Effects of a shared decision-making implementation programme on patient-centred communication in oncology-Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is a need for better implementation of patient-centred (PC) communication and shared decision-making (SDM) in routine cancer care.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess whether a programme to implement SDM in oncology had effects on PC communication in clinical encounters.

DESIGN

This study constitutes a secondary analysis of data derived from an implementation trial applying a stepped wedge design that, among other strategies, incorporated training and coaching to enhance the PC communication skills of physicians.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We analysed audio recordings of clinical encounters collected in three departments of a comprehensive cancer centre in Germany before and after rolling out the implementation programme.

MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED

We assessed the PC communication skills of physicians.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Each recording was rated by two researchers using the German version of the Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS), an observer-based measure of PC communication. Interrater reliability of the outcome measure was acceptable but moderate. Demographic data of patients participating in audio recordings were analysed.

METHODS

Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 146 encounters, 74 before and 72 after implementation, were evaluated. The mean age of patients was 57.1 years (SD = 13.8), 70.3% were female, the largest portion of patients had medium formal education (32.4%) and were (self-) employed (37.8%). No statistically significant effect of the implementation programme on the physicians' PC communication skills was found.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that the investigated programme to implement SDM in oncology, including training and coaching, had no effects on PC communication in clinical encounters. These results are in contrast to other studies that report the effects of specific training or coaching on PC communication. Reasons for the lack of effect include the short duration of our training compared to other studies, limited reliability and moderate interrater reliability of the 4HCS scale, limited reach of the intervention programme as well as the inclusion of physicians regardless of their exposure to the interventions.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to develop implementation strategies that improve physicians' PC communication skills.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

Data on patients and clinical encounters with patients and physicians were analysed. There was no other patient or public involvement.

Evaluation of a patient-centered communication skills training for nurses (KOMPAT): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To ensure high quality of nurses' communication as part of patient-centered care, training of communication skills is essential. Previous studies indicate that communication skills trainings can improve communication skills of nurses and have a positive effect on emotional and psychological burden. However, most show methodological limitations, are not specifically developed for nurses or were developed for oncological setting only.

METHODS

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a needs-based communication skills training for nursing professionals and to derive indications for future implementation. A two-armed randomized controlled trial including components from both effectiveness and implementation research will be applied. Additionally, a comprehensive process evaluation will be carried out to derive indications for future implementation. Nurses (n=180) of a university medical center in Germany will be randomized to intervention or waitlist-control group. The intervention was developed based on the wishes and needs of nurses, previously assessed via interviews and focus groups. Outcomes to measure effectiveness were selected based on Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation and will be assessed at baseline, post-training and at 4-weeks follow-up. Primary outcome will be nurses' self-reported self-efficacy regarding communication skills. Secondary outcomes include nurses' communication skills assessed via standardized patient assessment, knowledge about patient-centered communication, mental and work-related burden, and participants' satisfaction with training.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study systematically evaluating the effectiveness of a patient-centered communication skills training for nursing professionals in Germany. Results will yield insight whether a needs-based intervention can improve nurses' self-efficacy regarding communication skills and other secondary outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration number: NCT05700929, trial register: ClinicalTrials.gov (date of registration: 16 November 2022).

Psycho-oncologists' experiences with video consultations during the Covid-19 pandemic and implications for the future-a multi-methods study

OBJECTIVE

During the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been a substantial uptake of telemental health interventions. Consequently, the objective of this study was to assess psycho-oncologists' attitudes toward and experiences with video consultations (VC) since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. Additionally, we sought to investigate psycho-oncologists' perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of VC and its' potential implementation beyond the pandemic.

METHODS

We used a multi-methods study design. First, semi-structured interviews with psycho-oncologists (N = 6) were conducted to inform the development of a cross-sectional online survey, which represented the quantitative part of our study. We invited psycho-oncologists, working in different settings, from all over Germany to participate.

RESULTS

Data of N = 217 participants (88% female, 49% over 10 years work experience) of the online survey was analyzed. Psycho-oncologists' acceptance toward VC was average to high. In their daily practice, they preferred in-person consultations. Improved access to care and enhanced flexibility were seen as main advantages. The most significant disadvantages included technical issues, privacy concerns at home, loss of non-verbal cues and absence of physical presence for emotional support. Nevertheless, on average, psycho-oncologists wanted to continue seeing approximately 25% of their patients via VC in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the average to high acceptance of VC among psycho-oncologists and their desire to continue using VC flexibly even after the pandemic, it may be beneficial to implement VC into future psycho-oncology services. Still, future research should focus on the patients' perspective and the effectiveness of VC in psycho-oncology services.

Correction: Application of the skills network approach to measure physician competence in shared decision making based on self-assessment

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282283.].

Conceptualization of patient-centered care in Latin America: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Patient-centered care (PCC) has been declared as a desirable goal for health care in Latin American countries, but a coherent definition of what exactly PCC entails for clinical practice is missing. This article's aim was to identify how PCC is conceptualized in Latin American countries.

METHODS

Scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scielo, Scopus, Web of Science) and webpages of the ministries of health were searched, and experts were contacted for suggestions of literature. References were included if they contained one of a range of a priori defined keywords related to PCC in the title, were published between 2006 and 2021, and were carried out in or concerned Latin America. Definitions of PCC were extracted from the included articles and analyzed using deductive and inductive coding. Deductive coding was based on the integrative model of patient-centeredness, which unites the definitions of PCC in the international literature (mainly North America and Europe) and proposes 16 dimensions describing PCC.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles were included in the analysis and about half of them were from Brazil. Numerous similarities were found between the integrative model of patient-centeredness and the definitions of PCC given in the selected literature. The dimensions of the integrative model of patient-centeredness that were least and most prominent in the literature were physical support and patient information, respectively. A differentiation between PCC and family-centered care (FCC) was observed. Definitions of PCC and FCC as well as their cited references were diverse.

CONCLUSION

A considerable overlap between the conceptualization of PCC in Latin America and the integrative model of patient-centeredness has been identified. However, there are substantial differences between countries in Latin America regarding the emphasis of research on PCC versus FCC and diverse conceptualizations of PCC and FCC exist.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

This scoping review takes the patient's perspective based on the integrative model of patient-centeredness. Due to the study being a review, no patients, neither caregivers, nor members of the public, were involved.

Major influencing factors on routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is highly relevant in oncology but rarely implemented in routine care. In a stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, the outcome evaluation of a theoretically and empirically based multi-component SDM implementation program did not show a statistically significant effect on patient-reported SDM uptake. Within this SDM implementation trial, a thorough a priori planned process evaluation was conducted. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate factors influencing SDM implementation in the context of a multi-component SDM implementation program.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge SDM implementation trial. Qualitative data included interviews with nurses and physicians of participating departments, field notes by the study team, and meeting minutes. Data were analyzed via deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis on basis of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

RESULTS

Transcripts of 107 interviews with 126 nurses and physicians, 304 pages of field note documentation, and 125 pages of meeting minutes were analyzed. Major factors influencing SDM implementation were found for all domains of the CFIR: a) four regarding characteristics of the individuals involved (e.g., perceived personal relevance, individual motivation to change), b) eleven regarding the inner setting (e.g., leadership engagement, networks and communication, available resources, compatibility with clinical practice), c) two regarding the outer setting (e.g., culture of health care delivery), d) eight regarding characteristics of the intervention (e.g., relative advantage, adaptability), and e) three regarding the implementation process (e.g., integration into existing structures). Furthermore, we found strong interrelations between several of the influencing factors within and between domains.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive process evaluation complements the outcome evaluation of the SDM implementation trial and adds to its interpretation. The identified influencing factors can be used for planning, conducting, and evaluating SDM implementation in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351, registered 8 January 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03393351.

