Development and acceptability of a decision-aid for food allergy Oral immunotherapy in children.

BACKGROUND: Limited decision-support tools are available to help shared decision-making (SDM) regarding food oral immunotherapy (OIT) initiation. No current tool covers all foods, forms, and pediatric ages for which OIT is offered. METHODS: In compliance with International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, this pediatric decision-aid comparing OIT versus avoidance was developed in three stages. Nested qualitative data assessing OIT decisional needs were supplemented with evidence-synthesis from the OIT literature to create the prototype decision-aid content. This underwent iterative development with food allergy experts and patient advocacy stakeholders until unanimous consensus was reached regarding content, bias, readability, and utility in making a choice. Lastly, the tool underwent validated assessment of decisional acceptability, decisional conflict, and decisional self-efficacy. RESULTS: The decision-aid underwent 5 iterations, resulting in a 4-page written aid (Flesch-Kincaid reading level 6.1) explaining therapy choices, risks and benefits, providing self-rating for attribute importance for the options and self-assessment regarding how adequate the information was in decision-making. A total of n = 135 caregivers of food-allergic children assessed the decision-aid, noting good acceptability, high decisional self-efficacy (mean score 85.9/100) and low decisional conflict (mean score 20.9/100). Information content was rated adequate and sufficient, the therapy choices wording balanced, and presented without bias for a "best choice." Lower decisional conflict was associated with caregiver-reported anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: This first pediatric OIT decision-aid, agnostic to product, allergen, and age has good acceptability, limited bias, and is associated with low decisional conflict and high decisional self-efficacy. It supports SDM in navigating the decision to start OIT or continue allergen avoidance.

Factors Associated with Advance Care Planning Engagement Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study.

AIM: To explore the associations between depression, anxiety, decisional conflict and advance care planning engagement and the potential mediating role of decisional conflict in the associations between depression, anxiety and advance care planning among community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 262 community-dwelling older Australians across metropolitan, regional and rural communities between August and October 2022. METHODS: Validated self-reported questions were used to collect data on anxiety, depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale), advance care planning engagement (Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey) and covariates (demographic characteristics, health literacy [Health Literacy Screening Questions]), overall health status (Short form 36). Data analysis included descriptive statistics, bivariate association analysis, general linear modelling and path analysis. RESULTS: Anxiety and decisional conflict were directly associated with advance care planning engagement even after controlling for potential effects of demographic characteristics, health literacy and overall health status. The model, including age, gender, country of birth, language spoken at home, education, overall health status, anxiety, depression, decisional conflict and interaction between anxiety and decisional conflict, explained 24.3% of the variance in their advance care planning engagement. Decisional conflict mediated the association between anxiety and advance care planning engagement. CONCLUSION: Increased anxiety and decisional conflict were associated with reduced advance care planning engagement directly, even among community-dwelling older adults with higher levels of education and health literacy. Increased anxiety was associated with reduced advance care planning engagement indirectly via increased decisional conflict. Healthcare professionals should assess community-dwelling older adults' anxiety and implement interventions to manage their anxiety and decisional conflict, as these may facilitate their engagement in advance care planning. IMPACT: Understanding factors associated with advance care planning engagement among community-dwelling older adults may inform strategies facilitating their future engagement in advance care planning. Findings from this study may be used as evidence for future implementation to facilitate the engagement of community-dwelling older adults in advance care planning. REPORTING METHOD: The STROBE statement checklist was used as a guide to writing the manuscript. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The study was advertised publicly through social media (e.g. Twitter and Facebook) and newsletters (e.g. Advance Care Planning Australia, Centre for Volunteering, Palliative Care Australia and a large home care service provider with approximately 7000 older clients receiving support or services) to recruit participants. People aged 65 years and older living independently in the Australian community who could communicate in English were invited to participate and answer the questionnaire.

Validation of a checklist to facilitate serious illness conversations in adult emergency in China: a single-centre pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Advances in emergency and critical care have improved outcomes, but gaps in communication and decision-making persist, especially in the emergency department (ED), prompting the development of a checklist to aid in serious illness conversations (SIC) in China. METHODS: This was a single-centre prospective interventional study on the quality improvement of SIC for life-sustaining treatment (LST). The study recruited patients consecutively for both its observational baseline and interventional stages until its conclusion. Eligible participants were adults over 18 years old admitted to the Emergency Intensive Care Unit (EICU) of a tertiary teaching hospital, possessing full decisional capacity or having a legal proxy. Exclusions were made for pregnant women, patients deceased upon arrival, those who refused participation, and individuals with incomplete data for analysis. First, a two-round Delphi process was organized to identify major elements and generate a standard process through a checklist. Subsequently, the efficacy of SIC in adult patients admitted to the EICU was compared using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) score before (baseline group) and after (intervention group) implementing the checklist. RESULTS: The study participants presented with the most common comorbidities, such as diabetes, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, moderate-to-severe renal disease, congestive heart failure, and chronic pulmonary disease. The median Charlson Index did not differ between the baseline and intervention cohorts. The median length of hospital stay was 11.0 days, and 82.9% of patients survived until hospital discharge. The total DCS score was lower in the intervention group than in the baseline group. Three subscales, including the informed, values clarity, and support subscales, demonstrated significant differences between the intervention and baseline groups. Fewer intervention group patients agreed with and changed their minds about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) compared to the baseline group. CONCLUSION: The use of a SIC checklist in the EICU reduced the DCS score by increasing medical information disclosure, patient value awareness, and decision-making support.

