Shared Decision-making Approach Research Articles

Patients’ Preferences Regarding Modes of Systemic Psoriasis Treatment – A Qualitative Study

Background Treatment with pathogenesis-directed biologics and oral systemic drugs have made complete clearance of psoriasis a realistic expectation for many patients with psoriasis. Patients’ preferences among these treatments varies. Objective To understand factors impacting psoriasis patients’preferences for injection vs oral medication. Methods Psoriasis patients who receive systemic psoriasis treatment were asked to participate in a semi-structured interview. Sample size was based on achieving saturation with equal number of patients preferring oral vs injectable medications to ensure equal representation of both groups. Qualitative analysis was performed to interpret the results. Results Twenty-two patients participated in the study, 12 males and 10 females. Ten patients were receiving oral medication (apremilast or methotrexate) and 12 patients were receiving injectables (guselkumab, adalimumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, or tildrakizumab) due to self-reported preference. Five themes resulted from the analysis: patients receiving injectables more frequently discussed the positive impact of the medication on quality of life compared to patients on oral medication; fear of side effects, particularly fear of immunosuppression, is associated with injection medications; avoidance of needles drives patients away from injection medication and towards oral systemic medication; patients prioritize convenience when selecting systemic therapy, though the definition of convenience is subject to perception; and patients value the medication recommendation of the physician, regardless of the route of administration. Conclusion Improving medication adherence and disease outcomes through individualized treatment plans, with an emphasis on patients’ preferences using a shared decision-making approach, may be helpful.

Shared decision-making approach to type 2 diabetes management.

To provide an online interactive decision aid to facilitate shared decision making in the context of medication choices for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The best available clinical prediction model for patients with T2DM was selected based on a review of guidelines, DynaMed, and UpToDate and a search of PubMed. A list of pharmacotherapeutic options for T2DM was compiled based on a review of guidelines, narrative reviews, and expert opinion. To determine the benefits and harms of each treatment, federated search engines were searched for meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, supplemented by individual randomized controlled trials for outcomes not reported in meta-analyses. Approximately 2.1 million Canadians have T2DM, with a resulting increased risk of death, cardiovascular disease, and microvascular outcomes. While more than a dozen medication options are available, decisions regarding these medications are challenging, as patients vary in their preferences. Shared decision making has the potential to individualize these difficult decisions, but the number of diabetes-related outcomes and available treatment options have made this historically impractical. It is within this context that the PEER Diabetes Medication Decision Aid was developed. This decision aid provides patients with personalized 10-year risk estimates for 6 clinically important diabetes-related outcomes. The tool also allows patients to focus on the outcome that matters most to them and to compare the benefits and harms of up to 12 different treatment options. This information is displayed in personalized absolute numbers, along with practical considerations such as cost. The PEER Diabetes Medication Decision Aid provides a practical tool that can enable patients with T2DM to come to autonomous and well-informed medication decisions.

Shared decision-making related to treatment of haemophilia: A scoping review of influential factors and available support tools.

Treatment selection in haemophilia is increasingly challenging given evolving therapeutic options and the need for individualization. Shared decision-making (SDM) approaches have recently gained interest, though a synthesis of available studies is lacking. A scoping review was conducted to summarize literature reporting on factors impacting treatment SDM in haemophilia and tools or models available to support such decisions. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and grey literature were searched for studies published through August 2023. Original studies reporting on facilitators and barriers to haemophilia SDM and SDM tools were included and analyzed for themes, characteristics and gaps. A total of 625 records were identified and 14 unique studies were selected (factors influencing treatment SDM, n=7; SDM tools, n=7). The studies typically included input from persons with haemophilia, caregivers and healthcare practitioners (HCPs). Thematic organization of factors influencing SDM revealed three main categories: knowledge, patient characteristics and HCP-patient interactions. Availability of information was a commonly reported facilitator of SDM, while poor HCP-patient engagement was a commonly reported barrier. Tools varied in focus, with some facilitating general treatment SDM while others supported selection of certain therapy types. The studies underscored additional factors critical for SDM, such as alignment of HCP-patient perceptions, shared language and tailoring of tools to specific subpopulations. Few studies report on treatment SDM factors and tools in haemophilia; available tools vary considerably. It remains unclear whether published tools have been successfully implemented into clinical practice. Additional research is warranted.

