A Decision Aid for Patients Considering Surgery for Sciatica: Codesign and User-Testing With Patients and Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Surgery can help patients with leg pain caused by sciatica recover faster, but by 12 months outcomes are similar to nonsurgical management. For many the decision to have surgery may require reflection, and patient decision aids are an evidence-based clinical tool that can help guide patients through this decision.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and refine a decision aid for patients with sciatica who are deciding whether to have surgery or 'wait and see' (i.e., try nonsurgical management first).

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews with think-aloud user-testing protocol.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty clinicians and 20 patients with lived experience of low back pain or sciatica.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Items from Technology Acceptance Model, Preparation for Decision Making Scale and Decision Quality Instrument for Herniated Disc 2.0 (knowledge instrument).

METHODS

The prototype integrated relevant research with working group perspectives, decision aid standards and health literacy guidelines. The research team refined the prototype through seven rounds of user-testing, which involved discussing user-testing feedback and implementing changes before progressing to the next round.

RESULTS

As a result of working group feedback, the decision aid was divided into sections: before, during and after a visit to the surgeon. Across all rounds of user-testing, clinicians rated the resource 5.9/7 (SD = 1.0) for perceived usefulness, and 6.0/7 for perceived ease of use (SD = 0.8). Patients reported the decision aid was easy to understand, on average correctly answering 3.4/5 knowledge questions (SD = 1.2) about surgery for sciatica. The grade reading score for the website was 9.0. Patients scored highly on preparation for decision-making (4.4/5, SD = 0.7), suggesting strong potential to empower patients. Interview feedback showed that patients and clinicians felt the decision aid would encourage question-asking and help patients reflect on personal values.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians found the decision aid acceptable, patients found it was easy to understand and both groups felt it would empower patients to actively engage in their care and come to an informed decision that aligned with personal values. Input from the working group and user-testing was crucial for ensuring that the decision aid met patient and clinician needs.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and clinicians contributed to prototype development via the working group.

Decision aids for cancer survivors' engagement with survivorship care services after primary treatment: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To elucidate existing decision aids (DAs) in supporting cancer survivors' decisions to engage in cancer survivorship care services after primary treatment. Secondary objectives are to assess the DA acceptability, impact of DAs, and implementation barriers.

METHODS

Databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL) were searched to collect publications from inception through September 2021. Studies describing the development or evaluation of DAs used for survivorship care services after primary cancer treatment were included. Article selection and critical appraisal were conducted independently by two authors.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies that described 13 DAs and addressed multiple survivorship care domains: prevention of recurrence/new cancers in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors and breast cancer gene mutation carriers, family building options, health insurance plans, health promotion (substance use behavior, cardiovascular disease risk reduction), advanced care planning, and post-treatment follow-up intensity. The electronic format was used to design most DAs for self-administration. The content presentation covered decisional context, options, and value clarification exercises. DAs were acceptable and associated with higher knowledge but presented inconclusive decisional outcomes. Implementation barriers included lack of design features for connectivity to care, low self-efficacy, and low perceived DA usefulness among healthcare professionals. Other survivor characteristics included age, literacy, preferred timing, and setting.

CONCLUSIONS

A diverse range of DAs exists in survivorship care services engagement with favorable knowledge outcomes. Future work should clarify the impact of DAs on decisional outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

DA characterization and suggestions for prospective developers could enhance support for cancer survivors encountering complex decisions throughout the survivorship continuum.

Promoting Lung Cancer Screen Decision-Making and Early Detection Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Promoting lung cancer screening (LCS) is complex. Previous studies have overlooked that LCS behaviors are stage based and thus did not identify the characteristics of LCS interventions at different screening stages.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to explore the characteristics and efficacy of interventions in promoting LCS decision making and behaviors and to evaluate these interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a study search from the inception of each bibliographic database to April 8, 2023. The precaution adoption process model was used to synthesize and classify the evidence. The RE-AIM framework was used to evaluate the effectiveness of LCS programs. Heterogeneity tests and meta-analysis were performed using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

We included 31 studies that covered 4 LCS topics: knowledge of lung cancer, knowledge of LCS, value clarification exercises, and LCS supportive resources. Patient decision aids outperformed educational materials in improving knowledge and decision outcomes with a significant reduction in decision conflict (standardized mean difference, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, -1.15 to -0.47; P < .001). Completion rates of LCS ranged from 3.6% to 98.8%. Interventions that included screening resources outperformed interventions that used patient decision aids alone in improving LCS completion. The proportions of reported RE-AIM indicators were highest for reach (69.59%), followed by adoption (43.87%), effectiveness (36.13%), implementation (33.33%), and maintenance (9.68%).

CONCLUSION

Evidence from 31 studies identified intervention characteristics and effectiveness of LCS interventions based on different stages of decision making.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

It is crucial to develop targeted and systematic interventions based on the characteristics of each stage of LCS to maximize intervention effectiveness and reduce the burden of lung cancer.

Accentuating patient values in shared decision-making: A mixed methods development of an online value clarification tool and communication training in the context of early phase clinical cancer trials

OBJECTIVE

In the shared decision-making (SDM) process for potential early phase clinical cancer trial participation, value clarification is highly recommended. However, exploration and discussion of patient values between patients and oncologists remains limited. This study aims to develop an SDM-supportive intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) and a communication training.

METHODS

The OnVaCT intervention was developed and pilot-tested by combining theoretical notions on value clarification, with interview studies with patients and oncologists, focus groups with patient representatives and oncologists, and think aloud sessions with patients, following the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions. These human-centered methodologies enabled a user-centered approach at every step of the development process of the intervention.

RESULTS

This study shows relevant patient values and oncologists' perspectives on value exploration and discussion in daily practice. This has been combined with theoretical considerations into the creation of characters based on real-life experiences of patients in the OnVaCT, and how the tool is combined with a communication training for oncologists to improve SDM.

What Matters Most: The Documented Goals, Values and Motivators of Advanced Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Goals of care conversations are essential to delivery of goal concordant care. Infrequent and inconsistent goals of care documentation potentially limit delivery of goal concordant care.

METHODS

At Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Cancer Center, a standardized documentation template was designed and implemented to increase goals of care documentation by oncologists. The centralized, prompt-based template included value clarification of the goals and values of advanced cancer patients beyond treatment preferences. Documented conversations using the template during the initial pilot period were reviewed to characterization the clinical context in which conversations were recorded. Common goals and motivators were also identified.

RESULTS

A total of 178 advanced cancer patients had at least 1 documented conversation by a medical oncologist using the goals of care template. Oncologists consistently documented within the template goals of therapy and motivating factors in decision making. The most frequently documented goals of care were "Avoiding Pain and Suffering," "Physical Independence," and "Living as Long as Possible." The least recorded goal was "Comfort Focused Treatment Only."

CONCLUSIONS

Review of oncologist documented goals of care conversations using a prompt-based template allowed for characterization of the clinical context, therapy goals and motivators of advanced cancer patients. Communication of goals of care conversations by oncologists using a standardized prompt-based template within a centralized location has the potential to improve delivery of goal concordant care.

Examining the impact of a multimedia intervention on decisional conflict and psychological distress among early-stage breast cancer patients: results from a nationwide RCT

We conducted a nationwide, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of Healing Choices, a novel interactive education and treatment decision program rooted in the self-regulation theory framework, on decisional conflict and psychological distress at 2-month post-intervention in women with early-stage breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive the National Cancer Institute's standard print material (control) or standard print material plus Healing Choices (the intervention). The final sample at 2-month post-intervention consisted of N = 388 participants (intervention: n = 197; control: n = 191). There were no significant differences in decisional conflict or its subscales; however, psychological distress was higher in the intervention group (16.09 ± 10.25) than in the control group (14.37 ± 8.73) at follow-up, B = 1.88, 95% CI [-0.03, 3.80], t(383) = 1.94, p = .05. Upon further examination, we found that engagement with the intervention was low-41%-prompting as-treated analyses, which showed no difference in distress between users and nonusers and a positive impact of Healing Choices on decisional conflict: decisional support subscale: users (35.36 ± 15.50) versus nonusers (39.67 ± 15.99), B = -4.31 (s.e. = 2.09), p = .04. Multiple recommendations for moving ahead stem from this work: (i) intent-to-treat analyses appeared to cause distress, cautioning against interventions that may lead to information overload; (ii) engagement with the intervention is low and future work needs to focus on increasing engagement and monitoring it throughout the study; and (iii) in studies with low engagement, as-treated analyses are critical.

Uncertainty: a neglected determinant of health behavior?

