Making shared decision-making (SDM) a reality: protocol of a large-scale long-term SDM implementation programme at a Northern German University Hospital

Nurse-led immunotreatment DEcision Coaching In people with Multiple Sclerosis (DECIMS) - A cluster- randomised controlled trial and mixed methods process evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a nurse-led decision coaching programme aiming to redistribute health professionals' tasks to support immunotherapy decision-making in people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

Cluster-randomised controlled trial with an accompanying mixed methods process evaluation (2014 - 2018). We planned to recruit 300 people with clinically isolated syndrome or relapsing-remitting MS facing immunotherapy decisions in 15 clusters across Germany. Participants in the intervention clusters received up to three decision coaching sessions by a trained nurse and access to an evidence-based online information platform. In the control clusters, participants also had access to the information platform. The primary outcome was informed choice after six months, defined as good risk knowledge and congruent attitude and uptake.

RESULTS

Twelve nurses from eight clusters participated in the decision coaching training. Due to insufficient recruitment, the randomised controlled trial was terminated prematurely with 125 participants (n = 42 intervention clusters, n = 83 control clusters). We found a non-significant difference between groups for informed choice favouring decision coaching: odds ratio 1.64 (95% CI 0.49-5.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that decision coaching might facilitate informed decision-making in MS compared to providing patient information alone.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Barriers have to be overcome to achieve structural change and successful implementation.

Decision-making about changing medications across transitions of care: Opportunities for enhanced patient and family engagement

BACKGROUND

Older patients often have complex medication regimens, which change as they move across transitions of care. Engagement of older patients and families in making medication decisions across transitions of care is important for safe and high-quality medication management.

AIMS

To explore decision-making between health professionals, older patients and families about medication changes across transitions of care, and to examine how patient and family engagement is enacted in the process of decision-making in relation to these medication changes.

METHODS

A focused ethnographic design was undertaken with semi-structured interviews, observations, and reflective focus groups or interviews. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on transcribed data. The study was undertaken at a public teaching acute care hospital and a public teaching community hospital in Australia.

RESULTS

In all, 182 older patients, 44 family members and 94 health professionals participated. Four themes were conceptualised from the data: different customs and routines, medication challenges, health professional interactions, and patient and family involvement. Environments had differences in their customs and routines, which increased the potential for medication delays or the substitution of unintended medications. Medication challenges included health professionals assuming that patients and families did not need information about regularly prescribed medications. Patients and families were informed about new medications after health professionals had already made decisions to prescribe these medications. Health professionals tended to work in disciplinary silos, and they had views about their role in interacting with patients and families. Patients and families were expected to take the initiative to participate in decision-making about medication changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient movements across transitions of care can create complex and chaotic medication management situations, which lacks transparency, especially for older patients and their families. A greater focus on pre-emptive and planned discussions about medication changes will contribute to improving patient and family involvement in medication decision-making.

Exploring the medical decision-making patterns and influencing factors among the general Chinese public: a binary logistic regression analysis

OBJECTIVE

With the ongoing evolution of the healthcare system and shifts in cultural paradigms, there is a pressing need to delve into the medical decision-making behaviors of general Chinese public and understand their underlying motivations. This research seeks to elucidate the prevailing tendencies in these decision-making processes and to empirically validate the pivotal factors that shape their choices, offering valuable insights for healthcare policymakers and institutions.

METHOD

A comprehensive survey was administered to 2,696 Chinese residents to examine their medical decision-making patterns. These patterns were classified into two primary categories: Unilateral Decision-making (Doctor-dominant, Family-centric, and Patient-driven subtypes) and Collaborative Decision-making (Doctor-led, Doctor-Patient, Patient-Family, and Doctor-Patient-Family subtypes). Binary logistic regression analysis was employed to empirically pinpoint the significant factors influencing these decision-making frameworks.

