Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Prognostication in Neurocritical Care

OBJECTIVE

This article synthesizes the current literature on prognostication in neurocritical care, identifies existing challenges, and proposes future research directions to reduce variability and enhance scientific and patient-centered approaches to neuroprognostication.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Patients with severe acute brain injury often lack the capacity to make their own medical decisions, leaving surrogate decision makers responsible for life-or-death choices. These decisions heavily rely on clinicians' prognostication, which is still considered an art because of the previous lack of specific guidelines. Consequently, there is significant variability in neuroprognostication practices. This article examines various aspects of neuroprognostication. It explores the cognitive approach to prognostication, highlights the use of statistical modeling such as Bayesian models and machine learning, emphasizes the importance of clinician-family communication during prognostic disclosures, and proposes shared decision making for more patient-centered care.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

This article identifies ongoing challenges in the field and emphasizes the need for future research to ameliorate variability in neuroprognostication. By focusing on scientific methodologies and patient-centered approaches, this research aims to provide guidance and tools that may enhance neuroprognostication in neurocritical care.

Targeting behavioral factors with digital health and shared decision-making to promote cardiac rehabilitation-a narrative review

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) represents an important steppingstone for many cardiac patients into a more heart-healthy lifestyle to prevent premature death and improve quality of life years. However, CR is underutilized worldwide. In order to support the development of targeted digital health interventions, this narrative review (I) provides understandings of factors influencing CR utilization from a behavioral perspective, (II) discusses the potential of digital health technologies (DHTs) to address barriers and reinforce facilitators to CR, and (III) outlines how DHTs could incorporate shared decision-making to support CR utilization. A narrative search of reviews in Web of Science and PubMed was conducted to summarize evidence on factors influencing CR utilization. The factors were grouped according to the Behaviour Change Wheel. Patients' Capability for participating in CR is influenced by their disease knowledge, awareness of the benefits of CR, information received, and interactions with healthcare professionals (HCP). The Opportunity to attend CR is impacted by healthcare system factors such as referral processes and HCPs' awareness, as well as personal resources including logistical challenges and comorbidities. Patients' Motivation to engage in CR is affected by emotions, factors such as gender, age, self-perception of fitness and control over the cardiac condition, as well as peer comparisons. Based on behavioral factors, this review identified intervention functions that could support an increase of CR uptake: Future DHTs aiming to support CR utilization may benefit from incorporating information for patients and HCP education, enabling disease management and collaboration along the patient pathway, and enhancing social support from relatives and peers. To conclude, considerations are made how future innovations could incorporate such functions.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Exploration of shared decision making in oncology within the United States: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) among the oncology population is highly important due to complex screening and treatment decisions. SDM among patients with cancer, caregivers, and clinicians has gained more attention and importance, yet few articles have systematically examined SDM, specifically in the adult oncology population. This review aims to explore SDM within the oncology literature and help identify major gaps and concerns, with the goal to provide guidance in the development of clear SDM definitions and interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley approach along with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. A systematic search was conducted in four databases that included publications since 2016.

RESULTS

Of the 364 initial articles, eleven publications met the inclusion criteria. We included articles that were original research, cancer related, and focused on shared decision making. Most studies were limited in defining SDM and operationalizing a model of SDM. There were several concerns revealed related to SDM: (1) racial inequality, (2) quality and preference of the patient, caregiver, and clinician communication is important, and (3) the use of a decision-making aid or tool provides value to the patient experience.

CONCLUSION

Inconsistencies regarding the meaning and operationalization of SDM and inequality of the SDM process among patients from different racial/ethnic backgrounds impact the health and quality of care patients receive. Future studies should clearly and consistently define the meaning of SDM and develop decision aids that incorporate bidirectional, interactive communication between patients, caregivers, and clinicians that account for the diversity of racial, ethnic, and sociocultural backgrounds and preferences.

A systematic review of shared decision making interventions in child and youth mental health: synthesising the use of theory, intervention functions, and behaviour change techniques

Reviews around interventions to improve shared decision making (SDM) for child and youth mental health have produced inconclusive findings on what approaches increase participation. Importantly, the previous reviews did not explore the use of theory, as well as mechanisms of change (intervention functions) and active units of change (behaviour change techniques). The aim of this review was to explore these factors and ascertain how, if at all, these contribute to SDM. Five databases were searched up until April 2020. Studies met inclusion criteria if they were: (a) an intervention to facilitate SDM; (b) aimed at children, adolescence, or young people aged up to 25, with a mental health difficulty, or their parents/guardians; and (c) included a control group. Data were extracted on patient characteristics, study design, intervention, theoretical background, intervention functions, behaviour change techniques, and SDM. Quality assessment of the studies was undertaken using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool. Eight different interventions met inclusion criteria. The role of theory to increase SDM remains unclear. Specific intervention functions, such as 'education' on SDM and treatment options and 'environmental restructuring' using decision aids, are being used in SDM interventions, as well as 'training' for clinicians. Similarly, behaviour change techniques linked to these, such as 'adding objects to the environment', 'discussing pros/cons', and clinicians engaging in 'behavioural practice/rehearsal'. However, as most studies scored low on the quality assessment criteria, as well as a small number of studies included and a low number of behaviour change techniques utilised, links between behaviour change techniques, intervention functions and increased participation remain tentative. Intervention developers and clinicians may wish to consider specific intervention functions and behaviour change techniques to facilitate SDM.

Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Decision-making to Improve Vulnerable Women's Participation in Cervical Cancer Screening in France: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (AppDate-You)

BACKGROUND

The French organized population-based cervical cancer screening (CCS) program transitioned from a cytology-based to a human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening strategy in August 2020. HPV testing is offered every 5 years, starting at the age of 30 years. In the new program, women are invited to undergo an HPV test at a gynecologist's, primary care physician's, or midwife's office, a private clinic or health center, family planning center, or hospital. HPV self-sampling (HPVss) was also made available as an additional approach. However, French studies reported that less than 20% of noncompliant women performed vaginal self-sampling when a kit was sent to their home. Women with lower income and educational levels participate less in CCS. Lack of information about the disease and the benefits of CCS were reported as one of the major barriers among noncompliant women. This barrier could be addressed by overcoming disparities in HPV- and cervical cancer-related knowledge and perceptions about CCS.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a chatbot-based decision aid to improve women's participation in the HPVss detection-based CCS care pathway.

METHODS

AppDate-You is a 2-arm cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) nested within the French organized CCS program. Eligible women are those aged 30-65 years who have not been screened for CC for more than 4 years and live in the disadvantaged clusters in the Occitanie Region, France. In total, 32 clusters will be allocated to the intervention and control arms, 16 in each arm (approximately 4000 women). Eligible women living in randomly selected disadvantaged clusters will be identified using the Regional Cancer Screening Coordinating Centre of Occitanie (CRCDC-OC) database. Women in the experimental group will receive screening reminder letters and HPVss kits, combined with access to a chatbot-based decision aid tailored to women with lower education attainment. Women in the control group will receive the reminder letters and HPVss kits (standard of care). The CRCDC-OC database will be used to check trial progress and assess the intervention's impact. The trial has 2 primary outcomes: (1) the proportion of screening participation within 12 months among women recalled for CCS and (2) the proportion of HPVss-positive women who are "well-managed" as stipulated in the French guidelines.

RESULTS

To date, the AppDate-You study group is preparing and developing the chatbot-based decision aid (intervention). The cRCT will be conducted once the decision aid has been completed and validated. Recruitment of women is expected to begin in January 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to evaluate the impact of a chatbot-based decision aid to promote the CCS program and increase its performance. The study results will inform policy makers and health professionals as well as the research community.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05286034; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05286034.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/39288.

Influencing factors of lung cancer patients' participation in shared decision-making: a cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate and analyze the level of actual participation and perceived importance of shared decision-making on treatment and care of lung cancer patients, to compare their differences and to explore their influencing factors.

METHODS

A total of 290 lung cancer patients were collected from oncology and thoracic surgery departments of a comprehensive medical center in Qingdao from October 2018 to December 2019. Participants completed a cross-sectional questionnaire to assess their actual participation and perceived importance in shared decision-making on treatment and care. Descriptive analysis and non-parametric tests were carried out to assess the status quo of patients' shared decision-making on treatment and care. Binary logistic regression analysis with a stepwise back-wards was applied to predict factors that affected patients' participation in shared decision-making.