Health behaviors are critical determinants of the well-being of individuals and populations, and understanding the determinants of these behaviors has been a major focus of research. One important determinant that has received little direct attention in past health research is uncertainty: a complex phenomenon that pertains not only to scientific issues regarding the diagnosis, prognosis, prevention, and treatment of health problems, but also to personal issues regarding other important health-related concerns. Here, we make the case for greater attention to uncertainty in health behavior theory and research, and especially to personal uncertainties. We discuss three exemplary types of personal uncertainty-value uncertainty, capacity uncertainty, and motive uncertainty-which relate, respectively, to moral values, capacities to enact or change behaviors, and the motives and intentions of other persons or institutions. We argue that that personal uncertainties such as these influence health behaviors, but their influence has historically been obscured by a focus on other constructs such as self-efficacy and trust. Reconceptualizing and investigating health behavior as a problem of uncertainty can advance both our understanding of the determinants of healthy behaviors and our ability to promote them.

Co-created decision-making: From co-production to value co-creation in health care

Rare diseases are characterized by a wide diversity of signs and symptoms and vary not only from disease to disease but also from person to person, and living with a disease leads patients to peculiar experiences, without limits of time and space, as they extend to various environments and relationships of their lives. Therefore, the objective of this study is the theoretical interaction between value co-creation (VC) and the stakeholder theory (ST) with the shared decision-making (SDM) health care theory, to enable the analysis of the relationships between patients and their stakeholders in the co-creation of value for decision-making focused on the patient's quality of life. It is configured as a multi-paradigmatic proposal by enabling the analysis of multiple perspectives of different stakeholders in health care. Thus, co-created decision-making (CDM) emerges with emphasis on interactivity of the relationships. As previous studies have already highlighted the importance of holistic care, seeing the patient as a whole and not just the body, studies with CDM will be beneficial for analyses that go beyond the clinical office and doctor-patient relationships, extending to all environments and interactions that add value to the patient's treatment. It was concluded that the essence of this new theory proposed here is neither in patient-centered care nor in patient self-care, but in co-created relationships with and between stakeholders, including non-health care environments that are important to the patient, such as relationships with friends, family, other patients with the same disease, social media, public policies, and the practice of pleasurable activities.

Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for navigating breast cancer survivorship care

BACKGROUND

The predominant oncologist-led model in many countries is unsustainable to meet the needs of a growing cohort of breast cancer survivors (BCS). Despite available alternative models, adoption rates have been poor. To help BCS navigate survivorship care, we aimed to systematically develop a decision aid (DA) to guide their choice of follow-up care model and evaluate its acceptability and usability among BCS and health care providers (HCPs).

METHODS

We recruited BCS aged ≥ 21 years who have completed primary treatment and understand English. BCS receiving palliative care or with cognitive impairment were excluded. HCPs who routinely discussed post-treatment care with BCS were purposively sampled based on disciplines. Each participant reviewed the DA during a semi-structured interview using the 'think aloud' approach and completed an acceptability questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and directed content analysis were used.

RESULTS

We conducted three rounds of alpha testing with 15 BCS and 8 HCPs. All BCS found the final DA prototype easy to navigate with sufficient interactivity. The information imbalance favouring the shared care option perceived by 60% of BCS in early rounds was rectified. The length of DA was optimized to be 'just right'. Key revisions made included (1) presenting care options side-by-side to improve perceived information balance, (2) creating dedicated sections explaining HCPs' care roles to address gaps in health system contextual knowledge, and (3) employing a multicriteria decision analysis method for preference clarification exercise to reflect the user's openness towards shared care. Most BCS (73%) found the DA useful for decision-making, and 93% were willing to discuss the DA with their HCPs. Most HCPs (88%) agreed that the DA was a reliable tool and would be easily integrated into routine care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience highlighted the need to provide contextual information on the health care system for decisions related to care delivery. Developers should address potential variability within the care model and clarify inherent biases, such as low confidence levels in primary care. Future work could expand on the developed DA's informational structure to apply to other care models and leverage artificial intelligence to optimize information delivery.

Cocreation with Dutch patients of decision-relevant information to support shared decision-making about adjuvant treatment in breast cancer care

Background

To support patients in shared decision‐making about treatment options, patient decision aids (PtDAs) usually provide benefit/harm information and value clarification methods (VCMs). Recently, personalized risk information from prediction models is also being integrated into PtDAs. This study aimed to design decision‐relevant information (i.e., personalized survival rates, harm information and VCMs) about adjuvant breast cancer treatment in cocreation with patients, in a way that suits their needs and is easily understandable.

Methods

Three cocreation sessions with breast cancer patients (N = 7–10; of whom N = 5 low health literate) were performed. Participants completed creative assignments and evaluated prototypes of benefit/harm information and VCMs. Prototypes were further explored through user testing with patients (N = 10) and healthcare providers (N = 10). The researchers interpreted the collected data, for example, creative and homework assignments, and participants' presentations, to identify key themes. User tests were transcribed and analysed using ATLAS.ti to assess the understanding of the prototypes.

Results

Important information needs were: (a) need for overview/structure of information directly after diagnosis and; (b) need for transparent benefit/harm information for all treatment options, including detailed harm information. Regarding VCMs, patients stressed the importance of a summary/conclusion. A bar graph seemed the most appropriate way of displaying personalized survival rates; the impact of most other formats was perceived as too distressful. The concept of ‘personalization’ was not understood by multiple patients.

Conclusions

A PtDA about adjuvant breast cancer treatment should provide patients with an overview of the steps and treatment options, with layers for detailed information. Transparent information about the likelihood of benefits and harm should be provided. Given the current lack of information on the likelihood of side effects/late effects, efforts should be made to collect and share these data with patients. Further quantitative studies are needed to validate the results and to investigate how the concept of ‘personalization’ can be communicated.

Patient or Public Contribution

Ten breast cancer patients participated in three cocreation sessions to develop decision‐relevant information. Subsequent user testing included 10 patients. The Dutch Breast Cancer Association (BVN) was involved as an advisor in the general study design.

Study protocol for a randomised clinical trial of a decision aid and values clarification method for parents of a fetus or neonate diagnosed with a life-threatening congenital heart defect

INTRODUCTION

Parents who receive the diagnosis of a life-threatening, complex heart defect in their fetus or neonate face a difficult choice between pursuing termination (for fetal diagnoses), palliative care or complex surgical interventions. Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended in clinical contexts where there is clinical equipoise. SDM can be facilitated by decision aids. The International Patient Decision Aids Standards collaboration recommends the inclusion of values clarification methods (VCMs), yet little evidence exists concerning the incremental impact of VCMs on patient or surrogate decision making. This protocol describes a randomised clinical trial to evaluate the effect of a decision aid (with and without a VCM) on parental mental health and decision making within a clinical encounter.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Parents who have a fetus or neonate diagnosed with one of six complex congenital heart defects at a single tertiary centre will be recruited. Data collection for the prospective observational control group was conducted September 2018 to December 2020 (N=35) and data collection for two intervention groups is ongoing (began October 2020). At least 100 participants will be randomised 1:1 to two intervention groups (decision aid only vs decision aid with VCM). For the intervention groups, data will be collected at four time points: (1) at diagnosis, (2) postreceipt of decision aid, (3) postdecision and (4) 3 months postdecision. Data collection for the control group was the same, except they did not receive a survey at time 2. Linear mixed effects models will assess differences between study arms in distress (primary outcome), grief and decision quality (secondary outcomes) at 3-month post-treatment decision.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. Study findings have and will continue to be presented at national conferences and within scientific research journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04437069 (Pre-results).

Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment.

Purpose

To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL.

Study Selection

We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods.

Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation.

Data Synthesis

Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ² = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ² = 6.08, P = 0.05).

Limitations

Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories.

Conclusions

Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation

PURPOSE

We carried out the first public deliberation to elicit lay input regarding guidelines for the design and evaluation of decision aids, focusing on the example of colorectal ("colon") cancer screening.

METHODS

A random, demographically stratified sample of 28 laypeople convened for 4 days, during which they were informed about key issues regarding colon cancer, screening tests, risk communication, and decision aids. Participants then deliberated in small and large group sessions about the following: 1) What information should be included in all decision aids for colon screening? 2) What risk information should be in a decision aid and how should risk information be presented? 3) What makes a screening decision a good one (reasonable or legitimate)? 4) What makes a decision aid and the advice it provides trustworthy? With the help of a trained facilitator, the deliberants formulated recommendations, and a vote was held on each to identify support and alternative views.

RESULTS

Twenty-one recommendations ("deliberative conclusions") were strongly supported. Some conclusions matched current recommendations, such as that decision aids should be available for use with and without providers present (conclusions 1-4) and should support informed choice (conclusion 9). Some conclusions differed from current recommendations, at least in emphasis-for example, that decision aids should disclose cost of screening (conclusion 11) and should be kept simple and understandable (conclusion 14). Deliberants recommended that decision aids should disclose the baseline risk of getting colon cancer (conclusions 15, 17).

