Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: In breast cancer screening programmes, women may have discussions with a healthcare provider to help them decide whether or not they wish to join the breast cancer screening programme. This process is called shared decision-making (SDM) and involves discussions and decisions based on the evidence and the person's values and preferences. SDM is becoming a recommended approach in clinical guidelines, extending beyond decision aids. However, the overall effect of SDM in women deciding to participate in breast cancer screening remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of SDM on women's satisfaction, confidence, and knowledge when deciding whether to participate in breast cancer screening. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 8 August 2023. We also screened abstracts from two relevant conferences from 2020 to 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing interventions targeting various components of SDM. The focus was on supporting women aged 40 to 75 at average or above-average risk of breast cancer in their decision to participate in breast cancer screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and conducted data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Review outcomes included satisfaction with the decision-making process, confidence in the decision made, knowledge of all options, adherence to the chosen option, women's involvement in SDM, woman-clinician communication, and mental health. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 19 studies with 64,215 randomised women, mostly with an average to moderate risk of breast cancer. Two studies covered all aspects of SDM; six examined shortened forms of SDM involving communication on risks and personal values; and 11 focused on enhanced communication of risk without other SDM aspects. SDM involving all components compared to control The two eligible studies did not assess satisfaction with the SDM process or confidence in the decision. Based on a single study, SDM showed uncertain effects on participant knowledge regarding the age to start screening (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.28; 133 women; very low certainty evidence) and frequency of testing (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.04; 133 women; very low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Abbreviated forms of SDM with clarification of values and preferences compared to control Of the six included studies, none evaluated satisfaction with the SDM process. These interventions may reduce conflict in the decision made, based on two measures, Decisional Conflict Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% CI -4.21 to 0.87; conflict scale from 0 to 100; 4 studies; 1714 women; very low certainty evidence) and the proportion of women with residual conflict compared to control at one to three months' follow-up (rate of women with a conflicted decision, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99; 1 study; 1001 women, very low certainty evidence). Knowledge of all options was assessed through knowledge scores and informed choice. The effect of SDM may enhance knowledge (MDs ranged from 0.47 to 1.44 higher scores on a scale from 0 to 10; 5 studies; 2114 women; low certainty evidence) and may lead to higher rates of informed choice (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; 4 studies; 2449 women; low certainty evidence) compared to control at one to three months' follow-up. These interventions may result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.54, 95% -0.96 to 2.14; scale from 20 to 80; 2 studies; 749 women; low certainty evidence) and the number of women with worries about cancer compared to control at four to six weeks' follow-up (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 1 study, 639 women; low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Enhanced communication about risks without other SDM aspects compared to control Of 11 studies, three did not report relevant outcomes for this review, and none assessed satisfaction with the SDM process. Confidence in the decision made was measured by decisional conflict and anticipated regret of participating in screening or not. These interventions, without addressing values and preferences, may result in lower confidence in the decision compared to regular communication strategies at two weeks' follow-up (MD 2.89, 95% CI -2.35 to 8.14; Decisional Conflict Scale from 0 to 100; 2 studies; 1191 women; low certainty evidence). They may result in higher anticipated regret if participating in screening (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41) and lower anticipated regret if not participating in screening (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.14). These interventions increase knowledge (MD 1.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.62; scale from 0 to 10; 4 studies; 2510 women; high certainty evidence), while it is unclear if there is a higher rate of informed choice compared to regular communication strategies at two to four weeks' follow-up (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.92; 2 studies; 1805 women; low certainty evidence). These interventions result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.33, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.99; scale from 20 to 80) and depression (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.45; scale from 0 to 21; 2 studies; 1193 women; high certainty evidence) and lower cancer worry compared to control (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.08; scale from 1 to 4; 1 study; 838 women; high certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studies using abbreviated forms of SDM and other forms of enhanced communications indicated improvements in knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. However, uncertainty remains about the effect of SDM on supporting women's decisions. Most studies did not evaluate outcomes considered important for this review topic, and those that did measured different concepts. High-quality randomised trials are needed to evaluate SDM in diverse cultural settings with a focus on outcomes such as women's satisfaction with choices aligned to their values.

