1
|
Jaeken J, Billiouw C, Mertens L, Van Bostraeten P, Bekkering G, Vermandere M, Aertgeerts B, van Mileghem L, Delvaux N. A systematic review of shared decision making training programs for general practitioners. BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION 2024; 24:592. [PMID: 38811922 PMCID: PMC11137915 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-05557-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2024] [Accepted: 05/15/2024] [Indexed: 05/31/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Shared decision making (SDM) has been presented as the preferred approach for decisions where there is more than one acceptable option and has been identified a priority feature of high-quality patient-centered care. Considering the foundation of trust between general practitioners (GPs) and patients and the variety of diseases in primary care, the primary care context can be viewed as roots of SDM. GPs are requesting training programs to improve their SDM skills leading to a more patient-centered care approach. Because of the high number of training programs available, it is important to overview these training interventions specifically for primary care and to explore how these training programs are evaluated. METHODS This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. Eight different databases were used in December 2022 and updated in September 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using ICROMS. Training effectiveness was analyzed using the Kirkpatrick evaluation model and categorized according to training format (online, live or blended learning). RESULTS We identified 29 different SDM training programs for GPs. SDM training has a moderate impact on patient (SMD 0.53 95% CI 0.15-0.90) and observer reported SDM skills (SMD 0.59 95%CI 0.21-0.97). For blended training programs, we found a high impact for quality of life (SMD 1.20 95% CI -0.38-2.78) and patient reported SDM skills (SMD 2.89 95%CI -0.55-6.32). CONCLUSION SDM training improves patient and observer reported SDM skills in GPs. Blended learning as learning format for SDM appears to show better effects on learning outcomes than online or live learning formats. This suggests that teaching facilities designing SDM training may want to prioritize blended learning formats. More homogeneity in SDM measurement scales and evaluation approaches and direct comparisons of different types of educational formats are needed to develop the most appropriate and effective SDM training format. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO: A systematic review of shared-decision making training programs in a primary care setting. PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023393385 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023393385 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jasmien Jaeken
- Department of PH&PC, Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
| | - Cathoo Billiouw
- Department of PH&PC, Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
| | - Lien Mertens
- Department of PH&PC, Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
| | - Pieter Van Bostraeten
- Department of PH&PC, Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
| | - Geertruida Bekkering
- Department of PH&PC, Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
| | - Mieke Vermandere
- Department of PH&PC, Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
| | - Bert Aertgeerts
- Department of PH&PC, Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
| | - Laura van Mileghem
- Department of PH&PC, Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
| | - Nicolas Delvaux
- Department of PH&PC, Academic Center for General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, Leuven, 3000, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Elias S, Chen Y, Liu X, Slone S, Turkson-Ocran RA, Ogungbe B, Thomas S, Byiringiro S, Koirala B, Asano R, Baptiste DL, Mollenkopf NL, Nmezi N, Commodore-Mensah Y, Himmelfarb CRD. Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e243779. [PMID: 38530311 PMCID: PMC10966415 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3779] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2023] [Accepted: 01/30/2024] [Indexed: 03/27/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance The effect of shared decision-making (SDM) and the extent of its use in interventions to improve cardiovascular risk remain unclear. Objective To assess the extent to which SDM is used in interventions aimed to enhance the management of cardiovascular risk factors and to explore the association of SDM with decisional outcomes, cardiovascular risk factors, and health behaviors. Data Sources For this systematic review and meta-analysis, a literature search was conducted in the Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for articles published from inception to June 24, 2022, without language restrictions. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SDM-based interventions with standard of care for cardiovascular risk factor management were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis The systematic search resulted in 9365 references. Duplicates were removed, and 2 independent reviewers screened the trials (title, abstract, and full text) and extracted data. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures Decisional outcomes, cardiovascular risk factor outcomes, and health behavioral outcomes. Results This review included 57 RCTs with 88 578 patients and 1341 clinicians. A total of 59 articles were included, as 2 RCTs were reported twice. Nearly half of the studies (29 [49.2%]) tested interventions that targeted both patients and clinicians, and an equal number (29 [49.2%]) exclusively focused on patients. More than half (32 [54.2%]) focused on diabetes management, and one-quarter focused on multiple cardiovascular risk factors (14 [23.7%]). Most studies (35 [59.3%]) assessed cardiovascular risk factors and health behaviors as well as decisional outcomes. The quality of studies reviewed was low to fair. The SDM intervention was associated with a decrease of 4.21 points (95% CI, -8.21 to -0.21) in Decisional Conflict Scale scores (9 trials; I2 = 85.6%) and a decrease of 0.20% (95% CI, -0.39% to -0.01%) in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (18 trials; I2 = 84.2%). Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic review and meta-analysis of the current state of research on SDM interventions for cardiovascular risk management, there was a slight reduction in decisional conflict and an improvement in HbA1c levels with substantial heterogeneity. High-quality studies are needed to inform the use of SDM to improve cardiovascular risk management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sabrina Elias
- Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Yuling Chen
- Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Xiaoyue Liu
- New York University Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York, New York
| | - Sarah Slone
- Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Ruth-Alma Turkson-Ocran
- Division of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Bunmi Ogungbe
- Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | | | | - Binu Koirala
- Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Reiko Asano
- Catholic University of America, Washington, DC
| | | | | | - Nwakaego Nmezi
- MedStar National Rehabilitation Hospital, Washington, DC
| | - Yvonne Commodore-Mensah
- Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Cheryl R. Dennison Himmelfarb
- Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
- Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zagt AC, Bos N, Bakker M, de Boer D, Friele RD, de Jong JD. A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2024; 118:108030. [PMID: 37897867 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.108030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2023] [Revised: 09/29/2023] [Accepted: 10/16/2023] [Indexed: 10/30/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees. METHODS A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels. RESULTS The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne C Zagt
- Nivel, the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| | - Nanne Bos
- Nivel, the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Max Bakker
- Nivel, the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Dolf de Boer
- Nivel, the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Roland D Friele
- Nivel, the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, the Netherlands; Tranzo Scientifc Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | - Judith D de Jong
- Nivel, the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, the Netherlands; CAPHRI, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Dennison Himmelfarb CR, Beckie TM, Allen LA, Commodore-Mensah Y, Davidson PM, Lin G, Lutz B, Spatz ES. Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2023; 148:912-931. [PMID: 37577791 DOI: 10.1161/cir.0000000000001162] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/15/2023]
Abstract
Shared decision-making is increasingly embraced in health care and recommended in cardiovascular guidelines. Patient involvement in health care decisions, patient-clinician communication, and models of patient-centered care are critical to improve health outcomes and to promote equity, but formal models and evaluation in cardiovascular care are nascent. Shared decision-making promotes equity by involving clinicians and patients, sharing the best available evidence, and recognizing the needs, values, and experiences of individuals and their families when faced with the task of making decisions. Broad endorsement of shared decision-making as a critical component of high-quality, value-based care has raised our awareness, although uptake in clinical practice remains suboptimal for a range of patient, clinician, and system issues. Strategies effective in promoting shared decision-making include educating clinicians on communication techniques, engaging multidisciplinary medical teams, incorporating trained decision coaches, and using tools (ie, patient decision aids) at appropriate literacy and numeracy levels to support patients in their cardiovascular decisions. This scientific statement shines a light on the limited but growing body of evidence of the impact of shared decision-making on cardiovascular outcomes and the potential of shared decision-making as a driver of health equity so that everyone has just opportunities. Multilevel solutions must align to address challenges in policies and reimbursement, system-level leadership and infrastructure, clinician training, access to decision aids, and patient engagement to fully support patients and clinicians to engage in the shared decision-making process and to drive equity and improvement in cardiovascular outcomes.
