Behaviour, barriers and facilitators of shared decision making in breast cancer surgical treatment: A qualitative systematic review using a 'Best Fit' framework approach.

BACKGROUND: Due to the diversity and high sensitivity of the treatment, there were difficulties and uncertainties in the breast cancer surgical decision-making process. We aimed to describe the patient's decision-making behaviour and shared decision-making (SDM)-related barriers and facilitators in breast cancer surgical treatment. METHODS: We searched eight databases for qualitative studies and mixed-method studies about breast cancer patients' surgical decision-making process from inception to March 2021. The quality of the studies was critically appraised by two researchers independently. We used a 'best fit framework approach' to analyze and synthesize the evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-eight qualitative studies and three mixed-method studies were included in this study. Four themes and 10 subthemes were extracted: (a) struggling with various considerations, (b) actual decision-making behaviours, (c) SDM not routinely implemented and (d) multiple facilitators and barriers to SDM. CONCLUSIONS: Patients had various considerations of breast surgery and SDM was not routinely implemented. There was a discrepancy between information exchange behaviours, value clarification, decision support utilization and SDM due to cognitive and behavioural biases. When individuals made surgical decisions, their behaviours were affected by individual-level and system-level factors. Therefore, healthcare providers and other stakeholders should constantly improve communication skills and collaboration, and emphasize the importance of decision support, so as to embed SDM into routine practice. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This systematic review was conducted as part of a wider research entitled: Breast cancer patients' actual participation roles in surgical decision making: a mixed method research. The results of this project helped us to better analyze and generalize patients' views.

Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data.

BACKGROUND: The occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM. OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed. MAIN MEASURES: In the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION12 item) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION12 as a dependent variable. RESULTS: We included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION12 scores was 7.7 of 100 points (P < 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION12 score except for education level (p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION12 score (P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Most characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used. HIGHLIGHTS: Most sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making.Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used.SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.

Changes in intention to use an interprofessional approach to decision-making following training: a cluster before-and-after study.

BACKGROUND: Health professionals in home care work in interprofessional teams. Yet most training in decision support assumes a one-on-one relationship with patients. We assessed the impact of an in-person training session in interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM) on home care professionals' intention to adopt this approach. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a cluster stepped-wedge trial using a before-and-after study design. We collected data among home care professionals from November 2016 to February 2018 in 9 health and social services centers in Quebec, Canada. The intervention was an in-person IP-SDM training session. Intention to engage in IP-SDM pre- and post-session (dependent variable) was compared using a continuing professional development evaluation scale (CPD-Reaction) informed by the Godin's Integrated Behavioral Model for health professionals. We also assessed socio-demographic and psychosocial variables (beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, social influence and moral norm). We performed bivariate and multivariate analysis to identify factors influencing post-intervention intention. We used the STROBE reporting guidelines for observational studies to report our results. RESULTS: Of 134 respondents who provided complete pairs of questionnaires (pre- and post-), most were female (90.9%), mean age was 42 (± 9.3) years and 66.9% were social workers. Mean intention scores decreased from 5.84 (± 1.19) to 5.54 (± 1.35) (Mean difference = -0.30 ± 1.16; p = 0.02). Factors associated with higher intention post-intervention were social influence (ß = 0.34, p = 0.01) and belief about capabilities (ß = 0.49, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: After in-person IP-SDM training, healthcare professionals' intention to engage in IP-SDM decreased. However, the scope of this decrease is probably not clinically significant. Due to their association with intention, beliefs about capabilities, which translate into having a sense of self-competency in the new clinical behavior, and social influences, which translate into what important others think one should be doing, could be targets for future research aiming to implement IP-SDM in home care settings.

