Decision Aids In Clinical Practice Research Articles

Predicting Prosthetic Mobility at Discharge From Rehabilitation Following Major Amputation in Vascular Surgery

This study aimed to construct a decision aid to estimate the likelihood of independence with a prosthesis following rehabilitation for limb loss secondary to advanced ischaemia (acute or chronic limb threatening ischaemia) or diabetic foot disease (DFD). A secondary aim was to determine whether prosthetic independence is a surrogate marker of long term survival. A retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database of unilateral amputations due to ischaemia or DFD entering rehabilitation between 2007 and 2020 was performed. Predictors of independent prosthetic mobility (IPM) were used in construction of the IPM prediction model, which underwent bootstrap internal and criterion validation through correlation with predictors of other measures of function: Timed Up and Go (TUG) and two minute walk test. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed to address the secondary aim. Of the 771 patients included, only 49.9% of amputees achieved IPM. Independent negative predictors of IPM were age > 75 years, female sex, higher amputation level, active malignancy, cerebrovascular disease, end stage renal disease, and cognitive impairment. The model yielded high discrimination (C statistic 0.778), and internal validation was demonstrated with bootstrapping (C statistic 0.778), confirming no over optimism. There was a strong correlation between IPM, TUG, and two minute distance and their predictors, confirming strong criterion validity. The IPM group had a median survival of 93.7 (80.7, 105) months, whereas the non-IPM group fared worse with a median survival of 56.6 (48.5, 66.7) months (p < .001). An internally validated decision aid for estimating the likelihood of independence with a prosthesis after major amputation was constructed. A strong association between female sex and poorer prosthetic mobility was observed. Prosthetic function was shown to be a surrogate marker of long term survival. Future research will involve external validation studies to confirm the generalisability of the decision aid in clinical practice.

The development of a decision aid for shared decision making in the Dutch implantable cardioverter defibrillator patient population: A novel approach to patient education.

BackgroundCounseling of Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients with regard to individual risks and benefits is challenging. An evidence-based decision aid tailored to the needs of Dutch ICD patients is not yet available. The objective of this pilot project was to structurally evaluate the current clinical practice in The Netherlands and the ICD patient experience, in order to develop an online decision aid to facilitate shared decision making in ICD procedures.MethodsBetween June 2016 and December 2017, a Dutch web-based decision aid was developed according to the Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) using the RAND-UCLA/multi-stepped Delphi model. Development process consisted of 5 stages in which the Dutch clinical practice was reviewed (stage 1), patients’ needs and their history of decision making was structurally assessed (stages 2A and B) and a modified Delphi consensus process was performed with an expert panel consisting of representatives from different medical fields (stage 3). Results from stages 1–3 were used to design and structure the content of an online-based decision aid (stage 4) which was finally evaluated in a usability testing by patients in stage 5.Results and conclusionThis study describes the evidence-based approach to the development of the Dutch ICD decision aid. In our population, levels of shared decision-making experience were low. The ICD decision aid was structurally developed for the Dutch ICD patient population. Our upcoming multicenter stepped wedge clustered randomized trial will further evaluate the ICD decision aid in clinical practice.

User Experience of a Computer-Based Decision Aid for Prenatal Trisomy Screening: Mixed Methods Explanatory Study.

