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 in people with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals about end-of-life care options: A qualitative interview study.

AIM: To investigate the decisional needs in Denmark of people with kidney failure, relatives, and health professionals when planning end-of-life care. DESIGN: A qualitative interview study. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were carried out with people with kidney failure, relatives and health professionals from November 2021 to June 2022. Malterud's systematic text condensation was used to analyse transcripts. RESULTS: A total of 13 patients, 10 relatives, and 12 health professionals were interviewed. Overall, four concepts were agreed on: (1) Talking about end of life is difficult, (2) Patients and relatives need more knowledge and information, (3) Health professionals need more tools and training, and (4) Experiencing busyness as a barrier to conversations about end of life. CONCLUSION: People with kidney failure, relatives, and health professionals shared certain decisional needs while also having some different decisional needs about end-of-life care. To meet these various needs, end-of-life conversations should be systematic and organized according to the patients' needs and wishes. IMPACT: Non-systematic end-of-life care decision-making processes limit patients' involvement. Patients and relatives need more knowledge about end-of-life care, and health professionals need more competences and time to discuss decisional needs. A shared decision-making intervention for people with kidney failure when making end-of-life care decisions will be developed. REPORTING METHOD: This empirical qualitative research is reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients, relatives, and health professionals have been involved throughout the research process as part of the research team and advisory board. The patients are people with kidney failure and the relatives are relatives of a person with kidney failure. For this study, the advisory board has particularly contributed to the validation of the invitation letter for participation, the interview guides and the preparation of the manuscript.

Shared decision making for patients with kidney failure to improve end-of-life care: Development of the DESIRE intervention.

AIM: To describe the development of a shared decision making intervention for planning end-of-life care for patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals in kidney services. BACKGROUND: End-of-life care conversations within standard disease management consultations are challenging for patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals. End-of-life care planning is about making difficult decisions in advance, which is why health professionals need shared decision making skills to be able to initiate end-of-life conversations. Health professionals report needing more skills to raise the issue of end-of-life care options within consultations and patients want to be able to discuss issues important to them about future care plans. METHODS: The development design was guided by the UK Medical Research Council's framework and a user-centred approach was applied. Four workshops were conducted with end users. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication for Population Health and Policy interventions was used to shape which questions needed to be answered through the workshops and to present the intervention. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) criteria set the standards to be achieved. RESULTS: Areas considered significant to a shared decision making intervention were training of health professionals, conversations about end-of-life care, planning and evaluation of the decisions, reporting decisions in health records and repetition of consultation. The development process went through 14 iterations. CONCLUSION: An intervention named DESIRE was developed that comprises: (1) a training programme for health professionals; (2) shared decision making conversations; and (3) a patient decision aid. The intervention met 30 out of 33 IPDAS criteria. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: DESIRE is intended to support shared decision making about planning end-of-life care among patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals. The study provides important tools for the stakeholders engaged that can be used within different models of care. IMPACT: What problem did the study address? International guidelines recommend health professionals involve patients with kidney failure in making decisions about end-of-life care, but there is variation in how this is implemented within and across kidney services. Furthermore, patients, relatives and health professionals find it challenging to initiate conversations about end-of-life care. What were the main findings? The study resulted in the development of a complex intervention, called DESIRE, about shared decision making and planning end-of-life care for patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals in kidney services, including a training programme for health professionals, shared decision making conversations and a patient decision aid. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? The research contributes a shared decision making intervention to patients in the later stage of kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals. We believe that the DESIRE intervention could be introduced during consultations with health professionals at an earlier stage of the patient's illness trajectory, as well as being applied to other chronic diseases. REPORTING METHOD: This intervention development research is reported according to the GUIDance for the rEporting of intervention Development (GUIDED) checklist and the DEVELOPTOOLS Reporting Checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients, relatives and health professionals have been involved throughout the research process as part of the research team and advisory board. For this study, the advisory board has particularly contributed to the development process of the DESIRE intervention by actively participating in the four workshops, in the iterations between the workshops and in the preparation of the manuscript.

Person-specific evidence has the ability to mobilize relational capacity: A four-step grounded theory developed in people with long-term health conditions.

