scholarly journals Evaluation of a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice at four Danish hospitals: a qualitative study of patient perspective

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e029090 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanette Finderup ◽  
Jens Dam Jensen ◽  
Kirsten Lomborg
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Accurate Information ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Dialysis Modality ◽  
Individual Interviews ◽  
Informed Preferences

ObjectiveTo evaluate the ‘Shared Decision-making and Dialysis Choice’ (SDM-DC) intervention with regard to patients’ experience and involvement.DesignSemistructured individual interviews and systematic text condensation for data analysis.SettingThe SDM-DC intervention was implemented and evaluated at four different hospitals in Denmark.ParticipantsA total of 348 patients had received the SDM-DC intervention, and of these 29 patients were interviewed.InterventionsSDM-DC was designed for patients facing a choice of dialysis modality. The available modalities were haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, either performed by patients on their own or with help from a healthcare professional. The intervention was tailored to individual patients and consisted of three meetings with a dialysis coordinator who introduced a patient decision aid named ‘Dialysis Choice’ to the patient.FindingsThe following were the four main findings: the decision was experienced as being the patient’s own; the meetings contributed to the decision process; ‘Dialysis Choice’ contributed to the decision process; and the decision process was experienced as being iterative.ConclusionsThe patients experienced SDM-DC as involving them in their choice of dialysis modality. Due to the iterative properties of the decision-making process, a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice has to be adapted to the needs of individual patients. The active mechanisms of the meetings with the dialysis coordinator were (1) questions to and from the patient, and (2) the dialysis coordinator providing accurate information about the options. The overview of options and the value clarification tool in the decision aid were particularly helpful in establishing a decision-making process based on informed preferences.

A new prognostic and predictive tool to enhance shared decision making in stage III colon cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4010-4010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto F. Sobrero ◽  
Alberto Puccini ◽  
Qian Shi ◽  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Thierry Andre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Accurate Information ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Predictive Tool ◽  
Stage Iii Colon Cancer

4010 Background: Survival outcomes in patients with stage III colon cancer varies widely according to T-N sub-stages. The ability to estimate the benefit of each therapeutic option (surgery alone, fluoropyrimidines alone, oxaliplatin-based doublet for either 3 or 6 months) in each T-N subgroup within stage III, may provide more accurate information helping doctors and patients in the complex shared decision-making process surrounding adjuvant therapy. Methods: Theoutcomedata of 12,834 patients with stage III colon cancer enrolled in the IDEA trial served as our database. Patients were categorized in 16 sub-stages, based on the T-N categories. We created a meta-regression model to predict the expected 3-year DFS within each T-N sub-stage and hence the 5-year DFS rates were projected. We then evaluated the efficacy of each therapeutic option in every sub-stage, working backward by subtraction, using an average of the HRs reported in the pertinent trials publication as conversion factor. Results: Large differences in 3-year DFS rate were observed among the subgroups, ranging from 95% (T1N1a) to 29% (T4N2b) in the overall population. The contribution to outcome of each therapeutic option in this setting varied widely across sub-stages. According to our model, patients with T1N1a cancers have a projected 5-year DFS of 85% with surgery alone. Adjuvant fluoropyrimidine alone results in 4.2% absolute DFS gain; an additional 1.7% and 0.6% gain is seen with oxaliplatin for 3 and 6 months, respectively. Patients with T4N2b cancers show a 4.7% 5-year DFS with surgery alone, and a 7.1%, 5.0%, 2.1% increase with the aforementioned adjuvant options, respectively. Conclusions: The resulting overlay bar graph gives patients and doctors the projected relative benefit of each treatment option and may substantially help the shared decision-making process.

