A perspective on the patient's role in treatment decisions

How Patient-Generated Data Enhance Patient-Provider Communication in Chronic Care: Field Study in Design Science Research

BACKGROUND

Modern approaches such as patient-centered care ask health care providers (eg, nurses, physicians, and dietitians) to activate and include patients to participate in their health care. Mobile health (mHealth) is integral in this endeavor to be more patient centric. However, structural and regulatory barriers have hindered its adoption. Existing mHealth apps often fail to activate and engage patients sufficiently. Moreover, such systems seldom integrate well with health care providers' workflow.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated how patient-provider communication behaviors change when introducing patient-generated data into patient-provider communication.

METHODS

We adopted the design science approach to design PatientHub, an integrated digital health system that engages patients and providers in patient-centered care for weight management. PatientHub was developed in 4 iterations and was evaluated in a 3-week field study with 27 patients and 6 physicians. We analyzed 54 video recordings of PatientHub-supported consultations and interviews with patients and physicians.

RESULTS

PatientHub introduces patient-generated data into patient-provider communication. We observed 3 emerging behaviors when introducing patient-generated data into consultations. We named these behaviors emotion labeling, expectation decelerating, and decision ping-pong. Our findings show how these behaviors enhance patient-provider communication and facilitate patient-centered care. Introducing patient-generated data leads to behaviors that make consultations more personal, actionable, trustworthy, and equal.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that patient-generated data facilitate patient-centered care by activating and engaging patients and providers. We propose 3 design principles for patient-centered communication. Patient-centered communication informs the design of future mHealth systems and offers insights into the inner workings of mHealth-supported patient-provider communication in chronic care.

Current Status of Shared Decision-Making in Intraocular Lens Selection for Cataract Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose

To explore 1) the level of shared decision-making (SDM) participation in intraocular lens (IOL) selection in cataract patients and the factors that influence this participation and 2) the relationships between preparation for decision-making (PrepDM)and the level of SDM participation and satisfaction with the decision (SWD). Provide guidance for improving SDM in ophthalmology.

Patients and Methods

176 cataract patients were asked to complete the PrepDM scale, the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the SWD instrument in IOL decision-making process. Multiple linear regression was used to analyze the influencing factors of the level of SDM. The Process program and bootstrap sampling method was used to test whether the level of participation in SDM was a mediating variable among the three.

Results

The SDM-Q-9 median score was 77.78 (IQR 31.11-88.89). Patients with a history of surgery in the operative eye (P=0.022) or PrepDM <60 points (P<0.001) had lower SDM-Q-9 scores than patients with no history of surgery in the operative eye or PrepDM ≥60 points. Patients with an education level lower than primary school had lower SDM-Q-9 scores than patients with other education levels (P<0.05). The PrepDM of cataract patients was positively correlated with the level of SDM (r=0.768, P<0.001) and with the SWD (r=0.727, P<0.001), and the level of SDM was positively correlated with the SWD (r=0.856, P<0.001). The level of SDM fully mediated PrepDM and SDW, with a mediating effect value of 0.128 and a mediating effect of 86.66% of the total effect.

Conclusion

The SDM of cataract patients involved in IOL selection was in the upper middle range. Education, history of surgery in the operated eye, and PrepDM were factors that influenced the level of SDM. The level of participation in SDM fully mediated the relationship between PrepDM and SWD.

Uncertainty tolerance among primary care physicians: Relationship to shared decision making-related perceptions, practices, and physician characteristics

OBJECTIVE

Understand how physicians' uncertainty tolerance (UT) in clinical care relates to their personal characteristics, perceptions and practices regarding shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

As part of a trial of SDM training about colorectal cancer screening, primary care physicians (n = 67) completed measures of their uncertainty tolerance in medical practice (Anxiety subscale of the Physician's Reactions to Uncertainty Scale, PRUS-A), and their SDM self-efficacy (confidence in SDM skills). Patients (N = 466) completed measures of SDM (SDM Process scale) after a clinical visit. Bivariate regression analyses and multilevel regression analyses examined relationships.

RESULTS

Higher UT was associated with greater physician age (p = .01) and years in practice (p = 0.015), but not sex or race. Higher UT was associated with greater SDM self-efficacy (p < 0.001), but not patient-reported SDM.

CONCLUSION

Greater age and practice experience predict greater physician UT, suggesting that UT might be improved through training, while UT is associated with greater confidence in SDM, suggesting that improving UT might improve SDM. However, UT was unassociated with patient-reported SDM, raising the need for further studies of these relationships.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Developing and implementing training interventions aimed at increasing physician UT may be a promising way to promote SDM in clinical care.

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.

Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians' diagnosis of their patients' preferences for colon cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

Identify if primary care physicians (PCPs) accurately understand patient preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) testing, whether shared decision making (SDM) training improves understanding of patient preferences, and whether time spent discussing CRC testing improves understanding of patient preferences.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a trial comparing SDM training plus a reminder arm to a reminder alone arm. PCPs and their patients completed surveys after visits assessing whether they discussed CRC testing, patient testing preference, and time spent discussing CRC testing. We compared patient and PCP responses, calculating concordance between patient-physician dyads. Multilevel models tested for differences in preference concordance by arm or time discussing CRC.

