Decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision making in chronic illnesses: a systematic review

Lung cancer screening completion among patients using decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Utilization of lung cancer screening (LCS) among eligible patients remains low at 16% in 2022. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we assessed the (a) LCS completion rate, and (b) intention to complete LCS, among patients who receive patient decision aids (PDAs).

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for articles published in English between 1 January 2011, and 28 February 2023. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that reported PDA interventions targeting either LCS completion rate or intention to complete LCS. Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 2,277 total participants (51.5% male) were included. The pooled LCS completion rate across all follow-up periods (range, 1-6 months) was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15-65%) with an I2 of 97% for heterogeneity. Pooled intention to complete LCS among patients who received PDA across all follow-up periods (same day to 3 months) was 57% (95% CI, 34% to 80%) with significant heterogeneity (I2) of 96% (p < 0.0001). No publication bias was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

LCS completion and intention to complete LCS among patients who use PDAs is high. Our findings support the need to implement PDAs in clinical practice which could further facilitate shared decision-making and improve LCS uptake among eligible patients.

Perspectives of People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Towards a Decision Aid Assessing Preferences of Glucose-Lowering Drugs: The Dilemma of Choosing

Background

Treatment guidelines recommend metformin as initial drug in many people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and low risk of cardiovascular disease, with the possibility to switch to or add other drug classes. A decision aid (DA) could be useful to incorporate a patient's preferences in the decision of which drug class to choose. We developed such a DA and assessed the perspectives of people with T2D towards its comprehensibility and usability.

Methods

The DA consists of a paper-based leaflet followed by a web-based preference elicitation exercise. The leaflet aims at informing patients about drug characteristics (eg, efficacy, safety). The relative importance of these drug characteristics for each participant are then assessed in a web-based exercise, which results in a ranking of the preferred drug classes. A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted among Dutch patients with T2D who were or had ever been under pharmacological treatment for T2D. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted.

Results

Fifteen patients participated (median age 64 years, nine women, and most had T2D >10 years). Risk of hypoglycaemia was most often the characteristic to which patients attached the highest importance (n=5). A glucagon-like peptide-1-antagonist weekly injection fitted best the preferences of most patients (n=8). The interviews revealed improvements for text, pictograms and figures, and formatting, and increased comprehension of how patients completed the DA. Regarding usability, missing information was identified, as well as patients' perspectives about the usefulness of the DA and its role in shared-decision making.

Conclusion

The DA was considered promising for shared-decision making but further improvements regarding its comprehensibility and usability are needed, for which this study provides clear guidance.

Paromomycin targets HDAC1-mediated SUMOylation and IGF1R translocation in glioblastoma

Objective

This study investigates the effects of Paromomycin on SUMOylation-related pathways in glioblastoma (GBM), specifically targeting HDAC1 inhibition.

Methods

Using TCGA and GTEx datasets, we identified SUMOylation-related genes associated with GBM prognosis. Molecular docking analysis suggested Paromomycin as a potential HDAC1 inhibitor. In vitro assays on U-251MG GBM cells were performed to assess Paromomycin's effects on cell viability, SUMOylation gene expression, and IGF1R translocation using CCK8 assays, qRT-PCR, and immunofluorescence.

Results

Paromomycin treatment led to a dose-dependent reduction in GBM cell viability, colony formation, and migration. It modulated SUMO1 expression and decreased IGF1R nuclear translocation, an effect reversible by the HDAC1 inhibitor Trochostatin A (TSA), suggesting Paromomycin's involvement in SUMO1-regulated pathways.

Conclusion

This study highlights Paromomycin's potential as a therapeutic agent for GBM by targeting HDAC1-mediated SUMOylation pathways and influencing IGF1R translocation, warranting further investigation for its clinical application.

Perceived challenges in treatment decision-making for endometriosis: healthcare professional perspectives

Background

Endometriosis, a systemic chronic inflammatory condition which has no cure, has a high symptom burden that can negatively impact every facet of life. Given the absence of a gold-standard treatment, the best symptom management regimen in endometriosis is heavily reliant on a patient's values and preferences, making shared decision-making (SDM) vital. However, a comprehensive patient decision aid (PtDA) intervention that could facilitate patient decision-making and promote SDM is lacking in endometriosis, and there is little research on the decisional support needs of individuals with this condition. This qualitative study aimed to explore healthcare professional (HP) perspectives of their clients' decisional support needs when choosing treatments to manage endometriosis symptoms, with a view to evaluating the need for a PtDA.

Methods

Australian HPs identified as specialising in endometriosis care (N = 13) were invited to participate in a short interview over the Internet by phone. Questions focussed on perceived facilitators and challenges of decision-making when choosing treatments for endometriosis. Transcribed qualitative data were thematically analysed and verified by multiple coders, using the template approach.

Results

Four themes were identified: (1) Identifying and setting priorities; (2) HPs' lack of time and perceived lack of knowledge; (3) Patient-centred care and SDM, including patient capacity; and (4) Decision-making blinded by hope. This is the first known study to explore HPs' perspectives on patient decision-making challenges in endometriosis.

Discussion

Findings draw attention to the difficulties people with endometriosis experience when assessing and choosing treatments, highlighting the need for a comprehensive PtDA intervention to support this decision-making.

The experience sampling methodology as a digital clinical tool for more person-centered mental health care: an implementation research agenda

This position paper by the international IMMERSE consortium reviews the evidence of a digital mental health solution based on Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) for advancing person-centered mental health care and outlines a research agenda for implementing innovative digital mental health tools into routine clinical practice. ESM is a structured diary technique recording real-time self-report data about the current mental state using a mobile application. We will review how ESM may contribute to (1) service user engagement and empowerment, (2) self-management and recovery, (3) goal direction in clinical assessment and management of care, and (4) shared decision-making. However, despite the evidence demonstrating the value of ESM-based approaches in enhancing person-centered mental health care, it is hardly integrated into clinical practice. Therefore, we propose a global research agenda for implementing ESM in routine mental health care addressing six key challenges: (1) the motivation and ability of service users to adhere to the ESM monitoring, reporting and feedback, (2) the motivation and competence of clinicians in routine healthcare delivery settings to integrate ESM in the workflow, (3) the technical requirements and (4) governance requirements for integrating these data in the clinical workflow, (5) the financial and competence related resources related to IT-infrastructure and clinician time, and (6) implementation studies that build the evidence-base. While focused on ESM, the research agenda holds broader implications for implementing digital innovations in mental health. This paper calls for a shift in focus from developing new digital interventions to overcoming implementation barriers, essential for achieving a true transformation toward person-centered care in mental health.

Technology-supported shared decision-making in chronic conditions: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To describe the role of patients with a chronic disease, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and technology in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), and to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM and CDSSs interventions.

METHODS

Randomized controlled studies published between 2011 and 2021 were identified and screened independently by two reviewers, followed by data extraction and analysis. SDM elements and interactive styles were identified to shape the roles of patients, HCPs and technology.

RESULTS

Forty-three articles were identified and reported on 21 SDM-studies, 15 CDSS-studies, 2 studies containing both an SDM-tool and a CDSS, and 5 studies with other decision support components. SDM elements were mostly identified in SDM-tools and interactions styles were least common in the other decision support components.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients within the included RCTs mainly received information from SDM-tools and occasionally CDSSs when it concerns treatment strategies. HCPs provide and clarify information using SDM-tools and CDSSs. Technology provides interactions, which can support more active SDM. SDM-tools mostly showed evidence for positive effects on SDM outcomes, while CDSSs mostly demonstrated positive effects on clinical outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Technology-supported SDM has potential to optimize SDM when patients, HCPs and technology collaborate well together.

