Involvement In Shared Decision Research Articles

Patients’ experiences with shared decision-making in home-based palliative care – navigation through major life decisions

BackgroundThis study addresses the issue of shared decision-making (SDM) in a Norwegian home-based palliative care setting. The significance of patient involvement in SDM is widely acknowledged, and many patients want to participate in decisions about care and treatment. Yet, it remains a need for more knowledge regarding the initiators and approaches of SDM in the context of home-based palliative care, particularly from the patients’ perspective. The aim of this study is to understand patients' experiences and preferences for SDM in home-based palliative care, seeking to enhance the quality of care and direct the planning of healthcare services.MethodsWe used a qualitative explorative design. A hermeneutic approach was employed, and data was collected through in-dept interviews with 13 patients.ResultsThe study uncovered an overarching theme of "Navigating to reach own decisions," comprising three sub-themes: “To be trapped in life without decisions to act on”; “To surrender to others and let others deal with decisions”; “To continue to be oneself without focusing on disease and decision-making”.ConclusionsThe findings underscore the need for flexible, person-centered approaches in SDM, tailored to the fluctuating health literacy and changing preferences of patients in palliative care settings. Our study contributes to the understanding of SDM in palliative care by highlighting how patients navigate the balance between autonomy and reliance on HCPs. Future research should explore how healthcare systems, including HCPs’ roles in the system, can adapt to the patients’ dynamic needs, to ensuring that SDM will remain a supportive and empowering process for patients at all stages of their disease.

A survey on service users' perspectives about information and shared decision‐making in psychotropic drug prescriptions in people with intellectual disabilities

AbstractBackgroundIn people with intellectual disabilities and mental disorders and/or challenging behaviours, rates of psychotropic drug prescription are high. In clinical treatments and evaluations, all stakeholders should be involved in a process of shared decision‐making (SDM). We aimed to investigate the perspectives of clients and their carers on clients’ treatments with psychotropic drugs.MethodsWe conducted a survey among adults with intellectual disabilities in a Dutch mental healthcare centre providing community, outpatient and inpatient care. Data were collected between January and June 2022. Questions focused on experiences with the provision of information, treatment involvement and SDM and participants' wishes in this regard.FindingsRespondents (57 clients and 21 carers) were largely satisfied with the overall care from their clinicians, and with how information on the pharmacological treatment was provided verbally, but written information was insufficient or not provided. Seventy per cent of clients and 60% of carers reported being involved in medication decision‐making. However, over 75% of participants desired greater involvement in SDM and over 60% in medication reviews.ConclusionsService users and representatives were satisfied about the treatment and verbal information on their psychotropic drug use. The provision of written information, the SDM process and ongoing evaluation of psychotropic medication use could be improved.

Involvement of family members of older patients with cancer in triadic decision-making processes during medical consultations on an outpatient ward - an observational exploratory study using quantitative and qualitative methods

IntroductionThere is a growing interest in the involvement of family members of older patients with cancer in decision-making processes. The aim of this study is to identify how and to what extent family members, together with patients and physicians, are involved in triadic decision-making processes in clinical practice. Materials and MethodsThis study was conducted using an exploratory observational design. The Observer Patient Involvement Scale for patients with Multiple Chronicle Conditions (OPTIONMCC) was used to assess the interaction in triadic decision-making between patients, family members, and physicians. Physicians' behaviour was scored on a Likert-scale ranging from 0 (not observed) to 4 (executed to a high standard), while the behaviour of patients and their family members was scored on a scale from 0 (no or minimum participation) to 2 (active participation). Atlas.ti software was used to facilitate coding, and the SPSS statistical analysis platform was used to explore correlations between the shared decision-making (SDM) skills of the physician and the participation of patients and their family members. ResultsIn total, ten physicians performed 25 consultations with older patients and 30 family members. Patients showed higher levels of participation in the SDM process than family members (OPTIONMCC mean scores 0.96 vs 0.61). Physicians' SDM skills were observed at a low or moderate skill level (OPTIONMCC mean score 1.81). Exploratory correlation analysis showed that higher physician scores were related to higher levels of both patients' and family members' involvement in the decision-making process. The level of family members' involvement in SDM varied from no involvement at all to active involvement. Qualitative analysis of family involvement revealed that relatives are likely to: emphasize patients' values and goals of care; inquire about different treatment options; assist in the deliberation process; and ask for clarification of the further medical process. Physicians showed responsive behaviour towards family members but seldom actively involved them in the SDM process. DiscussionThe study findings suggest that there is a need to include strategies to facilitate family involvement in current SDM models for older patients with cancer. Healthcare professionals in geriatric oncology might benefit from additional training covering family dynamics and managing challenging situations.