RESULTS

382 PCP and patient survey dyads were identified. Most dyads agreed on whether CRC testing was discussed (82%). Only 52% of dyads agreed on the patient's preference. SDM training did not impact accuracy of PCPs preference diagnoses (55%v.48%,p = 0.22). PCPs were more likely to accurately diagnose patient's preferences when discussions occurred, regardless of length.

CONCLUSION

Only half of PCPs accurately identified patient testing preferences. Training did not impact accuracy. Visits where CRC testing was discussed resulted in PCPs better understanding patient preferences.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PCPs should take time to discuss testing and elicit patient preferences.

Not Too Little, Not Too Much: Optimizing More Versus Less Locoregional Treatment for Older Patients With Breast Cancer

Although undertreatment of older women with aggressive breast cancers has been a concern for years, there is increasing recognition that some older women are overtreated, receiving therapies unlikely to improve survival or reduce morbidity. De-escalation of surgery may include breast-conserving surgery over mastectomy for appropriate candidates and omitting or reducing extent of axillary surgery. Appropriate patients to de-escalate surgery are those with early-stage breast cancer, favorable tumor characteristics, are clinically node-negative, and who may have other major health issues. De-escalation of radiation includes reducing treatment course length through hypofractionation and ultrahypofractionation regimens, reducing treatment volumes through partial breast irradiation, omission of radiation for select patients, and reducing radiation dose to normal tissues. Shared decision making, which aims to facilitate patients making decisions concordant with their values, can guide health care providers and patients through complicated decisions optimizing breast cancer care.

Twelve Tips for teaching shared decision making

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process in which preference-sensitive decisions are discussed with patients in a collaborative and accessible format so that patients can select an option that integrates their values and preferences into the context of evidence-based medicine. While SDM has been shown to improve some metrics of quality of care and is now included in many competencies developed by accreditation bodies, it can be challenging to successfully incorporate competencies in SDM into clinical teaching. Multiple interventions and curricula that build competency in SDM have been published, but here we aim to suggest ways to integrate teaching competencies in SDM into all forms of clinical teaching. These twelve tips provide strategies to foster trainee development of the relational and risk-benefit communication competencies that are required for successful shared decision making.

Predictors of Decision Regret among Caregivers of Older Canadians Receiving Home Care: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey

Background. In Canada, caregivers of older adults receiving home care face difficult decisions that may lead to decision regret. We assessed difficult decisions and decision regret among caregivers of older adults receiving home care services and factors associated with decision regret. Methods. From March 13 to 30, 2020, at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted an online survey with caregivers of older adults receiving home care in the 10 Canadian provinces. We distributed a self-administered questionnaire through Canada’s largest and most representative private online panel. We identified types of difficult health-related decisions faced in the past year and their frequency and evaluated decision regret using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), scored from 0 to 100. We performed descriptive statistics as well as bivariable and multivariable linear regression to identify factors predicting decision regret. Results. Among 932 participants, the mean age was 42.2 y (SD = 15.6 y), and 58.4% were male. The most frequently reported difficult decisions were regarding housing and safety (75.1%). The mean DRS score was 28.8/100 (SD = 8.6). Factors associated with less decision regret included higher caregiver age, involvement of other family members in the decision-making process, wanting to receive information about the options, and considering organizations interested in the decision topic and health care professionals as trustworthy sources of information (all P < 0.001). Factors associated with more decision regret included mismatch between the caregiver’s preferred option and the decision made, the involvement of spouses in the decision-making process, higher decisional conflict, and higher burden of care (all P < 0.001). Discussion. Decisions about housing and safety were the difficult decisions most frequently encountered by caregivers of older adults in this survey. Our results will inform future decision support interventions.

Does Adding Training in Shared Decision Making for Home Care Teams to Providing Decision Guides Better Engage Frail Elders and Caregivers in Housing Decisions? :A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial

Background

Frail older adults and caregivers need support from their home care teams in making difficult housing decisions, such as whether to remain at home, with or without assistance, or move into residential care. However, home care teams are often understaffed and busy, and shared decision-making training is costly. Nevertheless, overall awareness of shared decision-making is increasing. We hypothesized that distributing a decision aid could be sufficient for providing decision support without the addition of shared decision-making training for home care teams.

Objective

We evaluated the effectiveness of adding web-based training and workshops for care teams in interprofessional shared decision-making to passive dissemination of a decision guide on the proportion of frail older adults or caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults reporting active roles in housing decision-making.

Methods

We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial with home care teams in 9 health centers in Quebec, Canada. Participants were frail older adults or caregivers of cognitively impaired frail older adults facing housing decisions and receiving care from the home care team at one of the participating health centers. The intervention consisted of a 1.5-hour web-based tutorial for the home care teams plus a 3.5-hour interactive workshop in interprofessional shared decision-making using a decision guide that was designed to support frail older adults and caregivers in making housing decisions. The control was passive dissemination of the decision guide. The primary outcome was an active role in decision-making among frail older adults and caregivers, measured using the Control Preferences Scale. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict and perceptions of how much care teams involved frail older adults and caregivers in decision-making. We performed an intention-to-treat analysis.

