Education and role modelling for clinical decisions with female cancer patients

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.

Health Literacy and Radiation Therapy: a Current State Assessment of Patient Education Materials

In order to mitigate low levels of health literacy among patients, there is need to evaluate patient education (PE) materials and to ensure that the information is readily accessible to patients. The quality and comprehensiveness of radiation therapy materials were evaluated at fourteen cancer centres. To assess quality, PE leaders independently conducted readability, actionability and understandability assessments of materials. To evaluate comprehensiveness, an assessment was conducted of the scope of symptoms covered in extant materials, and the modality they were produced in (e.g. pamphlet, video). A total of 555 PE materials were reviewed for comprehensiveness and modality and seventy underwent evaluation against health literacy best practice standards. Most materials (n = 64, 91%) had a reading grade level above the recommended grade 6 ([Formula: see text] = 9, range = 4-12). Under half (n = 34, 49%) scored at or above the 80% threshold for understandability ([Formula: see text] = 74%, 33-100%) and just over half (n = 36, 51%) scored at or above the 80% target for actionability ([Formula: see text] = 71%, 33-100%). Only two cancer centres (n = 2/14, 14%) had PE materials covering the breadth of symptoms related to radiation therapy and the vast majority of materials were pamphlets (89%). Findings indicate that most radiation therapy PE materials used in cancer centres do not meet health literacy best practices, and there is a disparity between cancer centres in the topics that are available to patients and family. This evaluation highlights the need to better incorporate health literacy best practices into the development of radiation therapy PE materials and strategies to improve accessibility of such health information.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

Communication interventions in adult and pediatric oncology: A scoping review and analysis of behavioral targets

Background

Improving communication requires that clinicians and patients change their behaviors. Interventions might be more successful if they incorporate principles from behavioral change theories. We aimed to determine which behavioral domains are targeted by communication interventions in oncology.

Methods

Systematic search of literature indexed in Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov (2000–October 2018) for intervention studies targeting communication behaviors of clinicians and/or patients in oncology. Two authors extracted the following information: population, number of participants, country, number of sites, intervention target, type and context, study design. All included studies were coded based on which behavioral domains were targeted, as defined by Theoretical Domains Framework.

Findings

Eighty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Interventions varied widely in which behavioral domains were engaged. Knowledge and skills were engaged most frequently (85%, 75/88 and 73%, 64/88, respectively). Fewer than 5% of studies engaged social influences (3%, 3/88) or environmental context/resources (5%, 4/88). No studies engaged reinforcement. Overall, 7/12 behavioral domains were engaged by fewer than 30% of included studies. We identified methodological concerns in many studies. These 88 studies reported 188 different outcome measures, of which 156 measures were reported by individual studies.

Conclusions

Most communication interventions target few behavioral domains. Increased engagement of behavioral domains in future studies could support communication needs in feasible, specific, and sustainable ways. This study is limited by only including interventions that directly facilitated communication interactions, which excluded stand-alone educational interventions and decision-aids. Also, we applied stringent coding criteria to allow for reproducible, consistent coding, potentially leading to underrepresentation of behavioral domains.

Promoting shared decision making in advanced cancer: Development and piloting of a patient communication aid

OBJECTIVE

To learn how to configure a patient communication aid (PCA) to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment for advanced cancer.

METHODS

The PCA consists of education about SDM, a question prompt list, and values clarification methods. Study 1. A first version was presented to 13 patients, 8 relatives and 14 bereaved relatives in interviews. Study 2. A second version was used by 18 patients in a pilot study. Patients and oncologists were interviewed, patients were surveyed, and consultations were audio-recorded.

RESULTS

Respondents reported that the aid facilitated patient control over information, raised choice awareness and promoted elaboration. Risks were identified, most importantly that the aid might upset patients. Also, some respondents reported that the PCA did not, or would not support decision making because they felt sufficiently competent, did not perceive a role for themselves, or did not perceive that the decision required elaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

Opinions on the usefulness of the PCA varied. It was challenging to raise awareness about the presence of a choice, and to find a balance between comprehensive information and sensitivity.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A future study should demonstrate whether the PCA can improve SDM, and whether this effect is stronger when oncologists receive training.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

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).

SCORE: Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer affecting both men and women. Survivors of CRC often experience various physical and psychological effects arising from CRC and its treatment. These effects may last for many years and adversely affect QoL, and they may not be adequately addressed by standard specialist-based follow-up. Optimal management of these effects should harness the expertise of both primary care and specialist care. Shared models of care (involving both the patient’s primary care physician [PCP] and specialist) have the potential to better support survivors and enhance health system efficiency.

Methods/design

SCORE (Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors) is a multisite randomised controlled trial designed to optimise and operationalise a shared care model for survivors of CRC, to evaluate the acceptability of the intervention and study processes, and to collect preliminary data regarding the effects of shared care compared with usual care on a range of patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcome is QoL measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are satisfaction with care, unmet needs, continuity of care and health resource use. The shared care model involves replacement of two routine specialist follow-up visits with PCP visits, as well as the provision of a tailored survivorship care plan and a survivorship booklet and DVD for CRC survivors. All consenting patients will be randomised 1:1 to either shared care or usual care and will complete questionnaires at three time points over a 12-month period (baseline and at 6 and 12 months). Health care resource use data will also be collected and used to evaluate costs.

