Shared Decision Making during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Ethics of Nudging in the COVID-19 Crisis and the Necessary Return to the Principles of Shared Decision Making: A Critical Review

Nudging, a controversial technique for modifying people's behavior in a predictable way, is claimed to preserve freedom of choice while simultaneously influencing it. Nudging had been largely confined to situations such as promoting healthy eating choices but has been employed in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis in a shift towards measures that involve significantly less choice, such as shoves and behavioral prods. Shared decision making (SDM), a method for direct involvement and autonomy, is an alternative approach to communicate risk. Predominantly peer-reviewed scientific publications from standard literature databases like PubMed, PsycInfo, and Psyndex were evaluated in a narrative review. The so-called fear nudges, as well as the dissemination of strongly emotionalizing or moralizing messages can lead to intense psycho-physical stress. The use of these nudges by specialized units during the COVID-19 pandemic generated a societal atmosphere of fear that precipitated a deterioration of the mental and physical health of the population. Major recommendations of the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) study, which are based on elements of nudging and coercive measures, do not comply with ethical principles, basic psychological principles, or evidence-based data. SDM was misused in the COVID-19 crisis, which helped to achieve one-sided goals of governments. The emphasis on utilitarian thinking is criticized and the unethical behavior of decision makers is explained by both using the concept of moral disengagement and the maturity level of coping strategies. There should be a return to an open-ended, democratic, and pluralistic scientific debate without using nudges. It is therefore necessary to return to the origins of SDM.

"We have to save him": a qualitative study on care transition decisions in Ontario's long-term care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to a global crisis in long-term care (LTC) with devastating consequences for residents, families and health professionals. In Ontario, Canada the severity of this crisis has prompted some care partners to move residents home with them for the duration or a portion of the pandemic. This type of care transition, from LTC to home care, was highly unusual pre-pandemic and arguably suboptimal for adults with complex needs. This paper presents the findings of a qualitative study to better understand how residents, care partners, and health professionals made care transition decisions in Ontario's LTC settings during the pandemic.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 residents, care partners and health professionals who considered, supported or pursued a care transition in a LTC setting in Ontario during the pandemic. Crisis Decision Theory was used to structure the analysis.

RESULTS

The results highlighted significant individual and group differences in how participants assessed the severity of the crisis and evaluated response options. Key factors that had an impact on decision trajectories included the individuals' emotional responses to the pandemic, personal identities and available resources.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this study offer novel important insights regarding how individuals and groups perceive and respond to crisis events.

Getting specific: participation preference in urooncological decision-making

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

Certain sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., older age) have previously been identified as barriers to patients' participation preference in shared decision-making (SDM). We aim to demonstrate that this relationship is mediated by the perceived power imbalance that manifests itself in patients' negative attitudes and beliefs about their role in decision-making.

METHODS

We recruited a large sample (N = 434) of outpatients with a range of urological diagnoses (42.2% urooncological). Before the medical consultation at a university hospital, patients completed the Patients' Attitudes and Beliefs Scale and the Autonomy Preference Index. We evaluated attitudes as a mediator between sociodemographic factors and participation preference in a path model.

RESULTS

We replicated associations between relevant sociodemographic factors and participation preference. Importantly, attitudes and beliefs about one's own role as a patient mediated this relationship. The mediation path model explained a substantial proportion of the variance in participation preference (27.8%). Participation preferences and attitudes did not differ for oncological and nononcological patients.

CONCLUSION

Patients' attitudes and beliefs about their role determine whether they are willing to participate in medical decision-making. Thus, inviting patients to participate in SDM should encompass an assessment of their attitudes and beliefs. Importantly, negative attitudes may be accessible to change. Unlike stable sociodemographic characteristics, such values are promising targets for interventions to foster more active participation in SDM.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was part of a larger project on implementing SDM in urological practice. Several stakeholders were involved in the design, planning and conduction of this study, for example, three authors are practising urologists, and three are psychologists with experience in patient care. In addition, the survey was piloted with patients, and their feedback was integrated into the questionnaire. The data presented in this study is based on patients' responses. Results may help to empower our patients.

Decisions and Decisional Needs of Canadians From all Provinces and Territories During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Population-Based Cross-sectional Surveys

BACKGROUND

Never before COVID-19 had Canadians faced making health-related decisions in a context of significant uncertainty. However, little is known about which type of decisions and the types of difficulties that they faced.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify the health-related decisions and decisional needs of Canadians.