Person-specific evidence was developed as a grounded theory by analyzing 20 selected case descriptions from interventions using the guided self-determination method with people with various long-term health conditions. It explains the mechanisms of mobilizing relational capacity by including person-specific evidence in shared decision-making. Person-specific self-insight was the first step, achieved as individuals completed reflection sheets enabling them to clarify their personal values and identify actions or omissions related to self-management challenges. This step paved the way for sharing these insights and challenges in a relationship with a supportive health professional, who could then rely on person-specific evidence instead of assumptions or a narrow disease perspective for shared decision-making. Trust in the evidence encouraged the supportive health professional to transfer it to the interdisciplinary team. Person-specific evidence then enhanced the ability of team members to apply general evidence in a meaningful way. The increased openness achieved by individuals through these steps enabled them to eventually share their new self-insights in daily life with other people, decreasing loneliness they experienced in self-management. Relational capacity, the core of the theory, is mobilized in both people with long-term health conditions and healthcare professionals. Further research on person-specific evidence and relational capacity in healthcare is recommended.

Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a trained healthcare provider to help people prepare to actively participate in making healthcare decisions. This study aimed to understand how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions. METHODS: We followed the realist review methodology for this study. This study was built on a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness of decision coaching interventions for people facing healthcare decisions. It involved six iterative steps: (1) develop the initial program theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) select, appraise, and prioritize studies; (4) extract and organize data; (5) synthesize evidence; and (6) consult stakeholders and draw conclusions. RESULTS: We developed an initial program theory based on decision coaching theories and stakeholder feedback. Of the 2594 citations screened, we prioritized 27 papers for synthesis based on their relevance rating. To refine the program theory, we identified 12 context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Essential mechanisms for decision coaching to be initiated include decision coaches', patients', and clinicians' commitments to patients' involvement in decision making and decision coaches' knowledge and skills (four CMOs). CMOs during decision coaching are related to the patient (i.e., willing to confide, perceiving their decisional needs are recognized, acquiring knowledge, feeling supported), and the patient-decision coach interaction (i.e., exchanging information, sharing a common understanding of patient's values) (five CMOs). After decision coaching, the patient's progress in making or implementing a values-based preferred decision can be facilitated by the decision coach's advocacy for the patient, and the patient's deliberation upon options (two CMOs). Leadership support enables decision coaches to have access to essential resources to fulfill their role (one CMOs). DISCUSSION: In the refined program theory, decision coaching works when there is strong leadership support and commitment from decision coaches, clinicians, and patients. Decision coaches need to be capable in coaching, encourage patients' participation, build a trusting relationship with patients, and act as a liaison between patients and clinicians to facilitate patients' progress in making or implementing an informed values-based preferred option. More empirical studies, especially qualitative and process evaluation studies, are needed to further refine the program theory.

Acupuncture as a tool to reduce nausea in terminally ill patients.

AIM: To investigate if acupuncture reduces nausea and vomiting in terminally ill patients. DESIGN: A comparative effectiveness research design was used to generate evidence-based knowledge close to practice for the use of clinicians. The sample size was calculated to 136 patients randomised into an intervention and a control group, respectively. Nausea and vomiting were measured using the EORTC QLQ-c15-PAL (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire, core 15, Palliation). LOCATION: The trial was conducted among terminally ill patients admitted to three in-bed hospices in Demark. PARTICIPANTS: Terminally ill patients suffering from nausea and/or vomiting; 95% of patients had cancer. INTERVENTION: The intervention group received acupuncture in addition to usual care for three days. We used the acupuncture spots: Pericardium-6, Stomach-36, Liver-3 and Yin Tang. The control group received usual care only. RESULTS: In total, 136 patients were randomised, 24 patients withdrew resulting in a total sample of 112 patients: 52 patients in the intervention group and 60 patients in the control group. In the intervention group, 75% of the patients experienced a reduction of their nausea score after the intervention compared to 55% in the control group. The statistical difference was p = 0.028. In the intervention group, 52% of the patients did not experience nausea at all after the intervention compared to 30% in the control group. In the intervention group, 31% of the patients were still vomiting after the intervention compared to 34% in the control group; no statistically significant difference was found. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture reduced the experience of nausea among terminally ill patients but did not reduce vomiting. Thus, acupuncture is recommended to reduce nausea among terminally ill patients.

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.

