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

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

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

Development and usability of a decision aid to initiate anti-osteoporosis medication treatment in patients visiting the fracture liaison service with a recent fracture.

This study describes the development of a decision aid (DA), aimed at supporting patients in their decision whether to start anti-osteoporosis medication. People with recent fractures or osteoporosis and health professionals were supportive of the DA initiative. An experimental study been started to assess (cost-)effectiveness of the DA. PURPOSE: At fracture liaison services (FLS), patients with a recent fracture ánd osteoporosis or a prevalent vertebral fracture are advised to start anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM). This study describes the development of a decision aid (DA) to support patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) in their decision about whether to start AOM. METHODS: The DA was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). A systematic procedure was chosen including scope, design, prototype development, and alpha testing. A previously developed DA for women with osteoporosis was used as a basis. Furthermore, input from literature searches, the Dutch guideline on management of osteoporosis, and from people with a fracture or osteoporosis was used. The updated DA was evaluated during alpha testing. RESULTS: The DA facilitates the decision of patients whether to initiate AOM treatment and provides information on fractures and osteoporosis, general risk factors that increase the likelihood of a subsequent fracture, the role of lifestyle, personalized risk considerations of a subsequent fracture with and without AOM treatment, and AOM options and their characteristics in an option grid. Alpha testing with 15 patients revealed that patient preferences and needs were adequately presented, and several suggestions for improvement (e.g. adding more specific information, simplifying terminology, improving icon use) were accounted for. Participants from the alpha testing recommended use of the DA during outpatient visits. CONCLUSION: Professionals and persons with osteoporosis were supportive of the proposed DA and its usability. The DA could help in a shared decision-making process between patients and HCPs.

Survey of Challenges, Goals, and Interventions for Patients With Lymphoma During Aftercare Consultation: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study.

This study described the challenges, personal goals, and interventions of patients with lymphoma in various domains of life that emerged from an aftercare consultation based on shared decision-making principles with a nurse practitioner. A cross-sectional exploratory design was used with a sample of 49 patients. Challenges, goals, and interventions were measured based on 4 domains of life: "my health," "my activities," "my environment" and "my own way." Most challenges were experienced in the domain of "my health," which included a loss of physical condition, reduced muscle strength, and fatigue. Patients set personal goals related to the experienced challenges, such as restoring physical condition to prediagnosis levels. Accordingly, 45 patients (84%) chose an intervention to improve physical condition and muscle strength and 33 patients (67%) chose to be referred to specialized care.

Communication of benefits and harms in shared decision making with patients with limited health literacy: A systematic review of risk communication strategies.

OBJECTIVES: Risk communication (RC), as part of shared decision making, is challenging with people with limited health literacy (LHL). We aim to provide an overview of strategies to communicate benefits and harms of diagnostic and treatment options to this group. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and PsycInfo. We included 28 studies on RC in informed/shared decision making without restriction to a health setting or condition and using a broad conceptualization of health literacy. Two researchers independently selected studies and one researcher performed data extraction. We descriptively compared findings for people with LHL towards recommendations for RC. RESULTS: Health literacy levels varied in the included studies. Most studies used experimental designs, primarily on visual RC. Findings show verbal RC alone should be avoided. Framing of risk information influences risk perception (less risky when positively framed, riskier when negatively framed). Most studies recommended the use of icon arrays. Graph literacy should be considered when using visual RC. CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence suggests that recommended RC strategies seem mainly to be valid for people with LHL, but more research is required. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: More qualitative research involving people with LHL is needed to gain further in-depth insights into optimal RC strategies. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID 275022.

Efficacy of sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions in chronic disease management in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. METHODS: Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). INFORMATION SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database's inception to March 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. RESULTS: We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [- 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I2 = 25%; St George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MD - 2.12, 95% CI [- 3.72, - 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I2 = 21%). CONCLUSIONS: KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

Identifying characteristics of a skilled communicator in the clinical encounter.

