Patient Perspectives on a Patient-Facing Tool for Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision-making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development. AIM: This study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach. METHODS: We elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider-facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients' thoughts on and desires for a patient-facing SDM tool. RESULTS: The findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient-facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient-provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM.

Implementation of a remote behavioral intervention for older adults with asthma - a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Older adults with asthma (OAA) have elevated asthma morbidity rates. A six-session intervention based on self-regulation theory was shown to improve outcomes. However wide-spread implementation was difficult due to the in-person design. Our objective was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of an updated intervention for OAA that is completely remote, includes a physician component, and utilizes shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: A pilot study of 12 OAA with uncontrolled asthma and their asthma providers was conducted at three health centers. The remote intervention (titled SOAR) consisted of 4 sessions (2 group and 2 individual). Asthma providers (both specialists and primary care) were sent updates of progress along with information on how to incorporate SDM into the visit. Implementation (feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness) and clinical (asthma control, asthma quality of life, perceived control, depression, and self-confidence) outcomes were measured. RESULTS: SOAR was found to be feasible, acceptable, and appropriate, with values on validated implementation scales similar to those of in-person behavioral interventions. Asthma providers found the program helpful and intended to change care based on the updates. Asthma control scores improved significantly from baseline (14.2 to 16.8, p = 0.04), as did asthma quality of life (4.2 to 4.9, p = 0.03) and self-confidence to manage asthma (7.1 to 8.5, p = 0.02). There was no change in depression nor perceived control scores. CONCLUSION: A remote behavioral intervention appeared feasible and acceptable for OAA and their health care providers, and can improve outcomes. Larger scale implementation trials are warranted.

A qualitative study on the effect of a decision aid on knowledge of cataract surgery in patients in developing countries.

BACKGROUND: Despite cataract surgery being a safe procedure with a low incidence of perioperative complications rates, poor knowledge, concerns about the effectiveness of treatment and cost-benefit analysis of the procedure significantly hinder cataract surgery uptake rates in Africa. This study describes the effect of a decision aid on knowledge and decision conflict on cataract patients in Africa. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 120 patients with cataracts reporting to a tertiary hospital in Ghana were randomly assigned to receive a decision aid containing information on the possible outcomes of cataract surgery or a control booklet containing general knowledge about cataracts without information about cataract surgery. The primary outcome measured was the effect of the decision aid on their knowledge of cataract surgery. A score greater than 6/12 (50%) was deemed adequate knowledge. The secondary outcome was the decision conflict experienced by the participants assessed using the Decision Conflict Scale. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, the participants in the intervention group scored higher marks across all sections of the questionnaire (2.92 vs 2.7, p = 0.042 in section "Background"; 2.62 vs 1.77, p < 0.001 in section "Materials"; 1.87 vs 1.55, p = 0.03 in section "Results"). The average total score was higher in the intervention group than in the control (36.7% difference; p < 0.001). Participants in the intervention group also demonstrated lower decision conflict scores than those in the control group (13.00 vs 37.17; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The decision aid increased knowledge of cataract surgery and reduced decision conflict among patients in a developing country.

Current Status of Shared Decision-Making in Intraocular Lens Selection for Cataract Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Purpose: To explore 1) the level of shared decision-making (SDM) participation in intraocular lens (IOL) selection in cataract patients and the factors that influence this participation and 2) the relationships between preparation for decision-making (PrepDM)and the level of SDM participation and satisfaction with the decision (SWD). Provide guidance for improving SDM in ophthalmology. Patients and Methods: 176 cataract patients were asked to complete the PrepDM scale, the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the SWD instrument in IOL decision-making process. Multiple linear regression was used to analyze the influencing factors of the level of SDM. The Process program and bootstrap sampling method was used to test whether the level of participation in SDM was a mediating variable among the three. Results: The SDM-Q-9 median score was 77.78 (IQR 31.11-88.89). Patients with a history of surgery in the operative eye (P=0.022) or PrepDM <60 points (P<0.001) had lower SDM-Q-9 scores than patients with no history of surgery in the operative eye or PrepDM ≥60 points. Patients with an education level lower than primary school had lower SDM-Q-9 scores than patients with other education levels (P<0.05). The PrepDM of cataract patients was positively correlated with the level of SDM (r=0.768, P<0.001) and with the SWD (r=0.727, P<0.001), and the level of SDM was positively correlated with the SWD (r=0.856, P<0.001). The level of SDM fully mediated PrepDM and SDW, with a mediating effect value of 0.128 and a mediating effect of 86.66% of the total effect. Conclusion: The SDM of cataract patients involved in IOL selection was in the upper middle range. Education, history of surgery in the operated eye, and PrepDM were factors that influenced the level of SDM. The level of participation in SDM fully mediated the relationship between PrepDM and SWD.

