Shared Decision-making Program Research Articles

Shared decision-making support program for older patients with advanced cancer using a question prompt list and geriatric assessment: A pilot randomized controlled trial

IntroductionOlder patients with cancer are less likely to express their treatment preferences than younger patients. Question prompt lists (QPLs) facilitate communication between patients and physicians. Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended when older patients with cancer make treatment decisions. This study estimated the effect size of a shared decision-making (SDM) support program combining QPLs with GA in terms of patients' subjective evaluation of the SDM process for a future definitive randomized controlled trial. We also evaluated the number and quality of aging-related communication during consultations, and feasibility and acceptability of the study for exploratory purposes. Materials and MethodsThis is a pilot study with randomized allocation and blind evaluation. Patients aged 65 years or older at the National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, scheduled to discuss the changes of their treatment, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the SDM support program or usual care. This program consisted of 30–60 min of face-to-face coaching, with QPLs and GA provided before the coaching. As the primary endpoint, the decisional conflict scores given by the patients immediately after the consultation were compared between the two groups. For the secondary endpoints, the number and quality of aging-related communications during the consultations were assessed by evaluators (blinded) using audio-recordings. Adherence, burden, and usefulness were assessed for evaluating feasibility and acceptability of the SDM support program. ResultsForty patients were enrolled. All patients completed the GA questionnaire, for which 70% did not require any individual assistance. Answering the questionnaires took approximately 11 min. The decisional conflict scores were mean [standard deviation (SD)]: 19.3 [10.8] vs. 18.0 [11.1] (effect size: Cohen's d = 0.12) for the SDM support program and usual care groups, respectively. The number of aging-related communications during the consultation for the new treatment was higher in the SDM support program group than the usual care (mean [SD]: 3.3 [1.2] vs. 2.2 [1.5], effect size: cohen's d = 1.32). Patients felt that the SDM support program was useful but not burdensome or difficult. DiscussionThe SDM support program was considered useful and feasible for older patients and able to facilitate communication regarding aging-related concerns. Trial registration numberThe study protocol was registered on September 23, 2020, in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000041867).

Effect of a person-centred goals-of-care form and clinical communication training on shared decision-making and outcomes in an acute hospital: a prospective longitudinal interventional study.

Patients with a life-limiting illness (LLI) requiring hospitalisation have a high likelihood of deterioration and 12-month mortality. To avoid non-aligned care, we need to understand our patients' goals and values. To describe the association between the implementation of a shared decision-making (SDM) programme and documentation of goals of care (GoC) for hospitalised patients with LLI. A prospective longitudinal interventional study of patients admitted to acute general medicine wards in an Australian tertiary hospital over 5 years was conducted. A SDM programme with a new GoC form, communication training and clinical support was implemented. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a documented person-centred GoC discussion (PCD). Clinical outcomes included hospital utilisation and 90-day mortality. 1343 patients were included. The proportion of patients with PCDs increased from 0% to 35.4% (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.01-2.82; P < 0.001). During this time, median hospital length of stay decreased from 8 days (interquartile range (IQR), 4-14) to 6 days (IQR, 3-11) (adjusted estimate effect, -0.38; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.11; P = 0.005) and rapid response team activation from 28% to 13% (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.97; P value = 0.01). Documented treatment preference of high-dependency unit care decreased from 39.7% to 24.4% (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89; P value < 0.001), and ward-based care increased from 31.9% to 55.1% (aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.36; P value < 0.001). The implementation of a SDM programme was associated with increased documentation of person-centred GoC, changed patient treatment preference to lower intensity care and reduced hospital utilisation.

Real-time monitoring and feedback to improve shared decision-making for surgery (the ALPACA Study): protocol for a mixed-methods study to inform co-development of an inclusive intervention

IntroductionHigh-quality shared decision-making (SDM) is a priority of health services, but only achieved in a minority of surgical consultations. Improving SDM for surgical patients may lead to more effective care...

