Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Decisional needs and interventions for young women considering contraceptive options: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Although women face a wide range of contraceptive options, globally, young women are at risk of unintended pregnancies. Our umbrella review aimed to determine the decisional needs of nulligravida women aged 11 to 30 considering contraceptive options and identify effective interventions to support their involvement in making decisions about contraceptive use. METHODS: We followed Joanna Briggs Institute methods for umbrella reviews, theoretically guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. We searched six electronic databases. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and appraised quality using AMSTAR2. We analysed findings descriptively. RESULTS: Of 124 citations, we identified 11 reviews of variable quality (critically low to moderate quality): Six reported decisional needs and 5 reported on interventions. Decisional needs of young women were: (a) information needs about contraceptive options (e.g., mechanism of actions, eligibility, administration, side effects); (b) unclear values (concerns about hormone use) and features of different options (based on their religious values); and (c) need for support and resources (support from society and need for privacy). Compared to controls, decision support interventions including patient decision aids and patient education material increased knowledge and improved discussion of options with their clinicians. CONCLUSION: Young women making contraceptive decisions experience unmet decisional needs. Effective interventions such as patient decision aids and general patient education materials may address their decisional needs and enhance their level of participation in making contraception decisions. Implications and contribution to the field: Young women's decisional needs when considering contraceptive use are informational needs, unclear values (including religious influences), need for support and resources when facing this decision. Interventions, such as patient decision aid and patient education material can, address decisional needs by improving young women's knowledge about contraceptive options.

Triage Decision-Making in Interdisciplinary Pediatric Chronic Pain Programs.

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain programs are ideal treatment settings for youth with chronic pain who are complex from a biopsychosocial perspective. There is currently no evidence-based clinical decision support to guide nurses triaging patients to such programs, which increases the risk for haphazard triage decisions. AIMS: To explore and describe the decision-making practices of and contextual influences on nurses triaging patients to interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain programs. DESIGN: A qualitative exploratory descriptive design. SETTINGS: Interdisciplinary Pediatric Chronic Pain Programs. PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS: In all, 12 nurses across 11 different interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain programs participated in this study. METHODS: Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using concurrent content analysis, guided by the Cognitive Continuum Theory and the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: Findings focused on the complexity of the pediatric chronic pain population and the leading role nurses play in triage without evidence-based guidance. Analysis generated three prominent themes: (1) nurse-led triage determinants; (2) process of triage decision-making; and (3) external influences on triage decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Triage decision making in the setting of interdisciplinary pediatric chronic pain programs is complex and often led by nurses. There is a desire amongst nurses to adopt an evidence-based clinical decision support triage tool (CDS), which may streamline the referral and triage process and foster a system whereby patients in highest need for interdisciplinary care are best prioritized.

Nurse managers' perceptions of the prospective acceptability of an implementation leadership training programme: A qualitative descriptive study.

AIM: To explore the prospective acceptability of an implementation leadership training programme prototype for nurse managers in China to implement evidence-based practices, from the perspectives of potential programme participants and deliverers. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in Spring 2022 at three tertiary hospitals in Hunan, China. METHODS: We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with unit-level nurse managers (n = 14), including 12 potential participants, and two potential deliverers that have been involved in developing the programme prototype. Interview questions and thematic analysis were guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. RESULTS: After reviewing the programme content, potential participants and deliverers reported that unit nurse managers would benefit from engaging in the programme, acknowledging that the programme fit with professional nursing values for implementing research evidence. They expressed positive views about being involved in producing academic papers through the training process, and interactive multi-modal training activities such as group work, experience-sharing and coaching. Seven participants were not very confident about being fully engaged in the training, as they could not navigate the English research literature. Both participants and deliverers highlighted factors that would influence their participation, including time constraints, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and support from senior organizational leadership. CONCLUSIONS: The training programme prototype was perceived to be useful and acceptable. The multimodal training activities were considered a strength and managers expressed an interest in writing academic papers about their implementation processes. Support from senior hospital leaders and programme deliverers was identified as critical to the training programme's success. IMPACT: The study helps understand nurse managers' perceptions and concerns of participating in an implementation leadership training programme and could inform the development and refinement of similar programmes in various nursing contexts globally.

Youth, caregiver and healthcare professional perspectives on planning the implementation of a trauma-informed care programme: A qualitative study.