Assessing patient perception and preferences for outcomes in lung cancer resection surgery: a cross-sectional study.

Background: Surgical resection is the primary treatment for early-stage lung cancer, but little is known about the outcomes that truly matter to patients. This aim of our study was to identify the aspects of postoperative outcomes that matter most to patients undergoing lung cancer surgery and explore the influence of clinical and demographic factors on their importance ratings. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of patients undergoing lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer at our institution from November 2021 to May 2022. Patients were surveyed using a self-developed questionnaire and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core health-related quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) prior to surgery. Ordinal logistic regression was performed to determine associations between individual patient factors and outcome importance ratings. Results: Forty patients completed the survey during the study period. Patients prioritized oncologic outcomes, with 95% rating R0 resection and cancer recurrence as "very important". Other important factors included overall survival (90%), postoperative complications (e.g., myocardial infarction: 92.5%, infection: 87.5%), and the need for reoperation (82.5%). Health-related quality of life factors, such as chronic pain (77.5%) and the ability to return to normal physical and exercise levels (75%), were also highly valued. Certain patient clinical and demographic factors demonstrated significant associations with importance placed on certain outcomes. Preoperative health-related quality of life scores did not influence outcome importance ratings. Conclusions: This study provides insights into the outcomes that matter most to patients undergoing lung cancer surgery. Oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications were prioritized, while scar-related factors were less important. Patient preferences varied based on demographic and clinical factors. Understanding these preferences can enhance shared decision-making and improve patient-centered care in thoracic surgical oncology.

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

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

Shared decision making for perioperative antibiotic use during Mohs micrographic surgery on the lower extremities.

Background: While there is a higher risk of surgical site infection (SSI) on the lower extremities following Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is debated. Objective: To determine the role of shared decision making (SDM) in guiding AP usage during MMS on the lower extremities. Materials and methods: A prospective observational study was conducted whereby patients received a standardized SDM discussion or routine counseling. Patient satisfaction quantified by the shared decision-making questionnaire (SDMQ9) survey, rate of SSI, and rate of AP prescription were recorded. Results: In total, 51 patients were included. While there were less antibiotics prescribed in the treatment group (20% versus 50%, P = .025), this did not affect incidence of SSI (8% in treatment group versus 7.7% in control group, P = .668). Patient satisfaction was statistically greater in SDM group (4.73 versus 2.18 in control (P < .001). Conclusion: Patient satisfaction scores were higher among the patients who received SDM. While the usage of AP was lower in the SDM group, this did not affect incidence of SSI. This study allows the opportunity to apply SDM in the setting of MMS, which to our knowledge has not yet been attempted in the field of dermatologic surgery.

Multiethnic Perspectives of Shared Decision-Making in Hypertension: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) has the potential to improve hypertension care quality and equity. However, research lacks diverse representation and evidence about how race and ethnicity affect SDM. Therefore, this study aims to explore SDM in the context of hypertension management. METHODS AND RESULTS: Explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was used. Quantitative data were sourced at baseline and 12-month follow up from RICH LIFE (Reducing Inequities in Care of Hypertension: Lifestyle Improvement for Everyone) participants (n=1212) with hypertension. Qualitative data were collected from semistructured individual interviews, at 12-month follow-up, with participants (n=36) selected based on their SDM scores and blood pressure outcome. Patients were cross- categorized based on high or low SDM scores and systolic blood pressure reduction of ≥10 or <10 mm Hg. Multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that predictors of SDM scores and blood pressure outcome were race and ethnicity (relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.64; P=0.029), age (RRR, 1.03; P=0.002), educational level (RRR, 1.87; P=0.016), patient activation (RRR, 0.98; P<0.001; RRR, 0.99; P=0.039), and hypertension knowledge (RRR, 2.2; P<0.001; and RRR, 1.57; P=0.045). Qualitative and mixed-methods findings highlight that provider-patient communication and relationship influenced SDM, being emphasized both as facilitators and barriers. Other facilitators were patients' understanding of hypertension; clinicians' interest in the patient, and clinicians' personality and attitudes; and barriers included perceived lack of compassion, relationship hierarchy, and time constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Participants with different SDM scores and blood pressure outcomes varied in determinants of decision and descriptions of contextual factors influencing SDM. Results provide actionable information, are novel, and expand our understanding of factors influencing SDM in hypertension.

Exploring differences in patient participation in simulated emergency cases in co-located and distributed rural emergency teams - an observational study with a randomized cross-over design.

