Decision coaching using the Ottawa family decision guide with parents and their children: a field testing study

Decision Support Needs for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth and Families: A Patient-Centered Needs Assessment

PURPOSE

Due to the intertwining of medical and social decision-making, new approaches to shared decision-making are likely needed for supporting decisions related to the care of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) adolescents. Prior to developing decision support interventions for TGD youth, a decision support needs assessment must be completed.

METHODS

Self-identified TGD youth, family members of TGD youth, clinicians caring for this population, and community advocates participated in one of six group level assessments (GLAs). GLA is a structured, participatory qualitative method that engages diverse groups of stakeholders in generating and evaluating ideas on the topic of interest. Upon completion of all GLAs, a survey was developed and distributed to GLA participants inviting them to rank ideas generated during the GLAs.

RESULTS

Six major themes emerged from the GLAs regarding decision support needs, including: improving healthcare provider skills and education, increasing access to support outside the healthcare system, strengthening community and societal support, developing special information resources, supporting youth in leading decision-making about transition, and modifying the healthcare system. In the follow-up survey, improving healthcare provider skills and education was the most commonly chosen top priority.

DISCUSSION

Participants identified decision support needs for TGD youth and their families that were mostly distinct from traditional decision support approaches. Participants' focus on the need to improve healthcare provider skills and education provides an opportunity to couple gender-focused education with shared decision-making skills, an approach that may be more sustainable than tools for specific decisions.

A Shared Decision-Making Process Utilizing a Decision Coach in Pediatric Epilepsy Surgery

BACKGROUND & RATIONALE

The process to evaluate candidacy for epilepsy surgery is lengthy and stressful for caregivers, therefore the decision can be challenging. There is not a lot of information in regard to how families of a child living with epilepsy navigate the stressful decision during surgical candidacy evaluation. With difficult decisions comes the possibility of increased decisional conflict in both the child and the family.

METHODS

A project designed to provide greater knowledge to the family was conducted utilizing the shared decision-making (SDM) process to assist families in the decision-making during surgical candidacy evaluation; this was done using a decision coach, who is an unbiased health care professional, providing families with evidence-based information and support tools while supporting them in making decisions based on their values.

RESULTS

Results reveal that 90% (45 of 50) of families offered a consult with the decision coach agreed to participate. For these families, 78% (35 of 45) felt they were ready to move forward with surgery after the consult and 22% (10 of 45) felt they needed more information and testing. There was a significant improvement in the level of decisional conflict, uncertainty, and perception of preparation for decision making for the caregivers between the first and second consult, although 60% of families did not complete the postconflict survey.

CONCLUSIONS

The SDM process assists families in their need for more knowledge regarding risks, benefits, and options for treatment before making a surgical choice. SDM utilizing an impartial decision coach outside the direct circle of care and individualized epilepsy surgery education aids improves parental decision conflict and satisfaction.

Co-creating a suite of patient decision aids for parents of an infant or young child with differences of sex development: A methods roadmap

Introduction

Parents and guardians of infants and young children with differences of sex development (DSD) often face numerous health and social decisions about their child's condition. While proxy health decisions can be stressful in any circumstance, they are further exacerbated in this clinical context by significant variations in clinical presentation, parental lack of knowledge about DSD, irreversibility of some options (e.g., gonadectomy), a paucity of research available about long-term outcomes, and anticipated decisional regret. This study aimed to engage clinicians, parents, and an adult living with DSD to collaboratively develop a suite of patient decision aids (PDAs) to respond to the decisional needs of parents and guardians of infants and young children diagnosed with DSD.

Methods

We used a systematic co-development process guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). The five steps were: literature selection, establish the team, decisional needs assessment, create the PDAs, and alpha testing.

Results

We developed four PDAs to support parents/guardians of infants or young children diagnosed with DSD about four priority decisions identified through our decisional needs assessment: genetic testing, gender of rearing, genital surgery and gonadal surgery. All four PDAs include information for parents about DSD, the options, reasons to choose or avoid each option, and opportunities for parents/guardians to rate the importance of features of each option to clarify their values for these features. Qualitative feedback was positive from clinicians, parents and an adult living with DSD.