BackgroundMobile health tools can support shared decision-making. We developed a computer-based decision aid (DA) to help pregnant women and their partners make informed, value-congruent decisions regarding prenatal screening for trisomy.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the usability and usefulness of computer-based DA among pregnant women, clinicians, and policy makers.MethodsFor this mixed methods sequential explanatory study, we planned to recruit a convenience sample of 45 pregnant women, 45 clinicians from 3 clinical sites, and 15 policy makers. Eligible women were aged >18 years and >16 weeks pregnant or had recently given birth. Eligible clinicians and policy makers were involved in prenatal care. We asked the participants to navigate a computer-based DA. We asked the women about the usefulness of the DA and their self-confidence in decision-making. We asked all participants about usability, quality, acceptability, satisfaction with the content of the DA, and collected sociodemographic data. We explored participants’ reactions to the computer-based DA and solicited suggestions. Our interview guide was based on the Mobile App Rating Scale. We performed descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and thematic deductive and inductive analyses of the qualitative data for each participant category.ResultsA total of 45 pregnant women, 14 clinicians, and 8 policy makers participated. Most pregnant women were aged between 25 and 34 years (34/45, 75%) and White (42/45, 94%). Most clinicians were aged between 35 and 44 years (5/14, 36%) and women (11/14, 79%), and all were White (14/14, 100%); the largest proportion of policy makers was aged between 45 and 54 years (4/8, 50%), women (5/8, 62%), and White (8/8, 100%). The mean usefulness score for preparing for decision-making for women was 80/100 (SD 13), and the mean self-efficacy score was 88/100 (SD 11). The mean usability score was 84/100 (SD 14) for pregnant women, 77/100 (SD 14) for clinicians, and 79/100 (SD 23) for policy makers. The mean global score for quality was 80/100 (SD 9) for pregnant women, 72/100 (SD 12) for clinicians, and 80/100 (SD 9) for policy makers. Regarding acceptability, participants found the amount of information just right (52/66, 79%), balanced (58/66, 88%), useful (38/66, 58%), and sufficient (50/66, 76%). The mean satisfaction score with the content was 84/100 (SD 13) for pregnant women, 73/100 (SD 16) for clinicians, and 73/100 (SD 20) for policy makers. Participants thought the DA could be more engaging (eg, more customizable) and suggested strategies for implementation, such as incorporating it into clinical guidelines.ConclusionsPregnant women, clinicians, and policy makers found the DA usable and useful. The next steps are to incorporate user suggestions for improving engagement and implementing the computer-based DA in clinical practice.

Development and evaluation of the MAINTAIN instrument, selecting patients suitable for secondary or tertiary preventive manual care: the Nordic maintenance care program

BackgroundChiropractic maintenance care (MC) has been found to be effective for patients classified as dysfunctional by the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI). Although displaying good psychometric properties, the instrument was not designed to be used in clinical practice to screen patients for stratified care pathways. The aim was to develop a brief clinical instrument with the intent of identifying dysfunctional patients with acceptable diagnostic accuracy.MethodsData from 249 patients with a complete MPI dataset from a randomized clinical trial that investigated the effect and cost-effectiveness of MC with a 12-month follow-up was used in this cross-sectional analysis. A brief screening instrument was developed to identify dysfunctional patients, with a summary measure. Different cut-offs were considered with regards to diagnostic accuracy using the original instrument’s classification of dysfunctional patients as a reference. Very good diagnostic accuracy was defined as an area under the curve (AUC) metric between 0.8 and 0.9. The instrument was then externally validated in 3 other existing datasets to assess model transportability across populations and medical settings.ResultsUsing an explorative approach, the MAINTAIN instrument with 10 questions (0–6 Likert responses) capturing 5 dimensions (pain severity, interference, life control, affective distress, and support) was developed, generating an algorithm-based score ranging from − 12 to 48. Reporting a MAINTAIN score of 18 or higher, 146 out of the 249 patients were classified as dysfunctional with 95.8% sensitivity and 64.3% specificity. At a score of 22 or higher, 109/249 were classified as dysfunctional with 81.1% sensitivity and 79.2% specificity. AUC was estimated to 0.87 (95% CI 0.83, 0.92) and Youden’s index was highest (0.70) at a score of 20. The diagnostic accuracy was similar and high across populations with minor differences in optimal thresholds for identifying dysfunctional individuals.ConclusionThe MAINTAIN instrument has very good diagnostic accuracy with regards to identifying dysfunctional patients and may be used as a decision aid in clinical practice. By using 2 thresholds, patients can be categorized into “low probability (− 12 to 17)”, “moderate probability (18 to 21)”, and “high probability (22 to 48)” of having a good outcome from maintenance care for low back pain.Trial registrationClinical trials.gov; NCT01539863; registered February 28, 2012; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01539863.

Clinicians' perspectives on the implementation of patient decision aids in the emergency department: A qualitative interview study.

