Implementation of the three good questions-A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of pragmatic implementation strategies for three good questions (in Dutch: Drie Goede Vragen; 3GV. What are my options; what are the risks and benefits related to these options; and what does this mean for my situation?) to increase shared decision-making (SDM) efforts in Dutch secondary care, and identify barriers and facilitators of implementation. METHODS: Convergent mixed-method design: pre-post surveys with patients attending one of six clinical departments in a Dutch Hospital, post-intervention interviews with patients and health-care professionals. Primary outcomes: feasibility (reach, use of 3GV). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: SDM, experiences with 3GV and decision making. Interviews focused on barriers and facilitators of 3GV use. Interviews were content coded and categorized into determinants of behaviour change. RESULTS: 35% of the respondents who had heard of 3GV (52%) used all three questions. 3GV use did not lead to more SDM (SDMQ9 M = Δ0.3;SE = 2.2) but patients felt empowered to decide (88%) and to SDM (86%). Barriers were as follows: time investment, other SDM projects and perception that the need to use 3GV differs per patient/consultation. Respondents preferred to use 3GV as they saw fit for the consultation, instead of literally asking them. Facilitators: easy, accessible information materials that can be flexibly used. CONCLUSION: Implementation of 3GV seemed feasible, although influenced by contextual characteristics (eg type of decisions, patients, on-going interventions). 3GV contributed to important elements of SDM, and respondents were willing to apply them in a way that suited their situation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We recommend continuation of current and new implementation strategies to enable 3GV implementation in secondary care.

Use of a patient decision aid for prenatal screening for Down syndrome: what do pregnant women say?

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PtDAs) help people make difficult, values-sensitive decisions. Prenatal screening for assessing the risk of genetic conditions in the fetus is one such decision and patient decision aids are rarely used in this clinical context. We sought to identify factors influencing pregnant women's use of a patient decision aid for deciding about prenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS). METHODS: This qualitative study was embedded in a sequential mixed-methods research program whose main aim is to implement shared decision-making (SDM) in the context of prenatal screening for DS in the province of Quebec, Canada. We planned to recruit a purposive sample of 45 pregnant women with low-risk pregnancy consulting for prenatal care at three clinical sites. Participating women watched a video depicting a prenatal care follow-up during which a pregnant woman, her partner and a health professional used a PtDA to decide about prenatal screening for DS. The women were then interviewed about factors that would influence the use of this PtDA using questions based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We performed content analysis of transcribed verbatim interviews. RESULTS: Out of 216 eligible women, 100 agreed to participate (46% response rate) and 46 were interviewed. Regarding the type of health professional responsible for their prenatal care, 19 participants (41%) reported having made a decision about prenatal screening for DS with an obstetrician-gynecologist, 13 (28%) with a midwife, 12 (26%) with a family physician, and two (4%) decided on their own. We identified 54 factors that were mapped onto nine of the 12 TDF domains. The three most frequently-mentioned were: opinion of the pregnant woman's partner (n = 33, 72%), presentation of the PtDA by health professional and a discussion (n = 27, 72%), and not having encountered a PtDA (n = 26, 57%). CONCLUSION: This study allowed us to identify factors influencing pregnant women's use of a PtDA for prenatal screening for DS. Use of a PtDA by health professionals and patients is one step in providing the needed decision support and our study results will allow us to design an effective implementation strategy for PtDAs for prenatal screening for DS.

Women's experiences with information provision and deciding about fertility preservation in the Netherlands: 'satisfaction in general, but unmet needs'.

OBJECTIVE: It is not well-known how women receiving counselling consultation about fertility preservation (FP) in the Netherlands perceive the information provision about and referral for FP in the oncology setting. The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore women's experiences with the (process of) information provision about the gonadotoxic effects of cancer treatment and about FP and the decision-making process and to obtain their recommendation for improvements. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with female patients with cancer who had received a counselling consultation on FP (at 18-40 years of age). RESULTS: Thirty-four interviews were held (response rate 64%). Information provision was considered to be important. Overall, women were satisfied with the timing and the content of the information, but women were less positive about the need to be assertive to get information, and the multiplicity of decisions and actions to be carried out in a very short time frame. CONCLUSIONS: Information provision on gonadotoxic effects of cancer treatment and about FP was overall deemed sufficient, timely and important. Women recommended standardization of the information provision, improvement of communication among clinicians and medical centres, and availability of FP-specific patient information materials to improve future information provision processes.

