ObjectivesDecision-making for patients with a locally advanced laryngeal carcinoma (T3 and T4) is challenging due to the treatment choice between organ preservation and laryngectomy, both with different and high impact on function and quality of life (QoL). The complexity of these treatment decisions and their possible consequences might lead to decisional conflict (DC). This study aimed to explore the level of DC in locally advanced laryngeal carcinoma patients facing curative decision-making, and to identify possible associated factors.MethodsIn this multicenter prospective cohort study, participants completed questionnaires on DC, level of shared decision-making (SDM), and a knowledge test directly after counseling and 6 months after treatment. Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation tests were used to analyze the data.ResultsDirectly after counseling, almost all participants (44/45; 98%) experienced Clinically Significant DC score (CSDC >25, scale 0–100). On average, patients scored 47% (SD 20%) correct on the knowledge test. Questions related to radiotherapy were answered best (69%, SD 29%), whilst only 35% (SD 29%) of the questions related to laryngectomy were answered correctly. Patients' perceived level of SDM (scale 0–100) was 70 (mean, SD 16.2), and for physicians this was 70 (SD 1.7).ConclusionMost patients with advanced larynx cancer experience high levels of DC. Low knowledge levels regarding treatment aspects indicate a need for better patient counseling.Level of Evidence4 Laryngoscope, 134:3604–3610, 2024
MULTIFILE
Objective: To explore the relationship between personal characteristics of older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) and perceived shared decision making (SDM) resp. decisional conflict. Methods: In 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. Results: The 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. Conclusion: Health 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 Implications: Tailoring SDM communication to health literacy levels is important for high quality SDM.
MULTIFILE
Introduction: Shared decision-making is considered to be a key aspect of woman-centered care and a strategy to improve communication, respect, and satisfaction. This scoping review identified studies that used a shared decision-making support strategy as the primary intervention in the context of perinatal care. Methods: A literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases was completed for English-language studies conducted from January 2000 through November 2019 that examined the impact of a shared decision-making support strategy on a perinatal decision (such as choice of mode of birth after prior cesarean birth). Studies that only examined the use of a decision aid were excluded. Nine studies met inclusion criteria and were examined for the nature of the shared decision-making intervention as well as outcome measures such as decisional evaluation, including decisional conflict, decisional regret, and certainty. Results: The 9 included studies were heterogeneous with regard to shared decision-making interventions and measured outcomes and were performed in different countries and in a variety of perinatal situations, such as women facing the choice of mode of birth after prior cesarean birth. The impact of a shared decision-making intervention on women’s perception of shared decision-making and on their experiences of the decision-making process were mixed. There may be a decrease in decisional conflict and regret related to feeling informed, but no change in decisional certainty. Discussion: Despite the call to increase the use of shared decision-making in perinatal care, there are few studies that have examined the effects of a shared decision-making support strategy. Further studies that include antepartum and intrapartum settings, which include common perinatal decisions such as induction of labor, are needed. In addition, clear guidance and strategies for successfully integrating shared decision-making and practice recommendations would help women and health care providers navigate these complex decisions.
DOCUMENT
Background: The majority of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are in a position to choose between having a mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation therapy (breast-conserving therapy). Since the long-term survival rates for mastectomy and for lumpectomy with radiation therapy are comparable, patients’ informed preferences are important for decision-making. Although most clinicians believe that they do include patients in the decision-making process, the information that women with breast cancer receive regarding the surgical options is often rather subjective, and does not invite patients to express their preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) is meant to help patients clarify their preferences, resulting in greater satisfaction with their final choice. Patient decision aids can be very supportive in SDM. We present the protocol of a study to β test a patient decision aid and optimise strategies for the implementation of SDM regarding the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the actual clinical setting. Methods/design: This paper concerns a preimplementation and post-implementation study, lasting from October 2014 to June 2015. The intervention consists of implementing SDM using a patient decision aid. The intervention will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative measures, acquired prior to, during and after the implementation of SDM. Outcome measures are knowledge about treatment, perceived SDM and decisional conflict. We will also conduct face-to-face interviews with a sample of these patients and their care providers, to assess their experiences with the implementation of SDM and the patient decision aid.
DOCUMENT
Background: Patient decision aids (PDAs) can support the treatment decision making process and empower patients to take a proactive role in their treatment pathway while using a shared decision-making (SDM) approach making participatory medicine possible. The aim of this study was to develop a PDA for prostate cancer that is accurate and user-friendly. Methods: We followed a user-centered design process consisting of five rounds of semi-structured interviews and usability surveys with topics such as informational/decisional needs of users and requirements for PDAs. Our userbase consisted of 8 urologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 2 oncology nurses, 8 general practitioners, 19 former prostate cancer patients, 4 usability experts and 11 healthy volunteers. Results: Informational needs for patients centered on three key factors: treatment experience, post-treatment quality of life, and the impact of side effects. Patients and clinicians valued a PDA that presents balanced information on these factors through simple understandable language and visual aids. Usability questionnaires revealed that patients were more satisfied overall with the PDA than clinicians; however, both groups had concerns that the PDA might lengthen consultation times (42 and 41%, respectively). The PDA is accessible on http://beslissamen.nl/. Conclusions: User-centered design provided valuable insights into PDA requirements but challenges in integrating diverse perspectives as clinicians focus on clinical outcomes while patients also consider quality of life. Nevertheless, it is crucial to involve a broad base of clinical users in order to better understand the decision-making process and to develop a PDA that is accurate, usable, and acceptable.