Application of the skills network approach to measure physician competence in shared decision making based on self-assessment

Several approaches to and definitions of 'shared decision making' (SDM) exist, which makes measurement challenging. Recently, a skills network approach was proposed, which conceptualizes SDM competence as an organized network of interacting SDM skills. With this approach, it was possible to accurately predict observer-rated SDM competence of physicians from the patients' assessments of the physician's SDM skills. The aim of this study was to assess whether using the skills network approach allows to predict observer-rated SDM competence of physicians from their self-reported SDM skills. We conducted a secondary data analysis of an observational study, in which outpatient care physicians rated their use of SDM skills with the physician version of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-Doc) during consultations with chronically ill adult patients. Based on the estimated association of each skill with all other skills, an SDM skills network for each physician was constructed. Network parameters were used to predict observer-rated SDM competence, which was determined from audio-recorded consultations using three widely used measures (OPTION-12, OPTION-5, Four Habits Coding Scheme). In our study, 28 physicians rated consultations with 308 patients. The skill 'deliberating the decision' was central in the population skills network averaged across physicians. The correlation between parameters of the skills networks and observer-rated competence ranged from 0.65 to 0.82 across analyses. The use and connectedness of the skill 'eliciting treatment preference of the patient' showed the strongest unique association with observer-rated competence. Thus, we found evidence that processing SDM skill ratings from the physicians' perspective according to the skills network approach offers new theoretically and empirically grounded opportunities for the assessment of SDM competence. A feasible and robust measurement of SDM competence is essential for research on SDM and can be applied for evaluating SDM competence during medical education, for training evaluation, and for quality management purposes. [A plain language summary of the study is available at https://osf.io/3wy4v.].

Shared-Decision-Making Experiences in Breast Cancer Care with and without Patient Participation in Multidisciplinary Tumor Conferences: A Mixed-Methods-Study

Purpose

This study aimed (1) to analyze patients' perceived shared decision-making (SDM) experiences over 4 weeks between patients participating or not in multidisciplinary tumor conferences (MTCs) and (2) to analyze the association of patients' active participation in and organizational variables of MTCs with patients' perceived SDM experience directly after MTC.

Patients and Methods

From the N=317 patients, this observational study included patient surveys, observations, and audio transcripts from MTCs with (N=82) and without (N=145) patient participation in six breast and gynecologic cancer centers. We performed t tests for within- and between-group comparisons and linear regression with "patients' perceived SDM experiences in MTC" as the dependent variable.

Results

Patients' perceived SDM experiences increased at 4 weeks after MTC (p<0.001) with lower perceived SDM experiences for participating versus nonparticipating patients (p<0.001). Linear regression showed that the organizational variable "round table seating arrangement" was significantly associated with higher perceived SDM experiences compared with a theater or U-shape arrangement (beta=-0.38, p=0.043; beta=-0.69, p=0.010) directly after MTC.

Conclusion

Results provide first insights into patients' perceived SDM experiences in MTCs. SDM in MTCs is associated with organizational variables of MTCs. A round table seating arrangement in MTCs with patient participation seems important for patients' perceived SDM experiences. The relatively low perceived SDM experiences of participating patients directly after MTC indicates room for improvement, eg concerning patient-centered communication.

Assessment of person-centeredness in healthcare and social support services for women with unintended pregnancy (CarePreg): protocol for a mixed-method study

INTRODUCTION

For women with unintended pregnancy, access to high-quality care has been found limited due to social stigma and legal restrictions, especially when seeking abortion. To foster person-centeredness (PC), recognising the experiences and needs of women is the first premise. This study aims to (1) identify relevant dimensions of PC (2) evaluate PC in healthcare and social support services, (3) develop recommendations for further actions in healthcare and social support services for women with unintended pregnancy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use a mixed-methods approach. Phase 1: expert workshops with 10-15 healthcare professionals and counsellors and semistructured interviews with 15-20 women with unintended pregnancy will be conducted to assess the relevance of PC dimensions. Phase 2: quantitative assessment of PC dimensions within healthcare and support services will be conducted. We aim to include 600 women with an unintended pregnancy (1) until 24 weeks of pregnancy or (2) who sought abortion within the past 8 weeks, over three measurement points within 12 months. To deepen the results, semistructured interviews will be conducted. Phase 3: a workshop with 10-15 experts and an online survey with 100-150 experts will be used to indicate recommendations. Participants will be gained through relevant care facilities. An ethical advisory board and an advisory board of affected women will be involved throughout the study.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be carried out in accordance to the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association and principles of good scientific practice. The study was approved by the Local Psychological Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany (LPEK-0260). Written informed consent will be sought prior to study participation. The study results will be disseminated in scientific journals, through collaboration partners and plain language press releases.

Moving towards patient-centered care and shared decision-making in Germany

The main focus of this paper is to describe the development and current state of policy, research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) in Germany. What is the current state in health policy? Since 2013, the Law on Patients' Rights has standardized all rights and responsibilities regarding medical care for patients in Germany. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information, and decisions based on a clinician-patient partnership. In addition, reports and action plans such as the German Ethics Council's report on patient well-being, the National Health Literacy Action Plan, or the National Cancer Plan emphasize and foster PCC and SDM on a policy level. There are a number of public organizations in Germany that support PCC and SDM. How are patients and the public involved in health policy and research? Publishers and funding agencies increasingly demand patient and public involvement. Numerous initiatives and organizations are involved in publicizing ways to engage patients and the public. Also, an increasing number of public and research institutions have established patient advisory boards. How is PCC and SDM taught? Great progress has been made in introducing SDM into the curricula of medical schools and other health care providers' (HCPs) schools (e.g., nursing, physical therapy). What is the German research agenda? The German government and other public institutions have constantly funded research programs in which PCC and SDM are important topics. This yielded several large-scale funding initiatives and helped to develop SDM training programs for HCPs in different fields of health care and information materials. Recently, two implementation studies on SDM have been conducted. What is the current uptake of PCC and SDM in routine care, and what implementation efforts are underway? Compared to the last country report from 2017, PCC and SDM efforts in policy, research and education have been intensified. However, many steps are still needed to reliably implement SDM in routine care in Germany. Specifically, the further development and uptake of decision tools and countrywide SDM trainings for HCPs require further efforts. Nevertheless, an increasing number of decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care. Also, recent implementation efforts are promising. For example, reimbursement by health insurance companies of hospital-wide SDM implementation is being piloted. A necessary next step is to nationally coordinate the gathering and provision of the many PCC and SDM resources available.

Development and content validity of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT)-A best practice example for generating patient-reported measures from qualitative data

Introduction

To effectively foster patient‐centeredness (PC), it is crucial to measure its implementation. So far, there is no German measure to assess PC comprehensively. The aim of this study is to develop and select items for the Experienced Patient‐Centeredness (EPAT) Questionnaire, a patient‐reported experience measure (PREM). The EPAT intends to assess PC from the perspective of adult patients treated for different chronic diseases in inpatient and outpatient settings in Germany. Furthermore, we aim at providing a best‐practice example for developing PREMs from qualitative data.

Methods

The development process comprised a three‐phase mixed‐method design: (1) preparation, (2) item generation and (3) item selection and testing of content validity. We generated items using qualitative content analysis based on information from focus groups, key informant interviews and literature search. We selected items using relevance rating and cognitive interviews. Participants were patients from four chronic disease groups (cancer, cardiovascular disease, mental disorder, musculoskeletal disorder) and healthcare experts (e.g., clinicians, researchers, patient representatives).

Results

We conducted six focus groups with a total of 40 patients, key informant interviews with 10 experts and identified 48 PREMs from international literature. After team discussion, we reached a preliminary pool of 152 items. We conducted a relevance rating with 32 experts and 34 cognitive interviews with 21 patients. We selected 125 items assessing 16 dimensions of PC and showed high relevance and comprehensibility.