BACKGROUND: In northern rural Sweden, telemedicine is used to improve access to healthcare and to provide patient-centered care. In emergency care during on-call hours, video-conference systems are used to connect the physicians to the rest of the team - creating 'distributed teams'. Patient participation is a core competency for healthcare professionals. Knowledge about how distributed teamwork affects patient participation is missing. The aim was to investigate if and how teamwork affecting patient participation, as well as clinicians' perceptions regarding shared decision-making differ between co-located and distributed emergency teams. METHODS: In an observational study with a randomized cross-over design, healthcare professionals (n = 51) participated in authentic teams (n = 17) in two scripted simulated emergency scenarios with a standardized patient: one as a co-located team and the other as a distributed team. Team performances were filmed and observed by independent raters using the PIC-ET tool to rate patient participation behavior. The participants individually filled out the Dyadic OPTION questionnaire after the respective scenarios to measure perceptions of shared decision-making. Scores in both instruments were translated to percentage of a maximum score. The observational data between the two settings were compared using linear mixed-effects regression models and the self-reported questionnaire data were compared using one-way ANOVA. Neither the participants nor the observers were blinded to the allocations. RESULTS: A significant difference in observer rated overall patient participation behavior was found, mean 51.1 (± 11.5) % for the co-located teams vs 44.7 (± 8.6) % for the distributed teams (p = 0.02). In the PIC-ET tool category 'Sharing power', the scores decreased from 14.4 (± 12.4) % in the co-located teams to 2 (± 4.4) % in the distributed teams (p = 0.001). Co-located teams scored in mean 60.5% (± 14.4) when self-assessing shared decision-making, vs 55.8% (± 15.1) in the distributed teams (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Team behavior enabling patient participation was found decreased in distributed teams, especially regarding sharing power with the patient. This finding was also mirrored in the self-assessments of the healthcare professionals. This study highlights the risk of an increased power asymmetry between patients and distributed emergency teams and can serve as a basis for further research, education, and quality improvement.

Informed Consent and the Duty to Warn: More than the Mere Provision of Information.

Before providing any form of medical treatment, medical practitioners are generally required to discharge their duty to warn. It is argued in this article that the duty to warn, at least as it relates to frail and elderly patients, requires the principles of shared decision-making to be adopted. Doing so will ensure a comprehensive biopsychosocial understanding of the patient and assist in identifying material risks that may not be readily apparent. Such risks include risks that threaten the patient's values, preferences, treatment aims and long-term outcomes. Once such risks are identified, in discharging the duty to warn, they should be contextualised in a manner that makes clear how that risk will manifest in that particular patient. These risks should then also be synthesised within the context of their other medical issues and longer-term interests. Finally, it is suggested that the traditional consent process may need restructuring.

Caesarean section and anal incontinence in women after obstetric anal sphincter injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% women who give birth after obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) develop anal incontinence (AI) over their lifetime. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current evidence for a protective benefit of planned caesarean section (CS) to prevent AI after OASI. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase 1974-2024, CINAHL and Cochrane to 7 February 2024 (PROSPERO CRD42022372442). SELECTION CRITERIA: All studies reporting outcomes after OASI and a subsequent birth, by any mode. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eighty-six of 2646 screened studies met inclusion criteria, with nine studies suitable to meta-analyse the primary outcome of 'adjusted AI' after OASI and subsequent birth. Subgroups: short-term AI, long-term AI, AI in asymptomatic women. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: total AI, quality of life, satisfaction/regret, solid/liquid/flatal incontinence, faecal urgency, AI in women with and without subsequent birth, change in AI pre- to post- subsequent birth. MAIN RESULTS: There was no evidence of a difference in adjusted AI after subsequent vaginal birth compared with CS after OASI across all time periods (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.72-1.20; 9 studies, 2104 participants, I2 = 0% p = 0.58), for subgroup analyses or secondary outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference in AI in women with or without subsequent birth (OR = 1.00 95% CI 0.65-1.54; 10 studies, 970 participants, I2 = 35% p = 0.99), or pre- to post- subsequent birth (OR = 0.79 95% CI 0.51-1.25; 13 studies, 5496 participants, I2 = 73% p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Due to low evidence quality, we are unable to determine whether planned caesarean is protective against AI after OASI. Higher quality evidence is required to guide personalised decision-making for asymptomatic women and to determine the effect of subsequent birth mode on long-term AI outcomes.

Contraceptive counseling: Shared decision on contraceptive choices.

