Factors associated with shared decision making among primary care physicians: Findings from a multicentre cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing recognition that shared decision making (SDM) is central for patient-centred primary care, adoption by physicians remains limited in routine practice. OBJECTIVE: To examine the characteristics of physicians, patients and consultations associated with primary care physicians' SDM behaviours during routine care. METHODS: A multicentre cross-sectional survey study was conducted with 114 unique patient-physician dyads recruited from 17 primary care clinics in Quebec and Ontario, Canada. Physicians' SDM behaviours were assessed with the 12-item OPTION scale scored by third observers using audio-recordings of consultations. Independent variables included 21 physician, patient and consultation characteristics. We assessed factors associated with OPTION scores using multivariate linear regression models. RESULTS: On the OPTION scale, where higher scores indicated greater SDM behaviours, physicians earned an overall mean score of 25.7±9.8 of 100. In the final adjusted regression model, higher OPTION scores were associated with physicians' social participation (involvement in one committee ß=5.75, P=.04; involvement in two or more committees ß=7.74, P=.01), patients' status as employed (ß=6.48, P=.02), clinically significant decisional conflict in patients (ß=7.15, P=.002) and a longer duration of consultations (ß=0.23, P=.002). CONCLUSION: Physicians' social participation, patients' employment status and decisional conflict and the duration of consultations were associated with primary care physicians' SDM behaviours in routine care. These factors should be considered when designing strategies to implement SDM and promote more patient-centred care in primary care.

Pregnant women's views on how to promote the use of a decision aid for Down syndrome prenatal screening: a theory-informed qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: For pregnant women and their partners, the decision to undergo Down syndrome prenatal screening is difficult. Patient decision aids (PtDA) can help them make an informed decision. We aimed to identify behaviour change techniques (BCTs) that would be useful in an intervention to promote the use of a PtDA for Down syndrome prenatal screening, and to identify which of these BCTs pregnant women found relevant and acceptable. METHODS: Using the Behaviour Change Wheel and the Theoretical Domains Framework, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study. First, a group of experts from diverse professions, disciplines and backgrounds (eg. medicine, engineering, implementation science, community and public health, shared decision making) identified relevant BCTs. Then we recruited pregnant women consulting for prenatal care in three clinical sites: a family medicine group, a birthing centre (midwives) and a hospital obstetrics department in Quebec City, Canada. To be eligible, participants had to be at least 18 years old, having recently given birth or at least 16 weeks pregnant with a low-risk pregnancy, and have already decided about prenatal screening. We conducted three focus groups and asked questions about the relevance and acceptability of the BCTs. We analysed verbatim transcripts and reduced the BCTs to those the women found most relevant and acceptable. RESULTS: Our group of experts identified 25 relevant BCTs relating to information, support, consequences, others' approval, learning, reward, environmental change and mode of delivery. Fifteen women participated in the study with a mean age of 27 years. Of these, 67% (n = 10) were pregnant for the first time, 20% (n = 3) had difficulty making the decision to take the test, and 73% had made the decision with their partner. Of the 25 BCTs identified using the Behaviour Change Wheel, the women found the following 10 to be most acceptable and relevant: goal setting (behaviour), goal setting (results), problem solving, action plan, social support (general), social support (practical), restructuring the physical environment, prompts/cues, credible sources and modelling or demonstration of the behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention to promote PtDA use among pregnant women for Down syndrome prenatal screening should incorporate the 10 BCTs identified.