LIMITATIONS

Single location and medical decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines for design of decision aids should consider putting a greater focus on disclosing cost and keeping decision aids simple, and they possibly should recommend disclosing less extensive amounts of quantitative information than currently recommended.

Decision aids to facilitate decision making around behavior change in the field of health promotion: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To broadly synthesize literature regarding decision aids (DAs) supporting decision making about diet, physical activity, sleeping and substance use a scoping review was performed.

METHODS

Multiple sources were used: (1) Scientific literature searches, (2) excluded references from a Cochrane review regarding DAs for treatments and screenings, and (3) results from additional searches. Interventions had to (1) support informed decision making and (2) provide information and help to choose between at least two options. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts. Relevant information was extracted descriptively.

RESULTS

Thirty-five scientific articles and four DAs (grey literature) were included. Results were heterogeneous. Twenty-nine (94%) studies described substance use DAs. All DAs offered information and value and/or preference clarification. Many other elements were included (e.g., goal-setting). DA's effects were mixed. Few studies used standardized measures, e.g., decisional conflict (n = 4, 13%). Some positive behavioral effects were reported: e.g., smoking abstinence (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

This research shows only some positive behavioral effects of DAs. However, studies reported heterogeneous results/outcomes, impeding knowledge synthesis. Areas of improvement were identified, e.g., establishing which intervention elements are effective regarding health behavior decision making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

DAs can potentially be beneficial in supporting people to change health behaviors - especially regarding smoking.

Assessing What Matters Most in Older Adults with Multi-Complexity

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Abilities and activities that are often simultaneously valued may not be simultaneously achievable for older adults with multi-complexity. Because of this, the Geriatrics 5M's framework prioritizes care on "what matters most." This study aimed to evaluate and refine the What Matters Most-Structured Tool (WMM-ST).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

105 older adults with an average of 4 chronic conditions completed the WMM-ST along with open-ended questions from the Serious Illness Conversation Guide. Participants also provided demographic and social information, completed cognitive screening with the T-MoCA-Short and frailty screening with the Frail Scale. Quantitative and qualitative analyses aimed to (1) describe values; (2) evaluate the association of patient characteristics with values, and; (3) assess validity via the tool's (a) acceptability (b) educational bias and (c) content accuracy.

RESULTS

Older adults varied in what matters most. Ratings demonstrated modest associations with social support, religiosity, cognition, and frailty, but not with age or education. The WMM-ST was rated as understandable (86%) and applicable to their current situation (61%) independent of education. Qualitative analyses supported the content validity of WMM-ST, while revealing additional content.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

It is possible to assess what matters most to older adults with multi-complexity using a structured tool. Such tools may be useful in making an abstract process clearer but require further validation in diverse samples.

Parent and Youth Preferences in the Treatment of Youth Depression

Patient-centered care requires providing care that is responsive to patient preferences, needs, and values, yet data on parent and youth treatment preferences remains sparse. The present study (1) identifies variations in parent and youth preferences for depression treatment, and (2) explores relationships between parent and youth demographics and psychosocial functioning, and the preferences that parents and youth endorse. Participants were 64 youth and 63 parents awaiting randomization in a clinical trial evaluating psychosocial youth depression treatments. Parents preferred treatments that emphasize learning skills and strategies (82.5%) and include the parent in treatment at least some of the time (96.8%). Youth preferred that the therapist meet mostly with the youth alone (67.2%) but share at least some information with parents (78.1%). Youth (43.8%) tended to respond "don't know" to questions about their preferred therapeutic approach. Understanding parent and youth preferences, especially psychosocial treatment preferences, is needed to provide high-quality, patient-centered care.

Development of a decision support intervention for family members of adults who lack capacity to consent to trials

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is required for participation in clinical trials, however trials involving adults who lack capacity to consent require different enrolment processes. A family member usually acts as a proxy to make a decision based on the patient's 'presumed will', but these decisions can be challenging and families may experience an emotional and decisional burden. Decisions made on behalf of others are conceptually different from those made for ourselves. Innovations have been developed to improve informed consent processes for research, including a number of decision aids, however there are no interventions for proxies who are faced with more complex decisions. This article outlines the development of a novel decision aid to support families making decisions about research participation on behalf of an adult who lacks capacity to consent.

METHODS

Decision support interventions should be developed using rigorous and evidence-based methods. This intervention was developed using MRC guidance for the development of complex interventions, and a conceptual framework for the development and evaluation of decision aids for people considering taking part in a clinical trial. The intervention was informed by a systematic review and analysis of existing information provision. Previous qualitative research with families who acted as proxies enabled the development of a theoretical framework to underpin the intervention. The intervention was iteratively developed with the involvement of lay advisors and relevant stakeholders.

RESULTS

Previous research, theoretical frameworks, and decision aid development frameworks were used to identify and develop the intervention components. The decision aid includes information about the proxy's role and utilises a values clarification exercise and decision support methods to enable a more informed and better-quality decision. Stakeholders, including those representing implementers and receivers of the intervention, contributed to the design and comprehensibility of the decision aid to ensure that it would be acceptable for use.

CONCLUSIONS

Frameworks for the development of decision aids for people considering participating in a clinical trial can be used to develop interventions for family members acting as proxy decision-makers. The decision support tool is acceptable to users. Feasibility testing and outcome measure development is required prior to any evaluation of its effectiveness.

An Autonomy-Supportive Online Decision Aid to Assist Smokers in Choosing Evidence-Based Cessation Assistance: Development Process and Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Decision aids (DAs) may be used to facilitate an autonomous, informed decision to cease smoking and promote the uptake of evidence-based cessation assistance (ie, behavioral support, nicotine replacement therapy, or prescription medication). However, knowledge is lacking regarding their effective elements and (cost-)effectiveness.

Objective

We describe the development process of an online DA (called “VISOR”) that helps smokers to choose evidence-based cessation assistance. Additionally, we provide a description of the protocol of an ongoing randomized controlled trial in which the DA containing an explicit value clarification method (VCM) and tailored advice is compared with a DA without an explicit VCM and tailored advice.

Methods

The development of “VISOR” was based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards guidelines. Viewpoints of end users (collected through 20 interviews with smokers) and clinical and scientific experts (assessed using 2 Delphi studies with 24 scientists and 38 clinicians) were assessed regarding cessation tool decision making and preferred DA content. These findings, together with principles from the Self-Determination Theory, served as input for the development of the online DA. A first DA prototype was alpha-tested in September 2019 and beta-tested for usability in December 2019; feedback was incorporated and resulted in a final version. The final DA contains (1) an information section, (2) an optional knowledge quiz, (3) a brief smoking assessment, (4) intuitive decision, (5) intermediate advice, (6) an explicit VCM, (7) tailored advice, and (8) access information. A randomized controlled trial is currently being conducted to assess the DA’s (cost-)effectiveness compared to a DA that does not include the explicit VCM and the tailored advice; specifically, the DA’s effect on smoking abstinence, uptake of evidence-based cessation assistance, smoking abstinence mediated through uptake of evidence-based cessation assistance, and decisional conflict are investigated. Participants are randomly allocated to receive access to 1 of the 2 DAs and are asked to complete 5 questionnaires (including the baseline questionnaire) over a period of 12 months. To evaluate the effects of the DA on the outcome measures, logistic and linear regression analyses as well as mediation analyses will be carried out. An economic evaluation will be performed to assess the cost-effectiveness.

Results

Data regarding the effect of the VISOR DA are currently being collected, and data collection is expected to be concluded in 2021.

Conclusions

By making use of an iterative process that integrated different stakeholders’ perspectives (including end users), we were able to systematically design an evidence-based DA. The study will contribute to the current knowledge regarding smoking cessation DA application, the added value of explicit VCMs, and the effect of behavioral and informed decision-making outcomes.

Trial Registration

Netherlands Trial Register NL8270; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8270

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/21772

Kidney disease pathways, options and decisions: an environmental scan of international patient decision aids

BACKGROUND

Conservative management is recognized as an acceptable treatment for people with worsening chronic kidney disease; however, patients consistently report they lack understanding about their changing disease state and feel unsupported in making shared decisions about future treatment. The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate patient decision aids (PtDAs) developed to support patient-professional shared decision-making between dialysis and conservative management treatment pathways.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of resources accessible in English using environmental scan methods. Data sources included online databases of research publications, repositories for clinical guidelines, research projects and PtDAs, international PtDA expert lists and reference lists from relevant publications. The resource selection was from 56 screened records; 17 PtDAs were included. A data extraction sheet was applied to all eligible resources, eliciting resource characteristics, decision architecture to boost/bias thinking, indicators of quality such as International Standards for Patient Decision Aids Standards checklist and engagement with health services.