Discussion

The evaluation and implementation of models of care that are responsive to the holistic needs of cancer survivors while reducing the burden on acute care settings is an international priority. Shared care between specialists and PCPs has the potential to enhance patient care and outcomes for CRC survivors while offering improvements in health care resource efficiency. If the findings of the present study show that the shared care intervention is acceptable and feasible for CRC survivors, the intervention may be readily expanded to other groups of cancer survivors.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000004369p. Registered on 3 January 2017; protocol version 4 approved 24 February 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2245-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Populations and Interventions for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Evidence supports palliative care effectiveness. Given workforce constraints and the costs of new services, payers and providers need help to prioritize their investments. They need to know which patients to target, which personnel to hire, and which services best improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To inform how payers and providers should identify patients with "advanced illness" and the specific interventions they should implement, we reviewed the evidence to identify (1) individuals appropriate for palliative care and (2) elements of health service interventions (personnel involved, use of multidisciplinary teams, and settings of care) effective in achieving better outcomes for patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases (1/1/2001-1/8/2015).

RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials (124) met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies in cancer (49%, 38 of 77 studies) demonstrated statistically significant patient or caregiver outcomes (e.g., p < 0.05), as did those in congestive heart failure (CHF) (62%, 13 of 21), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 58%, 11 of 19), and dementia (60%, 15 of 25). Most prognostic criteria used clinicians' judgment (73%, 22 of 30). Most interventions included a nurse (70%, 69 of 98), and many were nurse-only (39%, 27 of 69). Social workers were well represented, and home-based approaches were common (56%, 70 of 124). Home interventions with visits were more effective than those without (64%, 28 of 44; vs. 46%, 12 of 26). Interventions improved communication and care planning (70%, 12 of 18), psychosocial health (36%, 12 of 33, for depressive symptoms; 41%, 9 of 22, for anxiety), and patient (40%, 8 of 20) and caregiver experiences (63%, 5 of 8). Many interventions reduced hospital use (65%, 11 of 17), but most other economic outcomes, including costs, were poorly characterized. Palliative care teams did not reliably lower healthcare costs (20%, 2 of 10).

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative care improves cancer, CHF, COPD, and dementia outcomes. Effective models include nurses, social workers, and home-based components, and a focus on communication, psychosocial support, and the patient or caregiver experience. High-quality research on intervention costs and cost outcomes in palliative care is limited.

Question Prompt Lists in health consultations: A review

OBJECTIVES

This review examines the use and effectiveness of Question Prompt Lists (QPL) as communication aids to enhance patient question asking, information provision to patients and patient participation in health and medical consultations.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken to identify relevant literature concerning QPLs including academic databases, Google-based and snowball searching. Forty-two relevant studies reporting 50 interventions were identified.

RESULTS

Although findings varied there was some evidence that a QPL endorsed by the physician increased total question asking. Using a QPL increased question asking concerning specific content areas (e.g. prognosis). There was some evidence that physicians provided more information during consultations. There were no consistent findings concerning effects on patient knowledge recall, anxiety and satisfaction or consultation time. Some interventions that increased question asking had longer consultation times.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence that an appropriate QPL, endorsed by the physician and provided immediately before the consultation, may increase patient question asking and lead to more information being provided by the physician.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

There is increasing evidence to support QPL use in routine practice. Further trials might address the issues identified including an assessment of QPL optimal length and QPL adaptation for cultural and special needs groups.

An instructional DVD fall-prevention program for patients with cancer and family caregivers

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

Determine the efficacy of a fall-prevention skills training program for patients with cancer and family caregivers.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled trial with repeated measures and postintervention measure of fall occurrence.

SETTING

A comprehensive cancer center in the midwestern United States.

SAMPLE

132 patient and family caregiver dyads.

METHODS

Dyads were randomly assigned to one of two groups: a control group that received standard fall-prevention education or a treatment group that received standard education and a fall-prevention DVD program to view at home. Participants completed surveys at baseline, one week, one month, and three months. Follow-up phone calls were made at three months.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Fall occurrence, perceptions of fall risks, and fall-prevention knowledge.