Psychosocial Factors of Health Professionals' Intention to Use a Decision Aid for Down Syndrome Screening: Cross-Sectional Quantitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome are difficult for women, as they entail risk, potential loss, and regret. Shared decision making increases women's knowledge of their choices and better aligns decisions with their values. Patient decision aids foster shared decision making but are rarely used in this context. OBJECTIVE: One of the most promising strategies for implementing shared decision making is distribution of decision aids by health professionals. We aimed to identify factors influencing their intention to use a DA during prenatal visit for decisions about Down syndrome screening. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative study. Using a Web panel, we conducted a theory-based survey of health professionals in Quebec province (Canada). Eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) family physicians, midwives, obstetrician-gynecologists, or trainees in these professions; (2) involved in prenatal care; and (3) working in Quebec province. Participants watched a video depicting a health professional using a decision aid during a prenatal consultation with a woman and her partner, and then answered a questionnaire based on an extended version of the theory of planned behavior, including some of the constructs of the theoretical domains framework. The questionnaire assessed 8 psychosocial constructs (attitude, anticipated regret, subjective norm, self-identity, moral norm, descriptive norm, self-efficacy, and perceived control), 7 related sets of behavioral beliefs (advantages, disadvantages, emotions, sources of encouragement or discouragement, incentives, facilitators, and barriers), and sociodemographic data. We performed descriptive, bivariate, and multiple linear regression analyses to identify factors influencing health professionals' intention to use a decision aid. RESULTS: Among 330 health professionals who completed the survey, 310 met the inclusion criteria: family physicians, 55.2% (171/310); obstetrician-gynecologists, 33.8% (105/310); and midwives, 11.0% (34/310). Of these, 80.9% were female (251/310). Mean age was 39.6 (SD 11.5) years. Less than half were aware of any decision aids at all. In decreasing order of importance, factors influencing their intention to use a decision aid for Down syndrome prenatal screening were as follows: self-identity (beta=.325, P<.001), attitude (beta=.297, P<.001), moral norm (beta=.288, P<.001), descriptive norm (beta=.166, P<.001), and anticipated regret (beta=.099, P=.003). Underlying behavioral beliefs significantly related to intention were that the use of a decision aid would promote decision making (beta=.117, 95% CI 0.043-0.190), would reassure health professionals (beta=.100, 95% CI 0.024-0.175), and might require more time than planned for the consultation (beta=-.077, 95% CI -0.124 to -0.031). CONCLUSIONS: We identified psychosocial factors that could influence health professionals' intention to use a decision aid about Down syndrome screening. Strategies should remind them of the following: (1) using a decision aid for this purpose should be a common practice, (2) it would be expected of someone in their societal role, (3) the experience of using it will be satisfying and reassuring, and (4) it is likely to be compatible with their moral values.

Approaches to considering sex and gender in continuous professional development for health and social care professionals: An emerging paradigm.

Consideration of sex and gender in research and clinical practice is necessary to redress health inequities and reduce knowledge gaps. As all health professionals must maintain and update their skills throughout their career, developing innovative continuing professional education programs that integrate sex and gender issues holds great promise for reducing these gaps. This article proposes new approaches to partnership, team development, pedagogical theory, content development, evaluation and data management that will advance the integration of sex and gender in continuing professional development (CPD). Our perspectives build on an intersectoral and interprofessional research team that includes several perspectives, including those of CPD, health systems, knowledge translation and sex and gender.

Use of a patient decision aid for prenatal screening for Down syndrome: what do pregnant women say?

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PtDAs) help people make difficult, values-sensitive decisions. Prenatal screening for assessing the risk of genetic conditions in the fetus is one such decision and patient decision aids are rarely used in this clinical context. We sought to identify factors influencing pregnant women's use of a patient decision aid for deciding about prenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS). METHODS: This qualitative study was embedded in a sequential mixed-methods research program whose main aim is to implement shared decision-making (SDM) in the context of prenatal screening for DS in the province of Quebec, Canada. We planned to recruit a purposive sample of 45 pregnant women with low-risk pregnancy consulting for prenatal care at three clinical sites. Participating women watched a video depicting a prenatal care follow-up during which a pregnant woman, her partner and a health professional used a PtDA to decide about prenatal screening for DS. The women were then interviewed about factors that would influence the use of this PtDA using questions based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We performed content analysis of transcribed verbatim interviews. RESULTS: Out of 216 eligible women, 100 agreed to participate (46% response rate) and 46 were interviewed. Regarding the type of health professional responsible for their prenatal care, 19 participants (41%) reported having made a decision about prenatal screening for DS with an obstetrician-gynecologist, 13 (28%) with a midwife, 12 (26%) with a family physician, and two (4%) decided on their own. We identified 54 factors that were mapped onto nine of the 12 TDF domains. The three most frequently-mentioned were: opinion of the pregnant woman's partner (n = 33, 72%), presentation of the PtDA by health professional and a discussion (n = 27, 72%), and not having encountered a PtDA (n = 26, 57%). CONCLUSION: This study allowed us to identify factors influencing pregnant women's use of a PtDA for prenatal screening for DS. Use of a PtDA by health professionals and patients is one step in providing the needed decision support and our study results will allow us to design an effective implementation strategy for PtDAs for prenatal screening for DS.

