Problem-based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms. METHODS: We assessed 100 randomly selected video-recorded primary care encounters, obtained as part of a randomized trial of an SDM intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Two coders, working independently, noted each instance of SDM, classified it as one of four problem-based forms to SDM (weighing alternatives, negotiating conflicting issues, solving problems, or developing existential insight), and noted the occurrence and timing of each of the four canonical SDM steps: fostering choice awareness, providing information, stating preferences, and deciding. Descriptive analyses sought to determine the relative frequency of these steps across each of the four SDM forms within each encounter. RESULTS: There were 485 SDM steps noted (mean 4.85 steps per encounter), of which providing information and stating preferences were the most common. There were 2.7 (38 steps in 14 encounters) steps per encounter observed in encounters with no discernible SDM form, 3.4 (105 steps in 31 encounters) with one SDM form, 5.2 (129 steps in 25 encounters) with two SDM forms, and 7.1 (213 steps in 30 encounters) when ≥3 SDM forms were observed within the encounter. The prescribed order of the four SDM steps was observed in, at best, 16 of the 100 encounters. Stating preferences was a common step when weighing alternatives (38%) or negotiating conflicts (59.3%) but less common when solving problems (29.2%). The distribution of SDM steps was similar to usual care with or without the SDM intervention. CONCLUSION: The normative steps of SDM are infrequently observed in their prescribed order regardless of whether an SDM intervention was used. Some steps are more likely in some SDM forms but no pattern of steps appears to distinguish among SDM forms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01293578.

Assessing collaborative efforts of making care fit for each patient: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: For too many people, their care plans are designed without fully accounting for who they are, the lives they live, what matters to them or what they aspire to achieve. We aimed to summarize instruments capable of measuring dimensions of patient-clinician collaboration to make care fit. METHODS: We systematically searched several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to September 2021 for studies using quantitative measures to assess, evaluate or rate the work of making care fit by any participant in real-life clinical encounters. Eligibility was assessed in duplicate. After extracting all items from relevant instruments, we coded them deductively on dimensions relevant to making care fit (as presented in a recent Making Care Fit Manifesto), and inductively on the main action described. RESULTS: We included 189 papers, mostly from North America (N = 83, 44%) and in the context of primary care (N = 54, 29%). Half of the papers (N = 88, 47%) were published in the last 5 years. We found 1243 relevant items to assess efforts of making care fit, included within 151 instruments. Most items related to the dimensions 'Patient-clinician collaboration: content' (N = 396, 32%) and 'Patient-clinician collaboration: manner' (N = 382, 31%) and the least related to 'Ongoing and iterative process' (N = 22, 2%) and in 'Minimally disruptive of patient lives' (N = 29, 2%). The items referred to 27 specific actions. Most items referred to 'Informing' (N = 308, 25%) and 'Exploring' (N = 93, 8%), the fewest items referred to 'Following up', 'Comforting' and 'Praising' (each N = 3, 0.2%). DISCUSSION: Measures of the work that patients and clinicians do together to make care fit focus heavily on the content of their collaborations, particularly on exchanging information. Other dimensions and actions previously identified as crucial to making care fit are assessed infrequently or not at all. The breadth of extant measures of making care fit and the lack of appropriate measures of this key construct limit both the assessment and the successful implementation of efforts to improve patient care. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers from the 'Making care fit Collaborative' were involved in drafting the dimensions relevant to patient-clinician collaboration.

Enrolling people of color to evaluate a practice intervention: lessons from the shared decision-making for atrial fibrillation (SDM4AFib) trial.