BACKGROUND: In medical communication research, there has been a shift from 'communication skills' towards 'skilled communication', the latter implying the development of flexibility and creativity to tailor communication to authentic clinical situations. However, a lack of consensus currently exists what skilled communication entails. This study therefore aims to identify characteristics of a skilled communicator, hereby contributing to theory building in communication research and informing medical training. METHOD: In 2020, six nominal group technique (NGT) sessions were conducted in the context of the general practitioner (GP) training programme engaging 34 stakeholders (i.e. GPs, GP residents, faculty members and researchers) based on their experience and expertise in doctor-patient communication. Participants in each NGT session rank-ordered a 'Top 7' of characteristics of a skilled communicator. The output of the NGT sessions was analysed using mixed methods, including descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis during an iterative process. RESULTS: Rankings of the six sessions consisted of 191 items in total, which were organised into 41 clusters. Thematic content analysis of the identified 41 clusters revealed nine themes describing characteristics of a skilled communicator: (A) being sensitive and adapting to the patient; (B) being proficient in applying interpersonal communication; (C) self-awareness, learning ability and reflective capacity; (D) being genuinely interested; (E) being proficient in applying patient-centred communication; (F) goal-oriented communication; (G) being authentic; (H) active listening; and (I) collaborating with the patient. CONCLUSIONS: We conceptualise a skilled communication approach based on the identified characteristics in the present study to support learning in medical training. In a conceptual model, two parallel processes are key in developing adaptive expertise in communication: (1) being sensitive and adapting communication to the patient and (2) monitoring communication performance in terms of self-awareness and reflective capacity. The identified characteristics and the conceptual model provide a base to develop a learner-centred programme, facilitating repeated practice and reflection. Further research should investigate how learners can be optimally supported in becoming skilled communicators during workplace learning.

Identifying residents' educational needs to optimising postgraduate medical education about shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how to optimise resident engagement during workplace learning of shared decision-making (SDM) by understanding their educational needs. METHODS: A qualitative multicentre study was conducted using video-stimulated interviews with 17 residents in General Practice. Video recordings of residents' recent clinical encounters were used to facilitate reflection on their educational needs. RESULTS: Data analysis resulted in five themes regarding residents' educational needs for learning SDM: acquiring knowledge and skills needed to perform SDM; practising SDM; reflection and feedback; longitudinal and integrated training; and awareness and motivation for performing SDM. CONCLUSION: Residents expressed a need for continuous attention to be paid to SDM during postgraduate medical education. That would help them engage in two parallel learning processes: acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary to perform SDM, and practising SDM in the clinical workplace. Alignment between the educational curriculum, workplace learning and resident learning activities is essential to operationalise SDM attitude, knowledge and skills into clinical performance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The identified educational needs provide ingredients for fostering the development of SDM proficiency. The findings suggest that residents and clinical supervisors need parallel training to bridge the gap between education and clinical practice when learning SDM.

Shared decision-making in the Netherlands: Progress is made, but not for all. Time to become inclusive to patients.

Dutch initiatives targeting shared decision-making (SDM) are still growing, supported by the government, the Federation of Patients' Organisations, professional bodies and healthcare insurers. The large majority of patients prefers the SDM model. The Dutch are working hard to realise improvement in the application of SDM in daily clinical practice, resulting in glimpses of success with objectified improvement on observed behavior. Nevertheless, the culture shift is still ongoing. Large-scale uptake of SDM behavior is still a challenge. We haven't yet fully reached the patients' needs, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behavior. In all Dutch implementation projects, early adopters, believers or higher-educated persons have been overrepresented, while patients with limited health literacy have been underrepresented. This is a huge problem as 25% of the Dutch adult population have limited health literacy. To further enhance SDM there are issues to be addressed: We need to make physicians conscious about their limited application of SDM in daily practice, especially regarding preference and decision talk. We need to reward clinicians for the extra work that comes with SDM. We need to be inclusive to patients with limited health literacy, who are less often actually involved in decision-making and at the same time more likely to regret their chosen treatment compared to patients with higher health literacy.

Disappointing evaluation of a shared decision-making intervention for residents and orthopaedic surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention in orthopaedic hip and knee osteoarthritis care. METHODS: Using a pre- post intervention design study, we tested an intervention, that included a decision aid for patients (ptDA) and a SDM training course for residents in training and orthopaedic surgeons. The theory of planned behaviour was used for intervention development. Primary outcomes included patient reported decisional conflict, SDM, and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were physicians' attitude and knowledge, and uptake of the ptDA. RESULTS: 317 patients were included. The intervention improved physicians' knowledge about SDM but had no effect on the primary outcomes. 19 eligible patients used the ptDA (17%). SDM was higher for middle educated patients compared to lower educated (mean difference 9.91, p=0.004), patients who saw surgeons instead of residents (mean difference 5.46, p=0.044) and when surgery was chosen and desired by patients compared to situations where surgery was desired but not chosen (mean difference 15.39, p=0.036). CONCLUSION: Our multifaceted intervention did not improve SDM and ptDA uptake was low. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In orthopaedic hip and knee osteoarthritic care other ways should be explored to successful implement SDM. Since residents received lower SDM scores, special focus should go to this group.

