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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

My anesthesia Choice-HF: development and preliminary testing of a tool to facilitate conversations about anesthesia for hip fracture surgery

BACKGROUND

Patients often desire involvement in anesthesia decisions, yet clinicians rarely explain anesthesia options or elicit preferences. We developed My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture, a conversation aid about anesthesia options for hip fracture surgery and tested its preliminary efficacy and acceptability.

METHODS

We developed a 1-page, tabular format, plain-language conversation aid with feedback from anesthesiologists, decision scientists, and community advisors. We conducted an online survey of English-speaking adults aged 50 and older. Participants imagined choosing between spinal and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Before and after viewing the aid, participants answered a series of questions regarding key outcomes, including decisional conflict, knowledge about anesthesia options, and acceptability of the aid.

RESULTS

Of 364/409 valid respondents, mean age was 64 (SD 8.9) and 59% were female. The proportion indicating decisional conflict decreased after reviewing the aid (63-34%, P < 0.001). Median knowledge scores increased from 50% correct to 67% correct (P < 0.001). 83% agreed that the aid would help them discuss options and preferences. 76.4% would approve of doctors using it.

CONCLUSION

My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture decreased decisional conflict and increased knowledge about anesthesia choices for hip fracture surgery. Respondents assessed it as acceptable for use in clinical settings.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Use of clinical decision aids may increase shared decision-making; further testing is warranted.

Engaging Long-Term Care Workers in Research: Recruitment Approaches and Participant Characteristics From a Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare the recruitment methods employed in a randomized controlled trial targeting long-term care workers, and resulting participant baseline characteristics.

DESIGN

We used a multifaceted recruitment process to enroll long-term care workers in our 3-arm randomized controlled trial comparing 2 interventions to enhanced usual practice, for improving COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other outcomes.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Adult long-term care workers living in the United States employed within the last 2 years were invited to join the study. Participants also had to meet specific screening criteria related to their degree of worry about the vaccine and/or their vaccination status.

METHODS

We used a participatory approach to engage our long-term care stakeholders in codesigning and executing a combination of recruitment methods, including targeted e-recruitment, paid e-recruitment, and in-person recruitment. Participants were screened, consented, and enrolled online. We implemented a participant verification process to ensure the integrity of our study data, and used a tailored participant management platform to manage enrollment.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1930 long-term care workers between May 2022 and January 2023. We met our enrollment target, despite each recruitment method having limitations. Total variable costs of approximately $102,700 were incurred and differed on a per-enrolled participant basis across methods: $25.73 for targeted e-recruitment, $57.12 for paid e-recruitment, and $64.92 for in-person methods. Our sample differed from the national population in age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, and role in long-term care. Differences were also observed between online and in-person recruitment methods.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our results support the feasibility of enrolling a large number of long-term care workers in a randomized controlled trial to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Findings build upon the evidence base for engaging this important population in research, a critical step to improving long-term care resident health and well-being. Results from our trial are anticipated in 2024.

Digital Mental Health and Its Discontents: Assumptions About Technology That Create Barriers to Equitable Access

Despite the potential of digital mental health interventions to aid recovery for people with serious mental illness, access to these digital tools remains a key barrier. In this column, the authors discuss three key assumptions that shape the integration of digital mental health tools into community health settings: clinical context, digital literacy, and financial burden. Clinical contexts have shifted with the increased use of telehealth, altering intervention environments; access to a mobile device is not the same as digital literacy; and digital mental health care is not necessarily affordable. Context-centered study design through ethnography will facilitate transfer of digital resources to real-world settings.

Clinician-Spoken Plain Language in Health Care Encounters: A Qualitative Analysis to Assess Measurable Elements

PURPOSE

Good communication and use of plain language in health care encounters improves outcomes, including emotional health, symptom resolution, and functional status. Yet there is limited research on how to measure and report spoken plain language, which is the use of familiar, clear language. The authors aimed to describe key, measurable elements of spoken plain language that can be assessed and reported back to clinicians for self-reflection.

METHOD

The authors conducted secondary analysis of transcripts from recorded encounters between breast cancer surgeons and patients with early-stage breast cancer. Two coders used a hybrid qualitative analysis with a framework based on US Federal Plain Language Guidelines. To develop major themes, they examined (1) alignment with the Guidelines and (2) code frequencies within and across transcripts. They also noted minor themes.

RESULTS

From 74 transcripts featuring 13 surgeons, the authors identified two major themes representing measurable elements of spoken plain language: (1) clinicians had a propensity to use both explained and unexplained medical terms, and (2) clinicians delivered information using either short turns (one unit of someone speaking) with one topic or long turns with multiple topics. There were three minor themes that were not indicative of whether or not clinicians used spoken plain language. First, clinicians regularly used absolute risk communication techniques. Second, question-asking techniques varied and included open-ended, close-ended, and comprehension checks. Third, some clinicians used imagery to describe complex topics.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians' propensity to use medical terms with and without explanation and parse encounters into shorter or longer turns are measurable elements of spoken plain language. These findings will support further research on the development of a tool that can be used in medical education and other settings. This tool could provide direct and specific feedback to improve the plain language practices of clinicians in training and beyond.

Evaluating the effect of Conversation Cards on agenda-setting in annual diabetes status visits: A multi-method study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate Conversation Cards for shared agenda-setting between patients and nurses in status visits for type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Non-randomized comparison of survey responses between intervention and control groups. Content analysis of interview data of patient experiences from a purposive sample of the intervention group.

RESULTS

The survey included 52 patients in the intervention and 55 in the control group. Survey data showed no significant differences between the groups. Regardless of the intervention, patients experienced that topics relevant to them were addressed. One in four patients rated the Conversation Cards as very supportive. Interview data indicated that the Conversation Cards added structure, commitment to the conversation, and support to raise topics not previously considered diabetes related.

CONCLUSION

Topics of concern were addressed in both intervention and control groups. The Conversation Cards for agenda-setting clarified a mutually agreed structure of the conversation, eased raising hitherto ignored topics, and increased engagement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The Conversation Cards have potential to improve shared agenda-setting, but implementation requires efforts from both parties. Patients are expected to consider their concerns and take an active part in agenda-setting. Nurses are expected to collaborate with the patient in the agenda-setting, which might challenge the nurses' habitual practice.

Evaluation of the nurse-assisted eHealth intervention 'eHealth@Hospital-2-Home' on self-care by patients with heart failure and colorectal cancer post-hospital discharge: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) and colorectal cancer (CRC) are prone to comorbidity, a high rate of readmission, and complex healthcare needs. Self-care for people with HF and CRC after hospitalisation can be challenging, and patients may leave the hospital unprepared to self-manage their disease at home. eHealth solutions may be a beneficial tool to engage patients in self-care.