Exploring Cultural and Religious Effects on HPV Vaccination Decision Making Using a Web-Based Decision Aid: A Quasi-experimental Study

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) poses a significant public health concern, as it is linked to various serious health conditions such as cancer and genital warts. Despite the vaccine's safety, efficacy, and availability through national school programs, HPV vaccination rates remain low in Israel, particularly within the ultra-Orthodox community due to religious and cultural barriers. Decision aids have shown promise in facilitating shared decision making and promoting informed choices in health care. This study aimed to assess the impact of a novel Web-based decision aid on HPV vaccination intentions, knowledge, decision self-efficacy, and decisional conflict among Israeli parents and young adults, with a specific focus on exploring differences between religious groups.

METHODS

Two Web-based decision aids were developed for parents of children aged 10 to 17 y (n = 120) and young adults aged 18 to 26 y (n = 160). A quasi-experimental study was conducted among Hebrew-speaking parents and young adults eligible for HPV vaccination. Participants completed pre- and postintervention questionnaires assessing vaccination intentions, knowledge about HPV, decision self-efficacy, and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

The decision aid significantly improved intentions toward HPV vaccination among most religious groups, except the Jewish ultra-Orthodox community. Ultra-Orthodox participants exhibited reluctance to vaccinate themselves or their children (odds ratio [OR] = 0.23, P < 0.001 for parents' group; OR = 0.43, P < 0.001 for young adults' group). Parental preference for vaccinating girls over boys (OR = 2.66, P < 0.001) and increased inclination for vaccination among Muslim-Arabs were observed (OR = 3.12, P < 0.001). Knowledge levels improved among ultra-Orthodox participants but not decisional conflict and self-efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The Web-based decision aid positively influenced the quality of HPV vaccination decision making among various religious groups in Israel, except for the ultra-Orthodox community. Culturally tailored approaches that address specific community concerns are essential for informed decision making.

HIGHLIGHTS

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates in Israel are substantially lower than those of other routine vaccinations, particularly among religious and ultra-Orthodox communities, largely due to sociocultural beliefs and misinformation.A newly developed Web-based decision aid was implemented in a study involving parents and young adults to evaluate its impact on vaccination intent, knowledge about HPV, decision self-efficacy, and decisional conflict.While the decision aid significantly enhanced vaccination intention, knowledge, and perceived behavioral control among various religious groups, it did not yield the same outcomes within the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.This study highlights the vital role of cultural adaptation in HPV vaccine decision aids within Israel, revealing significant disparities in vaccination perceptions and decisions among diverse religious and cultural groups.

Physician preferences for an electronic lung cancer screening decision aid

OBJECTIVE

To present primary care physician (PCP) suggestions for design and implementation of a decision aid (DA) tool to support patient-provider shared decision-making on lung cancer screening (LCS).

STUDY DESIGN

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 PCPs at an academic medical center.

METHODS

The deidentified transcripts were independently coded by 2 study interviewers and jointly reviewed every 5 interviews until we determined that data saturation had been achieved. We then identified themes in the data and selected illustrative quotes.

RESULTS

Three main themes were identified: (1) make it brief and familiar (make the tool user-friendly and implement a similar format to other widely used DAs); (2) bring me to automation station (limit busywork; focus on the patient and on the decision); and (3) involve the patient (facilitate patient involvement in the DA with simple language, visual aids, and bullet-point takeaways).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings contain concrete suggestions by PCPs to inform usable and acceptable LCS DA tool design and implementation. For an LCS DA to be most successful, PCPs emphasized that the tool must be easy to use and incorporate autopopulation functions to limit redundant patient charting.

A video-based decision aid improved knowledge and decreased decisional conflict for asymptomatic persistent endodontic lesions

AIM

This prospective cohort study aimed to (i) evaluate patients' treatment decisions, decisional conflict and knowledge levels before and after use of a video-based decision aid (DA) on asymptomatic persistent endodontic lesions (APEL) and to (ii) elicit important decision factors for patients in the decision-making process.

METHODOLOGY

A video DA modelled after the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) was designed. The video was pilot-tested, revised and used on 50 patients referred to the graduate endodontic clinic and presenting with an incidental finding of APEL detected on radiographs, with informed consent (DSRB 2020/00133). Recruitment was conducted from June 2020 to November 2021. Patients' treatment decisions and decision-making process were studied. Patients also completed a questionnaire on knowledge gain, decisional conflict and confidence levels.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients (48 teeth) out of 50 patients chose long-term monitoring of APEL while 7 patients (7 teeth) decided on endodontic intervention. Median knowledge scores increased from 58.3 (IQR: 41.7, 75.0) to 87.5 (IQR: 75.0, 100.0) (p < .001); median decisional conflict scale (DCS) scores decreased from 25.0 (IQR: 12.5, 34.4) to 3.1 (IQR: 0, 23.8) (p < .001), and 44 (88%) patients were confident or very confident with their treatment decisions. Statistical analyses showed that asymptomatic condition of tooth was the sole decision factor with statistical significance while socioeconomic factors (age, gender, race, education and income levels) showed no significant trend.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients presenting with APEL in this study chose long-term monitoring over immediate intervention. Using the video-based DA in the decision-making process significantly improved patients' knowledge and decreased their decisional conflict levels.

Decision aids for promoting shared decision-making: A review of systematic reviews

In the context of shared decision-making (SDM), experts have advocated the use of validated decision aids (DAs) as valuable tools for facilitating SDM in various healthcare scenarios. This comprehensive review attempts to analyze a vast corpus of DA research by performing thorough searches across four prominent databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science). Independent reviewers selected relevant reviews, extracted data, and assessed review quality using the AMSTAR II tool. A total of 34 systematic reviews were identified and evaluated in this review, encompassing a wide range of outcomes associated with using DAs. These outcomes include patient knowledge, patient involvement in SDM, decision conflict, decision regret, satisfaction, and adherence. In addition, DAs positively affect healthcare provider outcomes by increasing satisfaction, reducing decision conflicts, and lengthening clinical consultations. This review highlights the need for additional research in specific contexts such as long-term care, mental health, and reproductive health to better understand the benefits and challenges of implementing DAs in these settings. Such research can contribute to the improvement of SDM practices and patient-centered care.

Toward Shared Decision-Making in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Health care decisions are a critical determinant in the evolution of chronic illness. In shared decision-making (SDM), patients and clinicians work collaboratively to reach evidence-based health decisions that align with individual circumstances, values, and preferences. This personalized approach to clinical care likely has substantial benefits in the oversight of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), a type of nontraumatic spinal cord injury. Its chronicity, heterogeneous clinical presentation, complex management, and variable disease course engenders an imperative for a patient-centric approach that accounts for each patient's unique needs and priorities. Inadequate patient knowledge about the condition and an incomplete understanding of the critical decision points that arise during the course of care currently hinder the fruitful participation of health care providers and patients in SDM. This study protocol presents the rationale for deploying SDM for DCM and delineates the groundwork required to achieve this.

OBJECTIVE

The study's primary outcome is the development of a comprehensive checklist to be implemented upon diagnosis that provides patients with essential information necessary to support their informed decision-making. This is known as a core information set (CIS). The secondary outcome is the creation of a detailed process map that provides a diagrammatic representation of the global care workflows and cognitive processes involved in DCM care. Characterizing the critical decision points along a patient's journey will allow for an effective exploration of SDM tools for routine clinical practice to enhance patient-centered care and improve clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Both CISs and process maps are coproduced iteratively through a collaborative process involving the input and consensus of key stakeholders. This will be facilitated by Myelopathy.org, a global DCM charity, through its Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy community. To develop the CIS, a 3-round, web-based Delphi process will be used, starting with a baseline list of information items derived from a recent scoping review of educational materials in DCM, patient interviews, and a qualitative survey of professionals. A priori criteria for achieving consensus are specified. The process map will be developed iteratively using semistructured interviews with patients and professionals and validated by key stakeholders.

