What helps the successful implementation of digital decision aids supporting shared decision-making in cardiovascular diseases? A systematic review.

Aims: Although digital decision aids (DAs) have been developed to improve shared decision-making (SDM), also in the cardiovascular realm, its implementation seems challenging. This study aims to systematically review the predictors of successful implementation of digital DAs for cardiovascular diseases. Methods and results: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias. Data were extracted by using a predefined list of variables. Five good-quality studies were included, involving data of 215 patients and 235 clinicians. Studies focused on DAs for coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and end-stage heart failure patients. Clinicians reported DA content, its effectivity, and a lack of knowledge on SDM and DA use as implementation barriers. Patients reported preference for another format, the way clinicians used the DA and anxiety for the upcoming intervention as barriers. In addition, barriers were related to the timing and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) integration of the DA, the limited duration of a consultation, a lack of communication among the team members, and maintaining the hospital's number of treatments. Clinicians' positive attitude towards preference elicitation and implementation of DAs in existing structures were reported as facilitators. Conclusion: To improve digital DA use in cardiovascular diseases, the optimum timing of the DA, training healthcare professionals in SDM and DA usage, and integrating DAs into existing ICT structures need special effort. Current evidence, albeit limited, already offers advice on how to improve DA implementation in cardiovascular medicine.

Predictors of the Level of Shared Decision Making in Vascular Surgery: A Cross Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: Although patients with vascular diseases often face multiple treatment options with different risks and benefits, the application of shared decision making (SDM) remains low. In SDM, clinicians and their patients work together to decide upon the treatment option that best fits the patient's situation and preference. This study aimed to reveal predictors of the extent to which the SDM process occurs in vascular surgery. METHODS: This was a cross sectional cohort substudy of the OVIDIUS trial, a multicentre, randomised, stepped wedge trial on the effect of implementing SDM supporting tools. The data of outpatients visiting university and general hospitals and suffering from abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), intermittent claudication (IC), or varicose veins (VV) were used. Consultations were audio recorded. SDM levels were scored independently by two evaluators, using the OPTION-5 instrument, on a scale from 0% (no SDM effort) to 100% (exemplary SDM effort). Possible associations between the OPTION-5 scores and patient, clinician, and consultation characteristics were investigated using multivariable linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 342 patients included (AAA, n = 87; VV, n = 143; IC, n = 112), 60% were male and mean age was 64 years. Overall, the SDM score was relatively low; mean ± SD 33.8% ± 13.2%, mainly due to insufficient support for the patient in deliberating their options. Regression analysis showed that the mean SDM scores in consultation with patients with IC and patients with VV were -9.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] -13.2 - -6.5; p < .001) and -12.7 (95% CI -17.3 - -8.0; p < .001) points lower than in patients with AAA, respectively. Consultations by a resident in training or nurse practitioner resulted in a -8.6 (95% CI -13.1 - -4.0; p < .001) and -4.2 (95% CI -7.9 - -0.42; p = .029) point lower SDM score than by a surgeon, respectively. A consultation longer than 30 minutes resulted in a 5.8 (95% CI 1.3 - 10.3; p = .011) point higher SDM score than consultations lasting fewer than 10 minutes. CONCLUSION: In this study, it was found that SDM can still be improved, especially by helping patients understand and deliberate about their options. Spending time weighing up the options, notably with patients with IC and VV, will help improve the SDM process. Training in SDM consultations is important, particularly for junior clinicians.