Conclusions

These PDAs are clinical tools designed to support parents/guardians and to promote making an informed and shared DSD-related decision. While these tools are specific to DSD, they contain themes and elements translatable to other pediatric populations.

Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review

Background

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a trained healthcare provider to help people prepare to actively participate in making healthcare decisions. This study aimed to understand how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions.

Methods

We followed the realist review methodology for this study. This study was built on a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness of decision coaching interventions for people facing healthcare decisions. It involved six iterative steps: (1) develop the initial program theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) select, appraise, and prioritize studies; (4) extract and organize data; (5) synthesize evidence; and (6) consult stakeholders and draw conclusions.

Results

We developed an initial program theory based on decision coaching theories and stakeholder feedback. Of the 2594 citations screened, we prioritized 27 papers for synthesis based on their relevance rating. To refine the program theory, we identified 12 context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Essential mechanisms for decision coaching to be initiated include decision coaches’, patients’, and clinicians’ commitments to patients’ involvement in decision making and decision coaches’ knowledge and skills (four CMOs). CMOs during decision coaching are related to the patient (i.e., willing to confide, perceiving their decisional needs are recognized, acquiring knowledge, feeling supported), and the patient-decision coach interaction (i.e., exchanging information, sharing a common understanding of patient’s values) (five CMOs). After decision coaching, the patient’s progress in making or implementing a values-based preferred decision can be facilitated by the decision coach’s advocacy for the patient, and the patient’s deliberation upon options (two CMOs). Leadership support enables decision coaches to have access to essential resources to fulfill their role (one CMOs).

Discussion

In the refined program theory, decision coaching works when there is strong leadership support and commitment from decision coaches, clinicians, and patients. Decision coaches need to be capable in coaching, encourage patients’ participation, build a trusting relationship with patients, and act as a liaison between patients and clinicians to facilitate patients’ progress in making or implementing an informed values-based preferred option. More empirical studies, especially qualitative and process evaluation studies, are needed to further refine the program theory.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-02007-0.

An Early Palliative Care Telehealth Coaching Intervention to Enhance Advanced Cancer Family Caregivers' Decision Support Skills: The CASCADE Pilot Factorial Trial

CONTEXT

Patients with advanced cancer often involve family caregivers in health-related decision-making from diagnosis to end-of-life; however, few interventions have been developed to enhance caregiver decision support skills.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of individual intervention components of CASCADE (CAre Supporters Coached to be Adept DEcision Partners), an early telehealth, palliative care coach-led decision support training intervention for caregivers.

METHODS

Pilot factorial trial using the multiphase optimization strategy (October 2019-October 2020). Family caregivers and their care recipients with newly-diagnosed advanced cancer (n = 46 dyads) were randomized to1 of 8 experimental conditions that included a combination of one of the following three CASCADE components: 1) effective decision support psychoeducation; 2) decision support communication training; and 3) Ottawa Decision Guide training. Feasibility was assessed by completion of sessions and questionnaires (predefined as ≥80%). Acceptability was determined through postintervention interviews and participants' ratings of their likelihood to recommend. Measures of effective decision support and caregiver and patient distress were collected at Twelve and Twenty four weeks.

RESULTS

Caregiver participants completed 78% of intervention sessions and 81% of questionnaires; patients completed 80% of questionnaires. Across conditions, average caregiver ratings for recommending the program to others was 9.9 on a scale from 1-Not at all likely to 10-Extremely likely. Individual CASCADE components were observed to have potential benefit for effective decision support and caregiver distress.

CONCLUSION

We successfully piloted a factorial trial design to examine components of a novel intervention to enhance the decision support skills of advanced cancer family caregivers. A fully-powered factorial trial is warranted.

KEY MESSAGE

We pilot tested components of CASCADE, an early palliative care decision support training intervention for family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer. CASCADE components were acceptable and the trial design feasible, providing promising future directions for palliative care intervention development and testing. Pilot results will inform a fully-powered trial.