Decision aids that support decisions about prenatal testing for Down syndrome: an environmental scan.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal screening tests for Down syndrome (DS) are routine in many developed countries and new tests are rapidly becoming available. Decisions about prenatal screening are increasingly complex with each successive test, and pregnant women need information about risks and benefits as well as clarity about their values. Decision aids (DAs) can help healthcare providers support women in this decision. Using an environmental scan, we aimed to identify publicly available DAs focusing on prenatal screening/diagnosis for Down syndrome that provide effective support for decision making. METHODS: Data sources searched were the Decision Aids Library Inventory (DALI) of the Ottawa Patient Decision Aids Research Group at the Ottawa Health Research Institute; Google searches on the internet; professional organizations, academic institutions and other experts in the field; and references in existing systematic reviews on DAs. Eligible DAs targeted pregnant women, focused on prenatal screening and/or diagnosis, applied to tests for fetal abnormalities or aneuploidies, and were in French, English, Spanish or Portuguese. Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible DAs and extracted characteristics including the presence of practical decision support tools and features to aid comprehension. They then performed quality assessment using the 16 minimum standards established by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDASi v4.0). RESULTS: Of 543 potentially eligible DAs (512 in DALI, 27 from experts, and four on the internet), 23 were eligible and 20 were available for data extraction. DAs were developed from 1996 to 2013 in six countries (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and France). Five DAs were for prenatal screening, three for prenatal diagnosis and 12 for both). Eight contained values clarification methods (personal worksheets). The 20 DAs scored a median of 10/16 (range 6-15) on the 16 IPDAS minimum standards. DISCUSSION: None of the 20 included DAs met all 16 IPDAS minimum standards, and few included practical decision support tools or aids to comprehension. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate there is a need for DAs that effectively support decision making regarding prenatal testing for Down syndrome, especially in light of the recently available non-invasive prenatal screening tests.

Validation of a Dutch Version of the Reproductive Concerns Scale (RCS) in Three Populations of Women.

We investigated the psychometric properties of a Dutch version of the Reproductive Concerns Scale (RCS). Questionnaires (N = 515) were administered to 90 women with breast cancer, 227 women with fertility problems, and 198 healthy controls. Principal axis factor analysis suggested a one-factor structure with 11 items (breast cancer patients R(2) =.48, α =.87, ICC =.95; women with fertility problems R(2) =.45, α =.89, ICC =.86). Women with fertility problems reported the most concerns (M = 21.8, SD = 9.6), followed by breast cancer patients (M = 14.8, SD = 10.0) and healthy controls (M = 6.4, SD = 7.0). Theoretically related constructs were correlated to the RCS (.33 < r >.73). The RCS seems to be a valid tool for assessing women's reproductive concerns.

Values clarification in a decision aid about fertility preservation: does it add to information provision?