ObjectiveDecision aids (DAs) are tools to facilitate and standardize shared decision making (SDM). Although most emergency clinicians (ECs) perceive SDM appropriate for emergency care, there is limited uptake of DAs in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators identified by ECs regarding the implementation of DAs in the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe conducted a qualitative interview study guided by implementation science frameworks. ECs participated in interviews focused on the implementation of DAs for the disposition of patients with low‐risk chest pain and unexplained syncope in the ED. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We then iteratively developed a codebook with directed qualitative content analysis.ResultsWe approached 25 ECs working in urban New York, of whom 20 agreed to be interviewed (mean age, 41 years; 25% women). The following 6 main barriers were identified: (1) poor DA accessibility, (2) concern for increased medicolegal risk, (3) lack of perceived need for a DA, (4) patient factors including lack of capacity and limited health literacy, (5) skepticism about validity of DAs, and (6) lack of time to use DAs. The 6 main facilitators identified were (1) positive attitudes toward SDM, (2) patient access to follow‐up care, (3) potential for improved patient satisfaction, (4) potential for improved risk communication, (5) strategic integration of DAs into the clinical workflow, and (6) institutional support of DAs.ConclusionsECs identified multiple barriers and facilitators to the implementation of DAs into clinical practice. These findings could guide implementation efforts targeting the uptake of DA use in the ED.

Development of a web-based, patient-centered decision aid for oropharyngeal cancer treatment

ObjectivesMany patients diagnosed with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) have the option of radiation- or surgery-based therapy, and would benefit from a treatment decision aid (DA) to make decisions congruent with their personal values. Our objective was to develop a patient-centered DA for patients with OPSCC that is comprehensible, usable, acceptable, and well-designed. Materials and MethodsDecisional needs from a pilot study of OPSCC survivors and treating physicians were used to inform a web-based prototype DA. A multidisciplinary steering group developed and iteratively revised the DA. Feasibility testing was conducted in two cycles to assess perspectives of stakeholders (medical, radiation and surgical oncologists, patient education experts, and OPSCC survivors). Survey data and open-ended responses were used to evaluate and refine the DA. Results16 physicians, 4 patient education experts, and 6 survivors of OPSCC evaluated a web-based DA prototype in two cycles of testing. Participant feedback was used to revise the DA content and design between cycles. The majority of participants across both cycles indicated that the DA was comprehensible (97%), usable (86%), acceptable (78%), and well-designed (93%). Approximately three quarters of respondents indicated that they would use or share the DA in clinical practice. ConclusionWe developed the first patient-centered treatment decision aid (DA) designed for patients with OPSCC, to our knowledge. The DA was perceived favorably by stakeholders, with more than three quarters of respondents indicating they would use it in clinical practice. This tool may improve clinical practice as an adjunct to shared decision-making for OPSCC.

Evaluation of a prenatal screening decision aid: A mixed methods pilot study

BackgroundWe developed a decision aid (DA) to help pregnant women and their partners make informed decisions about prenatal screening for trisomy. We aimed to determine its usefulness for preparing for decision-making and its acceptability among end-users. MethodsIn this mixed-methods pilot study, we recruited participants in three prenatal care settings in Quebec City. Eligible women were over 18 and more than 16 weeks pregnant or had given birth recently. We asked them about the usefulness of the DA using an interview grid based on the Technology Acceptance Model. We performed descriptive statistics and deductive analysis. ResultsThirty-nine dyads or individuals participated in the study. Mean usefulness score was 86.2 ± 13. Most participants found the amount of information in the DA just right (79.5%), balanced (89.7%), and very useful (61.5%). They were less satisfied with the presentation and the values worksheet and suggested different values clarification methods. ConclusionRigorous pilot tests of DAs with patients are an important stage in their development before the more formal assessments that precede scaling up the DA in clinical practice. Practice implicationsThe next version of the DA will integrate the suggestions of end-users for better decision-making processes about prenatal screening for trisomy.