METHODS

A randomised controlled trial with an embedded evaluation of intervention engagement and cost-effectiveness will be conducted to investigate the effect of eHealth intervention after hospital discharge on the self-efficacy of self-care. Eligible patients with HF or CRC will be recruited before discharge from two Norwegian university hospitals. The intervention group will use a nurse-assisted intervention-eHealth@Hospital-2-Home-for six weeks. The intervention includes remote monitoring of vital signs; patients' self-reports of symptoms, health and well-being; secure messaging between patients and hospital-based nurse navigators; and access to specific HF and CRC health-related information. The control group will receive routine care. Data collection will take place before the intervention (baseline), at the end of the intervention (Post-1), and at six months (Post-2). The primary outcome will be self-efficacy in self-care. The secondary outcomes will include measures of burden of treatment, health-related quality of life and 30- and 90-day readmissions. Sub-study analyses are planned in the HF patient population with primary outcomes of self-care behaviour and secondary outcomes of medication adherence, and readmission at 30 days, 90 days and 6 months. Patients' and nurse navigators' engagement and experiences with the eHealth intervention and cost-effectiveness will be investigated. Data will be analysed according to intention-to-treat principles. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis.

DISCUSSION

This protocol will examine the effects of the eHealth@ Hospital-2-Home intervention on self-care in two prevalent patient groups, HF and CRC. It will allow the exploration of a generic framework for an eHealth intervention after hospital discharge, which could be adapted to other patient groups, upscaled, and implemented into clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials.gov (ID 301472).

Is There Room for Individual Patient-Specified Preferences in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Revolution?

Purpose

The study aim was to test the feasibility of collecting qualitative patient-preferred outcomes or goals and the degree of their attainment as an addition to a standardized process for collecting quantitative composite patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from patients undergoing knee joint replacement.

Methods

Patients of a large Midwestern medical group scheduled to have total replacement of their knee joint have been asked to complete a PROMs survey preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months after surgery since 2014. In March 2020, an open-ended question about their most important preferred outcome was added to the existing questionnaire. The responses for all 3 time periods from the first 6 months of this addition were summarized quantitatively and analyzed by 2 reviewers.

Results

During that 6-month period, 1481 people completed the main survey while 1463 (98.8%) also completed the open-ended question. At baseline, 90.8% of the 590 baseline respondents identified a preferred outcome. If multiple-choice categories had been used, 82.7% of the responses would have lost some or a large amount of their preferred goals' meaning. Of the 144 who completed surveys at both baseline and 3 months, 86.1% reported another outcome in addition to pain relief, while 54.2% reported "Complete or Mostly" achieving their self-identified preferred outcome.

Conclusions

Most people who have joint replacement surgery and respond to a quantitative PROMs survey are willing to report on their other preferred outcomes as well. Adding an open-ended question to PROMs surveys may increase clinician focus on addressing outcomes important to each patient.

The Costs of Implementing a Conversation Aid for Uterine Fibroids in Multiple Health Care Settings

BACKGROUND

Health care organizations considering adopting a conversation aid (CA), a type of patient decision aid innovation, need information about the costs of implementation.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to: (1) calculate the costs of introducing a CA in a study of supported implementation in 5 gynecologic settings that manage individuals diagnosed with uterine fibroids and (2) estimate the potential costs of future clinical implementation efforts in hypothetical settings.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We used time-driven activity-based costing to estimate the costs of CA implementation at multiple steps: integration with an electronic health record, preimplementation, implementation, and sustainability. We then estimated costs for 2 disparate hypothetical implementation scenarios.

SUBJECTS AND DATA COLLECTION

We conducted semistructured interviews with participants and examined internal documentation.

RESULTS

We interviewed 41 individuals, analyzed 51 documents and 100 emails. Overall total implementation costs over ∼36 months of activities varied significantly across the 5 settings, ranging from $14,157 to $69,134. Factors influencing costs included size/complexity of the setting, urban/rural location, practice culture, and capacity to automate patient identification. Initial investments were substantial, comprising mostly personnel time. Settings that embedded CA use into standard workflows and automated identification of appropriate patients had the lowest initial investment and sustainability costs. Our estimates of the costs of sustaining implementation were much lower than initial investments and mostly attributable to CA subscription fees.

CONCLUSION

Initiation and implementation of the interventions require significant personnel effort. Ongoing costs to maintain use are much lower and are a small fraction of overall organizational operating costs.

The impact of adding cost information to a conversation aid to support shared decision making about low-risk prostate cancer treatment: Results of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Decision aids help patients consider the benefits and drawbacks of care options but rarely include cost information. We assessed the impact of a conversation-based decision aid containing information about low-risk prostate cancer management options and their relative costs.

METHODS

We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in outpatient urology practices within a US-based academic medical center. We randomised five clinicians to four intervention sequences and enroled patients newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Primary patient-reported outcomes collected postvisit included the frequency of cost conversations and referrals to address costs. Other patient-reported outcomes included: decisional conflict postvisit and at 3 months, decision regret at 3 months, shared decision-making postvisit, financial toxicity postvisit and at 3 months. Clinicians reported their attitudes about shared decision-making pre- and poststudy, and the intervention's feasibility and acceptability. We used hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient outcomes. The clinician was included as a random effect; fixed effects included education, employment, telehealth versus in-person visit, visit date, and enrolment period.

RESULTS

Between April 2020 and March 2022, we screened 513 patients, contacted 217 eligible patients, and enroled 117/217 (54%) (51 in usual care, 66 in the intervention group). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was not associated with cost conversations (β = .82, p = .27), referrals to cost-related resources (β = -0.36, p = .81), shared decision-making (β = -0.79, p = .32), decisional conflict postvisit (β = -0.34, p= .70), or at follow-up (β = -2.19, p = .16), decision regret at follow-up (β = -9.76, p = .11), or financial toxicity postvisit (β = -1.32, p = .63) or at follow-up (β = -2.41, p = .23). Most clinicians and patients had positive attitudes about the intervention and shared decision-making. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, patients in the intervention group experienced more transient indecision (p < .02) suggesting increased deliberation between visit and follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Despite enthusiasm from clinicians, the intervention was not significantly associated with hypothesised outcomes, though we were unable to robustly test outcomes due to recruitment challenges. Recruitment at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted eligibility, sample size/power, study procedures, and increased telehealth visits and financial worry, independent of the intervention. Future work should explore ways to support shared decision-making, cost conversations, and choice deliberation with a larger sample. Such work could involve additional members of the care team, and consider the detail, quality, and timing of addressing these issues.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and clinicians were engaged as stakeholder advisors meeting monthly throughout the duration of the project to advise on the study design, measures selected, data interpretation, and dissemination of study findings.

Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS).

METHODS

We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS.

