The vexing problem of defining the meaning, role and measurement of values in treatment decision-making

Explorative observational study of Dutch patient-clinician interactions: operationalisation of personal perspective elicitation as part of shared decision-making in real-life audio-recorded consultations

OBJECTIVES

Patients' preferences, values and contexts are important elements of the shared decision-making (SDM) process. We captured those elements into the concept of 'personal perspective elicitation' (PPE), which reflects the need to elicit patients' preferences, values and contexts in patient-clinician conversations. We defined PPE as: 'the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or contexts potentially relevant to decision-making'. Our goal was to operationalise the concept of PPE through the evaluation of preferences, values and contexts and explore how PPE occurs in clinical encounters.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study: observational coding based on a novel coding scheme of audio-recorded outpatient clinical encounters where encounter patient decision aids were applied.

SETTING

We audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions at three Dutch outpatient clinics. PPE was analysed using a novel observational coding scheme, distinguishing preferences, contexts and four Armstrong taxonomy value types (global, decisional, external and situational). We measured SDM using the Observer OPTION5.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians.

RESULTS

We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION5 score was 57.5 (SD:10.1). The audio-recordings gave a rich illustration of preferences, values and contexts that were discussed in the patient-clinician interactions. Examples of identified global values: appearance, beliefs, personality traits. Decisional values were related to the process of decision-making. External values related to asking advice from for example, the clinician or significant others. An identified situational value: a new job ahead. Contexts related to how the illness impacted the life (eg, sexuality, family, sports, work life) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The operationalisation of PPE, an important aspect of SDM, explores which preferences, values and contexts were discussed during patient-clinician interactions where an ePDA was used. The coding scheme appeared feasible to apply but needs further refinement.

Older women's perceptions of HPV self-sampling and HPV-sampling performed by a midwife - a phenomenographic study

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is a global disease and it is well established that cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). In Sweden self-sampling for HPV is now used as a complement to sampling performed by a midwife. However, there is a lack of knowledge on how older women perceive the self-sampling compared to the sampling performed by a midwife. Therefore, the aim of the study was to describe how women, aged 64 years and older, perceived the process of self-sampling and sampling performed by a midwife for HPV-testing.

METHODS

Eighteen women were included in a qualitative interview study, and a phenomenographic approach was used for the analysis of the interviews.

RESULTS

Three descriptive categories emerged: Confidence in sampling, Facilitating participation and Being informed. Within the categories, eight conceptions emerged describing the variation relating to how the women perceived the process of self-sampling and sampling performed by a midwife.

CONCLUSIONS

Women in this study describe confidence in self-sampling for HPV-testing and that the self-sampling was saving time and money, both for themselves and for society. Information in relation to an HPV-positive test result is of importance and it must be kept in mind that women affected by HPV may feel guilt and shame, which health care professionals should pay attention to. This knowledge can be used in education of health care staff.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://researchweb.org/is/fourol/project/228071 . Reg. no 228,071.

Making the BEST decision-the BESTa project development, implementation and evaluation of a digital Decision Aid in Swedish cancer screening programmes- a description of a research project

BACKGROUND

Sweden has a long tradition of organized national population-based screening programmes. Participation rates differ between programmes and regions, being relatively high in some groups, but lower in others. To ensure an equity perspective on screening, it is desirable that individuals make an informed decision based on knowledge rather than ignorance, misconceptions, or fear. Decision Aids (DAs) are set to deliver information about different healthcare options and help individuals to visualize the values associated with each available option. DAs are not intended to guide individuals to choose one option over another. The advantage of an individual Decision Aid (iDA) is that individuals gain knowledge about cancer and screening by accessing one webpage with the possibility to communicate with health professionals and thereafter make their decision regarding participation. The objective is therefore to develop, implement and evaluate a digital iDA for individuals invited to cancer screening in Sweden.

METHODS

This study encompasses a process-, implementation-, and outcome evaluation. Multiple methods will be applied including focus group discussions, individual interviews and the usage of the think aloud technique and self-reported questionnaire data. The project is based on The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) framework and the proposed model development process for DAs. Individuals aged 23-74, including women (the cervical-, breast- and CRC screening module) and men (the CRC screening module), will be included in the developmental process. Efforts will be made to recruit participants with self-reported physical and mental limitations, individuals without a permanent residence and ethnic minorities.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first attempt aimed at developing an iDA for use in the Swedish context. The iDA is intended to facilitate shared decision making about participation in screening. Furthermore, the iDA is expected to increase knowledge and raise awareness about cancer and cancer screening.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Lay people are involved throughout the whole development and implementation process of the digital DA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05512260.

Determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate informed values-based decision-making: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients' involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane' Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022338299.

Physical function and severe side effects matter most to patients with RA (< 5 years): a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for personalized RA treatment

AIM

Early assessment of patient preferences has the potential to support shared decisions in personalized precision medicine for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to assess treatment preferences of patients with RA (< 5 years) with previous experience of inadequate response to first-line monotherapy.

METHOD

Patients were recruited (March-June 2021) via four clinics in Sweden. Potential respondents (N = 933) received an invitation to answer a digital survey. The survey included an introductory part, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and demographic questions. Each respondent answered 11 hypothetical choice questions as part of the DCE. Patient preferences and preference heterogeneity were estimated using random parameter logit models and latent class analysis models.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 182) assessed the most important treatment attributes out of physical functional capacity, psychosocial functional capacity, frequency of mild side effects and likelihood of severe side effects. In general, patients preferred a greater increase in functional capacity and decreased side effects. However, a substantial preference heterogeneity was identified with two underlying preference patterns. The most important attribute in the first pattern was the 'likelihood of getting a severe side effect'. Physical functional capacity was the most important attribute in the second pattern.

CONCLUSION

Respondents focused their decision-making mainly on increasing their physical functional capacity or decreasing the likelihood of getting a severe side effect. These results are highly relevant from a clinical perspective to strengthen communication in shared decision making by assessing patients' individual preferences for benefits and risks in treatment discussions.

Making space for patients' preferences in precision medicine: a qualitative study exploring perspectives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Precision medicine in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) creates new opportunities to involve patients in early identification of accurate indicators of health trajectories. The aim of this study was to explore patient perspectives on patient-centredness in precision medicine for RA treatment.

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews were conducted to explore patients' perspectives on a new personalised approach to RA treatment. The interview guide was developed together with patient research partners and health care professionals.

SETTING

An invitation to the interviews was sent through a mobile application. The interviews were one-on-one, using an interview guide with open-ended questions. Interviews were conducted digitally (October 2020-February 2021) via Zoom or telephone, depending on each participant's preferences.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with RA (N=12) were purposively recruited. Patients were eligible if they had an RA diagnosis, were aged 18-80 years, and understood and expressed themselves in Swedish. Participants and researchers did not know each other prior to the interviews.

RESULTS

Participants expressed desires and needs for patients to have an active role in precision medicine by making shared treatment decisions together with a healthcare professional. In order for that to work, patients need information on potential treatment options, an ability to express their preferences, an individual treatment plan and identification of personal treatment goals. Patients also identified two requirements of healthcare professional in precision medicine: a safe environment to express personal matters and two-way communication with healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSION

Communication between patients and healthcare professionals needs to be more focused on patients' individual treatment preferences and expressed needs, in order to increase patient-centredness in treatment decisions, so shared decision-making can become a reality. More research is needed to design multifaceted implementation strategies to support patients and healthcare professionals to increase patient-centredness throughout treatment personalisation.

Patient Preference for Biologic Treatments of Psoriasis in the Chinese Setting

OBJECTIVE

Assessments of patients' preferences can support in clinical decision-making regarding biologic therapies for psoriasis. Our objective was to investigate patient preference for biologic treatments in patients with psoriasis in China.

METHODS

From October 2020 to January 2021, psoriasis patients were recruited for a survey that included demographic and disease-related questions, as well as a discrete choice experiment to measure their preferences for biologic therapy. A discrete-choice experiment was used in which respondents selected psoriasis treatments based on benefits (ie, early onset of efficacy, long-term efficacy, sustained efficacy) and treatment costs. We analyzed choice data using conditional logit model.

RESULTS

This study included 236 patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. The relative importance of the cost of biologic treatments, probability of keeping PASI100 at 5 years, probability of achieving PASI100 at 3 months and time to achieve PASI50 after initiation the biologic treatment were 0.593, 0.137, 0.185 and 0.085. Over 50% of patients regarded the cost of biologic treatments as the most important attribute. High-income and low-income subgroups had higher preference weight in probability of achieving PASI100 at 3-month and monthly cost.

CONCLUSION

The cost of biologic treatments was found as the most important attribute for Chinese patients with psoriasis. Among efficacy attributes, the probability of achieving PASI100 at 3 months showed most sensitive. These results may be helpful to understand patient preference for biologic treatments used for psoriasis in China.

Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment.

Purpose

To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL.

Study Selection

We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods.

Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation.

Data Synthesis

Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ² = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ² = 6.08, P = 0.05).

Limitations

Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories.

