The 3-Level Approach to Facelift Planning: A Simple Paradigm for Surgical Rejuvenation of the Face.

Our role as aesthetic surgeons demands individualized surgical planning that maximizes patient input and understanding. The value of such shared decision-making (SDM) in aesthetic surgery is becoming increasingly appreciated. This is particularly true for potential patients seeking surgical rejuvenation of the face, where the volume of "educational" information available on the internet, and through various social medial channels, may be overwhelming and even misleading. Presented is a "3-Level approach to facelift planning" named for the facial subregions targeted. This novel paradigm maximizes SDM with its simplicity and reproducibility, serves as an invaluable educational tool for patients, novice and seasoned surgeons alike, and facilitates communication between senior surgeons through its descriptive standardization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Sharing a medical decision.

During the last decades, shared decision making (SDM) has become a very popular model for the physician-patient relationship. SDM can refer to a process (making a decision in a shared way) and a product (making a shared decision). In the literature, by far most attention is devoted to the process. In this paper, I investigate the product, wondering what is involved by a medical decision being shared. I argue that the degree to which a decision to implement a medical alternative is shared should be determined by taking into account six considerations: (i) how the physician and the patient rank that alternative, (ii) the individual preference scores the physician and the patient (would) assign to that alternative, (iii) the similarity of the preference scores, (iv) the similarity of the rankings, (v) the total concession size, and (vi) the similarity of the concession sizes. I explain why shared medical decisions are valuable, and sketch implications of the analysis for the physician-patient relationship.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision Making in Vascular Access Selection: A Qualitative Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Collaborative approaches to vascular access selection are being increasingly encouraged to elicit patients' preferences and priorities where no unequivocally superior choice exists. We explored how patients, their caregivers, and clinicians integrate principles of shared decision making when engaging in vascular access discussions. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative description. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of patients, their caregivers, and clinicians from outpatient hemodialysis programs in Alberta, Canada. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We used a thematic analysis approach to inductively code transcripts and generate themes to capture key concepts related to vascular access shared decision making across participant roles. RESULTS: 42 individuals (19 patients, 2 caregivers, 21 clinicians) participated in this study. Participants identified how access-related decisions follow a series of major decisions about kidney replacement therapy and care goals that influence vascular access preferences and choice. Vascular access shared decision making was strengthened through integration of vascular access selection with dialysis-related decisions and timely, tailored, and balanced exchange of information between patients and their care team. Participants described how opportunities to revisit the vascular access decision before and after dialysis initiation helped prepare patients for their access and encouraged ongoing alignment between patients' care priorities and treatment plans. Where shared decision making was undermined, hemodialysis via a catheter ensued as the most readily available vascular access option. LIMITATIONS: Our study was limited to patients and clinicians from hemodialysis care settings and included few caregiver participants. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that earlier, or upstream, decisions about kidney replacement therapies influence how and when vascular access decisions are made. Repeated vascular access discussions that are integrated with other higher-level decisions are needed to promote vascular access shared decision making and preparedness.

Development of a standard set of PROs and generic PROMs for Dutch medical specialist care : Recommendations from the Outcome-Based Healthcare Program Working Group Generic PROMs.

PURPOSE: The added value of measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for delivering patient-centered care and assessment of healthcare quality is increasingly evident. However, healthcare system wide data collection initiatives are hampered by the proliferation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and conflicting data collection standards. As part of a national initiative of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport we developed a consensus-based standard set of generic PROs and PROMs to be implemented across Dutch medical specialist care. METHODS: A working group of mandated representatives of umbrella organizations involved in Dutch medical specialist care, together with PROM experts and patient organizations worked through a structured, consensus-driven co-creation process. This included literature reviews, online expert and working group meetings, and feedback from national patient- and umbrella organizations. The 'PROM-cycle' methodology was used to select feasible, valid, and reliable PROMs to obtain domain scores for each of the PROs included in the set. RESULTS: Eight PROs across different domains of health were ultimately endorsed: symptoms (pain & fatigue), functioning (physical, social/participation, mental [anxiety & depression]), and overarching (quality of life & perceived overall health). A limited number of generic PROMs was endorsed. PROMIS short forms were selected as the preferred instruments for all PROs. Several recommendations were formulated to facilitate healthcare system level adoption and implementation of the standard set. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a consensus-based standard set of Generic PROMs and a set of recommendations to facilitate healthcare system wide implementation across Dutch medical specialist care.