RESULTS

The results showed that patients with lung cancer had a low degree of participation in shared decision-making. There were significant differences between actual participation and perceived importance of shared decision-making on treatment and care. Education level, age, gender, income, marital status, personality, the course of the disease (> 6 months), and the pathological TNM staging (III) affected patient's level of participation in shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Actual participation in shared decision-making on the treatment and care of lung cancer patients was low and considered unimportant. We could train oncology nurses to use patient decision aids to help patients and families participate in shared decision-making on patients' value, preferences and needs.

How Much Information Do Icelandic Men Receive on Pros and Cons of Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Prior to Undergoing Testing?

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for asymptomatic men is neither encouraged nor discouraged in most countries; however, shared decision-making is emphasized prior to PSA testing. The objective of this study was to examine to what extent Icelandic men receive information about the pros and cons of PSA testing. Furthermore, to explore if patient–provider communication about pros and cons of PSA testing has improved in the last decade during which time more emphasis has been placed on shared decision-making. All Icelandic men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the years 2015 to 2020 were invited to participate, and a total of 471 out of 1002 men participated (response rate 47.0%). Participants’ age ranged from 51 to 95 years (M = 71.9, SD = 7.3). Only half of the men received information about the pros and cons of PSA testing, a third did not receive any information prior to testing and, alarmingly, 22.2% of the men did not even know that they were being tested. A majority of the participants lacked knowledge about the testing with half of the men reporting that they had no knowledge about pros and cons of PSA testing prior to testing. The findings have major public health relevance as they indicate that information provided prior to PSA testing continue to be deficient and that there is a pressing need for interventions that educate men about the benefits and limitations of PSA testing before men undergo medical procedures that can seriously affect their quality of life.

A Framework for Clinicians to Improve the Decision-Making Process in Return to Sport

Return-to-sport (RTS) decisions are critical to clinical sports medicine and are often characterised by uncertainties, such as re-injury risk, time pressure induced by competition schedule and social stress from coaches, families and supporters. RTS decisions have implications not only for the health and performance of an athlete, but also the sports organisation. RTS decision-making is a complex process, which relies on evaluating multiple biopsychosocial factors, and is influenced by contextual factors. In this narrative review, we outline how RTS decision-making of clinicians could be evaluated from a decision analysis perspective. To begin with, the RTS decision could be explained as a sequence of steps, with a decision basis as the core component. We first elucidate the methodological considerations in gathering information from RTS tests. Second, we identify how decision-making frameworks have evolved and adapt decision-making theories to the RTS context. Third, we discuss the preferences and perspectives of the athlete, performance coach and manager. We conclude by proposing a framework for clinicians to improve the quality of RTS decisions and make recommendations for daily practice and research.

Shared Decision-Making During Labor and Birth Among Low-Risk, Active Duty Women in the U.S. Military

INTRODUCTION

The cesarean birth rate of 24.7% in the Military Health System (MHS) is lower than the national rate of 31.7%. However, the MHS rate remains higher than the 15-19% threshold associated with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes. For active duty servicewomen, increased morbidity associated with cesarean birth is likely to affect the ability to meet the demands of assigned missions. Several decision-points occur during pregnancy and after the onset of labor that can affect the likelihood of cesarean birth including choice of provider, choice of hospital, timing of admission, and type of fetal monitoring. Evidence suggests the overuse of labor interventions may be associated with cesarean birth. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a strategy that can be used to carefully consider the risks, benefits, and alternatives of each labor intervention and is shown to be associated with positive patient outcomes. Most existing evidence explores SDM as an interaction that occurs between women and their providers. Few studies have explored the role of stakeholders such as spouses, family members, friends, labor and delivery nurses, and doulas. Furthermore, little is known about the process of SDM during labor and childbirth in the hospital setting, particularly for active duty women in the U.S. military. The purpose of this study was to propose a framework that explains the process of SDM during labor and childbirth in the hospital setting for active duty women in the U.S. military.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A qualitatively driven mixed-methods approach was conducted to propose a framework that explains the process of SDM during labor and childbirth in the hospital setting for active duty women in the U.S. military. Servicewomen were recruited from September 2019 to April 2020. Semi-structured interviews were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach. Participants also completed the SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9).

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 14 participants. The sample included servicewomen from the Air Force (n = 7), Army (n = 4), and Navy (n = 3). Two participants were enlisted and the remainder were officers. Ten births occurred at military treatment facilities (MTFs) and six births took place at civilian facilities. The mean score on the SDM Questionnaire was 86.7 (±11.6), indicating a high level of SDM. Various stakeholders (e.g., providers, labor and delivery nurses, doulas, spouses, family members, and friends) were involved in SDM at different points during labor and birth. The four stages of SDM included gathering information, identifying preferences, discussing options, and making decisions. Events that most often involved SDM were deciding when to travel to the hospital, deciding when to be admitted, and selecting a strategy for pain management. Military factors involved in SDM included sources of information, selecting and working with civilian providers, and delaying labor interventions to allow time for an active duty spouse to travel to the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM during labor and birth in the hospital setting is a multi-stage process that involves a variety of stakeholders, including the woman, members of her social and support network, and healthcare professionals. Future research is needed to explore perspectives of other stakeholders involved in SDM.

Patient perspectives on treatment decision-making under clinical uncertainty: chemotherapy treatment decisions among stage II colon cancer patients

The decision to use adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) after surgical resection for stage II colon cancer remains an area of clinical uncertainty. Many patients diagnosed with stage II colon cancer receive ACT, despite inconclusive evidence of long-term clinical benefit. This study investigates patient experiences and perceptions of treatment decision-making and shared decision making (SDM) for ACT among patients diagnosed with stage II colon cancer. Stage II colon cancer patients engaged in treatment or follow-up care aged >18 years were recruited from two large NYC health systems. Patients participated in 30-60-min semi-structured interviews. All interviews were transcribed, translated, coded, and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. We interviewed 31 patients, of which 42% received ACT. Overall, patient perspectives indicate provider inconsistency in communicating ACT harms, benefits, and uncertainties, and poor elicitation of patient preferences and values. Patients reported varying perceptions and understanding of personal risk and clinical benefits of ACT. For many patients, receiving a clear treatment recommendation from the provider limited their participation in the decision-making process, whether it aligned with their decisional support preferences or not. Findings advance understanding of perceived roles and preferences of patients in SDM processes for cancer treatment under heightened clinical uncertainty, and indicate a notable gap in understanding for decisions made using SDM models in the context of clinical uncertainty. Educational and communication strategies and training are needed to support providers in communicating uncertainty, risk, treatment options, and implementing clinical guidelines to support patient awareness and informed decisions.

Development and Evaluation of a Decision Aid to Support Patients' Participatory Decision-Making for Tumor-Specific and Palliative Therapy for Advanced Cancer: Protocol for a Pre-Post Study

Background

To support advanced cancer patients and their oncologists in therapeutic decisions, we aim to develop a decision aid (DA) in a multiphased, bicentric study. The DA aims to help patients to better understand risks and benefits of the available treatment options including the options of standard palliative care or cancer-specific treatment (ie, off-label drug use within an individual treatment plan).

Objective

This study protocol outlines the development and testing of the DA in a pre-post study targeting a heterogeneous population of advanced cancer patients.

Methods

In the first step, we will assess patients’ information and decisional needs as well as the views of the health care providers regarding the content and implementation of the DA. Through a scoping review, we aim to analyze specific characteristics of the decision-making process and to specify the treatment options, outcomes, and probabilities. An interdisciplinary research group of experts will develop and review the DA. In the second step, testing of the DA (design and field testing) with patients and oncologists will be conducted. As a last step, we will run a pre-post design study with 70 doctor-patient encounters to assess improvements on the primary study outcome: patients’ level of decisional conflict. In addition, the user acceptance of all involved parties will be tested.

Results

Interviews with cancer patients, oncologists, and health care providers (ie, nurses, nutritionists) as well as a literature review from phase I have been completed. The field testing is scheduled for April 2021 to August 2021, with the final revision scheduled for September 2021. The pre-post study of the DA and acceptance testing are scheduled to start in October 2021 and shall be finished in September 2022.