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

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

Description of care pathways for benzodiazepine and sedative hypnotic discontinuation in older adults: protocol of a multicentre qualitative study

Introduction: Benzodiazepines and sedative hypnotics (BSHs) may represent a threat to patient safety, especially among older adults. The project BE-SAFE (Implementing a patient-centred and evidence-based intervention to reduce BEnzodiazepine and sedative-hypnotic use to improve patient SAFEty and quality of care) is a 5-year research project funded through the Horizon Europe Research Programme (Grant agreement n° 101057123). Its goal is to improve patient safety by addressing knowledge and practice gaps related to the reduction of BSHs used for sleep problems in older adults. Within the project, a patient-centred and evidence-based intervention will be developed to reduce the use of BSHs for sleep problems in older adults. This intervention will be tested in a cluster randomized controlled trial in different hospitals of six European countries (Belgium, Greece, Norway, Poland, Spain and Switzerland). Understanding current care pathways and healthcare systems in relation to BSH discontinuation should help tailor the BE-SAFE intervention to target contexts. This understanding should also shed light on the conditions for patient involvement in shared-decision making and interprofessional and interorganisational collaboration. These elements are expected to be key to the success of the intervention.
 
 Objective: To describe care pathways, including interprofessional and interorganisational collaborations, and healthcare systems in relation to BSH discontinuation in the six countries participating in the BE-SAFE trial, from the perspective of healthcare professionals and patients.
 Methods: A qualitative study will be conducted in the hospitals where the trial will take place and in other healthcare settings that are part of the care pathway, such as primary care. This study will follow four phases: 1) exploring healthcare systems, 2) mapping a typical care pathway for BSH discontinuation, including stakeholder analysis with patients, healthcare professionals and managers, 3) characterising healthcare systems in relation to BSH discontinuation, and 4) validation of results with stakeholders. Participants will be healthcare professionals, especially those involved in BSH discontinuation, managers and patients over 65 years of age either taking BSHs for sleep problems or who have undergone BSH discontinuation in the last three months. Data will be collected through self-administered questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The “6 W” multidimensional model of care trajectories (1) and the “Context and Capabilities for Integrating Care” framework (2) will be used to guide data collection and analyses.
 Expected results: We will obtain an in-depth description of care pathways and healthcare systems in relation to BSH discontinuation in each of the six countries participating in the BE-SAFE trial. These results will help to inform intervention development through the creation of logic models and to fit the BE-SAFE intervention to target contexts. By May 2023, we will have an initial version of the description of care pathways in each country.
 1.Vanasse A, Courteau M, Ethier JF. The ‘6W’ multidimensional model of care trajectories for patients with chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions and hospital readmissions. Public Health. 2018 Apr 1;157:53–61.
 2.Evans JM, Grudniewicz A, Baker GR, Wodchis WP. Organizational context and capabilities for integrating care: A framework for improvement. Int J Integr Care. 2016 Jun 24;16(3):1–14.
 

The Role of Language Concordant Care on Increasing Parental Engagement in Shared Decision Making

