The role of mental well-being in the effects of persuasive health messages: A scoping review.

Emerging evidence in health communication and psychology suggests that a) exposure to specific persuasive health messages can have unintended effects on the mental well-being of recipients and b) recipients' mental well-being before exposure can influence message processing. Available evidence regarding the relationship between mental well-being and exposure to specific health messages lacks consistency and is scattered across different fields. This scoping review of 24 publications summarizes what is known about mental health effects in health communication and provides a research agenda for future work. Among others, key findings suggest that particularly negative emotional appeals may have broad, negative effects on indicators of hedonic well-being. Further, humor and gain appeals may positively impact mental well-being, although positive message features are strongly understudied in this space. Lower mental well-being prior to message exposure may impact message processing, but not necessarily message effectiveness. We find that potential well-being effects of health communication have been largely ignored, especially outside the realm of mental health research. Yet, initial evidence does underline the importance of such inquiry. This review summarizes initial evidence of systematic, unintended effects of health messaging on mental well-being and highlights fruitful avenues for future work in this space.

The influence of health literacy, anxiety and education on shared decision making and decisional conflict in older adults, and the mediating role of patient participation: A video observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between personal characteristics of older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) and perceived shared decision making (SDM) resp. decisional conflict. METHODS: In a video-observational study (N = 213) data were collected on personal characteristics. The main outcomes were perceived level of SDM and decisional conflict. The mediating variable was participation in the SDM process. A twostep mixed effect multilinear regression and a mediation analysis were performed to analyze the data. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 77.3 years and 56.3% were female. Health literacy (ß.01, p < .001) was significantly associated with participation in the SDM process. Education (ß = -2.43, p = .05) and anxiety (ß = -.26, p = .058) had a marginally significant direct effect on the patients' perceived level of SDM. Education (ß = 12.12, p = .002), health literacy (ß = -.70, p = .005) and anxiety (ß = 1.19, p = .004) had a significant direct effect on decisional conflict. The effect of health literacy on decisional conflict was mediated by participation in SDM. CONCLUSION: Health literacy, anxiety and education are associated with decisional conflict. Participation in SDM during consultations plays a mediating role in the relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Tailoring SDM communication to health literacy levels is important for high quality SDM.

Combining user-centered design and behavioral theory to enhance health technologies: A personas-based approach for a primary-care based multifactorial falls risk assessment tool.

INTRODUCTION: Multifactorial falls risk assessment tools (FRATs) can be an effective falls prevention method for older adults, but are often underutilized by health care professionals (HCPs). This study aims to enhance the use and implementation of multifactorial FRATs by combining behavioral theory with the user-centered design (UCD) method of personas construction. Specifically, the study aimed to (1) construct personas that are based on external (i.e., needs, preferences) and intrinsic user characteristics (i.e., behavioral determinants); and (2) use these insights to inform requirements for optimizing an existing Dutch multifactorial FRAT (i.e., the 'Valanalyse'). METHODS: Survey data from HCPs (n = 31) was used to construct personas of the 'Valanalyse.' To examine differences between clusters on 68 clustering variables, a multivariate cluster analysis technique with non-parametric analyses and computational methods was used. The aggregated external and intrinsic user characteristics of personas were used to inform key design and implementation requirements for the 'Valanalyse,' respectively, whereby intrinsic user characteristics were matched with appropriate behavior change techniques to guide implementation. RESULTS: Significant differences between clusters were observed in 20 clustering variables (e.g., behavioral beliefs, situations for use). These variables were used to construct six personas representing users of each cluster. Together, the six personas helped operationalize four key design requirements (e.g., guide treatment-related decision making) and 14 implementation strategies (e.g., planning coping responses) for optimizing the 'Valanalyse' in Dutch geriatric, primary care settings. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that theory- and evidence-based personas that encompass both external and intrinsic user characteristics are a useful method for understanding how the use and implementation of multifactorial FRATs can be optimized with and for HCPs, providing important implications for developers and eHealth interventions with regards to encouraging technology adoption.

