Choosing conservative care in advanced chronic kidney disease: a scoping review of patients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Conservative care (CC) is a viable treatment option for some patients with kidney failure. Choosing between dialysis and CC can be a complex decision in which involvement of patients is desirable. Gaining insight into the experiences and preferences of patients regarding this decision-making process is an important initial step to improve care. We aimed to identify what is known about the perspective of patients regarding decision-making when considering CC. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched on 23 February 2023 for qualitative and quantitative studies on patient-reported experiences on decision-making about CC. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty articles were included. We identified three major themes: creating awareness about disease and treatment choice, decision support and motivation to choose CC. Patients were often not aware of the option to choose CC. Patients felt supported by their loved ones during the decision-making process, although they perceived they made the final decision to choose CC themselves. Some patients felt pressured by their healthcare professional to choose dialysis. Reported reasons to choose CC were maintaining quality of life, treatment burden of dialysis, cost and the desire not to be a burden to others. In general, patients were satisfied with their decision for CC. CONCLUSIONS: By focussing on the perspective of patients, we identified a wide range of patient experiences and preferences regarding the decision-making process. These findings can help to improve the complex decision-making process between dialysis and CC and to provide patient-centred care.

Shared decision-making with older adults with cancer: Adaptation of a model through literature review and expert opinion.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a literature overview of characteristics of Shared Decision Making (SDM) with specific importance to the older adult population with cancer and to tailor an existing model of SDM in patients with cancer to the needs of older adults. METHODS: A systematic search of several databases was conducted. Eligible studies described factors influencing SDM concerning cancer treatment with adults aged 65 years or above, with any type of cancer. We included qualitative or mixed-methods studies. Themes were identified and discussed in an expert panel, including a patient-representative, until consensus was reached on an adjusted model. RESULTS: Overall 29 studies were included and nine themes were identified from the literature. The themes related to the importance of goal setting, need for tailored information provision, the role of significant others, uncertainty of evidence, the importance of time during and outside of consultations, the possible ill-informed preconceptions that health care professionals (HCPs) might have about older adults and the specific competencies they need to engage in the SDM process with older adults. No new themes emerged from discussion with expert panel. This study presents a visual model of SDM with older patients with cancer based on the identified themes. CONCLUSIONS: Our model shows key elements that are specific to SDM with older adults. Further research needs to focus on how to educate HCPs on the competencies needed to engage in SDM with older patients, and how to implement the model into everyday practice.

Shared decision-making performance of general practice residents: an observational study combining observer, resident, and patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is considered fundamental to person-centred care. However, applying SDM may be a challenge for residents in general practice, since it is a complex competence that requires the integration of knowledge and skills from several competency domains. OBJECTIVE: To support learning of SDM during medical residency, we aimed to gain insight in Dutch residents' observed and perceived SDM performance in general practice. METHODS: We evaluated residents' SDM performance from an observer, resident, and patient perspective. Consultations of first- and third-year residents were recorded. Trained observers used the validated Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) scale to assess observed SDM performance of residents in 98 actual recorded consultations. Perceived SDM performance was evaluated by residents and patients completing validated SDM questionnaires, supplemented with questions about (the context of) the consultation and perceived relevance of SDM immediately after the consultation. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics (mean, SD, minimums, and maximums) and explorative bivariate analyses. RESULTS: The residents' observed mean SDM performance was 19.1 (range, 0-100, SD = 10.9), mean resident self-reported SDM performance was 56.9 (range, 0-100, SD = 18.5), and mean patient-reported SDM performance was 73.3 (range, 0-100, SD = 26.8). We found a significant and positive correlation between observed SDM performance and residents' perceived relevance of SDM for the consultation (t = 4.571, P ≤ 0.001) and the duration of the consultation (r = 0.390, P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that there is room for increasing awareness of the potential incongruence between observed and perceived SDM performance during medical residency, in order to facilitate the implementation of SDM in clinical practice.

THE PROBLEM: Shared decision making is an important process in which healthcare professional and patient work together to reach a decision on how to solve a health problem. This decision should include patients' needs and what matters most to them. We investigated if consultations between general practitioners in training (i.e. residents) and their patients demonstrate shared decision making. The research methods: We asked the residents and patients to respond to questions on their experience of shared decision making right after the consultation. We recorded 98 consultations of residents with their patients. Two researchers rated to what extent residents demonstrated shared decision-making behaviours during these consultations. THE RESULTS: The patients reported more shared decision making than the residents (patients: 73 versus residents: 57 on a 0­100 scale). The researchers observed low levels of SDM during the consultations (19 on a 0­100 scale). Our conclusion: Residents should be aware that shared decision making does not yet frequently occur in practice. To improve the extent to which residents share decisions with their patients in general practice, residents should learn why, when, and how to involve patients in decision making during consultations.