Hospitalization as an opportunity to engage underserved individuals in shared decision-making for lung cancer screening: results from two randomized pilot trials.

PURPOSE: Medicare requires tobacco dependence counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement. We hypothesized that initiating SDM during inpatient tobacco treatment visits would increase LCS among patients with barriers to proactively seeking outpatient preventive care. METHODS: We collected baseline assessments and performed two pilot randomized trials at our safety-net hospital. Pilot 1 tested feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a nurse practitioner initiating SDM for LCS during hospitalization (Inpatient SDM). We collected qualitative data on barriers encountered during Pilot 1. Pilot 2 added a community health worker (CHW) to address barriers to LCS completion (Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation). For both studies, preliminary efficacy was an intention-to-treat analysis of LCS completion at 3 months between intervention and comparator (furnishing of LCS decision aid only) groups. RESULTS: Baseline assessments showed that patients preferred in-person LCS discussions versus self-reviewing materials; overall 20% had difficulty understanding written information. In Pilot 1, 4% (2/52) in Inpatient SDM versus 2% (1/48, comparator) completed LCS (p = 0.6), despite 89% (89/100) desiring LCS. Primary care providers noted that competing priorities and patient factors (e.g., social barriers to keeping appointments) prevented the intervention from working as intended. In Pilot 2, 50% (5/10) in Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation versus 9% (1/11, comparator) completed LCS (p < 0.05). Many patients were ineligible due to recent diagnostic chest CT (Pilot 1: 255/659; Pilot 2: 239/527). CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation shows promise to improve LCS rates among underserved patients who smoke, but feasibility is limited by recent diagnostic chest CT among inpatients. Implementing CHW-navigation in other clinical settings may facilitate LCS for underserved patients. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03276806 (8 September 2017); NCT03793894 (4 January 2019).

Shared Decision Making Among Older Adults With Advanced CKD.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Older adults with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) face difficult decisions about dialysis initiation. Although shared decision making (SDM) can help align patient preferences and values with treatment options, the extent to which older patients with CKD experience SDM remains unknown. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis of patient surveys examining decisional readiness, treatment options education, care partner support, and SDM. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 70 years or older from Boston, Chicago, San Diego, or Portland (Maine) with nondialysis advanced CKD. PREDICTORS: Decisional readiness factors, treatment options education, and care partner support. OUTCOMES: Primary: SDM measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) instrument, with higher scores reflecting greater SDM. Exploratory: Factors associated with SDM. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We used multivariable linear regression models to examine the associations between SDM and predictors, controlling for demographic and health factors. RESULTS: Among 350 participants, mean age was 78 ± 6 years, 58% were male, 13% identified as Black, and 48% had diabetes. Mean SDM-Q-9 score was 52 ± 28. SDM item agreement ranged from 41% of participants agreeing that "my doctor and I selected a treatment option together" to 73% agreeing that "my doctor told me that there are different options for treating my medical condition." In multivariable analysis adjusted for demographic characteristics, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, and diabetes, being "well informed" and "very well informed" about kidney treatment options, having higher decisional certainty, and attendance at a kidney treatment options class were independently associated with higher SDM-Q-9 scores. LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional study design limits the ability to make temporal associations between SDM and the predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Many older patients with CKD do not experience SDM when making dialysis decisions, emphasizing the need for greater access to and delivery of education for individuals with advanced CKD.

