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

Have a vital end-user been overlooked? Developing a shared decision intervention for patients with potential pancreatic cancer regarding the choice of surgery

Objective

To develop a patient decision aid facilitating shared decision making for patients with potential pancreatic cancer deciding about no treatment, surgical or medical treatment.

Methods

Based on a user-centred design by Wittemann et al., we developed a shared decision making intervention in three phases: 1) Understanding decision needs 2) Development of a patient decision aid (PtDA) based on a generic template 3) Assessment of the intervention from interviews with patients (n = 11), relatives (n = 11), nurses (n = 4) and surgeons (n = 2) analysed with thematic analysis, and measuring patients' perceptions of choice of options with the Decisional Conflict Scale.

Results

Results showed varying experiences with the use of the PtDA, with surgeons not finding PtDA useful as it was impractical and constraining with patients' conversations. There was no difference in patients' perceptions in choosing options for those being presented vs those patients not being presented for the PtDA.

Conclusion

The format and structure of the PtDA was not feasible for the surgeons as fundamental users in the present clinic.

Innovation

This study highlights the urgent need to consider clinical context before introducing a predefined tool and shows the importance of a multistakeholder approach. Research should focus on finding means to successful implement shared decision making.

Development and evaluation of shared decision-making tools in rheumatology: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) tools are facilitators of decision-making through a collaborative process between patients/caregivers and clinicians. These tools help clinicians understand patient's perspectives and help patients in making informed decisions based on their preferences. Despite their usefulness for both patients and clinicians, SDM tools are not widely implemented in everyday practice. One barrier is the lack of clarity on the development and evaluation processes of these tools. Such processes have not been previously described in the field of rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development and evaluation processes of shared decision-making (SDM) tools used in rheumatology.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (e.g., EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched for relevant articles. Guidelines for the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews were followed. Studies included were: addressing SDM among adults in rheumatology, focusing on development and/or evaluation of SDM tool, full texts, empirical research, and in the English language.

RESULTS

Of the 2030 records screened, forty-six reports addressing 36 SDM tools were included. Development basis and evaluation measures varied across the studies. The most commonly reported development basis was the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria (19/36, 53 %). Other developmental foundations reported were: The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) (6/36, 16 %), Informed Medical Decision Foundation elements (3/36, 8 %), edutainment principles (2/36, 5.5 %), and others (e.g. DISCERN and MARKOV Model) (9/31,29 %). The most commonly used evaluation measures were the Decisional Conflict Scale (18/46, 39 %), acceptability and knowledge (7/46, 15 %), and the preparation for decision-making scale (5/46,11 %).

CONCLUSION

For better quality and wider implementation of such tools, there is a need for detailed, transparent, systematic, and consistent reporting of development methods and evaluation measures. Using established checklists for reporting development and evaluation is encouraged.

A Decision Aid for Patients Considering Surgery for Sciatica: Codesign and User-Testing With Patients and Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Surgery can help patients with leg pain caused by sciatica recover faster, but by 12 months outcomes are similar to nonsurgical management. For many the decision to have surgery may require reflection, and patient decision aids are an evidence-based clinical tool that can help guide patients through this decision.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and refine a decision aid for patients with sciatica who are deciding whether to have surgery or 'wait and see' (i.e., try nonsurgical management first).

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews with think-aloud user-testing protocol.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty clinicians and 20 patients with lived experience of low back pain or sciatica.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Items from Technology Acceptance Model, Preparation for Decision Making Scale and Decision Quality Instrument for Herniated Disc 2.0 (knowledge instrument).

METHODS

The prototype integrated relevant research with working group perspectives, decision aid standards and health literacy guidelines. The research team refined the prototype through seven rounds of user-testing, which involved discussing user-testing feedback and implementing changes before progressing to the next round.

RESULTS

As a result of working group feedback, the decision aid was divided into sections: before, during and after a visit to the surgeon. Across all rounds of user-testing, clinicians rated the resource 5.9/7 (SD = 1.0) for perceived usefulness, and 6.0/7 for perceived ease of use (SD = 0.8). Patients reported the decision aid was easy to understand, on average correctly answering 3.4/5 knowledge questions (SD = 1.2) about surgery for sciatica. The grade reading score for the website was 9.0. Patients scored highly on preparation for decision-making (4.4/5, SD = 0.7), suggesting strong potential to empower patients. Interview feedback showed that patients and clinicians felt the decision aid would encourage question-asking and help patients reflect on personal values.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians found the decision aid acceptable, patients found it was easy to understand and both groups felt it would empower patients to actively engage in their care and come to an informed decision that aligned with personal values. Input from the working group and user-testing was crucial for ensuring that the decision aid met patient and clinician needs.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and clinicians contributed to prototype development via the working group.

Patients' and physicians' beliefs and attitudes towards integrating personalized risk estimates into patient education about left ventricular assist device therapy

BACKGROUND

Personalized risk (PR) estimates may enhance clinical decision making and risk communication by providing individualized estimates of patient outcomes. We explored stakeholder attitudes toward the utility, acceptability, usefulness and best-practices for integrating PR estimates into patient education and decision making about Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

As part of a 5-year multi-institutional AHRQ project, we conducted 40 interviews with stakeholders (physicians, nurse coordinators, patients, and caregivers), analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. All stakeholder groups voiced positive views towards integrating PR in decision making. Patients, caregivers and coordinators emphasized that PR can help to better understand a patient's condition and risks, prepare mentally and logistically for likely outcomes, and meaningfully engage in decision making. Physicians felt it can improve their decision making by enhancing insight into outcomes, enhance tailored pre-emptive care, increase confidence in decisions, and reduce bias and subjectivity. All stakeholder groups also raised concerns about accuracy, representativeness and relevance of algorithms; predictive uncertainty; utility in relation to physician's expertise; potential negative reactions among patients; and overreliance.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholders are optimistic about integrating PR into clinical decision making, but acceptability depends on prospectively demonstrating accuracy, relevance and evidence that benefits of PR outweigh potential negative impacts on decision making quality.

Development of a patient decision aid for children and adolescents following anterior cruciate ligament rupture: an international mixed-methods study

AIM

To develop and user test an evidence-based patient decision aid for children and adolescents who are considering anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study describing the development of a patient decision aid.

SETTING

A draft decision aid was developed by a multidisciplinary steering group (including various types of health professionals and researchers, and consumers) informed by the best available evidence and existing patient decision aids.

PARTICIPANTS

People who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (ie, adolescents), their parents, and health professionals who manage these patients. Participants were recruited through social media and the network outreach of the steering group.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Semistructured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid. The feedback was used to refine the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, refining the aid according to feedback and further interviews, was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We conducted 32 interviews; 16 health professionals (12 physiotherapists, 4 orthopaedic surgeons) and 16 people who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (7 were adolescents and 9 were adults at the time of the interview). Parents participated in 8 interviews. Most health professionals, patients and parents rated the aid's acceptability as good-to-excellent. Health professionals and patients agreed on most aspects of the decision aid, but some health professionals had differing views on non-surgical management, risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms.

CONCLUSION

Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to help children and adolescents choose an appropriate management option following ACL rupture with their parents and health professionals. A clinical trial evaluating the potential benefit of this tool for children and adolescents considering ACL reconstruction is warranted.

Exploration of decision aids to support advance care planning: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning is a process through which people communicate their goals and preferences for future medical care. Due to the complexity of the decision-making process, decision aids can assist individuals in balancing potential benefits and risks of treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

While decision aids have the potential to better promote advance care planning, their characteristics, content and application effectiveness are unclear and lack systematic review. Therefore, we aimed to explore these three aspects and establish a foundation for future research.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

This scoping review adheres to the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA-ScR list. Six English-language databases were systematically searched from the time of construction until 1 December 2023. Two researchers conducted the article screening and data extraction, and the extracted data was presented in written tables and narrative summaries.