Shared decision making in youth with brachial plexus birth injuries and their families: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to elucidate the decision-making experiences of youth with brachial plexus birth injuries who face preference-sensitive decisions regarding treatment options for a persistent elbow contracture.

METHODS

Transcripts, research-created drawings, and field notes from in-depth interviews with 5 young adults and 14 youth-parent dyads, and 15 participant observation sessions of families and clinicians in the clinic setting were deductively and inductively coded and thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Youth's shared decision making was influenced by relational processes with their clinicians and parents. Youth's trust in their clinicians' recommendations for pursuing treatment and pressure from their parents to pursue or continue rehabilitation treatment affected how their voices were expressed and heard. Parental emotional adjustment to the birth injury played a role in parental perceptions of what was deemed their youth's best interest in the shared decision.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision-making experiences of youth with brachial plexus birth injury illustrate the complexity of paediatric preference-sensitive decisions and the significance of social and emotional factors on these shared decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Opportunity for youth to express their voice without external pressure during shared decision making is needed to make well-informed decisions based on their own values. Interventions such as decision coaching and decision support tools may help youth and parents to formally identify and discuss these relational processes.

Adaptation of a Shared Decision-Making Tool for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment Decisions with Indigenous Patients

Background

Patient decision aids (PtDAs) enable shared decision-making between patients and healthcare providers. Adaptations to PtDAs for use with populations facing inequities in healthcare can improve the relevancy of information presented, incorporate appropriate cultural context, and address health literacy concerns. Our objective was to adapt the Early RA (rheumatoid arthritis) PtDA for use with Canadian Indigenous patients.

Methods

The Early RA PtDA was modified through an iterative process using data obtained from semi-structured interviews of two sequential cohorts of Indigenous patients with RA. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Seven participants provided initial feedback on the existing PtDA. The modifications they suggested were made and shared with another nine participants to confirm acceptability and provide further feedback. The first cohort suggested revisions to clarify medical and cost coverage information, include Indigenous traditional healing practice options, simplify text, and include Indigenous images and colors aligned with Canadian Indigenous community representation. Additional revisions were suggested by the second cohort to increase the legibility of the text, insert more Indigenous imagery, address formulary coverage for non-status First Nations patients, and include information about lifestyle factors in managing RA.

Conclusion

Incorporating Indigenous-specific adaptations in the design of PtDAs may increase use and relevancy to support engagement in treatment decisions, thereby supporting health-equity oriented health service interventions. Indigenous patient-specific evidence and translation of key words into the end-users’ Indigenous languages should be included for implementation of the PtDA.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00546-8.

Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration

BACKGROUND

The 2013 update of the evidence informing the quality dimensions behind the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) offered a model process for developers of patient decision aids.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and update the evidence used to inform the systematic development of patient decision aids from the IPDAS Collaboration.

METHODS

To provide further details about design and development methods, we summarized findings from a subgroup (n = 283 patient decision aid projects) in a recent systematic review of user involvement by Vaisson et al. Using a new measure of user-centeredness (UCD-11), we then rated the degree of user-centeredness reported in 66 articles describing patient decision aid development and citing the 2013 IPDAS update on systematic development. We contacted the 66 articles' authors to request their self-reports of UCD-11 items.

RESULTS

The 283 development processes varied substantially from minimal iteration cycles to more complex processes, with multiple iterations, needs assessments, and extensive involvement of end users. We summarized minimal, medium, and maximal processes from the data. Authors of 54 of 66 articles (82%) provided self-reported UCD-11 ratings. Self-reported scores were significantly higher than reviewer ratings (reviewers: mean [SD] = 6.45 [3.10]; authors: mean [SD] = 9.62 [1.16], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aid developers have embraced principles of user-centered design in the development of patient decision aids while also underreporting aspects of user involvement in publications about their tools. Templates may reduce the need for extensive development, and new approaches for rapid development of aids have been proposed when a more detailed approach is not feasible. We provide empirically derived benchmark processes and a reporting checklist to support developers in more fully describing their development processes.[Box: see text].

