Evaluation of a shared decision-making communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma: a mixed methods study using simulated patients.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a key principle in asthma management, but continues to be poorly implemented in routine care. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a SDM communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma on the SDM behaviors of physicians, and to analyze physician views on the training. METHODS: A mixed methods study with a partially mixed sequential equal status design was conducted to evaluate a 12 h SDM communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma. It included a short introductory talk, videotaped consultations with simulated asthma patients, video analysis in small group sessions, individual feedback, short presentations, group discussions, and practical exercises. The quantitative evaluation phase consisted of a before (t0) after (t1) comparison of SDM performance using the observer-rated OPTION5, the physician questionnaire SDM-Q-Doc, and the patient questionnaire SDM-Q-9, using dependent t-tests. The qualitative evaluation phase (t2) consisted of a content analysis of audiotaped and transcribed interviews. RESULTS: Initially, 29 physicians participated in the study, 27 physicians provided quantitative data, and 22 physicians provided qualitative data for analysis. Quantitative results showed significantly improved performance in SDM following the training (t1) when compared with performance in SDM before the training (t0) (OPTION5: t (26) = - 5.16; p < 0.001) (SDM-Q-Doc: t (26) = - 4.39; p < 0.001) (SDM-Q-9: t (26) = - 5.86; p < 0.001). The qualitative evaluation showed that most physicians experienced a change in attitude and behavior after the training, and positively appraised the training program. Physicians considered simulated patient consultations, including feedback and video analysis, beneficial and suggested the future use of real patient consultations. CONCLUSION: The SDM communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma has potential to improve SDM performance, but would benefit from using real patient consultations.

Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies.

DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating healthcare provider (HCP) trainings in shared decision-making (SDM) to analyse their evaluation strategies. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: HCP trainings in SDM from all healthcare settings. METHODS: We searched scientific databases (Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL), performed reference and citation tracking, contacted experts in the field and scanned the Canadian inventory of SDM training programmes for healthcare professionals. We included articles reporting data of summative evaluations of HCP trainings in SDM. Two reviewers screened records, assessed full-text articles, performed data extraction and assessed study quality with the integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS) tool. Analysis of evaluation strategies included data source use, use of unpublished or published measures and coverage of Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels. An evaluation framework based on Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels and the Quadruple Aim framework was used to categorise identified evaluation outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 7234 records, we included 41 articles reporting on 30 studies: cluster-randomised (n=8) and randomised (n=9) controlled trials, controlled (n=1) and non-controlled (n=7) before-after studies, mixed-methods (n=1), qualitative (n=1) and post-test (n=3) studies. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n=9), Germany (n=8) or Canada (n=7) and evaluated physician trainings (n=25). Eleven articles met ICROMS quality criteria. Almost all studies (n=27) employed HCP-reported outcomes for training evaluation and most (n=19) additionally used patient-reported (n=12), observer-rated (n=10), standardised patient-reported (n=2) outcomes or training process and healthcare data (n=10). Most studies employed a mix of unpublished and published measures (n=17) and covered two (n=12) or three (n=10) Kirkpatrick's levels. Identified evaluation outcomes covered all categories of the proposed framework. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to evaluate HCP trainings in SDM varied largely. The proposed evaluation framework maybe useful to structure future evaluation studies, but international agreement on a core set of outcomes is needed to improve evidence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016041623.

What do stakeholders need to implement shared decision making in routine cancer care? A qualitative needs assessment.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is particularly relevant in oncology, where complex treatment options with varying side effects may lead to meaningful changes in the patient's quality of life. For several years, health policies have called for the implementation of SDM, but SDM remains poorly implemented in routine clinical practice. Implementation science has highlighted the importance of assessing stakeholders' needs to inform the development of implementation programs. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess different stakeholders' needs regarding the implementation of SDM in routine care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative study using focus groups and interviews was conducted. Focus groups were carried out with junior physicians, senior physicians, nurses and other healthcare providers (HPCs) (e.g. psycho-oncologists, physiotherapists), patients and family members. Head physicians as well as other HPCs in management positions were interviewed. Audiotapes of focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Six focus groups with a total of n = 42 stakeholders as well as n = 17 interviews were conducted. Focus groups and interviews revealed five main categories of needs to be fulfilled in order to achieve a better implementation of SDM in routine cancer care: 1) changes in communication, 2) involvement of other parties, 3) a trustful patient-physician relationship, 4) culture change and 5) structural changes. Stakeholders discussed four clusters of intervention strategies that could foster the implementation of SDM in routine cancer care: 1) clinician-mediated interventions, 2) patient-mediated interventions, 3) provision of patient information material and 4) the establishment of a patient advocate. CONCLUSION: Study results show that stakeholders voiced a diversity of needs to foster implementation of SDM in routine cancer care, of which some can be directly addressed by intervention strategies. Present results can be used to develop an implementation program to foster SDM in routine cancer care.

