Shared Decision Making in Oncology and Its Implementation in Cervical Cancer Management in the Philippines: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) is an approach where clinicians and patients make decisions together using the best available evidence. Although much studied, recognized to be ethically imperative, and recommended in international health policies, it remains poorly implemented. In the Philippines, there are limited studies on patient decision making preferences and SDM. Practical guidance on the implementation of SDM or use of patient decision aids (PtDAs) is often not detailed in existing national clinical practice guidelines in oncology.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of Philippine literature on SDM in oncology and an iterative review of international literature on the philosophy and methods of SDM, the utility and effectiveness of PtDAs, and the facilitators and barriers to implementation or usage. We contextualized our review to the cervical cancer management and health service delivery in the Philippines.

RESULTS

Local literature is limited to five scientific publications and two registered studies. International literature encompasses patient decisional preferences, the role of PtDAs and the standards for their development and evaluation, their effectiveness, and barriers and facilitators to their use in cancer-related decision making. We discussed the implications on the management of cervical cancer in the Philippines, challenges in health service delivery and standards, and SDM research.

CONCLUSION

Local SDM research is limited. Our preliminary experience in a multicenter clinical trial in Manila on PtDA use in the framework of SDM in cervical cancer suggest good patient and clinician acceptability. Challenges to implementation such as unfavorable financial situations, urgency of clinical decisions, low patient or caregiver educational attainment, and poor integration of multidisciplinary and SDM in organizational workflows will be important when implementing SDM in different settings.

Clinician use of the Statin Choice Shared Decision-making Encounter Tool in a Major Health System

BACKGROUND

Effective shared decision-making (SDM) tools for use during clinical encounters are available, but, outside of study settings, little is known about clinician use of these tools in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To describe real-world use of an SDM encounter tool for statin prescribing, Statin Choice, embedded into the workflow of an electronic health record.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Clinicians and their statin-eligible patients who had outpatient encounters between January 2020 and June 2021 in Cleveland Clinic Health System.

MAIN MEASURES

Clinician use of Statin Choice was recorded within the Epic record system. We categorized each patient's 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk into low (< 5%), borderline (5-7.5%), intermediate (7.5-20%), and high (≥ 20%). Other patient factors included age, sex, insurance, and race. We used mixed effects logistic regression to assess the odds of using Statin Choice for statin-eligible patients, accounting for clustering by clinician and site. We generated a residual intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to characterize the impact of the clinician on Statin Choice use.

KEY RESULTS

Statin Choice was used in 7% of 68,505 eligible patients. Of 1047 clinicians, 48% used Statin Choice with ≥ 1 patient, and these clinicians used it with a median 9% of their patients (interquartile range: 3-22%). In the mixed effects logistic regression model, patient age (adjusted OR per year: 1.04; 95%CI 1.03-1.04) and 10-year ASVCD risk (aOR for 5-7.5% versus < 5% risk: 1.28; 95%CI: 1.14-1.44) were associated with use of Statin Choice. Black versus White race was associated with a lower odds of Statin Choice use (aOR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.73-0.95), as was female versus male sex (aOR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.76-0.90). The model ICC demonstrated that 53% of the variation in use of Statin Choice was clinician-driven.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient factors, including race and sex, were associated with clinician use of Statin Choice; half the variation in use was attributable to individual clinicians.

Optimizing health literacy to facilitate reproductive health decision-making in adolescent and young adults with cancer

Despite being considered "standard of care" by many organizations, fertility and reproductive health communications and counseling practices remain inconsistent for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) newly diagnosed with cancer and during survivorship. One factor known to affect how information is provided and received in the medical setting is health literacy. Providers should consider health literacy to optimize reproductive health communication with AYAs as they cope with their diagnosis, understand what it means for their future, process information about treatment options, learn about their potential harmful effects on fertility, make quick decisions about fertility preservation, and navigate a future family planning course. Thus, the objectives of this manuscript are to (a) summarize literature on reproductive health literacy; (b) describe health literacy frameworks; (c) examine ways to assess health literacy; and (d) identify ways to enhance clinician-patient communication in the AYA oncofertility setting.

Identifying Factors to Facilitate the Implementation of Decision-Making Tools to Promote Self-Management of Chronic Diseases into Routine Healthcare Practice: A Qualitative Study

This study, as part of the COMPAR-EU project, utilized a mixed-methods approach involving 37 individual, semi-structured interviews and one focus group with 7 participants to investigate the factors influencing the implementation and use of self-management interventions (SMIs) decision tools in clinical practice. The interviews and focus group discussions were guided by a tailored interview and focus group guideline developed based on the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework. The data were analyzed using a directed qualitative content analysis, with a deductive coding system based on the TICD framework and an inductive coding process. A rapid analysis technique was employed to summarize and synthesize the findings. The study identified five main dimensions and facilitators for implementation: decision tool factors, individual health professional factors, interaction factors, organizational factors, and social, political, and legal factors. The findings highlight the importance of structured implementation through SMI decision support tools, emphasizing the need to understand their benefits, secure organizational resources, and gain political support for sustainable implementation. Overall, this study employed a systematic approach, combining qualitative methods and comprehensive analysis, to gain insights into the factors influencing the implementation of SMIs' decision-support tools in clinical practice.

Integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

OBJECTIVES

To identify and thematically analyse how healthcare professionals (HCPs) integrate patient values and preferences ('values integration') in primary care for adults with non-communicable diseases (NCDs).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-aggregation methods were used for extraction, synthesis and analysis of qualitative evidence.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant records were sourced using keywords to search 12 databases (ASSIA, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, ERIC, Google Scholar, GreyLit, Ovid-MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Records needed to be published between 2000 and 2020 and report qualitative methods and findings in English involving HCP participants regarding primary care for adult patients.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Relevant data including participant quotations, authors' observations, interpretations and conclusions were extracted, synthesised and analysed in a phased approach using a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Data Extraction Tool, as well as EPPI Reviewer and NVivo software. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research was used to assess methodological quality of included records.

RESULTS

Thirty-one records involving >1032 HCP participants and 1823 HCP-patient encounters were reviewed. Findings included 143 approaches to values integration in clinical care, thematically analysed and synthesised into four themes: (1) approaches of concern; (2) approaches of competence; (3) approaches of communication and (4) approaches of congruence. Confidence in the quality of included records was deemed high.

CONCLUSIONS

HCPs incorporate patient values and preferences in healthcare through a variety of approaches including showing concern for the patient as a person, demonstrating competence at managing diseases, communicating with patients as partners and tailoring, adjusting and balancing overall care. Themes in this review provide a novel framework for understanding and addressing values integration in clinical care and provide useful insights for policymakers, educators and practitioners.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020166002.

Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial

Background

Even after a physician recommendation, many people remain unscreened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The proliferation of electronic health records (EHRs) and tethered online portals may afford new opportunities to embed patient-facing interventions within clinic workflows and engage patients following a physician recommendation for care. We evaluated the effectiveness of a patient-facing intervention designed to complement physician office-based recommendations for CRC screening.

Design

Using a 2-arm pragmatic, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated the intervention’s effect on CRC screening use as documented in the EHR (primary outcome) and the extent to which the intervention reached the target population. Trial participants were insured, aged 50 to 75 y, with a physician recommendation for CRC screening. Typical EHR functionalities, including patient registries, health maintenance flags, best practice alerts, and secure messaging, were used to support research-related activities and deliver the intervention to enrolled patients.

Results

A total of 1,825 adults consented to trial participation, of whom 78% completed a baseline survey and were exposed to the intervention. Most trial participants (>80%) indicated an intent to be screened on the baseline survey, and 65% were screened at follow-up, with no significant differences by study arm. One-third of eligible patients were sent a secure message. Among those, more than three-quarters accessed study material.

Conclusions

By leveraging common EHR functionalities, we integrated a patient-facing intervention within clinic workflows. Despite practice integration, the intervention did not improve screening use, likely in part due to portal-based interventions not reaching those for whom the intervention may be most effective.

Implications

Embedding patient-facing interventions within the EHR enabled practice integration but may minimize program effectiveness by missing important segments of the patient population.

Highlights

Factors influencing the degree of participation in surgical decision-making among Chinese patients with prostate cancer: A qualitative research

Objective

There was increasingly demand of participation in surgical decision-making among Chinese patients with prostate cancer. However, due to the complex healthcare system and advanced care settings, it is quite challenging for the patients to gain sufficient support from the institute and the government. This research aimed to investigate the factors that impact the degree of participation in surgical decision-making among Chinese prostate cancer patients.

Methods

A phenomenological approach of qualitative research based on the results of semi-structured interviews was adopted, to explore the influencing factors which hinder the participation in surgical decision-making. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research were utilized. Up to 160 post-operative patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy along with 68 medical and nursing staffs, were purposively recruited in this research. This retrospective study was carried out from September 2018 to August 2019. After recording and transcribing the interviews, the interview materials were evaluated via the Colaizzi's seven step approach and the NVivo Version 10 software to analyze the interview content.

Results

According to the analysis and summary of the interviews, there were three factors affecting the degree of participation in surgical decision-making. Firstly, insufficient information was provided by medical and nursing staffs because of their lack of time, proper communication skills, and career experience, as well as difficulties in the development of patient decision aid and inconsistent resource availability. Secondly, the cognitive level of decision-making among patients was relatively low due to poor psychological endurance, insufficient amount of education, senility, and less knowledge and information demand. Ultimately, decisions were constantly made by family members with/without patients.

Conclusions

The degree of participation of Chinese prostate cancer patients in the surgical decision-making had much space for improvement.

Implementation of prostate cancer treatment decision aid in Michigan: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The American Urological Association White Paper on Implementation of Shared Decision Making (SDM) into Urological Practice suggested SDM represents the state of the art in counseling for patients who are faced with difficult or uncertain medical decisions. The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) implemented a decision aid, Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), in 2018 to help newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients make shared decisions with their clinicians. We conducted a qualitative study to assess statewide implementation of P3P throughout MUSIC.

METHODS

We recruited urologists and staff from 17 MUSIC practices (8 implementation and 9 comparator practices) to understand how practices engaged patients on treatment discussions and to assess facilitators and barriers to implementing P3P. Interview guides were developed based on the Tailored Interventions for Chronic Disease (TICD) Framework. Interviews were transcribed for analysis and coded independently by two investigators in NVivo, PRO 12. Additionally, quantitative program data were integrated into thematic analyses.