METHODS

Our study was codesigned by researchers and knowledge users (eg, patients, clinicians). Informed by the CHERRIES (the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) reporting guideline, we conducted 2 online surveys of random samples drawn from the Leger consumer panel of 400,000 Canadians. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years) who received or were receiving any health services in the past 12 months for themselves (adults) or for their child (parent) or senior with cognitive impairment (caregiver). We assessed decisions and decisional needs using questions informed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, including decisional conflict and decision regret using the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS) and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), respectively. Descriptive statistics were conducted for adults who had decided for themselves or on behalf of someone else. Significant decisional conflict (SDC) was defined as a total DCS score of >37.5 out of 100, and significant decision regret was defined as a total DRS score of >25 out of 100.

RESULTS

From May 18 to June 4, 2021, 14,459 adults and 6542 parents/caregivers were invited to participate. The invitation view rate was 15.5% (2236/14,459) and 28.3% (1850/6542); participation rate, 69.3% (1549/2236) and 28.7% (531/1850); and completion rate, 97.3% (1507/1549) and 95.1% (505/531), respectively. The survey was completed by 1454 (97.3%) adults and 438 (95.1%) parents/caregivers in English (1598/1892, 84.5%) or French (294/1892, 15.5%). Respondents from all 10 Canadian provinces and the northern territories represented a range of ages, education levels, civil statuses, ethnicities, and annual household income. Of 1892 respondents, 541 (28.6%) self-identified as members of marginalized groups. The most frequent decisions were (adults vs parents/caregivers) as follows: COVID-19 vaccination (490/1454, 33.7%, vs 87/438, 19.9%), managing a health condition (253/1454, 17.4%, vs 47/438, 10.7%), other COVID-19 decisions (158/1454, 10.9%, vs 85/438, 19.4%), mental health care (128/1454, 8.8%, vs 27/438, 6.2%), and medication treatments (115/1454, 7.9%, vs 23/438, 5.3%). Caregivers also reported decisions about moving family members to/from nursing or retirement homes (48/438, 11.0%). Adults (323/1454, 22.2%) and parents/caregivers (95/438, 21.7%) had SDC. Factors making decisions difficult were worrying about choosing the wrong option (557/1454, 38.3%, vs 184/438, 42.0%), worrying about getting COVID-19 (506/1454, 34.8%, vs 173/438, 39.5%), public health restrictions (427/1454, 29.4%, vs 158/438, 36.1%), information overload (300/1454, 20.6%, vs 77/438, 17.6%), difficulty separating misinformation from scientific evidence (297/1454, 20.4%, vs 77/438, 17.6%), and difficulty discussing decisions with clinicians (224/1454, 15.4%, vs 51/438, 11.6%). For 1318 (90.6%) adults and 366 (83.6%) parents/caregivers who had decided, 353 (26.8%) and 125 (34.2%) had significant decision regret, respectively. In addition, 1028 (50%) respondents made their decision alone without considering the opinions of clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

During COVID-19, Canadians who responded to the survey faced several new health-related decisions. Many reported unmet decision-making needs, resulting in SDC and decision regret. Interventions can be designed to address their decisional needs and support patients facing new health-related decisions.

Best-Worst Scaling Survey of Inpatients' Preferences in Medical Decision-Making Participation in China

This study assesses inpatients' preferences for participating in medical decision-making and determines the factors' rankings in order of importance and whether they vary for respondents with different characteristics. Case 1 best-worst scaling (BWS) was used for the study design. Thirteen attributes influencing inpatient medical decision-making participation were identified based on a literature review and interview results. A balanced incomplete block design was used to form choice sets for the BWS questionnaire for a cross-sectional study examining inpatients' preferences for participating in medical decision-making. Based on results from 814 inpatient participants, the three most important factors influencing inpatients' medical decision-making participation were inpatients' trust in physicians, physicians' professional expertise, and physicians' attitudes. The mixed logit model results reflect the significant heterogeneity in respondents' preferences for shared decision-making. To facilitate resource allocation, improve the physician-patient relationship, and encourage patient decision-making participation more actively and effectively, decision-makers should emphasize patients' trust, enhance physicians' ability to diagnose and treat diseases, and improve their attitudes toward providing care and communication from the perspectives of patients, physicians, and the social environment. Further research is needed on the heterogeneity of patients' preferences for participating in medical decision-making and how to improve patient participation.

