Frailty and decisional regret after elective noncardiac surgery: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with morbidity and mortality after surgery. The association of frailty with decisional regret is poorly defined. Our objective was to estimate the association of preoperative frailty with decisional regret status in the year after surgery. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective, multicentre cohort study of patients aged ≥65 years who underwent elective noncardiac surgery. Decisional regret about having undergone surgery was ascertained at 30, 90, and 365 (primary time point) days after surgery using a 3-point ordinal scale. Bayesian ordinal logistic regression was used to estimate the association of frailty with decisional regret, adjusted for surgery type, age, sex, and mental health conditions. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: We identified 669 patients; 293 (43.8%) lived with frailty. At 365 days after surgery, the unadjusted odds ratio (OR) associating frailty with greater decisional regret was 2.21 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.98-5.09; P(OR>1)=0.97), which was attenuated after confounder adjustment (adjusted OR 1.68, 95% CrI 0.84-3.36; P(OR>1)=0.93). Similar results were estimated at 30 and 90 days. Additional adjustment for baseline comorbidities and disability score substantially altered the OR at 365 days (0.89, 95% CrI 0.37-2.12; P(OR>1)=0.39). There was a high probability that surgery type was an effect modifier (non-orthopaedic: OR 1.90, 95% CrI 1.00-3.59; P(OR>1)=0.98); orthopaedic: OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.41-1.91; P(OR>1)=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Among older surgical patients, there appears to be a complex association with frailty and decisional regret, with substantial heterogeneity based on assumed causal pathways and surgery type. Future studies are required to untangle the complex interplay between these factors.

Prehabilitation in adult patients undergoing surgery: an umbrella review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The certainty that prehabilitation improves postoperative outcomes is not clear. The objective of this umbrella review (i.e. systematic review of systematic reviews) was to synthesise and evaluate evidence for prehabilitation in improving health, experience, or cost outcomes. METHODS: We performed an umbrella review of prehabilitation systematic reviews. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs Institute's database, and Web of Science were searched (inception to October 20, 2020). We included all systematic reviews of elective, adult patients undergoing surgery and exposed to a prehabilitation intervention, where health, experience, or cost outcomes were reported. Evidence certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Primary syntheses of any prehabilitation were stratified by surgery type. RESULTS: From 1412 titles, 55 systematic reviews were included. For patients with cancer undergoing surgery who participate in any prehabilitation, moderate certainty evidence supports improvements in functional recovery. Low to very low certainty evidence supports reductions in complications (mixed, cardiovascular, and cancer surgery), non-home discharge (orthopaedic surgery), and length of stay (mixed, cardiovascular, and cancer surgery). There was low to very low certainty evidence that exercise prehabilitation reduces the risk of complications, non-home discharge, and length of stay. There was low to very low certainty evidence that nutritional prehabilitation reduces risk of complications, mortality, and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Low certainty evidence suggests that prehabilitation may improve postoperative outcomes. Future low risk of bias, randomised trials, synthesised using recommended standards, are required to inform practice. Optimal patient selection, intervention design, and intervention duration must also be determined.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Writing a compelling integrated discussion: a guide for integrated discussions in article-based theses and dissertations.

Article-based theses and dissertations are increasingly being used in nursing and the health sciences as an alternate format to the traditional five-chapter monograph. A unique chapter in the article-based thesis is the integrated discussion, which differs in breadth and depth as compared to the discussion for a traditional thesis monograph or journal article. For many students and faculty, the integrated discussion is a challenging chapter to write, with minimal or no published guidance available. In this article, we offer a four-step approach with templates for planning and writing an integrated discussion. We also share several lessons learned with examples from published theses and dissertations. Writing an integrated discussion can be facilitated and written more efficiently by developing a clear and detailed outline of the chapter and broad discussion points prior to drafting the text, to achieve a higher-level synthesis, analysis, and interpretation of the overall significance of the thesis findings.

Evaluation of a preoperative personalized risk communication tool: a prospective before-and-after study.

