Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Shared decision-making is increasingly embraced in health care and recommended in cardiovascular guidelines. Patient involvement in health care decisions, patient-clinician communication, and models of patient-centered care are critical to improve health outcomes and to promote equity, but formal models and evaluation in cardiovascular care are nascent. Shared decision-making promotes equity by involving clinicians and patients, sharing the best available evidence, and recognizing the needs, values, and experiences of individuals and their families when faced with the task of making decisions. Broad endorsement of shared decision-making as a critical component of high-quality, value-based care has raised our awareness, although uptake in clinical practice remains suboptimal for a range of patient, clinician, and system issues. Strategies effective in promoting shared decision-making include educating clinicians on communication techniques, engaging multidisciplinary medical teams, incorporating trained decision coaches, and using tools (ie, patient decision aids) at appropriate literacy and numeracy levels to support patients in their cardiovascular decisions. This scientific statement shines a light on the limited but growing body of evidence of the impact of shared decision-making on cardiovascular outcomes and the potential of shared decision-making as a driver of health equity so that everyone has just opportunities. Multilevel solutions must align to address challenges in policies and reimbursement, system-level leadership and infrastructure, clinician training, access to decision aids, and patient engagement to fully support patients and clinicians to engage in the shared decision-making process and to drive equity and improvement in cardiovascular outcomes.

Digital health as a tool for patient activation and improving quality of care for heart failure.

The clinical and economic impact of heart failure (HF) is immense and will continue to rise due to the increasing prevalence of the disease. Despite the availability of guideline-recommended medications that improve mortality, reduce hospitalizations, and enhance quality of life, there are major gaps in the implementation of such care. Quality improvement interventions have generally focused on clinicians. While certain interventions have had modest success in improving the use of heart failure medications, they remain insufficient in optimizing HF care. Here, we discuss how patient-facing interventions can add value and supplement clinician-centered interventions. We discuss how digital health can be leveraged to create patient activation tools that create a larger, sustainable impact. Small studies have suggested the promise of digital tools for patient engagement and self-care, but there are also important barriers to the adoption of such interventions that we describe. We share key principles and strategies around the design and implementation of digital health innovations to maximize patient participation and engagement. By uniquely activating patients in their own care, digital health can unlock the full potential of both existing and new quality improvement initiatives to drive forward high-quality and equitable heart failure care.

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.

"It's Like A Partnership": Exploring the Primary Care Experiences and Patient-Defined Goals of People Who Use Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is an important yet underutilized resource in addressing the overdose crisis. Previous studies have identified important aspects of primary care for people who use drugs (PWUD) and have found patient involvement in healthcare decisions and goal-setting to be especially critical. However, there has been limited research describing the primary care goals of PWUD. In harm reduction settings, where it is imperative that PWUD set their own goals, this research gap becomes especially relevant. OBJECTIVE: To explore how PWUD navigate primary care with a focus on understanding their primary care goals. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: PWUD currently engaged in primary care at the Respectful and Equitable Access to Comprehensive Healthcare (REACH) Program, a harm reduction-based primary care program in New York City. APPROACH: Between June 2022 and August 2022, we conducted 17 semi-structured interviews. Informed by phenomenology, transcripts were coded using both inductive and deductive codes and themes were developed using thematic analysis approaches. KEY RESULTS: Phenomenological analysis identified four core components that, together, created an experience that participants described as "a partnership" between patient and provider: (1) patient-provider collaboration around patient-defined healthcare goals; (2) support provided by harm reduction-based approaches to primary care anchored in incrementalism and flexibility; (3) care teams' ability to address healthcare system fragmentation; and (4) the creation of social connections through primary care. This holistic partnership fostered positive primary care experiences and supported participants' self-defined care goals, thereby facilitating meaningful care outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To best meet the primary care goals of PWUD, these findings underscore the importance of primary care providers and programs facilitating such partnerships through organizational-level support anchored in harm reduction. Future research should explore how these experiences in primary care affect patient health outcomes, ultimately shaping best practices in the provision of high-quality primary care for PWUD.

Research Goes Red: Early Experience With a Participant-Centric Registry.