FINDINGS

Patients in the treatment group were significantly more likely to report not falling at three months than patients in the control group. The number of falls was lower for the treatment group. The difference was not statistically significant. Dyads in the treatment group showed significantly greater improvement over time in fall risk awareness and fall-prevention knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobility skills training is a promising educational intervention for reducing fall occurrences in the home for patients with cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Efforts are needed for improving the knowledge and skills of cancer survivors and their family members in recognizing patient fall risks, making home adjustments, and performing mobility skills competently.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) can reduce overuse of options not associated with benefits for all and respects patient rights, but has not yet been widely adopted in practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched for primary studies in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialsied Register and PsycINFO for the period March 2009 to August 2012. We searched the Clinical Trials.gov registry and the proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference. We scanned the bibliographies of relevant papers and studies. We contacted experts in the field to identify papers published after August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM where the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based outcome measures (OBOM) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The three overall categories of intervention were: interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. Studies in each category were compared to studies in the same category, to studies in the other two categories, and to usual care, resulting in nine comparison groups. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes separately. We calculated the median of the standardized mean difference (SMD), or risk difference, and range of effect across studies and categories of intervention. We assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were included, 38 randomised and one non-randomised controlled trial. Categorical measures did not show any effect for any of the interventions. In OBOM studies, interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals had a positive effect compared to usual care (SMD of 2.83) and compared to interventions targeting patients alone (SMD of 1.42). Studies comparing interventions targeting patients with other interventions targeting patients had a positive effect, as did studies comparing interventions targeting healthcare professionals with usual care (SDM of 1.13 and 1.08 respectively). In PROM studies, only three comparisons showed any effect, patient compared to usual care (SMD of 0.21), patient compared to another patient (SDM of 0.29) and healthcare professional compared to another healthcare professional (SDM of 0.20). For all comparisons, interpretation of the results needs to consider the small number of studies, the heterogeneity, and some methodological issues. Overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes, assessed with the GRADE tool, ranged from low to very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether interventions to improve adoption of SDM are effective given the low quality of the evidence. However, any intervention that actively targets patients, healthcare professionals, or both, is better than none. Also, interventions targeting patients and healthcare professionals together show more promise than those targeting only one or the other.

Shared decision-making and comparative effectiveness research for patients with chronic conditions: an urgent synergy for better health

Chronic conditions are the most important cause of morbidity, mortality and health expense in the USA. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) seeks to provide evidence supporting the relative value of alternative courses of action. This research often concludes with estimates of the likelihood of desirable and undesirable outcomes associated with each option. Patients with chronic conditions should engage with their clinicians in deciding which of these options best fits their goals and context. In practicing shared decision-making (SDM), clinicians and patients should make use of CER to inform their deliberations. In these ways, SDM and CER are interrelated. SDM translates CER into patient-centered practice, while CER provides the backbone evidence about options and outcomes in SDM interventions. In this review, we explore the potential for a SDM-CER synergy in improving healthcare for patients with chronic conditions.

Provider use of collaborative goal setting with glaucoma patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this preliminary study was to describe the extent to which providers used collaborative goal setting and individualized assessment with patients who were newly prescribed glaucoma medications.

METHODS

English-speaking glaucoma suspect patients from six ophthalmology clinics who were newly prescribed glaucoma medications had their medical visits videotaped and were interviewed after the visits. The videotapes were transcribed and coded to examine provider use of collaborative goal setting and individualized assessment.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients seeing 12 ophthalmologists participated. Providers gave patients glaucoma treatment options during 37% of the visits; only five providers gave patients treatment options Providers asked for patient treatment preferences in less than 20% of the visits; only two providers asked for patient treatment preferences. Providers were significantly more likely to ask African American patients for their preferences or ideas concerning treatment than non-African American patients (Pearson χ² = 4.1, p = 0.04). Providers were also significantly more likely to ask African American patients about their confidence in using glaucoma medication regularly than non-African American patients (Pearson χ² = 8.2, p = 0.004). Providers asked about patient views about glaucoma in less than 20% of the visits; five providers asked patients their views on glaucoma and its treatment. Providers were significantly more likely to ask African American patients about their views on glaucoma than non-African American patients (Pearson χ² = 5.62, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Eye care providers often did not use collaborative goal setting or conduct individualized assessments of patient views on glaucoma when prescribing treatment for the first time.

Protocol for the ProCare Trial: a phase II randomised controlled trial of shared care for follow-up of men with prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Men with prostate cancer require long-term follow-up to monitor disease progression and manage common adverse physical and psychosocial consequences of treatment. There is growing recognition of the potential role of primary care in cancer follow-up. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multisite randomised controlled trial of a novel model of shared care for the follow-up of men after completing treatment for low-moderate risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The intervention is a shared care model of follow-up visits in the first 12 months after completing treatment for prostate cancer with the following specific components: a survivorship care plan, general practitioner (GP) management guidelines, register and recall systems, screening for distress and unmet needs and patient information resources. Eligible men will have completed surgery and/or radiotherapy for low-moderate risk prostate cancer within the previous 8 weeks and have a GP who consents to participate. Ninety men will be randomised to the intervention or current hospital follow-up care. Study outcome measures will be collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months and include anxiety, depression, unmet needs, prostate cancer-specific quality of life and satisfaction with care. Clinical processes and healthcare resource usage will also be measured. The principal emphasis of the analysis will be on obtaining estimates of the treatment effect size and assessing feasibility in order to inform the design of a subsequent phase III trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted by the University of Western Australia and from all hospital recruitment sites in Western Australia and Victoria.

RESULTS

of this phase II trial will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and in conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12610000938000.

Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making (SDM) and develop a taxonomy of patient-reported barriers.

