scholarly journals Needs assessment for a decision support tool in oral cancer requiring major resection and reconstruction: a mixed-methods study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e036969
Author(s):  
David Forner ◽  
Paul Hong ◽  
Martin Corsten ◽  
Valeria E Rac ◽  
Rosemary Martino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Nova Scotia ◽  
Oral Cancer ◽  
Needs Assessment ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision

IntroductionAdvanced oral cancer and its ensuing treatment engenders significant morbidity and mortality. Patients are often elderly with significant comorbidities. Toxicities associated with surgical resection can be devastating and they are often highlighted by patients as impactful. Given the potential for suboptimal oncological and functional outcomes in this vulnerable patient population, promotion and performance of shared decision making (SDM) is crucial.Decision aids (DAs) are useful instruments for facilitating the SDM process by presenting patients with up-to-date evidence regarding risks, benefits and the possible postoperative course. Importantly, DAs also help elicit and clarify patient values and preferences. The use of DAs in cancer treatment has been shown to reduce decisional conflict and increase SDM. No DAs for oral cavity cancer have yet been developed.This study endeavours to answer the question: Is there a patient or surgeon driven need for development and implementation of a DA for adult patients considering major surgery for oral cancer?Methods and analysisThis study is the first step in a multiphase investigation of SDM during major head and neck surgery. It is a multi-institutional convergent parallel mixed-methods needs assessment study. Patients and surgeon dyads will be recruited to complete questionnaires related to their perception of the SDM process (nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire, SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) and to take part in semistructured interviews. Patients will also complete questionnaires examining decisional self-efficacy (Ottawa Decision Self-Efficacy Scale) and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Questionnaires will be completed at time of recruitment and will be used to assess the current level of SDM, self-efficacy and conflict in this setting. Thematic analysis will be used to analyse transcripts of interviews. Quantitative and qualitative components of the study will be integrated through triangulation, with matrix developed to promote visualisation of the data.Ethics and DisseminationThis study has been approved by the research ethics boards of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (Halifax, Nova Scotia) and the University Health Network (Toronto, Ontario). Dissemination to clinicians will be through traditional approaches and creation of a head and neck cancer SDM website. Dissemination to patients will include a section within the website, patient advocacy groups and postings within clinical environments.

Barriers to shared decision making

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-5
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Needs Assessment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Inflammatory Disease ◽  
Chronic Inflammatory Disease ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Women Of Reproductive Age

AbstractOverview of: Murray S, Augustyniak M, Murase JE, et al. Barriers to shared decision-making with women of reproductive age affected by a chronic inflammatory disease: a mixed-methods needs assessment of dermatologists and rheumatologists. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e043960.

scholarly journals Opportunities for addressing gaps in primary care shared decision-making with technology: a mixed-methods needs assessment

JAMIA Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-455
Author(s):  
Anjali J Misra ◽  
Shawn Y Ong ◽  
Arjun Gokhale ◽  
Sameer Khan ◽  
Edward R Melnick
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Needs Assessment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Level Of Involvement ◽  
Patient Interviews ◽  
Clinical Encounters

Abstract Objectives To analyze current practices in shared decision-making (SDM) in primary care and perform a needs assessment for the role of information technology (IT) interventions. Materials and Methods A mixed-methods study was conducted in three phases: (1) ethnographic observation of clinical encounters, (2) patient interviews, and (3) physician interviews. SDM was measured using the validated OPTION scale. Semistructured interviews followed an interview guide (developed by our multidisciplinary team) informed by the Traditional Decision Conflict Scale and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Field notes were independently coded and analyzed by two reviewers in Dedoose. Results Twenty-four patient encounters were observed in 3 diverse practices with an average OPTION score of 57.2 (0–100 scale; 95% confidence interval [CI], 51.8–62.6). Twenty-two patient and 8 physician interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was achieved. Cohen’s kappa, measuring coder agreement, was 0.42. Patient domains were: establishing trust, influence of others, flexibility, frustrations, values, and preferences. Physician domains included frustrations, technology (concerns, existing use, and desires), and decision making (current methods used, challenges, and patients’ understanding). Discussion Given low SDM observed, multiple opportunities for technology to enhance SDM exist based on specific OPTION items that received lower scores, including: (1) checking the patient’s preferred information format, (2) asking the patient's preferred level of involvement in decision making, and (3) providing an opportunity for deferring a decision. Based on data from interviews, patients and physicians value information exchange and are open to technologies that enhance communication of care options. Conclusion Future primary care IT platforms should prioritize the 3 quantitative gaps identified to improve physician–patient communication and relationships. Additionally, SDM tools should seek to standardize common workflow steps across decisions and focus on barriers to increasing adoption of effective SDM tools into routine primary care.