Do clinical practice guidelines consider evidence about diagnostic test consequences on patient-relevant outcomes? A critical document analysis.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Supporting evidence for diagnostic test recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) should not only include diagnostic accuracy, but also downstream consequences of the test result on patient-relevant outcomes. The aim of this study is to assess the extent to which evidence-based CPGs about diagnostic tests cover all relevant test-treatment pathway components. METHODS: We performed a systematic document analysis and quality assessment of publicly accessible CPGs about three common diagnostic tests: C-reactive protein, colonoscopy and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Evaluation of the impact of the full test-treatment pathway (diagnostic accuracy, burden of the test, natural course of target condition, treatment effectiveness, and link between test result and administration of treatment) on patient relevant outcomes was considered best practice for developing medical test recommendations. RESULTS: We retrieved 15 recommendations in 15 CPGs. The methodological quality of the CPGs varied from poor to excellent. Ten recommendations considered diagnostic accuracy. Four of these were funded on a systematic review and rating of the certainty in the evidence. None of the CPGs evaluated all steps of the test-treatment pathway. Burden of the test was considered in three CPGs, but without systematically reviewing the evidence. Natural course was considered in two CPGs, without a systematic review of the evidence. In three recommendations, treatment effectiveness was considered, supported with a systematic review and rating of the certainty in the evidence in one CPG. The link between test result and treatment administration was not considered in any CPG. CONCLUSIONS: The included CPGs hardly seem to consider evidence about test consequences on patient-relevant outcomes. This might be explained by reporting issues and challenging methodology. Future research is needed to investigate how to facilitate guideline developers in explicit reliable consideration of all steps of a test-treatment pathway when developing diagnostic test recommendations.

Patient and physician shared decision-making behaviors in oncology: Evidence on adequate measurement properties of the iSHARE questionnaires.

OBJECTIVES: We have developed two Dutch questionnaires to assess the shared decision-making (SDM) process in oncology; the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician. In this study, we aimed to determine: scores, construct validity, test-retest agreement (iSHAREpatient), and inter-rater (iSHAREpatient-iSHAREphysician) agreement. METHODS: Physicians from seven Dutch hospitals recruited cancer patients, and completed the iSHAREphysician and SDM-Questionnaire-physician version. Their patients completed the: iSHAREpatient, nine-item SDM-Questionnaire, Decisional Conflict Scale, Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision-making Effectiveness, and five-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions. We formulated, respectively, one (iSHAREphysician) and 10 (iSHAREpatient) a priori hypotheses regarding correlations between the iSHARE questionnaires and questionnaires assessing related constructs. To assess test-retest agreement patients completed the iSHAREpatient again 1-2 weeks later. RESULTS: In total, 151 treatment decision-making processes with unique patients were rated. Dimension and total iSHARE scores were high both in patients and physicians. The hypothesis on the iSHAREphysician and 9/10 hypotheses on the iSHAREpatient were confirmed. Test-retest and inter-rater agreement were>.60 for most items. CONCLUSIONS: The iSHARE questionnaires show high scores, have good construct validity, substantial test-retest agreement, and moderate inter-rater agreement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Results from the iSHARE questionnaires can inform both physician- and patient-directed efforts to improve SDM in clinical practice.