RESULTS

PtDAs were developed in five countries; eleven were publically available via the Internet. Treatment options described were dialysis (n = 17), conservative management (n = 9) and transplant (n = 5). Eight resources signposted conservative management as an option rather than an active choice. Ten different labels across 14 resources were used to name 'conservative management'. The readability of the resources was good. Six publications detail decision aid development and/or evaluation research. Using PtDAs improved treatment decision-making by patients. Only resources identified as PtDAs and available in English were included.

CONCLUSIONS

PtDAs are used by some services to support patients choosing between dialysis options or end-of-life options. PtDAs developed to proactively support people making informed decisions between conservative management and dialysis treatments are likely to enable services to meet current best practice.

Developing and evaluating a patient decision aid for hormone therapy to manage symptoms of surgical menopause: the story behind the "SheEmpowers" patient decision aid

OBJECTIVES

To develop and evaluate an evidence-based patient decision aid (PDA) that can support women making decisions on hormone therapy (HT) for the management of early surgical menopause.

METHODS

The PDA development was guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and involved three phases: an exploratory phase to identify women's decisional needs; a development phase to identify evidence related to treatment options and draft initial prototype; and an evaluation phase to evaluate the prototype and elicit views on acceptability in women (N = 12). All phases were driven by a multidisciplinary group of researchers, clinicians, and patient stakeholders to ensure women's priorities were met.

RESULTS

A prototype PDA was drafted based on needs identified from the exploratory phase. The PDA has five domains: information on surgical menopause and HT; HT outcome probabilities; patient stories; values clarification; and guidance in deliberation. Participants in the evaluation phase perceived the tool as acceptable and offered suggestions for modifications.

CONCLUSION

Through our adopted, systematic approach the SheEmpowers PDA was developed to help women overcome deterrents to decision-making related to lack of knowledge, decision-making skills, and involvement in therapy decisions. The decisional effectiveness of the tool is to be assessed in future studies.

Improving treatment decision-making in bipolar II disorder: a phase II randomised controlled trial of an online patient decision-aid

BACKGROUND

Many patients with bipolar II disorder (BPII) prefer to be more informed and involved in their treatment decision-making than they currently are. Limited knowledge and involvement in one's treatment is also likely to compromise optimal BPII management. This Phase II RCT aimed to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and safety of a world-first patient decision-aid website (e-DA) to improve treatment decision-making regarding options for relapse prevention in BPII. The e-DA's potential efficacy in terms of improving quality of the decision-making process and quality of the decision made was also explored.

METHODS

The e-DA was based on International Patient Decision-Aid Standards and developed via an iterative co-design process. Adults with BPII diagnosis (n = 352) were recruited through a specialist outpatient clinical service and the social media of leading mental health organisations. Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive standard information with/without the e-DA (Intervention versus Control). At baseline (T0), post-treatment decision (T1) and at 3 months' post-decision follow-up (T2), participants completed a series of validated and purpose-designed questionnaires. Self-report and analytics data assessed the acceptability (e.g., perceived ease-of-use, usefulness; completed by Intervention participants only), safety (i.e., self-reported bipolar and/or anxiety symptoms), and feasibility of using the e-DA (% accessed). For all participants, questionnaires assessed constructs related to quality of the decision-making process (e.g., decisional conflict) and quality of the decision made (e.g., knowledge of treatment options and outcomes).

RESULTS

Intervention participants endorsed the e-DA as acceptable and feasible to use (82.1-94.6% item agreement); most self-reported using the e-DA either selectively (51.8%; relevant sections only) or thoroughly (34%). Exploratory analyses indicated the e-DA's potential efficacy to improve decision-making quality; most between-group standardised mean differences (SMD) were small-to-moderate. The largest potential effects were detected for objective treatment knowledge (- 0.69, 95% CIs - 1.04, - 0.33 at T1; and - 0.57, 95% CIs - 0.99,-0.14 at T2), decisional regret at T2 (0.42, 95% CIs 0.01, 0.84), preparation for decision-making at T1 (- 0.44, 95% CIs - 0.81, - 0.07), and the Decisional Conflict Scale Uncertainty subscale (0.42, 95% CIs 0.08, 0.08) and Total (0.36, 95% CIs 0.30, 0.69) scores, with all SMDs favouring the Intervention over the Control conditions. Regarding safety, e-DA use was not associated with worse bipolar symptoms or anxiety.

CONCLUSION

The e-DA appears to be acceptable, feasible, safe and potentially efficacious at improving patients' decision-making about BPII treatment. Findings also support the future adoption of the e-DA into patient care for BPII to foster treatment decisions based on the best available evidence and patient preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000840381 (prospectively registered 07/06/2017).

Understanding What Information Is Valued By Research Participants, And Why

There is growing public demand that research participants receive all of their results, regardless of whether clinical action is indicated. Instead of the standard practice of returning only actionable results, we propose a reconceptualization called "return of value" to encompass the varied ways in which research participants value specific results and more general information they receive beyond actionable results. Our proposal is supported by a national survey of a diverse sample, which found that receiving research results would be valuable to most (78.5 percent) and would make them more likely to trust researchers (70.3 percent). Respondents highly valued results revealing genetic effects on medication response and predicting disease risk, as well as information about nearby clinical trials and updates on how their data were used. The information most valued varied by education, race/ethnicity, and age. Policies are needed to enable return of information in ways that recognize participants' differing informational needs and values.

Use of Tablets and Smartphones to Support Medical Decision Making in US Adults: Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Tablet and smartphone ownership have increased among US adults over the past decade. However, the degree to which people use mobile devices to help them make medical decisions remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to explore factors associated with self-reported use of tablets or smartphones to support medical decision making in a nationally representative sample of US adults.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data from participants in the 2018 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5, Cycle 2) were evaluated. There were 3504 responses in the full HINTS 5 Cycle 2 data set; 2321 remained after eliminating respondents who did not have complete data for all the variables of interest. The primary outcome was use of a tablet or smartphone to help make a decision about how to treat an illness or condition. Sociodemographic factors including gender, race/ethnicity, and education were evaluated. Additionally, mobile health (mHealth)- and electronic health (eHealth)-related factors were evaluated including (1) the presence of health and wellness apps on a tablet or smartphone, (2) use of electronic devices other than tablets and smartphones to monitor health (eg, Fitbit, blood glucose monitor, and blood pressure monitor), and (3) whether people shared health information from an electronic monitoring device or smartphone with a health professional within the last 12 months. Descriptive and inferential statistics were conducted using SAS version 9.4. Weighted population estimates and standard errors, univariate odds ratios, and 95% CIs were calculated, comparing respondents who used tablets or smartphones to help make medical decisions (n=944) with those who did not (n=1377), separately for each factor. Factors of interest with a P value of <.10 were included in a subsequent multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Compared with women, men had lower odds of reporting that a tablet or smartphone helped them make a medical decision. Respondents aged 75 and older also had lower odds of using a tablet or smartphone compared with younger respondents aged 18-34. By contrast, those who had health and wellness apps on tablets or smartphones, used other electronic devices to monitor health, and shared information from devices or smartphones with health care professionals had higher odds of reporting that tablets or smartphones helped them make a medical decision, compared with those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

A limitation of this research is that information was not available regarding the specific health condition for which a tablet or smartphone helped people make a decision or the type of decision made (eg, surgery, medication changes). In US adults, mHealth and eHealth use, and also certain sociodemographic factors are associated with using tablets or smartphones to support medical decision making. Findings from this study may inform future mHealth and other digital health interventions designed to support medical decision making.

What Matters to Patients and Families: A Content and Process Framework for Clarifying Preferences, Concerns, and Values

Background. Values clarification, or sorting out what matters to a patient or family relevant to a health decision, is a fundamental part of shared decision making. We aimed to describe how values clarification occurs in routine primary care. Methods. Using framework analysis and an established taxonomy, 2 independent researchers analyzed 260 consultations in 5 family medicine clinics across Quebec. Two questions guided our analyses: 1) What categories exist regarding what matters to patients? 2) What patterns exist in discussions of what matters to patients? Results. 1) Five distinct categories of what matters to patients and families were discussed during values clarification: preferences, concerns, treatment-specific values, life goals or philosophies, and broader contextual or sociocultural values. Preferences and concerns were the matters most commonly raised. 2) Diverse patterns of values clarification emerged based on 3 analytical questions: Who initiates the discussion about what matters to patients? When? What information is discussed? The most frequent pattern was clinicians soliciting patients' concerns and preferences during the information-gathering phase. The second most common pattern was similar, except that patients' spontaneously raised what matters to them. Limitations. The study was descriptive and based on audio-recorded visits. We did not interview patients and clinicians to elicit their perspectives. Conclusions. There are 5 distinct categories of what matters to patients and families as well as clear patterns of how values clarification occurs in routine primary care consultations. Clinicians could be sensitive to these categories when engaging in the process of values clarification and may wish to pay particular attention to the opening minutes of a consultation. This study provides a structure for future identification of best practices in values clarification.