DISCUSSION

The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

Decision making in metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender-affirming surgery: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Gender-affirming surgical procedures, such as metoidioplasty and phalloplasty for those assigned female at birth, are complex and multistaged and involve risks. Individuals considering these procedures experience greater uncertainty or decisional conflict, compounded by difficulty finding trustworthy information.

AIM

(1) To explore the factors contributing to decisional uncertainty and the needs of individuals considering metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender-affirming surgery (MaPGAS) and (2) to inform development of a patient-centered decision aid.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was based on mixed methods. Adult transgender men and nonbinary individuals assigned female at birth at various stages of MaPGAS decision making were recruited from 2 study sites in the United States to participate in semistructured interviews and an online gender health survey, which included measures of gender congruence, decisional conflict, urinary health, and quality of life. Trained qualitative researchers conducted all interviews with questions to explore constructs from the Ottawa decision support framework.

OUTCOMES

Outcomes included goals and priorities for MaPGAS, expectations, knowledge, and decisional needs, as well as variations in decisional conflict by surgical preference, surgical status, and sociodemographic variables.

RESULTS

We interviewed 26 participants and collected survey data from 39 (24 interviewees, 92%) at various stages of MaPGAS decision making. In surveys and interviews, affirmation of gender identity, standing to urinate, sensation, and the ability to "pass" as male emerged as highly important factors for deciding to undergo MaPGAS. A third of survey respondents reported decisional conflict. Triangulation of data from all sources revealed that conflict emerged most when trying to balance the strong desire to resolve gender dysphoria through surgical transition against the risks and unknowns in urinary and sexual function, appearance, and preservation of sensation post-MaPGAS. Insurance coverage, age, access to surgeons, and health concerns further influenced surgery preferences and timing.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The findings add to the understanding of decisional needs and priorities of those considering MaPGAS while revealing new complexities among knowledge, personal factors, and decisional uncertainty.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This mixed methods study was codeveloped by members of the transgender and nonbinary community and yielded important guidance for providers and individuals considering MaPGAS. The results provide rich qualitative insights for MaPGAS decision making in US contexts. Limitations include low diversity and sample size; both are being addressed in work underway.

CONCLUSIONS

This study increases understanding of the factors important to MaPGAS decision making, and results are being used to guide development of a patient-centered surgical decision aid and informed survey revision for national distribution.

Epistemic justice is the basis of shared decision making

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence that share decision-making (SDM) is being successfully implemented, with a significant gap between theory and clinical practice. In this article we look at SDM explicitly acknowledging its social and cultural situatedness and examine it as a set of practices (e.g. actions, such as communicating, referring, or prescribing, and decisions relating to them). We study clinicians' communicative performance as anchored in the context of professional and institutional practice and within the expected behavioural norms of actors situated in clinical encounters.

DISCUSSION

We propose to see conditions for shared decision-making in terms of epistemic justice, an explicit acknowledgment and acceptance of the legitimacy of healthcare users and their accounts and knowledges. We propose that shared decision-making is primarily a communicative encounter which requires both participants to have equal communicative rights. It is a process that is started by the clinician's decision and requires the suspension of their inherent interactional advantage.

CONCLUSION

The epistemic-justice perspective we adopt leads to at least three implications for clinical practices. First, clinical training must go beyond the development of communication skills and focus more on an understanding of healthcare as a set of social practices. Second, we suggest medicine develop a stronger relationship with humanities and the social sciences. Third, we advocate that shared decision-making has issues of justice, equity, and agency at its core.

"It helps us say what's important..." Developing Serious Illness Topics: A clinical visit agenda-setting tool

BACKGROUND

Skillful communication with attention to patient and care partner priorities can help people with serious illnesses. Few patient-facing agenda-setting tools exist to facilitate such communication.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a tool to facilitate prioritization of patient and care partner concerns during serious illness visits.

PATIENT OR FAMILY INVOLVEMENT

Two family members of seriously ill individuals advised.

METHODS

We performed a literature review and developed a prototype agenda-setting tool. We modified the tool based on cognitive interviews with patients, families and clinicians. We piloted the tool with patients, care partners and clinicians to gain an initial impression of its perceived value.

RESULTS

Interviews with eight patients, eight care partners and seven clinicians, resulted in refinements to the initial tool, including supplementation with visual cues. In the pilot test, seven clinicians used the tool with 11 patients and 12 family members. Qualitatively, patients and care partners reported the guide helped them consider and assert their priorities. Clinicians reported the tool complemented usual practice. Most participants reported no distress, disruption or confusion.

DISCUSSION

Patients, care partners and clinicians appreciated centering patient priorities in serious illness visits using the agenda-setting tool. More thorough evaluation is required.

PRACTICAL VALUE

The agenda-setting tool may operationalize elements of good serious illness care.

The CONFIDENT study protocol: a randomized controlled trial comparing two methods to increase long-term care worker confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines

BACKGROUND

Clinical and real-world effectiveness data for the COVID-19 vaccines have shown that they are the best defense in preventing severe illness and death throughout the pandemic. However, in the US, some groups remain more hesitant than others about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. One important group is long-term care workers (LTCWs), especially because they risk infecting the vulnerable and clinically complex populations they serve. There is a lack of research about how best to increase vaccine confidence, especially in frontline LTCWs and healthcare staff. Our aims are to: (1) compare the impact of two interventions delivered online to enhanced usual practice on LTCW COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other pre-specified secondary outcomes, (2) determine if LTCWs' characteristics and other factors mediate and moderate the interventions' effect on study outcomes, and (3) explore the implementation characteristics, contexts, and processes needed to sustain a wider use of the interventions.

METHODS

We will conduct a three-arm randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 2) trial, with randomization at the participant level. Arm 1 is a dialogue-based webinar intervention facilitated by a LTCW and a medical expert and guided by an evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine decision tool. Arm 2 is a curated social media web application intervention featuring interactive, dynamic content about COVID-19 and relevant vaccines. Arm 3 is enhanced usual practice, which directs participants to online public health information about COVID-19 vaccines. Participants will be recruited via online posts and advertisements, email invitations, and in-person visits to care settings. Trial data will be collected at four time points using online surveys. The primary outcome is COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Secondary outcomes include vaccine uptake, vaccine and booster intent for those unvaccinated, likelihood of recommending vaccination (both initial series and booster), feeling informed about the vaccines, identification of vaccine information and misinformation, and trust in COVID-19 vaccine information provided by different people and organizations. Exploration of intervention implementation will involve interviews with study participants and other stakeholders, an in-depth process evaluation, and testing during a subsequent sustainability phase.

DISCUSSION

Study findings will contribute new knowledge about how to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence and effective informational modalities for LTCWs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05168800 at ClinicalTrials.gov, registered December 23, 2021.