BACKGROUND: Trial recruitment of Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) is key for interventions that interact with socioeconomic factors and cultural norms, preferences, and values. We report on our experience enrolling BIPOC participants into a multicenter trial of a shared decision-making intervention about anticoagulation to prevent strokes, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We enrolled patients with AF and their clinicians in 5 healthcare systems (three academic medical centers, an urban/suburban community medical center, and a safety-net inner-city medical center) located in three states (Minnesota, Alabama, and Mississippi) in the United States. Clinical encounters were randomized to usual care with or without a shared decision-making tool about anticoagulation. ANALYSIS: We analyzed BIPOC patient enrollment by site, categorized reasons for non-enrollment, and examined how enrollment of BIPOC patients was promoted across sites. RESULTS: Of 2247 patients assessed, 922 were enrolled of which 147 (16%) were BIPOC patients. Eligible Black participants were significantly less likely (p < .001) to enroll (102, 11%) than trial-eligible White participants (185, 15%). The enrollment rate of BIPOC patients varied by site. The inclusion and prioritization of clinical practices that care for more BIPOC patients contributed to a higher enrollment rate into the trial. Specific efforts to reach BIPOC clinic attendees and prioritize their enrollment had lower yield. CONCLUSIONS: Best practices to optimize the enrollment of BIPOC participants into trials that examined complex and culturally sensitive interventions remain to be developed. This study suggests a high yield from enrolling BIPOC patients from practices that prioritize their care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02905032).

Communicating uncertainties when disclosing diagnostic test results for (Alzheimer's) dementia in the memory clinic: The ABIDE project.

BACKGROUND: The development of novel diagnostics enables increasingly earlier diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Timely diagnosis may benefit patients by reducing their uncertainty regarding the cause of symptoms, yet does not always provide patients with the desired certainty. OBJECTIVE: To examine, using both quantitative and qualitative methods, uncertainty communicated by memory clinic clinicians in post-diagnostic testing consultations with patients and their caregivers. METHODS: First, we identified all uncertainty expressions of 22 clinicians in audiotaped post-diagnostic testing consultations with 78 patients. Second, we statistically explored relationships between patient/clinician characteristics and uncertainty expressions. Third, the transcribed uncertainty expressions were qualitatively analysed, determining the topic to which they pertained, their source and initiator/elicitor (clinicians/patients/caregivers). RESULTS: Within 57/78 (73%) consultations, clinicians expressed in total 115 uncertainties, of which 37% elicited by the patient or caregiver. No apparent relationships were found between patient/clinician characteristics and whether or not, and how often clinicians expressed uncertainty. Uncertainty expressions pertained to ten different topics, most frequently patient's diagnosis and symptom progression. Expressed uncertainty was mostly related to the unpredictability of the future and limits to available knowledge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The majority of clinicians openly discussed the limits of scientific knowledge and diagnostic testing with patients and caregivers in the dementia context. Noticeably, clinicians did not discuss uncertainty in about one quarter of consultations. More evidence is needed on the beneficial and/or harmful effects on patients of discussing uncertainty with them. This knowledge can be used to support clinicians to optimally convey uncertainty and facilitate patients' uncertainty management.

Training for Medical Oncologists on Shared Decision-Making About Palliative Chemotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes limited benefit, while the burden can be high. This study examines the effect of shared decision-making (SDM) training for medical oncologists on observed SDM in standardized patient assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial comparing training with standard practice was conducted. Medical oncologists and oncologists-in-training (n = 31) participated in a video-recorded, standardized patient assessment at baseline (T0) and after 4 months (T1, after training). The training was based on a four-stage SDM model and consisted of a reader, two group sessions (3.5 hours each), a booster session (1.5 hours), and a consultation card. The primary outcome was observed SDM as assessed with the Observing Patient Involvement scale (OPTION12) coded by observers blinded for arm. Secondary outcomes were observed SDM per stage, communication skills, and oncologists' satisfaction with communication. RESULTS: The training had a significant and large effect on observed SDM in the simulated consultations (Cohen's f = 0.62) and improved observed SDM behavior in all four SDM stages (f = 0.39-0.72). The training improved oncologists' information provision skills (f = 0.77), skills related to anticipating/responding to emotions (f = 0.42), and their satisfaction with the consultation (f = 0.53). CONCLUSION: Training medical oncologists in SDM about palliative systemic treatment improves their performance in simulated consultations. The next step is to examine the effect of such training on SDM in clinical practice and on patient outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes limited benefit, while the burden can be high. Hence, applying the premises of shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended. SDM is increasingly advocated based on the ethical imperative to provide patient-centered care and the increasing evidence for beneficial patient outcomes. Few studies examined the effectiveness of SDM training in robust designs. This randomized controlled trial demonstrated that SDM training (10 hours) improves oncologists' performance in consultations with standardized patients. The next step is to examine the effect of training on oncologists' performance and patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Patient explicit consideration of tradeoffs in decision making about rectal cancer treatment: benefits for decision process and quality of life.

