Adjuncts or adversaries to shared decision-making? Applying the Integrative Model of behavior to the role and design of decision support interventions in healthcare interactions

Centering intersectional breast cancer screening experiences among black, Latina, and white women: a qualitative analysis

Objective

Mammography screening guidelines in the United States highlight the importance of informing and involving women when making their breast cancer screening decisions. However, the complexity of interpreting and applying these population-level guidelines can contribute to patient burden. Patient-centered communication strategies can alleviate patient burden, but few consider perspectives from racially and ethnically marginalized populations. We examine diverse women's perspectives on screening to characterize patient-centered experiences.

Methods

We conducted 28 focus groups with 134 non-Latina Black (n = 51), non-Latina White (n = 39), and Latina (n = 44) participants. We coded participants' discussion of their screening influences. We used deductive and inductive qualitative methods to identify common themes.

Results

We identified three themes: (1) personal relationships with primary care providers, (2) potential impacts of cancer on families, and (3) interactions with medical systems. Most White participants described trusting physician relationships in contrast to perfunctory, surface-level relationships experienced by many Black participants; high costs of care prevented many Latina participants from accessing care (Theme 1). Diagnosis was a concern for most Black participants as it could burden family and most Latina participants as it could prevent them from maintaining family well-being (Theme 2). While many White participants had general ease in accessing and navigating healthcare, Latina participants were often held back by embarrassment-and Black participants frequently described disrespectful providers, false negatives, and unnecessary pain (Theme 3).

Conclusion

Cultural and structural factors appeared to influence participants' approaches to breast cancer screening. Structural barriers may counteract culturally salient beliefs, especially among Black and Latina participants. We suggest patient-centered communication interventions be culturally adjusted and paired with structural changes (e.g., policy, insurance coverage, material resources) to reflect women's nuanced values and intersectional social contexts.

Drug Promotions Between Ethics, Regulations, and Financial Interests

BACKGROUND

The promotion of the latest medicines produced by the pharmaceutical industry is an important issue both from an ethical point of view (the level of accessibility, the way research is carried out) and from the point of view of marketing and especially from the lobbying issues raised.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

The ethical dilemmas raised by the promotion of new drugs revolve between the need to discover new molecules important for treating a wide range of diseases and the need to establish a battery of ethical rules, absolutely necessary for regulations in the field to be compliant with all ethical principles.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2023) using combinations of keywords, including drugs, medical publicity, and pharma marketing plus ethical dilemma.

ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

The promotion of medicines is governed by advertising laws and regulations in many countries, including at EU level, based on the need for countries to ensure that the promotion and advertising of medicines is truthful, based on information understood by consumers. The ethical analysis of the issues raised is more necessary and complex as the channels used for promotion are more accessible to the population, and the information, easier to obtain, can be the cause of increased self-medication and overeating. Large amounts of money invested in the development of new molecules, but also the risk of scientific fraud through manipulation of data during clinical trials, selective or biased publication of information can have repercussions on the health of the population.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of new pharmaceutical molecules is necessary to intervene and treat as many conditions as possible, but marketing must not neglect the observance of ethical principles. The promotion of medicines should be the attribute especially of the medical staff, which should also be a mandatory part of the mechanism for approving the marketing methods and means used by the pharmaceutical companies.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

Perceptions of Conflicting Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Among Racially/Ethnically Diverse Women: a Multimethod Study

BACKGROUND

Conflicting breast cancer screening recommendations have the potential to diminish informed decision making about screening.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the knowledge, attitudes, and intentions related to divergent recommendations for breast cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse women.

DESIGN

We used a multimethod study design employing focus groups and questionnaires. Focus groups included: (1) two 10-min presentations on the national screening recommendations and the potential benefits and harms of screening and (2) an interactive discussion. Data were collected: 8/3/2017 to 11/19/2019. Analysis occurred from 1/21/2019 to 7/24/2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were (1) women 40-75 years; (2) English or Spanish speaking; (3)self-identified as Latina, Black, or non-Latina White; and (4) no known increased risk for breast cancer.

MAIN MEASURES

Main outcomes were participants' knowledge and perceptions of benefits and harms of screening mammography and their screening intentions. Focus groups were transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics.

KEY RESULTS

One hundred thirty-four women (n=52, 40-49 years; n=82, 50-75 years) participated in 28 focus groups. Participants were Latina (n=44); Black (n=51); and non-Latina White (n=39). Approximately one-quarter (n=32) had limited health literacy and almost one-fifth (n=23) had limited numeracy. In the context of differing national screening recommendations, participants questioned the motives of the recommendation-making agencies, including the role of costs and how costs were considered when making screening recommendations. Participants expressed concern that they were not represented (e.g., race/ethnicity) in the data informing the recommendations. Immediately following the focus groups, most participants expressed intention to screen within the upcoming year (pre n=100 vs. post n=107).

CONCLUSIONS

Divergent breast cancer screening recommendations may lead to mistrust and paradoxically reinforce high overall enthusiasm for screening.

Understanding Patients' Decisions to Obtain Unplanned, High-Resource Health Care After Colorectal Surgery

Readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits after colorectal surgery (CRS) are common, burdensome, and costly. Effective strategies to reduce these unplanned postdischarge health care visits require a nuanced understanding of how and why patients make the decision to seek care. We used a purposefully stratified sample of 18 interview participants from a prospective cohort of adult CRS patients. Thirteen (72%) participants had an unplanned postdischarge health care visit. Participant decision-making was classified by methodology (algorithmic, guided, or impulsive), preexisting rationale, and emotional response to perceived health care needs. Participants voiced clear mental algorithms about when to visit an ED. In addition, participants identified facilitators and barriers to optimal health care use. They also identified tangible targets for health care utilization reduction efforts, such as improved care coordination with streamlined discharge instructions and improved communication with the surgical team. Efforts should be directed at improving postdischarge communication and care coordination to reduce CRS patients' high-resource health care utilization.

