2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the management of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 14, 2022, to November 22, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 23, 2023, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy remains a common genetic heart disease reported in populations globally. Recommendations from the "2020 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians.

Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT): International Delphi consensus for procedural preparation and consent.

BACKGROUND: Despite the promise of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergies, this procedure is associated with potential risk. There is no current agreement about what elements should be included in the preparatory or consent process. OBJECTIVE: We developed consensus recommendations about the OIT process considerations and patient-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and developed a consensus OIT consent process and information form. METHODS: We convened a 36-member Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT) panel of allergy experts to develop a consensus OIT patient preparation, informed consent process, and framework form. Consensus for themes and statements was reached using Delphi methodology, and the consent information form was developed. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus for 4 themes and 103 statements specific to OIT preparatory procedures, of which 76 statements reached consensus for inclusion specific to the following themes: general considerations for counseling patients about OIT; patient- and family-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and during OIT; indications for initiating OIT; and potential contraindications and precautions for OIT. The panel reached consensus on 9 OIT consent form themes: benefits, risks, outcomes, alternatives, risk mitigation, difficulties/challenges, discontinuation, office policies, and long-term management. From these themes, 219 statements were proposed, of which 189 reached consensus, and 71 were included on the consent information form. CONCLUSION: We developed consensus recommendations to prepare and counsel patients for safe and effective OIT in clinical practice with evidence-based risk mitigation. Adoption of these recommendations may help standardize clinical care and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease." METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. STRUCTURE: This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Development of an Electronic Decision Aid Tool to Facilitate Mainstream Genetic Testing in Ovarian Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Multigene panel testing is an important component of cancer treatment plans and risk assessment, but there are many different panel options and choosing the most appropriate panel can be challenging for health care providers and patients. Electronic tools have been proposed to help patients make informed decisions about which gene panel to choose by considering their preferences and priorities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic decision aid (DA) tool was developed in line with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards collaboration. The multidisciplinary project team collaborated with an external health care communications agency and the MGH Cancer Center Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) to develop the DA. Surveys of genetic counselors and patients were used to scope the content, and alpha testing was used to refine the design and content. RESULTS: Surveys of genetic counselors (n = 12) and patients (n = 228) identified common themes in discussing panel size and strategies for helping patients decide between panels and in identifying confusing terms for patients and distribution of patients' choices. The DA, organized into 2 major sections, provides educational text, graphics, and videos to guide patients through the decision-making process. Alpha testing feedback from the PFAC (n = 4), genetic counselors (n = 3) and a group of lay people (n = 8) identified areas to improve navigation, simplify wording, and improve layout. CONCLUSION: The DA developed in this study has the potential to facilitate informed decision-making by patients regarding cancer genetic testing. The distinctive feature of this DA is that it addresses the specific question of which multigene panel may be most suitable for the patient. Its acceptability and effectiveness will be evaluated in future studies.

A randomized controlled trial of shared decision-making treatment planning process to enhance shared decision-making in patients with MBC.

PURPOSE: Opportunities exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM). Presenting patient-reported data, including patient treatment preferences, to oncologists before or during a treatment plan decision may improve patient engagement in treatment decisions. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial evaluated the standard-of-care treatment planning process vs. a novel treatment planning process focused on SDM, which included oncologist review of patient-reported treatment preferences, prior to or during treatment decisions among women with MBC. The primary outcome was patient perception of shared decision-making. Secondary outcomes included patient activation, treatment satisfaction, physician perception of treatment decision-making, and use of treatment plans. RESULTS: Among the 109 evaluable patients from December 2018 to June 2022, 28% were Black and 12% lived in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood. Although not reaching statistical significance, patients in the intervention arm perceived SDM more often than patients in the control arm (63% vs. 59%; Cramer's V = 0.05; OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.57). Among patients in the intervention arm, 31% were at the highest level of patient activation compared to 19% of those in the control arm (V = 0.18). In 82% of decisions, the oncologist agreed that the patient-reported data helped them engage in SDM. In 45% of decision, they reported changing management due to patient-reported data. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologist engagement in the treatment planning process, with oncologist review of patient-reported data, is a promising approach to improve patient participation in treatment decisions which should be tested in larger studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03806738.