RESULTS

We interviewed 15 urologists and 11 staff from 16 practices. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts indicated three key themes including the following: (i) P3P is compatible as a SDM tool as over 80% of implementation urologists asked patients to complete the P3P questionnaire routinely and used P3P reports during treatment discussions; (ii) patient receptivity was demonstrated by 370 (50%) of newly diagnosed patients (n = 737) from 8 practices enrolled in P3P with 78% completion rate, which accounts for 39% of all newly diagnosed patients in these practices; and (iii) urologists' attitudes towards SDM varied. Over a third of urologists stated they did not rely on a decision aid. Comparator practices indicated habit, inertia, or concerns about clinic flow as reasons for not adopting P3P and some were unconvinced a decision aid is needed in their practice.

CONCLUSION

Urologists and staff affiliated with MUSIC implementation sites indicated that P3P focuses the treatment discussion on items that are important to patients. Experiences of implementation practices indicate that once initiated, there were no negative effects on clinic flow and urologists indicated P3P saves time during patient counseling, as patients were better prepared for focused discussions. Lack of awareness, personal habits, and inertia are reasons for not implementing P3P among the comparator practices.

Shared Decision-making in Head and Neck Surgery: A Review

Importance

Shared decision-making is a partnership between physicians and patients whereby patient values and preferences are incorporated with the best medical evidence. Shared decision-making may reduce decisional conflict, improve value-choice congruence, and increase patient involvement. Despite potential benefit in many key areas of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, both clinical and research focuses on shared decision-making are scarce. Head and neck surgical oncology is of particular interest owing to the frequency by which preference-sensitive decisions must be made. Information used in this review was obtained between January 1 and February 1, 2020.

Observations

Various conceptual models have been developed in an attempt to define the concept of shared decision-making. More than 40 instruments have endeavored to measure the construct of shared decision-making. However, in head and neck surgery, few studies to date have explicitly done so. Situations of clinical equipoise, such as in the management of indeterminate thyroid nodules and in the treatment of laryngeal cancer, are frequent. In contrast, value-option incongruence may occur when patient values do not align with the most oncologically sound treatment choice, such as when the resection and reconstruction of oral cancer may leave patients with significant sequelae. Several patient decision aids have been developed to improve shared decision-making in specific clinical scenarios, for example, in considering total laryngectomy or primary chemoradiotherapy.

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite its potential benefit, there is a dearth of research and clinical applications of shared decision-making in head and neck surgery. Shared decision-making represents an area of substantial need in this regard, and additional efforts should be put forth.

Logic model framework for considering the inputs, processes and outcomes of a healthcare organisation-research partnership

BACKGROUND

The published literature provides few insights regarding how to develop or consider the effects of knowledge co-production partnerships in the context of delivery system science.

OBJECTIVE

To describe how a healthcare organisation-university-based research partnership was developed and used to design, develop and implement a practice-integrated decision support tool for patients with a physician recommendation for colorectal cancer screening.

DESIGN

Instrumental case study.

PARTICIPANTS

Data were ascertained from project documentation records and semistructured questionnaires sent to 16 healthcare organisation leaders and staff, research investigators and research staff members.

RESULTS

Using a logic model framework, we organised the key inputs, processes and outcomes of a healthcare organisation-university-based research partnership. In addition to pragmatic researchers, partnership inputs included a healthcare organisation with a supportive practice environment and an executive-level project sponsor, a mid-level manager to serve as the organisational champion and continual access to organisational employees with relevant technical, policy and system/process knowledge. During programme design and implementation, partnership processes included using project team meetings, standing organisational meetings and one-on-one consultancies to provide platforms for shared learning and problem solving. Decision-making responsibility was shared between the healthcare organisation and research team. We discuss the short-term outcomes of the partnership, including how the partnership affected the current research team's knowledge and health system initiatives.

CONCLUSION

Using a logic model framework, we have described how a healthcare organisation-university-based research team partnership was developed. Others interested in developing, implementing and evaluating knowledge co-production partnerships in the context of delivery system science projects can use the experiences to consider ways to develop, implement and evaluate similar co-production partnerships.

A Review of Decision Aids for Patients Considering More Than One Type of Invasive Treatment

With continuous advances in medicine, patients are faced with several medical or surgical treatment options for their health conditions. Decision aids may be useful in helping patients navigate these options and choose based on their goals and values. We reviewed the literature to identify decision aids and better understand the effect on patient decision-making. We identified 107 decision aids designed to help patients make decisions between medical treatment or screening options; 39 decision aids were used to help patients choose between a medical and surgical treatment, and five were identified that aided patients in deciding between a major open surgical procedure and a less invasive option. Many of the decision aids were used to help patients decide between prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer screening or treatment options. Although most decision aids were not associated with a significant effect on the actual decision made, they were largely associated with increased patient knowledge, decreased decisional conflict, more accurate perception of risks, increased satisfaction with their decision, and no increase in anxiety surrounding their decision. These data identify a gap in use of decision aids in surgical decision-making and highlight the potential to help surgical patients make value-based, knowledgeable decisions regarding their treatment.

Adopting patient-centred tools in cancer care: role of evidence and other factors

Background

Randomized controlled trials (rcts) provide limited evidence to support the use of survivorship care plans (scps), but they provide strong evidence for patient decision aids (ptdas). Despite that evidence, the uptake of ptdas has been limited, but scps are being endorsed and implemented in many cancer programs across Canada. The objective of the present study was to illuminate the decision-making processes involved in the adoption of scps and ptdas.

