AbstractThe commentary presents reflections on the literature on post-treatment cancer patient regret. Even though a lot of effort has been made to increase patient satisfaction by engaging them in medical decisions, patient regret remains present in clinical settings. In our commentary, we identify three main aspects of shared decision-making that previously have been shown to predict patient regret. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for physicians involved in the shared decision-making process. In addition, we make methodological suggestions for future research in the field.
Guidelines promote shared decision‐making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within‐encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision‐making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points.
Methods and Results
We conducted a multicenter, encounter‐level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow‐up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm.
In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes.
; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.
(1) Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as a way of improving prudency in healthcare and has been linked to self-efficacy and empowerment of service users. The evaluation of its use in musculoskeletal (MSK) physiotherapy has been vague, but articles suggest that trust and communication are integral. (2) ENTREQ guidelines informed this systematic review and thematic synthesis. PRISMA recommendations steered a systematic literature search of AHMED, CINAHL, MEDLNE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from inception to September 2021. COREQ was used for quality appraisal of articles alongside critical discussions. Analysis and synthesis included five stages: outlining study characteristics, coding of data, development of descriptive themes, development of analytical themes and integration and refinement. The review aim was to explore people’s experiences of SDM in MSK physiotherapy and to inform our understanding of the conditions needed for successful SDM. (3) Out of 1508 studies, 9 articles were included. Four main themes (trust, communication, decision preferences and decision ability) demonstrated that the majority of people want to participate in decision-making. As described in the capacity and capability model, three core conditions were needed to facilitate someone’s’ ability to participate. (4) People want to be involved in SDM in MSK physiotherapy. For successful SDM, physiotherapists should look to develop mutual trust, utilise two-way communication and share power.
Objective The objective of this study was to better understand how neonatology (Neo) and maternal–fetal medicine (MFM) physicians approach the process of shared decision-making (SDM) with parents facing extremely premature (<25 weeks estimated gestational age) delivery during antenatal counseling.
Study Design Attending physicians at U.S. centers with both Neo and MFM fellowships were invited to answer an original online survey about antenatal counseling for extremely early newborns. Preferences for conveying information are reported elsewhere. Here, we report clinicians' self-assessments of their ability to engage in deliberations and decision-making and perceptions of what is important to parents in the SDM process. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed respondents' views with respect to individual characteristics, such as specialty, gender, and years of clinical experience.
Results In total, 74 MFMs and 167 Neos representing 94% of the 81 centers surveyed responded. Neos versus MFMs reported repeat visits with parents less often (<0.001) and agreed that parents were more likely to have made delivery room decisions before they counseled them less often (p < 0.001). Respondents reported regularly achieving most goals of SDM, with the exception of providing spiritual support. Most respondents reported that spiritual and religious views, risk to an infant's survival, and the infant's quality of life were important to parental decision-making, while a physician's own personal choice and family political views were reported as less important. While many barriers to SDM exist, respondents rated language barriers and family views that differ from those of a provider as the most difficult barriers to overcome.
Conclusion This study provides insights into how consultants from different specialties and demographic groups facilitate SDM, thereby informing future efforts for improving counseling and engaging in SDM with parents facing extremely early deliveries and supporting evidence-based training for these complex communication skills.
AbstractStatin therapy is the cornerstone of preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), primarily by reducing low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Optimal statin therapy decisions rely on shared decision making and may be uncertain for a given patient. In areas of clinical uncertainty, personalized approaches based on real-world data may help inform treatment decisions. We sought to develop a personalized statin recommendation approach for primary ASCVD prevention based on historical real-world outcomes in similar patients. Our retrospective cohort included adults from a large Northern California electronic health record (EHR) aged 40–79 years with no prior cardiovascular disease or statin use. The cohort was split into training and test sets. Weighted-K-nearest-neighbor (wKNN) regression models were used to identify historical EHR patients similar to a candidate patient. We modeled four statin decisions for each patient: none, low-intensity, moderate-intensity, and high-intensity. For each candidate patient, the algorithm recommended the statin decision that was associated with the greatest percentage reduction in LDL-C after 1 year in similar patients. The overall cohort consisted of 50,576 patients (age 54.6 ± 9.8 years) with 55% female, 48% non-Hispanic White, 32% Asian, and 7.4% Hispanic patients. Among 8383 test-set patients, 52%, 44%, and 4% were recommended high-, moderate-, and low-intensity statins, respectively, for a maximum predicted average 1-yr LDL-C reduction of 16.9%, 20.4%, and 14.9%, in each group, respectively. Overall, using aggregate EHR data, a personalized statin recommendation approach identified the statin intensity associated with the greatest LDL-C reduction in historical patients similar to a candidate patient. Recommendations included low- or moderate-intensity statins for maximum LDL-C lowering in nearly half the test set, which is discordant with their expected guideline-based efficacy. A data-driven personalized statin recommendation approach may inform shared decision making in areas of uncertainty, and highlight unexpected efficacy-effectiveness gaps.
ObjectiveTo prospectively evaluate 1-year clinical and radiological outcomes after operative and non-operative treatment of proximal hamstring tendon avulsions.MethodsPatients with an MRI-confirmed proximal hamstring tendon avulsion were included. Operative or non-operative treatment was selected by a shared decision-making process. The primary outcome was the Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT) score. Secondary outcome scores were Proximal Hamstring Injury Questionnaire, EQ-5D-3L, Tegner Activity Scale, return to sports, hamstring flexibility, isometric hamstring strength and MRI findings including proximal continuity.ResultsTwenty-six operative and 33 non-operative patients with a median age of 51 (IQR: 37–57) and 49 (IQR: 45–56) years were included. Median time between injury and initial visit was 12 (IQR 6–19) days for operative and 21 (IQR 12–48) days for non-operative patients (p=0.004). Baseline PHAT scores were significantly lower in the operative group (32±16 vs 45±17, p=0.003). There was no difference in mean PHAT score between groups at 1 year follow-up (80±19 vs 80±17, p=0.97). Mean PHAT score improved by 47 (95% CI 39 to 55, p<0.001) after operative and 34 (95% CI 27 to 41, p<0.001) after non-operative treatment. There were no relevant differences in secondary clinical outcome measures. Proximal continuity on MRI was present in 20 (95%, 1 recurrence) operative and 14 (52%, no recurrences) non-operative patients (p=0.008).ConclusionIn a shared decision-making model of care, both operative and non-operative treatment of proximal hamstring tendon avulsions resulted in comparable clinical outcome at 1-year follow-up. Operative patients had lower pretreatment PHAT scores but improved substantially to reach comparable PHAT scores as non-operative patients. We recommend using this shared decision model of care until evidence-based indications in favour of either treatment option are available from high-level clinical trials.