Patient autonomy in cardiac inpatient rehabilitation—A COVID-19-specific exploratory trend study

Background

The COVID-19 outbreak has changed nearly all societal domains, including medical rehabilitation. Social distancing measures impacted patients as well as health professionals during the rehabilitation process. Enhancing patient participation should not be forgotten during exceptional situations, as restrictive measures are related to the self-determination of patients.

Aim

In this exploratory trend study, we aimed to examine the association between COVID-19 restrictions with patients’ motivation, their perception of the patient-provider-relationship, their participation in the rehabilitation process and their current state of health at the beginning of their rehabilitation.

Methods

Adopting an exploratory approach, we compared data from a convenience sample of two different groups of patients, who stayed at a cardiac rehabilitation clinic at two different time periods: before the COVID-19 lockdown of rehabilitation clinics (n = 128) and after reopening during the COVID-19 period (n = 137). We used questionnaires on motivation for rehabilitation, patient-provider-relationship, patient activation and perceived state of health. We conducted t-tests and regression analysis to determine whether there were differences by gender, age, heart failure status, preferred form of decision-making (shared/not-shared) and time of rehabilitation (before/during COVID-19) related to the outcome variables.

Results

Participants evaluated the quality of the patient-provider-relationship in a better way after the reopening of the rehabilitation clinics during the COVID-19 period (p < 0.05), their motivation, participation in the rehabilitation process and their current state of health at the beginning of their rehabilitation was comparable to the group before the COVID-19 lockdown of rehabilitation clinics. Differences in scepticism concerning the treatment and the quality of the patient-provider-relationship were related (p < 0.05) to age and the preferred form of decision-making. Differences in active participation were related (p < 0.05) to sex and differences in the perceived state of health (p < 0.05) to a heart failure diagnosis.

Conclusions

Treatment providers could use the time patients spend in isolation after arrival to prepare them for virtual goal-setting conversations to enhance patient participation in exceptional situations.

Determining the Development Strategy and Suited Adoption Paths for the Core Competence of Shared Decision-Making Tasks through the SAA-NRM Approach

Shared decision making (SDM) is an interactive process that involves patients and their healthcare professionals reaching joint decisions about medical care through negotiation. As the initiators of medical decision-making in daily routine, physicians should be aware of and concerned about the SDM process. Thus, professional competency development for SDM has become increasingly critical for physicians' training. Therefore, this study investigates the professional competency and the important competency development aspects/criteria of SDM tasks through expert interviews and literature research. The study adopts the SAA (satisfaction-attention analysis) method to assess the status of competency development aspects/criteria and determine the NRM (network relation map) based on the DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory) technique. The results demonstrate that the CE (concept and evaluation) aspect is the dominant aspect, and the CR (communication and relationship) aspect is the aspect being dominated. The CE aspect influences the aspects of SP (skill and practice), JM (joint information and decision making) and CR, and the SP aspect affects the aspects of JM and CR. Then, the JM aspect affects the CR aspect. The study also suggests suitable adoption paths of competency development for SDM tasks using the NRM approach. It provides recommendations and strategic directions for SDM competency development and sustainable training programs.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Perceived Quality of Palliative Care in Nursing Homes

The Nursing Homes End-of-life Programme (NUHELP) was developed in 2017 and is based on quality standards of palliative care, but it was not implemented due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To describe perceptions among staff at nursing homes and primary health care (PHC) centres regarding the relevance, feasibility, and degree of achievement of quality standards for palliative care in nursing homes and to determine the differences in these perceptions before and after the pandemic.

METHODOLOGY

Cross-sectional descriptive study. Professionals at eight nursing homes and related PHC centres who participated in NUHELP development assessed 42 palliative care standards at two time points (2018 and 2022). The Mann-Whitney U test was applied to analyse differences in the scores between these two times and between perceptions at nursing homes and at PHC centres.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 58 professionals in 2018 and 50 in 2022. The standard regarding communication with persons affected by the death of a family member was considered less relevant (p = 0.05), and that concerning the culturally sensitive and dignified treatment of the body was less fully achieved (p = 0.03) in 2022 than in 2018. Social support (p = 0.04), sharing information among the care team (p = 0.04), patient participation (p = 0.04) and information about the treatment provided (p = 0.03) were all more poorly achieved in 2022 than in 2018. The perceptions of nursing home and PHC workers differed in several respects.