RESULTS

Recruitment for the Delphi consensus study began in April 2023. The pilot-testing of process map interview participants started simultaneously, with the formulation of an initial baseline map underway.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol marks the first attempt to provide a starting point for investigating SDM in DCM. The primary work centers on developing an educational tool for use in diagnosis to enable enhanced onward decision-making. The wider objective is to aid stakeholders in developing SDM tools by identifying critical decision junctures in DCM care. Through these approaches, we aim to provide an exhaustive launchpad for formulating SDM tools in the wider DCM community.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/46809.

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.

Trends, challenges, and priorities for shared decision making in mental health: The first umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model promoting patient-centered care that has not been routinely utilized in mental health. Inconsistent definitions, models, measurement tools, and lack of sufficient evidence for the effectiveness of SDM interventions are potential contributors to the limited use of SDM in mental health.

AIMS

(1) Provide the first systematic analysis of global development trends and challenges of SDM research; (2) clarify the meaning, role, and measurement of SDM in mental health; (3) create a theoretical framework for key effective SDM components to guide future development and implementation of SDM interventions.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was conducted in CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo. Included reviews focused on SDM interventions for prevention and/or treatment of mental illness in adults. A narrative synthesis was performed to capture the range of interventions, populations, measurement tools, comparisons, and outcomes.

RESULTS

10 systematic reviews of SDM in mental health were included with 100 nested studies spanning from 2006 to 2020. All reviews focused on dyadic and psychopharmacological decision-making. Primary outcomes of SDM in mental health interventions include treatment satisfaction, medication adherence, symptom severity, quality of life, and hospital readmissions. Participant-related factors unique to SDM in mental health, such as stigma and mental capacity, were not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The current landscape of SDM in mental health is overwhelmingly disconnected from the needs and experiences of potential end-users; clients, clinicians, and family members. Most SDM interventions and tools were adapted from physical health and are mainly geared to psychopharmacological decision-making. The SDM in Mental Health Framework (SDM-MH), developed here, expands the scope of decisions to non-psychopharmacological discussions, diversifies the pool of SDM participants and settings, and offers potential primary target outcomes of SDM in mental health to reduce heterogeneity across studies.

Patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making about treatment: A scoping review of the qualitative literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM) about treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies. We searched for literature across seven databases until March 2022, and included qualitative studies that focused on associations between patient-related characteristics and SDM about treatment in adults. We analyzed studies using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5948 articles, of which 70 were included. We identified many different patient-related characteristics, which we grouped into four categories related to: (1) the individual who is facing the decision, (2) the decision, (3) the relationship between the patient and the clinician and others involved in the decision, and (4) the healthcare context.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies report a variety of patient-related characteristics that may affect patient involvement in SDM. Amongst others, patients may need to feel informed, to understand their role in SDM, and be able to communicate. Involvement may be challenging with characteristics such as perceived time pressure, poor patient-clinician relationships, emotional distress, and severe illness.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to truly involve patients in SDM, we might need to focus on characteristics such as patient emotions and relationship building, besides information provision and values clarification.

Patient decision support interventions for candidates considering elective surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The increase in elective surgeries and varied postoperative patient outcomes has boosted the use of patient decision support interventions (PDSIs). However, evidence on the effectiveness of PDSIs are not updated. This systematic review aims to summarize the effects of PDSIs for surgical candidates considering elective surgeries and to identify their moderators with an emphasis on the type of targeted surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched eight electronic databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating PDSIs among elective surgical candidates. We documented the effects on invasive treatment choice, decision-making-related outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and healthcare resource use. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations were adopted to rate the risk of bias of individual trials and certainty of evidence, respectively. STATA 16 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight trials comprising 14 981 adults from 11 countries were included. Overall, PDSIs had no effect on invasive treatment choice (risk ratio=0.97; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.04), consultation time (mean difference=0.04 min; 95% CI: -0.17, 0.24), or patient-reported outcomes, but had a beneficial effect on decisional conflict (Hedges' g =-0.29; 95% CI: -0.41, -0.16), disease and treatment knowledge (Hedges' g =0.32; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.49), decision-making preparedness (Hedges' g =0.22; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.34), and decision quality (risk ratio=1.98; 95% CI: 1.15, 3.39). Treatment choice varied with surgery type and self-guided PDSIs had a greater effect on disease and treatment knowledge enhancement than clinician-delivered PDSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has demonstrated that PDSIs targeting individuals considering elective surgeries had benefited their decision-making by reducing decisional conflict and increasing disease and treatment knowledge, decision-making preparedness, and decision quality. These findings may be used to guide the development and evaluation of new PDSIs for elective surgical care.

Encouragement of patients' self-management in primary care for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases (DECADE): protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular diseases are the most common cause of death in Germany and among the most frequent reasons for encounters in primary care. Most patients with cardiovascular risks (CVRs) have difficulties implementing health-promoting behavioural changes. In this study, a complex intervention containing evidence-based patient materials and structured follow-up consultations are intended to strengthen patients' self-management to improve health behaviour.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this cluster randomised controlled trial, we investigate the effects of the intervention "Decision aid, action planning and follow-up support for patients to reduce the 10-year risk of cardiovascular diseases" (DECADE) using a 2×2 design. All patients, including the control group (CG), receive a CVR calculation. Three intervention groups (IGs) receive one or both of two different components of the DECADE intervention: IG1 (patient materials), IG2 (follow-up consultations) and IG3 (patient materials and follow-up consultations). The study was planned to be conducted with 77 general practitioners in 3 German regions and a target sample size of 924 patients. The observation period for each patient amounts to 12 months with three patient surveys: baseline (t0), after 6 and 12 months (t1 and t2). The primary outcome is patient activation (Patient Activation Measure 13 (PAM13-D)) at t1. Secondary outcomes include PAM13-D at t2 and further patient-reported and clinical outcomes at t1 and t2. We will also analyse the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, the degree of usage and satisfaction with the intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was first approved by the lead ethics committee of the University of Freiburg on 15 April 2021 (vote number: 21-1078) and subsequently by the other ethics committees in the study regions (Ethics committee of medical association Baden-Württemberg (B-F-2021-078), Ethics Committee of the Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden (BO-EK-251052021), Ethics Committee of the State Chamber of Physicians of Saxony (EK-BR-92/21-1), Ethics Committee of the Hamburg Medical Association (2021-200013-BO-bet)). Informed consent is required for patients to participate in the study. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at congresses by the DECADE team. The DECADE lead management will communicate the results to the funder of this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00025401 (registration date: 21 June 2021); International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, DRKS00025401.

Quantifying the psychological and behavioural consequences of a diagnostic label for non-cancer conditions: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Screening for asymptomatic health conditions is perceived as mostly beneficial, with possible harms receiving little attention.

AIMS

To quantify proximal and longer-term consequences for individuals receiving a diagnostic label following screening for an asymptomatic, non-cancer health condition.

