[Patient decision aids for cancer prevention Synthesis for the francophone community]. / Outils d'aide à la décision pour la prévention des cancers. Synthèse pour la francophonie.

In recent years, the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals, and more broadly between public health actors and citizens, has shifted from a paternalistic, top-down approach to one of increased patient involvement in decision-making. Primary and secondary cancer prevention involve both benefits and risks, underscoring the importance of informed decision-making aligned with each patient and citizen's unique values and preferences. Shared decision-making, supported by decision aids, offers patients and citizens clear and comprehensible information about their options, enabling informed choices. This article aims to compile and define the characteristics of tools developed or translated into French for this purpose.

Depuis plusieurs années, la relation entre les patients et les professionnels de la santé et plus largement entre les acteurs de la santé publique et les citoyens a évolué, passant d'une approche paternaliste et top-down à une implication accrue des patients dans les décisions les concernant. La prévention primaire et secondaire des cancers présente des bénéfices mais parfois également des risques, nécessitant une décision alignée avec les valeurs et les préférences des patients et des citoyens. La prise de décision partagée, via des outils d'aide à la décision, offre aux patients des informations claires et faciles à comprendre à propos des options qui leur sont offertes, afin de prendre une décision éclairée. Cet article vise à recenser les outils créés ou traduits en français et à en définir les caractéristiques.

Engaging Long-Term Care Workers in Research: Recruitment Approaches and Participant Characteristics From a Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the recruitment methods employed in a randomized controlled trial targeting long-term care workers, and resulting participant baseline characteristics. DESIGN: We used a multifaceted recruitment process to enroll long-term care workers in our 3-arm randomized controlled trial comparing 2 interventions to enhanced usual practice, for improving COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other outcomes. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult long-term care workers living in the United States employed within the last 2 years were invited to join the study. Participants also had to meet specific screening criteria related to their degree of worry about the vaccine and/or their vaccination status. METHODS: We used a participatory approach to engage our long-term care stakeholders in codesigning and executing a combination of recruitment methods, including targeted e-recruitment, paid e-recruitment, and in-person recruitment. Participants were screened, consented, and enrolled online. We implemented a participant verification process to ensure the integrity of our study data, and used a tailored participant management platform to manage enrollment. RESULTS: We enrolled 1930 long-term care workers between May 2022 and January 2023. We met our enrollment target, despite each recruitment method having limitations. Total variable costs of approximately $102,700 were incurred and differed on a per-enrolled participant basis across methods: $25.73 for targeted e-recruitment, $57.12 for paid e-recruitment, and $64.92 for in-person methods. Our sample differed from the national population in age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, and role in long-term care. Differences were also observed between online and in-person recruitment methods. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results support the feasibility of enrolling a large number of long-term care workers in a randomized controlled trial to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Findings build upon the evidence base for engaging this important population in research, a critical step to improving long-term care resident health and well-being. Results from our trial are anticipated in 2024.

Evaluation of the Tuto'Tour pregnancy intervention among pregnant smokers in vulnerable situations / Évaluation du dispositif Tuto'Tour de la grossesse chez les femmes fumeuses enceintes vulnérables.

INTRODUCTION: In France, pregnant women generally receive written information about their pregnancy. The efficacy of these materials is limited for socially disadvantaged women, who are more likely to have lower levels of health literacy. As an alternative tool, awareness-raising videos have become popular, and the "Tuto'Tour de la grossesse" health promotion intervention has been created, which includes videos about smoking. The study objective was to evaluate the acceptability, usability, and accessibility of two videos about smoking among pregnant smokers in vulnerable situations. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with these women, using a participatory approach. We then carried out a hybrid qualitative analysis, combining an analysis based on a conceptual framework and an inductive analysis. RESULTS: Out of twenty participants, nine were separated from their child's father and nine were unemployed. Twelve participants had less than a baccalaureate level of education and seven had a mother tongue other than French. Participants found the videos acceptable, usable, and accessible. We received positive feedback about the efficacy of the videos in terms of participants' ability, opportunity, and motivation to change their behavior. Suggestions for improving the videos were made. CONCLUSIONS: Other studies have looked at health promotion with similar interventions, but acceptability, usability, and accessibility have not been tested with socially disadvantaged women. These videos, which are acceptable, usable, and accessible to socially disadvantaged people, seem to have an influence on two out of three factors leading to behavior change. They could now be tested on a larger scale in a randomized controlled study.