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the effect of a decision aid (DA) with information only compared to a DA with values clarification exercise (VCE), and to study the role of personality and information seeking style in DA-use, decisional conflict (DC) and knowledge. METHODS: Two scenario-based experiments were conducted with two different groups of healthy female participants. Dependent measures were: DC, knowledge, and DA-use (time spent, pages viewed, VCE used). Respondents were randomized between a DA with information only (VCE-) and a DA with information plus a VCE(VCE+) (experiment 1), or between information only (VCE-), information plus VCE without referral to VCE(VCE+), and information plus a VCE with specific referral to the VCE, requesting participants to use the VCE(VCE++) (experiment 2). In experiment 2 we additionally measured personality (neuroticism/conscientiousness) and information seeking style (monitoring/blunting). RESULTS: Experiment 1. There were no differences in DC, knowledge or DA-use between VCE- (n=70) and VCE+ (n=70). Both DAs lead to a mean gain in knowledge from 39% at baseline to 73% after viewing the DA. Within VCE+, VCE-users (n=32, 46%) reported less DC compared to non-users. Since there was no difference in DC between VCE- and VCE+, this is likely an effect of VCE-use in a self-selected group, and not of the VCE per se. Experiment 2. There were no differences in DC or knowledge between VCE- (n=65), VCE+ (n=66), VCE++ (n=66). In all groups, knowledge increased on average from 42% at baseline to 72% after viewing the DA. Blunters viewed fewer DA-pages (R=0.38, p<.001). More neurotic women were less certain (R=0.18, p<.01) and felt less supported in decision making (R=0.15, p<.05); conscientious women felt more certain (R=-0.15, p<.05) and had more knowledge after viewing the DA (R=0.15, p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both DAs lead to increased knowledge in healthy populations making hypothetical decisions, and use of the VCE did not improve knowledge or DC. Personality characteristics were associated to some extent with DA-use, information seeking styles with aspects of DC. More research is needed to make clear recommendations regarding the need for tailoring of information provision to personality characteristics, and to assess the effect of VCE use in actual patients.

For which decisions is Shared Decision Making considered appropriate? - A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify decision characteristics for which SDM authors deem SDM appropriate or not, and what arguments are used. METHODS: We applied two search strategies: we included SDM models from an earlier review (strategy 1) and conducted a new search in eight databases to include papers other than describing an SDM model, such as original research, opinion papers and reviews (strategy 2). RESULTS: From the 92 included papers, we identified 18 decision characteristics for which authors deemed SDM appropriate, including preference-sensitive, equipoise and decisions where patient commitment is needed in implementing the decision. SDM authors indicated limits to SDM, especially when there are immediate life-saving measures needed. We identified four decision characteristics on which authors of different papers disagreed on whether or not SDM is appropriate. CONCLUSION: The findings of this review show the broad range of decision characteristics for which authors deem SDM appropriate, the ambiguity of some, and potential limits of SDM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The findings can stimulate clinicians to (re)consider pursuing SDM in situations in which they did not before. Additionally, it can inform SDM campaigns and educational programs as it shows for which decision situations SDM might be more or less challenging to practice.

Barriers and facilitators of meaningful patient participation at the collective level in healthcare organizations: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Collective patient participation, such as patient participation in policy making, has become increasingly important to achieve high-quality care. However, there is little knowledge on how to let patients participate in a meaningful manner at this level. The aim of this systematic literature review was to provide an overview of barriers, facilitators, and associated impact of collective patient participation. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched until May 2023 for studies that evaluated collective patient participation. Study characteristics, methods for patient participation, barriers and facilitators, and impact (if measured) of patient participation were extracted from the articles. RESULTS: We included 59 articles. Identified barriers and facilitators of collective patient participation were grouped into five categories: (1) preconditions for patient participation, (2) strategy for patient participation, (3) preparation of patients and staff for patient participation, (4) support for patients and staff during patient participation, and (5) evaluation of patient participation. Impact of patient participation was reported in 34 included studies at three levels: quality of care and research, the team and organization, and the participants themselves. Only three studies reported quantitative outcomes. CONCLUSION: Interestingly, similar challenges were experienced during a period of twenty years, indicating that little progress has been made in structuring patient participation. Our overview of barriers and facilitators will therefore help to improve and structure collective patient participation.