Methods

Informed by the principles of grounded theory, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians, managers, and administrators who work in cancer care programs across Canada (n = 21). Data were collected and analyzed concurrently, using a constant comparative analysis approach. Data collection ended when theoretical saturation was reached.

Results

For these types of patient-centred tools, participants noted that high-quality research evidence is often unnecessary for adoption decisions. Six key factors contribute to adoption or non-adoption decisions for scps and ptdas:■ Alignment of research evidence with other evidence■ Perceived clinician benefit■ Endorsement by organizations and professional bodies■ Existence of local champions■ Adaptability to local contexts■ Ability to routinize and reach a large patient population.

Conclusions

High-level evidence is not always the main consideration when adopting new tools into practice. And yet, understanding how clinicians and health system decision-makers decide whether and how to adopt new tools is important to optimizing the use of new tools and practices that are supported by research evidence.

Randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of offering postvisit decision support and assistance in obtaining physician-recommended colorectal cancer screening: the e-assist: Colon Health study-a protocol study

INTRODUCTION

How to provide practice-integrated decision support to patients remains a challenge. We are testing the effectiveness of a practice-integrated programme targeting patients with a physician recommendation for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In partnership with healthcare teams, we developed 'e-assist: Colon Health', a patient-targeted, postvisit CRC screening decision support programme. The programme is housed within an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded patient portal. It leverages a physician screening recommendation as the cue to action and uses the portal to enrol and intervene with patients. Programme content complements patient-physician discussions by encouraging screening, addressing common questions and assisting with barrier removal. For evaluation, we are using a randomised trial in which patients are randomised to receive e-assist: Colon Health or one of two controls (usual care plus or usual care). Trial participants are average-risk, aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening and received a physician order for stool testing or colonoscopy. Effectiveness will be evaluated by comparing screening use, as documented in the EHR, between trial enrollees in the e-assist: Colon Health and usual care plus (CRC screening information receipt) groups. Secondary outcomes include patient-perceived benefits of, barriers to and support for CRC screening and patient-reported CRC screening intent. The usual care group will be used to estimate screening use without intervention and programme impact at the population level. Differences in outcomes by study arm will be estimated with hierarchical logit models where patients are nested within physicians.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All trial aspects have been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the health system in which the trial is being conducted. We will disseminate findings in diverse scientific venues and will target clinical and quality improvement audiences via other venues. The intervention could serve as a model for filling the gap between physician recommendations and patient action.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02798224; Pre-results.

Engaging Multidisciplinary Stakeholders to Drive Shared Decision-Making in Oncology

Although recognized as best practice, regular integration of shared decision-making (SDM) approaches between patients and oncologists remains an elusive goal. It is clear that usable, feasible, and practical tools are needed to drive increased SDM in oncology. To address this goal, we convened a multidisciplinary collaborative inclusive of experts across the health-care delivery ecosystem to identify key principles in designing and testing processes to promote SDM in routine oncology practice. In this commentary, we describe 3 best practices for addressing challenges associated with implementing SDM that emerged from a multidisciplinary collaborative: (1) engagement of diverse stakeholders who have interest in SDM, (2) development and validation of an evidence-based SDM tool grounded within an established conceptual framework, and (3) development of the necessary roadmap and consideration of the infrastructure needed for engendering patient engagement in decision-making. We believe these 3 principles are critical to the success of creating SDM tools to be utilized both within and outside of clinical practice. We are optimistic that shared use across settings will support adoption of this tool and overcome barriers to implementing SDM within busy clinical workflows. Ultimately, we hope that this work will offer new perspectives on what is important to patients and provide an important impetus for leveraging patient preferences and values in decision-making.

Interventions are needed to support patient-provider decision-making for DCIS: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Prognostic and treatment uncertainty make ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) complex to manage. The purpose of this study was to describe research that evaluated DCIS communication experiences, needs and interventions among DCIS patients or physicians.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2017. English language studies that evaluated patient or physician DCIS needs, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings.

RESULTS

A total of 51 studies published from 1997 to 2016 were eligible for review, with a peak of 8 articles in year 2010. Women with DCIS lacked knowledge about the condition and its prognosis, although care partners were more informed, desired more information and experienced decisional conflict. Many chose mastectomy or prophylactic mastectomy, often based on physician's recommendation. Following treatment, women had anxiety and depression, often at levels similar to those with invasive breast cancer. Disparities were identified by education level, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and literacy. Physicians said that they had difficulty explaining DCIS and many referred to DCIS as cancer. Despite the challenges reported by patients and physicians, only two studies developed interventions designed to improve patient-physician discussion and decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

As most women with DCIS undergo extensive treatment, and many experience treatment-related complications, the paucity of research on PE to improve and support informed decision-making for DCIS is profound. Research is needed to improve patient and provider discussions and decision-making for DCIS management.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Impact of Web-Based Information on Breast Cancer Patients' Knowledge of Surgical Treatment Options

BACKGROUND

Previous research suggests that providing information to women newly diagnosed with breast cancer, during the gap between cancer diagnosis and their first surgeon consultation, may support decision making. Our objective was to compare patients' knowledge after the pre-consultation delivery of standard websites vs a web-based decision aid (DA).