RATIONALE: Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women. To address its determinants including persisting cardiovascular risk factors amplified by sex and race inequities, novel personalized approaches are needed grounded in the engagement of participants in research and prevention. OBJECTIVE: To report on a participant-centric and personalized dynamic registry designed to address persistent gaps in understanding and managing cardiovascular disease in women. METHODS AND RESULTS: The American Heart Association and Verily launched the Research Goes Red registry (RGR) in 2019, as an online research platform available to consenting individuals over the age of 18 years in the United States. RGR aims to bring participants and researchers together to expand knowledge by collecting data and providing an open-source longitudinal dynamic registry for conducting research studies. As of July 2021, 15 350 individuals have engaged with RGR. Mean age of participants was 48.0 48.0±0.2 years with a majority identifying as female and either non-Hispanic White (75.7%) or Black (10.5%). In addition to 6 targeted health surveys, RGR has deployed 2 American Heart Association-sponsored prospective clinical studies based on participants' areas of interest. The first study focuses on perimenopausal weight gain, developed in response to a health concerns survey. The second study is designed to test the use of social media campaigns to increase awareness and participation in cardiovascular disease research among underrepresented millennial women. CONCLUSIONS: RGR is a novel online participant-centric platform that has successfully engaged women and provided critical data on women's heart health to guide research. Priorities for the growth of RGR are centered on increasing reach and diversity of participants, and engaging researchers to work within their communities to leverage the platform to address knowledge gaps and improve women's health.

Is this really Empowerment? Enhancing our understanding of empowerment in patient and public involvement within clinical research.

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing push to involve patients in clinical research, shifting from conducting research on, about, or for them to conducting it with them. Two arguments advocate for this approach, known as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): to improve research quality, appropriateness, relevance, and credibility by including patients' diverse perspectives, and to use PPI to empower patients and democratize research for more equity in research and healthcare. However, while empowerment is a core objective, it is often not clear what is meant by empowerment in the context of PPI in clinical research. This vacancy can lead to insecurities for both patients and researchers and a disconnect between the rhetoric of empowerment in PPI and the reality of its practice in clinical trials. Thus, clarifying the understanding of empowerment within PPI in clinical research is essential to ensure that involvement does not become tokenistic and depletes patients' capacity to advocate for their rights and needs. METHODS: We explored the historical roots of empowerment, primarily emerging from mid-20th century social movements like feminism and civil rights and reflected the conceptual roots of empowerment from diverse fields to better understand the (potential) role of empowerment in PPI in clinical research including its possibilities and limitations. RESULTS: Common themes of empowerment in PPI and other fields are participation, challenging power structures, valuing diverse perspectives, and promoting collaboration. On the other hand, themes such as contextual differences in the empowerment objectives, the relationship between empowerment and scientific demands, research expertise, and power asymmetries mark a clear distinction from empowerment in other fields. CONCLUSION: PPI offers potential for patient empowerment in clinical trials, even when its primary goal may be research quality. Elements like participation, sharing opinions, and active engagement can contribute to patient empowerment. Nonetheless, some expectations tied to empowerment might not be met within the constraints of clinical research. To empower patients, stakeholders must be explicit about what empowerment means in their research, engage in transparent communication about its realistic scope, and continuously reflect on how empowerment can be fostered and sustained within the research process.