Guideline Adherence as an Indicator of PET Scan Overuse in an Italian Teaching Hospital: An Observational Study.

Evidence of inappropriate overuse and underuse of medical procedures has been documented in modern healthcare systems around the world. Excessive use of health services can contribute to a rapid increase in healthcare costs and harm the patient physically and psychologically; conversely, underuse can lead to the inability to provide effective treatments when clinically indicated. The study's aim is twofold: a) to measure the appropriateness of PET prescription in a cohort of patients, offering empirical evidence of overuse of health care services; b) to evaluate how the overuse of PET could affect public health expenditure and, consequently, the system's financial sustainability. In this observational study, we have analyzed prospectively and retrospectively health patient records who underwent 18F-FDG PET/TC scan at the Nuclear Medicine Department of the University Hospital Mater Domini in Catanzaro (Italy) from 29/09/2022 to 10/02/2023. Patients' diagnostic questions have been defined as appropriate, not completely appropriate and completely inappropriate according to the 18F-FDG PET/CT recommendations defined by the "Conditions of Supply and Indications of Prescriptive Appropriateness of Italian NHS (National Health Systems)" published in the Official Gazette no. 15 of 20 January 2016 (Decree 9 December 2015) and by the AIMN (Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine) guidelines. We gathered data from 500 oncological patients (242 males and 258 females). The results show that 423/500 of patients' prescriptions were appropriate, while 77/500 of patients' prescriptions were completely inappropriate (63/77) or not completely appropriate (14/77). Analysis showed a not complete adherence to national guidelines and no shared decision-making approach.

Buprenorphine Enhanced Taper Tolerability Evaluation Report (BETTER): A Case Series.

Discontinuing sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BUP) has been identified by some patients as a potential outcome of success for opioid use disorder treatment. The process of tapering SL-BUP can be lengthy as unpleasant opioid withdrawal symptoms limit the pace of dose adjustments. Uncontrolled withdrawal symptoms pose a risk for return to illicit opioid use and more patient-centered options for tapering SL-BUP are needed. Previous case reports have identified using extended-release subcutaneous buprenorphine (ER-BUP) to minimize withdrawal symptoms as the dose self-decreases very gradually. Ideal dosing strategies, appropriate patient characteristics, and duration of buprenorphine release with the ER-BUP injection are not well described. We present 8 cases where a single 100 mg ER-BUP injection was administered to patients experiencing intolerable withdrawal symptoms during SL-BUP taper. Patients were taking between 2 and 6 mg SL-BUP daily prior to injection. Three patients experienced mild adverse effects the day after receiving injection, all of which were taking lower SL-BUP doses (2-3 mg). In the 12 months following injection, 3 patients experienced mild, but tolerable withdrawal symptoms at variable intervals. Two patients returned to taking SL-BUP and no patients returned to illicit opioid use. Buprenorphine urine toxicology showed elimination of buprenorphine occurred after 24 weeks. Findings from these cases support current evidence-based guidance that ER-BUP tapering is better tolerated than traditional SL-BUP tapering. These patient cases and pharmacokinetic modeling of ER-BUP suggest that a target preinjection dose of 2 to 6 mg SL-BUP will minimize the risk of more severe adverse effects or withdrawal symptoms. Patients and providers should ensure that remission is well-established before initiating SL-BUP taper. A shared decision-making approach can help support patient autonomy and understanding safety risks of discontinuing SL-BUP. Future prospective studies with larger populations could further refine dosing strategies with various SL-BUP preinjection doses and newer ER-BUP formulations.

Finding meaning in medication.