Modifying a Mammography Decision Aid for Older Adult Women with Risk Factors for Low Health Literacy

Background:

Guidelines recommend that before being offered mammography screening, women age 75 years and older be informed of the uncertainty of benefit and potential for harm (e.g., being diagnosed with a breast cancer that would otherwise never have shown up in one's lifetime); however, few older women are informed of the risks of mammography screening and most overestimate its benefits.

Objective:

The aim of this study was to learn from women older than age 75 years who have predisposing risk factors for low health literacy (LHL) how they make decisions about mammography screening, whether an existing decision aid (DA) on mammography screening for them was acceptable and helpful, and suggestions for improving the DA.

Methods:

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 women who were between ages 75 and 89 years and had predisposing risk factors for LHL (i.e., answered somewhat to not at all confident to the health literacy screening question “How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?” and/or had an education level of some college or less).

Key Results:

Findings indicate that women in this study lacked knowledge and understanding that one can decide on mammography screening based on their personal values. Women were enthusiastic about screening based on an interest in taking care of themselves but rely on their providers for health care decisions. Overall, most women found the DA helpful and would recommend the use of the DA.

Conclusions:

Findings from this study provide formative data to test the efficacy of the modified DA in practice. Failing to consider the informational needs of adults with LHL in design of DAs could inadvertently exacerbate existing inequalities in health. It is essential that DAs consider older women's diverse backgrounds and educational levels to support their decision-making. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2021;5(2):e78–e90.]

Plain Language Summary:

The goal of this research was to understand how women older than age 75 years with risk factors for low health literacy made decisions about getting mammograms, whether an educational pamphlet was helpful, and suggestions for improving it. This research helps in understanding how to involve this population in the process of designing patient-related materials for mammogram decision-making.

Technology to Improve Autonomy and Inform Housing Decisions for Older Adults With Memory Problems Who Live at Home in Canada, Sweden, and the Netherlands: Protocol for a Multipronged Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Understanding the mobility patterns and experiences of older adults with memory problems living at home has the potential to improve autonomy and inform shared decision making (SDM) about their housing options.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to (1) assess the mobility patterns and experiences of older adults with memory problems, (2) co-design an electronic decision support intervention (e-DSI) that integrates users' mobility patterns and experiences, (3) explore their intention to use an e-DSI to support autonomy at home, and (4) inform future SDM processes about housing options.

METHODS

Informed by the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) reporting guidelines, we will conduct a 3-year, multipronged mixed methods study in Canada, Sweden, and the Netherlands. For Phase 1, we will recruit a convenience sample of 20 older adults living at home with memory problems from clinical and community settings in each country, for a total of 60 participants. We will ask participants to record their mobility patterns outside their home for 14 days using a GPS tracker and a travel diary; in addition, we will conduct a walking interview and a final debrief interview after 14 days. For Phase 2, referring to results from the first phase, we will conduct one user-centered co-design process per country with older adults with memory issues, caregivers, health care professionals, and information technology representatives informed by the Double Diamond method. We will ask participants how personalized information about mobility patterns and experiences could be added to an existing e-DSI and how this information could inform SDM about housing options. For Phase 3, using online web-based surveys, we will invite 210 older adults with memory problems and/or their caregivers, split equally across the three countries, to use the e-DSI and provide feedback on its strengths and limitations. Finally, in Phase 4, we will triangulate and compare data from all phases and countries to inform a stakeholder meeting where an action plan will be developed.

RESULTS

The study opened for recruitment in the Netherlands in November 2018 and in Canada and Sweden in December 2019. Data collection will be completed by April 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

This project will explore how e-DSIs can integrate the mobility patterns and mobility experiences of older adults with memory problems in three countries, improve older adults' autonomy, and, ultimately, inform SDM about housing options.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04267484; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04267484.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/19244.

Web-based decision aids to support breast cancer screening decisions: systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer among women. Because guidelines on screening for breast cancer for certain ages are controversial, many experts advocate the use of shared decision making (SDM) using validated decision aids (DAs). Recent studies have concluded that DAs are beneficial; however, the results have great heterogeneity. Therefore, further studies are needed to improve understanding of these tools. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of using web-based DAs in women aged 50 years and below facing the decision to be screened for breast cancer in comparison with usual care. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched up to February 2020 for studies assessing web-based DAs for women making a breast cancer screening decision and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. Using a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model, meta-analyses were conducted pooling results using mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD) and relative risks (RR). Results: Of 1097 unique citations, three randomized controlled trials and two before-after studies met the study eligibility criteria. Compared with usual care, web-based DAs increased knowledge (SMD = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.57-0.80; p < 0.00001), reduced decision conflict and increased the proportion of women who made an informed choice (RR = 1.86; 95% CI: 1.38 to 2.50; p < 0.0001), but did not change the intention of women deciding to be screened or affect decision regret. Conclusion: This analysis showed the positive effect of web-based DAs on patient-centered outcomes in breast cancer screening. In the future, more internet devices and free or larger discount WI-FI should be established to ensure more women can benefit from this effective tool.