What instruments should we use to assess paediatric decision-making interventions? A narrative review

There is an increasing number of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in paediatrics. However, there is little consensus as to the best instruments to assess the feasibility and impact of these interventions. This narrative review aims to answer: (1) what feasibility, knowledge and decision-making instruments have been used to assess paediatric SDM interventions and (2) what are the psychometric properties of used decision-making instruments, guided by the 'consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instrument' criteria. We conducted a review of the peer-reviewed literature. We identified 23 studies that evaluated a paediatric intervention to facilitate SDM for a specific health decision. Eighteen studies assessed intervention feasibility, with a wide variability in assessment between studies. Twelve studies assessed objective knowledge, and four studies assessed subjective knowledge with all but one study aggregating correct responses. We identified nine decision-making instruments that had been assessed psychometrically, although few had been thoroughly evaluated. The Decisional Conflict Scale was the most commonly-used instrument and the only instrument evaluated in paediatrics. Our study revealed a lack of consistency in the instruments used to evaluate decision-making interventions in paediatrics, making it difficult to compare interventions. We provide several recommendations for researchers to improve the assessment of SDM interventions in paediatrics.

20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework Part 1: A Systematic Review of the Decisional Needs of People Making Health or Social Decisions

Background. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has been used for 20 years to assess and address people’s decisional needs. The evidence regarding ODSF decisional needs has not been synthesized. Objectives. To synthesize evidence from ODSF-based decisional needs studies, identify new decisional needs, and validate current ODSF decisional needs. Methods. A mixed-studies systematic review. Nine electronic databases were searched. Inclusion criteria: studies of people’s decisional needs when making health or social decisions for themselves, a child, or a mentally incapable person, as reported by themselves, families, or practitioners. Two independent authors screened eligibility, extracted data, and quality appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analyzed using narrative synthesis. Results. Of 4532 citations, 45 studies from 7 countries were eligible. People’s needs for 101 unique decisions (85 health, 16 social) were reported by 2857 patient decision makers ( n = 36 studies), 92 parent decision makers ( n = 6), 81 family members ( n = 5), and 523 practitioners ( n = 21). Current ODSF decisional needs were reported in 2 to 40 studies. For 6 decisional needs, there were 11 new (manifestations): 1) information (overload, inadequacy regarding others’ experiences with options), 2) difficult decisional roles (practitioner, family involvement, or deliberations), 3) unrealistic expectations (difficulty believing outcome probabilities apply to them), 4) personal needs (religion/spirituality), 5) difficult decision timing (unpredictable), and 6) unreceptive decisional stage (difficulty accepting condition/need for treatment, powerful emotions limiting information processing, lacking motivation to consider delayed/unpredictable decisions). Limitations. Possible publication bias (only peer-reviewed journals included). Possible missed needs (non-ODSF studies, patient decision aid development studies, 3 ODSF needs added in 2006). Conclusion. We validated current decisional needs, identified 11 new manifestations of 6 decisional needs, and recommended ODSF revisions.

Decision coaching using a patient decision aid for youth and parents considering insulin delivery methods for type 1 diabetes: a pre/post study

Background

Choice of insulin delivery for type 1 diabetes can be difficult for many parents and children. We evaluated decision coaching using a patient decision aid for helping youth with type 1 diabetes and parents decide about insulin delivery method.

Methods

A pre/post design. Youth and parent(s) attending a pediatric diabetes clinic in a tertiary care centre were referred to the intervention by their pediatric endocrinologist or diabetes physician between September 2013 and May 2015. A decision coach guided youth and their parents in completing a patient decision aid that was pre-populated with evidence on insulin delivery options. Primary outcomes were youth and parent scores on the low literary version of the validated Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS).