Conclusions

A unique feature of this study is the development of a DA for patients with different types of advanced cancer, which covers a wide range of topics relevant for patients near the end of life such as forgoing cancer-specific therapy and switching to best supportive care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04606238; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04606238.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/24954

Factors Affecting the Initiation of a Shared Decision Making Program in Obstetric Practices

As healthcare systems progress toward initiatives that increase patient engagement, stakeholder hopes are that shared decision making (SDM) will become routine practice. Yet, there is limited empirical evidence to guide such SDM program implementations, particularly in obstetric practices. The first stage of any project implementation is the “initiation stage”, in which project leaders define a project’s purpose and stakeholders and structures are put in place to support the new initiative. Our study’s objective was to identify factors affecting the initiation stage of an SDM program implementation project for TOLAC, trial of labor after Cesarean. We conducted a multiple-case study of an SDM program implementation in three obstetric settings in Washington State. The research design and analysis were guided by implementation science frameworks and project management literature. Data sources included interviews with key informants from the State, SDM tool vendors, and three project sites, as well as implementation documents. The study results provide insight into how the identified project implementation factors provide an essential foundation for informing project planning, execution, and reflection/evaluation. In this study, the State’s decision aid certification program pressured the project sites to shape the project purpose and engage stakeholders that would meet immediate project requirements (specifically, state requirements). The study reveals that external demands may not be in perfect alignment with the internal necessities required for an SDM program’s long-term viability and sustainability. Findings may be used by implementers and researchers to model and strategize the early stages of SDM program implementation projects, particularly in the obstetric setting.

"Good practices" in pediatric clinical care for disorders/differences of sex development

PURPOSE

To define, benchmark, and publicize elements of quality care (i.e., "good practices") for pediatric patients with disorders/differences of sex development (DSD).

METHODS

Principles of quality care were identified by literature review; consensus exists for 11 good practices and adherence was evaluated through online survey of 21 North American clinical sites.

RESULTS

Strong uptake was observed for many practices, particularly specialty participation (n ≥ 17 of 21 sites for most core specialties); point of contact (n = 18); expertise in gender dysphoria/dissatisfaction (n = 20); and DSD-specific continuing medical education (n = 18). Greater variability was apparent for frequency of peer support referrals (n = 12 universally practiced); standardized questionnaires for routine assessment of psychosocial adaptation (n = 13) and gender development (n = 10); consistently clarifying patient/family values in decision-making (n = 15); genital exam protocols that exclude trainee education as primary reason (n = 15); and internal patient-tracking efforts (n = 5-10 of 20 sites).

CONCLUSION

This study employed a novel approach to designate DSD good practices and identified areas of consistency and variation in these DSD clinical practices. Good practice benchmarking facilitates quality assessment within and across sites, promotes continuous improvement, and empowers stakeholders in locating and delivering high quality care.

Preliminary Evaluation of a Breast Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making Aid Utilized Within the Primary Care Clinical Encounter

Introduction:

The US Preventative Services Task Force recommends shared decision-making (SDM) between women aged 40 and 49 years and their physician regarding timing of mammography screening. This preliminary study evaluates women’s and physician’s satisfaction using Breast Cancer Risk Estimator & Decision Aid (BCARE-DA), a shared decision aid utilized during the clinical encounter, and examines SDM quality for these encounters.

Methods:

Fifty-three women and their physician utilized BCARE-DA and completed surveys measuring satisfaction with Likert-type and open-ended items and women completed the Decision Conflict Scale. Clinic visit transcripts were evaluated for SDM quality using Observer OPTION-5 and Breast Cancer Screening Decision Core Components Checklist.

Results:

Women and physicians positively evaluated BCARE-DA. Women had low decision conflict. Physicians demonstrated moderate effort toward SDM, greatest in offering options, and lowest for team talk. Physicians demonstrated 2/3 of core SDM elements in 80% to 100% of encounters.

Conclusion:

Preliminary findings suggest specific promise for such Decision Aids to facilitate SDM through understanding of personal risks for breast cancer formulated within each screening option, while some SDM elements likely require additional facilitating.

Using DEMATEL Technique to Identify the Key Success Factors of Shared Decision-Making Based on Influential Network Relationship Perspective

In the field of medicine, shared decision-making (SDM) is an important issue primarily aimed at resolving the problem of information asymmetry between clinicians and patients in the selection of treatment options and follow-up nursing plans. Most previous studies on this topic have focused on key elements and the development and implementation of SDM scales. This study used the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method to establish a network of influence relationships among factors that are keys to the success of the SDM process. Survey data were obtained from a well-known brain hospital in China. The key factors of success included tailor information, flexibility approach, check understanding patient, document (discussion about) decision, present evidence, make or explicitly defer decision, and patient values and preferences. We determined that clinicians should provide a series of treatment options and follow-up care plans based on a patientʼs conditions and preferences. Clinicians should also actively communicate with patients and their families to ensure a thorough understanding of the entire treatment and nursing process. This study also highlights the academic value of the cross-disciplinary integration of medical decision issues and multiple attribute decision-making methodologies.

Rheumatology-led pregnancy clinic: patient-centred approach

Autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs), which include all types of inflammatory arthritis as well as systemic Lupus, are known to have a detrimental effect on both fertility and pregnancy outcomes. Consequently, reproductive health care is considered a principle constituent of comprehensive care for all patients with rheumatic ailments seen in the standard practice. Whilst pregnancy-associated complications have been reported in lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and Sjogren's syndrome, in some conditions such as lupus, antiphospholipid syndrome, inflammatory myopathies, and vasculitis, the pregnancy may accelerate the disease progression. Furthermore, the activity of some diseases such as lupus and antiphospholipid syndrome may be augmented by some contraceptive methods. Therapeutically, some patients are prescribed medications, such as methotrexate and mycophenolate which have potentially teratogenic effect. Therefore, to be able to help those patients, family planning should be patient-centred with decision-making tailored to the individual's disease status. For those healthcare professionals interested in reproductive health care for their patients living with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, this review summarizes the available information in the literature and offers practical suggestions of patient-centred care in a dedicated rheumatology-led pregnancy clinic. Key Points • Autoimmune disorders, particularly systemic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, affect many women, often during childbearing age. • Pregnancies in this cohort of patients with rheumatic diseases is considered to be of high risk, because of the potential for complications during periods of active disease and the possible impact of medications used on both the pregnancy outcomes as well as the baby. • There are high chances of successful and safe pregnancies particularly if pre-pregnancy planning and screening for maternal and fetal risks are undertaken, and pregnancy takes place while the disease is well controlled. Encouraging the patients, who are in their childbearing period, to initiate discussions about family planning and pregnancy, with their treating rheumatologists, would be an ideal approach to close this gap of information exchange. • Targeted patients' education is expected to improve the information quality and promote more collaborative decision-making with regard to motherhood and healthcare choices.

Effectiveness of focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome : A randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study

Background

The carpal tunnel syndrome is the most common entrapment neuropathy in the general population. A conservative treatment should be considered in mild to moderate cases. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of mild to moderate carpal tunnel syndrome.

Material and Methods

In this study 30 patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups. Subjects in the study group received three sessions of focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy, whereas the control group underwent a sham therapy. Patients were evaluated 3 and 12 weeks after treatment. The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale score. Secondary outcome measurements included hand grip strength, Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire, SF-36 Health Survey and electrodiagnostic measurements.

Results

A significant improvement of visual analogue scale at week 3 (p = 0.018) and week 12 (p = 0.007) as well as hand grip strength at week 12 (p = 0.019) could be observed in the study group. The study group showed a significantly better sensory nerve conduction velocity at week 12 than the control group, before correcting for multiple testing, and also a significant improvement in distal motor latency of the median nerve at week 12 (p = 0.009) as well as in both questionnaires (SF-36 subscale bodily pain, p = 0.020 and severity symptom scale, p = 0.003). No such improvement was observed in the control group.

Conclusion

Focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy is an effective and noninvasive treatment method for mild to moderate carpal tunnel syndrome.

Feasibility and effectiveness of tools that support communication and decision making in life-prolonging treatments for patients in hospital: a systematic review

Objective

Patients with advanced diseases and frail older adults often face decisions regarding life-prolonging treatment. Our aim was to provide an overview of the feasibility and effectiveness of tools that support communication between healthcare professionals and patients regarding decisions on life-prolonging treatments in hospital settings.

