Deciding about (neo-)adjuvant rectal and breast cancer treatment: Missed opportunities for shared decision making

Enhancing patient informed consent in elective skin cancer surgeries: a comparative study of traditional and digital approaches in a German public hospital

BACKGROUND

This study aims to investigate the integration of modern sources of patient information, such as videos, internet-based resources, and scientific abstracts, into the traditional patient informed consent process in outpatient elective surgeries. The goal is to optimize the informed consent experience, enhance patient satisfaction, and promote shared decision making (SDM) between patients and surgeons. By exploring different patient informed consent formats and their impact on patient satisfaction, this research seeks to improve healthcare practices and ultimately enhance patient outcomes. The findings of this study will contribute to the ongoing efforts to improve the informed consent process in public hospitals and advance patient-centred care.

METHODS

Data collection occurred at the day care clinic of a prominent German public hospital, forming an integral component of a prospective clinical investigation. The study exclusively focused on individuals who had undergone surgical intervention for skin cancer. For the purpose of meticulous data examination, the statistical software SPSS version 21 was harnessed. In the course of this study, a chi-square test was aptly employed. Its purpose was to scrutinize the nuances in patient experiences pertaining to informed consent across four distinct categories, viz., oral informed consent discussion (Oral ICD), written informed consent discussion (Written ICD), video-assisted informed consent discussion (video-assisted ICD), and digitally assisted informed consent discussion (digital-assisted ICD). The primary dataset of this inquiry was diligently gathered via a structured questionnaire administered to a targeted cohort of 160 patients. Within this sample, a balanced representation of genders was observed, encompassing 82 males and 78 females. Their collective age span ranged from 18 to 92 years, with an average age of 71 years. A randomized selection methodology was employed to include participants in this study during the period spanning from July 2017 to August 2018.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed across the groups for all research questions, highlighting variations in patient responses. Video-assisted and digital-assisted IC were rated as superior in patient satisfaction with information compared to written and oral IC. Demographic profiles of the four study groups were found to be comparable.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicate that the incorporation of digital technologies in the informed consent process can enhance patient understanding during outpatient elective skin cancer surgeries. These results have important implications for increasing patient satisfaction and improving the SDM process within the hospital environment.

The role of time in involving patients with cancer in treatment decision making: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Time is often perceived as a barrier to shared decision making in cancer care. It remains unclear how time functions as a barrier and how it could be most effectively utilized.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to describe the role of time in patient involvement, and identify strategies to overcome time-related barriers.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched for any publications on patient involvement in cancer treatment decisions, focusing on how time is used to involve patients, the association between time and patient involvement, and/or strategies to overcome time-related barriers. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to select publications and extract data. One coder thematically analyzed data, a second coder checked these analyses.

RESULTS

The analysis of 26 eligible publications revealed four themes. Time was a resource 1) to process the diagnosis, 2) to obtain/process/consider information, 3) for patients and clinicians to spend together, and 4) for patient involvement in making decisions.

DISCUSSION

Time is a resource throughout the treatment decision-making process, and generic strategies have been proposed to overcome time constraints.

PRACTICE VALUE

Clinicians could co-create decision-making timelines with patients, spread decisions across several consultations, share written information with patients, and support healthcare redesigns that allocate the necessary time.

Information and communication priorities of patients and healthcare professionals in shared decision making regarding adjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment: A survey study

PURPOSE

To assess information and communication priorities of patients and healthcare professionals in Shared Decision Making about adjuvant systemic treatment of primary breast cancer and identify key decision-relevant information accordingly.

METHODS

Patients (N = 122) and professionals working with breast cancer patients (N = 118), of whom 38 were nurse practitioners and 32 nurses, were recruited using convenience sampling, and surveyed about information/communication aspects key to decision-making, using ranking assignments. We further posed a simple open question, questions about receiving population-based statistics versus personalized statistics concerning treatment outcomes, and their attitude and experience concerning Shared Decision Making. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and a qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Both patients and professionals prioritized information about treatment outcomes (i.e., survival, recurrence) as key decision-relevant information for patients. Patients prioritized information about relatively severe treatment side-effects and late effects (e.g., blood clot, stroke), whilst professionals prioritized information about effects that occur relatively often (e.g., hair loss, fatigue). Patients specifically wanted to know if the benefit of treatment is worth the negative impact. Both groups prioritized personalized statistics over population-based statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

Some differences between patients and professionals were found in information and communication priorities, specifically related to the different side-effects. It seems worthwhile to precisely address these side-effects in Shared Decision Making concerning adjuvant systemic treatment. Furthermore, it seems important to deliberate together on the question if expected benefit of treatment is worth the potential negative impact for the individual patient.

Patient readiness for shared decision making about treatment: Conceptualisation and development of the ReadySDM

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision making (SDM) requires an active role of both clinicians and patients. We aimed to conceptualise patient readiness for SDM about treatment, and to develop a patient questionnaire to assess readiness.

METHODS

We used the results of a scoping review and a qualitative study to inform the patient readiness construct. We conducted five additional rounds of data collection to finalise the construct definition and develop the Patient Readiness for SDM Questionnaire (ReadySDM ) in an oncological setting: (1) longitudinal interviews with patients with cancer during and after a treatment decision-making process; (2) a pilot study among experts, clinicians, and patients for feedback on the concept and items; (3) a field test among (former) patients with cancer to test item format and content validity, and to reduce the number of items; (4) cognitive interviews with people with low literacy to test the comprehensibility of the questionnaire; and (5) a field test among (former) patients who faced a cancer treatment decision in the last year, to test the content validity of the final version of the questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 251 people participated in the various rounds of data collection. We identified eight elements of patient readiness for SDM about treatment: (1) understanding of and attitude towards SDM; (2) information skills; (3) skills in communicating and claiming space; (4) self-awareness; (5) consideration skills; (6) self-efficacy; (7) emotional distress; and (8) experienced time. We developed the 20-item ReadySDM to retrospectively measure these elements in an oncological setting.

CONCLUSION

We conducted a thorough procedure to conceptualise patient readiness and to develop the ReadySDM . The questionnaire aims to provide novel insights into ways to enhance SDM in daily practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Multiple people with lived experience were involved in various phases of the study. They were asked for input on the study design, the conceptualisation of readiness, and the development of the questionnaire.

Patient Preferences in Metastatic Breast Cancer Care: A Scoping Review

People with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have diverse medical, physical, and psychosocial needs that require multidimensional care. Understanding patient preferences is crucial to tailor treatments, services, and foster patient-centered care. A scoping review was performed to summarize the current evidence on the preferences of people with MBC regarding their care to identify knowledge gaps and key areas for future research. The Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycInfo databases were searched. Twenty studies enrolling 3354 patients met the study eligibility criteria. Thirteen quantitative studies, four mixed methods studies, and three qualitative studies were included. Seven studies captured healthcare provider perspectives; thirteen studies evaluated patient preferences relating specifically to cancer treatments; three studies evaluated preferences relating to supportive care; and four studies evaluated communication and decision-making preferences. The current literature evaluating MBC patient preferences is heterogeneous with a focus on cancer treatments. Future research should explore patient preferences relating to multidisciplinary, multi-modal care that aims to improve quality of life. Understanding MBC patient preferences regarding their comprehensive care can help tailor healthcare delivery, enhance the patient experience, and improve outcomes.