Results

Forty-five youth (mean age = 12.5 ± 2.9 years) and 66 parents (45.8 ± 5.6 years) participated. From pre- to post-intervention, youth and parent decisional conflict decreased significantly (youth mean DCS score was 32.0 vs 6.6, p < 0.0001; parent 37.6 vs 3.5, p < 0.0001). Youth’s and parents’ mean decisional conflict scores were also significantly improved for DCS subscales (informed, values clarity, support, and certainty). 92% of youth and 94% of parents were satisfied with the decision coaching and patient decision aid. Coaching sessions averaged 55 min. Parents (90%) reported that the session was the right length of time; some youth (16%) reported that it was too long.

Conclusion

Decision coaching with a patient decision aid reduced decisional conflict for youth and parents facing a decision about insulin delivery method.

Development and field testing of a tool to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present study is to describe the development and field testing of a preference-elicitation tool for cervical cancer screening, meeting International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) quality criteria.

METHODS

We developed a tool designed to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework and IPDAS systematic development process guided the design, and we followed IPDAS criteria for conducting a field test in a real-world setting. Using social media recruitment strategies, we identified a convenience sample of Ontario women who were currently eligible for cervical screening to test the tool. We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, balance of information, and ability to elicit women's informed, values-based preferences using an online survey embedded in the tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-five women participated in the field test. Participants were aged 20 to 63 years , and identified as predominantly white (88%), living in Northern Ontario (68%), and most had university education (75%). Most participants (72%) considered the length of the website as "just right," and 100% indicated that they would find the tool useful for decision-making. Over two-thirds (68%) of participants perceived the information in the tool as "balanced." Almost all (92%) participants scored at least 4 out of 7 on the knowledge quiz, and most participants (84%) selected their preference in an informed, values-based way.

CONCLUSION

The results from our field test of this tool provide preliminary evidence of the tool's feasibility, acceptability, balance, and ability to elicit women's informed, values-based preferences among available cervical screening modalities. Further research should elicit the distribution of preferences of cervical screening modalities in other regions, using a sample who represents the screening population and a rigorous study design. It will be important for researchers and screening programmes to evaluate the tool's ability to elicit women's informed, values-based preferences compared with educational materials.

Barriers and facilitators of pediatric shared decision-making: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is rarely implemented in pediatric practice. Pediatric health decision-making differs from that of adult practice. Yet, little is known about the factors that influence the implementation of pediatric shared decision-making (SDM). We synthesized pediatric SDM barriers and facilitators from the perspectives of healthcare providers (HCP), parents, children, and observers (i.e., persons who evaluated the SDM process, but were not directly involved).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review guided by the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO (inception to March 2017) and included studies that reported clinical pediatric SDM barriers and/or facilitators from the perspective of HCPs, parents, children, and/or observers. We considered all or no comparison groups and included all study designs reporting original data. Content analysis was used to synthesize barriers and facilitators and categorized them according to the OMRU levels (i.e., decision, innovation, adopters, relational, and environment) and participant types (i.e., HCP, parents, children, and observers). We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to appraise study quality.

RESULTS

Of 20,008 identified citations, 79 were included. At each OMRU level, the most frequent barriers were features of the options (decision), poor quality information (innovation), parent/child emotional state (adopter), power relations (relational), and insufficient time (environment). The most frequent facilitators were low stake decisions (decision), good quality information (innovation), agreement with SDM (adopter), trust and respect (relational), and SDM tools/resources (environment). Across participant types, the most frequent barriers were insufficient time (HCPs), features of the options (parents), power imbalances (children), and HCP skill for SDM (observers). The most frequent facilitators were good quality information (HCP) and agreement with SDM (parents and children). There was no consistent facilitator category for observers. Overall, study quality was moderate with quantitative studies having the highest ratings and mixed-method studies having the lowest ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous diverse and interrelated factors influence SDM use in pediatric clinical practice. Our findings can be used to identify potential pediatric SDM barriers and facilitators, guide context-specific barrier and facilitator assessments, and inform interventions for implementing SDM in pediatric practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015020527.

Post-training Shared Decision Making Barriers and Facilitators for Pediatric Healthcare Providers: A Mixed-Methods Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess barriers to and facilitators of shared decision making (SDM) for pediatric healthcare providers (HCPs) after they have been trained in SDM.