METHOD

Five electronic databases were searched (inception to November 2022) for studies that recruited asymptomatic screened individuals who received or did not receive a diagnostic label. Eligible studies reported psychological, psychosocial and/or behavioural outcomes before and after screening results. Independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions). Results were meta-analysed or descriptively reported.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included. Twelve studies addressed psychological outcomes, four studies examined behavioural outcomes and none reported psychosocial outcomes. Risk of bias was judged as low (n = 8), moderate (n = 5) or serious (n = 3). Immediately after receiving results, anxiety was significantly higher for individuals receiving versus not receiving a diagnostic label (mean difference -7.28, 95% CI -12.85 to -1.71). On average, anxiety increased from the non-clinical to clinical range, but returned to the non-clinical range in the longer term. No significant immediate or longer-term differences were found for depression or general mental health. Absenteeism did not significantly differ from the year before to the year after screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The impacts of screening asymptomatic, non-cancer health conditions are not universally positive. Limited research exists regarding longer-term impacts. Well-designed, high-quality studies further investigating these impacts are required to assist development of protocols that minimise psychological distress following diagnosis.

Peer-Facilitated Decision Making in Mental Health: Promises, Pitfalls, and Recommendations for Research and Practice

Recognition has grown that peer support workers serve an important role in facilitating decision making about treatment and recovery among people with mental health conditions. This article provides examples of peer-facilitated decision support interventions in the literature, discusses promises and potential pitfalls associated with peers serving in decision support roles, and offers recommendations for research and practice. Examples were selected from the literature on decision support interventions for people with serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression. Promises, pitfalls, and recommendations were informed by this research and by the literature on lived experience perspectives, the helper-therapy principle, and reported barriers to and facilitators of peers assisting with decision making. According to the included studies, peers may facilitate decision making in several ways (e.g., by asking service users about their goals or preferences, assisting them with using decision support tools, sharing stories, and facilitating access to information and resources). Peer-facilitated decision support may be associated with positive decision making and health outcomes for service users and peer support workers. However, providers need to carefully consider barriers to implementation of this support, such as inadequate resourcing, poor integration, and compromising of peer support values.

Shared decision making on medication use between nurses and patients in an oncology setting: A qualitative descriptive study

PURPOSE

(i) To explore patients' and nurses' experiences with medication-related shared decision making (SDM) (i.e., familiarity with the concept, application of medication-related SDM, barriers and facilitators towards its application) and (ii) to explore their role perceptions, respectively.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted in which seven interviews with oncological patients and a focus group interview with six nurses were performed. Prior to the interviews, observations of the application of shared decision making were conducted using the OPTION-12 scale. The observations were used exclusively to trigger the group discussion. Data were collected from November 2020 until March 2021.

RESULTS

According to participants, the application of SDM regarding medication by nurses in oncology is limited. Barriers mentioned were health status, medication-related knowledge, the therapeutic nurse-patient relationship, time pressures and workload. Patients valued nurses' contribution to SDM regarding medication and perceived them as key persons because of their advocating, informative, facilitating and supportive role. Individual and contextual factors determined patients' desire for involvement in medication-related decisions.

DISCUSSION

Participants solely concentrated on SDM concerning drug choice and management of therapeutic and adverse effects. The patients' and nurses' experiences and perceptions towards SDM in other domains of pharmaceutical care need further investigation.

Design and development of a digital shared decision-making tool for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach in which patients and clinicians act as partners in making medical decisions. Patients receive the information needed to decide and are encouraged to balance risks, benefits, and preferences. Informative materials are vital to SDM. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and responsible for 10% of ischemic strokes, however 1/3 of patients are not on appropriate anticoagulation. Decision sharing may facilitate treatment acceptance, improving outcomes.

Aims

To develop a framework of the components needed to create novel SDM tools and to provide practical examples through a case-study of stroke prevention in AF.

Methods

We analyze the design values of a web-based SDM tool created to better inform AF patients about anticoagulation. The tool was developed in partnership with patient advocates, multi-disciplinary investigators, and private design firms. It was refined through iterative, recursive testing in patients with AF. Its effectiveness is being evaluated in a multisite clinical trial led by Stanford University and sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Findings

The main components considered when creating the Stanford AFib tool included: design and software; content identification; information delivery; inclusive communication, user engagement; patient feedback; clinician experience; and anticipation of implementation and dissemination. We also highlight the ethical principles underlying SDM; matters of diversity and inclusion, linguistic variety, accessibility, and health literacy. The Stanford AFib Guide patient tool is available at: https://afibguide.com and the clinician tool at https://afibguide.com/clinician.

Conclusion

Attention to a range of vital development and design factors can facilitate tool adoption and information acquisition by diverse cultural, educational, and socioeconomic subpopulations. With thoughtful design, digital tools may decrease decision regret and improve treatment outcomes across many decision-making situations in healthcare.

Understanding decision-making in prosthetic rehabilitation by prosthetists and people with lower limb amputation: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Little has been published about the process of decision-making between prosthetists and people with lower limb amputation (LLA). The purpose of this study is to identify decisions and factors influencing decision-making in prosthetic rehabilitation from the perspectives of prosthetists and prosthesis users, to identify barriers and opportunities for shared decision-making (SDM).

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 13 prosthetists and 14 prosthesis users from three clinics in three states of the Rocky Mountain and Southwest regions of the United States. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four main themes were identified: perceived decision points, importance of relationship, balancing competing priorities, and experience. Contrasts between perceptions of prosthetists and prosthesis users were related to prosthesis design decisions, and the purpose of communication (e.g., goals for a prosthesis vs. goals informing prosthesis design). Both prosthetists and prosthesis users described balancing priorities that contribute to prosthetic rehabilitation decisions, and the role of experience for informing realistic expectations and preferences necessary for participating in decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Opportunities for improving SDM between prosthetists and prosthesis users include (1) clarifying key rehabilitation decisions, (2) identifying the purpose of initial communications, (3) support for balancing priorities, and (4) utilizing experience to achieve informed preferences.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMany people with lower limb amputation experience poor physical function and psychosocial outcomes, which may be further compounded by under informed prosthesis-user expectations for function with a prosthesis.Shared decision-making offers an opportunity for improving realistic prosthesis-user expectations, reducing healthcare costs, and improving prosthesis-user satisfaction and adherence to care plans.Opportunities for improving shared decision-making between prosthetists and prosthesis-users include (1) clarifying key rehabilitation decisions, (2) identifying the purpose of initial communications, (3) support for balancing priorities, and (4) utilizing experience to achieve informed preferences.

Shared decision-making practices and patient values in pharmacist outpatient care for rheumatic disease: A multiple correspondence analysis

Purpose: To investigate the value-to-value relationships, relationship between values and patient background, continuation rate of treatment after shared decision-making (SDM), and disease status in order to clarify the values involved in drug therapy decisions for patients with rheumatic disease. Methods: We investigated patient values (efficacy of drug therapy [effectiveness], safety, economics, daily life, and other) and the continuance rate and disease status of treatment after 6 months in 94 patients with rheumatic disease aged ≥18 years who made decisions with pharmacists and physicians in the pharmacy outpatient clinic between September 2019 and April 2021. Multiple correspondence and K-means cluster analyses were performed to show the relationship between values and basic patient information. Results: Among the selected patients, 87% and 47% selected effectiveness for multiple selections and single selection, respectively. Effectiveness was at the center of the graph; three clusters containing other values were placed around it. History of allergy or side effects caused by biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors were in the safety cluster. The non-usage history of biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors was in the economic cluster. Conclusion: Effectiveness was the most important factor for patients with rheumatic disease; the values that patients consider important may shift from effectiveness to other values based on each patient's subjective experience with the treatment and/or the stage of life in which they were treated. It is important to positively link patient values and information about the treatment plan in shared decision-making while establishing rapport with the patient.

Shared Decision-Making, Therapeutic Choice, and Decisional Regret in Patients With Alopecia Areata

Importance

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disorder of hair loss with a complex and evolving treatment landscape, making it an ideal setting for shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and physicians. Given the varying efficacy, experience, and risks of treatments for AA, we sought to evaluate patient preferences for SDM and the association of SDM with decisional regret.