Engagement of Older Adults Receiving Home Care Services and Their Caregivers in Health Decisions in Partnership With Clinical Teams: Protocol for a Multimethod Study to Prioritize and Culturally Adapt Decision Aids for Home Care.

Older adults (people aged 65 years and older) face many difficult decisions. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can help them and their families make informed value-congruent decisions. Some PtDAs have been developed for the home care context, but little is known about scaling them for use with older adults in a different culture. This study aims to (1) assess the scalability of existing PtDAs for older adults in the home care context; (2) prioritize those that best match the decisional needs of older adults in home care; and (3) culturally adapt the prioritized PtDAs so they can be scaled successfully to the Quebec health care system. This multimethod study includes 3 phases. All phases will be overseen by a steering committee of older adults, caregivers, health professionals, decision makers, community organization representatives, and researchers with the needed expertise. In phase 1, we will use the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire, a validated scalability self-assessment tool, to assess the scalability of 33 PtDAs previously identified in a systematic review. Based on their scalability, their quality (based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards), and the importance of the decision point, we will retain approximately a third of these. In phase 2, we will conduct a 2-round web-based Delphi to prioritize the PtDAs selected in phase 1. Using a snowball recruitment strategy, we aim to recruit 60 Delphi participants in the province of Quebec, including older adults, caregivers, health professionals, decision makers involved in home care services, and PtDA experts. In the first round, we will ask participants to rate the importance of several PtDA decision points according to various criteria such as prevalence and difficulty on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not important to 5=very important). Approximately 6 of the highest-rated PtDAs will be retained for presentation in the second round, and we will select up to 3 PtDAs judged as having the highest priority for cultural adaptation. In phase 3, using the Chenel framework and user-centered design methods, we will update and adapt the PtDAs to the Quebec health care system and integrate these PtDAs into an interprofessional shared decision-making training program for home care teams. The adapted PtDAs will respect the International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria. This study was funded in March 2022 by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data collection for the web-based Delphi began in October 2023. Results are expected to be published in May 2024. This project will provide relevant and culturally appropriate decision support tools for older adults making difficult decisions and their home care teams that will be ready for scaling across the province of Quebec. PRR1-10.2196/53150.

Clinicians' Perspectives and Proposed Solutions to Improve Contraceptive Counseling in the United States: Qualitative Semistructured Interview Study With Clinicians From the Society of Family Planning.

Contraceptive care is a key element of reproductive health, yet only 12%-30% of women report being able to access and receive the information they need to make these complex, personal health care decisions. Current guidelines recommend implementing shared decision-making approaches; and tools such as patient decision aid (PtDA) applications have been proposed to improve patients' access to information, contraceptive knowledge, decisional conflict, and engagement in decision-making and contraception use. To inform the design of meaningful, effective, elegant, and feasible PtDA applications, studies are needed of all users' current experiences, needs, and barriers. While multiple studies have explored patients' experiences, needs, and barriers, little is known about clinicians' experiences, perspectives, and barriers to delivering contraceptive counseling. This study focused on assessing clinicians' experiences, including their perspectives of patients' needs and barriers. It also explored clinicians' suggestions for improving contraceptive counseling and the feasibility of a contraceptive PtDA. Following the decisional needs assessment approach, we conducted semistructured interviews with clinicians recruited from the Society of Family Planning. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework informed the interview guide and initial codebook, with a specific focus on decision support and decisional needs as key elements that should be assessed from the clinicians' perspective. An inductive content approach was used to analyze data and identify primary themes and suggestions for improvement. Fifteen clinicians (12 medical doctors and 3 nurse practitioners) participated, with an average of 19 years of experience in multiple regions of the United States. Analyses identified 3 primary barriers to the provision of quality contraceptive counseling: gaps in patients' underlying sexual health knowledge, biases that impede decision-making, and time constraints. All clinicians supported the development of contraceptive PtDAs as a feasible solution to these main barriers. Multiple suggestions for improvement were provided, including clinician- and system-level training, tools, and changes that could support successful implementation. Clinicians and developers interested in improving contraceptive counseling and decision-making may wish to incorporate approaches that assess and address upstream factors, such as sexual health knowledge and existing heuristics and biases. Clinical leaders and administrators may also wish to prioritize solutions that improve equity and accessibility, including PtDAs designed to provide education and support in advance of the time-constrained consultations, and strategic training opportunities that support cultural awareness and shared decision-making skills. Future studies can then explore whether well-designed, user-centered shared decision-making programs lead to successful and sustainable uptake and improve patients' reproductive health contraceptive decision-making.