The author reflects on a decade of antipsychotic treatment, providing an intimate glimpse into living with schizophrenia. Their narrative unravels the balance of vulnerability and strength, coercion, and dialogue inherent in the acceptance of medication. Their journey from defiance to adherence showcases the profound complexities patients face and the ethical dilemmas confronting caregivers. Interactions with loved ones and mentors underscore the importance of a shared decision-making approach. The author emphasizes not just the significance of medication but the broader, holistic perspective of aligning treatment with one's life goals and values. Their story champions the power of lived experiences, aiming to inspire a more empathetic and collaborative approach to antipsychotic treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Shared decision making with breast cancer patients – does it work? Results of the cluster-randomized, multicenter DBCG RT SDM trial

Background and purposeShared decision making (SDM) is a patient engaging process advocated especially for preference-sensitive decisions, such as adjuvant treatment after breast cancer. An increasing call for patient engagement in decision making highlights the need for a systematic SDM approach. The objective of this trial was to investigate whether the Decision Helper (DH), an in-consultation patient decision aid, increases patient engagement in decisions regarding adjuvant whole breast irradiation. Material and methodsOncologists at four radiotherapy units were randomized to practice SDM using the DH versus usual practice. Patient candidates for adjuvant whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery for node-negative breast cancer were eligible. The primary endpoint was patient-reported engagement in the decision process assessed with the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) (range 0–100, 4 points difference considered clinical relevant). Other endpoints included oncologist-reported patient engagement, decisional conflict, fear of cancer recurrence, and decision regret after 6 months. ResultsOf the 674 included patients, 635 (94.2%) completed the SDM-Q-9. Patients in the intervention group reported higher level of engagement (median 80; IQR 68.9 to 94.4) than the control group (71.1; IQR 55.6 to 82.2; p < 0.0001). Oncologist-reported patient engagement was higher in the invention group (93.3; IQR 82.2 to 100) compared to control group (73.3; IQR 60.0 to 84.4) (p < 0.0001). ConclusionPatient engagement in medical decision making was significantly improved with the use of an in-consultation patient decision aid compared to standard. The DH on adjuvant whole breast irradiation is now recommended as standard of care in the Danish guideline.

Cancer Patients' Attitudes Towards the Anti-Covid-19 Vaccine: A Collective Case Study.

The purpose of the present study was to determine cancer patients' attitudes toward the anti-COVID-19 vaccine. Historically, the scientific community's responsibility was to investigate attitudes about vaccination. The course of COVID-19 in cancer patients makes them a high priority for vaccination. Cancer patients are at greater risk of serious complications and death because of COVID-19 infection. The purpose of the present study was to determine cancer patients' attitudes toward the anti-COVID-19 vaccine. We examined several constructs that potentially influenced cancer patients' perceptions of the vaccine: health status, knowledge of COVID-19 and vaccination, cancer patients' perceptions of vulnerability, and attitudes toward general vaccines. We conducted a collective case study with 200 cancer patients undergoing treatment, and divided the sample into two groups: patients who "expected to heal" (Group A) and patients who "expected to chronicize" (Group B). Data were collected through a purpose-built questionnaire consisting of 22 questions and a study of medical records. Data analysis showed that both groups, Group A (M= 3.89 SD= 0.64) and Group B (M= 3.98 SD= 0.64), had a favorable attitude toward the anti-COVID-19 vaccine. This favorable attitude toward the anti-COVID-19 vaccine depended on several factors: perception of vulnerability to COVID-19, perception of the severity of their oncological situation, and communication with oncologists. Our study highlighted the plurality of factors that influence attitudes toward the anti-COVID-19 vaccine. It is therefore of fundamental importance to increase the use of the shared decision-making approach (SDM) to guide the patient to an informed choice.

Synergizing Safety: A Customized Approach to Curtailing Unplanned Extubations through Shared Decision-making in the NICU.

