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

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

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Ready for SDM: evaluating a train-the-trainer program to facilitate implementation of SDM training in Norway.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers need training to implement shared decision making (SDM). In Norway, we developed "Ready for SDM", a comprehensive SDM curriculum tailored to various healthcare providers, settings, and competence levels, including a course targeting interprofessional healthcare teams. The overall aim was to evaluate a train-the-trainer (TTT) program for healthcare providers wanting to offer this course within their hospital trust. METHODS: Our observational descriptive design was informed by Kirkpatrick´s Model of Educational Outcomes. The South-Eastern Regional Health Authority invited healthcare providers from all health trusts in its jurisdiction to attend. The TTT consisted of a one-day basic course with lectures on SDM, exercises and group reflections followed by a two-day advanced course including an SDM observer training. Immediately after each of the two courses, reaction and learning (Kirkpatrick levels 1 and 2) were assessed using a self-administered questionnaire. After the advanced course, observer skills were operationalized as accuracy of the participants' assessment of a consultation compared to an expert assessment. Within three months post-training, we measured number of trainings conducted and number of healthcare providers trained (Kirkpatrick level 3) using an online survey. Qualitative and quantitative descriptive analysis were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-one out of 24 (basic) and 19 out of 22 (advanced) healthcare providers in 9 health trusts consented to participate. The basic course was evaluated as highly acceptable, the advanced course as complex and challenging. Participants identified a need for more training in pedagogical skills and support for planning implementation of SDM-training. Participants achieved high knowledge scores and were positive about being an SDM trainer. Observer skills regarding patient involvement in decision-making were excellent (mean of weighted t = .80). After three months, 67% of TTT participants had conducted more than two trainings each and trained a total of 458 healthcare providers. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that the TTT is a feasible approach for supporting large-scale training in SDM. Our study informed us about how to improve the advanced course. Further research shall investigate the efficacy of the training in the context of a comprehensive multifaceted strategy for implementing SDM in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered at ISRCTN (99432465) March 25, 2020.

The development and feasibility of a personal health-optimization system for people with bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: People with bipolar disorder often experience ill health and have considerably reduced life expectancies. Suboptimal treatment is common and includes a lack of effective medicines, overtreatment, and non-adherence to medical interventions and lifestyle measures. E- and m-health applications support patients in optimizing their treatment but often exhibit conceptual and technical shortcomings. The objective of this work was to develop and test the usability of a system targeting suboptimal treatment and compare the service to other genres and strategies. METHODS: Based on the frameworks of shared decision-making, multi-criteria decision analysis, and single-subject research design, we interviewed potential users, reviewed research and current approaches, and created a first version using a rapid prototyping framework. We then iteratively improved and expanded the service based on formative usability testing with patients, healthcare providers, and laypeople from Norway, the UK, and Ukraine. The evidence-based health-optimization system was developed using systematic methods. The System Usability Scale and a questionnaire were administered in formative and summative tests. A comparison of the system to current standards for clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids was performed. RESULTS: Seventy-eight potential users identified 82 issues. Driven by user feedback, the limited first version was developed into a more comprehensive system. The current version encompasses 21 integrated core features, supporting 6 health-optimization strategies. One crucial feature enables patients and clinicians to explore the likely value of treatments based on mathematical integration of self-reported and research data and the patient's preferences. The mean ± SD (median) system usability score of the patient-oriented subsystem was 71 ± 18 (73). The mean ± SD (median) system usability score in the summative usability testing was 78 ± 18 (75), well above the norm score of 68. Feedback from the questionnaire was generally positive. Eighteen out of 23 components in the system are not required in international standards for patient decision aids and clinical practice guidelines. CONCLUSION: We have developed the first evidence-based health-optimization system enabling patients, clinicians, and caregivers to collaborate in optimizing the patient's health on a shared platform. User tests indicate that the feasibility of the system is acceptable.

Determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate informed values-based decision-making: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients' involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane' Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022338299.