Is There a Gender Self-Advocacy Gap? An Empiric Investigation Into the Gender Pain Gap

There are documented differences in the efficacy of medical treatment for pain for men and women. Women are less likely to have their pain controlled and receive less treatment than men. We are investigating one possible explanation for this gender pain gap: that there is a difference in how women and men report their pain to physicians, and so there is a difference in how physicians understand their pain. This paper describes an exploratory study into gendered attitudes towards reporting uncontrolled pain to a physician. This exploratory study provided subjects with a vignette describing a situation in which their pain is not being treated adequately and asked them questions about their attitudes towards self-advocacy and the strategies they would likely use to express themselves. We found that women scored higher than men on measures of patient likelihood to self-advocate. Women also reported intending to use more varied self-advocacy strategies than men. This suggests it is unlikely that patient's communication styles are to blame for the gender pain gap.

Barriers to Goal-concordant Care for Older Patients With Acute Surgical Illness: Communication Patterns Extrinsic to Decision Aids

OBJECTIVE

We sought to characterize patterns of communication extrinsic to a decision aid that may impede goal-concordant care.

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are designed to facilitate difficult clinical decisions by providing better treatment information. However, these interventions may not be sufficient to effectively reveal patient values and promote preference-aligned decisions for seriously ill, older adults.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of 31 decision-making conversations between surgeons and frail, older inpatients with acute surgical problems at a single tertiary care hospital. Conversations occurred before and after surgeons were trained to use a decision aid. We used directed qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns within 3 communication elements: disclosure of prognosis, elicitation of patient preferences, and integration of preferences into a treatment recommendation.

RESULTS

First, surgeons missed an opportunity to break bad news. By focusing on the acute surgical problem and need to make a treatment decision, surgeons failed to expose the life-limiting nature of the patient's illness. Second, surgeons asked patients to express preference for a specific treatment without gaining knowledge about the patient's priorities or exploring how patients might value specific health states or disabilities. Third, many surgeons struggled to integrate patients' goals and values to make a treatment recommendation. Instead, they presented options and noted, "It's your decision."

CONCLUSIONS

A decision aid alone may be insufficient to facilitate a decision that is truly shared. Attention to elements beyond provision of treatment information has the potential to improve communication and promote goal-concordant care for seriously ill older patients.

Prostate cancer awareness, case-finding, and early diagnosis: Interviews with undiagnosed men in Australia

Previous research in Victoria, Australia, found differences in prostate cancer outcomes in regional and metropolitan areas. This investigation of undiagnosed men in regional areas and a metropolitan area of South Australia sought their perspectives on prostate cancer. Our aim was to learn whether men who had not been diagnosed could shed light on why men outside metropolitan areas tended to have poorer outcomes than metropolitan men. Our goal was to build on evidence contributing to improving outcomes in prostate cancer care. Semi-structured interviews were designed to elicit explanation and meaning. 15 men (10 metropolitan, 5 regional) not diagnosed with prostate cancer were recruited through widely-distributed flyers in medical and community settings. Interviews were recorded and transcribed; transcripts were analysed thematically. Five main themes were identified, four of which were prompted by the questions: Addressing prostate health, Experiences with and expectations of GPs, Differences in care between regional and metropolitan areas, and Achieving early diagnosis. The fifth theme arose spontaneously: Australian masculinity. Men identified as problematic the limited availability of GPs in regional areas, the lack of consistency in approaches to prostate cancer detection, and men’s reluctance to seek medical care. Community-level strategies appear to be valued to encourage men to address prostate health. Maintaining and extending a systemic approach to prostate care may improve outcomes for men in Australia.

The Impact of a Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid on Initiation of Mammography Among Younger Women: Report of a Randomized Trial

Background. Guidelines recommend that initiation of breast cancer screening (BCS) among women aged 40 to 49 years include a shared decision-making process. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of a breast cancer screening patient decision-aid (BCS-PtDA) on the strength of the relationship between individual risk and the decision to initiate BCS, knowledge, and decisional conflict. Methods. We conducted a randomized clinical trial of a BCS-PtDA that included individual risk estimates compared with usual care. Participants were women 39 to 48 years of age with no previous mammogram. Primary outcomes were strength of association between breast cancer risk and mammography uptake at 12 months, knowledge, and decisional conflict. Results. Of 204 participants, 65% were Black, the median age (interquartile range [IQR]) was 40.0 years (39.0–42.0), and median (IQR) breast cancer lifetime risk was 9.7% (9.2–11.1). Women who received mammography at 12 months had higher breast cancer lifetime risk than women who had not in both intervention (mean, 95% CI): 12.2% (10.8–13.6) versus 10.5% (9.8–11.2), P = 0.04, and control groups: 11.8% (10.4–13.1) versus 9.9% (9.2–10.6), P = 0.02. However, there was no difference between groups in the strength of association between mammography uptake and breast cancer risk (P = 0.87). Follow-up knowledge (0–5) was greater in the intervention versus control group (mean, 95% CI): 3.84 (3.5–4.2) versus 3.17 (2.8–3.5), P = 0.01. There was no change in decisional conflict score (1–100) between the intervention versus control group (mean, 95% CI): 24.8 (19.5–30.2) versus 32.4 (25.9–39.0), P = 0.07. Conclusions. The BCS-PtDA improved knowledge but did not affect risk-based decision making regarding age of initiation of BCS. These findings indicate the complexity of changing behaviors to incorporate objective risk in the medical decision-making process.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Using a Patient Decision Aid Video to Assess Current and Former Smokers' Values About the Harms and Benefits of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography

Background. Recent policy changes require discussing the potential benefits and harms of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. This study explored how current and former smokers value potential benefits and harms after watching a patient decision aid, and their screening intentions. Methods. Current or former smokers (quit within 15 years) with no history of lung cancer watched the decision aid and responded to items assessing the value of potential benefits and harms in their decision making, and their screening intentions. Results. After viewing the decision aid, participants (n = 30; mean age 61.5 years, mean 30.4 pack-year history) were well-informed (mean 80.5% correct responses) and rated anticipated regret and finding cancer early as highly important in their decision (medians >9 out of 10), along with moderate but variable concerns about false positives, overdiagnosis, and radiation exposure (medians 7.0, 6.0, and 5.0, respectively). Most participants (90.0% to 96.7%) felt clear about how they personally valued the potential benefits and harms and prepared for decision making (mean 86.7 out of 100, SD = 21.3). After viewing the decision aid, most participants (90%) intended to discuss screening with their doctor. Limitations. The study is limited to current and former smokers enrolled in a tobacco treatment program, and it may not generalize to other patient populations. Conclusions. The majority of current and former smokers were strongly concerned about anticipated regret and finding cancer early, while concerns about radiation exposure, false positives, and overdiagnosis were variable. After viewing the decision aid, current and former smokers reported strong preparedness and intentions to talk with their doctor about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.