MP48-09 LEVERAGING IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE TO SUCCESSFULLY SCALE A SHARED DECISION MAKING PROGRAM FOR MEN WITH PROSTATE CANCER

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP48-09 LEVERAGING IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE TO SUCCESSFULLY SCALE A SHARED DECISION MAKING PROGRAM FOR MEN WITH PROSTATE CANCER Jonathan Bergman, David Penson, David Ho, Lorna Kwan, Kristen Williams, Jefersson Villatoro, and Christopher Saigal Jonathan BergmanJonathan Bergman More articles by this author , David PensonDavid Penson More articles by this author , David HoDavid Ho More articles by this author , Lorna KwanLorna Kwan More articles by this author , Kristen WilliamsKristen Williams More articles by this author , Jefersson VillatoroJefersson Villatoro More articles by this author , and Christopher SaigalChristopher Saigal More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003294.09AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended for men with prostate cancer. Implementation of SDM has proved challenging. We aimed to use the tools of implementation science to identify factors key to implementation of a successful SDM program at one institution to two new institutions with differing patient populations, including in the safety net. We also measured comparative effectiveness of the decision aid across populations. METHODS: As part of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation, we used the MUSIQ tool to assess readiness for implementation at UCLA, Vanderbilt, and Olive View-UCLA (OVMC), a large safety-net institution. We used MUSIQ scores to guide pre-implementation changes at each site. We then implemented the SDM program at new sites. The program featured a decision aid (DA) which quantified individual preferences for competing treatment outcomes, and used decision analysis to provide patients and physicians with a rank ordered list of evidence-based treatments. Statistical Control Process charts were used to track implementation outcomes and guide the need for interventions to improve outcomes. Decision quality outcomes were collected using a post-consult survey. We evaluated implementation outcomes and differences in decision quality among men at the different sites. RESULTS: MUSIQ scores were high (144, 157, and 117 out of 168 at OVMC, UCLA, and Vanderbilt, respectively), and guided pre-implementation efforts at each site. Modifications were made at each site to facilitate implementation, such as delivery of the DA in the waiting room at OVMC. Implementation outcomes were strong and preserved from the original site. Adoption among physicians was 100%. Penetration (invitation rate) and Fidelity (completion rate) were similar in academic and safety net settings (66% vs 60%, p=0.4 and 77% vs 80%, p=0.7, respectively; N=1909). At OVMC, implementation led to lower median time spent with a physician (24 minutes after implementation vs 33 minutes before, p=0.01) and a decrease in the percentage of patients who needed more than one urology clinic visit to make a treatment decision (13% vs 46%, p<0.001). Decisional quality was excellent across all sites, with high scores for satisfaction and sense of shared decision-making; post visit decisional conflict was higher at the safety net site (Table). CONCLUSIONS: Scaling a SDM program is feasible using the tools of implementation science, leading to preserved effectiveness across a variety of patient populations. SDM programs can save clinic visit time. Source of Funding: PCORI © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e658 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jonathan Bergman More articles by this author David Penson More articles by this author David Ho More articles by this author Lorna Kwan More articles by this author Kristen Williams More articles by this author Jefersson Villatoro More articles by this author Christopher Saigal More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

A Shared Decision-making Process may Affect Bariatric Procedure Selection and Alter Surgical Outcomes: a Single-unit Retrospective Study.