Design

Systematic review: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar (2009–2019) to identify studies that reported feasibility or effectiveness of tools that support communication about life-prolonging treatments in adult patients with advanced diseases or frail older adults in hospital settings. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality appraisal of the included studies.

Results

Seven studies were included, all involving patients with advanced cancer. The overall methodological quality of the included studies was moderate to high. Five studies described question prompt lists (QPLs), either as a stand-alone tool or as part of a multifaceted programme; two studies described decision aids (DAs). All QPLs and one DA were considered feasible by both patients with advanced cancer and healthcare professionals. Two studies reported on the effectiveness of QPL use, revealing a decrease in patient anxiety and an increase in cues for discussing end-of-life care with physicians. The effectiveness of one DA was reported; it led to more understanding of the treatment in patients.

Conclusions

Use of QPLs or DAs, as a single intervention or part of a programme, may help in communicating about treatment options with patients, which is an important precondition for making informed decisions.

Shared decision making in surgery: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) has been increasingly implemented to improve health-care outcomes. Despite the mixed efficacy of SDM to provide better patient-guided care, its use in surgery has not been studied. The aim of this study was to systematically review SDM application in surgery.

DESIGN

The search strategy, developed with a medical librarian, included nine databases from inception until June 2019. After a 2-person title and abstract screen, full-text publications were analysed. Data collected included author, year, surgical discipline, location, study duration, type of decision aid, survey methodology and variable outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional studies, as well as RCTs, were included.

RESULTS

A total of 6060 studies were retrieved. A total of 148 were included in the final review. The majority of the studies were in plastic surgery, followed by general surgery and orthopaedics. The use of SDM decreased surgical intervention rate (12 of 22), decisional conflict (25 of 29), and decisional regret (5 of 5), and increased decisional satisfaction (17 of 21), knowledge (33 of 35), SDM preference (13 of 16), and physician trust (4 of 6). Time increase per patient encounter was inconclusive. Cross-sectional studies showed that patients prefer shared treatment and surgical treatment varied less. The results of SDM per type of decision aid vary in terms of their outcome.

CONCLUSION

SDM in surgery decreases decisional conflict, anxiety and surgical intervention rates, while increasing knowledge retained decisional satisfaction, quality and physician trust. Surgical patients also appear to prefer SDM paradigms. SDM appears beneficial in surgery and therefore worth promoting and expanding in use.

Measuring clinical uncertainty and equipoise by applying the agreement study methodology to patient management decisions

Background

Clinical uncertainty and equipoise are vague notions that play important roles in contemporary problems of medical care and research, including the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. Our goal was to show how the reliability study methods normally used to assess diagnostic tests can be applied to particular management decisions to measure the degree of uncertainty and equipoise regarding the use of rival management options.

Methods

We first use thrombectomy in acute stroke as an illustrative example of the method we propose. We then review, item by item, how the various design elements of diagnostic reliability studies can be modified in order to measure clinical uncertainty.

Results

The thrombectomy example shows sufficient disagreement and uncertainty to warrant the conduct of additional randomized trials. The general method we propose is that a sufficient number of diverse individual cases sharing a similar clinical problem and covering a wide spectrum of clinical presentations be assembled into a portfolio that is submitted to a variety of clinicians who routinely manage patients with the clinical problem.

Discussion

Clinicians are asked to independently choose one of the predefined management options, which are selected from those that would be compared within a randomized trial that would address the clinical dilemma. Intra-rater agreement can be assessed at a later time with a second evaluation. Various professional judgments concerning individual patients can then be compared and analyzed using kappa statistics or similar methods. Interpretation of results can be facilitated by providing examples or by translating the results into clinically meaningful summary sentences.

Conclusions

Measuring the uncertainty regarding management options for clinical problems may reveal substantial disagreement, provide an empirical foundation for the notion of equipoise, and inform or facilitate the design/conduct of clinical trials to address the clinical dilemma.

Choosing between conventional and hypofractionated prostate cancer radiation therapy: Results from a study of shared decision-making

AIM

To evaluate patient choice of prostate cancer radiotherapy fractionation, using a decision aid.

BACKGROUND

Recent ASTRO guidelines recommend patients with localised prostate cancer be offered moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy after discussing increased acute toxicity and uncertainty of long-term results compared to conventional fractionation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision aid was designed to outline the benefits and potential downsides of conventionally and moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. The aid incorporated the ASTRO guideline to outline risks and benefits.

RESULTS

In all, 124 patients with localised prostate cancer were seen from June-December 2018. Median age was 72 (range 50-90), 49.6 % were intermediate risk (50.4 % high risk). All except three patients made a choice using the aid; the three undecided patients were hypofractionated. In all, 33.9 % of patients chose hypofractionation: falling to 25.3 % for patients under 75 years, 24.3 % for patients living within 30 miles of the cancer centre, and 14.3 % for patients with baseline gastrointestinal symptoms. On multivariate analysis, younger age, proximity to the centre, and having baseline gastrointestinal symptoms significantly predicted for choosing conventional fractionation. Insurance status, attending clinician, baseline genitourinary symptoms, work/carer status, ECOG, cancer risk group and driving status did not impact choice. Reasons for choosing conventional fractionation were certainty of long-term results (84 %) and lower acute bowel toxicity (51 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients declined the convenience of moderate hypofractionation due to potentially increased acute toxicity, and the uncertainty of long-term outcomes. We advocate that no patient should be offered hypofractionation without a thorough discussion of uncertainty and acute toxicity.

Facilitators and Barriers to Post-partum Diabetes Screening Among Mothers With a History of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus-A Qualitative Study From Singapore

Introduction: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) affects one in six births worldwide. Mothers with GDM have an increased risk of developing post-partum Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). However, their uptake of post-partum diabetes screening is suboptimal, including those in Singapore. Literature reports that the patient-doctor relationship, mothers' concerns about diabetes, and family-related practicalities are key factors influencing the uptake of such screening. However, we postulate additional factors related to local society, healthcare system, and policies in influencing post-partum diabetes screening among mothers with GDM. Aim: The qualitative research study aimed to explore the facilitators and barriers to post-partum diabetes screening among mothers with GDM in an Asian community. Methods: In-depth interviews were carried out on mothers with GDM at a public primary care clinic in Singapore. Mothers were recruited from those who brought their child for vaccination appointments and their informed consent was obtained. Both mothers who completed post-partum diabetes screening within 12 weeks after childbirth and those who did not were purposively recruited. The social ecological model (SEM) provides the theoretical framework to identify facilitators and barriers at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, and policy levels. Results: Twenty multi-ethnic Asian mothers with GDM were interviewed. At the individual and interpersonal level, self-perceived risk of developing T2DM, understanding the need for screening and the benefits of early diagnosis, availability of confinement nanny in Chinese family, alternate caregivers, emotional, and peer support facilitated post-partum diabetes screening. Barriers included fear of the diagnosis and its consequences, preference for personal attention and care to child, failure to find trusted caregiver, competing priorities, and unpleasant experiences with the oral glucose tolerance test. At the organizational and public policy level, bundling of scheduled appointments, and standardization of procedure eased screening but uptake was hindered by inconvenient testing locations, variable post-partum care practices and advice in the recommendations for diabetes screening. Conclusion: Based on the SEM, facilitators and barriers towards post-partum diabetes screening exist at multiple levels, with some contextualized to local factors. Interventions to improve its uptake should be multi-pronged, targeting not only at personal but also familial, health system, and policy factors to ensure higher level of success.

Comparative Effectiveness of a Web-Based Patient Decision Aid for Therapeutic Options for Sickle Cell Disease: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Hydroxyurea, chronic blood transfusions, and bone marrow transplantation are efficacious, disease-modifying therapies for sickle cell disease but involve complex risk-benefit trade-offs and decisional dilemma compounded by the lack of comparative studies. A patient decision aid can inform patients about their treatment options, the associated risks and benefits, help them clarify their values, and allow them to participate in medical decision making.

Objective

The objective of this study was to develop a literacy-sensitive Web-based patient decision aid based on the Ottawa decision support framework, and through a randomized clinical trial estimate the effectiveness of the patient decision aid in improving patient knowledge and their involvement in decision making.