Introduction: Patient preferences are often not discussed in treatment decisions in oncology. We introduced an online values clarification method (VCM) to help newly diagnosed rectal cancer patients participate in shared decision making about short-course preoperative radiotherapy. Material and Methods: We offered a link to the VCM to a subset of consecutive patients before the pretreatment consultation with the radiation oncologist. Consultations were audiotaped and coded for expressions of patient preferences. Patients were asked to complete pre- and post-consultation questionnaires. Questionnaires assessed values clarity, decision regret and presence and impact of fecal incontinence and sexual problems. Results: Of 135 patients who had their consultation audiotaped and completed questionnaires, 35 received and accessed the VCM-link. Patients in the VCM-group slightly more often expressed preferences during consultations. Questionnaire data showed that patients in the VCM-group did not differ in how clear their values were, but experienced lower regret and less impact of treatment harms at 6 months follow-up; differences were non-significant but in the same direction at 12 months. Discussion: This is the first study to assess the effect of an adaptive conjoint analysis-based VCM on actual patient-clinician communication, and long-term decision regret and impact of treatment harms. Being explicitly invited to think about treatment benefits and harms seems to help patients to live with treatment consequences.

Reflecting on shared decision making: A reflection-quantification study.

BACKGROUND: Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self-reported SDM measures. METHODS: We asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3-item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open-ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient. RESULTS: In Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores ("less" SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Reflection-before-quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient-reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.

Getting on the same page: Communication, patient involvement and shared understanding of "decisions" in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians do not often agree on whether a decision has been made about cancer care. This could be explained by factors related to communication quality and/or the type of decision being made. METHODS: We used a self-developed coding scheme to code a random sample of 128 encounters in which patients and clinicians either agreed (n=64) or disagreed (n=64) that a cancer care decision was made and tested for associations between concordance and key communication behaviours. We also identified and characterized cancer care decisions by topic and level of patient involvement and looked for trends. RESULTS: We identified 378 cancer care decisions across 128 encounters. Explicit decisions were most commonly made about topics wherein decision control could be easily delegated to a clear and present expert (eg either the patient or the clinician). Related to this, level of patient involvement varied significantly by decision topic. Explicit decisions were rarely made in an observable way about social, non-clinical or self-management related topics, although patients and clinicians both reported having made a cancer care decision in encounters where no decisions were observed. We found no association between communication behaviours and concordance in our sample. CONCLUSIONS: What counts as a "decision" in cancer care may be constructed within disparate social roles that leave many agendas unaddressed and decisions unmade. Changing the content of conversations to encourage explicit decisions about self-management and life context-related topics may have greater value in enabling shared understanding than promoting communication behaviours among already high-performing communicators.

Large variation in the use of defunctioning stomas after rectal cancer surgery. A lack of consensus.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: When deciding about the use of a defunctioning stoma in rectal cancer surgery, benefits and risks need to be weighed. This study investigated: (1a) factors associated with the use of defunctioning stomas; (1b) hospital variation; and (2) surgeons' perceptions regarding factors that determine this decision. METHODS: Population-based data from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were used. Factors for receiving a defunctioning stoma were analyzed with multivariate logistic regression analysis. Hospital variation was assessed before and after case-mix adjustment. A survey was performed among gastroenterological surgeons on the importance of factors for the decision to construct a defunctioning stoma. RESULTS: In total 4368 patients were analyzed and 103 (34%) surgeons participated. Male gender, higher body mass index, lower tumors, preoperative radiotherapy, and treatment in a teaching/university hospital increased the odds for a defunctioning stoma. Unadjusted hospital variation ranged from 0% to 98%. Variation remained after case-mix adjustment (0-100%). There was large variation in factors considered important for the decision; almost all factors were ranked as 'most important' at least once. CONCLUSIONS: There is large variation in the use of defunctioning stomas for patients with rectal cancer, and a lack in uniformity of the selection criteria. These results underline the need to improve current decision making and identification of high-risk patients.