RESULTS

The study's analysis reveals distinct preferences in medical decision-making among Chinese residents. In the Collaborative Decision-making category, chosen by 70.81% of participants, the subtypes are as follows: Doctor-led (29.90%), Doctor-Patient (13.54%), Patient-Family (2.93%), and Doctor-Patient-Family (24.44%). The Unilateral Decision-making, preferred by 29.19%, includes Doctor-dominant (23.22%), Family-centric (1.74%), and Patient-driven (4.23%) models. The preference for Collaborative Decision-making is associated with higher educational levels, specific marital statuses (particularly married but childless), and choices of rural residents' basic medical insurance or occupational basic medical insurance. In contrast, Unilateral Decision-making correlates with males, individuals with religious beliefs, certain occupational roles (like civil servants), and holders of commercial or publicly funded medical insurance.

CONCLUSION

This study elucidates the complex interplay of socio-cultural and individual determinants shaping medical decision-making in China. The findings reveal a marked inclination towards collaborative models, closely linked to educational level, marital status, and specific insurance types, reflecting an evolving trend towards participatory healthcare. Simultaneously, the persistence of unilateral models, influenced by gender, religious beliefs, and occupational roles, highlights the heterogeneity within Chinese healthcare preferences. These insights are crucial for policymakers and healthcare practitioners, underscoring the need for adaptable, culturally attuned healthcare frameworks that cater to this diversity, thereby enhancing patient engagement and healthcare efficacy.

Patient-reported effects of hospital-wide implementation of shared decision-making at a university medical centre in Germany: a pre-post trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the SHARE TO CARE (S2C) programme, a complex intervention designed for hospital-wide implementation of shared decision-making (SDM).

DESIGN

Pre-post study.

SETTING

University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel Campus.

PARTICIPANTS

Healthcare professionals as well as inpatients and outpatients from 22 departments of the Kiel Campus of UKSH.

INTERVENTIONS

The S2C programme is a comprehensive implementation strategy including four core modules: (1) physician training, (2) SDM support training for and support by nurses as decision coaches, (3) patient activation and (4) evidence-based patient decision aid development and integration into patient pathways. After full implementation, departments received the S2C certificate.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

In this paper, we report on the feasibility and effectiveness outcomes of the implementation. Feasibility was judged by the degree of implementation of the four modules of the programme. Outcome measures for effectiveness are patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). The primary outcome measure for effectiveness is the Patient Decision Making subscale of the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICSPDM). Pre-post comparisons were done using t-tests.

RESULTS

The implementation of the four components of the S2C programme was able to be completed in 18 of the 22 included departments within the time frame of the study. After completion of implementation, PICSPDM showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.01) between the means compared with baseline. This difference corresponds to a small to medium yet clinically meaningful positive effect (Hedges' g=0.2). Consistent with this, the secondary PREMs (Preparation for Decision Making and collaboRATE) also showed statistically significant, clinically meaningful positive effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The hospital-wide implementation of SDM with the S2C-programme proved to be feasible and effective within the time frame of the project. The German Federal Joint Committee has recommended to make the Kiel model of SDM a national standard of care.

[Information needs of patients with atopic eczema-a qualitative study]

INTRODUCTION

Often patient information in atopic eczema (AE) does not meet the criteria of evidence-based patient information. What are the information needs of affected patients?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyze opinions and experiences of AE patients regarding their personal information needs.

METHODS

In all, 16 semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients with AE based on an interview guide. Subsequently the audio-taped interviews were transcribed and analyzed using deductive-inductive methods. Standards of qualitative research were ensured using the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ).

RESULTS

In all, 21 persons participated in the 16 interviews, including patients and relatives. Gender ratio was 2 : 1 (female/male); age varied between 19 and 75 years. The interviews revealed a gap in care for patient information about AE. Especially the lack of time in the physician-patients encounter was criticized. Many of the affected felt left alone and forced to take a more active role in the search for information and therapy itself. Depending on stage and duration of the disease, some persons had the impression that their search for information was too time-consuming in relation to the possible benefits.

CONCLUSION

Patients perceived their doctor to be the most important contact person during the information seeking process. Within our study group, feeling a lack of a caring contact person as well as a lack of knowledge often led to not complying with a standardized, guideline-orientated therapy and of self-treatment. Filling this care gap seems to be an important approach to optimized patient care.