The promising results achieved in male hormonal contraceptive trials over the last decades suggest that new male contraceptives could hit the market soon. In shared decision-making counseling, couples and their healthcare provider collaborate to make decisions about contraception choices. This model of contraceptive counseling could aid men in taking responsibility for contraception and women in trusting their partners in family planning. The shared decision-making process in contraceptive counseling requires partners to provide input on their preferences, values, and desires, while healthcare professionals share medical knowledge and evidence-based information.It has been proven that this method leads to higher adherence and satisfaction. To ensure that contraceptive counseling is inclusive, fair, and supportive of different reproductive experiences and needs, it is crucial to incorporate the Reproductive Justice Framework into counseling.

DCIS knowledge of women choosing between active surveillance and surgery for low-risk DCIS.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive breast cancer (IBC), but often never will. As we cannot predict accurately which DCIS-lesions will or will not progress to IBC, almost all women with DCIS undergo breast-conserving surgery supplemented with radiotherapy, or even mastectomy. In some countries, endocrine treatment is prescribed as well. This implies many women with non-progressive DCIS undergo overtreatment. To reduce this, the LORD patient preference trial (LORD-PPT) tests whether mammographic active surveillance (AS) is safe by giving women with low-risk DCIS a choice between treatment and AS. For this, sufficient knowledge about DCIS is crucial. Therefore, we assessed women's DCIS knowledge in association with socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. METHODS: LORD-PPT participants (N = 376) completed a questionnaire assessing socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, risk perception, treatment choice and DCIS knowledge after being informed about their diagnosis and treatment options. RESULTS: 66 % of participants had poor knowledge (i.e., answered ≤3 out of 7 knowledge items correctly). Most incorrect answers involved overestimating the safety of AS and misunderstanding of DCIS prognostic risks. Overall, women with higher DCIS knowledge score perceived their risk of developing IBC as being somewhat higher than women with poorer knowledge (p = 0.049). Women with better DCIS knowledge more often chose surgery whilst most women with poorer knowledge chose active surveillance (p = 0.049). DISCUSSION: Our findings show that there is room for improvement of information provision to patients. Decision support tools for patients and clinicians could help to stimulate effective shared decision-making about DCIS management.

Patient-centric care in primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP): shared decision-making and assessment of health-related quality of life.

ABSTRACTImmune thrombocytopenia (ITP), an autoimmune disease characterized by low platelet counts and increased bleeding risk, can impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL), impacting patients' daily lives and mental health. A number of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (both generic and specific to ITP) can be used to understand the impact of ITP on HRQoL and generate evidence to guide disease management. As well-developed PRO tools could help in HRQoL assessment, their optimization could help to solidify a patient-centric approach to ITP management. Shared decision-making is a collaborative process between a patient and their healthcare professional in making decisions about care. Treatment decisions based on this shared process between physician and patient are recommended by clinical guidelines. The goal of this narrative review is to discuss treatment decisions with regards to patient-centric ITP management, with a focus on the impact of PRO measures and the process of shared decision-making in practice.

Understanding the experience, treatment preferences and goals of people living with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Listening to patient voices is critical, in terms of how people experience their condition as well as their treatment preferences. This research explored the patient journey, therapy attributes and goals among treatment experienced adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We sought to understand patient experiences, needs and expectations to identify areas for improvement of treatment and care delivery. METHODS: Two online surveys were developed for completion by CLL patients. In Stage 1, participants completed a best-worst scaling (BWS) task to evaluate eleven previously validated healthcare journey moments that matter (MTM). Responses were used to generate the patient experience index (PEI) score. In Stage 2, participants completed a survey that included both a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess drivers of treatment preferences by evaluating the relative attribute importance (RAI) of seven features and a BWS exercise which explored long-term treatment goals. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients completed Stage 1 and thirty patients Stage 2. Treatment experience was balanced between oral and intravenous medication. The most important/least satisfied MTM were treatment effectiveness, access to support and other treatments as well as monitoring progress. The median PEI score was 66.2 (out of 100). DCE results demonstrated that patients most value treatments for CLL that are associated with prolonged progression free survival (PFS; RAI: 24.6%), followed by treatments that have a lower risk of severe side effects and lower out-of-pocket costs (RAI: 19.5%, 17.4%, respectively). The remainder of the weight in decision making (38.5%) was split between the remaining attributes, namely 'mild to moderate side effects' (13.4%), 'long-term risks' (12.2%), type of treatment (i.e., oral, IV or a combination of oral and IV; 8.7%) and treatment duration (i.e., ongoing versus fixed; 4.2%). Patients preferred oral to intravenous therapy. The most valued long-term treatment goal was to be physically healthy, followed by living a long life, spending time with family/friends, and avoiding hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Treatment experienced patients with CLL are focused on receiving effective, safe therapies and value long PFS. Consideration and discussion of other attributes, such as once daily dosing, oral only medication, out-of-pocket costs and access to support services may affect patient treatment choices and ultimately enhance their healthcare experience and outcomes.