METHODS

A mixed methods study using triangulation of data sources. Pediatric HCPs with SDM training who worked at a Canadian tertiary care pediatric hospital were eligible. Participants completed a validated SDM barriers survey (n = 60) and a semi-structured interview (n = 11). We calculated descriptive statistics. Univariate and multivariable ordinary least squares linear regression models determined predictors of HCPs' intention to use SDM. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. We analyzed qualitative data using deductive and inductive content analyses and organized categories according to the Ottawa Model of Research Use.

RESULTS

Intention to use SDM was high (mean score = 5.6/7, SD = 0.78) and positively correlated with SDM use (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.18-1.81). However, 52% of survey respondents reported not using SDM after training. HCPs identified factors influencing SDM at the levels of innovation, adopter, environment, and training. Insufficient time (barrier) and buy-in and agreement with SDM (facilitators) were most commonly cited. To improve SDM use, HCPs want a more team-based approach to SDM training, continuing education, and implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite training and positive intentions, many HCPs report not subsequently using SDM and identified numerous post-training barriers to its use. To overcome SDM barriers and improve uptake, HCPs recommend creating a socially supportive environment through a team-based approach to SDM training and implementation. These findings can inform SDM training and implementation interventions at pediatric health care centers.

A Framework and Resources for Shared Decision Making: Opportunities for Improved Physical Therapy Outcomes

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative approach between clinicians and patients, where the best available evidence is integrated with patients' values and preferences for managing their health problems. Shared decision making may enhance patient-centered care and increase patients' satisfaction, engagement, adherence, and ability to self-manage their conditions. Despite its potential benefits, SDM is underutilized by physical therapists, and frequent mismatches between patients' and therapists' rehabilitation goals have been reported. Physical therapists can use evidence-based strategies, tools, and techniques to address these problems. This paper presents a model for SDM and explains its association with improved patient outcomes and relevance to situations commonly encountered in physical therapy. It describes freely available resources, including health literacy universal precautions, teach-back, motivational interviewing, decision aids, and patient-reported outcome measures that can help physical therapists integrate SDM into their clinical practices. This paper also explains SDM facilitators and barriers, suggests a theoretical framework to address them, and highlights the need for SDM promotion within physical therapy practice, education, administration, and research.

What adolescents living with long-term conditions say about being involved in decision-making about their healthcare: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of preferences and experiences

OBJECTIVE

To understand the preferences and experiences of adolescents (age 10-19) with long-term conditions (LTCs) towards involvement in discussions and decisions regarding management of their condition.

METHODS

A systematic review and narrative synthesis of mixed-methods, quantitative and qualitative and research was performed. Six databases were searched from inception to March 2017. The quality of the articles was assessed, and relevant data were extracted and coded thematically.

RESULTS

The search yielded 27 articles which met the inclusion criteria. Decision-making involvement preferences and experiences were reported from the adolescents' perspectives. Adolescents often report that they do not have any choice of treatment options. Variability in preferences and experiences were found within and between individuals. Mismatches between preferences and experiences are common, and often with negative emotional consequences.

DISCUSSION

Adolescent preferences for involvement in the decision-making process are situational and individualistic. Healthcare professionals can encourage involvement by ensuring that adolescents are informed of treatment options, and aware of the value of their contribution. Future research should explore adolescent perceived barriers and facilitators to SDM.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Interventions are needed to effectively train HCPs in the delivery of shared decision-making, and to support the participation of adolescents with LTCs in shared decision-making.

"They Should Be Asking Us": A Qualitative Decisional Needs Assessment for Women Considering Cervical Cancer Screening

In this study, we examine from multiple perspectives, women's shared decision-making needs when considering cervical screening options: Pap testing, in-clinic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, self-collected HPV testing, or no screening. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework guided the development of the interview schedule. We conducted semi-structured interviews with seven screen-eligible women and five health care professionals (three health care providers and two health system managers). Women did not perceive that cervical screening involves a "decision," which limited their knowledge of options, risks, and benefits. Women and health professionals emphasized how a trusted primary care provider can support women making a choice among cervical screening modalities. Having all cervical screening options recommended and funded was perceived as an important step to facilitate shared decision making. Supporting women in making preference-based decisions in cervical cancer screening may increase screening among those who do not undergo screening regularly and decrease uptake in women who are over-screened.

