Shared Decision-making Process Research Articles

Patient preferences in genetic newborn screening for rare diseases: study protocol

IntroductionRare diseases (RDs) collectively impact over 30 million people in Europe. Most individual conditions have a low prevalence which has resulted in a lack of research and expertise in this...

Shared decision-making in metaclinical medicine: from informed consent to shared probability

At the dawn of "metaclinical medicine" era, shared decision-making represents the overcoming of modern medicine guidelines and classical medicine experience. The patient's life plan, the doctor's health plan, the scientist's evidence-based plan, the administrator's plan and the beliefs of the society for healthcare options should be integrated into the shared decision-making process to avoid patient's unrealistic expectations, doctor's self-referential and defensive medicine, the science without compassion of the scientist, the administered medicine of the politician, the herd mentality of artificial intelligence. For a doctor who must evaluate according to science and conscience, it becomes difficult to make decisions about a patient who thinks that there can be "no decisions about me without me". It risks being a pure declamatory statement in the absence of clinical knowledge and the associated concept of probability. The idea of moving from informed consent to shared probability is convenient for both the doctor and the patient but not for litigation professionals. Even in metaclinical medicine, clinical decision support systems, if well governed, would facilitate the choice of the best treatment according to the definition of absolute risk reduction and the number of patients to be treated to avoid an event, leaving it up to the doctor-patient relationship the narrative and the choice of the most appropriate treatment, which also requires taking care of the emotional and compassionate aspects.

Gender Differences in Pain, Function, and Quality of Life Five Years Following Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundMultiple authors have sought to determine what patient characteristics influence outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The impact of gender on outcomes after TKA remains controversial. Previous studies had less than 5 years of follow-up after TKA. The aim of this evaluation was to determine what differences in pain, function, and quality of life (QoL) exist between female and male patients 5 years after primary TKA. MethodsA prospective, multicenter cohort of 11,602 unilateral primary TKA patients (7,284 females and 4,318 males) was prospectively evaluated. All patients were enrolled in the Function and Outcomes Research for Comparative Effectiveness in Total Joint Replacement. Demographic data, musculoskeletal and medical comorbid conditions, and patient-reported outcome measures, including the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS) and Short-Form (36-item) Health Survey mental component score (MCS) and physical component score (PCS) were collected preoperatively and at 5 years after TKA. Descriptive statistics were generated, and stratified by gender, and differences in pain, function, and QoL between female and male patients were evaluated. Multivariate regression models with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to assess the role of patient gender as a predictive factor for KOOS pain and function in daily living (ADL) scores reported 5 years after primary TKA, while adjusting for other variables. ResultsPrior to surgery, female patients reported worse pain (KOOS pain 46 versus 52), function (KOOS ADL 53 versus 59), and QoL (KOOS QoL 26 versus 29) than male patients. The differences in preoperative scores ranged from 2.70 (KOOS QoL) to 6.12 (KOOS ADL). At 5 years after TKA, female patients reported slightly worse pain (87 versus 89), function (85 versus 87), and QoL (74 versus 75) when compared to male patients. The differences in the mean 5-year postoperative KOOS scores (range, 0.99 to 2.73), although statistically significant (P < .001), were clinically negligible. Female patients achieved greater improvement in pain (41 versus 37), function (32 versus 29), and QoL (48 versus 46) scores in comparison to male patients. Female patients also reported lower preoperative PCS global function (33 versus 35) scores, 5-year postoperative PCS scores (45 versus 46), and MCS global mental function scores (52 versus 54). Similarly, the differences in the 5-year postoperative Short-Form (36-item) Health Survey MCS and PCS scores were clinically negligible. Multivariate regression analysis showed that female gender was not independently predictive for either pain (β = −1.08; 95% CI [−1.25 to 1.03] [P = .85]) or function (β = 0.64; 95% CI [−0.51 to 1.79] [P = .28]) 5 years after surgery. ConclusionsThere are no clinically significant gender differences in pain, function, or QoL 5 years after TKA. Female patients typically have worse symptoms prior to surgery, improve more than male patients, and end up with pain, function, and QoL scores clinically equal to male patients. These data can enhance the shared decision-making process between female patients and surgeons and assist in setting appropriate patient expectations prior to TKA.

