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

Which questionnaires can be used to elicit patients' preferences regarding patient-provider consultations? Results of a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Active patient involvement and attention to patient preferences in patient-provider consultations are increasingly recognized as essential to improve patient satisfaction and outcomes. Aim of the review was to provide an overview of questionnaires that measure patient preferences regarding communication, information provision and involvement in decision-making in patient-provider consultations.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were studies that provided primary data, were published in German or English, and included adult patients. The systematic search was conducted in PubMed and PsycInfo. Data extraction and summary focused on information about the development process, topic and structure, and reliability of instruments.

RESULTS

Of 6,667 abstracts screened, 34 articles were included, describing 37 different instruments, often originating from an Anglo-American context. Twelve articles reported patient involvement in the development process. Majority of questionnaires measures aspects of information and/or decision-making preferences. Fewer instruments focus on patient-centeredness or communication preferences. Length of questionnaires varied from one to 80 items. Only 15 studies reported reliability indices.

CONCLUSION

Due to the heterogeneous description, a more consistent reporting of data would be desirable for future publications as well as more participatory research.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Although there is a wide range of questionnaires available, more research is needed to determine the extent to which they can be used in everyday clinical practice to elicit preferences from individual patients with a wide range of conditions and cultural backgrounds.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

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

MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED

We assessed the PC communication skills of physicians.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

CONCLUSION

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

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Empowering Patients With a Shared Communication Tool: A Patient-Oriented Multimethods Pilot Study

Not all patients feel empowered to take on the expanding role as active members in their healthcare journey. Healthcare services must shift attention to supporting patients and families in this emerging role. This support includes providing communication tools designed for patients and families to empower them to speak up. Two Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were conducted to test a communication tool, the Jargon Alert!/WAIT card, with patients/families and providers in a Canadian rehabilitation hospital. After the first PDSA cycle, feedback from patients/families (n  =  24), and providers (n  =  4), informed modifications. The new Question Alert! card was retested in the same clinics. Patients/families (n  =  13) reported the new card was a valuable tool enabling them to ask questions, although not all patients or family members expressed the need to use the card. The participating providers (n  =  4) thought the Question Alert! card was helpful for quieter patients or family members who normally shy away from asking questions. The shared communication tool designed with patients improved the patient-centered experience and empowered patients/families to be more involved in their care.

Treatment decision-making during outpatient clinic visit of patients with esophagogastric cancer. The perspectives of clinicians and patients, a mixed method, multiple case study

BACKGROUND

The probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent according to the hospital of diagnosis varies for esophagogastric cancer in the Netherlands. Little is known about the factors contributing to this variation. This study aimed to improve the understanding of the differences between the multidisciplinary team meeting treatment proposal and the treatment that was actually carried out and to qualitatively investigate the differences in treatment decision-making after the multidisciplinary team meeting treatment proposal between hospitals.

METHODS

To gain an in-depth understanding of treatment decision-making, quantitative data (i.e., multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and treatment that was carried out) were collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Changes in the multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and applied treatment comprised changes in the type of treatment option (i.e., curative or palliative, or no change) and were calculated according to the multivariable multilevel probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent (low, middle, and high). Qualitative data were collected from eight hospitals, including observations of 26 outpatient clinic consultations, 30 in-depth interviews with clinicians, seven focus groups with clinicians, and three focus groups with patients. Clinicians and patients' perspectives were assessed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

The multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and applied treatment were concordant in 97% of the cases. Clinicians' implementation of treatment decision-making in clinical practice varied, which was mentioned by the clinicians to be due to the clinician's personality and values. Differences between clinicians consisted of discussing all treatment options versus only the best fitting treatment option and the extent of discussing the benefits and harms. Most patients aimed to undergo curative treatment regardless of the consequences, since they believed this could prolong their life.

CONCLUSION

Since changes in the multidisciplinary team meeting-proposed treatment and actual treatment were rarely observed, this study emphasizes the importance of an adequately formulated multidisciplinary team meeting proposal.

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

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is preferred by many patients in cancer care. However, despite scientific evidence and promotion by health policy makers, SDM implementation in routine health care lags behind. This study aimed to evaluate an empirically and theoretically grounded implementation program for SDM in cancer care.

METHODS

In a stepped wedge design, three departments of a comprehensive cancer center sequentially received the implementation program in a randomized order. It included six components: training for health care professionals (HCPs), individual coaching for physicians, patient activation intervention, patient information material/decision aids, revision of quality management documents, and reflection on multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Outcome evaluation comprised four measurement waves. The primary endpoint was patient-reported SDM uptake using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Several secondary implementation outcomes were assessed. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted to evaluate reach and fidelity. Data were analyzed using mixed linear models, qualitative content analysis, and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 2,128 patient questionnaires, 559 questionnaires from 408 HCPs, 132 audio recordings of clinical encounters, and 842 case discussions from 66 MDTMs were evaluated. There was no statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint SDM uptake. Patients in the intervention condition were more likely to experience shared or patient-lead decision-making than in the control condition (d=0.24). HCPs in the intervention condition reported more knowledge about SDM than in the control condition (d = 0.50). In MDTMs the quality of psycho-social information was lower in the intervention than in the control condition (d = - 0.48). Further secondary outcomes did not differ statistically significantly between conditions. All components were implemented in all departments, but reach was limited (e.g., training of 44% of eligible HCPs) and several adaptations occurred (e.g., reduced dose of coaching).

CONCLUSIONS

The process evaluation provides possible explanations for the lack of statistically significant effects in the primary and most of the secondary outcomes. Low reach and adaptations, particularly in dose, may explain the results. Other or more intensive approaches are needed for successful department-wide implementation of SDM in routine cancer care. Further research is needed to understand factors influencing implementation of SDM in cancer care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 , registered 8 January 2018.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

To translate Ask3Q and evaluate its acceptability and feasibility.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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