Clinical trainees' responses to parents who question evidence-based recommendations

OBJECTIVE

We examined clinicians' attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral intentions about discussing evidence and eliciting values when patients question recommendations.

METHODS

We randomized trainees to read one of three scenarios about a parent of a one-year-old: 1) overuse (parent requests antibiotics for presumed viral infection); 2) equipoise (tubes for recurrent ear infections); 3) underuse (parent hesitates about vaccination). Participants then answered survey questions. Outcomes included time spent clarifying values (primary), attitudes and beliefs about the parent (secondary).

RESULTS

132 medical students and pediatric residents enrolled; 119 (90%) completed the study. There were no differences in time participants would spend clarifying values (antibiotics 26±12%; equipoise 28±11%; vaccine-hesitancy 22±11%; p=0.058). Participants in the vaccine-hesitancy group (vs. other groups) would spend less time answering questions (p=0.006). Participants in the antibiotics (vs. equipoise) group perceived the parent as difficult (p=0.0002). Those in the vaccine-hesitancy group (vs. other groups) perceived the parent as difficult, saw less value in the conversation, and had lower respect for the parent's views (all ps<0.0001). Most (76%) wanted additional training navigating these discussions.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians' attitudes may impact conversations when patients question evidence-based recommendations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should consider ways to discuss evidence and clarify patients' values to optimize health without damaging patient-clinician relationships.

Parental decision making involvement and decisional conflict: a descriptive study

Background

Decisional conflict is a state of uncertainty about the best treatment option among competing alternatives and is common among adult patients who are inadequately involved in the health decision making process. In pediatrics, research shows that many parents are insufficiently involved in decisions about their child’s health. However, little is known about parents’ experience of decisional conflict. We explored parents’ perceived decision making involvement and its association with parents’ decisional conflict.

Method

We conducted a descriptive survey study in a pediatric tertiary care hospital. Our survey was guided by validated decisional conflict screening items (i.e., the SURE test). We administered the survey to eligible parents after an ambulatory care or emergency department consultation for their child.

Results

Four hundred twenty-nine respondents were included in the analysis. Forty-eight percent of parents reported not being offered treatment options and 23% screened positive for decisional conflict. Parents who reported being offered options experienced less decisional conflict than parents who reported not being offered options (5% vs. 42%, p < 0.001). Further, parents with options were more likely to: feel sure about the decision (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02–1.15); understand the information (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.63–2.28); be clear about the risks and benefits (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05–1.20); and, have sufficient support and advice to make a choice (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03–1.11).

Conclusion

Many parents in our sample experienced decisional conflict after their clinical consultation. Involving parents in the decision making process might reduce their risk of decisional conflict. Evidence based interventions that support parent decision making involvement, such as shared decision making, should be evaluated and implemented in pediatrics as a strategy to reduce parents’ decisional conflict.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12887-017-0899-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Milestones, barriers and beacons: Shared decision making in Canada inches ahead

Canada's approach to shared decision making (SDM) remains as disparate as its healthcare system; a conglomerate of 14 public plans - ten provincial, three territorial and one federal. The healthcare research funding environment has been largely positive for SDM because there was funding for knowledge translation research which also encompassed SDM. The funding climate currently places new emphasis on patient involvement in research and on patient empowerment in healthcare. SDM fields have expanded from primary care to elder care, paediatrics, emergency and critical care medicine, cardiology, nutrition, occupational therapy and workplace rehabilitation. Also, SDM has reached out to embrace other health-related decisions including about home care and social care and has been adapted to Aboriginal decision making needs. Canadian researchers have developed new interprofessional SDM models that are being used worldwide. Professional interest in SDM in Canada is not yet widespread, but there are provincial initiatives in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Decision aids are routinely used in some areas, for example for prostate cancer in Saskatchewan, and many others are available for online consultation. The Patient Decision Aids Research Group in Ottawa, Ontario maintains an international inventory of decision aids appraised with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The Canada Research Chair in SDM and Knowledge Translation in Quebec City maintains a website of SDM training programs available worldwide. These initiatives are positive, but the future of SDM in Canada depends on whether health policies, health professionals and the public culture fully embrace it.

