Shared decision-making in medical encounters regarding breast cancer treatment: the contribution of methodological triangulation

Behaviour, barriers and facilitators of shared decision making in breast cancer surgical treatment: A qualitative systematic review using a 'Best Fit' framework approach

BACKGROUND

Due to the diversity and high sensitivity of the treatment, there were difficulties and uncertainties in the breast cancer surgical decision-making process. We aimed to describe the patient's decision-making behaviour and shared decision-making (SDM)-related barriers and facilitators in breast cancer surgical treatment.

METHODS

We searched eight databases for qualitative studies and mixed-method studies about breast cancer patients' surgical decision-making process from inception to March 2021. The quality of the studies was critically appraised by two researchers independently. We used a 'best fit framework approach' to analyze and synthesize the evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight qualitative studies and three mixed-method studies were included in this study. Four themes and 10 subthemes were extracted: (a) struggling with various considerations, (b) actual decision-making behaviours, (c) SDM not routinely implemented and (d) multiple facilitators and barriers to SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients had various considerations of breast surgery and SDM was not routinely implemented. There was a discrepancy between information exchange behaviours, value clarification, decision support utilization and SDM due to cognitive and behavioural biases. When individuals made surgical decisions, their behaviours were affected by individual-level and system-level factors. Therefore, healthcare providers and other stakeholders should constantly improve communication skills and collaboration, and emphasize the importance of decision support, so as to embed SDM into routine practice.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This systematic review was conducted as part of a wider research entitled: Breast cancer patients' actual participation roles in surgical decision making: a mixed method research. The results of this project helped us to better analyze and generalize patients' views.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Getting specific: participation preference in urooncological decision-making

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is the gold standard for good clinical practice, and thus, psychometric instruments have been established to assess patients' generic preference for participation (e.g., the Autonomy Preference Index, API). However, patients' preferences may vary depending on the specific disease and with respect to the specific decision context. With a modified preference index (API-Uro), we assessed patients' specific participation preference in preference-sensitive decisions pertaining to urological cancer treatments and compared this with their generic participation preference.

METHODS

In Study 1, we recruited (N = 469) urological outpatients (43.1% urooncological) at a large university hospital. Participation preference was assessed with generic measures (API and API case vignettes) and with the disease-specific API-Uro (urooncological case vignettes describing medical decisions of variable difficulty). A polychoric exploratory factor analysis was used to establish factorial validity and reduce items. In Study 2, we collected data from N = 204 bladder cancer patients in a multicenter study to validate the factorial structure with confirmatory factor analysis. Differences between the participation preference for different decision contexts were analyzed.

RESULTS

Study 1: Scores on the specific urooncological case vignettes (API-Uro) correlated with the generic measure (r = .44) but also provided incremental information. Among the disease-specific vignettes of the API-Uro, there were two factors with good internal consistency (α ≥ .8): treatment versus diagnostic decisions. Patients desired more participation for treatment decisions (77.8%) than for diagnostic decisions (22%), χ²(1) = 245.1, p ≤ .001. Study 2: Replicated the correlation of the API-Uro with the API (r = .39) and its factorial structure (SRMR = .08; CFI = .974). Bladder cancer patients also desired more participation for treatment decisions (57.4%) than for diagnostic decisions (13.3%), χ²(1) =84, p ≤ .001.

CONCLUSIONS

The desire to participate varies between treatment versus diagnostic decisions among urological patients. This underscores the importance of assessing participation preference for specific contexts. Overall, the new API-Uro has good psychometric properties and is well suited to assess patients' preferences. In routine care, measures of participation preference for specific decision contexts may provide incremental, allowing clinicians to better address their patients' individual needs.

A valued voice: A qualitative analysis of parental decision-making preferences in emergent paediatric surgery

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making, with an emphasis on patient autonomy, is often advised in healthcare decision-making. However, this may be difficult to implement in emergent settings. We have previously demonstrated that when considering emergent operations for their children, parents prefer surgeon guidance as opposed to shared decision-making. Here, we interviewed parents of paediatric patients who had undergone emergent operations to better understand parental decision-making preferences.

