively), followed by paternalistic (26% and 38%), and informative (16% and 15%). A large minority (n = 103, 21%) of patients preferring shared or informative decision making (n = 482) experienced paternalistic decision making. Mean (SD) OPTION5 scores were highest in consultations which patients perceived as informative (26.0 (19.7)), followed by shared (19.1 (17.2)) and lowest in paternalistic decision making (11.8 (13.4) p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients want to be involved in decision making. Patients perceive that the physician makes the decision more often than they prefer, and perceive more involvement in the decision than objective assessment by an independent researcher shows.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A clearer understanding of patients' medical decision-making experiences is needed to optimize physician SDM training programmes and patient awareness campaigns.

Leveraging the timing and frequency of patient decision aids in longitudinal shared decision-making: A narrative review and applied model

Introduction

Shared decision‐making (SDM) is intended to increase patient‐centredness of medical decision‐making for patients with acute and chronic conditions. Concurrently, patient decision aids (PtDAs) can supplement SDM by providing information to guide communication between patients and healthcare providers. Because of the prevalence of chronic conditions, where decisions may be extended or recurring, we sought to explore how effectively these tools have been leveraged in this context.

Methods

We conducted a narrative review of the literature on both SDM and PtDAs, searching PubMed and Boston University's library database search tool for English‐language articles published from January 2005 until March 2021. Additional search terms focused on temporality. Drawing from our findings, we developed a combined framework to highlight areas for future research using the discussion of end‐of‐life decisions as an exemplar to illustrate its relevance to chronic care contexts.

Results

After screening 57 articles, we identified 25 articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria on SDM, PtDA use and temporality for chronic care. The literature on SDM highlighted time outside of the medical visit and opportunity to include outside decision partners as important elements of the process. PtDAs were commonly evaluated for process‐related and proximal outcomes, but less often for distal outcomes. Early evidence points to the value of comparative outcome evaluation based on the timing of PtDA distribution.

Conclusion

Our review of the literature on SDM and PtDAs reveals less attention to the timing of PtDAs relative to that of SDM. We highlight the need for further study of timing in PtDA use to improve longitudinal SDM for chronic care. The model that we propose in our discussion provides a starting point for future research on PtDA efficacy.

Patient or Public Contribution

Five patient consultants provided input and feedback on the development and utility of our model.

Assessing the extent of shared decision making in Pediatrics: Preliminary psychometric evaluation of the German CollaboRATEpediatric scales for patients aged 7-18 years, parents and parent-proxy reports

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a preliminary evaluation of psychometric properties of CollaboRATE^pediatric, a set of three scales to assess shared decision making (SDM) with pediatric patients, parents and parents on behalf of their children (parent-proxy reports). As secondary objectives we examined the scales' distributional characteristics, acceptability, and agreement between scales.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 7 years and parents were recruited in two outpatient facilities providing healthcare services for children with neurological and behavioral health conditions. We collected 46, 169 and 227 pediatric patient, parent-proxy and parent reports, respectively. Convergent, divergent and discriminative validity were investigated. Acceptability of the scales and agreement between patient and parent-proxy reports were explored by assessing item nonresponse and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

While convergent and divergent validity were established for the parent scale, discriminative validity was not demonstrated for any of the scales. The scales showed good to excellent acceptability. Parent-proxy reports agreed to a moderate extent with patients' self-reports of SDM.

CONCLUSION

CollaboRATE^pediatric offers a starting point for parsimoniously assessing SDM in Pediatrics, however further psychometric testing is warranted.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Given limited psychometric support for the pediatric patient scale, we recommend using both the pediatric patient and parent-proxy report scales to assess SDM in pediatric patients until further psychometric testing is concluded.

Implementing shared decision-making in UK: Progress 2017-2022

Shared decision making has been on the policy agenda in the UK for at least twelve years, but it lacked a comprehensive approach to delivery. That has changed over the past five years, and we can now see significant progress across all aspects of a comprehensive approach, including leadership at policy, professional and patient levels; infrastructure developments, including the provision of training, tools and campaigns; and practice improvements, such as demonstrations, measurement and coordination. All these initiatives were necessary, but the last, central coordination, would appear to be key to success.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

Disappointing evaluation of a shared decision-making intervention for residents and orthopaedic surgeons

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention in orthopaedic hip and knee osteoarthritis care.

METHODS

Using a pre- post intervention design study, we tested an intervention, that included a decision aid for patients (ptDA) and a SDM training course for residents in training and orthopaedic surgeons. The theory of planned behaviour was used for intervention development. Primary outcomes included patient reported decisional conflict, SDM, and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were physicians' attitude and knowledge, and uptake of the ptDA.