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) allows patients and physicians to make decisions together by incorporating clinical expertise and patient preference. While SDM can improve patient satisfaction, preferences on the extent of involvement in SDM vary, particularly among different cultures and languages. We sought to describe preferences in decision making and degree of SDM among Spanish-speaking caregivers receiving pediatric Otolaryngology care. We hypothesized that language-concordant encounters would have higher SDM scores. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of Spanish-speaking caregivers undergoing consultation with pediatric otolaryngology was performed (May-August 2022). Care was provided in a language-concordant (LC) setting in which the physician and caregiver communicate in Spanish, or a language–discordant (LD) setting in which the physician communicates with interpreter support. Following their appointment, caregivers were invited to complete the Spanish Control Preferences Scale (CPS, select 2 of 5 options) to determine their two most preferred roles in medical decision making, and the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9; scored 0-100) to assess perceived SDM. Descriptive statistics, Fisher’s exact and the Mann-Whitney U test were used for analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-one caregivers were enrolled. CPS scores revealed the passive-collaborative medical decision making role was the most favored (59%), followed by an active-collaborative role (26%), and passive role (13%). Median SDM-Q-9 score for all caregivers was 100.00 (mean=93.70). The median SDMQ-9 score was 100 in LC visits, and 97.78 in LD visits (p = 0.428). No differences in SDM-Q-9 scores were detected for CPS categories between LC and LD visits. CONCLUSION: High levels of SDM were observed among Spanish-speaking caregivers using both LC and LD care. Most caregivers preferred a passive-collaborative role in medical decision making. Results may be influenced by positive response bias given the high scores observed. Further studies with larger sample sizes can further our understanding of the impact of LC care in SDM.

Views and attitudes, and reported practices of nephrology nurses regarding shared decision-making in end-of-life care.

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is the final stage of chronic kidney disease. Yet dialysis is not suitable for all ESRD patients. Moreover, while shared decision-making (SDM) is the preferred model for making medical decisions, little is known about SDM between nephrology nurses and ESRD patients in Israel. Assessing the views, attitudes, practices, and ethical dilemmas of nephrology nurses in Israel regarding SDM with ESRD patients. Using the descriptive quantitative approach, questionnaires were completed by 444 nephrology nurses in Israel. In addition to conducting descriptive statistics, t-tests for independent samples, f-tests for analysis of variance, and both tests for independence were also performed. The research aims, expected advantages and risks have been explained to respondents before completing the questionnaire to secure informed consent. Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured throughout the study. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the University of Haifa (Approval # 411/21). About one-third (30%-36.5%) of nurses reported discussing quality of life issues with ESRD patients, asking about their advance directives/power of attorney, exploring cultural/religious beliefs in end-of-life care, and ask about their preferred place of death. Nurses who convey high levels of patient-centered care (68.9%, p<0.0001), have high end-of-life training (76.2%, p<0.0001), and report cooperating with interdisciplinary teams (63.8%, p = 0.0415), also reported higher SDM practices than others. Nurses who refer less patients to palliative care (70%, p<0.0001) reported higher involvement in SDM compared to other nurses. Nephrology nurses in Israel do not tend to implement the SDM model, despite its potential for improving quality of life for ESRD patients and their families and increasing conservative care options. Policy makers and educators in Israel should develop and implement training programs and support in the workplace, to enhance SDM between nephrology nurses and ESRD patients.

Disparities in Breast-Conserving Therapy vs. Mastectomy among Asian American and Pacific Islander Women

Multiple randomized trials support the use of breast-conserving therapy (BCT), defined as lumpectomy followed by adjuvant radiotherapy, as an alternative to mastectomy for definitive treatment of early-stage (T1-2N0) breast cancer. However, data suggest that Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) may undergo mastectomy at higher rates than BCT and may experience barriers to receipt of BCT. The purpose of this study was to examine BCT utilization by disaggregated AANHPI groups to identify differences in receipt of mastectomy versus BCT. The 2004-2017 National Cancer Database was queried to identify women age ≥18 years old diagnosed with cT1-2N0M0 breast cancer treated with either BCT or mastectomy without post-mastectomy radiation therapy. Women were classified based on self-reported race. Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios (OR) assessing the association between race and receipt of BCT versus mastectomy for all patients and separately by cT1-2 stage. All models were adjusted for relevant sociodemographic and clinical factors. Of 794,403 women with cT1-2N0M0 breast cancer, 239,801 (30%) received mastectomy and 554,602 (70%) received BCT. After adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors, AANHPI women had greater odds of receiving mastectomy over BCT, compared to White women (OR [95% CI], 1.35 [1.30-1.39]; p<0.001). In contrast, Black women were less likely than White women to receive mastectomy (0.86 [0.84-0.87]; p<0.001). Upon disaggregation, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, and Asian Indian & Pakistani women were more likely to receive mastectomy over BCT compared to White women (p<0.001 for all). Treatment at academic (1.30 [1.27-1.32]), integrated (1.24 [1.21-1.27]), and comprehensive community cancer centers (1.15 [1.13-1.17]) were all associated with greater odds of mastectomy compared to treatment at community cancer programs (all p<0.001). Greater distance from treatment facility (≥50 mi. vs. 0 to <10 mi. [reference], OR 1.50 [1.47-1.53]) and cT2 disease (1.85 [1.82-1.87]) were also associated with greater odds of receiving mastectomy (all p<0.001). In this evaluation of women with early-stage breast cancer, women from several AANHPI groups were more likely to receive mastectomy (as opposed to BCT) compared to White women. While sociocultural preferences, differences in access to and interest in reconstruction, as well as prevalent tumor-to-breast ratios may partially explain the disparities, collectively our data suggest an ongoing need for greater patient involvement in shared-decision making, particularly in vulnerable and understudied Asian populations.