Clients and professionals elicit long-term care preferences by using 'What matters to me': A process evaluation in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: 'What matters to me' is a five-category preference elicitation tool to assist clients and professionals in choosing long-term care. This study aimed to evaluate the use of and experiences with this tool. METHODS: A mixed-method process evaluation was applied. Participants were 71 clients or relatives, and 12 professionals. They were all involved in decision-making on long-term care. Data collection comprised online user activity logs (N = 71), questionnaires (N = 38) and interviews (N = 20). Descriptive statistics was used for quantitative data, and a thematic analysis for qualitative data. RESULTS: Sixty-nine per cent of participants completed one or more categories in an average time of 6.9 (±0.03) minutes. The tool was rated 6.63 (±0.88) of 7 in the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ). Ninety-five per cent experienced the tool as useful in practice. Suggestions for improvement included a separate version for relatives and a non-digital version. Although professionals thought the potentially extended consultation time could be problematic, all participants would recommend the tool to others. CONCLUSION: 'What matters to me' seems useful to assist clients and professionals with preference elicitation in long-term care. Evaluation of the impact on consultations between clients and professionals by using 'What matters to me' is needed.

Improvement of osteoporosis Care Organized by Nurses: ICON study - Protocol of a quasi-experimental study to assess the (cost)-effectiveness of combining a decision aid with motivational interviewing for improving medication persistence in patients with a recent fracture being treated at the fracture liaison service.

BACKGROUND: Given the health and economic burden of fractures related to osteoporosis, suboptimal adherence to medication and the increasing importance of shared-decision making, the Improvement of osteoporosis Care Organized by Nurses (ICON) study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of a multi-component adherence intervention (MCAI) for patients with an indication for treatment with anti-osteoporosis medication, following assessment at the Fracture Liaison Service after a recent fracture. The MCAI involves two consultations at the FLS. During the first consultation, a decision aid is will be used to involve patients in the decision of whether to start anti-osteoporosis medication. During the follow-up visit, the nurse inquires about, and stimulates, medication adherence using motivational interviewing techniques. METHODS: A quasi-experimental trial to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness and feasibility of an MCAI, consisting of a decision aid (DA) at the first visit, combined with nurse-led adherence support using motivational interviewing during the follow-up visit, in comparison with care as usual, in improving adherence to oral anti-osteoporosis medication for patients with a recent fracture two Dutch FLS. Medication persistence, defined as the proportion of patients who are persistent at one year assuming a refill gap < 30 days, is the primary outcome. Medication adherence, decision quality, subsequent fractures and mortality are the secondary outcomes. A lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis using a model-based economic evaluation and a process evaluation will also be conducted. A sample size of 248 patients is required to show an improvement in the primary outcome with 20%. Study follow-up is at 12 months, with measurements at baseline, after four months, and at 12 months. DISCUSSION: We expect that the ICON-study will show that the MCAI is a (cost-)effective intervention for improving persistence with anti-osteoporosis medication and that it is feasible for implementation at the FLS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, part of the Dutch Cochrane Centre (Trial NL7236 (NTR7435)). Version 1.0; 26-11-2020.

Challenges of Research on Person-Centered Care in General Practice: A Scoping Review.

Background: Delivering person-centered care is one of the core values in general practice. Due to the complexity and multifaceted character of person-centered care, the effects of person-centered care cannot be easily underpinned with robust scientific evidence. In this scoping review we provide an overview of research on effects of person-centered care, exploring the concepts and definitions used, the type of interventions studied, the selected outcome measures, and its strengths and limitations. Methods: Systematic reviews on person-centered care compared to usual care were included from Pubmed, Embase, and PsycINFO. The search was conducted in February 2021. Data selection and charting was done by two reviewers. Results: The literature search yielded 481 articles. A total of 21 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility for inclusion. Four systematic reviews, published between 2012 and 2018, were finally included in this review. All reviews used different definitions and models and classified the interventions differently. The explicit distinction between interventions for providers and patients was made in two systematic reviews. The classification of outcomes also showed large differences, except patient satisfaction that was shared. All reviews described the results narratively. One review also pooled the results on some outcome measures. Most studies included in the reviews showed positive effects, in particular on process outcomes. Mixed results were found on patient satisfaction and clinical or health outcomes. All review authors acknowledged limitations due to lack of uniform definitions, and heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes measures. Discussion: Person-centered care is a concept that seems obvious and understandable in real life but is complex to operationalize in research. This scoping review reinforces the need to use mixed qualitative and quantitative methods in general practice research. For spreading and scaling up person-centered care, an implementation or complexity science approach could be used. Research could be personalized by defining therapeutic goals, interventions, and outcome variables based on individual preferences, goals, and values and not only on clinical and biological characteristics. Observational data and patient satisfaction surveys could be used to support quality improvement. Integrating research, education, and practice could strengthen the profession, building on the fundament of shared core values.