Results

A total of 311 frail older adults were included in the analysis, including 208 (66.9%) women, with a mean age of 81.2 (SD 7.5) years. Among 339 caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults, 239 (70.5%) were female and their mean age was 66.4 (SD 11.7) years. The intervention increased the proportion of frail older adults reporting an active role in decision-making by 3.3% (95% CI –5.8% to 12.4%, P=.47) and the proportion of caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults by 6.1% (95% CI -11.2% to 23.4%, P=.49). There was no significant impact on the secondary outcomes. However, the mean score for the frail older adults’ perception of how much health professionals involved them in decision-making increased by 5.4 (95% CI −0.6 to 11.4, P=.07) and the proportion of caregivers who reported decisional conflict decreased by 7.5% (95% CI −16.5% to 1.6%, P=.10).

Conclusions

Although it slightly reduced decisional conflict for caregivers, shared decision-making training did not equip home care teams significantly better than provision of a decision aid for involving frail older adults and their caregivers in decision-making.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02592525; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02592525

Perspectives of Patients and Providers in Using Shared Decision Making in Psychiatry

There is increased interest over the last decade in the use of Shared Decision Making with individuals with serious mental illness to improve engagement in treatment and clinical outcomes. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 15 individuals with serious mental illness treated in an outpatient transitional care clinic serving people immediately after discharge from a psychiatric hospitalization. Parallel interviews were conducted with a variety of clinical providers (n = 9). Using latent thematic analysis, six themes were identified including: (1) Differences in the Use of SDM, (2) Consideration of Past Experiences, (3) Decisional Power Preferences, (4) Use of SDM in Psychiatry Versus Other Areas of Medicine, (5) Dignity and Disengagement, and (6) External Forces Impacting SDM. Implications for clinical practice and research using a shared decision-making approach within this treatment setting are further discussed.

Validation of the SDM Process Scale to Evaluate Shared Decision-Making at Clinical Sites

The Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Process scale (scored 0-4) uses 4 questions about decision-making behaviors: discussion of options, pros, cons, and preferences. We use data from mail surveys of patients who made surgical decisions at 9 clinical sites and a national web survey to assess the reliability and validity of the measure to assess shared decision-making at clinical sites. Patients at sites using decision aids to promote shared decision-making for hip, knee, back, or breast cancer surgery had significantly higher scores than national cross-section samples of surgical patients for 3 of 4 comparisons and significantly higher scores for both comparisons with “usual care sites.” Reliability was supported by an intra-class correlation at the clinical site level of 0.93 and an average correlation of SDM scores for knee and hip surgery patients treated at the same sites of 0.56. The results document the reliability and validity of the measure to assess the degree of shared decision-making for surgical decisions at clinical sites.

Relationships among Antecedents, Processes, and Outcomes for Shared Decision Making: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Disease

BACKGROUND

Among musculoskeletal disorders, lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) is the leading cause of total disability-adjusted life years globally. Clinical guidelines for LDD describe multiple treatment options in which shared decision making becomes appropriate.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the relationships among measures of decision antecedents, process, and outcomes in patients with LDD.

METHODS

Patients with LDD were recruited from outpatient clinics in a teaching hospital in Taiwan and administered surveys to collect measures of decision antecedents, processes, and outcomes. Multiple linear regression was conducted to assess the association between decision antecedents and the decision making process. Hierarchical linear regression was conducted to assess the relationships among decision antecedents, the decision making process, and decision outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients (mean age, 61 years) completed the survey. After adjustment for personal factors, 2 decision antecedents (namely, decision making self-efficacy and readiness) significantly predicted patients' experiences of engaging in shared decision making (SDM). Decision making readiness and process were associated with fewer decisional conflicts and greater decision satisfaction.

LIMITATIONS

Models derived from cross-sectional surveys cannot establish causal relationships among decision antecedents, decision making processes, and decision outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the SDM framework, which proposes relationships among decision antecedents, the decision making process, and decision outcomes.

Patient decision aid for trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) versus planned repeat cesarean delivery: a quasi-experimental pre-post study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of a web-based decision aid on patient-centered decision making outcomes among women considering a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) versus planned repeat cesarean delivery.

METHODS

The Birth Decision Aid Study (B-READY) was a quasi-experimental pre-post study of two sequential cohorts. From June 18, 2018 to July 31, 2019, 50 women were enrolled in routine care, followed by 50 women who were enrolled in the decision aid group. Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancies between 19/0 to 36/6 weeks, ≤2 prior cesareans, and no contraindications to TOLAC. The decision aid group viewed the online Healthwise® "Pregnancy: Birth Options After Cesarean" program. Both groups received the same birth options counseling and completed the same online assessment. Primary patient-centered outcomes were knowledge about birth options and shared decision making at online assessment, and informed, patient-centered decision making about her preferred mode of delivery at delivery admission.