Shared decision-making in psoriasis care: Evaluation of how patients' perception of clinicians' delivery of care changes by age and sex.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) refers to a collaborative process in which clinicians assist patients in making medically informed, evidence-based decisions that align with their values and preferences. There is a paucity of literature on SDM in dermatology. OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess whether male and female psoriasis patients evaluate their clinicians' engagement in SDM differently across different age groups. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using data from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS). RESULTS: A weighted total of 7,795,608 psoriasis patients were identified. SDM Scores ranged from 1 to 4, with 4 representing the most favorable patient evaluation of their clinicians' engagement in SDM. We conducted multivariate linear regression to compare mean SDM Scores in male psoriasis patients versus female psoriasis patients across different patient age groups. Female patients ages 60-69 perceived significantly greater clinician engagement in SDM compared to age-matched male patients (female patient perception of SDM 3.65 [95%CI:3.61-3.69] vs. male patient perception of SDM 3.50 [95%CI:3.43-3.58], p<0.005). The same trend of older female patients evaluating their clinicians' engagement in SDM significantly higher than their age-matched male counterparts exists for the age group >70 (p<0.005). No significant differences between male and female patients' evaluations of their clinicians' engagement in SDM were demonstrated in subjects younger than 60. All calculations were adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to older male psoriasis patients, older female psoriasis patients evaluated their clinicians to be more engaged in shared decision-making.

Patients as teachers: a within-subjects randomized pilot experiment of patient-led online learning modules for health professionals.

PURPOSE: Many health professions education programs involve people with lived experience as expert speakers. Such presentations may help learners better understand the realities of living with chronic illness or experiencing an acute health problem. However, lectures from only one or a small number of people may not adequately illustrate the perspectives and experiences of a diverse patient cohort. Additionally, logistical constraints such as public health restrictions or travel barriers may impede in-person presentations, particularly among people who have more restrictions on their time. Health professions education programs may benefit from understanding the potential effects of online patient-led presentations with a diverse set of speakers. We aimed to explore whether patient-led online learning modules about diabetes care would influence learners' responses to clinical scenarios and to collect learners' feedback about the modules. METHOD: This within-subjects randomized experiment involved 26 third-year medical students at Université Laval in Quebec, Canada. Participation in the experiment was an optional component within a required course. Prior to the intervention, participating learners responded to three clinical scenarios randomly selected from a set of six such scenarios. Each participant responded to the other three scenarios after the intervention. The intervention consisted of patient-led online learning modules incorporating segments of narratives from 21 patient partners (11 racialized or Indigenous) describing why and how clinicians could provide patient-centered care. Working with clinical teachers and psychometric experts, we developed a scoring grid based on the biopsychosocial model and set 0.6 as a passing score. Independent evaluators, blinded to whether each response was collected before or after the intervention, then scored learners' responses to scenarios using the grid. We used Fisher's Exact test to compare proportions of passing scores before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Learners' overall percentage of passing scores prior to the intervention was 66%. Following the intervention, the percentage of passing scores was 76% (p = 0.002). Overall, learners expressed appreciation and other positive feedback regarding the patient-led online learning modules. DISCUSSION: Findings from this experiment suggest that learners can learn to provide better patient-centered care by watching patient-led online learning modules created in collaboration with a diversity of patient partners.

Assessing early feasibility of a novel innovation to increase consumer partnership capability within an Australian health innovation organisation using a mixed-method approach.