Shared decision making in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients

Abstract Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) are effective in the prevention of sudden cardiac death and treating life-threatening arrhythmias. As the number of older patients increases, the number of implanted devices does as well. Evidence for current guidelines is mostly derived from trials conducted decades ago, in selected patient groups. Communicating the risks and benefits of an ICD to patients can be challenging. Shared decision making with the use of a decision aid has proven to result in more active patient participation and improved outcomes in several fields. Purpose The aim of our study is to evaluate the effect of an ICD specific decision aid in clinical practice. Methods We developed an evidence based decision aid according to the Delphi method. The decision aid was tested in 6 Dutch centres within a stepped wedge clustered randomized trial. We compared pre-procedural counselling with and without the use of a decision aid. Level of shared decision making was measured with the SDM-Q-9 in patients and SDM-Q-doc in caregivers. Additionally, we measured decisional conflict in patients with the decisional conflict scale questionnaire (DCS). This includes a subscore on how informed patients deemed to be. We included a set of 4 knowledge questions in our questionnaire. Differences between scoresbetween groups were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test or One-way ANOVA. For categorical variables, we used the Chi-square test or Fishers Exact test accordingly. Results In total, we retrieved questionnaires from 234 caregivers and 150 patients. The majority of the patients were male (75%) and the mean age was 70±9 years. Levels of shared decision making were marked high in all groups. With the use of a decision aid, caregivers experienced significantly more shared decision making (median 78 (IQR 62–84) versus 81 (IQR 71–87) in the decision aid group (p=0.002)). Patients reported low levels of decisional conflict in both groups. There were also no differences for the subscales of the DCS (median 17 (IQR 6–25) in the control group vs 14 (IQR 5–23) in the decision aid group (p&amp;gt;0.05)). Patients reported to be very well informed (DCS subscale score of 0 in the control group vs 8 with a decision aid, p&amp;lt;0.05), although they answered the knowledge quiz poorly in both settings, with only 1 patient (0.067%) answering all the four question correctly (p&amp;lt;0.05). Conclusions Patients and caregivers report high levels of shared decision making. This is likely due to a bias associated with the study design, in which all participating centres were required to conduct elaborate pre-implantation counselling with patients as standard care, which is different from current clinical practice. Despite the implications of an ICD procedure, there was no decisional conflict and patients report to be well informed. This is in spite of low scores on the knowledge quiz. This illustrates the phenomenon of the unconsciously uninformed patient. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Federation of Medical Specialists (SKMS), Utrecht, The Netherlands

Patient decision aids in clinical practice for people with diabetes: a scoping review.

People with diabetes need to make regular choices that influence their long-term morbidity and mortality. Patient decision aids are validated tools and when used collaboratively between healthcare professionals, patients and carers, can help guide value-based discussions which encourage choices that are well informed and personally relevant. To explore the use and effect of patient decision aids in the management of diabetes. A scoping review design was used. Medline, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between January 1998 and December 2018. Patient decision aids are not commonly or widely used in diabetes management. They offer a suitable adjunct to practice within the domains of healthcare knowledge, active participation, and communication, and shared decision-making between patients and healthcare professionals. Patient decision aids can offer a simple and easy-to-use method to potentially improve diabetes health literacy, through the process of shared decision-making and two-way conversations. However, there are current limitations on using them to positively influence clinical outcomes or long-term changes in self-care behaviors within the management of diabetes. Further research to explore the validity of using patient decision aids long term in these areas is required.

Application of Shared Decision Making on Birth Choice in a Primigravida Woman With Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia

Shared decision making was used by a primipara with congenital adrenal hyperplasia to make decisions related to her delivery plans and process. The four components of the holistic nursing assessment process (physical, mental, social and spiritual) were conducted by the author from January 9th, 2018 to April 8th, 2018. The major concerns of the subject were anxiety and conflicts related to medical decision making for her health problems. The Case-Centered Care Model and Patient Decision Aids were applied in medical discussions conducted during the period of nursing care. The subject was encouraged to express her feelings during the process. The completed information for the delivery process, including the risks and benefits for the disease, was provided to the subject in order to lower her anxiety, assist her to select the most-appropriate plan for delivery, and ensure high quality, secure nursing care. Using Patient Decision Aids in clinical practice to help pregnant women make the best decisions for their delivery plans is recommended in cases where the patient has congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

External validation of the SORG 90-day and 1-year machine learning algorithms for survival in spinal metastatic disease