RESULTS

Among 100 women participated in this study (50 per group), the mean gestational age at enrollment was 31 weeks, and 71% or 63/89 women who consented to delivery data abstraction had a cesarean delivery. Women in the patient decision aid group gained more knowledge (defined as score ≥ 75%) about birth options compared to those in the routine care group (72% vs. 32%; adjusted odds ratio, AOR: 6.15 [95% CI: 2.34 to 16.14]), and were more likely to make an informed, patient-centered decision (60% vs. 26%; AOR: 3.30 [95% CI: 1.20 to 9.04]. Women in both groups reported similar involvement in shared decision making, as well as satisfaction and values. More than 90% of decision aid users reported it was a useful tool and would recommend it to other TOLAC-eligible women.

CONCLUSIONS

A web-based birth options patient-centered decision aid for TOLAC eligible women can be integrated into prenatal Telehealth and may improve the quality of decision making about mode of delivery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with ClinincalTrials.gov and the ID# was NCT04053413 . Registered 12 August 2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Psychometric evaluation of a decision quality instrument for medication decisions for treatment of depression symptoms

BACKGROUND

A high quality treatment decision means patients are informed and receive treatment that matches their goals. This research examined the reliability and validity of the Depression Decision Quality Instrument (DQI), a survey to measure the extent to which patients are informed and received preferred treatment for depression.

METHODS

Participants were aged 18 and older from 17 US cities who discussed medication or counseling with a physician in the past year, and physicians who treated patients with depression who practiced in the same cities. Participants were mailed a survey that included the Depression-DQI, a tool with 10 knowledge and 7 goal and concern items. Patients were randomly assigned to either receive a patient decision aid (DA) on treatment of depression or no DA. A matching score was created by comparing the patient's preferred treatment to their self-reported treatment received. Concordant scores were considered matched, discordant were not. We examined the reliability and known group validity of the Depression-DQI.

RESULTS

Most patients 405/504 (80%) responded, 79% (320/405) returned the retest survey, and 60% (114/187) of physicians returned the survey. Patients' knowledge scores on the 10-item scale ranged from 14.6 to 100% with no evidence of floor or ceiling effects. Retest reliability for knowledge was moderate and for goals and concerns ranged from moderate to good. Mean knowledge scores differentiated between patients and physicians (M = 63 [SD = 15] vs. M = 81 [SD = 11], p < 0.001), and between patients who did and didn't receive a DA (M = 64 [SD = 16] vs. M = 61 [SD = 14], p = 0.041). 60.5% of participants received treatment that matched their preference. Based on the multivariate logistic regression, 'avoiding taking anti-depressants' was the only goal that was predictive of taking mediation (OR = 0.73 [0.66, 0.80], p < 0.01). Shared Decision Making Process scores were similar for those who matched their preference and those who didn't (M = 2.18 [SD = 0.97] vs. M = 2.06 [SD = 1.07]; t(320) =  - 1.06, p = 0.29). Those who matched had lower regret scores (matched M = 1.72 [SD = 0.74] vs. unmatched M = 2.32 [SD = 0.8]; t(301) =  - 6.6, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The Depression DQI demonstrated modest reliability and validity. More work is needed to establish validity of the method to determine concordance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01152307.

Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure

BACKGROUND

The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity.

METHOD

Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results.

RESULTS

Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality (d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores (d = 0.57, P < 0.001), and lower decision regret (d = -0.34, P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was present in all validity analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Included studies all focused on surgical decisions, several had small sample sizes, and many were retrospective.

CONCLUSION

SDM Process scores showed resilience to coding changes, and a scheme using the short, partial credit, with equal weights was adopted. The SDM Process scores demonstrated a small, positive relationship with decision quality and were consistently related to lower decision conflict and less regret, providing evidence of validity across several surgical decisions.

Extent and Predictors of Decision Regret among Informal Caregivers Making Decisions for a Loved One: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Informal caregivers often serve as decision makers for dependent or vulnerable individuals facing health care decisions. Decision regret is one of the most prevalent outcomes reported by informal caregivers who have made such decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To examine levels of decision regret and its predictors among informal caregivers who have made health-related decisions for a loved one.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to November 2018. Participants were informal caregivers, and the outcome was decision regret as measured using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS).

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We performed a narrative synthesis and presented predictors of decision regret using a conceptual framework, dividing the predictors into decision antecedents, decision-making process, and decision outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 16 of 3003 studies identified. Most studies (n = 13) reported a mean DRS score ranging from 7.0 to 32.3 out of 100 (median = 14.3). The methodological quality of studies was acceptable. We organized predictors and their estimated effects (β) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as follows: decision antecedents (e.g., caregivers' desire to avoid the decision, OR 2.07, 95% CI [1.04-4.12], P = 0.04), decision-making process (e.g., caregivers' perception of effective decision making, β = 0.49 [0.05, 0.93], P < 0.01), and decision outcomes (e.g., incontinence, OR = 4.4 [1.1, 18.1], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that informal caregivers' level of decision regret is generally low but is high for some decisions. We also identified predictors of regret during different stages of the decision-making process. These findings may guide future research on improving caregivers' experiences.