Pregnant individuals' genetic literacy and decisional conflict about prenatal screening tests: A cross-sectional study.

Understanding the prenatal screening and diagnostic tests performed during pregnancy and making a decision in line with the test results can be a complex process for pregnant individuals and their families. Therefore, this study examined pregnant individuals' genetic literacy and decisional conflict regarding prenatal screening tests. The study was conducted with 328 pregnant individuals who applied to a training and research hospital to receive antenatal care between April 05 and September 30, 2021. Research data were collected by using the "Decisional Conflict Scale," "SURE Scale," and "Genetic Literacy and Comprehension Measure." The mean age of the participants was 28.69 ± 5.48, and the mean gestational week was 25.90 ± 10.43. A statistically significant difference was found between the educational levels of the pregnant individuals and the genetic literacy and comprehension scales (p < 0.001). A statistically significant difference was found between getting information about prenatal screening tests, having a screening test and decisional conflict scale, SURE Scale, and genetic literacy and comprehension scales (p < 0.001). A weak, negative, statistically significant correlation was found between the genetic literacy and comprehension familiarity and decision conflict scales (r = -0.177, p = 0.001). It is well known that pregnant individuals have difficulty understanding and interpreting test results due to prenatal screening tests that include genetic information. In our study, approximately half of the pregnant individuals received information about prenatal screening tests. Therefore, prenatal care must include the necessary information about prenatal screening tests. The study found that as the genetic literacy of pregnant individuals increased, the conflict of decisions they experienced decreased. Accordingly, it is suggested that interventions to increase genetic literacy among pregnant individuals may be effective in reducing decisional conflict regarding prenatal screening tests.

The Impact of a Digital Contraceptive Decision Aid on User Outcomes: Results of an Experimental, Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 40% of unplanned pregnancies in the USA are the result of inconsistent or incorrect contraceptive use. Finding ways to increase women's comfort and satisfaction with contraceptive use is therefore critical to public health. One promising pathway for improving patient outcomes is through the use of digital decision aids that assist women and their physicians in choosing a contraceptive option that women are comfortable with. Testing the ability of these aids to improve patient outcomes is therefore a necessary first step toward incorporating this technology into traditional physician appointments. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a novel contraceptive decision aid at minimizing decisional conflict and increasing comfort with contraception among adult women. METHODS: In total, 310 adult women were assigned to use either the Tuune contraceptive decision aid or a control aid modeled after a leading online contraceptive prescriber's patient intake form. Participants then completed self-report measures of decisional conflict, contraceptive expectations, satisfaction, and contraceptive use intentions. Individual between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) models were used to examine these outcomes. RESULTS: Women using the Tuune decision aid (vs. those using the control aid) reported lower decisional conflict, more positive contraceptive expectations, greater satisfaction with the decision aid and recommendation, and more positive contraceptive use intentions. CONCLUSIONS: Use of Tuune improved each of the predicted patient outcomes relative to a control decision aid. Online decision aids, particularly when used alongside physician consultations, may be an effective tool for increasing comfort with contraceptive use. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION #: NCT05177783, ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05177783.

Digital decision aids that help women and their physicians choose contraceptive options that women are most comfortable with present one promising way to improve contraceptive use outcomes, such as avoiding unplanned pregnancies. However, current decision aids have been found to struggle in helping improve women's satisfaction with and confidence in their contraceptive choices. The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a new digital decision aid, named Tuune, at helping improve women's confidence and comfort with contraception. Three hundred and ten adult women were randomly assigned to use and then receive a contraceptive recommendation from either the Tuune decision aid or a control aid designed after leading traditional health intake forms. Women's confidence and satisfaction with the aids, as well as their contraceptive recommendation, were then compared between groups. We found good evidence to suggest that women using the Tuune contraceptive decision aid were more satisfied and positive about their contraceptive choices and reported greater intentions to use contraception with increased confidence compared to women who used the control decision aid. New online decision aids, like Tuune, may be an effective tool for increasing women's comfort and experiences using contraception.

Decisional Conflict Regarding Disease-Modifying Treatment Choices Among Patients with Mid-Stage Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.

