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.

The Impact of Advance Care Planning on Healthcare Professionals' Well-being: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Advance care planning (ACP) improves care for patients with chronic illnesses and reduces family stress. However, the impact of ACP interventions on healthcare professionals' well-being remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature evaluating the impact of ACP interventions on healthcare professionals' well-being. METHODS: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for systematic reviews and registered the protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42022346354). We included primary studies in all languages that assessed the well-being of healthcare professionals in ACP interventions. We excluded any studies on ACP in psychiatric care and in palliative care that did not address goals of care. Searches were conducted on April 4, 2022, and March 6, 2023 in Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PubMed. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality analysis. We present results as a narrative synthesis because of their heterogeneity. RESULTS: We included 21 articles published in English between 1997 and 2021 with 17 published after 2019. All were conducted in high-income countries, and they involved a total of 1278 participants. Three reported an interprofessional intervention and two included patient partners. Studies had significant methodological flaws but most reported that ACP had a possible positive impact on healthcare professionals' well-being. CONCLUSION: This review is the first to explore the impact of ACP interventions on healthcare professionals' well-being. ACP interventions appear to have a positive impact, but high-quality studies are scarce. Further research is needed, particularly using more rigorous and systematic methods to implement interventions and report results.

Decision-making and related outcomes of patients with complex care needs in primary care settings: a systematic literature review with a case-based qualitative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: In primary care, patients increasingly face difficult decisions related to complex care needs (multimorbidity, polypharmacy, mental health issues, social vulnerability and structural barriers). There is a need for a pragmatic conceptual model to understand decisional needs among patients with complex care needs and outcomes related to decision. We aimed to identify types of decisional needs among patients with complex care needs, and decision-making configurations of conditions associated with decision outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. Two specialized librarians searched five bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and SSCI). The search strategy was conducted from inception to December 2017. A team of twenty crowd-reviewers selected empirical studies on: (1) patients with complex care needs; (2) decisional needs; (3) primary care. Two reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We conducted a 2-phase case-based qualitative synthesis framed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and Gregor's explicative-predictive theory type. A decisional need case involved: (a) a decision (what), (b) concerning a patient with complex care needs with bio-psycho-social characteristics (who), (c) made independently or in partnership (how), (d) in a specific place and time (where/when), (e) with communication and coordination barriers or facilitators (why), and that (f) influenced actions taken, health or well-being, or decision quality (outcomes). RESULTS: We included 47 studies. Data sufficiency qualitative criterion was reached. We identified 69 cases (2997 participants across 13 countries) grouped into five types of decisional needs: 'prioritization' (n = 26), 'use of services' (n = 22), 'prescription' (n = 12), 'behavior change' (n = 4) and 'institutionalization' (n = 5). Many decisions were made between clinical encounters in situations of social vulnerability. Patterns of conditions associated with decision outcomes revealed four decision-making configurations: 'well-managed' (n = 13), 'asymmetric encounters' (n = 21), 'self-management by default' (n = 8), and 'chaotic' (n = 27). Shared decision-making was associated with positive outcomes. Negative outcomes were associated with independent decision-making. CONCLUSION: Our results could extend decision-making models in primary care settings and inform subsequent user-centered design of decision support tools for heterogenous patients with complex care needs.

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.