Introduction: En France, les femmes enceintes reçoivent généralement des informations concernant leur grossesse sous forme écrite. Ces supports présentent des limites pour les femmes en situation de vulnérabilité, à plus haut risque d'avoir une littératie en santé limitée. Ainsi, les vidéos de sensibilisation sont devenues populaires et le dispositif de promotion de santé « Tuto'Tour de la grossesse ¼ a été créé, comprenant des vidéos sur le tabac. L'objectif de notre étude était d'évaluer l'acceptabilité, l'utilisabilité et l'accessibilité de deux vidéos sur le tabagisme chez les femmes enceintes fumeuses en situation de vulnérabilité. Méthodes: Nous avons conduit des entretiens semi-directifs auprès de ces femmes, en suivant une approche participative. Nous avons ensuite procédé à une analyse qualitative hybride, combinant une analyse fondée sur une trame conceptuelle et une analyse inductive. Résultats: Sur vingt participantes, neuf étaient séparées du père de l'enfant et neuf étaient sans emploi. Douze d'entre elles n'avaient pas atteint un niveau de formation équivalent au baccalauréat et sept avaient une langue maternelle autre que le français. Les vidéos ont été jugées acceptables, utilisables et accessibles pour les participantes. Des retours positifs ont été recueillis concernant l'efficacité des vidéos à induire un changement de comportement. Des pistes pour améliorer les vidéos ont été suggérées. Conclusions: D'autres études s'intéressent à des dispositifs similaires mais l'acceptabilité, l'utilisabilité et l'accessibilité n'ont pas été testées. Ces vidéos semblent avoir une influence sur deux des trois facteurs menant à un changement de comportement. Elles peuvent maintenant être testées à plus grande échelle dans une étude contrôlée randomisée.

Clinician-Spoken Plain Language in Health Care Encounters: A Qualitative Analysis to Assess Measurable Elements.

PURPOSE: Good communication and use of plain language in health care encounters improve outcomes, including emotional health, symptom resolution, and functional status. Yet there is limited research on how to measure and report spoken plain language, which is the use of familiar, clear language. The authors aimed to describe key, measurable elements of spoken plain language that can be assessed and reported back to clinicians for self-reflection. METHOD: The authors conducted secondary analysis of transcripts from recorded encounters between breast cancer surgeons and patients with early-stage breast cancer. Two coders used a hybrid qualitative analysis with a framework based on U.S. Federal Plain Language Guidelines. To develop major themes, they examined (1) alignment with the Guidelines and (2) code frequencies within and across transcripts. They also noted minor themes. RESULTS: From 74 transcripts featuring 13 surgeons, the authors identified 2 major themes representing measurable elements of spoken plain language: (1) clinicians had a propensity to use both explained and unexplained medical terms, and (2) clinicians delivered information using either short turns (one unit of someone speaking) with 1 topic or long turns with multiple topics. There were 3 minor themes that were not indicative of whether or not clinicians used spoken plain language. First, clinicians regularly used absolute risk communication techniques. Second, question-asking techniques varied and included open-ended, close-ended, and comprehension checks. Third, some clinicians used imagery to describe complex topics. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' propensity to use medical terms with and without explanation and parse encounters into shorter or longer turns are measurable elements of spoken plain language. These findings will support further research on the development of a tool that can be used in medical education and other settings. This tool could provide direct and specific feedback to improve the plain language practices of clinicians in training and beyond.

Increasing access to fertility preservation for women with breast cancer: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in France.

BACKGROUND: With the increase in the number of long-term survivors, interest is shifting from cancer survival to life and quality of life after cancer. These include consequences of long-term side effects of treatment, such as gonadotoxicity. Fertility preservation is becoming increasingly important in cancer management. International recommendations agree on the need to inform patients prior to treatments about the risk of fertility impairment and refer them to specialized centers to discuss fertility preservation. However, the literature reveals suboptimal access to fertility preservation on an international scale, and particularly in France, making information for patients and oncologists a potential lever for action. Our overall goal is to improve access to fertility preservation consultations for women with breast cancer through the development and evaluation of a combined intervention targeting the access and diffusion of information for these patients and brief training for oncologists. METHODS: Firstly, we will improve existing information tools and create brief training content for oncologists using a qualitative, iterative, user-centred and participatory approach (objective 1). We will then use these tools in a combined intervention to conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (objective 2) including 750 women aged 18 to 40 newly treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer at one of the 6 participating centers. As the primary outcome of the trial will be the access to fertility preservation counselling before and after using the combined intervention (brochures and brief training for oncologists), we will compare the rate of fertility preservation consultations between the usual care and intervention phases using linear regression models. Finally, we will analyse our approach using a context-sensitive implementation analysis and provide key elements for transferability to other contexts in France (objective 3). DISCUSSION: We expect to observe an increase in access to fertility preservation consultations as a result of the combined intervention. Particular attention will be paid to the effect of this intervention on socially disadvantaged women, who are known to be at greater risk of inappropriate treatment. The user-centred design principles and participatory approaches used to optimize the acceptability, usability and feasibility of the combined intervention will likely enhance its impact, diffusion and sustainability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05989776. Date of registration: 7th September 2023. URL: https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT05989776 . PROTOCOL VERSION: Manuscript based on study protocol version 2.0, 21st may 2023.