Purpose: Shared decision-making is critical in multiple sclerosis (MS) due to the uncertainty of the disease trajectory over time and the large number of treatment options with differing efficacy, safety and administration characteristics. The aim of this study was to assess patients' decisional conflict regarding the choice of a disease-modifying therapy and its associated factors in patients with mid-stage relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Methods: A multicenter, non-interventional study was conducted. Adult patients with a diagnosis of RRMS (2017 revised McDonald criteria) and disease duration of 3 to 8 years were included. The level of uncertainty experienced by a patient when faced with making a treatment choice was assessed using the 4-item Decisional Conflict Scale. A battery of patient-reported and clinician-rated measures was administered to obtain information on symptom severity, illness perception, illness-related uncertainty, regret, MS knowledge, risk taking behavior, preferred role in the decision-making process, cognition, and self-management. Patients were recruited during routine follow-up visits and completed all questionnaires online using electronic tablets at the hospital. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 201 patients were studied. Mean age (Standard deviation) was 38.7 (8.4) years and 74.1% were female. Median disease duration (Interquartile range) was 6.0 (4.0-7.0) years. Median EDSS score was 1.0 (0-2.0). Sixty-seven (33.3%) patients reported a decisional conflict. These patients had lower MS knowledge and more illness uncertainty, anxiety, depressive symptoms, fatigue, subjective symptom severity, a threatening illness perception, and poorer quality of life than their counterparts. Lack of decisional conflict was associated with MS knowledge (Odds ratio [OR]=1.195, 95% CI 1.045, 1.383, p=0.013), self-management (OR=1.049, 95% CI 1.013, 1.093, p=0.018), and regret after a healthcare decision (OR=0.860, 95% CI 0.756, 0.973, p=0.018) in the multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Decisional conflict regarding the selection of a disease-modifying therapy was a common phenomenon in patients with mid-stage RRMS. Identifying factors associated with decisional conflict may be useful to implement preventive strategies that help patients better understand their condition and strengthen their self-management resources.

Eggsurance? A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for elective egg freezing.

STUDY QUESTION: Does a purpose-designed Decision Aid for women considering elective egg freezing (EEF) impact decisional conflict and other decision-related outcomes? SUMMARY ANSWER: The Decision Aid reduces decisional conflict, prepares women for decision-making, and does not cause distress. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: Elective egg-freezing decisions are complex, with 78% of women reporting high decisional conflict. Decision Aids are used to support complex health decisions. We developed an online Decision Aid for women considering EEF and demonstrated that it was acceptable and useful in Phase 1 testing. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A single-blind, two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial was carried out. Target sample size was 286 participants. Randomization was 1:1 to the control (existing website information) or intervention (Decision Aid plus existing website information) group and stratified by Australian state/territory and prior IVF specialist consultation. Participants were recruited between September 2020 and March 2021 with outcomes recorded over 12 months. Data were collected using online surveys and data collection was completed in March 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Females aged ≥18 years, living in Australia, considering EEF, proficient in English, and with internet access were recruited using multiple methods including social media posts, Google advertising, newsletter/noticeboard posts, and fertility clinic promotion. After completing the baseline survey, participants were emailed their allocated website link(s). Follow-up surveys were sent at 6 and 12 months. Primary outcome was decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Other outcomes included distress (Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale), knowledge about egg freezing and female age-related infertility (study-specific measure), whether a decision was made, preparedness to decide about egg freezing (Preparation for Decision-Making Scale), informed choice (Multi-Dimensional Measure of Informed Choice), and decision regret (Decision Regret Scale). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Overall, 306 participants (mean age 30 years; SD: 5.2) were randomized (intervention n = 150, control n = 156). Decisional Conflict Scale scores were significantly lower at 12 months (mean score difference: -6.99 [95% CI: -12.96, -1.02], P = 0.022) for the intervention versus control group after adjusting for baseline decisional conflict. At 6 months, the intervention group felt significantly more prepared to decide about EEF than the control (mean score difference: 9.22 [95% CI: 2.35, 16.08], P = 0.009). At 12 months, no group differences were observed in distress (mean score difference: 0.61 [95% CI: -3.72, 4.93], P = 0.783), knowledge (mean score difference: 0.23 [95% CI: -0.21, 0.66], P = 0.309), or whether a decision was made (relative risk: 1.21 [95% CI: 0.90, 1.64], P = 0.212). No group differences were found in informed choice (relative risk: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.81, 1.25], P = 0.983) or decision regret (median score difference: -5.00 [95% CI: -15.30, 5.30], P = 0.337) amongst participants who had decided about EEF by 12 months (intervention n = 48, control n = 45). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Unknown participant uptake and potential sampling bias due to the recruitment methods used and restrictions caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Some outcomes had small sample sizes limiting the inferences made. The use of study-specific or adapted validated measures may impact the reliability of some results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate a Decision Aid for EEF. The Decision Aid reduced decisional conflict and improved women's preparation for decision making. The tool will be made publicly available and can be tailored for international use. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Decision Aid was developed with funding from the Royal Women's Hospital Foundation and McBain Family Trust. The study was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant APP1163202, awarded to M. Hickey, M. Peate, R.J. Norman, and R. Hart (2019-2021). S.S., M.P., D.K., and S.B. were supported by the NHMRC Project Grant APP1163202 to perform this work. R.H. is Medical Director of Fertility Specialists of Western Australia and National Medical Director of City Fertility. He has received grants from MSD, Merck-Serono, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals unrelated to this study and is a shareholder of CHA-SMG. R.L. is Director of Women's Health Melbourne (Medical Practice), ANZSREI Executive Secretary (Honorary), RANZCOG CREI Subspecialty Committee Member (Honorary), and a Fertility Specialist at Life Fertility Clinic Melbourne and Royal Women's Hospital Public Fertility Service. R.A.A. has received grants from Ferring Pharmaceuticals unrelated to this study. M.H., K.H., and R.J.N. have no conflicts to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620001032943. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 11 August 2020. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 29 September 2020.