RESULTS

317 patients were included. The intervention improved physicians' knowledge about SDM but had no effect on the primary outcomes. 19 eligible patients used the ptDA (17%). SDM was higher for middle educated patients compared to lower educated (mean difference 9.91, p=0.004), patients who saw surgeons instead of residents (mean difference 5.46, p=0.044) and when surgery was chosen and desired by patients compared to situations where surgery was desired but not chosen (mean difference 15.39, p=0.036).

CONCLUSION

Our multifaceted intervention did not improve SDM and ptDA uptake was low.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In orthopaedic hip and knee osteoarthritic care other ways should be explored to successful implement SDM. Since residents received lower SDM scores, special focus should go to this group.

Experience of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity: a multicentre mixed-methods study embedded in the OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial

BACKGROUND

A patient-centred approach to medicines optimisation is considered essential. The OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial evaluated the effectiveness of medication review with shared decision-making (SDM) in older people with multimorbidity. Beyond evaluating the clinical effectiveness, exploring the patient experience facilitates a better understanding of contextual factors and mechanisms affecting medication review effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To explore experiences of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre mixed-methods study, embedded in the OPERAM trial, combining semi-structured interviews and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) with a purposive sample of 48 patients (70-94 years) from four European countries. Interviews were analysed using the Framework approach. Trial implementation data on SDM were collected and the 9-item SDM questionnaire was conducted with 17 clinicians.

RESULTS

Patients generally displayed positive attitudes towards medication review, yet emphasised the importance of long-term, trusting relationships such as with their general practitioners for medication review. Many patients reported a lack of information and communication about medication changes and predominantly experienced paternalistic decision-making. Patients' beliefs that 'doctors know best', 'blind trust', having limited opportunities for questions, use of jargon terms by clinicians, 'feeling too ill', dismissive clinicians, etc highlight the powerlessness some patients felt during hospitalisation, all representing barriers to SDM. Conversely, involvement of companions, health literacy, empathetic and trusting patient-doctor relationships, facilitated SDM. Paradoxical to patients' experiential accounts, clinicians reported high levels of SDM. The BMQ showed that most patients had high necessity and low concern beliefs about medicines. Beliefs about medicines, experiencing benefits or harms from medication changes, illness perception, trust and balancing advice between different healthcare professionals all affected acceptance of medication changes.

CONCLUSION

To meet patients' needs, future medicines optimisation interventions should enhance information exchange, better prepare patients and clinicians for partnership in care and foster collaborative medication reviews across care settings.

Do consultants do what they say they do? Observational study of the extent to which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether consultants do what they say they do in reaching decisions with their patients.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of hospital outpatient encounters, comparing consultants' self-reported usual decision-making style to their actual observed decision-making behaviour in video-recorded encounters.

SETTING

Large secondary care teaching hospital in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

41 consultants from 18 disciplines and 781 patients.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURE

With the Control Preference Scale, the self-reported usual decision-making style was assessed (paternalistic, informative or shared decision making). Two independent raters assessed decision-making behaviour for each decision using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION)5 instrument ranging from 0 (no shared decision making (SDM)) to 100 (optimal SDM).

RESULTS

Consultants reported their usual decision-making style as informative (n=11), shared (n=16) and paternalistic (n=14). Overall, patient involvement was low, with mean (SD) OPTION5 scores of 16.8 (17.1). In an unadjusted multilevel analysis, the reported usual decision-making style was not related to the OPTION5 score (p>0.156). After adjusting for patient, consultant and consultation characteristics, higher OPTION5 scores were only significantly related to the category of decisions (treatment vs the other categories) and to longer consultation duration (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The limited patient involvement that we observed was not associated with the consultants' self-reported usual decision-making style. Consultants appear to be unconsciously incompetent in shared decision making. This can hinder the transfer of this crucial communication skill to students and junior doctors.

Decision making for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients with a hemoglobinopathy-Shared or not?

BACKGROUND

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) offers an established curative option for sickle cell disease (SCD) and thalassemia patients but is associated with significant risks. Decision making is a complex process and shared decision making (SDM) could be a fitting approach in case of such preference-sensitive decisions. This study investigated what level of SDM is used in conversations with hemoglobinopathy patients and/or their caregivers considering HSCT as a curative treatment option.

METHODS

Longitudinal, descriptive study using the Observing-Patient-Involvement-in-Decision-Making scale (OPTION⁵ ) scale to determine the level of SDM in conversations with 26 hemoglobinopathy patients and/or their caregivers.

