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