Conclusions

Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Patient participation in the clinical encounter and clinical practice guidelines: The case of patients' participation in a GRADEd world

It is widely acknowledged that the patient's perspective should be considered when making decisions about how her care will be managed. Patient participation in the decision making process may play an important role in bringing to light and incorporating her perspective. The GRADE framework is touted as an evidence-based process for determining recommendations for clinical practice; i.e. determining how care ought to be managed. GRADE recommendations are categorized as "strong" or "weak" based on several factors, including the "values and preferences" of a "typical" patient. The strength of the recommendation also provides instruction to the clinician about when and how patients should participate in the clinical encounter, and thus whether an individual patient's values and preferences will be heard in her clinical encounter. That is, a "strong" recommendation encourages "paternalism" and a "weak" recommendation encourages shared decision making. We argue that adoption of the GRADE framework is problematic to patient participation and may result in care that is not respectful of the individual patient's values and preferences. We argue that the root of the problem is the conception of "values and preferences" in GRADE - the framework favours population thinking (e.g. "typical" patient "values and preferences"), despite the fact that "values and preferences" are individual in the sense that they are deeply personal. We also show that tying the strength of a recommendation to a model of decision making (paternalism or shared decision making) constrains patient participation and is not justified (theoretically and/or empirically) in the GRADE literature.

Patient preferences on rheumatoid arthritis second-line treatment: a discrete choice experiment of Swedish patients

Background

Preference assessments of patients with rheumatoid arthritis can support clinical therapeutic decisions for including biologic and targeted synthetic medicines to use. This study assesses patient preferences for attributes of second-line therapies and heterogeneity within these preferences to estimate the relative importance of treatment characteristics and to calculate the minimum benefit levels patients require to accept higher levels of side effects.

Methods

Between November 2018 to August 2019, patients with rheumatoid arthritis were recruited to a survey containing demographic and disease-related questions as well as a discrete choice experiment to measure their preferences for second-line therapies using biologics or Janus kinases inhibitors. Treatment characteristics included were route of administration, frequency of use, probability of mild short-term side effects, probability of side effects changing appearance, probability of psychological side effects, probability of severe side effects and effectiveness of treatment.

Results

A total of 358 patients were included in the analysis. A latent class analysis revealed three preference patterns: (1) treatment effectiveness as the single most important attribute, (2) route of administration as the most important attribute, closely followed by frequency of use and psychological side effects and (3) severe side effects as the most important attribute followed by psychological side effects. In addition, disease duration and mild side effects influenced the patients’ choices.

Conclusion

Respondents found either effectiveness, route of administration or severe side effects as the most important attribute. Patients noting effectiveness as most important were more willing than other patients to accept higher risks of side effects.

Patients' perceptions on shared decision making during prescription of subcutaneous biological drug treatments for inflammatory arthritis: The RHEU-LIFE survey

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore the preferences of patients with rheumatic diseases and their perceived experience regarding participation in shared decision making (SDM) when they were prescribed a subcutaneous (SC) biological drug.

METHODS

A printed survey was handed to 1,000 patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases treated with SC biological drug. The survey included closed questions about preferences regarding decision making and about patients' experience when they were prescribed an SC biological drug. Descriptive statistics were performed with stratification by patient profiles, using chi-square for comparisons between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 592 surveys were received (response rate 59.2%, mean age 51.7 years, 57.6% women). Some 28.2% of patients reported preferring to take part in treatment selection, a percentage that was higher in younger patients, in those with higher academic degree and in those who search information in sources different to that of health care professionals. Over half of patients (56.3%) perceived that the rheumatologist considered their opinion when prescribing an SC biological drug, a percentage higher in younger people. Only in 40.8% of cases did the patients' preference match their perception of their participation in the process. No differences were observed by sex, disease or number of biologics.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases want information about their treatments but mostly leave the prescription decision to the rheumatologist. Younger people, or those with higher academic degree, more often want to participate in the SDM. There are discrepancies between patient preferences and perceptions of this process.