OBJECTIVE: Engagement-capable health organisations recognise that consumer engagement (also known as patient engagement, consumer engagement, patient and public involvement) must occur at every level of the organisation if it is to be meaningful and genuine. Despite this aspiration, health organisations struggle to adopt, implement, and embody consumer engagement capability in a way that has yielded impact. The Partner Ring (PR) is an embedded model for building staff capability for consumer partnerships. It is hosted by an employed Patient Partner. PR was implemented at the Agency for Clinical Innovation in New South Wales, Australia. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility (acceptability, demand and practicality) of this innovation to increase consumer engagement capability. DESIGN: One-group post-intervention mixed methods approach to assess feasibility. PARTICIPANTS: ACI staff engaged in the PR (n=40 of 89 members). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Qualitative data was collected through an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven interactive interview, with 40 responses received between 29 June and 12 July 2023. A framework analysis and Generative AI causal mapping were conducted to identify and visualise causal claims within the texts. Cost and session attendance collected from the same point in time supplemented the analysis. FINDINGS: Findings were categorised by the following feasibility constructs: acceptability, demand and practicality. Almost all the respondents indicated their intent to continue using the PR and outlined personal benefits and professional benefits. For example, (n=23, 57%) reacted positively to the psychological safety of the PR, and professionally people identified attendance increased their knowledge and skills (n=23, 57%). CONCLUSION: The PR is feasible and likely to be an acceptable innovation for building staff capability and consumer engagement skills across a large health system or organisation. It could be adopted or adapted by other jurisdictions.

Associations between knowledge of health issues and health care satisfaction and propensity to complain: a cross-sectional survey of adult men in Denmark.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate associations between knowledge of health issues and healthcare satisfaction and propensity to complain including the association between knowledge and greater patient involvement. DESIGN: The present study is a secondary analysis of a larger cross-sectional case vignette survey. SETTING: Survey conducted in adult Danish men. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 6755 men aged 45-70 years. INTERVENTIONS: Participants responded to a survey with scenarios illustrating prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and different information provision. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Using Likert scales (scored 1-5), participants rated their satisfaction with the care described and their inclination to complain and responded to a short quiz (scored 0-3) assessing their knowledge about the PSA test. RESULTS: Satisfaction with healthcare increased with better quiz performance (Likert difference 0.13 (95% CI .07 to 0.20), p <0.001, totally correct vs totally incorrect responders) and correspondingly, the desire to complain significantly decreased (Likert difference -0.34 (95% CI 0.40 to -0.27), p <0.001). Respondents with higher education performed better (mean quiz score difference 0.59 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.67), p <0.001, most educated vs least educated). Responders who received information about the PSA test generally performed better (quiz score difference 0.41 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.47), p<0.001, neutral vs no information). Overestimation of PSA merits was more common than underestimation (7.9% vs 3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Mens' knowledge of the benefits of screening varies with education, predicts satisfaction with care and the desire to complain, and may be improved through greater involvement in decision-making.

Patient, caregiver and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Patient engagement and integrated knowledge translation (iKT) processes improve health outcomes and care experiences through meaningful partnerships in consensus-building initiatives and research. Consensus-building is essential for engaging a diverse group of experienced knowledge users in co-developing and supporting a solution where none readily exists or is less optimal. Patients and caregivers provide invaluable insights for building consensus in decision-making around healthcare, policy and research. However, despite emerging evidence, patient engagement remains sparse within consensus-building initiatives. Specifically, our research has identified a lack of opportunity for youth living with chronic health conditions and their caregivers to participate in developing consensus on indicators/benchmarks for transition into adult care. To bridge this gap and inform our consensus-building approach with youth/caregivers, this scoping review will synthesise the extent of the literature on patient and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following the scoping review methodology from Joanna Briggs Institute, published literature will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from inception to July 2023. Grey literature will be hand-searched. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of articles in a two-stage process, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Included studies must be consensus-building studies within the healthcare context that involve patient engagement strategies. Data from eligible studies will be extracted and charted on a standardised form. Abstracted data will be analysed quantitatively and descriptively, according to specific consensus methodologies, and patient engagement models and/or strategies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review protocol. The review process and findings will be shared with and informed by relevant knowledge users. Dissemination of findings will also include peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The results will offer new insights for supporting patient engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/beqjr.