Conclusions

The EPAT questionnaire is currently undergoing psychometric testing. The transparent step‐by‐step report provides a best practice example that other researchers may consider for developing PREMs. Integrating literature and experts with a strong focus on patient feedback ensured good content validity. The EPAT questionnaire will be helpful in assessing PC in routine clinical practice in inpatient and outpatient settings for research and quality improvement.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patients were not involved as active members of the research team. While developing the funding proposal, we informally reached out to several patient organizations who all gave us positive feedback on the study aims, thereby confirming their relevance. Those patient organizations endorsed the funding proposal with formal letters of support and supported recruitment by disseminating advertisements for study participation.

Preference for shared decision-making among Arabic-speaking people with chronic diseases: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To assess Arabic-speaking patients' preference for involvement in decision-making in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and characterise people who preferred involvement in decision-making.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional quantitative study. The conduct and reporting of this research complied with Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines for cross-sectional studies.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from outpatient clinics of 10 major hospitals in four cities in the UAE: Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah and Umm al Quwain.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with at least one chronic disease completed a cross-sectional survey consisting of 37 items in six sections measuring variables that may influence preferred involvement in decision-making. These included health literacy, health status, unanswered questions about care and satisfaction with treatment decisions. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the predictors of patients' preferred involvement in decision-making.

RESULTS

A total of 516 participants completed the survey. One-in-four participants preferred shared decision-making. Preferred involvement in decision-making was more frequent among women, not married, unemployed, people who rarely/never had unanswered questions and participants with anxiety/depression symptoms. After adjustment, not being married (OR=1.634; 95% CI 1.049 to 2.544) remained as a predictor of preferred involvement in decision-making, while having unanswered questions (OR=0.612; 95% CI 0.393 to 0.954) and problems in self-care were predictors of a preference for paternalistic decision-making (OR=0.423; 95% CI 0.181 to 0.993).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to the results from Western countries, this study showed that a majority of Arabic-speaking patients with chronic diseases preferred a paternalistic decision-making model. At the same time, some subgroups of Arabic-speaking people (eg, women, unemployed patients) had a higher preference for participation in decision-making. Physicians' support and changes in healthcare systems are required to foster Arabic-speaking patients' involvement in treatment decision-making process.

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.

Adapting the patient and physician versions of the 9-item shared decision making questionnaire for other healthcare providers in Japan

BACKGROUND

In Japan, the number of older people with various health problems and difficulties in living is increasing. In order to practice patient-centered care for them, not only medical professionals but also multidisciplinary teams including care professionals and patients need to practice shared decision making (SDM) in the context of long-term care. For this reason, a measure of SDM in consultations with healthcare professionals (HCPs) other than physicians is needed. Therefore, this study aimed at adapting the patient and physician versions of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9, SDM-Q-Doc) for consultations with HCPs other than physicians in Japan.

METHODS

A pair of SDM measures that can be used by HCPs other than physicians, "Care SDM-Questionnaire for care receivers (SDM-C-patient)" and "Care SDM-Questionnaire for care providers (SDM-C-provider)" were prepared based on the Japanese versions of the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc. The internal consistency and conceptual structure of these measures were tested by secondary analysis of data from 496 participants from a workshop on SDM for different HCPs. Measurement invariance were tested by multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the patient (SDM-C-patient and SDM-Q-9) and provider (SDM-C-provider vs. SDM-Q-Doc) versions.

RESULTS

Both the Japanese SDM-C-patient and SDM-C-provider demonstrated high internal consistencies (Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.90 and McDonald's ω coefficient was 0.90 for both measures). CFA showed one-factor structures for both measures and original measures for physicians. Moreover, multigroup CFA showed configural and metric invariance between the novel care measures and original physician's measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, the novel SDM measures for care providers in Japan as well as the original physician's measures could be used in training setting. As these measures were tested only in a training setting, their reliability and validity as new measures for care should be tested in a clinical setting in future.

What do patients expect? Assessing patient-centredness from the patients' perspective: an interview study

OBJECTIVE

Although there has been much conceptual work on patient-centredness (PC), patients' perspectives on PC were neglected. In a previous study, participating patients rated the relevance of 16 dimensions of an integrative model of PC as high to very high. However, it remained unclear which specific behaviours described in the dimensions were considered most relevant. Thus, the aim of the current study was to further explore which of the specific behaviours described in the model are especially relevant for the high ratings in the previous study.

METHODS AND DESIGN

We conducted semistructured interviews with 20 patients with chronic diseases (16 females, 4 males, mean age: 52 years). Patients answered questions regarding their experiences in the German healthcare system and how optimal healthcare would look like from their perspective. Furthermore, patients were asked to reflect on the most important aspects which they had mentioned in the interview before. Data were analysed via content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants addressed many different aspects of PC, but mostly focused on three major themes: (1) time appropriate access to care, (2) competence, empathy and being taken seriously by HCPs, (3) HCPs' individual consideration of each patient's situation (eg, wishes and needs). Minor themes were: (1) taking a holistic perspective of the patient, (2) patient-centred communication, (3) integration of multidisciplinary treatment elements, (4) transparency regarding waiting time and (5) reduction of unequal access to care.

CONCLUSION

This study enriches the construct of PC by depicting essential aspects of PC from the patients' perspective. The results allow prioritising strategies to implement patient-centred care. Thus, this study helps to pursue the ultimate goal of fostering patient-centred healthcare delivery in Germany.

Association between physicians' and patients' perspectives of shared decision making in primary care settings in Japan: The impact of environmental factors

PURPOSE

Shared decision-making (SDM) has only lately begun attaining recognition from the Japanese medical community. The purpose of this study was to create a Japanese version of the SDM-Q-Doc, which is a scale that measures SDM from the perspective of physicians, and to clarify its psychometric characteristics and identify the issues and factors that affect SDM.

METHODS

The participants were 23 physicians and 130 patients who visited primary care clinics in Japan for the first time. Immediately following physician-patient interviews, the Japanese version of SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc were administered to patients and physicians, respectively. For convergent validity, physician confidence in the medical interview (PCMI) was used. After the determination of internal consistency and validity of the SDM-Q-Doc, the relations among each item of SDM-Q-Doc, SDM-Q-9, physicians' sociodemographic attributes, and a presence or absence of nurse's attendance during outpatient consultation were assessed by a multiple regression analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM).

RESULTS

A factor analysis confirmed that the Japanese version of the SDM-Q-Doc displays a one-factor structure with a high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.87, ω = 0.88). The correlation between the PCMI and SDM-Q-Doc confirmed an appropriate convergent validity (r = 0.406; p < 0.001). Multiple regression analyses showed that the attendance of a nurse during consultation significantly affected one item of the SDM-Q-Doc, which in turn affected one item of the SDM-Q-9. SEM showed a good fit of model for these three items.

CONCLUSION

The Japanese version of the SDM-Q-Doc's internal consistency and validity in the outpatient medical consultations in Japan were confirmed. Further, this study suggests the role of a nurse's attendance during a physician-patient consultation on facilitating the SDM. Further, using the Japanese version of the SDM-Q-Doc will promote communication skills training for medical professionals by checking the quality of SDM.