What factors influence health professionals to use decision aids for Down syndrome prenatal screening?

BACKGROUND: Health professionals are expected to engage pregnant women in shared decision making to help them make informed values-based decisions about prenatal screening. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) foster shared decision-making, but are rarely used in this context. Our objective was to identify factors that could influence health professionals to use a PtDA for decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome during a clinical pregnancy follow-up. METHODS: We planned to recruit a purposive sample of 45 health professionals (obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians and midwives) involved in the care of pregnant women in three clinical sites (15 per site). Participating health professionals first watched a video showing two simulated consecutive prenatal follow-up consultations during which a pregnant woman, her partner and a health professional used a PtDA about Down syndrome prenatal screening. Participants were then interviewed about factors that would influence their use of the PtDA. Questions were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. We performed content analyses of transcribed verbatim interviews. RESULTS: Out of 42 eligible health professionals approached, 36 agreed to be interviewed (86 % response rate). Of these, 27 were female (75 %), nine were obstetrician-gynecologists (25 %), 15 were family physicians (42 %), and 12 were midwives (33 %), with a mean age of 42.1 ± 11.6 years old. We identified 35 distinct factors reported by 20 % or more participants that were mapped onto 10 of the 12 of the Theoretical Domains Framework domains. The six most frequently mentioned factors influencing use of the PtDA were: 1) a positive appraisal (n = 29, 81 %, beliefs about consequences domain); 2) its availability in the office (n = 27, 75 %, environmental context and resources domain); 3) colleagues' approval (n = 27, 75 %, social influences domain); 4) time constraints (n = 26, 72 %, environmental context and resources domain); 5) finding it a relevant source of information (n = 24, 67 %, motivation and goals domain); and 6) not knowing any PtDAs (n = 23, 64 %, knowledge domain). CONCLUSIONS: Appraisal, PtDA availability, peer approval, time concerns, evidence and PtDA awareness all affect whether health professionals are likely to use a PtDA to help pregnant women make informed decision about Down syndrome screening. Implementation strategies will need to address these factors.

Role of Psychosocial Factors and Health Literacy in Pregnant Women's Intention to Use a Decision Aid for Down Syndrome Screening: A Theory-Based Web Survey.

BACKGROUND: Deciding about undergoing prenatal screening is difficult, as it entails risks, potential loss and regrets, and challenges to personal values. Shared decision making and decision aids (DAs) can help pregnant women give informed and values-based consent or refusal to prenatal screening, but little is known about factors influencing the use of DAs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the influence of psychosocial factors on pregnant women's intention to use a DA for prenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS). We also added health literacy variables to explore their influence on pregnant women's intention. METHODS: We conducted a survey of pregnant women in the province of Quebec (Canada) using a Web panel. Eligibility criteria included age >18 years, >16 weeks pregnant, low-risk pregnancy, and having decided about prenatal screening for the current pregnancy. We collected data based on an extended version of the Theory of Planned Behavior assessing 7 psychosocial constructs (intention, attitude, anticipated regret, subjective norm, descriptive norm, moral norm, and perceived control), 3 related sets of beliefs (behavioral, normative, and control beliefs), 4 health literacy variables, and sociodemographics. Eligible women watched a video depicting the behavior of interest before completing a Web-based questionnaire. We performed descriptive, bivariate, and ordinal logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 383 eligible pregnant women who agreed to participate, 350 pregnant women completed the Web-based questionnaire and 346 were retained for analysis (completion rate 350/383, 91.4%; mean age 30.1, SD 4.3, years). In order of importance, factors influencing intention to use a DA for prenatal screening for DS were attitude (odds ratio, OR, 9.16, 95% CI 4.02-20.85), moral norm (OR 7.97, 95% CI 4.49-14.14), descriptive norm (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.63-4.92), and anticipated regret (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.71-3.46). Specific attitudinal beliefs significantly related to intention were that using a DA would reassure them (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.73-4.01), facilitate their reflections with their spouse (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.05-2.29), and let them know about the advantages of doing or not doing the test (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.05-2.24). Health literacy did not add to the predictive power of our model (P values range .43-.92). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation interventions targeting the use of a DA for prenatal screening for DS by pregnant women should address a number of modifiable factors, especially by introducing the advantages of using the DA (attitude), informing pregnant women that they might regret not using it (anticipated regret), and presenting the use of DAs as a common practice (descriptive norm). However, interventions on moral norms related to the use of DA should be treated with caution. Further studies that include populations with low health literacy are needed before decisive claims can be made.