Ready for SDM- evaluation of an interprofessional training module in shared decision making - A cluster randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Ready for SDM was developed in Norway as a comprehensive modularized curriculum for health care providers (HCP). The current study evaluated the efficacy of one of the modules, a 2-hour interprofessional SDM training designed to enhance SDM competencies. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted with eight District Psychiatric Centres randomized to wait-list control (CG) or intervention group (IG). Participants and trainers were not blinded to their allocation. The IG received a 2-hour didactic and interactive training, using video examples. The primary outcome was the agreement between the participants' and an expert assessment of patient involvement in a video recorded consultation. The SDM-knowledge score was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Compared to the CG (n = 65), the IG (n = 69) judged involvement behavior in a communication example more accurately (mean difference of weighted T, adjusted for age and gender:=-0.098, p = 0.028) and demonstrated better knowledge (mean difference=-0.58; p = 0.014). A sensitivity analysis entering a random effect for cluster turned out not significant. CONCLUSION: The interprofessional group training can improve HCPs' SDM-competencies. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Addressing interprofessional teams using SDM communication training could supplement existing SDM training approaches. More research is needed to evaluate the training module's effects as a component of large-scale implementation of SDM.

New status report from Norway: Implementation of patient involvement in Norwegian health care.

In Norway, shared decision-making (SDM) is on the top of the priorities announced by the health authorities. Accountability for implementing this priority has been delegated to the four health regions, and from there into particular departments, hospital trusts, working groups or SDM coordinators. Using abundant public funding, different approaches to producing and implementing patient decision aids have been developed. However, none of these is implemented by any Norwegian services on a regular basis, while the accessible decision aids on the national health platform are not quality approved and in very little use. An ongoing new project is aimed to resolve this dilemma. Health professional training has been developed as a meta-curriculum with multiple modules, adaptive to setting and user group, and designed as an open-source learning platform, based upon the experience of "SDM Ambassadors" delivering the training. Most of the modules are already implemented on a regular basis in the South-Eastern Health Region, and 5000 health care professionals have already graduated from the training modules. However, in the standard patient pathways, and in most of the national medical guidelines, the patient is still considered to be a passive receiver of directives or recommendations, rather than an active participant in their own health decisions. Considerable structural implementation has been done in the education guidelines of all health professions on all levels to embed SDM principles. Teaching in SDM skills, quality of information and evidence-based nursing has become standard in most of the programs at Norwegian universities. Nevertheless, we currently still have no reliable estimate on the degree to which patients are actually involved in their own health decision-making. Further efforts in the process of implementing the patient's choice in the health system should involve the municipal services, follow a research-based strategy, include monitoring and consider the quality level of the informational environment of health-related decisions.

Interventions to Improve Trainers' Learning and Behaviors for Educating Health Care Professionals Using Train-the-Trainer Method: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Train-the-trainer (TTT) programs are frequently used to facilitate knowledge dissemination. However, little is known about the effectiveness of these programs. Therefore, we sought to assess the impact of TTT programs on learning and behavior of trainers for educating health and social professionals (trainees). METHODS: Guided by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, we conducted a systematic review. We searched 12 databases until April 2018 and extracted data according to the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome model. Population was defined as trainers delivering training program to health care professionals, and the intervention consists in any organized activity provided by a trainer. There were no restrictive comparators, and outcomes were knowledge, attitude, skill, confidence, commitment, and behavior of trainers. We estimated the pooled effect size and its 95% confidence interval using a random-effect model. We performed a narrative synthesis when meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: Of 11,202 potentially eligible references, we identified 16 unique studies. Studies were mostly controlled before-and-after studies and covered a unique training intervention. Targeted trainers were mostly nurses (n = 10) and physicians (n = 5). The most frequent measured outcome was knowledge (n = 12). TTT programs demonstrated significant effect on knowledge (Standardized mean deviation = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.11-1.06; I2 = 90%; P < .01; 10 studies). No studies measured trainers' ability to deliver the training program. DISCUSSION: TTT programs may improve the knowledge of trainers. However, the heterogeneity and small number of studies hamper our ability to draw conclusions that are more robust.

Ready for shared decision making: Pretesting a training module for health professionals on sharing decisions with their patients.