Patient values in patient-provider communication about participation in early phase clinical cancer trials: a qualitative analysis before and after implementation of an online value clarification tool intervention.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer who no longer have standard treatment options available may decide to participate in early phase clinical trials (i.e. experimental treatments with uncertain outcomes). Shared decision-making (SDM) models help to understand considerations that influence patients' decision. Discussion of patient values is essential to SDM, but such communication is often limited in this context and may require new interventions. The OnVaCT intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) for patients and communication training for oncologists, was previously developed to support SDM. This study aimed to qualitatively explore associations between patient values that are discussed between patients and oncologists during consultations about potential participation in early phase clinical trials before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. METHODS: This study is part of a prospective multicentre nonrandomized controlled clinical trial and had a between-subjects design: pre-intervention patients received usual care, while post-intervention patients additionally received the OnVaCT. Oncologists participated in the communication training between study phases. Patients' initial consultation on potential early phase clinical trial participation was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Applying a directed approach, two independent coders analysed the transcripts using an initial codebook based on previous studies. Steps of continuous evaluation and revision were repeated until data saturation was reached. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after 32 patient-oncologist consultations (i.e. 17 pre-intervention and 15 post-intervention). The analysis revealed the values: hope, perseverance, quality or quantity of life, risk tolerance, trust in the healthcare system/professionals, autonomy, social adherence, altruism, corporeality, acceptance of one's fate, and humanity. Patients in the pre-intervention phase tended to express values briefly and spontaneously. Oncologists acknowledged the importance of patients' values, but generally only gave 'contrasting' examples of why some accept and others refuse to participate in trials. In the post-intervention phase, many oncologists referred to the OnVaCT and/or asked follow-up questions, while patients used longer phrases that combined multiple values, sometimes clearly indicating their weighing. CONCLUSIONS: While all values were recognized in both study phases, our results have highlighted the different communication patterns around patient values in SDM for potential early phase clinical trial participation before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. This study therefore provides a first (qualitative) indication that the OnVaCT intervention may support patients and oncologists in discussing their values. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry: NL7335, registered on July 17, 2018.

Are They Important? Patients' Communication Barriers to Discussing Online Health Information During Consultations.

A minority of the patients who search for online health information report discussing or having an intention to discuss this information with their healthcare provider. Not discussing online health information inhibits the provision of patient-centered care and limits the healthcare provider's possibility to tackle misinformation. Within the confines of the linguistic model of patient participation, we first provide an overview of barriers to discussing online health information during consultations. Second, we pinpoint which of these barriers indicate a need for improvement. Participants from the Netherlands (N = 300) completed a survey that measured the communication barriers (N = 15) as identified based on previous literature and interviews. Using the QUality Of Care Through the patient's Eyes (QUOTE) approach, we measured the extent to which a specific factor was a barrier ("importance") and assessed whether the barrier would withhold patients from discussing online health information ("performance"). Scores on importance and performance were multiplied to identify which barriers show the most significant room for improvement. Especially "preferring to discuss other matters" often occurred. Nine barriers showed a moderate need for improvement. We discuss the implications of these findings for healthcare providers in consultations. Future research should include observational data to analyze communication barriers to discussing online health information in consultations.

Accentuating patient values in shared decision-making: A mixed methods development of an online value clarification tool and communication training in the context of early phase clinical cancer trials.

OBJECTIVE: In the shared decision-making (SDM) process for potential early phase clinical cancer trial participation, value clarification is highly recommended. However, exploration and discussion of patient values between patients and oncologists remains limited. This study aims to develop an SDM-supportive intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) and a communication training. METHODS: The OnVaCT intervention was developed and pilot-tested by combining theoretical notions on value clarification, with interview studies with patients and oncologists, focus groups with patient representatives and oncologists, and think aloud sessions with patients, following the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions. These human-centered methodologies enabled a user-centered approach at every step of the development process of the intervention. RESULTS: This study shows relevant patient values and oncologists' perspectives on value exploration and discussion in daily practice. This has been combined with theoretical considerations into the creation of characters based on real-life experiences of patients in the OnVaCT, and how the tool is combined with a communication training for oncologists to improve SDM.