Patient readiness for shared decision making about treatment: Conceptualisation and development of the ReadySDM.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision making (SDM) requires an active role of both clinicians and patients. We aimed to conceptualise patient readiness for SDM about treatment, and to develop a patient questionnaire to assess readiness. METHODS: We used the results of a scoping review and a qualitative study to inform the patient readiness construct. We conducted five additional rounds of data collection to finalise the construct definition and develop the Patient Readiness for SDM Questionnaire (ReadySDM ) in an oncological setting: (1) longitudinal interviews with patients with cancer during and after a treatment decision-making process; (2) a pilot study among experts, clinicians, and patients for feedback on the concept and items; (3) a field test among (former) patients with cancer to test item format and content validity, and to reduce the number of items; (4) cognitive interviews with people with low literacy to test the comprehensibility of the questionnaire; and (5) a field test among (former) patients who faced a cancer treatment decision in the last year, to test the content validity of the final version of the questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 251 people participated in the various rounds of data collection. We identified eight elements of patient readiness for SDM about treatment: (1) understanding of and attitude towards SDM; (2) information skills; (3) skills in communicating and claiming space; (4) self-awareness; (5) consideration skills; (6) self-efficacy; (7) emotional distress; and (8) experienced time. We developed the 20-item ReadySDM to retrospectively measure these elements in an oncological setting. CONCLUSION: We conducted a thorough procedure to conceptualise patient readiness and to develop the ReadySDM . The questionnaire aims to provide novel insights into ways to enhance SDM in daily practice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Multiple people with lived experience were involved in various phases of the study. They were asked for input on the study design, the conceptualisation of readiness, and the development of the questionnaire.

Shared Decision Making in Health Care Visits for CKD: Patients' Decisional Role Preferences and Experiences.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Research on shared decision making (SDM) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) has focused almost exclusively on the modality of kidney replacement treatment. We explored what other CKD decisions are recognized by patients, what their preferences and experiences are regarding these decisions, and how decisions are made during their interactions with medical care professionals. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients with CKD receiving (outpatient) care in 1 of 2 Dutch hospitals. EXPOSURE: Patients' preferred decisional roles for treatment decisions were measured using the Control Preferences Scale survey administered after a health care visit with medical professionals. OUTCOME: Number of decisions for which patients experienced a decisional role that did or did not match their preferred role. Observed levels of SDM and motivational interviewing in audio recordings of health care visits, measured using the 4-step SDM instrument (4SDM) and Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding tools. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: The results were characterized using descriptive statistics, including differences in scores between the patients' experienced and preferred decisional roles. RESULTS: According to the survey (n=122) patients with CKD frequently reported decisions regarding planning (112 of 122), medication changes (82 of 122), or lifestyle changes (59 of 122). Of the 357 reported decisions in total, patients preferred that clinicians mostly (125 of 357) or fully (101 of 357) make the decisions. For 116 decisions, they preferred a shared decisional role. For 151 of 357 decisions, the patients' preferences did not match their experiences. Decisions were experienced as "less shared/patient-directed" (76 of 357) or "more shared/patient-directed" (75 of 357) than preferred. Observed SDM in 118 coded decisions was low (median4; range, 0 - 22). Motivational interviewing techniques were rarely used. LIMITATIONS: Potential recall and selection bias, and limited generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: We identified multiple discrepancies between preferred, experienced, and observed SDM in health care visits for CKD. Although patients varied in their preferred decisional role, a considerable number of patients expressed a preference for shared decision making for many decisions. However, SDM behavior during the health care visits was observed infrequently. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Shared decision making (SDM) may be a valuable approach for common chronic kidney disease (CKD) decisions, but our knowledge is limited. We collected patient surveys after health care visits for CKD. Patients most frequently experienced decisions regarding planning, medication, and lifestyle. Three decisional roles were preferred by comparable numbers of patients: let the clinician alone decide, let the clinician decide for the most part, or "equally share" the decision. Patients' experiences of who made the decision did not always match their preferences. In audio recordings of the health care visits, we observed low levels of SDM behavior. These findings suggest that the preference for "sharing decisions" is often unmet for a large number of patients.

The value of using patient-reported outcomes for health screening during long-term follow-up after paediatric stem cell transplantation for nonmalignant diseases.