User engagement in clinical trials of digital mental health interventions: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) overcome traditional barriers enabling wider access to mental health support and allowing individuals to manage their treatment. How individuals engage with DMHIs impacts the intervention effect. This review determined whether the impact of user engagement was assessed in the intervention effect in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) evaluating DMHIs targeting common mental disorders (CMDs). METHODS: This systematic review was registered on Prospero (CRD42021249503). RCTs published between 01/01/2016 and 17/09/2021 were included if evaluated DMHIs were delivered by app or website; targeted patients with a CMD without non-CMD comorbidities (e.g., diabetes); and were self-guided. Databases searched: Medline; PsycInfo; Embase; and CENTRAL. All data was double extracted. A meta-analysis compared intervention effect estimates when accounting for engagement and when engagement was ignored. RESULTS: We identified 184 articles randomising 43,529 participants. Interventions were delivered predominantly via websites (145, 78.8%) and 140 (76.1%) articles reported engagement data. All primary analyses adopted treatment policy strategies, ignoring engagement levels. Only 19 (10.3%) articles provided additional intervention effect estimates accounting for user engagement: 2 (10.5%) conducted a complier-average-causal effect (CACE) analysis (principal stratum strategy) and 17 (89.5%) used a less-preferred per-protocol (PP) population excluding individuals failing to meet engagement criteria (estimand strategies unclear). Meta-analysis for PP estimates, when accounting for user engagement, changed the standardised effect to -0.18 95% CI (-0.32, -0.04) from - 0.14 95% CI (-0.24, -0.03) and sample sizes reduced by 33% decreasing precision, whereas meta-analysis for CACE estimates were - 0.19 95% CI (-0.42, 0.03) from - 0.16 95% CI (-0.38, 0.06) with no sample size decrease and less impact on precision. DISCUSSION: Many articles report user engagement metrics but few assessed the impact on the intervention effect missing opportunities to answer important patient centred questions for how well DMHIs work for engaged users. Defining engagement in this area is complex, more research is needed to obtain ways to categorise this into groups. However, the majority that considered engagement in analysis used approaches most likely to induce bias.

Using brief reflections to capture and evaluate end-user engagement: a case example using the COMPASS study.

BACKGROUND: Use of participatory research methods is increasing in research trials. Once partnerships are established with end-users, there is less guidance about processes research teams can use to successfully incorporate end-user feedback. The current study describes the use of a brief reflections process to systematically examine and evaluate the impact of end-user feedback on study conduct. METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness of Trauma-Focused and Non-Trauma- Focused Treatment Strategies for PTSD among those with Co-Occurring SUD (COMPASS) study was a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of trauma-focused psychotherapy versus non-trauma-focused psychotherapy for Veterans with co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder who were entering substance use treatment within the Department of Veterans Affairs. We developed and paired a process of "brief reflections" with our end-user engagement methods as part of a supplemental evaluation of the COMPASS study engagement plan. Brief reflections were 30-minute semi-structured discussions with the COMPASS Team following meetings with three study engagement panels about feedback received regarding study issues. To evaluate the impact of panel feedback, 16 reflections were audio-recorded, transcribed, rapidly analyzed, and integrated with other study data sources. RESULTS: Brief reflections revealed that the engagement panels made recommended changes in eight areas: enhancing recruitment; study assessment completion; creating uniformity across Study Coordinators; building Study Coordinator connection to Veteran participants; mismatch between study procedures and clinical practice; therapist skill with patients with active substance use; therapist burnout; and dissemination of study findings. Some recommendations positively impact study conduct while others had mixed impact. Reflections were iterative and led to emergent processes that included revisiting previously discussed topics, cross-pollination of ideas across panels, and sparking solutions amongst the Team when the panels did not make any recommendations or recommendations were not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: When paired with end-user engagement methods, brief reflections can facilitate systematic examination of end-user input, particularly when the engagement strategy is robust. Reflections offer a forum of accountability for researchers to give careful thought to end-user recommendations and make timely improvements to the study conduct. Reflections can also facilitate evaluation of these recommendations and reveal end-user-driven strategies that can effectively improve study conduct. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04581434) on October 9, 2020; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04581434?term=NCT04581434&draw=2&rank=1 .

Shared decision-making needs, barriers, and facilitators of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer in the hospital: a multi-level, mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the shared decision-making (SDM) needs, barriers, and facilitators of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer in the hospital. Understanding this may improve SDM and cancer care quality in this vulnerable population. METHODS: A single-site, mixed-methods study of hospitalized patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer, caregivers, and oncologists was conducted. After discharge, patient ± caregiver semi-structured interviews exploring SDM needs, barriers, and facilitators regarding their most important upcoming cancer-related decision were conducted. Oncologists were surveyed about patient knowledge and SDM needs using closed- and open-ended questions, respectively. Thematic analysis was performed for qualitative data with a focus on themes unique to or amplified by hospitalization. Descriptive statistics and the Chi-squared test were performed for quantitative data. RESULTS: Patients and caregivers reported high SDM needs surrounding treatment and prognostic information, leading to decisional conflict. Eight themes emerged: anticipated cancer treatment decisions, variable control preferences in decision-making, high cancer-related information needs and uncertainty, barriers and facilitators to information gathering during and post hospitalization, and decision-making facilitators. Among 32 oncologists, most (56%) reported patients were poorly informed about treatment and prognosis. Oncologists reported variable expectations about patient knowledge after hospitalization, facilitators to patient decision-making, and patient uncertainty while awaiting an outpatient oncologist appointment. CONCLUSION: Patients newly diagnosed with advanced cancer in the hospital have high SDM needs and experience decisional conflict. This may be due to barriers unique to or exacerbated by hospitalization. Further research is needed to develop strategies to address these barriers and enhance the facilitators identified in this study.