Supporting older patients in making healthcare decisions: The effectiveness of decision aids; A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of Decision Aids (DAs) compared to usual care or alternative interventions for older patients facing treatment, screening, or care decisions. METHODS: A systematic search of several databases was conducted. Eligible studies included patients ≥ 65 years or reported a mean of ≥ 70 years. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice made and decision making process, user experience and ways in which DAs were tailored to older patients. Meta-analysis was conducted, if possible, or outcomes were synthesized descriptively. RESULTS: Overall, 15 studies were included. Using DAs were effective in increasing knowledge (SMD 0.90; 95% CI [0.48, 1.32]), decreasing decisional conflict (SMD -0.15; 95% CI [-0.29, -0.01]), improving patient-provider communication (RR 1.67; 95% CI [1.21, 2.29]), and preparing patients to make an individualized decision (MD 35.7%; 95% CI [26.8, 44.6]). Nine studies provided details on how the DA was tailored to older patients. CONCLUSION: This review shows a number of favourable results for the effectiveness of DAs in decision making with older patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Current DAs can be used to support shared decision making with older patients when faced with treatment, screening or care decisions.

Effects of a clinical decision support system and patient portal for preventing medication-related falls in older fallers: Protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations (ADFICE_IT).

BACKGROUND: Falls are the leading cause of injury-related mortality and hospitalization among adults aged ≥ 65 years. An important modifiable fall-risk factor is use of fall-risk increasing drugs (FRIDs). However, deprescribing is not always attempted or performed successfully. The ADFICE_IT trial evaluates the combined use of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) and a patient portal for optimizing the deprescribing of FRIDs in older fallers. The intervention aims to optimize and enhance shared decision making (SDM) and consequently prevent injurious falls and reduce healthcare-related costs. METHODS: A multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial with process evaluation will be conducted among hospitals in the Netherlands. We aim to include 856 individuals aged ≥ 65 years that visit the falls clinic due to a fall. The intervention comprises the combined use of a CDSS and a patient portal. The CDSS provides guideline-based advice with regard to deprescribing and an individual fall-risk estimation, as calculated by an embedded prediction model. The patient portal provides educational information and a summary of the patient's consultation. Hospitals in the control arm will provide care-as-usual. Fall-calendars will be used for measuring the time to first injurious fall (primary outcome) and secondary fall outcomes during one year. Other measurements will be conducted at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months and include quality of life, cost-effectiveness, feasibility, and shared decision-making measures. Data will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Difference in time to injurious fall between the intervention and control group will be analyzed using multilevel Cox regression. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study will add valuable insights about how digital health informatics tools that target physicians and older adults can optimize deprescribing and support SDM. We expect the CDSS and patient portal to aid in deprescribing of FRIDs, resulting in a reduction in falls and related injuries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05449470 (7-7-2022).

Effects of a shared decision making intervention for older adults with multiple chronic conditions: the DICO study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effects of a shared decision making (SDM) intervention for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). METHODS: A pragmatic trial evaluated the effects of the SDMMCC intervention, existing of SDM training for nine geriatricians in two hospitals and a preparatory tool for patients. A prospective pre-intervention post-intervention multi-center clinical study was conducted in which an usual care group of older patients with MCC and their informal caregivers was included before the implementation of the intervention and a new cohort of patients and informal caregivers after the implementation of the intervention. SDM was observed using the OPTIONMCC during video-recorded consultations. Patient- and caregivers reported outcomes regarding their role in SDM, involvement, perceived SDM and decisional conflict were measured. The differences between groups regarding the level of observed SDM (OPTIONMCC) were analyzed with a mixed model analysis. Dichotomous patient-reported outcomes were analyzed with a logistic mixed model. RESULTS: From two outpatient geriatric clinics 216 patients with MCCs participated. The mean age was 77.3 years, and 56.3% of patients were female. No significant difference was found in the overall level of SDM as measured with the OPTIONMCC or in patient-reported outcomes. However, at item level the items discussing 'goals', 'options', and 'decision making' significantly improved after the intervention. The items discussing 'partnership' and 'evaluating the decision-making process' showed a significant decrease. Fifty-two percent of the patients completed the preparatory tool, but the results were only discussed in 12% of the consultations. CONCLUSION: This study provides scope for improvement of SDM in geriatrics. Engaging older adults with MCCs and informal caregivers in the decision making process should be an essential part of SDM training for geriatricians, beyond the SDM steps of explaining options, benefits and harms. More attention should be paid to the integration of preparatory work in the consultation.