PURPOSE: Patients want personalized information before surgery; most do not receive personalized risk estimates. Inadequate information contributes to poor experience and medicolegal complaints. We hypothesized that exposure to the Personalized Risk Evaluation and Decision Making in Preoperative Clinical Assessment (PREDICT) app, a personalized risk communication tool, would improve patient knowledge and satisfaction after anesthesiology consultations compared with standard care. METHODS: We conducted a prospective clinical study (before-after design) and used patient-reported data to calculate personalized risks of morbidity, mortality, and expected length of stay using a locally calibrated National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator embedded in the PREDICT app. In the standard care (before) phase, the application's materials and output were not available to participants; in the PREDICT app (after) phase, personalized risks were communicated. Our primary outcome was knowledge score after the anesthesiology consultation. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, anxiety, feasibility, and acceptability. RESULTS: We included 183 participants (90 before; 93 after). Compared with standard care phase, the PREDICT app phase had higher post-consultation: knowledge of risks (14.3% higher; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 22.0; P < 0.001) and satisfaction (0.8 points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.4; P = 0.03). Anxiety was unchanged (- 1.9%; 95% CI, - 4.2 to 0.5; P = 0.13). Acceptability was high for patients and anesthesiologists. CONCLUSION: Exposure to a patient-facing, personalized risk communication app improved knowledge of personalized risk and increased satisfaction for adults before elective inpatient surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03422133); registered 5 February 2018.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les patients veulent disposer d'informations personnalisées avant leur chirurgie, mais la plupart d'entre eux ne reçoivent pas d'estimations de leur risque personnalisées. Des informations inadéquates contribuent à une mauvaise expérience et à des plaintes médicolégales. Nous avons émis l'hypothèse qu'une exposition à l'application PREDICT (Personalized Risk Evaluation and Decision Making in Preoperative Clinical Assessment), un outil de communication du risque personnalisé, améliorerait les connaissances et la satisfaction des patients après leurs consultations en anesthésiologie comparativement à des soins standard. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude clinique prospective (de type avant-après) et utilisé les données rapportées par les patients afin de calculer leur risque personnalisé de morbidité et de mortalité, ainsi que la durée de séjour anticipée à l'aide d'un calculateur de risque tiré du Programme national d'amélioration de la qualité chirurgicale que nous avons calibré localement et intégré à l'application PREDICT. Dans la phase de soins standard (avant), le contenu et les résultats de l'application n'étaient pas divulgués aux participants; dans la phase comportant l'application PREDICT (après), les risques personnalisés étaient communiqués. Notre critère d'évaluation principal était le score des connaissances des patients après la consultation en anesthésiologie. Les critères d'évaluation secondaires comprenaient la satisfaction des patients et leur niveau d'anxiété ainsi que la faisabilité et l'acceptabilité d'une telle approche. RéSULTATS: Nous avons inclus 183 participants (90 avant; 93 après). Comparativement à la phase de soins standard, la phase avec l'application PREDICT a démontré un niveau plus élevé de connaissances des risques post consultation (14,3 % plus élevé; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 6,5 à 22,0; P < 0,001) et de satisfaction (0,8 point; IC 95 %, 0,1 à 1,4; P = 0,03). L'anxiété est demeurée inchangée (− 1,9 %; IC 95 %, − 4,2 à 0,5; P = 0,13). L'acceptabilité était élevée, tant chez les patients que chez les anesthésiologistes. CONCLUSION: L'exposition des patients à une application de communication du risque personnalisé a amélioré leurs connaissances de leur risque personnalisé et augmenté la satisfaction des adultes avant une chirurgie non urgente et non ambulatoire. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03422133); enregistrée le 5 février 2018.

Decision coaching using a patient decision aid for youth and parents considering insulin delivery methods for type 1 diabetes: a pre/post study.

BACKGROUND: Choice of insulin delivery for type 1 diabetes can be difficult for many parents and children. We evaluated decision coaching using a patient decision aid for helping youth with type 1 diabetes and parents decide about insulin delivery method. METHODS: A pre/post design. Youth and parent(s) attending a pediatric diabetes clinic in a tertiary care centre were referred to the intervention by their pediatric endocrinologist or diabetes physician between September 2013 and May 2015. A decision coach guided youth and their parents in completing a patient decision aid that was pre-populated with evidence on insulin delivery options. Primary outcomes were youth and parent scores on the low literary version of the validated Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). RESULTS: Forty-five youth (mean age = 12.5 ± 2.9 years) and 66 parents (45.8 ± 5.6 years) participated. From pre- to post-intervention, youth and parent decisional conflict decreased significantly (youth mean DCS score was 32.0 vs 6.6, p < 0.0001; parent 37.6 vs 3.5, p < 0.0001). Youth's and parents' mean decisional conflict scores were also significantly improved for DCS subscales (informed, values clarity, support, and certainty). 92% of youth and 94% of parents were satisfied with the decision coaching and patient decision aid. Coaching sessions averaged 55 min. Parents (90%) reported that the session was the right length of time; some youth (16%) reported that it was too long. CONCLUSION: Decision coaching with a patient decision aid reduced decisional conflict for youth and parents facing a decision about insulin delivery method.

