Engaging Caregivers in Health-Related Housing Decisions for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Describing the evidence linking interprofessional education interventions to improving the delivery of safe and effective patient care: a scoping review

Empirical evidence indicates that collaborative interprofessional practice leads to positive health outcomes. Further, there is an abundance of evidence examining student and/or faculty perceptions of learning or satisfaction about the interprofessional education (IPE) learning experience. However, there is a dearth of research linking IPE interventions to patient outcomes. The objective of this scoping review was to describe and summarize the evidence linking IPE interventions to the delivery of effective patient care. A three-step search strategy was utilized for this review with articles that met the following criteria: publications dated 2015-2020 using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods; the inclusion of healthcare professionals, students, or practitioners who had experienced IPE or training that included at least two collaborators within coursework or other professional education; and at least one of ten Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services quality measures (length of stay, medication errors, medical errors, patient satisfaction scores, medication adherence, patient and caregiver education, hospice usage, mortality, infection rates, and readmission rates). Overall, n=94 articles were identified, providing overwhelming evidence supporting a positive relationship between IPE interventions and several key quality health measures including length of stay, medical errors, patient satisfaction, patient or caregiver education, and mortality. Findings from this scoping review suggest a critical need for the development, implementation, and evaluation of IPE interventions to improve patient outcomes.

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.

Engagement of Older Adults Receiving Home Care Services and Their Caregivers in Health Decisions in Partnership With Clinical Teams: Protocol for a Multimethod Study to Prioritize and Culturally Adapt Decision Aids for Home Care

BACKGROUND

Older adults (people aged 65 years and older) face many difficult decisions. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can help them and their families make informed value-congruent decisions. Some PtDAs have been developed for the home care context, but little is known about scaling them for use with older adults in a different culture.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to (1) assess the scalability of existing PtDAs for older adults in the home care context; (2) prioritize those that best match the decisional needs of older adults in home care; and (3) culturally adapt the prioritized PtDAs so they can be scaled successfully to the Quebec health care system.

METHODS

This multimethod study includes 3 phases. All phases will be overseen by a steering committee of older adults, caregivers, health professionals, decision makers, community organization representatives, and researchers with the needed expertise. In phase 1, we will use the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire, a validated scalability self-assessment tool, to assess the scalability of 33 PtDAs previously identified in a systematic review. Based on their scalability, their quality (based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards), and the importance of the decision point, we will retain approximately a third of these. In phase 2, we will conduct a 2-round web-based Delphi to prioritize the PtDAs selected in phase 1. Using a snowball recruitment strategy, we aim to recruit 60 Delphi participants in the province of Quebec, including older adults, caregivers, health professionals, decision makers involved in home care services, and PtDA experts. In the first round, we will ask participants to rate the importance of several PtDA decision points according to various criteria such as prevalence and difficulty on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not important to 5=very important). Approximately 6 of the highest-rated PtDAs will be retained for presentation in the second round, and we will select up to 3 PtDAs judged as having the highest priority for cultural adaptation. In phase 3, using the Chenel framework and user-centered design methods, we will update and adapt the PtDAs to the Quebec health care system and integrate these PtDAs into an interprofessional shared decision-making training program for home care teams. The adapted PtDAs will respect the International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria.

RESULTS

This study was funded in March 2022 by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data collection for the web-based Delphi began in October 2023. Results are expected to be published in May 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This project will provide relevant and culturally appropriate decision support tools for older adults making difficult decisions and their home care teams that will be ready for scaling across the province of Quebec.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/53150.

Shared decision-making in persons living with dementia: A scoping review

Evidence supports that older adults with cognitive impairment can reliably communicate their values and choices, even as cognition may decline. Shared decision-making, including the patient, family members, and healthcare providers, is critical to patient-centered care. The aim of this scoping review was to synthesize what is known about shared decision-making in persons living with dementia. A scoping review was completed in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Keywords included content areas of dementia and shared decision-making. Inclusion criteria were as follows: description of shared or cooperative decision making, cognitively impaired patient population, adult patient, and original research. Review articles were excluded, as well as those for which the formal healthcare provider was the only team member involved in the decision-making (e.g., physician), and/or the patient sample was not cognitively impaired. Systematically extracted data were organized in a table, compared, and synthesized. The search yielded 263 non-duplicate articles that were screened by title and abstract. Ninety-three articles remained, and the full text was reviewed; 32 articles were eligible for this review. Studies were from across Europe (n = 23), North America (n = 7), and Australia (n = 2). The majority of the articles used a qualitative study design, and 10 used a quantitative study design. Categories of similar shared decision-making topics emerged, including health promotion, end-of-life, advanced care planning, and housing decisions. The majority of articles focused on shared decision-making regarding health promotion for the patient (n = 16). Findings illustrate that shared decision-making requires deliberate effort and is preferred among family members, healthcare providers, and patients with dementia. Future research should include more robust efficacy testing of decision-making tools, incorporation of evidence-based shared decisionmaking approaches based on cognitive status/diagnosis, and consideration of geographical/cultural differences in healthcare delivery systems.

