scholarly journals Does a simple web-based intervention facilitate the articulation of patients’ unvoiced agenda for a consultation with their diabetologists? A qualitative study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e026588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Frost ◽  
Andy Gibson ◽  
Obioha Ukoumunne ◽  
Bijay Vaidya ◽  
Nicky Britten
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Patients With Diabetes

ObjectiveTo explore whether a preconsultation web-based intervention enables patients with diabetes to articulate their agenda in a consultation in the hospital outpatient clinic with their diabetologist.Methods and designA qualitative study embedded in a pragmatic pilot randomised controlled trial.SettingTwo city outpatient departments in England.Participants25 patients attending a follow-up consultation and 6 diabetologists.InterventionThe PACE-D, a web-based tool adapted for patients with diabetes to use before their consultation to generate an agenda of topics to discuss with their diabetologist.Data collection25 participants had their consultation with their diabetologist audio-recorded: 12 in the control arm and 13 in the intervention arm; 12 of the latter also had their PACE-D intervention session and a consultation recorded. Semi-structured interviews with 6 diabetologists, and 12 patients (6 in the intervention group and 6 in the control group).AnalysisThematic discourse analysis undertaken with patient representatives trained in qualitative data analysis techniques.ResultsWe identified four consultation types: diabetologist facilitated; patient identified; consultant facilitated and patient initiated and patient ignored. We also identified three critical aspects that explained the production and utilisation of the agenda form: existing consultative style; orientation to the use of the intervention and impact on the consultation. Where patients and diabetologists have a shared preference for a consultant-led or patient-led consultation, the intervention augments effective communication and shared decision making. However, where preferences diverge (eg, there is a mismatch in patients' and diabetologists' preferences and orientations), the intervention does not improve the potential for shared decision making.ConclusionA simple web-based intervention facilitates the articulation of patients’ unvoiced agenda for a consultation with their diabetologist, but only when pre-existing consultation styles and orientations already favour shared decision making. More needs to be done to translate patient empowerment in the consultation setting into genuine self-efficacy.Trial registration numberISRCTN75070242.

scholarly journals A Simple Goal Elicitation Tool Improves Shared Decision Making in Outpatient Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 766-773
Author(s):  
Kevin Mertz ◽  
Romil F. Shah ◽  
Sara L. Eppler ◽  
Jeffrey Yao ◽  
Marc Safran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Introduction. Shared decision making involves educating the patient, eliciting their goals, and collaborating on a decision for treatment. Goal elicitation is challenging for physicians as previous research has shown that patients do not bring up their goals on their own. Failure to properly elicit patient goals leads to increased patient misconceptions and decisional conflict. We performed a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a simple goal elicitation tool in improving patient involvement in decision making. Methods. We conducted a randomized, single-blind study of new patients presenting to a single, outpatient surgical center. Prior to their consultation, the intervention group received a demographics questionnaire and a goal elicitation worksheet. The control group received a demographics questionnaire only. After the consultation, both groups were asked to complete the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS) survey. We compared the mean PICS scores for the intervention and control groups using a nonparametric Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test. Secondary analysis included a qualitative content analysis of the patient goals. Results. Our final cohort consisted of 96 patients (46 intervention, 50 control). Both groups were similar in terms of demographic composition. The intervention group had a significantly higher mean (SD) PICS score compared to the control group (9.04 [2.15] v. 7.54 [2.27], P < 0.01). Thirty-nine percent of patient goals were focused on receiving a diagnosis or treatment, while 21% of patients wanted to receive education regarding their illness or their treatment options. Discussion. A single-step goal elicitation tool was effective in improving patient-perceived involvement in their care. This tool can be efficiently implemented in both academic and nonacademic settings.

scholarly journals Shared decision making and patient-centeredness for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care—results of the cluster-randomised controlled DEBATE trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Wollny ◽  
Christin Löffler ◽  
Eva Drewelow ◽  
Attila Altiner ◽  
Christian Helbig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centeredness