PPIE in a technical research study: Using public involvement to refine the concept and understanding and move towards a multidimensional concept of disability.

BACKGROUND: Disability is often an essentialised and oversimplified concept. We propose refining this while incorporating the multidimensional nature of disability by increasing the use of existing survey questions and their corresponding data to enrich, broaden and inform understandings of disability. METHODS: We combined patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) with focus groups and concept mapping to collaboratively map disability survey questions into conceptual models of disability with six members of the public with lived experiences of disability. RESULTS: Using reflexive thematic analysis, we identified three qualitative themes and eight subthemes through a series of four PPIE activities: (1) understanding concepts of disability based on individual experience, subthemes: 1.1-preference for the biopsychosocial model, 1.2-'Reviewing' instead of mapping survey questions and 1.3-comparing questions to real life; (2) consistency between understanding needs and implementing adjustments, subthemes: 2.1-connecting preparation and operation, 2.2-inclusivity and adjustments in activities and 2.3-feedback for improving activities and (3) real-world applications-targeted awareness raising, subthemes: 3.1-who, where, what and how to share activity findings and results, 3.2-sharing with human resource and equality, diversity and inclusion professionals. CONCLUSION: Members of the public who collaborated in these activities felt empowered, engaged and supported throughout this study. This approach offers a model for other researchers to cede power to the public over the research aspects typically reserved for researchers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We involved members of the public with lived experience throughout this study-co-design, co-facilitation, collaboratively mapping the disability or disability-related survey questions into conceptual models of disability, evaluation of the activities, co-analysis and co-authorship.

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.

Disparities in Patient Portal Engagement Among Patients With Hypertension Treated in Primary Care.

Importance: Patient portals are increasingly used for patient-clinician communication and to introduce interventions aimed at improving blood pressure control. Objective: To characterize patient portal use among patients with hypertension managed in primary care. Design, Settings, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health records linked with patient portal log file data from a large, diverse Midwestern health care system. Patients with hypertension who had a primary care visit from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021, were included. The first visit in 2021 was considered the baseline visit; patient portal engagement was evaluated during the following year. Multivariate logistic regressions, presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs, were used to evaluate associations between patient characteristics and patient portal engagement, adjusting for potential confounders. Exposures: Primary exposures included 4 sociodemographic factors routinely collected in the electronic health record: race and ethnicity, insurance, preferred language, and smoking status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Indicators of patient engagement with the patient portal included accessing the patient portal at least once, accessing the portal within 7 days of at least 50.0% of primary care physician (PCP) visits, frequent logins (<28 vs ≥28), messaging (<2 vs ≥2), and sharing home blood pressure readings. Results: Among 366 871 patients (mean [SD], 63.5 [12.6] years), 52.8% were female, 3.4% were Asian, 7.8% were Hispanic, 19.7% were non-Hispanic Black, 66.9% were non-Hispanic White, and 2.3% were of other race or ethnicity. During the 1-year study period starting in 2021, 70.5% accessed the patient portal at least once, 60.2% accessed around the time of their PCP visits, 35.7% accessed the portal frequently, 28.9% engaged in messaging, and 8.7% shared home blood pressure readings. Compared with White patients, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients had lower odds of any access (Black: OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.52-0.54; Hispanic: OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.64-0.68), access around PCP visit time (Black: OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.48-0.50; Hispanic: OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.60-0.64), frequent access (Black: OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.55-0.57; Hispanic: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.73), and messaging (Black: OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.64); Hispanic: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.73). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with hypertension found clear sociodemographic disparities in patient portal engagement among those treated in primary care. Without special efforts to engage patients with portals, interventions that use patient portals to target hypertension may exacerbate disparities.

