Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making

Background Decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been shown to enable patients to identify a preferred screening option, but the extent to which such tools facilitate shared decision making (SDM) from the perspective of the provider is less well established. Objective Our goal was to elicit provider feedback regarding the impact of a CRC screening decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting. Methods Cross‐sectional survey. Participants Primary care providers participating in a clinical trial evaluating the impact of a novel CRC screening decision aid on SDM and adherence. Main outcomes Perceptions of the impact of the tool on decision‐making and implementation issues. Results Twenty‐nine of 42 (71%) eligible providers responded, including 27 internists and two nurse practitioners. The majority (>60%) felt that use of the tool complimented their usual approach, increased patient knowledge, helped patients identify a preferred screening option, improved the quality of decision making, saved time and increased patients’ desire to get screened. Respondents were more neutral is their assessment of whether the tool improved the overall quality of the patient visit or patient satisfaction. Fewer than 50% felt that the tool would be easy to implement into their practices or that it would be widely used by their colleagues. Conclusion Decision aids for CRC screening can improve the quality and efficiency of SDM from the provider perspective but future use is likely to depend on the extent to which barriers to implementation can be addressed.     

Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice

BACKGROUND: A consulting method known as 'shared decision making' (SDM) has been described and operationalized in terms of several 'competences'. One of these competences concerns the discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment or care options-'risk communication'. Few data exist on clinicians' ability to acquire skills and implement the competences of SDM or risk communication in consultations with patients. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the effects of skill development workshops for SDM and the use of risk communication aids on the process of consultations. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. Half the consultations were randomly selected for audio-taping, of which 352 patients attended and were audio-taped successfully. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were allocated randomly to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations were audio-taped from each phase. Raters (independent, trained and blinded to study phase) assessed the audio-tapes using a validated scale to assess levels of patient involvement (OPTION: observing patient involvement), and to analyse the nature of risk information discussed. Clinicians completed questionnaires after each consultation, assessing perceived clinician-patient agreement and level of patient involvement in decisions. Multilevel modelling was carried out with the OPTION score as the dependent variable, and rater, consultation and clinician levels of data, standardized by rater within clinician. RESULTS: Following each of the interventions, the clinicians significantly increased their involvement of patients in decision making (OPTION score increased by 10.6 following risk communication training [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.9 -13.3; P < 0.001] and by 12.9 after SDM skill development (95% CI 10 -15.8, P < 0.001), a moderate effect size. The level of involvement achieved by the risk communication aids was significantly increased by the subsequent introduction of the skill development workshops (7.7 increase in OPTION score, 95% CI 3.4-12; P < 0.001). The alternative sequence (skills followed by risk communication aids) did not achieve this effect. The use of most risk information formats increased after the provision of specific risk communication aids (P < 0.001). Clinicians using the risk communication tools perceived significantly higher patient and clinician agreement on treatment (P < 0.001), patient satisfaction with information (P < 0.01), clinician satisfaction with decision (P < 0.01) and general overall satisfaction with the consultation (P < 0.001) than those who were exposed to SDM skill development workshops. CONCLUSIONS: These clinicians were able to acquire the skills to implement SDM competences and to use risk communication aids. Each intervention provided independent effects. Further progress towards greater patient involvement in health care decision making is possible, and skill development in this area should be incorporated into postgraduate professional development programmes.     

Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) between professionals and patients is increasingly advocated from ethical principles. Some data are accruing about the effects of such approaches on health or other patient-based outcomes. These effects often vary substantially between studies. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the effects of training GPs in SDM, and the use of simple risk communication aids in general practice, on patient-based outcomes. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills; or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were randomly allocated to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations took place in 'research clinics' to evaluate the effects of more time for consultations, compared with usual surgery time. Patient-based outcomes were assessed at exit from consultation and 1 month follow-up. These were: COMRADE instrument (principal measures; subscales of risk communication and confidence in decision), and a range of secondary measures (anxiety, patient enablement, intention to adhere to chosen treatment, satisfaction with decision, support in decision making and SF-12 health status measure). Multilevel modelling was carried out with outcome score as the dependent variable, and follow-up point (i.e. exit or 1 month later for each patient), patient and doctor levels of explanatory variables. RESULTS: No statistically significant changes in patient-based outcomes due to the training interventions were found: COMRADE risk communication score increased 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to 2.32] after risk communication training and 0.9 (95% CI -0.89 to 2.35) after SDM training; and COMRADE satisfaction with communication score increased by 1.0 (95% CI -1.1 to 3.1) after risk communication, and decreased by 0.6 (95% CI 2.7 to -1.5) after SDM training. Patients' confidence in the decision (2.1 increase, 95% CI 0.7-3.5, P < 0.01) and expectation to adhere to chosen treatments (0.7 increase, 95% CI 0.04-1.36, P < 0.05) were significantly greater among patients seen in the research clinics (when more time was available) compared with usual surgery time. Most outcomes deteriorated between exit and 1 month later. There was no interaction between intervention effects. CONCLUSION: Patients can be more involved in treatment decisions, and risks and benefits of treatment options can be explained in more detail, without adversely affecting patient-based outcomes. SDM and risk communication may be advocated from values and ethical principles even without evidence of health gain or improvement in patient-based outcomes, but the resources required to enhance these professional skills must also be taken into consideration. These data also indicate the benefits of extra consultation time.     