STUDY DESIGN

We randomized women with stage 0 to III breast cancer, within an academic and community breast clinic, to be emailed a link to selected standard websites (National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, Breastcancer.org,) vs the Health Dialog DA (Clinicaltrials.govNCT03116035). Patients seeking second opinions, diagnosed by excisional biopsy, or without an email address, were ineligible. Pre-consultation knowledge was assessed using the Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Quality Instrument. We compared differences in knowledge using t-test.

RESULTS

Median patient age was 59 years, 99% were white, and 65% had a college degree or higher, with no differences in demographics between study arms. Knowledge was higher in patients who received the DA (median 80% vs 66% correct, p = 0.01). Decision-aid patients were more likely to know that waiting a few weeks to make a treatment decision would not affect survival (72% vs 54%, p < 0.01). Patients in both arms found the information helpful (median score 8 of 10).

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients found receipt of any pre-consultation information helpful, the DA resulted in improved knowledge over standard websites and effectively conveyed that there is time to make a breast cancer surgery decision. Decreasing the urgency patients feel may improve the quality of patient-surgeon interactions and lead to more informed decision-making.

Men's perspectives of prostate cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies

Background

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer in men. Screening for prostate cancer is widely accepted; however concerns regarding the harms outweighing the benefits of screening exist. Although patient’s play a pivotal role in the decision making process, men may not be aware of the controversies regarding prostate cancer screening. Therefore we aimed to describe men’s attitudes, beliefs and experiences of prostate cancer screening.

Methods

Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on men’s perspectives of prostate cancer screening. Electronic databases and reference lists were searched to October 2016.

Findings

Sixty studies involving 3,029 men aged from 18–89 years, who had been screened for prostate cancer by Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) or Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) and not screened, across eight countries were included. Five themes were identified: Social prompting (trusting professional opinion, motivation from family and friends, proximity and prominence of cancer); gaining decisional confidence (overcoming fears, survival imperative, peace of mind, mental preparation, prioritising wellbeing); preserving masculinity (bodily invasion, losing sexuality, threatening manhood, medical avoidance); avoiding the unknown and uncertainties (taboo of cancer-related death, lacking tangible cause, physiological and symptomatic obscurity, ambiguity of the procedure, confusing controversies); and prohibitive costs.

Conclusions

Men are willing to participate in prostate cancer screening to prevent cancer and gain reassurance about their health, particularly when supported or prompted by their social networks or healthcare providers. However, to do so they needed to mentally overcome fears of losing their masculinity and accept the intrusiveness of screening, the ambiguities about the necessity and the potential for substantial costs. Addressing the concerns and priorities of men may facilitate informed decisions about prostate cancer screening and improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Focusing on the "Person" in Personalized Medicine: The Future of Patient-Centered Care in Radiation Oncology

Numerous efforts in radiation oncology aim to improve the value of clinical care. To evaluate the success of these efforts, outcome measures must be well defined and incorporate the beliefs of the patients they affect. These outcomes have historically centered on rates of tumor control, overall survival, and adverse events as perceived and reported by providers. However, the future of patient-centered care in radiation oncology is increasingly focusing on the "person" in the population and the individual in the studies to more closely reflect the ideals of personalized medicine. Formally known as patient-centered outcomes, this metric encompasses parameters of patient satisfaction, engagement, and treatment compliance. Evaluations that investigate the safety and efficacy of treatments are increasingly soliciting participation from patients within a model of shared decision making that improves patients' knowledge, satisfaction, physical and emotional well-being, and trust in providers. Modern clinical trials that embrace this approach may even focus on patient-reported outcomes as the primary end point, as opposed to time-honored physician-reported events. The authors explore the growing role of patient-centered care, the incorporation of shared decision making, and the relevant body of existing and developing literature on this topic in radiation oncology. The authors report recent discoveries from this area of study and describe how they can not only support high-quality, high-value patient care but also enhance recruitment to clinical oncology trials, both of which are challenging to achieve in today's relatively resource-strapped environment.

Engaging patients in complex clinical decision-making: Successes, pitfalls, and future directions

BACKGROUND

By 2022, there will be 18 million predicted cancer survivors, which is an estimated 30% more than the number of survivors in 2012. In prostate cancer alone, the most common cancer in American men other than skin cancer, 1 in 7 men will be diagnosed during their lifetime. Nevertheless, only approximately 1 in 39 will actually die of the disease. Although life expectancy is often good, these men have multiple treatment management options to choose from, including active surveillance, surgery, or radiotherapy, each of which carries its own array of long-term adverse effects. The same applies to renal cancer where patient have to sift through information to decide among active surveillance, partial nephrectomy, racial nephrectomy, robotic vs. open surgery, and ablation.

BASIC PROCEDURES

Ultimately, patient, providers, and stakeholders lack high-quality evidence to effectively guide treatment decisions, and these decisions become even harder to discern when considering end-of-life care, palliative care, and the ethics regarding the new End of Life Option Act. As of November 1, 2016, the number of open urologic cancer clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov was 843.

MAIN FINDINGS

Although we continue to make tremendous strides in urologic cancer care, our options for choosing the best treatment from a patient and provider standpoint are seemingly growing murkier. We need to continue to understand how health-related quality of life varies from patient to patient, and ultimately, incorporate patient preferences and values into the treatment decision in order to make high-quality treatment decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

The remained of this articles will focus on the significant strides made in urologic oncology regarding these difficult decisions from localized disease to end-of-life care and also will detail what needs to be done as we continue to pivot forward.

