Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: results of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is preferred by many patients in cancer care. However, despite scientific evidence and promotion by health policy makers, SDM implementation in routine health care lags behind. This study aimed to evaluate an empirically and theoretically grounded implementation program for SDM in cancer care. METHODS: In a stepped wedge design, three departments of a comprehensive cancer center sequentially received the implementation program in a randomized order. It included six components: training for health care professionals (HCPs), individual coaching for physicians, patient activation intervention, patient information material/decision aids, revision of quality management documents, and reflection on multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Outcome evaluation comprised four measurement waves. The primary endpoint was patient-reported SDM uptake using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Several secondary implementation outcomes were assessed. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted to evaluate reach and fidelity. Data were analyzed using mixed linear models, qualitative content analysis, and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 2,128 patient questionnaires, 559 questionnaires from 408 HCPs, 132 audio recordings of clinical encounters, and 842 case discussions from 66 MDTMs were evaluated. There was no statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint SDM uptake. Patients in the intervention condition were more likely to experience shared or patient-lead decision-making than in the control condition (d=0.24). HCPs in the intervention condition reported more knowledge about SDM than in the control condition (d = 0.50). In MDTMs the quality of psycho-social information was lower in the intervention than in the control condition (d = - 0.48). Further secondary outcomes did not differ statistically significantly between conditions. All components were implemented in all departments, but reach was limited (e.g., training of 44% of eligible HCPs) and several adaptations occurred (e.g., reduced dose of coaching). CONCLUSIONS: The process evaluation provides possible explanations for the lack of statistically significant effects in the primary and most of the secondary outcomes. Low reach and adaptations, particularly in dose, may explain the results. Other or more intensive approaches are needed for successful department-wide implementation of SDM in routine cancer care. Further research is needed to understand factors influencing implementation of SDM in cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 , registered 8 January 2018.

The Influence of Local Pamidronate Application on Alveolar Dimensional Preservation after Tooth Extraction-An Animal Experimental Study.

The aim of this randomized, controlled animal exploratory trial was to investigate the influence of local application of aminobisphosphonate pamidronate during the socket preservation procedure. Mandibular premolars were extracted in five Göttingen minipigs. Two animals underwent socket preservation using BEGO OSS (n = 8 sockets) and three animals using BEGO OSS + Pamifos (15 mg) (n = 12 sockets). After jaw impression, cast models (baseline, eight weeks postoperative) were digitized using an inLab X5 scanner (Dentsply Sirona) and the generated STL data were superimposed and analyzed with GOM Inspect 2018 (GOM, Braunschweig). After 16 weeks, the lower jaws were prepared and examined using standard histological methods. In the test group (BEGO OSS + pamidronate), buccooral dimensional loss was significantly lower, both vestibulary (0.80 ± 0.57 mm vs. 1.92 ± 0.63 mm; p = 0.00298) and lingually (1.36 ± 0.58 mm vs. 2.56 ± 0.65 mm; p = 0.00104) compared with the control group (BEGO OSS). The test group showed a significant difference between vestibular and lingual dimensional loss (p = 0.04036). Histology showed cortical and cancellous bone in the alveolar sockets without signs of local inflammation. Adjuvant application of pamidronate during socket preservation reduces alveolar dimensional loss significantly. Further investigations with regard to dose-response relationships, volume effects, side effects, and a verification of the suitability in combination with other bone substitute materials (BSMs) are necessary.