Shared decision-making approach to type 2 diabetes management.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an online interactive decision aid to facilitate shared decision making in the context of medication choices for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The best available clinical prediction model for patients with T2DM was selected based on a review of guidelines, DynaMed, and UpToDate and a search of PubMed. A list of pharmacotherapeutic options for T2DM was compiled based on a review of guidelines, narrative reviews, and expert opinion. To determine the benefits and harms of each treatment, federated search engines were searched for meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, supplemented by individual randomized controlled trials for outcomes not reported in meta-analyses. MAIN MESSAGE: Approximately 2.1 million Canadians have T2DM, with a resulting increased risk of death, cardiovascular disease, and microvascular outcomes. While more than a dozen medication options are available, decisions regarding these medications are challenging, as patients vary in their preferences. Shared decision making has the potential to individualize these difficult decisions, but the number of diabetes-related outcomes and available treatment options have made this historically impractical. It is within this context that the PEER Diabetes Medication Decision Aid was developed. This decision aid provides patients with personalized 10-year risk estimates for 6 clinically important diabetes-related outcomes. The tool also allows patients to focus on the outcome that matters most to them and to compare the benefits and harms of up to 12 different treatment options. This information is displayed in personalized absolute numbers, along with practical considerations such as cost. CONCLUSION: The PEER Diabetes Medication Decision Aid provides a practical tool that can enable patients with T2DM to come to autonomous and well-informed medication decisions.

Patients' experiences of and roles in interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care: a constructivist grounded theory study.

AIM: This constructivist grounded theory study aimed to (1) explore patients' experiences of and roles in interprofessional collaborative practice for chronic conditions in primary care and (2) consider the relevance and alignment of an existing theoretical framework on patients' roles and based on the experiences of patient advocates. BACKGROUND: High-quality management of chronic conditions requires an interprofessional collaborative practice model of care considering an individual's mental, physical, and social health situation. Patients' experiences of this model in the primary care setting are relatively unknown. METHODS: A constructivist grounded theory approach was taken. Interview data were collected from primary care patients with chronic conditions across Australia in August 2020 - February 2022. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed by (1) initial line-by-line coding, (2) focused coding, (3) memo writing, (4) categorisation, and (5) theme and sub-theme development. Themes and sub-themes were mapped against an existing theoretical framework to expand and confirm the results from a previous study with a similar research aim. FINDINGS: Twenty adults with chronic conditions spanning physical disability, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, autoimmune, and mental health conditions participated. Two themes were developed: (1) Adapting to Change with two sub-themes describing how patients adapt to interprofessional team care and (2) Shifting across the spectrum of roles, with five sub-themes outlining the roles patients enact while receiving care. The findings suggest that patients' roles are highly variable and fluid in interprofessional collaborative practice, and further work is recommended to develop a resource to support greater patient engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice.

Patient-focused drug development in primary sclerosing cholangitis: Insights on patient priorities and involvement in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: According to the new AASLD Practice Guidance, all patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) should be considered for participation in clinical trials. However, PSC's rarity has posed challenges to characterizing patient interest in trial participation and identifying predictors of patient willingness to participate in drug trials. METHODS: PSC Partners Seeking a Cure developed the "Our Voices" survey to inform the development of the Externally-Led Patient-Focused Drug Development Forum, an FDA initiative to capture patient experiences and perspectives on drug development. RESULTS: Of 797 survey respondents from over 30 countries, 536 (67%) identified slowing disease progression as the most important outcome. Eighty-nine percent identified their hepatologist/gastroenterologist as someone they would approach for advice about trials. Although 61% reported being willing to participate in drug trials, only 26% had ever been asked to participate. Notable barriers to trial involvement included unknown long-term risks (71%), long travel times to the study center (32%), and a liver biopsy requirement (27%). On multivariable logistic regression, pruritus (OR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.09-2.40, p = 0.017) was positively associated with willingness to participate in disease-modifying therapy trials, while jaundice (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.19-0.61, p < 0.001) and inflammatory bowel disease (OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42-0.98, p = 0.038) were negatively associated. Pruritus (OR 2.25, 95% CI: 1.50-3.39, p < 0.001) was also independently associated with willingness to participate in symptom treatment trials. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with PSC report interest in participating in clinical trials, but few have been asked to participate. Referral of patients with PSC by their hepatologist/gastroenterologist to clinical trials and patient education on trial participation are vital to closing the gap between trial interest and participation. Pruritus may serve as a key indicator of patient interest in trial participation.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Strategies for Enhancing Treatment Engagement.