Improving sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A qualitative study.

Objective: To improve sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, we evaluated real-world experiences and identified ways to optimize decision aid content and future implementation. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with patients and medical oncologists addressed two main subjects: user experience and decision aid content. Content analysis was applied. Fifteen experts discussed the results and devised improvements based on experience and literature review. Results: Thirteen users were interviewed. They confirmed the relevance of the decision aid for shared decision making. Areas for improvement of content concerned; 1) outdated and missing information, 2) an imbalance in presentation of treatment benefits and harms, and 3) medical oncologists' expressed preference for a more center-specific or patient individualized decision aid, presenting a selection of the guideline recommended treatment options. Key points for improvement of implementation were better alignment within the care pathway, and clear instruction to users. Conclusion: We identified relevant opportunities for improvement of an existing decision aid and developed an updated version and accompanying implementation strategy accordingly. Innovation: This paper outlines an approach for continued decision aid and implementation strategy development which will add to sustainability. Implementation success of the improved decision aid is currently being studied in a multi-center mixed-methods implementation study.

Level of empowerment of hospitalized patient in Taiwan clinical practice.

PURPOSE: In the health-care system within hospitals, Taiwanese patients usually play the role of passively cooperating with health-care professionals. Therefore, patients rarely make their own treatment decisions. This study evaluated the level of patient education and patient satisfaction in relation to empowerment level in Taiwan. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey by a self-administered structured questionnaire was carried out with 618 inpatients from the four hospitals. Statistical analyses were then conducted. Analysis of covariance and post-hoc comparison was used to compare differences between the level of patient empowerment, age, and education as covariates in the model. RESULTS: This study found that 21.2% and 35.6% of participants were highly empowered and well empowered, respectively. Years of education is a significant covariate in the counselling domain of patient education. Even after controlling for age and education level, the counselling, answer question and justifying action, providing information scores remain significant for all levels after adjusting for the effects of degree of patient empowerment. Patients with higher empowerment also having more-sufficient patient education, indicating a tendency toward higher patient satisfaction. Patient education and counselling practices in Taiwan's clinical practice could be improved to enhance patient empowerment and ensure health-care systems are person-centred. CONCLUSIONS: To move more toward highly patient empowerment, we suggest that health-care professionals advocate a patient-empowerment approach and to provide more counselling related to patients' illnesses and possible treatments.

Differences of sex development and surgical decisions: focus group interviews with health care professionals in Norway.

Background: Differences of Sex Development (DSD) are congenital conditions where the chromosomal, gonadal and anatomical sex characteristics do not strictly belong to male or female categories, or that belong to both at the same time. Surgical interventions for individuals with DSD remain controversial, among affected individuals, caregivers, and health-care providers. A lack of evidence in support of, for deferring, or for avoiding surgery complicates the decision-making process. This study explores Norwegian health-care professionals' (HCPs) perspectives on decision-making in DSD-related surgeries and the dilemmas they are facing in this process. Methods: Focus group interviews with 14 HCPs integrated into or collaborating with multidisciplinary DSD teams were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Two overarching dilemmas shed light on the intricate considerations and challenges that HCPs encounter when guiding affected individuals and caregivers through surgical decision-making processes in the context of DSD. The first theme describes how shared decision-making was found to be influenced by fear of stigma and balancing the interplay between concepts of normality, personal experiences and external expectations when navigating the child's and caregivers' needs. The second theme illuminated dilemmas due to a lack of evidence-based practice. The core concepts within each theme were the dilemmas health-care professionals face during consultations with caregivers and affected individuals. Conclusion: HCPs were aware of the controversies with DSD-related surgeries. However, they struggled to reconcile knowledge with parents' wishes for surgery and faced dilemmas making decisions in the best interests of the child. This study draws attention to the benefits of increased knowledge on the consequences of performing or withholding surgery as well as incorporating tools enabling shared decision-making between HCPs and affected individuals/caregivers.

DSD-related surgeries are controversial and subject to debate.Health-care professionals grapple with dilemmas during shared decision-making, as revealed in focus group interviews.Health-care professionals were concerned that parents' and affected individuals' fear of stigmatization would influence the shared decision-making process. Lack of evidence-based knowledge on practice, left health care professionals without clear guidelines on how to navigate decision-making.