The impact of DECISION+2 on patient intention to engage in shared decision making: secondary analysis of a multicentre clustered randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Training health professionals in shared decision making (SDM) may influence their patients' intention to engage in SDM. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of DECISION+2, a SDM training programme for family physicians about the use of antibiotics to treat acute respiratory infections (ARIs), on their patients' intention to engage in SDM in future consultations. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a multicentre clustered randomized trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and fifty-nine patients consulting family physicians about an ARI in nine family practice teaching units (FPTUs). INTERVENTION: DECISION+2 (two-hour online tutorial, two-hour workshop, and decision support tools) was offered in the experimental group (five FPTUs, 162 physicians, 181 patients). Usual care was provided in the control group (four FPTUs, 108 physicians, 178 patients). OUTCOME MEASURE: Change in patients' intention scores (range -3 to +3) between pre- and post-consultation. RESULTS: The mean ± SD [median] scores of intention to engage in SDM were high in both study groups before consultation (DECISION+2 group: 1.4 ± 1.0 [1.7]; control group: 1.5 ± 1.1 [1.7]) and increased in both groups after consultation (DECISION+2 group: 2.1 ± 1.1 [2.7]; control group: 1.9 ± 1.2 [2.3]). Change of intention, classified as either increased, stable or decreased, was not statistically associated with the exposure to the DECISION+2 programme after adjusting for the cluster design (proportional odds ratio = 1.5; 95% confidence interval = 0.8-3.0). CONCLUSION: DECISION+2 had no significant impact on patients' intention to engage in SDM for choosing to use antibiotics or not to treat an ARI in future consultations. Patient-targeted interventions may be necessary to achieve this purpose.

Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument.

BACKGROUND: We have no clear overview of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in the decision-making process during consultations. The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument (OPTION) was designed to assess this. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies that used the OPTION instrument to observe the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making across a range of clinical contexts, including different health professions and lengths of consultation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted online literature searches in multiple databases (2001-12) and gathered further data through networking. INCLUSION CRITERIA: (i) OPTION scores as reported outcomes and (ii) health-care providers and patients as study participants. For analysis, we only included studies using the revised scale. DATA EXTRACTION: Extracted data included: (i) study and participant characteristics and (ii) OPTION outcomes (scores, statistical associations and reported psychometric results). We also assessed the quality of OPTION outcomes reporting. MAIN RESULTS: We found 33 eligible studies, 29 of which used the revised scale. Overall, we found low levels of patient-involving behaviours: in cases where no intervention was used to implement shared decision making (SDM), the mean OPTION score was 23 ± 14 (0-100 scale). When assessed, the variables most consistently associated with higher OPTION scores were interventions to implement SDM (n = 8/9) and duration of consultations (n = 8/15). CONCLUSIONS: Whatever the clinical context, few health-care providers consistently attempt to facilitate patient involvement, and even fewer adjust care to patient preferences. However, both SDM interventions and longer consultations could improve this.