Decision Regret among Informal Caregivers Making Housing Decisions for Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Background. Informal caregivers are regularly faced with difficult housing decisions for older adults with cognitive impairment. They often regret the decision they made. We aimed to identify factors associated with decision regret among informal caregivers engaging in housing decisions for cognitively impaired older adults. Methods. We performed a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data collected from a cluster-randomized trial. Eligible participants were informal caregivers involved in making housing decisions for cognitively impaired older adults. Decision regret was assessed after caregivers' enrollment in the study using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), scored from 0 to 100. We used a conceptual framework of potential predictors of regret to identify independent variables. We performed multilevel analyses using a mixed linear model by estimating fixed effects (β) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results. The mean (SD) DRS score of 296 informal caregivers (mean [SD] age, 62 [12] years) was 12.4 (18.4). Factors associated with less decision regret were having a college degree compared to primary education (β [95% CI]: -11.14 [-18.36, -3.92]), being married compared to being single (-5.60 [-10.05, -1.15]), informal caregivers' perception that a joint process occurred (-0.14 [-0.25, -0.02]), and older adults' not having a specific housing preference compared to preferring to stay at home (-4.13 [-7.40, -0.86]). Factors associated with more decision regret were being retired compared to being a homemaker (7.74 [1.32, 14.16]), higher burden of care (0.14 [0.05, 0.22]), and higher decisional conflict (0.51 [0.34, 0.67]). Limitations. Our analysis may not illustrate all predictors of decision regret among informal caregivers. Conclusions. Our findings will allow risk-mitigation strategies for informal caregivers at risk of experiencing regret.

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

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

A Learning Loop Model of Collaborative Decision-Making in Chronic Illness

Shared decision-making is a core attribute of quality health care that has proved challenging to implement and assess in pediatric practice. Current models of shared decision-making are limited, including their capacity to incorporate multiple stakeholders; to integrate downstream effects of subacute or minor decisions; and to account for the context(s) in which such decisions are being made and enacted. Based on a review of literature from organizational psychology, cognitive sciences, business, and medicine, we propose an iterative decision-making model of care planning and identify targets at several levels of influence warranting measurement in future studies. Our learning loop model posits the relationship between pediatric patients, their parents, and their clinicians as central to the collaborative decision-making process in the setting of chronic illness. The model incorporates the evolution of both context and developmental capacity over time. It suggests that "meta-learning" from the experience of and outcomes from iterative decision is a key factor that may influence relationships and thus continued engagement in collaboration by patients, their parents, and their clinicians. We consider the model in light of the needs of children with special health care needs, for whom understanding the ongoing iterative effects of decision making and clinician-parent-child dynamics are likely to be particularly important in influencing outcomes.

Protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the comparative effectiveness of strategies to promote shared decision making for hip and knee osteoarthritis (DECIDE-OA study)

INTRODUCTION

There are several different interventions available to promote shared decision making (SDM); however, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of different approaches.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of patient-directed and physician-directed decision support strategies on the quality of treatment decisions for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA).

TRIAL DESIGN

A 2×2 factorial randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

One academic medical centre, one community hospital and one orthopaedic specialty hospital.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

The enrolment targets were 8 surgeons and 1120 patients diagnosed with hip or knee OA. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two different decision aids (DAs) stratified by site. The DAs varied in length, content and the level of detail regarding treatment options. Both DAs were available by paper or online.Surgeons were randomly assigned to receive a report detailing patients' goals and treatment preferences at the time of the visit or not. Eligible patients received their assigned DA before their visit and completed three surveys: before the visit (timepoint (T)1), 1-week postvisit (T2) and 6 months from either the visit date or surgery date for patients who underwent surgery (T3). Study staff and participating surgeons were not blinded, but the statistician conducting the analyses was blinded to the arms.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND ANALYSIS

The primary study outcome was decision quality, the percentage of patients who were well informed and received their preferred treatment. Secondary outcomes included involvement in decision making, surgical rates, health outcomes, decision regret and satisfaction. A logistic regression model with the generalised estimating equations approach was used to compare rates of decision quality between the groups and account for the clustering of patients within providers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained through the institutional review board at the main site. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02729831; Pre-results.

Preference-Sensitive Management of Post-Mammography Decisions in Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Decision models representing the clinical situations where treatment options entail a significant risk of morbidity or mortality should consider the variations in risk preferences of individuals. In this study, we develop a stochastic modeling framework that optimizes risk-sensitive diagnostic decisions after a mammography exam. For a given patient, our objective is to find the utility maximizing diagnostic decisions where we define the utility over quality-adjusted survival duration. We use real data from a private mammography database to numerically solve our model for various utility functions. Our choice of utility functions for the numerical analysis is driven by actual patient behavior encountered in clinical practice. We find that invasive diagnostic procedures such as biopsies are more aggressively used than what the optimal risk-neutral policy would suggest, implying a far-sighted (or equivalently risk-seeking) behavior. When risk preferences are incorporated into the clinical practice, policy makers should bear in mind that a welfare loss in terms of survival duration is inevitable as evidenced by our structural and empirical results.

