Patient readiness for shared decision making about treatment: Conceptualisation and development of the ReadySDM.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision making (SDM) requires an active role of both clinicians and patients. We aimed to conceptualise patient readiness for SDM about treatment, and to develop a patient questionnaire to assess readiness. METHODS: We used the results of a scoping review and a qualitative study to inform the patient readiness construct. We conducted five additional rounds of data collection to finalise the construct definition and develop the Patient Readiness for SDM Questionnaire (ReadySDM ) in an oncological setting: (1) longitudinal interviews with patients with cancer during and after a treatment decision-making process; (2) a pilot study among experts, clinicians, and patients for feedback on the concept and items; (3) a field test among (former) patients with cancer to test item format and content validity, and to reduce the number of items; (4) cognitive interviews with people with low literacy to test the comprehensibility of the questionnaire; and (5) a field test among (former) patients who faced a cancer treatment decision in the last year, to test the content validity of the final version of the questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 251 people participated in the various rounds of data collection. We identified eight elements of patient readiness for SDM about treatment: (1) understanding of and attitude towards SDM; (2) information skills; (3) skills in communicating and claiming space; (4) self-awareness; (5) consideration skills; (6) self-efficacy; (7) emotional distress; and (8) experienced time. We developed the 20-item ReadySDM to retrospectively measure these elements in an oncological setting. CONCLUSION: We conducted a thorough procedure to conceptualise patient readiness and to develop the ReadySDM . The questionnaire aims to provide novel insights into ways to enhance SDM in daily practice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Multiple people with lived experience were involved in various phases of the study. They were asked for input on the study design, the conceptualisation of readiness, and the development of the questionnaire.

The value of using patient-reported outcomes for health screening during long-term follow-up after paediatric stem cell transplantation for nonmalignant diseases.

INTRODUCTION: The assessment of using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within comprehensive care follow-up programmes, specifically focused on health screening, remains largely unexplored. PROs were implemented in our late effects and comprehensive care programme after paediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for nonmalignant diseases. The programme focuses solely on screening of physical and mental health and on discussing PROs during the consultation. METHODS: The primary method of this study was semistructured interviews to explore the perspective of both patients and healthcare providers' (HCP) on the use of PROs, which were thematically analyzed. Additionally, an explorative quantitative approach with patient-reported experience measures (PREMS) was used, with a pretest-posttest design, to assess whether the use of PROs was accompanied by more patient-centred care. RESULTS: From the patient-interviews (N = 15) four themes were extracted: use of PROs (1) help to discuss topics; (2) make the patients feel understood; (3) create a moment of self-reflection; and (4) make consultations more efficient. Pre- and postimplementation analysis of PREMs (N = 40) did not show significant differences in terms of patient-centeredness. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the added value of integrating PROs for health screening purposes within the long-term follow-up programme after paediatric HSCT, as perceived by both patient and HCP. With the active use of PROs, patients are stimulated to consciously assess their health status. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: This study included patients as participants. Caregivers were approached if patients were below a certain age. Additionally, preliminary results were shared with all patients (including nonparticipants) during a patient conference day.

Shared Decision Making in Health Care Visits for CKD: Patients' Decisional Role Preferences and Experiences.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Research on shared decision making (SDM) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) has focused almost exclusively on the modality of kidney replacement treatment. We explored what other CKD decisions are recognized by patients, what their preferences and experiences are regarding these decisions, and how decisions are made during their interactions with medical care professionals. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients with CKD receiving (outpatient) care in 1 of 2 Dutch hospitals. EXPOSURE: Patients' preferred decisional roles for treatment decisions were measured using the Control Preferences Scale survey administered after a health care visit with medical professionals. OUTCOME: Number of decisions for which patients experienced a decisional role that did or did not match their preferred role. Observed levels of SDM and motivational interviewing in audio recordings of health care visits, measured using the 4-step SDM instrument (4SDM) and Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding tools. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: The results were characterized using descriptive statistics, including differences in scores between the patients' experienced and preferred decisional roles. RESULTS: According to the survey (n=122) patients with CKD frequently reported decisions regarding planning (112 of 122), medication changes (82 of 122), or lifestyle changes (59 of 122). Of the 357 reported decisions in total, patients preferred that clinicians mostly (125 of 357) or fully (101 of 357) make the decisions. For 116 decisions, they preferred a shared decisional role. For 151 of 357 decisions, the patients' preferences did not match their experiences. Decisions were experienced as "less shared/patient-directed" (76 of 357) or "more shared/patient-directed" (75 of 357) than preferred. Observed SDM in 118 coded decisions was low (median4; range, 0 - 22). Motivational interviewing techniques were rarely used. LIMITATIONS: Potential recall and selection bias, and limited generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: We identified multiple discrepancies between preferred, experienced, and observed SDM in health care visits for CKD. Although patients varied in their preferred decisional role, a considerable number of patients expressed a preference for shared decision making for many decisions. However, SDM behavior during the health care visits was observed infrequently. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Shared decision making (SDM) may be a valuable approach for common chronic kidney disease (CKD) decisions, but our knowledge is limited. We collected patient surveys after health care visits for CKD. Patients most frequently experienced decisions regarding planning, medication, and lifestyle. Three decisional roles were preferred by comparable numbers of patients: let the clinician alone decide, let the clinician decide for the most part, or "equally share" the decision. Patients' experiences of who made the decision did not always match their preferences. In audio recordings of the health care visits, we observed low levels of SDM behavior. These findings suggest that the preference for "sharing decisions" is often unmet for a large number of patients.