Is Organizational Communication Climate a Precondition for Patient-Centered Care? Insights from a Key Informant Survey of Various Health and Social Care Organizations

Health and social care organizations are under pressure of organizing care around patients' needs and preferences while complying with regulatory frameworks and constraint resources. To implement patient-centered care in health and social care organizations successfully, particular organizational preconditions need to be considered. Findings on the implementation of patient-centered care and its preconditions are rare and insufficiently account for the organizational context to explain differences. This study examines the implementation status of patient-centered care in diverse health and social care organizations and analyzes the communication climate as a precondition of successful implementation. In a cross-sectional postal key informant survey, decision makers in the highest leading positions from six different types of health and social care organizations in Cologne, Germany, were surveyed using a paper-pencil questionnaire. Patient-centered care implementation was operationalized by three categories (principles, activities, and enablers) including 15 dimensions. Organizational communication climate was operationalized by aspects of open and constructive communication, cooperation, and inclusion. Out of 1790 contacted organizations, 237 participated. In the analyses, 215 complete datasets were included. Descriptive analyses, Kruskal-Wallis test, post hoc pair-wise test, and linear regression modeling were performed. Results show that the implementation status of patient-centered care was perceived as high but differed between the various types of organizations and in terms of patient-centered care categories. Organizational communication climate was significantly associated with the implementation of patient-centered care. Especially in organizations with a higher number of employees, strategies to create a positive communication climate are needed to create a precondition for patient-centered care.

Envisioning Shared Decision Making: A Reflection for the Next Decade

Despite the evolving evidence in favor of shared decision making (SDM) and of decades-long calls for its adoption, SDM remains uncommon in routine care. Reflecting on this lack of progress, we sought to reimagine the future of SDM and the path to take us there. In late 2017, a multidisciplinary and international group of six researchers were challenged by a senior SDM scholar to envision the future and, based on a provocatively critical view of the present, to write letters to themselves from the year 2028. Letters were exchanged and discussed electronically. The group then met in person to discuss the letters. Since the letters painted a dystopian picture, they triggered questions about the nature of SDM, who should benefit from SDM, how to measure its contribution to care, and what new ways can be invented to design and test interventions to implement SDM in routine care. Through contrasting the purposefully generated dystopias with an ideal future for SDM, we generated reflections on a research agenda for SDM. These reflections hinged on recognizing SDM's contributing to care, that is, as a way to advance the problematic human situation of patients. These focused on three distinct yet complimentary contributors to SDM: 1) the process of making decisions, 2) humanistic communication, and 3) fit-to-care of the resulting decision. The group then concluded that to move SDM from envisioned to routine practice, and to ensure it reaches all, particularly persons rendered vulnerable by current forms of health care, a substantial investment in implementation research is necessary. Perhaps the discussion of these reflections can contribute to a path forward that will improve the likelihood of the future we dream for SDM.

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of Ask 3 Questions - a simple and generic intervention to foster patient empowerment

BACKGROUND

Patients are often not actively engaged in medical encounters. Short interventions like Ask 3 Questions (Ask3Q) can increase patient participation in decision-making. Up to now, Ask3Q was not available in German.

OBJECTIVE

To translate Ask3Q and evaluate its acceptability and feasibility.

METHODS

We translated and adapted several English versions of Ask3Q using a team translation protocol and cognitive interviews. Acceptability and feasibility of the final German Ask3Q version were assessed via focus groups and interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Data were analysed via qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Translation and adaptation were successful. Participants of focus groups and interviews perceived Ask3Q as a tool to empower patients to ask more questions. Moreover, it was seen as a guideline for physicians not to forget conveying important information. Several characteristics of patients, HCPs, the clinical setting and the intervention were identified as facilitators and barriers for an effective implementation of Ask3Q.

CONCLUSION

We provide the German version of Ask3Q. According to participants, implementation of Ask3Q in the German healthcare system is feasible. Future studies should evaluate if positive effects of Ask3Q can be replicated for patient participation and communication behaviour of HCPs in Germany.

"All about the money?" A qualitative interview study examining organizational- and system-level characteristics that promote or hinder shared decision-making in cancer care in the United States

BACKGROUND

Despite decades of ethical, empirical, and policy support, shared decision-making (SDM) has failed to become standard practice in US cancer care. Organizational and health system characteristics appear to contribute to the difficulties in implementing SDM in routine care. However, little is known about the relevance of the different characteristics in specific healthcare settings. The aim of the study was to explore how organizational and health system characteristics affect SDM implementation in US cancer care.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with diverse cancer care stakeholders in the USA. Of the 36 invited, 30 (83%) participants consented to interview. We used conventional content analysis to analyze transcript content.

RESULTS

The dominant theme in the data obtained was that concerns regarding a lack of revenue generation, or indeed, the likely loss of revenue, were a major barrier preventing implementation of SDM. Many other factors were prominent as well, but the view that SDM might impair organizational or individual profit margins and reduce the income of some health professionals was widespread. On the organizational level, having leadership support for SDM and multidisciplinary teams were viewed as critical to implementation. On the health system level, views diverged on whether embedding tools into electronic health records (EHRs), making SDM a criterion for accreditation and certification, and enacting legislation could promote SDM implementation.

CONCLUSION

Cancer care in the USA has currently limited room for SDM and is prone to paying lip service to the idea. Implementation efforts in US cancer care need to go further than interventions that target only the clinician-patient level. On a policy level, SDM could be included in alternative payment models. However, its implementation would need to be thoroughly assessed in order to prevent further misdirected incentivization through box ticking.

A skills network approach to physicians' competence in shared decision making

BACKGROUND

Measurement of physicians' competence in shared decision making (SDM) remains challenging with frequent disagreement between assessment methods.

OBJECTIVE

To conceptualize and measure physicians' SDM competence as an organized network of behavioural skills and to determine whether processing patient-reported data according to this model can be used to predict observer-rated competence.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of an observational study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Primary and specialty outpatient care physicians and consecutively recruited adult patients with a chronic condition who faced a treatment decision with multiple acceptable choices.

MEASURES

Network parameters constructed from patients' assessment of physicians' SDM skills as measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and observer-rated SDM competence of physicians measured by three widely used observer-rated instruments.

RESULTS

29 physicians (12 female, 17 male; mean age 50.3 years) recruited 310 patients (59.4% female, 40.6% male; mean age 54.0 years) facing a decision mainly regarding type 2 diabetes (36.4%), chronic back pain (32.8%) or depressive disorder (26.8%). Although most investigated skills were interrelated, elicitation of the patient's treatment preferences showed the strongest associations with the other skills. Network parameters of this skill were also decisive in predicting observer-rated competence. Correlation between predicted competence scores and observer-rated measurements ranged from 0.710 to 0.785.

CONCLUSIONS

Conceptualizing physicians' SDM competence as a network of interacting skills enables the measurement of observer-rated competence using patient-reported data. In addition to theoretical implications for defining and training medical competences, the findings open a new way to measure physicians' SDM competence under routine conditions.

[DNVF Memorandum Health Services Research in Oncology]

Health services research in oncology deals with all situations which cancer patients face. It looks at the different phases of care, i. e. prevention / early detection, prehabilitation, diagnostics, therapy, rehabilitation and palliative care as well as the various actors, including those affected, the carers and self-help. It deals with healthy people (e. g. in the context of prevention / early detection), patients and cancer survivors. Due to the nature of cancer and the existing care structures, there are a number of specific contents for health services research in oncology compared to general health services research while the methods remain essentially identical. This memorandum describes the subject, illustrates the care structures and identifies areas of health services research in oncology. This memorandum has been prepared by the Oncology Section of the German Network for Health Services Research and is the result of intensive discussions.

Cancer patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement in treatment decision-making: an epidemiological study

Background: We aimed to analyze preferred and perceived levels of patients' involvement in treatment decision-making in a representative sample of cancer patients.Material and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, epidemiological cross-sectional study with a stratified random sample based on the incidence of cancer diagnoses in Germany. Data were collected between January 2008 and December 2010. Analyses were undertaken between 2017 and 2019. We included 5889 adult cancer patients across all cancer entities and disease stages from 30 acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and cancer rehabilitation clinics in five regions in Germany. We used the Control Preferences Scale to assess the preferred level of involvement and the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to assess the perceived level of involvement.Results: About 4020 patients (mean age of 58 years, 51% female) completed the survey. Response rate was 68.3%. About a third each preferred patient-led, shared, or physician-led decision-making. About 50.7% perceived high levels, about a quarter each reported moderate (26.0%) or low (24.3%) levels of shared decision-making. Sex, age, relationship status, education, health care setting, and tumor entity were linked to preferred and/or perceived decision-making. Of those patients who preferred active involvement, about 50% perceived high levels of shared decision-making.Conclusion: The majority of patients with cancer wanted to be involved in medical decisions. Many patients perceived a high level of shared decision-making. However, many patients' level of involvement did not fit their preference. This study provides a solid basis for efforts to improve shared decision-making in German cancer care.