Development and usability testing of Understanding Stroke, a tailored life-sustaining treatment decision support tool for stroke surrogate decision makers

BACKGROUND

Surrogate decision makers of stroke patients are often unprepared to make critical decisions on life-sustaining treatments. We describe the development process and key features for the Understanding Stroke web-based decision support tool.

METHODS

We used multiple strategies to develop a patient-centered, tailored decision aid. We began by forming a Patient and Family Advisory Council to provide continuous input to our multidisciplinary team on the development of the tool. Additionally, focus groups consisting of nurses, therapists, social workers, physicians, stroke survivors, and family members reviewed key elements of the tool, including prognostic information, graphical displays, and values clarification exercise. To design the values clarification exercise, we asked focus groups to provide feedback on a list of important activities of daily living. An ordinal prognostic model was developed for ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage using data taken from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive Plus, and incorporated into the tool.

RESULTS

Focus group participants recommended making numeric prognostic information optional due to possible emotional distress. Pie charts were generally favored by participants for graphical presentation of prognostic information, though a horizontal stacked bar chart was also added due to its prevalence in stroke literature. Plain language descriptions of the modified Rankin Scale were created to accompany the prognostic information. A values clarification exercise was developed consisting of a list of 13 situations that may make an individual consider comfort measures only. The final version of the web based tool (which can be viewed on tablets) included the following sections: general introduction to stroke, outcomes (prognostic information and recovery), in-hospital and life-sustaining treatments, decision making and values clarification, post-hospital care, tips for talking to the health care team, and a summary report. Preliminary usability testing received generally favorable feedback.

CONCLUSION

We developed Understanding Stroke, a tailored decision support tool for surrogate decision makers of stroke patients. The tool was well received and will be formally pilot tested in a group of stroke surrogate decision makers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03427645 ).

Shared decision-making in the care of a patient with food allergy

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making is a patient-centered approach that involves a mutual discussion about management or treatment options, which account for the patient's underlying values and preferences for therapy. Little is known about the role of shared decision-making in the care of patients with food allergy.

DATA SOURCES

A narrative review of the shared decision-making and food allergy outcomes literature in the past 20 years was performed.

RESULTS

In shared decision-making, care must be taken to help clarify the patient's values regarding their care options, but not instill the clinician's values or preferences into that choice. It is essential to understand the mutual roles of the clinician in the process of providing evidence-based options for care, advocating for treatments that are aligned with their goals and preferences, and allowing patients to make fully informed decisions within this paradigm. Decision support tools such as decision aids can assist patients in the values clarification process, particularly in which preference-sensitive care exists, in which options hold significant tradeoffs and varying outcomes, and the decision is reflective of personal values and preferences. There are multiple potential preference-sensitive care scenarios in food allergy in which shared decision-making could be optimized, including the development of decision aids. These areas include early allergenic solid introduction, preemptive epinephrine use in which there is allergen exposure but no symptoms, automatic activation of EMS after using epinephrine, and choices of food allergy treatment. Only one decision aid in food allergy exists.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision-making is an approach that could greatly enhance food allergy care and improve patient-reported outcomes.

Parental Views on Newborn Next Generation Sequencing: Implications for Decision Support

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to understand parental decisions, perspectives, values, and beliefs on next generation sequencing in the newborn period (NGS-NBS) to inform the development of a decision aid to support parental decision making in the North Carolina Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening study.

METHODS

We conducted dyadic interviews with 66 current or expectant parents (33 couples) to understand overall decisions about NGS-NBS and reasons for and against learning NGS-NBS results differing by age of onset and medical actionability. Audio recordings were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using qualitative framework analyses.

RESULTS

Favorable views of NGS-NBS included benefits of early intervention, preparedness, child autonomy, and altruism. Unfavorable views were the potential negative effects from early intervention, psychosocial harm, and religious beliefs. Parents universally reported quality of life as important.

CONCLUSION

Interviews elucidated what is important in deciding to have NGS-NBS. Understanding parental perspectives, values, and beliefs and integrating evidence-based findings into a parent-centric decision aid provides value and support in making decisions related to NGS-NBS, where there is no clear course of action.

What Helps People Make Values-Congruent Medical Decisions? Eleven Strategies Tested across 6 Studies

Background. High-quality health decisions are often defined as those that are both evidence informed and values congruent. A values-congruent decision aligns with what matters to those most affected by the decision. Values clarification methods are intended to support values-congruent decisions, but their effects on values congruence are rarely evaluated. Methods. We tested 11 strategies, including the 3 most commonly used values clarification methods, across 6 between-subjects online randomized experiments in demographically diverse US populations ( n1 = 1346, n2 = 456, n3 = 840, n4 = 1178, n5 = 841, n6 = 2033) in the same hypothetical decision. Our primary outcome was values congruence. Decisional conflict was a secondary outcome in studies 3 to 6. Results. Two commonly used values clarification methods (pros and cons, rating scales) reduced decisional conflict but did not encourage values-congruent decisions. Strategies using mathematical models to show participants which option aligned with what mattered to them encouraged values-congruent decisions and reduced decisional conflict when assessed. Limitations. A hypothetical decision was necessary for ethical reasons, as we believed some strategies may harm decision quality. Later studies used more outcomes and covariates. Results may not generalize outside US-based adults with online access. We assumed validity and stability of values during the brief experiments. Conclusions. Failing to explicitly support the process of aligning options with values leads to increased proportions of values-incongruent decisions. Methods representing more than half of values clarification methods commonly in use failed to encourage values-congruent decisions. Methods that use models to explicitly show people how options align with their values offer more promise for helping people make decisions aligned with what matters to them. Decisional conflict, while arguably an important outcome in and of itself, is not an appropriate proxy for values congruence.

The use of PROMs and shared decision-making in medical encounters with patients: An opportunity to deliver value-based health care to patients

BACKGROUND

The recent emphasis on value-based health care (VBHC) is thought to provide new opportunities for shared decision-making (SDM) in the Netherlands, especially when using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine medical encounters. It is still largely unclear about how PROMs could be linked to SDM and what we expect from clinicians in this respect.

AIM

To describe approaches and lessons learned in the fields of SDM and VBHC implementation that converge in using PROMs in medical encounters.

APPROACH

Based on input from three Dutch forerunner case examples and available evidence about SDM and VBHC, we describe barriers and facilitators regarding the use of PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter. Barriers and facilitators were structured according to a conversational model that included monitoring and managing, team talk, option talk, choice talk, and decision talk. Key lessons learned and recommendations were synthesized.

RESULTS

The use of individual, N = 1 PROMs scores in the medical encounter has been largely achieved in the forerunner projects. Conversation on monitoring and managing is relatively well implemented, and option talk to some extent, unlike team talk, and decision talk. Aggregated PROMs information describing outcomes of treatment options seemed to be scarcely used. Experienced barriers largely corresponded to what is known from the literature, eg, perceived lack of time and lack of tools summarizing the options. Some concerns were identified about increasing health care consumption as a result of using PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter.

CONCLUSION

Successful implementation of SDM within VBHC initiatives may not be self-evident, even though individual, N = 1 PROMs scores are being used in the medical encounter. Education and staff resources on meso and macro levels may facilitate the more time-consuming SDM aspects. It seems fruitful to especially target team talk and choice talk in redesigning clinical pathways.

Values clarification and parental decision making about newborn genomic sequencing

OBJECTIVE

Using an online decision aid developed to support parental decision making about newborn genomic sequencing, we tested whether adding a values clarification exercise to educational content would improve decision making outcomes and influence intention to pursue genomic sequencing. We also examined whether the effect of values clarification varied depending on one's health literacy level.

METHOD

In an online experiment, women and men aged 18 to 44 who were either pregnant or had a pregnant partner, were currently trying to get pregnant, or were preparing for a pregnancy within the next 2 years were randomly assigned to complete either a decision aid with educational information about newborn genomic sequencing or a decision aid with the same educational information and a values clarification exercise.

RESULTS

Of the 1,000 participants who completed the decision aid, those who completed the values clarification exercise reported less decision regret, F(1, 995) = 6.19, p = .01, and were clearer about their personal values, F(1, 995) = 6.39, p = .01. Moderation analyses revealed that the benefit of values clarification on decisional conflict was particularly evident among participants with lower health literacy, B = -3.94, SE = 1.67, t = -2.36, p = .018. There was not a significant moderation effect of health literacy and decision aid condition on decision regret.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a values clarification exercise to decision aids for parents making decisions about genomic sequencing may improve the decision-making experience and provide some benefit to individuals with lower health literacy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Value discrepancies between nurses and patients: A survey study

Background

Patient-centeredness, respect for patient autonomy, and shared decision-making have now made it to center stage in discussions on quality of care. Knowing what actually counts in care and how it should be accomplished from the patients’ and nurses’ perspective seems crucial.

