Decision boxes for clinicians to support evidence-based practice and shared decision making: the user experience

User Experience of a Computer-Based Decision Aid for Prenatal Trisomy Screening: Mixed Methods Explanatory Study

BACKGROUND

Mobile health tools can support shared decision-making. We developed a computer-based decision aid (DA) to help pregnant women and their partners make informed, value-congruent decisions regarding prenatal screening for trisomy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the usability and usefulness of computer-based DA among pregnant women, clinicians, and policy makers.

METHODS

For this mixed methods sequential explanatory study, we planned to recruit a convenience sample of 45 pregnant women, 45 clinicians from 3 clinical sites, and 15 policy makers. Eligible women were aged >18 years and >16 weeks pregnant or had recently given birth. Eligible clinicians and policy makers were involved in prenatal care. We asked the participants to navigate a computer-based DA. We asked the women about the usefulness of the DA and their self-confidence in decision-making. We asked all participants about usability, quality, acceptability, satisfaction with the content of the DA, and collected sociodemographic data. We explored participants' reactions to the computer-based DA and solicited suggestions. Our interview guide was based on the Mobile App Rating Scale. We performed descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and thematic deductive and inductive analyses of the qualitative data for each participant category.

RESULTS

A total of 45 pregnant women, 14 clinicians, and 8 policy makers participated. Most pregnant women were aged between 25 and 34 years (34/45, 75%) and White (42/45, 94%). Most clinicians were aged between 35 and 44 years (5/14, 36%) and women (11/14, 79%), and all were White (14/14, 100%); the largest proportion of policy makers was aged between 45 and 54 years (4/8, 50%), women (5/8, 62%), and White (8/8, 100%). The mean usefulness score for preparing for decision-making for women was 80/100 (SD 13), and the mean self-efficacy score was 88/100 (SD 11). The mean usability score was 84/100 (SD 14) for pregnant women, 77/100 (SD 14) for clinicians, and 79/100 (SD 23) for policy makers. The mean global score for quality was 80/100 (SD 9) for pregnant women, 72/100 (SD 12) for clinicians, and 80/100 (SD 9) for policy makers. Regarding acceptability, participants found the amount of information just right (52/66, 79%), balanced (58/66, 88%), useful (38/66, 58%), and sufficient (50/66, 76%). The mean satisfaction score with the content was 84/100 (SD 13) for pregnant women, 73/100 (SD 16) for clinicians, and 73/100 (SD 20) for policy makers. Participants thought the DA could be more engaging (eg, more customizable) and suggested strategies for implementation, such as incorporating it into clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women, clinicians, and policy makers found the DA usable and useful. The next steps are to incorporate user suggestions for improving engagement and implementing the computer-based DA in clinical practice.

Fostering Palliative Care Through Digital Intervention: A Platform for Adult Patients With Hematologic Malignancies

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an emerging paradigm in clinical research and healthcare, aiming to capture the patient's self-assessed health status in order to gauge efficacy of treatment from their perspective. As these patient-generated health data provide insights into the effects of healthcare processes in real-life settings beyond the clinical setting, they can also be viewed as a resolution beyond what can be gleaned directly by the clinician. To this end, patients are identified as a key stakeholder of the healthcare decision making process, instead of passively following their doctor's guidance. As this joint decision-making process requires constant and high-quality communication between the patient and his/her healthcare providers, novel methodologies and tools have been proposed to promote richer and preemptive communication to facilitate earlier recognition of potential complications. To this end, as PROs can be used to quantify the patient impact (especially important for chronic conditions such as cancer), they can play a prominent role in providing patient-centric care. In this paper, we introduce the MyPal platform that aims to support adults suffering from hematologic malignancies, focusing on the technical design and highlighting the respective challenges. MyPal is a Horizon 2020 European project aiming to support palliative care for cancer patients via the electronic PROs (ePROs) paradigm, building upon modern eHealth technologies. To this end, MyPal project evaluate the proposed eHealth intervention via clinical studies and assess its potential impact on the provided palliative care. More specifically, MyPal platform provides specialized applications supporting the regular answering of well-defined and standardized questionnaires, spontaneous symptoms reporting, educational material provision, notifications etc. The presented platform has been validated by end-users and is currently in the phase of pilot testing in a clinical study to evaluate its feasibility and its potential impact on the quality of life of palliative care patients with hematologic malignancies.

User-centered and theory-based design of a professional training program on shared decision-making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

We know little about the best approaches to design training for healthcare professionals. We thus studied how user-centered and theory-based design contribute to the development of a distance learning program for professionals, to increase their shared decision-making (SDM) with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders and their caregivers.

METHODS

In this mixed-methods study, healthcare professionals who worked in family medicine clinics and homecare services evaluated a training program in a user-centered approach with several iterative phases of quantitative and qualitative evaluation, each followed by modifications. The program comprised an e-learning activity and five evidence summaries. A subsample assessed the e-learning activity during semi-structured think-aloud sessions. A second subsample assessed the evidence summaries they received by email. All participants completed a theory-based questionnaire to assess their intention to adopt SDM. Descriptive statistical analyses and qualitative thematic analyses were integrated at each round to prioritize training improvements with regard to the determinants most likely to influence participants' intention.

RESULTS

Of 106 participants, 98 completed their evaluations of either the e-learning activity or evidence summary (93%). The professions most represented were physicians (60%) and nurses (15%). Professionals valued the e-learning component to gain knowledge on the theory and practice of SDM, and the evidence summaries to apply the knowledge gained through the e-learning activity to diverse clinical contexts. The iterative design process allowed addressing most weaknesses reported. Participants' intentions to adopt SDM and to use the summaries were high at baseline and remained positive as the rounds progressed. Attitude and social influence significantly influenced participants' intention to use the evidence summaries (P < 0.0001). Despite strong intention and the tailoring of tools to users, certain factors external to the training program can still influence the effective use of these tools and the adoption of SDM in practice.