Psychometric Evaluation of the Japanese 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and Its Association with Decision Conflict and Patient Factors in Japanese Primary Care

Introduction:

This study aimed to verify the internal consistency and validity of the Japanese version of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and investigate the association among patient factors, shared decision-making experienced by patients, and patients’ decision conflict during the treatment decision process in primary outpatient settings in Japan.

Methods:

Patients who visited a primary care outpatient unit for the first time and completed the Japanese version of SDM-Q-9 and the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) immediately after consultation were included. The internal consistency of SDM-Q-9 was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to investigate structural construct validity. The relationship among patient-perceived experiences of shared decision-making, decision conflict, and patient factors was evaluated using correlation analysis.

Results:

A total of 131 patients with chronic diseases (55.0% females, 28.2% aged ≥ 70 years) were included in this analysis. Cronbach’s alpha for the Japanese version of SDM-Q-9 was 0.917, indicating a high degree of internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the Japanese version of SDM-Q-9 had a one-factor structure. Spearman’s rank correlation analysis indicated that the correlation between SDM-Q-9 and DCS was −0.577 (p < 0.05), indicating a significant inverse correlation and convergent validity. Older age was positively associated with perceived support of the physician in understanding all information.

Conclusions:

We confirmed that the Japanese version of SDM-Q-9 was both reliable and valid for use in Japanese primary care settings. In addition, we found a clear association between shared decision-making and decisional conflict of patients.

Translation and psychometric evaluation of the German version of the Organisational Readiness for Implementing Change measure (ORIC): a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To translate the Organisational Readiness for Implementing Change measure into German and assess its psychometric properties.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional psychometric study based on secondary analysis of baseline data from a shared decision-making implementation study.

SETTING

Three departments within one academic cancer centre in Hamburg, Germany.

PARTICIPANTS

For comprehensibility assessment of the translated ORIC version, we conducted cognitive interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs, n=11). Afterwards, HCPs (n=230) filled out the measure.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The original English version of the ORIC was translated into German using a team translation protocol. Based on comprehensibility assessment via cognitive interviews with HCPs, the translated version was revised. We analysed acceptance (completion rate), factorial structure (exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), model fit), item characteristics (item difficulties, corrected item-total correlations, inter-item correlations) and internal consistency (Cronbach's α).

RESULTS

Translation and cognitive testing of the German ORIC was successful except for item 10, which showed low comprehensibility as part of content validity in cognitive interviews. Completion rate was >97%. EFA and CFA provided a one-factorial structure. Item difficulties ranged between 55.98 and 65.32, corrected item-total-correlation ranged between 0.665 and 0.774, inter-item correlations ranged between 0.434 and 0.723 and Cronbach's α was 0.93.

CONCLUSIONS

The German ORIC is a reliable measure with high completion rates and satisfying psychometric properties. A one-factorial structure of the German ORIC was confirmed. Item 10 showed limited comprehensibility and therefore reduces content validity of the measure. The German ORIC can be used to analyse organisational readiness for change as a precursor for implementation success of various interventions.

Assessing the relevance and implementation of patient-centredness from the patients' perspective in Germany: results of a Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

Patient-centredness (PC) has particularly grown in relevance in health services research as well as in politics and there has been much research on its conceptualisation. However, conceptual work neglected the patients' perspective. Thus, it remains unclear which dimensions of PC matter most to patients. This study aims to assess relevance and current degree of implementation of PC from the perspective of chronically ill patients in Germany.

METHODS

We conducted a Delphi study. Patients were recruited throughout Germany using community-based strategies (eg, newspapers and support groups). In round 1, patients rated relevance and implementation of 15 dimensions of PC anonymously. In round 2, patients received results of round 1 and were asked to re-rate their own results. Participants had to have at least one of the following chronic diseases: cancer, cardiovascular disease, mental disorder or musculoskeletal disorder. Furthermore, patients had to be at least 18 years old and had to give informed consent prior to participation.

RESULTS

226 patients participated in round 1, and 214 patients in round 2. In both rounds, all 15 dimensions were rated highly relevant, but currently insufficiently implemented. Most relevant dimensions included 'patient safety', 'access to care' and 'patient information'. Due to small sizes of subsamples between chronic disease groups, differences could not be computed. For the other subgroups (eg, single disease vs multi-morbidity), there were no major differences.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the first studies assessing PC from patients' perspective in Germany. We showed that patients consider every dimension of PC relevant, but currently not well implemented. Our results can be used to foster PC healthcare delivery and to develop patient-reported experience measures to assess PC of healthcare in Germany.

Evaluation of a shared decision-making communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma: a mixed methods study using simulated patients

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a key principle in asthma management, but continues to be poorly implemented in routine care. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a SDM communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma on the SDM behaviors of physicians, and to analyze physician views on the training.

Methods

A mixed methods study with a partially mixed sequential equal status design was conducted to evaluate a 12 h SDM communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma. It included a short introductory talk, videotaped consultations with simulated asthma patients, video analysis in small group sessions, individual feedback, short presentations, group discussions, and practical exercises. The quantitative evaluation phase consisted of a before (t0) after (t1) comparison of SDM performance using the observer-rated OPTION⁵, the physician questionnaire SDM-Q-Doc, and the patient questionnaire SDM-Q-9, using dependent t-tests. The qualitative evaluation phase (t2) consisted of a content analysis of audiotaped and transcribed interviews.

Results

Initially, 29 physicians participated in the study, 27 physicians provided quantitative data, and 22 physicians provided qualitative data for analysis. Quantitative results showed significantly improved performance in SDM following the training (t1) when compared with performance in SDM before the training (t0) (OPTION⁵: t (26) = − 5.16; p < 0.001) (SDM-Q-Doc: t (26) = − 4.39; p < 0.001) (SDM-Q-9: t (26) = − 5.86; p < 0.001). The qualitative evaluation showed that most physicians experienced a change in attitude and behavior after the training, and positively appraised the training program. Physicians considered simulated patient consultations, including feedback and video analysis, beneficial and suggested the future use of real patient consultations.

Conclusion

The SDM communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma has potential to improve SDM performance, but would benefit from using real patient consultations.

Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies

DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating healthcare provider (HCP) trainings in shared decision-making (SDM) to analyse their evaluation strategies.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

HCP trainings in SDM from all healthcare settings.

METHODS

We searched scientific databases (Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL), performed reference and citation tracking, contacted experts in the field and scanned the Canadian inventory of SDM training programmes for healthcare professionals. We included articles reporting data of summative evaluations of HCP trainings in SDM. Two reviewers screened records, assessed full-text articles, performed data extraction and assessed study quality with the integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS) tool. Analysis of evaluation strategies included data source use, use of unpublished or published measures and coverage of Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels. An evaluation framework based on Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels and the Quadruple Aim framework was used to categorise identified evaluation outcomes.