Is sharing really caring? Viewpoints on shared decision-making in paediatrics.

Shared decision-making (SDM), the cornerstone of family-centred care and the gold standard in health decision-making, occurs when the patient, family members and the health-care team members partner to make health decisions about the child. This partnership involves an exchange of medical information and information about patient/family preferences and values. Together, the health-care team, parent and patient deliberate to determine the best course of action for the child. Despite high-quality evidence supporting its positive impact on outcomes, SDM has not been widely adopted in paediatric clinical practice. Greater understanding of the impact of SDM on all members of the decision triad (parent, patient and health-care provider) may increase the likelihood of SDM adoption. Therefore, we present the viewpoints of a paediatric patient, parent and paediatrician about the use of SDM. A youth living with a rare chronic disease discusses the impacts of being involved and excluded from health decisions. A mother of a son living with a rare nephrotic condition discusses working with a health-care team who are committed and skilled in SDM and the positive impacts SDM has had for her son's care. A general paediatrician with research expertise in SDM discusses the individual and system level challenges and rewards of using SDM in her clinical practice. Based on the viewpoints presented, we offer pragmatic recommendations for using SDM in paediatric clinical practice.

The association of female sex with application of evidence-based practice recommendations for perioperative care in hip fracture surgery.

BACKGROUND: Sex and gender inequality is prevalent in health care, and affects receipt of health care services and outcomes. Our objective was to measure the association between sex and receipt of evidence-based perioperative care for hip fracture in Ontario. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cross-sectional analysis. We identified all Ontario residents aged 66 years and older who had hip fracture surgery between 2014 and 2016. After protocol registration, we measured the adjusted association between female sex and perioperative geriatric care (primary outcome), anesthesia consultations, regional analgesia and neuraxial anesthesia (secondary outcomes) using multilevel multivariable adjusted logistic regression. Pre-specified sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: We identified 22 661 patients who had hip fracture surgery; 16 162 (71.3%) were women. Women were less likely to receive perioperative geriatric care (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 0.88) and anesthesia consultations (adjusted OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98); women were more likely to have timely surgery (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.36). Receipt of neuraxial anesthesia (adjusted OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.04) and regional analgesia (adjusted OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07) were not different between sexes. INTERPRETATION: More than 2 out of 3 patients who had hip fracture surgery were women; however, women were less likely to receive perioperative geriatric care and anesthesia consultations. Given the effectiveness of these interventions for improving outcomes, population-level hip fracture outcomes may be improved by decreasing sex-based disparities in application of evidence-based recommended perioperative care. Protocol registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT03422497.

Personalized perioperative medicine: a scoping review of personalized assessment and communication of risk before surgery.

BACKGROUND: Personalized medicine aims to improve outcomes through application of therapy directed by individualized risk profiles. Whether personalized risk assessment is routinely applied in practice is unclear; the impact of personalized preoperative risk prediction and communication on outcomes has not been synthesized. Our objective was to perform a scoping review to examine the extent, range, and nature of studies where personalized risk was evaluated preoperatively and communicated to the patient and/or healthcare professional. METHODS: A systematic search was developed, peer-reviewed, and applied to Embase, Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases to identify studies of individuals having or considering surgery, where a process to assess personalized risk was applied and where these estimates were communicated to a patient and/or healthcare professional. All stages of the review were completed in duplicate. We narratively synthesized and described identified themes. RESULTS: We identified 796 studies; 24 underwent full-text review. Seven studies were included; one communicated personalized risk to patients, four to a healthcare professional, and two to both. Cardiac (n = 2) and orthopedic surgery (n = 2) were the most common surgical specialties. Four studies used electronic risk calculators, and three used paper-based tools. Personalized preoperative risk assessment and communication may improve accuracy of information provided to patients, improve consent processes, and influence length of stay. Methodologic weaknesses in study design were common. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized preoperative risk assessment and communication may improve patient and system outcomes. This evidence is limited, however, by weaknesses in study design. Appropriately powered, low risk of bias evaluation of personalized risk communication before surgery is needed.