Long-term parental distress after pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for nonmalignant diseases.

BACKGROUND: Survival rates have continued to increase for pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for nonmalignant diseases. Despite the crucial role of caregivers in this high-intensity treatment, knowledge about long-term parental impact is lacking. PROCEDURE: This cross-sectional study assessed parental distress and everyday problems in parents of patients 2 years and older after pediatric HSCT for a nonmalignant disease using Distress Thermometer for Parents (DT-P), and compared outcomes to matched Dutch parents of healthy children and Dutch parents of children with a chronic condition (CC). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 5.3 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.9-8.6). Underlying diseases were inborn errors of immunity (N = 30), hemoglobinopathies (N = 13), and bone marrow failure (N = 27). Mothers of pediatric HSCT recipients (N = 70) reported comparable overall distress levels to mothers of healthy children, but experienced more distress related to parenting problems, specifically managing their child's emotions, discussing disease consequences, and fostering independence. Fathers of HSCT recipients (N = 45) reported higher overall distress levels and had more emotional distress compared to fathers of healthy children. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, parental distress and everyday problems of parents of HSCT recipients are comparable to those of parents of children with CC. However, there is ongoing parental burden, both emotional and in parenting, long-term after HSCT compared to parents of healthy children, and the type of burden differs between mothers and fathers. These results indicate that individualized parental supportive care should not remain restricted to the acute hospitalization phase, but also be actively offered during long-term follow-up after pediatric HSCT.

Assessing collaborative efforts of making care fit for each patient: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: For too many people, their care plans are designed without fully accounting for who they are, the lives they live, what matters to them or what they aspire to achieve. We aimed to summarize instruments capable of measuring dimensions of patient-clinician collaboration to make care fit. METHODS: We systematically searched several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to September 2021 for studies using quantitative measures to assess, evaluate or rate the work of making care fit by any participant in real-life clinical encounters. Eligibility was assessed in duplicate. After extracting all items from relevant instruments, we coded them deductively on dimensions relevant to making care fit (as presented in a recent Making Care Fit Manifesto), and inductively on the main action described. RESULTS: We included 189 papers, mostly from North America (N = 83, 44%) and in the context of primary care (N = 54, 29%). Half of the papers (N = 88, 47%) were published in the last 5 years. We found 1243 relevant items to assess efforts of making care fit, included within 151 instruments. Most items related to the dimensions 'Patient-clinician collaboration: content' (N = 396, 32%) and 'Patient-clinician collaboration: manner' (N = 382, 31%) and the least related to 'Ongoing and iterative process' (N = 22, 2%) and in 'Minimally disruptive of patient lives' (N = 29, 2%). The items referred to 27 specific actions. Most items referred to 'Informing' (N = 308, 25%) and 'Exploring' (N = 93, 8%), the fewest items referred to 'Following up', 'Comforting' and 'Praising' (each N = 3, 0.2%). DISCUSSION: Measures of the work that patients and clinicians do together to make care fit focus heavily on the content of their collaborations, particularly on exchanging information. Other dimensions and actions previously identified as crucial to making care fit are assessed infrequently or not at all. The breadth of extant measures of making care fit and the lack of appropriate measures of this key construct limit both the assessment and the successful implementation of efforts to improve patient care. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers from the 'Making care fit Collaborative' were involved in drafting the dimensions relevant to patient-clinician collaboration.