AIMS: To explore youth, caregiver and staff perspectives on their vision of trauma-informed care, and to identify and understand potential considerations for the implementation of a trauma-informed care programme in an inpatient mental health unit within a paediatric hospital. DESIGN AND METHODS: We applied the Interpretive Description approach, guided by complexity theory and the Implementation Roadmap, and used Applied Thematic Analysis methods. FINDINGS: Twenty-five individuals participated in individual or group interviews between March and June 2022, including 21 healthcare professionals, 3 youth and 1 caregiver. We identified two overarching themes. The first theme, 'Understanding and addressing the underlying reasons for distress', related to participants' understanding and vision of TIC in the current setting comprising: (a) 'Participants' understanding of TIC'; (b) 'Trauma screening and trauma processing within TIC'; (c) 'Taking "a more individualized approach"'; (d) 'Unit programming'; and (e) "Connecting to the community". The second theme, 'Factors that support or limit successful TIC implementation' comprises: (a) 'The need for a broad "cultural shift"'; (b) 'The physical environment on the unit'; and (c) 'Factors that may limit successful implementation'. CONCLUSION: We identified five key domains to consider within trauma-informed care implementation: (a) the centrality of engagement with youth, caregivers and staff in trauma-informed care delivery and implementation, (b) trauma-informed care core programme components, (c) factors that may support or limit success in implementing trauma-informed care within the mental health unit and (d) hospital-wide and (e) the importance of intersectoral collaboration (partnering with external organizations and sectors). IMPACT: When implementing TIC, there is an ongoing need to increase clarity regarding TIC interventions and implementation initiatives. Youth, caregiver and healthcare professional participants shared considerations important for planning the delivery and implementation of trauma-informed care in their setting. We identified five key domains to consider within trauma-informed care implementation: (a) the centrality of relational engagement, (b) trauma-informed care programme components, (c) factors that may support or limit successful implementation of trauma-informed care within the mental health unit and (d) hospital-wide and (e) the importance of intersectoral collaboration. Organizations wishing to implement trauma-informed care should consider ongoing engagement with all relevant knowledge user groups throughout the process. REPORTING METHOD: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The local hospital research institute's Patient and Family Advisory Committee reviewed the draft study methods and provided feedback.

Development of a training program prototype to enhance implementation leadership competencies and behaviours of Chinese unit nurse managers: a qualitative descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Unit nurse managers hold essential positions that can facilitate implementation of evidence-based practice. Studies showed that nurse managers in China lacked competencies and behaviours necessary to lead evidence-based practice implementation. The aim of the current study was to develop a context-fit training program prototype to enhance leadership competencies and behaviours regarding evidence-based practice implementation of Chinese unit nurse managers. METHOD: We used a descriptive qualitative study design and followed the integrated knowledge translation approach to co-develop the prototype in a tertiary hospital in Changsha, China. Seven nurse managers from the participated hospital and a researcher co-developed the prototype based on the Ottawa Model of Implementation Leadership (O-MILe). The development process encompassed four phases from November 2021 to March 2022 that involved group discussions (n = 4) and individual interviews (n = 21). All data were analysed by two independent researchers using the thematic analysis method. RESULTS: Managers agreed that all O-MILe behaviours were important to evidence-based practice implementation, and only minor modifications were needed for clarification and adaptation. The actions managers identified that could operationalize the leadership behaviours were related to current clinical practices, evidence-based practice, nurses, patients, interprofessional staff members, incentives and resources, organization and external entities. Three types of general competencies related to evidence-based practice, professional nursing, and implementation leadership were identified. Multimodal activities such as lectures, experience sharing, group discussions, plan development and coaching were suggested to deliver the training program. CONCLUSIONS: All O-MILe leadership behaviours were perceived as essential for unit nurse managers to lead EBP implementation in the hospital context in China. We identified the leadership actions and the competencies required for nursing managers to implement EBP in China. Further studies are required to evaluate the acceptability and impact of this prototype. Further studies with large sample sizes across various clinical settings are needed to facilitate the generalization of the findings and gain an in-depth understanding of the program.