The experience of shared decision-making for people with asthma: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, describe and synthesise the views and experiences of adults living with asthma regarding shared decision-making (SDM) in the existing qualitative literature METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of 10 databases (list databases) from inception until September 2023. Screening was performed according to inclusion criteria. Tools from the Joanna Briggs lnstitute were utilised for the purposes of data extraction and synthesis in this study. The data extraction process in this study employed the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model) as a framework, and a pragmatic meta-aggregative approach was employed to synthesise the collected results. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included in the metasynthesis. Three synthesised themes were identified: the capability of people living with asthma, the opportunities of people living with asthma in SDM, and the motivation of the people living with asthma in SDM. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified specific factors influencing people living with asthma engaging in SDM. The findings of this study can serve as a basis for the implementation of SDM in people living with asthma and provide insights for the development of their SDM training programs. The ConQual score for the synthesised findings was rated as low. To enhance confidence, future studies should address dependability and credibility factors. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This review contemplates the implementation of SDM from the perspective of people living with asthma, with the aim of providing patient-centred services for them. The results of this review can benefit the implementation of SDM and facilitate information sharing. It offers guidance for SDM skills training among adults living with asthma, fosters a better doctor-patient relationship and facilitates consensus in treatment decisions, thereby enabling personalised and tailored medical care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Three nursing graduate students participated in the data extraction and integration process, with two students having extensive clinical experience that provided valuable insights for the integration.

Patients' experiences with shared decision-making in home-based palliative care - navigation through major life decisions.

BACKGROUND: This study addresses the issue of shared decision-making (SDM) in a Norwegian home-based palliative care setting. The significance of patient involvement in SDM is widely acknowledged, and many patients want to participate in decisions about care and treatment. Yet, it remains a need for more knowledge regarding the initiators and approaches of SDM in the context of home-based palliative care, particularly from the patients' perspective. The aim of this study is to understand patients' experiences and preferences for SDM in home-based palliative care, seeking to enhance the quality of care and direct the planning of healthcare services. METHODS: We used a qualitative explorative design. A hermeneutic approach was employed, and data was collected through in-dept interviews with 13 patients. RESULTS: The study uncovered an overarching theme of "Navigating to reach own decisions," comprising three sub-themes: "To be trapped in life without decisions to act on"; "To surrender to others and let others deal with decisions"; "To continue to be oneself without focusing on disease and decision-making". CONCLUSIONS: The findings underscore the need for flexible, person-centered approaches in SDM, tailored to the fluctuating health literacy and changing preferences of patients in palliative care settings. Our study contributes to the understanding of SDM in palliative care by highlighting how patients navigate the balance between autonomy and reliance on HCPs. Future research should explore how healthcare systems, including HCPs' roles in the system, can adapt to the patients' dynamic needs, to ensuring that SDM will remain a supportive and empowering process for patients at all stages of their disease.

Qualitative Analysis of Patient Decisional Needs for Medications to Treat Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The development of tools to support shared decision-making should be informed by patients' decisional needs and treatment preferences, which are largely unknown for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) pharmacotherapy decisions. We aimed to identify patients' decisional needs when considering HFrEF medication options. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. We recruited patients with HFrEF from 2 Canadian ambulatory HF clinics and clinicians from Canadian HF guideline panels, HF clinics, and Canadian HF Society membership. We identified themes through inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants included 15 patients and 12 clinicians. Six themes and associated subthemes emerged related to HFrEF pharmacotherapy decision-making: (1) patient decisional needs included lack of awareness of a choice or options, difficult decision timing and stage, information overload, and inadequate motivation, support and resources; (2) patients' decisional conflict varied substantially, driven by unclear trade-offs; (3) treatment attribute preferences-patients focused on both benefits and downsides of treatment, whereas clinicians centered discussion on benefits; (4) quality of life-patients' definition of quality of life depended on pre-HF activity, though most patients demonstrated adaptability in adjusting their daily activities to manage HF; (5) shared decision-making process-clinicians' described a process more akin to informed consent; (6) decision support-multimedia decision aids, virtual appointments, and primary-care comanagement emerged as potential enablers of shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrEF have several decisional needs, which are consistent with those that may respond to decision aids. These findings can inform the development of HFrEF pharmacotherapy decision aids to address these decisional needs and facilitate shared decision-making.