METHODS

Systematic review and thematic synthesis. Study findings/results for each included paper were extracted verbatim and entered into qualitative software for inductive analysis.

RESULTS

Electronic and follow-up searches yielded 2956 unique references; 289 full-text articles were retrieved, of which 45 articles from 44 unique studies met inclusion criteria. Key descriptive themes were grouped under two broad analytical themes: how the healthcare system is organized (4 descriptive themes) and what happens during the decision-making interaction (4 descriptive themes, 10 sub-themes). Predominant emergent themes related to patients' knowledge and the power imbalance in the doctor-patient relationship. Patients need knowledge and power to participate in SDM - knowledge alone is insufficient and power is more difficult to attain.

CONCLUSION

Many barriers are potentially modifiable, and can be addressed by attitudinal changes at the levels of patient, clinician/healthcare team, and the organization. The results support the view that many patients currently can't participate in SDM, rather than they won't participate because they do not want to.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Future implementation efforts should address patient-reported factors together with known clinician-reported barriers and the wider organizational context.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Does routine psychosocial screening improve referral to psychosocial care providers and patient-radiotherapist communication? A cluster randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This study tests whether using a screening instrument improves referral to psychosocial care providers (e.g. psychologist) and facilitates patient-radiotherapist communication.

METHODS

A cluster randomized controlled trial was used. Fourteen radiotherapists were randomly allocated to the experimental or control group and 568 of their patients received care in accordance with the group to which their radiotherapist was allocated. Patients in the experimental group were asked to complete a screening instrument before and at the end of the radiation treatment period. All patients were requested to complete questionnaires concerning patient-physician communication after the first consultation and concerning psychosocial care 3 and 12 months post-intervention.

RESULTS

Patients who completed the screening instrument were referred to social workers at an earlier stage than patients who did not (P<0.01). No effects were observed for numbers of referred patients, or for improved patient-radiotherapist communication.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that a simple screening procedure can be valuable for the timely treatment of psychosocial problems in patients. Future efforts should be directed at appropriate timing of screening and enhancing physicians' awareness regarding the importance of identifying, discussing and treating psychosocial problems in cancer patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Psychosocial screening can be enhanced by effective radiotherapist-patient communication.

Postoperative information needs and communication barriers of esophageal cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Given the poor prognosis of esophageal cancer and the impact of surgery on health-related quality of life (HRQL), addressing patients' postoperative information needs is important. This study aimed to examine (1) the content and type of patients' information needs and (2) patient perceived facilitators and barriers to patient participation.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with 20 purposefully selected esophageal cancer patients. Open and structured questions were alternated. The transcribed interviews were analysed inductively and deductively, using MAXqda.

RESULTS

Patients' post-operative information needs concerned HRQL, medical care and prognosis, covering several sub-domains. Different types of needs were identified, e.g., requests for information about cause, course and self-management. Barriers to patient participation mostly reflected beliefs and skills, and could be categorized into agenda and communication barriers. Facilitators of patient participation reflected physician, patient and interaction characteristics, companion support and pre-visit preparation. Many patients saw merit in pre-visit preparation interventions; few endorsed skill-building interventions.

CONCLUSION

This study listed the postoperative information needs of esophageal cancer patients. Moreover, it gained insight into patient-perceived barriers and facilitators of patient participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The findings demonstrate what information physicians should have available and informs interventions to support patients in meeting their information needs.

A DVD program on fall prevention skills training for cancer family caregivers

This feasibility study tested an instructional DVD program for improving cancer family caregivers' knowledge and preparedness in fall prevention and reducing fall occurrence among the patients they care for at home. DVD program features included training caregivers on safe mobility skills. Family caregivers of cancer patients were surveyed before and after viewing the DVD program on "Moving Safely" in the home. Cancer patients were followed 4 months postintervention to determine if fall occurrence was reduced. There was a decrease in the number of patients who fell postintervention compared with those who fell preintervention. Caregivers' perceptions of knowledge about fall prevention improved significantly after viewing the DVD. An instructional DVD program is an effective educational tool for preparing family caregivers with the knowledge and skills needed to reduce the incidence of falls in the home setting. Educators must develop programs for preparing family caregivers to perform nursing skills within the home.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update, we searched from January 2006 to December 2009 in MEDLINE (Ovid); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, issue 4 2009); CINAHL (Ovid) (to September 2008 only); EMBASE (Ovid); PsycINFO (Ovid); and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed potential risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, were:A) decision attributes;B) decision making process attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health system effects. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 34,316 unique citations, 86 studies involving 20,209 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included. Thirty-one of these studies are new in this update. Twenty-nine trials are ongoing. There was variability in potential risk of bias across studies. The two criteria that were most problematic were lack of blinding and the potential for selective outcome reporting, given that most of the earlier trials were not registered.Of 86 included studies, 63 (73%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: A) criteria involving decision attributes: knowledge scores (51 studies); accurate risk perceptions (16 studies); and informed value-based choice (12 studies); and B) criteria involving decision process attributes: feeling informed (30 studies) and feeling clear about values (18 studies).A) Criteria involving decision attributes:Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions by increasing knowledge (MD 13.77 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.40 to 16.15; n = 26). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simpler decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 4.97 out of 100; 95% CI 3.22 to 6.72; n = 15). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.08; n = 14). The effect was stronger when probabilities were expressed in numbers (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.37; n = 11) rather than words (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.48; n = 3). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification compared to those without explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients achieving decisions that were informed and consistent with their values (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.52; n = 8).B) Criteria involving decision process attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -6.43 of 100; 95% CI -9.16 to -3.70; n = 17); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -4.81; 95% CI -7.23 to -2.40; n = 14); c) reduced the proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; n = 11); and d) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; n = 9). Decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in the four studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 12) and/or the decision making process (n = 12), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. There were no studies evaluating the decision process attributes relating to helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made or understand that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomesExposure to decision aids compared to usual care continued to demonstrate reduced choice of: major elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; n = 11). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care also resulted in reduced choice of PSA screening (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; n = 7). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, there was reduced choice of menopausal hormones (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from -8 minutes to +23 minutes (median 2.5 minutes). Decision aids do not appear to be different from comparisons in terms of anxiety (n = 20), and general health outcomes (n = 7), and condition specific health outcomes (n = 9). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