A Delphi consensus study among patients and clinicians in the Netherlands on the procedure of informing young breast cancer patients about Fertility Preservation.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to obtain feedback from, and reach consensus among different experts who are or have been involved in information provision about FP, regarding the (procedure of) information provision about Fertility Preservation (FP) and use of a web-based decision aid (DA) about FP to create optimal conditions for the implementation of the DA-website, as we prepare to implement a DA about FP in the Netherlands. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A two round Delphi study in which experts (patients and clinicians) rated their (dis)agreement with a list of statements (Rounds 1, 2), and additional online forum to discuss dissensus (Round 3). We assessed opinions about FP, web-based DAs, and about the procedure of informing patients. Answer categories ranged from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Consensus was considered significant when at least 80% of the experts scored either the lowest or the highest two categories. RESULTS: Experts reached rapid consensus on all five statements about the use of a DA (5/5; 100%), and all eight statements about which patients should be offered information about FP (8/8; 100%). However opinions about FP (4/11 statements; 36%), and procedural aspects such as who should inform the patient (6/10 statements; 60%) and when (3/10 statements; 30%) remained for discussion in round 3. In the online discussion some level of agreement was reached for these statements after all. CONCLUSION: It was deemed important that FP options exist. Every eligible patient should receive at least some (general) information about FP, soon after diagnosis. Detailed information should be provided by a fertility expert at a later moment. Exact timing and amount of information should be adjusted to patient's needs and situational context. A DA-website can offer a fair contribution to this.

Shared decision-making and person-centred care approaches in three African regions.

Five years ago, we published a 'wake-up' paper on shared decision-making (SDM) in West Africa. In the current paper, our overview has been expanded to more African regions (central and north, in addition to the west) as well as to person-centred care (PCC) approaches. While these concepts are known in all regions to varying degrees, results indicate that most known SDM and PCC efforts originate from West Africa. In general, the focus seems to be predominantly on partnership-driven healthcare programs, such as COVID-19 infection; HIV/AIDS and maternal/neonatal care; and patient-provider communication and patient participation instead of comprehensive SDM approaches. The findings also indicate the absence of SDM training for African health professionals beyond specific healthcare programs, but some education on decision-making or critical appraisal of health information in primary or undergraduate health schools is carried out in certain African countries. Building on these sectoral initiatives, future directions include developing research and training programs in the perspective of scaling effective approaches.

Mapping the extent, range and nature of research activity on value-based healthcare in the 15 years following its introduction (2006-2021): a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically map the extent, range and nature of research activity on value-based healthcare (VBHC), and to identify research gaps. DESIGN: A scoping review with an additional cited reference search was conducted, guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. DATA SOURCES: The search was undertaken in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible articles mentioned VBHC or value with reference to the work of Porter or provided a definition of VBHC or value. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were independently extracted using a data extraction form. Two independent reviewers double extracted data from 10% of the articles. Data of the remaining articles (90%) were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The strategic agenda of Porter and Lee was used to categorise the included articles. RESULTS: The searches yielded a total of 27,931 articles, of which 1,242 were analysed. Most articles were published in North America. Most articles described an application of VBHC by measuring outcomes and costs (agenda item 2). The other agenda items were far less frequently described or implemented. Most of these articles were conceptual, meaning that nothing was actually changed or implemented. CONCLUSION: The number of publications increased steadily after the introduction of VBHC in 2006. Almost one-fifth of the articles could not be categorised in one of the items of the strategic agenda, which may lead to the conclusion that the current strategic agenda could be extended. In addition, a practical roadmap or guideline to implement VBHC is still lacking. Future research could fill this gap by specifically studying the effectiveness of VBHC in day-to-day clinical practice.

Effectiveness and implementation of SHared decision-making supported by OUTcome information among patients with breast cancer, stroke and advanced kidney disease: SHOUT study protocol of multiple interrupted time series.

INTRODUCTION: Within the value-based healthcare framework, outcome data can be used to inform patients about (treatment) options, and empower them to make shared decisions with their health care professional. To facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) supported by outcome data, a multicomponent intervention has been designed, including patient decision aids on the organisation of post-treatment surveillance (breast cancer); discharge location (stroke) and treatment modality (advanced kidney disease), and training on SDM for health care professionals. The SHared decision-making supported by OUTcome information (SHOUT) study will examine the effectiveness of the intervention and its implementation in clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Multiple interrupted time series will be used to stepwise implement the intervention. Patients diagnosed with either breast cancer (N=630), stroke (N=630) or advanced kidney disease (N=473) will be included. Measurements will be performed at baseline, three (stroke), six and twelve (breast cancer and advanced kidney disease) months. Trends on outcomes will be measured over a period of 20 months. The primary outcome will be patients' perceived level of involvement in decision-making. Secondary outcomes regarding effectiveness will include patient-reported SDM, decisional conflict, role in decision-making, knowledge, quality of life, preferred and chosen care, satisfaction with the intervention, healthcare utilisation and health outcomes. Outcomes regarding implementation will include the implementation rate and a questionnaire on the health care professionals' perspective on the implementation process. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical research Ethics Committees United in Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, has confirmed that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act does not apply to this study. Bureau Onderzoek & Innovatie of Santeon, the Netherlands, approved this study. The results will contribute to insight in and knowledge on the use of outcome data for SDM, and can stimulate sustainable implementation of SDM. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8374, NL8375 and NL8376.