Continuing professional education of Iranian healthcare professionals in shared decision-making: lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we sought to assess healthcare professionals' acceptance of and satisfaction with a shared decision making (SDM) educational workshop, its impact on their intention to use SDM, and their perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation of SDM in clinical settings in Iran. METHODS: We conducted an observational quantitative study that involved measurements before, during, and immediately after the educational intervention at stake. We invited healthcare professionals affiliated with Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, East Azerbaijan, Iran, to attend a half-day workshop on SDM in December 2016. Decisions about prenatal screening and knee replacement surgery was used as clinical vignettes. We provided a patient decision aid on prenatal screening that complied with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards and used illustrate videos. Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and a questionnaire to assess their familiarity with SDM, a questionnaire based on theoretical domains framework to assess their intention to implement SDM, a questionnaire about their perceived facilitators and barriers of implementing SDM in their clinical practice, continuous professional development reaction questionnaire, and workshop evaluation. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively and with multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Among the 60 healthcare professionals invited, 41 participated (68%). Twenty-three were female (57%), 18 were specialized in family and emergency medicine, or community and preventive medicine (43%), nine were surgeons (22%), and 14 (35%) were other types of specialists. Participants' mean age was 37.51 ± 8.64 years with 8.09 ± 7.8 years of clinical experience. Prior to the workshop, their familiarity with SDM was 3.10 ± 2.82 out of 9. After the workshop, their belief that practicing SDM would be beneficial and useful (beliefs about consequences) (beta = 0.67, 95% CI 0.27, 1.06) and beliefs about capability of using SDM (beta = 0.32, 95% CI -0.08, 0.72) had the strongest influence on their intention of practicing SDM. Participants perceived the main facilitator and barrier to perform SDM were training and high patient load, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Participants thought the workshop was a good way to learn SDM and that they would be able to use what they had learned in their clinical practice. Future studies need to study the level of intention of participants in longer term and evaluate the impact of cultural differences on practicing SDM and its implementation in both western and non-western countries.

Overcoming Overuse Part 5: Is Shared Decision Making Our Excalibur?

SUMMARY: Shared decision making is recommended as a strategy to help patients identify what matters most to them and make informed decisions about musculoskeletal care. In part 5 of the Overcoming Overuse series, we look at the evidence supporting shared decision making as a strategy to help curb overuse. Using shared decision making in clinical consultations may help to reduce the overuse of options that are not beneficial and to increase use of care supported by evidence. Shared decision making could support clinicians in promoting uptake of active rehabilitation options with a favorable balance of benefits to harms. Shared decision making facilitates conversations about unnecessary tests or treatments and could be a key strategy for overcoming overuse. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(2):53-56. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0103.

Barriers to and enablers of attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening experienced by immigrants to Canada from multiple cultural and linguistic minority groups.

AIM: To identify barriers to/enablers of attendance at eye screening among three groups of immigrantsto Canada from cultural/linguistic minority groups living with diabetes. METHODS: Using a patient-oriented research approach leveraging Diabetes Action Canada's patient engagement platform, we interviewed a purposeful sample of people with type 2 diabetes who had immigrated to Canada from: Pakistan (interviews in Urdu), China (interviews in Mandarin) and French-speaking African and Caribbean nations (interviews in French). We collected and analysed data based on the Theoretical Domains Framework covering key modifiable factors that may operate as barriers to or enablers of attending eye screening. We used directed content analysis to code barrier/enabler domains. Barriers/enablers were mapped to behaviour change techniques to inform future intervention development. RESULTS: We interviewed 39 people (13 per group). Many barriers/enablers were consistent across groups, including views about harms caused by screening itself, practical appointment issues including forgetting, screening costs, wait times and making/getting to an appointment, lack of awareness about retinopathy screening, language barriers, and family and clinical support. Group-specific barriers/enablers included a preference to return to one's country of birth for screening, the impact of winter, and preferences for alternative medicine. CONCLUSION: Our results can inform linguistic and culturally competent interventions to support immigrants living with diabetes in attending eye screening to prevent avoidable blindness.

A Patient Decision Aid for Men With Localized Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Case Study of Natural Implementation Approaches.

BACKGROUND: There are multiple options for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) help empower individuals and reduce unwarranted practice variation, but few are used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: We compared 2 programs implementing PtDAs for men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: This was a comparative case study. Case 1 was a hospital prostate pathway and case 2 was a provincial prostate pathway with 2 locations (2a, 2b). Nurses provided the men with PtDAs and answered questions. Data sources were as follows: (a) 2 years administrative data for men with localized prostate cancer, (b) clinicians survey and interviews, and (c) patients/spouses interviews. Analysis was within and across cases. RESULTS: The PtDA was used with 23% of men in case 1 (95% confidence interval, 19.8%-26.1%) and 98% of men in case 2a (95% confidence interval, 96.5%-99.8%). The pathway was not implemented in case 2b. Men given the PtDA had positive experiences. Many clinicians supported the use of PtDAs, some adapted their discussions with patients, and others did not support the use of PtDAs. To increase use in case 1, participants identified needing a Canadian PtDA available electronically and endorsed by all clinicians. In case 2b, the provincial prostate pathway needed to be implemented. CONCLUSIONS: There was variable uptake of the PtDAs between the cases. Men who received the PtDA had positive outcomes. Several strategies were identified to increase or sustain PtDA use. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurses have a key role in supporting men making decisions about prostate cancer treatment by providing PtDAs, answering questions, and advocating for men's preferences.