Men's perspectives of prostate cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies

Background

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer in men. Screening for prostate cancer is widely accepted; however concerns regarding the harms outweighing the benefits of screening exist. Although patient’s play a pivotal role in the decision making process, men may not be aware of the controversies regarding prostate cancer screening. Therefore we aimed to describe men’s attitudes, beliefs and experiences of prostate cancer screening.

Methods

Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on men’s perspectives of prostate cancer screening. Electronic databases and reference lists were searched to October 2016.

Findings

Sixty studies involving 3,029 men aged from 18–89 years, who had been screened for prostate cancer by Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) or Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) and not screened, across eight countries were included. Five themes were identified: Social prompting (trusting professional opinion, motivation from family and friends, proximity and prominence of cancer); gaining decisional confidence (overcoming fears, survival imperative, peace of mind, mental preparation, prioritising wellbeing); preserving masculinity (bodily invasion, losing sexuality, threatening manhood, medical avoidance); avoiding the unknown and uncertainties (taboo of cancer-related death, lacking tangible cause, physiological and symptomatic obscurity, ambiguity of the procedure, confusing controversies); and prohibitive costs.

Conclusions

Men are willing to participate in prostate cancer screening to prevent cancer and gain reassurance about their health, particularly when supported or prompted by their social networks or healthcare providers. However, to do so they needed to mentally overcome fears of losing their masculinity and accept the intrusiveness of screening, the ambiguities about the necessity and the potential for substantial costs. Addressing the concerns and priorities of men may facilitate informed decisions about prostate cancer screening and improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Shared decision making: relevant concepts and facilitating strategies

As the paradigm in healthcare nowadays is the evidence-based, patient-centered decision making, the issue of shared decision making (SDM) is highlighted. The aims of this manuscript were to look at the relevant concepts and suggest the facilitating strategies for overcoming barriers of conducting SDM. While the definitions of SDM were discordant, several concepts such as good communication, individual autonomy, patient participants, and patient-centered decision-making were involved. Further, the facilitating strategies of SDM were to educate and train physician, to apply clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids, to develop valid measurement tools for evaluation of SDM processes, and to investigate the impact of SDM.

Patient factors associated with initiation of behavioral weight loss treatment: a prospective observational study in an integrated care setting

Low enrollment in behavioral weight loss treatments limits their impact. We aimed to identify factors associated with treatment initiation. The participants were outpatients (n = 198) at Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare facilities who were referred to a free VA-based behavioral weight loss treatment. Participants were assessed on psychosocial factors potentially relevant to treatment initiation. Subsequent treatment initiation was determined via medical record review. Study participants were 77 % male, 60 % African American, and 54 % initiated treatment. In multivariable analyses, treatment initiation was associated with being single, higher anxiety, and patients' perceptions that referring provider supported their weight autonomy. Endorsement of treatment barriers was not associated with treatment initiation. Treatments offering in-person sessions and mood management components were rated as more preferred. Initiation of behavioral weight loss treatments may increase if patients believe that providers respect their weight control autonomy and if healthcare organizations offer treatments that match patients' preferences.

A Typology of ICU Patients and Families from the Clinician Perspective: Toward Improving Communication

This paper presents an exploratory case study of clinician-patient communications in a specific clinical environment. It describes how intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians' technical and social categorizations of patients and families shape the flow of communication in these acute care settings. Drawing on evidence from a year-long ethnographic study of four ICUs, we develop a typology of patients and families as viewed by the clinicians who care for them. Each type, or category, of patient is associated with differing communication strategies, with compliant patients and families engaged in greater depth. In an era that prioritizes patient engagement through communication for all patients, our findings suggest that ICU teams need to develop new strategies for engaging and communicating with not just compliant patients and families, but those who are difficult as well. We discuss innovative methods for developing such strategies.

An entertainment-education colorectal cancer screening decision aid for African American patients: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening rates for African American patients remain suboptimal. Patient decision aids designed with an entertainment-education approach have been shown to improve saliency and foster informed decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess whether an entertainment-education decision aid tailored for African American patients improved patients' decision making, attitudes, intentions, or colorectal cancer screening behavior.

METHODS

Eighty-nine participants were randomized to view 1) a patient decision aid video containing culturally tailored information about colorectal cancer screening options and theory-based support in decision making presented in an entertainment-education format or 2) an attention control video about hypertension that contained similarly detailed information. Participants met with their clinician and then completed follow-up questionnaires assessing their knowledge, decisional conflict, self-advocacy, attitudes, perceived social norms, and intentions. At 3 months, completion of screening was assessed by chart review.