Bidirectional Correlations Between Health Confidence and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Activity: A Nationwide Longitudinal Cohort Study

Health confidence—an individual’s belief in their ability and agency to affect disease outcomes—has bidirectional temporal correlations with inflammatory bowel disease activity. Low health confidence is associated with higher risks for future disease activity, and inflammatory bowel disease flares erode confidence.

Discussing Cost and Value in Patient Decision Aids and Shared Decision Making: A Call to Action

Direct and indirect costs of care influence patients' health choices and the ability to implement those choices. Despite the significant impact of care costs on patients' health and daily lives, patient decision aid (PtDA) and shared decision-making (SDM) guidelines almost never mention a discussion of costs of treatment options as part of minimum standards or quality criteria. Given the growing study of the impact of costs in health decisions and the rising costs of care more broadly, in fall 2021 we organized a symposium at the Society for Medical Decision Making's annual meeting. The focus was on the role of cost information in PtDAs and SDM. Panelists gave an overview of work in this space at this virtual meeting, and attendees engaged in rich discussion with the panelists about the state of the problem as well as ideas and challenges in incorporating cost-related issues into routine care. This article summarizes and extends our discussion based on the literature in this area and calls for action. We recommend that PtDA and SDM guidelines routinely include a discussion of direct and indirect care costs and that researchers measure the frequency, quality, and response to this information.

Using incorpoRATE to examine clinician willingness to engage in shared decision making: A study of Family Medicine residents

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the willingness of Family Medicine residents to engage in SDM, before and after an educational intervention.

METHODS

We delivered a lecture and a workshop for residents on implementing SDM in preventive health care. Before the lecture (T1), participants completed a measure of their willingness to engage in SDM. Six months later, participants completed the measure a second time (T2).

RESULTS

At T1, 64 of 73 residents who attended the educational session completed incorpoRATE. Six months later, 44 of 64 participants completed the measure a second time (T2). The range of incorpoRATE sum scores at T1 was from 4.9 to 9.1 out of 10. Among the 44 participants who completed incorpoRATE at both time points, the mean scores were 7.0 ± 1.0 at T1 and 7.4 ± 1.0 at T2 (t = -2.833, p = 0.007, Cohen's D = 0.43).

CONCLUSION

Among Family Medicine residents, the willingness to engage in SDM is highly variable. This suggests a lack of consensus in the mind of these residents about SDM. Although mean scores at T2 were significantly higher, we question the educational importance of this change.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

incorpoRATE is a promising measure for educators. Understanding how willing a particular physician audience is to undertake SDM, and which elements require attention, could be helpful in designing more targeted curricula. Further research is needed to understand how the perceived stakes of a clinical situation influence physician willingness to engage in SDM.

A Rectal Cancer Surgical Decision Aid Is Not Enough: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer patients often face complex surgical treatment decisions, but there are few available tools to aid in decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify content and delivery preferences of rectal cancer patients and colorectal surgeons to guide future surgical decision aid creation.

DESIGN

Qualitative study: inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

In-person and phone interviews.

PATIENTS

We purposively sampled 15 rectal cancer survivors based on demographics and surgery type. Five caregivers also participated. We purposively selected 10 surgeons based on practice type and years of experience.

INTERVENTIONS

Semi-structured interviews.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Major and minor themes for survivors and surgeons with thematic saturation.

RESULTS

Interviews were a median of 61 minutes (41-93) for patients and 35 minutes (25-59) for surgeons. Nine survivors were younger than 65 years; 7 were female. Surgeons had been practicing for a mean of 10 years (SD 7.4), with 7 in academic and 3 in private settings. Participating survivors and surgeons wanted a comprehensive educational tool-not just a surgical decision aid. Survivors wanted more information on rectal cancer basics and lifestyle, care timelines, and resources during treatment. Surgeons thought patients mostly desired information about surgical options and bowel function. Both patients and surgeons wanted a tool that was personalized, simple, understandable, visually appealing, interactive, short, and in multiple formats.

LIMITATIONS

Results may not be generalizable due to selection bias of participants.

CONCLUSION

Rectal cancer survivors, their caregivers, and colorectal surgeons wanted an educational support tool that would address substantial educational needs through the continuum of disease rather than a surgical decision aid focusing on a discrete surgical choice only. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C20 .

UNA AYUDA PARA LA DECISIN QUIRRGICA DEL CNCER DE RECTO NO ES SUFICIENTE UN ESTUDIO CUALITATIVO

ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes con cáncer de recto a menudo enfrentan decisiones de tratamiento quirúrgico complejas, pero hay pocas herramientas disponibles para ayudar en la toma de decisiones.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue identificar el contenido y las preferencias de entrega de los pacientes con cáncer de recto y los cirujanos colorrectales para guiar la futura creación de ayuda para la toma de decisiones quirúrgicas.DISEÑO:Estudio cualitativo: análisis temático inductivo de entrevistas semiestructuradas.ESCENARIO:Entrevistas en persona y por teléfono.PACIENTES:Tomamos muestras intencionalmente de 15 sobrevivientes de cáncer de recto, según la demografía y el tipo de cirugía. También participaron cinco cuidadores. Seleccionamos intencionalmente a 10 cirujanos según el tipo de práctica y los años de experiencia.INTERVENCIONES:Entrevistas semiestructuradas.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Temas principales y secundarios para sobrevivientes y cirujanos con saturación temática.RESULTADOS:Las entrevistas tuvieron una mediana de 61 minutos (41-93) para pacientes y 35 minutos (25-59) para cirujanos. Nueve sobrevivientes tenían menos de 65 años; siete eran mujeres. Los cirujanos habían estado ejerciendo una media de 10 años (DE 7,4), con siete en entornos académicos y 3 en entornos privados. Los sobrevivientes y cirujanos participantes querían una herramienta educativa comprensible, no solo una ayuda para la decisión quirúrgica. Los sobrevivientes querían más información sobre los conceptos básicos y el estilo de vida del cáncer de recto, los plazos de atención y los recursos durante el tratamiento. Los cirujanos pensaron que los pacientes en su mayoría deseaban información sobre las opciones quirúrgicas y la función intestinal. Tanto los pacientes como los cirujanos querían una herramienta que fuera personalizada, simple, comprensible, visualmente atractiva, interactiva, corta y en múltiples formatos.LIMITACIONES:Los resultados pueden no ser generalizables debido al sesgo de selección de los participantes.CONCLUSIÓN:Los sobrevivientes de cáncer rectal, sus cuidadores y los cirujanos colorrectales querían una herramienta de apoyo educativo que cubriera las necesidades educativas sustanciales a lo largo del tratamiento de la enfermedad en lugar de una ayuda para la decisión quirúrgica que se centre solo en una opción quirúrgica discreta. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C20 . (Traducción-Dr. Yolanda Colorado ).