CONCLUSIONS

A theory-based and user-centered design approach for continuing professional development interventions on SDM with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders and their caregivers appeared useful to identify the most important determinants of learners' intentions to use SDM in their practice, and validate our initial interpretations of learners' assessments during the subsequent evaluation round.

User-Centered Design and Evaluation of a Web-Based Decision Aid for Older Adults Living With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Their Health Care Providers: Mixed Methods Study

Background

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is often considered a transitional state between normal and pathologic (eg, dementia) cognitive aging. Although its prognosis varies largely, the diagnosis carries the risk of causing uncertainty and overtreatment of older adults with MCI who may never progress to dementia. Decision aids help people become better informed and more involved in decision making by providing evidence-based information about options and possible outcomes and by assisting them in clarifying their personal values in relation to the decision to be made.

Objective

This study aimed to incorporate features that best support values clarification and adjust the level of detail of a web-based decision aid for individuals with MCI.

Methods

We conducted a rapid review to identify options to maintain or improve cognitive functions in individuals with MCI. The evidence was structured into a novel web-based decision aid designed in collaboration with digital specialists and graphic designers. Qualitative and user-centered evaluations were used to draw on users’ knowledge, clarify values, and inform potential adoption in routine clinical practice. We invited clinicians, older adults with MCI, and their caregivers to evaluate the decision aid in 6 consecutive rounds, with new participants in each round. Quantitative data were collected using the Values Clarity and Informed subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale, the System Usability Scale, the Ottawa Acceptability questionnaire, and a 5-point satisfaction rating scale. We verified their comprehension using a teach-back method and recorded usability issues. We recorded the audio and computer screen during the session. An inductive thematic qualitative analysis approach was used to identify and describe the issues that arose. After each round, an expert panel met to prioritize and find solutions to mitigate the issues. An integrated analysis was conducted to confirm our choices.

Results

A total of 7 clinicians (social workers, nurses, family physicians, psychologists) and 12 older (≥60 years) community-dwelling individuals with MCI, half of them women, with education levels going from none to university diploma, were recruited and completed testing. The thematic analysis revealed 3 major issues. First, the user should be guided through the decision-making process by tailoring the presentation of options to users’ priorities using the values clarification exercise. Second, its content should be simple, but not simplistic, notably by using information layering, plain language, and pictograms. Third, the interface should be intuitive and user friendly, utilize pop-up windows and information tips, avoid drop-down menus, and limit the need to scroll down. The quantitative assessments corroborated the qualitative findings.

Conclusions

This project resulted in a promising web-based decision aid that can support decision making for MCI intervention, based on the personal values and preferences of the users. Further ongoing research will allow its implementation to be tested in clinical settings.

Professional training on shared decision making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders: a mixed-methods implementation study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders is challenging for primary healthcare professionals. We studied the implementation of a professional training program featuring an e-learning activity on shared decision making and five Decision Boxes on the care of people with neurocognitive disorders, and measured the program's effects.

METHODS

In this mixed-methods study, we recruited healthcare professionals in family medicine clinics and homecare settings in the Quebec City area (Canada). The professionals signed up for training as a continuing professional development activity and answered an online survey before and after training to assess their knowledge, and intention to adopt shared decision making. We recorded healthcare professionals' access to each training component, and conducted telephone interviews with a purposeful sample of extreme cases: half had completed training and the other half had not. We performed bivariate analyses with the survey data and a thematic qualitative analysis of the interviews, as per the theory of planned behaviour.

RESULTS

Of the 47 participating healthcare professionals, 31 (66%) completed at least one training component. Several factors restricted participation, including lack of time, training fragmentation into several components, poor adaptation of training to specific professions, and technical/logistical barriers. Ease of access, ease of use, the usefulness of training content and the availability of training credits fostered participation. Training allowed Healthcare professionals to improve their knowledge about risk communication (p = 0.02), and their awareness of the options (P = 0.011). Professionals' intention to adopt shared decision making was high before training (mean ± SD = 5.88 ± 0.99, scale from 1 to 7, with 7 high) and remained high thereafter (5.94 ± 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study will allow modifying the training program to improve participation rates and, ultimately, uptake of meaningful shared decision making with patients living with neurocognitive disorders.

Italian Health Care Workers' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Human Papillomavirus Infection and Prevention

Objective: To assess healthcare workers’ knowledge and attitudes about human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, related diseases, and prevention. Methods: A cross-sectional multicenter survey about HPV and its prevention, targeted to healthcare workers involved in HPV vaccine counseling, was performed from May 2017 to December 2018. Results: The overall median knowledge and attitude scores were 69.2% (25–75, p = 61.5–84.6) and 5 (25–75, p = 4–5), respectively. Both knowledge and attitudes statistically significantly differ between physicians and healthcare professions. The median propensity score before and after the educational intervention was stable and high, at 10 (25–75, p = 9–10). The predictors of statistically significantly high knowledge scores are to be a physician, general practitioner, or pediatrician, attending courses/congresses, and consulting technical product characteristics and scientific literature to obtain information about the HPV vaccine. Being a physician and consulting scientific literature to obtain information about the HPV vaccine were found also as predictors of statistically significantly different attitude scores among study participants. Conclusions: Although healthcare workers showed overall positive attitudes towards the relevance of HPV burden and prevention tools, demonstrated knowledge was largely suboptimal, particularly that shown by healthcare professions. Obtained results allow highlighting knowledge gaps, and thus improving counselling to HPV vaccine targets.