[A qualitative study of shared decision making related to psychotropic drugs in adolescence]. / Kwalitatief onderzoek naar gedeelde besluitvorming over psychofarmaca bij jongeren.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is an evidence-based model that involves the collaborative development of a treatment plan. SDM in adolescents with mental health problems is complex. Most mental health problems arise in adolescence and psychotropic drugs are an important part of treatment. Previous research focuses primarily on caregivers’ experience with SDM. AIM: This research has the main objective to gain insight into the adolescents’ experience with shared decision making related to psychotropic drugs. METHODS: Qualitative research through semi-structured interviews with 12 adolescents (12-18 years old) between June and October 2021, followed by thematic analysis of the data using the systematic text condensation (Malterud). RESULTS: Four themes were identified in the analysis: 1) the adolescent wants to feel heard, 2) the adolescent needs support in forming and expressing his/her opinion, 3) SDM in adolescents is a complex trialogue, and 4) the decision-making process affects treatment and adherence. CONCLUSION: When we ask adolescents about their experience with SDM, we can learn the following:- Involve parents, but always tailor this to the individual adolescent and his context. – Put the adolescent at the center. – Dwell on the adolescent’s view on psychotropic drugs.

Codesign of Lynch ChoicesTM : Using implementation science to create a clinically deliverable patient decision support website to transform cancer genetics care pathways.

BACKGROUND: Resources including Patient Decision Aids (PtDA) are useful and valued by patients and clinicians to provide information and complement shared decision-making. Despite their promise, few PtDA exist for patients with genetic cancer susceptibility facing difficult decisions about risk management. We aimed to fill this gap, partnering with patients to codesign Lynch ChoicesTM , a PtDA website for families with Lynch Syndrome. In addition to a Patient Reference Panel, we purposively invited an international stakeholder panel including charities, public bodies, clinical and academic experts. Implementation strategies and frameworks were employed to optimise translation of research findings to improve care. METHODS: Patient/stakeholder suggestions were incorporated in a transparent Table of Changes and prioritised using the Person-Based Approach throughout planning and codesign of Lynch ChoicesTM . An interactive stakeholder meeting was convened to identify barriers and facilitators to clinical implementation of the PtDA. RESULTS: Patient and stakeholder partnerships drove the direction of the research throughout codesign, resulting in several iterative refinements to the PtDA prior to roll out including the addition of illustrations/videos, clearer presentation of cancer risks and increased accessibility for lower literacy. Barriers and facilitators identified from stakeholders were used to create an implementation process map. CONCLUSIONS: Creating an effective, engaging PtDA is not enough. Systematic uptake in real world clinical practice, with its resource limitations, is needed to optimise benefit to patients and clinicians. Assessment of speed and breadth of dissemination and usage will be collected to further evidence the benefit of embedding implementation science methods from the outset to translate research findings into clinical practice.

Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The effect of shared decision-making (SDM) and the extent of its use in interventions to improve cardiovascular risk remain unclear. Objective: To assess the extent to which SDM is used in interventions aimed to enhance the management of cardiovascular risk factors and to explore the association of SDM with decisional outcomes, cardiovascular risk factors, and health behaviors. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, a literature search was conducted in the Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for articles published from inception to June 24, 2022, without language restrictions. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SDM-based interventions with standard of care for cardiovascular risk factor management were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The systematic search resulted in 9365 references. Duplicates were removed, and 2 independent reviewers screened the trials (title, abstract, and full text) and extracted data. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Decisional outcomes, cardiovascular risk factor outcomes, and health behavioral outcomes. Results: This review included 57 RCTs with 88 578 patients and 1341 clinicians. A total of 59 articles were included, as 2 RCTs were reported twice. Nearly half of the studies (29 [49.2%]) tested interventions that targeted both patients and clinicians, and an equal number (29 [49.2%]) exclusively focused on patients. More than half (32 [54.2%]) focused on diabetes management, and one-quarter focused on multiple cardiovascular risk factors (14 [23.7%]). Most studies (35 [59.3%]) assessed cardiovascular risk factors and health behaviors as well as decisional outcomes. The quality of studies reviewed was low to fair. The SDM intervention was associated with a decrease of 4.21 points (95% CI, -8.21 to -0.21) in Decisional Conflict Scale scores (9 trials; I2 = 85.6%) and a decrease of 0.20% (95% CI, -0.39% to -0.01%) in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (18 trials; I2 = 84.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of the current state of research on SDM interventions for cardiovascular risk management, there was a slight reduction in decisional conflict and an improvement in HbA1c levels with substantial heterogeneity. High-quality studies are needed to inform the use of SDM to improve cardiovascular risk management.

Shared decision-making in undergraduate nursing and medical education: An explorative dual-method study.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores how shared decision-making (SDM) is integrated in undergraduate nursing and medical education. METHODS: A dual-method design was applied. The integration of SDM in medicine and nursing education programs (i.e. SDM on paper) was explored through document analyses; the integration of SDM in curricula (i.e. SDM in class) through interviews with teachers and curriculum coordinators (N = 19). RESULTS: A majority of the education programs featured SDM, mostly non-explicit. In curricula SDM was generally implicitly featured in compulsory courses across all study years. SDM was often integrated into preexisting theories and models and taught through various methods and materials. Generally, teachers and supervisors were not trained in SDM themselves. They assessed students' competence in SDM in a summative manner. CONCLUSION: Overall, SDM was featured in undergraduate nursing and medical education, however, very implicitly.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of decision making interventions on increasing perceptions of shared decision making occurring in advanced cancer consultations.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how decision making interventions for use in advanced cancer treatment consultations function and whether they increase perceptions of shared decision making (SDM) behaviours within consultations. METHODS: A systematic search of five literature databases was conducted. Evaluations of decision making interventions where participants faced active treatment decisions for stage 4 or otherwise incurable cancer were included. Intervention descriptions were coded using Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) to provide a narrative of how the interventions function. A narrative synthesis of interventions effect on perceptions of SDM behaviours compared to usual care was conducted. RESULTS: Four studies presenting different interventions were included. Education, training, modelling and enablement intervention functions were identified. Oncologist SDM training alone and combined with a patient communication aid demonstrated the only significant effect (p < 0.05) on SDM behaviours in advanced cancer consultations. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professional (HCP) SDM training which includes modelling and enablement functions may be effective in increasing clinician motivation, capability and opportunity to facilitate SDM in advanced cancer consultations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Implementing HCP SDM training into practice may encourage greater uptake of SDM which may lead to treatment decisions concordant with the goals of care of people with advanced cancer.

Perceived shared decision making and satisfaction with care among children and adolescents with special healthcare needs and their parents: Cross-sectional evidence from the PART-CHILD Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare shared decision making (SDM) and satisfaction with care (SWC), an indicator of care quality, between children with special healthcare needs (CSHCN) and parents and to assess the association between SDM and SWC in both groups. METHODS: We recruited CSHCN ≥ 7 years and parents from 15 outpatient facilities that completed a paper questionnaire assessing SDM (highest vs. lower levels of SDM) and SWC. Differences in SDM and SWC were assessed with McNemar and paired t-tests. We used adjusted linear mixed models to investigate cross-sectional associations between SDM and SWC. RESULTS: Based on data from 275 CSHCN and 858 parents, 39% and 64% of CSHCN and parents reported the highest level of SDM (p < 0.0001). No difference in SWC was observed (p = 0.36). Perceived SDM was associated with SWC in both groups (both p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Associations between SDM and SWC reinforce the role of SDM for care quality. Large proportions of CSHCN and parents reporting suboptimal levels of SDM highlight the need for effective programs to promote SDM in the target population. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Until effective programs become available, healthcare professionals can use existing opportunities to involve CSHCN and parents in consultations (e.g., provide sufficient opportunities to ask questions).