RESULTS

Viewing the culturally tailored decision aid significantly increased African American patients' knowledge of colorectal cancer screening recommendations and options. It also significantly reduced their decisional conflict and improved their self-advocacy. No significant differences were observed in participants' attitudes, norms, or intentions. At three months, 23% of all patients had completed a colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Designing targeted, engaging patient decision aids for groups that receive suboptimal screening holds promise for improving patient decision making and self-advocacy. Additional research is warranted to investigate the effectiveness of such aids in clinical practices with suboptimal screening rates and on downstream behaviors (such as repeat testing). Cancer 2017;123:1401-1408. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Role of Psychosocial Factors and Health Literacy in Pregnant Women's Intention to Use a Decision Aid for Down Syndrome Screening: A Theory-Based Web Survey

BACKGROUND

Deciding about undergoing prenatal screening is difficult, as it entails risks, potential loss and regrets, and challenges to personal values. Shared decision making and decision aids (DAs) can help pregnant women give informed and values-based consent or refusal to prenatal screening, but little is known about factors influencing the use of DAs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify the influence of psychosocial factors on pregnant women's intention to use a DA for prenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS). We also added health literacy variables to explore their influence on pregnant women's intention.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of pregnant women in the province of Quebec (Canada) using a Web panel. Eligibility criteria included age >18 years, >16 weeks pregnant, low-risk pregnancy, and having decided about prenatal screening for the current pregnancy. We collected data based on an extended version of the Theory of Planned Behavior assessing 7 psychosocial constructs (intention, attitude, anticipated regret, subjective norm, descriptive norm, moral norm, and perceived control), 3 related sets of beliefs (behavioral, normative, and control beliefs), 4 health literacy variables, and sociodemographics. Eligible women watched a video depicting the behavior of interest before completing a Web-based questionnaire. We performed descriptive, bivariate, and ordinal logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 383 eligible pregnant women who agreed to participate, 350 pregnant women completed the Web-based questionnaire and 346 were retained for analysis (completion rate 350/383, 91.4%; mean age 30.1, SD 4.3, years). In order of importance, factors influencing intention to use a DA for prenatal screening for DS were attitude (odds ratio, OR, 9.16, 95% CI 4.02-20.85), moral norm (OR 7.97, 95% CI 4.49-14.14), descriptive norm (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.63-4.92), and anticipated regret (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.71-3.46). Specific attitudinal beliefs significantly related to intention were that using a DA would reassure them (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.73-4.01), facilitate their reflections with their spouse (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.05-2.29), and let them know about the advantages of doing or not doing the test (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.05-2.24). Health literacy did not add to the predictive power of our model (P values range .43-.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation interventions targeting the use of a DA for prenatal screening for DS by pregnant women should address a number of modifiable factors, especially by introducing the advantages of using the DA (attitude), informing pregnant women that they might regret not using it (anticipated regret), and presenting the use of DAs as a common practice (descriptive norm). However, interventions on moral norms related to the use of DA should be treated with caution. Further studies that include populations with low health literacy are needed before decisive claims can be made.

Is Shared Decision Making a Utopian Dream or an Achievable Goal?

The idea of shared decision making (SDM) between patient and physician grew out of a generalized challenge to traditional social hierarchies that occurred in the middle of the last century. Governments have espoused SDM, thousands of articles about it have been published, and evidence has shown that it improves some of the healthcare processes as well as patient outcomes. Yet it has not been widely adopted. From their cross-disciplinary perspective (practical theology and clinical medicine), the authors locate this reluctance in the unfolding of scientific paradigm shifts, summarize the perceived risks and benefits of SDM and the evidence for each, and suggest practical, achievable approaches for clinicians. Finally, they explore some important emerging territories for SDM.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) can reduce overuse of options not associated with benefits for all and respects patient rights, but has not yet been widely adopted in practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched for primary studies in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialsied Register and PsycINFO for the period March 2009 to August 2012. We searched the Clinical Trials.gov registry and the proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference. We scanned the bibliographies of relevant papers and studies. We contacted experts in the field to identify papers published after August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM where the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based outcome measures (OBOM) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The three overall categories of intervention were: interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. Studies in each category were compared to studies in the same category, to studies in the other two categories, and to usual care, resulting in nine comparison groups. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes separately. We calculated the median of the standardized mean difference (SMD), or risk difference, and range of effect across studies and categories of intervention. We assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were included, 38 randomised and one non-randomised controlled trial. Categorical measures did not show any effect for any of the interventions. In OBOM studies, interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals had a positive effect compared to usual care (SMD of 2.83) and compared to interventions targeting patients alone (SMD of 1.42). Studies comparing interventions targeting patients with other interventions targeting patients had a positive effect, as did studies comparing interventions targeting healthcare professionals with usual care (SDM of 1.13 and 1.08 respectively). In PROM studies, only three comparisons showed any effect, patient compared to usual care (SMD of 0.21), patient compared to another patient (SDM of 0.29) and healthcare professional compared to another healthcare professional (SDM of 0.20). For all comparisons, interpretation of the results needs to consider the small number of studies, the heterogeneity, and some methodological issues. Overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes, assessed with the GRADE tool, ranged from low to very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether interventions to improve adoption of SDM are effective given the low quality of the evidence. However, any intervention that actively targets patients, healthcare professionals, or both, is better than none. Also, interventions targeting patients and healthcare professionals together show more promise than those targeting only one or the other.

Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother?

Shared decision making enables a clinician and patient to participate jointly in making a health decision, having discussed the options and their benefits and harms, and having considered the patient's values, preferences and circumstances. It is not a single step to be added into a consultation, but a process that can be used to guide decisions about screening, investigations and treatments. The benefits of shared decision making include enabling evidence and patients' preferences to be incorporated into a consultation; improving patient knowledge, risk perception accuracy and patient-clinician communication; and reducing decisional conflict, feeling uninformed and inappropriate use of tests and treatments. Various approaches can be used to guide clinicians through the process. We elaborate on five simple questions that can be used: What will happen if the patient waits and watches? What are the test or treatment options? What are the benefits and harms of each option? How do the benefits and harms weigh up for the patient? Does the patient have enough information to make a choice? Although shared decision making can occur without tools, various types of decision support tools now exist to facilitate it. Misconceptions about shared decision making are hampering its implementation. We address the barriers, as perceived by clinicians. Despite numerous international initiatives to advance shared decision making, very little has occurred in Australia. Consequently, we are lagging behind many other countries and should act urgently.