Reversing frailty in older adults: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Individuals 65 years or older are presumably more susceptible to becoming frail, which increases their risk of multiple adverse health outcomes. Reversing frailty has received recent attention; however, little is understood about what it means and how to achieve it. Thus, the purpose of this scoping review is to synthesize the evidence regarding the impact of frail-related interventions on older adults living with frailty, identify what interventions resulted in frailty reversal and clarify the concept of reverse frailty. METHODS: We followed Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review approach and conducted searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. We hand-searched the reference list of included studies and conducted a grey literature search. Two independent reviewers completed the title, abstract screenings, and full-text review using the eligibility criteria, and independently extracted approximately 10% of the studies. We critically appraised studies using Joanna Briggs critical appraisal checklist/tool, and we used a descriptive and narrative method to synthesize and analyze data. RESULTS: Of 7499 articles, thirty met the criteria and three studies were identified in the references of included studies. Seventeen studies (56.7%) framed frailty as a reversible condition, with 11 studies (36.7%) selecting it as their primary outcome. Reversing frailty varied from either frail to pre-frail, frail to non-frail, and severe to mild frailty. We identified different types of single and multi-component interventions each targeting various domains of frailty. The physical domain was most frequently targeted (n = 32, 97%). Interventions also varied in their frequencies of delivery, intensities, and durations, and targeted participants from different settings, most commonly from community dwellings (n = 23; 69.7%). CONCLUSION: Some studies indicated that it is possible to reverse frailty. However, this depended on how the researchers assessed or measured frailty. The current understanding of reverse frailty is a shift from a frail or severely frail state to at least a pre-frail or mildly frail state. To gain further insight into reversing frailty, we recommend a concept analysis. Furthermore, we recommend more primary studies considering the participant's lived experiences to guide intervention delivery.

Engaging people with lived experience on advisory councils of a national not-for-profit: an integrated knowledge translation case study of Heart & Stroke Mission Critical Area Councils.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada transformed its approach to organizational strategic planning and priority-setting. The goal was to generate impact from bench to bedside to community, to improve the health of Canadians. It engaged researchers, clinician scientists, health systems leaders, and community members including people with lived experience (PWLE) on six Mission Critical Area (MCA) councils, each of which was co-chaired by a researcher or clinician scientist and a person with lived experience. Together, council members were tasked with providing advice to Heart & Stroke about the most relevant and impactful priorities of our time. The aim of this research was to explore the value of the MCA councils to Heart & Stroke, and to council members themselves. The research questions focused on understanding the process of managing and participating on the councils, the challenges and outcomes. METHODS:  Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, we conducted a case study with developmental evaluation over a 2-year time period (2018-2020). We collected qualitative data from various sources (Heart & Stroke team responsible for managing the councils, council co-chairs, council members, and key informants). We collected documents and analysed them for contextual background. RESULTS:  Participants noted that the MCA councils continuously evolved over the 2 years in various ways: from an uncertain direction to a concrete one, better integrating the voice of PWLE, and increased cohesiveness within and across MCA councils. This evolution was achieved in parallel with successes and challenges at three levels: the MCA councils and its members, Heart & Stroke, and Canadians. The MCA councils were disbanded in 2020, yet learnings, developments, initiatives and established partnerships remain as their legacy. CONCLUSIONS:  Heart & Stroke's intended objectives for the MCA councils, to promote engagement and dialogue among community members including PWLE, clinician scientists, and researchers, and to provide advice into Heart & Stroke's strategic renewal process, were achieved. This collaborative structure and process for PWLE engagement within a community of multidisciplinary clinician scientists and researchers is possible yet requires flexibility, commitment to stakeholder relationship management, and considerable resources. These findings may be helpful for other not-for-profit and funding organizations interested in engaging the public and other stakeholders into their organizational activities.

A mixed-methods systematic review of interventions to improve leadership competencies of managers supervising nurses.

AIM: This study aimed to synthesize evidence on interventions to improve leadership competencies of managers supervising nurses. BACKGROUND: In recent years, numerous interventions have been developed to improve the leadership competencies of managers supervising nurses. However, researchers and nursing leaders are unclear about what aspects of interventions are effective for developing which competencies. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) approach for evidence synthesis. The Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Nursing and Allied Health Database were reviewed. Data extraction, quality appraisal and narrative synthesis were conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 69 studies (35 quantitative, 22 mixed methods, 12 qualitative) evaluating 68 interventions were included. Studies showed that interventions used modal activities such as lectures, group work and mentoring that generally had positive effects on improving leadership competencies such as supporting, developing and recognizing nurses. Opportunities to interact with peers increased managers' engagement in the interventions; however, many barriers existed for managers to use the competencies in practice including understaffing, insufficient time and lack of support from supervisors and staff. CONCLUSIONS: Leadership interventions were shown to have beneficial effects on developing different competencies. Managers predominately felt positive about participating in leadership interventions; however, they expressed many difficulties applying what they learned in practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Leadership interventions should include multimodal activities that give managers opportunities for interaction. When considering interventions for developing the leadership of managers, it is imperative to consider the practice environments for managers to be successful in applying the competencies they learned in practice.

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.