Perceived barriers and facilitators for model-informed dosing in pregnancy: a qualitative study across healthcare practitioners and pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: Most women use medication during pregnancy. Pregnancy-induced changes in physiology may require antenatal dose alterations. Yet, evidence-based doses in pregnancy are missing. Given historically limited data, pharmacokinetic models may inform pregnancy-adjusted doses. However, implementing model-informed doses in clinical practice requires support from relevant stakeholders. PURPOSE: To explore the perceived barriers and facilitators for model-informed antenatal doses among healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and pregnant women. METHODS: Online focus groups and interviews were held among healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and pregnant women from eight countries across Europe, Africa and Asia. Purposive sampling was used to identify pregnant women plus HCPs across various specialties prescribing or providing advice on medication to pregnant women. Perceived barriers and facilitators for implementing model-informed doses in pregnancy were identified and categorised using a hybrid thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifty HCPs and 11 pregnant women participated in 12 focus groups and 16 interviews between January 2022 and March 2023. HCPs worked in the Netherlands (n = 32), the UK (n = 7), South Africa (n = 5), Uganda (n = 4), Kenya, Cameroon, India and Vietnam (n = 1 each). All pregnant women resided in the Netherlands. Barriers and facilitators identified by HCPs spanned 14 categories across four domains whereas pregnant women described barriers and facilitators spanning nine categories within the same domains. Most participants found current antenatal dosing information inadequate and regarded model-informed doses in pregnancy as a valuable and for some, much-needed addition to antenatal care. Although willingness-to-follow model-informed antenatal doses was high across both groups, several barriers for implementation were identified. HCPs underlined the need for transparent model validation and endorsement of the methodology by recognised institutions. Foetal safety was deemed a critical knowledge gap by both groups. HCPs' information needs and preferred features for model-informed doses in pregnancy varied. Several pregnant women expressed a desire to access information and partake in decisions on antenatal dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Given the perceived limitations of current pharmacotherapy for pregnant women and foetuses, model-informed dosing in pregnancy was seen as a promising means to enhance antenatal care by pregnant women and healthcare practitioners.

Medicare-mandated shared decision making for left atrial appendage closure in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) required a shared decision-making (SDM) interaction, with an "independent" physician, before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). The purpose of this study is to better understand how this requirement is implemented in clinical practice. METHODS: We surveyed LAAC-performing centers. The characteristics of respondent and nonrespondent hospitals were compared using the CMS Provider of Services File for 2017. RESULTS: We received 86 responses out of 269 surveys mailed (32%). Respondent and nonrespondent hospital affiliations were similar: mean hospital size 525 beds, 15% for-profit, and 34% teaching hospitals. Thirty-four respondents (39.5%) stated that the implanting physician conducts some or all of the SDM interactions. The percentage of patients who decide not to undergo LAAC after the SDM interaction was estimated at 8.1%. Out of 72 responses to an open-ended question about the benefit of the SDM interaction, 44 (61%) described the requirement in negative terms, of which most felt the requirement was burdensome for patients and providers. Only 28 respondents (39%) described the requirement in positive or mixed terms. CONCLUSION: In violation of the letter of the CMS policy for LAAC, implanting physicians perform the SDM interaction at nearly 40% of responding hospitals. Most respondents felt the SDM requirement was burdensome for patients. More detailed guidance from CMS on how to comply with the policy may result in better alignment between the intent of the policy and how it is implemented.

Decision aids for patients with carotid stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making tools have been underused by clinicians in real-world practice. Changes to the National Coverage Determination by Medicare for carotid stenting greatly expand the coverage for patients, but simultaneously require a shared decision-making interaction that involves the use of a validated tool. Accordingly, our objective was to evaluate the currently available decision aids for carotid stenosis. METHODS: We conducted a review of the literature for published work on decision aids for the treatment of carotid disease. RESULTS: Four publications met inclusion criteria. We found the format of the decision aid impacted patient comprehension and decision making, although patient characteristics also played a role in the therapeutic decisions made. Notably, none of the available decision aids included the widely adopted transcarotid artery revascularization as an option. CONCLUSIONS: Further work is needed in the development of a widespread validated decision aid instrument for patients with carotid stenosis.