Decision Support for a Woman Considering Continuing Extended Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Case Study

This case study evaluated decision coaching with a breast cancer survivor considering continuing extended endocrine therapy from eight years to 10 years. The survivor, aged 58 years and who completed surgery and chemotherapy eight years ago, was concerned about side effects of endocrine therapy. Decision coaching based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework involved an oncology nurse using the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide. Compared to baseline (2 out of 4), decisional comfort improved (3 out of 4) post decision coaching. The survivor felt more certain, but wanted further advice from her oncologist. She was leaning toward discontinuing endocrine therapy given she valued quality of life over a small risk of recurrence. Audio-recording analysis using the Decision Support Analysis Tool revealed high decision coaching quality (10/10). Breast cancer survivors facing preference-sensitive decisions about extended endocrine therapy could be supported with decision coaching by oncology nurses to ensure informed values-based decisions.

Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

For the elderly to get the care and services they need, they may need to make the difficult decision about staying in their home or moving to another home. Many other people may be involved in their care too (friends, family and healthcare providers), and can support them in making the decision. We asked informal caregivers of elderly people to help us develop a decision guide to support them and their loved ones in making this decision. This guide will be used by health providers in home care who are trained to help people make decisions. The guide is in French and English. To design and test this decision guide we involved elderly people, their caregivers and health administrators. We first asked them what they needed for making the decision, and then designed a first version of the guide. Then we asked them to look at it and give feedback, which was used to make the final version. We then used scientific criteria to check its content and the language used. The final decision guide was acceptable to the caregivers, their elderly loved ones, and the health administrators. The guide is currently being evaluated in a large research project with home care teams in the province of Quebec.

ABSTRACT

Background As they grow older, many elderly people are faced with the difficult and preference-sensitive decision about staying in their home or moving to a residence better adapted to their evolving care needs. We aimed to develop an English and French decision aid (DA) for elderly people facing this decision, and to involve end-users in all phases of the development process. Methods A three-cycle design with involvement of end-users in Quebec. End-users were elderly people (n = 4) caregivers of the elderly (n = 5), health administrators involved in home-care service delivery or policy (n = 6) and an interprofessional research team (n = 19). Cycle 1: Decisional needs assessment and development of the first prototype based on existing tools and input from end-users; overview of reviews examining the impact of location of care on elderly people's health outcomes. Cycle 2: Usability testing with end-users, adaptation of prototype. Cycle 3: Refinement of the prototype with a linguist, graphic designer and end-users. The final prototype underwent readability testing and an International Patient Decision Aids (IPDAS) criteria compatibility assessment to verify minimal requirements for decision aids and was tested for usability by the elderly. ResultsCycle 1: We used the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide to design a first prototype. As the overview of reviews did not find definitive evidence regarding optimal locations of care for elderly people, we were not able to add evidence-based advantages and disadvantages to the guide. Cycle 2: Overall, the caregivers and health administrators who evaluated the prototype (n = 10) were positive. In response to their suggestions, we deleted some elements (overview of pros, cons, and consequences of the options) that were necessary to qualify the tool as a DA and renamed it a "decision guide". Cycle 3: We developed French and English versions of the guide, readable at a primary school level. The elderly judged the guide as acceptable. Conclusion We developed a decision guide to support elderly people and their caregivers in decision making about location of care. This paper is one of few to report on a fully collaborative approach to decision guide development that involves end-users at every stage (caregivers and health administrators early on, the frail elderly in the final stages). The guide is currently being evaluated in a cluster randomized trial. Trial registration: NCT02244359.