Decision Support for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Replacement: A Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Decision support can help patients facing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) replacement understand their options and reach an informed decision reflective of their preferences. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a decision support intervention for patients faced with the decision to replace their ICD. METHODS: A pilot feasibility randomized trial was conducted. Patients approaching ICD battery depletion were randomized to decision support intervention or usual care. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment rates, intervention use, and completeness of data; secondary outcomes were knowledge, values-choice concordance, decisional conflict, involvement in decision making, and choice. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were randomized to intervention (n = 15) or usual care (n = 15). The intervention was used as intended, with 2% missing data. Patients in the intervention arm had better knowledge (77.4% vs 51.1%; P = .002). By 12 months, 8 of 13 (61.5%) in the intervention arm and 10 of 14 (71.4%) in the usual care arm accepted ICD replacement; 1 per arm declined (7.7% vs 7.1%, respectively). CONCLUSION: It was feasible to deliver the intervention, collect data, despite slow recruitment. The decision support intervention has the potential to improve ICD replacement decision quality.

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.

Incorporating patients' preference diagnosis in implantable cardioverter defibrillator decision-making: a review of recent literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Strong recommendations exist for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in appropriately selected patients. Yet, patient preferences are not often incorporated when decisions about ICD therapy are made. Literature published since 2016 was reviewed aiming to discuss current advances and ongoing challenges with ICD decision-making in adults, discuss shared decision-making (SDM) as a strategy to incorporate preference diagnoses, summarize current evidence on effective interventions to facilitate SDM, and identify opportunities for research and practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Advances in risk stratification can identify patients who will most and least likely benefit from the ICD. Interventions to support SDM are emerging. These interventions present options, the risks, and the benefits of each option, and elicit patients' values and preferences regarding possible outcomes. SUMMARY: Appropriate patient selection for initial or continued ICD therapy is multifactorial. It requires accurate clinical diagnosis using careful risk stratification and accurate preference diagnosis based upon the patient's preferences. SDM aims to unite the elements that constitute these two equally important diagnoses. High-quality decision-making will be difficult to achieve if patients lack or misunderstand information, and if evolving patient preferences are not incorporated when making decisions.

User-centered Development of a Decision Aid for Patients Facing Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Replacement: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Because of battery depletion, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) generator requires surgical replacement every 5 to 7 years. Routine replacement is the norm without discussion with patients about whether or not to proceed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a patient decision aid (PDA) for patients facing ICD replacement and plan for its implementation. METHODS: An embedded mixed-methods study was conducted using questionnaires and semistructured interviews focused on current ICD replacement practices; PDA acceptability, usability, and content; and PDA implementation. Transcripts were analyzed using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: Eighteen PDA end users in 16 interviews characterized the current ICD replacement approach as automatic without consideration for patient preferences. The PDA was positively received, and the content was iteratively revised 4 times during the interviews. Changes were related to missing and excess information, language, and wording. The PDA was identified as a means to support a shared decision-making (SDM) process, not to be used as a standalone instrument. To shift current practices to an SDM process, participants identified that an invitation to discuss the option of ICD replacement is required-whether initiated by the patient or the clinician. CONCLUSION: Currently, the option of ICD replacement is rarely offered, and patient preferences are seldom elicited. Participants believed the PDA to be a useful intervention that could help facilitate an SDM process for patients facing ICD replacement. Preparing for implementation during the development phase will allow us to strategize effectively to overcome perceived barriers and capitalize on perceived facilitators during actual implementation.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions. SEARCH METHODS: Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Patient Decision Aids to Engage Adults in Treatment or Screening Decisions.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Are patient decision aids (PtDAs) associated with (1) improved decision quality defined as a decision informed by the evidence and a value-based decision; (2) improved decision-making processes defined as feeling informed, defining clear values related to the decision, and active participation in making the decision; and (3) better patient and health system outcomes compared with either usual care or a non-PtDA intervention? BOTTOM LINE: Patient decision aids are associated with improved decision quality and decision-making processes without worse patient or health system outcomes.

Structure-function relationships in histidine-rich antimicrobial peptides from Atlantic cod.