Finding Your Way - A shared decision making resource developed by and for Aboriginal people in Australia: Perceived acceptability, usability, and feasibility

BACKGROUND

Finding Your Way is a culturally adapted shared decision making (SDM) resource for Aboriginal (First Nations) people of Australia. It integrates the Eight Ways of Aboriginal Learning (8 Ways) and was created by Aboriginal health workers and community members in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perceived acceptability, usability, and feasibility of Finding Your Way as a SDM resource for Aboriginal people making health and wellbeing decisions.

METHODS

The web-based resources were disseminated using social media, professional networks, publications, and the 'Koori grapevine'. Thirteen 'champions' also promoted the resources. An online questionnaire was available on the website for three months. Framework analysis determined early indications of its acceptability, usability, and feasibility. Web and social media analytics were also analysed. Partnership with and leadership by Aboriginal people was integrated at all phases of the project.

RESULTS

The main landing page was accessed 5219 times by 4259 users. 132 users completed the questionnaire. The non-linear and visual aspects of the resources 'speak to mob' and identified with Aboriginal culture. The inclusion of social and emotional well-being, and the holistic approach were well received by the small number of users who opted to provide feedback. They suggested that non-digital formats and guidance on the resources are required to support use in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

The 8 Ways enabled the development of a culturally safe SDM resource for Aboriginal people, which was well received by users who took the time to provide feedback after a brief dissemination process. Additional accessible formats, practice guides and training are required to support uptake in clinical practice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Finding Your Way could be used to help improve experiences, health literacy, decision making quality and outcomes of healthcare for Aboriginal Australians.

The quality of German - language patient decision aids for oncological patients on the internet

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have already shown that decision aids are a suitable tool for patient decision-making. The aim of this work is to conduct an online search for freely available, German-language patient decision aids (PDAs) for cancer patients, followed by an assessment of their quality. For this purpose, a rating tool that is as manageable as possible was developed on the basis of already existing quality criteria.

METHODS

A simulated patient online search was conducted via the four most frequently used search engines in Germany. A quality assessment tool was created utilizing international and national guidelines, with a focus on practicality and manageability. Subsequently, the identified PDAs were rated by 4 raters based on the rating tool.

RESULTS

The number of German-language oncology PDAs is low (n = 22 of 200 URLs) with limited variability regarding rare cancers. Most originate from non-profit organizations. The overall quality is low, as indicated by an average of 57.52% of the maximum evaluation points of the developed quality assessment tool. Reference values used to assess quality were related to e.g. support/effectiveness, adaptation, layout, etc. No qualitative differences were found regarding different publishers. Quality differed between PDAs of different length, with longer PDAs achieving better results.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the supply and quality of German-language PDAs is not satisfactory. The assessment tool created in this study provides a solid, but more manageable basis, for developing and identifying high-quality PDAs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PDAs should be increasingly used by physicians in practice. For this, a quick qualitative assessment of PDAs in everyday life must be possible. Future research has to investigate especially the aspect of the length of a PDA in more detail.

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.

What does shared decision making ask from doctors? Uncovering suppressed qualities that could improve person-centered care

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is infrequently seen in clinical practice despite four decades of efforts. We propose a need to explore what SDM asks from doctors in terms of enabling competencies and necessary, underlying qualities, and how these can be nurtured or suppressed in medical training.

DISCUSSION

Key SDM tasks call for doctors to understand communication and decision mechanisms to carry them out well, including reflecting on what they know and do not know, considering what to say and how, and listening unprejudiced to patients. Different doctor qualities can support accomplishing these tasks; humility, flexibility, honesty, fairness, self-regulation, curiosity, compassion, judgment, creativity, and courage, all relevant to deliberation and decision making. Patient deference to doctors, lack of supervised training opportunities with professional feedback, and high demands in the work environment may all inflate the risk of only superficially involving patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified ten professional qualities and related competencies required for SDM, with each to be selected based on the specific situation. The competencies and qualities need to be preserved and nurtured during doctor identity building, to bridge the gap between knowledge, technical skills, and authentic efforts to achieve SDM.