Co-Creation with Older Adults to Improve User-Experience of a Smartphone Self-Test Application to Assess Balance Function

This co-creation study aimed to develop a smartphone self-test application for balance and leg strength in collaboration between older adults and the research team. The paper describes older participants’ preferences for, and their contribution to, the application design. Technology to assess movements is available in smartphones with built-in sensors, and one of the challenges is to develop a valuable self-test for older adults. The participants contributed to the design of the application’s instructions and user interface. Multiple data collection methods were used: user-test with Think aloud method, mock-ups, homework assignment as co-researcher, audio and video recordings. Qualitative content analysis with a deductive-inductive approach was used, guided by the Optimized Honeycomb model for user experience (UX) as a categorization matrix. The analysis resulted in 17 subcategories within the seven facets of the UX Honeycomb model (findable, accessible, usable, desirable, credible, useful, and valuable), and describes the older participants’ preferences and experiences. The main results were participants’ desire to know why, to get clear and appropriate information, and expectations of the self-test to be useful. It was feasible and valuable to develop the self-test application in co-creation with the intended user-group, in order to get direct feedback and suggestions for the development.

Patient Satisfaction With Decision Making Does Not Correlate With Patient Centeredness of Surgeons

BACKGROUND

High-quality decision making is important in patient-centered care. Although patient involvement in decision making varies widely, most patients desire to share in decision making. The Press-Ganey Patient Satisfaction survey includes questions that measure patients' perceptions of their providers' efforts to involve them in decision making (PGDM). We hypothesized that higher PGDM scores would correlate with higher scores on a validated measure of patient centeredness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Surgical providers at a university hospital who routinely receive Press-Ganey scores received a survey that included the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS), a validated tool that measures the provider's orientation toward patient centeredness on a continuous six-point scale: score ≥5 = high, 4.57-5 = moderate, and <4.57 = low and includes nine-item "caring" or "sharing" subscales. We compared PPOS scores to PGDM scores, averaged from April 2015 to January 2016.

RESULTS

Eighty-six of 112 (75%) of surgical providers responded to the survey. Fifty-two (46%) had PGDM scores available and 26% achieved a perfect score on the PGDM. The overall PPOS scores were low, with a mean of 4.2 (SD = 0.5). The PPOS was not correlated with the PGDM, correlation coefficient (rs) = -0.07 (CI: -0.34-0.21, P = 0.63). Similarly, the two subscales of the PPOS did not correlate with the PGDM with rs = -0.15 (CI: -0.41-0.13, P = 0.29) for "caring" and rs = -0.04 (CI: -0.31-0.23, P = 0.76) for "sharing".

CONCLUSIONS

Although surgical providers scored low in patient centeredness using the PPOS, over one-quarter (26%) of them rank in the top 1% on the PGDM. No correlation was found between providers' patient centeredness and their patients' perceptions of efforts to include them in decision making.

Shared decision aids in pregnancy care: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making in pregnancy, labour, and birth is vital to woman-centred care and despite strong evidence for the effectiveness of shared decision making in pregnancy care, practical uptake has been slow.

DESIGN AND AIM

This scoping review aimed to identify and describe effective and appropriate shared decision aids designed to be provided to women in the antenatal period to assist them in making informed decisions for both pregnancy and birth. Two questions guided the enquiry: (i) what shared decision aids for pregnancy and perinatal care are of appropriate quality and feasibility for application in Australia? (ii) which of these decision aids have been shown to be effective and appropriate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, culturally diverse women, or those with low literacy?

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used to conduct the review. Five key databases and selected grey literature sources were examined. English language evidence from Australia, Europe, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and United States of America produced from 2009 was eligible for inclusion, checked against apriori inclusion criteria, and assessed for quality and usability using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.

RESULTS

From a total of 5,209 search results, 35 sources of evidence reporting on 27 decision aids were included following title/abstract and full-text review. Most of the decision aids concerned decisions around birth (52%, n = 14) or antenatal screening 37% (n = 10). The quality of the decision aids was moderate to high, with most communicating risks, benefits, and choice pathways via a mix of Likert-style scales, quizzes, and pictures or graphs. Use of decision aids resulted in significant reductions in decisional conflict and increased knowledge. The format of decision aids appeared to have no effect on these outcomes, indicating that paper-based are as effective as video- or audio-based decision aids. Eleven decision aids were suitable for low literacy or low health literacy women, and six were either developed for culturally diverse groups or have been translated into other languages. No decision aids found were specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The 27 decision aids are readily adoptable into westernised healthcare settings and can be used by midwives or multidisciplinary teams in conjunction with women. Decision aids are designed to support women, and families to arrive at informed choices and supplement the decision-making process rather than to replace consumer-healthcare professional interaction. If given before an appointment, high quality decision aids can increase a woman's familiarity with medical terminology, options for care, and an insight into personal values, thereby decreasing decisional conflict and increasing knowledge.

An Analytical Mobile App for Shared Decision Making About Prenatal Screening: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Decisions about prenatal screening to assess the risk of genetic conditions such as Down syndrome are complex and should be well informed. Moreover, the number of available tests is increasing. Shared decision making (SDM) about testing could be facilitated by decision aids powered by mobile technology.

OBJECTIVE

In this mixed methods study, we aim to (1) assess women's needs and preferences regarding using an app for considering prenatal screening, (2) develop a decision model using the analytical hierarchy process, and (3) develop an analytical app and assess its usability and usefulness.