What Matters to Patients and Families: A Content and Process Framework for Clarifying Preferences, Concerns, and Values

Background. Values clarification, or sorting out what matters to a patient or family relevant to a health decision, is a fundamental part of shared decision making. We aimed to describe how values clarification occurs in routine primary care. Methods. Using framework analysis and an established taxonomy, 2 independent researchers analyzed 260 consultations in 5 family medicine clinics across Quebec. Two questions guided our analyses: 1) What categories exist regarding what matters to patients? 2) What patterns exist in discussions of what matters to patients? Results. 1) Five distinct categories of what matters to patients and families were discussed during values clarification: preferences, concerns, treatment-specific values, life goals or philosophies, and broader contextual or sociocultural values. Preferences and concerns were the matters most commonly raised. 2) Diverse patterns of values clarification emerged based on 3 analytical questions: Who initiates the discussion about what matters to patients? When? What information is discussed? The most frequent pattern was clinicians soliciting patients' concerns and preferences during the information-gathering phase. The second most common pattern was similar, except that patients' spontaneously raised what matters to them. Limitations. The study was descriptive and based on audio-recorded visits. We did not interview patients and clinicians to elicit their perspectives. Conclusions. There are 5 distinct categories of what matters to patients and families as well as clear patterns of how values clarification occurs in routine primary care consultations. Clinicians could be sensitive to these categories when engaging in the process of values clarification and may wish to pay particular attention to the opening minutes of a consultation. This study provides a structure for future identification of best practices in values clarification.

Psychometric properties of the SCREESCO questionnaire used in a colorectal cancer screening programme-A Rasch analysis

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancer diagnoses among both sexes. Sweden has not yet implemented any CRC screening programme, but a study, Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO), is ongoing. The movement within the health care sector towards a more participatory perspective has led to the increased importance of shared decision making (SDM), and this is suggestively applied when deciding upon screening participation. There is no Swedish questionnaire for assessing the level of SDM in relation to CRC screening. Therefore, the CRC screening module of the National Survey of Medical Decisions was translated and culturally adapted into a Swedish context: the SCREESCO questionnaire.

AIM

The SCREESCO questionnaire requires further evaluation, and therefore, the aim, by using the Rasch approach, was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SCREESCO questionnaire.

METHODS

A Rasch partial credit model was chosen to investigate the psychometric properties. The sample consisted of individuals invited to the SCREESCO programme, who have answered the SCREESCO questionnaire.

RESULTS

Rating scale structures indicated stability for the response structure used. Satisfactory evidence for validity of internal structure was also shown for the whole questionnaire and two of three concepts/subscales, after deletion of a few items. Validity in response processes indicated acceptable, or close to acceptable, findings, while the results for unidimensionality and differential item functioning (DIF) were somewhat mixed. Separation index revealed less satisfactory results, both for the whole questionnaire and the concepts/subscales.

CONCLUSION

This Rasch analysis of the SCREESCO questionnaire revealed that the questionnaire in its current form has difficulties to assess the level of SDM in relation to CRC screening. The achieved results will guide further evaluation and development with the long-term goal of having a Swedish questionnaire, to be used in the health care sector, assessing the level of SDM in relation to CRC screening.

Methods for measuring patient preferences: an update and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current review highlights the growing number of available methods used to measure patient preferences and discusses how this impacts preference research in rheumatology. Spurred by the growing role of preferences in regulatory decisions and drug development, researchers have begun applying preference methods to study questions beyond the clinical context. We explore these trends, provide case studies highlighting changes in measuring patient preferences, compare strengths and weaknesses of common stated-preference methods, and discuss considerations for the future use of these methods.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early literature on patient preferences often mimicked clinical practice, asking whether treatment A is better or worse than treatment B for a patient. Early applications of patient preference methods in rheumatology aimed to value different attributes of treatments, but remained focused on informing clinical questions. Spurred by interest in preferences by regulatory agencies and patient-centeredness throughout the product lifecycle, there are now a wide array of methods available to measure preference.

SUMMARY

Although these different preference methods have strengths and weaknesses, they serve to highlight the broad number of questions that could help rheumatology beyond the clinical context. Researchers in rheumatology now have the opportunity to better serve diverse stakeholders by considering how these methods could aid in clinical trial design, regulatory policy, and other elements of the medical product life cycle.

Patient decision aid for medication treatment for opioid use disorder (PtDA-MOUD): Rationale, methodology, and preliminary results

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

As treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) expands within general healthcare settings such as primary care, mechanisms to facilitate decision-making processes are increasingly necessary. Decision aids have the capacity to bolster existing resources in diverse treatment settings by increasing knowledge of treatment options and facilitating shared decision making. The aim of this study is to develop and test a patient decision aid for medication treatment for opioid use disorder (PtDA-MOUD) that assists individuals with OUD in making informed decisions about treatment at the time of initial clinical visit. Use of the PtDA-MOUD will be further tested in diverse treatment settings within the California Hub and Spoke System developed under the SAMHSA State Targeted Response to the Opioid Crisis grants.