Gad-1 and Gad-2 are antimicrobial peptide (AMP) sequences encoded by paralogous genes. They are rich in histidine, which suggests that their activity might be pH-dependent. We examined their structure-function relationships with a view to learning how to improve AMP therapeutic ratios. Activity assays with Gram-negative bacteria and cancer cell lines demonstrate that Gad-2 is substantially more active at slightly acidic pH than it is at neutral pH. By contrast, the activity of Gad-1 at lower pH is similar to its activity at pH7. Circular dichroism spectra indicate that the greater functional plasticity of Gad-2 correlates with a greater structural plasticity; Gad-2's percent helicity varies dramatically with altered pH and lipid environment. Interestingly, Gad-2's highest levels of helicity do not correspond to the conditions where it is most active. High resolution solution NMR structures were determined in SDS micelles at pH5, conditions that induce an intermediate level of helicity in the peptides. Gad-1 is more helical than Gad-2, with both peptides exhibiting the greatest helical tendencies in their central region and lowest helicity in their N-termini. The high resolution structures suggest that maximum activity relies on the appropriate balance between an N-terminal region with mixed hydrophobic/hydrophilic structure features and an amphipathic central and C-terminal region. Taken together with previous studies, our results suggest that to improve the therapeutic ratio of AMPs, consideration should be given to including sequential histidine-pairs, keeping the overall charge of the peptide modest, and retaining a degree of structural plasticity and imperfect amphipathicity.

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.

A Relational Approach to Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Generator Replacement: An Integrative Review of the Role of Nursing in Shared Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation rates are increasing as advances in heart failure and arrhythmia management progress. Consequently, the number of ICD generator replacements is rising and ICD replacement is an opportune time for shared decision-making (SDM). Nurses should have distinct roles and responsibilities in SDM processes. OBJECTIVES: To use a relational lens to localize the role of the nurse in SDM, and recommend ways in which nurses can be involved in SDM. METHODS: An integrative review of 17 articles was conducted to determine the role of nurses in SDM. RESULTS: Our analysis revealedfour themes that helped us articulate nurse involvement in SDM; knowledge as a basis for SDM, sharing power in the nurse-patient relationship, utilization of decisional support strategies, and communication. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the participation of nurses in SDM. Nursing implications are offered, specifically for the management of patients facing ICD replacement.

Evaluation of an integrated knowledge translation approach used for updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids: a pre-post mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. They are referred to as "knowledge users". This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). We know little about knowledge users' involvement in the conduct of systematic reviews. We aimed to evaluate team members' degree of meaningful engagement and their perceptions of having used an IKT approach when updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post mixed methods study. We surveyed all team members at two time points. Before systematic review conduct, all participating team members indicated their preferred level of involvement within each of the 12 steps of the systematic review process from "Screen titles/abstracts" to "Provide feedback on draft article". After, they reported on their degree of satisfaction with their achieved level of engagement across each step and the degree of meaningful engagement using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22) across 7 domains scored from 100 (extremely meaningful engagement) to 0 (no meaningful engagement). We solicited their experiences with the IKT approach using open-ended questions. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using content analysis. We triangulated data at the level of study design and interpretation. RESULTS: Of 21 team members, 20 completed the baseline survey (95.2% response rate) and 17/20 (85.0% response rate) the follow-up survey. There were 11 (55%) researchers, 3 (15%) patients/consumers, 5 (25%) clinician-researchers, and 1 (5%) graduate student. At baseline, preferred level of involvement in the 12 systematic review steps varied from n = 3 (15%) (search grey literature sources) to n = 20 (100%) (provide feedback on the systematic review article). At follow-up, 16 (94.1%) participants were totally or very satisfied with the extent to which they were involved in these steps. All (17, 100%) agreed that the process was co-production. Total PEIRS-22 scores revealed most participants reported extremely (13, 76.4%) or very (2, 11.8%) meaningful degree of engagement. Triangulated data revealed that participants indicated benefit to having been engaged in an authentic research process that incorporated diverse perspectives, resulting in better and more relevant outputs. Reported challenges were about time, resources, and the logistics of collaborating with a large group. CONCLUSION: Following the use of an IKT approach during the conduct of a systematic review, team members reported high levels of meaningful engagement. These results contribute to our understanding of ways to co-produce systematic reviews.

When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). This approach is rarely used and there is little information about using it with systematic reviews. A systematic review is a type of study that provides the best available evidence on a given topic by combining data from all existing studies. The aim of this study was to find out how engaged our team members felt when partnering on our systematic review about patient decision aids. Twenty of 21 team members participated in the study, including 11 researchers, 3 patients/consumers, 5 clinician-researchers, and 1 graduate student. We asked our team members to complete a survey about their experience as part of our IKT research process at two time points: before starting the study and after the study was done. Most team members felt extremely or very engaged in the process. All team members felt like partners. They gave examples of how this was achieved. Advantages to using the IKT approach included knowledge sharing, inclusion of more diverse voices, a more authentic research process, better and more relevant results, and personal benefits (e.g. enjoyment from being involved). Disadvantages to using this approach was that it took more time and resources. Three team members said there were no disadvantages. It is possible for patients/consumers and clinicians to partner and feel engaged with research teams doing systematic reviews. Our findings may help researchers engage knowledge users as equal partners on study teams.