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

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

Talking about treatment benefits, harms, and what matters to patients in radiation oncology: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making is associated with improved patient outcomes in radiation oncology. Our study aimed to capture how shared decision-making practices-namely, communicating potential harms and benefits and discussing what matters to patients-occur in usual care. METHODS: We invited a convenience sample of clinicians and patients in a radiation oncology clinic to participate in a mixed methods study. Prior to consultations, clinicians and patients completed self-administered questionnaires. We audio-recorded consultations and conducted qualitative content analysis. Patients completed a questionnaire immediately post-consultation about their recall and perceptions. RESULTS: 11 radiation oncologists, 4 residents, 14 nurses, and 40 patients (55% men; mean age 64, standard deviation or SD 9) participated. Patients had a variety of cancers; 30% had been referred for palliative radiotherapy. During consultations (mean length 45 min, SD 16), clinicians presented a median of 8 potential harms (interquartile range 6-11), using quantitative estimates 17% of the time. Patients recalled significantly fewer harms (median recall 2, interquartile range 0-3, t(38) = 9.3, p < .001). Better recall was associated with discussing potential harms with a nurse after seeing the physician (odds ratio 7.5, 95% confidence interval 1.3-67.0, p = .04.) Clinicians initiated 63% of discussions of harms and benefits while patients and families initiated 69% of discussions about values and preferences (Chi-squared(1) = 37.8, p < .001). 56% of patients reported their clinician asked what mattered to them. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncology clinics may wish to use interprofessional care and initiate more discussions about what matters to patients to heed Jain's (2014) reminder that, "a patient isn't a disease with a body attached but a life into which a disease has intruded."

Inappropriateness of health care in Canada: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition in Canada and globally that a substantial proportion of health care delivered is inappropriate as evidenced by (1) harmful and/or ineffective practices being overused, (2) effective clinical practices being underused, and (3) other clinical practices being misused. Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes, and inefficient use of scarce health care resources. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review of inappropriate health care in Canada. Our specific objectives are to (1) systematically search and critically review published and grey literature for studies on inappropriate health care in Canada; (2) estimate the nature and magnitude of inappropriate health care in Canada and its provincial and territorial jurisdictions. METHODS: We will include all quantitative study designs reporting objective or subjective measurements of inappropriate health care in Canada over the last 10 years. We will search the following online databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, and ISI-Web of Knowledge, which contains Web of Science Core Collection-Citation Indexes, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We will also search grey literature sources to identify provincial and national audits of inappropriate health care. Two authors will independently screen, assess data quality, and extract data for synthesis. Study findings will be synthesized narratively. We will organize our data into three care categorizations: preventive care, acute care, and chronic care. We will provide a compendium of inappropriate health care for each care category for Canada and each Canadian province and territory, where sufficient data exists, by calculating (1) overall medians of underuse, overuse, and misuse of clinical practices and (2) the range of medians of underuse, overuse, and misuse for each clinical practice investigated. DISCUSSION: This review will result in the first-ever evidence-based compendium of inappropriate health care in Canada. We will also develop detailed reports of inappropriate health care for each Canadian province and territory. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018093495.

Strategies to improve the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting tobacco, alcohol, diet, physical activity and obesity.