Does conservative kidney management offer a quantity or quality of life benefit compared to dialysis? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD5) collaborate with their clinicians when choosing their future treatment modality. Most elderly patients with CKD5 may only have two treatment options: dialysis or conservative kidney management (CKM). The objective of this systematic review was to investigate whether CKM offers a quantity or quality of life benefit compared to dialysis for some patients with CKD5. METHODS: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were systematically searched for studies comparing patients with CKD5 who had chosen or were treated with either CKM or dialysis. The primary outcomes were mortality and quality of life (QoL). Hospitalization, symptom burden, and place of death were secondary outcomes. For studies reporting hazard ratios, pooled values were calculated, and forest plots conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-five primary studies, all observational, were identified. All studies reported an increased mortality in patients treated with CKM (pooled hazard ratio 0.47, 95 % confidence interval 0.34-0.65). For patients aged ≥ 80 years and for elderly individuals with comorbidities, results were ambiguous. In most studies, CKM seemed advantageous for QoL and secondary outcomes. Findings were limited by the heterogeneity of studies and biased outcomes favouring dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: In general, patients with CKD5 who have chosen or are on CKM live for a shorter time than patients who have chosen or are on dialysis. In patients aged ≥ 80 years old, and in elderly individuals with comorbidities, the survival benefits of dialysis seem to be lost. Regarding QoL, symptom burden, hospitalization, and place of death, CKM may have advantages. Higher quality studies are needed to guide patients and clinicians in the decision-making process.

Shared decision-making in dialysis choice has potential to improve self-management in people with kidney disease: A qualitative follow-up study.

AIMS: To explore how patients remained involved in their treatment and care of their own health following a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice. DESIGN: A follow-up study using semi-structured interviews. METHODS: Individual interviews with 13 patients were conducted immediately following their participation in a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice and again 3 months after initiating dialysis. This study reports findings from the follow-up interviews 3 month after dialysis initiation. Data were collected from August 2017-February 2019 and analysed using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: The analysis revealed five main findings, which indicated differing levels of: (a) involvement in the decision-making process; (b) involvement in treatment; (c) involvement in care of own health; (d) involvement of a relative; and (e) support from healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Following the shared decision-making intervention, patients who chose home-based treatment had become more involved in their treatment and care of their own health. The involvement of relatives and support from healthcare professionals contributed positively to this. In contrast, patients who had chosen hospital-based treatment were less involved in their treatment. IMPACT: Shared decision-making in dialysis choice has potential to improve self-management in people with kidney disease. However, support from healthcare professionals for patients and their relatives should be prioritized in an effort to increase all patients' involvement in their treatment and care of their own health.

The Fluid Intake Appraisal Inventory for low fluid intake among patients on haemodialysis: Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Danish version.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To translate and evaluate the psychometric properties of a Danish version of the Fluid Intake Appraisal Inventory (Da-FIAI) regarding reliability and validity. BACKGROUND: Patients on haemodialysis are advised to restrict their fluid intake, which often requires patients to change their way of life and health behaviour. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: The FIAI was translated to Danish by two sets of target translations and two sets of back-translations (n = 4). One hundred and ninety-five patients on haemodialysis needing ultrafiltration completed the questionnaire for the evaluation study of the Da-FIAI, and psychometric properties were evaluated. RESULTS: Criterion validity was supported, and the Da-FIAI had an excellent internal consistency; known-groups validity and the factor structure could not be confirmed in the Danish sample. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that the Da-FIAI is useful in a Danish haemodialysis population to score the patient's ability to avoid drinking in specific situations. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Using the Da-FIAI in the continuing nurse-patient communication, nurses have a validated instrument to evaluate patients' self-efficacy in fluid intake management and systematically identify and advise patients who need additional support.

Kidney disease pathways, options and decisions: an environmental scan of international patient decision aids.

BACKGROUND: Conservative management is recognized as an acceptable treatment for people with worsening chronic kidney disease; however, patients consistently report they lack understanding about their changing disease state and feel unsupported in making shared decisions about future treatment. The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate patient decision aids (PtDAs) developed to support patient-professional shared decision-making between dialysis and conservative management treatment pathways. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of resources accessible in English using environmental scan methods. Data sources included online databases of research publications, repositories for clinical guidelines, research projects and PtDAs, international PtDA expert lists and reference lists from relevant publications. The resource selection was from 56 screened records; 17 PtDAs were included. A data extraction sheet was applied to all eligible resources, eliciting resource characteristics, decision architecture to boost/bias thinking, indicators of quality such as International Standards for Patient Decision Aids Standards checklist and engagement with health services. RESULTS: PtDAs were developed in five countries; eleven were publically available via the Internet. Treatment options described were dialysis (n = 17), conservative management (n = 9) and transplant (n = 5). Eight resources signposted conservative management as an option rather than an active choice. Ten different labels across 14 resources were used to name 'conservative management'. The readability of the resources was good. Six publications detail decision aid development and/or evaluation research. Using PtDAs improved treatment decision-making by patients. Only resources identified as PtDAs and available in English were included. CONCLUSIONS: PtDAs are used by some services to support patients choosing between dialysis options or end-of-life options. PtDAs developed to proactively support people making informed decisions between conservative management and dialysis treatments are likely to enable services to meet current best practice.