"Please listen to me": A cross-sectional study of experiences of seniors and their caregivers making housing decisions

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the decision-making experiences of seniors and informal caregivers facing decisions about seniors' housing decisions when objective decision making measures are used.

OBJECTIVES

To report on seniors' and caregivers' experiences of housing decisions.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach supplemented by qualitative data.

SETTING

Sixteen health jurisdictions providing home care services, Quebec province, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Two separate samples of seniors aged ≥ 65 years and informal caregivers of cognitively impaired seniors who had made a decision about housing.

MEASUREMENTS

Information on preferred choice and actual choice about housing, role assumed in the decision, decisional conflict and decision regret was obtained through closed-ended questionnaires. Research assistants paraphrased participants' narratives about their decision-making experiences and made other observations in standardized logbooks.

RESULTS

Thirty-one seniors (median age: 85.5 years) and 48 caregivers (median age: 65.1 years) were recruited. Both seniors and caregivers preferred that the senior stay at home (64.5% and 71.7% respectively). Staying home was the actual choice for only 32.2% of participating seniors and 36.2% of the seniors cared for by the participating caregivers. Overall, 93% seniors and 71% caregivers reported taking an active or collaborative role in the decision-making process. The median decisional conflict score was 23/100 for seniors and 30/100 for caregivers. The median decision regret score was the same for both (10/100). Qualitative analysis revealed that the housing decision was influenced by factors such as seniors' health and safety concerns and caregivers' burden of care. Some caregivers felt sad and guilty when the decision did not match the senior's preference.

CONCLUSION

The actual housing decision made for seniors frequently did not match their preferred housing option. Advanced care planning regarding housing and better decision support are needed for these difficult decisions.

How Informed Is the Decision About Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy?: A Prospective, Cross-sectional Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess how informed patients are about breast reconstruction, and how involved they are in decision making.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Breast reconstruction is an important treatment option for patients undergoing mastectomy. Wide variations in who gets reconstruction, however, have led to concerns about decision making.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study of patients planning mastectomy at a single site, over 20 months. Before surgery, patients completed a survey with validated scales to assess knowledge about breast reconstruction and involvement in decision making. Factors associated with knowledge were examined in a multivariable linear regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients enrolled (77% enrollment rate), and 126 remained eligible. The overall knowledge score was 58.5% (out of 100%). Knowledge about risk of complications was especially low at 14.3%. Knowledge did not differ by treatment (reconstruction or not). On multivariable analysis, non-white race was independently associated with lower knowledge. Most patients (92.1%) reported some discussion with a provider about reconstruction, and most (90.4%) reported being asked their preference. More patients reported discussing the advantages of reconstruction (57.9%) than the disadvantages (27.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Women undergoing mastectomy in this sample were highly involved in decision making, but had major deficits in knowledge about the procedure. Knowledge about the risk of complications was particularly low. Providers seemed to have discussed the advantages of reconstruction more than its disadvantages.

Patient preference for radial versus femoral vascular access for elective coronary procedures: The PREVAS study

OBJECTIVES

To explore patient preference for vascular access site in percutaneous coronary procedures, the perceived importance of benefits and risks of transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) were assessed. In addition, direct preference for vascular access and preference for shared decision making (SDM) were evaluated.

BACKGROUND

TRA has gained significant ground on TFA during the last decades. Surveys on patient preference have mostly been performed in dedicated TRA trials.

METHODS

In the PREVAS study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02625493) a stated preference elicitation method best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to determine patient preference for six treatment attributes: bleeding, switch of access-site, postprocedural vessel quality, mobilization and comfort, and over-night stay. Based on software-generated treatment scenarios, 142 patients indicated which characteristics they perceived most and least important in treatment choice. Best-minus-Worst scores and attribute importance were calculated.

RESULTS

Bleeding risk was considered most important (attribute importance 31.3%), followed by length of hospitalization (22.6%), and mobilization(20.2%). Most patients preferred the approach of their current procedure (85.9%); however, 71.1% of patients with experience with both access routes favored TRA (P < 0.001). Most patients (38.0%) appreciated SDM, balanced between patient and cardiologist.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients appreciate lower bleeding risk and early ambulation, factors favoring TRA. Previous experience with a single access route has a major impact on preference, while experience with both routes generally resulted in preference for TRA. Most patients prefer balanced SDM. © 2017 The Authors Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Ten Years, Forty Decision Aids, And Thousands Of Patient Uses: Shared Decision Making At Massachusetts General Hospital

Shared decision making is a core component of population health strategies aimed at improving patient engagement. Massachusetts General Hospital's integration of shared decision making into practice has focused on the following three elements: developing a culture receptive to, and health care providers skilled in, shared decision making conversations; using patient decision aids to help inform and engage patients; and providing infrastructure and resources to support the implementation of shared decision making in practice. In the period 2005-15, more than 900 clinicians and other staff members were trained in shared decision making, and more than 28,000 orders for one of about forty patient decision aids were placed to support informed patient-centered decisions. We profile two different implementation initiatives that increased the use of patient decision aids at the hospital's eighteen adult primary care practices, and we summarize key elements of the shared decision making program.