The Costs of Implementing a Conversation Aid for Uterine Fibroids in Multiple Health Care Settings.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations considering adopting a conversation aid (CA), a type of patient decision aid innovation, need information about the costs of implementation. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to: (1) calculate the costs of introducing a CA in a study of supported implementation in 5 gynecologic settings that manage individuals diagnosed with uterine fibroids and (2) estimate the potential costs of future clinical implementation efforts in hypothetical settings. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used time-driven activity-based costing to estimate the costs of CA implementation at multiple steps: integration with an electronic health record, preimplementation, implementation, and sustainability. We then estimated costs for 2 disparate hypothetical implementation scenarios. SUBJECTS AND DATA COLLECTION: We conducted semistructured interviews with participants and examined internal documentation. RESULTS: We interviewed 41 individuals, analyzed 51 documents and 100 emails. Overall total implementation costs over ∼36 months of activities varied significantly across the 5 settings, ranging from $14,157 to $69,134. Factors influencing costs included size/complexity of the setting, urban/rural location, practice culture, and capacity to automate patient identification. Initial investments were substantial, comprising mostly personnel time. Settings that embedded CA use into standard workflows and automated identification of appropriate patients had the lowest initial investment and sustainability costs. Our estimates of the costs of sustaining implementation were much lower than initial investments and mostly attributable to CA subscription fees. CONCLUSION: Initiation and implementation of the interventions require significant personnel effort. Ongoing costs to maintain use are much lower and are a small fraction of overall organizational operating costs.

Facing the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Method Analysis of Asylum Seekers' Experiences and Worries in the Canton of Vaud, Switzerland.

Objectives: The clinical and social burden of the COVID-19 pandemic were high among asylum seekers (ASs). We aimed to understand better ASs' experiences of the pandemic and their sources of worries. Methods: Participants (n = 203) completed a survey about their worries, sleep disorders, and fear of dying. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with ASs living in a community center (n = 15), focusing on how social and living conditions affected their experiences and worries. Results: ASs in community centers experienced more sleep disorders related to the COVID-19 pandemic than those living in private apartments (aOR 2.01, p = 0.045). Similarly, those with lower education had greater fear for their life due to the COVID-19 pandemic (aOR 2.31, p = 0.015). Qualitative findings showed that sharing living spaces was an important source of worries for ASs and that protective measures were perceived to increase social isolation. Conclusion: Our study highlighted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for ASs and the importance of tailoring public health measures to their needs and living conditions.

Adaptation and Implementation of Pictorial Conversation Aids for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Surgery and Reconstruction: A Quality Improvement Study.