Deciding about (neo-)adjuvant rectal and breast cancer treatment: Missed opportunities for shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: The first step in shared decision making (SDM) is creating choice awareness. This is particularly relevant in consultations concerning preference-sensitive treatment decisions, e.g. those addressing (neo-)adjuvant therapy. Awareness can be achieved by explicitly stating, as the 'reason for encounter', that a treatment decision needs to be made. It is unknown whether oncologists express such reason for encounter. This study aims to establish: 1) if 'making a treatment decision' is stated as a reason for the encounter and if not, what other reason for encounter is provided; and 2) whether mentioning that a treatment decision needs to be made is associated with enhanced patient involvement in decision making. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive first consultations with: 1) radiation oncologists and rectal cancer patients; or 2) medical oncologists and breast cancer patients, facing a preference-sensitive treatment decision, were audiotaped. The tapes were transcribed and coded using an instrument developed for the study. Oncologists' involvement of patients in decision making was coded using the OPTION-scale. RESULTS: Oncologists (N = 33) gave a reason for encounter in 70/100 consultations, usually (N = 52/70, 74%) at the start of the consultation. The reason for encounter stated was 'making a treatment decision' in 3/100 consultations, and 'explaining treatment details' in 44/100 consultations. The option of foregoing adjuvant treatment was not explicitly presented in any consultation. Oncologist' involvement of patients in decision making was below baseline (Md OPTION-score = 10). Given the small number of consultations in which the need to make a treatment decision was stated, we could not investigate the impact thereof on patient involvement. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that oncologists rarely express that a treatment decision needs to be made in consultations concerning preference-sensitive treatment decisions. Therefore, patients might not realize that foregoing (neo-)adjuvant treatment is a viable choice. Oncologists miss a crucial opportunity to facilitate SDM.

Older Cancer Patients' User Experiences With Web-Based Health Information Tools: A Think-Aloud Study.

BACKGROUND: Health information is increasingly presented on the Internet. Several Web design guidelines for older Web users have been proposed; however, these guidelines are often not applied in website development. Furthermore, although we know that older individuals use the Internet to search for health information, we lack knowledge on how they use and evaluate Web-based health information. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates user experiences with existing Web-based health information tools among older (≥ 65 years) cancer patients and survivors and their partners. The aim was to gain insight into usability issues and the perceived usefulness of cancer-related Web-based health information tools. METHODS: We conducted video-recorded think-aloud observations for 7 Web-based health information tools, specifically 3 websites providing cancer-related information, 3 Web-based question prompt lists (QPLs), and 1 values clarification tool, with colorectal cancer patients or survivors (n=15) and their partners (n=8) (median age: 73; interquartile range 70-79). Participants were asked to think aloud while performing search, evaluation, and application tasks using the Web-based health information tools. RESULTS: Overall, participants perceived Web-based health information tools as highly useful and indicated a willingness to use such tools. However, they experienced problems in terms of usability and perceived usefulness due to difficulties in using navigational elements, shortcomings in the layout, a lack of instructions on how to use the tools, difficulties with comprehensibility, and a large amount of variety in terms of the preferred amount of information. Although participants frequently commented that it was easy for them to find requested information, we observed that the large majority of the participants were not able to find it. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, older cancer patients appreciate and are able to use cancer information websites. However, this study shows the importance of maintaining awareness of age-related problems such as cognitive and functional decline and navigation difficulties with this target group in mind. The results of this study can be used to design usable and useful Web-based health information tools for older (cancer) patients.

Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data.

BACKGROUND: The occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM. OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed. MAIN MEASURES: In the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION12 item) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION12 as a dependent variable. RESULTS: We included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION12 scores was 7.7 of 100 points (P < 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION12 score except for education level (p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION12 score (P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Most characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used. HIGHLIGHTS: Most sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making.Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used.SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.

Patient-clinician collaboration in making care fit: A qualitative analysis of clinical consultations in diabetes care.