Methods

We conducted population decisional needs assessments in a nationwide sample of patients, caregivers, community advocates, policy makers, and health care providers using qualitative interviews to identify decisional conflict, knowledge and expectations, values, support and resources, decision types, timing, stages and learning, and personal clinical characteristics. Interview transcripts were coded using QSR NVivo 10. Alpha testing of the patient decision aid prototype was done to establish usability and the accuracy of the information it conveyed, and then was followed by iterative cycles of beta testing. We conducted a randomized clinical trial of adults and of caregivers of pediatric patients to evaluate the efficacy of the patient decision aid.

Results

In a decisional needs assessment, 223 stakeholders described their preferences, helping to guide the development of the patient decision aid, which then underwent alpha testing by 30 patients and 38 health care providers and iterative cycles of beta testing by 87 stakeholders. In a randomized clinical trial, 120 participants were assigned to either the patient decision aid or standard care (SC) arm. Qualitative interviews revealed high levels of usability, acceptability, and utility of the patient decision aid in education, values clarification, and preparation for decision making. On the acceptability survey, 72% (86/120) of participants rated the patient decision aid as good or excellent. Participants on the patient decision aid arm compared to the SC arm demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in decisional self-efficacy (P=.05) and a reduction in the informed sub-score of decisional conflict (P=.003) at 3 months, with an improvement in preparation for decision making (P<.001) at 6 months. However, there was no improvement in terms of the change in knowledge, the total or other domain scores of decisional conflicts, or decisional self-efficacies at 6 months. The large amount of missing data from survey completion limited our ability to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the patient decision aid. The patient decision aid met 61 of 62 benchmarks of the international patient decision aid collaboration standards for content, development process, and efficacy.

Conclusions

We have developed a patient decision aid for sickle cell disease with extensive input from stakeholders and in a randomized clinical trial demonstrated its acceptability and utility in education and decision making. We were unable to demonstrate its effectiveness in improving patient knowledge and involvement in decision making.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03224429; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03224429 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02326597; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02326597

Shared decision making when patients consider surgery for lumbar herniated disc: development and test of a patient decision aid

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) is a systematic approach aimed at improving patient involvement in preference-sensitive health care decisions. Choosing between surgical or non-surgical treatment for lumbar disc herniation, can be difficult as the evidence of a superior treatment is unclear, which makes it a preference-sensitive decision. The objectives of this study was therefore to assess the degree of SDM and afterwards to develop and test a patient decision aid (PtDA) to support SDM during the clinical encounter between surgeon and patient, when patients choose between surgical and non-surgical treatment for Lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods

The study was conducted in four steps.

Assessment of the extent to which SDM was practiced in the spine clinic.

Development of a PtDA to support SDM.

Testing its usability and acceptability amongst potential users (patients).

Pilot-test of its usability in the clinical setting.

Results

Results from our small baseline study (n = 40) showed that between a third and two-thirds of the patients reported not being fully engaged in a shared decision. A pre-designed template (BESLUTNINGSHJÆLPER™) was adapted to support the decision about whether or not to have surgery for LDH. Testing the prototype with patients led to minor refinements. A subsequent pilot test of its usability in a clinical setting achieved positive responses from both patients and clinicians.

Conclusion

Our baseline study demonstrated that SDM was not universally practiced in the clinic. The PtDA we have developed was rated as acceptable and usable by both patients and clinicians for helping those with LDH choose between surgical or non- surgical treatment. This tool now requires further testing to assess its effectiveness.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-019-0906-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient experience of treatment decision making for wet age-related macular degeneration disease: a qualitative study in China

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the experience of patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) in treatment decision-making process.

DESIGN

A descriptive qualitative study was designed by using semistructured interviews, and the data analysis was conducted with the thematic analysis approach.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

A convenient and purposive sample of 21 participants diagnosed with wAMD was recruited from May 2018 to September 2018. The study was conducted in the Eye Clinic of Southwest Hospital of Army Medical University in Chongqing located in the southwest of China.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 64.48 years (ranging 50-81 years), and the duration of the disease ranged from 6 months to 48 months. Four major themes were identified from the original data analysis. These themes included facing the darkness (choosing from light and darkness and living in pain), constraints on decision making (doctor-oriented decision making, inadequacy of options and time), weighing alternatives (family influence, financial burden and maintaining social function) and decision-making support (professional decision-making assistance and peer support).

CONCLUSION

This is a qualitative study attempting to explore the patient experience of treatment decision making for wAMD disease in China. Previous literature has focused on treatment effect and symptoms, rather than the individual experience and the wide contexts from a sociocultural perspective. Further studies, such as cross-sectional studies, can be used to describe the status and determine the influencing factors of decision0making process, so as to develop an impact factor model of decision making and to formulate an intervention for patients with wAMD.

R. Healthcare service quality: a methodology for servicescape re-design using Taguchi approach

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to identify major healthcare service quality (HSQ) dimensions, their most preferred service levels, and their effect on HSQ perceptions of patients using a Taguchi experiment.

Design/methodology/approach

This study adopted a sequential incidence technique to identify factors relevant in HSQ and examined the relative importance of different factor levels in the service journey using Taguchi experiment.

Findings

For HSQ, the optimum factor levels are online appointment booking facility with provision to review and modify appointments; a separate reception for booked patients; provision to meet the doctor of choice; prior detailing of procedures; doctor on call facility to the room of stay; electronic sharing of discharge summary, an online payment facility. Consultation phase followed by the stay and then procedures have maximum effect on S/N and mean responses of patients. The appointment stage has a maximum effect on standard deviations.

Research limitations/implications

Theoretically, this study attempted to address the dearth of research on service settings using robust methodologies like Taguchi experiment, which is popular in the manufacturing sector. The study implies the need for patient-centric initiatives for better HSQ through periodic experiments that inform about the changing priorities of patients.

Practical implications

The trade-off between standardization and customization create challenges in healthcare. Practically, a classification of processes based on standardization vs customization potential is useful to revamp processes for HSQ.

Originality/value

This study applied the Taguchi approach to get insights in re-designing a patient-centric healthcare servicescapes.

Patient-Centered Approach to Develop the Patient's Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) Tool

Objectives. To describe the development of our Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) tool to aid patient-centered treatment decision among localized prostate cancer patients. Methods. We incorporated patient and provider experiences to develop a patient preference elicitation tool using adaptive conjoint analysis. Our patient-centered approach used systematic literature review, semistructured patient interviews, and provider focus groups to determine the treatment attributes most important for decision making. The resulting computer-based PreProCare tool was pilot tested in a clinical setting. Results. A systematic review of 56 articles published between 1995 and 2015 yielded survival, cancer recurrence, side effects, and complications as attributes of treatment options. We conducted one-on-one interviews with 50 prostate cancer survivors and 5 focus groups of providers. Patients reported anxiety, depression, treatment specifics, and caregiver burden as important for decision making. Providers identified clinical characteristics as important attribute. Input from stakeholders’ advisory group, physicians, and researchers helped finalize 15 attributes for our PreProCare preference assessment tool. Conclusion. The PreProCare tool was developed using a patient-centered approach and may be a feasible and acceptable preference clarification intervention for localized prostate cancer patients. The PreProCare tool may translate into higher participant engagement and self-efficacy, consistent with patients’ personal values.

Effect of an Educational Video to Increase Calls and Screening into an Anal Cancer Clinical Trial Among HIV+ Hispanics in PR: Results from a Randomized Controlled Behavioral Trial

Anal cancer incidence is higher in persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) than in the general population. Participation of PLWHA in anal cancer clinical trials (CTs) is essential; Hispanic PLWHA are underrepresented in CTs. We conducted a behavioral CT among 305 PLWHA in Puerto Rico to measure the efficacy of an educational video in increasing calls and screening into an anal cancer CT. Participants received printed educational materials on anal cancer and CTs; the intervention group also received an educational video. Outcome assessment based on follow-up interviews showed that printed materials increased awareness about CTs and high-resolution anoscopy (HRA), and willingness to participate in an anal cancer CT in both groups. However, the addition of the video increased the likelihood of participants to call the CT for orientation (RRadjusted = 1.66, 95% CI 1.00-2.76; p = 0.05) and pre-screening evaluation (RRadjusted = 1.70, 95% CI 0.95-3.03; p = 0.07). This intervention could help increase participation of Hispanics into anal cancer-related CTs.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

Shared Decision Making in Psoriasis: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies

BACKGROUND

Patients with psoriasis face numerous treatment and self-management decisions. Shared decision making is a novel approach where patients' preferences and values are considered in cooperation with healthcare professionals before making treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to explore what is illuminated in psoriasis research regarding shared decision making, and to estimate the effects of shared decision-making interventions in this context.