Understanding how shared decision-making approaches and patient aids influence patients with advanced cancer when deciding on palliative treatments and care: A realist review.

Patients with advanced incurable cancer face difficult decisions about palliative treatment options towards their end of life. However, they are often not provided with the appropriate information and support that is needed to make informed decisions. This review aimed to identify contexts and mechanisms associated with communication tools, patient decision-aids and shared decision-making (SDM) approaches that influence patient outcomes. We used a realist review method to search for published studies of patients (adults > 18) with advanced cancer who were expected to make a decision about palliative treatment and/or supportive care in consultationwith healthcare practitioners. We appraised and synthesised literature describing the contexts of (when and how) decision aids and SDM approaches are used, and how these contexts interact with mechanisms (resources and reasoning) which impact patient outcomes. Stakeholders including academics, palliative healthcare professionals(HCPs) and people with lived experience of supporting people with advanced incurable cancer contributed to identifying explanatory accounts. These accounts were documented, analysed and consolidated to contribute to the development of a programme theory. From the 33 included papers, we consolidated findings into 20 explanatory accounts to develop a programme theory that explains key contexts and mechanisms that influence patient and SDM. Contexts include underlying patients' and HCPs'attitudes and approaches. These need to be understood in relation to key mechanisms, including presenting information in multiple formats and providing adequate time and opportunities to prepare for and revisit decisions. Contexts influenced mechanisms which then influence the levels of patient decisional satisfaction, conflict and regret. Our programme theory highlights mechanisms that are important in supporting shared treatment decisions for advanced noncurative cancer. The findings are informative for developing and evaluating interventions to improve understanding and involvement in SDM for patients with advanced incurable cancer. We included patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives in four stakeholder meetings. PPI helped to define the scope of the review, identify their unique experiences and perspectives, synthesise their perspectives with our review findings, make decisions about which theories we included in our programme theory and develop recommendations for policy and practice and future research.

Evaluating the Impact of a Training Program in Shared Decision-Making for Neurologists Treating People with Migraine.

Migraine symptoms vary significantly between patients and within the same patient. Currently, an increasing number of therapeutic options are available for symptomatic and preventive treatment. Guidelines encourage physicians to use shared decision-making (SDM) in their practice, listening to patients' treatment preferences in order to select the most suitable and effective therapy. Although training for healthcare professionals could increase their awareness of SDM, results concerning its effectiveness are inconclusive. This study aimed to analyze the impact of a training activity to promote SDM in the context of migraine care. This was addressed by evaluating the impact on patients' decisional conflict (main objective), patient-physician relationship, neurologists' perceptions of the training and patient's perception of SDM. A multicenter observational study was conducted in four highly specialized headache units. The participating neurologists received SDM training targeting people with migraine in clinical practice to provide techniques and tools to optimize physician-patient interactions and encourage patient involvement in SDM. The study was set up in three consecutive phases: control phase, in which neurologists were blind to the training activity and performed the consultation with the control group under routine clinical practice; training phase, when the same neurologists participated in the SDM training; and SDM phase, in which these neurologists performed the consultation with the intervention group after the training. Patients in both groups with a change of treatment assessment during the visit completed the Decisional conflict scale (DCS) after the consultation to measure the patient's decisional conflict. Also, patients answered the patient-doctor relationship questionnaire (CREM-P) and the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). The mean ± SD scores obtained from the study questionnaires were calculated for both groups and compared to determine whether there were significant differences (p < 0.05). A total of 180 migraine patients (86.7% female, mean age of 38.5 ± 12.3years) were included, of which 128 required a migraine treatment change assessment during the consultation (control group, n = 68; intervention group, n = 60). A low decisional conflict was found without significant differences between the intervention (25.6 ± 23.4) and control group (22.1 ± 17.9; p = 0.5597). No significant differences in the CREM-P and SDM-Q-9 scores were observed between groups. Physicians were satisfied with the training and showed greater agreement with the clarity, quality and selection of the contents. Moreover, physicians felt confident communicating with patients after the training, and they applied the techniques and SDM strategies learned. SDM is a model currently being actively used in clinical practice for headache consultation, with high patient involvement in the process. This SDM training, while useful from the physician's perspective, may be more effective at other levels of care where there is still room for optimization of patient involvement in decision-making.