Investigating the Impact of AI on Shared Decision-Making in Post-Kidney Transplant Care (PRIMA-AI): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Patients after kidney transplantation eventually face the risk of graft loss with the concomitant need for dialysis or retransplantation. Choosing the right kidney replacement therapy after graft loss is an important preference-sensitive decision for kidney transplant recipients. However, the rate of conversations about treatment options after kidney graft loss has been shown to be as low as 13% in previous studies. It is unknown whether the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI)-based risk prediction models can increase the number of conversations about treatment options after graft loss and how this might influence the associated shared decision-making (SDM). This study aims to explore the impact of AI-based risk prediction for the risk of graft loss on the frequency of conversations about the treatment options after graft loss, as well as the associated SDM process. This is a 2-year, prospective, randomized, 2-armed, parallel-group, single-center trial in a German kidney transplant center. All patients will receive the same routine post-kidney transplant care that usually includes follow-up visits every 3 months at the kidney transplant center. For patients in the intervention arm, physicians will be assisted by a validated and previously published AI-based risk prediction system that estimates the risk for graft loss in the next year, starting from 3 months after randomization until 24 months after randomization. The study population will consist of 122 kidney transplant recipients >12 months after transplantation, who are at least 18 years of age, are able to communicate in German, and have an estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Patients with multi-organ transplantation, or who are not able to communicate in German, as well as underage patients, cannot participate. For the primary end point, the proportion of patients who have had a conversation about their treatment options after graft loss is compared at 12 months after randomization. Additionally, 2 different assessment tools for SDM, the CollaboRATE mean score and the Control Preference Scale, are compared between the 2 groups at 12 months and 24 months after randomization. Furthermore, recordings of patient-physician conversations, as well as semistructured interviews with patients, support persons, and physicians, are performed to support the quantitative results. The enrollment for the study is ongoing. The first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2025. This is the first study to examine the influence of AI-based risk prediction on physician-patient interaction in the context of kidney transplantation. We use a mixed methods approach by combining a randomized design with a simple quantitative end point (frequency of conversations), different quantitative measurements for SDM, and several qualitative research methods (eg, records of physician-patient conversations and semistructured interviews) to examine the implementation of AI-based risk prediction in the clinic. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06056518; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06056518. PRR1-10.2196/54857.

Effectiveness of computerised decision aids for patients with chronic diseases in shared decision-making: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To synthesise the composition and effectiveness of computer-based patient decision aid (PDAs) in interventions for patients with chronic diseases. A systematic review with meta-analysis. Five databases were searched, and only randomised controlled trials (RCTs)were included. This review was conducted with the PRISMA guidelines. The JBI Appraisal Tools for randomised trials were used to assess the risk of bias. We used the random-effects model to conduct meta-analyses. Evidence from RCTs was synthesised using standardised mean differences or mean differences. The GRADE system was employed to assess the certainty of evidence and recommendations. This study was registered on PROSPERO (number: CRD42022369340). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published before October 2022. The review included 22 studies, and most computer-based PDAs reported information on the disease, treatment options, pros and cons and risk comparison and value clarification. The use of computer-based PDAs showed a significant effect on decision conflict and knowledge, but not on decision regret, satisfaction, self-efficacy, anxiety and quality of life. The overall GRADE certainty of evidence was low. Although the quality of evidence was low, however, using computer-based PDAs could reduce decision conflict and enhance knowledge when making medical decisions. More research is needed to support the contention above. Computer-based PDAs could assist health-care providers and patients in the shared decision-making process and improving the quality of decision-making. This study adhered to PRISMA guidelines. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION.

The influence of health literacy, anxiety and education on shared decision making and decisional conflict in older adults, and the mediating role of patient participation: A video observational study

ObjectiveTo explore the relationship between personal characteristics of older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) and perceived shared decision making (SDM) resp. decisional conflict. MethodsIn a video-observational study (N = 213) data were collected on personal characteristics. The main outcomes were perceived level of SDM and decisional conflict. The mediating variable was participation in the SDM process. A twostep mixed effect multilinear regression and a mediation analysis were performed to analyze the data. ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 77.3 years and 56.3% were female. Health literacy (β.01, p < .001) was significantly associated with participation in the SDM process. Education (β = −2.43, p = .05) and anxiety (β = −.26, p = .058) had a marginally significant direct effect on the patients’ perceived level of SDM. Education (β = 12.12, p = .002), health literacy (β = −.70, p = .005) and anxiety (β = 1.19, p = .004) had a significant direct effect on decisional conflict. The effect of health literacy on decisional conflict was mediated by participation in SDM. ConclusionHealth literacy, anxiety and education are associated with decisional conflict. Participation in SDM during consultations plays a mediating role in the relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict. Practice ImplicationsTailoring SDM communication to health literacy levels is important for high quality SDM.