Investigating the feasibility of idiographic network models.

Recent times have seen a call for personalized psychotherapy and tailored communication during treatment, leading to the necessity to model the complex dynamics of mental disorders in a single subject. To this aim, time-series data in one patient can be collected through ecological momentary assessment and analyzed with the graphical vector autoregressive model, estimating temporal and contemporaneous idiographic networks. Idiographic networks graph interindividual processes that may be potentially used to tailor psychotherapy and provide personalized feedback to clients and are regarded as a promising tool for clinical practice. However, the question whether we can reliably estimate them in clinical settings remains unanswered. We conducted a large-scale simulation study in the context of psychopathology, testing the performance of personalized networks with different numbers of time points, percentages of missing data, and estimation methods. Results indicate that sensitivity is low with sample sizes feasible for clinical practice (75 and 100 time points). It seems possible to retrieve the global network structure but not to recover the full network. Estimating temporal networks appears particularly challenging; thus, with 75 and 100 observations, it is advisable to reduce the number of nodes to around six variables. With regard to missing data, full information maximum likelihood and the Kalman filter are effective in addressing random item-level missing data; consequently, planned missingness is a valid method to deal with missing data. We discuss possible methodological and clinical solutions to the challenges raised in this work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Profiling Cancer Patients Based on Their Motives for Seeking Informational and Emotional Support Online.

Understanding why patients seek informational and/or emotional support online is fundamental to providing patients with accurate and reliable support that is tailored to their needs, preferences, and personal situation. Based on the stress and coping theory and uses and gratifications theory (UGT), this study aimed to identify theoretically-founded profiles of cancer patients differing in their motives for seeking informational and/or emotional support online, and to compare the profiles in terms of patients' psychological and background characteristics, and perception of health care services. Hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted, using questionnaire data from patients visiting a large Dutch health website (N = 181). This revealed three distinctive profiles, i.e., overall seekers (n = 83, 46.0%), occasional information seekers (n = 83, 46.0%), and contact exchangers (n = 15, 8.0%). Patients across these profiles differed in their eHealth literacy, with the contact exchangers being more eHealth literate than the overall seekers and occasional information seekers. The results can be used to create awareness among health care providers, web designers, and patient organizations on different types of cancer patients with different motives for seeking informational and/or emotional support online, and help them to tailor recommendations to and development of (online) sources that fit patients' needs. Future research could further investigate the integration of stress and coping theory with UGT by acknowledging the interplay of different coping strategies and different gratifications.