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPreoperative survival estimation in spinal metastatic disease helps determine the appropriateness of invasive management. The SORG ML 90-day and 1-year machine learning algorithms for survival in spinal metastatic disease were previously developed in a single institutional sample but remain to be externally validated. PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to externally validate these algorithms in an independent population from another institution. STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective study at a large, tertiary care center. PATIENT SAMPLEPatients 18 years or older who underwent surgery between 2003 and 2016. OUTCOME MEASURESNinety-day and 1-year mortality. METHODSBaseline characteristics of the validation cohort were compared to the developmental cohort for the SORG ML algorithms. Discrimination (c-statistic and receiver operating curve), calibration (calibration slope, intercept, calibration plot, and observed proportions by predicted risk groups), overall performance (Brier score), and decision curve analysis were used to assess the performance of the SORG ML algorithms in the validation cohort. RESULTSOverall, 176 patients underwent surgery for spinal metastatic disease, of which 44 (22.7%) experienced 90-day mortality and 99 (56.2%) experienced 1-year mortality. The validation cohort differed significantly from the developmental cohort on primary tumor histology, metastatic tumor burden, previous systemic therapy, overall comorbidity burden, and preoperative laboratory characteristics. Despite these differences, the SORG ML algorithms generalized well to the validation cohort on discrimination (c-statistic 0.75–0.81 for 90-day mortality and 0.77–0.78 for 1-year mortality), calibration, Brier score, and decision curve analysis. CONCLUSION and RELEVANCEInitial results from external validation of the SORG ML 90-day and 1-year algorithms for survival prediction in spinal metastatic disease suggest potential utility of these digital decision aids in clinical practice. Further studies are needed to validate or refute these algorithms in large patient samples from prospective, international, multi-institutional trials.

Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Clinical Practice in Rheumatology.

Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Clinical Practice in Rheumatology.

Implementing decision aids in clinical practice: A work in (slow) progress

Aims and Objectives: While availability of and access to decision aids (DA) addressing many clinical issues has improved greatly in recent years, several significant barriers to adoption and use need to be addressed and overcome before effective DA implementation becomes widespread. Methods: Interviews with scholars familiar with DA implementation and a literature review. Results: We have identified and described 22 barriers: 9 workflow barriers, 2 key limitations in resources, 3 concerns about DA quality and availability, 7 provider/patient barriers and uncertainty about the characteristics of effective DAs. Discussion: Workflow barriers may be among the most challenging to overcome. Effectively addressing them may require significant investment of resources, complex re-engineering of workflow, reconfiguration of clinical facilities and introduction of new computer hardware. We classify and review the strengths and weaknesses of workflow and physical locations of DA use and of DA formats. We also propose a classification of the dimensions of clinical decisions that may have implications for DA content and design. Conclusion: We conclude that more rapid progress in DA implementation may depend on new opportunities to increase the time allocated to clinical encounters expected to come from the adoption of value-based reimbursement and on research focused on workflow challenges and DA formats.

Use of a Decision Aid for Patients Considering Peritoneal Dialysis and In-Center Hemodialysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Annually, about 100,000 US patients face the difficult choice between the most common dialysis types, in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. This study evaluated the value of a new decision aid to assist in the choice of dialysis modality. A parallel-group randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of the decision aid on decision-making outcomes. English-speaking US adults with advanced chronic kidney disease and internet access enrolled in2015. Participants randomly assigned to the decision aid intervention received information about chronic kidney disease, peritoneal dialysis, and hemodialysis and a value clarification exercise through the study website using their own electronic devices. Participants in the control arm were only required to complete the control questionnaire. Questionnaire responses were used to assess differences across arms in decision-making outcomes. Treatment preference, decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, knowledge, and preparation for decision making. Of 234 consented participants, 94 (40.2%) were lost to follow-up before starting the study. Among the 140 (70 in each arm) who started the study, 7 were subsequently lost to follow-up. Decision aid users had lower decisional conflict scores (42.5 vs 29.1; P<0.001) and higher average knowledge scores (90.3 vs 76.5; P<0.001). Both arms had high decisional self-efficacy scores independent of decision aid use. Uncertainty about choice of dialysis treatment declined from 46% to 16% after using the decision aid. Almost all (>90%) users of the decision aid reported that it helped in decision making. Limited generalizability from the study of self-selected study participants who had to have internet access, speak English, and have computer literacy. High postrandomization loss tofollow-up. Evaluation of only short-term outcomes. The decision aid improves decision-making outcomes immediately after use. Implementation of the decision aid in clinical practice may allow further assessment of its effects on patient engagement and empowerment in choosing a dialysis modality. This study was funded through a Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) award (#1109). Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT02488317.