Effect of patient decision aid was influenced by presurgical evaluation among patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids help patients make total joint arthroplasty decisions, but presurgical evaluation might influence the effects of a decision aid. We compared the effects of a decision aid among patients considering total knee arthroplasty at 2 surgical screening clinics with different evaluation processes. METHODS: We performed a subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Patients were recruited from 2 surgical screening clinics: an academic clinic providing 20-minute physician consultations and a community clinic providing 45-minute physiotherapist/nurse consultations with education. We compared the effects of decision quality, decisional conflict and surgery rate using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ2 tests and the Breslow-Day test. RESULTS: We evaluated 242 patients: 123 from the academic clinic (61 who used the decision aid and 62 controls) and 119 from the community clinic (59 who used the decision aid and 60 controls). Results suggested a between-site difference in the effect of the decision aid on the patients' decision quality (p = 0.09): at the academic site, patients who used the decision were more likely to make better-quality decisions than controls (54% v. 35%, p = 0.044), but not at the community site (47% v. 51%, p = 0.71). Fewer patients who used decision aids at the academic site than at the community site experienced decisional conflict (p = 0.007) (33% v. 52%, p = 0.05 at the academic site and 40% v. 24%, p = 0.08 at the community site). The effect of the decision aid on surgery rates did not differ between sites (p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: The decision aid had a greater effect at the academic site than at the community site, which provided longer consultations with more verbal education. Hence, decision aids might be of greater value when more extensive total knee arthroplasty presurgical assessment and counselling are either impractical or unavailable.

CONTEXTE: Les aides à la décision guident les patients dans leurs choix quant à l'arthroplastie par prothèse totale, mais l'évaluation préopératoire pourrait modifier leur influence. Nous avons comparé cette influence chez les patients qui envisagent une arthroplastie totale du genou dans 2 cliniques de dépistage chirurgical ayant des processus d'évaluation différents. MÉTHODES: Nous avons effectué une analyse par sous-groupes d'un essai clinique randomisé. Les patients ont été recrutés dans 2 cliniques de dépistage chirurgical : une clinique universitaire offrant des consultations de 20 minutes avec un médecin et une clinique communautaire offrant des consultations de 45 minutes avec un physiothérapeute ou une infirmière et de l'enseignement. Nous avons comparé l'influence sur la qualité des décisions, les conflits décisionnels et le taux d'intervention chirurgicale à l'aide des tests de Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (χ2) et du test de Breslow-Day. RÉSULTATS: Nous avons évalué 242 patients : 123 de la clinique universitaire (61 qui ont utilisé l'outil et 62 témoins) et 119 de la clinique communautaire (59 qui ont utilisé l'outil et 60 témoins). Les résultats semblaient indiquer une différence entre les sites quant à l'influence de l'aide sur la qualité des décisions des patients (p = 0,09) : au site universitaire, les patients qui l'ont utilisée étaient plus susceptibles de prendre des décisions de qualité que les témoins (54 % c. 35 %, p = 0,044), mais ce n'était pas le cas au site communautaire (47 % c. 51 %, p = 0,71). Moins de patients qui ont utilisé les aides à la décision au site universitaire qu'au site communautaire avaient vécu un conflit décisionnel (p = 0,007) (33 % c. 52 %, p = 0,05 au site universitaire; 40 % c. 24 %, p = 0,08 au site communautaire). L'influence de l'outil sur les taux d'intervention chirurgicale était la même aux 2 sites (p = 0,65). CONCLUSION: L'aide à la décision a eu un plus grand effet au site universitaire qu'au site communautaire, qui offrait de plus longues consultations et plus d'enseignement verbal. Ce type d'outil aurait donc plus de valeur dans les cas où il est difficile ou impossible d'offrir une évaluation préopératoire détaillée et des conseils approfondis pour l'arthroplastie totale du genou.

Impact of home care versus alternative locations of care on elder health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Many elders struggle with the decision to remain at home or to move to an alternative location of care. A person's location of care can influence health and wellbeing. Healthcare organizations and policy makers are increasingly challenged to better support elders' dwelling and health care needs. A summary of the evidence that examines home care compared to other care locations can inform decision making. We surveyed and summarized the evidence evaluating the impact of home care versus alternative locations of care on elder health outcomes. METHODS: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. Data sources included MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Eligible reviews included adults 65+ years, elder home care, alternative care locations, and elder health outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened citations. We extracted data and appraised review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Results were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: The search yielded 2575 citations, of which 19 systematic reviews were eligible. Three hundred and forty studies with 271,660 participants were synthesized across the systematic reviews. The categories of comparisons included: home with support versus independent living at home (n = 11 reviews), home care versus institutional care (n = 3 reviews), and rehabilitation at home versus conventional rehabilitation services (n = 7 reviews). Two reviews had data relevant to two categories. Most reviews favoured home with support to independent living at home. Findings comparing home care to institutional care were mixed. Most reviews found no differences in health outcomes between rehabilitation at home versus conventional rehabilitation services. Systematic review quality was moderate, with a median AMSTAR score of 6 (range 4 - 10 out of 11). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the impact of home care compared to alternative care locations on elder health outcomes is heterogeneous. Our findings support positive health impacts of home support interventions for community dwelling elders compared to independent living at home. There is insufficient evidence to determine the impact of alternative care locations on elders' health. Additional research targeting housing and care options for the elderly is needed.