Perceived shared decision-making among patients undergoing lower-limb amputation and their care teams: A qualitative study.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly advocated in the care of vascular surgery patients. The goal of this investigation was to gain a greater understanding of the patient and provider experience of SDM during clinical decision-making around the need for lower-extremity amputation and amputation level related to chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) in the Veterans Health Administration. Semistructured interviews in male Veterans with CLTI, vascular surgeons, physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians, and podiatric surgeons. Interviews were analyzed using team-based content analysis to identify themes related to amputation-level decisions. We interviewed 22 patients and 21 surgeons and physicians and identified 4 themes related to SDM: (1) providers recognize the importance of incorporating patient preferences into amputation-level decisions and strive to do so; (2) patients do not perceive that they are included as equal partners in decisions around amputation or amputation level; (3) providers perceive several obstacles to including patients in amputation level decisions; and (4) patients describe facilitators to their involvement in SDM. Despite the recognized importance SDM in amputation decision-making, patients often perceived that their opinion was not solicited. This may result from provider perception of significant challenges to SDM posed by the clinical context of amputation. Patients identified key features that might enhance SDM including presentation of clear, concise information, and the importance of communicating concern during the discussion. These findings point to gaps in the provision of patient-centric care through SDM discussions at the time of amputation.

Patient Involvement in Shared Decision-Making: Do Patients Rate Physicians and Nurses Differently?

Shared decision-making implies that patients and healthcare professionals make decisions together about clinical exams, available treatments, choice of options, and the benefit or downside of every choice. Patients involved in the shared decision-making process are more compliant with treatments and have a reduced risk of complications related to the pathology. In Italy, patient involvement in caring processes is still barely investigated. To investigate patients' perceptions about shared decision-making with physicians and nurses, respectively, and to examine the relationship between shared decision-making and patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care/treatment. The study was performed between March and June 2019 in two wards of one Italian hospital. A questionnaire was administered to inpatients at the time of admission and again at discharge, including demographic information and measurement scales regarding patient involvement in shared decision-making, patient satisfaction, and perceived quality of treatment/care. A total of 151 out of 301 patients completed questionnaires at both admission and discharge. Patients' scores for shared decision-making (information, patient needs, treatment planning) were significantly different for physicians and nurses. At both admission and discharge, patients rated shared decision-making significantly higher for physicians compared to nurses, while there were no differences in their satisfaction ratings. Patient ratings of physicians did not change from admission (information: mean (M) = 3.50, standard deviation (SD) = 0.81; patient need: M = 3.05, SD = 1.05; treatment planning: M = 2.75, SD = 1.23) to discharge (information: M = 3.50, SD = 0.79; patient need: M = 3.17, SD = 1.02; treatment planning: M = 2.66, SD = 1.23) (p = 0.924, p = 0.098, p = 0.293, respectively), but patients' ratings of nurses' behavior increased significantly from admission (information: M = 2.44, SD = 1.23; patient need: M = 2.27, SD = 1.17; treatment planning: M = 2.12, SD = 1.19) to discharge (information: M = 2.62, SD = 1.22; patient need: M = 2.53, SD = 1.24; treatment planning: M = 2.35, SD = 1.21) (p = 0.019, p = 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively). Attention to patients' needs was the key determinant of both satisfaction with nurses (OR = 3.65, 95% CI = 1.31-10.14, p = 0.013) and perceived quality of care (OR = 3.97, 95% CI = 1.49-10.55, p = 0.006). Providing appropriate information about disease progress and treatments was a key determinant of both satisfaction with physicians (OR = 19.75, 95% CI = 7.29-53.55, p &lt; 0.001) and perceived quality of treatment (OR = 8.03, 95% CI = 3.25-19.81, p &lt; 0.001). Nurses should be sensitized to involving patients in the decision-making process, especially upon hospital admission. Specific training about effective communication techniques can be implemented to manage relationships with patients in different caring situations. Practical implications and future directions are discussed.

