Decide + Be Ready: A Contraceptive Decision-Making Mobile Application for Servicewomen

ABSTRACT Women in the military have a high rate of unintended pregnancies, which is an issue both personally and with respect to the warfighting mission. One strategy to help servicewomen achieve family planning goals includes increasing education about and access to contraception. Research suggests that preference-sensitive decisions about contraceptives benefit from shared decision-making, and decision aids have been shown to facilitate this patient-centered approach. In this article, we describe the process by which we enhanced an existing evidence-based tool to meet the needs of military servicewomen and created Decide + Be Ready, a contraceptive decision-making mobile application. After extensive research into challenges faced by servicewomen with respect to contraceptive knowledge and access, we developed content for the decision aid and determined that a mobile app format would provide the privacy and convenience needed. Our team developed a prototype that, in collaboration with the Defense Health Agency Connected Health Branch, was tested with servicewomen and providers. User feedback shaped the final version, which can be accessed free from the App Store and Google Play. Early implementation has demonstrated patient and provider satisfaction. Obstacles to full implementation of Decide + Be Ready remain within the Military Health System. We lay out a roadmap for dissemination, implementation, and evaluation and explore the applications of the decision aid for health professions education in the realm of shared decision-making. Finally, we recommend consideration of decision aids for other health care decisions as a way to achieve patient-centered care, improve health outcomes, and potentially reduce costs.

Download Full-text

Improving the Perception of Patient-Centered Wellness in a Virtual Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Journal of Doctoral Nursing Practice ◽

10.1891/jdnp-d-20-00078 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. JDNP-D-20-00078

Author(s):

Sybilla Myers ◽

Christopher Kennedy

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Cognitive Theory ◽

Well Being ◽

Mobile App ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Patient Centered ◽

The Social

BackgroundPerceived health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is fundamental to well-being and is a meaningful way to measure physical and mental health.Local ProblemNo standard method exists for measuring perceived HRQOL during the COVID-19 pandemic in participants as they attempt to improve their self-determined wellness goals. An implementation plan that considers the social distancing limitations imposed can be used to predict an individual’s likelihood of long-term success.MethodsDuring the four, 2-week plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, the Social Cognitive Theory model informed the implementation of the four core interventions. To guide iterative changes, the data was analyzed through Excel and run charts.InterventionsThe four core interventions were the shared decision-making tool (SDMT), health mobile app tool (HMAT), wellness tracker tool (WTT), and the team engagement plan.ResultsAmong 28 participants, perceived quality of life increased by 70%, engagement in shared decision-making increased to 82%, app use and confidence increased to 85%, and goal attainment reached 81%.ConclusionsThe SDMT, health app, and wellness tracker created a methodical plan of accountability for increasing participant wellness. The contextual barrier of the COVID-19 pandemic added a negative wellness burden which was mitigated by creating a patient-centered culture of wellness.

Download Full-text

Crafting Care That Fits: Workload and Capacity Assessments Complementing Decision Aids in Implementing Shared Decision Making (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.13763 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Thomas H Wieringa ◽

Manuel F Sanchez-Herrera ◽

Nataly R Espinoza ◽

Viet-Thi Tran ◽

Kasey Boehmer

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Chronic Conditions ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Patient Centered ◽

Patient Goals ◽

Minimally Disruptive Medicine ◽

Workload Capacity

UNSTRUCTURED About 42% of adults have one or more chronic conditions and 23% have multiple chronic conditions. The coordination and integration of services for the management of patients living with multimorbidity is important for care to be efficient, safe, and less burdensome. Minimally disruptive medicine may optimize this coordination and integration. It is a patient-centered approach to care that focuses on achieving patient goals for life and health by seeking care strategies that fit a patient’s context and are minimally disruptive and maximally supportive. The cumulative complexity model practically orients minimally disruptive medicine–based care. In this model, the patient workload-capacity imbalance is the central mechanism driving patient complexity. These elements should be accounted for when making decisions for patients with chronic conditions. Therefore, in addition to decision aids, which may guide shared decision making, we propose to discuss and clarify a potential workload-capacity imbalance.