Unplanned Extubation (UE) remains an important patient safety issue in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Our SMART AIM was to decrease the rate of UE by 10% from the baseline from January to December 2022 by emphasizing collaboration among healthcare professionals and through the use of shared decision-making. We established an interdisciplinary Quality Improvement team composed of nurses, respiratory therapists, and physicians (MDs). The definition of UE was standardized. UE was audited using an apparent cause analysis form to discern associated causes and pinpoint areas for improvement. Interventions were implemented in a step-by-step fashion and reviewed monthly using the model for improvement. A shared decision-making approach fostered collaborative problem-solving. Our baseline UE rate was 2.3 per 100 ventilator days. Retaping, general bedside care, and position change accounted for over 50% of the UE events in 2022. The rate of UE was reduced by 48% by the end of December 2022. We achieved special-cause variation by the end of March 2023. The sole education of medical and nursing providers about various approaches to decreasing unnecessary retaping was ineffective in reducing UE rates. Shared decision-making incorporating inputs from nurses, respiratory therapists, and MDs led to a substantial reduction in the UE rate and underscores the potential of systematic evaluation of risk factors combined with collaborative best practices.

Perception and views about individualising antibiotic duration for respiratory tract infections when patients feel better: a qualitative study with primary care professionals

BackgroundEvidence shows a high rate of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care. There is increasing evidence showing that shorter courses for RTIs are safe and...

2042 Implementing the principles of Shared Decision Making into a Hospital at Home service, as part of a wider organisation adoption

Abstract Background NICE (2023) Shared Decisions Making (SDM) Guidelines ensure Health Care professionals work together with a person to reach a decision about care based on their individual preferences, beliefs, and values. Local Problem. We conducted an Audit across our community services to assess NICE SDM, achieving 71% compliance. Results informed the project problem statement “Clinical Teams are not fully compliant to NICE SDM guidelines therefore a shared decision-making approach is not guaranteed”. Methods A fishbone diagram was applied to understand why SDM wasn’t routinely occurring in clinical practice. Our aim is to achieve organisation wide adherence to SDM. We propose a multi modal approach to increasing awareness of SDM across the organisation. We used a driver diagram working backwards from the goal, identifying the drivers and determining the project activities. Interventions Due to the enormity of rolling out a pan-organisational programme we decided to use the Frailty NHS@Home virtual ward to test and learn before greater adoption. We firstly processed mapped how the “What Matters to you?” question is embedded into our Comprehensive Geriatric Assessments. A decision support grid for treatment option decision making was created for dehydration or high risk of dehydration within the NHS@Home service, adapted from Marrin et al (2014). Three options are described underpinned by five questions. Feedback from Patient and public involvement ensured the language was appropriate. After the first PDSA cycle, the tool was reviewed by the project team and two further questions were added, “Did you understand the options which were explained to you?” and “What matters most to you as we decide together how best to treat your dehydration?” Conclusion A re audit and colleague survey will reveal increased knowledge and understanding of the SDM concept. We continually seek Feedback from individuals who use our services for their experience of SDM processes.

A formalized shared decision-making process with individualized decision aids for older patients referred for cardiac surgery.