OBJECTIVE: To confirm described dimensions of making care fit and explore how patients and clinicians collaborate to make care fit in clinical practice. METHODS: As part of an ongoing study, we audiotaped and transcribed patient-clinician consultations in diabetes care. We purposively selected consultations based on participants' demographical, biomedical and biographical characteristics. We analysed transcripts using reflexive thematic analysis. We combined a deductive and inductive approach, using the pre-described dimensions of making care fit and adding new (sub-)dimensions when pertinent. RESULTS: We analysed 24 clinical consultations. Our data confirmed eight previously described dimensions and provided new sub-dimensions of making care fit with examples from clinical practice (problematic situation, influence of devices, sense of options, shared agenda setting, clinician context, adapting to changing organization of care, and possibility to reconsider). CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed, specified and enriched the conceptualization of making care fit through practice examples. We observed patient-clinician collaboration in exploration of patients' context, and by responsively changing, adapting or maintaining care plans. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings support clinicians and researchers with insights in important aspects of patient-clinician collaboration. Ultimately, this would lead to optimal design of care plans that fit well in each patient life.

A reference standard for urinary tract infection research: a multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study.

The absence of a consensus-based reference standard for urinary tract infection (UTI) research adversely affects the internal and external validity of diagnostic and therapeutic studies. This omission hinders the accumulation of evidence for a disease that imposes a substantial burden on patients and society, particularly in an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance. We did a three-round Delphi study involving an international, multidisciplinary panel of UTI experts (n=46) and achieved a high degree of consensus (94%) on the final reference standard. New-onset dysuria, urinary frequency, and urinary urgency were considered major symptoms, and non-specific symptoms in older patients were not deemed indicative of UTI. The reference standard distinguishes between UTI with and without systemic involvement, abandoning the term complicated UTI. Moreover, different levels of pyuria were incorporated in the reference standard, encouraging quantification of pyuria in studies done in all health-care settings. The traditional bacteriuria threshold (105 colony-forming units per mL) was lowered to 104 colony-forming units per mL. This new reference standard can be used for UTI research across many patient populations and has the potential to increase homogeneity between studies.

Using expert opinion rounds to develop valid and realistic manipulations for experimental video-vignette research: Results from a study on clinicians' (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment decisions in neonatal care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop valid and realistic manipulations for video-vignette research using expert opinion rounds, in preparation of an experimental study on clinicians' (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment decisions in neonatal care. METHODS: In three rounds, N = 37 participants (parents/clinicians/researchers) provided feedback on four video-vignette scripts and completed listing, ranking, and rating exercises to determine which (un)reasonable arguments clinicians may provide to support treatment decisions. RESULTS: Round 1: participants deemed the scripts realistic. They judged that, on average, clinicians should provide two arguments for a treatment decision. They listed 13-20 reasonable arguments, depending on the script. Round 2: participants ranked the two most salient, reasonable arguments per script. Round 3: participants rated the most plausible, unreasonable arguments from a predefined list. These results guided the design of 12 experimental conditions. CONCLUSION: Expert opinion rounds are an effective method to develop video-vignettes that are theoretically sound and ecologically realistic and offer a powerful means to include stakeholders in experimental research design. Our study yielded some preliminary insights into what are considered prevalent (un)reasonable arguments for clinicians' treatment plans. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We provide hands-on guidelines on involving stakeholders in the design of video-vignette experiments and the development of video-based health communication interventions - both for research and practice.