RESULTS

Of the 1479 titles and abstracts, 20 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Types of decision aids were employed, mainly websites and videos. Decision aid's primary components center around 11 areas, such as furnishing information, exploring treatment and care preferences. The main manifestations were a significant increase in knowledge and improved recognition of patients' target value preferences. Among the aids, websites and videos for advance care planning have relatively high content acceptability and decision-making process satisfaction, but their feasibility has yet to be tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids were varied, with content focused on describing key information and exploring treatment and care preferences. Regarding application effects, the aids successfully facilitated the advance care planning process and improved the quality of participants' decisions. Overall, decision aids are efficient in improving the decision-making process for implementing advance care planning in cancer and geriatric populations. In the future, personalised decision aids should be developed based on continuous optimization of tools' quality and promoted for clinical application.

REPORTING METHOD

The paper has adhered to the EQUATOR guidelines and referenced the PRISMAg-ScR checklist.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This is a review without patient and public contribution.

REGISTRATION

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YPHKF, Open Science DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YPHKF.

User-Centered Development of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Early Abortion Method: Multi-Cycle Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

People seeking abortion in early pregnancy have the choice between medication and procedural options for care. The choice is preference-sensitive-there is no clinically superior option and the choice depends on what matters most to the individual patient. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are shared decision-making tools that support people in making informed, values-aligned health care choices.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop and evaluate the usability of a web-based PtDA for the Canadian context, where abortion care is publicly funded and available without legal restriction.

METHODS

We used a systematic, user-centered design approach guided by principles of integrated knowledge translation. We first developed a prototype using available evidence for abortion seekers' decisional needs and the risks, benefits, and consequences of each option. We then refined the prototype through think-aloud interviews with participants at risk of unintended pregnancy ("patient" participants). Interviews were audio-recorded and documented through field notes. Finally, we conducted a web-based survey of patients and health care professionals involved with abortion care, which included the System Usability Scale. We used content analysis to identify usability issues described in the field notes and open-ended survey questions, and descriptive statistics to summarize participant characteristics and close-ended survey responses.

RESULTS

A total of 61 individuals participated in this study. Further, 11 patients participated in think-aloud interviews. Overall, the response to the PtDA was positive; however, the content analysis identified issues related to the design, language, and information about the process and experience of obtaining abortion care. In response, we adapted the PtDA into an interactive website and revised it to include consistent and plain language, additional information (eg, pain experience narratives), and links to additional resources on how to find an abortion health care professional. In total, 25 patients and 25 health care professionals completed the survey. The mean System Usability Scale score met the threshold for good usability among both patient and health care professional participants. Most participants felt that the PtDA was user-friendly (patients: n=25, 100%; health care professionals: n=22, 88%), was not missing information (patients: n=21, 84%; health care professionals: n=18, 72%), and that it was appropriate for patients to complete the PtDA before a consultation (patients: n=23, 92%; health care professionals: n=23, 92%). Open-ended responses focused on improving usability by reducing the length of the PtDA and making the website more mobile-friendly.

CONCLUSIONS

We systematically designed the PtDA to address an unmet need to support informed, values-aligned decision-making about the method of abortion. The design process responded to a need identified by potential users and addressed unique sensitivities related to reproductive health decision-making.

'It is empowering and gives people dignity in a very difficult process': A multistage, multimethod qualitative study to understand the views of end users in the cultural adaptation of a dementia and driving decision aid

BACKGROUND

Decisions about driving for individuals living with dementia (ILWD) can be challenging. There are limited evidence-based person-centred interventions in the United Kingdom that support decisions about transitioning to not driving or guidelines for developing decision aids for ILWD. This study aimed to understand the important features of a decision aid through the cultural adaptation of Australian dementia and driving decision aid (DDDA) for ILWD residing in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

This qualitative study was theoretically underpinned by a person-centred framework and conducted over three stages: (1) Development of a draft UK-specific DDDA; (2) semistructured interviews with ILWD and an online survey with stakeholders to obtain their views on a draft UK DDDA and (3) content analysis and synthesis of qualitative data to inform the final version of the decision aid.

RESULTS

Eleven ILWD and six of their spouses participated in interviews, and 102 stakeholders responded to an online survey. The four broad features identified as important to include in a decision aid for drivers living with dementia were: a structured and interactive format; positive and supportive messaging and presentation; relevant and concise content and choice-centred. The perceived benefits of the decision aid were identified as supporting conversations, enhancing collaborative decision making and enabling agency with decisions about driving and future mobility options.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids that are underpinned by interactive choice-driven questions enhance a person-centred approach to decisions about driving. Positively framing decision aids through the presentation and content can facilitate engagement with the decision-making process about driving. The findings have implications for the development of decision aids designed for ILWD on other important health and social topics.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Advocating for the development of a UK DDDA were ILWD. Healthcare professionals contributed to the development of a draft UK DDDA. Former and current drivers living with dementia, family members, healthcare professionals and other support networks of ILWD participated in interviews or an online survey which informed the final version of the UK DDDA.

Development and alpha testing of a patient shared decision aid for prosthesis design for new lower limb prosthesis users

BACKGROUND

After lower limb amputation, several prosthesis design options exist. However, prosthesis design decisions do not always reflect a prosthesis user's needs, values, and preferences.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a patient decision aid (PDA) prototype for prosthetists and new prosthesis users facing prosthesis design decisions after lower limb amputation, and to assess its usability, accuracy, and comprehensibility.

STUDY DESIGN

Exploratory mixed methods.

METHODS

PDA development was informed by a qualitative needs assessment and guided by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The PDA was evaluated by steering groups of experienced prosthesis users and prosthetic professionals (prosthetists and researchers) to test usability, accuracy, and comprehensibility through focus groups, individual interviews, and rating on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 10.

RESULTS

The resulting PDA included 6 sections: (1) Amputation and Early Recovery, (2) Communication, (3) Values, (4) Prosthesis Design, (5) Preferences, and (6) Prosthetic Journey. Usability, accuracy, and comprehensibility were rated as 9.2, 9.6, and 9.6, respectively, by prosthetic professionals, and 9.4, 9.6, and 9.6, respectively, by prosthesis users.

DISCUSSION

The PDA incorporated guidance by relevant stakeholders and was rated favorably, emphasizing a need for shared decision-making support in prosthesis design. One challenge was determining the amount of information in the PDA, highlighting the diversity in end users' informational needs. Future iterations of the PDA should undergo beta testing in clinical settings.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized, iterative method was used to develop a PDA for new lower limb prosthesis users and prosthetists when considering prosthesis design decisions. The PDA was considered useable, accurate, and comprehensible.

Merging machine learning and patient preference: a novel tool for risk prediction of percutaneous coronary interventions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Predicting personalized risk for adverse events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains critical in weighing treatment options, employing risk mitigation strategies, and enhancing shared decision-making. This study aimed to employ machine learning models using pre-procedural variables to accurately predict common post-PCI complications.

METHODS

A group of 66 adults underwent a semiquantitative survey assessing a preferred list of outcomes and model display. The machine learning cohort included 107 793 patients undergoing PCI procedures performed at 48 hospitals in Michigan between 1 April 2018 and 31 December 2021 in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) registry separated into training and validation cohorts. External validation was conducted in the Cardiac Care Outcomes Assessment Program database of 56 583 procedures in 33 hospitals in Washington.