Perspectives of residents on shared decision making in medication management: A qualitative study.

Shared decision making is the process in which the person, their representative, and health care professional share information with each other, participate in the decision-making process, and agree on a course of action. At present, very little is known about shared decision making (SDM) in medication management from the perspective of long-term care facility residents. The objective of this study was to identify residents' beliefs, motivation, and aspects of the environment that facilitate or impede SDM. A qualitative study was conducted using face-to-face semi-structured interviews, and data analysis was carried out using a thematic approach. Six long-term care facilities in Sydney, Australia. Thirty-one residents. Enablers to resident involvement in SDM were resident beliefs in exercising their right to take part in medication-related decisions, preference to maintain control over decisions, and motivation to raise concern about medication. Residents were not motivated to be involved in SDM if they believed they had no control over life circumstance, perceived that medications were necessary, or experienced no problems with their medications. Participation in SDM was hindered by limitations in opportunities for resident involvement, engagement with staff and primary care physician to discuss issues related to medications, and continuity of care with their regular physician. This study highlights that the residents' beliefs in control over decisions and concerns about medication are a significant function of the SDM process. It is important that residents are given the choice to take part in SDM, their beliefs and values regarding SDM are understood, and the culture of the care facility respects residents' right to participate in SDM.

Making sense of diabetes medication decisions: a mixed methods cluster randomized trial using a conversation aid intervention

PurposeTo determine the effectiveness of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool versus guideline-informed usual care in translating evidence into primary care, and to explore how use of the tool changed patient perspectives about diabetes medication decision making.MethodsIn this mixed methods multicenter cluster randomized trial, we included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and their primary care clinicians. We compared usual care with or without a within-encounter SDM conversation aid. We assessed participant-reported decisions made and quality of SDM (knowledge, satisfaction, and decisional conflict), clinical outcomes, adherence, and observer-based patient involvement in decision-making (OPTION12-scale). We used semi-structured interviews with patients to understand their perspectives.ResultsWe enrolled 350 patients and 99 clinicians from 20 practices and interviewed 26 patients. Use of the conversation aid increased post-encounter patient knowledge (correct answers, 52% vs. 45%, p = 0.02) and clinician involvement of patients (Mean between-arm difference in OPTION12, 7.3 (95% CI 3, 12); p = 0.003). There were no between-arm differences in treatment choice, patient or clinician satisfaction, encounter length, medication adherence, or glycemic control. Qualitative analyses highlighted differences in how clinicians involved patients in decision making, with intervention patients noting how clinicians guided them through conversations using factors important to them.ConclusionsUsing an SDM conversation aid improved patient knowledge and involvement in SDM without impacting treatment choice, encounter length, medication adherence or improved diabetes control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Future interventions may need to focus specifically on patients with signs of poor treatment fit.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01502891.

Patients' perspective on shared decision-making in urology: a prospective study at a university hospital.

This study aims to determine the degree of shared decision-making (SDM) from urological patients' perspective and to identify possible predictors. Overall, 469 urological patients of a university outpatient clinic were recruited for this prospective study. Before a medical consultation, clinical and sociodemographic information, and patients' emotional distress were assessed by questionnaires. After the consultation, patients completed the SDM-Questionnaire-9 (SDM-Q-9). The SDM-Q-9 scores of relevant subgroups were compared. Logistic regression was used to identify patients at risk for experiencing low involvement (SDM-Q-9 total score ≤ 66) in SDM. Data from 372 patients were available for statistical analyses. The SDM-Q-9 mean total score was 77.8 ± 20.6. The majority of patients (n = 271, 73%) experienced a high degree of involvement (SDM-Q-9 total score > 66). The mean score per SDM-Q-9 item was in the upper range (3.9 ± 1.4 out of 5). The most poorly rated item was "My doctor wanted to know how I want to be involved in decision-making" (3.5 ± 1.6). Immigration status (OR 3.7, p = 0.049), and nonscheduled hospital registration (OR 2.1, p = 0.047) were significant predictors for less perceived involvement. Comorbidity, oncological status, and emotional distress did not significantly predict perceived participation. In a university hospital setting, most urological patients feel adequately involved in SDM. Nevertheless, urologists should routinely ask for patients' participation preference. Patients without a scheduled appointment and patients who immigrated may need more support to feel involved in SDM.