The development and implementation of the Northern Health lung cancer digital care pathway: a case study in service change.

This case study details the approach utilised to establish an easy to use, accessible and sustainable method for routine collection of Patient Reported Outcome Measures for patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer. We sought to enhance communication with patients and their families, particularly around shared decision making, their quality of life and symptoms, as well as the impacts of their care or treatment. We detail the co-design methodology utilised with consumers and healthcare providers to develop and implement a multi-lingual, fully automated digital care pathway which has been proven to be highly impactful and powerful for both healthcare providers working within the service and consumers enrolled within the digital pathway. This innovative initiative has changed the practice of the lung cancer service across a health service. Furthermore, its success has evolved the organisational strategy, to embed 'Outcomes for Impact' across the health service.

Uncertainty tolerance among primary care physicians: Relationship to shared decision making-related perceptions, practices, and physician characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: Understand how physicians' uncertainty tolerance (UT) in clinical care relates to their personal characteristics, perceptions and practices regarding shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: As part of a trial of SDM training about colorectal cancer screening, primary care physicians (n = 67) completed measures of their uncertainty tolerance in medical practice (Anxiety subscale of the Physician's Reactions to Uncertainty Scale, PRUS-A), and their SDM self-efficacy (confidence in SDM skills). Patients (N = 466) completed measures of SDM (SDM Process scale) after a clinical visit. Bivariate regression analyses and multilevel regression analyses examined relationships. RESULTS: Higher UT was associated with greater physician age (p = .01) and years in practice (p = 0.015), but not sex or race. Higher UT was associated with greater SDM self-efficacy (p < 0.001), but not patient-reported SDM. CONCLUSION: Greater age and practice experience predict greater physician UT, suggesting that UT might be improved through training, while UT is associated with greater confidence in SDM, suggesting that improving UT might improve SDM. However, UT was unassociated with patient-reported SDM, raising the need for further studies of these relationships. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Developing and implementing training interventions aimed at increasing physician UT may be a promising way to promote SDM in clinical care.

Collaborative clinical reasoning: a scoping review.

Background: Collaborative clinical reasoning (CCR) among healthcare professionals is crucial for maximizing clinical outcomes and patient safety. This scoping review explores CCR to address the gap in understanding its definition, structure, and implications. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken to examine CCR related studies in healthcare. Medline, PsychInfo, SciVerse Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Inclusion criteria included full-text articles published between 2011 to 2020. Search terms included cooperative, collaborative, shared, team, collective, reasoning, problem solving, decision making, combined with clinical or medicine or medical, but excluded shared decision making. Results: A total of 24 articles were identified in the review. The review reveals a growing interest in CCR, with 14 articles emphasizing the decision-making process, five using Multidisciplinary Team-Metric for the Observation of Decision Making (MDTs-MODe), three exploring CCR theory, and two focusing on the problem-solving process. Communication, trust, and team dynamics emerge as key influencers in healthcare decision-making. Notably, only two articles provide specific CCR definitions. Conclusions: While decision-making processes dominate CCR studies, a notable gap exists in defining and structuring CCR. Explicit theoretical frameworks, such as those proposed by Blondon et al. and Kiesewetter et al., are crucial for advancing research and understanding CCR dynamics within collaborative teams. This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of CCR research, revealing a growing interest and diversity in the field. The review emphasizes the need for explicit theoretical frameworks, citing Blondon et al. and Kiesewetter et al. The broader landscape of interprofessional collaboration and clinical reasoning requires exploration.