Dissemination and Implementation of Shared Decision Making Into Clinical Practice: A Research Agenda

Shared decision making (SDM) is essential to advancing patient-centered care in emergency medicine. Despite many documented benefits of SDM, prior research has demonstrated persistently low levels of patient engagement by clinicians across many disciplines, including emergency medicine. An effective dissemination and implementation (D&I) framework could be used to alter the process of delivering care and to facilitate SDM in routine clinical emergency medicine practice. Here we outline a research and policy agenda to support the D&I strategy needed to integrate SDM into emergency care.

Autonomy and confidentiality: patients' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Little is known about patients' opinions about their rights in autonomy and confidentiality concerning their illness and this study was conducted to assess it.

METHODS

This multi-centred, cross-sectional study was conducted in outpatient clinics in Khartoum, Sudan. It was delivered to 295 respondents. Data were managed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and SPSS.

RESULTS

Eighty-five percent of the patients wanted to know about their conditions, of whom 17% wanted to choose their treatment and 29% believed they had the right to refuse treatment. Most of the respondents would not wish to hide information from their doctors. There was a wide variation at the rate of patients hiding information from their relatives, depending on their diagnosis (HIV 90%, malignancy 16.7% and tuberculosis 0%.)

CONCLUSION

Respondents want to choose their treating doctor, know about their diseases, be consulted before a procedure. They would like to leave technical issues to their treating doctors without jeopardising their own rights.

Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Women diagnosed with early stage (I or II) breast cancer face a highly challenging decision - whether or not to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy. We developed a decision quality instrument for chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer and sought to evaluate its performance.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, mailed survey of recent breast cancer survivors, providers, and healthy controls and a retest survey of survivors. The decision quality instrument includes questions on knowledge and personal goals. It results in a knowledge score and concordance score, which reflects the percentage of patients who received treatments that match their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, validity, and reliability of the survey instrument were examined.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 352 patients, 89 providers and 35 healthy controls. The decision quality instrument was feasible to implement with few missing data. The knowledge scores had good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) =0.75). Knowledge scores discriminated between providers and patients (mean difference 31.1%, 95% CI 26.9, 35.3) and between patients and healthy controls (mean difference 11.2, 95% CI 5.4, 17.1). Most providers reported that the knowledge items covered essential content. Two of the five goal items had a ceiling effect, and one goal had low content validity. The goal items had moderate retest reliability (ICC's 0.57 to 0.78). In the multivariable model of treatment, none of the patient goals was associated with receipt of chemotherapy. Age and hormone receptor status were the only variables independently associated with chemotherapy. Most patients (77.6%) had treatment concordant with that predicted by the model. Patients who had concordant treatment had similar levels of confidence and regret as those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The Decision Quality Instrument is a reliable and valid measure of patient knowledge about chemotherapy, but its ability to measure concordance with patient goals is limited. In this sample, patient goals were not associated with treatment, and most patients reported they were not asked their preference, suggesting that goals were not adequately considered in decision making.

Communication preferences in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome: descriptive results and patient characteristics as predictors

BACKGROUND

Communication with patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is often considered difficult. The primary objective of this explorative study was to describe the communication preferences of FMS patients in comparison with other chronic diseases, and the secondary objective was to identify patient-related predictors of those communication preferences.

METHODS

A total of 256 FMS patients were asked to fill out the KOPRA [(Kommunikationspraeferenzen), communication preferences of patients with chronic illness] questionnaire at the beginning of their rehabilitation, answering questions about their communication preferences. The KOPRA's descriptive parameters were calculated and compared with other diagnosis groups. In order to include as many influencing factors as possible, data on patient-related sociodemographic, medical, pain impact and psychologic variables were gathered. A hierarchical regression analysis with four steps was performed to identify patient-related predictors of patients' communication preferences.

RESULTS

FMS patients consider an open and patient-centered communication style to be especially important. Emotionally supportive communication and communication about personal circumstances are important for FMS patients, but the preferences of individual patients vary widely. FMS patients reveal higher values in all the subdimensions of communication preferences compared with patients with low back pain or chronic ischemic heart disease. Only a few variables appear to predict patient communication preferences. The explained variance ranged from 3.1% to 9.7%. Psychologic variables have been identified as predictors in conjunction with all communication preferences.

CONCLUSION

Health care providers who communicate with FMS patients should employ an open and patient-centered communication style, and affective communication components should be adapted to accommodate each patient.

"Many miles to go …": a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Two decades of research has established the positive effect of using patient-targeted decision support interventions: patients gain knowledge, greater understanding of probabilities and increased confidence in decisions. Yet, despite their efficacy, the effectiveness of these decision support interventions in routine practice has yet to be established; widespread adoption has not occurred. The aim of this review was to search for and analyze the findings of published peer-reviewed studies that investigated the success levels of strategies or methods where attempts were made to implement patient-targeted decision support interventions into routine clinical settings.

METHODS

An electronic search strategy was devised and adapted for the following databases: ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, HMIC, Medline, Medline-in-process, OpenSIGLE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Social Services Abstracts, and the Web of Science. In addition, we used snowballing techniques. Studies were included after dual independent assessment.