Decision aids that support decisions about prenatal testing for Down syndrome: an environmental scan.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal screening tests for Down syndrome (DS) are routine in many developed countries and new tests are rapidly becoming available. Decisions about prenatal screening are increasingly complex with each successive test, and pregnant women need information about risks and benefits as well as clarity about their values. Decision aids (DAs) can help healthcare providers support women in this decision. Using an environmental scan, we aimed to identify publicly available DAs focusing on prenatal screening/diagnosis for Down syndrome that provide effective support for decision making. METHODS: Data sources searched were the Decision Aids Library Inventory (DALI) of the Ottawa Patient Decision Aids Research Group at the Ottawa Health Research Institute; Google searches on the internet; professional organizations, academic institutions and other experts in the field; and references in existing systematic reviews on DAs. Eligible DAs targeted pregnant women, focused on prenatal screening and/or diagnosis, applied to tests for fetal abnormalities or aneuploidies, and were in French, English, Spanish or Portuguese. Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible DAs and extracted characteristics including the presence of practical decision support tools and features to aid comprehension. They then performed quality assessment using the 16 minimum standards established by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDASi v4.0). RESULTS: Of 543 potentially eligible DAs (512 in DALI, 27 from experts, and four on the internet), 23 were eligible and 20 were available for data extraction. DAs were developed from 1996 to 2013 in six countries (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and France). Five DAs were for prenatal screening, three for prenatal diagnosis and 12 for both). Eight contained values clarification methods (personal worksheets). The 20 DAs scored a median of 10/16 (range 6-15) on the 16 IPDAS minimum standards. DISCUSSION: None of the 20 included DAs met all 16 IPDAS minimum standards, and few included practical decision support tools or aids to comprehension. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate there is a need for DAs that effectively support decision making regarding prenatal testing for Down syndrome, especially in light of the recently available non-invasive prenatal screening tests.

An interprofessional approach to shared decision making: an exploratory case study with family caregivers of one IP home care team.

BACKGROUND: Within the context of an exploratory case study, the authors assessed the perceptions of family caregivers about the decision-making process regarding relocating their relative and about the applicability of an interprofessional approach to shared decision making (IP-SDM). They also assessed perceptions of health professionals and health managers about IP-SDM. METHODS: From November 2010 to October 2011, we worked with one IP home care team dedicated to older adults (the case) from a large primary health care organization in Quebec City, Canada. We identified six of their clients who had faced a decision about whether to stay at home or move to a long-term care facility in the past year and interviewed their family caregivers. We explored the decision-making process they had experienced regarding relocating their relative and their perceptions about the applicability of IP-SDM in this context. Attitudes towards IP-SDM and potential barriers to this approach were explored using a focus group with the participating IP home care team, individual interviews with 8 managers and a survey of 272 health professionals from the primary care organization. A hybrid process of inductive and deductive thematic analysis was used and data were triangulated across all sources. RESULTS: Family caregivers reported lack of agreement on the nature of the decision to be made, a disconnection between home care services and relatives' needs, and high cost of long-term care alternatives. Factors influencing their decision included their ability to provide care for their relative. While they felt somewhat supported by the IP home care team, they also felt pressured in the decision. Overall, they did not perceive they had been exposed to IP-SDM but agreed that it was applicable in this context. Results from the survey, focus group and interviews with health professionals and managers indicated they all had a favourable attitude towards IP-SDM but many barriers hampered its implementation in their practice. CONCLUSIONS: The family caregivers in this study did not experience IP-SDM when relocating their relative. Added to results obtained with health professionals and managers, this highlights the need for an effective intervention targeting identified barriers to implementing IP-SDM in this context.

A systematic process for creating and appraising clinical vignettes to illustrate interprofessional shared decision making.

Vignettes and written case simulations have been widely used by educators and health services researchers to illustrate plausible situations and measure processes in a wide range of practice settings. We devised a systematic process to create and appraise theory-based vignettes for illustrating an interprofessional approach to shared decision making (IP-SDM) for health professionals. A vignette was developed in six stages: (1) determine IP-SDM content elements; (2) choose true-to-life clinical scenario; (3) draft script; (4) appraise IP-SDM concepts illustrated using two evaluation instruments and an interprofessional concept grid; (5) peer review script for content validity; and (6) retrospective pre-/post-test evaluation of video vignette by health professionals. The vignette contained six scenes demonstrating the asynchronous involvement of five health professionals with an elderly woman and her daughter facing a decision about location of care. The script scored highly on both evaluation scales. Twenty-nine health professionals working in home care watched the vignette during IP-SDM workshops in English or French and rated it as excellent (n = 6), good (n = 20), fair (n = 0) or weak (n = 3). Participants reported higher knowledge of IP-SDM after the workshops compared to before (p < 0.0001). Our video vignette development process resulted in a product that was true-to-life and as part of a multifaceted workshop it appears to improve knowledge among health professionals. This could be used to create and appraise vignettes targeting IP-SDM in other contexts.