METHODS

In phase 1, we will assess the needs of 90 pregnant women and their partners (if available). We will identify eligible participants in 3 clinical sites (a midwife-led birthing center, a family practice clinic, and an obstetrician-led hospital-based clinic) in Quebec City and Montreal, Canada. Using semistructured interviews, we will assess participants' attitudes toward mobile apps for decision making about health, their current use of apps for health purposes, and their expectations of an app for prenatal testing decisions. Self-administered questionnaires will collect sociodemographic information, intentions to use an app for prenatal testing, and perceived importance of decision criteria. Qualitative data will be transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. In phase 2, we will develop a decision model using the AHP whereby users can assign relative importance to criteria when deciding between options. We will validate the model with potential users and a multidisciplinary team of patients, family physicians, primary care researchers, decision sciences experts, engineers, and experts in SDM, genetics, and bioethics. In phase 3, we will develop a prototype of the app using the results of the first 2 phases, pilot test its usefulness and usability among a sample of 15 pregnant women and their partners (if available), and improve it through 3 iterations. Data will be collected with a self-administered questionnaire. Results will be analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Recruitment for phase 1 will begin in 2019. We expect results to be available in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will result in a validated analytical app that will provide pregnant women and their partners with up-to-date information about prenatal screening options and their risks and benefits. It will help them clarify their values and enable them to weigh the options to make informed choices consistent with their preferences and values before meeting face-to-face with their health care professional. The app will be easy to update with the latest information and will provide women with a user-friendly experience using their smartphones or tablets. This study and the resulting app will contribute to high-quality SDM between pregnant women and their health care team.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/13321.

Offering patients a choice for colorectal cancer screening: a quality improvement pilot study in a quality circle of primary care physicians

Background

Guidelines recommend primary care physicians (PCPs) offer patients a choice between colonoscopy and faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients choose almost evenly between both tests but in Switzerland, most are tested with colonoscopy while screening rates are low. A quality circle (QC) of PCPs is an ideal site to train physicians in shared decision-making (SDM) that will help more patients decide if they want to be tested and choose the test they prefer.

Objective

Systematically assess CRC screening status of eligible 50–75 y.o. patients and through SDM increase the proportion of patients who have the opportunity to choose CRC screening and the test (FIT or colonoscopy).

Methods

Working through four Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles in their QC, PCPs adapted tools for SDM and surmounted organisational barriers by involving practice assistants. Each PCP included 20, then 40 consecutive 50–75 y.o. patients, repeatedly reported CRC status as well as the proportion of eligible patients with whom CRC screening could be discussed and patients’ decisions.

Results

9 PCPs initially included 176, then 320 patients. CRC screening status was routinely noted in the electronic medical record and CRC screening was implemented in daily routine, increasing eligible patients’ chance to be offered screening. Over a year, screening rates trended upwards, from 37% to 40% (p=0.46) and FIT use increased (2%–7%, p=0.008). Initially, 7/9 PCPs had no patient ever tested with FIT; after the intervention, only 2/8 recorded no FIT tests.

Conclusions

Through data-driven PDSA cycles and significant organisational changes, PCPs of a QC systematically collected data on CRC screening status and implemented SDM tools in their daily routine. This increased patients’ chance to discuss CRC screening. The more balanced use of FIT and colonoscopy suggests that patients’ values and preferences were better respected.

Reducing complexity of patient decision aids for community-based older adults with dementia and their caregivers: multiple case study of Decision Boxes

OBJECTIVES

To identify patient decision aids' features to limit their complexity for older adults with dementia and their family caregivers.

DESIGN

Mixed method, multiple case study within a user-centred design (UCD) approach.

SETTING

Community-based healthcare in the province of Quebec in Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

23 older persons (aged 65+ years) with dementia and their 27 family caregivers.

RESULTS

During three UCD evaluation-modification rounds, participants identified strengths and weaknesses of the patient decision aids' content and visual design that influenced their complexity. Weaknesses of content included a lack of understanding of the decision aids' purpose and target audience, missing information, irrelevant content and issues with terminology and sentence structure. Weaknesses of visual design included critics about the decision aids' general layout (density, length, navigation) and their lack of pictures. In response, the design team implemented a series of practical features and design strategies, comprising: a clear expression of the patient decision aids' purpose through simple text, picture and personal stories; systematic and frequent use of pictograms illustrating key points and helping structure patient decision aids' general layout; a glossary; removal of scientific references from the main document; personal stories to clarify more difficult concepts; a contact section to facilitate implementation of the selected option; GRADE ratings to convey the quality of the evidence; a values clarification exercise formatted as a checklist and presented at the beginning of the document to streamline navigation; involvement of a panel of patient/caregiver partners to guide expression of patient priorities; editing of the text to a sixth grade reading level; UCD process to optimise comprehensiveness and relevance of content and training of patients/caregivers in shared decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The revised template for patient decision aids is designed to meet the needs of adults living with dementia and their caregivers better, which may translate into fewer evaluation-modification rounds.

Tailoring and evaluating an intervention to improve shared decision-making among seniors with dementia, their caregivers, and healthcare providers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia raises new challenges to ensure that healthcare decisions are informed by research evidence and reflect what is important for seniors and their caregivers. Therefore, we aim to evaluate a tailored intervention to help healthcare providers empower seniors and their caregivers in making health-related decisions.

Methods

In two phases, we will: (1) design and tailor the intervention; and (2) implement and evaluate it. We will use theory and user-centered design to tailor an intervention comprising a distance professional training program on shared decision-making and five shared decision-making tools dealing with difficult decisions often faced by seniors with dementia and their caregivers. Each tool will be designed in two versions, one for clinicians and one for patients. We will recruit 49 clinicians and 27 senior/caregiver to participate in three cycles of design-evaluation-feedback of each intervention components. Besides think-aloud and interview approaches, users will also complete questionnaires based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to identify the factors most likely to influence their adoption of shared decision-making after exposure to the intervention. We will then modify the intervention by adding/enhancing behavior-change techniques targeting these factors. We will evaluate the effectiveness of this tailored intervention before/after implementation, in a two-armed, clustered randomized trial. We will enroll a convenience sample of six primary care clinics (unit of randomization) in the province of Quebec and recruit the clinicians who practice there (mostly family physicians, nurses, and social workers). These clinics will then be randomized to immediate exposure to the intervention or delayed exposure. Overall, we will recruit 180 seniors with dementia, their caregivers, and their healthcare providers. We will evaluate the impact of the intervention on patient involvement in the decision-making process, decisional comfort, patient and caregiver personal empowerment in relation to their own healthcare, patient quality of life, caregiver burden, and decisional regret.