Effectiveness of Individual Feedback and Coaching on Shared Decision-making Consultations in Oncology Care: Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is particularly important in oncology as many treatments involve serious side effects, and treatment decisions involve a trade-off between benefits and risks. However, the implementation of SDM in oncology care is challenging, and clinicians state that it is difficult to apply SDM in their actual workplace. Training clinicians is known to be an effective means of improving SDM but is considered time consuming. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to address the effectiveness of an individual SDM training program using the concept of deliberate practice. METHODS: This multicenter, single-blinded randomized clinical trial will be performed at 12 Dutch hospitals. Clinicians involved in decisions with oncology patients will be invited to participate in the study and allocated to the control or intervention group. All clinicians will record 3 decision-making processes with 3 different oncology patients. Clinicians in the intervention group will receive the following SDM intervention: completing e-learning, reflecting on feedback reports, performing a self-assessment and defining 1 to 3 personal learning questions, and participating in face-to-face coaching. Clinicians in the control group will not receive the SDM intervention until the end of the study. The primary outcome will be the extent to which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process, as scored using the Observing Patient Involvement-5 instrument. As secondary outcomes, patients will rate their perceived involvement in decision-making, and the duration of the consultations will be registered. All participating clinicians and their patients will receive information about the study and complete an informed consent form beforehand. RESULTS: This trial was retrospectively registered on August 03, 2021. Approval for the study was obtained from the ethical review board (medical research ethics committee Delft and Leiden, the Netherlands [N20.170]). Recruitment and data collection procedures are ongoing and are expected to be completed by July 2022; we plan to complete data analyses by December 2022. As of February 2022, a total of 12 hospitals have been recruited to participate in the study, and 30 clinicians have started the SDM training program. CONCLUSIONS: This theory-based and blended approach will increase our knowledge of effective and feasible training methods for clinicians in the field of SDM. The intervention will be tailored to the context of individual clinicians and will target the knowledge, attitude, and skills of clinicians. The patients will also be involved in the design and implementation of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry NL9647; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9647. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35543.

Improving Shared Decision Making in Vascular Surgery: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomised Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Different treatment options are available and feasible for various vascular surgical disorders. Hence, vascular surgery seems an area par excellence for shared decision making (SDM), in which clinicians incorporate the patient's preferences into the final treatment decision. However, current SDM levels in vascular surgical outpatient clinics are below expectations. To improve this, different decision support tools (DSTs) have been developed: online patient decision aids, consultation cards, and decision cards. METHODS: This stepped wedge cluster randomised trial was conducted in 13 Dutch hospitals. Besides the developed DSTs, training on how to apply SDM during the clinician patient encounter was used in this study. Data were obtained via questionnaires and audio recordings. The primary outcome was the OPTION-5 score, an objective tool to assess the level of SDM, expressed as a percentage of exemplary performance. Main secondary outcomes were patients' disease specific knowledge, consultation duration, and treatment choice. Factors influencing OPTION-5 scores were studied using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Included in the study were 342 patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA; n = 87), intermittent claudication (IC; n = 143), or varicose veins (VV; n = 112). Audiotapes of 395 consultations were analysed. Overall the mean OPTION-5 score significantly improved from 28.7% to 37.8% (mean difference 9.1%, 95% CI 6.5% - 11.8%) after implementation of the DSTs. Also, patient knowledge increased significantly (median increase: 13%, effect size: 0.13, p = .025). The number of patients choosing non-surgical treatment choices increased, with 21.4% to 28.8% for patients with AAA and doubled (16.0% to 32.0%) among patients with IC. For surgeons, the SDM training and for patients the decision aid significantly and independently increased OPTION-5 scores (p < .001 and p = .047, respectively). CONCLUSION: Introducing DSTs improves the level of shared decision making in vascular surgery, improves patient knowledge, and shifts their preference towards more non-surgical treatments. The SDM training for clinicians and the decision aid for patients appeared the most effective means of improving SDM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR6487.

Effects and Working Mechanisms of a Multilevel Implementation Program for Applying Shared Decision-Making while Discussing Systemic Treatment in Breast Cancer.

Background: Enhancing the application of shared decision-making (SDM) is critical for integrating patient preferences in breast cancer treatment choices. We investigated the effect of an adapted multilevel SDM implementation program in breast cancer care. Methods: Breast cancer patients qualifying for (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment were included in a multicenter before−after study. Consultations were audio recorded between June 2018 and July 2019 and analyzed using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-5) instrument to score SDM application by clinicians. The Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) was used to rate patients' perceived SDM level. Consultation duration, decision types, number of options discussed and consultations per patient were monitored. Regression analysis was used to investigate the correlated variables and program components. Results: Mean OPTION-5 scores increased from 33.9 (n = 63) before implementation to 54.3 (n = 49) after implementation (p < 0.001). The SDM-Q-9 scores did not change: 91.1 (n = 51) at baseline versus 88.9 (n = 23) after implementation (p = 0.81). Without increasing consultation time, clinicians discussed more options after implementation. The regression analysis showed that exposure to the implementation program, redistribution of tasks and discussing feedback from consultations was associated with a higher level of SDM. Conclusion: The multilevel program helped clinicians achieve clinically relevant improvement in SDM, especially when it is tailored to (individuals in) teams and includes (e-)training, discussing feedback on consultations and redistribution of tasks.