Characteristics of shared decision making in Romania from the patient perspective: A cross-sectional multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is very important from patients' perspective. This process has not yet been evaluated in Romania. The study aims to evaluate SDM from the patients' perspective and to evaluate patients' characteristics that associate with SDM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional multicentric study comprising eight recruitment centres was performed. Inpatients and outpatients who referred to Hospital Units treating autoimmune diseases or atrial fibrillation were included. Another sample consisted of members of the Autoimmune Disease Patient Society, who completed an online anonymous questionnaire. All participants completed the Romanian translated version of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), as these samples were used for the validation of this questionnaire, too. Patients had to refer to the visit in which the decision concerning the antithrombotic treatment was taken (atrial fibrillation patients), or the immunosuppressive treatment was last time changed (autoimmune disease patients). Ordinal regression having the total SDM score as dependent variable was used. RESULTS: A total of 665 questionnaires were filled in within the hospital setting (n = 324; 48.7%) and online (n = 341; 51.3%). The median score for SDM was 34 of 45, but it differed between hospital completion -39/45 and online completion (anonymous) -20/45 (P < .001). Patients with higher education were influenced most by the setting, giving the best marks in hospital and low marks online, while those with lower education gave lower marks in both settings. In ordinal regression with SDM score as dependent variable, hospital completion of the questionnaire (OR = 9.5, 95% confidence interval, 5.69-16), collagen disease diagnosis (OR = 2.4, 95% confidence interval, 1.39-4.14), and immunosuppressive treatment (OR = 2.16, 95% confidence interval, 1.43-3.26) were independent predictors. CONCLUSION: In our study, full anonymity was associated with significantly lower scores for the SDM process. The patients with higher education were most influenced by this condition, while those with the lowest education were the most critical.

Assessment of patient centredness through patient-reported experience measures (ASPIRED): protocol of a mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of patient centredness (PC) in healthcare has grown over the years. However, conceptualisations of PC are heterogeneous. Existing patient-reported measures of PC have shown inconsistencies and shortcomings. This impedes the comparison of results across studies. To foster PC, it is important to know which dimensions matter most to patients and to be able to measure its current extent from the patients' perspective. This study aims (1) to assess relevance of dimensions of PC from the patients' perspective, (2) to develop and psychometrically test a core set of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assessing PC and (3) to investigate the feasibility of implementation of this core set in routine healthcare. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods approach will be used. In phase 1, 200 patients will assess the relevance of the dimensions of PC in a Delphi study using a plain language description. In phase 2, the core set of PREMs will be developed through literature reviews, focus groups, key informant interviews and content validity ratings. The core set will be tested psychometrically in a cross-sectional study with 2000 inpatient and outpatients with different chronic conditions (ie, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, mental disorders and musculoskeletal disorders). In phase 3, the feasibility of implementation of the core set will be assessed through semistructured interviews with healthcare practitioners after piloting in routine care. Furthermore, an expert workshop will be held on how to foster implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be carried out in accordance to the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association and principles of good scientific practice. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Hamburg, Germany (study ID: PV5724). The study results will be disseminated in scientific journals and through collaboration partners and plain language press releases.