Toward the 'tipping point': decision aids and informed patient choice

Preference-sensitive treatment decisions involve making value trade-offs between benefits and harms that should depend on informed patient choice. There is strong evidence that patient decision aids not only improve decision quality but also prevent the overuse of options that informed patients do not value. This paper discusses progress in implementing decision aids and the policy prospects for reaching a "tipping point" in the adoption of "informed patient choice" as a standard of practice.     

Shared Decision Making and Patient Decision Aids: Knowledge,Attitudes, and Practices Among Hawai‘i Physicians

Background: As the health care field moves toward patient-centered care (PCC), increasing emphasis has been placed on the benefits of patient decision aids for promoting shared decision making (SDM). This study provides a baseline measure of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) among Hawai‘i''s physicians with respect to patient decision aids (DAs). Physicians throughout the State of Hawai‘i were invited to complete a survey assessing their knowledge, attitudes, and practices with respect to the clinical use of DAs.One hundred and seventy four valid surveys were analyzed. Reported awareness and use of DAs were low, but recognition of the benefits of SDM and openness to the use of DAs were very high. The leading perceived barriers to the implementation of DAs were lack of awareness, lack of resources, and limited physician time to learn about DA technology. However, a significant majority of the respondents reported that DAs could empower patients by improving knowledge (88%), increasing satisfaction with the consultation process (81%), and increasing compliance (74%). Among physicians currently employing DAs, use of brochures or options matrix sheets was the most common aid tool. However, leading recommended DA formats were paper-based brochures for clinic use (75%) and interactive online website programs for outside clinic use (73.5%). Given growing emphasis on the PCC model and the recognized desire of many patients to participate in the medical decision making process, positive responses toward SDM and the use of DAs by Hawai‘i physicians are promising.     

Patient decision aids to support clinical decision making: evaluating the decision or the outcomes of the decision.

Decision aids (DAs) are tools to support patients make informed health decisions with their practitioner. They aim to improve patient knowledge of options, incorporate patient preferences and values, and increase patient involvement in health decision making. Increasingly, the debate about DAs concerns how they should be implemented in practice, with the view that DAs are superior to usual clinical care in facilitating health decisions. The authors challenge this view and suggest that DA research has focused on measures of decision process, leaving the effects on the outcome of the decision relatively unknown. It is still unclear in which conditions DAs are better for patient health and well-being than clinician-led decisions. The authors present a new randomized design to examine the effects of DA-supported patient choice on patient-centered outcomes to identify where DAs are best implemented in clinical practice. In this design, patients are randomized to 1 of 4 arms: intervention A, intervention B, choice of either intervention supported by a clinician, or choice of either intervention supported by a decision aid. Health and quality of life measured over the long term are presented as the primary outcomes. The authors propose that this design will allow the proper assessment of different modes of decision making.     

Shared decision making: an overview of international research literature

Shared decision making (SDM) is a particular type of physician-patient-interaction to which the patient brings his/her individual preferences and the physician contributes the medical expertise. The aim of the SDM process is a treatment decision based on mutual agreement and active participation. This kind of decision-making is best effectuated in cases of diseases with medical uncertainty and/or differing patient outcome-treatment potentialities (e.g., breast- or prostate cancer). The concept of SDM is widely known in the English-speaking world. A database search with the keywords "shared decision" produced 301 relevant papers, of which 193 are theoretical and 108 empirical works. This paper gives an overview over the state of international research under special consideration in continental European literature. Different questions are explored with regard to potential methodological and contextual research fields. Present results indicate that the level of patient preference to participate in decisions is higher than their actual involvement. Results also prove that SDM leads to higher rates of satisfaction and better treatment results according to patients. Results regarding the efficacy of various intervention methods used to promote SDM, especially within different cultural contexts, are inconsistent. A great amount of research still needs to be done in this field.     