Problem-based shared decision-making in diabetes care: a secondary analysis of video-recorded encounters.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the range of collaborative approaches to shared decision-making (SDM) observed in clinical encounters of patients with diabetes and their clinicians. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of videorecordings obtained in a randomised trial comparing usual diabetes primary care with or without using a within-encounter conversation SDM tool. SETTING: Using the purposeful SDM framework, we classified the forms of SDM observed in a random sample of 100 video-recorded clinical encounters of patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the correlation between the extent to which each form of SDM was used and patient involvement (OPTION12-scale). RESULTS: We observed at least one instance of SDM in 86 of 100 encounters. In 31 (36%) of these 86 encounters, we found only one form of SDM, in 25 (29%) two forms, and in 30 (35%), we found ≥3 forms of SDM. In these encounters, 196 instances of SDM were identified, with weighing alternatives (n=64 of 196, 33%), negotiating conflicting desires (n=59, 30%) and problemsolving (n=70, 36%) being similarly prevalent and developing existential insight accounting for only 1% (n=3) of instances. Only the form of SDM focused on weighing alternatives was correlated with a higher OPTION12-score. More forms of SDM were used when medications were changed (2.4 SDM forms (SD 1.48) vs 1.8 (SD 1.46); p=0.050). CONCLUSIONS: After considering forms of SDM beyond weighing alternatives, SDM was present in most encounters. Clinicians and patients often used different forms of SDM within the same encounter. Recognising a range of SDM forms that clinicians and patients use to respond to problematic situations, as demonstrated in this study, opens new lines of research, education and practice that may advance patient-centred, evidence-based care.

Video-based observation research: A systematic review of studies in outpatient health care settings.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of video-based observation research in outpatient health care encounter research. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane and other databases from database inception to October 2020 for reports of studies that used video recording to investigate ambulatory patient-clinician interactions. Two authors independently reviewed all studies for eligibility and extracted information related to study setting and purpose, participant recruitment and consent processes, data collection procedures, method of analysis, and participant sample characteristics. RESULTS: 175 articles were included. Most studies (65%) took place in a primary care or family practice setting. Study objectives were overwhelmingly focused on patient-clinician communication (81%). Reporting of key study elements was inconsistent across included studies. CONCLUSION: Video recording has been used as a research method in outpatient health care in a limited number and scope of clinical contexts and research domains. In addition, reporting of study design, methodological characteristics, and ethical considerations needs improvement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Video recording as a method has been relatively underutilized within many clinical and research contexts. This review will serve as a practical resource for health care researchers as they plan and execute future video-based studies.

Patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making about treatment: A scoping review of the qualitative literature.

OBJECTIVE: To identify patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM) about treatment. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies. We searched for literature across seven databases until March 2022, and included qualitative studies that focused on associations between patient-related characteristics and SDM about treatment in adults. We analyzed studies using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: The search yielded 5948 articles, of which 70 were included. We identified many different patient-related characteristics, which we grouped into four categories related to: (1) the individual who is facing the decision, (2) the decision, (3) the relationship between the patient and the clinician and others involved in the decision, and (4) the healthcare context. CONCLUSIONS: Studies report a variety of patient-related characteristics that may affect patient involvement in SDM. Amongst others, patients may need to feel informed, to understand their role in SDM, and be able to communicate. Involvement may be challenging with characteristics such as perceived time pressure, poor patient-clinician relationships, emotional distress, and severe illness. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In order to truly involve patients in SDM, we might need to focus on characteristics such as patient emotions and relationship building, besides information provision and values clarification.

Motivations of patients and their care partners for visiting a memory clinic. A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated motivations of patients and care partners for their memory clinic visit, and whether these are expressed in consultations. METHODS: We included data from 115 patients (age 71 ± 11, 49% Female) and their care partners (N = 93), who completed questionnaires after their first consultation with a clinician. Audio-recordings of these consultations were available from 105 patients. Motivations for visiting the clinic were content-coded as reported by patients in the questionnaire, and expressed by patients and care partners in consultations. RESULTS: Most patients reported seeking a cause for symptoms (61%) or to confirm/exclude a (dementia) diagnosis (16%), yet 19% reported another motivation: (more) information, care access, or treatment/advice. In the first consultation, about half of patients (52%) and care partners (62%) did not express their motivation(s). When both expressed a motivation, these differed in about half of dyads. A quarter of patients (23%) expressed a different/complementary motivation in the consultation, then reported in the questionnaire. CONCLUSION: Motivations for visiting a memory clinic can be specific and multifaceted, yet are often not addressed during consultations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We should encourage clinicians, patients, and care partners to talk about motivations for visiting the memory clinic, as a starting point to personalize (diagnostic) care.