Exploring Provider Reactions to Decision Aid Distribution and Shared Decision Making

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarissa Hsu ◽  
David T. Liss ◽  
Dominick L. Frosch ◽  
Emily O. Westbrook ◽  
David Arterburn
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Accurate Information ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Provider Attitudes ◽  
Provider Perspectives

Background. A critical component of shared decision making (SDM) is the role played by health care providers in distributing decision aids (DAs) and initiating SDM conversations. Existing literature indicates that decisions about designing and implementing DAs must take provider perspectives into account. However, little is known about how differences in provider attitudes across specialties may impact DA implementation and how provider attitudes may shift after DA implementation. Group Health’s Decision Aid Implementation project was carried out in six specialties using 12 video-based DAs for preference-sensitive conditions; this study focused on two of the six specialties. Design. In-depth, qualitative interviews with specialty care providers in two specialties—orthopedics and cardiology—at two time points during DA implementation. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Results. We interviewed 19 care providers in orthopedics and cardiology. All respondents believed that providing patients with accurate information on their health conditions and treatment options was important and that most patients wanted an active role in decision making. However, respondents diverged in decision-making styles and views on the practicality and appropriateness of using the DAs and SDM. For example, cardiology specialists were ambivalent about DAs for coronary artery disease because many viewed DAs and SDM as unnecessary or inappropriate for this clinical condition. Provider attitudes towards DAs and SDM were generally stable over two years. Limitations. Limitations include a lack of patient perspectives, social desirability bias, and possible selection bias. Conclusions. Successfully implementing DAs in clinical practice to promote SDM requires addressing individual provider attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of SDM by specialty. During DA development and implementation, providers should be asked for input about the specific conditions and care processes that are most appropriate for SDM.

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

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.

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

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.

scholarly journals Shared Decision Making for Routine Infant Circumcision: A Pilot Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 188-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teri M. Mitchell ◽  
Claudia Beal
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Accurate Information ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Childbirth Education ◽  
Education Class ◽  
High Level ◽  
Routine Infant

ABSTRACTIt is important that expectant parents receive accurate information about the benefits and risks of circumcision as well as the benefits and risks of having an intact foreskin when making a decision about routine infant circumcision (RIC). A pilot study was conducted using the shared decision making (SDM) conceptual model to guide expectant parents through a 3-phase decision-making program about RIC as part of their childbirth education class. The participants showed a high level of preparedness following each of the 3 phases. Preparedness score were highest for those who decided to keep their expected sons’ penises natural. This SDM program was an effective way of guiding expectant parents through the decision-making process for RIC.

Use of an Atrial Fibrillation Medication Decision Aid Improves Knowledge and Process for Decision Making (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Beinfeld ◽  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Michael Barry ◽  
Erika Poole ◽  
Adam Kunin
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Anticoagulant Therapy ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Baseline Group

BACKGROUND A rural community-based Cardiology practice implemented shared decision making supported by an evidence-based decision aid booklet to improve the quality of anticoagulant therapy decisions in patients with atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVE To develop a practical workflow for implementation of an anticoagulant therapy decision aid and to assess the impact on patients’ knowledge and process for anticoagulant medication decision making. METHODS The organization surveyed all patients with atrial fibrillation being seen at Copley Hospital to establish a baseline level of knowledge, certainty about the decision and process for decision making. The intervention surveys included the same knowledge, certainty, process and demographic questions as the baseline surveys, but also included questions asking for feedback on the decision aid booklet. Stroke risk scores (CHA2DS2-VASc score) were calculated by Copley staff for both groups using EMR data. RESULTS We received 46 completed surveys in the baseline group (64% response rate) and 50 surveys in the intervention group (72% response rate). The intervention group had higher knowledge score than the baseline group (3.6 out of 4 correct answers vs 3.1, p=0.036) and Decision Process Score (2.89 out of 4 vs 2.09, p=0.0023) but similar scores on the SURE scale (3.12 out of 4 vs 3.17, p=0.79). Knowledge and Process score differences were sustained even after adjusting for co-variates in stepwise linear regression analyses. Patients with high school or lower education appeared to benefit the most from shared decision making, as demonstrated by their knowledge scores. CONCLUSIONS It is feasible and practical to implement shared decision making supported by decision aids in a community-based Cardiology practice. Shared decision making can improve knowledge and process for decision making for patients with atrial fibrillation. CLINICALTRIAL None

InformedTogether: A decision aid to support shared decision making about mechanical ventilation in severe COPD patients

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meliss Basile ◽  
Johanna Andrews ◽  
Sonia Jacome ◽  
Meng Zhang ◽  
Andrzej Kozikowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Copd Patients ◽  
Severe Copd
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document