INTRODUCTION: While shared decision-making (SDM) training programmes for health professionals have been developed in several countries, few have been evaluated. In Norway, a comprehensive curriculum, "klar for samvalg" (ready for SDM), for interprofessional health-care teams was created using generic didactic methods and guidance to tailor training to various contexts. The programmes adapted didactic methods from an evidence-based German training programmes (doktormitSDM). The overall aim was to evaluate two particular SDM modules on facilitating SDM implementation into clinical practice. METHOD: A descriptive mixed methods study using questionnaires and a focus group guided by the Medical Research Council Complex Interventions Framework. The training was provided as two different applications (module AB [introduction and SDM-basics] and module ABC [introduction, SDM-basics and interactive training]) with differing learning objectives, extent of interactivity, and duration (1 vs 2 hours). Groups of participants were recruited consecutively based on requests for health professional SDM training in university/college- and hospital-settings. By a focus group and a self-administered questionnaire comprehensibility, relevance and acceptance were assessed and qualitative feedback collected after the training. Data passed descriptive and content analysis, respectively. Knowledge was assessed twice using five multiple-choice items and analysed using paired t-tests. RESULTS: In 11 (six AB and five ABC) training sessions, 357/429 (296 AB and 133 ABC) eligible nurses, physicians and health professional students with varying clinical backgrounds and previous levels of SDM-knowledge participated. SDM-knowledge increased from 25-78% (range pretest) to 85-95% (range post-test) (P ≤ .001). The training was rated easy to understand, acceptable and relevant for practice. Findings to improve the education suggest higher emphasis on interprofessional teaching methods. CONCLUSIONS: The two SDM training modules met the basic requirements for use in a broader SDM implementation strategy and can even improve knowledge.

Validation of the Norwegian version of MAPPIN'SDM, an observation-based instrument to measure shared decision-making in clinical encounters.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the Norwegian version of MAPPIN'SDM observer scales with regard to reliability, accuracy and the extent to which the scales include the essentials of the shared decision-making concept. METHODS: Three MAPPIN'SDM scales, focusing on the skills of doctor, patient and dyad, were applied to audiovisual records of 35 decision sequences. Inter-rater reliabilities were determined based on kappa coefficients. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated with regard to an expert reference standard. Convergent validities were calculated with the OPTION5 scale. MAPPIN'SDM was qualitatively compared to OPTION5 using Makoul & Clayman's Integrative Model structure. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliabilities were high on average over 11 items in each of three observer scales (MAPPINdoctor=0.77, MAPPINpatient=0.82, MAPPINdyad=0.77). Patient involvement was detected accurately (MAPPINdyad: mean sensitivity/specificity 93/91%). Comparison with OPTION5 showed weak to moderate correlation (Spearman's ρ/p-value: MAPPINdoctor:=0.44/0.009, MAPPINpatient: 0.38/0.024, MAPPINdyad 0.40/0.016) and little content overlap. CONCLUSION: MAPPIN'SDMnorge is capable of assessing SDM highly reliably and accurately. Divergence from OPTION5 reflects explicit disagreement regarding the concept's assumptions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: MAPPIN'SDMnorge is ready for use in Norway. In-depth debate on the SDM concept's essentials is urgently needed.

Status report from Norway: Implementation of patient involvement in Norwegian health care.

Norway has traditionally high standards regarding civil rights particularly emphasizing equal access to societal resources including health care. This background and the health care system's centralized national organization make it perfectly suited for implementation of shared decision making (SDM). In recent years, great efforts have been made by policy- makers, regional health authorities and not least the patients to facilitate a process of change in health communication culture. SDM is currently even given highest priority in health care strategies on all system levels. SDM has been structurally implemented, e.g. by including corresponding guidance in the standard patient pathways. Moreover, SDM is established as an element of service on the national health portal hosting a constantly increasing number of decision aids. Essentially the Norwegian Knowledge Center for Health Services contributes by searching and providing information for use in decision aids. Implementation is now being rolled out unit by unit for a list of medical problems as a series production of SDM using decision aids and health professional training. Importantly, production of SDM begins and succeeds as a soundly structured communication with both clinical environments and patients. However, as communication training has not been implemented before now, there are no data demonstrating sufficient realization of SDM in current health care. Beyond making reasonable use of scientific achievements, the Norwegian movement's secret of success is the simultaneous commitment of all actors of the health system to a common idea.