scholarly journals EFFECTS OF A SHARED DECISION MAKING INTERVENTION FOR OLDER ADULTS WITH CHRONIC CONDITIONS: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S296-S297
Author(s):  
Ruth E Pel-Littel ◽  
Bianca Buurman ◽  
Marjolein van de Pol ◽  
Linda Tulner ◽  
Mirella Minkman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Abstract Shared decision making (SDM) in older patients is more complex when multiple chronic conditions (MCC) have to be taken into account. The aim of this research is to explore the effect of the evidence based implementation intervention SDMMCC on (1) the preferred and perceived participation (2) decisional conflict and (3) actual SDM during consultations. 216 outpatients participated in a video observational study. The intervention existed of a SDM training for geriatricians and a preparatory tool for patients. Consultations were videotaped and coded with the OPTIONMCC. Pre- and post-consultation questionnaires were completed. Participation was measured by the Patients’ perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS). Decisional conflict was measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The patients mean age was 77 years, 56% was female. The preparatory tool was completed by 56 older adults (52%), of which 64% rated the tool as positive. The preparatory tool was used in 12% of the consultations. The mean overall OPTIONMCC score showed no significant changes on the level of SDM(39.3 vs 39.3 P0.98), however there were significant improvements on discussing goals and options on sub-items of the scale. There were no significant differences found in the match on preferred and perceived participation (86.5% vs 85.0% P 0.595) or in decisional conflict (22.7 vs 22.9 P0.630). The limited use of the preparatory tool could have biased the effect of the intervention. In future research more attention must be paid towards the implementation of preparatory tools, not only among patients but also among geriatricians.

The Promise of Electronic Health Records to Promote Shared Decision Making: A Narrative Review and a Look Ahead

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (8) ◽  
pp. 1040-1045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alyce Mei-Shiuan Kuo ◽  
Berry Thavalathil ◽  
Glyn Elwyn ◽  
Zsuzsanna Nemeth ◽  
Stuti Dang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Electronic Health Records ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Look Ahead ◽  
The Face ◽  
Electronic Health ◽  
The Impact

Background. Shared decision making (SDM) involves the sharing of best available evidence between patients and providers in the face of difficult decisions. We examine outcomes that occur when electronic health records (EHRs) are purposefully used with the goal of improving SDM and detail which EHR functions can benefit SDM. Methods. A systematic search of PubMed yielded 1369 articles. Studies were included only if they used EHR interventions to support SDM and included results that showed impact on SDM. Articles were excluded if they did not measure the impact of the intervention on SDM or did not discuss how SDM had been supported by the EHR. Results. Five studies demonstrated improved clinical outcomes, positive lifestyle behavior changes, more deliberation from patients regarding use of imaging, and less decisional conflict about medication use among patients with use of EHRs aiding SDM. Discussion. Few EHRs have integrated SDM, and even fewer evaluations of these exist. EHRs have potential in supporting providers during all steps of SDM. The promise of EHRs to support SDM has yet to be fully exploited.