Collapse
|
5
|
Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0265401. [PMID: 35294494 PMCID: PMC8926249 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265401] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2021] [Accepted: 03/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Interventions to change health professionals’ behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions. Methods We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under “what materials?” we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses. Results Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: “brief name” (87/87, 100%), “why” (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and “what” (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were “materials” (29/87, 33%), “who” (23/87, 26%), and “when and how much” (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: “tailoring” (8/87, 9%), “modifications” (3/87, 4%), and “how well (actual)” (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported “How”, (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%. Conclusions Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.
Collapse
|
6
|
Multimorbidity in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Is Associated With Greater Mortality, Higher Readmission Rates, and Increased Length of Stay: A Systematic Review. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021; 35:E99-E110. [PMID: 32925234 DOI: 10.1097/jcn.0000000000000748] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aims of this systematic review were to determine the magnitude and impact of multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) on mortality, length of stay, and rates of coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to compare the prevalence of cardiovascular versus noncardiovascular multimorbidities. METHODS MEDLINE, PubMed, MedlinePlus, EMBASE, OVID, and CINAHL databases were searched for studies published between 2009 and 2019. Eight original studies enrolling patients with ACS and assessing cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbid conditions met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was evaluated using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool. RESULTS The most frequently examined cardiovascular multimorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, stroke/transient ischemic attack, coronary heart disease, and peripheral vascular disease; the most frequently examined noncardiovascular multimorbidities included cancer, anemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal disease, liver disease, and depression. The prevalence of multimorbidity in the population with ACS is high (25%-95%). Patients with multimorbidities receive fewer evidence-based treatments, including coronary intervention and high-dose statins. Patients with multimorbidities experience higher in-hospital mortality (5%-13.9% vs 2.6%-6.1%), greater average length of stay (5-9 vs 3-4 days), and lower rates of revascularization (9%-14% vs 39%-42%) than nonmultimorbid patients. Women, despite being the minority in all sample populations, exhibited greater levels of multimorbidity than men. CONCLUSIONS Multimorbid patients with ACS are at a greater risk for worse outcomes than their nonmultimorbid counterparts. Lack of consistent measurement makes interpretation of the impact of multimorbidity challenging and emphasizes the need for more research on multimorbidity's effects on postdischarge healthcare utilization.
Collapse
|
7
|
GSK-3β, FYN, and DYRK1A: Master Regulators in Neurodegenerative Pathways. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22:ijms22169098. [PMID: 34445804 PMCID: PMC8396491 DOI: 10.3390/ijms22169098] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2021] [Revised: 08/16/2021] [Accepted: 08/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Protein kinases (PKs) have been recognized as central nervous system (CNS)-disease-relevant targets due to their master regulatory role in different signal transduction cascades in the neuroscience space. Among them, GSK-3β, FYN, and DYRK1A play a crucial role in the neurodegeneration context, and the deregulation of all three PKs has been linked to different CNS disorders with unmet medical needs, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), and several neuromuscular disorders. The multifactorial nature of these diseases, along with the failure of many advanced CNS clinical trials, and the lengthy approval process of a novel CNS drug have strongly limited the CNS drug discovery. However, in the near-decade from 2010 to 2020, several computer-assisted drug design strategies have been combined with synthetic efforts to develop potent and selective GSK-3β, FYN, and DYRK1A inhibitors as disease-modifying agents. In this review, we described both structural and functional aspects of GSK-3β, FYN, and DYRK1A and their involvement and crosstalk in different CNS pathological signaling pathways. Moreover, we outlined attractive medicinal chemistry approaches including multi-target drug design strategies applied to overcome some limitations of known PKs inhibitors and discover improved modulators with suitable blood–brain barrier (BBB) permeability and drug-like properties.