BACKGROUND: Given the substantial period of time adults spend in their workplaces each day, these provide an opportune setting for interventions addressing modifiable behavioural risk factors for chronic disease. Previous reviews of trials of workplace-based interventions suggest they can be effective in modifying a range of risk factors including diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use and tobacco use. However, such interventions are often poorly implemented in workplaces, limiting their impact on employee health. Identifying strategies that are effective in improving the implementation of workplace-based interventions has the potential to improve their effects on health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of strategies for improving the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use and alcohol use.Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of such strategies on employee health behaviours, including dietary intake, physical activity, weight status, and alcohol and tobacco use; evaluate their cost-effectiveness; and identify any unintended adverse effects of implementation strategies on workplaces or workplace staff. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases on 31 August 2017: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; MEDLINE In Process; the Campbell Library; PsycINFO; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and Scopus. We also handsearched all publications between August 2012 and September 2017 in two speciality journals: Implementation Science and Journal of Translational Behavioral Medicine. We conducted searches up to September 2017 in Dissertations and Theses, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the US National Institutes of Health Registry. We screened the reference lists of included trials and contacted authors to identify other potentially relevant trials. We also consulted experts in the field to identify other relevant research. SELECTION CRITERIA: Implementation strategies were defined as strategies specifically employed to improve the implementation of health interventions into routine practice within specific settings. We included any trial with a parallel control group (randomised or non-randomised) and conducted at any scale that compared strategies to support implementation of workplace policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use or tobacco use versus no intervention (i.e. wait-list, usual practice or minimal support control) or another implementation strategy. Implementation strategies could include those identified by the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy such as quality improvement initiatives and education and training, as well as other strategies. Implementation interventions could target policies or practices directly instituted in the workplace environment, as well as workplace-instituted efforts encouraging the use of external health promotion services (e.g. gym membership subsidies). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors working in pairs independently performed citation screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, resolving disagreements via consensus or a third reviewer. We narratively synthesised findings for all included trials by first describing trial characteristics, participants, interventions and outcomes. We then described the effect size of the outcome measure for policy or practice implementation. We performed meta-analysis of implementation outcomes for trials of comparable design and outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials, four of which took place in the USA. Four trials employed randomised controlled trial (RCT) designs. Trials were conducted in workplaces from the manufacturing, industrial and services-based sectors. The sample sizes of workplaces ranged from 12 to 114. Workplace policies and practices targeted included: healthy catering policies; point-of-purchase nutrition labelling; environmental supports for healthy eating and physical activity; tobacco control policies; weight management programmes; and adherence to guidelines for staff health promotion. All implementation interventions utilised multiple implementation strategies, the most common of which were educational meetings, tailored interventions and local consensus processes. Four trials compared an implementation strategy intervention with a no intervention control, one trial compared different implementation interventions, and one three-arm trial compared two implementation strategies with each other and a control. Four trials reported a single implementation outcome, whilst the other two reported multiple outcomes. Investigators assessed outcomes using surveys, audits and environmental observations. We judged most trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias and at unclear risk of reporting and attrition bias.Of the five trials comparing implementation strategies with a no intervention control, pooled analysis was possible for three RCTs reporting continuous score-based measures of implementation outcomes. The meta-analysis found no difference in standardised effects (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.30; 164 participants; 3 studies; low certainty evidence), suggesting no benefit of implementation support in improving policy or practice implementation, relative to control. Findings for other continuous or dichotomous implementation outcomes reported across these five trials were mixed. For the two non-randomised trials examining comparative effectiveness, both reported improvements in implementation, favouring the more intensive implementation group (very low certainty evidence). Three trials examined the impact of implementation strategies on employee health behaviours, reporting mixed effects for diet and weight status (very low certainty evidence) and no effect for physical activity (very low certainty evidence) or tobacco use (low certainty evidence). One trial reported an increase in absolute workplace costs for health promotion in the implementation group (low certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed adverse consequences. Limitations of the review included the small number of trials identified and the lack of consistent terminology applied in the implementation science field, which may have resulted in us overlooking potentially relevant trials in the search. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence regarding the effectiveness of implementation strategies for improving implementation of health-promoting policies and practices in the workplace setting is sparse and inconsistent. Low certainty evidence suggests that such strategies may make little or no difference on measures of implementation fidelity or different employee health behaviour outcomes. It is also unclear if such strategies are cost-effective or have potential unintended adverse consequences. The limited number of trials identified suggests implementation research in the workplace setting is in its infancy, warranting further research to guide evidence translation in this setting.