Discussion

The intervention will empower patients and their caregivers in their healthcare, by fostering their participation as partners during the decision-making process and by ensuring they make informed decisions congruent with their values and priorities.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.org, NCT02956694. Registered on 31 October 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2697-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Five shared decision-making tools in 5 months: use of rapid reviews to develop decision boxes for seniors living with dementia and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Decision support tools build upon comprehensive and timely syntheses of literature. Rapid reviews may allow supporting their development by omitting certain components of traditional systematic reviews. We thus aimed to describe a rapid review approach underlying the development of decision support tools, i.e., five decision boxes (DB) for shared decision-making between seniors living with dementia, their caregivers, and healthcare providers.

METHOD

We included studies based on PICO questions (Participant, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) describing each of the five specific decision. We gave priority to higher quality evidence (e.g., systematic reviews). For each DB, we first identified secondary sources of literature, namely, clinical summaries, clinical practice guidelines, and systematic reviews. After an initial extraction, we searched for primary studies in academic databases and grey literature to fill gaps in evidence. We extracted study designs, sample sizes, populations, and probabilities of benefits/harms of the health options. A single reviewer conducted the literature search and study selection. The data extracted by one reviewer was verified by a second experienced reviewer. Two reviewers assessed the quality of the evidence. We converted all probabilities into absolute risks for ease of understanding. Two to five experts validated the content of each DB. We conducted descriptive statistical analyses on the review processes and resources required.

RESULTS

The approach allowed screening of a limited number of references (range: 104 to 406/review). For each review, we included 15 to 26 studies, 2 to 10 health options, 11 to 62 health outcomes and we conducted 9 to 47 quality assessments. A team of ten reviewers with varying levels of expertise was supported at specific steps by an information specialist, a biostatistician, and a graphic designer. The time required to complete a rapid review varied from 7 to 31 weeks per review (mean ± SD, 19 ± 10 weeks). Data extraction required the most time (8 ± 6.8 weeks). The average estimated cost of a rapid review was C$11,646 (SD = C$10,914).

CONCLUSIONS

This approach enabled the development of clinical tools more rapidly than with a traditional systematic review. Future studies should evaluate the applicability of this approach to other teams/tools.

Naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey

Background

Clinical guidelines support decision-making at the point-of-care but the onus is often on individual users such as physicians to implement them. Research shows that the inclusion of implementation tools in or with guidelines (GItools) is associated with guideline use. However, there is little research on which GItools best support implementation by individual physicians. The purpose of this study was to investigate naturalistic access and use of GItools produced by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) to inform future tool development.

Methods

Website accesses over six months were summarized for eight AAN guidelines and associated GItools published between July 2012 and August 2013. Academy members were surveyed about use of tools accompanying the sport concussion guideline. Data were analyzed using summary statistics and the Chi-square test.

Results

The clinician summary was accessed more frequently (29.0%, p < 0.001) compared with the slide presentation (26.8%), patient summary (23.2%) or case study (20.9%), although this varied by guideline topic. For the sport concussion guideline, which was accompanied by a greater variety of GItools, the mobile phone quick reference check application was most frequently accessed, followed by the clinician summary, patient summary, and slide presentation. For the sports concussion guideline survey, most respondents (response rate 21.8%, 168/797) were aware of the guideline (88.1%) and had read the guideline (78.6%). For GItool use, respondents indicated reading the reference card (51.2%), clinician summary (45.2%), patient summary (28.0%), mobile phone application (26.2%), and coach/athletic trainer summary (20.2%). Patterns of sports concussion GItool use were similar between respondents who said they had and had not yet implemented the guideline.

Conclusions

Developers faced with resource limitations may wish to prioritize the development of printable or mobile application clinician summaries, which were accessed significantly more than other types of GItools. Further research is needed to understand how to optimize the design of such GItools.

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.

What factors influence health professionals to use decision aids for Down syndrome prenatal screening?

Background

Health professionals are expected to engage pregnant women in shared decision making to help them make informed values-based decisions about prenatal screening. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) foster shared decision-making, but are rarely used in this context. Our objective was to identify factors that could influence health professionals to use a PtDA for decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome during a clinical pregnancy follow-up.

Methods

We planned to recruit a purposive sample of 45 health professionals (obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians and midwives) involved in the care of pregnant women in three clinical sites (15 per site). Participating health professionals first watched a video showing two simulated consecutive prenatal follow-up consultations during which a pregnant woman, her partner and a health professional used a PtDA about Down syndrome prenatal screening. Participants were then interviewed about factors that would influence their use of the PtDA. Questions were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. We performed content analyses of transcribed verbatim interviews.

Results

Out of 42 eligible health professionals approached, 36 agreed to be interviewed (86 % response rate). Of these, 27 were female (75 %), nine were obstetrician-gynecologists (25 %), 15 were family physicians (42 %), and 12 were midwives (33 %), with a mean age of 42.1 ± 11.6 years old. We identified 35 distinct factors reported by 20 % or more participants that were mapped onto 10 of the 12 of the Theoretical Domains Framework domains. The six most frequently mentioned factors influencing use of the PtDA were: 1) a positive appraisal (n = 29, 81 %, beliefs about consequences domain); 2) its availability in the office (n = 27, 75 %, environmental context and resources domain); 3) colleagues’ approval (n = 27, 75 %, social influences domain); 4) time constraints (n = 26, 72 %, environmental context and resources domain); 5) finding it a relevant source of information (n = 24, 67 %, motivation and goals domain); and 6) not knowing any PtDAs (n = 23, 64 %, knowledge domain).