Engaging Caregivers in Health-Related Housing Decisions for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Informal caregivers are rarely as involved as they want to be in the housing decisions of cognitively impaired older adults. Lack of awareness of available options and their benefits and risks may lead to decisions that do not reflect older adults' preferences, and to guilt and regret. We assessed the effect of training home care teams in interprofessional shared decision-making (SDM) on the proportion of caregivers who report being active in this decision. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a two-arm pragmatic cluster randomized trial with home care teams working in health centers in the Province of Quebec, we randomized health centers to receive training in interprofessional SDM (intervention) or not (control). Eligible caregivers had made a housing decision for a cognitively impaired adult aged 65 years or older who was receiving services from a home care team. The primary outcome was the proportion of caregivers reporting an active role in decision making. We performed intention-to-treat multilevel analysis. RESULTS: We consecutively enrolled a random group of 16 health centers and recruited 309 caregivers, among whom 296 were included in the analysis. In the intervention arm, the proportion of caregivers reporting an active role in decision making increased by 12% (95% CI -2% to 27%; p = .10). After removal of an influential cluster outlier, the proportion increased to 18% (95% CI: 7%-29%; p < .01). DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Training home care teams in interprofessional SDM increased caregiver involvement in health-related housing decisions for cognitively impaired older adults.

Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years: The Anniversary Review.

Background. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) measures 5 dimensions of decision making (feeling: uncertain, uninformed, unclear about values, unsupported; ineffective decision making). We examined the use of the DCS over its initial 20 years (1995 to 2015). Methods. We conducted a scoping review with backward citation search in Google Analytics/Web of Science/PubMed, followed by keyword searches in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PRO-Quest, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data (total/subscales). Author dyads independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative data synthesis. Results. We included 394 articles. DCS use appeared to increase over time. Three hundred nine studies (76%) used the original DCS, and 29 (7%) used subscales only. Most studies used the DCS to evaluate the impact of decision support interventions (n = 238, 59%). The DCS was translated into 13 languages. Most decisions were made by people for themselves (n = 353, 87%), about treatment (n = 225, 55%), or testing (n = 91, 23%). The most common decision contexts were oncology (n = 113, 28%) and primary care (n = 82, 20%). Conclusions. This is the first study to descriptively synthesize characteristics of DCS data. Use of the DCS as an outcome measure for health decision interventions has increased over its 20-year existence, demonstrating its relevance as a decision-making evaluation measure. Most studies failed to report when decisional conflict was measured during the decision-making process, making scores difficult to interpret. Findings from this study will be used to update the DCS user manual.

Decisional Conflict Scale Findings among Patients and Surrogates Making Health Decisions: Part II of an Anniversary Review.

