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

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Fagerlin ◽  
Margaret Holmes-Rovner ◽  
Timothy P. Hofer ◽  
David Rovner ◽  
Stewart C. Alexander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Physician Visit ◽  
Treatment Preference ◽  
Baseline Survey ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background 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 DAs affect key outcomes such as treatment choice, patient–provider communication, or decision process/satisfaction. This study tested the impact of a complex medical oriented DA compared to a more simplistic decision aid designed to encourage shared decision making in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. 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 simple or complex DA. Participants were men with clinically localized cancer (N = 285) by biopsy and who completed a baseline survey. Survey measures: baseline (biopsy); immediately prior to seeing the physician for biopsy results (pre- encounter); one week following the physician visit (post-encounter). 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 simple 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 watchful waiting (p = 0.03) compared to those receiving the complex 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 simple 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. Trial registration This trial was pre-registered prior to recruitment of participants.

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 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.

Decision aids to prepare patients for shared decision making: Two randomized controlled experiments on the impact of awareness of preference-sensitivity and personal motives

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Eggeling ◽  
Simone Korger ◽  
Ulrike Cress ◽  
Joachim Kimmerle ◽  
Martina Bientzle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Decision Strategies ◽  
The Impact

Objective: To participate in shared decision-making (SDM), patients need to understand their options and develop trust in their own decision-making abilities. Two experiments investigated the potential of decision aids (DAs) in preparing patients for SDM by raising awareness of preference-sensitivity (Study 1) and showing possible personal motives for decision-making (Study 2) in addition to providing information about the treatment options.Methods: Participants (Study 1: N=117; Study 2: N=217) were put into two scenarios (Study 1: cruciate ligament rupture; Study 2: contraception), watched a consultation video, and were randomized into one of three groups where they received additional information in the form of 1) narrative patient testimonials; 2) non-narrative decision strategies; 3) an unrelated text (control group). Results: Participants who viewed the patient testimonials or decision strategies felt better prepared for a decision (Study 1: P&lt;.001, η²p=0.43; Study 2: P&lt;.001, η²p=0.57) and evaluated the decision-making process more positively (Study 2: P&lt;.001, η²p=0.13) than participants in the control condition. Decision certainty (Study 1: P&lt;.001, η2p=0.05) and satisfaction (Study 1: P&lt;.001, η2p=0.11; Study 2: P=.003, d=0.29) were higher across all conditions after watching the consultation video, and certainty and satisfaction were lower in the control condition (Study 2: P&lt;.001, η²p=0.05).Discussion: DAs that explain preference-sensitivity and personal motives can be beneficial for improving people’s feelings of being prepared and their perception of the decision-making process. To reach decision certainty and satisfaction, being well informed of one’s options is particularly relevant. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and the design of DAs.

A LEARNING CURVE FOR SHARED DECISION MAKING: THE IMPACT OF PHYSICIAN EXPERIENCE ON DECISION AID EFFICACY IN SEVERE AORTIC STENOSIS

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (11) ◽  
pp. A2646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Coylewright ◽  
Elizabeth O'Neill ◽  
Ariel Sherman ◽  
Megan J. Gerling ◽  
Kaavya Adam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Learning Curve ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
The Impact

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.

Toward Optimal Decision Making among Vulnerable Patients Referred for Cardiac Surgery: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient and Provider Perspectives

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 600-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan A. Gainer ◽  
Janet Curran ◽  
Karen J. Buth ◽  
Jennie G. David ◽  
Jean-Francois Légaré ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Consent Process ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Provider Perspectives ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Impact

Objectives. Comprehension of risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options has been shown to be poor among patients referred for cardiac interventions. Patients’ values and preferences are rarely explicitly sought. An increasing proportion of frail and older patients are undergoing complex cardiac surgical procedures with increased risk of both mortality and prolonged institutional care. We sought input from patients and caregivers to determine the optimal approach to decision making in this vulnerable patient population. Methods. Focus groups were held with both providers and former patients. Three focus groups were convened for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG), Valve, or CABG +Valve patients ≥ 70 y old (2-y post-op, ≤ 8-wk post-op, complicated post-op course) (n = 15). Three focus groups were convened for Intermediate Medical Care Unit (IMCU) nurses, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) nurses, surgeons, anesthesiologists and cardiac intensivists (n = 20). We used a semi-structured interview format to ask questions surrounding the informed consent process. Transcribed audio data was analyzed to develop consistent and comprehensive themes. Results. We identified 5 main themes that influence the decision making process: educational barriers, educational facilitators, patient autonomy and perceived autonomy, patient and family expectations of care, and decision making advocates. All themes were influenced by time constraints experienced in the current consent process. Patient groups expressed a desire to receive information earlier in their care to allow time to identify personal values and preferences in developing plans for treatment. Both groups strongly supported a formal approach for shared decision making with a decisional coach to provide information and facilitate communication with the care team. Conclusions. Identifying the barriers and facilitators to patient and caretaker engagement in decision making is a key step in the development of a structured, patient-centered SDM approach. Intervention early in the decision process, the use of individualized decision aids that employ graphic risk presentations, and a dedicated decisional coach were identified by patients and providers as approaches with a high potential for success. The impact of such a formalized shared decision making process in cardiac surgery on decisional quality will need to be formally assessed. Given the trend toward older and frail patients referred for complex cardiac procedures, the need for an effective shared decision making process is compelling.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document