Interventions for the empowerment of older people and informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making: short report of a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Care transitions across different settings necessitate careful decision-making for all parties involved, yet research indicates that older people and informal caregivers do not have a strong voice in such decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic overview of the literature about interventions designed to empower older people and informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making.

DESIGN

A systematic review (Prospero Protocol CRD42020167961; funded by the EU's Horizon 2020 program).

DATA SOURCES

Five databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL.

REVIEW METHODS

The review included evaluations of empowerment in decision-making interventions for older people and informal caregivers facing care transitions, that were published from the inception of the databases up until April 2022. Data extractions were performed by two independent researchers and the quality of studies was assessed with the relevant JBI-critical appraisal tools. A narrative descriptive analysis of the results was performed.

FINDINGS

Ten studies, reporting on nine interventions, and including a total of 4642 participants, were included. Interventions included transition preparation tools, support from transition coaches, shared decision-making interventions, and advance care planning. Designs and outcomes assessed were highly diverse and showed a mix of positive and lacking effects.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of research on how to empower older people and their informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making. Empowerment in decision-making is usually not central in transitional care interventions, and effects on actual empowerment are mostly not assessed. Conclusions on how to empower older people and informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making cannot be drawn.

Shared decision-making with adults transitioning to long-term care: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Transitions to long-term care are challenging for individuals and often associated with a loss of autonomy. Positive experiences are noted, especially when decisions involve the individual in a person-centred way which are respectful of the person's human rights. One approach which facilitates self-determination during a transitional period is shared decision-making, but there is a lack of clarity on the nature and extent of research evidence in this area.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this scoping review is to identify and document research related to shared decision-making and transitioning to long-term care.

METHODS

A comprehensive search in CINAHL, Medline and Psych-info identified papers which included evidence of shared decision-making during transitions to a long-term care setting. The review following the JBI and PAGER framework for scoping reviews. Data were extracted, charted and analysed according to patterns, advances, gaps, research recommendations and evidence for practice.

RESULTS

Eighteen papers met the inclusion criteria. A body of knowledge was identified encompassing the pattern advancements in shared decision-making during transitions to long-term care, representing developments in both the evidence base and methodological approaches. Further patterns offer evidence of the facilitators and barriers experienced by the person, their families and the professional's involved.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence identified the complexity of such decision-making with efforts to engage in shared decision-making often constrained by the availability of resources, the skills of professionals and time. The findings recognise the need for partnership and person-centred approaches to optimise transitions. The review demonstrates evidence of approaches that can inform future practice and research to support all adult populations who may be faced with a transitional decision to actively participate in decision-making.

Difficult Decisions for Older Canadians Receiving Home Care, and Why They Are So Difficult: A Web-Based Decisional Needs Assessment

Background. Older adults receiving home care services often face decisions related to aging, illness, and loss of autonomy. To inform tailored shared decision making interventions, we assessed their decisional needs by asking about the most common difficult decisions, measured associated decisional conflict, and identified factors associated with it. Methods. In March 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey with a pan-Canadian Web-based panel of older adults (≥65 y) receiving home care services. For a difficult decision they had faced in the past year, we evaluated clinically significant decisional conflict (CSDC) using the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (score 0–100) with a >37.5 cutoff. To identify factors associated with CSDC, we performed descriptive, bivariable, and multivariable analyses using the stepwise selection method with an assumed entry and exit significance level of 0.15 and 0.20, respectively. Final model selection was based on the Bayesian information criterion. Results. Among 460 participants with an average age of 72.5 y, difficult decisions were, in order of frequency, about housing and safety (57.2%), managing health conditions (21.8%), and end-of-life care (8.3%). CSDC was experienced by 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5%, 18.1%) of respondents on all decision points. Factors associated with CSDC included household size = 1 (OR [95% CI]: 1.81 [0.99, 3.33]; P = 0.27), household size = 3 (2.66 [0.78, 8.98]; P = 0.83), and household size = 4 (6.91 [2.23, 21.39]; P = 0.014); preferred option not matching the decision made (4.05 [2.05, 7.97]; P < 0.001); passive role in decision making (5.13 [1.78, 14.77]; P = 0.002); and lower quality of life (0.70 [0.57, 0.87]; P<0.001). Discussion. Some older adults receiving home care services in Canada experience CSDC when facing difficult decisions. Shared decision-making interventions could mitigate associated factors.