Parental decision making involvement and decisional conflict: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Decisional conflict is a state of uncertainty about the best treatment option among competing alternatives and is common among adult patients who are inadequately involved in the health decision making process. In pediatrics, research shows that many parents are insufficiently involved in decisions about their child's health. However, little is known about parents' experience of decisional conflict. We explored parents' perceived decision making involvement and its association with parents' decisional conflict. METHOD: We conducted a descriptive survey study in a pediatric tertiary care hospital. Our survey was guided by validated decisional conflict screening items (i.e., the SURE test). We administered the survey to eligible parents after an ambulatory care or emergency department consultation for their child. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-nine respondents were included in the analysis. Forty-eight percent of parents reported not being offered treatment options and 23% screened positive for decisional conflict. Parents who reported being offered options experienced less decisional conflict than parents who reported not being offered options (5% vs. 42%, p < 0.001). Further, parents with options were more likely to: feel sure about the decision (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.15); understand the information (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.63-2.28); be clear about the risks and benefits (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.20); and, have sufficient support and advice to make a choice (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.11). CONCLUSION: Many parents in our sample experienced decisional conflict after their clinical consultation. Involving parents in the decision making process might reduce their risk of decisional conflict. Evidence based interventions that support parent decision making involvement, such as shared decision making, should be evaluated and implemented in pediatrics as a strategy to reduce parents' decisional conflict.

Estimating the Risks and Benefits of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Generator Replacement: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Every 4-7 years an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) pulse generator must be replaced surgically. This procedure is not without risk. In some cases, the risk versus benefit ratio may be against replacement. We aimed to synthesize the evidence on risks, benefits, and costs related to ICD replacement. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using electronic databases from 2000 onward. Literature screening, quality appraisal, and data extraction were independently conducted by two reviewers. Outcomes included major and minor complications, ICD therapies, and costs, which were synthesized descriptively. RESULTS: Of 1,483 citations, 17 nonrandomized studies met criteria. Median rate of major complications was 4.05% (range 0.55-7.37%) and minor complications was 3.50% (range 0.36-7.37%). Without non-ICD control groups, the true risk reduction provided by the ICD following replacement is unknown. Following ICD replacement, annualized rate of appropriate ICD therapy was 10.52% (range 2.42-75.00%). Of these, patients without therapies during their first generator life and those no longer meeting ICD criteria received appropriate therapies at nontrivial rates. CONCLUSION: Rates of complications associated with ICD replacement are substantial. No study had nonreplacement groups, hence the true risk reduction provided by the ICD following replacement is unknown. Our analysis did not identify a subgroup at low risk of therapies following replacement. Shared discussions should occur with patients about the evidence, healthcare goals, risk tolerances, and feelings about life and death trade-offs to enable high-quality decisions about ICD replacement.

Barriers to and facilitators of implementing shared decision making and decision support in a paediatric hospital: A descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore multiple stakeholders' perceived barriers to and facilitators of implementing shared decision making and decision support in a tertiary paediatric hospital. METHODS: An interpretive descriptive qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and interviews to examine senior hospital administrators', clinicians', parents' and youths' perceived barriers to and facilitators of shared decision making and decision support implementation. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-seven stakeholders participated. Six barrier and facilitator themes emerged. The main barrier was gaps in stakeholders' knowledge of shared decision making and decision support. Facilitators included compatibility between shared decision making and the hospital's culture and ideal practices, perceptions of positive patient and family outcomes associated with shared decision making, and positive attitudes regarding shared decision making and decision support. However, youth attitudes regarding the necessity and usefulness of a decision support program were a barrier. Two themes were both a barrier and a facilitator. First, stakeholder groups were uncertain which clinical situations are suitable for shared decision making (eg, new diagnoses, chronic illnesses, complex decisions or urgent decisions). Second, the clinical process may be hindered if shared decision making and decision support decrease efficiency and workflow; however, shared decision making may reduce repeat visits and save time over the long term. CONCLUSIONS: Specific knowledge translation strategies that improve shared decision making knowledge and match specific barriers identified by each stakeholder group may be required to promote successful shared decision making and decision support implementation in the authors' paediatric hospital.