Implementation of a diagnostic decision aid for people with memory complaints and their general practitioners: a protocol of a before and after pilot trial.

INTRODUCTION: Researchers, policy-makers and healthcare professionals often stress the importance of an early dementia diagnosis. Empirical evidence, however, is scarce leading to a lack of consensus on the necessity of diagnosing dementia early. We emphasise the need for a 'timely' diagnosis, that is, one that occurs at the right moment for a person with memory complaints and his/her significant other. As the optimal timing differs between individuals, the implementation of shared decision making (SDM), preferably by the general practitioner (GP), as the start of a diagnostic trajectory, could help to determine this timely moment. SDM, however, is rarely practised with respect to dementia diagnoses. Therefore, in the context of the Shared Decision-Making regarding Dementia Diagnosis project, a patient decision aid (PtDA) for 'timely' dementia diagnosis in general practice will be developed. This protocol will describe the planned before and after evaluation of its implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In a mixed-methods pilot study, we will investigate decision-making processes and experiences regarding a diagnostic trajectory before and after the introduction of a PtDA for people with memory complaints, their significant others and their GPs. The 'before group' will receive diagnostics as usual from their GPs. The 'after group' will use the PtDA. We expect the PtDA to increase the level of SDM and to contribute to a timely and personalised diagnostic trajectory. Data will be collected using semistructured interviews, questionnaires and information retrieved from people with memory complaints' medical records. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved by the Medical Review Ethics Committee of the Maastricht University Medical Centre. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed international journals and presented at conferences. This study was funded by the public funded Dutch Research Institute for Care and Medical Sciences (ZonMw). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04531956.

The Next Step Toward Patient-Centeredness in Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meetings: An Interview Study with Professionals.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centeredness is essential in complex oncological multidisciplinary team decision-making. Improvement seems to be needed, while there is a lack of knowledge about health care providers' needs for improvement. OBJECTIVE: To explore multidisciplinary team members' perspectives on the need to improve patient-centeredness in complex decision-making, and subsequently the strategies to enhance it. METHODS: This was a qualitative descriptive interview study. The participants were twenty-four professionals who attended multidisciplinary cancer team meetings weekly. The setting was five multidisciplinary teams (gastrointestinal, gynecological, urological, head and neck, and hematological cancer) in a Dutch academic hospital. Data were collected by semi-structured interviews and were analyzed with a combination of inductive and deductive content analysis. RESULTS: The participants voiced the need for additional information (patient-centered information, patients's needs and preferences, individualized medical information) during the multidisciplinary team meeting, to be more patient-centered in the decision-making conversation with the patient following the meeting, and for more information following the meeting to support patient-centeredness. The strategies, which mostly originated from the needs, were categorized as organization, decision-making, and communication. The most prominent strategies were those aimed at collecting and using patient-centered information, and to facilitate the decision-making conversation with the patient following the multidisciplinary team meeting. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlighted the need to improve patient-centeredness in oncological multidisciplinary teams and provided a comprehensive overview of strategies for improvement, supported by multidisciplinary team members. These strategies emphasize involvement of patients throughout the continuous process of decision-making for patients with cancer. These strategies may be implemented in other oncological multidisciplinary teams, taking in mind the local needs. Future research may help to prioritize the strategies and to determine and evaluate the effect on endpoints, like patient or professional satisfaction, shared decision-making, and on the decision that was made.

What Works in Implementing Patient Decision Aids in Routine Clinical Settings? A Rapid Realist Review and Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Decades of effectiveness research has established the benefits of using patient decision aids (PtDAs), yet broad clinical implementation has not yet occurred. Evidence to date is mainly derived from highly controlled settings; if clinicians and health care organizations are expected to embed PtDAs as a means to support person-centered care, we need to better understand what this might look like outside of a research setting. AIM: This review was conducted in response to the IPDAS Collaboration's evidence update process, which informs their published standards for PtDA quality and effectiveness. The aim was to develop context-specific program theories that explain why and how PtDAs are successfully implemented in routine healthcare settings. METHODS: Rapid realist review methodology was used to identify articles that could contribute to theory development. We engaged key experts and stakeholders to identify key sources; this was supplemented by electronic database (Medline and CINAHL), gray literature, and forward/backward search strategies. Initial theories were refined to develop realist context-mechanism-outcome configurations, and these were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: We developed 8 refined theories, using data from 23 implementation studies (29 articles), to describe the mechanisms by which PtDAs become successfully implemented into routine clinical settings. Recommended implementation strategies derived from the program theory include 1) co-production of PtDA content and processes (or local adaptation), 2) training the entire team, 3) preparing and prompting patients to engage, 4) senior-level buy-in, and 5) measuring to improve. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend key strategies that organizations and individuals intending to embed PtDAs routinely can use as a practical guide. Further work is needed to understand the importance of context in the success of different implementation studies.