Download Full-text

Shared Decision Making

10.2310/ot.7108 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Apurupa Ballamudi ◽

John Chi

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Medical Information ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Patient Centered ◽

Risks And Benefits ◽

Benefit Patient ◽

Risk And Benefit

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process in which patients and providers work together to make medical decisions with a patient-centric focus, considering available evidence, treatment options, the patient’s values and goals, and risks and benefits. It is important for all providers to understand how to effectively use SDM in their interactions with patients to improve patients’ experiences throughout their healthcare journey. There are strategies to improve communication between patients and their providers, particularly when communicating quantitative data, risks and benefits, and treatment options. Decision aids (DAs) can help patients understand complex medical information and make an informed decision. This review contains 9 figures, 4 tables and 45 references Key words: Shared decision-making, decision-making, communication, risk and benefit, patient-centered, health literacy, quality of life, decision aids, option grid, pictographs.

Download Full-text

Abstract 27: Patients' Perspectives on a Decision Aid to Facilitate Cost-sensitive Decisions for Sacubitril-Valsartan

Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes ◽

10.1161/hcq.13.suppl_1.27 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 13 (Suppl_1) ◽

Author(s):

Andrea R Mitchell ◽

Grace Venechuk ◽

Larry A Allen ◽

Dan D Matlock ◽

Miranda Moore ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Decision Aid ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Patient Specific ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Cost Information ◽

Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽

The Impact

Background: Decision aids frequently focus on decisions that are preference-sensitive due to an absence of superior medical option or qualitative differences in treatments. Out of pocket cost can also make decisions preference-sensitive. However, cost is infrequently discussed with patients, and cost has not typically been considered in developing approaches to shared decision-making or decision aids. Determining a therapy’s value to a patient requires an individualized assessment of both benefits and cost. A decision aid addressing cost for sacubitril-valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was developed because this medication has clear medical benefits but can entail appreciable out-of-pocket cost. Objective: To explore patients’ perspectives on a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF. Methods: Twenty adults, ages 32-73, with HFrEF who met general eligibility for sacubitril-valsartan were recruited from outpatient HF clinics and inpatient services at 2 geographically-distinct academic health systems. In-depth interviews were conducted by trained interviewers using a semi-structured guide after patients reviewed the decision aid. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed; qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted using a template analytic method. Results: Participants confirmed that cost was relevant to this decision and that cost discussions with clinicians are infrequent but welcomed. Participants cited multiple ways that this decision aid could be helpful beyond informing a choice; these included serving as a conversation starter, helping inform questions, and serving as a reference later. The decision aid seemed balanced; several participants felt that it was promotional, while others wanted a more “positive” presentation. Participants valued the display of benefits of sacubitril-valsartan but had variable views about how to apply data to themselves and heterogenous interpretations of a 3% absolute reduction in mortality over 2 years. None felt this benefit was overwhelming; about half felt it was very small. The decision aid incorporated a novel “gist statement” to contextualize benefits and counter tendencies to dismiss this mortality reduction as trivial. Several participants liked this statement; few had strong impressions. Conclusion: Out of pocket cost should be part of shared decision-making. These data suggest patients are receptive to inclusion of cost in decision aids and that a “middle ground” between being promotional and negative may exist. The data, however, raise concerns regarding potential dismissal of clinically meaningful benefits and illustrate challenges identifying appropriate contextualizing language. The impact of various framings warrants further study, as does integration of decision aids with patient-specific out-of-pocket cost information during clinical encounters.

Download Full-text

Development of shared decision-making resources to help inform difficult healthcare decisions: An example focused on dysvascular partial foot and transtibial amputations

Prosthetics and Orthotics International ◽

10.1177/0309364617752984 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 42 (4) ◽

pp. 378-386 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Matthew Quigley ◽

Michael P Dillon ◽

Stefania Fatone

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Decision Aid ◽

Development Process ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Treatment Options ◽

International Standards ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Patient Decision ◽

Partial Foot Amputation

Background: Shared decision making is a consultative process designed to encourage patient participation in decision making by providing accurate information about the treatment options and supporting deliberation with the clinicians about treatment options. The process can be supported by resources such as decision aids and discussion guides designed to inform and facilitate often difficult conversations. As this process increases in use, there is opportunity to raise awareness of shared decision making and the international standards used to guide the development of quality resources for use in areas of prosthetic/orthotic care. Objectives: To describe the process used to develop shared decision-making resources, using an illustrative example focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Development process: The International Patient Decision Aid Standards were used to guide the development of the decision aid and discussion guide focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Examples from these shared decision-making resources help illuminate the stages of development including scoping and design, research synthesis, iterative development of a prototype, and preliminary testing with patients and clinicians not involved in the development process. Conclusion: Lessons learnt through the process, such as using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards checklist and development guidelines, may help inform others wanting to develop similar shared decision-making resources given the applicability of shared decision making to many areas of prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice. Clinical relevance Shared decision making is a process designed to guide conversations that help patients make an informed decision about their healthcare. Raising awareness of shared decision making and the international standards for development of high-quality decision aids and discussion guides is important as the approach is introduced in prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice.