Objective

To evaluate patient preferences for SDM and the association of SDM with decisional regret.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional online survey using the validated SDMQ9 scale for shared decision-making and Decisional Regret Scale (DRS) was distributed using the National Alopecia Areata Foundation (NAAF) with the aim of assessing (1) patient preferences in SDM when making treatment decisions, (2) how patients perceived the last decision to have been made, (3) which components of SDM were incorporated into the last decision, and (4) decisional regret related to their last treatment decision. The survey was distributed from July 12, 2021, to August 2, 2021, and data analysis occurred from October 2021 to March 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes included (1) patient preferences in incorporation of SDM, (2) how patients made their most recent treatment decision, (3) which components of SDM were incorporated into their most recent treatment decision measured with the validated SDMQ9, and (4) an assessment of decisional regret in relation to SDM components and the most recent treatment modality used by the patient as measured by the validated DRS.

Results

Of 1387 individuals who initiated the survey, 1074 completed it and were included in the analysis (77.4% completion rate). Overall, 917 respondents were women (85.4%). There were 5 American Indian or Alaska Native respondents (0.5%), 33 were Asian (3.1%), 112 Black or African American (10.4%), 836 White (77.8%), and 36 were multiracial (3.4%) or other (36 [3.4%]). The mean age (SD) was 49.3 (15.4) years. Most respondents preferred making the final treatment decision themselves after considering their physician's opinion (503 [46.8%]). Of those who preferred to make treatment decisions using SDM, most made the last AA treatment decision with their physician (596 [55%]; 95% CI, 53%-58%; P < .001). The components of SDM implemented by the patients' dermatologists most identified were the physician "explained the advantages and disadvantages of treatment options" (472 [44%]), and the physician "asked me which treatment option I prefer" (494 [45.9%]). Incorporation of SDM by physicians was generally associated with decreased decisional regret (all ORs with 95% CIs greater than 1.1; P < .01). The treatments associated with the lowest decisional regret were Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, followed by biologics, and deciding not to treat; whereas, the highest decisional regret was reported with anthralin and minoxidil.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional survey study suggest that patients with AA prefer to make treatment decisions with their dermatologist using SDM. When SDM is used, patients report less decisional regret, indicating that SDM may help improve the patient-reported quality of treatment decisions. Newer, more efficacious therapies such as JAK inhibitors may be related to lower decisional regret. Future studies should seek to devise solutions to implement SDM as the AA treatment landscape continues to evolve.

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.

Clients and professionals elicit long-term care preferences by using 'What matters to me': A process evaluation in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

'What matters to me' is a five-category preference elicitation tool to assist clients and professionals in choosing long-term care. This study aimed to evaluate the use of and experiences with this tool.

METHODS

A mixed-method process evaluation was applied. Participants were 71 clients or relatives, and 12 professionals. They were all involved in decision-making on long-term care. Data collection comprised online user activity logs (N = 71), questionnaires (N = 38) and interviews (N = 20). Descriptive statistics was used for quantitative data, and a thematic analysis for qualitative data.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine per cent of participants completed one or more categories in an average time of 6.9 (±0.03) minutes. The tool was rated 6.63 (±0.88) of 7 in the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ). Ninety-five per cent experienced the tool as useful in practice. Suggestions for improvement included a separate version for relatives and a non-digital version. Although professionals thought the potentially extended consultation time could be problematic, all participants would recommend the tool to others.

CONCLUSION

'What matters to me' seems useful to assist clients and professionals with preference elicitation in long-term care. Evaluation of the impact on consultations between clients and professionals by using 'What matters to me' is needed.

How are patient-related characteristics associated with shared decision-making about treatment? A scoping review of quantitative studies

OBJECTIVES

To identify what patient-related characteristics have been reported to be associated with the occurrence of shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed articles in English or Dutch reporting on associations between patient-related characteristics and the occurrence of SDM for actual treatment decisions.

INFORMATION SOURCES

COCHRANE Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published until 25 March 2019.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5289 hits of which 53 were retained. Multiple categories of patient characteristics were identified: (1) sociodemographic characteristics (eg, gender), (2) general health and clinical characteristics (eg, symptom severity), (3) psychological characteristics and coping with illness (eg, self-efficacy) and (4) SDM style or preference. Many characteristics showed no association or unclear relationships with SDM occurrence. For example, for female gender positive, negative and, most frequently, non-significant associations were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

A large variety of patient-related characteristics have been studied, but for many the association with SDM occurrence remains unclear. The results will caution often-made assumptions about associations and provide an important step to target effective interventions to foster SDM with all patients.

Expert Panel Guidance and Narrative Review of Treatment Simplification of Complex Insulin Regimens to Improve Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes

Given the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes (T2D), most individuals with the disease will ultimately undergo treatment intensification. This usually involves the stepwise addition of a new glucose-lowering agent or switching to a more complex insulin regimen. However, complex treatment regimens can result in an increased risk of hypoglycaemia and high treatment burden, which may impact negatively on both therapeutic adherence and overall quality of life. Individuals with good glycaemic control may also be overtreated with unnecessarily complex regimens. Treatment simplification aims to reduce individual treatment burden, without compromising therapeutic effectiveness or safety. Despite data showing that simplifying therapy can achieve good glycaemic control without negatively impacting on treatment efficacy or safety, it is not always implemented in clinical practice. Current clinical guidelines focus on treatment intensification, rather than simplification. Where simplification is recommended, clear guidance is lacking and mostly focused on treatment of the elderly. An expert, multidisciplinary panel evaluated the current treatment landscape with respect to guidance, published evidence, recommendations and approaches regarding simplification of complex insulin regimens. This article outlines the benefits of treatment simplification and provides practical recommendations on simplifying complex insulin treatment strategies in people with T2D using illustrative cases.

Developing country-specific questions about end-of-life care for nursing home residents with advanced dementia using the nominal group technique with family caregivers

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop question prompt lists (QPLs) for family caregivers of nursing home residents with advanced dementia in the context of a study involving Canada, the Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and to explore cross-national differences. QPLs can encourage family caregivers to ask questions about their relative's end-of-life care.

METHODS

We used nominal group methods to create country-specific QPLs. Family caregivers read an information booklet about end-of-life care for people with dementia, and generated questions to ask healthcare professionals. They also selected questions from a shortlist. We analyzed and compared the QPLs using content analysis.

RESULTS

Four to 20 family caregivers per country were involved. QPLs ranged from 15 to 24 questions. A quarter (24%) of the questions appeared in more than one country's QPL. One question was included in all QPLs: "Can you tell me more about palliative care in dementia?".

CONCLUSION

Family caregivers have many questions about dementia palliative care, but the local context may influence which questions specifically. Local end-user input is thus important to customize QPLs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Prompts for family caregivers should attend to the unique information preferences among different countries. Further research is needed to evaluate the QPLs' use.

Updated Integrated Framework for Making Clinical Decisions Across the Lifespan and Health Conditions

The updated Integrated Framework for Clinical Decision Making responds to changes in evidence, policy, and practice since the publication of the first version in 2008. The original framework was proposed for persons with neurological health conditions, whereas the revised framework applies to persons with any health condition across the lifespan. In addition, the revised framework (1) updates patient-centered concepts with shared clinical decision-making; (2) frames the episode of care around the patient's goals for participation; (3) explicitly describes the role of movement science; (4) reconciles movement science and International Classification of Function language, illustrating the importance of each perspective to patient care; (5) provides a process for movement analysis of tasks; and (6) integrates the movement system into patient management. Two cases are used to illustrate the application of the framework: (1) a 45-year-old male bus driver with low back pain whose goals for the episode of care are to return to work and recreational basketball; and (2) a 65-year-old female librarian with a fall history whose goals for the episode of care are to return to work and reduce future falls. The framework is proposed as a tool for physical therapist education and to guide clinical practice for all health conditions across the lifespan.