METHODS

The PtDA-MOUD was iteratively developed with input from a scientific expert panel and both patient and provider focus groups, incorporating International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Thirty-six patients with OUD entering treatment pilot tested the PtDA and completed assessments, and results from clinical records were compared with matched controls who did not receive the PtDA. A clinical profile based on assessment data was created for use within the clinical visit.

RESULTS

The developed decision aid provides information on MOUD and captures patient characteristics relevant to medication treatment decisions. Feedback indicated that the PtDA-MOUD was feasible to implement and useful. Though the small sample size limited the ability to detect significant differences (p > .05), a greater number of individuals who reviewed the PtDA (37%) were inducted on MOUD than controls (11%) and received MOUD for more days (M = 14.0, SD = 24.7) than controls (M = 8.4; SD = 22.5). Moreover, the difference in means for days receiving MOUD had an approximately medium effect size (r = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient perceptions of the decision aid were favorable and it showed promise as a tool in the OUD treatment process. Pilot testing results suggested preliminary positive effects on MOUD initiation. Future phases of this study will further investigate the usefulness of this tool. ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier:NCT03394261.

An evolutionary concept analysis of "patients' values"

BACKGROUND

Patients' values are everywhere and nowhere in nursing: frequently invoked and associated with effective nursing care but seldom explicitly defined or subject to dedicated analysis. Clarification of the concept of patients' values is pivotal because respecting and supporting patients' values are widely recognized as crucial for ethical nursing care. Despite this and the pervasive employment of the term patients' values in theories, approaches, and clinical guidelines, the concept remains ambiguous.

PURPOSE

We sought to understand the key elements of the concept by investigating its use in theoretical and empirical literature.

METHOD

This study used Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis approach.

FINDINGS

We found that values are core individual beliefs that function in hierarchical systems; however, in the context of disease, the priority assigned to values by the individual may change. This is important, given that values play a foundational role in health-related decisions, such as in the context of chronic diseases.

DISCUSSION

Values are influenced by both individual intrinsic needs and the social context, but importantly, are involved in guiding decision-making. The attributes of the values may vary according to the context of the disease, the type of disease, and the decision at hand.

Nurse-led coaching of shared decision-making for women with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast care centers: A cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women with breast cancer demand informed shared decision-making. Guidelines support these claims.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether an informed shared decision-making intervention for women with 'ductal carcinoma in situ' comprising an evidence-based decision aid with nurse-led decision coaching enhances the extent of the mutual shared decision-making behavior of patients and professionals regarding treatment options, and to analyze implementation barriers.

DESIGN

Cluster randomized controlled trial with accompanying process evaluation.

SETTING

Certified breast care centers in Germany.

PARTICIPANTS

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ and no previous history of breast cancer facing a primary treatment decision.

METHODS

Sixteen breast centers were randomized to intervention or standard care to recruit 192 patients (partially-blinded). All coaching sessions and physician consultations were videotaped to assess the primary outcome 'extent of patient involvement in shared decision-making' using the MAPPIN-Odyad observer instrument (scores 0 to 4). Secondary endpoints included the sub-measures of the MAPPIN-inventory (MAPPIN-Onurse, MAPPIN-Ophysician, MAPPIN-Opatient, MAPPIN-Qnurse, MAPPIN-Qpatient and MAPPIN-Qphysician), 'informed choice', 'decisional conflict' and 'duration of consultations'. Primary intention-to-treat analyses were on cluster level comparing means of cluster values using t-tests. An accompanying process evaluation was conducted comprising 1) analysis of all video recordings with focus on procedures and intervention fidelity and 2) field notes of researchers and feedback from professionals and patients assessed by questionnaires and interviews with focus on barriers and facilitators for implementation at different time points.

RESULTS

Due to protracted recruitment, the study was terminated after 14 centers had included 64 patients (intervention group 36, control group 28). Patient participation in informed shared decision-making was significantly higher in the intervention group (mean (SD) score 2.29 (0.56) vs. 0.42 (0.51) in the control group; difference 1.88 (95% CI 1.26-2.50, p < 0.0001). 47.7% women in the intervention group made informed choices, but none in the control group, difference 47.7% (95% CI 12.6-82.7%, p = 0.016). In the intervention group physician consultations lasted 12.8 (6.6) min. vs. 24.3 (6.3) min. in the control group. Physicians' attitudes, false incentives and structural barriers hindered implementation of informed shared decision-making. Nurses appreciated their new roles.

CONCLUSIONS

Informed shared decision-making is not yet implemented in German breast care centers. Nurse-led decision coaching grounded on evidence-based patient information enhances informed shared decision-making. Trial registration No. ISRCTN46305518.

