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
Background: A patient decision aid (PtDA) can support shared decision making (SDM) in preference-sensitive care, with more than one clinically applicable treatment option. The development of a PtDA is a complex process, involving several steps, such as designing, developing and testing the draft with all the stakeholders, known as alpha testing. This is followed by testing in ‘real life’ situations, known as beta testing, and then finalising the definite version. Our aim was developing and alpha testing a PtDA for primary treatment of early stage breast cancer, ensuring that the tool is considered relevant, valid and feasible by patients and professionals. Methods: Our qualitative descriptive study applied various methods including face-to-face think-aloud interviews, a focus group and semi-structured telephone interviews. The study population consisted of breast cancer patients facing the choice between breast-conserving therapy with or without preceding neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and mastectomy, and professionals involved in breast cancer care in dedicated multidisciplinary breast cancer teams. Results: A PtDA was developed in four iterative test rounds, taking nearly 2 years, involving 26 patients and 26 professionals. While the research group initially opted for simplicity for the sake of implementation, the clinicians objected that the complexity of the decision could not be ignored. Other topics of concern were the conflicting views of professionals and patients regarding side effects, the amount of information and how to present it. Conclusion: The development was an extensive process, because the professionals rejected the simplifications proposed by the research group. This resulted in the development of a completely new draft PtDA, which took double the expected time and resources. The final version of the PtDA appeared to be well-appreciated by professionals and patients, although its acceptability will only be proven in actual practice (beta testing)
DOCUMENT
Objective: Effective healthcare innovations are often not adopted and implemented. An implementation strategy based on facilitators and barriers for use as perceived by healthcare professionals could increase adoption rates. This study therefore aimed to identify the most relevant facilitators and barriers for use of an innovative breast cancer aftercare decision aid (PtDA) in healthcare practice. Methods: Facilitators and barriers (related to the PtDA, adopter and healthcare organisation) were assessed among breast cancer aftercare health professionals (n = 81), using the MIDI questionnaire. For each category, a backward regression analysis was performed (dependent = intention to adopt). All significant factors were then added to a final regression analysis to identify to most relevant determinants of PtDA adoption. Results: Expecting higher compatibility with daily practice and clinical guidelines, more positive outcomes of use, higher perceived relevance for the patient and increased self-efficacy were significantly associated with a higher intention to adopt. Self-efficacy and perceived patient relevance remained significant in the final model. Conclusions: Low perceived self-efficacy and patient relevance are the most important barriers for health professions to adopt a breast cancer aftercare PtDA. Practice implications: To target self-efficacy and perceived patient relevance, the implementation strategy could apply health professional peer champions.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVE: Patients diagnosed with advanced larynx cancer face a decisional process in which they can choose between radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, or a total laryngectomy with adjuvant radiotherapy. Clinicians do not always agree on the best clinical treatment, making the decisional process for patients a complex problem.METHODS: Guided by the International Patient Decision Aid (PDA) Standards, we followed three developmental phases for which we held semi-structured in-depth interviews with patients and physicians, thinking-out-loud sessions, and a study-specific questionnaire. Audio-recorded interviews were verbatim transcribed, thematically coded, and analyzed. Phase 1 consisted of an evaluation of the decisional needs and the regular counseling process; phase 2 tested the comprehensibility and usability of the PDA; and phase 3 beta tested the feasibility of the PDA.RESULTS: Patients and doctors agreed on the need for development of a PDA. Major revisions were conducted after phase 1 to improve the readability and replace the majority of text with video animations. Patients and physicians considered the PDA to be a major improvement to the current counseling process.CONCLUSION: This study describes the development of a comprehensible and easy-to-use online patient decision aid for advanced larynx cancer, which was found satisfactory by patients and physicians (available on www.treatmentchoice.info). The outcome of the interviews underscores the need for better patient counseling. The feasibility and satisfaction among newly diagnosed patients as well as doctors will need to be proven. To this end, we started a multicenter trial evaluating the PDA in clinical practice (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03292341).LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 129:2733-2739, 2019.
MULTIFILE
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
Objective: To construct the underlying value structure of shared decision making (SDM) models. Method: We included previously identified SDM models (n = 40) and 15 additional ones. Using a thematic analysis, we coded the data using Schwartz’s value theory to define values in SDM and to investigate value relations. Results: We identified and defined eight values and developed three themes based on their relations: shared control, a safe and supportive environment, and decisions tailored to patients. We constructed a value structure based on the value relations and themes: the interplay of healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) and patients’ skills [Achievement], support for a patient [Benevolence], and a good relationship between HCP and patient [Security] all facilitate patients’ autonomy [Self-Direction]. These values enable a more balanced relationship between HCP and patient and tailored decision making [Universalism]. Conclusion: SDM can be realized by an interplay of values. The values Benevolence and Security deserve more explicit attention, and may especially increase vulnerable patients’ Self-Direction. Practice implications: This value structure enables a comparison of values underlying SDM with those of specific populations, facilitating the incorporation of patients’ values into treatment decision making. It may also inform the development of SDM measures, interventions, education programs, and HCPs when practicing.
DOCUMENT
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
In this thesis several studies are presented that have targeted decision making about case management plans in probation. In a case management plan probation officers describe the goals and interventions that should help offenders stop reoffending, and the specific measures necessary to reduce acute risks of recidivism and harm. Such a plan is embedded in a judicial framework, a sanction or advice about the sanction in which these interventions and measures should be executed. The topic of this thesis is the use of structured decision support, and the question is if this can improve decision making about case management plans in probation and subsequently improve the effectiveness of offender supervision. In this chapter we first sketch why structured decision making was introduced in the Dutch probation services. Next we describe the instrument for risk and needs assessment as well as the procedure to develop case management plans that are used by the Dutch probation services and that are investigated in this thesis. Then we describe the setting of the studies and the research questions, and we conclude with an overview of this thesis.
DOCUMENT
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
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