Comprehension of risks, benefits and alternative treatment options is poor among patients referred for cardiac surgery interventions. We sought to explore the impact of a formalized shared decision-making (SDM) process on patient comprehension and decisional quality among older patients referred for cardiac surgery. We developed and evaluated a paper-based decision aid for cardiac surgery within the context of a prospective SDM design. Surgeons were trained in SDM through a Web-based program. We acted as decisional coaches, going through the decision aids with the patients and their families, and remaining available for consultation. Patients (aged ≥ 65 yr) undergoing isolated valve, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or CABG and valve surgery were eligible. Participants in the non-SDM phase followed standard care. Participants in the SDM group received a decision aid following cardiac catheterization, populated with individualized risk assessment, personal profile and comorbidity status. Both groups were assessed before surgery on comprehension, decisional conflict, decisional quality, anxiety and depression. We included 98 patients in the SDM group and 97 in the non-SDM group. Patients who received decision aids through a formalized SDM approach scored higher in comprehension (median 15.0, interquartile range [IQR] 12.0-18.0) than those who did not (median 9.0, IQR 7.0-12.0, p < 0.001). Decisional quality was greater in the SDM group (median 82.0, IQR 73.0-91.0) than in the non-SDM group (median 76.0, IQR 62.0-82.0, p < 0.05). Decisional conflict scores were lower in the SDM group (mean 1.76, standard deviation [SD] 1.14) than in the non-SDM group (mean 5.26, SD 1.02, p < 0.05). Anxiety and depression scores showed no significant difference between groups. Institution of a formalized SDM process including individualized decision aids improved comprehension of risks, benefits and alternatives to cardiac surgery, as well as decisional quality, and did not result in increased levels of anxiety.

Shared decision-making in pediatric palliative care

Shared decision-making (SDM) with parents and adolescents is normative in pediatric practice in North America. In this article we discuss how it is applicable to the practice of pediatric palliative care (PPC). As PPC itself is exemplary of patient-and-family-centered care, it often uses a SDM approach in clarifying patient and family preferences, goals, and values. This often occurs in an iterative process and across care environments, wherein the patient and family narrative is elaborated. Decisions are then made incorporating both evidence-based medical practice and the unique attributes and considerations of the patient and family.

Clinical outcomes of deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder: Insight as a predictor of symptom changes.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a safe and effective treatment option for people with refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Yet our understanding of predictors of response and prognostic factors remains rudimentary, and long-term comprehensive follow-ups are lacking. We aim to investigate the efficacy of DBS therapy for OCD patients, and predictors of clinical response. Eight OCD participants underwent DBS stimulation of the nucleus accumbens (NAc) in an open-label longitudinal trial, duration of follow-up varied between 9 months and 7 years. Post-operative care involved comprehensive fine tuning of stimulation parameters and adjunct multidisciplinary therapy. Six participants achieved clinical response (35% improvement in obsessions and compulsions on the Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS)) within 6-9 weeks, response was maintained at last follow up. On average, the YBOCS improved by 45% at last follow up. Mixed linear modeling elucidated directionality of symptom changes: insight into symptoms strongly predicted (P = 0.008) changes in symptom severity during DBS therapy, likely driven by initial changes in depression and anxiety. Precise localization of DBS leads demonstrated that responders most often had their leads (and active contacts) placed dorsal compared to non-responders, relative to the Nac. The clinical efficacy of DBS for OCD is demonstrated, and mediators of changes in symptoms are proposed. The symptom improvements within this cohort should be seen within the context of the adjunct psychological and biopsychosocial care that implemented a shared decision-making approach, with flexible iterative DBS programming. Further research should explore the utility of insight as a clinical correlate of response. The trial was prospectively registered with the ANZCTR (ACTRN12612001142820).

"What Is the Benefit?": Perceptions and Preferences for Long-Acting Injectable Antiretroviral Therapy Among People Living With HIV.

Long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy (LA-ART) expands treatment options for people living with HIV (PLWH). This qualitative study characterizes LA-ART awareness, perceptions, and preferences among PLWH engaged in HIV care. From 2019 through 2021, we conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with 71 PLWH sampled from three clinics in three U.S. settings (North Carolina, Washington, DC, Massachusetts). Transcripts were analyzed using narrative and thematic techniques. Participant mean age was 46 years (range 24-72); most were cisgender men (55%) and virally suppressed (73%). Most participants had not heard of LA-ART and reacted with a mix of excitement and cautiousness. Potential LA-ART benefits included easier adherence, privacy, and effectiveness; concerns included effectiveness, side effects, costs, and increased clinic visits. Participants appreciated that LA-ART could support achieving and sustaining viral suppression. To inform their decision, participants wanted more information and convenient access and administration. Findings indicated that a shared decision-making approach and economic and logistical support for PLWH could facilitate LA-ART uptake.