Effects of decision aids for depression treatment in adults: systematic review

AIM AND METHOD

To determine the effect on decisional-related and clinical outcomes of decision aids for depression treatment in adults in randomised clinical trials. In January 2019, a systematic search was conducted in five databases. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Meta-analyses were performed, and standardised and weighted mean differences were calculated, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated with GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

Six randomised clinical trials were included. The pooled estimates showed that decision aids for depression treatment had a beneficial effect on patients' decisional conflict, patient knowledge and information exchange between patient and health professional. However, no statistically significant effect was found for doctor facilitation, treatment adherence or depressive symptoms. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Using decision aids to choose treatment in patients with depression may have a a beneficial effect on decisional-related outcomes, but it may not translate into an improvement in clinical outcomes.

Exploring the Key Factors of Shared Decision-Making Through an Influential Network Relation Map: The Orthopedic Nurse's Perspective

BACKGROUND

Few studies have used quantitative methods to explore the key factors affecting shared decision-making (SDM) in nursing decision-making from the perspective of orthopedic nurses.

PURPOSE

To understand the intercorrelations among shared decision-making questionnaire-nurse (SDM-Q-NUR) factors and identify key factors for clinical nursing care decisions in orthopedics.

METHODS

In May 2021, this study investigated the interdependence of the SDM-Q-NUR scale and developed an influential network-relation map (INRM) from the clinical experience of 13 trained orthopedic nurses using the Decision-making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory method.

RESULTS

The INRM results showed that the nine criteria corresponded to three stages: preparation, discussion, and decision. "I helped my patient or patient's family understand all the information" (C 5) and "I wanted to know from my patient or patient's family how they want to be involved in making the nursing care decision" (C 2) are the main key factors for the beginning of nursing decision. In the discussion and decision stages, the corresponding key factors are "I made it clear to my patient or patient's family that a nursing care decision needs to be made" (C 1) and "I asked my patient or patient's family which nursing care option they prefer" (C 6). The result's statistical significance confidence and gap error were 98.106% and 1.894%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When making nursing decisions with patients, orthopedic nurses need to have detailed information about how patients are involved in SDM and all relevant information. Nurses should also inform patients and their families regarding the purpose of the discussion, namely, to help one understand the content, advantages, and disadvantages of the nursing care options, and finally, make a decision.

Are patients really getting what they want? The routine implementation of decision aids for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis in the high value healthcare collaborative and alignment between patient treatment choice and receipt

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Alignment between patients' treatment choices and treatments received is acknowledged as an important outcome of shared decision-making (SDM), yet recent research suggests that patients' choices do not always align with their actual treatment trajectories. This paper explores the alignment of patient-expressed treatment choices (for surgery or medical management) after exposure to decision aids and treatments received among patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis within High Value Healthcare Collaborative (HVHC) systems as the collaborative integrated decision aids intended to support SDM into routine clinical practice.

METHOD

This retrospective cohort study examines data from adult (≥18 years) patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis who received decision aids as part of orthopaedic consultations within HVHC systems between 2012 and 2015. Multivariable logistic regression explored the association between patient-level characteristics with the odds of treatment choice-receipt alignment.

RESULTS

The majority of patients with knee osteoarthritis (68.3%) and hip osteoarthritis (71.9%) received treatments aligned with their choices following exposure to decision aids, but analyses reveal important differences in the odds of such alignment across patient characteristics. In adjusted models, African American patients with knee osteoarthritis had 50% lower odds of receiving treatment aligned with their choices compared with Caucasian patients (OR = 0.52, P < .05). Medicare- or Medicaid-insured knee patients had 49% and 59% lower odds (respectively) of receiving choice-aligned treatments relative to privately insured patients. Patients with knee (OR = 0.40, P < .01) or hip (OR = 0.75, P < .05) osteoarthritis at earlier decision-making stages had lower odds of receiving treatments congruent with their choices.

CONCLUSION

This work elucidates the odds of treatment choice-aligned care for patients within health care systems attempting to routinely integrate decision aids to support SDM into clinical practice and underscores the gaps in achieving this alignment among African American patients, those with public insurance and those at early decision-making stages.

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Digital Patient-Reported Outcome Tool in Routine Outpatient Diabetes Care: Mixed Methods Formative Pilot Study

Background

Improvements in the digital capabilities of health systems provide new opportunities for the integration of patient-reported outcome (PRO) solutions in routine care, which can facilitate the delivery of person-centered diabetes care. We undertook this study as part of our development of a new digital PRO diabetes questionnaire and clinical dialog support tool for use by people with diabetes and their health care professionals (HCPs) to improve person-centered diabetes care quality and outcomes.

Objective

This study evaluates the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived benefits and impacts of using a digital PRO diabetes tool, DiaProfil, in routine outpatient diabetes care.

Methods

Overall, 12 people with diabetes scheduled for routine medical diabetes visits at the outpatient clinic were recruited. Purposive sampling was used to optimize heterogeneity regarding age, gender, duration, type of diabetes, treatment modality, and disease severity. Participants filled out a PRO diabetes questionnaire 2 to 5 days before their visit. During the visit, HCPs used a digital PRO tool to review PRO data with the person with diabetes for collaborative care planning. Participants completed evaluation forms before and after the visit and were interviewed for 30 to 45 minutes after the visit. HCPs completed the evaluation questionnaires after each visit. All visits were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. Data were analyzed using quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods analyses.

Results

People with diabetes found the PRO diabetes questionnaire to be relevant, acceptable, and feasible to complete from home. People with diabetes and HCPs found the digital PRO tool to be feasible and acceptable for use during the diabetes visit and would like to continue using it. HCPs were able to use the tool in a person-centered manner, as intended. For several people with diabetes, completion of the questionnaire facilitated positive reflection and better preparation for the visit. The use of the PRO tool primarily improved the quality of the dialog by improving the identification and focus on the issues most important to the person with diabetes. People with diabetes did not report any negative aspects of the PRO tool, whereas HCPs highlighted that it was demanding when the person with diabetes had many PRO issues that required attention within the predefined time allocated for a visit.

Conclusions

The Danish PRO diabetes questionnaire and the digital tool, DiaProfil, are feasible and acceptable solutions for routine diabetes visits, and this tool may generate important benefits related to advancement of person-centered care. Further research is now required to corroborate and expand these formative insights on a larger scale and in diverse health care settings. The results of this study are therefore being used to define research hypotheses and finalize real-world PRO evaluation tools for a forthcoming large-scale multisector implementation study in Denmark.

A Systematic Review of Shared Decision-Making Interventions for Service Users With Serious Mental Illnesses: State of the Science and Future Directions

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model that may be particularly appealing to service users with serious mental illnesses, who often want to be involved in making decisions about their mental health care. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe and evaluate participant, intervention, methodological, and outcome characteristics of SDM intervention studies conducted within this population.

METHODS

Systematic searches of the literature through April 2020 were conducted and supplemented by hand searching of reference lists of identified studies. A total of 53 independent studies of SDM interventions that were conducted with service users with serious mental illnesses and that included a quantitative or qualitative measure of the intervention were included in the review. Data were independently extracted by at least two authors.

RESULTS

Most studies were conducted with middle-age, male, White individuals from Western countries. Interventions fell into the following categories: decision support tools only, multicomponent interventions involving decision support tools, multicomponent interventions not involving decision support tools, and shared care planning and preference elicitation interventions. Most studies were randomized controlled trials with sufficient sample sizes. Outcomes assessed were diverse, spanning decision-making constructs, clinical and functional, treatment engagement or adherence, and other constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest important future directions for research, including the need to evaluate the impact of SDM in special populations (e.g., young adults and racial-ethnic minority groups); to expand interventions to a broader array of decisions, users, and contexts; and to establish consensus measures to assess intervention effectiveness.