"Less is more": A design thinking approach to the development of the agenda-setting conversation cards for people with type 2 diabetes

Objectives

To report a design-thinking approach to a user-centred agenda-setting tool for use in type 2 diabetes clinics.

Methods

The study followed design-thinking phases: emphasizing, defining, and ideating an intervention, followed by iterative user-testing of prototypes. It was conducted at a Danish diabetes center using observations, interviews, workshops, focus groups, and questionnaires.

Results

Nurses wanted to put more emphasis on agenda-setting in status visits. During brainstorms the idea of using illustrated cards that listed key agenda topics was proposed and became the goal of this research. Adopting a design-thinking approach provided the basis for developing prototypes for iterative user-testing that led to a version that was acceptable to stakeholders. The resulting tool, Conversation Cards, was a set of cards that listed and illustrated seven key topics that were considered important to consider during diabetes status visits.

Conclusion

The goal of the Conversation Card intervention is to support collaborative agenda-setting in diabetes status visits. Further evaluation is needed to determine the utility and acceptability of the tool to nurses and to people with diabetes in routine settings.

Innovation

This novel tool is designed to trigger agenda-setting conversations and thereby prioritize individuals' choice of topics to talk about during diabetes status visits.

Urethral outcomes in metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender affirming surgery (MaPGAS) and vaginectomy: a systematic review

Background

There is currently a paucity of data on urethral-related outcomes in metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender affirming surgery (MaPGAS) with urethral lengthening (UL)and vaginectomy.

Methods

A systematic review was performed utilizing MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Europe PMC, OSF Preprints, and EMBASE. Methodologic quality was scored using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. Four independent reviewers performed the article evaluation, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment. Primary outcomes included standing to urinate/pee (STP), penile length, glanular meatus, urethral stricture, fistula, and flap necrosis. Results were summarized qualitatively with descriptive statistics.

Results

A total of 2,881 articles of which 11 retrospective reviews of 13 cohorts met criteria; 4.3/16 average (avg) MINORS score. Six metoidioplasty cohorts had an average penile length of 6 cm, 74% reported successful STP, and a quarter developed stricture or fistula. Phalloplasty cohorts included radial forearm flap (RF) and Anterolateral Thigh flap (ALT). Of the 4 RF studies nearly a third developed a stricture or fistula and only one study reported 99% STP with a glanular meatus. Three ALT studies reported no length but had 80-90% STP with a glanular meatus and a quarter with stricture or fistula.

Conclusions

Urethral complications in MaPGAS-UL in a cohort with prior vaginectomy are common and variably reported. Patient centered outcome measures as well as clearly defined outcome metrics created in partnership with community members are needed.

Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboards Within the Electronic Health Record to Support Shared Decision-making: Protocol for Co-design and Clinical Evaluation With Patients With Advanced Cancer and Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes-symptoms, treatment side effects, and health-related quality of life-are important to consider in chronic illness care. The increasing availability of health IT to collect patient-reported outcomes and integrate results within the electronic health record provides an unprecedented opportunity to support patients' symptom monitoring, shared decision-making, and effective use of the health care system.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study are to co-design a dashboard that displays patient-reported outcomes along with other clinical data (eg, laboratory tests, medications, and appointments) within an electronic health record and conduct a longitudinal demonstration trial to evaluate whether the dashboard is associated with improved shared decision-making and disease management outcomes.

METHODS

Co-design teams comprising study investigators, patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease, their care partners, and their clinicians will collaborate to develop the dashboard. Investigators will work with clinic staff to implement the co-designed dashboard for clinical testing during a demonstration trial. The primary outcome of the demonstration trial is whether the quality of shared decision-making increases from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal changes in satisfaction with care, self-efficacy in managing treatments and symptoms, health-related quality of life, and use of costly and potentially avoidable health care services. Implementation outcomes (ie, fidelity, appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, reach, adoption, and sustainability) during the co-design process and demonstration trial will also be collected and summarized.

RESULTS

The dashboard co-design process was completed in May 2020, and data collection for the demonstration trial is anticipated to be completed by the end of July 2022. The results will be disseminated in at least one manuscript per study objective.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol combines stakeholder engagement, health care coproduction frameworks, and health IT to develop a clinically feasible model of person-centered care delivery. The results will inform our current understanding of how best to integrate patient-reported outcome measures into clinical workflows to improve outcomes and reduce the burden of chronic disease on patients and health care systems.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/38461.

Eliciting patients' healthcare goals and concerns: Do questions influence responses?

There is increasing interest in asking patients questions before their visits to elicit goals and concerns, which is part of the move to support the concept of coproducing care. The phrasing and delivery of such questions differs across settings and is likely to influence responses. This report describes a study that (i) used a three-level model to categorize the goals and concerns elicited by two different pre-visit questions, and (ii) describes associations between responses elicited and the phrasing and delivery of the two questions. The questions were administered to patients with rheumatic disease, and patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Paper-based responses from 150 patients with rheumatic disease and 338 patients with IBD were analyzed (163 paper, 175 electronic). The goals and concerns elicited were primarily disease or symptom-specific. The specific goal and concern examples featured in one pre-visit question were more commonly reported in responses to that question, compared to the question without examples. Questions completed electronically before the visit were associated with longer responses than those completed on paper in the waiting room. In conclusion, how and when patients' goals and concerns are elicited appears to have an impact on responses and warrants further investigation.

Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Proponents of shared decision-making (SDM) advocate the elicitation of the patient's perspective. This scoping review explores if, and to what extent, the personal perspectives of patients are elicited during a clinical encounter, as part of a SDM process. We define personal perspective elicitation (PPE) as: the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or context.

METHODS

A search was conducted in five literature databases from inception dates up to July 2020, to identify empirical studies about SDM (with/without SDM instrument).

RESULTS

The search identified 4562 abstracts; 263 articles were read in full text, resulting in 99 included studies. Studies reported low levels of PPE. Integration of personal perspectives into the conversation or a future care plan was largely absent. The majority of the discussed content related to physical health, while social and psychological topics were mostly unaddressed.

CONCLUSIONS

PPE occurs on a very low level in efforts to achieve SDM according to evaluation studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PPE is advocated but rarely achieved in SDM evaluation studies. Causes should be identified, followed by designing interventions to improve this aspect of SDM.

"Something for us": Co-development of the COVID-19 Social Site, a web app for long-term care workers

Background

Improving confidence in and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and boosters among long-term care workers (LTCWs) is a crucial public health goal, given their role in the care of elderly people and people at risk. While difficult to reach with workplace communication interventions, most LTCWs regularly use social media and smartphones. Various social media interventions have improved attitudes and uptake for other vaccines and hold promise for the LTCW population.