Conclusions

Appraisal, PtDA availability, peer approval, time concerns, evidence and PtDA awareness all affect whether health professionals are likely to use a PtDA to help pregnant women make informed decision about Down syndrome screening. Implementation strategies will need to address these factors.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1053-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Greek health professionals' perceptions of the HPV vaccine, state policy recommendations and their own role with regards to communication of relevant health information

Background

Every year in Europe 60,000 women develop cervical cancer and 30,000 die from the disease. HPV vaccines are currently believed to constitute an important element of cervical cancer control strategy. Currently in Greece, the HPV vaccine is given on demand after prescription by a healthcare professional. Health care professionals’ role is key as they are in a position to discuss HPV vaccination with parents, adolescents and young women. This study is aiming to explore health care professionals’ perceptions of the HPV vaccine, state policy recommendations and their own role with regards to communication of relevant health information.

Methods

This was an in-depth, qualitative study, employing a stratified, purposeful sampling. Fifteen face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted with health care professionals from a variety of disciplines: pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, infectious diseases, pharmacy, dermatology, general practice. Thematic qualitative analysis was used to analyze participants’ accounts.

Results

Five major themes were identified: health care professionals’ perceptions towards the HPV vaccine (recognition of importance, concerns about safety, effectiveness and impact of long-term use), animosity between medical specialties (territorial disputes among professional bodies, role advocacy, role limitations), health care professionals’ perceptions of the public’s attitudes (effects of cultural beliefs, health professionals’ attitudes, media and family), the role of the state (health policy issues, lack of guidance, unmet expectations) and their own role (provision of health information, sex education).

Conclusions

Health professionals’ concerns, lack of role definition and uniform information provision have led to territorial disputes among professional bodies and distrust among different medical specialties. Positive and negative judgements deriving from a multitude of sources have resulted in the confusion of the general public, as manifested by low vaccination rates. Due to the lack of clear regulation of vaccination prescription, administration and mode of delivery, factors such as lack of knowledge, cultural beliefs and personal attitudes have shaped the vaccination landscape. These factors have neither been explored nor addressed prior to the initiation of this public health effort and as such there is an evident less than efficient use of resources.

Training primary care physicians to offer their patients faecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening on an equal basis: a pilot intervention with before-after and parallel group surveys

OBJECTIVES

Primary care physicians (PCPs) should prescribe faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening based on their patient's values and preferences. However, there are wide variations between PCPs in the screening method prescribed. The objective was to assess the impact of an educational intervention on PCPs' intent to offer FIT or colonoscopy on an equal basis.

DESIGN

Survey before and after training seminars, with a parallel comparison through a mailed survey to PCPs not attending the training seminars.

SETTING

All PCPs in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

Of 592 eligible PCPs, 133 (22%) attended a seminar and 106 (80%) filled both surveys. 109 (24%) PCPs who did not attend the seminars returned the mailed survey.

INTERVENTION

A 2 h-long interactive seminar targeting PCP knowledge, skills and attitudes regarding offering a choice of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was PCP intention of having their patients screened with FIT and colonoscopy in equal proportions (between 40% and 60% each). Secondary outcomes were the perceived role of PCPs in screening decisions (from paternalistic to informed decision-making) and correct answer to a clinical vignette.

RESULTS

Before the seminars, 8% of PCPs reported that they had equal proportions of their patients screened for CRC by FIT and colonoscopy; after the seminar, 33% foresaw having their patients screened in equal proportions (p<0.001). Among those not attending, there was no change (13% vs 14%, p=0.8). Of those attending, there was no change in their perceived role in screening decisions, while the proportion responding correctly to a clinical vignette increased (88-99%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

An interactive training seminar increased the proportion of physicians with the intention to prescribe FIT and colonoscopy in equal proportions.

User-Centered Design and Printed Educational Materials: A Focus Group Study of Primary Care Physician Preferences

INTRODUCTION

It is challenging for primary care physicians (PCPs) to review and apply the growing amount of clinical evidence available. Printed educational materials (PEMs), which synthesize evidence, are often ineffective at improving knowledge, possibly due to poor design and limited uptake. In this study, we collected PCP preferences for the design and content of physician-oriented PEMs and determined key attributes that may increase their usability and uptake.

METHODS

We held 90-minute focus groups with PCPs in Toronto, ON, Canada. Focus groups included discussion about whether and how participants use PEMs, feedback on three examples of PEMs, and a discussion on general format and design preferences in PEMs. We analyzed focus group transcripts using a thematic analysis and summarized results in a list of user preferences.

RESULTS

Four focus groups were held with 13 PCPs. We found that participants only read PEMs relevant to their patients and prefer short, concise documents, with links to sources that can provide more detailed information. Simplicity of materials was important, with many participants preferring PEMs without lengthy backgrounds or scientific explanations. Most participants wanted to see key messages highlighted to easily assess the relevance of the materials to their practice. Some participants shared physician-oriented PEMs with patients.

DISCUSSION

This study shows that PCPs may prefer shorter, simpler, and more concise documents that have less scientific detail but provide references to further information sources. It is important to understand end user preferences for the design and content of these materials to enhance their uptake.