Predicting outcomes in chronic kidney disease: needs and preferences of patients and nephrologists.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines on chronic kidney disease (CKD) recommend that nephrologists use clinical prediction models (CPMs). However, the actual use of CPMs seems limited in clinical practice. We conducted a national survey study to evaluate: 1) to what extent CPMs are used in Dutch CKD practice, 2) patients' and nephrologists' needs and preferences regarding predictions in CKD, and 3) determinants that may affect the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with CKD patients to inform the development of two online surveys; one for CKD patients and one for nephrologists. Survey participants were recruited through the Dutch Kidney Patient Association and the Dutch Federation of Nephrology. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients and 50 nephrologists responded to the surveys. Most patients (89%) reported they had discussed predictions with their nephrologists. They most frequently discussed predictions regarded CKD progression: when they were expected to need kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (n = 81), and how rapidly their kidney function was expected to decline (n = 68). Half of the nephrologists (52%) reported to use CPMs in clinical practice, in particular CPMs predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease. Almost all nephrologists (98%) reported discussing expected CKD trajectories with their patients; even those that did not use CPMs (42%). The majority of patients (61%) and nephrologists (84%) chose a CPM predicting when patients would need KRT in the future as the most important prediction. However, a small portion of patients indicated they did not want to be informed on predictions regarding CKD progression at all (10-15%). Nephrologists not using CPMs (42%) reported they did not know CPMs they could use or felt that they had insufficient knowledge regarding CPMs. According to the nephrologists, the most important determinants for the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice were: 1) understandability for patients, 2) integration as standard of care, 3) the clinical relevance. CONCLUSION: Even though the majority of patients in Dutch CKD practice reported discussing predictions with their nephrologists, CPMs are infrequently used for this purpose. Both patients and nephrologists considered a CPM predicting CKD progression most important to discuss. Increasing awareness about existing CPMs that predict CKD progression may result in increased adoption in clinical practice. When using CPMs regarding CKD progression, nephrologists should ask whether patients want to hear predictions beforehand, since individual patients' preferences vary.

Relational coordination in value-based health care.

BACKGROUND: An important element of value-based health care (VBHC) is interprofessional collaboration in integrated practice units (IPUs) for the delivery of the complete cycle of care. High levels of interprofessional collaboration between clinical and nonclinical staff in IPUs are assumed rather than proven. Factors that may stimulate interprofessional collaboration in the context of VBHC are underresearched. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine relational coordination (RC) in VBHC and its antecedents. APPROACH: A questionnaire was used to examine the association of both team practices and organizational conditions with interprofessional collaboration in IPUs. Gittell's Relational Coordination Survey was drawn upon to measure interprofessional collaboration by capturing the relational dynamics in coordinated working. The questionnaire also included measures of team practices (team meetings and boundary spanning behavior) and organizational conditions (task interdependence and time constraints). RESULTS: The number of different professional groups participating in team meetings is positively associated with RC in IPUs. Boundary spanning behavior, task interdependence, and time constraints are not associated with RC. CONCLUSIONS: In IPUs, the diversity within interprofessional team meetings is important for establishing high-quality communication and relationships. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Hospital managers should prioritize facilitating and encouraging shared meetings to enhance RC levels among professional groups in IPUs.

Shared Decision-making in Different Types of Decisions in Medical Specialist Consultations.

BACKGROUNDS: Research on shared decision-making (SDM) has mainly focused on decisions about treatment (e.g., medication or surgical procedures). Little is known about the decision-making process for the numerous other decisions in consultations. OBJECTIVES: We assessed to what extent patients are actively involved in different decision types in medical specialist consultations and to what extent this was affected by medical specialist, patient, and consultation characteristics. DESIGN: Analysis of video-recorded encounters between medical specialists and patients at a large teaching hospital in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one medical specialists (28 male) from 18 specialties, and 781 patients. MAIN MEASURE: Two independent raters classified decisions in the consultations in decision type (main or other) and decision category (diagnostic tests, treatment, follow-up, or other advice) and assessed the decision-making behavior for each decision using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION)5 instrument, ranging from 0 (no SDM) to 100 (optimal SDM). Scheduled and realized consultation duration were recorded. KEY RESULT: In the 727 consultations, the mean (SD) OPTION5 score for the main decision was higher (16.8 (17.1)) than that for the other decisions (5.4 (9.0), p < 0.001). The main decision OPTION5 scores for treatment decisions (n = 535, 19.2 (17.3)) were higher than those for decisions about diagnostic tests (n = 108, 14.6 (16.8)) or follow-up (n = 84, 3.8 (8.1), p < 0.001). This difference remained significant in multilevel analyses. Longer consultation duration was the only other factor significantly associated with higher OPTION5 scores (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most of the limited patient involvement was observed in main decisions (versus others) and in treatment decisions (versus diagnostic, follow-up, and advice). SDM was associated with longer consultations. Physicians' SDM training should help clinicians to tailor promotion of patient involvement in different types of decisions. Physicians and policy makers should allow sufficient consultation time to support the application of SDM in clinical practice.