Validation of SDM-Q-Doc Questionnaire to measure shared decision-making physician's perspective in oncology practice

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the psychometric properties of the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) in a sample of medical oncologists who provide adjuvant treatment to patients with non-metastatic resected cancer and the correlations between the total SDM-Q-Doc score and physician satisfaction with the information provided.

METHODS

Prospective, observational and multicenter study in which 32 medical oncologists and 520 patients were recruited. The psychometric properties, dimensionality, and factor structure of the SDM-Q-Doc were assessed.

RESULTS

Exploratory factor analyses suggested that the most likely solution was two-dimensional, with two correlated factors: one factor regarding information and another one about treatment. Confirmatory factor analysis based on cross-validation showed that the fitted two-dimensional solution provided the best fit to the data. Reliability analyses revealed good accuracy for the derived scores, both total and sub-scale, with estimates ranging from 0.81 to 0.89. The results revealed significant correlations between the total SDM-Q-Doc score and physician satisfaction with the information provided (p < 0.01); between information sub-scale scores (factor 1) and satisfaction (p < 0.01), and between treatment sub-scale scores (factor 2) and satisfaction (p < 0.01). Medical oncologists of older age and those with more years of experience showed more interest in the patient preferences (p = 0.026 and p = 0.020, respectively). Patient age negatively correlated with SDM information (p < 0.01) and physicians appear to provide more information to young patients.

CONCLUSION

SDM-Q-Doc showed good psychometric properties and could be a helpful tool that examines physician's perspective of SDM and as an indicator of quality and satisfaction in patients with cancer.

What factors influence health professionals to use decision aids for Down syndrome prenatal screening?

Background

Health professionals are expected to engage pregnant women in shared decision making to help them make informed values-based decisions about prenatal screening. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) foster shared decision-making, but are rarely used in this context. Our objective was to identify factors that could influence health professionals to use a PtDA for decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome during a clinical pregnancy follow-up.

Methods

We planned to recruit a purposive sample of 45 health professionals (obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians and midwives) involved in the care of pregnant women in three clinical sites (15 per site). Participating health professionals first watched a video showing two simulated consecutive prenatal follow-up consultations during which a pregnant woman, her partner and a health professional used a PtDA about Down syndrome prenatal screening. Participants were then interviewed about factors that would influence their use of the PtDA. Questions were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. We performed content analyses of transcribed verbatim interviews.

Results

Out of 42 eligible health professionals approached, 36 agreed to be interviewed (86 % response rate). Of these, 27 were female (75 %), nine were obstetrician-gynecologists (25 %), 15 were family physicians (42 %), and 12 were midwives (33 %), with a mean age of 42.1 ± 11.6 years old. We identified 35 distinct factors reported by 20 % or more participants that were mapped onto 10 of the 12 of the Theoretical Domains Framework domains. The six most frequently mentioned factors influencing use of the PtDA were: 1) a positive appraisal (n = 29, 81 %, beliefs about consequences domain); 2) its availability in the office (n = 27, 75 %, environmental context and resources domain); 3) colleagues’ approval (n = 27, 75 %, social influences domain); 4) time constraints (n = 26, 72 %, environmental context and resources domain); 5) finding it a relevant source of information (n = 24, 67 %, motivation and goals domain); and 6) not knowing any PtDAs (n = 23, 64 %, knowledge domain).

Conclusions

Appraisal, PtDA availability, peer approval, time concerns, evidence and PtDA awareness all affect whether health professionals are likely to use a PtDA to help pregnant women make informed decision about Down syndrome screening. Implementation strategies will need to address these factors.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1053-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of a printed decision aid on patients' intention to undergo prostate cancer screening: a multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations against systematic screening for prostate cancer, 70% of patients still request prostate-specific antigen testing.

AIM

To assess the impact of a decision aid on patients' intention to undergo prostate cancer screening.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Randomised controlled trial with two-arm parallel groups in 86 general practices in urban and rural areas in France.

METHOD

Males aged 50-75 years were randomised to receive either the decision aid (intervention group) or usual care (control group). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients' intending to undergo prostate cancer screening, assessed immediately after reading the decision aid. The reasons underlying their choice were elicited and the proportion of patients citing each reason to undergo, or not undergo, prostate cancer screening were compared between the two arms.

RESULTS

A total of 1170 patients were randomised (588 in the intervention arm) from November 2012 to February 2013. The proportion of patients who intended to be tested for prostate cancer in the intervention arm (123 patients [20.9%]) was significantly reduced compared with the control arm (57 patients [9.8%]) (difference 11.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.0 to 15.2, P<0.0001). In the intervention group, a lower proportion of individuals expressed that cancer screening would protect them from the disease, compared with the control group (P<0.0001), while a greater proportion of individuals stated that prostate cancer screening would not benefit their health (P<0.0001) and may involve procedures with harmful side effects (P = 0.0005).

CONCLUSION

The decision aid improved participants' informed decision making and reduced their intent to undergo prostate cancer screening.