Patient-reported esthetic outcomes following lower extremity free flap reconstruction: A cross-sectional multicenter study

IntroductionThe goal of lower-extremity reconstructions is primarily to salvage the leg; however, esthetic outcomes are also important. This study aimed to assess the impact of a lower extremity free tissue transfer regarding social functioning, patient-reported esthetic outcomes, and possible differences between fasciocutaneous vs. muscle flaps. Material and MethodsFor this cross-sectional multicenter study, patients operated between 2003 and 2021, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, were identified. Outcomes were obtained from 89 patients. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using a questionnaire containing 5-point Likert scale questions grouped in three groups: aspect of the reconstructed leg, the aspect of the donor site, and the negative impact on social functioning. Physical functioning and mental health were assessed with the Short-Form-36. ResultsThe overall score for negative impact on social functioning was 22.2. This was 46.7 for the esthetic satisfaction of the reconstructed leg and 57.1 for the donor site. No significant differences were seen between patients who underwent a reconstruction with a fasciocutaneous flap compared to a muscle flap. Secondary surgical procedures for improving the esthetic aspect were performed in 12% of the patients in the fasciocutaneous group and 0% in the muscle group. ConclusionOur results show that the most optimal esthetic outcome is not defined by the type of flap. We found a strong correlation between physical functioning and the negative impact on social functioning that a reconstructed lower extremity may have. The result of this study can be taken into consideration during the shared decision-making process of choosing the most optimal reconstruction.

Assessment of Patient-Physician Interactions in Psoriatic Arthritis: National Results of the ASSIST Study.

An overarching principle for the management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a shared decision-making process between physicians and patients. The aim of this study is to assess the patient-physician relationship in a group of patients with PsA, by using the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI) and CollaboRATE instruments. This is a cross-sectional multicenter study where consecutive patients with PsA were enrolled. For each patient, the main demographic, comorbid conditions, and clinical data were collected, including the assessment of disease activity, function, quality of life, and impact of disease. PEPPI and CollaboRATE questionnaires were used, respectively, to evaluate the patient's perception of the patient-physician relationship and the shared decision-making process. A total of 81 patients with PsA were enrolled at four centers in Italy. Overall, our patients showed a high level of confidence in obtaining needed health care, with relatively high median (IQR) values of PEPPI (20; 16-23), and a good shared decision-making process, with high median (IQR) values of CollaboRATE questionnaire (7; 6-9). PEPPI and CollaboRATE scores showed a statistically significant inverse correlation with different clinical variables such as disease duration, Leeds Enthesitis Index, PsA impact of Disease, Health Assessment Questionnaire, pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity and clinical disease activity for PsA. The presence of comorbidities did not appear to be associated with lower values of PEPPI and CollaboRATE. In this study, few patients with PsA were at risk of suboptimal communication with their physician. This phenomenon appeared to be primarily related to higher disease activity and burden.