Perspectives of people living with Parkinson's disease on personalized prediction models.

BACKGROUND: There is a great need for the development of personalized prediction models (PPMs) that can predict the rate of disease progression for persons with Parkinson's disease (PD), based on their individual characteristics. In this study, we aimed to clarify the perspective of persons diagnosed with PD on the value of such hypothetical PPMs. METHODS: We organized four focus group discussions, each including five persons with PD who were diagnosed within the last 5 years. The sessions focused on what they think of receiving a personalized prediction; what outcomes are important to them; if and how the possibility of influencing the prognosis would change the way they think of personalized predictions; how they deal with the uncertainty from a PPM; and what barriers and facilitators they expect for using a PPM. RESULTS: The wish of persons with PD for receiving personalized prognostic information was highly heterogenous, for various reasons. Most persons with PD would like to receive more personalized prognostic information, mainly to better prepare themselves and their loved ones for the future. The prediction provided should be as personalized as possible, and there should be adequate supervision and coaching by a professional when providing the information. They were particularly interested in receiving prognostic information when their interventions would be available that could subsequently influence the identified prognostic factor and thereby affect the disease course beneficially. CONCLUSION: Most persons with PD in this study want more insight into their own future by means of prediction models, provided that this is explained and supervized properly by professionals. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient-researchers were involved in the study design, conduct of the study, interpretation of the data and in preparation of the manuscript.

Development of an online patient decision aid for kidney failure treatment modality decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PtDAs) support patients and clinicians in shared decision-making (SDM). Real-world outcome information may improve patients' risk perception, and help patients make decisions congruent with their expectations and values. Our aim was to develop an online PtDA to support kidney failure treatment modality decision-making, that: 1) provides patients with real-world outcome information, and 2) facilitates SDM in clinical practice. METHODS: The International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) development process model was complemented with a user-centred and convergent mixed-methods approach. Rapid prototyping was used to develop the PtDA with a multidisciplinary steering group in an iterative process of co-creation. The results of an exploratory evidence review and a needs-assessment among patients, caregivers, and clinicians were used to develop the PtDA. Seven Dutch teaching hospitals and two national Dutch outcome registries provided real-world data on selected outcomes for all kidney failure treatment modalities. Alpha and beta testing were performed to assess the prototype and finalise development. An implementation strategy was developed to guide implementation of the PtDA in clinical practice. RESULTS: The 'Kidney Failure Decision Aid' consists of three components designed to help patients and clinicians engage in SDM: 1) a paper hand-out sheet, 2) an interactive website, and 3) a personal summary sheet. A 'patients-like-me' infographic was developed to visualise survival probabilities for each treatment modality on the website. Other treatment outcomes were incorporated as event rates (e.g. hospitalisation rates) or explained in text (e.g. the flexibility of each treatment modality). No major revisions were needed after alpha and beta testing. During beta testing, some patients ignored the survival probabilities because they considered these too confronting. Nonetheless, patients agreed that every patient has the right to choose whether they want to view this information. Patients and clinicians believed that the PtDA would help patients make informed decisions, and that it would support values- and preferences-based decision-making. Implementation of the PtDA has started in October 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The 'Kidney Failure Decision Aid' was designed to facilitate SDM in clinical practice and contains real-world outcome information on all kidney failure treatment modalities. It is currently being investigated for its effects on SDM in a clinical trial.