A shared decision-making (SDM) process centered on the patient perspective may increase understanding and treatment satisfaction. This study aimed to investigate whether SDM would increase the acceptance of bariatric/metabolic surgeries, change treatment decisions, and affect 1-year results. This retrospective analysis enrolled 315 consecutive patients with a body mass index between 32.5 and 50kg/m2 and aged 20-65years who underwent consultation for a primary bariatric/metabolic procedure within 2years before (pre-SDM) or after (post-SDM) SDM program implementation to assist in the decision to undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) surgery. Consent rate, procedure choice, weight loss, comorbidity remission, etc., were compared between periods and procedures. Statistical tests were two-sided, with p < 0.05 considered significant. More eligible patients underwent metabolic/bariatric procedures post-SDM than pre-SDM (115/159 [72%] vs. 106/156 [68%]; p = 0.395), and a stronger preference for RYGB post-SDM was observed (71% vs. 62%; p = 0.153). Significantly more patients with diabetes (28 [34.1%] vs. 5 [15.2%]; p = 0.041) chose RYGB over SG post-SDM. Patients who underwent RYGB had a higher diabetes remission rate both pre-SDM (70.0% vs. 58.3%; p = 0.571) and post-SDM (76.2% vs. 66.7%; p = 0.712) than those who underwent SG. While 1-year weight loss was similar between procedures, adherence to nutritional supplementation did not appear to be broadly enhanced post-SDM. SDM influenced procedure selection toward RYGB, which was more popular than SG among patients with diabetes. Higher diabetes remission was achieved with RYGB, although the results of other effects deserve further study.

Factors Affecting the Initiation of a Shared Decision Making Program in Obstetric Practices.

As healthcare systems progress toward initiatives that increase patient engagement, stakeholder hopes are that shared decision making (SDM) will become routine practice. Yet, there is limited empirical evidence to guide such SDM program implementations, particularly in obstetric practices. The first stage of any project implementation is the “initiation stage”, in which project leaders define a project’s purpose and stakeholders and structures are put in place to support the new initiative. Our study’s objective was to identify factors affecting the initiation stage of an SDM program implementation project for TOLAC, trial of labor after Cesarean. We conducted a multiple-case study of an SDM program implementation in three obstetric settings in Washington State. The research design and analysis were guided by implementation science frameworks and project management literature. Data sources included interviews with key informants from the State, SDM tool vendors, and three project sites, as well as implementation documents. The study results provide insight into how the identified project implementation factors provide an essential foundation for informing project planning, execution, and reflection/evaluation. In this study, the State’s decision aid certification program pressured the project sites to shape the project purpose and engage stakeholders that would meet immediate project requirements (specifically, state requirements). The study reveals that external demands may not be in perfect alignment with the internal necessities required for an SDM program’s long-term viability and sustainability. Findings may be used by implementers and researchers to model and strategize the early stages of SDM program implementation projects, particularly in the obstetric setting.

Differences in Implementation Outcomes of a Shared Decision-Making Program for Men with Prostate Cancer between an Academic Medical Center and County Health Care System.

Shared decision making (SDM) has long been advocated as the preferred way for physicians and men with prostate cancer to make treatment decisions. However, the implementation of formal SDM programs in routine care remains limited, and implementation outcomes for disadvantaged populations are especially poorly described. We describe the implementation outcomes between academic and county health care settings. We administered a decision aid (DA) for men with localized prostate cancer at an academic center and across a county health care system. Our implementation was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. We assessed the effectiveness of the DA through a postappointment patient survey. Sites differed by patient demographic/clinical characteristics. Reach (DA invitation rate) was similar and insensitive to implementation strategies at the academic center and county (66% v. 60%, P = 0.37). Fidelity (DA completion rate) was also similar at the academic center and county (77% v. 80%, P = 0.74). DA effectiveness was similar between sites, except for higher academic center ratings for net promoter for the doctor (77% v. 37%, P = 0.01) and the health care system (77% v. 35%, P = 0.006) and greater satisfaction with manner of care (medians 100 v. 87.5, P = 0.04). Implementation strategies (e.g., faxing of patients' records and meeting patients in the clinic to complete the DA) represented substantial practice changes at both sites. The completion rate increased following the onset of reminder calls at the academic center and the creation of a Spanish module at the county. Successful DA implementation efforts should focus on patient engagement and access. SDM may broadly benefit patients and health care systems regardless of patient demographic/clinical characteristics.