RESULTS

Out of 7234 records, we included 41 articles reporting on 30 studies: cluster-randomised (n=8) and randomised (n=9) controlled trials, controlled (n=1) and non-controlled (n=7) before-after studies, mixed-methods (n=1), qualitative (n=1) and post-test (n=3) studies. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n=9), Germany (n=8) or Canada (n=7) and evaluated physician trainings (n=25). Eleven articles met ICROMS quality criteria. Almost all studies (n=27) employed HCP-reported outcomes for training evaluation and most (n=19) additionally used patient-reported (n=12), observer-rated (n=10), standardised patient-reported (n=2) outcomes or training process and healthcare data (n=10). Most studies employed a mix of unpublished and published measures (n=17) and covered two (n=12) or three (n=10) Kirkpatrick's levels. Identified evaluation outcomes covered all categories of the proposed framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to evaluate HCP trainings in SDM varied largely. The proposed evaluation framework maybe useful to structure future evaluation studies, but international agreement on a core set of outcomes is needed to improve evidence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016041623.

Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire: the entire process from translation to validation

OBJECTIVE

To translate the German 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) to Arabic and assess its psychometric properties for measuring Arabic-speaking patients' perceptions of the shared decision-making (SDM) process.

DESIGN

Multicentre cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Secondary healthcare settings; outpatient clinics of 10 major hospitals were selected in four emirates in the United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah and Umm Al Quwain).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with chronic diseases who attended outpatient clinics of participating hospitals.

MEASUREMENTS

The original German SDM-Q-9 was translated to Arabic. International multiphase translation guidelines and the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-reported measures were used. Various psychometric properties were assessed, including reliability (internal consistency), and construct validity (exploratory factor analysis [EFA] and confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]).

RESULTS

The final Arabic version of the SDM-Q-9 was tested among 516 secondary care patients. Internal consistency yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.929 for the whole scale. EFA showed a one-factorial solution, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.907 and Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (χ²=3413.69, df=36, p<0.0005). For the CFA, two different models were tested; Model 1 included the nine items and Model 2 was monofactorial that included items 2-9 and thus excluded item 1. Both models were adequate as they produced similar indices.

CONCLUSIONS

The Arabic version of SDM-Q-9 showed excellent reliability and acceptable validity parameters among secondary care patients. The newly translated Arabic questionnaire is the first psychometrically tested tool that can be used in the 22 member states of the Arab league to assess patients' perspectives on the SDM process.

Assessment of patient information needs: A systematic review of measures

Background

Providing patient information is a central aspect of patient-centered care. Fulfilling personal information needs has positive effects on several health-related outcomes. Measurement instruments help to identify individual information needs in an effective way. The present study gives an overview of existing information needs measures and further evaluates the quality of their psychometric properties and their psychometric studies.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search on psychometric studies of measures that assess information needs in PubMed and Embase. Furthermore, we carried out a secondary search with reference and citation tracking of the included articles. Title, abstracts and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers for eligibility. We extracted data on content of the measures, validation samples and psychometric properties. In addition we rated the methodological quality with the COSMIN checklist and the quality of psychometric properties with the criteria of Terwee and colleagues.

Results

24 studies on 21 measures were included. Most instruments assessed information needs of patients with cancer or cardiac diseases. The majority of the instruments were in English language and from western countries. Most studies included information on internal consistency and content validity. The ratings showed mixed results with clear deficiencies in the methodological quality of most studies.

Discussion

This is the first systematic review that summarized the existing evidence on measures on patient information needs using two instruments for a systematic quality assessment. The results show a need for more psychometric studies on existing measures. In addition, reporting on psychometric studies needs to be improved to be able to evaluate the reliability of the psychometric properties. Furthermore, we were not able to identify any measures on information needs for some frequent chronic diseases. Other methods to elicit information needs (e.g. open-ended interviews, question prompt sheets) could be considered as alternatives if sound measures are missing.

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of encounter decision aids in breast cancer care

Purpose

Shared decision-making is currently not widely implemented in breast cancer care. Encounter decision aids support shared decision-making by helping patients and physicians compare treatment options. So far, little was known about adaptation needs for translated encounter decision aids, and encounter decision aids for breast cancer treatments were not available in Germany. This study aimed to adapt and evaluate the implementation of two encounter decision aids on breast cancer treatments in routine care.

Methods

We conducted a multi-phase qualitative study: (1) translation of two breast cancer Option Grid™ decision aids; comparison to national clinical standards; cognitive interviews to test patients’ understanding; (2) focus groups to assess acceptability; (3) testing in routine care using participant observation. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Physicians and patients reacted positively to the idea of encounter decision aids, and reported being interested in using them; patients were most receptive. Several adaptation cycles were necessary. Uncertainty about feasibility of using encounter decision aids in clinical settings was the main physician-reported barrier. During real-world testing (N = 77 encounters), physicians used encounter decision aids in one-third of potentially relevant encounters. However, they did not use the encounter decision aids to stimulate dialogue, which is contrary to their original scope and purpose.

Conclusions

The idea of using encounter decision aids was welcomed, but more by patients than by physicians. Adaptation was a complex process and required resources. Clinicians did not follow suggested strategies for using encounter decision aids. Our study indicates that production of encounter decision aids alone will not lead to successful implementation, and has to be accompanied by training of health care providers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00404-018-5035-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessment of patient centredness through patient-reported experience measures (ASPIRED): protocol of a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

The impact of patient centredness (PC) in healthcare has grown over the years. However, conceptualisations of PC are heterogeneous. Existing patient-reported measures of PC have shown inconsistencies and shortcomings. This impedes the comparison of results across studies. To foster PC, it is important to know which dimensions matter most to patients and to be able to measure its current extent from the patients' perspective. This study aims (1) to assess relevance of dimensions of PC from the patients' perspective, (2) to develop and psychometrically test a core set of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assessing PC and (3) to investigate the feasibility of implementation of this core set in routine healthcare.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed-methods approach will be used. In phase 1, 200 patients will assess the relevance of the dimensions of PC in a Delphi study using a plain language description. In phase 2, the core set of PREMs will be developed through literature reviews, focus groups, key informant interviews and content validity ratings. The core set will be tested psychometrically in a cross-sectional study with 2000 inpatient and outpatients with different chronic conditions (ie, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, mental disorders and musculoskeletal disorders). In phase 3, the feasibility of implementation of the core set will be assessed through semistructured interviews with healthcare practitioners after piloting in routine care. Furthermore, an expert workshop will be held on how to foster implementation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be carried out in accordance to the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association and principles of good scientific practice. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Hamburg, Germany (study ID: PV5724). The study results will be disseminated in scientific journals and through collaboration partners and plain language press releases.

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

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) has become increasingly important in health care. However, despite scientific evidence, effective implementation strategies, and a prominent position on the health policy agenda, SDM is not widely implemented in routine practice so far. Therefore, we developed a program for routine implementation of SDM in oncology by conducting an analysis of the current state and a needs assessment in a pilot study based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Based on these results, the main aim of our current study is to evaluate the process and outcome of this theoretically and empirically grounded multicomponent implementation program designed to foster SDM in routine cancer care.

METHODS

We use a stepped wedge design, a variant of the cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention to be implemented is SDM. Three participating clinics of one comprehensive cancer center will be randomized and receive the multicomponent SDM implementation program in a time-delayed sequence. The program consists of the following strategies: (a) SDM training for health care professionals, (b) individual coaching for physicians, (c) patient activation strategy, (d) provision of patient information material and decision aids, (e) revision of the clinics' quality management documents, and (f) critical reflection of current organization of multidisciplinary team meetings. We will conduct a mixed methods outcome and process evaluation. The outcome evaluation will consist of four measurement points. The primary outcome is adoption of SDM, measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. A range of other implementation outcomes will be assessed (i.e., acceptability, readiness for implementing change, appropriateness, penetration). The implementation process will be evaluated using stakeholder interviews and field notes. This will allow adapting interventions if necessary.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first large study on routine implementation of SDM conducted in German cancer care. We expect to foster implementation of SDM at the enrolled clinics. Insights gained from this study, using a theoretically and empirically grounded approach, can inform other SDM implementation studies and health policy developments, both nationally and internationally.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 . Registered 8 January 2018.