Patient decision-making in the era of transcarotid artery revascularization

ObjectiveThe National Coverage Determination on carotid stenting by Medicare in October 2023 stipulates that patients participate in a shared decision-making (SDM) conversation with their proceduralist before an intervention. However, to date, there is no validated SDM tool that incorporates transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) into its decision platform. Our objective was to elicit patient and surgeon experiences and preferences through a qualitative approach to better inform the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. MethodsWe performed longitudinal perioperative semistructured interviews of 20 participants using purposive maximum variation sampling, a qualitative technique designed for identification and selection of information-rich cases, to define domains important to participants undergoing carotid endarterectomy or TCAR and impressions of SDM. We also performed interviews with nine vascular surgeons to elicit their input on the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. Interview data were coded and analyzed using inductive content analysis coding. ResultsWe identified three important domains that contribute to the participants' ultimate decision on which procedure to choose: their individual values, their understanding of the disease and each procedure, and how they prefer to make medical decisions. Participant values included themes such as success rates, “wanting to feel better,” and the proceduralist's experience. Participants varied in their desired degree of understanding of carotid disease, but all individuals wished to discuss each option with their proceduralist. Participants' desired medical decision-making style varied on a spectrum from complete autonomy to wanting the proceduralist to make the decision for them. Participants who preferred carotid endarterectomy felt outcomes were superior to TCAR and often expressed a desire to eliminate the carotid plaque. Those selecting TCAR felt it was a newer, less invasive option with the shortest procedural and recovery times. Surgeons frequently noted patient factors such as age and anatomy, as well as the availability of long-term data, as reasons to preferentially select one procedure. For most participants, their surgeon was viewed as the most important source of information surrounding their disease and procedure. ConclusionsSDM surrounding carotid revascularization is nuanced and marked by variation in patient preferences surrounding autonomy when choosing treatment. Given the mandate by Medicare to participate in a SDM interaction before carotid stenting, this analysis offers critical insights that can help to guide an efficient and effective dialog between patients and providers to arrive at a shared decision surrounding therapeutic intervention for patients with carotid disease.

Uncertainty tolerance among primary care physicians: Relationship to shared decision making-related perceptions, practices, and physician characteristics

ObjectiveUnderstand how physicians’ uncertainty tolerance (UT) in clinical care relates to their personal characteristics, perceptions and practices regarding shared decision making (SDM). MethodsAs part of a trial of SDM training about colorectal cancer screening, primary care physicians (n = 67) completed measures of their uncertainty tolerance in medical practice (Anxiety subscale of the Physician’s Reactions to Uncertainty Scale, PRUS-A), and their SDM self-efficacy (confidence in SDM skills). Patients (N = 466) completed measures of SDM (SDM Process scale) after a clinical visit. Bivariate regression analyses and multilevel regression analyses examined relationships. ResultsHigher UT was associated with greater physician age (p = .01) and years in practice (p = 0.015), but not sex or race. Higher UT was associated with greater SDM self-efficacy (p < 0.001), but not patient-reported SDM. ConclusionGreater age and practice experience predict greater physician UT, suggesting that UT might be improved through training, while UT is associated with greater confidence in SDM, suggesting that improving UT might improve SDM. However, UT was unassociated with patient-reported SDM, raising the need for further studies of these relationships. Practice implicationsDeveloping and implementing training interventions aimed at increasing physician UT may be a promising way to promote SDM in clinical care.

When Do Patients Achieve PROMIS Milestones After Rotator Cuff Repair?

Given the variability of the questions asked, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE) computer adaptive test (CAT) Version 2.0 item bank aids in the evaluation of rotator cuff repair (RCR) rehabilitation by determining when recovery milestones are possible based on the quality of patient responses at certain time points. To assess the time point at which patients with RCR were able to achieve specific functional milestones, determined as positive responses to the 5 most frequently asked items on the PROMIS UE CAT Version 2.0. Case series; Level of evidence, 4. The postoperative PROMIS UE CAT Version 2.0 scores of patients who underwent RCR between February 16, 2017, and July 30, 2019, were reviewed with respect to individual PROMIS item, response, and timing of response. A functional milestone was considered achieved if the patient response was "without any difficulty" or "with a little difficulty" to any of the 5 most frequently asked PROMIS items. The percentage of patients in each monthlong postoperative interval who answered with either response was recorded. The logit generalized estimating equations method was used to analyze the association between milestone achievement for each PROMIS item and predictor variables (age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, race, ethnicity, and employment status). A total of 1131 responses from 371 patients were included. The majority of patients attained milestone achievement on 4 of the 5 most frequently asked PROMIS items at time points ranging from 1 to 5 months postoperatively: "Are you able to carry a shopping bag or briefcase?" (by 1 month), "Are you able to put on and take off a coat or jacket?" (by 3 months), "Are you able to pour liquid from a bottle into a glass?" (by 3 months), and "Are you able to carry a heavy object (over 10 pounds/5 kg)?" (by 5 months). For the item "Are you able to put on a shirt or blouse?", the majority of patients did not achieve the milestone by 1 year. These findings support the application of PROMIS UE CAT Version 2.0 milestone achievement in the shared decision-making process and postoperative monitoring, as patients can use this information to determine when they can return to certain activities and providers can apply these standards to identify patients needing additional clinical support.