Involvement in Chemotherapy Decision Making among Patients with Stage II and III Colon Cancer

Background. To explore preferred and actual involvement in chemotherapy decision making among stage II and III colon cancer (CC) patients by sociodemographic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal communication factors. Methods. Cross-sectional exploratory study collecting self-reported survey data from stage II and III CC patients from 2 cancer centers located in northern Manhattan. Results. Of 88 patients approached, 56 completed the survey. Only 19.3% reported shared involvement in their chemotherapy decisions. We observed significant differences in preferred involvement by gender, with women preferring more physician-controlled decisions. CC patients with higher levels of decisional self-efficacy significantly preferred shared decisions (F = 4.4 [2], P = 0.02). Actual involvement in decisions differed by race (physician controlled 33% for White v. 67% for Other, P < 0.01), age (shared control 18% for ≤55 y, 55% for 55-64 y, and 27% for 65+ y, P = 0.04), and perception of choice (shared control 73% "yes" v. 27% "no,"P = 0.02). Actual or preferred involvement did not differ by stage. Significantly higher levels of medical mistrust (discrimination t = 2.8 [50], P = 0.01; lack of support t = 3.6 [49], P < 0.01), and lower levels of decisional self-efficacy (t = 2.5 [49], P = 0.01) were reported among women. Discussion. Reports of shared involvement around chemotherapy decisions is limited among CC patients. Factors influencing preferred versus actual chemotherapy decision making are complex and may differ; hence, more research is needed to understand and address factors contributing to discordance between preferred and actual involvement in chemotherapy decision making for CC patients.

Highlights

Shared involvement around chemotherapy decisions remains limited for patients diagnosed with colon cancer.Sociodemographic (age, race, gender), interpersonal (medical mistrust), and intrapersonal (decisional self-efficacy, perception of choice) factors that influence preferred involvement in chemotherapy decision making may differ from those influencing actual involvement in chemotherapy decision making.Shared involvement in chemotherapy decisions may look different than currently conceptualized, notably when uncertainty around the benefits exists.

Effects and Working Mechanisms of a Multilevel Implementation Program for Applying Shared Decision-Making while Discussing Systemic Treatment in Breast Cancer

Background: Enhancing the application of shared decision-making (SDM) is critical for integrating patient preferences in breast cancer treatment choices. We investigated the effect of an adapted multilevel SDM implementation program in breast cancer care. Methods: Breast cancer patients qualifying for (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment were included in a multicenter before−after study. Consultations were audio recorded between June 2018 and July 2019 and analyzed using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-5) instrument to score SDM application by clinicians. The Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) was used to rate patients’ perceived SDM level. Consultation duration, decision types, number of options discussed and consultations per patient were monitored. Regression analysis was used to investigate the correlated variables and program components. Results: Mean OPTION-5 scores increased from 33.9 (n = 63) before implementation to 54.3 (n = 49) after implementation (p < 0.001). The SDM-Q-9 scores did not change: 91.1 (n = 51) at baseline versus 88.9 (n = 23) after implementation (p = 0.81). Without increasing consultation time, clinicians discussed more options after implementation. The regression analysis showed that exposure to the implementation program, redistribution of tasks and discussing feedback from consultations was associated with a higher level of SDM. Conclusion: The multilevel program helped clinicians achieve clinically relevant improvement in SDM, especially when it is tailored to (individuals in) teams and includes (e-)training, discussing feedback on consultations and redistribution of tasks.

Patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles, and observed patient involvement in videotaped encounters with medical specialists

OBJECTIVE

To assess how patients prefer and perceive medical decision making, which factors are associated with their preferred and perceived decision-making roles, and whether observed involvement reflects patients' perceived role.

METHODS

We asked 781 patients visiting a medical specialist from 18 different disciplines to indicate their preferred and perceived decision-making roles. Patient involvement in videotaped consultations was assessed with the OPTION5 instrument.

RESULTS

Most patients preferred and perceived decision making as shared (SDM; 58% and 43%, respectively), followed by paternalistic (26% and 38%), and informative (16% and 15%). A large minority (n = 103, 21%) of patients preferring shared or informative decision making (n = 482) experienced paternalistic decision making. Mean (SD) OPTION5 scores were highest in consultations which patients perceived as informative (26.0 (19.7)), followed by shared (19.1 (17.2)) and lowest in paternalistic decision making (11.8 (13.4) p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients want to be involved in decision making. Patients perceive that the physician makes the decision more often than they prefer, and perceive more involvement in the decision than objective assessment by an independent researcher shows.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A clearer understanding of patients' medical decision-making experiences is needed to optimize physician SDM training programmes and patient awareness campaigns.

Which Factors Are Important to Women When Choosing a Breast Reconstruction Surgeon?

BACKGROUND

Women undergoing breast reconstruction often research their health care provider options. The authors studied which factors may influence how a woman selects a plastic surgeon for breast reconstruction surgery.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed by means of Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk; Amazon Web Services, Inc., Seattle, Wash.) to 1025 adult women. Participants were asked to imagine a scenario in which they had breast cancer, needed to undergo mastectomy, and were choosing a reconstructive surgeon. They were then asked to rank factors influencing this decision on a 1 to 7 Likert scale. Two-sample t tests were used to compare Likert scores between dichotomized categories based on participant characteristics.

RESULTS

Women assigned the highest scores [mean (standard deviation)] to online reviews on Vitals or WebMD [6.1 (1.2)], years of experience [5.7 (1.4)], recommendations from another surgeon [5.7 (1.3)] or family/friend [4.9 (1.7)], and attending a top medical school [4.7 (1.7)]. Lowest ranked factors were online advertising and surgeon demographics, including having a sex concordant (female) surgeon. After amalgamation into attribute subsections, mean (standard deviation) rated relative importance of surgeon reputation [0.72 (0.13)] was higher than that of appearance [0.46 (0.19)] and demographics [0.31 (0.13)]. Patient demographics influenced relative importance of certain attributes; older, educated, and higher-income patients placed higher value on surgeon appearance (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

When selecting a breast reconstruction surgeon, women place the highest value on surgeons' online, educational, and personal reputations. Though most show no strong preferences for surgeon demographics or physical attributes, specific features may be important for some patients. Cognizance of these preferences may enable providers to more effectively understand patient expectations.

Developing the Breast Utility Instrument to Measure Health-Related Quality-of-Life Preferences in Patients with Breast Cancer: Selecting the Item for Each Dimension

Introduction. Generic preference-based instruments inadequately measure breast cancer (BrC) health-related quality-of-life preferences given advances in therapy. Our overall purpose is to develop the Breast Utility Instrument (BUI), a BrC-specific preference-based instrument. This study describes the selection of the BUI items. Methods. A total of 408 patients from diverse BrC health states completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR45 (breast module). For each of 10 dimensions previously assessed with confirmatory factor analysis, we evaluated data fit to the Rasch model based on global model and item fit, including threshold ordering, item residuals, infit and outfit, differential item functioning (age), and unidimensionality. Misfitting items were removed iteratively, and the model fit was reassessed. From items fitting the Rasch model, we selected 1 item per dimension based on high patient- and clinician-rated item importance, breadth of item thresholds, and clinical relevance. Results. Global model fit was good in 7 and borderline in 3 dimensions. Separation index was acceptable in 4 dimensions. Item selection criteria were maximized for the following items: 1) physical functioning (trouble taking a long walk), 2) emotional functioning (worry), 3) social functioning (interfering with social activities), 4) pain (having pain), 5) fatigue (tired), 6) body image (dissatisfied with your body), 7) systemic therapy side effects (hair loss), 8) sexual functioning (interest in sex), 9) breast symptoms (oversensitive breast), and 10) endocrine therapy symptoms (problems with your joints). Conclusions. We propose 10 items for the BUI. Our next steps include assessing the measurement properties prior to eliciting preference weights of the BUI.