CONCLUSIONS

Professional intercommunication and social support should be reinforced, and residents should be more actively involved in decision-making.

Does COVID-19 Fear Induce Employee Innovation Performance Deficiency? Examining the Mediating Role of Psychological Stress and Moderating Role of Organizational Career Support

With the immense, short/long-term, and multidirectional effects of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on work performance, industry activities, and the national/global economy, it has adversely affected employees' psychological well-being due to its elevated stress and anxiety that have substantially affected employee innovation performance (deficiency) (EIP(D)). The goal of this empirical paper is to identify how COVID-19 induces EIPD by examining the mediating role of psychological stress (PS) on the relationship between fear of infection with COVID-19 (FIC) and EIPD based on affective events theory (AET) and the moderating effect of organizational career support (OCS) on the relationship between PS and EIPD. Based on 865 survey responses provided by mid-level managers from Chinese manufacturing firms and the covariance-based structural equation modeling (SEM) technique using AMOS 25, we identified that FIC has a positive relationship with EIPD while PS can fully mediate the link between FIC and EIPD and OCS weakens the positive relationship between PS and EIPD (that is, in the presence of OCS, EIPD decreases despite the presence of PS among the employees). The findings of our empirical study will theoretically and practically contribute to the pandemic-related existing literature by providing an in-depth understanding of these variables. Furthermore, policymakers can also benefit by boosting their EIP from the outcomes revealed and suggestions provided.

Shared decision-making in Canada: Update on integration of evidence in health decisions and patient-centred care government mandates

In Canada, government mandates for patient-centred care (PCC) vary across the 10 provinces and three territories. Although basic medical and hospital services are provided for all, health care options for patients also depend on having private insurance. Thus, the current design of the Canadian healthcare system has several implications for PCC and shared decision-making (SDM). Since 2007, this is our fourth update on SDM in Canada. The aim of this paper is to provide an update on the current state of SDM and patient and public involvement in Canada. Overall, we still observed the difficulty of implementing any sort of national strategy partly because of the decentralized nature of the healthcare system. Second, national professional education programs are complicated by licensure and scope of practice variations across jurisdictions. Third, there are variations in the availability of different options covered by universal healthcare. Canada has experienced some favorable development as PCC is now explicitly articulated in the policies of most provinces and territories and there are increased efforts to give patients more access to their electronic health records. However, patient and public engagement (PPE) reform in health programs and governance remains an exception, and continuing centralization of governance structures may reduce their responsiveness to patient priorities. In a 2018 survey, 47.2% of respondents reported that they were not told by their health professional that they had a choice about treatment. Nonetheless, decision aids and decision coaching are increasingly available for health-related decisions and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute's decision aid inventory has ensured continued leadership in this area. Diverse jurisdictions are starting to embed decision aids into care pathways, with some decision aids being included in clinical practice guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic may have had a negative impact on SDM by removing decision choices due to emergency public health mandates, but stimulated new research and decision aids. Canada continues to assign health research funding to SDM and PCC, and a program dedicated to patient-oriented research is central to this effort. Guides and frameworks are increasingly available for planning and evaluating PPE. Finally, various initiatives are attempting to involve and empower Indigenous peoples through PPE and SDM.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Patient Perspective