Prophylactic total pancreatectomy in individuals at high risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PROPAN): systematic review and shared decision-making programme using decision tables.

BackgroundIndividuals with a very high lifetime risk of developing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; for example, hereditary pancreatitis and main-duct or mixed-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, may wish to discuss prophylactic total pancreatectomy but strategies to do so are lacking.ObjectiveTo develop a shared decision-making programme for prophylactic total pancreatectomy using decision tables.MethodsFocus group meetings with patients were used to identify relevant questions. Systematic reviews were performed to answer these questions.ResultsThe first tables included hereditary pancreatitis and main-duct or mixed-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. No studies focused on prophylactic total pancreatectomy in these groups. In 52 studies (3570 patients), major morbidity after total pancreatectomy was 25% and 30-day mortality was 6%. After minimally invasive total pancreatectomy (seven studies, 35 patients) this was, respectively, 13% and 0%. Exocrine insufficiency-related symptoms occurred in 33%. Quality of life after total pancreatectomy was slightly lower compared with the general population.ConclusionThe decision tables can be helpful for discussing prophylactic total pancreatectomy with individuals at high risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Making shared decision-making (SDM) a reality: protocol of a large-scale long-term SDM implementation programme at a Northern German University Hospital

IntroductionShared decision-making (SDM) is not yet widely used when making decisions in German hospitals. Making SDM a reality is a complex task. It involves training healthcare professionals in SDM communication and enabling patients to actively participate in communication, in addition to providing sound, easy to understand information on treatment alternatives in the form of evidence-based patient decision aids (EbPDAs). This project funded by the German Innovation Fund aims at designing, implementing and evaluating a multicomponent, large-scale and integrative SDM programme—called SHARE TO CARE (S2C)—at all clinical departments of a University Hospital Campus in Northern Germany within a 4-year time period.Methods and analysisS2C tackles the aforementioned components of SDM: (1) training physicians in SDM communication, (2) activating and empowering patients, (3) developing EbPDAs in the most common/relevant diseases and (4) training other healthcare professionals in SDM coaching. S2C is designed together with patients and providers. The physicians’ training programme entails an online and an in situ training module. The decision coach training is based on a similar but less comprehensive approach. The development of online EbPDAs follows the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and includes written, graphical and video-based information. Validated outcomes of SDM implementation are measured in a preintervention and postintervention evaluation design. Process evaluation accompanies programme implementation. Health economic impact of the intervention is investigated using a propensity-score-matched approach based on potentially preference-sensitive hospital decisions.Ethics and disseminationEthics committee review approval has been obtained from Medical Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel. Project information and results will be disseminated at conferences, on project-hosted websites at University Hospital Medical Center Schleswig Holstein and by S2C as well as in peer-reviewed and professional journals.

The Effects of Shared Decision Making on Different Renal Replacement Therapy Decisions in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease.