Mixed methods analysis of hospice staff perceptions and shared decision making practices in hospice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debra Parker Oliver ◽  
Karla T. Washington ◽  
Kyle Pitzer ◽  
Lori Popejoy ◽  
Patrick White ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Staff Perceptions

Relationship Between Parental Intolerance of Uncertainty and Decisional Conflict in Pediatric Otolaryngologic Surgery

2020 ◽  
pp. 019459982097364
Author(s):  
Chelsea Cleveland ◽  
Vijay A. Patel ◽  
Shari A. Steinman ◽  
Reena Razdan ◽  
Michele M. Carr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Sex Education ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Intolerance Of Uncertainty ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Pediatric Otolaryngology ◽  
State Worry

Objective To assess the relationship between depression, anxiety, stress, worry, intolerance of uncertainty (IU), and shared decision making (SDM) in parents of pediatric otolaryngology surgical patients with their perceptions of decisional conflict (DC). Study Design Cross-sectional. Setting Academic pediatric otolaryngology outpatient clinic. Methods Participants were legal guardians of pediatric patients who met criteria for otolaryngologic surgery. Participants completed a demographic survey as well as validated Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS); Shared Decision-Making Scale (SDMS); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale–21 (DASS-21); Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ); and short form of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS-12). Results A total of 114 participants were enrolled. Respondents were predominantly female (93.0%) and married (60.5%). Most guardians had not consented previously for otolaryngologic surgery for their child (69.3%). Participants reported low levels of DC and depression as well as moderate levels of anxiety and stress. DC scores were not significantly correlated to DASS-21, PSWQ, or SDM. IUS-12 Total and subscale IUS-12 prospective negatively correlated with Total DC. DC was not related to age, sex, education level, previous otolaryngologic surgery, or type of surgery recommended. Conclusion In this group, an association was found between IU and DC. Clinicians should be aware that DC is not modified by previous surgical experience. Interventions aimed at addressing parental IU related to surgery may reduce DC. Further research efforts could help us understand how mental health relates to surgical decision making.

scholarly journals Healthcare providers' intentions to engage in an interprofessional approach to shared decision-making in home care programs: A mixed methods study

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 214-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
France Légaré ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Nathalie Brière ◽  
Kimberley Fraser ◽  
Sophie Desroches ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Home Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals Brief Education and a Conjoint Valuation Survey May Reduce Decisional Conflict Regarding Lung Cancer Screening

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 238146831989145
Author(s):  
Jamie L. Studts ◽  
Richard J. Thurer ◽  
Kory Brinker ◽  
Sarah E. Lillie ◽  
Margaret M. Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Increased Risk

Background. Recent data and policy decisions have led to the availability of lung cancer screening (LCS) for individuals who are at increased risk of developing lung cancer. In establishing implementation policies, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services required that individuals who meet eligibility criteria for LCS receive a patient counseling and shared decision-making consultation prior to LCS. Methods. This study evaluated the potential of a values clarification/preference elicitation exercise and brief educational intervention to reduce decisional conflict regarding LCS. Participants ( N = 210) completing a larger online survey responded to a measure of decisional conflict prior to and following administration of a conjoint survey and brief educational narrative about LCS. The conjoint survey included 22 choice sets (two of which were holdout cards), incorporating 5 attributes with 17 levels. Results. Results pertaining to changes in decisional conflict showed that participants reported statistically significantly and clinically meaningful reductions in decisional conflict following administration of the brief educational narrative and conjoint survey across the total score (Δ = 29.30; d = 1.09) and all four decisional conflict subscales: Uncertainty (Δ = 27.75; d = 0.73), Informed (Δ = 35.32; d = 1.11), Values Clarity (Δ = 31.82; d = 0.85), and Support (Δ = 18.78; d = 0.66). Discussion. While the study design precludes differentiating the effects of the brief educational narrative and the conjoint survey, data suggest that these tools offer a reasonable approach to clarifying personal beliefs and perspectives regarding LCS participation. Given the complicated nature of LCS decisions and recent policies advocating informed and shared decision-making approaches, conjoint surveys should be evaluated as one of the tools that could help individuals make choices about LCS participation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document