Clinician perspectives on clinical decision support systems in lung cancer: Implications for shared decision‐making

BackgroundLung cancer treatment decisions are typically made among clinical experts in a multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) based on clinical data and guidelines. The rise of artificial intelligence and cultural shifts towards patient autonomy are changing the nature of clinical decision‐making towards personalized treatments. This can be supported by clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that generate personalized treatment information as a basis for shared decision‐making (SDM). Little is known about lung cancer patients'' treatment decisions and the potential for SDM supported by CDSSs. The aim of this study is to understand to what extent SDM is done in current practice and what clinicians need to improve it.ObjectiveTo explore (1) the extent to which patient preferences are taken into consideration in non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment decisions; (2) clinician perspectives on using CDSSs to support SDM.DesignMixed methods study consisting of a retrospective cohort study on patient deviation from MTB advice and reasons for deviation, qualitative interviews with lung cancer specialists and observations of MTB discussions and patient consultations.Setting and ParticipantsNSCLC patients (N = 257) treated at a single radiotherapy clinic and nine lung cancer specialists from six Dutch clinics.ResultsWe found a 10.9% (n = 28) deviation rate from MTB advice; 50% (n = 14) were due to patient preference, of which 85.7% (n = 12) chose a less intensive treatment than MTB advice. Current MTB recommendations are based on clinician experience, guidelines and patients'' performance status. Most specialists (n = 7) were receptive towards CDSSs but cited barriers, such as lack of trust, lack of validation studies and time. CDSSs were considered valuable during MTB discussions rather than in consultations.ConclusionLung cancer decisions are heavily influenced by clinical guidelines and experience, yet many patients prefer less intensive treatments. CDSSs can support SDM by presenting the harms and benefits of different treatment options rather than giving single treatment advice. External validation of CDSSs should be prioritized.Patient or Public ContributionThis study did not involve patients or the public explicitly; however, the study design was informed by prior interviews with volunteers of a cancer patient advocacy group. The study objectives and data collection were supported by Dutch health care insurer CZ for a project titled ‘My Best Treatment’ that improves patient‐centeredness and the lung cancer patient pathway in the Netherlands.     

Including the voice of paediatric patients: Cocreation of an engagement game

BackgroundEngaging patients in health care, research and policy is essential to improving patient‐important health outcomes and the quality of care. Although the importance of patient engagement is increasingly acknowledged, clinicians and researchers still find it difficult to engage patients, especially paediatric patients. To facilitate the engagement of children and adolescents in health care, the aim of this project is to develop an engagement game.MethodsA user‐centred design was used to develop a patient engagement game in three steps: (1) identification of important themes for adolescents regarding their illness, treatment and hospital care, (2) evaluation of the draft version of the game and (3) testing usability in clinical practice. Adolescents (12–18 years) were engaged in all steps of the development process through focus groups, interviews or a workshop. These were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed in MAXQDA.Results(1) The important themes for adolescents (N = 15) were included: visiting the hospital, participating, disease and treatment, social environment, feelings, dealing with staff, acceptation, autonomy, disclosure and chronically ill peers. (2) Then, based on these themes, the engagement game was developed and the draft version was evaluated by 13 adolescents. Based on their feedback, changes were made to the game (e.g., adjusting the images and changing the game rules). (3) Regarding usability, the pilot version was evaluated positively. The game helped adolescents to give their opinion. Based on the feedback of adolescents, some last adjustments (e.g., changing colours and adding a game board) were made, which led to the final version of the game, All Voices Count.ConclusionsWorking together with adolescents, All Voices Count, a patient engagement game was developed. This game provides clinicians with a tool that supports shared decision‐making to address adolescents'' wishes and needs.Patient or Public ContributionPaediatric patients, clinicians, researchers, youth panel of Fonds NutsOhra and patient associations (Patient Alliance for Rare and Genetic Diseases, Dutch Childhood Cancer Organization) were involved in all phases of the development of the patient engagement game—from writing the project plan to the final version of the game.     