A scattered landscape: assessment of the evidence base for 71 patient decision aids developed in a hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Recent publications reveal shortcomings in evidence review and summarization methods for patient decision aids. In the large-scale "Share to Care (S2C)" Shared Decision Making (SDM) project at the University Hospital Kiel, Germany, one of 4 SDM interventions was to develop up to 80 decision aids for patients. Best available evidence on the treatments' impact on patient-relevant outcomes was systematically appraised to feed this information into the decision aids. Aims of this paper were to (1) describe how PtDAs are developed and how S2C evidence reviews for each PtDA are conducted, (2) appraise the quality of the best available evidence identified and (3) identify challenges associated with identified evidence. METHODS: The quality of the identified evidence was assessed based on GRADE quality criteria and categorized into high-, moderate-, low-, very low-quality evidence. Evidence appraisal was conducted across all outcomes assessed in an evidence review and for specific groups of outcomes, namely mortality, morbidity, quality of life, and treatment harms. Challenges in evidence interpretation and summarization resulting from the characteristics of decision aids and the type and quality of evidence are identified and discussed. RESULTS: Evidence reviews assessed on average 25 systematic reviews/guidelines/studies and took about 3 months to be completed. Despite rigorous review processes, nearly 70% of outcome-specific information derived for decision aids was based on low-quality and mostly on non-directly comparative evidence. Evidence on quality of life and harms was often not provided or not in sufficient form/detail. Challenges in evidence interpretation for use in decision aids resulted from, e.g., a lack of directly comparative evidence or the existence of very heterogeneous evidence for the diverse treatments being compared. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence reviews in this project were carefully conducted and summarized. However, the evidence identified for our decision aids was indeed a "scattered landscape" and often poor quality. Facing a high prevalence of low-quality, non-directly comparative evidence for treatment alternatives doesn't mean it is not necessary to choose an evidence-based approach to inform patients. While there is an urgent need for high quality comparative trials, best available evidence nevertheless has to be appraised and transparently communicated to patients.

Treatment selection for life-critical shared decision making under ranges of health-state utility scenarios.

BACKGROUND: Selecting the best treatment for life-critical conditions via a shared decision making approach is a uniquely important challenge. Besides data from the healthcare physicians, other data that need to be considered are the personal values and perceptions of the patient. Usually, these data come in the form of health-state utility values. They are subjective and often times are elicited from the patient under emotional and stressful conditions. This paper examines an approach for selecting the best treatment under a life-critical shared decision making (SDM) framework. METHODS: Health-state utility values are used in practice to quantify what is known as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE). The QALEs from different treatments are used to select the best treatment. This paper describes methods for determining QALEs under a range of scenarios defined by the way some key assumptions on the health-state utility values are satisfied. Approaches for comparing different treatments are described along with some counter-intuitive results. These approaches are based on some optimization formulations. The proposed approaches are demonstrated in terms of a real example taken from the literature. RESULTS: Having results that are robust under a spectrum of different scenarios can provide more confidence that the most suitable treatment has been selected in a given case. On the other hand, having non-robust results can be useful information too as they may provide evidence that a more thorough assessment of the benefits and harms of the treatments may be needed to select a treatment with higher confidence. Finally, this study demonstrates that under certain mathematical conditions among the data it is possible to decide which treatment is better among two treatments without having to use health-state utility values. CONCLUSION: The significance of this study is that it provides valuable and actionable insights for the important question of how health-state utilities can be used in treatment selection.

The role of trust and hope in antipsychotic medication reviews between GPs and service users a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Increasing number of service users diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychosis are being discharged from specialist secondary care services to primary care, many of whom are prescribed long-term antipsychotics. It is unclear if General Practitioners (GPs) have the confidence and experience to appropriately review and adjust doses of antipsychotic medication without secondary care support. AIM: To explore barriers and facilitators of conducting antipsychotic medication reviews in primary care for individuals with no specialist mental health input. DESIGN & SETTING: Realist review in general practice settings. METHOD: A realist review has been conducted to synthesise evidence on antipsychotic medication reviews conducted in primary care with service users diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis. Following initial scoping searches and discussions with stakeholders, a systematic search and iterative secondary searches were conducted. Articles were systematically screened and analysed to develop a realist programme theory explaining the contexts (C) and mechanisms (M) which facilitate or prevent antipsychotic medication reviews (O) in primary care settings, and the potential outcomes of medication reviews. RESULTS: Meaningful Antipsychotic medication reviews may not occur for individuals with only primary care medical input. Several, often mutually reinforcing, mechanisms have been identified as potential barriers to conducting such reviews, including low expectations of recovery for people with severe mental illness, a perceived lack of capability to understand and participate in medication reviews, linked with a lack of information shared in appointments between GPs and Service Users, perceived risk and uncertainty regarding antipsychotic medication and illness trajectory. CONCLUSIONS: The review identified reciprocal and reinforcing stereotypes affecting both GPs and service users. Possible mechanisms to counteract these barriers are discussed, including realistic expectations of medication, and the need for increased information sharing and trust between GPs and service users.