METHODS

Parents of paediatric patients who underwent surgery over the past 5 years at a University-based, tertiary children's hospital for cancer, an emergent operation while in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were invited to complete a 60-min semi-structured interview. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was performed via deductive and inductive analysis. An iterative approach to thematic sampling/data analysis was used.

RESULTS

Thematic saturation was achieved after 12 interviews (4 cancer, 5 NICU and 3 ECMO). Five common themes were identified: (1) recommendations from surgeons are valuable; (2) 'lifesaving mode': parents felt there were no decisions to be made; (3) effective ways of obtaining information about treatment; (4) shared decision-making as a 'dialogue' or 'discussion' and (5) parents as a 'valued voice' to advocate for their children.

CONCLUSIONS

When engaging in decision-making regarding emergent surgical procedures for their children, parents value a surgeon's recommendation. Parents felt that discussion or dialogue with surgeons defined shared decision-making, and they believed that the opportunity to ask questions gave them a 'valued voice', even when they felt there were no decisions to be made.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

For this study, we interviewed parents of paediatric patients who had undergone emergent operations to better understand parental decision-making preferences. Parents thus provided all the data for the study.

Discharge communication study: a realist evaluation of discharge communication experiences of patients, general practitioners and hospital practitioners, alongside a corresponding discharge letter sample

OBJECTIVES

To develop a programme theory for the intervention of patients receiving discharge letters.

DESIGN

We used a realist evaluation approach and captured multiple perspectives of hospital discharge to refine our previously developed programme theory. General practitioner (GP), patient and hospital clinician views of a single discharge event in which they were all involved were collected using semi-structured interviews and surveys. These were then triangulated to match the corresponding discharge letter. Data were qualitatively synthesised and compared in meta-matrices before interrogation with realist logic of analysis to develop the programme theory that maps out how patients receiving discharge letters works in specific contexts.

SETTING

14 GP practices and four hospital trusts in West Midlands, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

10 complete matched cases (GP, patient and hospital practitioner), and a further 26 cases in which a letter was matched with two out of the three participants.

RESULTS

We identified seven context mechanism outcome configurations not found through literature searching. These related to the broad concepts of: patient preference for receiving letters, patient comprehension of letters, patient-directed letters, patient harm and clinician views on patients receiving letters. 'Patient choice' was important to the success (or not) of the intervention. Other important contexts for positive effects included: letters written in plain English, lay explanations for jargon, verbal information also provided, no new information in letter and patient choice acknowledged. Three key findings were: patient understanding is perhaps greater than clinicians perceive, clinician attitudes are a barrier to patients receiving letters and that, negative outcomes more commonly manifested when patients had not received letters, rather than when they had.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest how patients receiving discharge letters could be improved to enhance patient outcomes. Our programme theory has potential for use in different healthcare contexts and as a framework for policy development relating to patient discharge.

Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences

Background

Many suggest that shared decision-making (SDM) is the most effective approach to clinical counseling. It is unclear if this applies to surgical decision-making-especially regarding urgent, highly-morbid operations. In this scoping review, we identify articles that address patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery.

Methods

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) to develop our protocol. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception through 11.2017. Title/abstract review identified peer-reviewed, empirical articles that addressed patient/surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery. Identified articles underwent full review by two independent investigators. We addressed the following questions: (1) What is known from existing empirical evidence about patients’ and/or surgeons’ surgical decision-making preferences? (2) Why might patients and/or surgeons prefer SDM? (3) Does acuity of intervention impact surgical decision-making preferences? Outcome measures included study methods, surgical specialty, diagnosis, study location/setting, type/number of subjects, acuity of intervention, surgeon/patient decision-making preferences, and factors associated with favoring SDM. Data was analyzed in Microsoft Excel.

Results

20,359 articles were identified with 4988 duplicates, yielding 15,371 articles for title/abstract review. 74 articles were included in final analysis. 68% of articles discussed oncologic decision-making. 46% of these focused on breast cancer. 92% of articles included patients, 22% included surgeons. 75% of articles found surgeons favored SDM, 25% demonstrated surgeons favored surgeon guidance. 54% of articles demonstrated patients favored SDM, 35% showed patients favored surgeon guidance, 11% showed patients preferred independent decision-making. The most common factors for patients favoring SDM included female gender, higher education, and younger age. For surgeons, the most common factors for favoring SDM included limited evidence for a given treatment plan, multiple treatment options, and impact on patient lifestyle. No articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting.