Objective

We aimed to develop a curated social web application (interactive website) to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence (a 3-arm randomized trial is underway).

Methods

Following user-centric design and participatory research approaches, we undertook the following 3 steps: (1) content identification, (2) platform development, and (3) community building. A LTCW and stakeholder advisory group provided iterative input. For content identification (step 1), we identified topics of concern about COVID-19 vaccines via desktop research (published literature, public opinion polls, and social media monitoring), refined by interviewing and polling LTCWs. We also conducted a national online panel survey. We curated and fact-checked posts from popular social media platforms that addressed the identified concerns. During platform development (step 2), we solicited preferences for design and functionality via interviews and user experience testing with LTCWs. We also identified best practices for online community building (step 3).

Results

In the interviews (n=9), we identified 3 themes: (1) LTCWs are proud of their work but feel undervalued; (2) LTCWs have varying levels of trust in COVID-19–related information; and (3) LTCWs would welcome a curated COVID-19 resource that is easy to understand and use-"something for us". Through desktop research, LTCW interviews, and our national online panel survey (n=592) we found that participants are interested in information about COVID-19 in general, vaccine benefits, vaccine risks, and vaccine development. Content identification resulted in 434 posts addressing these topic areas, with 209 uploaded to the final web application. Our LTCW poll (n=8) revealed preferences for personal stories and video content. The platform we developed is an accessible WordPress-based social media web application, refined through formal (n=3) and informal user experience testing. Users can sort posts by topic or subtopic and react to or comment on posts. To build an online community, we recruited 3 LTCW “community ambassadors” and instructed them to encourage discussion, acknowledge concerns, and offer factual information on COVID-19 vaccines. We also set “community standards” for the web application.

Conclusions

An iterative, user-centric, participatory approach led to the launch of an accessible social media web application with curated content for COVID-19 vaccines targeting LTCWs in the United States. Through our trial, we will determine if this approach successfully improves vaccine confidence. If so, a similar social media resource could be used to develop curated social media interventions in other populations and with other public health goals.

Interrupted opening statements in clinical encounters: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a scoping review of literature on the duration of patients' opening statements in clinical encounters, with or without an interruption.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to identify articles based on pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted study details and outcomes related to the length of patients' opening statements. A second reviewer verified this data.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies from 1185 citations reviewed. Encounters were in primary care clinics, specialty clinics, and hospitals. Across six studies, the mean time to interruption was 18.2 s. The mean length of uninterrupted opening statements was 45.9 s across nine studies.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians interrupting their patients' opening statements, compared to not interrupting, takes away time from the patient to fully present their concerns. Research has not focused on the nature of clinician interruptions. For instance, an interruption encouraging expansion or more detail facilitates understanding. Therefore, the impact these interruptions have on the clinical encounter remains unknown.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interrupting the average patient does not save time, so clinicians may benefit from allowing their patients to complete their opening statements.

Development of an adjective-selection measure evaluating clinicians' attitudes towards using patient decision aids: The ADOPT measure

BACKGROUND

The implementation of shared decision-making and patient decision aids (PDAs) is impeded by clinicians' attitudes.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a measure of clinician attitude towards PDAs.

METHODS

To develop the ADOPT measure, we used four stages, culminating in measure responses by medically qualified clinicians, 25 from each of the following specialties: emergency medicine, family medicine, oncology, obstetrics and gynaecology, orthopaedics, and psychiatry. To assess validity, we also posed three questions to assess the participants' attitudinal and behavioural endorsement of PDAs. Allocating a point per adjective, we calculated the sum as well as positive and negative scores. We used univariate logistic regression to determine associations between the scores and attitudinal or behavioural endorsements.

RESULTS

152 clinicians completed the measure. 'Time-saving' (39%) and 'easy' (34%) were the most frequently selected adjectives. 'Time-consuming' and 'unfamiliar' were the most frequently selected negative adjectives (both 19%). The sum scores were significantly associated with behavioural endorsement of PDAs.

DISCUSSION

Clinicians were able to respond to adjective-selection methods and the ADOPT measure could help assess clinician attitudes to PDAs. Validation will require further research.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The ADOPT measure could help identify the extent and source of attitudinal resistance.

The submissive silence of others: Examining definitions of shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to use critical discourse analysis (CDA) to examine the most widely cited definitions of shared decision making so that we can evaluate how language is used to position participants. Based on our conceptual understanding, we presumed that shared decision making involves acts of communication where processes are collaborative.

METHODS

We used a CDA lens to closely examine the phrases, semantics, syntax, implied functions, and the social actions proposed in SDM definition texts. We conducted a systematic search guided by the PRISMA guidelines, to identify the most widely cited definitions of SDM.

RESULTS

A total of 72 studies met our inclusion criteria. While SDM is not consistently defined, it was striking to find that clinicians are constructed as active whereas patients were viewed to be passive participants. The definitions construct SDM to be a gift that the clinician has the power to offer, and the relationship in the definitions appears asymmetric, in which only one party seems to speak.

CONCLUSIONS

The SDM definitions examined convey a process characterized by a clinician who speaks, while a patient mostly listens, and is invited to contribute. An alternative definition might be constructed through references to joint activity via sentences in active voice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians may be influenced by definitions of SDM that reinforce the positionality of active speaker versus passive recipient. Clearer definitions that address the constructs of power and roles may help support the implementation of SDM.

Psychometric assessment of the consideRATE questions, a new measure of serious illness experience, with an online simulation study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the psychometric properties of the consideRATE questions, a measure of serious illness experience.

METHODS

We recruited people at least 50 years old via paid panels online, with US-Census-based quotas. We randomized participants to a patient experience story at two time points. Participants completed a series of measures, including the consideRATE questions. We assessed convergent (Pearson's correlation), discriminative (one-way ANOVA with Tukey's test for multiple comparisons) and divergent (Pearson's correlation) validity. We also assessed intra-rater reliability (intra-class correlation) and responsiveness to change (t-tests).

RESULTS

We included 809 individuals in our analysis. We established convergent validity (r = 0.77; p < 0.001); discriminative validity (bad/neutral stories [mean diff=0.4; p < 0.001]; neutral/ good stories [mean diff=1.3; p < 0.001]) and moderate divergent validity (r = 0.57; p < 0.001). We established sensitivity to change in all stories (bad/good [mean diff=1.52; p < 0.001]; good/bad [mean diff= -1.68; p < 0.001]; neutral/bad [mean diff= -0.57; p < 0.001]; good/neutral [mean diff= -1.11; p < 0.001]; neutral/good [mean diff= 1.1; p < 0.001]) but one (bad/neutral [mean diff= 0.4; p < 0.07]). Intra-rater reliability was demonstrated between time points (r = 0.77; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

the consideRATE questions were reliable and valid in a simulated online test.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

the consideRATE questions may be a practical way to measure serious illness experience and the effectiveness of interventions to improve it.