Assessing the impact of patient-involvement healthcare strategies on patients, providers, and the healthcare system: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient involvement has become an important and lively field of research, yet existing findings are fragmented and often contested. Without a synthesis of the research field, these findings are of limited use to scholars, healthcare providers, or policy-makers.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the body of knowledge on patient involvement to determine what is known, contested, and unknown about benefits, risks, and effective implementation strategies.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

Patients were not involved.

METHODS

Systematic literature review of 99 journal articles using a conceptual model integrating three levels: health systems, health providers, and patients. We extracted individual research findings and organized them into the structure of our model to provide a holistic picture of patient involvement.

RESULTS

The review highlights overlaps and conflicts between various patient involvement approaches. Our results show benefits for individual patients and the health system as a whole. At the provider level, however, we identified clear barriers to patient involvement.

DISCUSSION

Patient involvement requires collaboration among health systems, healthcare providers, and patients. We showed that increasing patient responsibility and health literacy requires policy-maker interventions. This includes incentives for patient education by providers, adapting medical education curricula, and building a database of reliable health information and decision support for patients. Furthermore, policies supporting a common infrastructure for digital health data and managed patient data exchange will foster provider collaboration.

PRACTICAL VALUE

Our review shows how an approach integrating health systems, healthcare providers, and patients can make patient involvement more effective than isolated interventions. Such systematic patient involvement is likely to improve population health literacy and healthcare quality.

Patients' and healthcare professionals' perceived facilitators and barriers for shared decision-making for frail and elderly patients in perioperative care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) in perioperative care, is an organizational approach to instituting sharing of information and decision-making around surgery. It aims at enabling patient autonomy and patient-centered care. Frail and elderly patients suffering from multiple health conditions and increased surgical vulnerability might particularly benefit from SDM. However, little is known about the facilitators and barriers to implementing SDM in perioperative care for the specific needs of frail and elderly patients. Our objective is twofold: First, we aim at collecting, analyzing, categorizing, and communicating facilitators and barriers. Second, we aim at collecting and mapping conceptual approaches and methods employed in determining and analyzing these facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed studies. We employed a taxonomy which is based on the SPIDER framework and added the items general article information, stakeholder, barriers/facilitators, category, subcategory, and setting/contextual information. This taxonomy is based on preceding reviews. The scoping review is reported under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Based on the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, we screened 984 articles, identified, and reviewed 13 original studies.

RESULTS

Within this review, two primary facilitators concerning patients' willingness to participate in SDM emerged: Patients want to be informed on their medical condition and procedures. Patients prefer sharing decisions with healthcare professionals, compared to decision-making solely by patients or decision-making solely by healthcare professionals. Communication issues and asymmetric power relationships between patients and clinical healthcare professionals are barriers to SDM. Regarding the methodological approaches, the evaluation of the conceptual approaches demonstrates that the selected articles lack employing a distinct theoretical framework. Second, the selected studies mainly used surveys and interviews, observational studies, like ethnographic or video-based studies are absent.

CONCLUSION

Diverging findings perceived by patients or clinical healthcare professionals were identified. These imply that SDM research related to elderly and frail patients should become more encompassing by employing research that incorporates theory-based qualitative analysis, and observational studies of SDM consultations for understanding practices by patients and clinical healthcare professionals. Observational studies are particularly relevant as these were not conducted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/8fjnb/.

Comprehensive Implementation of Shared Decision Making in a Neuromedical Center Using the SHARE TO CARE Program

PURPOSE

SHARE TO CARE (S2C) is a comprehensive, multi-module implementation program for shared decision making (SDM). It is currently applied at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany, and among general practitioners at the Federal State of Bremen. This study examines the results of the full implementation of S2C in terms of effectiveness within the Kiel Neuromedical Center comprising the departments of neurology and neurosurgery.