Importance of quality-of-life priorities and preferences surrounding treatment decision making in patients with cancer and oncology clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when a patient partners with their oncologist to integrate personal preferences and values into treatment decisions. A key component of SDM is the elicitation of patient preferences and values, yet little is known about how and when these are elicited, communicated, prioritized, and documented within clinical encounters. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated nationwide data collected by CancerCare to better understand current patterns of SDM between patients and their oncology clinicians. Patient surveys included questions about the importance of quality-of-life preferences and discussions regarding quality-of-life priorities with their clinicians. Clinician surveys included questions about the discussion of quality-of-life priorities and preferences with patients, the effect of quality-of-life priorities on treatment recommendations, and quality-of-life priority documentation in practice. RESULTS: Patient survey completers (n = 320; 33% response rate) were predominantly women (95%), had a diagnosis of breast cancer (59%), or were receiving active cancer treatment (59%). Clinician survey completers (n = 112; 5% response rate) predominately identified as hematologists or oncologists (66%). Although 67% of clinicians reported knowing their patients' personal quality-of-life priorities and preferences before finalizing treatment plans, only 37% of patients reported that these discussions occurred before treatment initiation. Most patients (95%) considered out-of-pocket expenses important during treatment planning, yet only 59% reported discussing out-of-pocket expenses with their clinician before finalizing treatment plans. A majority of clinicians (52%) considered clinic questionnaires as feasible to document quality-of-life priorities and preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinicians reported that preferences related to quality-of-life should be considered in treatment decision making, yet barriers to SDM, preference elicitation, and documentation remain.

Trust but Verify: Exploring the Role of Treatment-Related Information and Patient-Physician Trust in Shared Decision Making Among Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.

An ideal model for decision making in cancer is shared decision-making (SDM). Primary facilitators in this model are information-seeking about treatment options and patient-physician trust. Previous studies have investigated the role of each of these parameters individually. However, little is known about their convergent role in treatment decision-making. Therefore, we explored perspectives of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients and healthcare professionals about the influence of health information-seeking and physician trust in the SDM process. Qualitative interviews with 20 MBC patients and 6 community oncologists, as well as 3 separate focus groups involving lay navigators, nurses, and academic oncologists, were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. Qualitative data analysis employed a content analysis approach, which included a constant comparative method to generate themes from the transcribed textual data. Five emergent themes were identified (1) physicians considered themselves as the patients' primary source of treatment information; (2) patients trusted their physician's treatment recommendations; (3) patients varied in their approach to seeking further health information regarding the discussed treatment options (e.g., internet websites, family and friends, support groups); (4) other healthcare professionals were cognizant of their fundamental role in facilitating further information-seeking; and (5) patient and physician discordant perspectives on shared decision making were present. Patient procurement of treatment information and the capacity to use it effectively in conjunction with patient trust in physicians play an important role in the shared decision-making process.

Shared decision making and experiences of patients with long-term conditions: has anything changed?