The prevalence and incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Taiwan are the highest of any country in the world. The different renal replacement therapies that are adopted by patients with ESRD significantly affect their social roles and daily life. However, because of the complexities of different renal replacement therapies, patients may be unsure of which to choose. The aim of this study was to explore the effectiveness of a shared decision-making (SDM) program regarding different renal replacement therapies for patients with chronic kidney disease. A quasi-experimental design was conducted at two similar regional hospitals in Miaoli County, Taiwan. One hospital hosted the intervention group, and the other hospital hosted the control group. The 31 participants in the intervention group took part in a SDM program. The 36 control group participants took part in the pre-ESRD care program. Data collection included demographic and disease characteristics, decisional conflict scale, and decision self-efficacy scale. Results were analyzed using independent t test, Fisher's exact test, generalized estimating equation, and paired t tests. The study results revealed that the intervention group experienced a significant increase in decision self-efficacy and a significant decrease in decisional conflict at 1 month after receiving the SDM intervention in comparison to before and immediately after receiving the intervention. Moreover, the intervention group had higher decision self-efficacy and lower decisional conflict than the control group. The SDM program may be an effective intervention for complex decision-making processes, such as the process involved in making renal replacement treatment decisions. The SDM program group intervention improved decisional conflict and decision self-efficacy. Thus, to improve patients' decision-making processes, the application of an SDM program focused on the personal values and opinions of patients with ESRD will be necessary. Physicians and case managers of patients with ESRD should act in complementary and cooperative roles in SDM programs.

Shared decision-making and patient engagement program during acute exacerbation of COPD hospitalization: A randomized control trial

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a shared decision-making and patient engagement (SDM-PE) program concerning in-hospital stay during acute exacerbation of COPD and determine its impact on patients’ perceived health status. MethodsPatients were randomly allocated to a control group that received standard treatment or an intervention group that received an individualized SDM-PE program in addition to standard treatment. The SDM-PE program included personalized health care focused on information about the disease, healthcare management, and reinforcement of behaviors regarding nutrition and exercise taking into account patients’ preferences. ResultsA comparative analysis between groups showed a significant improvement in perceived health status at discharge in patients included in the experimental group compared to those in the control group (60.28 ± 21.65 vs. 54.13 ± 22.69, p = 0.036). In addition, perceived health status, COPD knowledge, adherence to pharmacological treatment, general functionality, and healthy lifestyle measures were significantly better at 3-month follow-up in the intervention group. ConclusionAn SDM-PE program significantly enhanced all the clinical measures assessed during hospitalization at 3-month follow-up. Practice implicationsCOPD patients and professionals need to work together to select the best care and treatment model for patients, taking into account individual values and preferences.

Seven-day shared decision making for outpatients with first episode of mood disorders among university students: A randomized controlled trial

Providing appropriate treatment to patients with a first episode of mood disorders is crucial for recovery from the disorders. Although shared decision making (SDM) has been proposed as a promising model in psychiatric practice, an appropriate SDM approach has not yet been established. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effects of an originally developed seven-day SDM program for outpatients with a first episode of mood disorders among university students. University students with a first episode of mood disorders were randomly allocated into two arms: SDM and control. The participants in the SDM arm received the seven-day SDM program, which included option presentation consultation, external deliberation with a decision aid booklet, decision coaching by a nurse, and decision-making consultation. The control arm received usual care. The primary outcome was patient-perceived involvement. We enrolled 88 participants. Compared with usual care, the SDM program significantly improved patient-perceived involvement in treatment decision making without taking up clinicians’ time. The program did not lead to worse symptoms of mood disorders. In conclusion, sharing treatment decision making with university students with a first episode of mood disorders is feasible.

Evaluation of Implementation Outcomes After Initiation of a Shared Decision-making Program for Men With Prostate Cancer

ObjectiveTo evaluate barriers to implementation of patient decision aids (PDAs) issued in an electronic medical record (EMR). We undertook an implementation outcomes analysis focused on what proportion of men eligible for the PDA received it (penetration), and of the men who received it, how many used it as intended (fidelity). We also evaluated various patient-centered outcomes related to decision-making. Materials and MethodsMen with incident localized prostate cancer were recruited from at UCLA from 2013 to 2017. PDA eligibility was determined via weekly EMR review. We also performed a retrospective chart review of all patients seen in clinic for one sample week to identify patients that were missed by the initial eligibility algorithm, and investigated the cause for miscategorization. We analyzed differences in patient-centered outcomes between those who did and did not receive the PDA. ResultsAbout 314/374 men with incident prostate cancer completed the PDA conferring 84% fidelity. PDA penetration under initial identification prospective algorithm was assessed at 100% (n = 2/n = 2). However, penetration assessed by manual retrospective chart review was 20% (n = 2/n = 10). Improvements to the identification algorithm, including new EMR visit types, were identified. PDA completion was associated with less decisional conflict and higher perceived Shared decision-making (all P<.03). ConclusionNo previous studies have investigated the challenges of implementing a PDA facilitated by the EMR. We identified modifiable system and EMR-related factors that limited program penetration. Our PDA showed decisional quality benefits.