Shared Decision-Making in Oncology - A Qualitative Analysis of Healthcare Providers' Views on Current Practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite an increased awareness of shared decision-making (SDM) and its prominent position on the health policy agenda, its implementation in routine care remains a challenge in Germany. In order to overcome this challenge, it is important to understand healthcare providers' views regarding SDM and to take their perspectives and opinions into account in the development of an implementation program. The present study aimed at exploring a) the attitudes of different healthcare providers regarding SDM in oncology and b) their experiences with treatment decisions in daily practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and individual interviews with different healthcare providers at the University Cancer Center Hamburg, Germany. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: N = 4 focus groups with a total of N = 25 participants and N = 17 individual interviews were conducted. Attitudes regarding SDM varied greatly between the different participants, especially concerning the definition of SDM, the attitude towards the degree of patient involvement in decision-making and assumptions about when SDM should take place. Experiences on how treatment decisions are currently made varied. Negative experiences included time and structural constraints, and a lack of (multidisciplinary) communication. Positive experiences comprised informed patients, involvement of relatives and a good physician-patient relationship. CONCLUSION: The results show that German healthcare providers in oncology have a range of attitudes that currently function as barriers towards the implementation of SDM. Also, their experiences on how decision-making is currently done reveal difficulties in actively involving patients in decision-making processes. It will be crucial to take these attitudes and experiences seriously and to subsequently disentangle existing misconceptions in future implementation programs.

Measurement of physician-patient communication--a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication with health care providers has been found as relevant for physical and psychological health outcomes as well as the patients' adherence. However, the validity of the findings depends on the quality of the applied measures. This study aimed to provide an overview of measures of physician-patient communication and to evaluate the methodological quality of psychometric studies and the quality of psychometric properties of the identified measures. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify psychometrically tested instruments which measure physician-patient communication. The search strategy included three databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed), reference and citation tracking and personal knowledge. Studies that report the psychometric properties of physician-patient communication measures were included. Two independent raters assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies with the COSMIN (COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INtruments) checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was evaluated with the quality criteria of Terwee and colleagues. RESULTS: Data of 25 studies on 20 measures of physician-patient communication were extracted, mainly from primary care samples in Europe and the USA. Included studies reported a median of 3 out of the nine COSMIN criteria. Scores for internal consistency and content validity were mainly fair or poor. Reliability and structural validity were rated mainly of fair quality. Hypothesis testing scored mostly poor. The quality of psychometric properties of measures evaluated with Terwee et al.'s criteria was rated mainly intermediate or positive. DISCUSSION: This systematic review identified a number of measures of physician-patient communication. However, further psychometric evaluation of the measures is strongly recommended. The application of quality criteria like the COSMIN checklist could improve the methodological quality of psychometric property studies as well as the comparability of the studies' results.

Assessment of trust in physician: a systematic review of measures.

Over the last decades, trust in physician has gained in importance. Studies have shown that trust in physician is associated with positive health behaviors in patients. However, the validity of empirical findings fundamentally depends on the quality of the measures in use. Our aim was to provide an overview of trust in physician measures and to evaluate the methodological quality of the psychometric studies and the quality of psychometric properties of identified measures. We conducted an electronic search in three databases (Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo). The secondary search strategy included reference and citation tracking of included full texts and consultation of experts in the field. Retrieved records were screened independently by two reviewers. Full texts that reported on testing of psychometric properties of trust in physician measures were included in the review. Study characteristics and psychometric properties were extracted. We evaluated the quality of design, methods and reporting of studies with the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed with Terwee's 2007 quality criteria. After screening 3284 records and assessing 169 full texts for eligibility, fourteen studies on seven trust in physician measures were included. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA and used English measures. All but one measure were generic. Sample sizes range from 25 to 1199 participants, recruited in very heterogeneous settings. Quality assessments revealed several flaws in the methodological quality of studies. COSMIN scores were mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of measures' psychometric properties was intermediate. Several trust in physician measures have been developed over the last years, but further psychometric evaluation of these measures is strongly recommended. The methodological quality of psychometric property studies could be improved by adhering to quality criteria like the COSMIN checklist.