Shared Decision-making in the U.S.: Evidence exists, but implementation science must now inform policy for real change to occur

Shared decision making (SDM) is defined as an approach in which clinicians and patients share the best available evidence when faced with the task of making decisions, and in which patients are supported to consider options to achieve informed preferences [1]. Over the past decade, SDM has been increasingly recognized as a component of value-based care in the US. There is greater acceptance overall that SDM is a key strategy for achieving patient-centered care, enhancing patient safety, and achieving the triple aim of better health, better care, and lower costs [2]. Essential elements of SDM include recognizing and acknowledging that a decision is required; knowing and understanding the best available evidence on risks and benefits; and incorporating the patient's values and preferences into the decision [3]. This paper provides an update of our previous review of SDM in the US published in 2017. We describe changes in healthcare policies to support SDM at the federal and state levels, the integration of SDM into clinical practice, and the role of implementation science to advance SDM. Finally, we discuss potential next steps to inform policies for SDM and facilitate uptake of SDM in clinical practice.

Patient involvement in rheumatoid arthritis care to improve disease activity-based management in daily practice: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of an intervention to improve disease activity-based management of RA in daily clinical practice by addressing patient level barriers.

METHODS

The DAS-pass strategy aims to increase patients' knowledge about DAS28 and to empower patients to be involved in treatment (decisions). It consists of an informational leaflet, a patient held record and guidance by a specialized rheumatology nurse. In a Randomized Controlled Trial, 199 RA patients were randomized 1:1 to intervention or control group. Outcome measures were patient empowerment (EC-17; primary outcome), attitudes towards medication (BMQ), disease activity (DAS28) and knowledge about DAS28.

RESULTS

Our strategy did not affect EC-17, BMQ, or DAS28 use. However it demonstrated a significant improvement of knowledge about DAS28 in the intervention group, compared to the control group. The intervention had an additional effect on patients with low baseline knowledge compared to patients with high baseline knowledge.

CONCLUSION

The DAS-pass strategy educates patients about (the importance of) disease activity-based management, especially patients with low baseline knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The strategy supports patient involvement in disease activity-based management of RA and can be helpful to reduce inequalities between patients in the ability to be involved in shared decision making.

A shared decision-making communications workshop improves internal medicine resident skill, risk-benefit education, and counseling attitude

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the impact of a workshop on first-year medicine residents (PGY1) shared decision-making (SDM) communication skill, risk-benefit education, and attitude.

METHODS

A SDM skills-focused workshop was integrated into an academic medical center PGY1 ambulatory rotation in 2016-2017. Pre/post recordings of virtual Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) with standardized patients sharing decisions were scored using OPTION5. Risk-benefit education, including decision aid use, was measured. Pre/post surveys assessed SDM practice attitudes and perceived barriers.

RESULTS

31 of 48 (65%) PGY1 workshop attendees completed pre/post OSCEs yielding 62 videos. OPTION5 scores improved from 27/100 pre to 56/100 post (p < 0.001). Pre/post increases in integration of qualitative (15/31 vs 31/31, p < 0.001) and quantitative (3/31 vs 31/31, p < 0.001) risk measures, and decision aids (1/3 vs 31/31, p < 0.001) were observed. Pro-SDM attitude of decisional neutrality increased 16.6% pre to 71.9% post-survey (P < 0.001). Barriers to SDM remain.

CONCLUSION

This PGY1 workshop with virtual OSCEs improved SDM communication skills, the ability to find and provide risk-benefit education, and SDM-facilitating attitude.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Residency programs can improve SDM skills, risk-benefit education, and attitudes with a workshop intervention. Perceived time constraints and cognitive biases regarding risk-benefit estimates should be addressed to ensure quality SDM in practice.

Shared decision-making interventions: An overview and a meta-analysis of their impact on vaccine uptake

BACKGROUND

The interest in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of patient decision aids have increased significantly. Research indicates that this approach has benefits, and yet, implementation remains a challenge. To illustrate this development, we focus on vaccine hesitancy which has become a serious public health challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Various strategies have been used in healthcare, with limited success, to help patients overcome vaccine hesitancy. It is unclear whether SDM interventions can increase vaccination rates.

AIMS

Our aim was two-fold: to provide an overview of SDM and the use of patient decision aids and to determine the effect of SDM interventions on vaccine uptake.

METHODS

To provide an overview, we drew on our knowledge of the field and summarized the most recent systematic reviews. We examined the impact on vaccine hesitancy by searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions, conducted a meta-analysis and calculated a pooled odds ratio. Additional outcomes were reported in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

SDM is viewed as the pinnacle of patient-centred care, supported by an ethical imperative and by empirical evidence of benefits. We found 10 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. SDM interventions significantly increased vaccine uptake compared to control groups (odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [1.17-1.80]; p < 0.01). Some RCTs also reported significantly decreased decisional conflict and increased decision confidence.

CONCLUSION

Future healthcare delivery systems will need to consider how to support the implementation of SDM. Interventions designed to facilitate this approach can represent a helpful, ethically defensible, strategy to increase vaccination rates.

Unexpected Outcomes of Measuring Decision Regret: Using a Breast Cancer Decision-Making Case Example

Shared decision making can help patients feel supported and empowered when deciding between healthcare options. Decision regret can be a meaningful measure of the quality of that encounter. However, in a patient-engaged research study examining shared decision making for breast cancer surgery, decision regret was a difficult construct to assess, and asking questions about decision regret caused the patient to experience that emotion upon reflection. In this article, we consider the complexity of decision regret, and discuss the difficulty of measuring that emotion through existing instruments. We call for clarity in definitions of decision regret and offer suggestions for developing a set of questions that can capture regret in a more meaningful way.

Potential impact of encounter patient decision aids on the patient-clinician dialogue: a qualitative study on Dutch and American medical specialists' experiences

OBJECTIVES

To examine the experiences among Dutch and American clinicians on the impact of using encounter patient decision aids (ePDAs) on their clinical practice, and subsequently to formulate recommendations for sustained ePDA use in clinical practice.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with clinicians who used 11 different ePDAs (applicable to their specialty) for 3 months after a short training. The verbatim transcribed interviews were coded with thematic analysis by six researchers via ATLAS.ti.

SETTING

Nine hospitals in the Netherlands and two hospitals in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five clinicians were interviewed: 16 Dutch medical specialists from four different disciplines (gynaecologists, ear-nose-throat specialists, neurologists and orthopaedic surgeon), 5 American gynaecologists and 4 American gynaecology medical trainees.