Predictors of Decision Regret among Caregivers of Older Canadians Receiving Home Care: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey

Background. In Canada, caregivers of older adults receiving home care face difficult decisions that may lead to decision regret. We assessed difficult decisions and decision regret among caregivers of older adults receiving home care services and factors associated with decision regret. Methods. From March 13 to 30, 2020, at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted an online survey with caregivers of older adults receiving home care in the 10 Canadian provinces. We distributed a self-administered questionnaire through Canada’s largest and most representative private online panel. We identified types of difficult health-related decisions faced in the past year and their frequency and evaluated decision regret using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), scored from 0 to 100. We performed descriptive statistics as well as bivariable and multivariable linear regression to identify factors predicting decision regret. Results. Among 932 participants, the mean age was 42.2 y (SD = 15.6 y), and 58.4% were male. The most frequently reported difficult decisions were regarding housing and safety (75.1%). The mean DRS score was 28.8/100 (SD = 8.6). Factors associated with less decision regret included higher caregiver age, involvement of other family members in the decision-making process, wanting to receive information about the options, and considering organizations interested in the decision topic and health care professionals as trustworthy sources of information (all P < 0.001). Factors associated with more decision regret included mismatch between the caregiver’s preferred option and the decision made, the involvement of spouses in the decision-making process, higher decisional conflict, and higher burden of care (all P < 0.001). Discussion. Decisions about housing and safety were the difficult decisions most frequently encountered by caregivers of older adults in this survey. Our results will inform future decision support interventions.

Does Adding Training in Shared Decision Making for Home Care Teams to Providing Decision Guides Better Engage Frail Elders and Caregivers in Housing Decisions? :A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial

Background

Frail older adults and caregivers need support from their home care teams in making difficult housing decisions, such as whether to remain at home, with or without assistance, or move into residential care. However, home care teams are often understaffed and busy, and shared decision-making training is costly. Nevertheless, overall awareness of shared decision-making is increasing. We hypothesized that distributing a decision aid could be sufficient for providing decision support without the addition of shared decision-making training for home care teams.

Objective

We evaluated the effectiveness of adding web-based training and workshops for care teams in interprofessional shared decision-making to passive dissemination of a decision guide on the proportion of frail older adults or caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults reporting active roles in housing decision-making.

Methods

We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial with home care teams in 9 health centers in Quebec, Canada. Participants were frail older adults or caregivers of cognitively impaired frail older adults facing housing decisions and receiving care from the home care team at one of the participating health centers. The intervention consisted of a 1.5-hour web-based tutorial for the home care teams plus a 3.5-hour interactive workshop in interprofessional shared decision-making using a decision guide that was designed to support frail older adults and caregivers in making housing decisions. The control was passive dissemination of the decision guide. The primary outcome was an active role in decision-making among frail older adults and caregivers, measured using the Control Preferences Scale. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict and perceptions of how much care teams involved frail older adults and caregivers in decision-making. We performed an intention-to-treat analysis.

Results

A total of 311 frail older adults were included in the analysis, including 208 (66.9%) women, with a mean age of 81.2 (SD 7.5) years. Among 339 caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults, 239 (70.5%) were female and their mean age was 66.4 (SD 11.7) years. The intervention increased the proportion of frail older adults reporting an active role in decision-making by 3.3% (95% CI –5.8% to 12.4%, P=.47) and the proportion of caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults by 6.1% (95% CI -11.2% to 23.4%, P=.49). There was no significant impact on the secondary outcomes. However, the mean score for the frail older adults’ perception of how much health professionals involved them in decision-making increased by 5.4 (95% CI −0.6 to 11.4, P=.07) and the proportion of caregivers who reported decisional conflict decreased by 7.5% (95% CI −16.5% to 1.6%, P=.10).