General Practitioners' needs and wishes for clinical decision support Systems: A focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) can be beneficial for patients, healthcare professionals, but is often not applied in practice. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) can facilitate SDM. However, CDSS acceptance rates are rather low. One context in which SDM between a general practitioner (GP) and patient regarding medication can be of great value is older patients' medication-related fall risk. Applying user-centered design to optimally tailor the CDSS to the needs and wishes of GPs can help overcome the low CDSS-acceptance rates. The current study aims to learn GPs' needs and wishes for a CDSS focused on diminishing medication-related fall risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were recruited through the Amsterdam Academic Network of General Practice and were sent a web-lecture as preparation. Three online focus groups with a total of 13 GPs were performed and were led by two moderators. The focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed using Atlas.ti. RESULTS: GPs' views on the workflow, risk presentation and advice of the system were elicited. The fit with the GPs' workflow was elaborately discussed, for instance how the CDSS could support the selection of patients at risk. GPs articulated a strong preference for a visual risk presentation, in the form of a gradient scale ranging from bright green to dark red. Furthermore, they preferred receiving both medication-related and non-medication-related advice, which should be presented on request. DISCUSSION: The findings provide a valuable insight into GPs' needs and wishes for a CDSS focused on medication-related fall prevention. This will inform the design of a first prototype of the CDSS which will be subjected to usability tests. The findings of this study can also be used to support the development of medication-related CDSSs in a broader context.

Core values of patients with advanced cancer considering participation in an early-phase clinical trial: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This article identifies the core values that play a role in patients' decision-making process about participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. METHODS: Face-to-face, semi-structured serial interviews (n = 22) were performed with thirteen patients with advanced cancer recruited in two Dutch specialized cancer centers. In a cyclic qualitative analysis process, open and axial coding of the interviews finally led to an overview of the values that are woven into patients' common language about cancer and clinical trials. RESULTS: Six core values were described, namely, acceptance creates room for reconsideration of values, reconciliation with one's fate, hope, autonomy, body preservation, and altruism. Previously found values in advanced cancer, such as acceptance, hope, autonomy, and altruism, were further qualified. Reconciliation with one's fate and body preservation were highlighted as new insights for early-phase clinical cancer trial literature. CONCLUSIONS: This article furthers the understanding of core values that play a role in the lives and decision-making of patients with advanced cancer who explore participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. These values do not necessarily have to be compatible with one another, making tragic choices necessary. Understanding the role of core values can contribute to professional sensitivity regarding what motivates patients' emotions, thoughts, and decisions and help patients reflect on and give words to their values and preferences. It supports mutual understanding and dialog from which patients can make decisions according to their perspectives on a good life for themselves and their fellows in the context of participation in an early-phase clinical cancer trial.

Caring for older culturally and linguistically diverse patients with Cancer: Healthcare Providers' perceived barriers to communication.

BACKGROUND: Due to various socio-cultural and language related factors, healthcare providers experience barriers when communicating with older culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) patients with cancer, which can lower the quality of care received by patients and negatively impact healthcare providers. Studies focusing on communication barriers of older CALD patients with cancer and a systematic comparison of those barriers between different healthcare providers have been largely missing. OBJECTIVES: In order to lay out the healthcare providers' perceived barriers to communication, the present study identified and compared communication barriers among different healthcare providers when caring for older CALD patients with cancer. METHODS: An online survey was conducted among healthcare providers in the Netherlands who identified as being involved in the care of CALD patients with cancer (N = 191), specifically; GPs (NGPs = 54), specialists (Nspecialists = 29), oncology nurses (Nnurses = 77), and pharmacists (Npharmacists = 31). Providers assessed twelve pre-specified factors on (i) importance and (ii) frequency of these factors as barriers to communication. A composite score by employing the QUOTE (Quality Of care Through the patients' Eyes) methodology was used to rank, and classify factors as either potential or influential barriers. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Overall, low Dutch language proficiency of older CALD patients with cancer, family interpreters providing inadequate translations, not knowing the extent of patients' informational needs, cultural differences in views about healthcare (i.e., illnesses and treatments) and family members blocking communication were found to be influential communication barriers. Healthcare providers showed several differences in what they perceived to be a potential or an influential barrier: Cultural differences in views about healthcare and patients getting treatment in their home countries were important barriers for GPs, while not knowing the patient's contact person was for pharmacists. Nurses perceived the highest number of influential barriers, while specialists perceived the least. We conclude that specific interventions that address differences in perceived barriers among providers are needed, and we highlight potential interventions that involve digital communication tools, such as the Conversation Starter.