New for this updated review is evidence that: decision aids with explicit values clarification exercises improve informed values-based choices; decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication; and decision aids have a variable effect on length of consultation.Consistent with findings from the previous review, which had included studies up to 2006: decision aids increase people's involvement, and improve knowledge and realistic perception of outcomes; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the choice of discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, cost-effectiveness, and use with developing and/or lower literacy populations need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have positive effects on attributes of the decision or decision-making process.

Effectiveness of a short course in clinical communication skills for hospital doctors: results of a crossover randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN22153332)

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that a 20-h communication skills course based on the Four Habits model can improve doctor-patient communication among hospital employed doctors across specialties.

METHODS

Crossover randomized controlled trial in a 500-bed hospital with interventions at different time points in the two arms. Assessments were video-based and blinded. Intervention consisted of 20 h of communication training, containing alternating plenary with theory/debriefs and practical group sessions with role-plays tailored to each doctor.

RESULTS

Of 103 doctors asked to participate, 72 were included, 62 received the intervention, 51 were included in the main analysis, and another six were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. We found an increase in the Four Habits Coding Scheme of 7.5 points (p = 0.01, 95% confidence interval 1.6-13.3), fairly evenly distributed on subgroups. Baseline score (SD) was 60.3 (9.9). Global patient satisfaction did not change, neither did average encounter duration.

CONCLUSION

Utilizing an outpatient-clinic training model developed in the US, we demonstrated that a 20-h course could be generalized across medical and national cultures, indicating improvement of communication skills among hospital doctors.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The Four Habits model is suitable for communication-training courses in hospital settings. Doctors across specialties can attend the same course.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the practitioner and the patient and is said to be the crux of patient-centred care. Policy makers perceive SDM as desirable because of its potential to a) reduce overuse of options not clearly associated with benefits for all (e.g., prostate cancer screening); b) enhance the use of options clearly associated with benefits for the vast majority (e.g., cardiovascular risk factor management); c) reduce unwarranted healthcare practice variations; d) foster the sustainability of the healthcare system; and e) promote the right of patients to be involved in decisions concerning their health. Despite this potential, SDM has not yet been widely adopted in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 March 2009: Cochrane Library (1970-), MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1976-), CINAHL (1982-) and PsycINFO (1965-). We found additional studies by reviewing a) the bibliographies of studies and reviews found in the electronic databases; b) the clinicaltrials.gov registry; and c) proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference and the conferences of the Society for Medical Decision Making. We included all languages of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well-designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses) that evaluated any type of intervention that aimed to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of shared decision making. We defined adoption as the extent to which healthcare professionals intended to or actually engaged in SDM in clinical practice or/and used interventions known to facilitate SDM. We deemed studies eligible if the primary outcomes were evaluated with an objective measure of the adoption of SDM by healthcare professionals (e.g., a third-observer instrument).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers independently screened each abstract for inclusion and abstracted data independently using a modified version of the EPOC data collection checklist. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes. We computed the standard effect size for each outcome separately with a 95% confidence interval. We evaluated global effects by calculating the median effect size and the range of effect sizes across studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The reviewers identified 6764 potentially relevant documents, of which we excluded 6582 by reviewing titles and abstracts. Of the remainder, we retrieved 182 full publications for more detailed screening. From these, we excluded 176 publications based on our inclusion criteria. This left in five studies, all RCTs. All five were conducted in ambulatory care: three in primary clinical care and two in specialised care. Four of the studies targeted physicians only and one targeted nurses only. In only two of the five RCTs was a statistically significant effect size associated with the intervention to have healthcare professionals adopt SDM. The first of these two studies compared a single intervention (a patient-mediated intervention: the Statin Choice decision aid) to another single intervention (also patient-mediated: a standard Mayo patient education pamphlet). In this study, the Statin Choice decision aid group performed better than the standard Mayo patient education pamphlet group (standard effect size = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.50). The other study compared a multifaceted intervention (distribution of educational material, educational meeting and audit and feedback) to usual care (control group) (standard effect size = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.90). This study was the only one to report an assessment of barriers prior to the elaboration of its multifaceted intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this Cochrane review do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about the most effective types of intervention for increasing healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. Healthcare professional training may be important, as may the implementation of patient-mediated interventions such as decision aids. Given the paucity of evidence, however, those motivated by the ethical impetus to increase SDM in clinical practice will need to weigh the costs and potential benefits of interventions. Subsequent research should involve well-designed studies with adequate power and procedures to minimise bias so that they may improve estimates of the effects of interventions on healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. From a measurement perspective, consensus on how to assess professionals' adoption of SDM is desirable to facilitate cross-study comparisons.