Choice of dialysis modality: patients' experiences and quality of decision after shared decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Patients with kidney failure experience a complex decision on dialysis modality performed either at home or in hospital. The options have different levels of impact on their physical and psychological condition and social life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an intervention designed to achieve shared decision-making for dialysis choice. Specific objectives were: 1) to measure decision quality as indicated by patients' knowledge, readiness and achieved preferences; and 2) to determine if patients experienced shared decision-making. METHOD: A mixed methods descriptive study was conducted using both questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Eligible participants were adults with kidney failure considering dialysis modality. The intervention, based on the Three-Talk model, consisted of a patient decision aid and decision coaching meetings provided by trained dialysis coordinators. The intervention was delivered to 349 patients as part of their clinical pathway of care. After the intervention, 148 participants completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and the Decision Quality Measurement, and 29 participants were interviewed. Concordance between knowledge, decision and preference was calculated to measure decision quality. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: The participants obtained a mean score for shared decision-making of 86 out of 100. There was no significant difference between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (97 versus 83; p = 0.627). The participants obtained a knowledge score of 82% and a readiness score of 86%. Those choosing home-based treatment had higher knowledge score than those choosing hospital-based treatment (84% versus 75%; p = 0.006) but no significant difference on the readiness score (87% versus 84%; p = 0.908). Considering the chosen option and the knowledge score, 83% of the participants achieved a high-quality decision. No significant difference was found for decision quality between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (83% versus 83%; p = 0.935). Interview data informed the interpretation of these results. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no control group, over 80% of participants exposed to the intervention and responded to the surveys experienced shared decision-making and reached a high-quality decision. Both participants who chose home- and hospital-based treatment experienced the intervention as shared decision-making and made a high-quality decision. Qualitative findings supported the quantitative results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The full trial protocol is available at ClinicalTrials. Gov ( NCT03868800 ). The study has been registered retrospectively.

Recommendations for successful involvement of patient partners in complex intervention research: a collaborative learning process.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in health-related research is a new discipline in Denmark. In 2021, a national conference titled 'Patient and Public Involvement in Complex Intervention Research' provided a forum for discussion between patient partners, researchers and clinicians on involving patients as partners in complex intervention research. METHODS: We aimed to describe specific challenges to and initiatives for patient partner involvement in order to develop recommendations for creating successful partnerships in complex intervention research. Through a collaborative learning process, 140 researchers identified the most important challenges for them in patient partner involvement and potential initiatives to improve such involvement. At a subsequent workshop, four patient partners identified the challenges and initiatives from their perspective as patient partners. They also gave feedback on the challenges and initiatives suggested by the researchers and helped shape three recommendations for practice. Three of the patient partners were involved in writing this paper. RESULTS: The five most important challenges identified by researchers were time, recruitment, ethics, power and inequality. Between four and seven initiatives to overcome these challenges were suggested. The three most important challenges identified by patient partners were communication, when you get information that is hard to handle and recruitment. They suggested three to four initiatives for improvement. Patient partners confirmed the importance of all the researcher identified challenges when presented with them, they also provided additional comments on the researchers' initiatives. This led to the formation of recommendations for involving patient partners. CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative learning process was shown to be a suitable method for patient partner involvement. Consistency was seen between the challenges and initiatives identified by researchers and patient partners. Based on these observations, three recommendations were developed: (1) create specific programmes that aim to involve all kind of patients (including but limited to vulnerable patients) as patient partners, (2) produce ethical guidelines for the involvement of patient partners, and (3) develop a national strategy for patient partner involvement. To build on these recommendations, a joint workshop with both researchers and patient partners is needed.

Involving patients in complex intervention research is new in Denmark, so there is a need to work out how to do it properly. In 2021, a national conference about this was arranged. There, two workshops were held with 70 complex intervention researchers in each. In the workshops, challenges and steps needed to bring patient partners into complex intervention research were identified. Later, a similar workshop was organized with four patient partners. Their views were similar to what was concluded at the earlier workshops. All challenges and steps to overcome these were discussed between patients and researchers at the last workshop. This resulted in the development of three recommendations to successfully involve patient partners into complex intervention research: (1) create programmes to involve patients who might otherwise be missed as patient partners, (2) produce ethical guidelines for involving patient partners in complex intervention research, and (3) develop a national plan for involving in patient partners.