Diagnosis and management of endometrial hyperplasia: A UK national audit of adherence to national guidance 2012-2020.

Endometrial hyperplasia (EH) is a precusor lesion for endometrial cancer (EC), the commonest gynaecological malignancy in high-income countries. EH is a proliferation of glandular tissue, classified as either non-atypical endometrial hyperplasia (NEH) or, if the cytological features are abnormal, atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH). The clinical significance of AEH is that patients face both a high risk of having occult EC and a high risk of progression to EC if untreated. Recommendations on the care of women with EH were introduced by United Kingdom-wide guidance (Green-top Guide No. 67, 2016). National adherence to guidance is unknown. We aimed to describe the care of patients with EH; to compare the patterns of care for those with EH with national guidance to identify opportunities for quality improvement; and to compare patterns of care prior to and following the introduction of national guidance to understand its impact. In this UK-wide patient-level clinical audit, we included 3,307 women who received a new histological diagnosis of EH through a gynaecology service between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2020. We described first-line management, management at 2 years, and surgical characteristics prior to and following national guidance for EH using proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and compared process measures between time periods using multilevel Poisson regression. Of the 3,307 patients, 1,570 had NEH and 1,511 had AEH between 2012 and 2019. An additional 85 patients had NEH and 141 had AEH during 2020. Prior to national guidance, 9% (95% CI [6%, 15%]) received no initial treatment for NEH compared with 3% (95% CI [1%, 5%]) post-guidance; 31% (95% CI [26%, 36%]) and 48% (95% CI [43% 53%]) received an intrauterine progestogen, respectively, in the same periods. The predominant management of women with AEH did not differ, with 68% (95% CI [61%, 74%]) and 67% (95 CI [63%, 71%]) receiving first-line hysterectomy, respectively. By 2 years, follow-up to histological regression without hysterectomy increased from 38% (95% CI [33%, 43%]) to 52% (95% CI [47%, 58%]) for those with NEH (rate ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% CI [1.18, 1.63] p < 0.001). We observed an increase in the use of total laparoscopic hysterectomy among those with AEH (RR 1.26, 95% CI [1.04, 1.52]). In the later period, 37% (95% CI [29%, 44%]) of women initially diagnosed with AEH who underwent a first-line hysterectomy, received an upgraded diagnosis of EC. Study limitations included retrospective data collection from routine clinical documentation and the inability to comprehensively understand the shared decision-making process where care differed from guidance. The care of patients with EH has changed in accordance with national guidance. More women received first-line medical management of NEH and were followed up to histological regression. The follow-up of those with AEH who do not undergo hysterectomy must be improved, given their very high risk of coexistent cancer and high risk of developing cancer.

The prognostic value of tumor budding in a thoroughly characterized stage II colon cancer population in the context of a national screening program

Tumor budding as a prognostic marker in colorectal cancer has not previously been investigated in a cohort of screened stage II colon cancer patients. We assessed the prognostic significance of tumor budding in a thoroughly characterized stage II colon cancer population comprising surgically resected patients in the Region of Southern Denmark from 2014 to 2016. Tumors were re-staged according to the 8th edition of UICC TNM Classification, undergoing detailed histopathological evaluation and tumor budding assessment following guidelines from the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference. Prognostic evaluation utilized Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazard models for time to recurrence (TTR), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS).Out of 497 patients, 20% were diagnosed through the national colorectal cancer screening program. High-grade tumor budding (Bd3) was found in 19% of tumors and was associated with glandular subtype, perineural invasion, mismatch repair proficient tumors, and tumor recurrence (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.045, and p = 0.007 respectively). In multivariable Cox regression, high-grade budding was a significant prognostic factor for TTR compared to low-grade (Bd3 HR 2.617; p = 0.007). An association between tumor budding groups and RFS was observed, and the difference was significant in univariable analysis for high-grade compared to low-grade tumor budding (Bd3 HR 1.461; p = 0.041). No significant differences were observed between tumor budding groups and OS.High-grade tumor budding is a predictor of recurrence in a screened population of patients with stage II colon cancer and should be considered a high-risk factor in a shared decision-making process when stratifying patients to adjuvant chemotherapy.