Organizational- and system-level characteristics that influence implementation of shared decision-making and strategies to address them - a scoping review

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is poorly implemented in routine care, despite being promoted by health policies. No reviews have solely focused on an in-depth synthesis of the literature around organizational- and system-level characteristics (i.e., characteristics of healthcare organizations and of healthcare systems) that may affect SDM implementation. A synthesis would allow exploration of interventions to address these characteristics. The study aim was to compile a comprehensive overview of organizational- and system-level characteristics that are likely to influence the implementation of SDM, and to describe strategies to address those characteristics described in the literature.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. The search strategy included an electronic search and a secondary search including gray literature. We included publications reporting on projects that promoted implementation of SDM or other decision support interventions in routine healthcare. We screened titles and abstracts, and assessed full texts for eligibility. We used qualitative thematic analysis to identify organizational- and system-level characteristics.

Results

After screening 7745 records and assessing 354 full texts for eligibility, 48 publications on 32 distinct implementation projects were included. Most projects (N = 22) were conducted in the USA. Several organizational-level characteristics were described as influencing the implementation of SDM, including organizational leadership, culture, resources, and priorities, as well as teams and workflows. Described system-level characteristics included policies, clinical guidelines, incentives, culture, education, and licensing. We identified potential strategies to influence the described characteristics, e.g., examples how to facilitate distribution of decision aids in a healthcare institution.

Conclusions

Although infrequently studied, organizational- and system-level characteristics appear to play a role in the failure to implement SDM in routine care. A wide range of characteristics described as supporting and inhibiting implementation were identified. Future studies should assess the impact of these characteristics on SDM implementation more thoroughly, quantify likely interactions, and assess how characteristics might operate across types of systems and areas of healthcare. Organizations that wish to support the adoption of SDM should carefully consider the role of organizational- and system-level characteristics. Implementation and organizational theory could provide useful guidance for how to address facilitators and barriers to change.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0731-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract P4-11-07: Shared decision making (SDM) in routine care treatment of breast cancer patients – a survey of patients following surgery

Introduction: The aim of shared decision making (SDM), defined as an interaction between patient and attending physician(s), is a treatment decision in which patients are meaningfully involved. Based on mutual agreement and active participation the awareness of a choice should be created and the choice respected. Many preference-sensitive decisions have to be made in breast cancer treatment. However, little is known about the implementation of SDM in German breast cancer care. We therefore investigated the process of SDM from the patients' perspective.

Methods: All breast cancer patients who underwent surgery in one of four certified breast cancer centers in Germany between 07/2016 and 12/2016 were invited by mail to participate in the survey. The experienced decision-making process was assessed using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). SDM-Q-9 items were rated on a 6-point scale ranging from "completely disagree" to "completely agree", added together and transformed into a scale ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the total score the higher the experienced degree of participation in the decision-making process. The survey also assessed patients' satisfaction with treatment, satisfaction with decisions and decisional control preferences, and included a range of demographic and clinical questions. For most items we asked the participants to separately rate decision-making consultations with their inpatient hospital doctors, outpatient gynecologists, outpatient oncologists and primary care providers (PCP). The project is still ongoing, data of approximately 300 patients will be presented at the meeting in December.

Results: Of 289 patients approached by mail, 143 filled in the survey (response rate: 49%). Median age at the time of the survey was 62 years (36-89). 83% had breast conserving surgery, 17% mastectomy. 74% were treated with radiation, 31% received neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy. 14% were off-treatment at the time of survey participation, 67% still received antihormonal therapy, 9% anti HER2 treatment, 7% chemotherapy and 2% radiation. Inpatient hospital doctors achieved the highest SDM-Q-9 score (mean of 75, standard deviation of 22) indicating the highest degree of SDM. Oncologists, gynecologists and PCP were rated quite comparable with a mean score of 72 each and standard deviations (SD) of 27, 22 and 31. The mean score for all groups of doctors was 73. For items concerning satisfaction with quality and amount of doctors' information and participation in medical decisions patients showed a high degree of satisfaction, resulting in mean values of 3.6 and 3.5 with SD of 0.6 on a 4-point scale ranging from "1" "very unsatisfied" to "4" "very satisfied".

Conclusions: A considerable number of patients took part in the survey. Overall, patients reported to have experienced SDM in many situations where treatment decisions were necessary. Patients were quite satisfied with the quality of information and their participation in medical decisions. However, we do not know whether non-respondents might have had different experiences regarding their treatment decision-making. Further research should include SDM expert observations of breast cancer treatment decisions to validate these findings.

Citation Format: Feiten S, Scholl I, Schmidt M, Dünnebacke J, Franzen A, Ernst W, Weide R. Shared decision making (SDM) in routine care treatment of breast cancer patients – a survey of patients following surgery [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-11-07.

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.

Shared decision-making in physical therapy: A cross-sectional study on physiotherapists' knowledge, attitudes and self-reported use

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed a) to investigate knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported use of shared decision-making (SDM) among physiotherapists in Germany, b) to explore their association with demographic characteristics, and c) to assess barriers to the implementation of SDM.

METHODS

We assessed above mentioned domains using an online survey. Two-level logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with knowledge, attitudes and self-reported use of SDM.

RESULTS

60.5% of a total sample of 357 participants reported to have had no knowledge on SDM before participating in the survey. Attitudes towards SDM were mostly positive, half of all participants expressed a preference for SDM. About two thirds of all participants reported to use a rather paternalistic approach in routine care. Knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported use of SDM were associated with several demographic characteristics.

CONCLUSION

SDM was perceived as an appropriate concept in physiotherapy. However, missing knowledge and limited self-reported use of SDM in routine care on the one hand and positive attitudes towards SDM on the other hand indicate a need for action.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to emphasize the use of SDM in physiotherapy efforts need to be undertaken in research, clinical practice and health policy.

Psychometric properties of the German version of Observer OPTION5

BACKGROUND

In order to conduct studies on shared decision-making (SDM) and to implement SDM in routine practice, psychometrically tested measures are needed. The development of the short 5-item version of the OPTION scale (Observer OPTION⁵) allows to assess SDM from an observer perspective. Observer OPTION⁵ is so far only available in English and Dutch. The aim of this study was to translate the Observer OPTION⁵ rating scale into German and to test its psychometric properties.

METHODS

The German Observer OPTION⁵ was tested in a secondary data analysis of audio-recordings of patient-physician-consultations (N = 79) in German primary care practices. Demographic data were analysed using descriptive statistics. To assess inter- and intra-rater reliability, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. For assessing concurrent validity, a correlation (Spearman's Rho) of the sum score of Observer OPTION⁵ and Observer OPTION¹² was calculated.

RESULTS

The consultations dealt with decisions regarding type 2 diabetes (N = 31), chronic back pain (N = 23), depression (N = 20), and other diseases (N = 5). Analysis of inter-rater reliability yielded an ICC of 0.82 for the sum score; across the five single items ICCs ranged between 0.45 and 0.77. For the intra-rater reliability an ICC of 0.83 was observed for the total score; across the five single items ICCs ranged between 0.45 and 0.86. The Observer OPTION⁵ had a mean total score of 11.84 (SD = 11.92) and the Observer OPTION¹² had a mean total score of 10.3 (SD = 7.9), both on a potential range of 0 to 100. The correlation between the total scores of Observer OPTION⁵ and Observer OPTION¹² was r = 0.47 (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results regarding inter- and intra-rater reliability were excellent on the total score level. Observer OPTION⁵ showed moderate concurrent validity using Observer OPTON¹². The results are generally comparable to the results of the original English version of Observer OPTION⁵. The German version of Observer OPTION⁵ can be used in research and evaluation of clinical practice. Nevertheless, further testing is adviced.

Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study

BACKGROUND

The quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) depends on the quality of information presented and the quality of team processes. Few studies have examined these factors using a standardized approach. The aim of this study was to objectively document the processes involved in decision-making in MDTMs, document the outcomes in terms of whether a treatment recommendation was given (none vs. singular vs. multiple), and to identify factors related to type of treatment recommendation.

METHODS

An adaptation of the observer rating scale Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MDT-MODe) was used to assess the quality of the presented information and team processes in MDTMs. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

N = 249 cases were observed in N = 29 MDTMs. While cancer-specific medical information was judged to be of high quality, psychosocial information and information regarding patient views were considered to be of low quality. In 25% of the cases no, in 64% one, and in 10% more than one treatment recommendations were given (1% missing data). Giving no treatment recommendation was associated with duration of case discussion, duration of the MDTM session, quality of case history, quality of radiological information, and specialization of the MDTM. Higher levels of medical and treatment uncertainty during discussions were found to be associated with a higher probability for more than one treatment recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of different aspects of information was observed to differ greatly. In general, we did not find MDTMs to be in line with the principles of patient-centered care. Recommendation outcome varied substantially between different specializations of MDTMs. The quality of certain information was associated with the recommendation outcome. Uncertainty during discussions was related to more than one recommendation being considered. Time constraints were found to play an important role. Some of those aspects seem modifiable, which offers possibilities for the reorganization of MDTMs.

A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process

Objectives To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement.Design Multistage consultation process.Setting Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties.Participants 19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties.Results After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on "team talk," "option talk," and "decision talk," to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals.Conclusions The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences.

How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision-making has continuously gained importance over the last years. However, few studies have investigated the current state of shared decision-making implementation in routine cancer care. This study aimed to investigate how treatment decisions are made in routine cancer care and to explore barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making using an observational approach (three independent observers). Furthermore, the study aimed to extend the understanding of current decision-making processes beyond the dyadic physician-patient interaction.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional qualitative study using participant observation with semistructured field notes, which were analysed using qualitative content analysis as described by Hsieh and Shannon.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Field notes from participant observations were collected at n=54 outpatient consultations and during two 1-week-long observations at two inpatient wards in different clinics of one comprehensive cancer centre in Germany.

RESULTS

Most of the time, either one physician alone or a group of physicians made the treatment decisions. Patients were seldom actively involved. Patients who were 'active' (ie, asked questions, demanded participation, opposed treatment recommendations) facilitated shared decision-making. Time pressure, frequent alternation of responsible physicians and poor coordination of care were the main observed barriers for shared decision-making. We found high variation in decision-making behaviour between different physicians as well as the same physician with different patients.

CONCLUSION

Most of the time physicians made the treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was very rarely implemented in current routine cancer care. The entire decision-making process was not observed to follow the principles of shared decision-making. However, some aspects of shared decision-making were occasionally incorporated. Individual as well as organisational factors were found to influence the degree of shared decision-making. If future routine cancer care wishes to follow the principles of shared decision-making, strategies are needed to foster shared decision-making in routine cancer care.

The long way of implementing patient-centered care and shared decision making in Germany

The main focus of the paper is on the description of the development and current state of research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision making (SDM) after fifteen years of substantial advances in health policy and health services research. What is the current state of SDM in health policy? The "Patients' Rights Act" from 2013 standardizes all rights and responsibilities within the framework of medical treatment for German citizens and legal residents. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information for patients, and decisions based on a clinician-patient-partnership. What is the current state of SDM interventions and patient decision support tools? SDM training programs for healthcare professionals have been developed. Their implementation in medical schools has been successful. Several decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care, specifically for national cancer screening programs. What is the current state of research and routine implementation? The German government and other public institutions are constantly funding research programs in which patient-centered care and shared decision-making are important topics. The development and implementation of decision tools for patients and professionals as well as the implementation of CME trainings for healthcare professionals require future efforts. What does the future look like? With the support of health policy and scientific evidence, transfer of PCC and SDM to practice is regarded as meaningful. Research can help to assess barriers, facilitators, and needs, and subsequently to develop and evaluate corresponding strategies to successfully implement PCC and SDM in routine care, which remains challenging.

Poynting-Robertson-like Drag at the Sun's Surface

The Sun's internal rotation Ω(r,Θ) has previously been measured using helioseismology techniques and found to be a complex function of colatitude θ and radius r. From helioseismology and observations of apparently "rooted" solar magnetic tracers, we know that the surface rotates more slowly than much of the interior. The cause of this slow-down is not understood, but it is important for understanding stellar rotation generally and any plausible theory of the solar interior. A new analysis using 5-min solar p-mode limb oscillations as a rotation "tracer" finds an even larger velocity gradient in a thin region at the top of the photosphere. This shear occurs where the solar atmosphere radiates energy and angular momentum. We suggest that the net effect of the photospheric angular momentum loss is similar to Poynting-Robertson "photon braking" on, for example, Sun-orbiting dust. The resultant photospheric torque is readily computed and, over the Sun's lifetime, is found to be comparable to the apparent angular momentum deficit in the near-surface shear layer.

Shared Decision Making During Active Psychiatric Hospitalization: Assessment and Psychometric Properties

Encouraging patients to be involved in their care and enhancing shared decision making (SDM) have been advocated over the past two decades as means to enhance patient-centered care. However, one of the barriers to implementing SDM in medical consultations is the need to adapt this approach to various populations and medical settings, including mental health, and developing reliable and practical methods for measuring and assessing SDM. This article presents the psychometric properties and validity of an adapted scale, SDM-Q-9-Psy, that assesses SDM in routine care among psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatric inpatients were assigned into an SDM intervention cohort (n = 46) or a control cohort (n = 40). The adapted scale was administered after a decision-making process. The scale was subsequently psychometrically tested via factor and reliability analyses. It was also tested for convergent validity and for its ability to distinguish the degree of SDM between the intervention and control groups (construct validity). The SDM-Q-9-Psy scale yielded a Cronbach's α of .94. Convergent and construct validity parameters were good. The SDM-Q-9-Psy scale can be used to evaluate SDM from psychiatric inpatients' perspective and to provide rapid feedback to mental health professionals, enabling them to monitor their decision-making practice in real-time clinical consultations.

What do stakeholders need to implement shared decision making in routine cancer care? A qualitative needs assessment

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is particularly relevant in oncology, where complex treatment options with varying side effects may lead to meaningful changes in the patient's quality of life. For several years, health policies have called for the implementation of SDM, but SDM remains poorly implemented in routine clinical practice. Implementation science has highlighted the importance of assessing stakeholders' needs to inform the development of implementation programs. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess different stakeholders' needs regarding the implementation of SDM in routine care.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A qualitative study using focus groups and interviews was conducted. Focus groups were carried out with junior physicians, senior physicians, nurses and other healthcare providers (HPCs) (e.g. psycho-oncologists, physiotherapists), patients and family members. Head physicians as well as other HPCs in management positions were interviewed. Audiotapes of focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Six focus groups with a total of n = 42 stakeholders as well as n = 17 interviews were conducted. Focus groups and interviews revealed five main categories of needs to be fulfilled in order to achieve a better implementation of SDM in routine cancer care: 1) changes in communication, 2) involvement of other parties, 3) a trustful patient-physician relationship, 4) culture change and 5) structural changes. Stakeholders discussed four clusters of intervention strategies that could foster the implementation of SDM in routine cancer care: 1) clinician-mediated interventions, 2) patient-mediated interventions, 3) provision of patient information material and 4) the establishment of a patient advocate.

CONCLUSION

Study results show that stakeholders voiced a diversity of needs to foster implementation of SDM in routine cancer care, of which some can be directly addressed by intervention strategies. Present results can be used to develop an implementation program to foster SDM in routine cancer care.