Physician and Pharmacist Medication Decision-Making in the Time of Electronic Health Records: Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care needs to be patient-centered, integrated, and interprofessional to help patients with complex needs manage the burden of medication-related problems. Considering the growing problem of polypharmacy, increasing attention has been paid to how and when medication-related decisions should be coordinated across multidisciplinary care teams. Improved knowledge on how integrated electronic health records (EHRs) can support interprofessional shared decision-making for medication therapy management is necessary to continue improving patient care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to examine how physicians and pharmacists understand and communicate patient-focused medication information with each other and how this knowledge can influence the design of EHRs. METHODS: This study is part of a broader cross-Canada study between patients and health care providers around how medication-related decisions are made and communicated. We visited community pharmacies, team-based primary care clinics, and independent-practice family physician clinics throughout Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and Quebec. Research assistants conducted semistructured interviews with physicians and pharmacists. A modified version of the Multidisciplinary Framework Method was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: We collected data from 19 pharmacies and 9 medical clinics and identified 6 main themes from 34 health care professionals. First, Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making was not occurring and clinicians made decisions based on their understanding of the patient. Physicians and pharmacists reported indirect Communication, incomplete Information specifically missing insight into indication and adherence, and misaligned Processes of Care that were further compounded by EHRs that are not designed to facilitate collaboration. Scope of Practice examined professional and workplace boundaries for pharmacists and physicians that were internally and externally imposed. Physicians decided on the degree of the Physician-Pharmacist Relationship, often predicated by colocation. CONCLUSIONS: We observed limited communication and collaboration between primary care providers and pharmacists when managing medications. Pharmacists were missing key information around reason for use, and physicians required accurate information around adherence. EHRs are a potential tool to help clinicians communicate information to resolve this issue. EHRs need to be designed to facilitate interprofessional medication management so that pharmacists and physicians can move beyond task-based work toward a collaborative approach.

What Do Clinical Supervisors Require to Teach Residents in Family Medicine How to Care for Seniors?

We assessed clinicians' continuing professional development (CPD) needs at family practice teaching clinics in the province of Quebec. Our mixed methodology design comprised an environmental scan of training programs at four family medicine departments, an expert panel to determine priority clinical situations for senior care, a supervisors survey to assess their perceived CPD needs, and interviews to help understand the rationale behind their needs. From the environmental scan, the expert panel selected 13 priority situations. Key needs expressed by the 352 survey respondents (36% response rate) included behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, polypharmacy, depression, and cognitive disorders. Supervisors explained that these situations were sometimes complex to diagnose and manage because of psychosocial aspects, challenges of communicating with patients and families, and coordination of interprofessional teams. Supervisors also reported more CPD needs in long-term and home care, given the presence of caregivers and complexity of senior care in these settings.

Milestones, barriers and beacons: Shared decision making in Canada inches ahead.

Canada's approach to shared decision making (SDM) remains as disparate as its healthcare system; a conglomerate of 14 public plans - ten provincial, three territorial and one federal. The healthcare research funding environment has been largely positive for SDM because there was funding for knowledge translation research which also encompassed SDM. The funding climate currently places new emphasis on patient involvement in research and on patient empowerment in healthcare. SDM fields have expanded from primary care to elder care, paediatrics, emergency and critical care medicine, cardiology, nutrition, occupational therapy and workplace rehabilitation. Also, SDM has reached out to embrace other health-related decisions including about home care and social care and has been adapted to Aboriginal decision making needs. Canadian researchers have developed new interprofessional SDM models that are being used worldwide. Professional interest in SDM in Canada is not yet widespread, but there are provincial initiatives in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Decision aids are routinely used in some areas, for example for prostate cancer in Saskatchewan, and many others are available for online consultation. The Patient Decision Aids Research Group in Ottawa, Ontario maintains an international inventory of decision aids appraised with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The Canada Research Chair in SDM and Knowledge Translation in Quebec City maintains a website of SDM training programs available worldwide. These initiatives are positive, but the future of SDM in Canada depends on whether health policies, health professionals and the public culture fully embrace it.