OBJECTIF: Explorer les obstacles et les incitations perçus par de multiples intervenants à l'adoption de décisions partagées et d'aides à la décision dans un hôpital pédiatrique de soins tertiaires. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les chercheurs ont réalisé une étude qualitative et descriptive interprétative au moyen de groupes de travail et d'entrevues pour examiner les obstacles et les incitations que percevaient des hauts dirigeants des hôpitaux, des cliniciens, des parents et des jeunes à l'égard de l'adoption de décisions partagées et d'aides à la décision. Ils ont recouru à l'analyse thématique inductive pour évaluer les données. RÉSULTATS: Cinquante-sept intervenants ont participé et relevé six thèmes liés aux obstacles et aux incitations. Le principal obstacle était les lacunes des intervenants en matière de décisions partagées et d'aides à la décision. Les incitations incluaient la compatibilité entre les décisions partagées et la culture ainsi que les pratiques idéales de l'hôpital, les perceptions de résultats positifs chez les patients et les familles grâce aux décisions partagées, et les attitudes positives envers des décisions partagées et des aides à la décision. Cependant, les attitudes des adolescents quant à la nécessité et à l'utilité d'un programme d'aide à la décision représentaient un obstacle. Deux thèmes constituaient à la fois des obstacles et des incitations. D'abord, les groupes d'intervenants ne savaient pas quelles situations cliniques convenant aux décisions partagées (p. ex., nouveaux diagnostics, maladies chroniques, décisions complexes ou décisions urgentes). Ensuite, le processus clinique peut être entravé si une décision partagée et une aide à la décision réduisent l'efficacité et le déroulement du travail. Cependant, ces décisions partagées peuvent limiter les consultations répétées à l'hôpital et favoriser un gain de temps à long terme. CONCLUSIONS: Des stratégies précises d'application des connaissances pour améliorer le savoir sur les décisions partagées et corriger les obstacles relevés par chaque groupe d'intervenants pourraient s'imposer pour favoriser l'adoption de décisions partagées et d'aides à la décision à l'hôpital pédiatrique des auteurs.

Decision coaching using the Ottawa family decision guide with parents and their children: a field testing study.

BACKGROUND: Although children can benefit from being included in health decisions, little is known about effective interventions to support their involvement. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of decision coaching guided by the Ottawa Family Decision Guide with children and parents considering insulin delivery options for type 1 diabetes (insulin pump, multiple daily injections, or standard insulin injections). METHODS: Pre-/post-test field testing design. Eligible participants were children (≤18 years) with type 1 diabetes and their parents attending an ambulatory diabetes clinic in a tertiary children's hospital. Parent-child dyads received decision coaching using the Ottawa Family Decision Guide that was pre-populated with evidence on insulin delivery options, benefits, and harms. Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment and data collection, and parent and child acceptability of the intervention. RESULTS: Of 16 families invited to participate, 12 agreed and 7 attended the decision coaching session. For the five missed families, two families were unable to attend the session or the decision coach was not available (N=3). Baseline and immediately post-coaching questionnaires were all completed and follow-up questionnaires two weeks post-coaching were missing from one parent-child dyad. Missing questionnaire items were 5 of 340 items for children (1.5%) and 1 of 429 for parents (0.2%). Decision coaching was rated as acceptable with higher scores from parents and their children who were in earlier stages of decision making. CONCLUSION: Decision coaching with children and their parents considering insulin options was feasible implement and evaluate in our diabetes clinic and was acceptable to participants. Recruitment was difficult due to scheduling restrictions related to the timing of the study. Coaching should target participants earlier in the decision making process and be scheduled at times that are convenient for families and coaches. Findings were used to inform a full-scale evaluation that is currently underway.

Interventions to support children's engagement in health-related decisions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Children often need support in health decision-making. The objective of this study was to review characteristics and effectiveness of interventions that support health decision-making of children. METHODS: A systematic review. Electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) were searched from inception until March 2012. Two independent reviewers screened eligibility: a) intervention studies; b) involved supporting children (≤18 years) considering health-related decision(s); and c) measured decision quality or decision-making process outcomes. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by one author and verified by another using a standardized data extraction form. Quality appraisal was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Of 4313 citations, 5 studies were eligible. Interventions focused on supporting decisions about risk behaviors (n = 3), psycho-educational services (n = 1), and end of life (n = 1). Two of 5 studies had statistically significant findings: i) compared to attention placebo, decision coaching alone increased values congruence between child and parent, and child satisfaction with decision-making process (lower risk of bias); ii) compared to no intervention, a workshop with weekly assignments increased overall decision-making quality (higher risk of bias). CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have focused on interventions to support children's participation in decisions about their health. More research is needed to determine effective methods for supporting children's health decision-making.