Abstract Background We investigate whether an educational intervention of GPs increases patient-centeredness and perceived shared decision making in the treatment of patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus? Methods We performed a cluster-randomized controlled trial in German primary care. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus defined as HbA1c levels ≥ 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) at the time of recruitment (n = 833) from general practitioners (n = 108) were included. Outcome measures included subjective shared decision making (SDM-Q-9; scale from 0 to 45 (high)) and patient-centeredness (PACIC-D; scale from 1 to 5 (high)) as secondary outcomes. Data collection was performed before intervention (baseline, T0), at 6 months (T1), at 12 months (T2), at 18 months (T3), and at 24 months (T4) after baseline. Results Subjective shared decision making decreased in both groups during the course of the study (intervention group: -3.17 between T0 and T4 (95% CI: -4.66, -1.69; p < 0.0001) control group: -2.80 (95% CI: -4.30, -1.30; p = 0.0003)). There were no significant differences between the two groups (-0.37; 95% CI: -2.20, 1.45; p = 0.6847). The intervention's impact on patient-centeredness was minor. Values increased in both groups, but the increase was not statistically significant, nor was the difference between the groups. Conclusions The intervention did not increase patient perceived subjective shared decision making and patient-centeredness in the intervention group as compared to the control group. Effects in both groups might be partially attributed to the Hawthorne-effect. Future trials should focus on patient-based intervention elements to investigate effects on shared decision making and patient-centeredness. Trial registration The trial was registered on March 10th, 2011 at ISRCTN registry under the reference ISRCTN70713571.

Patient Involvement in Anesthesia Decision-making: A Qualitative Study of Knee Arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veena Graff ◽  
Justin T. Clapp ◽  
Sarah J. Heins ◽  
Jamison J. Chung ◽  
Madhavi Muralidharan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Primary Knee Arthroplasty

Background Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia—e.g., through shared decision-making—are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia. Methods This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia. Results The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences. Conclusions Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists’ attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients’ anxiety. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

scholarly journals Implementing shared decision-making on acute psychiatric wards: a cluster-randomized trial with inpatients suffering from schizophrenia (SDM-PLUS)

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Hamann ◽  
F. Holzhüter ◽  
S. Blakaj ◽  
S. Becher ◽  
B. Haller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Acute Psychiatric Wards ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Abstract Aims Although shared decision-making (SDM) has the potential to improve health outcomes, psychiatrists often exclude patients with more severe mental illnesses or more acute conditions from participation in treatment decisions. This study examines whether SDM is facilitated by an approach which is specifically adapted to the needs of acutely ill patients (SDM-PLUS). Methods The study is a multi-centre, cluster-randomised, non-blinded, controlled trial of SDM-PLUS in 12 acute psychiatric wards of five psychiatric hospitals addressing inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. All patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were consecutively recruited for the trial at the time of their admission to the ward. Treatment teams of intervention wards were trained in the SDM-PLUS approach through participation in two half-day workshops. Patients on intervention wards received group training in SDM. Staff (and patients) of the control wards acted under ‘treatment as usual’ conditions. The primary outcome parameter was the patients' perceived involvement in decision-making at 3 weeks after study enrolment, analysed using a random-effects linear regression model. Results In total, 161 participants each were recruited in the intervention and control group. SDM-PLUS led to higher perceived involvement in decision-making (primary outcome, analysed patients n = 257, mean group difference 16.5, 95% CI 9.0–24.0, p = 0.002, adjusted for baseline differences: β 17.3, 95% CI 10.8–23.6, p = 0.0004). In addition, intervention group patients exhibited better therapeutic alliance, treatment satisfaction and self-rated medication compliance during inpatient stay. There were, however, no significant improvements in adherence and rehospitalisation rates in the 6- and 12-month follow-up. Conclusions Despite limitations in patient recruitment, the SDM-PLUS trial has shown that the adoption of behavioural approaches (e.g. motivational interviewing) for SDM may yield a successful application to mental health. The authors recommend strategies to ensure effects are not lost at the interface between in- and outpatient treatment. Trial registration: The trial was registered at Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS00010880).