Implementing a breast cancer patient decision aid: Process evaluation using medical files and the patients' perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Although patient decision aids (PtDAs) have been shown to improve shared decision-making, integration into clinical care pathways remains limited. This study investigated, among other outcomes, the uptake of the PtDA by professionals and the uptake as perceived by patients. METHODS: We performed a process evaluation among four breast cancer care teams that had been exposed to a multifaceted implementation strategy. Data were gathered by auditing patient files using a standardised data extraction sheet and conducting telephone interviews with patients using a structured interview guide. We analysed the data by using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We found that the implementation strategies, including advice on how and when to present the PtDA to the patient, were followed for 14% of the included patients (N = 84); 92% of the patients reported to have received a login code for the web-based PtDA, while 67% logged in and used the PtDA at home. An important factor influencing the use was the clinician promoting it when delivering the PtDA (OR 9.95 95% CI 3.03-37.72). DISCUSSION: The implementation strategies were followed in 14% of the patients, and a high delivery of the PtDA was achieved. Redesigning the care pathway and providing personal instruction on using PtDAs seem crucial.

Reproductive decision-making in the context of hereditary cancer: the effects of an online decision aid on informed decision-making.

Individuals having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners face challenging decisions regarding their wish to have children. This study aimed to determine the effects of an online decision aid to support couples in making an informed decision regarding their reproductive options. A nationwide pretest-posttest study was conducted in the Netherlands among 131 participants between November 2016 and May 2018. Couples were eligible for participation if one partner had a pathogenic variant predisposing for an autosomal dominant hereditary cancer syndrome. Participants completed a questionnaire before use (T0), and at 3 months (T3) after use of the decision aid to assess the primary outcome measure informed decision-making, and the secondary outcome measures decisional conflict, knowledge, realistic expectations, level of deliberation, and decision self-efficacy. T0-T3 comparisons show an overall positive effect for all outcome measures (all ps < 0.05; knowledge (ES = - 1.05), decisional conflict (ES = 0.99), participants' decision self-efficacy (ES = -0.55), level of deliberation (ES = - 0.50), and realistic expectations (ES = - 0.44). Informed decision-making increased over time and 58.0% of the participants made an informed reproductive decision at T3. The online decision aid seems to be an appropriate tool to complement standard reproductive counseling to support our target group in making an informed reproductive decision. Use of the decision aid may lessen the negative psychological impact of decision-making on couples' daily life and wellbeing.

Applying GRADE for diagnosis revealed methodological challenges: an illustrative example for guideline developers.

OBJECTIVE: To identify challenges in the application of GRADE for diagnosis when assessing the certainty of evidence in the test-treatment strategy (diagnostic accuracy, test burden, management effectiveness, natural course, linked evidence) in an illustrative example and to propose solutions to these challenges. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A case study in applying GRADE for diagnosis that looked at the added value of IgE for diagnosing allergic rhinitis. RESULTS: Evaluation of the full test-treatment strategy showed a lack of (high-quality) evidence for all elements. In our example, we found a lack of evidence for test burden, natural course, and link between the test result and clinical management. Overall, systematically reviewing the evidence for all elements of a test-treatment strategy is more time-consuming than only considering test accuracy results and management effectiveness. For increasing efficiency, the guideline panel could determine critical elements of the test-treatment strategy that need a systematic review of the evidence. For less critical elements, a guideline panel can rely on gray literature and professional expertise. CONCLUSION: A lack of high-quality evidence and time investment if the full test-treatment strategy is assessed, creating challenges in applying GRADE for diagnosis. Discussion within guideline panels about critical elements that need to be reviewed might help.