Shared decision-making experienced by Canadians facing health care decisions: a Web-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite health policy that promotes shared decision-making, it is not yet the norm in clinical practice. We aimed to assess how much shared decision-making Canadians experienced in health-related decisions in 2017. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey in January 2018 with a Web-based panel of Canadians representing all 10 provinces. We assessed their involvement in health-related decisions made with a health care professional over the previous year by asking about 1) discussion of choice of treatment or care plan, 2) presentation of advantages and disadvantages, 3) exploration of ideas and preferences, 4) discussion of preferred option and 5) match between preferred and actual level of participation. We computed an average shared decision-making score (range 1 [never] to 5 [always]). We presented characteristics of participants and responses using descriptive statistics and explored variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, geographical areas and care settings (home care or not) using multivariate weighted regressions. RESULTS: Of the 1591 participants surveyed, 1010 (63.5%) reported receiving health care in the previous 12 months. The mean of the average shared decision-making score was 2.25/5 (standard deviation [SD] 1.16). After weighting, 42.8% of respondents reported that their health care professional often or always mentioned that they had a choice of treatment or care plan, 45.4% reported that advantages and disadvantages were often or always presented, 38.8% reported that they were often or always asked for their ideas or preferences, 40.2% reported that they were often or always asked about their preferred option, and 54.1% stated that their level of participation in decision-making often or always matched their preferred level of participation. Increasing age, rural setting, living in the province of Quebec and not being white significantly decreased the level of shared decision-making experienced. Older respondents (age ≥ 65 yr) receiving home care reported the least shared decision-making (mean score 1.7 [SD 0.5]). INTERPRETATION: Canadians in all 10 provinces experienced a low degree of shared decision-making in 2017, with variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, care settings and geographical areas. Further efforts to foster implementation of shared decision-making are needed and should take these variations into account.

The actor-partner interdependence model in shared decision-making: an illustrative example of its application to the physician-patient dyad in primary care consultations.

OBJECTIVES: We applied the actor-partner interdependence model, a method used to evaluate the relationship process between two related persons, to patient-physician data about the effect of shared decision-making behaviors on patient and physician uncertainty. We discuss measurement and interpretation problems. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The EXACKTE2 project was a cross-sectional study of 263 unique patient-physician dyads in 17 primary care clinics in Canada. Participants independently completed self-administered questionnaires postconsultation to measure patients' and physicians' perceptions of shared decision-making behaviors and their uncertainty about whether the decision was the best one for the patient. We used the actor-partner interdependence model to explore the effect of shared decision-making behaviors on patient and physician uncertainty. RESULTS: Application of the actor-partner interdependence model to our data showed significant actor effects only. Our exploratory analysis suggested that an appropriate dyadic pattern for this context would be the couple-oriented model. CONCLUSION: Each actor's perception of the physicians' shared decision-making behaviors appeared only to affect their own uncertainty (actor effects), but the questionnaire may have been inadequate for identifying partner effects. Researchers should further explore using the actor-partner interdependence model to analyze actor-partner interdependence in the physician-patient relationship, and format questions tailored precisely to the model.