Highlights

A previous confirmatory factor analysis established 10 dimensions of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its breast module (BR45).In this study, we selected 1 item per dimension based on fit to the Rasch model, patient- and clinician-rated item importance, breadth of item thresholds, and clinical relevance.These items form the core of the future Breast Utility Instrument (BUI).The future BUI will be a novel breast cancer-specific preference-based instrument that potentially will better reflect women's preferences in clinical decision making and cost utility analyses.

Characterizing the patient experience during neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) has increasingly been utilized for patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). It is the recommended approach for borderline resectable (BR) and locally advanced (LA) cancers and an increasingly utilized option for potentially resectable (PR) disease. Despite its increased use, little research has focused on patient-centered metrics among patients undergoing NT, including patient experiences, preferences, and recommendations. A better understanding of all aspects of the patient experience during NT may identify opportunities to design interventions aimed at improving quality of life; it may also facilitate the completion of NT and receipt of surgery, ultimately optimizing long-term outcomes.

AIM

To understand the experience of patients initiating and receiving NT to identify opportunities to improve neoadjuvant cancer care delivery.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews of patients with localized PDAC during NT were conducted to explore their experience initiating and receiving NT. Interviews took place between August 2020 and October 2021. Due to the descriptive nature of the research, questions were open ended. Interviews were conducted over the phone, audio recorded and then transcribed. All interviews were coded by two independent researchers using NVivo 12, iteratively identifying themes until thematic saturation was achieved. An integrative approach to qualitative analysis was used, utilizing both inductive and deductive methods.

RESULTS

A total of 12 patients with localized PDAC were interviewed. Patients with BR (n = 7), PR (n = 2), and LA (n = 3) cancers participated in the study. All patients indicated that choosing NT was the doctor's recommendation, while most reported not being familiar with the concept of NT (n = 11) and that NT was presented as the only option (n = 8). Five themes describing the patient experience emerged: physical symptoms, emotional symptoms, coping mechanisms, access to care, and life factors. The most commonly cited recommendation for improving the experience of NT was improved education before and during NT (n = 7). Patients highlighted the need for more information on the rationale behind choosing NT prior to surgery, the anticipated surgery and its likelihood of surgery occurring after NT, as well as general information prior to starting NT treatment. The need for seeing different members of the healthcare team, including ancillary services was also frequently cited as a recommendation for improving the experience of NT (n = 5).

CONCLUSION

This study provides a framework to allow for a better understanding of the PDAC patient experience during NT and highlights opportunities to improve quality and quantity of life outcomes.

Development and pilot testing of a conversation aid to support the evaluation of patients with thyroid nodules

OBJECTIVE

To support patient-centred care and the collaboration of patients and clinicians, we developed and pilot tested a conversation aid for patients with thyroid nodules.

DESIGN, PATIENT AND MEASUREMENTS

We developed a web-based Thyroid NOdule Conversation aid (TNOC) following a human-centred design. A proof of concept observational pre-post study was conducted (TNOC vs. usual care [UC]) to assess the impact of TNOC on the quality of conversations. Data sources included recordings of clinical visits, post-encounter surveys and review of electronic health records. Summary statistics and group comparisons are reported.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were analysed (32 in the UC and 33 in the TNOC cohort). Most patients were women (89%) with a median age of 57 years and were incidentally found to have a thyroid nodule (62%). Most thyroid nodules were at low risk for thyroid cancer (71%) and the median size was 1.4 cm. At baseline, the groups were similar except for higher numeracy in the TNOC cohort. The use of TNOC was associated with increased involvement of patients in the decision-making process, clinician satisfaction and discussion of relevant topics for decision making. In addition, decreased decisional conflict and fewer thyroid biopsies as the next management step were noted in the TNOC cohort. No differences in terms of knowledge transfer, length of consultation, thyroid cancer risk perception or concern for thyroid cancer diagnosis were found.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot observational study, using TNOC in clinical practice was feasible and seemed to help the collaboration of patients and clinicians.

Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

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.

Quality of internet information to aid patient decision making in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To review whether online decision aids are available for patients contemplating pelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer (LARC and LRRC).

METHODS

A grey literature review was carried out using the Google Search™ engine undertaken using a predefined search strategy (PROSPERO database CRD42019122933). Written health information was assessed using the DISCERN criteria and International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) with readability content assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease test and Flesch-Kincaid grade level score.

RESULTS

Google search yielded 27, 782, 200 results for the predefined search criteria. 131 sources were screened resulting in the analysis of 6 sources. No sources were identified as a decision aid according to the IPDAS criteria. All sources provided an acceptable quality of written health information, scoring a global score of 3 for the DISCERN written assessment. The median Flesch-Kincaid reading ease was 50.85 (32.5-80.8) equating to a reading age of 15-18 years and the median Flesch-Kincaid grade level score was 7.65 (range 3-9.7), which equates to a reading age of 13-14.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has found that there is a paucity of online information for patients contemplating PE. Sources that are available are aimed at a high health literate patient. Given the considerable morbidity associated with PE surgery there is a need for high quality relevant information in this area. A PDA should be developed to improve decision making and ultimately improve patient experience.

Evaluation of a multilevel implementation program for timeout and shared decision making in breast cancer care: a mixed methods study among 11 hospital teams

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of a multilevel implementation program on shared decision making (SDM) for breast cancer clinicians.

METHODS

The program was based on the 'Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations-model' (MIDI). Key factors for effective implementation were included. Eleven breast cancer teams selected from two geographical areas participated; first six surgery teams and second five systemic therapy teams. A mixed method evaluation was carried out at the end of each period: Descriptive statistics were used for surveys and thematic content analysis for semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight clinicians returned the questionnaire (42%). Clinicians (96%) endorse that SDM is relevant to breast cancer care. The program supported adoption of SDM in their practice. Limited financial means, time constraints and concurrent activities were frequently reported barriers. Interviews (n = 21) showed that using a 4-step SDM model - when reinforced by practical examples, handy cards, feedback and training - helped to internalize SDM theory. Clinicians experienced positive results for their patients and themselves. Task re-assignment and flexible outpatient planning reinforce sustainable change. Patient involvement was valued.

CONCLUSION

Our program supported breast cancer clinicians to adopt SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

To implement SDM, multilevel approaches are needed that reinforce intrinsic motivation by demonstrating benefits for patients and clinicians.

Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: results of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is preferred by many patients in cancer care. However, despite scientific evidence and promotion by health policy makers, SDM implementation in routine health care lags behind. This study aimed to evaluate an empirically and theoretically grounded implementation program for SDM in cancer care.

METHODS

In a stepped wedge design, three departments of a comprehensive cancer center sequentially received the implementation program in a randomized order. It included six components: training for health care professionals (HCPs), individual coaching for physicians, patient activation intervention, patient information material/decision aids, revision of quality management documents, and reflection on multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Outcome evaluation comprised four measurement waves. The primary endpoint was patient-reported SDM uptake using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Several secondary implementation outcomes were assessed. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted to evaluate reach and fidelity. Data were analyzed using mixed linear models, qualitative content analysis, and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 2,128 patient questionnaires, 559 questionnaires from 408 HCPs, 132 audio recordings of clinical encounters, and 842 case discussions from 66 MDTMs were evaluated. There was no statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint SDM uptake. Patients in the intervention condition were more likely to experience shared or patient-lead decision-making than in the control condition (d=0.24). HCPs in the intervention condition reported more knowledge about SDM than in the control condition (d = 0.50). In MDTMs the quality of psycho-social information was lower in the intervention than in the control condition (d = - 0.48). Further secondary outcomes did not differ statistically significantly between conditions. All components were implemented in all departments, but reach was limited (e.g., training of 44% of eligible HCPs) and several adaptations occurred (e.g., reduced dose of coaching).

