Pain Intensity, Disability, and Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: Does Age Matter?

OBJECTIVE: Nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a frequent medical condition among middle-aged and older adults. Its detrimental consequences for functional ability and quality of life are well known. However, less is known about associations of chronological age with disability and well-being among CLBP patients. Coping with pain may be harder with advancing age due to additional age-associated losses of physical, sensory, and other resources, resulting in higher disability and lower quality of life. Alternatively, older patients may feel less impaired and report higher quality of life than younger patients because the experience of chronic pain may be better anticipated and more "normative" in old age. METHODS: We investigated an age-heterogeneous sample of 228 CLBP patients (mean age = 59.1 years, SD = 10.2 years, range 41-82 years). Our outcomes were pain intensity, pain disability (as assessed by self-reported activity restrictions and performance-based tests), and measures of quality of life (health-related quality of life: SF-12 physical and mental health; well-being: anxiety, depression, perceived control over life, affective distress). RESULTS: Although older patients had higher performance-based disability, they scored higher on mental health and on most measures of well-being than younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide evidence for a "paradoxical" pattern of age effects in CLBP patients and are thus in line with other studies based on nonclinical samples: Although disability in CLBP patients increases with advancing age, indicators of quality of life are equal or even higher in older patients.

Profiles of Subjective Well-being in Patients with Chronic Back Pain: Contrasting Subjective and Objective Correlates.

OBJECTIVE: The detrimental impact of nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) on quality of life is well known. However, patients with CLBP represent a remarkably heterogeneous group, and not all of them report compromised well-being. METHODS: In this study, we investigated this heterogeneity by identifying profiles (or clusters) of well-being and their correlates in 239 CLBP patients. To take the multidimensionality of subjective well-being into account, we included multiple well-being indicators (depression, anxiety, affective distress, perceived control over life). For an in-depth characterization of the well-being profiles, we assessed 1) sociodemographic indicators (age, gender, education, marital status, occupational status), 2) pain-related measures (pain intensity, subjective and objective pain disability, number of pain locations), 3) psychosocial resources (mental health, resilience, perceived support), 4) biographical factors (trauma), and 5) somatosensory profiles based on quantitative sensory testing. RESULTS: Based on two-step cluster analysis, we identified three distinct well-being profiles, characterized by either generally high well-being (cluster 1, n = 51), moderate well-being (cluster 2, n = 104), or consistently low well-being (cluster 3, n = 77), respectively. Most differences between the derived well-being profiles regarding sociodemographic, psychosocial, and biographical measures were of weak to moderate effect size. Larger effect sizes were observed for differences in pain intensity and subjective, but not objective, pain disability. Finally, the largest effects were found for differences in psychosocial resources. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that not only in nonclinical samples, but also in patients with chronic pain, well-being is more closely associated with psychological resources and subjective evaluations than with objective parameters.

Eye Pain and Dry Eye in Patients with Fibromyalgia.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine visual function and eye symptoms in fibromyalgia patients, with a particular focus on dry eye syndrome and eye pain. Methods: A tertiary care center-based cross-sectional study was carried out in chronic musculoskeletal pain patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Chronic musculoskeletal pain patients without fibromyalgia were enrolled as a comparison group. Self-reported eye pain was investigated with the McGill pain questionnaire and the numeric rating scale. In addition, we assessed corrected visual acuity, vision-related quality of life, and self-reported dry eye syndrome. Results: A total of 90 musculoskeletal pain patients were included, with 66 patients fulfilling American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for fibromyalgia. Sixty-seven percent (95% confidence interval [CI] = 56%-78%) of the fibromyalgia patients reported eye pain, and 62% (95% CI = 43%-81%) of those were without fibromyalgia diagnosis. Sixty-seven percent (95% CI = 56%-78%) of the fibromyalgia patients reported an experience of dry eye compared with 76% (95% CI = 57%-95%) in the nonfibromyalgia group. Vision-related quality of life was noticeably reduced in both groups. Conclusions: Eye pain and dry eye are common in chronic pain patients, with comparable prevalence in musculoskeletal pain patients with and without fibromyalgia.

How Does a Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Intervention for Oncologists Affect Participation Style and Preference Matching in Patients with Breast and Colon Cancer?

