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

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.

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

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.

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 378-386 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Perceptions of Shared Decision Making and Decision Aids Among Rural Primary Care Clinicians

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 636-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie J. King ◽  
Melinda M. Davis ◽  
Paul N. Gorman ◽  
J. Bruin Rugge ◽  
L. J. Fagnan
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Rural Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Clinicians

scholarly journals Much to do with nothing: microsimulation study on time management in primary care

BMJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. k4983 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanner J Caverly ◽  
Rodney A Hayward ◽  
James F Burke
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Preventive Care ◽  
Time Management ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Personal Time ◽  
Time Space

Abstract Objective To investigate the credibility of claims that general practitioners lack time for shared decision making and preventive care. Design Monte Carlo microsimulation study. Setting Primary care, United States. Participants Sample of general practitioners (n=1000) representative of annual work hours and patient panel size (n=2000 patients) in the US, derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the time needed to deliver shared decision making for highly recommended preventive interventions in relation to time available for preventive care—the prevention-time-space-deficit (ie, time-space needed by doctor exceeding the time-space available). Results On average, general practitioners have 29 minutes each workday to discuss preventive care services (just over two minutes for each clinic visit) with patients, but they need about 6.1 hours to complete shared decision making for preventive care. 100% of the study sample experienced a prevention-time-space-deficit (mean deficit 5.6 h/day) even given conservative (ie, absurdly wishful) time estimates for shared decision making. However, this time deficit could be easily overcome by reducing personal time and shifting gains to work tasks. For example, general practitioners could reduce the frequency of bathroom breaks to every other day and skip time with older children who don’t like them much anyway. Conclusions This study confirms a widely held suspicion that general practitioners waste valuable time on “personal care” activities. Primary care overlords, once informed about the extent of this vast reservoir of personal time, can start testing methods to “persuade” general practitioners to reallocate more personal time toward bulging clinical demands.

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

BMJ Open ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Challenges in the Development of e-Quit worRx: An iPad App for Smoking Cessation Counseling and Shared Decision Making in Primary Care (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R Doarn ◽  
Mary Beth Vonder Meulen ◽  
Harini Pallerla ◽  
Shauna P Acquavita ◽  
Saundra Regan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Iterative Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mobile App ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Subject Matter Experts

BACKGROUND Smoking is the leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, killing more than 450,000 Americans. Primary care physicians (PCPs) have a unique opportunity to discuss smoking cessation evidence in a way that enhances patient-initiated change and quit attempts. Patients today are better equipped with technology such as mobile devices than ever before. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the challenges in developing a tablet-based, evidence-based smoking cessation app to optimize interaction for shared decision making between PCPs and their patients who smoke. METHODS A group of interprofessional experts developed content and a graphical user interface for the decision aid and reviewed these with several focus groups to determine acceptability and usability in a small population. RESULTS Using a storyboard methodology and subject matter experts, a mobile app, e-Quit worRx, was developed through an iterative process. This iterative process helped finalize the content and ergonomics of the app and provided valuable feedback from both patients and provider teams. Once the app was made available, other technical and programmatic challenges arose. CONCLUSIONS Subject matter experts, although generally amenable to one another’s disciplines, are often challenged with effective interactions, including language, scope, clinical understanding, technology awareness, and expectations. The successful development of this app and its evaluation in a clinical setting highlighted those challenges and reinforced the need for effective communications and team building.

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 With Young People at Ultra High Risk of Psychotic Disorder

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magenta Bender Simmons ◽  
Mary Brushe ◽  
Aurora Elmes ◽  
Andrea Polari ◽  
Barnaby Nelson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Young People ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Psychotic Disorder ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Pilot Testing ◽  
Increased Risk

Introduction: While the majority of young people who meet the criteria for being considered at increased risk of psychosis do not go on to develop a psychotic disorder, young people are currently being identified and treated in early intervention services. Ethical concerns have been raised concerning the decision about whether or not to provide treatment, and if so, what type of treatment. This study sought to support young people themselves to make these decisions with support from their clinician through a shared decision-making approach, facilitated by an online decision aid.Methods: This project used the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) to guide the development and piloting of an online decision aid across two phases: (1) qualitative, semi-structured focus groups with young people who were past clients and clinicians from an early psychosis service; and (2) pilot testing of the decision aid with clinicians and young people who were current clients to finalize the development.Results: Issues discussed by clinicians in the focus group were grouped into three main areas: (1) engagement phase; (2) assessment and priorities for treatment; and (3) initial and ongoing decision making. Clients focused on the context in which the decisions were made, including as they experienced initial feelings of resistance, and then acceptance of efforts made to describe and treat their mental health challenges. Clients highlighted the need for collaboration between themselves and their clinician, and the need to be equipped with the knowledge and tools to take care of themselves. These focus group data were used to refine the online decision aid. Pilot testing revealed that while it was overall useful and relevant, important limitations were noted by both clients and clinicians.Discussion: The use of a decision aid to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) in this area is feasible and has utility for both clients and clinicians. Use of such a tool can help to address the need to uphold the rights of young people as decision makers about their own care. Future efforts should embed decision aids within complex SDM interventions, and research to understand issues relating to implementation of these interventions.

scholarly journals Refining a primary care shared decision-making aid for lifestyle change: mixed methods study

BJGP Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. BJGPO.2021.0100
Author(s):  
Neil Heron ◽  
Seán R O’Connor ◽  
Frank Kee ◽  
David R Thompson ◽  
Margaret Cupples ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Healthy Lifestyle ◽  
Lifestyle Change ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Shared Decision

BackgroundThe important role of primary care in promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours needs informed support.AimTo elicit views on a 39-item shared decision-making (SDM) aid (SHARE-D) for lifestyle change and refine it to improve implementation.Design & settingMixed methods study.MethodHealth professionals, patients, and support workers, with experience of managing, or a history of, cardio- or cerebrovascular disease, were purposively recruited based on age, gender, and urban/rural location (n = 34). Participants completed a survey, rating the importance of including each item in a decision-aid, designed for use by patients with health professionals, and suggesting modifications. Semi-structured interviews (n = 30/34) were conducted and analysed thematically.ResultsSubstantial agreement was observed on rating item inclusion. Based on survey and interview data, 9/39 items were removed; 13 were amended. Qualitative themes were: (i) core content of the decision-aid, (ii) barriers to use, (iii) motivation for lifestyle change, and (iv) primary care implementation. ‘Self-reflective’ questions and goal setting were viewed as essential components. The paper-based format, length, clarity, and time required were barriers to its use. Optional support considered within the aid was seen as important to motivate change. A digital version, integrated into patient record systems was regarded as critical to implementation. A revised 30-item aid was considered suitable for facilitating brief conversations and promoting patient autonomy.ConclusionThe SHARE-D decision aid for healthy lifestyle change appears to have good content validity and acceptability. Survey and interview data provided in-depth information to support implementation of a refined version. Further studies should examine its effectiveness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document