BACKGROUND: Medication problems among patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) are well documented. Measures to support LTC management include: medicine optimisation services by community pharmacists such as the Medicine Use Review (MUR) service in England, implementation of shared decision making (SDM), and the availability of rapid access clinics in primary care. This study aimed to investigate the experience of patients with LTCs about SDM including medication counselling and their awareness of community pharmacy medication review services. METHODS: A mixed research method with a purposive sampling strategy to recruit patients was used. The quantitative phase involved two surveys, each requiring a sample size of 319. The first was related to SDM experience and the second to medication counselling at discharge. Patients were recruited from medical wards at St. George's and Croydon University Hospitals.The qualitative phase involved semi-structured interviews with 18 respiratory patients attending a community rapid access clinic. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis using inductive/deductive approaches was employed. Survey results were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The response rate for surveys 1 and 2 survey was 79% (n = 357/450) and 68.5% (240/350) respectively. Survey 1 showed that although 70% of patients had changes made to their medications, only 40% were consulted about them and two-thirds (62.2%) wanted to be involved in SDM. In survey 2, 37.5% of patients thought that medication counselling could be improved. Most patients (88.8%) were interested in receiving the MUR service; however 83% were not aware of it. The majority (57.9%) were interested in receiving their discharge medications from community pharmacies. The interviews generated three themes; lack of patient-centered care and SDM, minimal medication counselling provided and lack of awareness about the MUR service. CONCLUSION: Although patients wanted to take part in SDM, yet SDM and medication counselling are not optimally provided. Patients were interested in the MUR service; however there was lack of awareness and referral for this service. The results propose community pharmacy as a new care pathway for medication supply and counselling post discharge. This promotes a change of health policy whereby community-based services are used to enhance the performance of acute hospitals.

How Does a Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Intervention for Oncologists Affect Participation Style and Preference Matching in Patients with Breast and Colon Cancer?

The aims of this study are to assess patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles and preference matching in a sample of German breast and colon cancer patients and to investigate how a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention for oncologists influences patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles and the attainment of preference matches. This study is a post hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the effects of an SDM intervention. The SDM intervention was a 12-h SDM training program for physicians in combination with decision board use. For this study, we analysed a subgroup of 107 breast and colon cancer patients faced with serious treatment decisions who provided data on specific questionnaires with regard to their preferred and perceived decision-making roles (passive, SDM or active). Patients filled in questionnaires immediately following a decision-relevant consultation (t1) with their oncologist. Eleven of these patients' 27 treating oncologists had received the SDM intervention within the RCT. A majority of cancer patients (60%) preferred SDM. A match between preferred and perceived decision-making roles was reached for 72% of patients. The patients treated by SDM-trained physicians perceived greater autonomy in their decision making (p < 0.05) with more patients perceiving SDM or an active role, but their preference matching was not influenced. A SDM intervention for oncologists boosted patient autonomy but did not improve preference matching. This highlights the already well-known reluctance of physicians to engage in explicit role clarification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00000539; Funding Source: German Cancer Aid.

The role of the purposeful shared decision making model in vascularized composite allotransplantation.

For some patients who have lost the lower part of an arm, hand transplant offers the possibility of receiving a new limb with varying degrees of sensation and function. This procedure, Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation (VCA), is demanding for patients and their care community and comes with significant risks. As a high-stakes decision, patients interested in VCA are subject to extensive clinical evaluation and eligibility decision making. Patients and their care community must also decide if hand transplant (versus other approaches including rehabilitative therapies with or without prosthesis) is right for them. This decision making is often confusing and practically and emotionally fraught. It is complicated in four ways: by the numerous beneficial and harmful potential effects of hand transplant or other options, the number of people affected by VCA and the diverse or conflicting positions that they may hold, the practical demands and limitations of the patient's life situation, and the existential significance of limb loss and transplant for the patient's being. Patients need support in working through these treatment determining issues. Evaluation does not provide this support. Shared decision making (SDM) is a method of care that helps patients think, talk, and feel their way through to the right course of action for them. However, traditional models of SDM that focus on weighing possible beneficial and harmful effects of treatments are ill-equipped to tackle the heterogeneous issues of VCA. A recent model, Purposeful SDM extends the range of troubling issues that SDM can help support beyond opposing effects, to include conflicting positions, life situations, and existential being. In this paper we explore the pertinence of these issues in VCA, methods of SDM that each require of clinicians, the benefits of supporting patients with the breadth of issues in their unique problematic situations, implications for outcomes and practice, and extend the theory of the Purposeful SDM model itself based on the issues present in hand transplant decision making.