Can patients be trained to expect shared decision making in clinical consultations? Feasibility study of a public library program to raise patient awareness.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process whereby decisions are made together by patients and/or families and clinicians. Nevertheless, few patients are aware of its proven benefits. This study investigated the feasibility, acceptability and impact of an intervention to raise public awareness of SDM in public libraries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 1.5 hour interactive workshop to be presented in public libraries was co-designed with Quebec City public library network officials, a science communication specialist and physicians. A clinical topic of maximum reach was chosen: antibiotic overuse in treatment of acute respiratory tract infections. The workshop content was designed and a format, whereby a physician presents the information and the science communication specialist invites questions and participation, was devised. The event was advertised to the general public. An evaluation form was used to collect data on participants' sociodemographics, feasibility and acceptability components and assess a potential impact of the intervention. Facilitators held a post-workshop focus group to qualitatively assess feasibility, acceptability and impact. RESULTS: All 10 planned workshops were held. Out of 106 eligible public participants, 89 were included in the analysis. Most participants were women (77.6%), retired (46.1%) and over 45 (59.5%). Over 90% of participants considered the workshop content to be relevant, accessible, and clear. They reported substantial average knowledge gain about antibiotics (2.4, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 2.0-2.8; P < .001) and about SDM (4.0, 95% CI: 3.4-4.5; P < .001). Self-reported knowledge gain about SDM was significantly higher than about antibiotics (4.0 versus 2.4; P < .001). Knowledge gain did not vary by sociodemographic characteristics. The focus group confirmed feasibility and suggested improvements. CONCLUSIONS: A public library intervention is feasible and effective way to increase public awareness of SDM and could be a new approach to implementing SDM by preparing potential patients to ask for it in the consulting room.

Are mobile health applications useful for supporting shared decision making in diagnostic and treatment decisions?

Mobile health (mHealth) applications intended to support shared decision making in diagnostic and treatment decisions are increasingly available. In this paper, we discuss some recent studies on mHealth applications with relevance to shared decision making. We discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of using mHealth in shared decision making in various contexts, and suggest some directions for future research in this quickly expanding field.

Online Dissemination Strategies of a Canada Research Chair: Overview and Lessons Learned.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the use of online dissemination strategies, such as websites and social media, to increase the visibility and uptake of research. OBJECTIVE: To describe two online dissemination strategies of the Canada Research Chair in Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Primary Care over an eight-year period. METHODS: Our two sources of online dissemination data were the website of the Canada Research Chair in Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Primary Care and the Chair's Twitter account. We conducted a content analysis of the news section of the website. We extracted website usage statistics using Google Analytics and analyzed indicators such as total number of visits, new and returning visitors, page views per visit, time spent onsite per visit, visitors' country of origin, and most popular pages. From the Chair's Twitter account, we collected the number of tweets, followers, and follows. We consulted Google Scholar to chart the trend in citations of the Chair's articles over the same period. RESULTS: From the website's inception in January 2008 to December 2015, we recorded an average of 7906 visits per year (3809 in 2008; 8874 in 2015), 65.85% of which involved new visitors (5206/7906). The average number of pages viewed per visit was 3.2 and average bounce rate was 57.87% (4575/7906). Visitors spent an average of two minutes and 12 seconds per visit. We computed visits from 162 countries, with the majority from Canada (5910/7906, 74.75%). In order of frequency, the seven most visited pages were: (1) home page with news of publications and grants (24,787 visits), (2) profile of Chairholder (8041 visits), (3) profiles of research team members (6272 visits), (4) list of research team members (4593 visits), (5) inventory of shared decision making (SDM) programs (1856 visits), (6) interprofessional approaches to SDM (1689 visits), and (7) description of Chair activities (1350 visits). From the inception of the Twitter account in April 2011 to November 30, 2016 we recorded 5831 tweets in French and English, 1679 followers, and 1112 follows. The total number of visits and visitors to the website increased during the first three years, stabilized, and then dropped slightly, while the number of returning visitors rose slightly. In comparison, citations of the Chair's articles increased steadily over the same period, rising more sharply as visits to the website declined. CONCLUSIONS: Over an eight-year period, visitors to the website increased in the first three years before levelling off. Meanwhile, the Chair's citations rose continuously. There was no observable association between website visits or Twitter activity and rising citations. Our results suggest that online dissemination may not yet be a major determinant of research uptake or visibility in the scientific community.

Training health professionals in shared decision making: Update of an international environmental scan.