Shared decision making in cancer treatment: A Dutch national survey on patients' preferences and perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) for cancer treatment yields positive results. However, it appears that discussing essential topics for SDM is not fully integrated into treatment decision making yet. Therefore, we aim to explore to what extent discussion of therapy options, treatment consequences, and personal priorities is preferred and perceived by (former) cancer patients. METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed by the Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organisations among (former) cancer patients in 2018. RESULTS: Among 3785 (former) cancer patients, 3254 patients (86%) had discussed treatments with their health care provider (HCP) and were included for analysis. Mean age was 62.1 ± 11.5; 55% were female. Discussing the option to choose no (further) treatment was rated by 2751 (84.5%) as very important (median score 9/10-IQR 8-10). Its occurrence was perceived by 28% (N = 899), and short- and long-term treatment consequences were discussed in 81% (N = 2626) and 53% (N = 1727), respectively. An unmet wish to discuss short- and long-term consequences was reported by 22% and 26%, respectively. Less than half of the (former) cancer patients perceived that personal priorities (44%) and future plans (34%) were discussed. CONCLUSION: In the perception of (former) cancer patients, several essential elements for effective SDM are insufficiently discussed during cancer treatment decision making.

The implementation of value-based healthcare: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify and summarize how value-based healthcare (VBHC) is conceptualized in the literature and implemented in hospitals. Furthermore, an overview was created of the effects of both the implementation of VBHC and the implementation strategies used. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted by searching online databases for articles published between January 2006 and February 2021. Empirical as well as non-empirical articles were included. RESULTS: 1729 publications were screened and 62 were used for data extraction. The majority of the articles did not specify a conceptualization of VBHC, but only conceptualized the goals of VBHC or the concept of value. Most hospitals implemented only one or two components of VBHC, mainly the measurement of outcomes and costs or Integrated Practice Units (IPUs). Few studies examined effects. Implementation strategies were described rarely, and were evaluated even less. CONCLUSIONS: VBHC has a high level of interpretative variability and a common conceptualization of VBHC is therefore urgently needed. VBHC was proposed as a shift in healthcare management entailing six reinforcing steps, but hospitals have not implemented VBHC as an integrative strategy. VBHC implementation and effectiveness could benefit from the interdisciplinary collaboration between healthcare and management science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This scoping review was registered on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/jt4u7/ (OSF | The implementation of Value-Based Healthcare: a Scoping Review).

Asking the right questions: towards a person-centered conception of shared decision-making regarding treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease in older patients.

An increasing number of older patients have to decide on a treatment plan for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), involving dialysis or conservative care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended as the model for decision-making in such preference-sensitive decisions. The aim of SDM is to come to decisions that are consistent with the patient's values and preferences and made by the patient and healthcare professional working together. In clinical practice, however, SDM appears to be not yet routine and needs further implementation. A shift from a biomedical to a person-centered conception might help to make the process more shared. Shared should, therefore, be interpreted as two persons bringing two perspectives to the table, that both need to be explored during the decision-making process. Starting from the patient's perspective will enable to determine the mutual goals of care first and, subsequently, determine the best way for achieving those goals. To perform such SDM, the healthcare professional needs to become a skilled companion, being part of the patient's relational context, and start asking the right questions about what matters to the patient as person. In this article, we describe the need for a person-centered conception of SDM for the setting of older patients with advanced CKD.

Why do medical residents prefer paternalistic decision making? An interview study.

BACKGROUND: Although shared decision making is championed as the preferred model for patient care by patient organizations, researchers and medical professionals, its application in daily practice remains limited. We previously showed that residents more often prefer paternalistic decision making than their supervisors. Because both the views of residents on the decision-making process in medical consultations and the reasons for their 'paternalism preference' are unknown, this study explored residents' views on the decision-making process in medical encounters and the factors affecting it. METHODS: We interviewed 12 residents from various specialties at a large Dutch teaching hospital in 2019-2020, exploring how they involved patients in decisions. All participating residents provided written informed consent. Data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection in an iterative process informing adaptations to the interview topic guide when deemed necessary. Constant comparative analysis was used to develop themes. We ceased data collection when information sufficiency was achieved. RESULTS: Participants described how active engagement of patients in discussing options and decision making was influenced by contextual factors (patient characteristics, logistical factors such as available time, and supervisors' recommendations) and by limitations in their medical and shared decision-making knowledge. The residents' decision-making behavior appeared strongly affected by their conviction that they are responsible for arriving at the correct diagnosis and providing the best evidence-based treatment. They described shared decision making as the process of patients consenting with physician-recommended treatment or patients choosing their preferred option when no best evidence-based option was available. CONCLUSIONS: Residents' decision making appears to be affected by contextual factors, their medical knowledge, their knowledge about SDM, and by their beliefs and convictions about their professional responsibilities as a doctor, ensuring that patients receive the best possible evidence-based treatment. They confuse SDM with acquiring informed consent with the physician's treatment recommendations and with letting patients decide which treatment they prefer in case no evidence based guideline recommendation is available. Teaching SDM to residents should not only include skills training, but also target residents' perceptions and convictions regarding their role in the decision-making process in consultations.