Patient and physician decision-making dynamics in overactive bladder care: A mixed methods study.

Overactive bladder management includes multiple therapeutic options with comparable efficacy but a range of administration modalities and side effects, creating an ideal setting for shared decision-making. This study investigates patient and physician health beliefs surrounding decision-making and expectations for overactive bladder with the aim of better understanding and ultimately improving decision-making in overactive bladder care. Patient and physician participants completed a questionnaire followed by a semi-structured interview to assess health beliefs surrounding decision making and expectations for overactive bladder treatment. The semi-structured interview guide, developed in an iterative fashion by the authors, probed qualities of overactive bladder therapies patients and physicians valued, their process of treatment selection, and their experiences with therapies. Patients (n = 20) frequently cited treatment invasiveness, efficacy, and safety as the most important qualities that influenced their decision when selecting overactive bladder therapy. Physicians (n = 12) frequently cited safety/contraindications, convenience, cost/insurance, and patient preference as the most important qualities. In our integration analysis, we identified four key themes associated with decision making in overactive bladder care: frustration with inaccessibility of overactive bladder treatments, discordant perception of patient education, diverging acceptability of expected outcomes, and lack of insight into other parties' decisional priorities and control preferences. While both patients and physicians desire to engage in a shared decision-making process when selecting therapies for overactive bladder, this process is challenged by significant divergence between patient and physician viewpoint across key domains.

The influence of MRI-based pelvimetric measurements in mother’s choice of delivery in fetal breech position

IntroductionAt term, about 3–4% of all singleton pregnancies present as breech. MRI-based pelvimetry is a valuable tool to support selection of adequate candidates for a trial-of-labor in women expecting term breech babies. Shared decision-making is playing an increasingly important role in obstetrics. Since the divergent existing knowledge of breech term delivery needs to be discussed with the pregnant woman, we examined the influence of MRI results on the shared decision-making process in women with term breech presentation.MethodsBetween 08/2021 and 12/2022, anamnestic and clinical parameters were collected from singleton pregnancies expecting term breech babies resulting in birth at the Hanover Medical School. After information, written consent and inclusion, clinical parameters, the course of birth and the maternal and fetal outcome were collected retrospectively. 32 women participated in a postpartum questionnaire study on inquiry. The subsequent acquisition of information and the arguments in the decision-making process were determined. In addition, the sense of security and self-determination was asked both before and during birth.Results50% of the respondents had not decided for a mode of delivery before having MRI pelvimetry. After imaging and information, about the own pelvic dimensions and predictors for a successful vaginal birth, 80% of this subgroup decided to give birth vaginally. Over 40% of the collective descripted that they made a decision based on the result of MRI pelvimetry. None of the women felt to be insecure after having talked about the MRI results. The elective cesarean section group and the group of those who delivered vaginally were approximately equally highly satisfied with their feeling of self-determination of the birth mode. Overall, the study population had a very positive birth experience. The group of women who had delivered by elective cesarean showed a wider range in their assessment and appeared to perceive the experience more negative than the group of women who had a vaginal birth or emergency cesarean. Fetal and maternal outcomes did not differ between the groups.DiscussionMRT pelvimetry measurements can be used as a predictor for a successful vaginal breech delivery. The additional information obtained from the MRI measurements can be used in the shared decision-making process to decide more easily on the mode of delivery while improving women's awareness and safety. A balanced education on rare and frequently adverse events of vaginal delivery and cesarean section and patient expectations about labor processes must be taken into account.

Physicians' Perspectives on the Impact of Insurance Status on Clinical Decision-Making in Saudi Arabia.