Interactive digital tools to support empowerment of people with cancer: a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: To identify and synthesise interactive digital tools used to support the empowerment of people with cancer and the outcomes of these tools. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane, Eric, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases in May 2023. Inclusion criteria were patient empowerment as an outcome supported by interactive digital tools expressed in study goal, methods or results, peer-reviewed studies published since 2010 in cancer care. Narrative synthesis was applied, and the quality of the studies was assessed following Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. RESULTS: Out of 1571 records screened, 39 studies published in 2011-2022 with RCT (17), single-arm trial (15), quasi-experimental (1), and qualitative designs (6) were included. A total of 30 interactive digital tools were identified to support empowerment (4) and related aspects, such as self-management (2), coping (4), patient activation (9), and self-efficacy (19). Significant positive effects were found on empowerment (1), self-management (1), coping (1), patient activation (2), and self-efficacy (10). Patient experiences were positive. Interactivity occurred with the tool itself (22), peers (7), or nurses (7), physicians (2), psychologists, (2) or social workers (1). CONCLUSION: Interactive digital tools have been developed extensively in recent years, varying in terms of content and methodology, favouring feasibility and pilot designs. In all of the tools, people with cancer are either active or recipients of information. The research evidence indicates positive outcomes for patient empowerment through interactive digital tools. Thus, even though promising, there still is need for further testing of the tools.

Oncology patients' willingness to report their medication safety concerns from home: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Oncology patients often struggle to manage their medications and related adverse events during transitions of care. They are expected to take an active role in self-monitoring and timely reporting of their medication safety events or concerns to clinicians. The purpose of this study was to explore the factors influencing oncology patients' willingness to report adverse events or concerns related to their medication after their transitions back home. METHODS: A qualitative interview study was conducted with adult patients with breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer who experienced care transitions within the previous year. A semi-structured interview guide was developed to understand patients' perceptions of reporting mediation-related safety events or concerns from home. All interviews were conducted via phone calls, recorded, and transcribed for thematic data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 41 individuals participated in the interviews. Three main themes and six subthemes emerged, including patients' perceived relationship with clinicians (the quality of communication and trust in clinicians), perceived severity of adverse medication events (perceived severe vs. non-severe events), and patient activation in self-management (self-efficacy in self-management and engagement in monitoring health outcomes). CONCLUSION: The patient-clinician relationship significantly affects patients' reporting behaviors, which can potentially interact with other factors, including the severity of adverse events. It is important to engage oncology patients in medication safety self-reporting from home by enhancing health communication, understanding patients' perceptions of severe events, and promoting patient activation. By addressing these efforts, healthcare providers should adopt a more patient-centered approach to enhance the overall quality and safety of oncological care.

Evaluating a digital tool for supporting people affected by breast cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial-the ADAPT study.