RESULTS

Overall rate of in-hospital mortality was 1.85% (n = 1999), acute kidney injury 2.51% (n = 2519), new-onset dialysis 0.44% (n = 462), stroke 0.41% (n = 447), major bleeding 0.89% (n = 942), and transfusion 2.41% (n = 2592). The model demonstrated robust discrimination and calibration for mortality {area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.930 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.920-0.940]}, acute kidney injury [AUC: 0.893 (95% CI 0.883-0.903)], dialysis [AUC: 0.951 (95% CI 0.939-0.964)], stroke [AUC: 0.751 (95%CI 0.714-0.787)], transfusion [AUC: 0.917 (95% CI 0.907-0.925)], and major bleeding [AUC: 0.887 (95% CI 0.870-0.905)]. Similar discrimination was noted in the external validation population. Survey subjects preferred a comprehensive list of individually reported post-procedure outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Using common pre-procedural risk factors, the BMC2 machine learning models accurately predict post-PCI outcomes. Utilizing patient feedback, the BMC2 models employ a patient-centred tool to clearly display risks to patients and providers (https://shiny.bmc2.org/pci-prediction/). Enhanced risk prediction prior to PCI could help inform treatment selection and shared decision-making discussions.

Evaluation of an integrated knowledge translation approach used for updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids: a pre-post mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. They are referred to as "knowledge users". This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). We know little about knowledge users' involvement in the conduct of systematic reviews. We aimed to evaluate team members' degree of meaningful engagement and their perceptions of having used an IKT approach when updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids.

METHODS

We conducted a pre-post mixed methods study. We surveyed all team members at two time points. Before systematic review conduct, all participating team members indicated their preferred level of involvement within each of the 12 steps of the systematic review process from "Screen titles/abstracts" to "Provide feedback on draft article". After, they reported on their degree of satisfaction with their achieved level of engagement across each step and the degree of meaningful engagement using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22) across 7 domains scored from 100 (extremely meaningful engagement) to 0 (no meaningful engagement). We solicited their experiences with the IKT approach using open-ended questions. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using content analysis. We triangulated data at the level of study design and interpretation.

RESULTS

Of 21 team members, 20 completed the baseline survey (95.2% response rate) and 17/20 (85.0% response rate) the follow-up survey. There were 11 (55%) researchers, 3 (15%) patients/consumers, 5 (25%) clinician-researchers, and 1 (5%) graduate student. At baseline, preferred level of involvement in the 12 systematic review steps varied from n = 3 (15%) (search grey literature sources) to n = 20 (100%) (provide feedback on the systematic review article). At follow-up, 16 (94.1%) participants were totally or very satisfied with the extent to which they were involved in these steps. All (17, 100%) agreed that the process was co-production. Total PEIRS-22 scores revealed most participants reported extremely (13, 76.4%) or very (2, 11.8%) meaningful degree of engagement. Triangulated data revealed that participants indicated benefit to having been engaged in an authentic research process that incorporated diverse perspectives, resulting in better and more relevant outputs. Reported challenges were about time, resources, and the logistics of collaborating with a large group.

CONCLUSION

Following the use of an IKT approach during the conduct of a systematic review, team members reported high levels of meaningful engagement. These results contribute to our understanding of ways to co-produce systematic reviews.

Would shared decision-making be useful in breast cancer screening programmes? A qualitative study using focus group discussions to gather evidence from French women with different socioeconomic backgrounds

BACKGROUND

To inform the development of an online tool to be potentially used in shared decision-making about breast cancer screening, French women were questioned about participation in breast cancer screening, the health professional's role, and their perceptions of the proposed tool.

METHODS

We organised focus group discussions with 55 French women. Two different strategies were used to recruit women from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds. We applied both inductive and deductive approaches to conduct a thematic analysis of the discussions. We analysed the responses by using the main determinants from different health behaviour models and compared the two groups.

RESULTS

Independently of socioeconomic status, the most important determinant for a woman's participation in breast cancer screening was the perceived severity of breast cancer and the perceived benefits of its early detection by screening. Cues to action reported by both groups were invitation letters; recommendations by health professionals, or group/community activities and public events were reported by women from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds, respectively. Among other positive determinants, women from high socioeconomic backgrounds reported making informed decisions and receiving peer support whereas women from low socioeconomic backgrounds reported community empowerment through group/community events. Fear of cancer was reported as a barrier in both groups. Among other barriers, language issues were reported only by women from low socioeconomic backgrounds; women from high socioeconomic backgrounds reported breast cancer screening-related risks other than overdiagnosis and/or overtreatment. Barriers to accessing the online tool to be developed were mainly reported by women from high socioeconomic backgrounds.

CONCLUSION

Limitations in implementing shared decision-making for women from low socioeconomic backgrounds were highlighted. An online tool that is suitable for all women, regardless of socioeconomic status, would provide "on-demand" reliable and tailored information about breast cancer screening and improve access to health professionals and social exchanges.

Accentuating patient values in shared decision-making: A mixed methods development of an online value clarification tool and communication training in the context of early phase clinical cancer trials

OBJECTIVE

In the shared decision-making (SDM) process for potential early phase clinical cancer trial participation, value clarification is highly recommended. However, exploration and discussion of patient values between patients and oncologists remains limited. This study aims to develop an SDM-supportive intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) and a communication training.

METHODS

The OnVaCT intervention was developed and pilot-tested by combining theoretical notions on value clarification, with interview studies with patients and oncologists, focus groups with patient representatives and oncologists, and think aloud sessions with patients, following the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions. These human-centered methodologies enabled a user-centered approach at every step of the development process of the intervention.

RESULTS

This study shows relevant patient values and oncologists' perspectives on value exploration and discussion in daily practice. This has been combined with theoretical considerations into the creation of characters based on real-life experiences of patients in the OnVaCT, and how the tool is combined with a communication training for oncologists to improve SDM.

Development and usability of a decision aid to initiate anti-osteoporosis medication treatment in patients visiting the fracture liaison service with a recent fracture

This study describes the development of a decision aid (DA), aimed at supporting patients in their decision whether to start anti-osteoporosis medication. People with recent fractures or osteoporosis and health professionals were supportive of the DA initiative. An experimental study been started to assess (cost-)effectiveness of the DA.

PURPOSE

At fracture liaison services (FLS), patients with a recent fracture ánd osteoporosis or a prevalent vertebral fracture are advised to start anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM). This study describes the development of a decision aid (DA) to support patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) in their decision about whether to start AOM.

METHODS

The DA was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). A systematic procedure was chosen including scope, design, prototype development, and alpha testing. A previously developed DA for women with osteoporosis was used as a basis. Furthermore, input from literature searches, the Dutch guideline on management of osteoporosis, and from people with a fracture or osteoporosis was used. The updated DA was evaluated during alpha testing.

RESULTS

The DA facilitates the decision of patients whether to initiate AOM treatment and provides information on fractures and osteoporosis, general risk factors that increase the likelihood of a subsequent fracture, the role of lifestyle, personalized risk considerations of a subsequent fracture with and without AOM treatment, and AOM options and their characteristics in an option grid. Alpha testing with 15 patients revealed that patient preferences and needs were adequately presented, and several suggestions for improvement (e.g. adding more specific information, simplifying terminology, improving icon use) were accounted for. Participants from the alpha testing recommended use of the DA during outpatient visits.

CONCLUSION

Professionals and persons with osteoporosis were supportive of the proposed DA and its usability. The DA could help in a shared decision-making process between patients and HCPs.

Co-designing an online treatment decision aid for men with low-risk prostate cancer: Navigate

Objectives

To develop an online treatment decision aid (OTDA) to assist patients with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) and their partners in making treatment decisions.

Patients and methods

Navigate, an OTDA for LRPC, was rigorously co-designed by patients with a confirmed diagnosis or at risk of LRPC and their partners, clinicians, researchers and website designers/developers. A theoretical model guided the development process. A mixed methods approach was used incorporating (1) evidence for essential design elements for OTDAs; (2) evidence for treatment options for LRPC; (3) an iterative co-design process involving stakeholder workshops and prototype review; and (4) expert rating using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Three co-design workshops with potential users (n = 12) and research and web-design team members (n = 10) were conducted. Results from each workshop informed OTDA modifications to the OTDA for testing in the subsequent workshop. Clinician (n = 6) and consumer (n = 9) feedback on usability and content on the penultimate version was collected.