Estimating the Effect of Early Treatment Initiation in Parkinson's Disease Using Observational Data.

BACKGROUND: Both patients and physicians may choose to delay initiation of dopamine replacement therapy in Parkinson's disease (PD) for various reasons. We used observational data to estimate the effect of earlier treatment in PD. Observational data offer a valuable source of evidence, complementary to controlled trials. METHOD: We studied the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative cohort of patients with de novo PD to estimate the effects of duration of PD treatment during the first 2 years of follow-up, exploiting natural interindividual variation in the time to start first treatment. We estimated the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III (primary outcome) and several functionally relevant outcomes at 2, 3, and 4 years after baseline. To adjust for time-varying confounding, we used marginal structural models with inverse probability of treatment weighting and the parametric g-formula. RESULTS: We included 302 patients from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative cohort. There was a small improvement in MDS-UPDRS Part III scores after 2 years of follow-up for patients who started treatment earlier, and similar, but nonstatistically significant, differences in subsequent years. We found no statistically significant differences in most secondary outcomes, including the presence of motor fluctuations, nonmotor symptoms, MDS-UPDRS Part II scores, and the Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale. CONCLUSION: Earlier treatment initiation does not lead to worse MDS-UPDRS motor scores and may offer small improvements. These findings, based on observational data, are in line with earlier findings from clinical trials. Observational data, when combined with appropriate causal methods, are a valuable source of additional evidence to support real-world clinical decisions. © 2020 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Patients' and clinicians' preferences in adjuvant treatment for high-risk endometrial cancer: Implications for shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Decision making regarding adjuvant therapy for high-risk endometrial cancer is complex. The aim of this study was to determine patients' and clinicians' minimally desired survival benefit to choose chemoradiotherapy over radiotherapy alone. Moreover, influencing factors and importance of positive and negative treatment effects (i.e. attribute) were investigated. METHODS: Patients with high-risk endometrial cancer treated with adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy and multidisciplinary gynaecologic oncology clinicians completed a trade-off questionnaire based on PORTEC-3 trial data. RESULTS: In total, 171 patients and 63 clinicians completed the questionnaire. Median minimally desired benefit to make chemoradiotherapy worthwhile was significantly higher for patients versus clinicians (10% vs 5%, p = 0.02). Both patients and clinicians rated survival benefit most important during decision making, followed by long-term symptoms. Older patients (OR 0.92 [95%CI 0.87-0.97]; p = 0.003) with comorbidity (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.12-0.89]; p = 0.035) had lower preference for chemoradiotherapy, while patients with better numeracy skills (OR 1.2 [95%CI 1.05-1.36], p = 0.011) and chemoradiotherapy history (OR 25.0 [95%CI 8.8-91.7]; p < 0.001) had higher preference for chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: There is a considerable difference in minimally desired survival benefit of chemoradiotherapy in high-risk endometrial cancer among and between patients and clinicians. Overall, endometrial cancer patients needed higher benefits than clinicians before preferring chemoradiotherapy.

Response rate of patient reported outcomes: the delivery method matters.

BACKGROUND: Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) are subjective outcomes of disease and/or treatment in clinical research. For effective evaluations of PROs, high response rates are crucial. This study assessed the impact of the delivery method on the patients' response rate. METHODS: A cohort of patients with a unilateral vestibular schwannoma (a condition with substantial impact on quality of life, requiring prolonged follow-up) was assigned to three delivery methods: email, regular mail, and hybrid. Patients were matched for age and time since the last visit to the outpatient clinic. The primary outcome was the response rate, determinants other than delivery mode were age, education and time since the last consultation. In addition, the effect of a second reminder by telephone was evaluated. RESULTS: In total 602 patients participated in this study. The response rates for delivery by email, hybrid, and mail were 45, 58 and 60%, respectively. The response rates increased after a reminder by telephone to 62, 67 and 64%, respectively. A lower response rate was associated with lower level of education and longer time interval since last outpatient clinic visit. CONCLUSION: The response rate for PRO varies by delivery method. PRO surveys by regular mail yield the highest response rate, followed by hybrid and email delivery methods. Hybrid delivery combines good response rates with the ease of digitally returned questionnaires.