Message Frame-Tailoring in Digital Health Communication: Intervention Redesign and Usability Testing.

BACKGROUND: Message frame-tailoring based on the need for autonomy is a promising strategy to improve the effectiveness of digital health communication interventions. An example of a digital health communication intervention is Personal Advice in Stopping smoking (PAS), a web-based content-tailored smoking cessation program. PAS was effective in improving cessation success rates, but its effect sizes were small and disappeared after 6 months. Therefore, investigating whether message frame-tailoring based on the individual's need for autonomy might improve effect rates is worthwhile. However, to our knowledge, this has not been studied previously. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether adding message frame-tailoring based on the need for autonomy increases the effectiveness of content-tailored interventions, the PAS program was redesigned to incorporate message frame-tailoring also. This paper described the process of redesigning the PAS program to include message frame-tailoring, providing smokers with autonomy-supportive or controlling message frames-depending on their individual need for autonomy. Therefore, we aimed to extend framing theory, tailoring theory, and self-determination theory. METHODS: Extension of the framing theory, tailoring theory, and self-determination theory by redesigning the PAS program to include message frame-tailoring was conducted in close collaboration with scientific and nonscientific smoking cessation experts (n=10), smokers (n=816), and communication science students (n=19). Various methods were used to redesign the PAS program to include message frame-tailoring with optimal usability: usability testing, think-aloud methodology, heuristic evaluations, and a web-based experiment. RESULTS: The most autonomy-supportive and controlling message frames were identified, the cutoff point for the need for autonomy to distinguish between people with high and those with low need for autonomy was determined, and the usability was optimized. CONCLUSIONS: This resulted in a redesigned digital health communication intervention that included message frame-tailoring and had optimal usability. A detailed description of the redesigning process of the PAS program is provided. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NL6512 (NRT6700); https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6512.

Family involvement in medical decision making in Europe and the United States: A replication and extension in five Countries.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, Alden et al. showed that the desired degree of family involvement in medical decisions is an individual preference that is largely independent from East-West cultural stereotypes. At the same time, individual-level interdependence influenced whether patients preferred more individual or more family involvement in their decision making together with their medical care provider. The present study provides empirical evidence and adds evidence for Europe for which no such data previously existed. METHODS: The present study is a direct replication and extension of the original Alden et al. (2018) study (N = 2031; Australia, China, Malaysia, India, South Korea, Thailand, United States [U.S.]), however, using survey data from four European countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands) and the United States (U.S.) with a total sample size of N = 2750. RESULTS: Random effects within-between models replicated the original primary finding that those with higher self-involvement in medical decision making preferred less family involvement. Furthermore, patients with lower self-independence, higher relational interdependence, and stronger beliefs in social hierarchy are more likely to want their families involved in medical decisions besides their health care provider. CONCLUSIONS: These observed relationships are largely consistent both within and across the four European countries and the U.S. In conclusion, the results point to the importance of avoiding cultural stereotypes and instead, recognizing that patient desires for family involvement in medical decision making vary dramatically within cultures depending on multiple individual differences. Furthermore, a growing body of evidence suggests that these antecedents of family involvement as well as the construct itself may be measurable in diverse cultures with high levels of confidence in their reliability and validity.

Decisional Conflict after Deciding on Potential Participation in Early Phase Clinical Cancer Trials: Dependent on Global Health Status, Satisfaction with Communication, and Timing.

When standard treatment options are not available anymore, patients with advanced cancer may participate in early phase clinical trials. Improving this complex decision-making process may improve their quality of life. Therefore, this prospective multicenter study with questionnaires untangles several contributing factors to decisional conflict (which reflects the quality of decision-making) in patients with advanced cancer who recently decided upon early phase clinical trial participation (phase I or I/II). We hypothesized that health-related quality of life, health literacy, sense of hope, satisfaction with the consultation, timing of the decision, and the decision explain decisional conflict. Mean decisional conflict in 116 patients was 30.0 (SD = 16.9). Multivariate regression analysis showed that less decisional conflict was reported by patients with better global health status (ß = −0.185, p = 0.018), higher satisfaction (ß = −0.246, p = 0.002), and who made the decision before (ß = −0.543, p < 0.001) or within a week after the consultation (ß = −0.427, p < 0.001). These variables explained 37% of the variance in decisional conflict. Healthcare professionals should realize that patients with lower global health status and who need more time to decide may require additional support. Although altering such patient intrinsic characteristics is difficult, oncologists can impact the satisfaction with the consultation. Future research should verify whether effective patient-centered communication could prevent decisional conflict.