Purpose: After a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer, women of lower socioeconomic position (SEP) report worse outcomes than women of higher SEP. A pictorial conversation aid was shown to improve decision outcomes in controlled contexts. No such intervention existed in France. In Phase 1, our aim was to adapt, for use in France, two pictorial conversation aids for breast cancer surgery and reconstruction. In Phase 2, our aim was to implement them in a regional cancer center serving a diverse population. Patients and Methods: In phase 1, we used iterative qualitative methods to adapt the conversation aids with a convenience sample of patients and health professionals. In phase 2, we tested their implementation using PDSA cycles with volunteer surgeons. Results: In phase 1, we interviewed 10 health professionals and 5 patients to reach thematic data saturation. They found the conversation aids usable and very acceptable (especially patients) and suggested small changes to further simplify the layout and content (including a glossary). In phase 2, three surgeons started the first PDSA cycle, for 4 weeks. Only one additional surgeon agreed to take part in the second cycle. The third cycle was cancelled since no new surgeon agreed to take part. Time was a barrier for 2 out of 4 surgeons, potentially explaining the difficulty recruiting for the third cycle. The evaluation was otherwise positive. The surgeons found the conversation aids very useful during their consultations and all intended to continue using them in the future. Conclusion: It was possible to adapt, for use in France, pictorial conversation aids proven to be effective elsewhere. While the adapted conversation aids were deemed usable by health professionals and very acceptable to patients, their implementation using PDSA cycles proved slow.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Based on Predicted Risk: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) can be effectively reduced by screening with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Individual risk to develop CRC within 15 years varies from <1% to >15% among people aged 50 to 75 years. Communicating personalized CRC risk and appropriate screening recommendations could improve the risk-benefit balance of screening test allocations and optimize the use of limited colonoscopy resources. However, significant uncertainty exists regarding the feasibility and efficacy of risk-based screening. OBJECTIVE: We aim to study the effect of communicating individual CRC risk and a risk-based recommendation of the FIT or colonoscopy on participants' choice of screening test. We will also assess the feasibility of a larger clinical trial designed to evaluate the impact of personalized screening on clinical outcomes. METHODS: We will perform a pilot randomized controlled trial among 880 residents aged 50 to 69 years eligible to participate in the organized screening program of the Vaud canton, Switzerland. Participants will be recruited by mail by the Vaud CRC screening program. Primary and secondary outcomes will be self-assessed through questionnaires. The risk score will be calculated using the open-source QCancer calculator that was validated in the United Kingdom. Participants will be stratified into 3 groups-low (<3%), moderate (3% to <6%), and high (≥6%) risk-according to their 15-year CRC risk and randomized within each risk stratum. The intervention group participants will receive a newly designed brochure with their personalized risk and screening recommendations. The control group will receive the usual brochure of the Vaud CRC screening program. Our primary outcome, measured using a self-administered questionnaire, is appropriate screening uptake 6 months after the intervention. Screening will be defined as appropriate if participants at high risk undertake colonoscopy and participants at low risk undertake the FIT. We will also measure the acceptability of the risk score and screening recommendations and the psychological factors influencing screening behavior. We will also assess the feasibility of a full-scale randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: We expect that a total sample of 880 individuals will allow us to detect a difference of 10% (α=5%) between groups. The main outcome will be analyzed using a 2-tailed chi-squared test. We expect that appropriate screening uptake will be higher in the intervention group. No difference in overall screening uptake is expected. CONCLUSIONS: We will test the impact of personalized risk information and screening recommendations on participants' choice of screening test in an organized screening program. This study should advance our understanding of the feasibility of large-scale risk-based CRC screening. Our results may provide insights into the optimization of CRC screening by offering screening options with a better risk-benefit balance and optimizing the use of resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05357508; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05357508. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46865.

Acceptability of interventional materials: public participation in public health interventional research / Acceptabilité d'une intervention : exemple de participation des publics en recherche interventionnelle en santé publique

Introduction: The uptake rate of colorectal cancer screening remains insufficient in France and decreases as the level of deprivation increases. Participants' health literacy appears to be an important determinant of screening uptake. Aim of the study: The aim of this study, nested in our multicenter-randomized controlled trial, was to present the development and acceptability of interventional material (training and a pictorial brochure) for general practitioners and healthcare users in disadvantaged geographical areas using a participatory involvement approach. Methods: The development of the brochure and the training was carried out in three stages, two for the development, usability, and acceptability testing and a third for its evaluation with the target audience. We used a qualitative approach based on focus groups and cognitive interviews. The qualitative analysis was based on Morville's "Honeycomb" conceptual model and the COREQ checklist. Results: The development and test of the acceptability of the material enabled us to adjust the content of the training by proposing examples that were more rooted in professional reality, and to produce a brochure that was easy to read, understand, acceptable and adapted to the intervention's targeted audience. Conclusions: This experience illustrates in a concrete way the feasibility of public participation and its value in the context of interventional research, and more generally in the creation of interventional material.