METHODS

Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies were eligible for inclusion. We searched six electronic databases up to January 2018. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria. The SPIDER framework was used to identify eligibility criteria for study inclusion. Narrative and thematic syntheses were utilized to identify prominent themes emerging from the data.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included in the review. Of these, we included 18 studies (19 papers) to describe what was illuminated with regard to shared decision making in psoriasis research. Four major themes emerged: interpersonal communication; exchange of competence and knowledge; different world view; and involvement and preference, organized under two analytical themes; "Co-creation of decisions" and "Organization of treatment and treatment needs". For shared decision-making effects, we included four controlled studies. These varied in scope and interventional length and showed limited use of shared decision making-specific outcome measures, reflecting the early stage of the literature. Because of study heterogeneity, a meta-synthesis was not justified.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be a need to strengthen the relationship between medical doctors and patients with psoriasis. The evident lack of knowledge about each other's competence and the lack of self-efficacy for both patients and providers challenges the basic principles of shared decision making. The effects of shared decision making in psoriasis are inconclusive, and more research appears necessary to determine the possible benefits of shared decision-making interventions.

Considerations of complexity in rating certainty of evidence in systematic reviews: a primer on using the GRADE approach in global health

Public health interventions and health technologies are commonly described as 'complex', as they involve multiple interacting components and outcomes, and their effects are largely influenced by contextual interactions and system-level processes. Systematic reviewers and guideline developers evaluating the effects of these complex interventions and technologies report difficulties in using existing methods and frameworks, such as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). As part of a special series of papers on implications of complexity in the WHO guideline development, this paper serves as a primer on how to consider sources of complexity when using the GRADE approach to rate certainty of evidence. Relevant sources of complexity in systematic reviews, health technology assessments and guidelines of public health are outlined and mapped onto the reported difficulties in rating the estimates of the effect of these interventions. Recommendations on how to address these difficulties are further outlined, and the need for an integrated use of GRADE from the beginning of the review or guideline development is emphasised. The content of this paper is informed by the existing GRADE guidance, an ongoing research project on considering sources of complexity when applying the GRADE approach to rate certainty of evidence in systematic reviews and the review authors' own experiences with using GRADE.

Information provision for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are confronted with a number of important uncertainties concerning many aspects of the disease. These include diagnosis, prognosis, disease course, disease-modifying therapies, symptomatic therapies, and non-pharmacological interventions, among others. While people with MS demand adequate information to be able to actively participate in medical decision making and to self manage their disease, it has been shown that patients' disease-related knowledge is poor, therefore guidelines recommend clear and concise high-quality information at all stages of the disease. Several studies have outlined communication and information deficits in the care of people with MS. However, only a few information and decision support programmes have been published.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this updated review was to evaluate the effectiveness of information provision interventions for people with MS that aim to promote informed choice and improve patient-relevant outcomes, Further objectives were to evaluate the components and the developmental processes of the complex interventions used, to highlight the quantity and the certainty of the research evidence available, and to set an agenda for future research.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register, which contains trials from CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, and clinical trials registries (29 November 2017) as well as other sources. We also searched reference lists of identified articles and contacted trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials, and quasi-randomised trials comparing information provision for people with MS or suspected MS (intervention groups) with usual care or other types of information provision (control groups) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the retrieved articles for relevance and methodological quality and extracted data. Critical appraisal of studies addressed the risk of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias. We contacted authors of relevant studies for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new RCT (73 participants), which when added to the 10 previously included RCTs resulted in a total of 11 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria and were analysed (1387 participants overall; mean age, range: 31 to 51; percentage women, range: 63% to 100%; percentage relapsing-remitting MS course, range: 45% to 100%). The interventions addressed a variety of topics using different approaches for information provision in different settings. Topics included disease-modifying therapy, relapse management, self care strategies, fatigue management, family planning, and general health promotion. The active intervention components included decision aids, decision coaching, educational programmes, self care programmes, and personal interviews with physicians. All studies used one or more components, but the number and extent differed markedly between studies. The studies had a variable risk of bias. We did not perform meta-analyses due to marked clinical heterogeneity. All five studies assessing MS-related knowledge (505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) detected significant differences between groups as a result of the interventions, indicating that information provision may successfully increase participants' knowledge. There were mixed results on decision making (five studies, 793 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (six studies, 671 participants; low-certainty evidence). No adverse events were detected in the seven studies reporting this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information provision for people with MS seems to increase disease-related knowledge, with less clear results on decision making and quality of life. The included studies in this review reported no negative side effects of providing disease-related information to people with MS. Interpretation of study results remains challenging due to the marked heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures.

Study protocol: a cluster randomized controlled trial of web-based decision support tools for increasing BRCA1/2 genetic counseling referral in primary care

BACKGROUND

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confer a substantial breast risk of developing breast cancer to those who carry them. For this reason, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended that all women be screened in the primary care setting for a family history indicative of a mutation, and women with strong family histories of breast or ovarian cancer be referred to genetic counseling. However, few high-risk women are being routinely screened and fewer are referred to genetic counseling. To address this need we have developed two decision support tools that are integrated into clinical care.

METHOD

This study is a cluster randomized controlled trial of high-risk patients and their health care providers. Patient-provider dyads will be randomized to receive either standard education that is supplemented with the patient-facing decision aid, RealRisks, and the provider-facing Breast Cancer Risk Navigation Toolbox (BNAV) or standard education alone. We will assess these tools' effectiveness in promoting genetic counseling uptake and informed and shared decision making about genetic testing.

DISCUSSION

If found to be effective, these tools can help integrate genomic risk assessment into primary care and, ultimately, help expand access to risk-appropriate breast cancer prevention options to a broader population of high-risk women.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470402 : 20 March 2018.

Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Normalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies and other complex interventions. A large body of literature that employs NPT to inform feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions has now emerged. The aims of this review were to review this literature; to identify and characterise the uses and limits of NPT in research on the implementation and integration of healthcare interventions; and to explore NPT's contribution to understanding the dynamics of these processes.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review was conducted. We searched Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles with empirical data in peer-reviewed journals that cited either key papers presenting and developing NPT, or the NPT Online Toolkit ( www.normalizationprocess.org ). We included in the review only articles that used NPT as the primary approach to collection, analysis or reporting of data in studies of the implementation of healthcare techniques, technologies or other interventions. A structured data extraction instrument was used, and data were analysed qualitatively.

RESULTS

Searches revealed 3322 citations. We show that after eliminating 2337 duplicates and broken or junk URLs, 985 were screened as titles and abstracts. Of these, 101 were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 884 articles for full-text screening. Of these, 754 did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 130 papers presenting results from 108 identifiable studies to be included in the review. NPT appears to provide researchers and practitioners with a conceptual vocabulary for rigorous studies of implementation processes. It identifies, characterises and explains empirically identifiable mechanisms that motivate and shape implementation processes. Taken together, these mean that analyses using NPT can effectively assist in the explanation of the success or failure of specific implementation projects. Ten percent of papers included critiques of some aspect of NPT, with those that did mainly focusing on its terminology. However, two studies critiqued NPT emphasis on agency, and one study critiqued NPT for its normative focus.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that researchers found NPT useful and applied it across a wide range of interventions. It has been effectively used to aid intervention development and implementation planning as well as evaluating and understanding implementation processes themselves. In particular, NPT appears to have offered a valuable set of conceptual tools to aid understanding of implementation as a dynamic process.

Clinicians' perceptions of usefulness of the PubMed4Hh mobile device application for clinical decision making at the point of care: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Although evidence-based practice in healthcare has been facilitated by Internet access through wireless mobile devices, research on the effectiveness of clinical decision support for clinicians at the point of care is lacking. This study examined how evidence as abstracts and the bottom-line summaries, accessed with PubMed4Hh mobile devices, affected clinicians' decision making at the point of care.