OBJECTIVE: To update an environmental scan of training programs in SDM for health professionals. METHODS: We searched two systematic reviews for SDM training programs targeting health professionals produced from 2011 to 2015, and also in Google and social networks. With a standardized data extraction sheet, one reviewer extracted program characteristics. All completed extraction forms were validated by a second reviewer. RESULTS: We found 94 new eligible programs in four new countries and two new languages, for a total of 148 programs produced from 1996 to 2015-an increase of 174% in four years. The largest percentage appeared since 2012 (45.27%). Of the 94 newprograms, 42.55% targeted licensed health professionals (n=40), 8.51% targeted pre-licensure (n=8), 28.72% targeted both (n=27), 20.21% did not specify (n=19), and 5.32% targeted also patients (n=5). Only 23.40% of the new programs were reported as evaluated, and 21.28% had published evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Production of SDM training programs is growing fast worldwide. Like the original scan, this update indicates that SDM training programs still vary widely. Most still focus on the single provider/patient dyad and few are evaluated. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This update highlights the need to adapt training programs to interprofessional practice and to evaluate them.

Improving Decision Making about Genetic Testing in the Clinic: An Overview of Effective Knowledge Translation Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge translation (KT) interventions are attempts to change behavior in keeping with scientific evidence. While genetic tests are increasingly available to healthcare consumers in the clinic, evidence about their benefits is unclear and decisions about genetic testing are thus difficult for all parties. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify KT interventions that involved decisions about genetic testing in the clinical context and to assess their effectiveness for improving decision making in terms of behavior change, increased knowledge and wellbeing. METHODS: We searched for trials assessing KT interventions in the context of genetic testing up to March 2014 in all systematic reviews (n = 153) published by two Cochrane review groups: Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) and Consumers and Communication. RESULTS: We retrieved 2473 unique trials of which we retained only 28 (1%). Two EPOC reviews yielded two trials of KT interventions: audit and feedback (n = 1) and educational outreach (n = 1). Both targeted health professionals and the KT intervention they assessed was found to be effective. Four Consumers and Communication reviews yielded 26 trials: decision aids (n = 15), communication of DNA-based disease risk estimates (n = 7), personalized risk communication (n = 3) and mobile phone messaging (n = 1). Among these, 25 trials targeted only health consumers or patients and the KT interventions were found to be effective in four trials, partly effective in seven, and ineffective in four. Lastly, only one trial targeted both physicians and patients and was found to be effective. CONCLUSIONS: More research on the effectiveness of KT interventions regarding genetic testing in the clinical context may contribute to patients making informed value-based decisions and drawing the maximum benefit from clinical applications of genetic and genomic innovations.

Do choosing wisely tools meet criteria for patient decision aids? A descriptive analysis of patient materials.

OBJECTIVES: Choosing Wisely is a remarkable physician-led campaign to reduce unnecessary or harmful health services. Some of the literature identifies Choosing Wisely as a shared decision-making approach. We evaluated the patient materials developed by Choosing Wisely Canada to determine whether they meet the criteria for shared decision-making tools known as patient decision aids. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of all Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials. DATA SOURCE: In May 2015, we selected all Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials from its official website. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four team members independently extracted characteristics of the English materials using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) modified 16-item minimum criteria for qualifying and certifying patient decision aids. The research team discussed discrepancies between data extractors and reached a consensus. Descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Of the 24 patient materials assessed, 12 were about treatments, 11 were about screening and 1 was about prevention. The median score for patient materials using IPDAS criteria was 10/16 (range: 8-11) for screening topics and 6/12 (range: 6-9) for prevention and treatment topics. Commonly missed criteria were stating the decision (21/24 did not), providing balanced information on option benefits/harms (24/24 did not), citing evidence (24/24 did not) and updating policy (24/24 did not). Out of 24 patient materials, only 2 met the 6 IPDAS criteria to qualify as patient decision aids, and neither of these 2 met the 6 certifying criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Patient materials developed by Choosing Wisely Canada do not meet the IPDAS minimal qualifying or certifying criteria for patient decision aids. Modifications to the Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials would help to ensure that they qualify as patient decision aids and thus as more effective shared decision-making tools.