Treatment engagement, crucial in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) outcomes, centers on consistent implementation of between-session homework. This article explores clinical features affecting engagement, including challenges related to psychosocial stressors and negative core beliefs. Empirical evidence supports the positive causal and correlational relationship between homework and symptom reduction. Recent studies highlight the role of patient beliefs and suggest a collaborative approach in homework design. The CBT account of treatment engagement emphasizes clinician behavior, patient beliefs, and task specificity. The comprehensive model of homework in CBT involves careful planning, collaborative review, and addressing patient-specific challenges, providing valuable clinical insights.

My anesthesia Choice-HF: development and preliminary testing of a tool to facilitate conversations about anesthesia for hip fracture surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients often desire involvement in anesthesia decisions, yet clinicians rarely explain anesthesia options or elicit preferences. We developed My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture, a conversation aid about anesthesia options for hip fracture surgery and tested its preliminary efficacy and acceptability. METHODS: We developed a 1-page, tabular format, plain-language conversation aid with feedback from anesthesiologists, decision scientists, and community advisors. We conducted an online survey of English-speaking adults aged 50 and older. Participants imagined choosing between spinal and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Before and after viewing the aid, participants answered a series of questions regarding key outcomes, including decisional conflict, knowledge about anesthesia options, and acceptability of the aid. RESULTS: Of 364/409 valid respondents, mean age was 64 (SD 8.9) and 59% were female. The proportion indicating decisional conflict decreased after reviewing the aid (63-34%, P < 0.001). Median knowledge scores increased from 50% correct to 67% correct (P < 0.001). 83% agreed that the aid would help them discuss options and preferences. 76.4% would approve of doctors using it. CONCLUSION: My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture decreased decisional conflict and increased knowledge about anesthesia choices for hip fracture surgery. Respondents assessed it as acceptable for use in clinical settings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Use of clinical decision aids may increase shared decision-making; further testing is warranted.

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 .

Informed consent of the patient for medical intervention for conducting biomedical research.

OBJECTIVE: Aim: is to find out the peculiarities of informed consent of the patient for medical intervention during biomedical research. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and Methods: The dialectical method was used as a universal and general scientific method, which made it possible to consider the peculiarities of the content of the patient's informed consent. Using the logico-semantic method, the essence and features of biomedical research with the patient's participation were determined. The formal-legal method is used to analyze adaptation processes of biomedical research. System-structural method were applied when comparing the content of the patient's informed consent in separate legislation. The work also used such methods of cognition as comparative-legal, systemic-logical, and logical-legal. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: "Informed consent" includes not only the concept of consent itself, i.e. the free decision of a person, but also an explanation of a specific case or research procedure. And it largely depends on the specialist. Will he be able to convey and explain the patient's problem, illness, actions correctly, fully and in an accessible form? Yes, free consent is given by a person, but the doctor also influences this decision to some extent. Patients' freedom in choosing medical care methods is somewhat limited.