Introduction: Le taux de participation au dépistage du cancer colorectal reste insuffisant en France et diminue à mesure que le niveau de précarité augmente. La littératie en santé est un déterminant important du recours au dépistage. But de l'étude: Cette étude, nichée dans notre essai randomisé multicentrique, a pour but de présenter la procédure d'élaboration (procédé itératif de test d'utilisabilité et d'acceptabilité) et de vérification de l'acceptabilité de l'intervention (formation et brochure imagée) ciblant les médecins généralistes et usagers du soin dans des zones géographiques défavorisées, selon une approche participative. Méthodes: Le développement de la brochure et de la formation a été réalisé en trois étapes : deux pour l'élaboration et tests itératifs d'utilisabilité et acceptabilité et une troisième pour vérifier l'acceptabilité auprès des publics cibles. Nous avons utilisé une approche qualitative par focus group et entretiens individuels cognitifs dont l'analyse repose sur le « nid d'abeille ¼ de Morville et la grille COREQ. Résultats: Le développement itératif et la vérification de l'acceptabilité du matériel nous ont permis, d'une part, de réaliser des ajustements quant au contenu de la formation, en proposant des exemples plus ancrés dans la réalité professionnelle et, d'autre part, de produire une brochure imagée facile à lire et à comprendre, acceptable et adaptée au public ciblé par l'intervention. Conclusions: Cette expérience illustre, de manière concrète, la faisabilité de cette modalité de participation des publics concernés et son intérêt dans le cadre de la recherche interventionnelle et, plus généralement, dans le matériel interventionnel.

The impact of adding cost information to a conversation aid to support shared decision making about low-risk prostate cancer treatment: Results of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids help patients consider the benefits and drawbacks of care options but rarely include cost information. We assessed the impact of a conversation-based decision aid containing information about low-risk prostate cancer management options and their relative costs. METHODS: We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in outpatient urology practices within a US-based academic medical center. We randomised five clinicians to four intervention sequences and enroled patients newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Primary patient-reported outcomes collected postvisit included the frequency of cost conversations and referrals to address costs. Other patient-reported outcomes included: decisional conflict postvisit and at 3 months, decision regret at 3 months, shared decision-making postvisit, financial toxicity postvisit and at 3 months. Clinicians reported their attitudes about shared decision-making pre- and poststudy, and the intervention's feasibility and acceptability. We used hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient outcomes. The clinician was included as a random effect; fixed effects included education, employment, telehealth versus in-person visit, visit date, and enrolment period. RESULTS: Between April 2020 and March 2022, we screened 513 patients, contacted 217 eligible patients, and enroled 117/217 (54%) (51 in usual care, 66 in the intervention group). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was not associated with cost conversations (ß = .82, p = .27), referrals to cost-related resources (ß = -0.36, p = .81), shared decision-making (ß = -0.79, p = .32), decisional conflict postvisit (ß = -0.34, p= .70), or at follow-up (ß = -2.19, p = .16), decision regret at follow-up (ß = -9.76, p = .11), or financial toxicity postvisit (ß = -1.32, p = .63) or at follow-up (ß = -2.41, p = .23). Most clinicians and patients had positive attitudes about the intervention and shared decision-making. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, patients in the intervention group experienced more transient indecision (p < .02) suggesting increased deliberation between visit and follow-up. DISCUSSION: Despite enthusiasm from clinicians, the intervention was not significantly associated with hypothesised outcomes, though we were unable to robustly test outcomes due to recruitment challenges. Recruitment at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted eligibility, sample size/power, study procedures, and increased telehealth visits and financial worry, independent of the intervention. Future work should explore ways to support shared decision-making, cost conversations, and choice deliberation with a larger sample. Such work could involve additional members of the care team, and consider the detail, quality, and timing of addressing these issues. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and clinicians were engaged as stakeholder advisors meeting monthly throughout the duration of the project to advise on the study design, measures selected, data interpretation, and dissemination of study findings.

Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS). METHODS: We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS. DISCUSSION: The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

"It helps us say what's important..." Developing Serious Illness Topics: A clinical visit agenda-setting tool.

BACKGROUND: Skillful communication with attention to patient and care partner priorities can help people with serious illnesses. Few patient-facing agenda-setting tools exist to facilitate such communication. OBJECTIVE: To develop a tool to facilitate prioritization of patient and care partner concerns during serious illness visits. PATIENT OR FAMILY INVOLVEMENT: Two family members of seriously ill individuals advised. METHODS: We performed a literature review and developed a prototype agenda-setting tool. We modified the tool based on cognitive interviews with patients, families and clinicians. We piloted the tool with patients, care partners and clinicians to gain an initial impression of its perceived value. RESULTS: Interviews with eight patients, eight care partners and seven clinicians, resulted in refinements to the initial tool, including supplementation with visual cues. In the pilot test, seven clinicians used the tool with 11 patients and 12 family members. Qualitatively, patients and care partners reported the guide helped them consider and assert their priorities. Clinicians reported the tool complemented usual practice. Most participants reported no distress, disruption or confusion. DISCUSSION: Patients, care partners and clinicians appreciated centering patient priorities in serious illness visits using the agenda-setting tool. More thorough evaluation is required. PRACTICAL VALUE: The agenda-setting tool may operationalize elements of good serious illness care.