Collapse
|
8
|
Jaspers NEM, Visseren FLJ, van der Graaf Y, Smulders YM, Damman OC, Brouwers C, Rutten GEHM, Dorresteijn JAN. Communicating personalised statin therapy-effects as 10-year CVD-risk or CVD-free life-expectancy: does it improve decisional conflict? Three-armed, blinded, randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e041673. [PMID: 34272216 PMCID: PMC8287608 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041673] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine whether communicating personalised statin therapy-effects obtained by prognostic algorithm leads to lower decisional conflict associated with statin use in patients with stable cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with standard (non-personalised) therapy-effects. DESIGN Hypothesis-blinded, three-armed randomised controlled trial SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 303 statin users with stable CVD enrolled in a cohort INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard practice (control-group) or one of two intervention arms. Intervention arms received standard practice plus (1) a personalised health profile, (2) educational videos and (3) a structured telephone consultation. Intervention arms received personalised estimates of prognostic changes associated with both discontinuation of current statin and intensification to the most potent statin type and dose (ie, atorvastatin 80 mg). Intervention arms differed in how these changes were expressed: either change in individual 10-year absolute CVD risk (iAR-group) or CVD-free life-expectancy (iLE-group) calculated with the SMART-REACH model (http://U-Prevent.com). OUTCOME Primary outcome was patient decisional conflict score (DCS) after 1 month. The score varies from 0 (no conflict) to 100 (high conflict). Secondary outcomes were collected at 1 or 6 months: DCS, quality of life, illness perception, patient activation, patient perception of statin efficacy and shared decision-making, self-reported statin adherence, understanding of statin-therapy, post-randomisation low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and physician opinion of the intervention. Outcomes are reported as median (25th- 75th percentile). RESULTS Decisional conflict differed between the intervention arms: median control 27 (20-43), iAR-group 22 (11-30; p-value vs control 0.001) and iLE-group 25 (10-31; p-value vs control 0.021). No differences in secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION In patients with clinically manifest CVD, providing personalised estimations of treatment-effects resulted in a small but significant decrease in decisional conflict after 1 month. The results support the use of personalised predictions for supporting decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NTR6227/NL6080.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole E M Jaspers
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Vascular Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Frank L J Visseren
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Vascular Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Yolanda van der Graaf
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Yvo M Smulders
- University Medical Centre, Department of Internal Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands
| | - Olga C Damman
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, North-Holland, The Netherlands
| | - Corline Brouwers
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, North-Holland, The Netherlands
| | - Guy E H M Rutten
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jannick A N Dorresteijn
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Vascular Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Sex and gender considerations in implementation interventions to promote shared decision making: A secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0240371. [PMID: 33031475 PMCID: PMC7544054 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240371] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2020] [Accepted: 09/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Shared decision making (SDM) in healthcare is an approach in which health professionals support patients in making decisions based on best evidence and their values and preferences. Considering sex and gender in SDM research is necessary to produce precisely-targeted interventions, improve evidence quality and redress health inequities. A first step is correct use of terms. We therefore assessed sex and gender terminology in SDM intervention studies. Materials and methods We performed a secondary analysis of a Cochrane review of SDM interventions. We extracted study characteristics and their use of sex, gender or related terms (mention; number of categories). We assessed correct use of sex and gender terms using three criteria: “non-binary use”, “use of appropriate categories” and “non-interchangeable use of sex and gender”. We computed the proportion of studies that met all, any or no criteria, and explored associations between criteria met and study characteristics. Results Of 87 included studies, 58 (66.7%) mentioned sex and/or gender. The most mentioned related terms were “female” (60.9%) and “male” (59.8%). Of the 58 studies, authors used sex and gender as binary variables respectively in 36 (62%) and in 34 (58.6%) studies. No study met the criterion “non-binary use”. Authors used appropriate categories to describe sex and gender respectively in 28 (48.3%) and in 8 (13.8%) studies. Of the 83 (95.4%) studies in which sex and/or gender, and/or related terms were mentioned, authors used sex and gender non-interchangeably in 16 (19.3%). No study met all three criteria. Criteria met did not vary according to study characteristics (p>.05). Conclusions In SDM implementation studies, sex and gender terms and concepts are in a state of confusion. Our results suggest the urgency of adopting a standardized use of sex and gender terms and concepts before these considerations can be properly integrated into implementation research.