CONCLUSIONS

The process evaluation provides possible explanations for the lack of statistically significant effects in the primary and most of the secondary outcomes. Low reach and adaptations, particularly in dose, may explain the results. Other or more intensive approaches are needed for successful department-wide implementation of SDM in routine cancer care. Further research is needed to understand factors influencing implementation of SDM in cancer care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 , registered 8 January 2018.

Effectiveness of individual feedback and coaching on shared decision-making consultations in oncology care: Study protocol for a randomized clinical trial (Preprint)

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is particularly important in oncology as many treatments involve serious side effects, and treatment decisions involve a trade-off between benefits and risks. However, the implementation of SDM in oncology care is challenging, and clinicians state that it is difficult to apply SDM in their actual workplace. Training clinicians is known to be an effective means of improving SDM but is considered time consuming.

Objective

This study aims to address the effectiveness of an individual SDM training program using the concept of deliberate practice.

Methods

This multicenter, single-blinded randomized clinical trial will be performed at 12 Dutch hospitals. Clinicians involved in decisions with oncology patients will be invited to participate in the study and allocated to the control or intervention group. All clinicians will record 3 decision-making processes with 3 different oncology patients. Clinicians in the intervention group will receive the following SDM intervention: completing e-learning, reflecting on feedback reports, performing a self-assessment and defining 1 to 3 personal learning questions, and participating in face-to-face coaching. Clinicians in the control group will not receive the SDM intervention until the end of the study. The primary outcome will be the extent to which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process, as scored using the Observing Patient Involvement–5 instrument. As secondary outcomes, patients will rate their perceived involvement in decision-making, and the duration of the consultations will be registered. All participating clinicians and their patients will receive information about the study and complete an informed consent form beforehand.

Results

This trial was retrospectively registered on August 03, 2021. Approval for the study was obtained from the ethical review board (medical research ethics committee Delft and Leiden, the Netherlands [N20.170]). Recruitment and data collection procedures are ongoing and are expected to be completed by July 2022; we plan to complete data analyses by December 2022. As of February 2022, a total of 12 hospitals have been recruited to participate in the study, and 30 clinicians have started the SDM training program.

Conclusions

This theory-based and blended approach will increase our knowledge of effective and feasible training methods for clinicians in the field of SDM. The intervention will be tailored to the context of individual clinicians and will target the knowledge, attitude, and skills of clinicians. The patients will also be involved in the design and implementation of the study.

Trial Registration

Netherlands Trial Registry NL9647; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9647

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/35543

Systemic Therapy Decision Making in Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Oncologist Encounters

PURPOSE

We sought to characterize patient-oncologist communication and decision making about continuing or limiting systemic therapy in encounters after an initial consultation, with a particular focus on whether and how oncologists foster shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

We performed content analysis of outpatient oncology encounters at two US National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers audio recorded between November 2010 and September 2014. A multidisciplinary team used a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. We used a combination of random and purposive sampling. We restricted quantitative frequency counts to the coded random sample but included all sampled encounters in qualitative thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Among 31 randomly sampled dyads with three encounters each, systemic therapy decision making was discussed in 90% (84 of 93) encounters. Thirty-four (37%) broached limiting therapy, which 27 (79%) framed as temporary, nine (26%) as completion of a standard regimen, and five (15%) as permanent discontinuation. Thematic analysis of these 93 encounters, plus five encounters purposively sampled for permanent discontinuation, found that (1) patients and oncologists framed continuing therapy as the default, (2) deficiencies in the SDM process (facilitating choice awareness, discussing options, and incorporating patient preferences) contributed to this default, and (3) oncologists use persuasion rather than deliberation when broaching discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

In this study of outpatient encounters between patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists, when discussing systemic therapy, there exists a default to continue systemic therapy, and deficiencies in SDM contribute to this default.

Shared decision making in cancer treatment: A Dutch national survey on patients' preferences and perceptions

Objective

Shared decision making (SDM) for cancer treatment yields positive results. However, it appears that discussing essential topics for SDM is not fully integrated into treatment decision making yet. Therefore, we aim to explore to what extent discussion of therapy options, treatment consequences, and personal priorities is preferred and perceived by (former) cancer patients.

Methods

An online questionnaire was distributed by the Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organisations among (former) cancer patients in 2018.

Results

Among 3785 (former) cancer patients, 3254 patients (86%) had discussed treatments with their health care provider (HCP) and were included for analysis. Mean age was 62.1 ± 11.5; 55% were female. Discussing the option to choose no (further) treatment was rated by 2751 (84.5%) as very important (median score 9/10—IQR 8–10). Its occurrence was perceived by 28% (N = 899), and short‐ and long‐term treatment consequences were discussed in 81% (N = 2626) and 53% (N = 1727), respectively. An unmet wish to discuss short‐ and long‐term consequences was reported by 22% and 26%, respectively. Less than half of the (former) cancer patients perceived that personal priorities (44%) and future plans (34%) were discussed.

Conclusion

In the perception of (former) cancer patients, several essential elements for effective SDM are insufficiently discussed during cancer treatment decision making.

Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making

Purpose

Shared decision making calls for clinician communication strategies that aim to foster choice awareness and to present treatment options neutrally, such as by not showing a preference. Evidence for the effectiveness of these communication strategies to enhance patient involvement in treatment decision making is lacking. We tested the effects of 2 strategies in an online randomized video-vignettes experiment.

Methods

We developed disease-specific video vignettes for rheumatic disease, cancer, and kidney disease showcasing a physician presenting 2 treatment options. We tested the strategies in a 2 (choice awareness communication present/absent) by 2 (physician preference communication present/absent) randomized between-subjects design. We asked patients and disease-naïve participants to view 1 video vignette while imagining being the patient and to report perceived room for involvement (primary outcome), understanding of treatment information, treatment preference, satisfaction with the consultation, and trust in the physician (secondary outcomes). Differences across experimental conditions were assessed using 2-way analyses of variance.

Results

A total of 324 patients and 360 disease-naïve respondents participated (mean age, 52 ± 14.7 y, 54% female, 56% lower educated, mean health literacy, 12 ± 2.1 on a 3–15 scale). The results showed that choice awareness communication had a positive (M_present = 5.2 v. M_absent = 5.0, P = 0.042, η²_partial = 0.006) and physician preference communication had no (M_present = 5.0 v. M_absent = 5.1, P = 0.144, η²_partial = 0.003) significant effect on perceived room for involvement in decision making. Physician preference communication steered patients toward preferring that treatment option (M_present = 4.7 v. M_absent = 5.3, P = 0.006, η²_partial = 0.011). The strategies had no significant effect on understanding, satisfaction, or trust.

Conclusions

This is the first experimental evidence for a small effect of fostering choice awareness and no effect of physician preference on perceived room to participate in decision making. Physician preference steered patients toward preferring that option.

The bigger picture of shared decision making: A service design perspective using the care path of locally advanced pancreatic cancer as a case

PURPOSE

Solutions to improve the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in oncology often focus on the consultation, with limited effects. In this study, we used a service design perspective on the care path of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). We aimed to understand how experiences of patients, their significant others, and medical professionals over the entire care path accumulate to support their ability to participate in SDM.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

We used qualitative interviews including design research techniques with 13 patients, 13 significant others, and 11 healthcare professionals, involved in the diagnosis or treatment of LAPC. The topic list was based on the literature and an auto-ethnography of the illness trajectory by a caregiver who is also a service design researcher. We conducted a thematic content analysis to identify themes influencing the ability to participate in SDM.