Results

The initial workshops identified key content and design features that were incorporated into the draft OTDA, re-workshopped and incorporated into the penultimate OTDA. Expert feedback on usability and content was also incorporated into the final OTDA. The final OTDA was deemed comprehensive, clear and appropriate and met all IPDAS criteria.

Conclusion

Navigate is an interactive and acceptable OTDA for Australian men with LRPC designed by men for men using a co-design methodology. The effectiveness of Navigate in assisting patient decision-making is currently being assessed in a randomised controlled trial with patients with LRPC and their partners.

Implementing Shared Decision-Making for Multiple Sclerosis: The MS-SUPPORT Tool

BACKGROUND

Disease modifying therapies (DMTs) offer opportunities to improve the course of multiple sclerosis (MS), but decisions about treatment are difficult. People with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) want more involvement in decisions about DMTs, but new approaches are needed to support shared decision-making (SDM) because of the number of treatment options and the range of outcomes affected by treatment. We designed a patient-centered tool, MS-SUPPORT, to facilitate SDM for pwMS. We sought to evaluate the feasibility and impact of MS-SUPPORT on decisions about disease modifying treatments (DMTs), SDM processes, and quality-of-life.

METHODS

This multisite randomized controlled trial compared the SDM intervention (MS-SUPPORT) to control (usual care) over a 12-month period. English-speaking adults with relapsing MS were eligible if they had an upcoming MS appointment and an email address. To evaluate clinician perspectives, participants' MS clinicians were invited to participate. Patients were referred between November 11, 2019 and October 23, 2020 by their MS clinician or a patient advocacy organization (the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America). MS-SUPPORT is an online, interactive, evidence-based decision aid that was co-created with pwMS. It clarifies patient treatment goals and values and provides tailored information about MS, DMTs, and adherence. Viewed by patients before their clinic appointment, MS-SUPPORT generates a personalized summary of the patient's treatment goals and preferences, adherence, DMT use, and clinical situation to share with their MS clinician. Outcomes (DMT utilization, adherence, quality-of-life, and SDM) were assessed at enrollment, post-MS-SUPPORT, post-appointment, and quarterly for 1 year.

RESULTS

Participants included 501 adults with MS from across the USA (84.6% female, 83% white) and 34 of their MS clinicians (47% neurologists, 41% Nurse Practitioners, 12% Physician Assistants). Among the 203 patients who completed MS-SUPPORT, most (88.2%) reported they would recommend it to others and that it helped them talk to their doctor (85.2%), understand their options (82.3%) and the importance of taking DMTs as prescribed (82.3%). Among non-users of DMTs at baseline, the probability ratio of current DMT use consistently trended higher over one-year follow-up in the MS-SUPPORT group (1.30 [0.86-1.96]), as did the cumulative probability of starting a DMT within 6-months, with shorter time-to-start (46 vs 90 days, p=0.24). Among the 222 responses from 34 participating clinicians, more clinicians in the MS-SUPPORT group (vs control) trended towards recommending their patient start a DMT (9 of 108 (8%) vs 5 of 109 (5%), respectively, p=0.26). Adherence (no missed doses) to daily-dosed DMTs was higher in the MS-SUPPORT group (81.25% vs 56.41%, p=.026). Fewer patients forgot their doses (p=.046). The MS-SUPPORT group (vs control) reported 1.7 fewer days/month of poor mental health (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

MS-SUPPORT was strongly endorsed by patients and is feasible to use in clinical settings. MS-SUPPORT increased the short-term probability of taking and adhering to a DMT, and improved long-term mental health. Study limitations include selection bias, response bias, social desirability bias, and recall bias. Exploring approaches to reinforcement and monitoring its implementation in real-world settings should provide further insights into the value and utility of this new SDM tool.

Clinician and patient perspectives on screening mammography among women age 75 and older: A pilot study of a novel decision aid

Objective

Supporting patient-clinician communication is key to implementing tailored, risk-based screening for older adults. Objectives of this multiphase mixed methods study were to identify factors that primary care clinicians consider influential when making screening mammography recommendations for women ≥ 75 years, develop a patient decision aid that incorporates these factors, and gather feasibility and acceptability from the patients' perspective.

Methods

Clinicians from a Mid-Atlantic practice network completed online surveys. Women in the same network completed surveys before and after receiving a tailored booklet that included information about the benefits and harms of screening for women ≥ 75 years, a breast cancer risk-estimate, and a question prompt list to support patient-clinician communication.

Results

Clinicians (N = 21) were primarily women [57.1%] and practiced family medicine [81.0%]. They cited patients' age ≥ 75 years [95.4%], comorbidity [86.4%], functional status [77.3%], cancer family history [63.6%], U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines [81.8%] and new research [77.3%] as factors influencing their recommendations. Fourteen women completed baseline surveys and received personalized decision aids (Mean age = 79.1 years). Eleven completed the post-intervention survey. All were satisfied with the booklet length, 81.8% found the booklet easy to understand and 72.7% helpful in decision-making Perceived lifetime breast cancer risk decreased significantly from pre- to post-intervention (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Results suggest this decision aid, which incorporates key decisional factors from the clinician's perspective, is feasible and acceptable to patients.

Innovation

A tailored decision aid booklet is innovative as it provides information on personalized risk and potential benefits and harms to older women considering screening.

The decision aid is the easy part: workflow challenges of shared decision making in cancer care

Delivering high-quality, patient-centered cancer care remains a challenge. Both the National Academy of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommend shared decision making to improve patient-centered care, but widespread adoption of shared decision making into clinical care has been limited. Shared decision making is a process in which a patient and the patient's health-care professional weigh the risks and benefits of different options and come to a joint decision on the best course of action for that patient on the basis of their values, preferences, and goals for care. Patients who engage in shared decision making report higher quality of care, whereas patients who are less involved in these decisions have statistically significantly higher decisional regret and are less satisfied. Decision aids can improve shared decision making-for example, by eliciting patient values and preferences that can then be shared with clinicians and by providing patients with information that may influence their decisions. However, integrating decision aids into the workflows of routine care is challenging. In this commentary, we explore 3 workflow-related barriers to shared decision making: the who, when, and how of decision aid implementation in clinical practice. We introduce readers to human factors engineering and demonstrate its potential value to decision aid design through a case study of breast cancer surgical treatment decision making. By better employing the methods and principles of human factors engineering, we can improve decision aid integration, shared decision making, and ultimately patient-centered cancer outcomes.

Using Patient Decision Aids for Cardiology Care in Diverse Populations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools that help guide treatment decisions and support shared decision-making when there is equipoise between treatment options. This review focuses on decision aids that are available to support cardiac treatment options for underrepresented groups.

RECENT FINDINGS

PDAs have been developed to support multiple treatment decisions in cardiology related to coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, and cholesterol management. By considering the unique needs and preferences of diverse populations, PDAs can enhance patient engagement and promote equitable healthcare delivery in cardiology. In this review, we examine the benefits, challenges, and current trends in implementing PDAs, with a focus on improving decision-making processes and outcomes for patients from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. In addition, the article highlights key considerations when implementing PDAs and potential future directions in the field.

Decision aids to assist patients and professionals in choosing the right treatment for kidney failure

Background

Kidney services vary in the way they involve people with kidney failure (PwKF) in treatment decisions as management needs change. We discuss how decision-science applications support proactively PwKF to make informed decisions between treatment options with kidney professionals.

Methods

A conceptual review of findings about decision making and use of decision aids in kidney services, synthesized with reference to: the Making Informed Decisions-Individually and Together (MIND-IT) multiple stakeholder decision makers framework; and the Medical Research Council-Complex Intervention Development and Evaluation research framework.