Collapse
|
10
|
Knight EP, Slebodnik M, Pinder C, DeVon HA. Communicating acute coronary syndrome risk to women in primary care: A scoping review of the literature. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2019; 102:2156-2161. [PMID: 31326246 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.07.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2019] [Revised: 07/05/2019] [Accepted: 07/10/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Delay from symptom onset to hospital arrival drives poor outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS), particularly for women. Primary care clinicians can discuss ACS with high-risk women, potentially reducing delay. We conducted a scoping review to assess what is known about ACS risk communication to women in primary care. METHODS We used Arksey and O'Malley's framework. The PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase databases were searched for relevant articles from inception through September, 2018. No restrictions on study methodology were applied. At least two reviewers assessed each article. Articles addressing risk communication, coronary heart disease, and ACS, related to primary care settings, and including women were retained. RESULTS Eleven articles met inclusion criteria. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk communication is common in primary care; however, ACS symptoms are rarely discussed. Structured risk calculators are used to frame discussions. Communication styles include patient-centered discussions, paternalistic orders, and "scare tactics;" no single style is more effective. Analysis of gender differences in risk communication is extremely limited. CONCLUSION There is scant evidence that primary care clinicians communicate effectively about ACS risk, symptoms, and appropriate symptom response. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Interventions are needed to improve communication about ACS to at-risk women in the primary care setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth P Knight
- Oregon Health & Science University School of Nursing, Portland, OR, USA.
| | | | - Clare Pinder
- University of Arizona College of Nursing, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - Holli A DeVon
- University of Illinois at Chicago College of Nursing, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Adarkwah CC, Jegan N, Heinzel-Gutenbrunner M, Kühne F, Siebert U, Popert U, Donner-Banzhoff N, Kürwitz S. The Optimizing-Risk-Communication (OptRisk) randomized trial - impact of decision-aid-based consultation on adherence and perception of cardiovascular risk. Patient Prefer Adherence 2019; 13:441-452. [PMID: 30988601 PMCID: PMC6441552 DOI: 10.2147/ppa.s197545] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Shared decision-making is a well-established approach to increasing patient participation in medical decisions. Increasingly, using lifetime-risk or time-to-event (TTE) formats has been suggested, as these might have advantages in comparison with a 10-year risk prognosis, particularly for younger patients, whose lifetime risk for some events may be considerably greater than their 10-year risk. In this study, a randomized trial, the most popular 10-year risk illustration in the decision-aid software Arriba (emoticons), is compared with a newly developed TTE illustration, which is based on a Markov model. The study compares the effect of these two methods of presenting cardiovascular risk to patients on their subsequent adherence to intervention. METHODS A total of 294 patients were interviewed 3 months after they had had a consultation with their GP on cardiovascular risk prevention. Adherence to behavioral change or medication intervention was measured as the primary outcome. The latter was expressed as a generated score. Furthermore, different secondary outcomes were measured, ie, patient perception of risk and self-rated importance of avoiding a cardiovascular event, as well as patient numeracy, which was used as a proxy for patient health literacy. RESULTS Overall, no significant difference in patient adherence was found depending on risk representation. In the emoticon group, the number of interventions had a significant impact on the adherence score (P=0.025). Perception of risk was significantly higher in patients counseled with the TTE risk display, whereas the importance of avoiding a cardiovascular event was rated equally highly in both groups and actually increased over time. CONCLUSION The TTE format is an appropriate means for counseling patients. Adherence is a very complex construct, which cannot be fully explained by our findings. The study results support our call for considering TTE illustrations as a valuable alternative to current decision-support tools covering cardiovascular prevention. Nevertheless, further research is needed to shed light on patient motivation and adherence with regard to cardiovascular risk prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register and at the WHO International Clinical Trials Register Platform (ICTRP, ID DRKS00004933); registered February 2, 2016 (retrospectively registered).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles Christian Adarkwah