Conclusions

There has been limited evaluation of patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgical decision-making. Generally, patients and surgeons expressed preference toward SDM. None of the articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting, so assessment of the impact of acuity on decision-making preferences is limited. Extension of research to complex, emergent clinical settings is needed.

Patients' participation during treatment and care of breast cancer - a possibility and an imperative

PURPOSE

To explore how patients experience participation during treatment and care for breast cancer related to their understanding.

METHOD

Semi-structured individual interviews with 16 women diagnosed with breast cancer. Interpretative qualitative content analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Three main themes describe patient participation. Theme 1 Respectful and personal encounters illustrates how the treatment from health care staff contributed to feelings of being "seen" as a human, a basis for participation. Theme 2 Part-owner in decision making describes the women's varied wishes of participating in treatment decisions. Theme 3 Striving to manage treatment, care and self-care concerns the need to manage self-care for well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient participation is both a possibility and an imperative. Patients must be recognized as unique human beings with varying needs of participation. Shared learning and understanding in dialogue with health care staff is a prerequisite. A novel approach where patients and health care staff are both partners and participants is presented.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATION

The results call for an initiation of training programs supporting pedagogical competence in staff and patients' learning in breast cancer care. Access to health care in the outpatient and the hospital settings is needed long term after treatment to support patient participation.

Shared Decision-Making for Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making has received national and international interest by providers, educators, researchers, and policy makers. The literature on shared decision-making is extensive, dealing with the individual components of shared decision-making rather than a comprehensive process. This view of shared decision-making leaves healthcare providers to wonder how to integrate shared decision-making into practice.

OBJECTIVE

To understand shared decision-making as a comprehensive process from the perspective of the patient and provider in all healthcare settings.

METHODS

An integrative review was conducted applying a systematic approach involving a literature search, data evaluation, and data analysis. The search included articles from PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO from 1970 through 2016. Articles included quantitative experimental and non-experimental designs, qualitative, and theoretical articles about shared decision-making between all healthcare providers and patients in all healthcare settings.

RESULTS

Fifty-two papers were included in this integrative review. Three categories emerged from the synthesis: (a) communication/ relationship building; (b) working towards a shared decision; and (c) action for shared decision-making. Each major theme contained sub-themes represented in the proposed visual representation for shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive understanding of shared decision-making between the nurse and the patient was identified. A visual representation offers a guide that depicts shared decision-making as a process taking place during a healthcare encounter with implications for the continuation of shared decisions over time offering patients an opportunity to return to the nurse for reconsiderations of past shared decisions.

A new paradigm for clinical communication: critical review of literature in cancer care

OBJECTIVES

To: (i) identify key assumptions of the scientific 'paradigm' that shapes clinical communication research and education in cancer care; (ii) show that, as general rules, these do not match patients' own priorities for communication; and (iii) suggest how the paradigm might change to reflect evidence better and thereby serve patients better.

METHODS

A critical review, focusing on cancer care. We identified assumptions about patients' and clinicians' roles in recent position and policy statements. We examined these in light of research evidence, focusing on inductive research that has not itself been constrained by those assumptions, and considering the institutionalised interests that the assumptions might serve.

RESULTS

The current paradigm constructs patients simultaneously as needy (requiring clinicians' explicit emotional support) and robust (seeking information and autonomy in decision making). Evidence indicates, however, that patients generally value clinicians who emphasise expert clinical care rather than counselling, and who lead decision making. In denoting communication as a technical skill, the paradigm constructs clinicians as technicians; however, communication cannot be reduced to technical skills, and teaching clinicians 'communication skills' has not clearly benefited patients. The current paradigm is therefore defined by assumptions that that have not arisen from evidence. A paradigm for clinical communication that makes its starting point the roles that mortal illness gives patients and clinicians would emphasise patients' vulnerability and clinicians' goal-directed expertise. Attachment theory provides a knowledge base to inform both research and education.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers will need to be alert to political interests that seek to mould patients into 'consumers', and to professional interests that seek to add explicit psychological dimensions to clinicians' roles. New approaches to education will be needed to support clinicians' curiosity and goal-directed judgement in applying this knowledge. The test for the new paradigm will be whether the research and education it promotes benefit patients.