Skills for Shared Decision-Making: Evaluation of a Health Literacy Program for Consumers with Lower Literacy Levels.

Background:Shared decision-making (SDM) has been found to be significantly and positively associated with improved patient outcomes. For an SDM process to occur, patients require functional, communicative, and critical health literacy (HL) skills.Objective:This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a program to improve health literacy skills for SDM in adults with lower literacy.Methods:An HL program including an SDM component (HL + SDM) and teaching of the three “AskShareKnow” questions was delivered in adult basic education settings in New South Wales, Australia. The program was evaluated using a partially cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing it to standard language, literacy, and numeracy (LLN) training. We measured the effect of these programs on (1) HL skills for SDM (conceptual knowledge, graphical literacy, health numeracy), (2) types of questions considered important for health decision-making, (3) preferences for control in decision-making, and (4) decisional conflict. We also measured AskShareKnow question recall, use, and evaluation in HL + SDM participants.Key Results:There were 308 participants from 28 classes enrolled in the study. Most participants had limited functional HL (71%) and spoke a language other than English at home (60%). In the primary analysis, the HL + SDM program compared with the standard LLN program significantly increased conceptual knowledge (19.1% difference between groups in students achieving the competence threshold; p = .018) and health numeracy (10.9% difference; p = .032), but not graphical literacy (5.8% difference; p = .896). HL + SDM participants were significantly more likely to consider it important to ask questions that would enable SDM compared to standard LLN participants who prioritized nonmedical procedural questions (all p < .01). There was no difference in preferences for control in decision-making or in decisional conflict. Among HL + SDM participants, 79% (n = 85) correctly recalled at least one of the AskShareKnow questions immediately post-intervention, and 35% (n = 29) after 6 months.Conclusions:Teaching SDM content increased participants' HL skills for SDM and changed the nature of the questions they would ask health care professionals in a way that would enable shared health decisions. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(Suppl.):S58–S74.]Plain Language Summary:We developed a health literacy program that included a shared decision-making (SDM) section. The program was delivered in adult basic education classes by trained educators and compared to standard language, literacy, and numeracy training. Teaching SDM content increased participants' health literacy skills for SDM and changed the nature of the questions they would ask health care professionals.

Psychiatric outpatients’ experiences with shared decision-making: a qualitative descriptive study

ABSTRACTBackground: Shared decision-making (SDM) has increasingly been advocated as a key element of patient-centered psychiatric care, as a means to enhance the patient–therapist relationship and improve outcomes. However, little is known about patients’ experiences during the SDM process. The aim was to explore patients’ experiences of an SDM program developed for psychiatric outpatients who faced new treatment decisions.Method: Participants were 10 psychiatric outpatients aged 25–72 years with a range of psychiatric conditions (e.g. bipolar disorder, depression). Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted to examine participants’ experiences of a three-stage SDM intervention comprising first consultation, decision aid review at home, and second consultation. A thematic analysis of the interview data was performed.Results: Seven themes were identified. At the first consultation, participants described anticipatory anxiety and becoming involved. At home, they described facing mental illness, involving others, and deepening knowledge. At the second consultation, participants described aligning with the psychiatrist, and decision-making with less conflict. Participants were initially uneasy but then became actively involved in the deliberation process and chose treatments not in conflict with their own views. Although stigma surrounding mental illness emerged and created conflict when participants faced their own psychiatric diagnosis, sufficient external deliberation time enabled involvement of loved ones as vital collaborators in decision-making.Conclusion: Psychiatric outpatients exposed to a new SDM program described positive experiences and shared their treatment options with family members. Adequate deliberation time outside services and involvement of loved ones enhanced participants’ experience of SDM.