The CONFIDENT study protocol: a randomized controlled trial comparing two methods to increase long-term care worker confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and real-world effectiveness data for the COVID-19 vaccines have shown that they are the best defense in preventing severe illness and death throughout the pandemic. However, in the US, some groups remain more hesitant than others about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. One important group is long-term care workers (LTCWs), especially because they risk infecting the vulnerable and clinically complex populations they serve. There is a lack of research about how best to increase vaccine confidence, especially in frontline LTCWs and healthcare staff. Our aims are to: (1) compare the impact of two interventions delivered online to enhanced usual practice on LTCW COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other pre-specified secondary outcomes, (2) determine if LTCWs' characteristics and other factors mediate and moderate the interventions' effect on study outcomes, and (3) explore the implementation characteristics, contexts, and processes needed to sustain a wider use of the interventions. METHODS: We will conduct a three-arm randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 2) trial, with randomization at the participant level. Arm 1 is a dialogue-based webinar intervention facilitated by a LTCW and a medical expert and guided by an evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine decision tool. Arm 2 is a curated social media web application intervention featuring interactive, dynamic content about COVID-19 and relevant vaccines. Arm 3 is enhanced usual practice, which directs participants to online public health information about COVID-19 vaccines. Participants will be recruited via online posts and advertisements, email invitations, and in-person visits to care settings. Trial data will be collected at four time points using online surveys. The primary outcome is COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Secondary outcomes include vaccine uptake, vaccine and booster intent for those unvaccinated, likelihood of recommending vaccination (both initial series and booster), feeling informed about the vaccines, identification of vaccine information and misinformation, and trust in COVID-19 vaccine information provided by different people and organizations. Exploration of intervention implementation will involve interviews with study participants and other stakeholders, an in-depth process evaluation, and testing during a subsequent sustainability phase. DISCUSSION: Study findings will contribute new knowledge about how to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence and effective informational modalities for LTCWs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05168800 at ClinicalTrials.gov, registered December 23, 2021.

[Can we increase the availability of decision aids in French-speaking Switzerland?] / Comment augmenter l'accès aux outils d'aide à la décision en Suisse romande ?

Models of shared decision making recommend the use of patient decision aids. Hundreds of such aids exist worldwide but scaling up of their use in French-speaking Switzerland requires their translation to French and their adaptation to the clinical context. We review seven sources of tools that we assume relevant for French-speaking Switzerland. A short survey on a selection of three decision aids of general practitioners in the canton of Vaud confirmed their general interest in using such tools. They preferred a limited amount and a simple presentation of information in the decision aids to facilitate integration in clinical practice. Given the complexity of the required translations and adaptations, the medical community should develop a collaborative approach to lift this important task.

Les modèles de décision partagée recommandent, autant que possible, l'utilisation d'outils d'aide à la décision. La mise à l'échelle de la décision partagée en Suisse romande nécessite l'accès à un grand nombre d'outils de qualité disponibles en français et adaptés à notre pratique. Des centaines d'outils existent dans le monde entier. Nous passons en revue 7 types d'outils que nous supposons pertinents pour leur utilisation en Suisse romande. Nous présentons également l'avis d'un échantillon de convenance de 10 médecins généralistes vaudois sur une sélection de 3 outils. Les médecins étaient intéressés par l'utilisation de ces outils. Ils jugeaient qu'une quantité limitée et une présentation simplifiée des informations s'intégreraient mieux à leur pratique. La question de leur traduction et/ou adaptation éventuelle demeure complexe.

Asylum Seekers' Responses to Government COVID-19 Recommendations: A Cross-sectional Survey in a Swiss Canton.

Asylum seekers face multiple language, cultural and administrative barriers that could result in the inappropriate implementation of COVID-19 measures. This study aimed to explore their knowledge and attitudes to recommendations about COVID-19. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among asylum seekers living in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland. We used logistic regressions to analyze associations between knowledge about health recommendations, the experience of the pandemic and belief to rumors, and participant sociodemographic characteristics. In total, 242 people participated in the survey, with 63% of men (n = 150) and a median age of 30 years old (IQR 23-40). Low knowledge was associated with linguistic barriers (aOR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.94, p = 0.028) and living in a community center (aOR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22-0.85, p = 0.014). Rejected asylum seekers were more likely to believe COVID-19 rumors (aOR 2.81, 95% CI 1.24-6.36, p = 0.013). This survey underlines the importance of tailoring health recommendations and interventions to reach asylum seekers, particularly those living in community centers or facing language barriers.