Download Full-text

Shared decision-making in food allergy management

Journal of Food Allergy ◽

10.2500/jfa.2020.2.200009 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2 (1) ◽

pp. 124-127

Author(s):

Meera Patrawala ◽

Gerald Lee ◽

Brian Vickery

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Decision Making ◽

Food Allergy ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Care Providers ◽

Patient Centered ◽

Evidenced Based

Historically, the role of the health-care provider in medical practice has been primarily paternalistic by offering information, compassion, and decisive views with regard to medical decisions. This approach would exclude patients in the decision-making process. In a shift toward more patient-centered care, health-care providers are routinely encouraged to practice shared decision making (SDM). SDM uses evidence-based information about the options, elicitation of patient preferences, and decision support based on the patient’s needs with the use of decision aids or counseling. Although there are well-known benefits of SDM, including improvements in psychological, clinical, and health-care system domains providers have found it challenging to apply SDM in everyday clinical practice. In allergy, we have a unique role in the treatment of children and adults, and SDM should be applied appropriately when engaging with these specific groups. There are many situations in which there is not a clear best option (food allergy testing, food introduction and challenges, and immunotherapy). Therefore, decision aids specific to our field, coupled with evidenced-based information that ultimately leads to a decision that reflects the patient’s values will make for a vital skill in practice. In this article, we defined SDM, the benefits and barriers to SDM, unique situations in SDM, and approach to SDM in food allergy.

Download Full-text

Development of a New Encounter Decision Aid for Smoking Cessation (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.32960 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Herul Holland Da Sa Neto ◽

Ines Habfast-Robertson ◽

Christina Hempel-Bruder ◽

Marie-Anne Durand ◽

Isabelle Jacot-Sadowski ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Decision Making ◽

Smoking Cessation ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

General Practitioners ◽

Decision Aid ◽

Tobacco Cessation ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Therapeutic Education ◽

Shared Decision

BACKGROUND Smoking cessation is an essential part of preventing and reducing risk of smoking associated morbidity and mortality. However, there is often little time to discuss smoking cessation in primary care. Encounter decision aids, short, patient-facing decision aids used during clinic visits, optimize therapeutic education and increase interaction and the therapeutic alliance. Such a decision aid for smoking cessation could potentially improve counselling and increase the use of pharmacological treatments. OBJECTIVE We aimed to develop and test an electronic encounter decision aid (DA) that facilitates physician-patient interaction and shared decision making for smoking cessation in primary care. METHODS We developed a DA (howtoquit.ch) adapted from a paper version developed by our team in 2017 following user-centered design principles. The DA is a one page interactive website presenting and comparing medications for tobacco cessation and electronic cigarettes. Each smoking cessation medication has a drop down menu that presents additional information, a video demonstration, and prescribing information for physicians. To test the DA, a questionnaire was submitted to general practitioner residents of an academic general medicine department, five general practitioners, and five experts in the field of smoking cessation. The questionnaire consisted of 4 multiple-choice and 2 free text questions assessing the usability/acceptability of the DA, the acquisition of new knowledge for practitioners, the perceived utility in supporting shared decision making and patients' choices, perceived strengths and weaknesses and if they would recommend the tool to other clinicians. RESULTS Six residents, 3 general practitioners in private practice, and 2 tobacco cessation experts completed the questionnaire (n=11), and 4 additional experts provided open-text feedback. On the 11 questionnaires, the DA was rated as practical and intuitive (mean 4.6/5) and supported shared decision making (mean 4.4/5), as comparisons were readily possible. Inclusion of explanatory videos was seen as a bonus. Several changes were suggested like grouping together similar medications and adding a landing page to briefly explain the site. Changes were implemented according to the end users comments. CONCLUSIONS The overall assessment of the DA by a group of physicians and experts was positive. The ultimate objective is to have the tool deployed and easily accessible for all to use.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of decision aids on cancer-screening decision-making: an umbrella review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051156 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (12) ◽

pp. e051156

Author(s):

Masaya Hibino ◽

Chisato Hamashima ◽

Mitsunaga Iwata ◽

Teruhiko Terasawa

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Cancer Screening ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Decision Aid ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Study Patient ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Delivery Methods