Exploration of shared decision-making processes among dieticians and patients during a consultation for the nutritional treatment of dyslipidaemia

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) holds great potential for improving the therapeutic efficiency and quality of nutritional treatment of dyslipidaemia by promoting patient involvement in decision making. Adoption of specific behaviours fostering SDM during consultations has yet to be studied in routine dietetic practice.

OBJECTIVE

Using a cross-sectional study design, we aimed to explore both dieticians' and patients' adoption of SDM behaviours in dietetic consultations regarding the nutritional treatment of dyslipidaemia.

METHODS

Twenty-six dieticians working in local health clinics in the Quebec City metropolitan area were each asked to identify one dyslipidaemic patient they would see in an upcoming consultation. Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), questionnaires were designed to study two targeted SDM behaviours: 'to discuss nutritional treatment options for dyslipidaemia' and 'to discuss patients' values and preferences about nutritional treatment options for dyslipidaemia'. These questionnaires were administered to the dietician-patient dyad individually before the consultation. Associations between TPB constructs (attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control) towards behavioural intentions were analysed using Spearman's partial correlations.

RESULTS

Thirteen unique patient-dietician dyads completed the study. Perceived behavioural control was the only TPB construct significantly associated with both dieticians' and patients' intentions to adopt the targeted SDM behaviours (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

As perceived behavioural control seems to determine dieticians' and patients' adoption of SDM behaviours, interventions addressing barriers and reinforcing enablers of these behaviours are indicated. This exploratory study highlights issues that could be addressed in future research endeavours to expand the knowledge base relating to SDM adoption in dietetic practice.

A conceptual model of the multiple stages of communication necessary to support patient-centered care

Patient-centered care requires that both healthcare providers and patients have access to comparative effectiveness research (CER), which provides direct comparisons of the risks and benefits of available clinical options. However, insufficient attention has been paid to developing the comprehensive communication systems necessary to ensure that CER reaches patients and healthcare providers. In this review, we propose a model of the multiple stages of CER communication necessary for patient-centered care and review the existing research and gaps in knowledge relevant to each stage. These stages include: promotion of the underlying concepts and value of CER; translation of CER results; dissemination of CER results; and utilization of the results of CER in shared decision-making between patients and providers. A comprehensive approach to CER communication is necessary to ensure that the growing interest in and availability of CER is able to support a more patient-centered model of healthcare.

Decisional conflict in economically disadvantaged men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: baseline results from a shared decision-making trial

BACKGROUND

Decisional conflict is a source of anxiety and stress for men diagnosed with prostate cancer given uncertainty surrounding myriad treatment options. Few data exist to help clinicians identify which patients are at risk for decisional conflict. The purpose of this study was to examine factors associated with decisional conflict in economically disadvantaged men diagnosed with prostate cancer before any treatment choices were made.

METHODS

A total of 70 men were surveyed at a Veterans Administration clinic with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer enrolled in a randomized trial testing a novel shared decision-making tool. Baseline demographic, clinical, and functional data were collected. Independent variables included age, race, education, comorbidity, relationship status, urinary/sexual dysfunction, and prostate cancer knowledge. Tested outcomes were Decisional Conflict Scale, Uncertainty Subscale, and Perceived Effectiveness Subscale. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to identify factors associated with decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Mean age was 63 years, 49% were African American, and 70% reported an income less than $30,000. Poor prostate cancer knowledge was associated with increased decisional conflict and higher uncertainty (P < .001 and P = 0.001, respectively). Poor knowledge was also associated with lower perceived effectiveness (P = 0.003) whereas being in a relationship was associated with higher decisional conflict (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Decreased patient knowledge about prostate cancer is associated with increased decisional conflict and lower perceived effective decision-making. Interventions to increase comprehension of prostate cancer and its treatments may reduce decisional conflict. Further work is needed to better characterize this relationship and identify effective targeted interventions.

Using a 'talk' model of shared decision making to propose an observation-based measure: Observer OPTION 5 Item

OBJECTIVE

To propose a revised Observer OPTION measure of shared decision making.

METHODS

We analyzed published models to identify the core components of a parsimonious conceptual framework of shared decision making. By using this framework, we developed a revised measure combining data from an observational study of clinical practice in Canada with our experience of using Observer OPTION(12 Item).

RESULTS

Our conceptual framework for shared decision making composed of justifying deliberative work, followed by the steps of describing options, information exchange, preference elicitation, and preference integration. By excluding items in Observer OPTION(12 Item) that were seldom observed or not aligned to a robust construct, we propose Observer OPTION(5 Item).

CONCLUSION

Although widely used, Observer OPTION(12 Item) did not give sufficient attention to preference elicitation and integration, and included items that were not specific to a core construct of shared decision making. We attempted to remedy these shortcomings by proposing a shorter, more focused measure.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Observer OPTION(5 Item) requires evaluation; we hope that it will be useful as both a research tool and as a formative measure of clinical practice.