Assessing the effectiveness of decision aids for decision making in prostate cancer testing: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is a leading disease affecting men worldwide. Conflicting evidence within the literature provides little guidance to men contemplating whether or not to be screened for prostate cancer. This systematic review aimed to determine whether decision aids about early detection of prostate cancer improve patient knowledge and decision making about whether to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment databases up until March 2014 were searched. All included randomised controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality. Clinical selection and assessment heterogeneity among studies prevented the pooling of data for meta-analyses. Descriptive analyses of all included studies and comparison were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 13 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Significant heterogeneity was present for the design and implementation of decision aids including comparative interventions and outcomes. Eight studies were of a low methodological quality, with the remaining five of medium quality. Improvements in patient knowledge following use of a decision aid were demonstrated by 11 of the 13 included studies. Seven of 10 studies demonstrated a reduction in decisional conflict/distress. Three of four studies demonstrated no difference between a decision aid and information only in reducing decisional uncertainty. Three of five studies demonstrated an increase in decisional satisfaction with use of a decision aid.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids increase patient knowledge and confidence in decision making about prostate cancer testing. Further research into effective methods of implementation is needed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Attitude of Physicians toward the Use of Patient Decision Aids in Iran as a Developing Country

Background:

The patient decision aids (PDAs), which can facilitate the decision-making process when choosing the optimal method of treatment, are a challenge to patients. This study tried to determine the attitude of physicians on the barriers of using PDAs in the way of prioritizing and proposing solutions to them.

Methods:

This study was a cross-sectional research carried out on 150 clinical faculty members of research centers and scientific associations affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The participants were chosen using the convenience sampling method. The attitude of physicians toward the application of PDAs was interviewed using a self-made questionnaire composed of 23 questions. The association between physicians’ attitude to the use of PDAs and their characteristics was examined using the t-test, analysis of variance, and correlation test.

Results:

The mean score of physicians’ attitude was 76.2 (standard deviation =11.9) and the range was 33–107. There was a significant and direct association between the attitude toward the use of PDA and the respondents’ age (r = 0.237, P = 0.007), years of experience (r = 0.205, P = 0.02), being male (P = 0.04), and working in the private sector (P = 0.009). The attitude score of instructors was significantly lower than that of professors (P = 0.02).

Conclusions:

The general attitude of physicians toward the use of PDAs was positive. However, apparently as a result of problems mentioned in this study for the developing countries such as Iran, it is much easier to employ these tools in centers run by the private sector. Usage of such tools in public centers necessitates systemic infrastructure as well as credits and budgets required for the training of patients and physicians.

Enablers and barriers to using patient decision aids in early stage breast cancer consultations: a qualitative study of surgeons' views

BACKGROUND

For early stage breast cancer, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that patient decision aids (PtDAs), when used by surgeons, result in increased patient knowledge about options and different patient treatment choices as compared to standard care. Yet, recent data suggests that PtDAs are used by less than 25% of Canadian cancer physicians. We conducted a study to explore breast cancer surgeons' views on enablers and barriers to the use of PtDAs in their practice.

METHODS

Purposeful sampling was used to select breast cancer surgeons in three Ontario health regions to participate in semi-structured interviews. Inductive coding and the constant comparative method were used to identify the main themes.

RESULTS

Twenty-two surgeons (79%) agreed to participate (median age, 50 years; 9 (40%) female). Surgeons practiced in academic (n = 7, 32%) or community (n = 15, 68%) hospitals. Fourteen surgeons were aware of PtDAs, nine had used a PtDA with patients as part of an RCT, and six had developed their own informal PtDA for use in their practice. Enablers of informal PtDA use included surgeon exposure during training and surgeon perceived need for a systematic approach when communicating risks and benefits of surgical treatments with patients. Barriers to formal PtDA use included high surgeon confidence in their verbal communication skills, surgeon belief that patients understood conveyed information, and difficulties embedding such tools in practice routines.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons in this study valued systematic communication with patients. Several surgeons changed their practice to include formal or informal PtDAs provided they perceived there was a clear benefit to themselves or to patients. However, high surgeon confidence in their personal communications skills coupled with beliefs that patients understand conveyed information may be key barriers to PtDA uptake once surgeons have established communication routines.

Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice

Engaging individuals with cancer in decision making about their treatments has received increased attention; shared decision making (SDM) has become a hallmark of patient-centered care. Although physicians indicate substantial interest in SDM, implementing SDM in cancer care is often complex; high levels of uncertainty may exist, and health care providers must help patients understand the potential risks versus benefits of different treatment options. However, patients who are more engaged in their health care decision making are more likely to experience confidence in and satisfaction with treatment decisions and increased trust in their providers. To implement SDM in oncology practice, physicians and other health care providers need to understand the components of SDM and the approaches to supporting and facilitating this process as part of cancer care. This review summarizes recent information regarding patient and physician factors that influence SDM for cancer care, outcomes resulting from successful SDM, and strategies for implementing SDM in oncology practice. We present a conceptual model illustrating the components of SDM in cancer care and provide recommendations for facilitating SDM in oncology practice.