Results

This schema represents the different types of decision aids that support PwKF and professional reasoning as they manage kidney disease individually and together; adjustments at micro, meso and macro levels supports integration in practice.

Conclusion

Innovating services to meet clinical guidelines on enhancing shared decision making processes means enabling all stakeholders to use decision aids to meet their goals within kidney pathways at individual, service and organizational levels.

Development and preliminary usability testing of an electronic conversation guide incorporating patient values and prognostic information in preparation for older people's decision-making near the end of life

Initiating end-of-life conversations can be daunting for clinicians and overwhelming for patients and families. This leads to delays in communicating prognosis and preparing for the inevitable in old age, often generating potentially harmful overtreatment and poor-quality deaths. We aimed to develop an electronic resource, called Communicating Health Alternatives Tool (CHAT) that was compatible with hospital medical records software to facilitate preparation for shared decision-making across health settings with older adults deemed to be in the last year of life. The project used mixed methods including: literature review, user-directed specifications, web-based interface development with authentication and authorization; clinician and consumer co-design, iterative consultation for user testing; and ongoing developer integration of user feedback. An internet-based conversation guide to facilitate clinician-led advance care planning was co-developed covering screening for short-term risk of death, patient values and preferences, and treatment choices for chronic kidney disease and dementia. Printed summary of such discussion could be used to begin the process in hospital or community health services. Clinicians, patients, and caregivers agreed with its ease of use and were generally accepting of its contents and format. CHAT is available to health services for implementation in effectiveness trials to determine whether the interaction and documentation leads to formal decision-making, goal-concordant care, and subsequent reduction of unwanted treatments at the end of life.

Comparison of analog and digital patient decision aids for the treatment of depression: a scoping review

Introduction

Patient decision aids (PDAs) are important tools to empower patients and integrate their preferences and values in the decision-making process. Even though patients with mental health problems have a strong interest in being more involved in decision making about their treatment, research has mainly focused on PDAs for somatic conditions. In this scoping review, we focus on patients suffering from depression and the role of PDAs for this patient group. The review offers an overview of digital and analog PDAs, their advantages and disadvantages as well as recommendations for further research and development.

Methods

A systematic search of the existing literature guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was conducted. Three electronic literature databases with the appropriate thematic focus were searched (PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science). The search strategy used controlled and natural language to search for the key concepts decision aids and depression. The articles were selected in a two-step process guided by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We narratively synthetized information extracted from 40 research articles.

Results

We included 40 articles in our review. Our review revealed that there is more focus on digital PDAs in research than in clinical practice. Digitalization can enhance the benefits of PDAs by developing tools that are more efficient, interactive, and personalized. The main disadvantages of both types of PDAs for the treatment of depression are related to time, dissemination, and capacity building for the health care providers. Digital PDAs need to be regularly updated, effective strategies for their dissemination and acceptance need to be identified, and clinicians need sufficient training on how to use digital PDAs. There is more research needed to study which forms of PDAs are most appropriate for various patient groups (e.g., older adults, or patients with comorbidities), and to identify the most effective ways of PDAs' integration in the clinical workflow. The findings from our review could be well aligned with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards.

Discussion

More research is needed regarding effective strategies for the implementation of digital PDAs into the clinical workflow, ethical issues raised by the digital format, and opportunities of tailoring PDAs for diverse patient groups.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Experiences of Using Patient Decision Aids for Decisions About Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Aggregation of Qualitative Studies

BACKGROUND

Inconsistent results have been found regarding the effects of patient decision aids (PtDAs) in supporting patients' decision-making for cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative meta-aggregation presents the experiences of using PtDAs, as perceived by adult patients with cancer, and highlights the components they perceived as important.

METHODS

We used the 3-phase process for meta-aggregation suggested by Joanna Briggs Institute to identify published studies with qualitative evidence from CINAHL, Ovid-MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases. The selected studies involved adults with various cancer diagnoses. The phenomenon of interest and the context for this review were people's experiences of using PtDAs for decisions about first-line cancer treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were included. The authors achieved consensus on 5 synthesized findings about PtDAs: (1) improved understanding of treatment options and patient values and preferences; (2) served as platforms for expressing concerns, obtaining support, and having meaningful conversations with healthcare providers; (3) facilitated active personal and family engagement in decision-making; (4) enabled recall of information and evaluation of satisfaction with decisions; and (5) presented potential structural barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study used qualitative evidence to demonstrate the usefulness of PtDAs and identify aspects patients with cancer find particularly beneficial.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses play a crucial role in supporting patients and family caregivers throughout the decision-making process for cancer treatment. Patient decision aids that balance complex treatment information with simple language and illustrations or graphs can enhance patients' comprehension. The integration of values clarification exercises into care can further improve patients' decisional outcomes.

Quality of patient decision aids to support the public making COVID-19 decisions: An online environmental scan

OBJECTIVE

To identify and appraise the quality of COVID-19 patient decision aids (PtDAs).

METHODS

We conducted an environmental scan of online publicly available COVID-19 PtDAs. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. We calculated median International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) scores and proportion scoring > 70% on Patient Education Materials Information Tool (PEMAT) adequate for understandability and actionability.

RESULTS

Of 876 resources identified, 12 were PtDAs. Decisions focused on initial COVID-19 vaccination series (n = 9), location of care for elderly (n = 2), and social distancing (n = 1). All 12 PtDAs were written materials and two had accompanying videos. The median IPDAS score minimizing risk of biased decisions was 4 of 6 items (IQR 1, range 2-4). For PEMAT, 92% had adequate for understandability and none for actionability.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified few online publicly available COVID-19 PtDAs and none were about COVID-19 vaccination boosters or treatment. PtDAs scored poorly on actionability and none met all IPDAS criteria for minimizing risk of biased decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PtDA developers for COVID-19 and future pandemics should ensure their PtDAs meet all IPDAS criteria for minimizing risk of bias, have adequate scores for actionability, and are disseminated in the A to Z inventory.

From guidelines to decision aids and adherence supports: Insights from the process of evidence translation

OBJECTIVE

To explore the evidence-translator's experience of the expert-recommended process of translating guidelines into tools for decision making, action, and adherence with the goal of improvement.

METHODS

A single reviewer dual reviewed the content, quality, certainty, and applicability of primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular prevention guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the time of this work and used targeted searches of Medline to define the ideal structure and outcomes of tools; fill in gaps in guidelines; identify end-user needs; and choose and optimize existing tools in preparation for testing.

RESULTS

Guidelines addressed screening, treatments, and/or supports, but never the combination of all three. None provided all of the information needed for evidence translation. Searches in Medline filled in some evidence gaps and provided key insights into end-user needs and effective tools. However, evidence translators are left with complicated decisions about how to use and align evidence.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines provide some, but not all, of the evidence needed for evidence translation, requiring additional intensive work. Evidence gaps result in complicated decisions about how to use and align evidence and balance feasibility and rigor.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Guidelines, standards groups, and researchers should work to better support the process of evidence translation.