Have a vital end-user been overlooked? Developing a shared decision intervention for patients with potential pancreatic cancer regarding the choice of surgery.

Objective: To develop a patient decision aid facilitating shared decision making for patients with potential pancreatic cancer deciding about no treatment, surgical or medical treatment. Methods: Based on a user-centred design by Wittemann et al., we developed a shared decision making intervention in three phases: 1) Understanding decision needs 2) Development of a patient decision aid (PtDA) based on a generic template 3) Assessment of the intervention from interviews with patients (n = 11), relatives (n = 11), nurses (n = 4) and surgeons (n = 2) analysed with thematic analysis, and measuring patients' perceptions of choice of options with the Decisional Conflict Scale. Results: Results showed varying experiences with the use of the PtDA, with surgeons not finding PtDA useful as it was impractical and constraining with patients' conversations. There was no difference in patients' perceptions in choosing options for those being presented vs those patients not being presented for the PtDA. Conclusion: The format and structure of the PtDA was not feasible for the surgeons as fundamental users in the present clinic. Innovation: This study highlights the urgent need to consider clinical context before introducing a predefined tool and shows the importance of a multistakeholder approach. Research should focus on finding means to successful implement shared decision making.

Involvement of patients in the research process.

Healthcare research emphasises involvement of patients in the research process, recognizing that this can enhance the relevance, quality, and implementation of research. This article highlights the need for more systematic planning to successfully involve patients in research projects and provides guidance on key aspects that researchers should consider in the planning of involving patients in research. The article accentuates the importance of establishing clear frameworks and guidelines to promote transparency and facilitate implementation.

The value of partnership in patient-driven as well as in researcher-driven projects.

Patient involvement in health research is rarely driven solely by patients, who could be considered to have the highest degree of investment in such research. In the Kidney Connect project, the patients have been the driving force. This commentary considers the following questions: How did we, as patients, lead the work as the driving force in the project? What went well and what did not go so well from our perspective? How did the project compare with work driven by researchers? We argue that projects driven solely by either patients or researchers each have their own limitations. Projects driven solely by patients have some limitations in their robustness, rigour, and likelihood of publication. Nevertheless, a project driven solely by patients has been able to produce findings that are broadly comparable to a project driven solely by researchers that employed methods ensuring robustness and rigour. We suggest collaboration between patients and researchers also for projects driven by patients.

Health research often uses patients as either participants or partners. Patients running the research is less common, even though the outcomes might be more important to patients than to anyone else. A medical company started the Kidney Connect project, but invited patients to drive it. The main driving role was planning and conducting data collection and analysis of data for the project. In this commentary, patient representatives describe how they led the project's work, what went well and what did not go so well for patients. It then compares the project's results with those from similar work that involved patients as partners but had only researchers in charge. We found that certain things can limit research that is run only by patients, but it has similar results to a project with only researchers in charge.

The experiences of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis of their decision-making processes to invasive home mechanical ventilation-A qualitative study.

AIM: To explore and gain knowledge of the experiences and needs among patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) of their decision-making processes whether to choose invasive home mechanical ventilation or not. DESIGN: A qualitative study. METHODS: A phenomenological-hermeneutic approach influenced by Ricoeur's interpretation theory was used. Seven patients with ALS were interviewed. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was used for reporting. RESULTS: Three themes were evident in patients' accounts of the decision-making process: (1) being taken care of directly after receiving the diagnosis, (2) living in uncertainty about what the future would bring and (3) doubt causing patients with ALS to change their minds. Patients with ALS were burdened with everyday life challenging decision-making processes about future treatment and doubt caused patients to change their minds about their future treatment. It is necessary to support patients in their decision-making processes using shared decision-making. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.

Decision aids to assist patients and professionals in choosing the right treatment for kidney failure.

Background: Kidney services vary in the way they involve people with kidney failure (PwKF) in treatment decisions as management needs change. We discuss how decision-science applications support proactively PwKF to make informed decisions between treatment options with kidney professionals. Methods: A conceptual review of findings about decision making and use of decision aids in kidney services, synthesized with reference to: the Making Informed Decisions-Individually and Together (MIND-IT) multiple stakeholder decision makers framework; and the Medical Research Council-Complex Intervention Development and Evaluation research framework. Results: This schema represents the different types of decision aids that support PwKF and professional reasoning as they manage kidney disease individually and together; adjustments at micro, meso and macro levels supports integration in practice. Conclusion: Innovating services to meet clinical guidelines on enhancing shared decision making processes means enabling all stakeholders to use decision aids to meet their goals within kidney pathways at individual, service and organizational levels.