Effect of an employer-sponsored health and wellness program on medical cost and utilization

The objective of this study was to examine the impact of PepsiCo's health and wellness program on medical cost and utilization. The authors analyzed health plan and program data of employees and dependents 19-64 years of age, who had 2 years of baseline data (2002 and 2003) and at least 1 year of data from the intervention period (2004 to 2007), resulting in a sample of 55,030 members. Program effects were measured using a difference-in-difference approach based on a multivariate regression model with an individual-level random effect. In its first year, the program was associated with a relative increase in per member per month (PMPM) cost ($66, P<0.01); a relative reduction in PMPM costs of $76 (P<0.01) and $61 (P<0.01) was seen in the second and third year, respectively. Over all 3 years, the program was associated with reduced PMPM costs of $38 (P<0.01), a decrease of 50 emergency room visits per 1000 member years (P<0.01), and a decrease of 16 hospital admissions per 1000 member years (P<0.01). The disease management component reduced PMPM costs by $154 (P<0.01), case management increased PMPM costs by $2795 (P<0.01), but no significant effects were observed for lifestyle management over the 3 intervention years. The implementation of a comprehensive health and wellness program was associated with a cost increase in the first year, followed by a decrease in the following years. These results highlight the importance of taking a long-term perspective when implementing such programs and evaluating their effectiveness.

Standard practices for computerized clinical decision support in community hospitals: a national survey

Objective

Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) with clinical decision support (CDS) can help hospitals improve care. Little is known about what CDS is presently in use and how it is managed, however, especially in community hospitals. This study sought to address this knowledge gap by identifying standard practices related to CDS in US community hospitals with mature CPOE systems.

Materials and Methods

Representatives of 34 community hospitals, each of which had over 5 years experience with CPOE, were interviewed to identify standard practices related to CDS. Data were analyzed with a mix of descriptive statistics and qualitative approaches to the identification of patterns, themes and trends.

Results

This broad sample of community hospitals had robust levels of CDS despite their small size and the independent nature of many of their physician staff members. The hospitals uniformly used medication alerts and order sets, had sophisticated governance procedures for CDS, and employed staff to customize CDS.

Discussion

The level of customization needed for most CDS before implementation was greater than expected. Customization requires skilled individuals who represent an emerging manpower need at this type of hospital.

Conclusion

These results bode well for robust diffusion of CDS to similar hospitals in the process of adopting CDS and suggest that national policies to promote CDS use may be successful.

Quality-of-life assessment techniques for veterinarians

The revised veterinary oath commits the profession to the prevention and relief of animal suffering. There is a professional obligation to properly assess quality of life (QoL) and confront the issues that ruin it, such as undiagnosed suffering. There are no clinical studies in the arena of QoL assessment at the end of life for pets. This author developed a user-friendly QoL scale to help make proper assessments and decisions along the way to the conclusion of a terminal patient's life. This article discusses decision aids and establishes commonsense techniques to assess a pet's QoL.

Online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

PURPOSE

Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations must choose between prophylactic surgeries and screening to manage their high risks of breast and ovarian cancer, comparing options in terms of cancer incidence, survival, and quality of life. A clinical decision tool could guide these complex choices.

METHODS

We built a Monte Carlo model for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, simulating breast screening with annual mammography plus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from ages 25 to 69 years and prophylactic mastectomy (PM) and/or prophylactic oophorectomy (PO) at various ages. Modeled outcomes were cancer incidence, tumor features that shape treatment recommendations, overall survival, and cause-specific mortality. We adapted the model into an online tool to support shared decision making.

RESULTS

We compared strategies on cancer incidence and survival to age 70 years; for example, PO plus PM at age 25 years optimizes both outcomes (incidence, 4% to 11%; survival, 80% to 83%), whereas PO at age 40 years plus MRI screening offers less effective prevention, yet similar survival (incidence, 36% to 57%; survival, 74% to 80%). To characterize patients' treatment and survivorship experiences, we reported the tumor features and treatments associated with risk-reducing interventions; for example, in most BRCA2 mutation carriers (81%), MRI screening diagnoses stage I, hormone receptor-positive breast cancers, which may not require chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Cancer risk-reducing options for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers vary in their impact on cancer incidence, recommended treatments, quality of life, and survival. To guide decisions informed by multiple health outcomes, we provide an online tool for joint use by patients with their physicians (http://brcatool.stanford.edu).

What does it take to have sustained use of decision aids? A programme evaluation for the Breast Cancer Initiative

BACKGROUND

The Breast Cancer Initiative (BCI) was started in 2002 to disseminate breast cancer decision aids (PtDAs) to providers.

METHODS

We analysed BCI programme data for 195 sites and determined the proportion of sites involved in each of five stages of dissemination and implementation of PtDAs. We conducted cross-sectional mail and telephone surveys of 79 sites with the most interest in implementation. We examined barriers associated with sustained use of the PtDAs.

RESULTS

Since 2002 we attempted contact with 195 sites to join the BCI. The majority indicated interest in using PtDAs 172 of 195 (88%), 93 of 195 signed up for the BCI (48%), 57 of 195 reported distributing PtDAs to at least one patient (57%), and 46 of 195 reported sustained use (24%). We analysed data from interviews with 59 of 79 active sites (75% response rate). The majority of providers 49 of 59 (83%) had watched the PtDAs, and 46 of 59 (78%) distributed them to patients. The most common barriers were lack of a reliable way to identify patients before decisions are made (37%), a lack of time to distribute the PtDAs (22%) and having too many educational materials (15%). Sites that indicated a lack of clinician support as a barrier were significantly less likely to have sustained use compared to sites that didn't (33% vs. 74%, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Community breast cancer providers, both physicians and non-physicians, express a high interest in using PtDAs with their patients. About a quarter of sites report sustained use of the PtDAs in routine care.