Interventions to facilitate shared decision making to address antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in primary care

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making is an important component of patient-centred care. It is a set of communication and evidence-based practice skills that elicits patients' expectations, clarifies any misperceptions and discusses the best available evidence for benefits and harms of treatment. Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for consulting in primary care and obtaining prescriptions for antibiotics. However, antibiotics offer few benefits for ARIs, and their excessive use contributes to antibiotic resistance - an evolving public health crisis. Greater explicit consideration of the benefit-harm trade-off within shared decision making may reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making increase or reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to December 2014) and Web of Science (1985 to December 2014). We searched for other published, unpublished or ongoing trials by searching bibliographies of published articles, personal communication with key trial authors and content experts, and by searching trial registries at the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (individual level or cluster-randomised), which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions that promote shared decision making (as the focus or a component of the intervention) about antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. Antibiotic prescribing was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included clinically important adverse endpoints (e.g. re-consultations, hospital admissions, mortality) and process measures (e.g. patient satisfaction). We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and the quality of evidence. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information where available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 published reports of nine original RCTs (one report was a long-term follow-up of the original trial) in over 1100 primary care doctors and around 492,000 patients.The main risk of bias came from participants in most studies knowing whether they had received the intervention or not, and we downgraded the rating of the quality of evidence because of this.We meta-analysed data using a random-effects model on the primary and key secondary outcomes and formally assessed heterogeneity. Remaining outcomes are presented narratively.There is moderate quality evidence that interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic use for ARIs in primary care (immediately after or within six weeks of the consultation), compared with usual care, from 47% to 29%: risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.68. Reduction in antibiotic prescribing occurred without an increase in patient-initiated re-consultations (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, moderate quality evidence) or a decrease in patient satisfaction with the consultation (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, low quality evidence). There were insufficient data to assess the effects of the intervention on sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing, adverse clinical outcomes (such as hospital admission, incidence of pneumonia and mortality), or measures of patient and caregiver involvement in shared decision making (such as satisfaction with the consultation; regret or conflict with the decision made; or treatment compliance following the decision). No studies assessed antibiotic resistance in colonising or infective organisms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care in the short term. Effects on longer-term rates of prescribing are uncertain and more evidence is needed to determine how any sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing affects hospital admission, pneumonia and death.

Assessing Option Grid® practicability and feasibility for facilitating shared decision making: An exploratory study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of Option Grids(®)for facilitating shared decision making (SDM) in simulated clinical consultations and explore clinicians' views on their practicability.

METHODS

We used mixed methods approach to analyze clinical consultations using the Observer OPTION instrument and thematic analysis for follow-up interviews with clinicians.

RESULTS

Clinicians achieved high scores on information sharing and low scores on preference elicitation and integration. Four themes were identified: (1) Barriers affect practicability of Option Grids(®); (2) Option Grids(®) facilitate the SDM process; (3) Clinicians are aware of the gaps in their practice of SDM; (4) Training and ongoing feedback on the optimal use of Option Grids(®) are necessary.

CONCLUSION

Use of Option Grids(®) by clinicians with background knowledge in SDM did not facilitate optimal levels of competency on the SDM core concepts of preference elicitation and integration. Future research must evaluate the impact of training on the use of Option Grids(®), and explore how best to help clinicians bridge the gap between knowledge and action.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians proficiently imparting information in simulations struggled to elicit and integrate patient preferences - understanding this gap and developing strategies to close it are the next steps for implementing SDM into clinical practice.

The contribution of conceptual frameworks to knowledge translation interventions in physical therapy

There is growing recognition of the importance of knowledge translation activities in physical therapy to ensure that research findings are integrated into clinical practice, and increasing numbers of knowledge translation interventions are being conducted. Although various frameworks have been developed to guide and facilitate the process of translating knowledge into practice, these tools have been infrequently used in physical therapy knowledge translation studies to date. Knowledge translation in physical therapy implicates multiple stakeholders and environments and involves numerous steps. In light of this complexity, the use of explicit conceptual frameworks by clinicians and researchers conducting knowledge translation interventions is associated with a range of potential benefits. This perspective article argues that such frameworks are important resources to promote the uptake of new evidence in physical therapist practice settings. Four key benefits associated with the use of conceptual frameworks in designing and implementing knowledge translation interventions are identified, and limits related to their use are considered. A sample of 5 conceptual frameworks is evaluated, and how they address common barriers to knowledge translation in physical therapy is assessed. The goal of this analysis is to provide guidance to physical therapists seeking to identify a framework to support the design and implementation of a knowledge translation intervention. Finally, the use of a conceptual framework is illustrated through a case example. Increased use of conceptual frameworks can have a positive impact on the field of knowledge translation in physical therapy and support the development and implementation of robust and effective knowledge translation interventions that help span the research-practice gap.

Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of decision boxes on shared decision-making processes

Background

Decision boxes (DBoxes) are two-page evidence summaries to prepare clinicians for shared decision making (SDM). We sought to assess the feasibility of a clustered Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) to evaluate their impact.

Methods

A convenience sample of clinicians (nurses, physicians and residents) from six primary healthcare clinics who received eight DBoxes and rated their interest in the topic and satisfaction. After consultations, their patients rated their involvement in decision-making processes (SDM-Q-9 instrument). We measured clinic and clinician recruitment rates, questionnaire completion rates, patient eligibility rates, and estimated the RCT needed sample size.

Results

Among the 20 family medicine clinics invited to participate in this study, four agreed to participate, giving an overall recruitment rate of 20%. Of 148 clinicians invited to the study, 93 participated (63%). Clinicians rated an interest in the topics ranging 6.4-8.2 out of 10 (with 10 highest) and a satisfaction with DBoxes of 4 or 5 out of 5 (with 5 highest) for 81% DBoxes. For the future RCT, we estimated that a sample size of 320 patients would allow detecting a 9% mean difference in the SDM-Q-9 ratings between our two arms (0.02 ICC; 0.05 significance level; 80% power).

Conclusions

Clinicians’ recruitment and questionnaire completion rates support the feasibility of the planned RCT. The level of interest of participants for the DBox topics, and their level of satisfaction with the Dboxes demonstrate the acceptability of the intervention. Processes to recruit clinics and patients should be optimized.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-015-0134-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evidence summaries (decision boxes) to prepare clinicians for shared decision-making with patients: a mixed methods implementation study

Background

Decision boxes (Dboxes) provide clinicians with research evidence about management options for medical questions that have no single best answer. Dboxes fulfil a need for rapid clinical training tools to prepare clinicians for clinician-patient communication and shared decision-making. We studied the barriers and facilitators to using the Dbox information in clinical practice.