Engaging communication experts in a Delphi process to identify patient behaviors that could enhance communication in medical encounters

Background

The communication literature currently focuses primarily on improving physicians' verbal and non-verbal behaviors during the medical interview. The Four Habits Model is a teaching and research framework for physician communication that is based on evidence linking specific communication behaviors with processes and outcomes of care. The Model conceptualizes basic communication tasks as "Habits" and describes the sequence of physician communication behaviors during the clinical encounter associated with improved outcomes. Using the Four Habits Model as a starting point, we asked communication experts to identify the verbal communication behaviors of patients that are important in outpatient encounters.

Methods

We conducted a 4-round Delphi process with 17 international experts in communication research, medical education, and health care delivery. All rounds were conducted via the internet. In round 1, experts reviewed a list of proposed patient verbal communication behaviors within the Four Habits Model framework. The proposed patient verbal communication behaviors were identified based on a review of the communication literature. The experts could: approve the proposed list; add new behaviors; or modify behaviors. In rounds 2, 3, and 4, they rated each behavior for its fit (agree or disagree) with a particular habit. After each round, we calculated the percent agreement for each behavior and provided these data in the next round. Behaviors receiving more than 70% of experts' votes (either agree or disagree) were considered as achieving consensus.

Results

Of the 14 originally-proposed patient verbal communication behaviors, the experts modified all but 2, and they added 20 behaviors to the Model in round 1. In round 2, they were presented with 59 behaviors and 14 options to remove specific behaviors for rating. After 3 rounds of rating, the experts retained 22 behaviors. This set included behaviors such as asking questions, expressing preferences, and summarizing information.

Conclusion

The process identified communication tasks and verbal communication behaviors for patients similar to those outlined for physicians in the Four Habits Model. This represents an important step in building a single model that can be applied to teaching patients and physicians the communication skills associated with improved satisfaction and positive outcomes of care.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in 'close call' decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids for people facing difficult treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to July 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library; 2006, Issue 2); CINAHL (Ovid) (1982 to July 2006); EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to July 2006); and PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to July 2006). We contacted researchers active in the field up to December 2006. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published RCTs of interventions designed to aid patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to no intervention, usual care, and alternate interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision, or if the study's intervention was not available to determine that it met the minimum criteria to qualify as a patient decision aid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, and extracted data from included studies using standardized forms. The primary outcomes focused on the effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: attributes of the decision and attributes of the decision process. We considered other behavioural, health, and health system effects as secondary outcomes. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR) using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 25 new RCTs, bringing the total to 55. Thirty-eight (69%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: decision attributes: knowledge scores (27 trials); accurate risk perceptions (11 trials); and value congruence with chosen option (4 trials); and decision process attributes: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials).This review confirmed the following findings from the previous (2003) review. Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions in terms of: a) greater knowledge (MD 15.2 out of 100; 95% CI 11.7 to 18.7); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -8.3 of 100; 95% CI -11.9 to -4.8); c) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.4; 95% CI -10.0 to -2.7); d) reduced the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8); and e) reduced proportion of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8). When simpler decision aids were compared to more detailed decision aids, the relative improvement was significant in knowledge (MD 4.6 out of 100; 95% CI 3.0 to 6.2) and there was some evidence of greater agreement between values and choice.In this review, we were able to explore the use of probabilities in decision aids. Exposure to a decision aid with probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.9). The effect was stronger when probabilities were measured quantitatively (RR 1.8; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.3) versus qualitatively (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5).As in the previous review, exposure to decision aids continued to demonstrate reduced rates of: elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9); and use of menopausal hormones, detailed versus simple aid (RR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0). There is now evidence that exposure to decision aids results in reduced PSA screening, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.0) . For other decisions, the effect on decisions remains variable.As in the previous review, decision aids are no better than comparisons in affecting satisfaction with decision making, anxiety, and health outcomes. The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, continuance, resource use) were inconclusive.There were no trials evaluating the IPDAS decision process criteria relating to helping patients to recognize a decision needs to be made, understand that values affect the decision, or discuss values with the practitioner.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patient decision aids increase people's involvement and are more likely to lead to informed values-based decisions; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on decisions. They reduce the use of discretionary surgery without apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The degree of detail patient decision aids require for positive effects on decision quality should be explored. The effects on continuance with chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, and cost-effectiveness need further evaluation.