DOCUMENT
Patients with a hematologic malignancy increasingly prefer to be actively involved in treatment decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM), a process that supports decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions, fits well with this need. A decision is preference sensitive when well-informed patients considerably differ in their trade-offs between the pros and cons of one option, or if more equal treatment options are available, including no treatment. SDM involves several steps: the first is choice talk, where the professional informs the patient that a decision needs to be made between the various relevant options and that the patient's opinion is important. The second is option talk, where the professional explains the options and their pros and cons. In the third step, preference talk, the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences. The professional supports the patient in deliberation. The final step is decision talk, where the professional and patient discuss the patient's decisional role preference, make or defer the decision and discuss possible follow-up.
DOCUMENT
Patients with a hematologic malignancy increasingly prefer to be actively involved in treatment decision-making.1,2 Shared decision-making (SDM), a process that supports decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions, fits well with this need. A decision is preference sensitive when well-informed patients considerably differ in their trade-offs between the pros and cons of one option, or if more equal treatment options are available, including no treatment. SDM involves several steps: the first is choice talk, where the professional informs the patient that a decision needs to be made between the various relevant options and that the patient's opinion is important. The second is option talk, where the professional explains the options and their pros and cons. In the third step, preference talk, the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences. The professional supports the patient in deliberation. The final step is decision talk, where the professional and patient discuss the patient's decisional role preference, make or defer the decision and discuss possible follow-up.3,4
DOCUMENT
Worldwide, an increasing number of students in higher education have mental health problems. Talking about these problems at the university is often not that easy. Students fear to be stigmatised if they disclose their problems to others. However, if they do not disclose their problems, they may not get the support they often need. Existing interventions to help people with this disclosure-dilemma are not specifically aimed at students, and lack certain important aspects. Therefore, we developed an intervention to help students with making a personal, well-informed decision regarding whether or not to disclose their problems. We examined the experiences of students and professionals with the new intervention. Moreover, we studied whether the students were less concerned about disclosure and experienced less decisional conflicts after using the intervention. Students with mental health problems from three universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands completed questionnaires prior to the intervention, directly after and three months after. In addition, the educational professionals reported their experiences with applying the intervention. Both students and professionals appreciated the contents and structure of the intervention and students’ level of concern about disclosure and level of decisional conflicts were lower after using the intervention.
LINK
In the decision-making environment of evidence-based practice, the following three sources of information must be integrated: research evidence of the intervention, clinical expertise, and the patient’s values. In reality, evidence-based practice usually focuses on research evidence (which may be translated into clinical practice guidelines) and clinical expertise without considering the individual patient’s values. The shared decision-making model seems to be helpful in the integration of the individual patient’s values in evidence-based practice. We aim to discuss the relevance of shared decision making in chronic care and to suggest how it can be integrated with evidence-based practice in nursing. We start by describing the following three possible approaches to guide the decision-making process: the paternalistic approach, the informed approach, and the shared decision-making approach. Implementation of shared decision making has gained considerable interest in cases lacking a strong best-treatment recommendation, and when the available treatment options are equivalent to some extent. We discuss that in chronic care it is important to always invite the patient to participate in the decision-making process. We delineate the following six attributes of health care interventions in chronic care that influence the degree of shared decision making: the level of research evidence, the number of available intervention options, the burden of side effects, the impact on lifestyle, the patient group values, and the impact on resources. Furthermore, the patient’s willingness to participate in shared decision making, the clinical expertise of the nurse, and the context in which the decision making takes place affect the shared decision-making process. A knowledgeable and skilled nurse with a positive attitude towards shared decision making – integrated with evidence-based practice – can facilitate the shared decision-making process. We conclude that nurses as well as other health care professionals in chronic care should integrate shared decision making with evidence- based practice to deliver patient-centred care.
DOCUMENT
AIM: To understand the steps in the decision-making process regarding pain assessment and management for people living with dementia from the perspectives and experiences of people with dementia, formal and informal carers.METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. Seven English databases were searched, including PubMed, Psychological Information Database, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, and ProQuest, using synonyms and derivatives for "dementia", "cognitive impairment", "pain", "pain assessment", "pain management", "decision", "decision support", and "decision-making".RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Pain assessment and management in dementia are complex, successive, and collaborative processes carried out by different individuals over a period based on one's understanding of the person with dementia but with high uncertainty. Pain assessment involves a certain degree of guesswork, while pain management is a trial-and-error process.CONCLUSION: More pragmatic approaches are needed to overcome challenges, including uncertainty and decisional conflicts.
DOCUMENT