Patient decision-making in the era of transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The National Coverage Determination on carotid stenting by Medicare in October 2023 stipulates that patients participate in a shared decision-making (SDM) conversation with their proceduralist before an intervention. However, to date, there is no validated SDM tool that incorporates transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) into its decision platform. Our objective was to elicit patient and surgeon experiences and preferences through a qualitative approach to better inform the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. METHODS: We performed longitudinal perioperative semistructured interviews of 20 participants using purposive maximum variation sampling, a qualitative technique designed for identification and selection of information-rich cases, to define domains important to participants undergoing carotid endarterectomy or TCAR and impressions of SDM. We also performed interviews with nine vascular surgeons to elicit their input on the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. Interview data were coded and analyzed using inductive content analysis coding. RESULTS: We identified three important domains that contribute to the participants' ultimate decision on which procedure to choose: their individual values, their understanding of the disease and each procedure, and how they prefer to make medical decisions. Participant values included themes such as success rates, "wanting to feel better," and the proceduralist's experience. Participants varied in their desired degree of understanding of carotid disease, but all individuals wished to discuss each option with their proceduralist. Participants' desired medical decision-making style varied on a spectrum from complete autonomy to wanting the proceduralist to make the decision for them. Participants who preferred carotid endarterectomy felt outcomes were superior to TCAR and often expressed a desire to eliminate the carotid plaque. Those selecting TCAR felt it was a newer, less invasive option with the shortest procedural and recovery times. Surgeons frequently noted patient factors such as age and anatomy, as well as the availability of long-term data, as reasons to preferentially select one procedure. For most participants, their surgeon was viewed as the most important source of information surrounding their disease and procedure. CONCLUSIONS: SDM surrounding carotid revascularization is nuanced and marked by variation in patient preferences surrounding autonomy when choosing treatment. Given the mandate by Medicare to participate in a SDM interaction before carotid stenting, this analysis offers critical insights that can help to guide an efficient and effective dialog between patients and providers to arrive at a shared decision surrounding therapeutic intervention for patients with carotid disease.

Determining patient preferences for the medical management of osteoporosis using conjoint analysis.

We used conjoint analysis-a method that assesses complex decision making-to quantify patients' choices when selecting an osteoporosis therapy. While 60% of people prioritized medication efficacy when deciding among treatments, the remaining 40% highly valued factors other than efficacy, suggesting the need for personalized shared decision-making tools. INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to examine patient decision-making surrounding osteoporosis medications using conjoint analysis. METHODS: We enrolled osteoporosis patients at an academic medical center to complete an online conjoint exercise which calculated each patient's relative importance score of 6 osteoporosis medication attributes (higher = greater relative importance in decision-making). We used latent class analysis to identify distinct segments of patients with similar choice patterns and then used logistic regression to determine if demographics and osteoporosis disease features were associated with latent class assignment. RESULTS: Overall, 304 participants completed the survey. The rank order of medication attributes by importance score was the following: efficacy at preventing hip fractures (accounted for 31.0% of decision making), mode of administration (17.5%); risk of serious side effects (16.6%); dose frequency (13.9%); efficacy at preventing spine fractures (12.5%); risk of non-serious side effects (8.4%). We found that 60.9% of the cohort prioritized medication efficacy as their top factor when selecting among the therapies. Being a college graduate, having stronger beliefs on the necessity of using medications for osteoporosis, and never having used osteoporosis medicines were the only factors associated with prioritizing medication efficacy for fracture prevention over the other factors in the decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: While about 60% of patients prioritized efficacy when selecting an osteoporosis therapy, the remaining 40% valued other factors more highly. Furthermore, individual patient characteristics and clinical factors did not reliably predict patient decision making, suggesting that development and implementation of shared decision-making tools is warranted.

Development and usability of a decision aid to initiate anti-osteoporosis medication treatment in patients visiting the fracture liaison service with a recent fracture.