Establishing patient decision aids in primary care: update on the knowledge base

In recent years, many industrialised countries have moved forward initiatives to reinforce their primary healthcare sector. At the same time, there has been an increased emphasis on the engagement of patients as partners in their care. Consequently, the process by which patients are engaged to share their preferences and become involved in healthcare decisions is changing and pushing the needs for a new kind of knowledge tools, namely patients decision aids. We argue that for shared decision making to be adopted in primary care practices, patient decision aids will need to be embedded in routine clinical care. Subsequently, the objectives of this paper are twofold: to briefly review the knowledge base regarding the implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice and to identify the gaps in knowledge that will need to be addressed for the effective implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice to occur.

Clinician-patient communication: a systematic review

GOAL OF WORK

The goal of this work was to identify methods of clinician-patient cancer-related communication that may impact patient outcomes associated with distress at critical points in the course of cancer care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of practice guidelines, systematic reviews, or randomized trials on this topic was conducted. Guidelines for quality was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument, and the contributive value for recommendations was assessed. Systematic reviews and randomized trials were also evaluated for methodological rigor.

RESULTS

Four existing guidelines, eight systematic reviews and nine randomized trials were identified. Two of the guidelines were of high quality, and all systematic reviews reported clear search criteria and support for their conclusions; the randomized trials were of modest or low quality. For all situations and disease stages, guidelines consistently identified open, honest, and timely communication as important; specifically, there was evidence for a reduction in anxiety when discussions of life expectancy and prognosis were included in consultations. Techniques to increase patient participation in decision-making were associated with greater satisfaction but did not necessarily decrease distress. Few studies took cultural and religious diversity into account.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little definitive evidence supporting the superiority of one specific method for communicating information compared to another. Evidence regarding the benefit of decision aids or other strategies to facilitate better communication is inconsistent. Since patients vary in their communication preferences and desire for active participation in decision making, there is a need to individualize communication style.

Physician-Identified Factors Affecting Patient Participation in Reaching Treatment Decisions

Purpose

Cancer physicians report high comfort with shared decision making but a lower frequency of using this approach in practice. Information regarding physicians’ perceptions of what helps and what hinders patient involvement in decision making may facilitate understanding of this discrepancy.

Methods

We surveyed 604 Australian cancer physicians treating breast, colorectal, gynecologic, hematologic, or urologic cancer to investigate barriers and facilitators to reaching treatment decisions with their patients and their support of strategies to encourage patient involvement and reflection on treatment options. Factor analysis and regression analyses were used to investigate relationships between variables and identify predictors of greater reporting of barriers to sharing treatment decisions with patients.

Results

Insufficient information at the first consultation (28.9%) and insufficient time (28.4%) were the most frequently reported barriers to reaching treatment decisions with patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that less experienced physicians more commonly reported system barriers (P = .00). Patients trusting their physician and being accompanied at the consultation were most helpful to reaching a treatment decision. Providing written information about treatment options, making a further appointment to reach a decision, encouraging the patient to speak with their family physician and treatment team, and the presence of a third person during the consultation were felt to encourage involvement and reflection on treatment decisions.

Conclusion

Cancer physicians experience difficulties when reaching treatment decisions with their patients. Interventions and strategies that physicians support are required to enhance patient involvement in reaching a treatment decision.

Communication Interventions Make A Difference in Conversations Between Physicians and Patients

OBJECTIVE

We sought to synthesize the findings of studies examining interventions to enhance the communication behaviors of physicians and patients during outpatient encounters.

METHODS

We conducted searches of 6 databases between 1966 and 2005 to identify studies for a systematic review and synthesis of the literature. Eligible studies tested a communication intervention; were randomized controlled trials (RCTs); objectively assessed verbal communication behaviors as the primary outcome; and were published in English. Interventions were characterized by type (eg, information, modeling, feedback, practice), delivery strategy, and overall intensity. We abstracted information on the effects of the interventions on communication outcomes (eg, interpersonal and information exchanging behaviors). We examined the effectiveness of the interventions in improving the communication behaviors of physicians and patients.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were reviewed: 18 involved physicians; 15 patients; and 3 both. Of the physician interventions, 76% included 3 or 4 types, often in the form of practice and feedback sessions. Among the patient interventions, 33% involved 1 type, and nearly all were delivered in the waiting room. Intervention physicians were more likely than controls to receive higher ratings of their overall communication style and to exhibit specific patient-centered communication behaviors. Intervention patients obtained more information from physicians and exhibited greater involvement during the visit than controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The interventions were associated with improved physician and patient communication behaviors. The challenge for future research is to design effective patient and physician interventions that can be integrated into practice.

Interactive technologies and videotapes for patient education in cancer care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

GOALS OF WORK

Patients diagnosed with cancer need education as they face complex decisions. There is limited evidence about the impact of new educational technologies for cancer patients. This paper investigates whether interactive technologies and videotapes for patient education in cancer care improve knowledge, satisfaction or other outcomes.