Decision aid for patients considering total knee arthroplasty with preference report for surgeons: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate feasibility and potential effectiveness of a patient decision aid (PtDA) for patients and a preference report for surgeons to reduce wait times and improve decision quality in patients with osteoarthritis considering total knee replacement. METHODS: A prospective two-arm pilot randomized controlled trial. Patients with osteoarthritis were eligible if they understood English and were referred for surgical consultation about an initial total knee arthroplasty at a Canadian orthopaedic joint assessment clinic. Patients were randomized to the PtDA intervention or usual education. The intervention was an osteoarthritis PtDA for patients and a one-page preference report summarizing patients' clinical and decisional data for their surgeon. The main feasibility outcomes were rates of recruitment and questionnaire completion; the preliminary effectiveness outcomes were wait times and decision quality. RESULTS: Of 180 patients eligible for surgical consultation, 142 (79%) were recruited and randomized to the PtDA intervention (n = 71) or usual education (n = 71). Data collection yielded a 93% questionnaire completion rate with less than 1% missing items. After one year, 13% of patients remained on the surgical wait list. The median time from referral to being off the wait list (censored using survival analysis techniques) was 33.4 weeks for the PtDA group (n = 69, 95% CI: 26.0, 41.4) and 33.0 weeks for usual education (n = 71, 95% CI: 26.1, 39.9). Patients exposed to the PtDA had higher decision quality based on knowledge (71% versus 47%; p < 0.0001) and quality decision being an informed choice that is consistent with their values for option outcomes (56.4% versus 25.0%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment of patients with osteoarthritis considering surgery and data collection were feasible. As some patients remained on the surgical waiting list after one year, follow-up should be extended to two years. Patients exposed to the PtDA achieved higher decision quality compared to those receiving usual education but there was no difference in wait for surgery. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT00743951.

The effects of alcohol container labels on consumption behaviour, knowledge, and support for labelling: a systematic review.

Alcohol container labels might reduce population-level alcohol-related harms, but investigations of their effectiveness have varied in approach and quality. A systematic synthesis is needed to adjust for these differences and to yield evidence to inform policy. Our objectives were to establish the effects of alcohol container labels bearing one or more health warnings, standard drink information, or low-risk drinking guidance on alcohol consumption behaviour, knowledge of label message, and support for labels. We completed a systematic review according to Cochrane and synthesis without meta-analysis standards. We included all peer-reviewed studies and grey literature published from Jan 1, 1989, to March 6, 2024, in English, French, German, or Spanish that investigated the effects of alcohol container labels compared with no-label or existing label control groups in any population on alcohol consumption behaviour, knowledge of label message, or support for labels. Data were synthesised narratively as impact statements and assessed for risk of bias and certainty in the evidence. A protocol was preregistered (PROSPERO CRD42020168240). We identified 40 publications that studied 31 labels and generated 17 impact statements. 24 (60%) of 40 publications focused on consumption behaviour and we had low or very low certainty in 13 (59%) of 22 outcomes. Alcohol container labels bearing health warnings might slow the rate of alcohol consumption (low certainty), reduce alcoholic beverage selection (moderate certainty), reduce consumption during pregnancy (low certainty), and reduce consumption before driving (moderate certainty). Interventions with multiple types of rotating alcohol container labels likely substantially decrease alcohol use (moderate certainty) and reduce alcohol sales (high certainty). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review on multiple types of alcohol container labels assessing their effects for certainty in the evidence. Limitations included heterogeneity in label designs and outcome measurements. Alcohol container labels probably influence some alcohol consumption behaviour, with multiple rotating messages being particularly effective, although effects might vary depending on individual health literacy or drinking behaviour. Alcohol container labels might therefore be effective components of policies designed to address population-level alcohol-related harms.

Decisions and Decisional Needs of Canadians From all Provinces and Territories During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Population-Based Cross-sectional Surveys.