Risk knowledge of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis - Results of an international survey

Background

Adequate disease and treatment-related risk knowledge of people with Multiple Sclerosis (pwMS) is a prerequisite for informed choices in medical encounters. Previous work showed that MS risk knowledge is low among pwMS and role preferences are different in Italy and Germany.

Objective

We investigated the level of risk knowledge and role preferences in 8 countries and assessed putative variables associated with risk knowledge.

Methods

An online-survey was performed based on the Risk knowledge questionnaire for people with relapsing-remitting MS (RIKNO 2.0), the electronic Control Preference Scale (eCPS), and other patient questionnaires. Inclusion criteria of participants were: (1) age ≥18 years, (2) a diagnosis of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), (3) being in a decision making process for a disease modifying drug.

Results

Of 1939 participants from Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Serbia, Spain and Turkey, 986 (51%) (mean age 38.6 years [range 18–67], 77% women, 7.8 years of disease duration) completed the RIKNO 2.0, with a mean of 41% correct answers. There were less than 50 participants in the UK and Estonia and data were not analysed. Risk knowledge differed across countries (p < 0.001). Variables significantly associated with higher risk knowledge were higher education (p < 0.001), previous experience with disease modifying drugs (p = 0.001), correct answer to a medical data interpretation question (p < 0.001), while higher fear for wheelchair dependency was negatively associated to risk knowledge (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

MS risk knowledge was overall low and differed across participating countries. These data indicate that information is an unmet need of most pwMS.

The evolution of GRADE (part 1): Is there a theoretical and/or empirical basis for the GRADE framework?

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework has been presented as the best method available for developing clinical recommendations. GRADE has undergone a series of modifications. Here, we present the first part of a three article series examining the evolution of GRADE. Our purpose is to explore if (and if so, how) GRADE provides: (1) a justification (ie, theoretical and/or empirical) for why the criteria/components under consideration in the system are included (and other factors excluded), as well as why some criteria/components where added/modified in the evolution process, (2) clear and functional (ie, how to operationalize them) definitions of the included criteria/components, and (3) instruction and justification for how all the criteria/components are to be integrated when determining a recommendation. In part 1 of the series, we examine the first two versions of GRADE.

METHODS

Narrative review.

RESULTS

The justification scheme that sustains GRADE is not articulated in the first two versions of the framework. Why some criteria/components were included, and others excluded, is not justified theoretically nor is empirical support provided to suggest that the framework as presented includes that which is needed to produce valid recommendations. The first two versions of GRADE show a lack of clear instruction on how to operationalize the criteria for assessing the quality of evidence and the components for making a recommendation (including how to integrate the criteria/components at each step), which leaves substantial room for judgement on the part of the user of GRADE for guideline development.

CONCLUSIONS

This article revealed an absence of a justification (theoretical and/or empirical) to support important aspects of the GRADE framework, as well as a lack of clear instruction on how to operationalize the criteria and components in the framework. These issues limit one's ability to scientifically assess the appropriateness of GRADE for determining clinical recommendations.

The importance of people's values and preferences for colorectal cancer screening participation

Background

To explore how individuals reason when they make decisions about participating in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

Methods

Individuals randomized to FIT or colonoscopy included in the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) program was invited to focus group discussions and individual telephone interviews. The concept of shared decision-making (SDM: information; values/preferences; involvement) was used as a matrix for the analyses. To validate findings, additional focus group discussions using the nominal group technique were performed.

Results

Lack of knowledge of CRC and CRC screening was prominent for participants and non-participants, while the results differed between the groups in relation to their values and preferences. The influence of significant others promoted participation while it prevented it among non-participants. Those who participated and those who did not made it clear that there was no need to involve health care professionals when making the decision.

Conclusions

Based on the results, a display of different ways to spread knowledge and communicate about CRC and CRC-screening could be applied such as, community-based information campaigns, decisions aids, interactive questionnaires, chat-functions and telephone support. The disparity in values and preferences between participants and non-participants may be the key to understand why non-participants make their decisions not to participate and warrant further exploration.

Implementation of shared decision-making in oncology: development and pilot study of a nurse-led decision-coaching programme for women with ductal carcinoma in situ

Background

To implement informed shared decision-making (ISDM) in breast care centres, we developed and piloted an inter-professional complex intervention.

Methods

We developed an intervention consisting of three components: an evidence-based patient decision aid (DA) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ, a decision-coaching led by specialised nurses (breast care nurses and oncology nurses) and structured physician encounters.