Musculoskeletal physiotherapists' discharge practices for people treated with low back pain: A United Kingdom survey.

Persistent low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability, and a major burden on the healthcare system globally. Many people with LBP experience recurrent pain flares and receive repeated appointments and re-referrals to services such as physiotherapy. However, it is not clear what the criteria are for discharging people with LBP from physiotherapy services. This study aims to describe the current practices for discharging people from physiotherapy for LBP in the United Kingdom (UK). A cross-sectional study using an anonymous online national (UK) survey was conducted among qualified physiotherapists who treat people with LBP in UK musculoskeletal out-patient services. A total of 104 surveys were completed. The majority of respondents reported using (i) a shared decision-making (77%) and (ii) person-physiotherapist goal attainment (74%) approach to discharging people with LBP. Sixty-three percent of respondents reported using a patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) approach. Only 8% of respondents reported using a graded discharge approach with 'booster' appointments. A PIFU or graded discharge approach was considered most pertinent for people at higher risk of a pain flare (97%; 86%) and with low self-efficacy to self-manage their LBP. This UK survey established that discharge practices for people with LBP after physiotherapy vary. Whilst the majority of people are currently discharged with a PIFU appointment, a graded discharge approach may be more beneficial for people who are less likely to initiate a PIFU appointment. Further consideration on the development of such a pathway is now required.

An international multi-centre analysis of current prescribing practices and shared decision-making in psoriatic arthritis.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is advocated to improve patient outcomes in Psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We analysed current prescribing practices and the extent of SDM in PsA across Europe. The ASSIST study was a cross-sectional observational study of PsA patients aged ≥18 years attending face-to-face appointments between July 2021-March 2022. Patient demographics, current treatment and treatment decisions were recorded. SDM was measured by the clinician's effort to collaborate (CollaboRATE questionnaire) and patient communication confidence (PEPPI-5 tool). 503 patients were included from 24 centres across the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Physician- and patient-reported measures of disease activity were highest in the UK. Conventional synthetic DMARDs constituted a higher percentage of current PsA treatment in UK than continental Europe (66.4% vs 44.9%), which differed from biologic DMARDs (36.4% vs 64.4%). Implementing treatment escalation was most common in the UK. CollaboRATE and PEPPI-5 scores were high across centres. Of 31 patients with low CollaboRATE scores (<4.5), no patients with low PsAID-12 scores (<5) had treatment escalation. However, of 465 patients with CollaboRATE scores ≥4.5, 59 patients with low PsAID-12 scores received treatment escalation. Higher rates of treatment escalation seen in the UK may be explained by higher disease activity and a younger cohort. High levels of collaboration in face-to-face PsA consultations suggests effective implementation of the SDM approach. Our data indicate that, in patients with mild disease activity, only those with higher perceived collaboration underwent treatment escalation. Prospective studies should examine the impact of SDM on PsA patient outcomes. clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05171270.

Abstract 17327: Heterogenous Shared Decision-Making Approaches to Sports Eligibility Decisions for Athletes With Cardiovascular Disease