Background. We explored decisional conflict as measured with the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and how it varies across clinical situations, decision types, and exposure to decision support interventions (DESIs). Methods. An exhaustive scoping review was conducted using backward citation searches and keyword searches. Eligible studies were published between 1995 and March 2015, used an original experimental/observational research design, concerned a health-related decision, and provided DCS data. Dyads independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, and extracted data. We performed narrative syntheses and calculated average or median DCS scores. Results. We included 246 articles reporting on 253 studies. DCS scores ranged from 2.4 to 89.6 out of 100. Highest baseline DCS scores were for care planning (30.5 ± 12.8, median = 30.9) and treatment decisions (30.5 ± 14.6, median = 28.0), in contexts of primary care (33.8 ± 19.8), obstetrics/gynecology (28.8 ± 10.4), and geriatrics (32.6 ± 10.7). Baseline scores were high among decision makers who were ill (29.5 ± 13.8, median = 27.2) or making decisions for themselves (29.7 ± 14.8, median = 26.9). Total DCS scores <25 out of 100 were associated with implementing decisions. Without DESIs, DCS scores tended to increase shortly after decision making (>37.4). After DESI use, DCS scores decreased short-term but increased or remained the same long-term (>6 months). Conclusions. DCS scores were highest at baseline and decreased after decision making. DESIs decreased decisional conflict immediately after decision making. The largest improvements after DESIs were in decision makers who were ill, male, or made decisions for themselves. Meta-analyses focusing on decision types, contexts, and interventions could inform hypotheses about the expected effects of DESIs, the best timing for measurement, and interpretation of DCS scores.

"Please listen to me": A cross-sectional study of experiences of seniors and their caregivers making housing decisions.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the decision-making experiences of seniors and informal caregivers facing decisions about seniors' housing decisions when objective decision making measures are used. OBJECTIVES: To report on seniors' and caregivers' experiences of housing decisions. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach supplemented by qualitative data. SETTING: Sixteen health jurisdictions providing home care services, Quebec province, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Two separate samples of seniors aged ≥ 65 years and informal caregivers of cognitively impaired seniors who had made a decision about housing. MEASUREMENTS: Information on preferred choice and actual choice about housing, role assumed in the decision, decisional conflict and decision regret was obtained through closed-ended questionnaires. Research assistants paraphrased participants' narratives about their decision-making experiences and made other observations in standardized logbooks. RESULTS: Thirty-one seniors (median age: 85.5 years) and 48 caregivers (median age: 65.1 years) were recruited. Both seniors and caregivers preferred that the senior stay at home (64.5% and 71.7% respectively). Staying home was the actual choice for only 32.2% of participating seniors and 36.2% of the seniors cared for by the participating caregivers. Overall, 93% seniors and 71% caregivers reported taking an active or collaborative role in the decision-making process. The median decisional conflict score was 23/100 for seniors and 30/100 for caregivers. The median decision regret score was the same for both (10/100). Qualitative analysis revealed that the housing decision was influenced by factors such as seniors' health and safety concerns and caregivers' burden of care. Some caregivers felt sad and guilty when the decision did not match the senior's preference. CONCLUSION: The actual housing decision made for seniors frequently did not match their preferred housing option. Advanced care planning regarding housing and better decision support are needed for these difficult decisions.

Feasibility and effects of a decision aid about fertility preservation.

This paper reports on the feasibility and preliminary effects of a decision aid (DA) about female fertility preservation (FP). We conducted a pilot multicentre randomized controlled trial of women with breast cancer aged 18-40 who were randomized to brochures or the DA. Over 18 months, 62 women were eligible, of which 42 were invited by their healthcare provider (74%) to participate in the study. A total of 36 women signed up for participation and 26 (72%) were randomized to brochures (n = 13) or the DA (n = 13). In both groups, many women (87%) read the brochures and eight women used all available brochures. In the intervention group, 7/13 women logged in to the DA. Women who received brochures had slightly less decisional conflict, whereas knowledge improved in both groups. Our results indicate that both brochures about FP and a detailed DA have beneficial effects with regard to knowledge, but the DA seemed to introduce slightly more decisional conflict (DC) than the brochures. Although we encountered challenges with recruitment, our design and measurements seem feasible and the effects of the information materials seem promising, hence justifying conducting a larger study.

A Synthesis Of Knowledge About Caregiver Decision Making Finds Gaps In Support For Those Who Care For Aging Loved Ones.