This study describes the development of a decision aid (DA), aimed at supporting patients in their decision whether to start anti-osteoporosis medication. People with recent fractures or osteoporosis and health professionals were supportive of the DA initiative. An experimental study been started to assess (cost-)effectiveness of the DA. PURPOSE: At fracture liaison services (FLS), patients with a recent fracture ánd osteoporosis or a prevalent vertebral fracture are advised to start anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM). This study describes the development of a decision aid (DA) to support patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) in their decision about whether to start AOM. METHODS: The DA was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). A systematic procedure was chosen including scope, design, prototype development, and alpha testing. A previously developed DA for women with osteoporosis was used as a basis. Furthermore, input from literature searches, the Dutch guideline on management of osteoporosis, and from people with a fracture or osteoporosis was used. The updated DA was evaluated during alpha testing. RESULTS: The DA facilitates the decision of patients whether to initiate AOM treatment and provides information on fractures and osteoporosis, general risk factors that increase the likelihood of a subsequent fracture, the role of lifestyle, personalized risk considerations of a subsequent fracture with and without AOM treatment, and AOM options and their characteristics in an option grid. Alpha testing with 15 patients revealed that patient preferences and needs were adequately presented, and several suggestions for improvement (e.g. adding more specific information, simplifying terminology, improving icon use) were accounted for. Participants from the alpha testing recommended use of the DA during outpatient visits. CONCLUSION: Professionals and persons with osteoporosis were supportive of the proposed DA and its usability. The DA could help in a shared decision-making process between patients and HCPs.

Patients' preferences for fracture risk communication: the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study.

The RICO study indicated that most patients would like to receive information regarding their fracture risk but that only a small majority have actually received it. Patients globally preferred a visual presentation of fracture risk and were interested in an online tool showing the risk. PURPOSE: The aim of the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study was to assess patients' preferences regarding fracture risk communication. METHODS: To assess patients' preferences for fracture risk communication, structured interviews with women with osteoporosis or who were at risk for fracture were conducted in 11 sites around the world, namely in Argentina, Belgium, Canada at Hamilton and with participants from the Osteoporosis Canada Canadian Osteoporosis Patient Network (COPN), Japan, Mexico, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA in California and Washington state. The interviews used to collect data were designed on the basis of a systematic review and a qualitative pilot study involving 26 participants at risk of fracture. RESULTS: A total of 332 women (mean age 67.5 ± 8.0 years, 48% with a history of fracture) were included in the study. Although the participants considered it important to receive information about their fracture risk (mean importance of 6.2 ± 1.4 on a 7-point Likert scale), only 56% (i.e. 185/332) had already received such information. Globally, participants preferred a visual presentation with a traffic-light type of coloured graph of their FRAX® fracture risk probability, compared to a verbal or written presentation. Almost all participants considered it important to discuss their fracture risk and the consequences of fractures with their healthcare professionals in addition to receiving information in a printed format or access to an online website showing their fracture risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant communication gap between healthcare professionals and patients when discussing osteoporosis fracture risk. The RICO study provides insight into preferred approaches to rectify this communication gap.

Patient autonomy and shared decision-making in the context of clinical trial participation.

AIMS: This study aimed to explore how incorporating shared decision-making (SDM) can address recruitment challenges in clinical trials. Specifically, it examines how SDM can align the trial process with patient preferences, enhance patient autonomy and increase active patient participation. Additionally, it identifies potential conflicts between SDM and certain clinical trial aspects, such as randomization or blinding, and proposes solutions to mitigate these issues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of existing literature on patient recruitment challenges in clinical trials and the role of SDM in addressing these challenges. We analysed case studies and trial reports to identify common obstacles and assess the effectiveness of SDM in improving patient accrual. Additionally, we evaluated three proposed solutions: adequate trial design, communication skill training and patient decision aids. RESULTS: Our review indicates that incorporating SDM can significantly enhance patient recruitment by promoting patient autonomy and engagement. SDM encourages physicians to adopt a more open and informative approach, which aligns the trial process with patient preferences and reduces psychological barriers such as fear and mental stress. However, implementing SDM can conflict with elements such as randomization and blinding, potentially complicating trial design and execution. DISCUSSION: The desire for patient autonomy and active engagement through SDM may clash with traditional clinical trial methodologies. To address these conflicts, we propose three solutions: redesigning trials to better accommodate SDM principles, providing communication skill training for physicians and developing patient decision aids. By focussing on patient wishes and emotions, these solutions can integrate SDM into clinical trials effectively. CONCLUSION: Shared decision-making provides a framework that can promote patient recruitment and trial participation by enhancing patient autonomy and engagement. With proper implementation of trial design modifications, communication skill training and patient decision aids, SDM can support rather than hinder clinical trial execution, ultimately contributing to the advancement of evidence-based medicine.

Navigating Uncertainty in Clinical Practice: A Structured Approach.