RESULTS

We found four interconnected themes: (1) Decision making is an ongoing and unpredictable process with many decision moments, often unannounced. The unpredictability of the disease course, tumor response to treatment, and consequences of choices on the quality of life complicate decision making; (2) Division of roles, tasks, and collaboration among professionals and between professionals and patients and/or their significant others is often unclear to patients and their significant others; (3) It involves "work" for patients and their significant others to obtain and understand information; (4) In "their disease journey," patients are confronted with unexpected energy drains and energy boosts, that influence their level of empowerment to participate in SDM.

CONCLUSION

The service design perspective uncovered how the stage for SDM is often set outside the consultation, which might explain the limited effect currently seen of interventions focusing on consultation itself. Our findings serve as a starting point for (re)designing care paths to improve the implementation of SDM in oncology.

Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Effective patient-physician communication can improve patient understanding, agreement on treatment and adherence. This may, in turn, impact on clinical outcomes and patient quality of life (QoL). One way to improve communication is by using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Heretofore, studies of the impact of using PROMs in clinical practice have mostly evaluated the use of standardized PROMs. However, there is reason to believe that individualized instruments may be more appropriate for this purpose. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the standardized QoL-instrument, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life C-30 (EORTC-QOL-C30) and the individualized QoL instrument, the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW), in clinical practice.

METHODS

In a prospective, open-label, controlled intervention study at two hospital out-patient clinics, 390 patients with gastrointestinal cancer were randomly assigned either to complete the EORTC-QOL-C30 or the SEIQoL-DW immediately before the consultation, with their responses being shared with their physician. This was repeated in 3-5 consultations over a period of 4-6 months. The primary outcome measure was patients' health-related QoL, as measured by FACIT-G. Patients' satisfaction with the consultation and survival were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to study outcomes. Neither intervention instrument resulted in any significant changes in health-related QoL, or in any of the secondary outcomes, over time. This may reflect either a genuine lack of effect or sub-optimization of the intervention. Since there was no comparison to standard care an effect in terms of lack of deterioration over time cannot be excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies should focus on the implementation process, including the training of physicians to use the instruments and their motivation for doing so. The effects of situational use of standardized or individualized instruments should also be explored. The effectiveness of the different approaches may depend on contextual factors including physician and patient preferences.

Practical challenges in oral immunotherapy resolved through patient-centered care

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is now widely recognized as a valid option for the management of IgE-mediated food allergies. However, in real-life practice, OIT can lead to a variety of unique situations where the best course of action is undetermined. In patient-centered care, individual patient preferences, needs and values, should guide all clinical decisions. This can be achieved by using shared-decision making and treatment customization to navigate areas of uncertainty in a way that is responsive to patient’s needs and preferences. However, in the context of OIT, lack of awareness of potential protocol adaptability or alternatives can become a barrier to treatment personalization. The purpose of this article is to review the theoretical bases of patient-centered care and shared decision-making and their practical implication for the patient-centered delivery of OIT. Clinical cases highlighting common challenges in real-life OIT practice are presented along with a discussion of potential personalized management options to be considered. While the practice of OIT is bound to evolve as additional scientific and experiential knowledge is gained, it should always remain rooted in the general principles of patient-centered care.

What makes a patient ready for Shared Decision Making? A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making (SDM) requires an active role from patients, which might be difficult for some. We aimed to identify what patients need to be ready (i.e., well-equipped and enabled) to participate in SDM about treatment, and what patient- and decision-related characteristics may influence readiness.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and professionals (physicians, nurses, general practitioners, and researchers). Interviews were analyzed inductively.

RESULTS

We identified five elements of patient readiness: 1) understanding of and attitude towards SDM, 2) health literacy, 3) skills in communicating and claiming space, 4) self-awareness, and 5) consideration skills. We identified 10 characteristics that may influence elements of readiness: 1) age, 2) cultural background, 3) educational background, 4) close relationships, 5) mental illness, 6) emotional distress, 7) acceptance of diagnosis, 8) clinician-patient relationship, 9) decision type, and 10) time.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a wide range of elements that may constitute patient readiness for SDM. Readiness might vary between and within patients. This variation may result from differences in patient- and decision-related characteristics.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should be aware that not all patients may be ready for SDM at a given moment and may need support to enhance their readiness.

Effect of a multilevel implementation programme on shared decision-making in breast cancer care

BACKGROUND

Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer face multiple treatment options. Involving them in a shared decision-making (SDM) process is essential. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a multilevel implementation programme enhanced the level of SDM behaviour of clinicians observed in consultations.

METHODS

This before-after study was conducted in six Dutch hospitals. Patients with breast cancer who were facing a decision on surgery or neoadjuvant systemic treatment between April 2016 and September 2017 were included, and provided informed consent. Audio recordings of consultations made before and after implementation were analysed using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-5) instrument to assess whether clinicians adopted new behaviour needed for applying SDM. Patients scored their perceived level of SDM, using the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Hospital, duration of the consultation(s), age, and number of consultations per patient that might influence OPTION-5 scores were investigated using linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

Consultations of 139 patients were audiotaped, including 80 before and 59 after implementation. Mean (s.d.) OPTION-5 scores, expressed on a 0-100 scale, increased from 38.3 (15.0) at baseline to 53.2 (14.8) 1 year after implementation (mean difference (MD) 14.9, 95 per cent c.i. 9.9 to 19.9). SDM-Q-9 scores of 105 patients (75.5 per cent) (72 before and 33 after implementation) were high and showed no significant changes (91.3 versus 87.6; MD -3.7, -9.3 to 1.9). The implementation programme had an association with OPTION-5 scores (β = 14.2, P < 0.001), hospital (β = 2.2, P = 0.002), and consultation time (β = 0.2, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A multilevel implementation programme supporting SDM in breast cancer care increased the adoption of SDM behaviour of clinicians in consultations.

Patient experience and quality of life during neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and study protocol

PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is increasingly being offered to patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) prior to surgical resection. However, the experience and quality of life (QOL) of patients undergoing NT are poorly understood.

METHODS

A systematic review of the Cinahl, Embase, Medline, Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to evaluate the available literature pertaining to the experience and QOL of patient's undergoing NT for PDAC.

RESULTS

Among 6041 articles screened, only six met criteria for full-text review including three prospective clinical trials of NT with QOL secondary endpoints. Overall, global QOL during or following NT did not significantly change from baseline. Pain scores seemed to improve during NT while the impact of NT on physical functioning varied across studies. No studies were identified evaluating other aspects of the patient experience.

CONCLUSION

Although NT appears to have a minor impact on the QOL of patients with PDAC, this systematic review identified significant evidence gaps in the literature. A protocol of a prospective observational cohort study utilizing a digital smartphone app that aims to evaluate the patient experience and longitudinal QOL of patients with PDAC undergoing NT is presented.

Clinical Benefit in the Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer

Adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer involves multiple modalities with distinct toxicities and varying relative contributions to the improvement of long-term outcomes. In many situations the expected benefits of treatment may be modest and thus debated, and even in higher risk scenarios, when treatment is clearly indicated, several options are available with varying schedules and toxicities. Regulatory and professional society guidelines defining clinical benefit are available to guide decision-making, but do not capture clinical meaningfulness. There is wide variation among patients regarding the expected improvement in outcomes sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy worthwhile. While many consider small improvements in outcomes meaningful, some need greater benefit, and a small minority prefer to avoid adjuvant therapies at any rate. Shared decision making has a central role in bridging between clinical evidence, multiple treatment alternatives and patient preferences in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. It is associated with increased patient involvement and responsibility, satisfaction, quality of life and in some instances increase the likelihood of accepting adjuvant treatment. A current understanding of evidence and clinical guidelines, combined with the skills to elicit and appreciate individual patient preferences, is necessary to determine an optimal treatment approach for every individual with breast cancer.