We conducted a mixed-methods knowledge synthesis to assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve caregivers' involvement in decision making with seniors, and to describe caregivers' experiences of decision making in the absence of interventions. We analyzed forty-nine qualitative, fourteen quantitative, and three mixed-methods studies. The qualitative studies indicated that caregivers had unmet needs for information, discussions of values and needs, and decision support, which led to negative sentiments after decision making. Our results indicate that there have been insufficient quantitative evaluations of interventions to involve caregivers in decision making with seniors and that the evaluations that do exist found few clinically significant effects. Elements of usual care that received positive evaluations were the availability of a decision coach and a supportive decision-making environment. Additional rigorously evaluated interventions are needed to help caregivers be more involved in decision making with seniors.

Development of a decision aid for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A four stage method using a Delphi consensus study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a web-based decision aid (DA) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH). METHODS: From February-September 2014 we performed a four-stage development method: 1: Two-round Delphi consensus method among urologists, 2: Identifying patients' needs and expectations, 3: Development of DA content and structure, 4: Usability testing with LUTS/BPH patients. RESULTS: 1 (N=15): Dutch urologists reached consensus on 61% of the statements concerning users' criteria, decision options, structure, and medical content. 2 (N=24): Consensus was reached in 69% on statements concerning the need for improvement of information provision, the need for DA development and that the DA should clarify patients' preferences. 3: DA development based on results from stage 1 and stage 2. 4 (N=10): Pros of the DA were clear information provision, systematic design and easy to read and re-read. CONCLUSION: A LUTS/BPH DA containing VCEs(**) was developed in cooperation with urologists and patients following a structured 4 stage method and was stated to be well accepted. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This method can be adopted for the development of DAs to support other medical decision issues.

Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: For the elderly to get the care and services they need, they may need to make the difficult decision about staying in their home or moving to another home. Many other people may be involved in their care too (friends, family and healthcare providers), and can support them in making the decision. We asked informal caregivers of elderly people to help us develop a decision guide to support them and their loved ones in making this decision. This guide will be used by health providers in home care who are trained to help people make decisions. The guide is in French and English. To design and test this decision guide we involved elderly people, their caregivers and health administrators. We first asked them what they needed for making the decision, and then designed a first version of the guide. Then we asked them to look at it and give feedback, which was used to make the final version. We then used scientific criteria to check its content and the language used. The final decision guide was acceptable to the caregivers, their elderly loved ones, and the health administrators. The guide is currently being evaluated in a large research project with home care teams in the province of Quebec. ABSTRACT: Background As they grow older, many elderly people are faced with the difficult and preference-sensitive decision about staying in their home or moving to a residence better adapted to their evolving care needs. We aimed to develop an English and French decision aid (DA) for elderly people facing this decision, and to involve end-users in all phases of the development process. Methods A three-cycle design with involvement of end-users in Quebec. End-users were elderly people (n = 4) caregivers of the elderly (n = 5), health administrators involved in home-care service delivery or policy (n = 6) and an interprofessional research team (n = 19). Cycle 1: Decisional needs assessment and development of the first prototype based on existing tools and input from end-users; overview of reviews examining the impact of location of care on elderly people's health outcomes. Cycle 2: Usability testing with end-users, adaptation of prototype. Cycle 3: Refinement of the prototype with a linguist, graphic designer and end-users. The final prototype underwent readability testing and an International Patient Decision Aids (IPDAS) criteria compatibility assessment to verify minimal requirements for decision aids and was tested for usability by the elderly. ResultsCycle 1: We used the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide to design a first prototype. As the overview of reviews did not find definitive evidence regarding optimal locations of care for elderly people, we were not able to add evidence-based advantages and disadvantages to the guide. Cycle 2: Overall, the caregivers and health administrators who evaluated the prototype (n = 10) were positive. In response to their suggestions, we deleted some elements (overview of pros, cons, and consequences of the options) that were necessary to qualify the tool as a DA and renamed it a "decision guide". Cycle 3: We developed French and English versions of the guide, readable at a primary school level. The elderly judged the guide as acceptable. Conclusion We developed a decision guide to support elderly people and their caregivers in decision making about location of care. This paper is one of few to report on a fully collaborative approach to decision guide development that involves end-users at every stage (caregivers and health administrators early on, the frail elderly in the final stages). The guide is currently being evaluated in a cluster randomized trial. Trial registration: NCT02244359.