The aims of this study are to assess patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles and preference matching in a sample of German breast and colon cancer patients and to investigate how a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention for oncologists influences patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles and the attainment of preference matches. This study is a post hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the effects of an SDM intervention. The SDM intervention was a 12-h SDM training program for physicians in combination with decision board use. For this study, we analysed a subgroup of 107 breast and colon cancer patients faced with serious treatment decisions who provided data on specific questionnaires with regard to their preferred and perceived decision-making roles (passive, SDM or active). Patients filled in questionnaires immediately following a decision-relevant consultation (t1) with their oncologist. Eleven of these patients' 27 treating oncologists had received the SDM intervention within the RCT. A majority of cancer patients (60%) preferred SDM. A match between preferred and perceived decision-making roles was reached for 72% of patients. The patients treated by SDM-trained physicians perceived greater autonomy in their decision making (p < 0.05) with more patients perceiving SDM or an active role, but their preference matching was not influenced. A SDM intervention for oncologists boosted patient autonomy but did not improve preference matching. This highlights the already well-known reluctance of physicians to engage in explicit role clarification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00000539; Funding Source: German Cancer Aid.

[Shared Decision Making (SDM) - Patient and Physician as a Team]. / Partizipative Entscheidungsfindung (PEF) - Patient und Arzt als Team.

The article provides an overview on Shared Decision Making (SDM), which is considered as the ideal form of physician-patient-interaction by many stakeholders of the health care system. SDM is distinguished from other models of physician-patient-interaction such as the paternalistic model and the information model. Besides the degree of acceptance of SDM in the general population and among physicians, barriers for its implementation will be reported. Indications for SDM as well as strategies and support material for its use in individual consultations will be discussed and illustrated by an oncological case study. Effects of SDM for patients as well as for clinicians will be highlighted. After background information on origins of SDM, its significance with regard to health policy in Germany is discussed.

An Online Decision Aid for Patients With Metastatic Melanoma­Results of the Randomized Controlled Trial "PEF-Immun".

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions in metastatic melanoma (MM) depend on patient preferences and require the patients' involvement in the decision-making process. Patients often feel overwhelmed by the complexity of treatment options with their individual advantages and disadvantages. We developed an online patient decision aid (PtDA) to facilitate shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: We conducted a two-center, two-armed, prospective, open randomized controlled trial with MM patients who were facing a decision about first-line treatment. They were randomly allotted (1:1) to the use or non-use of the PtDA before discussing the choice of treatment with a physician (intervention group [IG] and control group [CG], respectively). The primary endpoint of the study was patient knowledge about first-line treatment options (multiple-choice test, 10 items, range 0-40 points). The secondary endpoints were the degree of SDM (ratings of audio recordings of the patient-physician discussions by third-party observers) and satisfaction with the decision that was taken on later follow-up. RESULTS: 120 of the 128 randomized patients completed the baseline questionnaire and were included in the analysis (59% male, median age 66 years). The primary endpoint, i.e., the mean difference in knowledge after discussion with a physician, was significantly higher in the intervention group (mean difference -3.22, 95% CI [-6.32;-0.12], p = 0.042). No difference was found in either of the secondary endpoints (SDM and satisfaction with the decision). The patients in the intervention group rated the PtDA as very useful. CONCLUSION: PtDA improved MM patients' knowledge about their options for treatment. Both patients who used it and patients who did not were highly satisfied with their treatment decisions. Additional physician training seems necessary to promote SDM.

How do patients from eastern and western Germany compare with regard to their preferences for shared decision making?

BACKGROUND: Increasing emphasis is being placed on involving patients in decisions concerning their health. This shift towards more patient engagement by health professionals and towards more desire by patients for participation may be partly based on socio-political factors. METHODS: To compare the preferences for shared decision making of patients from eastern and western Germany we analysed five patient samples (n = 2318) (general practice patients and schizophrenia patients from eastern and western Germany). Patients' role preferences for shared decisions were measured using the decision-making subscale of the Autonomy Preference Index. RESULTS: Patients resident in eastern Germany expressed lower preferences for shared decision making than patients in western Germany. This was true after controlling for socio-demographic variables and for patient group. CONCLUSION: The cultural imprint (e.g. western vs. former communist society) seems to have a significant influence on patients' expectations and behaviour in the medical encounter. Health services providers need to be aware that health attitudes within the same health system might vary for historical and cultural reasons. The engagement of patients in medical decisions might not be susceptible to a 'one size fits all' approach; doctors should instead aim to accommodate the individual patient's desire for autonomy.