IntroductionAlthough systematic reviews have shown how decision aids about cancer-related clinical decisions improve selection of key options and shared decision-making, whether or not particular decision aids, defined by their specific presentation formats, delivery methods and other attributes, can perform better than others in the context of cancer-screening decisions is uncertain. Therefore, we planned an overview to address this issue by using standard umbrella review methods to repurpose existing systematic reviews and their component comparative studies.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception through 31 December 2021 with no language restriction and perform full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or non-randomised studies of interventions that assessed a decision aid about cancer-screening decisions and compared it with an alternative tool or conventional management in healthy average-risk adults. Two reviewers will extract data and rate the study validity according to standard quality assessment measures. Our primary outcome will be intended and actual choice and adherence to selected options. The secondary outcomes will include attributes of the option-selection process, achieving shared decision-making and preference-linked psychosocial outcomes. We will qualitatively assess study, patient and intervention characteristics and outcomes. We will also take special care to investigate the presentation format, delivery methods and quality of the included decision aids and assess the degree to which the decision aid was delivered and used as intended. If appropriate, we will perform random-effects model meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesise the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable as this is a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The review results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021235957.

Download Full-text

Head to head randomized trial of two decision aids for prostate cancer

10.31219/osf.io/u9vh2 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Angela Fagerlin ◽

Margaret Holmes-Rovner ◽

Timothy P. Hofer ◽

David Rovner ◽

Stewart C. Alexander ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Decision Aid ◽

Physician Visit ◽

Treatment Preference ◽

Decision Making Process ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Patient Centered ◽

Standard Language ◽

The Impact

Purpose: While many studies have tested the impact of a decision aid (DA) compared to not receiving any DA, far fewer have tested how different types of DA affect key outcomes such as treatment choice, patient-provider communication, or decision process/satisfaction. This study tested the impact of a typical medical oriented DA compared to a patient centered decision aid designed to encourage shared decision making and the decision making process in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.Patients and Methods: 1028 men at 4 VA hospitals were recruited after a scheduled prostate biopsy. Participants completed baseline measures and were randomized to receive either a patient centered or standard language DA. Participants were men with clinically localized cancer (N = 285) by biopsy and whom completed pre-clinic surveys. Survey measures: baseline (Time 1); immediately prior to seeing the physician for biopsy results (Time 2); one week following the physician visit (Time 3). Outcome measures included treatment preference and treatment received, knowledge, preference for shared decision making, decision making process, and patients’ use and satisfaction with the DA.Results: Participants who received the patient centered DA had greater interest in shared decision making after reading the DA (p=0.03), found the DA more helpful (p’s<0.01) and were more likely to be considering surveillance (p=0.03) compared to those receiving the standard language DA at Time 2. While these differences were present before patients saw their urologists, there was no difference between groups in the treatment patients received.Conclusions: The patient centered DA led to increased desire for shared decision making and for less aggressive treatment. However, these differences disappeared following the physician visit, which appeared to change patients’ treatment preferences.

Download Full-text

Development of A Novel Decision Aid for Informed Decision-Making of Intraocular Lens Types in Patients Undergoing Cataract Surgery

10.22541/au.161833907.73294891/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sabite Gokce ◽

Zaina Al-Mohtaseb

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Patient Education ◽

Cataract Surgery ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Decision Aid ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Decision Making Process ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Patient Decision ◽

Selection For

Abstract Objective Surgery is the main treatment of visual loss related to cataracts. There are multiple intraocular lens (IOL) options with certain advantages. Patient education on IOL types is necessary to achieve a successful shared decision making process and meet the expectations of the individual patient. Decision aids (DAs) are used for patient education and we developed a novel DA to assist patients during IOL type selection for their cataract surgery. Methods The Ottawa Personal Decision Guide and the ‘Workbook on Developing and Evaluating Patient Decision Aids’ were used in the development of this DA. General characteristics of cataracts, surgical treatment, and details including advantages and disadvantages of varying IOLs were included in the content of the DA. The DA was further evaluated by 3 physicians (Delphi assessment- International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration standards) and 25 patients (questionnaire of 6 questions with Five-point Likert scale). Results The DA was finalized with feedbacks from the experts. A total score of 50/54 was achieved in Delphi group assessment. Patient perception of the DA was favorable and patients also recommended its use by other patients. Conclusions This novel DA to assist IOL selection for cataract surgery was well accepted by the patients. There is a potential to improve patients’ level of knowledge and diminish decisional conflicts. This potential can also increase patients’ contribution on the shared decision making process. A further prospective randomized trial to compare with the standard patient informing process is also planned.

Download Full-text