Decisional needs assessment for patient-centred pain care in Canada: the DECIDE-PAIN study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The 2021 Action Plan for Pain from the Canadian Pain Task Force advocates for patient-centred pain care at all levels of healthcare across provinces. Shared decision-making is the crux of patient-centred care. Implementing the action plan will require innovative shared decision-making interventions, specifically following the disruption of chronic pain care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first step in this endeavour is to assess current decisional needs (ie, decisions most important to them) of Canadians with chronic pain across their care pathways.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

DesignGrounded in patient-oriented research approaches, we will perform an online population-based survey across the ten Canadian provinces. We will report methods and data following the CROSS reporting guidelines.SamplingThe Léger Marketing company will administer the online population-based survey to its representative panel of 500 000 Canadians to recruit 1646 adults (age ≥18 years old) with chronic pain according to the definition by the International Association for the Study of Pain (eg, pain ≥12 weeks). ContentBased on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, the self-administered survey has been codesigned with patients and contain six core domains: (1) healthcare services, consultation and postpandemic needs, (2) difficult decisions experienced, (3) decisional conflict, (4) decisional regret, (5) decisional needs and (6) sociodemographic characteristics. We will use several strategies such as random sampling to improve survey quality. AnalysisWe will perform descriptive statistical analysis. We will identify factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict and decision regret using multivariate analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the Research Centre of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (project #2022-4645). We will codesign knowledge mobilisation products with research patient partners (eg, graphical summaries and videos). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences to inform the development of innovative shared decision-making interventions for Canadians with chronic pain.

Development and Feasibility Testing of a Decision Aid for Acute Appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

Patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be increasingly asked to choose between surgery and antibiotic management. We developed a novel decision aid for patients in the emergency department (ED) with acute appendicitis who are facing this choice. We describe the development of the decision aid and an initial feasibility study of its implementation in a busy tertiary care ED.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prepost survey analysis comparing patients before and after standardized implementation of the decision aid. Patients were surveyed about their experience making treatment decisions after discharge from the hospital. The primary outcome measure was the total score on the decisional conflict scale (; 0-100; lower scores better).

RESULTS

The study included 24 participants (12 in the predecision aid period; 12 in the post period). Only 33% of participants in each group knew antibiotics were a treatment option prior to arriving at the ED. Prior to implementing the use of decision aid, only 75% of patients reported being told antibiotics were a treatment option, while this increased to 100% after implementation of the decision aid. The mean total decisional conflict scalescores were similar in the pre and post periods (mean difference = 0.13, 95% CI: -13 - 13, P > 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

This novel appendicitis decision aid was effectively integrated into clinical practice and helped toinform patients about multiple treatment options. These data support further large-scale testing of the decision aid as part of standardized pathways for the management of patients with acute appendicitis.

Effectiveness of Interactive Digital Decision Aids in Prenatal Screening Decision-making: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing prenatal screening options and limited consultation time have made it difficult for pregnant women to participate in shared decision-making. Interactive digital decision aids (IDDAs) could integrate interactive technology into health care to a facilitate higher-quality decision-making process.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of IDDAs on pregnant women's decision-making regarding prenatal screening.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Google Scholar, and reference lists of included studies until August 2021. We included the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of IDDAs (fulfilling basic criteria of International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration and these were interactive and digital) as an adjunct to standard care with standard care alone and involved pregnant women themselves in prenatal screening decision-making. Data on primary outcomes, that is, knowledge and decisional conflict, and secondary outcomes were extracted, and meta-analyses were conducted based on standardized mean differences (SMDs). Subgroup analysis based on knowledge was performed. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for risk-of-bias assessment.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were identified from 10,283 references, of which 7 were included in quantitative synthesis. Analyses showed that IDDAs increased knowledge (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.26-0.90) and decreased decisional conflict (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05). Substantial heterogeneity in knowledge was identified, which could not be completely resolved through subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

IDDAs can improve certain aspects of decision-making in prenatal screening among pregnant women, but the results require cautious interpretation.

Patient focused interventions and communication in the surgical clinic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Communication is the foundation of a strong doctor-patient relationship. Holistic care of the patient involves good communication and empathy. There are various tools and interventions aimed at increasing the Surgeon's performance, but these have the drawback of heavy cost and time commitments. In contrast, patient focused interventions are often simple and cheap. In surgery this is an evolving field, and little is known about the impact these interventions have on clinical encounters. The aim of this review is to determine how patient focussed interventions impact communication in the Surgical Outpatient Consultation.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE (incl. PubMed), EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library for the period starting 01 February 1990 to 01 February 2022. Filtration and screening was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Conflicts were resolved by discussion. Risk of Bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool. Meta-analyses were conducted by an independent statistician using Stata Statistical Software. This systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD42022311112).

FINDINGS

After screening, 38 papers were included in the final analysis. These involved 6392 patients consisting of 32 randomised controlled trials (RCT), one crossover RCT, three non-randomised experimental studies, and three cohort studies. All articles were published between 1999 and 2022. Four types of intervention were identified: Patient Decision Aids, Educational Materials, Question Prompt Lists and Patient Reported Outcome Measures. There was much heterogeneity in the reported results but ultimately four recurring domains for assessing quality of communication were identified: Patient knowledge; decisional conflict; satisfaction; and anxiety. Meta-analyses showed that patient focussed interventions increased patient knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. Meta-regression demonstrated significant knowledge increases in females compared with males. Results regarding satisfaction and anxiety were not statistically significant.

INTERPRETATION

Our study suggested that patient focused interventions demonstrate promising results for increasing patient engagement and improving communication. Further multicentre randomised controlled trials with consistent validated endpoints should be conducted to evaluate this evolving field.

FUNDING

There was no funding source for this study.

Developing an Educational and Decision Support Tool for Stage I Lung Cancer Using Decision Science

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend shared decision-making about treatment options for high-risk, operable stage I lung cancer. Patient decision aids can facilitate shared decision-making; however, their development, implementation, and evaluation in routine clinical practice presents numerous challenges and opportunities.

METHODS

The purpose of this review is to reflect on the process of tool development; identify the challenges associated with meeting the needs of patients, clinicians from multiple disciplines, and institutional workflow during implementation; and propose recommendations for future clinicians who wish to develop, refine, or implement similar tools into routine care.

RESULTS

In this review, we: (1) discuss guidelines for decision aid development; (2) describe how we applied those to create an education and decision support tool for patients with clinical stage I lung cancer deciding between radiation therapy and surgical resection; and (3) highlight challenges in implementing and evaluating the tool.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide recommendations for those seeking to develop, refine, or implement similar tools into routine care.

Co-creating a suite of patient decision aids for parents of an infant or young child with differences of sex development: A methods roadmap

Introduction

Parents and guardians of infants and young children with differences of sex development (DSD) often face numerous health and social decisions about their child's condition. While proxy health decisions can be stressful in any circumstance, they are further exacerbated in this clinical context by significant variations in clinical presentation, parental lack of knowledge about DSD, irreversibility of some options (e.g., gonadectomy), a paucity of research available about long-term outcomes, and anticipated decisional regret. This study aimed to engage clinicians, parents, and an adult living with DSD to collaboratively develop a suite of patient decision aids (PDAs) to respond to the decisional needs of parents and guardians of infants and young children diagnosed with DSD.

Methods

We used a systematic co-development process guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). The five steps were: literature selection, establish the team, decisional needs assessment, create the PDAs, and alpha testing.

Results

We developed four PDAs to support parents/guardians of infants or young children diagnosed with DSD about four priority decisions identified through our decisional needs assessment: genetic testing, gender of rearing, genital surgery and gonadal surgery. All four PDAs include information for parents about DSD, the options, reasons to choose or avoid each option, and opportunities for parents/guardians to rate the importance of features of each option to clarify their values for these features. Qualitative feedback was positive from clinicians, parents and an adult living with DSD.

Conclusions

These PDAs are clinical tools designed to support parents/guardians and to promote making an informed and shared DSD-related decision. While these tools are specific to DSD, they contain themes and elements translatable to other pediatric populations.

Development of the Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool): A digital decision aid intervention about children's origins from donated gametes or embryos

Objective

This study aimed to create and develop a well-designed, theoretically driven, evidence-based, digital, decision Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool) prototype.

Methods

This developmental study used an inclusive, systematic, and iterative process to formulate a prototype TELL Tool: the first digital decision aid for parents who have children 1 to 16 years of age and used donated gametes or embryos to establish their families. Recommendations from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration and from experts in decision aid development, digital health interventions, design thinking, and instructional design guided the process.