A proposal for the development of national certification standards for patient decision aids in the US

Efforts to implement the use of patient decision aids to stimulate shared decision making are gaining prominence. Patient decision aids have been designed to help patients participate in making specific choices among health care options. Because these tools clearly influence decisions, poor quality, inaccurate or unbalanced presentations or misleading tools are a risk to patients. As payer interest in these tools increases, so does the risk that patients are harmed by the use of tools that are described as patient decision aids yet fail to meet established standards. To address this problem, the National Quality Forum (NQF) in the USA convened a multi-stakeholder expert panel in 2016 to propose national standards for a patient decision aid certification process. In 2017, NQF established an Action Team to foster shared decision making, and to call for a national certification process as one recommendation among others to stimulate improvement. A persistent barrier to the setup of a national patient decision aids certification process is the lack of a sustainable financial model to support the work.     

Measurement challenges in shared decision making: putting the ‘patient’ in patient‐reported measures

Measuring clinicians' shared decision‐making (SDM) performance is a key requirement given the intensity of policy interest in many developed countries – yet it remains one of the most difficult methodological challenges, which is a concern for many stakeholders. In this Viewpoint Article, we investigate the development of existing patient‐reported measures (PRMs) of SDM identified in a recent review. We find that patients were involved in the development of only four of the 13 measures. This lack of patient involvement in PRM development is associated with two major threats to content validity, common to all 13 PRMs of SDM: (i) an assumption of patient awareness of ‘decision points’ and (ii) an assumption that there is only one decision point in each healthcare consultation. We provide detailed examples of these threats and their impact on accurate assessment of SDM processes and outcomes, which may hamper efforts to introduce incentives for SDM implementation. We propose cognitive interviewing as a recommended method of involving patients in the design of PRMs in the field of SDM and provide a practical example of this approach.     

Clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids. An inevitable relationship

As health professionals and patients are moving toward shared models of decision making, there is a growing need for integrated decision support tools that facilitate uptake of best evidence in routine clinical practice in a patient-centered manner. This article charts the landscape of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and patient decision aids. Decision support tools for medical practice can be mapped on two dimensions. (1) The target user and his or her level of decision making; either for groups of patients or for an individual patient and (2) the level of uncertainty: either supporting more directive decision making (behavior support) in the case of strong recommendations with a single best option or supporting dialog (deliberation support) on the pros and cons of different options in the case of conditional (or weak) recommendations. We conclude that it is important to establish closer links between CPGs and patient decision aids, through collaborative development of both. Such collaboration will encourage the design of decision support tools for professionals and patients who share the same evidence and the aim to increase the quality of decision making between doctor and patient. This could facilitate the implementation of CPGs and shared decision making in clinical practice.     

Trials of decision aids for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are used to promote informed decision making. This review examines the methods and findings of studies that have evaluated the impact of prostate cancer screening decision aids on patient outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Registry, reference lists, and abstracts from professional meetings were searched through December 2006. Search terms included prostate cancer screening and decision making. Studies were included if a patient education intervention for prostate cancer screening had been evaluated against a control condition. RESULTS: Eighteen eligible trials, involving 6221 participants, were identified. Sixteen studies enrolled primary care patients, while the remaining two studies were community-based. All the prostate cancer screening decision aids were in English, with varied reading levels. Consistent with previous reviews, the patient decision aids improved patient knowledge and made patients more confident about their decisions. The aids appeared to decrease interest in prostate-specific antigen testing and screening behavior among patients seeking routine care (relative risk [RR]=0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.81-0.97, p=0.008); the aids had no impact on the screening behavior of patients seeking screening services. Additionally, patients who received patient decision aids were more likely to prefer watchful waiting as a treatment option if they were found to have prostate cancer than were controls (RR=1.53, 95% CI=1.31-1.77, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer screening decision aids enhance patient knowledge, decrease decisional conflict, and promote greater involvement in decision making. The absence of outcome measures that reflect all elements of informed decision making continues to limit the field.     

Evaluating decision aids – where next?

Decision aids have been developed to help patients become involved in decision‐making about their individual health care. During the evaluation of a particular decision aid in maternity care – a set of 10 ‘Informed Choice’ leaflets – we considered the lessons learnt for evaluation of decision aids in the future. Decision aids have been tested mainly in explanatory trials and have been found to be effective. We argue that existing decision aids should be subjected to more pragmatic trials to test their effectiveness in the real world. The small amount of evidence on their use in the real world shows that they face challenges, resulting in poor implementation. Therefore, we propose that implementation strategies are developed which take heed of the findings of research on getting evidence into practice, and in particular address structural barriers such as the lack of time available to health professionals. We recommend that these ‘decision aid implementation packages’ are developed in conjunction with both health professionals and patients, and identify and address potential barriers to both the delivery of patient involvement in decision‐making, and the use of decision aids, in the real world. These ‘packages’ can then be submitted to pragmatic evaluation.     