The practice of clinical medicine is imbued with uncertainty. The ways in which clinicians and patients think about, communicate about, and act within situations of heightened uncertainty can have significant implications for the therapeutic alliance and for the trajectory and outcomes of clinical care. Despite this, there is limited guidance about the best methods for physicians to recognize, acknowledge, communicate about, and manage uncertainty in clinical settings. In this paper, we propose a structured approach for discussing and managing uncertainty within the context of a clinician-patient relationship. The approach involves four steps: Recognize, Acknowledge, Partner, and Seek Support (i.e., the RAPS framework). The approach is guided by existing literature on uncertainty as well as our own experience as clinicians working at different stages of career. We define each component of the approach and present sample language and actions for how to implement it in practice. Our aim is to empower clinicians to regard situations of high uncertainty as an opportunity to deepen the therapeutic alliance with the patient, and simultaneously to grow and learn as practitioners.

Clinician use of the Statin Choice Shared Decision-making Encounter Tool in a Major Health System.

BACKGROUND: Effective shared decision-making (SDM) tools for use during clinical encounters are available, but, outside of study settings, little is known about clinician use of these tools in practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe real-world use of an SDM encounter tool for statin prescribing, Statin Choice, embedded into the workflow of an electronic health record. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians and their statin-eligible patients who had outpatient encounters between January 2020 and June 2021 in Cleveland Clinic Health System. MAIN MEASURES: Clinician use of Statin Choice was recorded within the Epic record system. We categorized each patient's 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk into low (< 5%), borderline (5-7.5%), intermediate (7.5-20%), and high (≥ 20%). Other patient factors included age, sex, insurance, and race. We used mixed effects logistic regression to assess the odds of using Statin Choice for statin-eligible patients, accounting for clustering by clinician and site. We generated a residual intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to characterize the impact of the clinician on Statin Choice use. KEY RESULTS: Statin Choice was used in 7% of 68,505 eligible patients. Of 1047 clinicians, 48% used Statin Choice with ≥ 1 patient, and these clinicians used it with a median 9% of their patients (interquartile range: 3-22%). In the mixed effects logistic regression model, patient age (adjusted OR per year: 1.04; 95%CI 1.03-1.04) and 10-year ASVCD risk (aOR for 5-7.5% versus < 5% risk: 1.28; 95%CI: 1.14-1.44) were associated with use of Statin Choice. Black versus White race was associated with a lower odds of Statin Choice use (aOR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.73-0.95), as was female versus male sex (aOR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.76-0.90). The model ICC demonstrated that 53% of the variation in use of Statin Choice was clinician-driven. CONCLUSIONS: Patient factors, including race and sex, were associated with clinician use of Statin Choice; half the variation in use was attributable to individual clinicians.

How to Use Costs in Value-Based Healthcare: Learning from Real-life Examples.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations measure costs for business operations but do not routinely incorporate costs in decision-making on the value of care. AIM: Provide guidance on how to use costs in value-based healthcare (VBHC) delivery at different levels of the healthcare system. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Integrated practice units (IPUs) for diabetes mellitus (DM) and for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at the Leiden University Medical Center and a collaboration of seven breast cancer IPUs of the Santeon group, all in the Netherlands. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION: VBHC aims to optimize care delivery to the patient by understanding how costs relate to outcomes. At the level of shared decision-making between patient and clinician, yearly check-up consultations for DM type I were analyzed for patient-relevant costs. In benchmarking among providers, quantities of cost drivers for breast cancer care were assessed in scorecards. In continuous learning, cost-effectiveness analysis was compared with radar chart analysis to assess the value of telemonitoring in outpatient follow-up. DISCUSSION: Costs vary among providers in healthcare, but also between provider and patient. The joint analysis of outcomes and costs using appropriate methods helps identify and optimize the aspects of care that drive desired outcomes and value.

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).