Barriers and facilitators of healthcare professionals in integrating shared decision-making in pancreatic cancer treatment: A network approach.

PURPOSE: Shared decision-making (SDM) is crucial in pancreatic cancer treatment due to its choice-sensitive nature and limited prognosis. Treatment of pancreatic cancer is organized in a network approach. Several obstacles exist on different levels-patient, healthcare professional, organizational, societal-that impede integration of SDM. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators to SDM implementation within a comprehensive cancer network. METHODS: A qualitative research design was applied, involving interviews and focus groups on barriers and facilitators with healthcare professionals involved in the implementation of SDM. In one comprehensive cancer network in the Netherlands, including seven hospitals, a project was initiated with the goal of empowering patients and healthcare professionals in SDM throughout primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare settings. A total of 17 participants were assessed. Directed qualitative content analysis was performed by two researchers. RESULTS: Main findings revealed barriers such as time constraints, lack of priority of physicians, little involvement of general practitioners, and insufficient social context of patients in referrals, alongside facilitators including learning communities with practical SDM examples, metro mapping, involvement of case manager in implementation and patient empowerment strategies. CONCLUSION: Addressing cultural, systemic barriers and developing innovative strategies are of importance to enhance SDM in pancreatic cancer treatment in a network approach. This study provides understanding of SDM implementation in complex healthcare settings and offers valuable guidance for future interventions seeking to improve decision-making processes in pancreatic cancer treatment and beyond.

Medical Complexity of Children with Special Healthcare Needs and Healthcare Experiences.

The rising prevalence of CSHCN has led to significant challenges for caregivers, particularly mothers, who face difficulties from caregiving demands and managing complex healthcare interactions. The objective of this study was to examine the association between the medical complexity of CSHCN and the healthcare experiences of their mothers while exploring the influence of sociodemographic factors on these associations. The study utilized data from the 2016-2020 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH), involving 17,434 mothers of CSHCN. Mothers provided information on the medical complexity of CSHCN, healthcare experiences (care coordination, family-centered care, and shared decision-making), and sociodemographic information (race, community, insurance, child sex, age, and federal poverty level). Results from multiple regressions revealed that greater medical complexity was associated with more negative healthcare experiences. Minoritized mothers, those in rural areas, and families with lower income reported lower levels of family-centered care, indicating significant disparities. Additionally, the negative association between medical complexity and healthcare experiences was pronounced for White families and those with private insurance compared to minoritized families and those with public insurance. This study highlights the necessity for targeted interventions to improve care coordination, family-centered care, and shared decision-making, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive, family-centered approach to address healthcare disparities and promote health equity for CSHCN and their families.

Patient involvement in medical decisions: a survey of shared decision making during physical therapy consultations.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision making (SDM) is widely affirmed as an ethical principle in healthcare; underpinned by both evidence of its positive outcomes among patients and strong inducements for its adoption by health professionals. This study investigated patients' involvement in SDM, determined its association with their personal characteristics and identified factors influencing their participation. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey was executed among 148 consenting patients, who were recruited using convenience sampling technique and invited to complete self-report questionnaires on SDM. Data were analyzed via descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: Only 14 patients (9.5%) were involved in SDM whilst most patients (88.5%) had passive roles during consultation. SDM involvement had significant associations with age (p = .006) and educational status (p = .021). Most patients (67.6%) identified 'Doubt towards SDM,' as a factor that could hinder this collaborative process. Similarly, majority of the patients acknowledged the relevance of the influential factors: 'Physiotherapist's support' (83.7%) and 'Adequate health Information' (75%), toward promoting involvement in SDM. CONCLUSION: Patient involvement in SDM was low in this study. Older and less/uneducated patients exhibited an increased tendency of noninvolvement. Key influential factors that either facilitate or hinder patients' involvement in SDM were revealed. There is a need to curtail drawbacks to SDM and promote its execution in physical therapy as well as general clinical practice.

An opponent model for agent-based shared decision-making via a genetic algorithm.