Shared Decision Making in Gastroenterology: Challenges and Opportunities

This article reviews the current uses of shared decision making in gastroenterology and discusses additional areas of opportunity for shared decision making, especially in the area of functional gastrointestinal disorders. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases were searched for articles published during a 10-year period from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2017. Search terms included shared decision making and gastroenterology, shared decision making in gastrointestinal disease, shared decision making in functional GI disorders, and shared decision making and irritable bowel syndrome. Studies were not included in this review when a health care professional other than a gastroenterologist was involved, eg, an article that reported shared decision making regarding the use of radiation therapy in a patient with advanced rectal cancer in which the health care professional helping to make the decision was an oncologist.

Empowering patients in decision-making in radiation oncology - can we do better?

The decision as to whether or not a patient should receive radiation therapy as part of their cancer treatment is based on evidence‐based practice and on recommended international consensus treatment guidelines. However, the merit of involving the patients' individual preferences and values in the treatment decision is frequently overlooked. Here, we review the current literature pertaining to shared decision‐making (SDM) in the field of radiation oncology, including discussion of the patient's perception of radiation therapy as a treatment option and patient involvement in clinical trials. The merit of decision aids during the SDM process in radiation oncology is considered, as are patient preferences for active or passive involvement in decisions about their treatment. Clarity of terminology, a better understanding of effective strategies and increased resources will be needed to ensure SDM in radiation oncology becomes a reality.

Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: The need for patient-centered research

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive cancer with high recurrence rates following surgical resection. While adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival, a significant proportion of patients are unable to initiate or complete all intended therapy following pancreatectomy due to postoperative complications or poor performance status. The administration of chemotherapy prior to surgical resection is an alternative strategy that ensures its early and near universal delivery as well as improves margin-negative resection rates and potentially improves long-term survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly being recommended to patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, however, patient-centered research on its use is lacking. In this review, we highlight opportunities to focus research efforts in the domains of patient preferences, patient-reported outcomes, patient experience, and survivorship. Novel research in these areas may identify relevant barriers and facilitators to the use of neoadjuvant therapy thereby increasing its utilization, improve shared-decision making for patients and providers, and optimize the experience of those undergoing neoadjuvant therapy.

Shared decision making: Physicians' preferred role, usual role and their perception of its key components

OBJECTIVE

To investigate physicians' preferred and usual roles in decision making in medical consultations, and their perception of shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 785 physicians in a large Dutch general teaching hospital was undertaken in June 2018, assessing their preferred and usual decision making roles (Control Preference Scale), and their view on SDM key components (SDMQ9 questionnaire).

RESULTS

Most physicians (n = 232, 58%) preferred SDM, but more often performed paternalistic decision making (n = 121, 31%) in daily practice than they preferred (n = 80, 20%, p < 0.0001), most commonly because they judged the patient to be incapable of participating in decision making. Most physicians preferring SDM presented different options for treatment (n = 213, 92%) with their advantages and disadvantages (n = 209, 90%) but fewer made clear that a decision had to be made (n = 104, 45%) or explored the patient's wish how to be involved in decision making (n = 80, 34%).

CONCLUSION

Although most physicians prefer SDM, they often revert to a paternalistic approach and tend to limit SDM to discussing treatment options.

PRACTICE IMPLICATION

Teaching physicians in SDM should include raising awareness about discussing the decision process itself and help physicians to counter their tendency to revert to paternalistic decision making in daily practice.

Nationwide analysis of hospital variation in preoperative radiotherapy use for rectal cancer following guideline revision

INTRODUCTION

The revised Dutch colorectal cancer guideline (2014), led to an overall decrease in preoperative radiotherapy (RT) use. This study evaluates hospital variation in RT use for resectable rectal cancer and the influence of guideline revision, including the nationwide impact of changing RT application on short term outcomes.

METHODS

Data of surgically resected rectal cancer patients registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit were extracted between 2011 and 2017. Patients were divided into groups based on time of guideline revision (<2014 and ≥ 2014). Primary outcome was guideline adherence at hospital level regarding RT application, stratified for three stage groups. Secondary outcomes included positive circumferential resection (CRM+) and 30-day complicated postoperative course.

RESULTS

The groups consisted of 7364 and 12,057 patients, respectively. In total, 6772 patients did not receive RT (17.6% (<2014) vs. 45.7% (≥2014), p < 0.001). The largest increase of surgery alone was observed for cT1-2N0 stage rectal cancer (35.1% vs. 91.8%, p < 0.001), with a substantial decrease in hospital variation (IQR 22.2-50.0% vs. IQR 87.6-98.0%). For cT1-3N1MRF- stage rectal cancer, a substantial amount of hospital variation in short course RT remained after guideline revision (IQR 26.8-54.1% vs. IQR 26.2-50.0%). A significant decrease in CRM+ (5.8% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001) and complicated course (22.5% vs. 18.5%, p < 0.001) was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiotherapy for early-stage rectal cancer was uniformly abandoned after guideline revision, while substantial hospital variation remained for intermediate risk resectable rectal cancer in the Netherlands. The substantial nationwide decrease in the use of RT for rectal cancer treatment did not negatively impact CRM involvement.

Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Academic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019.

RESULTS

Forty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall, Describe treatment options was the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were: Make the decision (75%), Patient preferences (65%), Tailor information (65%), Deliberate (58%), Create choice awareness (55%), and Learn about the patient (53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time, Describe treatment options and Make the decision are the two components which are present in most models in any time period. Create choice awareness stood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration CRD42015019740.

Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case

OBJECTIVE

Many treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) acknowledge preference-sensitive decisions in how they motivate and phrase their recommendations.

DESIGN

We performed a qualitative analysis of the content of CPGs and verified the results in semistructured interviews with CPG panel members.

SETTING

Dutch oncology CPGs issued in 2010 or later, concerning primary treatment with curative intent.

PARTICIPANTS

14 CPG panel members.

MAIN OUTCOMES

For treatment recommendations from six CPG modules, two researchers extracted the following: strength of recommendation in terms of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and its consistency with the CPG text; completeness of presentation of benefits and harms; incorporation of patient preferences; statements on the panel's benefits-harm trade-off underlying recommendation; and advice on patient involvement in decision-making.

RESULTS

We identified 32 recommendations, 18 were acknowledged preference-sensitive decisions. Three of 14 strong recommendations should have been weak based on the module text. The reporting of benefits and harms, and their probabilities, was sufficiently complete and clear to inform the strength of the recommendation in one of the six modules only. Numerical probabilities were seldom presented. None of the modules presented information on patient preferences. CPG panel's preferences were not made explicit, but appeared to have impacted 15 of 32 recommendations. Advice to involve patients and their preferences in decision-making was given for 20 recommendations (14 weak). Interviewees confirmed these findings. Explanations for lack of information were, for example, that clinicians know the information and that CPGs must be short. Explanations for trade-offs made were cultural-historical preferences, compliance with daily care, presumed role of CPGs and lack of time.

CONCLUSIONS

The motivation and phrasing of CPG recommendations do not stimulate choice awareness and a neutral presentation of options, thus hindering shared decision-making.