Exploring shared decision-making needs in lung cancer screening among high-risk groups and health care providers in China: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The intricate balance between the advantages and risks of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) impedes the utilization of lung cancer screening (LCS). Guiding shared decision-making (SDM) for well-informed choices regarding LCS is pivotal. There has been a notable increase in research related to SDM. However, these studies possess limitations. For example, they may ignore the identification of decision support and needs from the perspective of health care providers and high-risk groups. Additionally, these studies have not adequately addressed the complete SDM process, including pre-decisional needs, the decision-making process, and post-decision experiences. Furthermore, the East-West divide of SDM has been largely ignored. This study aimed to explore the decisional needs and support for shared decision-making for LCS among health care providers and high-risk groups in China. METHODS: Informed by the Ottawa Decision-Support Framework, we conducted qualitative, face-to-face in-depth interviews to explore shared decision-making among 30 lung cancer high-risk individuals and 9 health care providers. Content analysis was used for data analysis. RESULTS: We identified 4 decisional needs that impair shared decision-making: (1) LCS knowledge deficit; (2) inadequate supportive resources; (3) shared decision-making conceptual bias; and (4) delicate doctor-patient bonds. We identified 3 decision supports: (1) providing information throughout the LCS process; (2) providing shared decision-making decision coaching; and (3) providing decision tools. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers valuable insights into the decisional needs and support required to undergo LCS among high-risk individuals and perspectives from health care providers. Future studies should aim to design interventions that enhance the quality of shared decision-making by offering LCS information, decision tools for LCS, and decision coaching for shared decision-making (e.g., through community nurses). Simultaneously, it is crucial to assess individuals' needs for effective deliberation to prevent conflicts and regrets after arriving at a decision.

Understanding the experience, treatment preferences and goals of people living with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Listening to patient voices is critical, in terms of how people experience their condition as well as their treatment preferences. This research explored the patient journey, therapy attributes and goals among treatment experienced adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We sought to understand patient experiences, needs and expectations to identify areas for improvement of treatment and care delivery. METHODS: Two online surveys were developed for completion by CLL patients. In Stage 1, participants completed a best-worst scaling (BWS) task to evaluate eleven previously validated healthcare journey moments that matter (MTM). Responses were used to generate the patient experience index (PEI) score. In Stage 2, participants completed a survey that included both a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess drivers of treatment preferences by evaluating the relative attribute importance (RAI) of seven features and a BWS exercise which explored long-term treatment goals. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients completed Stage 1 and thirty patients Stage 2. Treatment experience was balanced between oral and intravenous medication. The most important/least satisfied MTM were treatment effectiveness, access to support and other treatments as well as monitoring progress. The median PEI score was 66.2 (out of 100). DCE results demonstrated that patients most value treatments for CLL that are associated with prolonged progression free survival (PFS; RAI: 24.6%), followed by treatments that have a lower risk of severe side effects and lower out-of-pocket costs (RAI: 19.5%, 17.4%, respectively). The remainder of the weight in decision making (38.5%) was split between the remaining attributes, namely 'mild to moderate side effects' (13.4%), 'long-term risks' (12.2%), type of treatment (i.e., oral, IV or a combination of oral and IV; 8.7%) and treatment duration (i.e., ongoing versus fixed; 4.2%). Patients preferred oral to intravenous therapy. The most valued long-term treatment goal was to be physically healthy, followed by living a long life, spending time with family/friends, and avoiding hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Treatment experienced patients with CLL are focused on receiving effective, safe therapies and value long PFS. Consideration and discussion of other attributes, such as once daily dosing, oral only medication, out-of-pocket costs and access to support services may affect patient treatment choices and ultimately enhance their healthcare experience and outcomes.

Radical cystectomy or trimodality therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a qualitative study exploring patient priorities and counselling needs when making a treatment choice.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to explore the priorities and counselling needs of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer faced with a decision between radical cystectomy and trimodality therapy. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study according to the phenomenological approach. Sixteen muscle-invasive bladder cancer survivors who underwent radical cystectomy or trimodality therapy completed a semi-structured interview between May 2022 and February 2023. Patients were recruited via Ghent University Hospital and a patient organisation. Data were analysed with inductive thematic analysis by a multi-disciplinary team using an iterative approach and investigators' triangulation. RESULTS: Four main priorities determining the treatment decision were identified. (1) curing the disease; (2) health-related quality of life (physical, mental and social); (3) confidence in the treatment, which was mainly based on trust in the clinician; and (4) personal attributes. Trust in the clinician can be achieved by fulfilling the patient's information needs (accurate, complete, clear, impartial, personalised, realistic, and transparent information), ensuring accessibility of the clinician, and creating a clear and personalised treatment plan, involving patients to the extend they desire. Many patients considered a patient decision aid as a valuable asset in this process. CONCLUSION: Priorities vary between patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Identifying individual priorities and offering personalised information about them is crucial for ensuring trust in the clinician and confidence in the treatment. Use of a patient decision aid can be beneficial in this process.