METHODS

Three iterative steps were taken to evaluate the usefulness of PubMed4Hh tools at the NIH Clinical Center. First, feasibility testing was conducted using data collected from a librarian. Next, usability testing was carried out by a postdoctoral research fellow shadowing clinicians during rounds for one month in the inpatient setting. Then, a pilot study was conducted from February, 2016 to January, 2017, with clinicians using a mobile version of PubMed4Hh. Invitations were sent via e-mail lists to clinicians (physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners) along with periodic reminders. Participants rated the usefulness of retrieved bottom-line summaries and abstracts and indicated their usefulness on a 7-point Likert scale. They also indicated location of use (office, rounds, etc.).

RESULTS

Of the 166 responses collected in the feasibility phase, more than half of questions (57%, n = 94) were answerable by both the librarian using various resources and by the postdoctoral research fellow using PubMed4Hh. Sixty-six questions were collected during usability testing. More than half of questions (60.6%) were related to information about medication or treatment, while 21% were questions regarding diagnosis, and 12% were specific to disease entities. During the pilot study, participants reviewed 34 abstracts and 40 bottom-line summaries. The abstracts' usefulness mean scores were higher (95% CI [6.12, 6.64) than the scores of the bottom-line summaries (95% CI [5.25, 6.10]). The most frequent reason given was that it confirmed current or tentative diagnostic or treatment plan. The bottom-line summaries were used more in the office (79.3%), and abstracts were used more at point of care (51.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians reported that retrieving relevant health information from biomedical literature using the PubMed4Hh was useful at the point of care and in the office.

What's Important to the Patient? Informational Needs of Patients Making Decisions About Hepatitis C Treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Multiple treatment options with direct-acting antivirals are now available for hepatitis C virus (HCV). Study aims were to understand (1) the informational topics patients want to have to make informed treatment decisions; (2) the importance patients place on each topic; and (3) the topics patients prioritize as most important.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods study of two samples recruited from an academic liver center. Participants were not currently on treatment. Sample I (n = 45) free listed all informational topics deemed important to decision making. Raw responses were coded into several broad and subcategories. Sample II (n = 38) rated the importance of the subcategories from Sample I and ranked their highest priorities on two surveys, one containing topics for which sufficient research existed to inform patients ('static'), and the other containing topics that would require additional research.

RESULTS

The topics listed by Sample I fell into six broad categories with 17 total subcategories. The most oft-cited informational topics were harms of treatment (100%), treatment benefits (62%), and treatment regimen details (84%). Sample II rated 16 of 17 subcategories as "pretty important' or "extremely important". Sample II prioritized (1) viral cure, (2) long-term survival, and (3) side effects on the survey of topics requiring additional research, and (1) liver disease, (2) lifestyle changes, and (3) medication details on the second survey of the most important static topics patients needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients weighed several informational topics to make an informed decision about HCV treatment. These findings lay the groundwork for future patient-centered outcomes research in HCV and patient-provider communication to enhance patients' informed decision making regarding direct-acting antiviral treatment options.

Ethical implications of the use of decision aids for antenatal counseling at the limits of gestational viability

Shared decision-making is a recent priority in neonatology. However, its implementation is at an early stage. Decision aids are tools designed to assist in shared decision-making. They help patients competently participate in making healthcare decisions. There are limited studies in neonatology on the formal use of decision aids as used in adult medicine. Decision aids are relatively new, even in adult medicine where they were pioneered; therefore, there is a lack of systematic oversight to their development and use. Despite evidence reporting a powerful effect on patients' decisions, decision aids are not subject to quality control, leading to potentially enormous ethical implications. These include: (i) possible introduction of developers' biases; (ii) use of outdated or incorrect information; (iii) misuse to steer a patient towards less expensive treatments; (iv) clinician liability if negative patient outcomes occur, since decision aids are currently not standard of care.

A pre-post study testing a lung cancer screening decision aid in primary care

BACKGROUND

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued recommendations for older, heavy lifetime smokers to complete annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans of the chest as screening for lung cancer. The USPSTF recommends and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require shared decision making using a decision aid for lung cancer screening with annual LDCT. Little is known about how decision aids affect screening knowledge, preferences, and behavior. Thus, we tested a lung cancer screening decision aid video in screening-eligible primary care patients.

METHODS

We conducted a single-group study with surveys before and after decision aid viewing and medical record review at 3 months. Participants were active patients of a large US academic primary care practice who were current or former smokers, ages 55-80 years, and eligible for screening based on current screening guidelines. Outcomes assessed pre-post decision aid viewing were screening-related knowledge score (9 items about screening-related harms of false positives and overdiagnosis, likelihood of benefit; score range = 0-9) and preference (preferred screening vs. not). Screening behavior measures, assessed via chart review, included provider visits, screening discussion, LDCT ordering, and LDCT completion within 3 months.

RESULTS

Among 50 participants, knowledge increased from pre- to post-decision aid viewing (mean = 2.6 vs. 5.5, difference = 2.8; 95% CI 2.1, 3.6, p < 0.001). Preferences across the overall sample remained similar such that 54% preferred screening at baseline and 50% after viewing; however, 28% of participants changed their preference (to or away from screening) from baseline to after viewing. We assessed screening behavior for 36 participants who had a primary care visit during the 3-month period following enrollment. Eighteen of 36 preferred screening after decision aid viewing. Of these 18, 10 discussed screening, 8 had a test ordered, and 6 completed LDCT. Among the 18 who preferred no screening, 7 discussed screening, 5 had a test ordered, and 4 completed LDCT.

CONCLUSIONS

In primary care patients, a lung cancer screening decision aid improved knowledge regarding screening-related benefits and harms. Screening preferences and behavior were heterogeneous.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov . NCT03077230 (registered retrospectively,November 22, 2016).

A randomized controlled trial of a skills training for oncologists and a communication aid for patients to stimulate shared decision making about palliative systemic treatment (CHOICE): study protocol

BACKGROUND

Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes little benefit while the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require Shared Decision Making (SDM). The CHOICE trial examines the separate and combined effect of oncologist training and a patient communication aid on SDM in consultations about palliative systemic treatment.

METHODS

A RCT design with four parallel arms will be adopted. Patients with metastatic or irresectable cancer with a median life expectancy <12 months who meet with a medical oncologist to discuss the start or continuation of palliative systemic treatment are eligible. A total of 24 oncologists (in training) and 192 patients will be recruited. The oncologist training consists of a reader, two group sessions (3.5 h; including modelling videos and role play), a booster feedback session (1 h) and a consultation room tool. The patient communication aid consists of a home-sent question prompt list and a value clarification exercise to prepare patients for SDM in the consultation. The control condition consists of care as usual. The primary outcome is observed SDM in audio-recorded consultations. Secondary outcomes include patient and oncologist evaluation of communication and decision-making, the decision made, quality of life, potential adverse outcomes such as anxiety and hopelessness, and consultation duration. Patients fill out questionnaires at baseline (T0), before (T1) and after the consultation (T2) and at 3 and 6 months (T3 and T4). All oncologists participate in two standardized patient assessments (before-after training) prior to the start of patient inclusion. They will fill out a questionnaire before and after these assessments, as well as after each of the recorded consultations in clinical practice.

DISCUSSION

The CHOICE trial will enable evidence-based choices regarding the investment in SDM interventions targeting either oncologists, patients or both in the advanced cancer setting. The trial takes into account the immediate effect of the interventions on observed communication, but also on more distal and potential adverse patient outcomes. Also, the trial provides evidence regarding the assumption that SDM about palliative cancer treatment results in less aggressive treatment and more quality of life in the final period of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry number NTR5489 (prospective; 15 Sep 2015).

Assessing Patient Organization Participation in Health Policy: A Comparative Study in France and Italy

BACKGROUND

Even though there are many patient organizations across Europe, their role in impacting health policy decisions and reforms has not been well documented. In line with this, the present study endeavours to fill this gap in the international literature. To this end, it aims to validate further a previously developed instrument (the Health Democracy Index - HDI) measuring patient organization participation in health policy decision-making. In addition, by utilizing this tool, it aims to provide a snapshot of the degree and impact of cancer patient organization (CPO) participation in Italy and France.