RESULTS

The interviews showed that the ePDA potentially impacted the patient-clinician dialogue in several ways. We identified six themes that illustrate this: that is, (1) communication style, for example, structuring the conversation; (2) the patient's role, for example, encouraging patients to ask more questions; (3) the clinician's role, for example, prompting clinicians to discuss more information; (4) workflow, for example, familiarity with the ePDA's content helped to integrate it into practice; (5) shared decision-making (SDM), for example, mixed experiences whether the ePDA contributed to SDM; and (6) content of the ePDA. Recommendations to possibly improve ePDA use based on the clinician's experiences: (1) add pictorial health information to the ePDA instead of text only and (2) instruct clinicians how to use the ePDA in a flexible (depending on their discipline and setting) and personalised way adapting the ePDA to the patients' needs (e.g., mark off irrelevant options).

CONCLUSIONS

ePDAs contributed to the patient-clinician dialogue in several ways according to medical specialists. A flexible and personalised approach appeared appropriate to integrate the use of ePDAs into the clinician's workflow, and customise their use to individual patients' needs.

Is Shared Decision-making Associated with Better Patient-reported Outcomes? A Longitudinal Study of Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Although shared decision-making (SDM) has knowledge and satisfaction benefits for patients and is promising, we lack data demonstrating that SDM is associated with better patient-reported functional outcomes. Such data would support the integration and prioritization of SDM into all aspects of orthopaedic care.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is a measure of SDM before total joint arthroplasty associated with better patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 1 year postoperatively? (2) What is the relationship between the measure of SDM and two measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and patient likelihood of recommending the provider) at 1 year postoperatively?

METHODS

In this observational longitudinal survey-based study, patients receiving an initial THA or TKA from a large, multispecialty medical group in the Midwestern United States were surveyed after they were scheduled for surgery and again at 12 months after their procedure. The three-item collaboRATE measure of SDM was added to existing patient surveys of PROMs. However, the surgeons and their department had no organized approach to SDM during this time. The surveys also included the Oxford knee or hip score and two validated measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and whether a patient would recommend the provider). Of the 2779 eligible primary joint arthroplasties that occurred from April 23, 2018 to May 1, 2019, 48% (1334 procedures; 859 TKAs and 485 THAs) of the patients responded to both the preoperative and 12-month postoperative surveys. Most of the patients who were included in the analytic sample were white (93%; 1255 of 1344), with only 3% (37) using Medicaid benefits at the time of surgery. Differences between responders and nonresponders were present and explored in an analysis. Patient responses were analyzed in regression models to estimate the association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford knee or hip scores, and patient experience measures 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

There was a moderate, positive association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford scores at 12 months, after adjustment for potential confounders such as patient age and preoperative functional score (β = 0.58; 95% CI 0.14-1.02; p = 0.01). Similarly, patients with preoperative collaboRATE scores had marginally higher patient experience scores at 12 months postoperatively (β = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05-0.24; p = 0.003) and were more likely to recommend their surgeon (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.84; p = 0.005). The patient experience measures were also modestly correlated with collaboRATE scores in cross-sectional associations, both preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively (0.29 ≤ r ≤ 0.54; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and Oxford hip or knee scores suggests that SDM could be one tool to encourage better outcomes. Although previous studies have shown that SDM can improve patient experience, the lack of a strong correlation in our study suggests that PROMs and experience measures are separate domains, at least partly. Improving preoperative SDM between the surgeon and patient might help improve surgical outcomes for patients undergoing TKA and THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

An absence of equipoise: Examining surgeons' decision talk during encounters with women considering breast cancer surgery

Shared decision-making is recommended for decisions with multiple reasonable options, yet clinicians often subtly or explicitly guide choices. Using purposive sampling, we performed a secondary analysis of 142 audio-recorded encounters between 13 surgeons and women eligible for breast-conserving surgery with radiation or mastectomy. We trained 9 surgeons in shared decision-making and provided them one of two conversation aids; 4 surgeons practiced as usual. Based on a published taxonomy of treatment recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, assertions), we examined how surgeons framed choices with patients. Many surgeons made assertions providing information and advice (usual care 71% vs. intervention 66%; p = 0.54). Some made strong pronouncements (usual care 51% vs. intervention 36%; p = .09). Few made proposals and offers, leaving the door open for deliberation (proposals usual care 21% vs. intervention 26%; p = 0.51; offers usual care 40% vs. intervention 40%; p = 0.98). Surgeons were significantly more likely to describe options as comparable when using a conversation aid, mentioning this in all intervention group encounters (usual care 64% vs. intervention 100%; p<0.001). Conversation aids can facilitate offers of comparable options, but other conversational actions can inhibit aspects of shared decision-making.

The role of co-production in Learning Health Systems

Background

Co-production of health is defined as ‘the interdependent work of users and professionals who are creating, designing, producing, delivering, assessing, and evaluating the relationships and actions that contribute to the health of individuals and populations’. It can assume many forms and include multiple stakeholders in pursuit of continuous improvement, as in Learning Health Systems (LHSs). There is increasing interest in how the LHS concept allows integration of different knowledge domains to support and achieve better health. Even if definitions of LHSs include engaging users and their family as active participants in aspects of enabling better health for individuals and populations, LHS descriptions emphasize technological solutions, such as the use of information systems. Fewer LHS texts address how interpersonal interactions contribute to the design and improvement of healthcare services.

Objective

We examined the literature on LHS to clarify the role and contributions of co-production in LHS conceptualizations and applications.

Method

First, we undertook a scoping review of LHS conceptualizations. Second, we compared those conceptualizations to the characteristics of LHSs first described by the US Institute of Medicine. Third, we examined the LHS conceptualizations to assess how they bring four types of value co-creation in public services into play: co-production, co-design, co-construction and co-innovation. These were used to describe core ideas, as principles, to guide development.

Result

Among 17 identified LHS conceptualizations, 3 qualified as most comprehensive regarding fidelity to LHS characteristics and their use in multiple settings: (i) the Cincinnati Collaborative LHS Model, (ii) the Dartmouth Coproduction LHS Model and (iii) the Michigan Learning Cycle Model. These conceptualizations exhibit all four types of value co-creation, provide examples of how LHSs can harness co-production and are used to identify principles that can enhance value co-creation: (i) use a shared aim, (ii) navigate towards improved outcomes, (iii) tailor feedback with and for users, (iv) distribute leadership, (v) facilitate interactions, (vi) co-design services and (vii) support self-organization.

Conclusions

The LHS conceptualizations have common features and harness co-production to generate value for individual patients as well as for health systems. They facilitate learning and improvement by integrating supportive technologies into the sociotechnical systems that make up healthcare. Further research on LHS applications in real-world complex settings is needed to unpack how LHSs are grown through coproduction and other types of value co-creation.