METHOD AND DESIGN

The S2C program consists of four combined intervention modules: 1) multimodal training of physicians; 2) a patient activation campaign including the ASK-3 method; 3) digital evidence-based patient decision aids; and 4) SDM support by nurses, e.g., as decision coaches. The SDM level before and immediately after implementation was retrospectively assessed in consecutively selected patients on the subscale "Patient Decision Making" of the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS_PDM). Mean scores were compared with t-tests.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine percent of all physicians (N = 56) completed the SDM training. We developed a total of 12 evidence-based digital decision aids in the center, educated two decision coaches to support patients' decision processes by using decision aids. Physicians adjusted patients' pathways to incorporate the use of decision aids. Patients (n = 261) reported a significant increase in participation (p<0.001; Hedges' g = 0.49) in medical decision making.

CONCLUSION

The S2C program has been successfully implemented within the entire Neuromedical Center. Patients reported a medium to small increase of perceived involvement in decision making demonstrating the effectiveness of the implementation. For future research, it might be interesting to investigate the sustainability of the effects of S2C. In addition, it seems useful to complement the patient-based evaluation with observer-based data.

Sustainability of large-scale implementation of shared decision making with the SHARE TO CARE program

Introduction

SHARE TO CARE (S2C) is a comprehensive implementation program for shared decision making (SDM). It is run at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH) in Kiel, Germany, and consists of four combined intervention modules addressing healthcare professionals and patients: (1) multimodal training of physicians (2) patient activation campaign including the ASK3 method, (3) online evidence-based patient decision aids (4) SDM support by nurses. This study examines the sustainability of the hospital wide SDM implementation by means of the Neuromedical Center comprising the Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery.

Methods

Between 2018 and 2020, the S2C program was applied initially within the Neuromedical Center: We implemented the patient activation campaign, trained 89% of physicians (N = 56), developed 12 patient decision aids and educated two decision coaches. Physicians adjusted the patients' pathways to facilitate the use of decision aids. To maintain the initial implementation, the departments took care that new staff members received training and decision aids were updated. The patient activation campaign was continued. To determine the sustainability of the initial intervention, the SDM level after a maintenance phase of 6-18 months was compared to the baseline level before implementation. Therefore, in- and outpatients received a questionnaire via mail after discharge. The primary endpoint was the "Patient Decision Making" subscale of the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS_PDM). Secondary endpoints were an additional scale measuring SDM (CollaboRATE), and the PrepDM scale, which determines patients' perceived health literacy while preparing for decision making. Mean scale scores were compared using t-tests.

Results

Patients reported a significantly increased SDM level (PICS_PDM p = 0.02; Hedges' g = 0.33; CollaboRATE p = 0.05; Hedges' g = 0.26) and improved preparation for decision making (PrepDM p = 0.001; Hedges' g = 0.34) 6-18 months after initial implementation of S2C.

Discussion

The S2C program demonstrated its sustainability within the Neuromedical Center at UKSH Kiel in terms of increased SDM and health literacy. Maintaining the SDM implementation required a fraction of the initial intensity. The departments took on the responsibility for maintenance. Meanwhile, an additional health insurance-based reimbursement for S2C secures the continued application of the program.

Conclusion

SHARE TO CARE promises to be suitable for long-lasting implementation of SDM in hospitals.

Preferred and perceived participation roles of oncological patients in medical decision-making: Results of a survey among users of the German Cancer Information Service

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are facing a variety of treatment and other disease-related decisions. This study aims to provide insights into preferred and perceived participation roles in decision-making among patients with diverse tumors using the German Cancer Information Service (CIS).

METHODS

Patients' decision-making preferences and experiences were assessed as a part of a cross-sectional survey among CIS users. An adapted version of the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) was used to assess preferred and perceived participation roles in eight different areas of medical decision-making (e.g., choice of medication, termination of treatment). Logistic regression analyses were applied to explore preference matching and to analyze associations between participation roles and sociodemographic variables. Moreover, we examined preferences and perceptions of participation roles across different decision situations.