Background: Historically, almost all pathologic cardiovascular (CV) diagnoses led to complete restriction from competitive sports. In 2015, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association began to embrace a more nuanced, patient-centered approach to sports eligibility using shared decision-making (SDM). While SDM is a conceptually defensible approach to sports eligibility, operationalization is complex, and we know very little about how physicians understand and deploy it. Methods: To assess sports cardiologists’ understandings of SDM and approaches to eligibility decisions, in-depth interactive interviews were conducted with (N=20) self-identified sports cardiologists. Participants were sampled at random from the ACC Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section. Interviews were conducted using video conference or telephone, and transcripts were analyzed for qualitative description of key domains. Results: Analysis revealed heterogeneity regarding core elements of SDM. All 20 clinicians endorsed SDM, but conceptions of what SDM means varied. Some emphasized communication between physicians rather than with patients, and there was variation in describing the clinician’s role primarily as a provider of information or a more active driver of the decision. Furthermore, even though lifestyle considerations are a key component of SDM for sports eligibility, few clinicians (n=6) specifically referenced elicitation of a patient’s preferences as part of the SDM process. Clinicians also stated highly variable thresholds for prohibitive annual risk of sudden cardiac death during sports participation ranging from &lt;1% to &gt;10%, and they expressed heterogenous views of how athletes interpret risk. Some believed athletes can interpret risk in similar ways as other people; others felt they are largely blind to risk. Conclusions: These data collectively demonstrate heterogenous views of and approaches to SDM for sports eligibility decisions that likely result in very different encounters and decision outcomes. There is a need to develop a more robust understanding of how SDM is operationalized in this context and determine an evidence-based approach to SDM for sports and exercise eligibility in the context of CV disease.

Validation of a Process for Shared Decision-Making in Pediatrics.

We sought to confirm, refute, or modify a 4-step process for implementing shared decision-making (SDM) in pediatrics that involves determining 1) if the decision includes >1 medically reasonable option; 2) if one option has a favorable medical benefit-burden ratio compared to other options; and 3) parents' preferences regarding the options; then 4) calibrating the SDM approach based on other relevant decision characteristics. We videotaped a purposive sample of pediatric inpatient and outpatient encounters at a single US children's hospital. Clinicians from 7 clinical services (craniofacial, neonatology, oncology, pulmonary, pediatric intensive care, hospital medicine, and sports medicine) were eligible. English-speaking parents of children who participated in inpatient family care conferences or outpatient problem-oriented encounters with participating clinicians were eligible. We conducted individual post-encounter interviews with clinician and parent participants utilizing video-stimulated recall to facilitate reflection of decision-making that occurred during the encounter. We utilized direct content analysis with open coding of interview transcripts to determine the salience of the 4-step SDM process and identify themes that confirmed, refuted, or modified this process. We videotaped 30 encounters and conducted 53 interviews. We found that clinicians' and parents' experiences of decision-making confirmed each SDM step. However, there was variation in the interpretation of each step and a need for flexibility in implementing the process depending on specific decisional contexts. The 4-step SDM process for pediatrics appears to be salient and may benefit from further guidance about the interpretation of each step and contextual factors that support a modified approach.

A smoking cessation intervention for rural veterans tailored to individual risk factors: A multicenter randomized clinical trial

IntroductionRates of cigarette use remain elevated among those living in rural areas. Depressive symptoms, risky alcohol use, and weight concerns frequently accompany cigarette smoking and may adversely affect quitting. Whether treatment for tobacco use that simultaneously addresses these issues affects cessation outcomes is uncertain. MethodsThe study was a multicenter, two-group, randomized controlled trial involving mostly rural veterans who smoke (N = 358) receiving treatment at one of five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. The study randomly assigned participants to a tailored telephone counseling intervention or referral to their state tobacco quitline. Both groups received guideline-recommended smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, selected using a shared decision-making approach. The primary outcome was self-reported seven-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at three and six months. The study used salivary cotinine to verify self-reported quitting at six months. ResultsSelf-reported PPA was significantly greater in participants assigned to Tailored Counseling at three (OR = 1.66; 95 % CI: 1.07–2.58) but not six (OR = 1.35; 95 % CI: 0.85–2.15) months. Post hoc subgroup analyses examining treatment group differences based on whether participants had a positive screen for elevated depressive symptoms, risky alcohol use, and/or concerns about weight gain indicated that the cessation benefit of Tailored Counseling at three months was limited to those with ≥1 accompanying concern (OR = 2.02, 95 % CI: 1.20–3.42). Biochemical verification suggested low rates of misreporting. ConclusionsA tailored smoking cessation intervention addressing concomitant risk factors enhanced short-term abstinence but did not significantly improve long-term quitting. Extending the duration of treatment may be necessary to sustain treatment effects.