Background The decision-making process in clinical practice depends heavily on collaboration and information sharing. Physicians' decision-making processes are profoundly influenced by the patient's insurance status, which warrants focused investigation. Hence, this study aimed to investigate how physicians perceive the influence of insurance status on treatment options and medical interventions and to explore the extent to which physicians discuss insurance-related considerations with patients during the shared decision-making process. Methodology This was a cross-sectional exploratory study conducted in various healthcare facilities all over Saudi Arabia. The electronic questionnaire was the primary tool for data collection. Data were then coded, entered, and analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistical methods. Results The study involved 430 physicians, primarily male (n= 230, 53.5%), aged 31-40 years (n= 215, 50%), and mostly non-Saudi (n= 285, 66.3%). Medical officers constituted the majority of the study population (n= 258, 60%), with one to five years of experience (n= 187, 43.5%), and engaged in private practice (n= 230, 70%). Concerning insurance, 287 (66.7%) physicians considered patient's insurance when discussing treatment options, while 318 (74%) physicians discussed the financial implications of different treatment options with the patients. Regarding outcomes, 373 (86.7%) physicians believed that insurance status affected patient outcomes and treatment modalities. Significant factors, such as age between 31 and 40 years (P < 0.001), over 10 years of clinical experience (P = 0.002), engagement in both governmental and private practice (P = 0.012), and being a medical officer (P = 0.005), demonstrated a high impact on the insurance status influencing clinical decision-making. Overall, recognizing the influence of insurance on decision-making is crucial for equitable healthcare. Conclusions More than half of the physicians demonstrated high scores indicating the impact of insurance status on the clinical decision-making process. This impact was influenced by specific physician parameters such as age, experience, specialty, and type of practice. Moreover, the financial situation and insurance status of the patients significantly affected treatment and patient outcomes.

Comparison between one-jaw and two-jaw designs in virtual surgery planning for patients with class III malocclusion

Orthognathic surgery is highly effective for treating maxillomandibular discrepancies in patients with class III malocclusion. However, whether one- or two-jaw surgery should be selected remains controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate quantitative differences between one-jaw and two-jaw surgical designs.In total, 100 consecutive patients with skeletal class III malocclusion who underwent orthognathic surgery with preoperative three-dimensional simulation between August 2016 and November 2021 were recruited. Based on the same final occlusal setup, a two-jaw surgery design and two types of one-jaw design were created. In total, 400 image sets, including preoperative images and three types of surgical simulation, were measured and compared.The one-jaw mandibular setback design led to improvement in most cephalometric measurements and facial symmetry. Although the one-jaw maxillary advancement design improved the ANB angle and facial convexity, it induced maxillary protrusion and reduced facial symmetry. Compared with the other designs, the two-jaw design provided significantly closer cephalometric measurements to the normative values, better symmetry, and less occlusal cant.Overall, the two-jaw design provided a quantitatively better facial appearance in terms of symmetry, proportion, and profile. Although an optimal surgical design necessitates thorough preoperative evaluation and a shared decision-making process, two-jaw surgery can be considered for improving overall facial esthetics and harmony.

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.

Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions about the Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study from a Virtual Community of Practice.

The incorporation of shared decision making (SDM) is a central part of empowerment processes, as it facilitates greater activation on the part of patients, increasing the likelihood of them gaining control over their healthcare and developing skills to solve their health problems. Despite these benefits, there are still difficulties in the implementation of SDM among healthcare professionals due to internal and external factors related to the context and health systems. To explore primary care professionals (PCPs)' perceptions of the SDM model, based on their preconceptions and experience in clinical practice. A framework analysis was conducted on qualitative data derived from a virtual community practice forum, within a cluster-randomized clinical trial developed in the e-MPODERA project. The most important points in the opinions of the PCPs were: exploring the patients' values, preferences and expectations, providing them with and checking their understanding of up-to-date and evidence-based health information. The analysis revealed three themes: determinants of the implementation process of SDM, lack of consistency and dilemmas and benefits of PCP active listening, motivation and positive expectations of SDM. In our initial analysis, we examined the connections between the categories of the TDC model and its application in the primary care context. The categories related to the model reflect the theoretical understanding of professionals, while those related to perceptions of its application and use show certain discrepancies. These discrepancies could indicate a lack of understanding of the model and its real-world implications or insufficient commitment on the part of professionals or the organization to ensure its effective implementation. Specific targeted training that addresses knowledge, attitudes and practice may resolve the aforementioned findings.

Experiences and perspectives related to shared decision-making among outpatients with degenerative joint disease in Taiwan: a qualitative study

ObjectivesVarious treatment options are available for degenerative joint disease (DJD). During clinical visits, patients and clinicians collaboratively make decisions regarding the optimal treatment for DJD; this is the essence of...