The potential contribution of decision aids to screening programmes

Decision aids for health service users facing decisions about screening have been developed for controversial tests (such as that for prostate specific antigen as a screen for prostate cancer) and tests in which outcomes are value laden (as in some prenatal tests). The potential usefulness of decision aids in established screening programmes (such as those offering mammography to women over 50 in the United Kingdom) remains to be explored. In principle any decision about screening test acceptance may be sensitive to individual preferences and could be supported by an appropriate decision aid. Decision aids might also help reduce some of the problems currently associated with public misconceptions about screening. Objections to the promotion of individual choice regarding screening tests usually take the form of concern that this will lead to unacceptable losses in terms of population health gain and health system efficiency, or of fear that individuals will choose options that are wrong for them. The introduction of decision aids could alleviate both of these objections to some extent. Decision aids could encourage people to consider the social as well as the individual consequences of their choices and they should promote choices consistent with personal values. Although there are strong arguments in principle for introducing decision aids into established screening programmes, their potential needs to be confirmed in empirical evaluations and there may be many contentious decisions and practical challenges to be overcome in order to implement them.     

Shared treatment decision making in a collectively funded health care system: possible conflicts and some potential solutions

In recent years there has been a growth in the advocacy of shared decision making (SDM) between clinicians and patients as a way of practicing medicine. Although there is a range of perspectives on what SDM means, in essence it refers to greater involvement of the individual patient in deliberations about appropriate forms of clinical management. The patient's perception of the role of the doctor in SDM is crucial: for it to work successfully, the patient needs to be able to be confident that the doctor is focused on which treatment will generate the greatest benefit for them. However, the doctor also has responsibilities to others, in particular to other patients and potential patients within the collectively funded health care system. This dual responsibility can create a range of dilemmas for the clinician in the context of SDM: Should they inform patients about all effective treatments or just those that the health care system considers cost-effective? Do they risk losing patients from their books if they inform patients about their responsibilities to the health care system? SDM also raises questions about the wider principles of the health care system: Are its equity principles consistent with SDM? Should patients with a strong preference for an effective but non-cost-effective treatment be permitted to pay for it privately? This paper describes the nature of the conflicts that are likely to emerge if SDM diffuses within collectively funded health care systems, and considers a range of policy responses. It argues that the risk of conflict may be reduced by making a clear distinction between clinical guidelines (focusing on effectiveness) and system guidelines (focusing on cost-effectiveness).     

Leveraging the timing and frequency of patient decision aids in longitudinal shared decision‐making: A narrative review and applied model

IntroductionShared decision‐making (SDM) is intended to increase patient‐centredness of medical decision‐making for patients with acute and chronic conditions. Concurrently, patient decision aids (PtDAs) can supplement SDM by providing information to guide communication between patients and healthcare providers. Because of the prevalence of chronic conditions, where decisions may be extended or recurring, we sought to explore how effectively these tools have been leveraged in this context.MethodsWe conducted a narrative review of the literature on both SDM and PtDAs, searching PubMed and Boston University''s library database search tool for English‐language articles published from January 2005 until March 2021. Additional search terms focused on temporality. Drawing from our findings, we developed a combined framework to highlight areas for future research using the discussion of end‐of‐life decisions as an exemplar to illustrate its relevance to chronic care contexts.ResultsAfter screening 57 articles, we identified 25 articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria on SDM, PtDA use and temporality for chronic care. The literature on SDM highlighted time outside of the medical visit and opportunity to include outside decision partners as important elements of the process. PtDAs were commonly evaluated for process‐related and proximal outcomes, but less often for distal outcomes. Early evidence points to the value of comparative outcome evaluation based on the timing of PtDA distribution.ConclusionOur review of the literature on SDM and PtDAs reveals less attention to the timing of PtDAs relative to that of SDM. We highlight the need for further study of timing in PtDA use to improve longitudinal SDM for chronic care. The model that we propose in our discussion provides a starting point for future research on PtDA efficacy.Patient or Public ContributionFive patient consultants provided input and feedback on the development and utility of our model.     

