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.

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 Patient decision aid based on multi-criteria decision analysis for disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis: prototype development

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I. E. H. Kremer ◽  
P. J. Jongen ◽  
S. M. A. A. Evers ◽  
E. L. J. Hoogervorst ◽  
W. I. M. Verhagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Disease Modifying Drugs ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Further Development

Abstract Background Since decision making about treatment with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is preference sensitive, shared decision making between patient and healthcare professional should take place. Patient decision aids could support this shared decision making process by providing information about the disease and the treatment options, to elicit the patient’s preference and to support patients and healthcare professionals in discussing these preferences and matching them with a treatment. Therefore, a prototype of a patient decision aid for MS patients in the Netherlands—based on the principles of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) —was developed, following the recommendations of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. MCDA was chosen as it might reduce cognitive burden of considering treatment options and matching patient preferences with the treatment options. Results After determining the scope to include DMDs labelled for relapsing-remitting MS and clinically isolated syndrome, users’ informational needs were assessed using focus groups (N = 19 patients) and best-worst scaling surveys with patients (N = 185), neurologists and nurses (N = 60) to determine which information about DMDs should be included in the patient decision aid. Next, an online format and computer-based delivery of the patient decision aid was chosen to enable embedding of MCDA. A literature review was conducting to collect evidence on the effectiveness and burden of use of the DMDs. A prototype was developed next, and alpha testing to evaluate its comprehensibility and usability with in total thirteen patients and four healthcare professionals identified several issues regarding content and framing, methods for weighting importance of criteria in the MCDA structure, and the presentation of the conclusions of the patient decision aid ranking the treatment options according to the patient’s preferences. Adaptations were made accordingly, but verification of the rankings provided, validation of the patient decision aid, evaluation of the feasibility of implementation and assessing its value for supporting shared decision making should be addressed in further development of the patient decision aid. Conclusion This paper aimed to provide more transparency regarding the developmental process of an MCDA-based patient decision aid for treatment decisions for MS and the challenges faced during this process. Issues identified in the prototype were resolved as much as possible, though some issues remain. Further development is needed to overcome these issues before beta pilot testing with patients and healthcare professionals at the point of clinical decision-making can take place to ultimately enable making conclusions about the value of the MCDA-based patient decision aid for MS patients, healthcare professionals and the quality of care.

Certified Patient Decision Aids: Solving Persistent Problems with Informed Consent Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thaddeus Mason Pope
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes

The legal doctrine of informed consent has overwhelmingly failed to assure that the medical treatment patients get is the treatment patients want. This Article describes and defends an ongoing shift toward shared decision making processes incorporating the use of certified patient decision aids.

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.

scholarly journals Enhancing Success of Medicare’s Shared Decision Making Mandates Using Implementation Science: Examples Applying the Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM)

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 238146832096307
Author(s):  
Daniel D. Matlock ◽  
Mayuko Ito Fukunaga ◽  
Andy Tan ◽  
Chris Knoepke ◽  
Demetria M. McNeal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Model Framework ◽  
Robust Implementation ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Sustainability Model

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has mandated shared decision making (SDM) using patient decision aids for three conditions (lung cancer screening, atrial fibrillation, and implantable defibrillators). These forward-thinking approaches are in response to a wealth of efficacy data demonstrating that decision aids can improve patient decision making. However, there has been little focus on how to implement these approaches in real-world practice. This article demonstrates how using an implementation science framework may help programs understand multilevel challenges and opportunities to improve adherence to the CMS mandates. Using the PRISM (Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model) framework, we discuss general challenges to implementation of SDM, issues specific to each mandate, and how to plan for, enhance, and assess SDM implementation outcomes. Notably, a theme of this discussion is that successful implementation is context-specific and to truly have successful and sustainable changes in practice, context variability, and adaptation to context must be considered and addressed.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document