Results

The extensive developmental process incorporated researchers, clinicians, parents, children, and other stakeholders, including donor-conceived adults. We determined the scope and target audience of the decision aid and formed a steering group. During design work, we used the decision-making process model as the guiding framework for selecting content. Parents' views and decisional needs were incorporated into the prototype through empirical research and review, appraisal, and synthesis of the literature. Clinicians' perspectives and insights were also incorporated. We used the experiential learning theory to guide the delivery of the content through a digital distribution plan. Following creation of initial content, including storyboards and scripts, an early prototype was redrafted and redesigned based on feedback from the steering group. A final TELL Tool prototype was then developed for alpha testing.

Conclusions

Detailing our early developmental processes provides transparency that can benefit the donor-conceived community as well as clinicians and researchers, especially those designing digital decision aids. Future research to evaluate the efficacy of the TELL Tool is planned.

AI in the hands of imperfect users

As the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) continues to expand in healthcare, much attention has been given to mitigating bias in algorithms to ensure they are employed fairly and transparently. Less attention has fallen to addressing potential bias among AI/ML's human users or factors that influence user reliance. We argue for a systematic approach to identifying the existence and impacts of user biases while using AI/ML tools and call for the development of embedded interface design features, drawing on insights from decision science and behavioral economics, to nudge users towards more critical and reflective decision making using AI/ML.

Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for navigating breast cancer survivorship care

BACKGROUND

The predominant oncologist-led model in many countries is unsustainable to meet the needs of a growing cohort of breast cancer survivors (BCS). Despite available alternative models, adoption rates have been poor. To help BCS navigate survivorship care, we aimed to systematically develop a decision aid (DA) to guide their choice of follow-up care model and evaluate its acceptability and usability among BCS and health care providers (HCPs).

METHODS

We recruited BCS aged ≥ 21 years who have completed primary treatment and understand English. BCS receiving palliative care or with cognitive impairment were excluded. HCPs who routinely discussed post-treatment care with BCS were purposively sampled based on disciplines. Each participant reviewed the DA during a semi-structured interview using the 'think aloud' approach and completed an acceptability questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and directed content analysis were used.

RESULTS

We conducted three rounds of alpha testing with 15 BCS and 8 HCPs. All BCS found the final DA prototype easy to navigate with sufficient interactivity. The information imbalance favouring the shared care option perceived by 60% of BCS in early rounds was rectified. The length of DA was optimized to be 'just right'. Key revisions made included (1) presenting care options side-by-side to improve perceived information balance, (2) creating dedicated sections explaining HCPs' care roles to address gaps in health system contextual knowledge, and (3) employing a multicriteria decision analysis method for preference clarification exercise to reflect the user's openness towards shared care. Most BCS (73%) found the DA useful for decision-making, and 93% were willing to discuss the DA with their HCPs. Most HCPs (88%) agreed that the DA was a reliable tool and would be easily integrated into routine care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience highlighted the need to provide contextual information on the health care system for decisions related to care delivery. Developers should address potential variability within the care model and clarify inherent biases, such as low confidence levels in primary care. Future work could expand on the developed DA's informational structure to apply to other care models and leverage artificial intelligence to optimize information delivery.

Shared decision-making in patients with multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic and progressive neurological disorder impacting physical, cognitive, and psychosocial health. The disease course, severity, and presence of symptoms differ within and between persons over time and are unpredictable. Given the preference-sensitive nature of many key decisions to be made, and the increasing numbers of disease-modifying therapies, shared decision-making (SDM) with patients seems to be key in offering optimum care and outcomes for people suffering from MS. In this paper, we describe our perspective on how to achieve SDM in patients with MS, following key SDM-elements from established SDM-frameworks. As for deliberation in the clinical encounter, SDM communication training of professionals and feedback on their current performance are key aspects, as well as encouraging patients to participate. Concerning information for patients, it is important to provide balanced, evidence-based information about the benefits and the harms of different treatment options, including the option of surveillance only. At the same time, attention is needed for the optimal dosage of that information, given the symptoms of cognitive dysfunction and fatigue among MS-patients, and the uncertainties they have to cope with. Finally, for broader communication, a system is required that assures patient preferences are actually implemented by multidisciplinary MS-teams. As SDM is also being implemented in many countries within the context of value-based health care, we consider the systematic use of outcome information, such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient Decision Aids, as an opportunity to achieve SDM.

A Video Decision Aid for Advance Care Planning among Community-Dwelling Older Chinese Adults: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Health literacy is the foundation for discussing and reaching decisions regarding future care in advance care planning (ACP). Objectives: This cluster randomized controlled trial compared the effects of a video decision aid with those of verbal narratives accompanied by photos in preparing community-dwelling Chinese adults for ACP. Setting and Subjects: Adults aged 60 years or older who were capable of communicating and decision making (n = 182). Methods: The study was conducted in eight community centers in Hong Kong from April to December 2018. The primary outcome was readiness for ACP. Secondary outcomes included knowledge of and decisional conflict regarding end-of-life care. Results: In both groups, significant improvements were noted in the readiness to discuss (β = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.18 to 0.87, p = 0.003) and document (β = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.90, p = 0.008) end-of-life care preferences and knowledge (β = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.50 to 1.21, p < 0.001); in addition, decisional conflicts significantly decreased (β = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.49 to 1.25, p < 0.001). The video group demonstrated a greater improvement than the verbal group only in the knowledge score (β = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.08 to 1.02, p = 0.023). Conclusions: The findings showed that both video decision aids and verbal narratives accompanied by photos are effective ways to prepare older Chinese adults for ACP, although the video format was more effective for knowledge transfer. More work is needed to evaluate the sustained effects of these education interventions. Clinical Trial: This trial was registered at ISRCTN14628950.

The design and development of an encounter tool to support shared decision making about preventing cardiovascular events

Patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) tend to receive less intensive preventive care. Clinical practice guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) to improve the quality of primary CVD prevention. There are tools for use during the clinical encounter that promote SDM, but, to our knowledge, there are no SDM encounter tools that support conversations about available lifestyle and pharmacological options that can lead to preventive care that is congruent with patient goals and CVD risk. Using the best available evidence and human-centered design (iterative design in the context of ultimate use with users), our team developed a SDM encounter tool, CV Prevention Choice. Each subsequent version during the iterative development process was evaluated in terms of content, usefulness, and usability by testing it in real preventive encounters. The final version of the tool includes a calculator that estimates the patient's risk of a major atherosclerotic CVD event in the next 10 years. Lifestyle and medication options are presented, alongside their pros, cons, costs, and other burdens. The risk reduction achieved by the selected prevention program is then displayed to support collaborative deliberation and decision making. A U.S. multicenter trial is estimating the effectiveness of CV Prevention Choice in achieving risk-concordant CV prevention while identifying the best strategies for increasing the adoption of the SDM encounter tool and its routine use in practice.

Alpha Test of the Donor Conception Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an alpha test of the prototype of a digital decision aid to help parents disclose donor conception to their children, the Donor Conception Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool).

DESIGN

Convergent mixed-methods design.

SETTING

Virtual interviews in places convenient to the participants.

PARTICIPANTS

A purposeful sample (N = 16) of nine gamete-donor and embryo-recipient parents and eight clinicians, as one parent was also a clinician.

METHODS

We conducted cognitive interviews to explore participants' perceptions about the TELL Tool prototype and observe patterns of use. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (i.e., usability, comprehensibility, and acceptability) guided the development of the qualitative interview guide and directed the qualitative analysis. We also collected data about participants' perceptions and ratings of the helpfulness of each of the prototype's webpages regarding parents' decision making about disclosure. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the helpfulness ratings before we merged the two data sets to optimize understanding.