Impact of timing and format of patient decision aids for breast cancer patients on their involvement in and preparedness for decision making - the IMPACTT randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: After curative surgery for early-stage breast cancer, patients face a decision on whether to undergo surgery alone or to receive one or more adjuvant treatments, which may lower the risk of recurrence. Variations in survival outcomes are often marginal but there are differences in the side effects and other features of the options that patients may value differently. Hence, the patient's values and preferences are critical in determining what option to choose. It is well-researched that the use of shared decision making and patient decision aids can support this choice in a discussion between patient and clinician. However, it is still to be investigated what impact the timing and format of the patient decision aid have on shared decision making outcomes. In this trial, we aim to investigate the impact of a digital pre-consult compared to a paper-based in-consult patient decision aid on patients' involvement in shared decision making, decisional conflict and preparedness to make a decision. METHODS: The study is a randomised controlled trial with 204 patients at two Danish oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients are newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and offered adjuvant treatments after curative surgery to lower the risk of recurrence. Participants will be randomised to receive either an in-consult paper-based patient decision aid or a pre-consult digital patient decision aid. Data collection includes patient and clinician-reported outcomes as well as observer-reported shared decision making based on audio recordings of the consultation. The primary outcome is the extent to which patients are engaged in a shared decision making process reported by the patient. Secondary aims include the length of consultation, preparation for decision making, preferred role in shared decision making and decisional conflict. DISCUSSION: This study is the first known randomised, controlled trial comparing a digital, pre-consult patient decision aid to an identical paper-based, in-consult patient decision aid. It will contribute evidence on the impact of patient decision aids in terms of investigating if pre-consult digital patient decisions aids compared to in-consult paper-based decision aids support the cancer patients in being better prepared for decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05573022).

[Application Progress of Shared Decision Making Model in Patients
with Thoracic Cancer].

As a new diagnosis and treatment decision-making model, shared decision making (SDM) can effectively solve the problem of patient compliance in the diagnosis and treatment of thoracic tumors, balance the status of both doctors and patients, and gradually get attention and application in the clinical practice of thoracic surgery. The application of SDM in the diagnosis and treatment of thoracic tumors is conducive to improve doctors' diagnosis and treatment level and alleviating the pressure of responsibility, reduce patients' psychological pressure and improve patients' compliance and also improve medical trust and reduce doctor-patient conflict. Due to the limited medical literacy and autonomy of patients, the time for diagnosis and treatment is short due to the imbalance of doctor-patient ratio. Meanwhile, due to the limited sample size of existing studies, SDM model cannot be proved to have a clear gain for the treatment of thoracic tumors, and the implementation of SDM model still faces resistance. In the future, the development of auxiliary decision-making system and the improvement of doctors' humanistic care ability will be conducive to promote the practical application of SDM model in thoracic surgery.
.

Evaluating a targeted person-centred pain management intervention programme in lumbar spine surgery - a controlled segment-specific before-and-after interventional design.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management in lumbar spine surgery care remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a person-centred postoperative pain management intervention programme on lumbar spine surgery patients on postoperative pain, shared decision-making, and satisfaction with postoperative pain management. METHODS: The study was performed with a controlled before-and-after interventional design in an orthopaedic unit at a university hospital. Person-centred pain management for patients undergoing spine surgery was developed in co-creation by a multi-professional team and implemented throughout the care pathway. The usual care group (pre-intervention) served as a comparison to the intervention group. Pain intensity, shared decision-making in pain management, and patient satisfaction with results of pain management, served as patient-reported measures, collected using the International Pain Outcomes questionnaire and analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The intervention showed no benefit for patients' pain and satisfaction, while shared decision-making in pain management was significant lower in the intervention group than in the conventional group. The per-protocol analysis showed no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: The initial assumption of the study, that the implementation of a co-created structured person-centred care pathway would improve patient-reported outcomes, was not confirmed. The periodically low fidelity to the intervention due to organizational constraints (due to sub-optimal organizational conditions and managerial support) may have affected the results.