Developing and Evaluating a Clinic-Based Decision Aid Delivery System.

Background: Despite evidence of their benefits, decision aids (DAs) have not been widely adopted in clinical practice. Quality improvement methods could help embed DA delivery into primary care workflows and facilitate DA delivery and uptake, defined as reading or watching DA materials. Objectives: 1) Work with clinic staff and providers to develop and test multiple processes for DA delivery; 2) implement a systems approach to measuring delivery and uptake; 3) compare uptake and patient satisfaction across delivery models. Methods: We employed a microsystems approach to implement three DA delivery models into primary care processes and workflows: within existing disease management programs, by physician request, and by mail. We developed a database and tracking tools linked to our electronic health record and designed clinic-based processes to measure uptake and satisfaction. Results: A total of 1144 DAs were delivered. Depending on delivery method, 51% to 73% of patients returned to the clinic within 6 months. Nurses asked 67% to 75% of this group follow-up questions, and 65% to 79% recalled receiving the DA. Among them, uptake was 23% to 27%. Satisfaction among patients who recalled receiving the DA was high. Eighty-two to 93% of patients reported that they liked receiving this patient education information, and 82% to 91% reported that receiving patient education information like this is useful to them. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the realities of clinical practice. One fourth to one third of patients did not return for a follow-up visit. Although nurses were able to assess uptake in the course of their usual duties, the results did not achieve the standards typically expected of clinical research. Despite these limitations, uptake, though modest, was similar across delivery methods, suggesting that there are multiple strategies for implementing DAs in clinical practice.

Rheumatologists' Views and Perceived Barriers to Using Patient Decision Aids in Clinical Practice.

To explore rheumatologists' perceptions of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and identify barriers to using them in clinical practice. A cross-sectional online survey of all members of the Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA; n = 459) was conducted. We subsequently invited 10 respondents to participate in a 30-minute telephone interview to further explore their views on using PtDAs in clinical practice. Interview participants were purposefully sampled to achieve a balance in sex, years in clinical practice, and types of practice. In August and September 2013, 153 CRA members responded to the survey (response rate 33.3%); of those, 113 completed the entire questionnaire. Sixty-three respondents (55.8%) were male, 54 (47.8%) were ≥50 years of age, and 55 (48.7%) practiced in a multidisciplinary setting. When asked about their intention to use PtDAs, participants rated mean ± SD 5.7 ± 2.9 (where 0 = not likely and 10 = very likely). Sixty-four (56.6%) believed that rheumatologists were unfamiliar with PtDAs, and 76 (67.3%) thought that PtDAs would disturb their workflow. In-depth interviews revealed the following: the perception that PtDAs were no different from any other patient education tools, the concern that PtDAs were of limited value in real life since they relied solely on data from randomized controlled trials, and the fear that PtDAs could impair doctor-patient communication. There was a sense of ambivalence among rheumatologists about PtDAs. Our interviews further revealed concerns regarding the utility and benefits of PtDAs in clinical practice. The results show a need to familiarize physicians with PtDAs and to develop strategies to support their integration in clinical practice.

Decision aids to improve informed decision‐making in pregnancy care: a systematic review

Rapid development in health care has resulted in an increasing number of screening and treatment options. Consequently, there is an urgency to provide people with relevant information about benefits and risks of healthcare options in an unbiased way. Decision aids help people to make decisions by providing unbiased non-directive research evidence about all treatment options. To determine the effectiveness of decision aids to improve informed decision making in pregnancy care. We searched MEDLINE (1953-2011), EMBASE (1980-2011), CENTRAL (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library; 2011, Issue 4), Psycinfo (1806-2011) and Research Registers of ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.controlled-trials.com). We included randomised controlled trials comparing decision aids in addition to standard care. The study population needed to be pregnant women making actual decisions concerning their pregnancy. Two independent researchers extracted data on quality of the randomised controlled trial (GRADE criteria), quality of the decision aid (IPDAS criteria), and outcome measures. Data analysis was undertaken by assessing group differences at first follow up after the interventions. Ten randomised controlled trials could be included. Pooled analyses showed that decision aids significantly increased knowledge, (weighted mean difference 11.06, 95% confidence interval 4.85-17.27), decreased decisional conflict scores (weighted mean difference -3.66, 95% confidence interval -6.65 to -0.68) and decreased anxiety (weighted mean difference -1.56, 95% confidence interval -2.75 to -0.43). Our systematic review showed the positive effect of decision aids on informed decision making in pregnancy care. Future studies should focus on increasing the uptake of decision aids in clinical practice by identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation.