RESULTS

Participants reported that the TELL Tool was a helpful digital decision aid to help parents tell their children how they were conceived. Most (93.7%) webpage rating scores indicated that the content was very helpful or helpful. The participants identified content and technical areas that needed refinement and provided specific recommendations such as adding concise instructions (usability), tailoring adolescent language (comprehensibility), and softening verbiage (acceptability).

CONCLUSION

Alpha testing guided by the International Patient Decision Aid standards was an essential step in refining and improving the TELL Tool prototype before beta testing.

Factors influencing birth setting decision making in the United States: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

The United States has the highest perinatal morbidity and mortality (M&M) rates among all high-resource countries in the world. Birth settings (birth center, home, or hospital) influence clinical outcomes, experience of care, and health care costs. Increasing use of low-intervention birth settings can reduce perinatal M&M. This integrative review evaluated factors influencing birth setting decision making among women and birthing people in the United States.

METHODS

A search strategy was implemented within the CINAHL, PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guided the review, and the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice model was used to evaluate methodological quality and appraisal of the evidence. The Whittemore and Knafl integrative review framework informed the extraction and analysis of the data and generation of findings.

RESULTS

We identified 23 articles that met inclusion criteria. Four analytical themes were generated that described factors that influence birth setting decision making in the United States: "Birth Setting Safety vs. Risk," "Influence of Media, Family, and Friends on Birth Setting Awareness," "Presence or Absence of Choice and Control," and "Access to Options."

DISCUSSION

Supporting women and birthing people to make informed decisions by providing information about birth setting options and variations in models of care by birth setting is a critical patient-centered strategy to ensure equitable access to low-intervention birth settings. Policies that expand affordable health insurance to cover midwifery care in all birth settings are needed to enable people to make informed choices about birth location that align with their values, individual pregnancy characteristics, and preferences.

Adapting user-centered design principles to improve communication of peer parent narratives on pediatric tracheostomy

BACKGROUND

Parents who have to make tracheostomy decisions for their critically ill child may face forecasting errors and wish to learn from peer parents. We sought to develop an intervention with peer parent narratives to help parents anticipate and prepare for future challenges before making a decision.

METHODS

To ensure that the intervention reflects parents' needs (rather than experts' opinions), we adapted a user-centered design (UCD) process to identify decision-critical information and refine the presentation format by interviewing parents who had tracheostomy decision making experience. Phase 1 (n = 10) presented 15 possible forecasting errors and asked participants to prioritize and justify the problematic ones. It also asked participants to comment on the draft narratives and preferred delivery mode and time of the intervention. Phase 2 (n = 9 additional parents and 1 previous parent) iteratively collected feedback over four waves of user interviews to guide revisions to the informational booklet.

RESULTS

Phase 1 revealed that parents wanted information to address all forecasting errors as soon as tracheostomy becomes an option. They also highlighted diverse family situations and the importance of offering management strategies. The resulting prototype booklet contained five sections: introduction, child's quality of life, home care, practical challenges, and resources. Feedback from Phase 2 focused on emphasizing individualized situations, personal choice, seriousness of the decision, and caregiver health as well as presenting concrete illustrations of future challenges with acknowledgement of positive outcomes and advice. We also learned that parents preferred to use the booklet with support from the care team rather than read it alone.

CONCLUSIONS

A UCD process enabled inclusion of parental perspectives that were initially overlooked and tailoring of the intervention to meet parental expectations. Similar UCD-based approaches may be valuable in the design of other types of patient communications (e.g., decision aids).

Development of a Patient Decision Aid to Support Shared Decision Making for Patients with Recurrent High-Grade Glioma

When high-grade gliomas recur, patients, their families, and clinicians face difficult medical decisions. There is no curable treatment, and the treatment options all come with a risk of complications and adverse effects. The patients are often cognitively affected, and they need tailored decision support. The objective of this study was to develop a patient decision aid (PtDA) targeted at patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas. Based on existing knowledge and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, the PtDA was developed through an iterative process. The PtDA was alpha-tested by potential users to assess its acceptability and usability. The development team comprised three clinicians, two patients, two family members, and a researcher. The fifth version of the PtDA was submitted to the alpha test. Eleven patients, nine family members, and eleven clinicians assessed the PtDA and found it acceptable. Three changes were made during the alpha test. Most participants perceived the PtDA to prepare patients for decision making and improve consultations. The involvement of potential users was emphasized during the development and alpha test process. The PtDA was assessed as useful and acceptable by patients, family members, and clinicians in the decision-making situation of recurrent high-grade glioma.

Development of a patient decision aid for COVID-19 vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 has been responsible for a pandemic since the beginning of 2020. Vaccine arrival brings a concrete solution to fight the virus. However, vaccine hesitancy is high. In France, the first available vaccine was Comirnaty from Pfizer-BioNTech. Shared decision-making, based on tools such as patient decision aids (PtDAs), can help patients make an informed choice about vaccination with Comirnaty.

OBJECTIVE

The French College of Teachers in General Practice (CNGE) aimed to create a PtDA for people who have to decide whether they will receive the Comirnaty vaccine.

METHODS

Development of the PtDA was performed according to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). The initial design was based on a literature review and semistructured interviews with 17 patients to explore and clarify patients' expectations. A first draft of the PtDA was then alpha tested by a patient expert group and a physician expert group. The PtDA was finally beta tested in 14 prevaccine consultations. A steering group was consulted throughout the work. Patient support, community groups and the French National Authority for Health (HAS) were involved in the development process.

RESULTS

A literature review identified one randomized trial on Comirnaty efficacy and safety. The first part of the PtDA allows patients to identify their own risk factors. The second part of the PtDA provides information on vaccination: benefits and risks, unknown data, and technical explanations about the mRNA vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a PtDA to be used in primary care settings for shared decision-making regarding vaccination with Comirnaty.

Choosing a Birth Setting: A Shared Decision-Making Approach

Perinatal outcomes vary widely depending on individual birth settings (birth center, home, and hospital). The purpose of this case study is to explore a patient-centered, shared decision-making approach to achieve an informed, values-based choice about birth settings. Engaging in a shared decision-making approach regarding birth setting options would support people to have the information and ability to judge for themselves how benefits and risks across birth center, home, and hospital settings would best fit with their values and personal health. A patient decision aid about birth setting options could facilitate increased equity regarding access to birth settings that offer improved perinatal health outcomes, helping to reduce perinatal health disparities in the United States.

Using Human-Centered Design Principles to Create a Decision Aid on Conservative Kidney Management for Advanced Kidney Disease

Background

Most patients are unaware of approaches to treating advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) other than dialysis.

Methods

We developed a dedicated decision aid on conservative kidney management using human-centered design principles in three phases: (1) discovery: engagement of informants to understand their needs and preferences; (2) design: multiple rapid cycles of ideation, prototyping, and testing of a decision aid with a small group of informants; and (3) implementation: testing the decision aid in real-world settings with attention to how the decision aid can be further refined. Informants included a national patient advisory committee on kidney diseases, 50 patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD and 35 of their family members, and 16 clinicians recruited from the greater Seattle area between June 2019 and September 2021.

Results

Findings from the discovery phase informed an initial prototype of the decision aid, which included five sections: a description of kidney disease and its signs and symptoms, an overview of conservative kidney management and the kinds of supports provided, self-reflection exercises to elicit patients' values and goals, the pros and cons of conservative kidney management, and the option of changing one's mind about conservative kidney management. The prototype underwent several rounds of iteration during its design phase, which resulted in the addition of an introductory section describing the intended audience and more detailed information in other sections. Findings from its implementation phase led to the addition of examples of common questions that patients and family members had about conservative kidney management and a final section on other related educational resources.

Conclusions

Human-centered design principles supported a systematic and collaborative approach between researchers, patients, family members, and clinicians for developing a decision aid on conservative kidney management.

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.