scholarly journals Shared Decision-Making in Chronic Patients with Polypharmacy: An Interventional Study for Assessing Medication Appropriateness

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 904
Author(s):  
Valle Coronado-Vázquez ◽  
Juan Gómez-Salgado ◽  
Javier Cerezo-Espinosa de los Monteros ◽  
Diego Ayuso-Murillo ◽  
Carlos Ruiz-Frutos
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Decision Support Tool ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Potentially Inappropriate Medications ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Inappropriate Medications ◽  
Medication Appropriateness

Potentially inappropriate medications are associated with polypharmacy and polypathology. Some interventions such as pharmacotherapy reviews have been designed to reduce the prescribing of inappropriate medications. The objective of this study is to evaluate how effective a decision-making support tool is for determining medication appropriateness in patients with one or more chronic diseases (hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and/or diabetes) and polypharmacy in the primary care setting. For this, a quasi-experimental study (randomised, controlled and multicentre) has been developed. The study compares an intervention group, which assesses medication appropriateness by applying a decision support tool, with a control group that follows the usual clinical practice. The intervention included a decision support tool in paper format, where participants were informed about polypharmacy, inappropriate medications, associated problems and available alternatives, as well as shared decision-making. This is an informative guide aimed at helping patients with decision-making by providing them with information about the secondary risks associated with inappropriate medications in their treatment, according to the Beers and START/STOPP criteria. The outcome measure was the proportion of medication appropriateness. The proportion of patients who confirmed medication appropriateness after six months of follow-up is greater in the intervention group (32.5%) than in the control group (27.9%) p = 0.008. The probability of medication appropriateness, which was calculated by the proportion of drugs withdrawn or replaced according to the STOPP/Beers criteria and those initiated according to the START criteria, was 2.8 times higher in the intervention group than in the control group (OR = 2.8; 95% CI 1.3–6.1) p = 0.008. In patients with good adherence to the treatment, the percentage of appropriateness was 62.1% in the shared decision-making group versus 37.9% in the control group (p = 0.005). The use of a decision-making support tool in patients with potentially inappropriate medications increases the percentage of medication appropriateness when compared to the usual clinical practice.

Web-based Training for Nurses on Shared Decision-Making and Prenatal Screening for Down Syndrome: a Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Poulin Herron ◽  
Titilayo Tatiana Agbadje ◽  
Sabrina Guay-Bélanger ◽  
Gérard Ngueta ◽  
Geneviève Roch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Training Program ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Intention To Use ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Web Based

BACKGROUND Background: Nurses provide maternity care and thus play an important role in supporting pregnant women making decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome. We developed a web-based shared decision making (SDM) training program for health professionals focusing on Down syndrome screening decisions. OBJECTIVE Objective: We assessed the impact of a SDM training program on nurses’ intention to use a decision aid with pregnant women deciding about prenatal screening for Down syndrome. METHODS Methods: In this 2-arm parallel controlled trial, French-speaking nurses working with pregnant women in the province of Quebec were recruited online by a private survey firm. They were conveniently allocated either to the intervention group (web-based SDM training program that included prenatal screening) or to the control group (web-based training program focusing on prenatal screening alone, with no SDM content). The primary outcome was intention to use a decision aid. Secondary outcomes were psychosocial variables of intention (e.g. social influence), as well as knowledge, satisfaction, acceptability, perceived usefulness and reaction to the pedagogical approach. All outcomes were self-assessed through online questionnaires including space for written comments. No blinding was performed. We used Student's t test and Fisher's exact test to compare continuous and categorical variables between groups. RESULTS Results: Of 57 participants assessed for eligibility, 40 were allocated to the intervention (n=20) or control group (n=20) and 36 (n=18 in each) completed the training program. Mean age of participants was 41 years (SD 9). Most were women (97.5%), Caucasian (95%), clinical nurses (70%), and had completed a baccalaureate degree (65%). Post-intervention, the mean score of intention was 6.3 (5.9; 6.7) for the intervention group and 6.0 (5.42; 6.64) for the control group. The difference in intention score and other psychosocial variables score between groups was not statistically significant. Knowledge scores about SDM were significantly different (79% in the intervention group, 64% in the control group, p=0.009). There was no significant difference in overall satisfaction [4.4 (SD 0.7) in the intervention group and 4.5 (SD 0.9)] in the control group and perceived usefulness [4.6 (SD 0.4) in the intervention group and 4.4 (SD 0.5)] in the control group. Acceptability of the training program showed a statistically significant difference [4.6 (SD 0.4) in the intervention group and 4.3 (SD 0.4) in the control group; p=0.02] as well as reaction to the pedagogical approach [4.7 (SD 0.4) in the intervention group and 4.4 (SD 0.4) in the control group; p=0.02]. Seventeen participants also gave written comments on the training. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions: Nurses’ intention to use SDM in prenatal care is already high, with training or without, but their knowledge about SDM could be improved with SDM training. Our results will inform future strategies to implement shared decision-making among nurses. CLINICALTRIAL Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04162288; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04162288?term=NCT04162288&draw=2&rank=1