PURPOSE: This study reports the findings from the ADAPT randomized controlled trial (RCT), concerning the impact of a digital tool for supported self-management in people affected by breast cancer on patient activation as the primary outcome, with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and health status as secondary outcomes. METHODS: Women with early-stage breast cancer were randomly assigned to standard care (control) or standard care in addition to the breast cancer digital tool (intervention). Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire, the Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year from diagnosis. Linear mixed effect model regression was used to assess the effect of the digital tool over the first year from diagnosis while correcting for intra-participant correlation. RESULTS: A total of 166 participants were included, with 85 being randomized into the intervention. No significant differences (p > 0.05) in the PAM-13 scores, EORTC QLQ-C30 scales (global QoL, physical functioning, emotional functioning, pain, fatigue), and EQ-5D-5L Index between the control and intervention groups were observed. It is important to note that there was significant non-adherence within the intervention group. CONCLUSION: The breast cancer digital tool had no statistically significant impact on patient activation, HRQoL, and health status over time compared to standard care alone in women with early-stage breast cancer. Future research should focus on identifying and addressing barriers to digital tool engagement to improve efficacy. Clinical trial information The study was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03866655) on 7 March 2019 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03866655 ).

The relationship between medication beliefs, patient activation, and self-rated health in patients taking oral anticancer agents.

PURPOSE: Patients on oral anticancer agent (OAA) therapies have the autonomy to manage their cancer treatments in home settings. However, patients may not have adequate knowledge, confidence, or ability to effectively manage OAA-related consequences, which can significantly impact their treatment and health outcomes. This study aims to identify the associations between medication beliefs, patient activation, and self-rated health (SRH) among oncology patients taking OAAs and explore the potential mediation effects of patient activation on the relationship between medication beliefs and SRH. METHODS: A secondary data analysis was conducted on cross-sectional data from 114 patients who were diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer. Patients completed a self-reported survey including items of SRH, Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ), and Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13). Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlation, hierarchical multiple linear regression, and mediation analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The results indicate that patients taking OAAs have ambivalent attitudes toward medication. Both medication necessity (r = - 0.27) and concerns (r = - 0.21) were negatively associated with SRH, while patient activation was positively associated with SRH (r = 0.38). Patient activation had a negative association with medication concerns (r = - 0.36) and fully mediated the relationship between medication concerns and SRH in patients taking OAAs (indirect effect = - 0.154, 95% confidence interval, - 0.276 to - 0.060). CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the significance of activating patients to better understand and manage their OAAs. It is crucial for oncology professionals to provide multifaceted interventions to promote patient activation with an effort to mitigate the negative impact of medication beliefs on patient-perceived health outcomes.

An online evidence-based dictionary of common adverse events of antidepressants: a new tool to empower patients and clinicians in their shared decision-making process.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AEs) are commonly reported in clinical studies using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), an international standard for drug safety monitoring. However, the technical language of MedDRA makes it challenging for patients and clinicians to share understanding and therefore to make shared decisions about medical interventions. In this project, people with lived experience of depression and antidepressant treatment worked with clinicians and researchers to co-design an online dictionary of AEs associated with antidepressants, taking into account its ease of use and applicability to real-world settings. METHODS: Through a pre-defined literature search, we identified MedDRA-coded AEs from randomised controlled trials of antidepressants used in the treatment of depression. In collaboration with the McPin Foundation, four co-design workshops with a lived experience advisory panel (LEAP) and one independent focus group (FG) were conducted to produce user-friendly translations of AE terms. Guiding principles for translation were co-designed with McPin/LEAP members and defined before the finalisation of Clinical Codes (CCs, or non-technical terms to represent specific AE concepts). FG results were thematically analysed using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Starting from 522 trials identified by the search, 736 MedDRA-coded AE terms were translated into 187 CCs, which balanced key factors identified as important to the LEAP and FG (namely, breadth, specificity, generalisability, patient-understandability and acceptability). Work with the LEAP showed that a user-friendly language of AEs should aim to mitigate stigma, acknowledge the multiple levels of comprehension in 'lay' language and balance the need for semantic accuracy with user-friendliness. Guided by these principles, an online dictionary of AEs was co-designed and made freely available ( https://thesymptomglossary.com ). The digital tool was perceived by the LEAP and FG as a resource which could feasibly improve antidepressant treatment by facilitating the accurate, meaningful expression of preferences about potential harms through a shared decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: This dictionary was developed in English around AEs from antidepressants in depression but it can be adapted to different languages and cultural contexts, and can also become a model for other interventions and disorders (i.e., antipsychotics in schizophrenia). Co-designed digital resources may improve the patient experience by helping to deliver personalised information on potential benefits and harms in an evidence-based, preference-sensitive way.