An Affective-Appraisal Approach for Parental Shared Decision Making in Children and Young People's Mental Health Settings: A Qualitative Study.

Background: The majority of existing shared decision making (SDM) models are yet to explicitly account for emotion as an influencing factor to the SDM process. This study aimed to explore the role of parents' and carers' emotional experiences as a concept that has implications for SDM in children and young people's mental health (CYPMH) settings.Methods: A social constructivist grounded theory approach, analyzing data from focus groups (n = 4) and semi-structured interviews (n = 33) with parents and healthcare professionals, was undertaken. Participants were identified and selected at CYPMH sites and through social media platforms or in-person advertising as part of a larger feasibility trial. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis moved from open to focused coding.Results: The majority of the sample consisted of mothers of adolescent girls. Healthcare professionals had an average of 7.54 (SD = 6.24) years of work experience in CYPMH outpatient capacities. Findings suggested that parents are “expected to, but not always able to” engage in SDM. Themes and subthemes described an affective-appraisal SDM process capturing: (1) views and experiences of SDM, (2) parents' emotional states, (3) the influence of emotions on SDM, and (4) key support systems accessed. The emerging affective-appraisal framework highlighted that negative emotional states hindered parents' active involvement in SDM, and positive emotions encouraged involvement in SDM.Conclusion: The current findings describe an SDM model specific to CYPMH. This new understanding contributes to addressing a possible theory to practice gap opening new challenges and opportunities for academic enquiry.

Shared Decision Making in Practice and the Perspectives of Health Care Professionals on Video-Recorded Consultations With Patients With Low Health Literacy in the Palliative Phase of Their Disease.

Introduction. An important goal of palliative care is improving the quality of life of patients and their partners/families. To attain this goal, requirements and preferences of patients need to be discussed, preferably through shared decision making (SDM). This enhances patient autonomy and patient-centeredness, requiring active participation by patients. This is demanding for palliative patients, and even more so for patients with limited health literacy (LHL). This study aimed to examine SDM in practice and assess health care professionals’ perspectives on their own SDM. Methods. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used. Video recordings were gathered cross-sectionally of palliative care consultations with LHL patients (n = 36) conducted by specialized palliative care clinicians and professionals integrating a palliative approach. The consultations were observed for SDM using the OPTION5 instrument. Potential determinants of SDM were examined using multilevel analysis. Sequentially, stimulated recall interviews were conducted assessing the perspectives of professionals on their SDM (n = 19). Interviews were examined using deductive thematic content analysis. Results. The average SDM score in practice was moderate, varying greatly between professionals, as shown by the multilevel analysis and by varying degrees of perceived patient involvement in SDM mentioned in the interviews. To improve this, professionals recommended 1) continuously discussing all options with patients, 2) allowing time for patients to talk, and 3) using strategic timing for involving patients in SDM. Discussion. The implementation of SDM for people with LHL in palliative care varies in quality and needs improvement. SDM needs to be enhanced in this care domain because decisions are complex and demanding for LHL patients. Future research is needed that focuses on supporting strategies for comprehensible SDM, best practices, and organizational adaptations.

Effect of a Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Aid for African-American Men in Primary Care Settings.