Conclusions

Although it slightly reduced decisional conflict for caregivers, shared decision-making training did not equip home care teams significantly better than provision of a decision aid for involving frail older adults and their caregivers in decision-making.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02592525; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02592525

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Professional training on shared decision making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders: a mixed-methods implementation study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders is challenging for primary healthcare professionals. We studied the implementation of a professional training program featuring an e-learning activity on shared decision making and five Decision Boxes on the care of people with neurocognitive disorders, and measured the program's effects.

METHODS

In this mixed-methods study, we recruited healthcare professionals in family medicine clinics and homecare settings in the Quebec City area (Canada). The professionals signed up for training as a continuing professional development activity and answered an online survey before and after training to assess their knowledge, and intention to adopt shared decision making. We recorded healthcare professionals' access to each training component, and conducted telephone interviews with a purposeful sample of extreme cases: half had completed training and the other half had not. We performed bivariate analyses with the survey data and a thematic qualitative analysis of the interviews, as per the theory of planned behaviour.

RESULTS

Of the 47 participating healthcare professionals, 31 (66%) completed at least one training component. Several factors restricted participation, including lack of time, training fragmentation into several components, poor adaptation of training to specific professions, and technical/logistical barriers. Ease of access, ease of use, the usefulness of training content and the availability of training credits fostered participation. Training allowed Healthcare professionals to improve their knowledge about risk communication (p = 0.02), and their awareness of the options (P = 0.011). Professionals' intention to adopt shared decision making was high before training (mean ± SD = 5.88 ± 0.99, scale from 1 to 7, with 7 high) and remained high thereafter (5.94 ± 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study will allow modifying the training program to improve participation rates and, ultimately, uptake of meaningful shared decision making with patients living with neurocognitive disorders.

Variations in factors associated with healthcare providers' intention to engage in interprofessional shared decision making in home care: results of two cross-sectional surveys

Background

DOLCE (Improving Decision making On Location of Care with the frail Elderly and their caregivers) was a post-intervention clustered randomised trial (cRT) to assess the effect of training home care teams on interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM). Alongside the cRT, we sought to monitor healthcare providers’ level of behavioural intention to engage in an IP-SDM approach and to identify factors associated with this intention.

Methods

We conducted two cross-sectional surveys in the province of Quebec, Canada, one each at cRT entry and exit. Healthcare providers (e.g. nurses, occupational therapists and social workers) in the 16 participating intervention and control sites self-completed an identical paper-based questionnaire at entry and exit. Informed by the Integrated model for explaining healthcare professionals’ clinical behaviour by Godin et al. (2008), we assessed their behavioural intention to engage in IP-SDM to support older adults and caregivers of older adults with cognitive impairment to make health-related housing decisions. We also assessed psychosocial variables underlying their behavioural intention and collected sociodemographic data. We used descriptive statistics and linear mixed models to account for clustering.

Results

Between 2014 and 2016, 271 healthcare providers participated at study entry and 171 at exit. At entry, median intention level was 6 in a range of 1 (low) to 7 (high) (Interquartile range (IQR): 5–6.5) and factors associated with intention were social influence (β = 0.27, P <  0.0001), beliefs about one’s capabilities (β = 0.43, P <  0.0001), moral norm (β = 0.31, P <  0.0001) and beliefs about consequences (β = 0.21, P <  0.0001). At exit, median intention level was 5.5 (IQR: 4.5–6.5). Factors associated with intention were the same but did not include moral norm. However, at exit new factors were kept in the model: working in rehabilitation (β = − 0.39, P = 0.018) and working as a technician (β = − 0.41, P = 0.069) (compared to as a social worker).

Conclusion

Intention levels were high but decreased from entry to exit. Factors associated with intention also changed from study entry to study exit. These findings may be explained by the major restructuring of the health and social care system that took place during the 2 years of the study, leading to rapid staff turnover and organisational disturbance in home care teams. Future research should give more attention to contextual factors and design implementation interventions to withstand the disruption of system- and organisational-level disturbances.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02244359). Registered on September 19th, 2014.