Assessing patient information needs for new antidiabetic medications to inform shared decision-making: A best-worst scaling experiment in China.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a patient-centred approach to improve the quality of care. An essential requirement for the SDM process is to be fully aware of patient information needs. OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to assess patient information needs for new antidiabetic medications using the best-worst scaling (BWS) experiment. METHODS: BWS tasks were developed according to a literature review and the focus group discussion. We used a balanced incomplete block design and blocking techniques to generate choice sets. The final BWS contains 11 attributes, with 6-choice scenarios in each block. The one-to-one, face-to-face BWS survey was conducted among type 2 diabetic patients in Jiangsu Province. Results were analyzed using count-based analysis and modelling approaches. We also conducted a subgroup analysis to observe preference heterogeneity. RESULTS: Data from 539 patients were available for analysis. The most desired information domain was the comparative effectiveness of new antidiabetic medications. It consists of the incidence of macrovascular complications, the length of extended life years, changes in health-related quality of life, the incidence of microvascular complications, and the control of glycated haemoglobin. Of all the attributes, the incidence of macrovascular complications was the primary concern. Patients' glycemic control and whether they had diabetes complications exerted a significant influence on their information needs. CONCLUSIONS: Information on health benefits is of critical significance for diabetic patients. Patients have different information needs as their disease progresses. Personalized patient decision aids that integrate patient information needs and provide evidence of new antidiabetic medications are worthy of being established. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Before data collection, a pilot survey was carried out among diabetic patients to provide feedback on the acceptability and intelligibility of the attributes.

A Mixed-Methods Comparison of Interventions to Increase Advance Care Planning.

PURPOSE: Although interventions can increase advance care planning (ACP) engagement, it remains unclear which interventions to choose in primary care settings. This study compares a passive intervention (mailed materials) to an interactive intervention (group visits) on participant ACP engagement and experiences. METHODS: We used mixed methods to examine ACP engagement at baseline and six months following two ACP interventions. Eligible patients were randomized to receive mailed materials or participate in two ACP group visits. We administered the 4-item ACP Engagement survey (n = 110) and conducted interviews (n = 23). We compared mean scores and percent change in ACP engagement, analyzed interviews with directed content analysis to understand participants' ACP experiences, and integrated the findings based on mailed materials or group visits intervention. RESULTS: All participants demonstrated increased ACP engagement scores. At six months, group visit participants reported higher percent change in mean overall score compared with mailed materials participants (+8% vs +3%, P < .0001). Group visits participants reported that being prompted to think about end-of-life preferences, gaining knowledge about ACP, and understanding the value of completing ACP documentation influenced their ACP readiness. While both interventions encouraged patients to start considering and refining their end-of-life preferences, group visits made patients feel more knowledgeable about ACP, highlighted the importance of completing ACP documentation early, and sparked further ACP discussions with others. CONCLUSIONS: While primary care patients may benefit from mailed ACP materials, patients reported increased readiness after ACP group visits. Group visits emphasized the value of upstream preparation, ongoing conversations, and increased knowledge about ACP.

The impact of decision tools during oncological consultation with lung cancer patients: A systematic review within the I3LUNG project.

INTRODUCTION: To date, lung cancer is one of the most lethal diagnoses worldwide. A variety of lung cancer treatments and modalities are available, which are generally presented during the patient and doctor consultation. The implementation of decision tools to facilitate patient's decision-making and the management of their healthcare process during medical consultation is fundamental. Studies have demonstrated that decision tools are helpful to promote health management and decision-making of lung cancer patients during consultations. The main aim of the present work within the I3LUNG project is to systematically review the implementation of decision tools to facilitate medical consultation about oncological treatments for lung cancer patients. METHODS: In the present study, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. We used an electronic computer-based search involving three databases, as follows: Embase, PubMed, and Scopus. 10 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included. They explicitly refer to decision tools in the oncological context, with lung cancer patients. RESULTS: The discussion highlights the most encouraging results about the positive role of decision aids during medical consultations about oncological treatments, especially regarding anxiety, decision-making, and patient knowledge. However, no one main decision aid tool emerged as essential. Opting for a more recent timeframe to select eligible articles might shed light on the current array of decision aid tools available. CONCLUSION: Future review efforts could utilize alternative search strategies to explore other lung cancer-specific outcomes during medical consultations for treatment decisions and the implementation of decision aid tools. Engaging with experts in the fields of oncology, patient decision-making, or health communication could provide valuable insights and recommendations for relevant literature or research directions that may not be readily accessible through traditional search methods. The development of guidelines for future research were provided with the aim to promote decision aids focused on patients' needs.