- Department of General Practice and Family Medicine, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany,
- Department of Health Services Research and General Practice, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany,
- Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands,
| | - Nikita Jegan
- Department of General Practice and Family Medicine, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany,
| | | | - Felicitas Kühne
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health and Health Technology Assessment, University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Innsbruck, Austria
- Division of Public Health Decision Modelling, Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics, ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Uwe Siebert
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health and Health Technology Assessment, University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Innsbruck, Austria
- Division of Public Health Decision Modelling, Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics, ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
- Center for Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Uwe Popert
- Department of General Practice, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
- Department of General Practice and Family Medicine, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany,
| | - Sarah Kürwitz
- Department of General Practice and Family Medicine, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany,
- Department of Public Health, University of Bielefeld, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Jaspers NEM, Ridker PM, Dorresteijn JAN, Visseren FLJ. The prediction of therapy-benefit for individual cardiovascular disease prevention: rationale, implications, and implementation. Curr Opin Lipidol 2018; 29:436-444. [PMID: 30234556 DOI: 10.1097/mol.0000000000000554] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW We aim to outline the importance and the clinical implications of using predicted individual therapy-benefit in making patient-centered treatment decisions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Therapy-benefit concepts will be illustrated with examples of patients undergoing lipid management. RECENT FINDINGS In both primary and secondary CVD prevention, the degree of variation in individual therapy-benefit is large. An individual's therapy-benefit can be estimated by combining prediction algorithms and clinical trial data. Measures of therapy-benefit can be easily integrated into clinical practice via a variety of online calculators. Lifetime estimates (e.g., gain in healthy life expectancy) look at therapy-benefit over the course of an individual's life, and are less influenced by age than short-term estimates (e.g., 10-year absolute risk reduction). Lifetime estimates can thus identify people who could substantially benefit from early initiation of CVD prevention. Compared with current guidelines, treatment based on predicted therapy-benefit would increase eligibility for therapy among young people with a moderate risk-factor burden and individuals with a high residual risk. SUMMARY The estimation of individual therapy-benefit is an important part of individualized medicine. Implementation tools allow for clinicians to readily estimate both short-term and lifetime therapy-benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole E M Jaspers
- Department of Vascular Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Paul M Ridker
- Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Jannick A N Dorresteijn
- Department of Vascular Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Frank L J Visseren
- Department of Vascular Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Légaré F, Adekpedjou R, Stacey D, Turcotte S, Kryworuchko J, Graham ID, Lyddiatt A, Politi MC, Thomson R, Elwyn G, Donner‐Banzhoff N. Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 7:CD006732. [PMID: 30025154 PMCID: PMC6513543 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006732.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 222] [Impact Index Per Article: 37.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- France Légaré
- Université LavalCentre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne de l'Université Laval (CERSSPL‐UL)2525, Chemin de la CanardièreQuebecQuébecCanadaG1J 0A4
| | - Rhéda Adekpedjou
- Université LavalDepartment of Social and Preventive MedicineQuebec CityQuebecCanada
| | - Dawn Stacey
- University of OttawaSchool of Nursing451 Smyth RoadOttawaONCanada
| | - Stéphane Turcotte
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec (CRCHUQ) ‐ Hôpital St‐François d'Assise10 Rue de l'Espinay, D6‐727Québec CityQCCanadaG1L 3L5
| | - Jennifer Kryworuchko
- The University of British ColumbiaSchool of NursingT201 2211 Wesbrook MallVancouverBritish ColumbiaCanadaV6T 2B5
| | - Ian D Graham
- University of OttawaSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventative Medicine600 Peter Morand CrescentOttawaONCanada
| | - Anne Lyddiatt
- No affiliation28 Greenwood RoadIngersollONCanadaN5C 3N1
| | - Mary C Politi
- Washington University School of MedicineDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery660 S Euclid AveSt LouisMissouriUSA63110
| | - Richard Thomson