(1) Background: Uncertainty is typical for a pandemic or similar healthcare crisis. This affects patients with resulting decisional conflicts and disturbed shared decision making during their treatment occurring to a very different extent. Sociodemographic factors and the individual perception of pandemic-related problems likely determine this decisional dilemma for patients and can characterize vulnerable groups with special susceptibility for decisional problems and related consequences. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional data from the OnCoVID questionnaire study were used involving 540 patients from 11 participating institutions covering all major regions in Germany. Participants were actively involved in clinical treatment in oncology or psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, perception of consequences for patients) and very basic demographic data (age, gender, stage of treatment and educational background). Decision uncertainties and distress were operationalized using equidistant five-point scales. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and various multivariate approaches. (3) Results: A total of 11.5% of all patients described intensive uncertainty in their clinical decisions that was significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. Younger and female patients and those of higher educational status and treatment stage had the highest values for these stressors (p < 0.001). Only 15.3% of the patients (14.9% oncology, 16.2% psychiatry; p = 0.021) considered the additional risk of COVID-19 infections as very important for their disease-related decisions. Regression analysis identified determinants for patients at risk of a decisional dilemma, including information availability, educational level, age group and requirement of treatment decision making. (4) Conclusions: In patients, the COVID-19 pandemic induced specific decisional uncertainty and distress accompanied by intensified stress and psychological disturbances. Determinants of specific vulnerability were related to female sex, younger age, education level, disease stages and perception of pandemic-related treatment modifications, whereas availability of sufficient pandemic-related information prevented these problems. The most important decisional criteria for patients under these conditions were expected side effects/complications and treatment responses.

Lessons Learned From the COVID-19 Pandemic as Experienced by Older Adults Treated for COVID-19

Background

In order to provide the best care, the perspective of older COVID-19 patients must be involved in the development of treatment protocols. This study describes the experiences of older adults affected by COVID-19 who recovered in the hospital or at home.

Methods

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 older adults affected by COVID-19. A content-based thematic analysis was conducted.

Results

Nine categories were identified as recurring topics, which were grouped into three major themes. The first theme describes experiences in the first phase of the disease when older adults fell ill. The second theme includes experiences during the illness, ranging from illness severity to participation in decision-making, communication barriers and isolation effects. The final theme covers the recovery course, residual symptoms and social aspects.

Conclusion

Older adults treated for COVID-19 experienced a feeling of being in a fast-paced whirlwind and lost total control over the situation. Extra attention should be paid to shared decision making, coordinated information provision and the instalment of a primary contract to the patient. The uncertainty of their situation, isolation measures and fears could result in psychological consequences and hinder rehabilitation in older adults.

Different patients, different preferences: A multicenter assessment of patients' personality traits and anxiety in shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

Patient-centered care and shared decision making (SDM) are generally recognized as the gold standard for medical consultations, especially for preference-sensitive decisions. However, little is known about psychological patient characteristics that influence patient-reported preferences. We set out to explore the role of personality and anxiety for a preference-sensitive decision in bladder cancer patients (choice of urinary diversion, UD) and to determine if anxiety predicts patients' participation preferences.

METHODS

We recruited a sample of bladder cancer patients (N = 180, primarily male, retired) who awaited a medical consultation on radical cystectomy and their choice of UD. We asked patients to fill in a set of self-report questionnaires before this consultation, including measures of treatment preference, personality (BFI-10), anxiety (STAI), and participation preference (API and API-Uro), as well as sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Most patients (79%) indicated a clear preference for one of the treatment options (44% continent UD, 34% incontinent UD). Patients who reported more conscientiousness were more likely to prefer more complex methods (continent UD). The majority (62%) preferred to delegate decision making to healthcare professionals. A substantial number of patients reported elevated anxiety (32%), and more anxiety was predictive of higher participation preference, specifically for uro-oncological decisions (β = 0.207, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide insight into the role of psychological patient characteristics for SDM. Aspects of personality such as conscientiousness influence treatment preferences. Anxiety contributes to patients' motivation to be involved in pertinent decisions. Thus, personality and negative affect should be considered to improve SDM.

Treatment Adherence among Tuberculosis patients: A Concept Analysis

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY: The principal difficulty of long-term tuberculosis (TB) treatment is patient nonadherence. During pandemic, nonadherence of TB treatment affects mortality since TB patients are more vulnerable with Covid-19. AIM OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this concept analysis was to clarify and analyze the concept of treatment adherence. METHODOLOGY: Analysis concept was conducted using the Walker and Avant’s method from relevant studies published by EBSCO, PubMed, ProQuest, Wiley Online Library, and Springer between  2003 - 2021. RESULTS:  Five attributes characterizing the concept of treatment adherence from thirteen articles were identified: individual behavior, relationship, mutual participation, shared decision making, and agreement. CONCLUSION: This concept analysis revealed that TB treatment adherence involves many aspects, including the patient, family, society, health care professionals, and policy. These findings help to understand the contribution of major attributes, thereby promoting the body of knowledge on TB and contributing to its elimination during COVID-19 pandemic.