Preferred and perceived participation roles of oncological patients in medical decision-making: Results of a survey among users of the German Cancer Information Service.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are facing a variety of treatment and other disease-related decisions. This study aims to provide insights into preferred and perceived participation roles in decision-making among patients with diverse tumors using the German Cancer Information Service (CIS). METHODS: Patients' decision-making preferences and experiences were assessed as a part of a cross-sectional survey among CIS users. An adapted version of the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) was used to assess preferred and perceived participation roles in eight different areas of medical decision-making (e.g., choice of medication, termination of treatment). Logistic regression analyses were applied to explore preference matching and to analyze associations between participation roles and sociodemographic variables. Moreover, we examined preferences and perceptions of participation roles across different decision situations. RESULTS: In the final sample (N = 1566, 64.9% female, mean age = 61.6), almost half of the patients (47.1%) preferred to take a collaborative role in decisions on treatment methods, whereas 36.3% preferred an active role and 15.9% a passive role. Collaborative role preferences frequently (40.7%) coincided with experiencing a passive role and predicted a reduced chance of a match between preferences and experiences (OR = 0.57, p = .001). A higher level of education was associated with a lower chance of preferring and perceiving a passive role (OR = 0.85, p < .01). Compared with men, women had increased odds of preferring (OR = 1.45, p < .05) and of actually taking (OR = 2.04, p < .001) a passive role in medical encounters. Preferred participation roles regarding treatment methods were highly correlated with preferences in all other decision areas (r > .50, p < .001) except decisions about family involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The study reveals well-known deficits in the fulfilment of patients' collaborative role preferences across different areas of medical decision-making in a sample of CIS users characterized by high information-seeking behavior. Participation roles were not only influenced by the patients' level of education but also by their gender. The gender effect may be more pronounced than previous studies suggest. These effects should be considered in the development of interventions to promote shared decision-making. Additionally, study results indicate that preferences for participation in decisions about treatment methods, as assessed by the CPS, can be generalized to other areas of medical decision-making.

Moving towards patient-centered care and shared decision-making in Germany.

The main focus of this paper is to describe the development and current state of policy, research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) in Germany. What is the current state in health policy? Since 2013, the Law on Patients' Rights has standardized all rights and responsibilities regarding medical care for patients in Germany. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information, and decisions based on a clinician-patient partnership. In addition, reports and action plans such as the German Ethics Council's report on patient well-being, the National Health Literacy Action Plan, or the National Cancer Plan emphasize and foster PCC and SDM on a policy level. There are a number of public organizations in Germany that support PCC and SDM. How are patients and the public involved in health policy and research? Publishers and funding agencies increasingly demand patient and public involvement. Numerous initiatives and organizations are involved in publicizing ways to engage patients and the public. Also, an increasing number of public and research institutions have established patient advisory boards. How is PCC and SDM taught? Great progress has been made in introducing SDM into the curricula of medical schools and other health care providers' (HCPs) schools (e.g., nursing, physical therapy). What is the German research agenda? The German government and other public institutions have constantly funded research programs in which PCC and SDM are important topics. This yielded several large-scale funding initiatives and helped to develop SDM training programs for HCPs in different fields of health care and information materials. Recently, two implementation studies on SDM have been conducted. What is the current uptake of PCC and SDM in routine care, and what implementation efforts are underway? Compared to the last country report from 2017, PCC and SDM efforts in policy, research and education have been intensified. However, many steps are still needed to reliably implement SDM in routine care in Germany. Specifically, the further development and uptake of decision tools and countrywide SDM trainings for HCPs require further efforts. Nevertheless, an increasing number of decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care. Also, recent implementation efforts are promising. For example, reimbursement by health insurance companies of hospital-wide SDM implementation is being piloted. A necessary next step is to nationally coordinate the gathering and provision of the many PCC and SDM resources available.