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 participation in palliative care decisions: An ethnographic discourse analysis.

The participation of patients in making decisions about their care is especially important towards the end of life because palliative care decisions involve extensive uncertainty and are heavily influenced by personal values. Yet, there is a scarcity of studies directly observing clinical interactions between palliative patients and their health care providers. In this study, we aimed to understand how patient participation in palliative care decisions is constructed through discourse in a community hospital-based palliative care team. This qualitative study combined ethnographic observations of a palliative care team with discourse analysis. Eighteen palliative care patients with cancer diagnoses, six family physicians, and two nurses were involved in the study. Multiple interactions were observed between each patient and health care providers over the course of 1 year, for a total of 101 consultations, 24 of which were audio-recorded. The analysis consisted in looking for the interpretive repertoires (i.e., familiar lines of argument used to justify actions) that were used to justify patient participation in decision-making during clinical interactions, as well as exploring their implications for decision roles and end-of-life care. Patients and their health care providers seldom addressed their decision-making roles explicitly. Rather, they constructed patient participation in palliative care decisions in a covert manner. Four interpretive repertoires were used to justify patient participation: (1) exposing uncertainty, (2) co-constructing patient preferences, (3) affirming patient autonomy, and finally (4) upholding the authority of health care providers. The results demonstrate how patients and health care providers used these arguments to negotiate their respective roles in decision-making. In conclusion, patients and health care providers used a variety of interpretive repertoires to covertly negotiate their roles in decision-making, and to legitimize decisions that shaped patients' dying trajectories. Discourse analysis encourages awareness of the role of language in either promoting or hindering patient participation in decision-making.

Role of Psychosocial Factors and Health Literacy in Pregnant Women's Intention to Use a Decision Aid for Down Syndrome Screening: A Theory-Based Web Survey.

BACKGROUND: Deciding about undergoing prenatal screening is difficult, as it entails risks, potential loss and regrets, and challenges to personal values. Shared decision making and decision aids (DAs) can help pregnant women give informed and values-based consent or refusal to prenatal screening, but little is known about factors influencing the use of DAs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the influence of psychosocial factors on pregnant women's intention to use a DA for prenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS). We also added health literacy variables to explore their influence on pregnant women's intention. METHODS: We conducted a survey of pregnant women in the province of Quebec (Canada) using a Web panel. Eligibility criteria included age >18 years, >16 weeks pregnant, low-risk pregnancy, and having decided about prenatal screening for the current pregnancy. We collected data based on an extended version of the Theory of Planned Behavior assessing 7 psychosocial constructs (intention, attitude, anticipated regret, subjective norm, descriptive norm, moral norm, and perceived control), 3 related sets of beliefs (behavioral, normative, and control beliefs), 4 health literacy variables, and sociodemographics. Eligible women watched a video depicting the behavior of interest before completing a Web-based questionnaire. We performed descriptive, bivariate, and ordinal logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 383 eligible pregnant women who agreed to participate, 350 pregnant women completed the Web-based questionnaire and 346 were retained for analysis (completion rate 350/383, 91.4%; mean age 30.1, SD 4.3, years). In order of importance, factors influencing intention to use a DA for prenatal screening for DS were attitude (odds ratio, OR, 9.16, 95% CI 4.02-20.85), moral norm (OR 7.97, 95% CI 4.49-14.14), descriptive norm (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.63-4.92), and anticipated regret (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.71-3.46). Specific attitudinal beliefs significantly related to intention were that using a DA would reassure them (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.73-4.01), facilitate their reflections with their spouse (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.05-2.29), and let them know about the advantages of doing or not doing the test (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.05-2.24). Health literacy did not add to the predictive power of our model (P values range .43-.92). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation interventions targeting the use of a DA for prenatal screening for DS by pregnant women should address a number of modifiable factors, especially by introducing the advantages of using the DA (attitude), informing pregnant women that they might regret not using it (anticipated regret), and presenting the use of DAs as a common practice (descriptive norm). However, interventions on moral norms related to the use of DA should be treated with caution. Further studies that include populations with low health literacy are needed before decisive claims can be made.