Is There a Relationship between Shared Decision Making and Breast Cancer Patients' Trust in Their Medical Oncologists?

Background. Adjuvant systemic treatment for early stage breast cancer significantly reduces the risk of mortality but is associated with side effects, reducing patients’ quality of life. Decisions about adjuvant treatment are preference sensitive and are thus ideally suited to a shared decision making (SDM) approach. Whether and how SDM affects patients’ trust in their oncologist is currently unknown. We investigated the association between patients’ trust in their oncologist and 1) observed level of SDM in the consultation, 2) congruence between patients’ preferred and perceived level of participation, and 3) patient and oncologist characteristics. Methods. Decision consultations (n = 101) between breast cancer patients and their medical oncologist were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Patients’ trust in their oncologist was measured using the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS). The observed level of SDM was scored using the 12-item Observing Patient Involvement In Decision Making scale (OPTION-12), preferred level of participation with the Control Preferences Scale, and perceived level of participation with an open question in telephonic interviews. Results. The average TiOS score was high overall (mean [SD] = 4.1 [.56]; range, 2.6–5.0). Low levels of SDM were observed (mean [SD] = 16 [11.6]; range, 2–56). Neither observed nor perceived level of participation in SDM was associated with trust. Patients’ preferred and perceived role in decision making was incongruent in almost 50% of treatment decisions. Congruence was not related to trust. A larger tumor size (β = 4.5, P = 0.03) and the use of a risk prediction model during the consultation (β = 4.1, P = 0.04) were associated with stronger trust. Conclusion. Patients reported strong trust in their oncologist. While low levels of SDM were observed, SDM was not associated with trust. These findings suggest it may not be necessary to worry about negative consequences for trust of using SDM or risk prediction models in oncological consultations. Considering the increased emphasis on implementing SDM, it is important to further explore how SDM affects trust in clinical practice.

Communication and Shared Decision Making in the Breast Cancer Treatment Consultation: A Comparative Analysis of English- and Spanish-Speaking Patients

Background. Communication in the breast cancer treatment consultation is complex. Language barriers may increase the challenge of achieving patient-centered communication and effective shared decision making. Design. We conducted a prospective cohort study among Spanish- and English-speaking women with stage 0 to 3 breast cancer in two urban medical centers in the Midwestern United States. Patient centeredness of care and decisional conflict were compared between Spanish- and English-speaking participants using the Interpersonal Processes of Care (IPC) and Decision Conflict Scale (DCS), respectively. Clinician behaviors of shared decision making were assessed from consultation audio-recordings using the 12-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) scale. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to control for differences in baseline characteristics and clinician specialty. Results. Fifteen Spanish-speaking and 35 English-speaking patients were enrolled in the study. IPC scores (median, interquartile range [IQR]) were higher (less patient centered) in Spanish- versus English-speaking participants in the domains of lack of clarity (2.5, 1-3 v. 1.5, 1-2), P = 0.028; perceived discrimination (1.1, 1-1 v. 1.0, 1-1), P = 0.047; and disrespectful office staff (1.25, 1-2 v. 1.0, 1-1), P < 0.0005 (Wilcoxon rank-sum test). OPTION scores (median, IQR) were lower in Spanish- versus English-speaking participants (21.9, 17.7-27.1 v. 31.3, 26.6-39.6), P = 0.001 (Wilcoxon rank-sum test). In multivariate analysis, statistically significant differences persisted in the IPC lack of clarity and disrespectful office staff between Spanish- and English-speaking groups. Conclusions. Our findings highlight challenges in cancer communication for Spanish-speaking patients, particularly with respect to perceived patient centeredness of communication. Further cross-cultural studies are needed to ensure effective communication and shared decision making in the cancer consultation.

Patient explicit consideration of tradeoffs in decision making about rectal cancer treatment: benefits for decision process and quality of life

Introduction: Patient preferences are often not discussed in treatment decisions in oncology. We introduced an online values clarification method (VCM) to help newly diagnosed rectal cancer patients participate in shared decision making about short-course preoperative radiotherapy. Material and Methods: We offered a link to the VCM to a subset of consecutive patients before the pretreatment consultation with the radiation oncologist. Consultations were audiotaped and coded for expressions of patient preferences. Patients were asked to complete pre- and post-consultation questionnaires. Questionnaires assessed values clarity, decision regret and presence and impact of fecal incontinence and sexual problems. Results: Of 135 patients who had their consultation audiotaped and completed questionnaires, 35 received and accessed the VCM-link. Patients in the VCM-group slightly more often expressed preferences during consultations. Questionnaire data showed that patients in the VCM-group did not differ in how clear their values were, but experienced lower regret and less impact of treatment harms at 6 months follow-up; differences were non-significant but in the same direction at 12 months. Discussion: This is the first study to assess the effect of an adaptive conjoint analysis-based VCM on actual patient-clinician communication, and long-term decision regret and impact of treatment harms. Being explicitly invited to think about treatment benefits and harms seems to help patients to live with treatment consequences.

Decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision making in chronic illnesses: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered approach in which clinicians and patients work together to find and choose the best course of action for each patient's particular situation. Six SDM key elements can be identified: situation diagnosis, choice awareness, option clarification, discussion of harms and benefits, deliberation of patient preferences, and making the decision. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) require that a decision aid (DA) support these key elements. Yet, the extent to which DAs support these six key SDM elements and how this relates to their impact remain unknown.

METHODS

We searched bibliographic databases (from inception until November 2017), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, and experts for randomized controlled trials of DAs in patients with cardiovascular, or chronic respiratory conditions or diabetes. Reviewers worked in duplicate and independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial, and DA characteristics, and evaluated the quality of each trial.

RESULTS

DAs most commonly clarified options (20 of 20; 100%) and discussed their harms and benefits (18 of 20; 90%; unclear in two DAs); all six elements were clearly supported in 4 DAs (20%). We found no association between the presence of these elements and SDM outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

DAs for selected chronic conditions are mostly designed to transfer information about options and their harms and benefits. The extent to which their support of SDM key elements relates to their impact on SDM outcomes could not be ascertained.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016050320 .

Decision-making under clinical uncertainty: An in-depth examination of provider perspectives on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer

OBJECTIVE

Decision-making about adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for stage II colon cancer is complex, particularly in light of clinical uncertainty regarding treatment benefits. Little is known about provider communication and factors influencing decision-making and recommendations in this setting.

METHODS

We recruited providers from six US cancer centers and hospitals who care for stage II colon cancer patients. Providers participated in a 30-45 minute interview. Transcripts of interviews were coded for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 42 providers (Oncologists: 52%; surgeons: 24%; nurses: 14%). Though most providers were aware of stage II colon cancer treatment guidelines, their use and communication of recommended guidelines was limited. Most reported tailoring delivery and content of their communication, often based on perceived patient education level, but patient involvement in decision-making varied. Findings highlight the complexity of, ACT decision-making, including the central role of providers and family members.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers are not consistently following recommended guidelines for communicating about ACT among stage II colon cancer patients or eliciting patient preferences for involvement in treatment decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Given clinical uncertainty surrounding use of ACT for stage II colon cancer, efforts are needed to enhance guideline implementation, provider education, and communication to facilitate decision-making.

Eliciting the Patient's Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters

BACKGROUND

Eliciting patient concerns and listening carefully to them contributes to patient-centered care. Yet, clinicians often fail to elicit the patient's agenda and, when they do, they interrupt the patient's discourse.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the extent to which patients' concerns are elicited across different clinical settings and how shared decision-making tools impact agenda elicitation.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed a secondary analysis of a random sample of 112 clinical encounters recorded during trials testing the efficacy of shared decision-making tools.