METHODS

A convenient sample of 188 members of CPOs participated in the study (95 respondents from 10 CPOs in Italy and 93 from 12 CPOs in France). Participants completed online a self-reported questionnaire, encompassing the 9-item index and questions enquiring about the type and impact of participation in various facets of health policy decisionmaking. The psychometric properties of the scale were explored by performing factor analysis (construct validity) and by computing Cronbach α (internal consistency).

RESULTS

Findings indicate that the index has good internal consistency and the construct it taps is unidimensional. The degree and impact of CPO participation in health policy decision-making were found to be low in both countries; however in Italy they were comparatively lower than in France.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the HDI can be effectively used in international policy and research contexts. CPOs participation is low in Italy and France and concerted efforts should be made on upgrading their role in health policy decision-making.

Evaluating the feasibility of conducting a trial using a patient decision aid in implantable cardioverter defibrillator candidates: a randomized controlled feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids (PtDA) support quality decision-making. The aim of this research was to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial delivering an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)-specific PtDA to new ICD candidates and examining preliminary estimates of differences in outcomes.

METHODS

Prior to recruitment, ICD candidacy was determined. Consented patients were randomized to (1) usual care or (2) PtDA intervention. Feasibility outcomes included referral and recruitment rates, successful PtDA delivery, and completion of measures. The PtDA intervention was administered prior to specialist consultation and baseline demographics, and measures of decision quality including decisional conflict (DCS), SURE test (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, Encouragement), patient's ICD specific values, ICD knowledge, and health-related quality of life were recorded. Post-consultation, participant's DCS was repeated and decisions to proceed, decline, or defer ICD implantation were collected. Feasibility data was determined using descriptive statistics (continuous and categorical). Preliminary estimates of differences in outcomes were assessed using mean differences. Concordance between values and decision choice was assessed using logistic regression of the intervention group.

RESULTS

We identified 135 eligible patients. Eighty-two consented to the trial randomizing patients to usual care (n = 41) or PtDA intervention (n = 41). Feasibility outcome results were (1) referral rate at approximately 20/month, (2) recruitment rate 61%, and (3) successful delivery of PtDA and study management. Pre-consultation, PtDA patients scored lower on the DCS scale (mean, standard deviation [SD] 27.3 (18.4) compared to usual care, 49.4 (18.6); the between-group difference in means [95% confidence interval (CI)] was - 22.1[- 30.23, - 13.97]. A difference remained post-implantation 21.2 (11.7), PtDA intervention 29.9 (13.3), and usual care - 8.7 [- 14.61, - 2.86]. SURE test results supported DCS differences. The PtDA group scored higher on the ICD-related knowledge questions, with 47.50% scoring greater than 3/5 of the knowledge questions correct, compared to 23.09% receiving usual care. The mean [SD] number of correct knowledge responses out of 5 was 3.33(1.19) in the PtDA group and 2.62 (1.16) in usual care pre-implant. Concordance between values and decision choice found a strong association between predicted and actual ICD implant status in the intervention group.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that a future definitive trial is feasible. The ICD-specific PtDA shows promise with respect to preliminary estimates of differences in outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01876173.

Educating good decisions

Can we educate decision makers to make better decisions? In the present paper, I argue that we can in at least two broad ways: (1) teaching concrete knowledge about a specific decision or decision type and (2) teaching more abstract decision-making competencies thought to lead to better decisions. Teaching knowledge can be done using decision aids and similar techniques that provide important information about a specific choice (e.g., a medical treatment option). In these cases, information presented using evidence-based techniques to improve comprehension and use of information will have greater effects on judgments and choices. Teaching more abstract decision competencies, on the other hand, involves formal schooling (with the bulk of formal education falling during childhood) or training in a specific competency important to decision processes and outcomes; I use numeracy interventions as an exemplar.

A cluster-randomized trial to reduce major perinatal morbidity among women with one prior cesarean delivery in Québec (PRISMA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Rates of cesarean delivery are continuously increasing in industrialized countries, with repeated cesarean accounting for about a third of all cesareans. Women who have undergone a first cesarean are facing a difficult choice for their next pregnancy, i.e.: (1) to plan for a second cesarean delivery, associated with higher risk of maternal complications than vaginal delivery; or (b) to have a trial of labor (TOL) with the aim to achieve a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) and to accept a significant, but rare, risk of uterine rupture and its related maternal and neonatal complications. The objective of this trial is to assess whether a multifaceted intervention would reduce the rate of major perinatal morbidity among women with one prior cesarean.

Methods/design

The study is a stratified, non-blinded, cluster-randomized, parallel-group trial of a multifaceted intervention. Hospitals in Quebec are the units of randomization and women are the units of analysis. As depicted in Figure 1, the study includes a 1-year pre-intervention period (baseline), a 5-month implementation period, and a 2-year intervention period. At the end of the baseline period, 20 hospitals will be allocated to the intervention group and 20 to the control group, using a randomization stratified by level of care. Medical records will be used to collect data before and during the intervention period. Primary outcome is the rate of a composite of major perinatal morbidities measured during the intervention period. Secondary outcomes include major and minor maternal morbidity; minor perinatal morbidity; and TOL and VBAC rate. The effect of the intervention will be assessed using the multivariable generalized-estimating-equations extension of logistic regression. The evaluation will include subgroup analyses for preterm and term birth, and a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Discussion

The intervention is designed to facilitate: (1) women’s decision-making process, using a decision analysis tool (DAT), (2) an estimate of uterine rupture risk during TOL using ultrasound evaluation of low-uterine segment thickness, (3) an estimate of chance of TOL success, using a validated prediction tool, and (4) the implementation of best practices for intrapartum management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN15346559. Registered on 20 August 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2150-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Decision aids for second-line palliative chemotherapy: a randomised phase II multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

There is increasing recognition of the delicate balance between the modest benefits of palliative chemotherapy and the burden of treatment. Decision aids (DAs) can potentially help patients with advanced cancer with these difficult treatment decisions, but providing detailed information could have an adverse impact on patients' well-being. The objective of this randomised phase II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DAs for patients with advanced cancer considering second-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with advanced breast or colorectal cancer considering second-line treatment were randomly assigned to usual care (control group) or usual care plus a DA (intervention group) in a 1:2 ratio. A nurse offered a DA with information on adverse events, tumour response and survival. Outcome measures included patient-reported well-being (primary outcome: anxiety) and quality of the decision-making process and the resulting choice.

RESULTS

Of 128 patients randomised, 45 were assigned to the control group and 83 to the intervention group. Median age was 62 years (range 32-81), 63% were female, and 73% had colorectal cancer. The large majority of patients preferred treatment with chemotherapy (87%) and subsequently commenced treatment with chemotherapy (86%). No adverse impact on patients' well-being was found and nurses reported that consultations in which the DAs were offered went well. Being offered the DA was associated with stronger treatment preferences (3.0 vs. 2.5; p=0.030) and increased subjective knowledge (6.7 vs. 6.3; p=0.022). Objective knowledge, risk perception and perceived involvement were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DAs containing detailed risk information on second-line palliative treatment could be delivered to patients with advanced cancer without having an adverse impact on patient well-being. Surprisingly, the DAs only marginally improved the quality of the decision-making process. The effectiveness of DAs for palliative treatment decisions needs further exploration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR): NTR1113 (registered on 2 November 2007).

Developing an aftercare decision aid; assessing health professionals' and patients' preferences

Personalising aftercare for curatively treated breast cancer patients is expected to improve patient satisfaction with care. A patient decision aid can support women in making decisions about their aftercare trajectory, but is currently not available. The aim of this study was to assess the needs of patients and health professionals with regard to an aftercare decision aid to systematically develop such a decision aid. Focus groups with patients and individual interviews with health professionals were digitally recorded and coded using the Framework analysis. Although most patients felt few aftercare options were available to them, health professionals reported to provide various options on the patients' request. Patients reported difficulty in expressing their need for options to their health professional. Although most patients were unfamiliar with decision aids, the majority preferred a paper‐based patient decision aid, while most health professionals preferred an online tool. The practical implications for the intended patient decision aid are: that a digital tool with paper‐based element should be developed, the patient decision aid should facilitate both rational and intuitive processes and should provide insight in patients' preferences concerning aftercare to discuss these explicitly.