Shared decision making in oncology: assessing oncologist behaviour in consultations in which adjuvant therapy is considered after primary surgical treatment

Introduction Shared decision making (SDM) is now considered a desirable goal in health care, yet little is known about current practice in cancer care, and its impact on patient outcomes. This study aimed to develop an oncology‐specific coding system for SDM, explore variations in SDM according to patient and disease characteristics, determine the relationship between SDM and patient satisfaction with the consultation, and explore the impact of SDM on patient anxiety. Methods Sixty‐three medical and radiation oncology consultations with patients with primary cancer involving consideration of adjuvant therapy after surgery were audio‐taped, transcribed and coded. Intra and inter‐rater reliability of the coding system was 95 and 90% respectively. Patients completed questionnaires before and after the consultation. Results Construct validity of the SDM coding system was successfully conducted. Oncologists demonstrated on average under 11 of 18 SDM behaviours. Behaviours seeking patient preferences were particularly rare. SDM behaviours were more apparent in consultations involving female breast cancer patients. SDM behaviour scores in combination with patient involvement preference could predict achievement of patient involvement preference but not overall patient satisfaction. Although there was no overall relationship between patient anxiety and SDM scores, it did appear that physicians may change SDM behaviour according to patient factors including anxiety. Conclusion Our findings reinforce the importance of the doctor in facilitating shared decision making in oncology consultations.     

When the business of sharing treatment decisions is not the same as shared decision making: A discourse analysis of decision sharing in general practice

Although shared decision making (SDM) in general practice continues to be promoted as a highly desirable means of conducting consultations it is rarely observed in practice. The aim of this study is to identify the discursive features and conversational strategies particular to the negotiation and sharing of treatment decisions in order to understand why SDM is not yet embedded into routine practice. Consultations from Scottish general practices were examined using discourse analysis. Two themes were identified as key components for when the doctor and the patient were intent on sharing decisions: the generation of patient involvement using first-person pronouns, and successful and unsuccessful patient requesting practices. This article identifies a number of conversational activities found to be successful in supporting doctors' agendas and reducing their responsibility for decisions made. Doctor's use of 'partnership talk' was found to minimize resistance and worked to invite consensus rather than involvement. The information from this study provides new insight into the consultation process by identifying how treatment decisions are arrived at through highlighting the complexities involved. Notably, shared decision making does not happen with the ease implied by current models and appears to work to maintain a biomedical 'GP as expert' approach rather than one in which the patient is truly involved in partnership. We suggest that further research on the impact of conversational activities is likely to benefit our understanding of shared decision making and hence training in and the practice of SDM.     

The impact of decision aids to enhance shared decision making for diabetes (the DAD study): protocol of a cluster randomized trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Shared decision making contributes to high quality healthcare by promoting a patientcentered approach. Patient involvement in selecting the components of a diabetes medication program that best match the patient's values and preferences may also enhance medication adherence and improve outcomes. Decision aids are tools designed to involve patients in shared decision making, but their adoption in practice has been limited. In this study, we propose to obtain a preliminary estimate of the impact of patient decision aids vs. usual care on measures of patient involvement in decision making, diabetes care processes, medication adherence, glycemic and cardiovascular risk factor control, and resource utilization. In addition, we propose to identify, describe, and explain factors that promote or inhibit the routine embedding of decision aids in practice. METHODS: We will be conducting a mixed-methods study comprised of a cluster-randomized, practical, multicentered trial enrolling clinicians and their patients (n = 240) with type 2 diabetes from rural and suburban primary care practices (n = 8), with an embedded qualitative study to examine factors that influence the incorporation of decision aids into routine practice. The intervention will consist of the use of a decision aid (Statin Choice and Aspirin Choice, or Diabetes Medication Choice) during the clinical encounter. The qualitative study will include analysis of video recordings of clinical encounters and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with participating patients, clinicians, and clinic support staff, in both trial arms. DISCUSSION: Upon completion of this trial, we will have new knowledge about the effectiveness of diabetes decision aids in these practices. We will also better understand the factors that promote or inhibit the successful implementation and normalization of medication choice decision aids in the care of chronic patients in primary care practices. Trial registration NCT00388050.     

How should patients behave to facilitate shared decision making – the doctors’ view

Objective To study how physicians feel about patients’ efforts to be engaged in shared decision making (SDM). Study setting and design Survey of physicians from distinctly different medical disciplines (238 psychiatrists and 169 vascular surgeons). Participants were requested to judge which patient behaviours they find helpful and which behaviours detrimental for SDM. Results Psychiatrists and surgeons had rather positive attitudes about active patient behaviours. However, there were quite a few patient behaviours (e.g. searching the Internet, being assertive towards the doctor) which provoked ambivalent or negative attitudes. Discussion and conclusions Physicians are generally quite open towards active patient behaviour in the consultation. They, however, do consider it as less helpful and become more annoyed if patients insist on their preferences and doubt their doctors’ recommendations. Physicians must realize that SDM implies giving up decisional power and try to be more flexible in their interactions with patients.