RESULTS

The total mean OPTION⁵ score was 43%, which is a moderate SDM approach. There was no difference between conversations with thalassemia patients and SCD patients. Conversations needing an interpreter scored worse than nontranslated conversations. The best scoring OPTION⁵ item was item 3: "informing about the various treatment options" (mean score 2.3 on scale 0-4). For OPTION⁵ item 4: "eliciting patients' preferences" a more skilled effort was measured for SCD patients compared to thalassemia patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean OPTION⁵ score of "moderate" was achieved mainly by giving information on available options, which is primarily a one-way communication. The SDM process can be improved by actively inviting patients to deliberate about options and including their elicited preferences in decision making.

Patient decision-making and regret in pilonidal sinus surgery: a mixed-methods study

AIM

Little is known about optimal management strategies for pilonidal sinus disease (PSD). We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand why patients make, and sometimes regret, treatment decisions.

METHOD

We conducted longitudinal semi-structured interviews at the time of surgery and 6 months later with 20 patients from 13 UK hospitals. Framework analysis was performed, and themes were mapped to (1) the coping in deliberation framework and (2) an acceptability framework. Results were triangulated with those from structured survey instruments evaluating shared decision-making (SDM, best = 9) at baseline and decision regret (DR, most regret = 100) at 6 months.

RESULTS

Nine of 20 patients were not offered a choice of treatment, but this was not necessarily seen as negative (SDM median 4; range 2-4). Factors that influenced decision-making included previous experience and anticipated recovery time. Median (range) DR was 5 (0-50). Those with the highest DR (scores 40-50) were, paradoxically, also amongst the highest scores on SDM (scores 4). Burden of wound care and the disparity between anticipated and actual recovery time were the main reasons for decision regret.

CONCLUSION

To minimize regret about surgical decisions, people with PSD need better information about the burden of wound care and the risks of recurrence associated with different surgical approaches.

Physician-patient communication in decision-making about Caesarean sections in eight district hospitals in Bangladesh: a mixed-method study

Background

Caesarean sections (CS) in Bangladesh have risen eight-fold in the last 15 years. Few studies have explored why. Anecdotally, physicians suggest maternal request for CS is a reason. Women and families suggest physicians influence their decision-making. The aim of this research was to understand more about the decision-making process surrounding CS by exploring physician–patient communication leading to informed-consent for the operation.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-method study using structured observations with the Option Grid Collaborative’s OPTION5 tool and interviews with physicians and women between July and December 2018. Study participants were recruited from eight district public-sector hospitals. Eligibility criteria for facilities was ≥ 80 births every month; and for physicians, was that they had performed CSs. Women aged ≥ 18 years, providing consent, and delivering at a facility were included in the observation component; primigravid women delivering by CS were selected for the in-depth interviews. Quantitative data from observations were analysed using descriptive statistics. Following transcription and translation, a preliminary coding framework was devised for the qualitative data analysis. We combined both inductive and deductive approaches in our thematic analysis.

Results

In total, 306 labour situations were observed, and interviews were conducted with 16 physicians and 32 women who delivered by CS (16 emergency CS; 16 elective CS). In 92.5% of observations of physician–patient communication in the context of labour situations, the OPTION5 mean scores were low (5–25 out of 100) for presenting options, patient partnership, describing pros/cons, eliciting patient preferences and integrating patient preferences. Interviews found that non-clinical factors prime both physicians and patients in favour of CS prior to the clinical encounter in which the decision to perform a CS is documented. These interactions were both minimal in content and limited in purpose, with consent being an artefact of a process involving little communication.

Conclusions

Insufficient communication between physicians and patients is one of many factors driving increasing rates of caesarean section in Bangladesh. While this single clinical encounter provides an opportunity for practice improvement, interventions are unlikley to impact rates of CS without simultaneoulsy addressing physician, patient and health system contextual factors too.

Group medical consultation for osteoporosis: a prospective pilot study of patient experience in Canadian tertiary care

BACKGROUND

Delivery of patient-centred care is limited by physician time. Group medical consultations may save physician time without compromising patient experience.

AIM

To assess patient experience and specialist physician time commitment in a group consultation for osteoporosis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective pilot study at a tertiary osteoporosis centre in Canada between May 2016 and June 2019.