INTRODUCTION: The assessment of using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within comprehensive care follow-up programmes, specifically focused on health screening, remains largely unexplored. PROs were implemented in our late effects and comprehensive care programme after paediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for nonmalignant diseases. The programme focuses solely on screening of physical and mental health and on discussing PROs during the consultation. METHODS: The primary method of this study was semistructured interviews to explore the perspective of both patients and healthcare providers' (HCP) on the use of PROs, which were thematically analyzed. Additionally, an explorative quantitative approach with patient-reported experience measures (PREMS) was used, with a pretest-posttest design, to assess whether the use of PROs was accompanied by more patient-centred care. RESULTS: From the patient-interviews (N = 15) four themes were extracted: use of PROs (1) help to discuss topics; (2) make the patients feel understood; (3) create a moment of self-reflection; and (4) make consultations more efficient. Pre- and postimplementation analysis of PREMs (N = 40) did not show significant differences in terms of patient-centeredness. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the added value of integrating PROs for health screening purposes within the long-term follow-up programme after paediatric HSCT, as perceived by both patient and HCP. With the active use of PROs, patients are stimulated to consciously assess their health status. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: This study included patients as participants. Caregivers were approached if patients were below a certain age. Additionally, preliminary results were shared with all patients (including nonparticipants) during a patient conference day.

Predicting outcomes in chronic kidney disease: needs and preferences of patients and nephrologists.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines on chronic kidney disease (CKD) recommend that nephrologists use clinical prediction models (CPMs). However, the actual use of CPMs seems limited in clinical practice. We conducted a national survey study to evaluate: 1) to what extent CPMs are used in Dutch CKD practice, 2) patients' and nephrologists' needs and preferences regarding predictions in CKD, and 3) determinants that may affect the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with CKD patients to inform the development of two online surveys; one for CKD patients and one for nephrologists. Survey participants were recruited through the Dutch Kidney Patient Association and the Dutch Federation of Nephrology. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients and 50 nephrologists responded to the surveys. Most patients (89%) reported they had discussed predictions with their nephrologists. They most frequently discussed predictions regarded CKD progression: when they were expected to need kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (n = 81), and how rapidly their kidney function was expected to decline (n = 68). Half of the nephrologists (52%) reported to use CPMs in clinical practice, in particular CPMs predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease. Almost all nephrologists (98%) reported discussing expected CKD trajectories with their patients; even those that did not use CPMs (42%). The majority of patients (61%) and nephrologists (84%) chose a CPM predicting when patients would need KRT in the future as the most important prediction. However, a small portion of patients indicated they did not want to be informed on predictions regarding CKD progression at all (10-15%). Nephrologists not using CPMs (42%) reported they did not know CPMs they could use or felt that they had insufficient knowledge regarding CPMs. According to the nephrologists, the most important determinants for the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice were: 1) understandability for patients, 2) integration as standard of care, 3) the clinical relevance. CONCLUSION: Even though the majority of patients in Dutch CKD practice reported discussing predictions with their nephrologists, CPMs are infrequently used for this purpose. Both patients and nephrologists considered a CPM predicting CKD progression most important to discuss. Increasing awareness about existing CPMs that predict CKD progression may result in increased adoption in clinical practice. When using CPMs regarding CKD progression, nephrologists should ask whether patients want to hear predictions beforehand, since individual patients' preferences vary.

Exploring the long-term psychosocial impact of paediatric haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for nonmalignant diseases.

INTRODUCTION: An understanding of the long-term psychosocial impact of paediatric haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for nonmalignant diseases is needed to optimize pre-HSCT counselling, supportive care and long-term follow-up programmes after HSCT for this group of patients and caregivers. METHODS: This qualitative study included 14 patients who underwent transplantation for a nonmalignant disease during childhood. In-depth interviews were held online to explore patients' perspectives on the long-term psychosocial impact of HSCT on their lives. The results were analysed based on the Grounded Theory approach. RESULTS: Patients' median age at the time of the interview was 19 years (range: 14-49), and the median years after HSCT was 12 years (range: 3-33). Four main themes were identified: (1) doing okay, (2) experiencing persistent involvement with healthcare services, (3) influence on relationships with loved ones and (4) impact on the patient's life course. Subthemes extracted were doing okay, feeling of being cured, health limitations, sense of vulnerability, ongoing connection to the hospital, acceptance, friendship, family relations, development of own identity, not taking life for granted, social development, impact on (school) career and thinking about the future. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported active coping strategies and resilience after this high-impact treatment. The data highlight the need for patient-adjusted supportive care, indicating more need for supportive care in the long-term outpatient clinic. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: This study included patients as participants. Caregivers were approached if patients were below a certain age. Additionally, preliminary results were presented during a patient conference day.