Maternity clinician use of shared decision-making in antenatal care: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of shared decision-making in antenatal care has had limited exploration. OBJECTIVE: To assess what is known about shared decision-making in antenatal care. SEARCH STRATEGY: Five databases were searched (1997-2022) limited to English language studies from OECD countries. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A data collection table was constructed with findings from 32 papers. A narrative synthesis was conducted with subsequent thematic analysis of included papers. MAIN RESULTS: Four areas of decision-making were identified with six themes revealing enablers and barriers to shared decision-making in antenatal care. CONCLUSION: Implementation of shared decision-making requires continuity, time and personalisation of care.

A Joanna Briggs Institute Framework Approach to Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life.

AIM: To implement shared decision-making (SDM) through a patient decision aid (PtDA) for the initiation of palliative care (PC) in end-of-life (EOL) cancer patients. METHODOLOGY: A comprehensive Scoping Review was conducted on SDM in PubMed, CINAHL and PsycInfo. An evidence-based implementation of PtDAs was created using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework, which followed rigorous pillars: (1) context, (2) facilitation and (3) evaluation. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified and categorised into (1) Implementation characteristics and (2) Strategies for implementing SDM in terminally ill cancer patients. SDM should consider the decision-making location, optimal timing, participants and decision type. Strategies include professional training, PtDAs and implementation programmes. A PtDA implementation protocol in video format for deciding to initiate PC is proposed, following International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG). CONCLUSIONS: SDM implementation should be guided by evidence-based methodological models justifying and structuring its execution, especially in complex and interdisciplinary contexts. National or international frameworks facilitate the adoption of health innovations, such as PtDAs, benefiting patients and improving their usage. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: SDM is not just a concept but an important approach to the Care of cancer patients at EOL, enhancing patient satisfaction and improving care quality. The success and sustainability of SDM hinge on the fundamental aspects of staff training, interdisciplinary collaboration and ongoing evaluation. The lack of specific aid in Spanish underscores the immediate need for local development. Further research is needed in this area, as most reviewed studies did not measure SDM effectiveness in diverse hospital settings. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This proposal was developed based on the experience and input of the nursing staff from the healthcare service where it is intended to be implemented.

Participation in medication safety of older-adult patients with chronic disease during the transition from hospital to home: a descriptive qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Medication safety issues occur frequently among older-adult patients with chronic diseases during the transition from the hospital to their homes. Patient participation in medication safety has been found to be an effective measure for improving patient safety. However, few studies have been conducted on the safety of older-adult patients with chronic disease during the hospital to family transition period. This study aimed to understand the experiences and perceptions of such patients regarding participation in medication safety during the hospital to family transition period and to explore the actual situation and obstacles during this period in the Chinese context. METHODS: A descriptive, qualitative research approach was adopted using purposive sampling. Eighteen patients with chronic disease (aged 61-84 years) participated, all of whom were in the period of transition from hospital to home. Data were collected through semi-structured face-to-face interviews and analysed using directed qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Four themes and 12 sub-themes were identified in this study. The four themes were participation in medication decision-making, participation in medication self-management, participation support, and barriers to patient participation. CONCLUSIONS: Patient participation is important in ensuring medication safety during the hospital to family transition period. This study highlights that older-adult patients' participation in medication safety includes three aspects: participation in medication decision-making, participation in medication self-management, and participation support. Health literacy, medical communication, and family care support are the key factors affecting patient participation in medication safety. Effective intervention strategies for this patient group during the transition period would target improving patients' cognition, health literacy, doctor-prescription communication, and family care support to encourage patients to be more actively involved in the process of drug treatment.

Active involvement in scientific research of persons living with dementia and long-term care users: a systematic review of existing methods with a specific focus on good practices, facilitators and barriers of involvement.