In order to enable professionals to gain ISDM competencies, we developed and tested a curriculum-based training programme for specialised nurses and a workshop for physicians. After successful testing of the components, we conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of the entire revised intervention in two breast care centres. Here the acceptance of the intervention by women and professionals, the applicability to the breast care centres’ procedures, women’s knowledge, patient involvement in treatment decision-making assessed with the MAPPIN’SDM-observer instrument MAPPIN’O_dyad, and barriers to and facilitators of the implementation were taken into consideration. We used questionnaires, structured verbal and written feedback and video recordings. Qualitative data were analysed descriptively, and mean values and ranges of quantitative data were calculated.

Results

To test the DA, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 27 women. Six expert reviews were obtained. The components of the nurse training were tested with 18 specialised nurses and 19 health science students. The development and piloting of the components were successful. The pilot test of the entire intervention included seven patients. In general, the intervention is applicable. Patients attained adequate knowledge (range of correct answers: 9–11 of 11). On average, a basic level of patient involvement in treatment decision-making was observed for nurses and patient–nurse dyads (M(MAPPIN-O_dyad): 2.15 and M(MAPPIN-O_nurse): 1.90). Relevant barriers were identified; physicians barely tolerated women’s preferences that were not in line with the medical recommendation. Classifying women as inappropriate for ISDM due to age or education led physicians to neglect eligible women during the recruitment phase.

Conclusion

Decision-coaching is feasible. Nevertheless, there are some indications that structural changes are needed for long-term implementation. We are currently evaluating the intervention in a cluster randomised controlled trial in 16 breast care centres.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-017-0548-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Translation and cultural adaption of the decisions module for colorectal cancer screening into a Swedish version - the SCREESCO questionnaire

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is suitable for population screening due to its high incidence and the recognizable and treatable prephase, and the present study is part of the larger study; Screening for Swedish Colons (SCREESCO). In Sweden, there is, to our knowledge, no questionnaire assessing shared decision making (SDM) with regard to CRC screening and, therefore, the aim of the study was to translate and culturally adapt the CRC screening module of the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS) into a Swedish context.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A qualitative design inspired by guidelines based on methods for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires was used. In addition, focus group discussions, individual interviews and think-aloud (TA) sessions were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 54 items included in the original DECISION survey, 32 were excluded, 22 were modified, and three were added as a result of the qualitative study. How the health care organization communicated and CRC screening knowledge was communicated were found to be the most important cultural differences between Sweden and the USA. The final questionnaire consists of 24 items.

CONCLUSION

The process of translation and cultural adaptation of the CRC screening module of the DECISIONS survey resulted in the removal and modifying of a considerable number of items. The major rationale for the removal and modifying of items can be explained by the different cultural traditions between Sweden and the USA when communicating with the health care system regarding screening participation and how CRC screening information and knowledge is communicated.

Effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with depression: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Shared decision making is an important component of patient‐centred care and decision aids are tools designed to support patients' decision making and help patients with depression to make informed choices.

Objective

The study aim was to assess the effectiveness of a web‐based decision aid for patients with unipolar depression.

Design

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants

Adults diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and recruited in primary care centres were included and randomized to the decision aid (n=68) or usual care (n=79).

Intervention

Patients in the decision aid group reviewed the decision aid accompanied by a researcher.

Outcome measures

Knowledge about treatment options, decisional conflict, treatment intention and preference for participation in decision making. We also developed a pilot measure of concordance between patients' goals and concerns about treatment options and their treatment intention.

Results

Intervention significantly improved knowledge (P<.001) and decisional conflict (P<.001), and no differences were observed in treatment intention, preferences for participation, or concordance. One of the scales developed to measure goals and concerns showed validity issues.

Conclusion

The decision aid “Decision making in depression” is effective improving knowledge of treatment options and reducing decisional conflict of patients with unipolar depression. More research is needed to establish a valid and reliable measure of concordance between patients' goals and concerns regarding pharmacological and psychological treatment, and the choice made.

Adequacy of initial evaluation of fever in long-term care facilities

AIM

Febrile residents in long-term care facilities (LTCF) might be inadequately evaluated by caregivers. The present study aimed to examine the factors associated with inadequacy of initial fever evaluations by caregivers at night in LTCF.

METHODS

We carried out a cross-sectional study among a convenience sample of caregivers employed at 11 LTCF in Japan using a vignette-based questionnaire. The respondents were randomly assigned to one of two scenarios describing a mild or severe febrile episode in an LTCF resident at night. The respondents' thinking patterns were classified based on influential factors in their fever evaluation. Associations between adequacy of evaluation and respondents' characteristics were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models.