Methods

We used a mixed methods study with sequential explanatory design. We recruited family physicians, residents, and nurses from six primary health-care clinics. Participants received eight Dboxes covering various questions by email (one per week). For each Dbox, they completed a web questionnaire to rate clinical relevance and cognitive impact and to assess the determinants of their intention to use what they learned from the Dbox to explain to their patients the advantages and disadvantages of the options, based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Following the 8-week delivery period, we conducted focus groups with clinicians and interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Dbox information.

Results

One hundred clinicians completed the web surveys. In 54% of the 496 questionnaires completed, they reported that their practice would be improved after having read the Dboxes, and in 40%, they stated that they would use this information for their patients. Of those who would use the information for their patients, 89% expected it would benefit their patients, especially in that it would allow the patient to make a decision more in keeping with his/her personal circumstances, values, and preferences. They intended to use the Dboxes in practice (mean 5.6 ± 1.2, scale 1–7, with 7 being “high”), and their intention was significantly related to social norm, perceived behavioural control, and attitude according to the TPB (P < 0.0001). In focus groups, clinicians mentioned that co-interventions such as patient decision aids and training in shared decision-making would facilitate the use of the Dbox information. Some participants would have liked a clear “bottom line” statement for each Dbox and access to printed Dboxes in consultation rooms.

Conclusions

Dboxes are valued by clinicians. Tailoring of Dboxes to their needs would facilitate their implementation in practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0144-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Developing a two-sided intervention to facilitate shared decision-making in haemophilia: decision boxes for clinicians and patient decision aids for patients

BACKGROUND

People with haemophilia face many treatment decisions, which are largely informed by evidence from observational studies. Without evidence-based 'best' treatment options, patient preferences play a large role in decisions regarding therapy. The shared decision-making (SDM) process allows patients and health care providers to make decisions collaboratively based on available evidence, and patient preferences. Decision tools can help the SDM process. The objective of this project was to develop two-sided decision tools, decision boxes for physicians and patient decision aids for patients, to facilitate SDM for treatment decisions in haemophilia.

METHODS

Development of the decision tools comprised three phases: topic selection, prototype development and usability testing with targeted end-users. Topics were selected using a Delphi survey. Tool prototypes were based on a previously validated framework and were informed by systematic literature reviews. Patients, through focus groups, and physicians, through interviews, reviewed the prototypes iteratively for comprehensibility and usability.

RESULTS

The chosen topics were: (i) prophylactic treatment: when to start and dosing, (ii) choosing factor source and (iii) immunotolerance induction: when to start and dosing. Intended end users (both health care providers and haemophilia patients and caregivers) were engaged in the development process. Overall perception of the decision tools was positive, and the purpose of using the tools was well received.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing decision tools for haemophilia treatment decisions. It also provides anecdotal evidence of positive perceptions of such tools. Future directions include assessment of the tools' practical value and impact on clinical practice.

A classification model of patient engagement methods and assessment of their feasibility in real-world settings

OBJECTIVE

Examine existing reviews of patient engagement methods to propose a model where the focus is on engaging patients in clinical workflows, and to assess the feasibility of advocated patient engagement methods.

METHODS

A literature search of reviews of patient engagement methods was conducted. Included reviews were peer-reviewed, written in English, and focused on methods that targeted patients or patient-provider dyads. Methods were categorized to propose a conceptual model. The feasibility of methods was assessed using an adapted rating system.

RESULTS

We observed that we could categorize patient engagement methods based on information provision, patient activation, and patient-provider collaboration. Methods could be divided by high and low feasibility, predicated on the extent of extra work required by the patient or clinical system. Methods that have good fit with existing workflows and that require proportional amounts of work by patients are likely to be the most feasible.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of patient engagement methods is likely to depend on finding a "sweet-spot" where demands required by patients generate improved knowledge and motivate active participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Attention should be given to those interventions and methods that advocate feasibility with patients, providers, and organizational workflows.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing Decision Boxes in primary healthcare teams to facilitate shared decisionmaking: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Decision Boxes are summaries of the most important benefits and harms of health interventions provided to clinicians before they meet the patient, to prepare them to help patients make informed and value-based decisions. Our objective is to explore the barriers and facilitators to using Decision Boxes in clinical practice, more precisely factors stemming from (1) the Decision Boxes themselves, (2) the primary healthcare team (PHT), and (3) the primary care practice environment.

METHODS/DESIGN

A two-phase mixed methods study will be conducted. Eight Decision Boxes relevant to primary care, and written in both English and in French, will be hosted on a website together with a tutorial to introduce the Decision Box. The Decision Boxes will be delivered as weekly emails over a span of eight weeks to clinicians of PHTs (family physicians, residents and nurses) in five primary care clinics located across two Canadian provinces. Using a web-questionnaire, clinicians will rate each Decision Box with the Information Assessment Method (cognitive impacts, relevance, usefulness, expected benefits) and with a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to study the determinants of clinicians' intention to use what they learned from that Decision Box in their patient encounter (attitude, social norm, perceived behavioral control). Web-log data will be used to monitor clinicians' access to the website. Following the 8-week intervention, we will conduct semi-structured group interviews with clinicians and individual interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Decision Boxes. Data collected from questionnaires, focus groups and individual interviews will be combined to identify factors potentially influencing implementation of Decision Boxes in clinical practice by clinicians of PHTs.

CONCLUSIONS

This project will allow tailoring of Decision Boxes and their delivery to overcome the specific barriers identified by clinicians of PHTs to improve the implementation of shared decision making in this setting.