Arriba-lib: evaluation of an electronic library of decision aids in primary care physicians

BackgroundThe successful implementation of decision aids in clinical practice initially depends on how clinicians perceive them. Relatively little is known about the acceptance of decision aids by physicians and factors influencing the implementation of decision aids from their point of view. Our electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) is to be used within the encounter and has a modular structure containing evidence-based decision aids for the following topics: cardiovascular prevention, atrial fibrillation, coronary heart disease, oral antidiabetics, conventional and intensified insulin therapy, and unipolar depression. The aim of our study was to evaluate the acceptance of arriba-lib in primary care physicians.MethodsWe conducted an evaluation study in which 29 primary care physicians included 192 patients. The physician questionnaire contained information on which module was used, how extensive steps of the shared decision making process were discussed, who made the decision, and a subjective appraisal of consultation length. We used generalised estimation equations to measure associations within patient variables and traditional crosstab analyses.ResultsOnly a minority of consultations (8.9%) was considered to be unacceptably extended. In 90.6% of consultations, physicians said that a decision could be made. A shared decision was perceived by physicians in 57.1% of consultations. Physicians said that a decision was more likely to be made when therapeutic options were discussed “detailed”. Prior experience with decision aids was not a critical variable for implementation within our sample of primary care physicians.ConclusionsOur study showed that it might be feasible to apply our electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) in the primary care context. Evidence-based decision aids offer support for physicians in the management of medical information. Future studies should monitor the long-term adoption of arriba-lib in primary care physicians.

Moving SDM forward in Canada: milestones, public involvement, and barriers that remain

Canada's approach to shared decision making (SDM) is as disparate as its healthcare system; a conglomerate of 14 public plans at various administrative levels. SDM initiatives are taking place in different pockets of the country and are in different stages of development. The most advanced provincial initiative is occurring in Saskatchewan, where in 2010 the provincial government prepare to introduce patient decision aids into certain surgical specialties. With regard to decision support tools for patients, perhaps the most active entity is the Patient Decision Aids Research Group in Ottawa, Ontario. This group maintains a public inventory of decision aids ranked according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards and has developed the generic Ottawa Personal Decision Guide, as well as a toolkit for integrating decision aids in clinical practice. All of these tools are publicly available free of charge. Professional interest in SDM in Canada is not yet widespread, but Canada's principal health research funding agency is sponsoring several important SDM projects. Researchers from institutions across the country are promoting SDM through continuing professional development programs and other interventions in fields as varied as primary care, dietary medicine and workplace rehabilitation. Still, the future of SDM in Canada remains uncertain. Canada's provincially based structure obliges promoters to work with each province separately, and the recent growth of private healthcare risks dissipating efforts to implement SDM.

Physicians' Awareness and Attitudes Toward Decision Aids for Patients With Cancer

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to help patients make deliberative choices about their treatment options and have been shown to significantly improve patient outcomes. Although considered optimal, decision aids are not widely used in clinical practice for cancer treatment. The objectives of this study are to determine physicians' awareness and use of decision aids, physicians' perceptions of the major barriers to the use of decision aids, and physician characteristics predictive of use of decision aids in clinical practice. A population-based survey was mailed to general surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists. The survey was mailed to 878 physicians, and the overall response rate to the survey was 64.5%. The majority of the participants were male and working in community hospitals for more than 10 years. Overall, 69% of the respondents were aware of decision aids, and 46% were aware of decision aids relevant to their practice. However, only 24% were currently using decision aids. The main barriers to the use of decision aids were reported as lack of awareness, lack of resources, and lack of time. Multivariate analysis showed specialty to be the only physician characteristic influencing the use of decision aids. Approximately one third of physicians treating cancer patients are not aware of what decision aids are, and only 24% are currently using decision aids in clinical practice. Strategies to increase physician awareness about decision aids and to implement these tools into clinical practice are important.