试论中药饮片制剂化

长期以来，传统中药饮片加工、配方均存在严重的质量问题。本文论述了在保持中医用药理论和习惯的基础上，应用现代医药制剂的生产质量管理模式，提出了“中药饮片制剂化”的设想和方案，试图彻底改变传统的临时称量配方的模式，创建新型的中药饮片配方模式。作者认为：中药饮片制剂化是中药饮片质量放心工程实施的重要途径。     

医院药学信息系统建设的实证模型

目的:为医院药学专业人员提供信息系统建设的思路。方法:描述长海医院药学信息化建设的实证模型。结果:提出了建设新型医院药学信息系统的理论和思路;通过流程优化、安全给药、合理用药和辅助决策4个方面的实例化建设介绍,论证了上述理论的可行性。结论:完善医院药学信息系统理论,有助于明确中国医院药学信息化建设目标,进一步推动医院药学的发展。     

The influence of gene expression profiling on decisional conflict in decision making for early-stage breast cancer chemotherapy

BackgroundWomen with early-stage breast cancer, of whom only 15% will experience a recurrence, are often conflicted or uncertain about taking chemotherapy. Gene expression profiling (GEP) of tumours informs risk prediction, potentially affecting treatment decisions. We examined whether receiving a GEP test score reduces decisional conflict in chemotherapy treatment decision making.MethodsA general population sample of 200 women completed the decisional conflict scale (DCS) at baseline (no GEP test score scenario) and after (scenario with GEP test score added) completing a discrete choice experiment survey for early-stage breast cancer chemotherapy. We scaled the 16-item DCS total scores and subscores from 0 to 100 and calculated means, standard deviations and change in scores, with significance (p < 0.05) based on matched pairs t-tests.ResultsWe identified five respondent subgroups based on preferred treatment option; almost 40% did not change their chemotherapy decision after receiving GEP testing information. Total score and all subscores (uncertainty, informed, values clarity, support, and effective decision) decreased significantly in the respondent subgroup who were unsure about taking chemotherapy initially but changed to no chemotherapy (n =33). In the subgroup of respondents (n = 25) who chose chemotherapy initially but changed to unsure, effective decision subscore increased significantly. In the overall sample, changes in total and all subscores were non-significant.ConclusionsGEP testing adds value for women initially unsure about chemotherapy treatment with a decrease in decisional conflict. However, for women who are confident about their treatment decisions, GEP testing may not add value. Decisions to request GEP testing should be personalised based on patient preferences.     

中药饮片质量控制的现状与对策

中药饮片的质量控制是目前中药质量控制的最薄弱环节，存在的问题集中表现为：无质量控制标准或质量控制标准低，质量标准不合理，不能反映饮片的药性与药效。要改变这种现状，应采取如下措施：①从药材的源头和流通抓起，控制中药饮片的质量；②完善和规范炮制过程，保证中药饮片的质量稳定性；③加强中药饮片炮制机理和饮片质量标准的基础研究；④大力研制中药饮片现代化生产机械；⑤走名牌战略与法制建设相结合的道路，打造大型中药饮片企业。这些措施的实施，将提升我国中药饮片的质量，为中药现代化和国际化做出贡献。     

国内政策学理论中政策方案研制环节的理论欠缺

国内现有政策学著作中政策方案研制环节的理论阐述存在的缺陷为:(1)目的表述抽象并存在概念混淆;(2)目的实现与否缺乏科学考核的指标;(3)缺乏保证(目的)考核指标落实的公认的科学研究方法;(4)缺乏可操作的实现目的的思路和原理;(5)实现目的的原则高度抽象和泛化;(6)实现目的的步骤不可操作;(7)缺乏实现目的的指导性研究方法;(8)研究者、决策者难获符合常理知识.因此认为现有著作的相关内容无法有效指导研究者如何开展关于政策方案的研究,也无法有效指导政策制定者科学制定政策方案.     

Motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing: A systematic review

ObjectivesSingle-gene testing is associated with psycho-social challenges for cancer patients. Genomic testing may amplify these. The aim of this study was to understand patients’ motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing, to enable healthcare providers to support their patients throughout the testing process and interpretation of test results.MethodsFive databases were searched for original peer reviewed research articles published between January 2001 and September 2018 addressing motivation for genomic cancer testing. QualSyst was used to assess quality.Results182 studies were identified and 17 were included for review. Studies were heterogenous. Both somatic and germline testing were included, and 14 studies used hypothetical scenarios. 3249 participants were analyzed, aged 18 to 94. Most were female and white. The most common diagnoses were breast, ovarian, lung and colorectal cancer. Interest in testing was high. Motivations included ability to predict cancer risk, inform disease management, benefit families, and understand cancer. Barriers included concerns about cost, privacy/confidentiality, clinical utility, and psychological harm.ConclusionsDespite concerns, consumers are interested in cancer genomic testing if it can provide actionable results for themselves and their families.Practice ImplicationsProviders must manage understanding and expectations of testing and translate genetic information into health-promoting behaviours.