Introduction: Shared decision-making (SDM) has received a great deal of attention as an effective way to achieve patient-centered medical care. SDM aims to bring doctors and patients together to develop treatment plans through negotiation. However, time pressure and subjective factors such as medical illiteracy and inadequate communication skills prevent doctors and patients from accurately expressing and obtaining their opponent's preferences. This problem leads to SDM being in an incomplete information environment, which significantly reduces the efficiency of the negotiation and even leads to failure. Methods: In this study, we integrated a negotiation strategy that predicts opponent preference using a genetic algorithm with an SDM auto-negotiation model constructed based on fuzzy constraints, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of SDM by addressing the problems posed by incomplete information environments and rapidly generating treatment plans with high mutual satisfaction. Results: A variety of negotiation scenarios are simulated in experiments and the proposed model is compared with other excellent negotiation models. The results indicated that the proposed model better adapts to multivariate scenarios and maintains higher mutual satisfaction. Discussion: The agent negotiation framework supports SDM participants in accessing treatment plans that fit individual preferences, thereby increasing treatment satisfaction. Adding GA opponent preference prediction to the SDM negotiation framework can effectively improve negotiation performance in incomplete information environments.

Surgery versus radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma: Shared decision making in a multidisciplinary clinic.

Background: Our neurosurgical unit adopted a model of shared decision-making (SDM) based on multidisciplinary clinics for vestibular schwannoma (VS). A unique feature of this clinic is the interdisciplinary counseling process with a surgeon presenting the option of surgery, an oncologist radiosurgery or radiotherapy, and a specialist nurse advocating for the patient. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. All new patients seen in the combined VS clinic and referred from the skull base multidisciplinary team (MDT) from beginning of June 2013 to end of January 2019 were included. Descriptive statistics and frequency analysis were carried out for the full cohort. Results: Three hundred and fifty-four patients presenting with new or previously untreated VS were included in the analysis. In our cohort, roughly one-third of patients fall into each of the treatment strategies with slightly smaller numbers of patients undergoing surgery than watch, wait and rescan (WWR) ,and SRS (26.6% vs. 32.8% and 37.9%, respectively). Conclusion: In our experience, the combined surgery/oncology/specialist nurse clinic streamlines the patient experience for those with a VS suitable for either microsurgical or SRS/radiotherapy treatment. Decision-making in this population of patients is complex and when presented with all treatment options patients do not necessarily choose the least invasive option as a treatment. The unique feature of our clinic is the multidisciplinary counseling process with a specialist nurse advocating and guiding the patient. Treatment options are likely to become more rather than less complex in future years making combined clinics more valuable than ever in the SDM process.

Financial burden of men with localized prostate cancer: a process paper.

Background: Many individuals undergoing cancer treatment experience substantial financial hardship, often referred to as financial toxicity (FT). Those undergoing prostate cancer treatment may experience FT and its impact can exacerbate disparate health outcomes. Localized prostate cancer treatment options include: radiation, surgery, and/or active surveillance. Quality of life tradeoffs and costs differ between treatment options. In this project, our aim was to quantify direct healthcare costs to support patients and clinicians as they discuss prostate cancer treatment options. We provide the transparent steps to estimate healthcare costs associated with treatment for localized prostate cancer among the privately insured population using a large claims dataset. Methods: To quantify the costs associated with their prostate cancer treatment, we used data from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters, including MarketScan Medicaid, and peer reviewed literature. Strategies to estimate costs included: (1) identifying the problem, (2) engaging a multidisciplinary team, (3) reviewing the literature and identifying the database, (4) identifying outcomes, (5) defining the cohort, and (6) designing the analytic plan. The costs consist of patient, clinician, and system/facility costs, at 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years following diagnosis. Results: We outline our specific strategies to estimate costs, including: defining complex research questions, defining the study population, defining initial prostate cancer treatment, linking facility and provider level related costs, and developing a shared understanding of definitions on our research team. Discussion and next steps: Analyses are underway. We plan to include these costs in a prostate cancer patient decision aid alongside other clinical tradeoffs.