BACKGROUND: Never before COVID-19 had Canadians faced making health-related decisions in a context of significant uncertainty. However, little is known about which type of decisions and the types of difficulties that they faced. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify the health-related decisions and decisional needs of Canadians. METHODS: Our study was codesigned by researchers and knowledge users (eg, patients, clinicians). Informed by the CHERRIES (the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) reporting guideline, we conducted 2 online surveys of random samples drawn from the Leger consumer panel of 400,000 Canadians. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years) who received or were receiving any health services in the past 12 months for themselves (adults) or for their child (parent) or senior with cognitive impairment (caregiver). We assessed decisions and decisional needs using questions informed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, including decisional conflict and decision regret using the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS) and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), respectively. Descriptive statistics were conducted for adults who had decided for themselves or on behalf of someone else. Significant decisional conflict (SDC) was defined as a total DCS score of >37.5 out of 100, and significant decision regret was defined as a total DRS score of >25 out of 100. RESULTS: From May 18 to June 4, 2021, 14,459 adults and 6542 parents/caregivers were invited to participate. The invitation view rate was 15.5% (2236/14,459) and 28.3% (1850/6542); participation rate, 69.3% (1549/2236) and 28.7% (531/1850); and completion rate, 97.3% (1507/1549) and 95.1% (505/531), respectively. The survey was completed by 1454 (97.3%) adults and 438 (95.1%) parents/caregivers in English (1598/1892, 84.5%) or French (294/1892, 15.5%). Respondents from all 10 Canadian provinces and the northern territories represented a range of ages, education levels, civil statuses, ethnicities, and annual household income. Of 1892 respondents, 541 (28.6%) self-identified as members of marginalized groups. The most frequent decisions were (adults vs parents/caregivers) as follows: COVID-19 vaccination (490/1454, 33.7%, vs 87/438, 19.9%), managing a health condition (253/1454, 17.4%, vs 47/438, 10.7%), other COVID-19 decisions (158/1454, 10.9%, vs 85/438, 19.4%), mental health care (128/1454, 8.8%, vs 27/438, 6.2%), and medication treatments (115/1454, 7.9%, vs 23/438, 5.3%). Caregivers also reported decisions about moving family members to/from nursing or retirement homes (48/438, 11.0%). Adults (323/1454, 22.2%) and parents/caregivers (95/438, 21.7%) had SDC. Factors making decisions difficult were worrying about choosing the wrong option (557/1454, 38.3%, vs 184/438, 42.0%), worrying about getting COVID-19 (506/1454, 34.8%, vs 173/438, 39.5%), public health restrictions (427/1454, 29.4%, vs 158/438, 36.1%), information overload (300/1454, 20.6%, vs 77/438, 17.6%), difficulty separating misinformation from scientific evidence (297/1454, 20.4%, vs 77/438, 17.6%), and difficulty discussing decisions with clinicians (224/1454, 15.4%, vs 51/438, 11.6%). For 1318 (90.6%) adults and 366 (83.6%) parents/caregivers who had decided, 353 (26.8%) and 125 (34.2%) had significant decision regret, respectively. In addition, 1028 (50%) respondents made their decision alone without considering the opinions of clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19, Canadians who responded to the survey faced several new health-related decisions. Many reported unmet decision-making needs, resulting in SDC and decision regret. Interventions can be designed to address their decisional needs and support patients facing new health-related decisions.

The Multifocal Approach to Sharing in Shared Decision Making: A Critical Appraisal of the MAPPIN'SDM.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making integrates health care provider expertise with patient values and preferences. The MAPPIN'SDM is a recently developed measurement instrument that incorporates physician, patient, and observer perspectives during medical consultations. This review sought to critically appraise the development, sensibility, reliability, and validity of the MAPPIN'SDM and to determine in which settings it has been used. METHODS: This critical appraisal was performed through a targeted review of the literature. Articles outlining the development or measurement property assessment of the MAPPIN'SDM or that used the instrument for predictor or outcome purposes were identified. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. The MAPPIN'SDM was developed by both adapting and building on previous shared decision making measurement instruments, as well as through creation of novel items. Content validity, face validity, and item quality of the MAPPIN'SDM are adequate. Internal consistency ranged from 0.91 to 0.94 and agreement statistics from 0.41 to 0.92. The MAPPIN'SDM has been evaluated in several populations and settings, ranging from chronic disease to acute oncological settings. Limitations include high reading levels required for self-administered patient questionnaires and the small number of studies that have employed the instrument to date. CONCLUSION: The MAPPIN'SDM generally shows adequate development, sensibility, reliability, and validity in preliminary testing and holds promise for shared decision making research integrating multiple perspectives. Further research is needed to develop its use in other patient populations and to assess patient understanding of complex item wording.