Teaching Shared Decision Making to Undergraduate Medical Students

Despite the wide endorsement of shared decision making (SDM), its integration into clinical practice has been slow. In this paper, we suggest that this integration may be promoted by teaching SDM not only to residents and practicing physicians, but also to undergraduate medical students. The proposed teaching approach assumes that SDM requires effective doctor-patient communication; that such communication requires empathy; and that the doctor's empathy requires an ability to identify the patient's concerns. Therefore, we suggest shifting the focus of teaching SDM from how to convey health-related information to patients, to how to gain an insight into their concerns. In addition, we suggest subdividing SDM training into smaller, sequentially taught units, in order to help learners to elucidate the patient's preferred role in decisions about her/his care, match the patient's preferred involvement in these decisions, present choices, discuss uncertainty, and encourage patients to obtain a second opinion.

Perceived Benefits, Barriers, and Facilitators of a Digital Patient-Reported Outcomes Tool for Routine Diabetes Care: Protocol for a National, Multicenter, Mixed Methods Implementation Study

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence that digital patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires and PRO-based decision support tools may help improve the active engagement of people with diabetes in self-care, thereby improving the quality of care. However, many barriers still exist for the real-world effectiveness and implementation of such PRO tools in routine care. Furthermore, limited research has evaluated the acceptability, feasibility, and benefits of such tools across different health care settings.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived benefits of the Danish digital PRO diabetes tool in different health care settings in Denmark and to determine the factors affecting its implementation. Furthermore, the study evaluates the psychometric characteristics of the Danish PRO Diabetes Questionnaire and the validity of the scoring algorithms for dialogue support. The objective of this study is to guide the ongoing optimization of the PRO diabetes tool, its implementation, and the design of future randomized controlled effectiveness studies.

METHODS

We designed a multicenter, mixed methods, single-arm acceptability-feasibility implementation study protocol to contribute to the real-world pilot test of a new digital PRO diabetes tool in routine diabetes care. The use of the tool involves two main steps. First, the people with diabetes will complete a digital PRO Diabetes Questionnaire in the days before a routine diabetes visit. Second, the health care professional (HCP) will use a digital PRO tool to review the PRO results together with the people with diabetes during the visit. The PRO diabetes tool is designed to encourage and support people to take an active role for the people with diabetes in their own care and to expedite the delivery of person-centered, collaborative, and coordinated care.

RESULTS

A multicenter pilot study protocol and psychometrically designed digital data collection tools for evaluation were developed and deployed as part of a national evaluation of a new digital PRO diabetes intervention. A total of 598 people with diabetes and 34 HCPs completed the study protocol by April 1, 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

A large-scale, mixed methods, multicenter study for evaluating the use of the nationally developed PRO Diabetes Questionnaire in routine care across all health care sectors in Denmark by using the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) model as a framework has been designed and is ongoing. This study is expected to provide new important and detailed information about the real-world acceptability, perceived relevance, and benefits of the PRO diabetes tool among a large heterogeneous population of people with diabetes in Denmark and HCPs in different care settings. The results will be used to further improve the PRO tool, design implementation facilitation support strategies, and design future controlled effectiveness studies.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/28391.

Shared decision-making in the ICU from the perspective of physicians, nurses and patients: a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVE

To identify views, experiences and needs for shared decision-making (SDM) in the intensive care unit (ICU) according to ICU physicians, ICU nurses and former ICU patients and their close family members.

DESIGN

Qualitative study.

SETTING

Two Dutch tertiary centres.

PARTICIPANTS

19 interviews were held with 29 participants: seven with ICU physicians from two tertiary centres, five with ICU nurses from one tertiary centre and nine with former ICU patients, of whom seven brought one or two of their close family members who had been involved in the ICU stay.

RESULTS

Three themes, encompassing a total of 16 categories, were identified pertaining to struggles of ICU physicians, needs of former ICU patients and their family members and the preferred role of ICU nurses. The main struggles ICU physicians encountered with SDM include uncertainty about long-term health outcomes, time constraints, feeling pressure because of having final responsibility and a fear of losing control. Former patients and family members mainly expressed aspects they missed, such as not feeling included in ICU treatment decisions and a lack of information about long-term outcomes and recovery. ICU nurses reported mainly opportunities to strengthen their role in incorporating non-medical information in the ICU decision-making process and as liaison between physicians and patients and family.

CONCLUSIONS

Interviewed stakeholders reported struggles, needs and an elucidation of their current and preferred role in the SDM process in the ICU. This study signals an essential need for more long-term outcome information, a more informal inclusion of patients and their family members in decision-making processes and a more substantial role for ICU nurses to integrate patients' values and needs in the decision-making process.

Shared Decision-Making Applied to Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a strongly endorsed approach by which patients and clinicians work together to formulate a sensible care plan. The present study was undertaken to conduct a systematic review of SDM trials in patients considering knee arthroplasty (KA) to characterize how SDM was supported and the impact on care received.

METHODS

We searched multiple bibliographic databases from inception to December 31, 2019. A pair of reviewers working independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated each trial's risk of bias.

RESULTS

We found 6 eligible randomized trials (4 included KA and hip arthroplasty), all of which tested the same proprietary decision aid (DA) (Treatment Choices for Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis), with some adding other materials to support SDM. These trials, all of which had moderate-to-high risk of bias, focused on assessing the effect of the DA on patient knowledge about the options while not explicitly supporting other aspects of SDM, such as choice awareness, deliberation, or decision-making. One trial found an increase in the number of African American patients undergoing KA in the 12 months following the intervention. No other trials found that SDM impacts clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for SDM in patients considering KA is mostly limited to a single DA. While use of this DA improves patient knowledge about their treatment options, this tool has not been shown to promote SDM, impact treatment decisions, or satisfaction with care. Future work should seek to support SDM directly and assess effects on treatment decisions, functional outcomes, and satisfaction.

Aspirin, Statins, and Primary Prevention: Opportunities for Shared Decision Making in the Face of Uncertainty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The utility of aspirin and statins for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains ambiguous in older adults. Current guidelines and recent data are vague and inconclusive. This review seeks to summarize the landscape of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults and explore the role of shared decision making.

RECENT FINDINGS

Observational data suggest potential benefit of statin therapy in older adults. Aspirin is presently not recommended for primary prevention based on evidence from recent clinical trials. The implementation of shared decision making and decision aids in routine clinical practice remains challenging but may rise in coming years. Clinical trial data on the horizon may aid in solidifying guideline therapy for statin use. However, in the face of uncertainty, shared decision making between provider and patient should be utilized to determine whether pharmacotherapy may benefit older adults. Decision aids are an effective tool to guide this process.

Optimizing language for effective communication of gene therapy concepts with hemophilia patients: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

For communities of people living with hemophilia and other genetic conditions, gene therapy could represent a paradigm shift in treatment strategies. As investigational therapeutic modalities such as gene therapy become more widely used and discussed, there is a critical need for all stakeholders to communicate using a lexicon that is intelligible, accurate, consistent, and representative of novel treatments. In doing so, expectations can be more carefully managed and potential risks, benefits, and limitations better understood. In recognition of this need, a first-ever study of gene therapy lexicon was conducted using established methods of market research and linguistic analysis.