RESULTS

A total of 34% of fever evaluations among caregivers were considered to be inadequate regarding the necessity for examination by a physician, due in most cases to underestimating the severity of the fever. Respondents' thinking patterns in fever evaluation were significantly associated with the adequacy of the evaluation. Caregivers who placed particular importance on the preferences of residents and families versus other factors including the resident's febrile condition, were more likely to make an inadequate evaluation than those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings here suggest that eagerness to comply with residents' preference in fever evaluation could prompt caregivers not to call for an appropriate diagnostic procedure. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017; 17: 1294-1299.

Informed shared decision-making supported by decision coaches for women with ductal carcinoma in situ: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women with breast cancer want to participate in treatment decision-making. Guidelines have confirmed the right of informed shared decision-making. However, previous research has shown that the implementation of informed shared decision-making is suboptimal for reasons of limited resources of physicians, power imbalances between patients and physicians and missing evidence-based patient information. We developed an informed shared decision-making program for women with primary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The program provides decision coaching for women by specialized nurses and aims at supporting involvement in decision-making and informed choices. In this trial, the informed shared decision-making program will be evaluated in breast care centers.

METHODS/DESIGN

A cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted to compare the informed shared decision-making program with standard care. The program comprises an evidence-based patient decision aid and training of physicians (2 hours) and specialized breast care and oncology nurses (4 days) in informed shared decision-making. Sixteen certified breast care centers will be included, with 192 women with primary DCIS being recruited. Primary outcome is the extent of patients' involvement in shared decision-making as assessed by the MAPPIN-Odyad (Multifocal approach to the 'sharing' in shared decision-making: observer instrument dyad). Secondary endpoints include the sub-measures of the MAPPIN-inventory (MAPPIN-Onurse, MAPPIN-Ophysician, MAPPIN-Opatient, MAPPIN-Qnurse, MAPPIN-Qpatient and MAPPIN-Qphysician), informed choice, decisional conflict and the duration of encounters. It is expected that decision coaching and the provision of evidence-based patient decision aids will increase patients' involvement in decision-making with informed choices and reduce decisional conflicts and duration of physician encounters. Furthermore, an accompanying process evaluation will be conducted.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the implementation of decision coaches in German breast care centers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46305518 , date of registration: 5 June 2015.

Increasing User Involvement in Health Care and Health Research Simultaneously: A Proto-Protocol for "Person-as-Researcher" and Online Decision Support Tools

Background

User involvement is appearing increasingly on policy agendas in many countries, with a variety of proposals for facilitating it. The belief is that it will produce better health for individuals and community, as well as demonstrate greater respect for the basic principles of autonomy and democracy.

Objective

Our Web-based project aims to increase involvement in health care and health research and is presented in the form of an umbrella protocol for a set of project-specific protocols. We conceptualize the person as a researcher engaged in a continual, living, informal “n-of-1”-type study of the effects of different actions and interventions on their health, including those implying contact with health care services. We see their research as primarily carried out in order to make better decisions for themselves, but they can offer to contribute the results to the wider population. We see the efforts of the "person-as-researcher" as contributing to the total amount of research undertaken in the community, with research not being confined to that undertaken by professional researchers and institutions. This view is fundamentally compatible with both the emancipatory and conventional approaches to increased user involvement, though somewhat more aligned with the former.

Methods

Our online decision support tools, delivered directly to the person in the community and openly accessible, are to be seen as research resources. They will take the form of interactive decision aids for a variety of specific health conditions, as well as a generic one that supports all health and health care decisions through its focus on key aspects of decision quality. We present a high-level protocol for the condition-specific studies that will implement our approach, organized within the Populations, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, Timings, and Settings (PICOTS) framework.

Results

Our underlying hypothesis concerns the person-as-researcher who is equipped with a prescriptive, transparent, expected value-based opinion—an opinion that combines their criterion importance weights with the Best Estimates Available Now for how well each of the available options performs on each of those outcomes. The hypothesis is that this person-as-researcher is more likely to be able to position themselves as an active participant in a clinical encounter, if they wish, than someone who has engaged with a descriptive decision aid that attempts to work with their existing cognitive processes and stresses the importance of information. The precise way this is hypothesis tested will be setting-specific and condition-specific and will be spelled out in the individual project protocols.

Conclusions

Decision resources that provide fast access to the results of slower thinking can provide the stimulus that many individuals need to take a more involved role in their own health. Our project, advanced simply as one approach to increased user involvement, is designed to make progress in the short term with minimal resources and to do so at the point of decision need, when motivation is highest. Some basic distinctions, such as those between science and non-science, research and practice, community and individual, and lay and professional become somewhat blurred and may need to be rethought in light of this approach.