scholarly journals Implementation of a Shared Decision-Making Tool for Osteoarthritis Treatment to Reduce Decisional Conflict

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 186-186
Author(s):  
Yashika Watkins ◽  
Rose Gonzalez ◽  
Charla Johnson ◽  
Ravneet Kaur
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
The United States ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Chronic Knee Pain ◽  
Co Morbidity

Abstract Shared decision making is a key component of patient centered care where clinical evidence and the patient’s preference and values are considered. Physical activity and weight loss are often recommendations in the treatment plan, especially in mild to moderate stage of osteoarthritis (OA). Movement is Life (MIL) created an innovative SDM tool to provide a framework for patient-centered discussions. The tool leverages an underlying Markov Model and represents the likely pain, activity levels, and lost productivity at three future time points. By comparing the patient’s likely progression depending on treatment choices compared to doing nothing, the patient has an illustration of future state. A pilot of N=108 women, ages 45-64, with chronic knee pain for at least three months and at least one co-morbidity (obesity, hypertension, diabetes) were randomized to a control (n=54) or intervention (n=54) arm of the study at eight centers across the United States. Results showed the demographic profiles were similar between the groups. At one-month, n=47 control and n=50 intervention patients returned for evaluation. Self-reported level of physical activity increased in the intervention group (56% vs 34%, p = 0.0229). Qualitative feedback from the intervention group indicated high satisfaction with use of the tool. Both groups reported a high likeliness to recommend the provider to a friend or family member. Inclusion of the SDM tool added an average of one minute to the patient counseling time over the control group. The quasi script provides a consistent communication pathway and may reduce disparities by addressing unconscious bias.

Evaluation of a mobile phone telemonitoring system for glycaemic control in patients with diabetes

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 125-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert SH Istepanian ◽  
Karima Zitouni ◽  
Diane Harry ◽  
Niva Moutosammy ◽  
Ala Sungoor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mobile Phone ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Technical Problems ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
And Control

We conducted a randomized controlled trial using mobile health technology in an ethnically diverse sample of 137 patients with complicated diabetes. Patients in the intervention group ( n = 72) were trained to measure their blood glucose with a sensor which transmitted the readings to a mobile phone via a Bluetooth wireless link. Clinicians were then able to examine and respond to the readings which were viewed with a web-based application. Patients in the control arm of the study ( n = 65) did not transmit their readings and received care with their usual doctor in the outpatient and/or primary care setting. The mean follow-up period was 9 months in each group. The default rate was higher in the patients in the intervention arm due to technical problems. In an intention-to-treat analysis there were no differences in HbA1c between the intervention and control groups. In a sub-group analysis of the patients who completed the study, the telemonitoring group had a lower HbA1c than those in the control group: 7.76% and 8.40%, respectively ( P = 0.06).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document