RESULTS

After assessment, 5322 abstracts yielded 51 articles for consideration. After examining full-texts, 17 studies were included and subjected to data extraction. The approach used in all studies was one where clinicians and their staff used a referral model, asking eligible patients to use decision support. The results point to significant challenges to the implementation of patient decision support using this model, including indifference on the part of health care professionals. This indifference stemmed from a reported lack of confidence in the content of decision support interventions and concern about disruption to established workflows, ultimately contributing to organizational inertia regarding their adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems too early to make firm recommendations about how best to implement patient decision support into routine practice because approaches that use a 'referral model' consistently report difficulties. We sense that the underlying issues that militate against the use of patient decision support and, more generally, limit the adoption of shared decision making, are under-investigated and under-specified. Future reports from implementation studies could be improved by following guidelines, for example the SQUIRE proposals, and by adopting methods that would be able to go beyond the 'barriers' and 'facilitators' approach to understand more about the nature of professional and organizational resistance to these tools. The lack of incentives that reward the use of these interventions needs to be considered as a significant impediment.

Association between anticipatory grief and problem solving among family caregivers of persons with cognitive impairment

OBJECTIVE

Measure perceived involvement in medical decision making and determine if anticipatory grief is associated with problem solving among family caregivers of older adults with cognitive impairment.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of baseline data from a caregiver intervention (n = 73). Multivariable regression models testing the association between caregivers' anticipatory grief, measured by the Anticipatory Grief Scale (AGS), with problem-solving abilities, measured by the social problem solving inventory-revised: short form (SPSI-R: S).

RESULTS

47/73 (64%) of caregivers reported involvement in medical decision making. Mean AGS was 70.1 (± 14.8) and mean SPSI-R: S was 107.2 (± 11.6). Higher AGS scores were associated with lower positive problem orientation (p = .041) and higher negative problem orientation scores (p = .001) but not other components of problem solving-rational problem solving, avoidance style, and impulsivity/carelessness style.

DISCUSSION

Higher anticipatory grief among family caregivers impaired problem solving, which could have negative consequences for their medical decision making responsibilities.

Putting families in the center: family perspectives on decision making and ADHD and implications for ADHD care

OBJECTIVE

To examine components of family-centered care in families' stories about treatment decision making for their child with ADHD.

METHOD

Twenty-eight families participated in qualitative interviews that addressed families' perspectives on (a) the treatment decision-making process, (b) the cause and impact of their child's symptoms, and (c) treatment goals and preferences.

RESULTS

The majority of families preferred to be primary or shared decision makers regarding treatment decisions. Families' perspectives on the cause of the child's symptoms varied and often were not consistent with a biomedical framework. Families described multiple areas of impairment on child, family relationships, and family functioning. Perspectives toward evidence-based treatments were mixed, with families also expressing interest in and pursuing interventions not delineated in current treatment guidelines.

CONCLUSION

These findings reinforce the importance of eliciting families' perspectives and involving these important stakeholders in shared decision making as critical components of family-centered care for children with ADHD.

Understanding risk, patient and provider preferences, and obstetrical decision making: approach to delivery after cesarean

Decision making regarding approach to delivery after cesarean is complex and requires consideration of the probabilities of clinical outcomes and the preferences of pregnant women. Depending on the clinical situation, a range of management options may be appropriate, and understanding women's beliefs and values regarding the process and outcomes of obstetrical interventions, as well as providing them with clear information regarding risk, is a necessary part of providing evidence-based, patient-centered care. We conducted a review of the literature on risk communication, patient and provider preferences, and obstetrical decision-making and offer recommendations on how to incorporate patient preferences in the context of delivery after cesarean.

Development of instruments to measure the quality of breast cancer treatment decisions

BACKGROUND

Women with early-stage breast cancer face a multitude of decisions. The quality of a decision can be measured by the extent to which the treatment reflects what is most important to an informed patient. Reliable and valid measures of patients' knowledge and their goals and concerns related to breast cancer treatments are needed to assess the decision quality.

OBJECTIVE

To identify a set of key facts and goals relevant to each of three breast cancer treatment decisions (surgery, reconstruction and adjuvant chemotherapy and hormone therapy) and to evaluate the validity of the methods used to identify them.

METHODS

Candidate facts and goals were chosen based on evidence review and qualitative studies with breast cancer patients and providers. Cross-sectional surveys of patients and providers were conducted for each decision. The accuracy, importance and completeness of the items were examined.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight facts (11-14 per decision) and 27 goals (8-10 per decision) were identified. An average of 17 patients and 21 providers responded to each survey. The sets of facts were accurate and complete for all three decisions. The sets of goals and concerns were important for surgery and reconstruction, but not chemotherapy/hormone therapy. Patients and providers disagreed about the relative importance of several key facts and goals.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, breast cancer patients and providers found the sets of facts and goals accurate, important and complete for three treatment decisions. Because patients' and providers' perspectives are different, it is vital that instrument development should include items reflecting both views.