Assessment of patient symptom burden and information needs helps tailoring palliative care consultations: An observational study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to study (1) the relationship between patient-reported symptom burden and information needs in hospital-based palliative care and (2) differences in patient-reported needs during the disease trajectory. METHODS: Observational study: patient-reported symptom burden and information needs were collected via a conversation guide comprising assessment scales for 12 symptoms (0-10), the question which symptom has priority to be solved and a question prompt list on 75 palliative care-related items (35 topics, 40 questions). Non-parametric tests assessed associations. RESULTS: Conversation guides were used by 266 patients. Median age was 65 years (IQ-range, 57-72), 49% were male and 96% had cancer. Patients reported highest burden for Fatigue (median = 7) and Loss of appetite (median = 6) and prioritised Pain (26%), Fatigue (9%) and Shortness of breath (9%). Patients wanted information about 1-38 (median = 14) items, mostly Fatigue (68%), Possibilities to manage future symptoms (68%) and Possible future symptoms (67%). Patients also wanted information about symptoms for which they reported low burden. Patients in the symptom-directed phase needed more information about hospice care. CONCLUSION: Symptom burden and information needs are related. Patients often also want information about non-prioritised symptoms and other palliative care domains. Tailored information-provision includes inviting patients to also discuss topics they did not consider themselves.

Treatment decision-making in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: a patient's perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the treatment decision-making process of patients with dcSSc in the context of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS: A qualitative semi-structured interview study was done in patients before or after HSCT, or patients who chose another treatment than HSCT. Thematic analysis was used. Shared decision-making (SDM) was assessed with the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). RESULTS: Twenty-five patients [16 male/nine female, median age 47 (range 27-68) years] were interviewed: five pre-HSCT, 16 post-HSCT and four following other treatment. Whereas the SDM-Q-9 showed the decision-making process was perceived as shared [median score 81/100 (range 49-100)], we learned from the interviews that the decision was predominantly made by the rheumatologist, and patients were often steered towards a treatment option. Strong guidance of the rheumatologist was appreciated because of a lack of accessible, reliable and SSc-specific information, due to the approach of the decision-making process of the rheumatologist, the large consequence of the decision and the trust in their doctor. Expectations of outcomes and risks also differed between patients. Furthermore, more than half of patients felt they had no choice but to go for HSCT, due to rapid deterioration of health and the perception of HSCT as 'the holy grail'. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that provides insight into the decision-making process in dcSSc. This process is negatively impacted by a lack of disease-specific education about treatment options. Additionally, we recommend exploring patients' preferences and understanding of the illness to optimally guide decision-making and to provide tailor-made information.

Measuring shared decision making in oncology: Development and first testing of the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician questionnaires.

BACKGROUND: Existing measures to assess shared decision making (SDM) have often been developed based on an ill-defined underlying construct, and many assess physician behaviours only or focus on a single patient-physician encounter. OBJECTIVE: To (a) develop a patient and a physician questionnaire to measure SDM in oncology and (b) determine their content validity and comprehensibility. METHODS: A systematic review of SDM models and an oncology-specific SDM model informed the domains of the SDM construct. We formulated items for each SDM domain. Cancer patients and physicians rated content validity in an online questionnaire. We assumed a formative measurement model and performed online field-testing in cancer patients to inform further item reduction. We tested item comprehension in cognitive interviews with cancer patients and physicians. RESULTS: We identified 17 domains and formulated 132 items. Twelve cancer patients rated content validity at item level, and 11 physicians rated content validity at domain level. We field-tested the items among 131 cancer patients and conducted cognitive interviews with eight patients and five physicians. These phases resulted in the 15-item iSHAREpatient and 15-item iSHAREphysician questionnaires, covering 13 domains. CONCLUSIONS: We thoroughly developed the iSHARE questionnaires. They both assess patient and physician behaviours and cover the entire SDM process rather than a single consultation.

Shared decision making in oncology: A model based on patients', health care professionals', and researchers' views.