Decisional Conflict Among Patients Newly Diagnosed With Clinical T1 Renal Masses: A Prospective Study.

PURPOSE: Because multiple management options exist for clinical T1 renal masses, patients may experience a state of uncertainty about the course of action to pursue (ie, decisional conflict). To better support patients, we examined patient, clinical, and decision-making factors associated with decisional conflict among patients newly diagnosed with clinical T1 renal masses suspicious for kidney cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a prospective clinical trial, participants completed the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), scored 0 to 100 with < 25 associated with implementing decisions, at 2 time points during the initial decision-making period. The trial further characterized patient demographics, health status, tumor burden, and patient-centered communication, while a subcohort completed additional questionnaires on decision-making. Associations of patient, clinical, and decision-making factors with DCS scores were evaluated using generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures per patient. RESULTS: Of 274 enrollees, 250 completed a DCS survey; 74% had masses ≤ 4 cm in size, while 11% had high-complexity tumors. Model-based estimated mean DCS score across both time points was 17.6 (95% CI 16.0-19.3), though 50% reported a DCS score ≥ 25 at least once. On multivariable analysis, DCS scores increased with age (+2.64, 95% CI 1.04-4.23), high- vs low-complexity tumors (+6.50, 95% CI 0.35-12.65), and cystic vs solid masses (+9.78, 95% CI 5.27-14.28). Among decision-making factors, DCS scores decreased with higher self-efficacy (-3.31, 95% CI -5.77 to -0.86]) and information-seeking behavior (-4.44, 95% CI -7.32 to -1.56). DCS scores decreased with higher patient-centered communication scores (-8.89, 95% CI -11.85 to -5.94). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to patient and clinical factors, decision-making factors and patient-centered communication relate with decisional conflict, highlighting potential avenues to better support patient decision-making for clinical T1 renal masses.

The Impact of a Computer-Based Interactive Informed Consent for Surgery on Decision Conflict.

PURPOSE: Informed consent for surgery can address the legal aspects of care while also being simple, informative, and empathic. We developed interactive informed consents and compared them with standard printed informed consents asking: (1) are there any factors associated with lower decision conflict or greater patient-rated clinician empathy including consent format? (2) Are there any factors associated with rating the consent process as informative, comfortable, and satisfying including consent format? METHODS: Ninety-four adult patients accepted an offer of surgery from one of three hand surgeons to address one of six common hand surgery diagnoses: carpal tunnel release, cubital tunnel release, trigger finger release, plate and screw fixation of a distal radius fracture, removal of a benign mass, including a ganglion cyst, and Dupuytren contracture release. Fifty-three patients were randomized to complete an interactive consent, and 41, a standard written consent. Symptoms of anxiety, depression, and unhelpful thoughts were measured. Patients completed the Decision Conflict Scale and the Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perceptions of Physician Empathy and rated the consent as informative, comfortable, and satisfactory on a scale of 0-10. RESULTS: Greater decisional conflict was slightly associated with greater patient unhelpful thoughts about symptoms and was not associated with consent format. A higher rating of comfort with the consent process was slightly associated with patient choice to proceed with surgical treatment, but not with consent format. Accounting for potential confounding in multivariable analysis, a higher rating of the consent process as informative was slightly associated with patient preference for surgical over nonsurgical treatment, CONCLUSIONS: The observation that an interactive consent form was not related to decision conflict or other aspects of patient experience suggests that such tools may not have much weight relative to the interaction between patient and clinician. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Efforts to improve informed consent may need to focus on the dialog between patient and surgeon rather than how information is presented.