Role Preferences of People with Multiple Sclerosis: Image-Revised, Computerized Self-Administered Version of the Control Preference Scale

Background

The Control Preference Scale (CPS) is the most frequently used measure of patients’ preferred roles in treatment decisions. We revised the original CPS and developed a new computerized patient self-administered version (eCPS). We used the eCPS to assess role preferences, and their determinants, in Italian and German people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Methods

New cartoons were produced, based on MS health professional and patient input/feedback and previous findings, and pilot tested on 26 Italian and German MS patients. eCPS acceptability and reliability (weighted kappa statistic, wK) in comparison to the original tool, was determined in 92 MS patients who received both CPS versions in random order.

Results

The new cartoons were well accepted and easily interpreted by patients, who reported they based their choices mainly on the text and considered the images of secondary importance. eCPS reliability was moderate (wK 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40–0.65) and similar to the test-retest reliability of face-to-face administration assessed in a previous publication (wK 0.65, 95% CI 0.45–0.81). Higher education (odds ratio [OR] 3.74, 95% CI 1.00–14.05) and German nationality (OR 10.30, 95% CI 3.10–34.15) were associated with preference for an active role in the logistic model.

Conclusions

The newly devised eCPS was well received and considered easy to use by MS patients. Reliability was in line with that of the original version. Role preference appears affected by cultural characteristics and (borderline statistical significance) education.

Patient autonomy in multiple sclerosis--possible goals and assessment strategies

Patient autonomy has been increasingly acknowledged as prerequisite for successful medical decision making in Western countries. In medical decisions with a need to involve a health professional, patient autonomy becomes apparent in the extent of patients' participation in the communication as described in the concept of shared decision making. Patient autonomy can be derived from different perspectives or goals and the focus of evaluation approaches may vary accordingly. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a paradigmatic disease to study patient autonomy mainly because MS patients are highly disease competent and due to ambiguous evidence on many aspects of disease-related medical decision making. This review gives an overview on measurement issues in studying decision making in MS, categorized according to prerequisites, process measures and outcomes of patient autonomy. As relevant prerequisites role preferences, risk attribution, risk tolerance, and risk knowledge are discussed. Regarding processes, we distinguish intra-psychic and interpersonal aspects. Intra-psychic processes are elucidated using the theory of planned behavior, which guided development of a 30-item scale to capture decisions about immunotherapy. Moreover, a theory of uncertainty management has been created resulting in the development of a corresponding measurement concept. Interpersonal processes evolving between physician and patient can be thoroughly analyzed from different perspectives by use of the newly developed comprehensive MAPPIN'SDM inventory. Concerning outcomes, besides health related outcomes, we discuss match of preferred roles during the decision encounters (preference match), decisional conflict as well as an application of the multidimensional measure of informed choice to decisions of MS patients. These approaches provide an overview on patient-inherent and interpersonal factors and processes modulating medical decision making and health behavior in MS and beyond.

What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

Recent guidelines on cancer screening have provided not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians' support, must decide whether to get screened, which modality to use, and how often to undergo screening. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision-making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. A total of 73 decision aids concerning screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers were reviewed. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need of more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real-world setting. Most studies used sound study designs. Significant variation existed in the setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over one-third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted with regard to which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision-making. Little information was available regarding the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. In this review, the implications for future research, as well as what clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice, are discussed.

Applying the theory of planned behaviour to multiple sclerosis patients' decisions on disease modifying therapy--questionnaire concept and validation

BACKGROUND

Patients making important medical decisions need to evaluate complex information in the light of their own beliefs, attitudes and priorities. The process can be considered in terms of the theory of planned behaviour. Decision support technologies aim at helping patients making informed treatment choices. Instruments assessing informed choices need to include risk knowledge, attitude (towards therapy) and actual uptake. However, mechanisms by which decision support achieves its goals are poorly understood.Our aim was therefore to develop and validate an instrument modeling the process of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients' decision making about whether to undergo disease modifying (immuno-)therapies (DMT).

METHODS

We constructed a 30-item patient administered questionnaire to access the elaboration of decisions about DMT in MS according to the theory of planned behaviour. MS-patients' belief composites regarding immunotherapy were classified according to the domains "attitude", "subjective social norm" and "control beliefs" and within each domain to either "expectations" or "values" yielding 6 sub-domains. A randomized controlled trial (n = 192) evaluating an evidence based educational intervention tested the instrument's predictive power regarding intention to use immunotherapy and its sensitivity to the intervention.

RESULTS

The psychometric properties of the questionnaire were satisfactory (mean item difficulty 62, mean SD 0.9, range 0-3). Responses explain up to 68% of the variability in the intention to use DMT was explained by up to 68% in the total sample. Four weeks after an educational intervention, predictive power was higher in the intervention (IG) compared to the control group (CG) (intention estimate: CG 56% / IG 69%, p = .179; three domains CG 56% / IG 74%, p = .047; six sub-domains CG 64% / IG 78%, p = .073). The IG held more critical beliefs towards immunotherapy (p = .002) and were less willing to comply with social norm (p = .012).

CONCLUSIONS

The questionnaire seems to provide a valid way of explaining patients' inherent decision processes and to be sensitive towards varying levels of elaboration. Similar tools based on the theory of planned behaviour could be applied to other decision making scenarios.

Shared decision making in health care settings: a role for social work

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process integral to social work practice, one where the provider/professional and the consumer/patient discuss treatment alternatives based on patient values and life circumstances and make a shared decision about whether and how to proceed with treatment. Evidence-based medicine suggests that for many health conditions, having the choice of several effective treatment options is not uncommon. In these cases treatment should be based on what is best for the individual, since many factors influence an individual's treatment preference, including the psychological, social, cultural, and spiritual history she/he brings to the medical encounter; a history that has long been ignored in somatic health care. This article develops the argument that medical social workers possess the professional knowledge and skill base to provide decisional coaching, and implementing SDM in primary care settings. Of particular importance are the values that guide professional social work practice, including client self-determination, which is the basis of SDM, and the ability to maintain neutrality.

