Integrating shared decision-making into primary care: lessons learned from a multi-centre feasibility randomized controlled trial

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Improving the Process of Shared Decision-Making by Integrating Online Structured Information and Self-Assessment Tools

The integration of face-to-face communication and online processes to provide access to information and self-assessment tools may improve shared decision-making (SDM) processes. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of implementing an online SDM process with topics and content developed through a participatory design approach. We analyzed the triggered and completed SDM cases with responses from participants at a medical center in Taiwan. Data were retrieved from the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database of the hospital for analysis. Each team developed web-based patient decision aids (PDA) with empirical evidence in a multi-digitized manner, allowing patients to scan QR codes on a leaflet using their mobile phones and then read the PDA content online. From July 2019 to December 2020, 48 web-based SDM topics were implemented in the 24 clinical departments of this hospital. The results showed that using the REDCap system improved SDM efficiency and quality. Implementing an online SDM process integrated with face-to-face communication enhanced the practice and effectiveness of SDM, possibly through the flexibility of accessing information, self-assessment, and feedback evaluation.

Development and Early Experience of a Primary Care Learning Collaborative in a Large Health Care System

Introduction:

Primary care clinicians are presented with hundreds of new clinical recommendations and guidelines. To consider practice change clinicians must identify relevant information and develop a contextual framework. Too much attention to information irrelevant to one’s practice results in wasted resources. Too little results in care gaps. A small group of primary care clinicians in a large health system sought to address the problem of vetting new information and providing peer reviewed context. This was done by engaging colleagues across the system though a primary care learning collaborative.

Methods:

The collaborative was a grass roots initiative between community and academic-based clinicians. They invited all the system’s primary care clinicians to participate. They selected new recommendations or guidelines and used surveys as the principal communication instrument. Surveys shared practice experience and also invited members to give narrative feedback regarding their acceptance of variation in care relate to the topic. A description of the collaborative along with its development, processes, and evolution are discussed. Process changes to address needs during the COVID-19 pandemic including expanded information sharing was necessary.

Results:

Collaborative membership reached across 5 states and included family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. Members found involvement with the collaborative useful. Less variation in care was thought important for public health crises: the COVID pandemic and opioid epidemic. Greater practice variation was thought acceptable for adherence to multispecialty guidelines, such as diabetes, lipid management, and adult ADHD care. Process changes during the pandemic resulted in more communications between members to avoid practice gaps.

Conclusion:

An internet-based learning collaborative in a health system had good engagement from its members. Using novel methods, it was able to provide members with feedback related to the importance of new practice recommendations as perceived by their peers. Greater standardization was thought necessary when adopting measures to address public health crisis, and less necessary when addressing multispecialty guidelines. By employing a learning collaborative, this group was able to keep members interested and engaged. During the first year of the COVID pandemic the collaborative also served as a vehicle to share timely information.