RESULTS

In the final sample (N = 1566, 64.9% female, mean age = 61.6), almost half of the patients (47.1%) preferred to take a collaborative role in decisions on treatment methods, whereas 36.3% preferred an active role and 15.9% a passive role. Collaborative role preferences frequently (40.7%) coincided with experiencing a passive role and predicted a reduced chance of a match between preferences and experiences (OR = 0.57, p = .001). A higher level of education was associated with a lower chance of preferring and perceiving a passive role (OR = 0.85, p < .01). Compared with men, women had increased odds of preferring (OR = 1.45, p < .05) and of actually taking (OR = 2.04, p < .001) a passive role in medical encounters. Preferred participation roles regarding treatment methods were highly correlated with preferences in all other decision areas (r > .50, p < .001) except decisions about family involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The study reveals well-known deficits in the fulfilment of patients' collaborative role preferences across different areas of medical decision-making in a sample of CIS users characterized by high information-seeking behavior. Participation roles were not only influenced by the patients' level of education but also by their gender. The gender effect may be more pronounced than previous studies suggest. These effects should be considered in the development of interventions to promote shared decision-making. Additionally, study results indicate that preferences for participation in decisions about treatment methods, as assessed by the CPS, can be generalized to other areas of medical decision-making.

Moving towards patient-centered care and shared decision-making in Germany

The main focus of this paper is to describe the development and current state of policy, research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) in Germany. What is the current state in health policy? Since 2013, the Law on Patients' Rights has standardized all rights and responsibilities regarding medical care for patients in Germany. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information, and decisions based on a clinician-patient partnership. In addition, reports and action plans such as the German Ethics Council's report on patient well-being, the National Health Literacy Action Plan, or the National Cancer Plan emphasize and foster PCC and SDM on a policy level. There are a number of public organizations in Germany that support PCC and SDM. How are patients and the public involved in health policy and research? Publishers and funding agencies increasingly demand patient and public involvement. Numerous initiatives and organizations are involved in publicizing ways to engage patients and the public. Also, an increasing number of public and research institutions have established patient advisory boards. How is PCC and SDM taught? Great progress has been made in introducing SDM into the curricula of medical schools and other health care providers' (HCPs) schools (e.g., nursing, physical therapy). What is the German research agenda? The German government and other public institutions have constantly funded research programs in which PCC and SDM are important topics. This yielded several large-scale funding initiatives and helped to develop SDM training programs for HCPs in different fields of health care and information materials. Recently, two implementation studies on SDM have been conducted. What is the current uptake of PCC and SDM in routine care, and what implementation efforts are underway? Compared to the last country report from 2017, PCC and SDM efforts in policy, research and education have been intensified. However, many steps are still needed to reliably implement SDM in routine care in Germany. Specifically, the further development and uptake of decision tools and countrywide SDM trainings for HCPs require further efforts. Nevertheless, an increasing number of decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care. Also, recent implementation efforts are promising. For example, reimbursement by health insurance companies of hospital-wide SDM implementation is being piloted. A necessary next step is to nationally coordinate the gathering and provision of the many PCC and SDM resources available.

Shared Care Practices in Community Addiction and Mental Health Services: A Qualitative Study on the Experiences and Perspectives of Stakeholders

Shared care involves collaboration between primary care, secondary and tertiary care that enables the allocation of responsibilities of care according to the treatment needs of patients over the course of a mental illness. This study aims to determine stakeholders’ perspectives on the features of an ideal shared care model and barriers to practicing shared care within addiction and mental health programs in Edmonton, Canada. This is a qualitative cross-sectional study with data collected through focus group discussions. Participants included patients, general practitioners, psychiatrists, management, and therapists working in primary and secondary addiction and mental health. Responses were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Perceived barriers to the implementation of an ideal shared care model identified by participants include fragmented communication between primary and secondary healthcare providers, patient and family physician discomfort with discussing addiction and mental health, a lack of staff capacity, confidentiality issues, and practitioner buy-in. Participants also identified enablers to include implementing shared electronic medical record systems, improving communication and collaboration, physical co-location, and increasing practitioner awareness of appropriate referrals and services. This original research provides stakeholders’ perspectives on the features of an ideal shared care model and barriers to practicing shared care within addiction and mental health programs.