Aim

To explore how patients and their nurses perceive the importance and enactment of values in their healthcare.

Research design

An observational, cross-sectional study using a self-developed questionnaire, consisting of 15 items related to seven values (e.g. uniqueness, autonomy, professionalism, compassion, responsiveness, partnership, and empowerment) as described in the taxonomy of Bastemeijer et al.

Participants and research context

The survey was completed by 384 patients and 81 nurses. Participants were recruited on eight internal medicine wards of a 1000-bed university hospital in Belgium.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the ethical committee of the Ghent University Hospital (B670201836799).

Findings

(1) Patients and nurses prioritize values of care differently; (2) nurses report not being able to enact the values they prioritize in actual practice as much as one would like to; and (3) there is a gap in experienced delivery of a comprehensible explanation of all treatment options, a conversation based on equality, making shared decisions, and being non-judgmental between nurses and patients.

Discussion

Our findings challenge nurses’ overemphasis on professional compassion and uniqueness while arguing for increased attention on authentic shared decision-making and empowerment. The first step to a patient-centered culture truly involving patients in their healthcare is communication and information provision, rather than focusing on tangible and normative constructs.

Conclusion

Our findings revealed differences in prioritization and actual enactment of values in care between patients and nurses. This was especially so for values related to communication, provision of complete unbiased information, and shared decision-making. Nurses should prioritize providing comprehensible information and using conversations based on equality to make decision together with patients.

Development and acceptability of a shared decision-making tool for commercial peanut allergy therapies

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is the process through which patients and their medical provider mutually explore therapy goals, risk/benefit, and treatment options regarding medical care. Decision aids are tools that aid in the process of values clarification and help assess decisional needs and potential decisional conflicts.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and assess acceptability of a decision aid for commercial peanut allergy therapies.

METHODS

The creation of this decision aid occurred in 3 stages, including a qualitative study to assess decisional needs, development of a draft decision aid through multiple iterations in accordance with international guidelines and decision aid experts, and assessment of decisional acceptability, decisional conflict, and decisional self-efficacy related to using the decision aid.

RESULTS

The decision aid went through 9 iterations, resulting in a 4-page aid with 7 parts, explaining the therapies, key risks and benefits of therapy choices, relative importance of key attributes of the therapies, and a self-check assessment regarding informational adequacy and how to take the next steps. A total of 24 subjects assessed the decision aid, noting it had good acceptability, high decisional self-efficacy (mean score 91.9/100), and low decisional conflict (mean score 20.2/100). Respondents rated the information content as adequate and sufficient and the information regarding the therapy choices as fair and balanced without a clear bias or presenting a "best choice."

CONCLUSION

We have developed this decision aid as a tool to help caregivers navigate the complexity of decision making for peanut allergy treatment options. The decision aid was noted to have good acceptability, with scores reflective of the instrument enhancing decisional self-efficacy and reducing decisional conflict.

Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate, in a proof-of-concept study, a decision aid that incorporates hypothetical choices in the form of a discrete-choice experiment (DCE), to help patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) understand their values and nudge them towards a value-centric decision between methotrexate and triple therapy (a combination of methotrexate, sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the decision aid, patients completed a series of 6 DCE choice tasks. Based on the patient's pattern of responses, we calculated his/her probability of choosing each treatment, using data from a prior DCE. Following pilot testing, we conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the agreement between the predicted and final stated preference, as a measure of value concordance. Secondary outcomes including time to completion and usability were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Pilot testing was completed with 10 patients and adjustments were made. We then recruited 29 patients to complete the survey: median age 57, 55% female. The patients were all taking treatment and had well-controlled disease. The predicted treatment agreed with the final treatment chosen by the patient 21/29 times (72%), similar to the expected agreement from the mean of the predicted probabilities (68%). Triple therapy was the predicted treatment 24/29 times (83%) and chosen 20/29 (69%) times. Half of the patients (51%) agreed that completing the choice questions helped them to understand their preferences (38% neutral, 10% disagreed). The tool took an average of 15 minutes to complete, and median usability scores were 55 (system usability scale) indicating "OK" usability.

CONCLUSION

Using a DCE as a value-clarification task within a decision aid is feasible, with promising potential to help nudge patients towards a value-centric decision. Usability testing suggests further modifications are needed prior to implementation, perhaps by having the DCE exercises as an "add-on" to a simpler decision aid.

Developing the family support tool: An interactive, web-based tool to help families navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs

INTRODUCTION

Although family members of incapacitated, critically ill patients often struggle in the role of surrogate decision maker, there are no low-cost, easily-scaled interventions to address this problem.

AIM OF THE STUDY

To develop and pilot-test the Family Support Tool, an interactive, web-based tool to help individuals navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We used a mixed methods, user-centered process to create the Family Support Tool, including: 1) creation of a preliminary design by an expert panel; 2) engagement of a key stakeholder panel to iteratively refine the preliminary design; 3) user testing of a low-fidelity prototype of the tool by 6 former ICU surrogates; 4) creation of a web-based prototype; and 5) user testing of the web-based prototype with 14 surrogates and ICU physicians, including semi-structured interviews and quantitative measurement of usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness.

RESULTS

The initial design contained a collection of videos and exercises designed to help individuals understand the surrogate's role and think through the patient's values and preferences. Based on family stakeholders' feedback about the emotional overwhelm they experience early in an ICU stay, we redesigned the tool to be viewed in sections, with the first section focused on decreasing surrogates' emotional distress, and later sections focused on helping surrogates prepare for family meetings. Surrogates actively making decisions in the ICU judged the final tool to be highly usable (mean summary score 83.5, correlating to 95th percentile when normalized to devices of its type), acceptable (mean 4.2 +/- 0.5 out of 5), and effective (mean 4.3 +/- 0.6 out of 5). All surrogates reported the tool helped them consider goals of care and all indicated they would recommend the tool to a friend.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully developed a web-based tool to help individuals navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs that has high potential for scalability. Surrogates judged the tool to be usable, acceptable, and effective. These data support proceeding to test the tool in a pilot randomized clinical trial.

Comparative Effectiveness of a Web-Based Patient Decision Aid for Therapeutic Options for Sickle Cell Disease: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Hydroxyurea, chronic blood transfusions, and bone marrow transplantation are efficacious, disease-modifying therapies for sickle cell disease but involve complex risk-benefit trade-offs and decisional dilemma compounded by the lack of comparative studies. A patient decision aid can inform patients about their treatment options, the associated risks and benefits, help them clarify their values, and allow them to participate in medical decision making.

Objective

The objective of this study was to develop a literacy-sensitive Web-based patient decision aid based on the Ottawa decision support framework, and through a randomized clinical trial estimate the effectiveness of the patient decision aid in improving patient knowledge and their involvement in decision making.

Methods

We conducted population decisional needs assessments in a nationwide sample of patients, caregivers, community advocates, policy makers, and health care providers using qualitative interviews to identify decisional conflict, knowledge and expectations, values, support and resources, decision types, timing, stages and learning, and personal clinical characteristics. Interview transcripts were coded using QSR NVivo 10. Alpha testing of the patient decision aid prototype was done to establish usability and the accuracy of the information it conveyed, and then was followed by iterative cycles of beta testing. We conducted a randomized clinical trial of adults and of caregivers of pediatric patients to evaluate the efficacy of the patient decision aid.

Results

In a decisional needs assessment, 223 stakeholders described their preferences, helping to guide the development of the patient decision aid, which then underwent alpha testing by 30 patients and 38 health care providers and iterative cycles of beta testing by 87 stakeholders. In a randomized clinical trial, 120 participants were assigned to either the patient decision aid or standard care (SC) arm. Qualitative interviews revealed high levels of usability, acceptability, and utility of the patient decision aid in education, values clarification, and preparation for decision making. On the acceptability survey, 72% (86/120) of participants rated the patient decision aid as good or excellent. Participants on the patient decision aid arm compared to the SC arm demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in decisional self-efficacy (P=.05) and a reduction in the informed sub-score of decisional conflict (P=.003) at 3 months, with an improvement in preparation for decision making (P<.001) at 6 months. However, there was no improvement in terms of the change in knowledge, the total or other domain scores of decisional conflicts, or decisional self-efficacies at 6 months. The large amount of missing data from survey completion limited our ability to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the patient decision aid. The patient decision aid met 61 of 62 benchmarks of the international patient decision aid collaboration standards for content, development process, and efficacy.