Barriers and facilitators in using a Clinical Decision Support System for fall risk management for older people: a European survey.

PURPOSE: Fall-Risk Increasing Drugs (FRIDs) are an important and modifiable fall-risk factor. A Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) could support doctors in optimal FRIDs deprescribing. Understanding barriers and facilitators is important for a successful implementation of any CDSS. We conducted a European survey to assess barriers and facilitators to CDSS use and explored differences in their perceptions. METHODS: We examined and compared the relative importance and the occurrence of regional differences of a literature-based list of barriers and facilitators for CDSS usage among physicians treating older fallers from 11 European countries. RESULTS: We surveyed 581 physicians (mean age 44.9 years, 64.5% female, 71.3% geriatricians). The main barriers were technical issues (66%) and indicating a reason before overriding an alert (58%). The main facilitators were a CDSS that is beneficial for patient care (68%) and easy-to-use (64%). We identified regional differences, e.g., expense and legal issues were barriers for significantly more Eastern-European physicians compared to other regions, while training was selected less often as a facilitator by West-European physicians. Some physicians believed that due to the medical complexity of their patients, their own clinical judgement is better than advice from the CDSS. CONCLUSION: When designing a CDSS for Geriatric Medicine, the patient's medical complexity must be addressed whilst maintaining the doctor's decision-making autonomy. For a successful CDSS implementation in Europe, regional differences in barrier perception should be overcome. Equipping a CDSS with prediction models has the potential to provide individualized recommendations for deprescribing FRIDs in older falls patients.

The Patient Navigator: Can a systematically developed online health information tool improve patient participation and outcomes related to the consultation in older patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND: Older cancer patients may search for health information online to prepare for their consultations. However, seeking information online can have negative effects, for instance increased anxiety due to finding incorrect or unclear information. In addition, existing online cancer information is not necessarily adapted to the needs of older patients, even though cancer is a disease often found in older individuals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically develop, implement and evaluate an online health information tool for older cancer patients, the Patient Navigator, providing information that complements the consultation with healthcare providers. METHOD: For the development and evaluation of the Patient Navigator, the four phases of the MRC framework were used. In the first and second phase the Patient Navigator was developed and pilot tested based on previous research and sub-studies. During the third phase the Patient Navigator was implemented in four Dutch hospitals. In the last phase, a pilot RCT was conducted to evaluate the Patient Navigator in terms of usage (observational tracking data), user experience (self-reported satisfaction, involvement, cognitive load, active control, perceived relevance of the tool), patient participation (observational data during consultation), and patient outcomes related to the consultation (questionnaire data regarding anxiety, satisfaction, and information recall). Recently diagnosed colorectal cancer patients (N = 45) were randomly assigned to the control condition (usual care) or the experimental condition (usual care + Patient Navigator). RESULTS: The Patient Navigator was well used and evaluated positively. Patients who received the Patient Navigator contributed less during the consultation by using less words than patients in the control condition and experienced less anxiety two days after the consultation than patients in the control condition. CONCLUSION: Since the Patient Navigator was evaluated positively and decreased anxiety after the consultation, this tool is potentially a valuable addition to the consultation for patients. Usage of the Patient Navigator resulted in patients using less words during consultations, without impairing patients' satisfaction, possibly because information needs might be fulfilled by usage of the Patient Navigator. This could create the possibility to personalize communication during consultations and respond to other patient needs.