Exploring dietitians' salient beliefs about shared decision-making behaviors

Background

Shared decision making (SDM), a process by which health professionals and patients go through the decision-making process together to agree on treatment, is a promising strategy for promoting diet-related decisions that are informed and value based and to which patients adhere well. The objective of the present study was to identify dietitians' salient beliefs regarding their exercise of two behaviors during the clinical encounter, both of which have been deemed essential for SDM to take place: (1) presenting patients with all dietary treatment options for a given health condition and (2) helping patients clarify their values and preferences regarding the options.

Methods

Twenty-one dietitians were allocated to four focus groups. Facilitators conducted the focus groups using a semistructured interview guide based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Discussions were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed with NVivo8 (QSR International, Cambridge, MA) software.

Results

Most participants stated that better patient adherence to treatment was an advantage of adopting the two SDM behaviors. Dietitians identified patients, physicians, and the multidisciplinary team as normative referents who would approve or disapprove of their adoption of the SDM behaviors. The most often reported barriers and facilitators for the behaviors concerned patients' characteristics, patients' clinical situation, and time.

Conclusions

The implementation of SDM in nutrition clinical practice can be guided by addressing dietitians' salient beliefs. Identifying these beliefs also provides the theoretical framework needed for developing a quantitative survey questionnaire to further study the determinants of dietitians' adoption of SDM behaviors.

Investing in deliberation: a definition and classification of decision support interventions for people facing difficult health decisions

This article provides an analysis of 'decision aids', interventions to support patients facing tough decisions. Interest has increased since the concept of shared decision making has become widely considered to be a means of achieving desirable clinical outcomes. We consider the aims of these interventions and examine assumptions about their use. We propose three categories, interventions that are used in face-to-face encounters, those designed for use outside clinical encounters and those which are mediated, using telephone or other communication media. We propose the following definition: decision support interventions help people think about choices they face; they describe where and why choice exists; they provide information about options, including, where reasonable, the option of taking no action. These interventions help people to deliberate, independently or in collaboration with others, about options, by considering relevantattributes; they support people to forecast how they might feel about short, intermediate and long-term outcomes which have relevant consequences, in ways which help the process of constructing preferences and eventual decision making, appropriate to their individual situation. Although quality standards have been published for these interventions, we are also cautious about premature closure and consider that the need for short versions for use inside clinical encounters and long versions for external use requires further research. More work is also needed on the use of narrative formats and the translation of theory into practical designs. The interest in decision support interventions for patients heralds a transformation in clinical practice although many important areas remain unresolved.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the practitioner and the patient and is said to be the crux of patient-centred care. Policy makers perceive SDM as desirable because of its potential to a) reduce overuse of options not clearly associated with benefits for all (e.g., prostate cancer screening); b) enhance the use of options clearly associated with benefits for the vast majority (e.g., cardiovascular risk factor management); c) reduce unwarranted healthcare practice variations; d) foster the sustainability of the healthcare system; and e) promote the right of patients to be involved in decisions concerning their health. Despite this potential, SDM has not yet been widely adopted in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 March 2009: Cochrane Library (1970-), MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1976-), CINAHL (1982-) and PsycINFO (1965-). We found additional studies by reviewing a) the bibliographies of studies and reviews found in the electronic databases; b) the clinicaltrials.gov registry; and c) proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference and the conferences of the Society for Medical Decision Making. We included all languages of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well-designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses) that evaluated any type of intervention that aimed to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of shared decision making. We defined adoption as the extent to which healthcare professionals intended to or actually engaged in SDM in clinical practice or/and used interventions known to facilitate SDM. We deemed studies eligible if the primary outcomes were evaluated with an objective measure of the adoption of SDM by healthcare professionals (e.g., a third-observer instrument).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers independently screened each abstract for inclusion and abstracted data independently using a modified version of the EPOC data collection checklist. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes. We computed the standard effect size for each outcome separately with a 95% confidence interval. We evaluated global effects by calculating the median effect size and the range of effect sizes across studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The reviewers identified 6764 potentially relevant documents, of which we excluded 6582 by reviewing titles and abstracts. Of the remainder, we retrieved 182 full publications for more detailed screening. From these, we excluded 176 publications based on our inclusion criteria. This left in five studies, all RCTs. All five were conducted in ambulatory care: three in primary clinical care and two in specialised care. Four of the studies targeted physicians only and one targeted nurses only. In only two of the five RCTs was a statistically significant effect size associated with the intervention to have healthcare professionals adopt SDM. The first of these two studies compared a single intervention (a patient-mediated intervention: the Statin Choice decision aid) to another single intervention (also patient-mediated: a standard Mayo patient education pamphlet). In this study, the Statin Choice decision aid group performed better than the standard Mayo patient education pamphlet group (standard effect size = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.50). The other study compared a multifaceted intervention (distribution of educational material, educational meeting and audit and feedback) to usual care (control group) (standard effect size = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.90). This study was the only one to report an assessment of barriers prior to the elaboration of its multifaceted intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this Cochrane review do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about the most effective types of intervention for increasing healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. Healthcare professional training may be important, as may the implementation of patient-mediated interventions such as decision aids. Given the paucity of evidence, however, those motivated by the ethical impetus to increase SDM in clinical practice will need to weigh the costs and potential benefits of interventions. Subsequent research should involve well-designed studies with adequate power and procedures to minimise bias so that they may improve estimates of the effects of interventions on healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. From a measurement perspective, consensus on how to assess professionals' adoption of SDM is desirable to facilitate cross-study comparisons.