METHOD

The authors evaluated women referred for osteoporosis who chose a 2-hour group consultation instead of a one-to-one consultation. Group consultations were led by an osteoporosis nurse and specialist physician, and consisted of individualised fracture risk assessment and education regarding osteoporosis therapies, followed by a decision-making exercise to choose a treatment plan. Patients then followed up with their GPs to implement this plan. Patient experience was assessed via a questionnaire immediately and 3 months post-consultation, at which time GP satisfaction and patient treatment status were also surveyed.

RESULTS

Of 560 referrals received, 18 patients declined osteoporosis specialist assessment, 54 could not be contacted, 303 attended a one-to- one consultation, and 185 attended a group consultation. Mean participant age was 62.8 years (standard deviation [SD] 5.8) and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) 10-year osteoporotic fracture risk was 13.0 (SD 7.0)%. Immediately post-consultation, 104 (97.2%) patients were satisfied and 102 (95.3%) felt included in decision making. Satisfaction was reported by 95/99 (96.0%) patients and 27/36 (75.0%) GPs. Treatment plans had been enacted by 90 (90.1%) patients. For a matched number of individual consultations, each group session conferred a specialist physician time savings of 5.5 hours.

CONCLUSION

Group consultations represent a satisfactory and time-efficient alternative to one-to-one consultations for select patients with osteoporosis.

Public involvement and engagement in primary and emergency care research: the story from PRIME Centre Wales

BACKGROUND

Policy throughout the United Kingdom promotes involvement of patients and public members in research to benefit patient care and health outcomes. PRIME Centre Wales is a national research centre, developing and coordinating research about primary and emergency care which forms 90% of health service encounters. In this paper, we describe our approach to public involvement and engagement in PRIME Centre Wales (hereafter called PRIME), in particular: how this approach has developed; ways in which public members contribute to PRIME activity; the strengths and limitations of our approach, challenges and future opportunities. PRIME ensures work is relevant to service users, carers, the public and policy makers by incorporating comprehensive patient and public involvement in every phase of our work.

APPROACH

PRIME has policies and processes to enable and promote successful public involvement and engagement across research activities. This ensures public perspectives and patient experiences are integrated throughout research development, implementation and dissemination and in managing and delivering PRIME strategy over a 10 year timescale. A public/patient group called SUPER is a key resource providing wide-ranging perspectives via email and face-to-face discussion. We collect information on processes and experiences to assess value and impact, to guide ongoing involvement and engagement. A funded post provides leadership and support to staff and to public/patient contributors to facilitate collaborations.

DISCUSSION

A stable, well-resourced structure has provided the timescales to build strong relationships and embed diverse approaches to public involvement and engagement within PRIME. Researchers and public contributors have committed to collaborations, developed knowledge and skills and sustained relationships. Effective approaches incorporate values and actions which, when operating together, strengthen processes and outcomes of public involvement and engagement.

CONCLUSION

Supportive context, motivation and time are necessary to foster values and practices that enable effective public involvement and engagement. PRIME has embedded public involvement and engagement across research activities and structures. Central is the public/patient group SUPER offering experience-based expertise to add value to the research cycle. This innovative model, aligned with best practice, enhances relevance and quality of primary and emergency care research to benefit patients and the general population.

Effect of a Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Aid for African-American Men in Primary Care Settings

BACKGROUND

African-American men have an elevated risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer. Shared decision-making (SDM) about prostate cancer screening is recommended but does not always occur.

METHODS

We pilot-tested an online decision aid (DA) in primary care settings using a pre/postevaluation design among African-American men ages 45 to 70 years. Men completed surveys before and after using the DA, which had interactive segments (e.g., values clarification) and provided individualized assessment of prostate cancer risk. Primary outcomes included prostate cancer knowledge, confidence in ability to make informed decisions, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with the decision. Immediately after the clinical visit, patients reported the degree to which they were engaged by their provider in SDM.

RESULTS

Among this sample of men (n = 49), use of the DA was associated with increased knowledge about prostate cancer [mean = 55.3% vs. 71.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 9.8-22.1; P < 0.001], reduced decisional conflict (mean = 33.4 vs. 23.6; 95% CI, -18.1 to -1.6; P = 0.002) on a scale from 0 to 100, and a decreased preference to be screened (88% vs. 69%; 95% CI, 0.09-0.64; P = 0.01). Most (89%) reported that the DA prepared them well/very well for SDM with their provider. Following the clinical visit with providers, scores on perceived involvement in SDM were 68.1 (SD 29.1) on a 0 to 100 scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The DA improved men's knowledge, reduced decisional conflict, and promoted the perception of being prepared for SDM.

IMPACT

Findings suggest that use of an online DA to improve SDM outcomes warrants further testing in a future trial.