African-American men have an elevated risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer. Shared decision-making (SDM) about prostate cancer screening is recommended but does not always occur. We pilot-tested an online decision aid (DA) in primary care settings using a pre/postevaluation design among African-American men ages 45 to 70 years. Men completed surveys before and after using the DA, which had interactive segments (e.g., values clarification) and provided individualized assessment of prostate cancer risk. Primary outcomes included prostate cancer knowledge, confidence in ability to make informed decisions, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with the decision. Immediately after the clinical visit, patients reported the degree to which they were engaged by their provider in SDM. Among this sample of men (n = 49), use of the DA was associated with increased knowledge about prostate cancer [mean = 55.3% vs. 71.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 9.8-22.1; P < 0.001], reduced decisional conflict (mean = 33.4 vs. 23.6; 95% CI, -18.1 to -1.6; P = 0.002) on a scale from 0 to 100, and a decreased preference to be screened (88% vs. 69%; 95% CI, 0.09-0.64; P = 0.01). Most (89%) reported that the DA prepared them well/very well for SDM with their provider. Following the clinical visit with providers, scores on perceived involvement in SDM were 68.1 (SD 29.1) on a 0 to 100 scale. The DA improved men's knowledge, reduced decisional conflict, and promoted the perception of being prepared for SDM. Findings suggest that use of an online DA to improve SDM outcomes warrants further testing in a future trial.

535: Patient decision aid for trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) versus planned repeat cesarean delivery(PRCD)

Given few eligible women attempt a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), evidence-based tools are needed to guide patient-provider shared decision-making (SDM). Our objective was to assess the impact of a web-based patient decision aid (pDA) intervention on patient decision-making of TOLAC versus planned repeat cesarean delivery (PRCD). The Birth Decision Aid Study (B-READY) was a quasi-experimental study conducted between 7/2018 to 7/2019 with sequential enrollment of pregnant women (singleton pregnancies 19/0 to 36/6 weeks, ≤2 prior cesareans, and no contraindication to TOLAC) into standard care and pDA intervention groups. The pDA group viewed the web-based Healthwise® “Pregnancy: Birth Options After Cesarean” program, attended a birth options discussion visit with their obstetric provider, and completed an online SDM assessment. The standard care group received routine prenatal counseling on birth options and completed the SDM assessment. Outcomes were patient involvement in decision-making by the SDM Process Score, knowledge, satisfaction, and patient leaning towards mode of delivery. Eighty-five women enrolled in the study, 42 (49%) in the intervention pDA group and 43 (51%) in the standard care group. Groups did not differ by socio-demographics, obstetric provider type, number of prior cesareans, or desire for future pregnancies. Women in both groups reported similar involvement in SDM about mode of delivery (Table). The pDA group had greater knowledge (mean test score: 78% vs. 50%; p< 0.001) and better satisfaction with clarity of the information provided (p< 0.01) versus the standard care group. The pDA group was more likely to lean towards choosing PRCD than TOLAC (50% vs. 35%; p=0.03) and expressed greater readiness to decide about mode of delivery (95% vs. 81%; p=0.04) versus the standard care group. 97% of pDA users found it useful and would recommend it to other women. A web-based birth options pDA demonstrated increased patient involvement in decision-making about mode of delivery, including patient knowledge, satisfaction, and readiness to decide.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)

Glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: role of health literacy and shared decision-making.

Background: Improving glycemic control requires that patients actively participate in decisions about how to best live with the disease and adapt to the realities of self-care. Limited health literacy (HL) is related to poorer health outcomes and may make it difficult for patients to participate in shared decision-making (SDM). As such, understanding the relationship between HL and SDM and its impact on diabetes control is an urgent issue.Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among outpatients with type 2 diabetes in a regional teaching hospital. Purposive sampling was used to recruit eligible 372 patients via self-administered questionnaires. HbA1C values were obtained from each patient’s laboratory assay.Results: Among the 372 participants, 50.4% of patients preferred physician decision-making, 39.3% preferred SDM, and 10.3% preferred patient decision-making. The physician explaining the illness in colloquial language, having adequate time for discussion, and encouragement from the healthcare provider were the major factors influencing patients’ involvement in SDM. Interactive HL and critical HL had positive correlations with patients’ perceived involvement in SDM. Educational attainment and HL were positively related. The HbA1C values for patient decision-making and physician decision-making were approximately 1.4 times and 1.24 times higher than those of SDM, respectively.Conclusion: SDM led to better glycemic control. HL increased patients’ perceived involvement in SDM. Therefore, it is necessary to improve levels of HL based on the educational attainment of patients. Physicians explaining illness in colloquial language is the key factor in promoting patients’ perceived involvement in SDM.