METHODS

Literature search of five computerised databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) and bibliography searches identified relevant randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Summary effects for knowledge and satisfaction were calculated using random-effects models (RevMan 4.2 software). Continuous data were summarised as weighted mean differences and dichotomous data as odds ratios, each with their respective 95% confidence interval. Standardised effect sizes for these outcomes were calculated and contrasted.

RESULTS

Nine randomised control trials with 1,678 patients were identified. Three evaluated the use of videotapes, and six evaluated computer technologies. Studies were of good-quality design but were variable in instruments, content, populations, outcomes and results. Educational technologies showed improved patient knowledge (effect sizes ranging from 0.12 to 1.03). Satisfaction was improved in some studies, but the overall effect was more equivocal--effect sizes ranged (0.05 to 0.40) of benefit for knowledge and from 0 to 0.40 for satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The trials present preliminary evaluations of the technology in North America, the UK and Australia. There is a trend to improved knowledge and satisfaction. The ways in which the interventions are delivered and the extent of communication with a health professional affect patient responses.

Cultural aspects of communication in cancer care

Cancer is increasing in incidence and prevalence worldwide, and the WHO has recently included cancer and its treatments as a health priority in developed and developing countries. The cultural diversity of oncology patients is bound to increase, and cultural sensitivity and competence are now required of all oncology professionals. A culturally competent cancer care leads to improved therapeutic outcome and it may decrease disparities in medical care. Cultural competence in medicine is a complex multilayered accomplishment, requiring knowledge, skills and attitudes whose acquisition is needed for effective cross-cultural negotiation in the clinical setting. Effective cultural competence is based on knowledge of the notion of culture; on awareness of possible biases and prejudices related to stereotyping, racism, classism, sexism; on nurturing appreciation for differences in health care values; and on fostering the attitudes of humility, empathy, curiosity, respect, sensitivity and awareness. Cultural competence in healthcare relates to individual professionals, but also to organizations and systems. A culturally competent healthcare system must consider in their separateness and yet in there reciprocal influences social, racial and cultural factors. By providing a framework of reference to interpret the external world and relate to it, culture affects patients' perceptions of disease, disability and suffering; degrees and expressions of concern about them; their responses to treatments and their relationship to individual physicians and to the healthcare system. Culture also influences the interpretation of ethical norms and principles, and especially of individual autonomy, which can be perceived either as synonymous with freedom or with isolation depending on the cultural context. This, in turn, determines the variability of truth-telling attitudes and practices worldwide as well as the different roles of family in the information and decision-making process of the cancer patient. Finally, culture affects individual views of the patient-doctor relationship in different contexts.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in preference-sensitive decisions.

OBJECTIVES

1. Create a comprehensive inventory of patient decision aids focused on healthcare options. 2. Review randomized controlled trials (RCT) of decision aids, for people facing healthcare decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies were identified through databases and contact with researchers active in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for interventions designed to aid patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes. Information about the decision aids was compiled in an inventory; those that had been evaluated in a RCT were reviewed in detail.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data using standardized forms. Results of RCTs were pooled using weighted mean differences (WMD) and relative risks (RR) using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Over 200 decision aids were identified. Of the 131 available decision aids, most are intended for use before counselling. Using the CREDIBLE criteria to evaluate the quality of the decision aids: a) most included potential harms and benefits, credentials of the developers, description of their development process, update policy, and were free of perceived conflict of interest; b) many included reference to relevant literature; c) few included a description of the level of uncertainty regarding the evidence; and d) few were evaluated. Thirty of these decision aids were evaluated in 34 RCTs and another trial evaluated a suite of eight decision aids. An additional 30 trials are yet to be published. Among the trials comparing decision aids to usual care, decision aids performed better in terms of: a) greater knowledge (WMD 19 out of 100, 95% CI: 13 to 24; b) more realistic expectations (RR 1.4, 95%CI: 1.1 to 1.9); c) lower decisional conflict related to feeling informed (WMD -9.1 of 100, 95%CI: -12 to -6); d) increased proportion of people active in decision making (RR 1.4, 95% CI: 1.0 to 2.3); and e) reduced proportion of people who remained undecided post intervention (RR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.3 to 0.7). When simpler were compared to more detailed decision aids, the relative improvement was significant in: a) knowledge (WMD 4 out of 100, 95% CI: 3 to 6); b) more realistic expectations (RR 1.5, 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.7); and c) greater agreement between values and choice. Decision aids appeared to do no better than comparisons in affecting satisfaction with decision making, anxiety, and health outcomes. Decision aids had a variable effect on which healthcare options were selected.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The availability of decision aids is expanding with many on the Internet; however few have been evaluated. Trials indicate that decision aids improve knowledge and realistic expectations; enhance active participation in decision making; lower decisional conflict; decrease the proportion of people remaining undecided, and improve agreement between values and choice. The effects on persistence with chosen therapies and cost-effectiveness require further evaluation. Finally, optimal strategies for dissemination need to be explored.