Dataset Information

Factors influencing the implementation of shared decision-making in breast cancer care: protocol for a mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Chile is committed to actively involving patients in their healthcare. However, little is known about how this is translated into clinical encounters. Breast cancer (BC) is the first cause of cancer-related death in Chilean women. National policy guarantees standard care, and treatment decisions should be made along this process that can have long-term consequences for women. So, BC is a particularly well-suited case study to understand the complexity of patient participation in decision-making.

Objective

To identify the factors that affect the active involvement of patients in the BC treatment decision-making process, considering the perspectives and practices of health professionals and women facing the disease.

Method and analysis

We will conduct a mixed-method study through a convergent parallel design in three stages: (1) A qualitative study: non-participant observation of the tumour board (TB) meetings; semi-structured interviews with key informants from TBs; documentary analyses; semi-structured interviews with women facing BC; and non-participant observations of clinical encounters; (2) a cross-sectional study with 445 women facing BC stages I-III from three hospitals in Santiago, Chile. We will measure the level of expected participation, experienced participation, decisional conflict, quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction with healthcare. Descriptive analysis will be performed, and multivariable binary logistic regression models will be adjusted to identify factors associated with high levels of QoL or satisfaction; (3) an integration study will bring together the data through a joint display technique.

Ethics and dissemination

The study has been conceived and will be conducted according to international and local agreements for ethical research. Ethical approval has been granted by two Ethics Committees in Chile.The results will be disseminated to scientific and lay audiences (publications in scientific journals and conferences, seminars and a website for plain language dissemination).

SUBMITTER: Bravo P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10360429 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors influencing the implementation of shared decision-making in breast cancer care: protocol for a mixed-methods study.

Bravo Paulina P Dois Angelina A Villarroel Luis L González-Agüero Marcela M Fernández-González Loreto L Sánchez César C Martinez Alejandra A Turén Valentina V Quezada Constanza C Guasalaga María Elisabeth ME Härter Martin M

BMJ open 20230720 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>Chile is committed to actively involving patients in their healthcare. However, little is known about how this is translated into clinical encounters. Breast cancer (BC) is the first cause of cancer-related death in Chilean women. National policy guarantees standard care, and treatment decisions should be made along this process that can have long-term consequences for women. So, BC is a particularly well-suited case study to understand the complexity of patient participatio ...[more]

PMID: 37474182

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth care decisions are a critical determinant in the evolution of chronic illness. In shared decision-making (SDM), patients and clinicians work collaboratively to reach evidence-based health decisions that align with individual circumstances, values, and preferences. This personalized approach to clinical care likely has substantial benefits in the oversight of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), a type of nontraumatic spinal cord injury. Its chronicity, heterogeneous clinical presentation, complex management, and variable disease course engenders an imperative for a patient-centric approach that accounts for each patient's unique needs and priorities. Inadequate patient knowledge about the condition and an incomplete understanding of the critical decision points that arise during the course of care currently hinder the fruitful participation of health care providers and patients in SDM. This study protocol presents the rationale for deploying SDM for DCM and delineates the groundwork required to achieve this.ObjectiveThe study's primary outcome is the development of a comprehensive checklist to be implemented upon diagnosis that provides patients with essential information necessary to support their informed decision-making. This is known as a core information set (CIS). The secondary outcome is the creation of a detailed process map that provides a diagrammatic representation of the global care workflows and cognitive processes involved in DCM care. Characterizing the critical decision points along a patient's journey will allow for an effective exploration of SDM tools for routine clinical practice to enhance patient-centered care and improve clinical outcomes.MethodsBoth CISs and process maps are coproduced iteratively through a collaborative process involving the input and consensus of key stakeholders. This will be facilitated by Myelopathy.org, a global DCM charity, through its Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy community. To develop the CIS, a 3-round, web-based Delphi process will be used, starting with a baseline list of information items derived from a recent scoping review of educational materials in DCM, patient interviews, and a qualitative survey of professionals. A priori criteria for achieving consensus are specified. The process map will be developed iteratively using semistructured interviews with patients and professionals and validated by key stakeholders.ResultsRecruitment for the Delphi consensus study began in April 2023. The pilot-testing of process map interview participants started simultaneously, with the formulation of an initial baseline map underway.ConclusionsThis protocol marks the first attempt to provide a starting point for investigating SDM in DCM. The primary work centers on developing an educational tool for use in diagnosis to enable enhanced onward decision-making. The wider objective is to aid stakeholders in developing SDM tools by identifying critical decision junctures in DCM care. Through these approaches, we aim to provide an exhaustive launchpad for formulating SDM tools in the wider DCM community.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/46809.