A scattered landscape: assessment of the evidence base for 71 patient decision aids developed in a hospital setting

Background

Recent publications reveal shortcomings in evidence review and summarization methods for patient decision aids. In the large-scale “Share to Care (S2C)” Shared Decision Making (SDM) project at the University Hospital Kiel, Germany, one of 4 SDM interventions was to develop up to 80 decision aids for patients. Best available evidence on the treatments’ impact on patient-relevant outcomes was systematically appraised to feed this information into the decision aids. Aims of this paper were to (1) describe how PtDAs are developed and how S2C evidence reviews for each PtDA are conducted, (2) appraise the quality of the best available evidence identified and (3) identify challenges associated with identified evidence.

Methods

The quality of the identified evidence was assessed based on GRADE quality criteria and categorized into high-, moderate-, low-, very low-quality evidence. Evidence appraisal was conducted across all outcomes assessed in an evidence review and for specific groups of outcomes, namely mortality, morbidity, quality of life, and treatment harms. Challenges in evidence interpretation and summarization resulting from the characteristics of decision aids and the type and quality of evidence are identified and discussed.

Results

Evidence reviews assessed on average 25 systematic reviews/guidelines/studies and took about 3 months to be completed. Despite rigorous review processes, nearly 70% of outcome-specific information derived for decision aids was based on low-quality and mostly on non-directly comparative evidence. Evidence on quality of life and harms was often not provided or not in sufficient form/detail. Challenges in evidence interpretation for use in decision aids resulted from, e.g., a lack of directly comparative evidence or the existence of very heterogeneous evidence for the diverse treatments being compared.

Conclusions

Evidence reviews in this project were carefully conducted and summarized. However, the evidence identified for our decision aids was indeed a “scattered landscape” and often poor quality. Facing a high prevalence of low-quality, non-directly comparative evidence for treatment alternatives doesn’t mean it is not necessary to choose an evidence-based approach to inform patients. While there is an urgent need for high quality comparative trials, best available evidence nevertheless has to be appraised and transparently communicated to patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01777-x.

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.

Shared Decision-Making and Role Preference Among Patients With Schizophrenia in Malaysia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction: Shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as a promising strategy for improving collaboration between clinicians and their patients in achieving recovery. In Malaysia, SDM among people with schizophrenia is still lacking both in practice and in research. This study aimed to determine the level of SDM and role preference and their associated factors among patients with schizophrenia in Malaysia. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 86 outpatient attendees with schizophrenia at a teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire and Control Preference Scale were used to assess perceived SDM experience and role preference, respectively. Linear and logistic regression models were used to analyze the factors associated with SDM and role preference, respectively. Factors with a p <0.25 from the simple regression analyses were controlled as the covariates in the multiple regression analyses. Results: The study respondents were predominantly female, single, and unemployed, with a mean age of 44 years. Only 35% of the participants reported having high SDM experiences, even though the majority (56%) preferred autonomous role preference. Among the participants who preferred autonomous roles, only 40% experienced high SDM. High SDM was found to be significantly associated with being younger (B = -0.33, 95% CI = -0.67 to -0.003) and being non-clozapine users (B = 19.90, 95% CI = 9.39-30.41), while autonomous role preference was significantly associated with a lower level of insight [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.72-0.99] and being on oral antipsychotic drugs only (AOR = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.10-7.82). Conclusion: The practice of SDM is still lacking in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia in Malaysia, even though many of them preferred to be involved in the decision-making pertaining to their treatment. This study indicates the need for clinicians to improve their patients' involvement in the treatment process. More research is needed on how SDM can be implemented in patients with schizophrenia, especially in Asian population settings.

The effect of a scalable online training module for shared decision making based on flawed video examples - a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Shared Decision Making (SDM) is considered the gold standard of medical decision making as it provides a method to systematically integrate the patient's preferences, evidence-based medicine and the experience of health care professionals. Therefore, evidence-based training methods for a broad implementation into healthcare are needed. A new online training was designed, based on the concept of flawed/flawless video examples and additional educational concepts.