BACKGROUND: Active involvement of persons living with dementia (PLWD) and long-term care (LTC) users in research is essential but less developed compared to other patient groups. However, their involvement in research is not only important but also feasible. This study aims to provide an overview of methods, facilitators, and barriers for involving PLWD and LTC users in scientific research. METHODS: A systematic literature search across 12 databases in December 2020 identified studies involving PLWD, LTC users, or their carers beyond research subjects and describing methods or models for involvement. Qualitative descriptions of involvement methods underwent a risk of bias assessment using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist 2018. A data collection sheet in Microsoft Excel and thematic analysis were used to synthesize the results. RESULTS: The eighteen included studies delineated five core involvement methods spanning all research phases: advisory groups, formal and informal research team meetings, action groups, workshops, and co-conducting interviews. Additionally, two co-research models with PLWD and carers were found, while only two studies detailed LTC user involvement methods. Four distinct involvement roles were identified: consulting and advisory roles, co-analysts, co-researchers, and partners. The review also addressed barriers, facilitators, and good practices in the preparation, execution, and translation phases of research, emphasizing the importance of diversity, bias reduction, and resource allocation. Trust-building, clear roles, ongoing training, and inclusive support were highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: Planning enough time for active involvement is important to ensure that researchers have time to build a trusting relationship and meet personal needs and preferences of PLWD, LTC users and carers. Researchers are advised not to presume the meaning of burden and to avoid a deficit perspective. A flexible or emergent design could aid involved persons' ownership of the research process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero 2021: CRD42021253736.

Development and Evaluation of a Framework for Authentic Online Co-Design: Partnership-Focussed Principles-Driven Online Co-Design.

INTRODUCTION: Co-design in health research involves patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in intervention or service design. Traditionally, co-design is undertaken in-person; however, exploring online delivery is warranted. PPIE in co-design must be considered carefully, and assumptions that in-person approaches will transition automatically to an online environment should be avoided. Currently, there are a lack of evidence-informed approaches to facilitating co-design online. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a framework for authentically adapting health research co-design into an online environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The initial framework was developed through a literature review, synthesis of in-person co-design principles, and alignment of online strategies. The framework was then applied to a co-design project with 10 participants across relevant PPIE groups (end-users [n = 4], clinicians [n = 2], coaches [n = 2] and clinician-researchers [n = 2]). Participants' experiences of the online co-design process were evaluated via a mixed-methods design using surveys and semi-structured interviews. Evaluation data were analysed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis to inform a revised framework. RESULTS: The developed framework, Partnership-focussed Principles-driven Online co-Design (P-POD) was used to design eight 90 min online co-design workshops. Evaluation data involved 46 survey responses, and eight participants were interviewed on project completion. Survey data indicated that the process was satisfying, engaging and adhered to the P-POD framework. Themes derived from interview data describe a respectful and collaborative online culture, valuing of diverse perspectives and space for healthy debate, how power was perceived as being shared but not equal and multiple definitions of success within and beyond the process. A final, refined P-POD framework is presented. CONCLUSION: With evaluation of the initial P-POD framework showing evidence of adherence to co-design principles, positive participant experiences and goal achievement for both the project and the participants, the refined P-POD framework may be used and evaluated within future intervention or service design. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study involved the participants (end-users, clinicians and service providers) in the co-design process described, interpretation of the results through member-checking interview responses, assisting in development of the final framework and as co-authors for this manuscript.

Involvement in medication safety behaviors among older people with chronic diseases: systematic review of intervention studies.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to systematically evaluate interventions and effects that promote involvement in medication safety among older people with chronic diseases and to provide new ideas and references for developing standardized and effective intervention strategies to improve patient involvement in medication safety. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search across twelve databases was conducted using both computerized and manual methods. The search was limited to studies designated as randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies and was conducted from the time of each database's inception until September 2023. Two researchers independently carried out qualitative analyses, which included screening the literature, extracting the data, and assessing the quality of the selected studies. RESULTS: This study included five studies involving a total of 388 participants, with interventions aimed at enhancing patient involvement in medication safety, including interactive health education, motivational interviewing, and medication reconciliation. However, direct evidence confirming the positive impact of these interventions in promoting medication safety behaviors among older people with chronic diseases is still lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Patient involvement in medication safety behaviors is essential for promoting healthy aging. Medication education, motivational interviewing, and medication reconciliation may improve the willingness and ability of older people to participate. However, limitations in the methodological quality of current studies prevent drawing definitive conclusions, highlighting the urgent need for more high-quality research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42023494924.