Open access follow-up care for early breast cancer: a randomised controlled quality of life analysis

This study evaluated the acceptability of a supportive model of follow‐up. One hundred and twelve women recovering from breast cancer were randomised to receive standard breast clinic aftercare (Control n = 56) or on demand by open access aftercare by breast care nurses (Intervention n = 56). Participants attended a support‐based psycho‐educational programme delivered in four half‐day group sessions. Three quality of life questionnaires (EORTC QLQ‐C30, QLQ‐BR23, HADS) were administered at baseline and 6‐monthly intervals for 2 years. Multilevel linear regression modelling methods were used for evaluation. Age was found to be a statistically significant predictor of quality of life in several sub‐scales. Increasing age was negatively associated with sexual functioning, systematic therapy side effects and physical functioning, and positively associated with future perspective. Aftercare assignment was not found to be a statistically significant predictor. Women treated for early breast cancer were not disadvantaged by allocation to the open access supportive care model in terms of quality of life experienced. The model for follow‐up was demonstrated to be a feasible alternative to routinised hospital‐based follow‐up and adds to the evidence for stratified follow‐up for low‐risk cancer patients, incorporating self‐management education. Stratified follow‐up pathways are viewed as a preferable approach.

Oncologist, patient, and companion questions during pretreatment consultations about adjuvant cancer treatment: a shared decision-making perspective

OBJECTIVES

To assess the occurrence of questions that foster shared decision making, in particular cancer patients' understanding of treatment decisions and oncologists' understanding of patients' priorities, during consultations in which preference-sensitive decisions are discussed. Specifically, (a) regarding patient understanding, do oncologists ask about patients' preexisting knowledge, information preferences, and understanding and do patients and companions ask about the disease and treatment, and (b) regarding patient priorities, do oncologists ask about patients' treatment- and decision-related preferences and do patients and companions ask about the decision?

METHODS

Audiotaped pretreatment consultations of 100 cancer patients with 32 oncologists about (neo)adjuvant treatment were coded and analyzed to document question type, topic, and initiative.

RESULTS

The oncologists ascertained prior knowledge in 50 patients, asked 24 patients about preferred (probability) information, and invited questions from 56 patients. The oncologists asked 32 patients about treatment preferences and/or for consent. Respectively, one-third and one-fifth of patients and companions asked about treatment benefits compared with three-quarters of them who asked about treatment harms and/or procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

It would be helpful to patients if oncologists more often assessed patients' existing knowledge to tailor their information provision. Also, patients could receive treatment recommendations that better fit their personal situation if oncologists collected information on patients' views about treatments. Moreover, by educating patients to ask about treatment alternatives, benefits, and harms, patients may gain a better understanding of the choice they have.

Evaluating the quality of shared decision making during the patient-carer encounter: a systematic review of tools

BACKGROUND

The concept of shared decision making (SDM) has been developing in many countries since the 1990s. The main challenge of SDM, based on the principles of respect for the person's autonomy, is to improve patients' participation, should they so wish, in decisions concerning their personal health. To our knowledge, there is only one SDM evaluation tool validated in metropolitan French that does not measure the entire SDM construct. The aim of this review was to identify existing and validated SDM measurement tools to determine which of them could be adapted in French to cover all the dimensions of SDM.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted based on articles found in the PubMed and PsycINFO bibliographic databases and published between 2010 and 2014. Studies were included if the main goal of the article was the development and psychometric validation of an SDM measurement tool, not specific to any given disease or situation, in English, French and Spanish. We used the nine essential elements of the Makoul and Clayman's integrative model to describe the different existing tools.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included. Seven new tools had been published since Scholl's previous review in 2011. We observed a recent spread of the multi-appraiser approach, which combines points of view of patients, healthcare professionals and sometimes external observers. Several models were used for the development of the seven newly identified tools. None of the identified tools assessed the nine elements of the Makoul's model. Three of these elements, however, were systematically measured in each of the new tools: "defining/explaining the problem", "patient values/preferences", and "checking/clarifying understanding".

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several potentially interesting tools for the French context which could cover the whole elements of Makoul's model. The next step will be the development of a French-language instrument based on these tools.