MAIN MEASURES

Two reviewers, working independently, characterized the elicitation of the patient agenda and the time to interruption or to complete statement; we analyzed the distribution of agenda elicitation according to setting and use of shared decision-making tools.

KEY RESULTS

Clinicians elicited the patient's agenda in 40 of 112 (36%) encounters. Agendas were elicited more often in primary care (30/61 encounters, 49%) than in specialty care (10/51 encounters, 20%); p = .058. Shared decision-making tools did not affect the likelihood of eliciting the patient's agenda (34 vs. 37% in encounters with and without these tools; p = .09). In 27 of the 40 (67%) encounters in which clinicians elicited patient concerns, the clinician interrupted the patient after a median of 11 seconds (interquartile range 7-22; range 3 to 234 s). Uninterrupted patients took a median of 6 s (interquartile range 3-19; range 2 to 108 s) to state their concern.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians seldom elicit the patient's agenda; when they do, they interrupt patients sooner than previously reported. Physicians in specialty care elicited the patient's agenda less often compared to physicians in primary care. Failure to elicit the patient's agenda reduces the chance that clinicians will orient the priorities of a clinical encounter toward specific aspects that matter to each patient.

Current decisions on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: Experts' experiences in the Netherlands

PURPOSE

To evaluate the opinion of surgical and medical oncologists on neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for early breast cancer.

METHODS

Surgical and medical oncologists (N = 292) participating in breast cancer care in the Netherlands were invited for a 20-question survey on the influence of patient, disease, and management related factors on their decisions towards NAC.

RESULTS

A total of 138 surgical and medical oncologists from 64 out of 89 different Dutch hospitals completed the survey. NAC was recommended for locally advanced breast cancer (94%) and for downstaging to enable breast conserving surgery (BCS) (75%). Despite willingness to downstage, 64% of clinicians routinely recommended NAC when systemic therapy was indicated preoperatively. Reported reasons to refrain from NAC are comorbidities (68%), age >70 years (52%), and WHO-performance status ≥2 (93%). Opinions on NAC and surgical management were inconclusive; while 75% recommends NAC to enable BCS, some stated that BCS after NAC increases the risk of a non-radical resection (21%), surgical complications (9%) and recurrence of disease (5%).

CONCLUSION

This article emphasizes the need for more consensus among specialists on the indications for NAC in early BC patients. Unambiguous and evidence-based treatment information could improve doctor-patient communication, supporting the patient in chemotherapy timing decision-making.

Patients with rectal cancer are satisfied with in-hospital communication despite insufficient information regarding treatment alternatives and potential side-effects

AIM

Patients with rectal cancer may undergo treatment such as surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Before treatment, patients are informed of different options and possible side-effects. The aim of the study was to evaluate the patients' experience of communication with healthcare personnel at time of diagnosis and after one year.

METHOD

A total of 1085 patients from Denmark and Sweden were included. They answered a detailed questionnaire at diagnosis and at the one year follow-up. Clinical data were retrieved from national quality registries.

RESULTS

Response rates were 87% at baseline and 74% at one year. Overall the patients were very satisfied with the communication with healthcare personnel. However, some patients reported insufficient information regarding treatment options and possible side-effects. Only 32% (335/1050) and 24% (248/1053), respectively, stated that they were informed about possible sexual and urinary dysfunction before treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though patients felt that they received insufficient information regarding side-effects on sexual and urinary function, they were generally satisfied with the communication with the healthcare personnel. Since overall satisfaction with the level of information was very high, it is unlikely that further information to patients with rectal cancer in the surgical and oncological settings will improve satisfaction with communication.

"I need to know what makes somebody tick …": Challenges and Strategies of Implementing Shared Decision-Making in Individualized Oncology

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as an ethical framework for decision-making in cancer care. According to SDM, patients make decisions in light of their values and based on the available evidence. However, SDM is difficult to implement in cancer care. A lack of applicability in practice is often reported. This empirical-ethical study explores factors potentially relevant to current difficulties in translating the concept of SDM into clinical practice.

METHODS

This study was conducted with nonparticipant observation of the decision-making process in patients with gastrointestinal cancers for whom the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was uncertain according to clinical guidelines. Triangulation of qualitative data analysis was conducted by means of semistructured interviews subsequent to the observation. Observation notes and interview transcripts were analyzed according to the principles of grounded theory.

RESULTS

Deviating from the concept of SDM, oncologists initiated a process of eliciting values and medical information prior to conveying information. The purpose of this approach was to select and individualize information relevant to the treatment decision. In doing so, the oncologists observed used two strategies: "biographical communication" and a "metacommunicative approach." Both strategies could be shown to be effective or to fail depending on patients' characteristics such as their view of the physicians' role and the relevance of value-related information for medical decision-making.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to the conceptual account of SDM, oncologists are in need of patient-related information prior to conveying information. Both strategies observed to elicit such information are in principle justifiable but need to be adapted in accordance with patient preferences and decision-making styles.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study showed that knowledge of patients' values and preferences is very important to properly adapt the giving of medical information and to further the process of shared decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM) trainings should consider different strategies of talking about values. The right strategy depends largely on the patient's preferences in communication. To be aware of the role of values in SDM and to be able to switch communicative strategies might prove to be of particular value. A more systematic evaluation of the patient's decision-making preferences as part of routine procedures in hospitals might help to reduce value-related barriers in communication.

Clinical and sociodemographic associations with treatment selection in major depression

OBJECTIVE

To investigate treatment selection in a naturalistic sample of MDD outpatients and the factors influencing treatment selection in specialized psychiatric care.

METHOD

Multinomial Logistic Regression analysis investigated associations between treatment selection and patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, using retrospective chart review data and Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) data of MDD outpatients.

RESULTS

Of the patients included for analyses (N = 263), 34% received psychotherapy, 32% received an antidepressant (AD) and 35% received a combination. Men were more likely than women to receive AD with reference to psychotherapy (OR_AD = 5.57, 95% CI 2.38-13.00). Patients with severe depression and patients with AD use upon referral, prescribed by their general practitioner, were more likely to receive AD (OR_{severe depression} = 5.34, 95% CI 1.70-16.78/OR_{AD GP} = 9.26, 95% CI 2.53-33.90) or combined treatment (OR_{severe depression} = 6.32, 95% CI 1.86-21.49/OR_{AD GP} = 22.36, 95% CI 5.89-83.59) with respect to psychotherapy. More severe patients with AD upon referral received combined treatment less often compared to psychotherapy (OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.68).

CONCLUSION

AD prescriptions in primary care, severity and gender influenced treatment selection for depressive disorders in secondary psychiatric care. Other factors such as the accessibility of treatment and patient preferences may have played a role in treatment selection in this setting and need further investigation.

Decision-Making Strategy for Rectal Cancer Management Using Radiation Therapy for Elderly or Comorbid Patients

Rectal cancer predominantly affects patients older than 70 years, with peak incidence at age 80 to 85 years. However, the standard treatment paradigm for rectal cancer oftentimes cannot be feasibly applied to these patients owing to frailty or comorbid conditions. There are currently little information and no treatment guidelines to help direct therapy for patients who are elderly and/or have significant comorbidities, because most are not included or specifically studied in clinical trials. More recently various alternative treatment options have been brought to light that may potentially be utilized in this group of patients. This critical review examines the available literature on alternative therapies for rectal cancer and proposes a treatment algorithm to help guide clinicians in treatment decision making for elderly and comorbid patients.

The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies.

METHODS

In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397.

RESULTS

We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.