- Newcastle UniversityInstitute of Health and SocietyBaddiley‐Clark BuildingRichardson RoadNewcastle upon TyneUKNE2 4AX
| | - Glyn Elwyn
- Cardiff UniversityCochrane Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine2nd Floor, Neuadd MeirionnyddHeath ParkCardiffWalesUKCF14 4YS
| | - Norbert Donner‐Banzhoff
- University of MarburgDepartment of Family Medicine / General PracticeKarl‐von‐Frisch‐Str. 4MarburgGermanyD‐35039
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Agbadjé TT, Menear M, Dugas M, Gagnon MP, Rahimi SA, Robitaille H, Giguère AMC, Rousseau F, Wilson BJ, Légaré F. Pregnant women's views on how to promote the use of a decision aid for Down syndrome prenatal screening: a theory-informed qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18:434. [PMID: 29884169 PMCID: PMC5994018 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3244-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2018] [Accepted: 05/29/2018] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background For pregnant women and their partners, the decision to undergo Down syndrome prenatal screening is difficult. Patient decision aids (PtDA) can help them make an informed decision. We aimed to identify behaviour change techniques (BCTs) that would be useful in an intervention to promote the use of a PtDA for Down syndrome prenatal screening, and to identify which of these BCTs pregnant women found relevant and acceptable. Methods Using the Behaviour Change Wheel and the Theoretical Domains Framework, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study. First, a group of experts from diverse professions, disciplines and backgrounds (eg. medicine, engineering, implementation science, community and public health, shared decision making) identified relevant BCTs. Then we recruited pregnant women consulting for prenatal care in three clinical sites: a family medicine group, a birthing centre (midwives) and a hospital obstetrics department in Quebec City, Canada. To be eligible, participants had to be at least 18 years old, having recently given birth or at least 16 weeks pregnant with a low-risk pregnancy, and have already decided about prenatal screening. We conducted three focus groups and asked questions about the relevance and acceptability of the BCTs. We analysed verbatim transcripts and reduced the BCTs to those the women found most relevant and acceptable. Results Our group of experts identified 25 relevant BCTs relating to information, support, consequences, others’ approval, learning, reward, environmental change and mode of delivery. Fifteen women participated in the study with a mean age of 27 years. Of these, 67% (n = 10) were pregnant for the first time, 20% (n = 3) had difficulty making the decision to take the test, and 73% had made the decision with their partner. Of the 25 BCTs identified using the Behaviour Change Wheel, the women found the following 10 to be most acceptable and relevant: goal setting (behaviour), goal setting (results), problem solving, action plan, social support (general), social support (practical), restructuring the physical environment, prompts/cues, credible sources and modelling or demonstration of the behaviour. Conclusions An intervention to promote PtDA use among pregnant women for Down syndrome prenatal screening should incorporate the 10 BCTs identified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Titilayo Tatiana Agbadjé
- Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Quebec, Canada.,Université Laval Primary Care Research Centre (CERSSPL-UL), Quebec, Canada
| | - Matthew Menear
- Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Quebec, Canada.,Université Laval Primary Care Research Centre (CERSSPL-UL), Quebec, Canada
| | - Michèle Dugas
- Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Quebec, Canada.,Université Laval Primary Care Research Centre (CERSSPL-UL), Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi
- Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Quebec, Canada.,Université Laval Primary Care Research Centre (CERSSPL-UL), Quebec, Canada
| | - Hubert Robitaille
- Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Quebec, Canada.,Université Laval Primary Care Research Centre (CERSSPL-UL), Quebec, Canada
| | - Anik M C Giguère
- Université Laval Primary Care Research Centre (CERSSPL-UL), Quebec, Canada.,Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.,Quebec Centre of Excellence on Aging, Quebec, Canada
| | - François Rousseau
- Department of Molecular Biology, Medical Biochemistry and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.,MSSS/FRQS/CHUQ Research Chair in Health Technology Assessment and Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine, CHU de Québec, Quebec, Canada
| | - Brenda J Wilson
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - France Légaré
- Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Quebec, Canada. .,Université Laval Primary Care Research Centre (CERSSPL-UL), Quebec, Canada. .,Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada. .,Centre intégré universitaire de santé et services sociaux (CIUSSS) de la Capitale-Nationale, Pavillon Landry-Poulin, entrée A-1-2, bureau A-4574, 2525, Chemin de la Canardière, Quebec, QC, G1J 0A4, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|