The prevalence and type of Axis-I and Axis-II mental disorders in subjects with non-specific chronic back pain: results from a population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence and the type of mental comorbidity in a population-based sample of subjects with non-specific chronic back pain. DESIGN: Representative population-based survey. SETTING: The city of Heidelberg (in southwestern Germany) and 10 adjacent communities. PATIENTS: From a random sample of individuals (N = 2,000), 1,091 subjects completed a questionnaire including a pain assessment. Of those, 188 subjects (17%) fulfilled the criteria for chronic back pain (≥45 days of back pain in the last 3 months) and were subsequently invited to undergo a detailed clinical examination; 131 subjects (70%) agreed to participate. The Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV) (SCID-I + II) was used to assess current (defined as the previous 4 weeks) mental comorbidity and was completed in 110 subjects (84%) with non-specific chronic back pain. INTERVENTION: N/A. OUTCOME MEASURES: DSM-IV mental comorbidity diagnoses. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of mental comorbidity of Axis-I and -II disorders were 35.5% and 15.5%, respectively. Of Axis-I disorders, anxiety disorders (20.9%) and affective disorders (12.7%) were the most frequent. Of Axis-II disorders, 9.1% of diagnoses was of the Cluster C category (anxious/inhibited). Compared with the general population, the total rate of Axis-I comorbidity was significantly higher, while the total rate for Axis-II personality disorders was only slightly different. CONCLUSIONS: The consistent diagnoses of anxiety, fear, and avoidance in these subjects indicate that also primary care health professionals should consider anxiety disorders in patients with chronic pain, in addition to the affective disorders that are most frequently self-reported in pain patients.

Continuing professional development for interprofessional teams supporting patients in healthcare decision making.

Healthcare professionals and organizations, policy makers, and the public are calling for safe and effective care that is centered on patients' needs, values, and preferences. The goals of interprofessional shared decision making and decision support are to help patients and professionals agree on choices that are effective, health promoting, realistic, and consonant with patients' and professionals' values and preferences. This requires collaboration among professionals and with patients and their family caregivers. Continuing professional development is urgently needed to help healthcare professionals acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to create and sustain a culture of collaboration. We describe a model that can be used to design, implement, and evaluate continuing education curricula in interprofessional shared decision making and decision support. This model aligns curricular goals, objectives, educational strategies, and evaluation instruments and strategies with desired learning and organizational outcomes. Educational leaders and researchers can institutionalize such curricula by linking them with quality improvement and patient safety initiatives.

Development and validation of a web-based patient decision aid for immunotherapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic melanoma and their physicians are confronted with a complex decision regarding first-line therapy. Risks and benefits vary considerably between various treatment options. With this in mind, we aim to develop and evaluate a patient decision aid (PtDA) to inform patients about the risks and benefits of treatment options, namely, immunotherapy as monotherapy, immunotherapy as combination therapy, and treatment with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. We aim to test whether the use of this PtDA before medical consultation will increase patients' knowledge of treatment options and thus promote shared decision-making (SDM) and patient decision satisfaction. METHODS: In total, 128 patients with metastatic melanoma from two German cancer centers will be randomized to the intervention group (IG), receiving access to the PtDA before medical consultation, or the control group (CG), receiving treatment as usual (TAU), i.e., medical consultation alone. There will be three major assessment points (before intervention, T0; after intervention, T1; and 3 months after intervention, T2). The main outcome is the patient's knowledge of their treatment options, measured by a self-developed, piloted multiple-choice test at T1. Secondary outcome measures will include the extent of SDM during medical consultation, assessed by Observer OPTION 5, and patient decision satisfaction, assessed by the Satisfaction with Decision Scale (SwD), at T1 and T2. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the effectiveness of a developed PtDA to enhance patient knowledge of treatment options for metastatic melanoma, SDM, and patient decision satisfaction. If the efficacy can be proven, the PtDA will be implemented nationwide in Germany to close a relevant gap in the education and care of patients with metastatic melanoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04240717 . Registered on 27 January 2020.

How does your doctor talk with you? Preliminary validation of a brief patient self-report questionnaire on the quality of physician-patient interaction.

The quality of physician-patient interaction is increasingly being recognized as an essential component of effective treatment. The present article reports on the development and validation of a brief patient self-report questionnaire (QQPPI) that assesses the quality of physician-patient interactions. Data were gathered from 147 patients and 19 physicians immediately after consultations in a tertiary care outpatient setting. The QQPPI displayed good psychometric properties, with high internal consistency and good item characteristics. The QQPPI total score showed variability between different physicians and was independent of patients' gender, age, and education. The QQPPI featured high correlations with other quality-related measures and was not influenced by social desirability, or patients' clinical characteristics. The QQPPI is a brief patient self-report questionnaire that allows assessment of the quality of physician-patient interactions during routine ambulatory care. It can also be used to evaluate physician communication training programs or for educational purposes.

Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial on two new dissemination strategies for a brief, shared-decision-making (SDM) training for oncologists: web-based interactive SDM online-training versus individualized context-based SDM face-to-face training.

BACKGROUND: Oncological patients often feel left out of important treatment decisions. However, when physicians engage them in shared decision-making (SDM), patients benefit in many ways and the situation is improved. SDM can effectively be taught to physicians, but participation barriers for SDM physician group trainings are high, making it hard to convince physicians to participate. With this in mind, we aim to develop and evaluate two new dissemination strategies for a brief, SDM training program based upon a proven SDM group-training concept: an individualized context-based SDM face-to-face training (IG I) and a web-based interactive SDM online training (IG II). We aim to analyze which improvements can be achieved by IG I and II compared to a control group (CG) in physician SDM competence and performance as well as the impact on the physician-patient relationship. Furthermore, we analyze differences in satisfaction concerning the two dissemination strategies by means of a training evaluation. METHODS/DESIGN: We examine - based on a three-armed randomized controlled trial (IG I, IG II, CG) - the effectiveness of two new dissemination strategies for a SDM training program compared to a CG receiving no SDM training (voluntary access to SDM training as an incentive for participation after completion of the study). We aim to include 162 physicians randomized to one of the three arms. There will be two assessment points in time (before intervention: T0 and post-training: T1). The main outcome is the SDM competence of physicians as measured by an established observational assessment rating system (OPTION-12) by means of consultations with Standardized Patients. Standardized Patients are individuals trained to act as "real" patients. Secondary outcome measures are the SDM performance (SDM-Q-9) and the Questionnaire on the Quality of Physician-Patient-Interaction (QQPPI) both rated by Standardized Patients as well as the physicians' training evaluation. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the effectiveness and acceptability of two new dissemination strategies for a brief, SDM training program for physicians. Opportunities and challenges regarding implementation in daily routines will be discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02674360 . Prospectively registered on 4 February 2016.

A shared decision-making communication training program for physicians treating fibromyalgia patients: effects of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a condition of chronic widespread pain that is difficult to control and is associated with strains in physician-patient interaction. Shared decision making (SDM) can be a potential solution to improve interaction. We evaluated the effects of an SDM intervention, including an SDM communication training program for physicians, in a randomized controlled trial with FMS patients. The main objective was to assess whether SDM improves the quality of physician-patient interaction from patients' perspective. METHODS: Patients were randomized to either an SDM group or an information-only group. The SDM group was treated by physicians trained in SDM communication and had access to a computer-based information package; the information-only group received only the information package and was treated by standard physicians. All patients were offered the same evidence-based treatment options for FMS. Patients were assessed with questionnaires on physician-patient interaction (main outcome criteria) and decisional processes. Physicians filled out a questionnaire on interaction difficulties. Assessment took place immediately after the initial consultation. RESULTS: Data from 85 FMS patients (44 in the SDM group and 41 in the information-only group) were analyzed. The mean age was 49.9 years (S.D.=10.2), and 91.8% of patients were female. The quality of physician-patient interaction was significantly higher in the SDM group than in the information-only group (P<.001). We found no differences in secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: SDM with FMS patients might be a possible means to achieve a positive quality of physician-patient interaction. A specific SDM communication training program teaches physicians to perform SDM and reduces frustration in patients.

To change or not to change - That is the question: A qualitative study of lifestyle changes following acute myocardial infarction.

Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate key factors related to lifestyle changes following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) by eliciting survivors' subjective needs for, attitudes towards and experiences with behaviour changes in their everyday life to improve future interventions promoting lifestyle changes. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 individuals who had recently experienced an AMI. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results The data analysis revealed that lifestyle changes following AMI are influenced by a combination of individual (physical and psychological) and social factors that can be grouped into facilitators and barriers. The interviews indicated the need for more personalised information regarding the causes and risk factors of illness, the benefits of lifestyle changes and the importance of including significant others in lifestyle advice and education and of individualising support. Discussion Lifestyle change is a continuous process that is not completed within a few months after a cardiac event. Considering the identified themes when developing interventions to promote lifestyle changes following AMI may enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of such interventions.