METHODS

Ninety-four participants representing hematologists, nurses, caregivers, and people with hemophilia A, in six countries (US, UK, Spain, Germany, France, Italy) took part in a series of in-depth interviews, face-to-face focus groups, an advisory board meeting, and online group interviews to develop, refine, and test verbal, written, and pictorial language concepts through a three-phase iterative process. Sessions were conducted in local languages using detailed discussion guides. Feedback from participants was captured using real-time instant-response dial testing to measure moment-by-moment emotional responses to language stimuli. Semiquantitative analysis of the responses informed selection of preferred language concepts for final testing, and qualitative discussion explored preference rationale. Participants also completed polling and forced rank and choice written exercises.

RESULTS

Study feedback showed that the hemophilia community has preferences around consistent lexicon to describe hemophilia and its management. Expert linguistic analysis of feedback from the three phases enabled agreement of a consensus lexicon of vocabulary and an optimized summary narrative for talking about gene therapy amongst people affected by hemophilia A. Preferences were largely consistent across audiences and countries, although some country-specific recommendations were made. A representative summary phrase was agreed: "Gene therapy is being studied in clinical trials with the aim to allow the body to produce factor VIII protein on its own".

CONCLUSIONS

The use of preferred language across different stakeholders increases understanding and comfort during discussions of novel and complex therapeutic modalities such as gene therapy. Consistent use of community-informed lexicon minimizes miscommunication and facilitates informed decision-making regarding potential future treatment opportunities.

Development of a shared decision-making tool in vitiligo: an international study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making tools (SDMt) are visual tools developed to promote joint medical decisions between physicians and patients. There is a paucity of such tools in dermatology.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a SDMt for use in specialized consultation for vitiligo.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out from March 2019 to March 2020. We first conducted a qualitative study of topics discussed by patients and clinicians during therapeutic decision-making in the setting of a specialized consultation for vitiligo using an anchored-theory method, which allowed conceptualization of the SDMt. The usefulness of the SDMt was evaluated by a working group of multidisciplinary health workers and patients with vitiligo. Consensus on the final tool was obtained through an e-Delphi method.

RESULTS

We recruited 30 patients with vitiligo for the qualitative study, which identified 91 topics related to therapeutic decision-making. Hierarchical clustering analysis confirmed the distribution of these topics in two subgroups (general treatment goals and priorities, and topics specific to each treatment). The consensus of a multidisciplinary group was used to develop the SDMt. The tool was comprised of eight A5 cards, which addressed face repigmentation; body repigmentation (limited area); body repigmentation (extended area); partial or complete depigmentation; coping with the disease; stabilization of disease; maintaining repigmentation; and disease information. Cognitive interviews confirmed the satisfaction, readability and usefulness of the SDMt. The SDMt was then translated and culturally validated in English.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a tool for shared decision-making in nonsegmental vitiligo, which we translated and cross-culturally validated in a US patient population with vitiligo to ensure its generalizability.

Patient and Cardiologist Perspectives on Shared Decision Making in the Treatment of Older Adults Hospitalized for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background. Medical and interventional therapies for older adults with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) reduce mortality and improve outcomes in selected patients, but there are also risks associated with treatments. Shared decision making (SDM) may be useful in the management of such patients, but to date, patients' and cardiologists' perspectives on SDM in the setting of AMI remain poorly understood. Accordingly, we performed a qualitative study eliciting patients' and cardiologists' perceptions of SDM in this scenario. Methods. We conducted 20 in-depth, semistructured interviews with older patients (age ≥70) post-AMI and 20 interviews with cardiologists. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using ATLAS.ti. Two investigators independently coded transcripts using the constant comparative method, and an integrative, team-based process was used to identify themes. Results. Six major themes emerged: 1) patients felt their only choice was to undergo an invasive procedure; 2) patients placed a high level of trust and gratitude toward physicians; 3) patients wanted to be more informed about the procedures they underwent; 4) for cardiologists, patients' age was not a major contraindication to intervention, while cognitive impairment and functional limitation were; 5) while cardiologists intuitively understood the concept of SDM, interpretations varied; and 6) cardiologists considered SDM to be useful in the setting of non-ST elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) but not ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI). Conclusions. Patients viewed intervention as "the only choice," whereas cardiologists saw a need for balancing risks and benefits in treating older adults post-NSTEMI. This discrepancy implies there is room to improve communication of risks and benefits to older patients. A decision aid informed by the needs of older adults could help to better convey patient-specific risk and increase choice awareness.

The potential use for patient reported outcome measures in people with pancreatic cancer, with a specific focus on older patients

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal malignancies and is characterised by high-unmet physical and psychological supportive care needs. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) represent a patient centred approach to address the high unmet supportive care need and improve the quality of care. PROMs have the potential to inform patients about the quality of life and symptom trajectory for different treatment approaches so that they can fully participate in shared decisions about treatment. Embedding the collection of PROMs into routine practice alongside clinical alerts and directed symptom interventions is acceptable and feasible for people with pancreatic cancer and has the potential to reduce symptom burden. There is also limited information on survival, quality of life and the holistic impact of treatment for older pancreatic cancer patients, therefore, PROMs provide an opportunity to understand the impact of treatment on older patients and better inform shared treatment decision-making.

Shared decision-making between health care providers and patients at a tertiary hospital diabetic Clinic in Tanzania

Background

Patients’ participation in decision making regarding their treatment is defined in ethical, legal and human rights standards in the provision of care that concerns health providers and the entire community. This study was conducted to document experiences of patients and health care providers on shared decision making.

Methods

This study employed a phenomenological study design using in-depth interview technique. Study participants were diabetic patients visiting the clinic and healthcare providers working at Muhimbili National Hospital. Data was collected using the semi-structured interview guide with open-ended questions using an audio digital recorder. Content analysis method was used during analysis whereby categories were reached through the process of coding assisted by Nvivo 12 software.

Results

Participants in this study expressed the role of shared decision-making in the care of patients with diabetes, with report of engagement of patients by health care providers in making treatment decisions. Participants reported no use of decision-making aids; however, health education tools were reported by participants to be used for educating patients. Limited time, patient beliefs and literacy were documented as barriers of effective engagement of patients in decision making by their healthcare providers.

Conclusion

Engagement of patients in decision-making was noted in this study as experienced by participants of this study. Time, patient beliefs and patient literacy were documented as barriers for patients engagement, therefore diabetic clinic at Muhimbili National Hospital need to devise mechanisms for ensuring patients involvement in treatment decisions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-020-06041-4.

Patient decisional needs when considering treatment intensification for type 2 diabetes: A qualitative study in China

AIMS

This study explored decisional needs of patients with type 2 diabetes in China when considering treatment intensification to achieve good glycemic control, from both the patient's and practitioners' perspectives.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with 35 patients, and individual interviews and focus groups with 28 practitioners in Beijing, China. Topic guides based on the Ottawa Decisional Support Framework were modified for the Chinese context. Two interviewers independently extracted and coded transcripts of their notes into-overarching themes. Content analysis was performed to analyze participants' responses.

RESULTS

Patients (34/35) reported having tried different medications and some (15/35) visited multiple hospitals and consulted different doctors. Patients' knowledge of medications was suboptimal (26/35), and most patients were not aware of their glucose levels (23/35). Although most were receptive to add-on medications, both patients and practitioners reported a range of uncertainty about the decision, and patients wanted more reliable information. Patients (15/35) and practitioners (19/28) recognized the importance of a trusting relationship when adding medications. Both reported similar values and preferences, but these were rarely discussed when adding medications. Although most patients (32/35) reported that they were capable of making a decision on adding medications, few practitioners (6/28) perceived their patients were capable.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest a need for reliable information, more discussion about values and preferences and decision support to help engage patients and practitioners in a shared decision-making process. Decision support tools may facilitate the process for patients with type 2 diabetes in China considering add-on medications.