OBJECTIVE: To construct a model of shared decision making (SDM) about cancer treatment by conducting an extensive consultation of stakeholders, informed by the literature. METHODS: We interviewed 76 stakeholders: cancer patients, potential future patients, oncologists, nurses, and SDM-researchers. We asked, "If I say 'Doctors and patients making decisions together about cancer treatment,' what does this make you think about?" Ideas were further solicited by presenting 19 cards each describing a possible SDM element. Interviews were inductively coded and analysed, and the emerging themes were integrated into a model. RESULTS: The model that was based on participants' views assigns specific roles in SDM to both oncologists and patients. Oncologists determine possible treatments, emphasise the importance of patients' opinion, explain treatment options, get to know patients, guide patients, and provide treatment recommendations. Patients ask questions, express thoughts and feelings, consider options, offer opinions, and decide or delegate decisions to oncologists. Outside consultations, patients search for information, prepare questions, and consider options. CONCLUSIONS: Next to oncologists' role, cancer patients also have a clear role in SDM about cancer treatment, during and outside consultations. Patients should receive the support they need to fulfil this requirement.

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.

Shared Decision Making in Prostate Cancer Care-Encouraging Every Patient to be Actively Involved in Decision Making or Ensuring the Patient Preferred Level of Involvement?

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to 1) describe preferred and experienced roles in treatment decision making among patients with localized prostate cancer, 2) identify how often the roles experienced by patients matched their preferred roles and 3) determine whether active involvement in decision making regardless of role preferences or concordance between preferred and experienced roles would be the strongest predictor of more favorable patient reported outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, observational study we obtained serial questionnaire data from 454 patients with newly diagnosed, localized prostate cancer (cT1-cT2, or Gleason 7 or less and prostate specific antigen 20 ng/ml or less). Questionnaires were completed prior to treatment and at the 3, 6 and 12-month posttreatment followups. Clinical data were obtained from the patient medical records. Active involvement and role concordance were operationalized using the CPS (Control Preferences Scale). ANOVA and effect sizes (small and medium Cohen d = 0.2 and 0.5, respectively) were used to compare patient knowledge of prostate cancer, decision conflict, decision regret and overall health related quality of life. RESULTS: Of the patients 393 (87%) reported having been actively involved in treatment decision making. However, 78 patients (17%) indicated having had less or more involvement than preferred. Active involvement was significantly associated with more prostate cancer knowledge (d = 0.30), less decision conflict (d = 0.52) and less decision regret (d = 0.34). Role concordance was also but less strongly associated with less decision conflict (d = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support a policy of encouraging all patients with localized prostate cancer regardless of their stated role preferences to be actively involved in the treatment decision.

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.

Breast cancer specialists' views on and use of risk prediction models in clinical practice: a mixed methods approach.

PURPOSE: Risk prediction models (RPM) in breast cancer quantify survival benefit from adjuvant systemic treatment. These models [e.g. Adjuvant! Online (AO)] are increasingly used during consultations, despite their not being designed for such use. As still little is known about oncologists' views on and use of RPM to communicate prognosis to patients, we investigated if, why, and how they use RPM. METHODS: We disseminated an online questionnaire that was based on the literature and individual and group interviews with oncologists. RESULTS: Fifty-one oncologists (partially) completed the questionnaire. AO is the best known (95%) and most frequently used RPM (96%). It is used to help oncologists decide whether or not to recommend chemotherapy (>85%), to inform (86%) and help patients decide about treatment (>80%), or to persuade them to follow the proposed course of treatment (74%). Most oncologists (74%) believe that using AO helps patients understand their prognosis. CONCLUSION: RPM have found a place in daily practice, especially AO. Oncologists think that using AO helps patients understand their prognosis, yet studies suggest that this is not always the case. Our findings highlight the importance of exploring whether patients understand the information that RPM provide.

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.

Co-creation of a health literate-sensitive training and conversation aid to support shared decision-making in maternity care.

Background: Maternity care increasingly aims to achieve Shared Decision-making (SDM), yet seemingly not to the benefit of clients with low health literacy (HL). We developed an SDM training for healthcare professionals (HCPs) and a conversation aid to support HL-sensitive SDM in maternity care. Methods: The training and conversation aid were based on previous needs assessments and expert consultation, and were developed in co-creation with clients (n = 15) and HCPs (n = 7). Usability, acceptability and comprehension of the conversation aid were tested among new clients (n = 14) and HCPs (n = 6). Acceptability of the training was tested among midwifery students (n = 5). Results: In the co-creation sessions, clients reported to expect that their midwife becomes acquainted with their general values, priorities and daily context. Clients also emphasized wanting to be supported in their preferred decisional role. User test interviews showed that clients and HCPs were positive towards using the conversation aid, but also apprehensive about the time it required. The user test of the training showed that more attention was needed for recognizing and adapting information provision to clients' HL level. Conclusion and innovation: The newly developed conversation aid and training have potential to support HCPs and clients in HL-sensitive SDM.