Combining default choices and an encounter decision aid to improve tobacco cessation in primary care patients: protocol for a cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: While quitting smoking dramatically decreases overall mortality, general practitioners (GPs) are less likely to prescribe medications for smoking cessation than other cardiovascular risk factors. Guidelines recommend providers first assess patients' "readiness" to quit, an "opt-in" strategy, but only a minority of tobacco users are ready to quit on a given day. An "opt-out" strategy offering treatment as the default choice increased quit attempts in hospital and with pregnant women, but has not been tested in primary care. We will assess the efficacy of training GPs to offer treatment as the default choice using an encounter decision aid with current smokers seen in primary care. METHODS: This is a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled superiority trial with block randomization at the GP level in private practice in French-speaking Switzerland. GPs will be blinded to the arm allocation. The intervention is a half-day training course teaching an 'opt-out' approach to smoking cessation using an encounter decision aid (paper or electronic). GPs in the enhanced usual care group receives a brief refresher training about smoking cessation without changing their behaviour. GPs in both arms will recruit 23 patients each prior to routine primary care visits. The primary outcome is the effect of consulting a GP who received the intervention on the 7-day, point prevalence, smoking abstinence 6 months after the baseline appointment. Secondary outcomes include continuous abstinence; number of quit attempts; use of smoking cessation aids; patient-perceived involvement in discussions; and changes in GP behaviour. Patient outcomes will be collected using paper and telephone questionnaires. Assuming 15% drop-out, recruiting 46 GPs with 23 patients each will give us 80% power to detect an increase in smoking cessation from 4% (control) to 10.5% (intervention), with an alpha < 0.05. DISCUSSION: GP visits are an opportunity to administer proven smoking cessation treatments. We hypothesize GPs offering smoking cessation treatment as the default choice using an encounter decision aid will increase the number of patients who quit. This study could significantly change our approach to smoking cessation in primary care. Default choices and the electronic decision aid are low-cost, easily diffusible interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04868474, First Posted May 3, 2021, Last Update Posted October 6, 2021.

A Rectal Cancer Surgical Decision Aid Is Not Enough: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer patients often face complex surgical treatment decisions, but there are few available tools to aid in decision-making. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify content and delivery preferences of rectal cancer patients and colorectal surgeons to guide future surgical decision aid creation. DESIGN: Qualitative study: inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. SETTING: In-person and phone interviews. PATIENTS: We purposively sampled 15 rectal cancer survivors based on demographics and surgery type. Five caregivers also participated. We purposively selected 10 surgeons based on practice type and years of experience. INTERVENTIONS: Semi-structured interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Major and minor themes for survivors and surgeons with thematic saturation. RESULTS: Interviews were a median of 61 minutes (41-93) for patients and 35 minutes (25-59) for surgeons. Nine survivors were younger than 65 years; 7 were female. Surgeons had been practicing for a mean of 10 years (SD 7.4), with 7 in academic and 3 in private settings. Participating survivors and surgeons wanted a comprehensive educational tool-not just a surgical decision aid. Survivors wanted more information on rectal cancer basics and lifestyle, care timelines, and resources during treatment. Surgeons thought patients mostly desired information about surgical options and bowel function. Both patients and surgeons wanted a tool that was personalized, simple, understandable, visually appealing, interactive, short, and in multiple formats. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable due to selection bias of participants. CONCLUSION: Rectal cancer survivors, their caregivers, and colorectal surgeons wanted an educational support tool that would address substantial educational needs through the continuum of disease rather than a surgical decision aid focusing on a discrete surgical choice only. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C20 . UNA AYUDA PARA LA DECISIN QUIRRGICA DEL CNCER DE RECTO NO ES SUFICIENTE UN ESTUDIO CUALITATIVO: ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes con cáncer de recto a menudo enfrentan decisiones de tratamiento quirúrgico complejas, pero hay pocas herramientas disponibles para ayudar en la toma de decisiones.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue identificar el contenido y las preferencias de entrega de los pacientes con cáncer de recto y los cirujanos colorrectales para guiar la futura creación de ayuda para la toma de decisiones quirúrgicas.DISEÑO:Estudio cualitativo: análisis temático inductivo de entrevistas semiestructuradas.ESCENARIO:Entrevistas en persona y por teléfono.PACIENTES:Tomamos muestras intencionalmente de 15 sobrevivientes de cáncer de recto, según la demografía y el tipo de cirugía. También participaron cinco cuidadores. Seleccionamos intencionalmente a 10 cirujanos según el tipo de práctica y los años de experiencia.INTERVENCIONES:Entrevistas semiestructuradas.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Temas principales y secundarios para sobrevivientes y cirujanos con saturación temática.RESULTADOS:Las entrevistas tuvieron una mediana de 61 minutos (41-93) para pacientes y 35 minutos (25-59) para cirujanos. Nueve sobrevivientes tenían menos de 65 años; siete eran mujeres. Los cirujanos habían estado ejerciendo una media de 10 años (DE 7,4), con siete en entornos académicos y 3 en entornos privados. Los sobrevivientes y cirujanos participantes querían una herramienta educativa comprensible, no solo una ayuda para la decisión quirúrgica. Los sobrevivientes querían más información sobre los conceptos básicos y el estilo de vida del cáncer de recto, los plazos de atención y los recursos durante el tratamiento. Los cirujanos pensaron que los pacientes en su mayoría deseaban información sobre las opciones quirúrgicas y la función intestinal. Tanto los pacientes como los cirujanos querían una herramienta que fuera personalizada, simple, comprensible, visualmente atractiva, interactiva, corta y en múltiples formatos.LIMITACIONES:Los resultados pueden no ser generalizables debido al sesgo de selección de los participantes.CONCLUSIÓN:Los sobrevivientes de cáncer rectal, sus cuidadores y los cirujanos colorrectales querían una herramienta de apoyo educativo que cubriera las necesidades educativas sustanciales a lo largo del tratamiento de la enfermedad en lugar de una ayuda para la decisión quirúrgica que se centre solo en una opción quirúrgica discreta. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C20 . (Traducción-Dr. Yolanda Colorado ).