Implementation and Use of a Client-Facing Web-Based Shared Decision-Making System (MyCHOIS-CommonGround) in Two Specialty Mental Health Clinics

Electronic shared-decision making programs may provide an assistive technology to support physician–patient communication. This mixed methods study examined use of a web-based shared decision-making program (MyCHOIS-CommonGround) by individuals receiving specialty mental health services, and identified qualitative factors influencing adoption during the first 18 months of implementation in two Medicaid mental health clinics. T-tests and χ2 analyses were conducted to assess differences in patient use between sites. Approximately 80% of patients in both clinics created a MyCHOIS-CommonGround user profile, but marked differences emerged between clinics in patients completing shared decision-making reports (79% vs. 28%, χ2(1) = 109.92, p < .01) and average number of reports (7.20 vs. 3.60, t = − 3.64, p < .01). Results suggest high penetration of computer-based programs in specialty mental health services is possible, but clinic implementation factors can influence patient use including leadership commitment, peer staff funding to support the program, and implementation strategy, most notably integration of the program within routine clinical workflow.

Use of a Web-Based Shared Decision-Making Program: Impact on Ongoing Treatment Engagement and Antipsychotic Adherence.

The authors examined the impact of a Web-based shared decision-making application, MyCHOIS-CommonGround, on ongoing outpatient mental health treatment engagement (all users) and antipsychotic medication adherence (users with schizophrenia). An intervention study was conducted by comparing Medicaid-enrolled MyCHOIS-CommonGround users in 12 participating mental health clinics (N=472) with propensity score-matched adults receiving services in nonparticipating clinics (N=944). Medicaid claims were used to assess ongoing treatment engagement and antipsychotic adherence (among individuals with schizophrenia) one year prior to and after entry into the cohort. Multilevel linear models were conducted to estimate the effects of the MyCHOIS-CommonGround program over time. No differences during the baseline year were found between the MyCHOIS-CommonGround group and the matched control group on demographic, diagnostic, or service use characteristics. At one-year follow-up, engagement in outpatient mental health services was significantly higher for MyCHOIS-CommonGround users than for the control group (months with a service, 8.54±.22 versus 6.95±.15; β=1.40, p<.001). Among individuals with schizophrenia, antipsychotic medication adherence was also higher during the follow-up year among MyCHOIS-CommonGround users compared with the control group (proportion of days covered by medication, .78±.04 versus .69±.03; β=.06, p<.01). These findings provide new evidence that shared decision-making tools may promote ongoing mental health treatment engagement for individuals with serious mental illness and improved antipsychotic medication adherence for those with schizophrenia.

Understanding Medical Decision-making in Prostate Cancer Care.

The availability of several treatment options for prostate cancer creates a situation where patients may need to come to a shared decision with their health-care team regarding their care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is the concept of a patient and a health-care professional collaborating to make decisions about the patient’s treatment course. Nurse navigators (NNs) are health-care professionals often involved in the SDM process. The current project sought to evaluate the way in which patients with prostate cancer make decisions regarding their care and to determine patients’ perspectives of the role of the NN in the SDM process. Eleven participants were recruited from the Prostate Assessment Centre by a NN. They were interviewed via telephone and their responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. Five interacting factors were determined to influence the way participants made decisions including level of anxiety, desire to maintain normalcy, support system quality, exposure to cancer narratives, and extent of practical concerns. NNs were found to increase knowledge, decrease indecision, and provide reassurance for participants. Based on the beneficial aspects of NN interaction reported in this study, the use of NNs in SDM programs should be encouraged. The results of the study demonstrate the complexity of the decision-making process when it comes to prostate cancer treatment. The factors elucidated in the study should be considered during the development and implementation of prostate cancer SDM programs.