Higher preference for participation in treatment decisions is associated with lower medication adherence in asthma patients.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the interrelations between medication adherence, self-management, preference for involvement in treatment decisions and preference for information in asthma patients in primary care. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-five patients from 43 practices completed a series of questionnaires, which included the 'Autonomy Preference Index' (API) [range=0-100], the four-item Morisky self-report medication adherence questionnaire and structured questions about asthma severity, medication and self-management. RESULTS: The mean (S.D.) for participation preference was 34.5 (15.3) whereas the mean (S.D.) for information preference was 91.1 (9.7). Higher participation preference was associated with stopping medication when feeling better (OR 1.03; 95%CI 1.01-1.06) or feeling worse (OR 1.02; 95%CI 1.0-1.05) but it was not related to asthma severity. Higher information preference was associated with non-adherence to medication (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.166; p=0.035) as well as the wish to receive asthma education (p=0.04) and usage of peak flow meter (p=0.05). CONCLUSION: Participation preference was low in general. Higher preference for involvement may entail more motivation for self-management but also lower medication adherence. This may be explained by a continuous internal negotiation process to accept the potentially lifelong demands of the disease. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients with lower medication adherence may possibly be addressed and empowered by their enhanced preference for participation in treatment decisions. Physicians offering to share treatment decisions may utilise the patients' participation preference to enhance medication adherence. Due to varying participation preferences, optimal patient preference matching, which involves more flexible use of different communication styles, may be necessary to improve outcomes.

Patient and citizen participation in German health care--current state and future perspectives.

Patient participation within the German healthcare system is described at three different levels: the macro level as active patient influence on the regulation of medical care, the meso level in terms of institutions enhancing patient information and counselling, and the micro level focusing on the actual treatment decision-making process in the medical encounter. The main focus of the present publication is on the health care system-specific influences on patient participation in medical decision-making and on the current state of research and implementation of shared decision-making in Germany. We describe institutions promoting patient involvement, their aims and initiatives as well as recent changes in German legislation. Against the background of German health politics' endorsement of patient participation the German Ministry of Health funded a research consortium with shared decision-making intervention projects in various disease areas. The present state of the intervention projects' results is outlined as well as subsequently funded transfer projects and future perspectives of research grants. Supported by health politics and the utilisation of scientific evidence shared decision-making's transfer into practice is considered to be relevant to the German health care system.

The long way of implementing patient-centered care and shared decision making in Germany.

The main focus of the paper is on the description of the development and current state of research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision making (SDM) after fifteen years of substantial advances in health policy and health services research. What is the current state of SDM in health policy? The "Patients' Rights Act" from 2013 standardizes all rights and responsibilities within the framework of medical treatment for German citizens and legal residents. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information for patients, and decisions based on a clinician-patient-partnership. What is the current state of SDM interventions and patient decision support tools? SDM training programs for healthcare professionals have been developed. Their implementation in medical schools has been successful. Several decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care, specifically for national cancer screening programs. What is the current state of research and routine implementation? The German government and other public institutions are constantly funding research programs in which patient-centered care and shared decision-making are important topics. The development and implementation of decision tools for patients and professionals as well as the implementation of CME trainings for healthcare professionals require future efforts. What does the future look like? With the support of health policy and scientific evidence, transfer of PCC and SDM to practice is regarded as meaningful. Research can help to assess barriers, facilitators, and needs, and subsequently to develop and evaluate corresponding strategies to successfully implement PCC and SDM in routine care, which remains challenging.

Long-term effects of a shared decision-making intervention on physician-patient interaction and outcome in fibromyalgia. A qualitative and quantitative 1 year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) patients and their doctors frequently complain on interaction difficulties. We investigated the effects of a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention on physician-patient interaction and health outcome. METHODS: Sixty-seven FMS patients of an outpatient university setting that had been included in a randomized controlled trial were followed up. They were either treated in an SDM group or in an information group. Both groups saw a computer based information tool on FMS, but only the SDM group was treated by doctors which underwent a special SDM communication training. A comparison group of 44 FMS patients receiving treatment as usual was recruited in rheumatological practices. We assessed patients and their doctors using a combined qualitative and quantitative approach. Patients and doctors were followed-up after 3 months (T2) and after 1 year (T3). RESULTS: The significantly best quality of physician-patient interaction was reported by patients and doctors of the SDM group, followed by the information group. Coping had more often improved in the SDM group than in the information group. However directly health related outcome variables had not improved in any of the groups at T3. CONCLUSION: An SDM intervention can lead to an improved physician-patient relationship from the patients' and from the doctors' perspective. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: It should be considered to include SDM in standard care for FMS patients.