METHODS

In a single-blind randomized-controlled trial, medical students were randomly assigned to intervention group receiving the online training (n = 82) or waiting control group (n = 105). SDM-related knowledge and the ability to judge distinct levels of SDM were compared between both groups. Additionally, feedback regarding the intervention was collected.

RESULTS

SDM-related knowledge and judging ability increased significantly in the intervention group compared to controls (SDM knowledge: mean difference: 12 %; 95 % CI: 7.3-18.5; p < 0.001; SDM judging ability (inter-rater concordance displayed by weighted t): mean difference: 0.07; 95 %CI: 0.03-0.11; p = 0.001). Feedback was positive.

CONCLUSION

The online training with its distinctive methodology prove effective. As it shares the theoretical and didactical background with an already existing face-to-face training, both approaches may also be used complementarily.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

SDM can be trained effectively and efficiently with this easily scalable online training.

Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration

BACKGROUND

The 2013 update of the evidence informing the quality dimensions behind the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) offered a model process for developers of patient decision aids.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and update the evidence used to inform the systematic development of patient decision aids from the IPDAS Collaboration.

METHODS

To provide further details about design and development methods, we summarized findings from a subgroup (n = 283 patient decision aid projects) in a recent systematic review of user involvement by Vaisson et al. Using a new measure of user-centeredness (UCD-11), we then rated the degree of user-centeredness reported in 66 articles describing patient decision aid development and citing the 2013 IPDAS update on systematic development. We contacted the 66 articles' authors to request their self-reports of UCD-11 items.

RESULTS

The 283 development processes varied substantially from minimal iteration cycles to more complex processes, with multiple iterations, needs assessments, and extensive involvement of end users. We summarized minimal, medium, and maximal processes from the data. Authors of 54 of 66 articles (82%) provided self-reported UCD-11 ratings. Self-reported scores were significantly higher than reviewer ratings (reviewers: mean [SD] = 6.45 [3.10]; authors: mean [SD] = 9.62 [1.16], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aid developers have embraced principles of user-centered design in the development of patient decision aids while also underreporting aspects of user involvement in publications about their tools. Templates may reduce the need for extensive development, and new approaches for rapid development of aids have been proposed when a more detailed approach is not feasible. We provide empirically derived benchmark processes and a reporting checklist to support developers in more fully describing their development processes.[Box: see text].

Enhancing Specific Health Literacy with a Digital Evidence-Based Patient Decision Aid for Hypertension: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Health literacy is an important competency to make informed, shared decisions in line with patient's preferences. On the other hand, lower health literacy is associated with poorer health outcomes. Evidence-based patient decision aids (EbPDA) are validated instruments to support informed medical decisions and empower patients for relevant involvement in their care. This study aimed to investigate the effect of a digital EbPDA for hypertension on health literacy.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial, 124 participants were presented with a web-based scenario related to a newly diagnosed condition of arterial hypertension. The intervention group was provided with an online decision aid, while the control group was prompted to search for related information without support. Specific health literacy for hypertension was operationalized based on the European survey for health literacy (HLS-EU-Q47).

RESULTS

The intervention group showed a statistically significant increase in subjectively perceived overall specific health literacy regarding hypertension (p=0.02, Cohen's d=0.44). The effect was also statistically significant for the subcategories understanding, appraising, and applying health-related information (all p<0.05). At least equal results could be shown for participants with a lower level of education compared to participants with a high level.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that digital EbPDAs can be an effective and easily scalable instrument to improve populations' specific health literacy. A possible advantage of the measure could be that patients are addressed concerning important and pressing personal decisions, fostering awareness of the individual's need for health literacy to reflect one's options and preferences. EbPDAs may also be a promising approach to target vulnerable populations, as the investigated EbPDA seems to perform equally in less versus more educated individuals. For future research, it may be interesting to investigate whether EbPDAs have effects on general health literacy that go beyond the disease specifically addressed.