Conclusions

We have developed a patient decision aid for sickle cell disease with extensive input from stakeholders and in a randomized clinical trial demonstrated its acceptability and utility in education and decision making. We were unable to demonstrate its effectiveness in improving patient knowledge and involvement in decision making.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03224429; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03224429 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02326597; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02326597

Realizing better doctor-patient dialogue about choices in palliative care and early phase clinical trial participation: towards an online value clarification tool (OnVaCT)

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic treatment is no longer available may be offered participation in early phase clinical trials. In the decision making process, both medical-technical information and patient values and preferences are important. Since patients report decisional conflict after deciding on participation in these trials, improving the decision making process is essential. We aim to develop and evaluate an Online Value Clarification Tool (OnVaCT) to assist patients in clarifying their values around this end-of-life decision. This improved sharing of values is hypothesized to support medical oncologists in tailoring their information to individual patients' needs and, consequently, to support patients in taking decisions in line with their values and reduce decisional conflict.

METHODS

In the first part, patients' values and preferences and medical oncologists' views hereupon will be explored in interviews and focus groups to build a first prototype OnVaCT using digital communication (serious gaming). Next, we will test feasibility during think aloud sessions, to deliver a ready-to-implement OnVaCT. In the second part, the OnVaCT, with accompanied training module, will be evaluated in a pre-test (12-18 months before implementation) post-test (12-18 months after implementation) study in three major Dutch cancer centres. We will include 276 patients (> 18 years) with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic therapy is no longer available, and who are referred for participation in early phase clinical trials. The first consultation will be recorded to analyse patient-physician communication regarding the discussion of patients' values and the decision making process. Three weeks afterwards, decisional conflict will be measured.

DISCUSSION

This project aims to support the discussion of patient values when considering participation in early phase clinical trials. By including patients before their first appointment with the medical oncologist and recording that consultation, we are able to link decisional conflict to the decision making process, e.g. the communication during consultation. The study faces challenges such as timely including patients within the short period between referral and first consultation. Furthermore, with new treatments being developed rapidly, molecular stratification may affect the patient populations included in the pre-test and post-test periods.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry number: NTR7551 (prospective; July 17, 2018).

A Novel Tool to Improve Shared Decision Making and Adherence in Multiple Sclerosis: Development and Preliminary Testing

Background. Most people with multiple sclerosis (MS) want to be involved in medical decision making about disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but new approaches are needed to overcome barriers to participation. Objectives. We sought to develop a shared decision-making (SDM) tool for MS DMTs, evaluate patient and provider responses to the tool, and address challenges encountered during development to guide a future trial. Methods. We created a patient-centered design process informed by image theory to develop the MS-SUPPORT SDM tool. Development included semistructured interviews and alpha and beta testing with MS patients and providers. Beta testing assessed dissemination and clinical integration strategies, decision-making processes, communication, and adherence. Patients evaluated the tool before and after a clinic visit. Results. MS-SUPPORT combines self-assessment with tailored feedback to help patients identify their treatment goals and preferences, correct misperceptions, frame decisions, and promote adherence. MS-SUPPORT generates a personal summary of their responses that patients can share with their provider to facilitate communication. Alpha testing (14 patients) identified areas needing improvement, resulting in reorganization and shortening of the tool. MS-SUPPORT was highly rated in beta testing (15 patients, 4 providers) on patient-provider communication, patient preparation, adherence, and other endpoints. Dissemination through both patient and provider networks appeared feasible. All patient testers wanted to share the summary report with their provider, but only 60% did. Limitations. Small sample size, no comparison group. Conclusions. The development process resulted in a patient-centered SDM tool for MS that may facilitate patient involvement in decision making, help providers understand their patients’ preferences, and improve adherence, though further testing is needed. Beta testing in real-world conditions was critical to prepare the tool for future testing and inform the design of future studies.

A global, incremental development method for a web-based prostate cancer treatment decision aid and usability testing in a Dutch clinical setting

Many new decision aids are developed while aspects of existing decision aids could also be useful, leading to a sub-optimal use of resources. To support treatment decision-making in prostate cancer patients, a pre-existing evidence-based Canadian decision aid was adjusted to Dutch clinical setting. After analyses of the original decision aid and routines in Dutch prostate cancer care, adjustments to the decision aid structure and content were made. Subsequent usability testing (N = 11) resulted in 212 comments. Care providers mainly provided feedback on medical content, and patients commented most on usability and summary layout. All participants reported that the decision aid was comprehensible and well-structured and would recommend decision aid use. After usability testing, final adjustments to the decision aid were made. The presented methods could be useful for cultural adaptation of pre-existing tools into other languages and settings, ensuring optimal usage of previous scientific and practical efforts and allowing for a global, incremental decision aid development process.

Assessing the quality and communicative aspects of patient decision aids for early-stage breast cancer treatment: a systematic review

Purpose

Decision aids (DAs) support patients in shared decision-making by providing balanced evidence-based treatment information and eliciting patients’ preferences. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the quality and communicative aspects of DAs for women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer.

Methods

Twenty-one currently available patient DAs were identified through both published literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO) and online sources. The DAs were reviewed for their quality by using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) checklist, and subsequently assessed to what extent they paid attention to various communicative aspects, including (i) information presentation, (ii) personalization, (iii) interaction, (iv) information control, (v) accessibility, (vi) suitability, and (vii) source of information.

Results

The quality of the DAs varied substantially, with many failing to comply with all components of the IPDAS criteria (mean IPDAS score = 64%, range 31–92%). Five aids (24%) did not include any probability information, 10 (48%) presented multimodal descriptions of outcome probabilities (combining words, numbers, and visual aids), and only 2 (10%) provided personalized treatment outcomes based on patients and tumor characteristics. About half (12; 57%) used interaction methods for eliciting patients’ preferences, 16 (76%) were too lengthy, and 5 (24%) were not fully accessible.

Conclusions

In addition to the limited adherence to the IPDAS checklist, our findings suggest that communicative aspects receive even less attention. Future patient DA developments for breast cancer treatment should include communicative aspects that could influence the uptake of DAs in daily clinical practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05351-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development and usability testing of a patient decision aid for newly diagnosed relapsing multiple sclerosis patients

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients often struggle with treatment decisions, in part due to the increasing number of approved disease modifying therapies, each with different characteristics, and also since physicians can struggle to identify which of these characteristics matter most to each individual patient. Decision uncertainty can contribute to late treatment initiation and treatment non-adherence-causes of 'undertreatment' in MS. An interactive online patient decision aid that informs patients of their options, considers their individual preferences and goals, and facilitates conversations with their physicians, could improve how patients with relapsing forms of MS make evidence-based treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate a prototype patient decision aid (PtDA) for first-line disease modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

METHODS

Informed by previous studies and International Patient Decision Aid Standards guidelines, a prototype PtDA was developed for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis considering first line treatment. Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis were recruited from the University of British Columbia's Multiple Sclerosis Clinic to participate in either an online survey or a focus group. Online survey participants completed the PtDA, followed by measures of acceptability, usability, and preparedness for decision-making, and provided general feedback. Focus group participants assessed usability of the revised PtDA. The analysis of qualitative and quantitative data led to improvements of the PtDA prototype.

RESULTS

The prototype PtDA received high ratings for acceptability and usability, and after its use, participants reported high-levels of preparedness for decision-making. Analysis of all qualitative data identified three key themes: the need for credible information; the usefulness of the PtDA; and the importance of normalizing and sharing experiences. Nine content areas were identified for revision. Overall, participants found the PtDA to be a valuable tool for facilitating treatment decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This mixed methods study has led to the development of a PtDA that can support patients with RRMS as they make treatment decisions. Future studies will assess the feasibility of implementation and the impact of the PtDA on both the timely treatment initiation and longer-term adherence.

Patient explicit consideration of tradeoffs in decision making about rectal cancer treatment: benefits for decision process and quality of life

Introduction: Patient preferences are often not discussed in treatment decisions in oncology. We introduced an online values clarification method (VCM) to help newly diagnosed rectal cancer patients participate in shared decision making about short-course preoperative radiotherapy. Material and Methods: We offered a link to the VCM to a subset of consecutive patients before the pretreatment consultation with the radiation oncologist. Consultations were audiotaped and coded for expressions of patient preferences. Patients were asked to complete pre- and post-consultation questionnaires. Questionnaires assessed values clarity, decision regret and presence and impact of fecal incontinence and sexual problems. Results: Of 135 patients who had their consultation audiotaped and completed questionnaires, 35 received and accessed the VCM-link. Patients in the VCM-group slightly more often expressed preferences during consultations. Questionnaire data showed that patients in the VCM-group did not differ in how clear their values were, but experienced lower regret and less impact of treatment harms at 6 months follow-up; differences were non-significant but in the same direction at 12 months. Discussion: This is the first study to assess the effect of an adaptive conjoint analysis-based VCM on actual patient-clinician communication, and long-term decision regret and impact of treatment harms. Being explicitly invited to think about treatment benefits and harms seems to help patients to live with treatment consequences.

Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: An environmental scan

AIMS

To identify and evaluate content and readability of freely available online deprescribing patient education materials (PEMs).

METHODS

Systematic review of PEMs using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews from inception to 25 September 2017 to identify PEMs. Additionally, deprescribing researchers and health professionals were surveyed to identify additional materials. Known repositories of materials were searched followed by a systematic Google search (22-28 January 2018). Materials were evaluated using an approach informed by the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Inventory. Readability of text-based materials was assessed using the US-based Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level.

RESULTS

Forty-eight PEMs were identified. PEMs addressing deprescribing of medications for symptom control (81%) were most common. Preventative medications were rarely addressed and material (39%) focused on older people. Only 37% of PEMs provided information about both potential benefits (e.g. reducing risk of side effects) and harms (e.g. withdrawal symptoms, increased risk of disease) of deprescribing, while 40% focussed on benefits only. Readability indices indicated an average minimum reading level of Grade 12. Option Grids and Decision Aids (mean reading level below Grade 10) were most suitable for people with average literacy levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Over 1/3 of deprescribing PEMs present potential benefits and harms of deprescribing indicating most of the freely available materials are not balanced. Most PEMs are pitched above average reading levels making them inaccessible for low health literacy populations.

Promoting or Undermining Quality Decision Making? A Qualitative Content Analysis of Patient Decision Aids Comparing Surgical and Medication Abortion

OBJECTIVES

To understand, describe, and compare the content of patient decision aids on surgical and medication abortion, including 1) attributes used to describe each method, 2) approaches to clarify patients' values, 3) language used to describe each method, and 4) language used to frame women's decision-making role.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed 49 decision aids identified through a previous systematic review and environmental scan. We used summative content analysis for objectives 1 and 2 and directed content analysis for objectives 3 and 4.

RESULTS

We identified 37 method attributes. Overall, the attributes privileged medical over practical and emotional information. One decision aid included an explicit values clarification approach, and others included implicit approaches, which varied in length, information consistency, and organization. We identified four themes-information consistency, subjective claims, emotive or ambiguous descriptions, and medication abortion as not a real abortion-related to the methods' descriptions. We identified three themes-agency in choice, unclear emphasis on women's preferences, and endorsement of clinic services-related to women's decision-making role. Of the nine tools that listed factors influencing women's decision making, patient preferences was often listed last.

CONCLUSIONS

Early abortion method decision aids presented a broad range of information and typically framed the method choice as the woman's. However, their emphasis on medical attributes, use of inconsistent information, and, at times, biased presentation of methods may undermine quality decision making. We recommend adapting an existing decision aid or designing a novel tool based on the content and language that women find most acceptable.

Developing a patient decision aid for women aged 70 and older with early stage, estrogen receptor positive, HER2 negative, breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

Since women ≥70 years with early stage, estrogen receptor positive (ER+), HER2 negative breast cancer face several preference-sensitive treatment decisions, the investigative team aimed to develop a pamphlet decision aid (DA) for such women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The content of the DA was informed by literature review, international criteria, and expert feedback, and includes information on benefits and risks of lumpectomy versus mastectomy, lymph node surgery, radiotherapy after lumpectomy, and endocrine therapy. It considers women's overall health and was written using low literacy principles. Women from two Boston-based hospitals who were diagnosed in the past 6-24 months were recruited to provide feedback on the DA and its acceptability. The DA was iteratively revised based on their qualitative input.

RESULTS

Of 48 eligible women contacted, 35 (73%) agreed to participate. Their mean age was 74.3 years; 33 (94%) were non-Hispanic white; and 24 (67%) were college graduates. Overall, 26 (74%) thought the length of the DA was just right, 29 (83%) thought all or most of the information was clear, 32 (91%) found the DA helpful, and 33 (94%) would recommend it. In open ended comments, participants noted that the DA was clear, well-organized, and would help women prepare for and participate in treatment decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The investigative team developed a novel breast cancer treatment DA that is acceptable to women ≥70 years with a history of ER+, HER2-, early stage breast cancer. Next, the DA's efficacy needs to be tested with diverse older women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.

Promoting shared decision making in advanced cancer: Development and piloting of a patient communication aid

OBJECTIVE

To learn how to configure a patient communication aid (PCA) to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment for advanced cancer.

METHODS

The PCA consists of education about SDM, a question prompt list, and values clarification methods. Study 1. A first version was presented to 13 patients, 8 relatives and 14 bereaved relatives in interviews. Study 2. A second version was used by 18 patients in a pilot study. Patients and oncologists were interviewed, patients were surveyed, and consultations were audio-recorded.

RESULTS

Respondents reported that the aid facilitated patient control over information, raised choice awareness and promoted elaboration. Risks were identified, most importantly that the aid might upset patients. Also, some respondents reported that the PCA did not, or would not support decision making because they felt sufficiently competent, did not perceive a role for themselves, or did not perceive that the decision required elaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

Opinions on the usefulness of the PCA varied. It was challenging to raise awareness about the presence of a choice, and to find a balance between comprehensive information and sensitivity.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A future study should demonstrate whether the PCA can improve SDM, and whether this effect is stronger when oncologists receive training.

Understanding patients' values and preferences regarding early stage lung cancer treatment decision making

INTRODUCTION

With advances in treatments among patients with lung cancer, it is increasingly important to understand patients' values and preferences to facilitate shared decision making.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter study of patients with treated stage I lung cancer. At the time of study participation, participants were 4-6 months posttreatment. Value clarification and discrete choice methods were used to elicit participants' values and treatment preferences regarding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgical resection using only treatment attributes.

RESULTS

Among 114 participants, mean age was 70 years (Standard Deviation = 7.9), 65% were male, 68 (60%) received SBRT and 46 (40%) received surgery. More participants valued independence and quality of life (QOL) as "most important" compared to survival or cancer recurrence. Most participants (83%) were willing to accept lung cancer treatment with a 2% chance of periprocedural death for only one additional year of life. Participants also valued independence more than additional years of life as most (86%) were unwilling to accept either permanent placement in a nursing home or being limited to a bed/chair for four additional years of life. Surprisingly, treatment discordance was common as 49% of participants preferred the alternative lung cancer treatment than what they received.

CONCLUSIONS

Among participants with early stage lung cancer, maintaining independence and QOL were more highly valued than survival or cancer recurrence. Participants were willing to accept high periprocedural mortality, but not severe deficits affecting QOL when considering treatment. Treatment discordance was common among participants who received SBRT or surgery. Understanding patients' values and preferences regarding treatment decisions is essential to foster shared decision making and ensure treatment plans are consistent with patients' goals. Clinicians need more resources to engage in high quality communication during lung cancer treatment discussions.

Talking about treatment benefits, harms, and what matters to patients in radiation oncology: an observational study

Background

Shared decision making is associated with improved patient outcomes in radiation oncology. Our study aimed to capture how shared decision-making practices–namely, communicating potential harms and benefits and discussing what matters to patients–occur in usual care.

Methods

We invited a convenience sample of clinicians and patients in a radiation oncology clinic to participate in a mixed methods study. Prior to consultations, clinicians and patients completed self-administered questionnaires. We audio-recorded consultations and conducted qualitative content analysis. Patients completed a questionnaire immediately post-consultation about their recall and perceptions.

Results

11 radiation oncologists, 4 residents, 14 nurses, and 40 patients (55% men; mean age 64, standard deviation or SD 9) participated. Patients had a variety of cancers; 30% had been referred for palliative radiotherapy. During consultations (mean length 45 min, SD 16), clinicians presented a median of 8 potential harms (interquartile range 6–11), using quantitative estimates 17% of the time. Patients recalled significantly fewer harms (median recall 2, interquartile range 0–3, t(38) = 9.3, p < .001). Better recall was associated with discussing potential harms with a nurse after seeing the physician (odds ratio 7.5, 95% confidence interval 1.3–67.0, p = .04.) Clinicians initiated 63% of discussions of harms and benefits while patients and families initiated 69% of discussions about values and preferences (Chi-squared(1) = 37.8, p < .001). 56% of patients reported their clinician asked what mattered to them.

Conclusions

Radiation oncology clinics may wish to use interprofessional care and initiate more discussions about what matters to patients to heed Jain’s (2014) reminder that, “a patient isn’t a disease with a body attached but a life into which a disease has intruded.”