Co-Development of a Web Application (COVID-19 Social Site) for Long-Term Care Workers ("Something for Us"): User-Centered Design and Participatory Research Study.

BACKGROUND: Improving confidence in and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and boosters among long-term care workers (LTCWs) is a crucial public health goal, given their role in the care of elderly people and people at risk. While difficult to reach with workplace communication interventions, most LTCWs regularly use social media and smartphones. Various social media interventions have improved attitudes and uptake for other vaccines and hold promise for the LTCW population. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a curated social web application (interactive website) to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence (a 3-arm randomized trial is underway). METHODS: Following user-centric design and participatory research approaches, we undertook the following 3 steps: (1) content identification, (2) platform development, and (3) community building. A LTCW and stakeholder advisory group provided iterative input. For content identification (step 1), we identified topics of concern about COVID-19 vaccines via desktop research (published literature, public opinion polls, and social media monitoring), refined by interviewing and polling LTCWs. We also conducted a national online panel survey. We curated and fact-checked posts from popular social media platforms that addressed the identified concerns. During platform development (step 2), we solicited preferences for design and functionality via interviews and user experience testing with LTCWs. We also identified best practices for online community building (step 3). RESULTS: In the interviews (n=9), we identified 3 themes: (1) LTCWs are proud of their work but feel undervalued; (2) LTCWs have varying levels of trust in COVID-19-related information; and (3) LTCWs would welcome a curated COVID-19 resource that is easy to understand and use-"something for us". Through desktop research, LTCW interviews, and our national online panel survey (n=592) we found that participants are interested in information about COVID-19 in general, vaccine benefits, vaccine risks, and vaccine development. Content identification resulted in 434 posts addressing these topic areas, with 209 uploaded to the final web application. Our LTCW poll (n=8) revealed preferences for personal stories and video content. The platform we developed is an accessible WordPress-based social media web application, refined through formal (n=3) and informal user experience testing. Users can sort posts by topic or subtopic and react to or comment on posts. To build an online community, we recruited 3 LTCW "community ambassadors" and instructed them to encourage discussion, acknowledge concerns, and offer factual information on COVID-19 vaccines. We also set "community standards" for the web application. CONCLUSIONS: An iterative, user-centric, participatory approach led to the launch of an accessible social media web application with curated content for COVID-19 vaccines targeting LTCWs in the United States. Through our trial, we will determine if this approach successfully improves vaccine confidence. If so, a similar social media resource could be used to develop curated social media interventions in other populations and with other public health goals.