A scoping review of practice recommendations for clinicians' communication of uncertainty.

BACKGROUND: Health-care providers increasingly have to discuss uncertainty with patients. Awareness of uncertainty can affect patients variably, depending on how it is communicated. To date, no overview existed for health-care professionals on how to discuss uncertainty. OBJECTIVE: To generate an overview of available recommendations on how to communicate uncertainty with patients during clinical encounters. SEARCH STRATEGY: A scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched following the PRISMA-ScR statement. Independent screening by two researchers was performed of titles and abstracts, and subsequently full texts. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Any (non-)empirical papers were included describing recommendations for any health-care provider on how to orally communicate uncertainty to patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on provided recommendations and their characteristics (eg, target group and strength of evidence base) were extracted. Recommendations were narratively synthesized into a comprehensible overview for clinical practice. RESULTS: Forty-seven publications were included. Recommendations were based on empirical findings in 23 publications. After narrative synthesis, 13 recommendations emerged pertaining to three overarching goals: (a) preparing for the discussion of uncertainty, (b) informing patients about uncertainty and (c) helping patients deal with uncertainty. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A variety of recommendations on how to orally communicate uncertainty are available, but most lack an evidence base. More substantial research is needed to assess the effects of the suggested communicative approaches. Until then, health-care providers may use our overview of communication strategies as a toolbox to optimize communication about uncertainty with patients. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Results were presented to stakeholders (physicians) to check and improve their practical applicability.

Psychological distress and quality of life following positive fecal occult blood testing in colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess psychological functioning, quality of life, and regret about screening after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and subsequent colonoscopy, and to evaluate changes over time. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study. Individuals aged 55 to 75 with a positive FIT that were referred for colonoscopy between July 2017 and November 2018, were invited to complete questionnaires related to psychological distress and health-related quality of life at three predefined time points: before colonoscopy, after histopathology result notification, and after 6 months. Four questionnaires were used: the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ), the six-item Cancer Worry Scale (CWS), the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), and the 36-item Short-Form (SF-36). RESULTS: A total of 1066 participants out of 2151 eligible individuals were included. Patients with cancer showed a significant increase in psychological dysfunction (P = .01) and cancer worry (P = .008) after colonoscopy result notification, and a decline to pre-colonoscopy measurements after 6 months. In the no-cancer groups, psychological dysfunction and cancer worry significantly decreased over time (P < .05) but there was no ongoing decline. After 6 months, 17% of participants with no cancer experienced high level of cancer worry (CWS ≥ 10). Yet, only 5% reported high level of regret about screening participation (DRS > 25). A good global quality of life was reported in participants with no cancer. CONCLUSION: Some psychological distress remains up to 6 months after colonoscopy in participants who tested false-positive in the Dutch bowel cancer screening program.

Measuring shared decision making in oncology: Development and first testing of the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician questionnaires.

BACKGROUND: Existing measures to assess shared decision making (SDM) have often been developed based on an ill-defined underlying construct, and many assess physician behaviours only or focus on a single patient-physician encounter. OBJECTIVE: To (a) develop a patient and a physician questionnaire to measure SDM in oncology and (b) determine their content validity and comprehensibility. METHODS: A systematic review of SDM models and an oncology-specific SDM model informed the domains of the SDM construct. We formulated items for each SDM domain. Cancer patients and physicians rated content validity in an online questionnaire. We assumed a formative measurement model and performed online field-testing in cancer patients to inform further item reduction. We tested item comprehension in cognitive interviews with cancer patients and physicians. RESULTS: We identified 17 domains and formulated 132 items. Twelve cancer patients rated content validity at item level, and 11 physicians rated content validity at domain level. We field-tested the items among 131 cancer patients and conducted cognitive interviews with eight patients and five physicians. These phases resulted in the 15-item iSHAREpatient and 15-item iSHAREphysician questionnaires, covering 13 domains. CONCLUSIONS: We thoroughly developed the iSHARE questionnaires. They both assess patient and physician behaviours and cover the entire SDM process rather than a single consultation.