Project description:BackgroundDecisions about prenatal screening to assess the risk of genetic conditions such as Down syndrome are complex and should be well informed. Moreover, the number of available tests is increasing. Shared decision making (SDM) about testing could be facilitated by decision aids powered by mobile technology.ObjectiveIn this mixed methods study, we aim to (1) assess women's needs and preferences regarding using an app for considering prenatal screening, (2) develop a decision model using the analytical hierarchy process, and (3) develop an analytical app and assess its usability and usefulness.MethodsIn phase 1, we will assess the needs of 90 pregnant women and their partners (if available). We will identify eligible participants in 3 clinical sites (a midwife-led birthing center, a family practice clinic, and an obstetrician-led hospital-based clinic) in Quebec City and Montreal, Canada. Using semistructured interviews, we will assess participants' attitudes toward mobile apps for decision making about health, their current use of apps for health purposes, and their expectations of an app for prenatal testing decisions. Self-administered questionnaires will collect sociodemographic information, intentions to use an app for prenatal testing, and perceived importance of decision criteria. Qualitative data will be transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. In phase 2, we will develop a decision model using the AHP whereby users can assign relative importance to criteria when deciding between options. We will validate the model with potential users and a multidisciplinary team of patients, family physicians, primary care researchers, decision sciences experts, engineers, and experts in SDM, genetics, and bioethics. In phase 3, we will develop a prototype of the app using the results of the first 2 phases, pilot test its usefulness and usability among a sample of 15 pregnant women and their partners (if available), and improve it through 3 iterations. Data will be collected with a self-administered questionnaire. Results will be analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsRecruitment for phase 1 will begin in 2019. We expect results to be available in 2021.ConclusionsThis study will result in a validated analytical app that will provide pregnant women and their partners with up-to-date information about prenatal screening options and their risks and benefits. It will help them clarify their values and enable them to weigh the options to make informed choices consistent with their preferences and values before meeting face-to-face with their health care professional. The app will be easy to update with the latest information and will provide women with a user-friendly experience using their smartphones or tablets. This study and the resulting app will contribute to high-quality SDM between pregnant women and their health care team.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/13321.

Project description:IntroductionDecision analysis is a quantitative approach to decision making that could bridge the gap between decisions based solely on evidence and the unique values and preferences of individual patients, a feature especially important when existing evidence cannot support clear recommendations and there is a close balance between harms and benefits for the treatments options under consideration. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during pregnancy represents one such situation. The objective of this paper is to describe the rationale and methodology of a pilot study that will explore the application of decision analysis to a shared decision-making process involving prophylactic LMWH for pregnant women or those considering pregnancy who have experienced a VTE.Methods and analysisWe will conduct an international, mixed methods, explanatory, sequential study, including quantitative data collection and analysis followed by qualitative data collection and analysis. In step I, we will ask women who are pregnant or considering pregnancy and have experienced VTE to participate in a shared decision-making intervention for prophylactic LMWH. The intervention consists of three components: a direct choice exercise, a values elicitation exercise and a personalised decision analysis. After administration of the intervention, we will ask women to make a treatment decision and measure decisional conflict, self-efficacy and satisfaction. In step II, which follows the analysis of quantitative data, we will use the results to inform the qualitative interview. Step III will be a qualitative descriptive study that explores participants' experiences and perceptions of the intervention. In step IV, we will integrate findings from the qualitative and quantitative analyses to obtain meta-inferences.Ethics and disseminationSite-specific ethics boards have approved the study. All participants will provide informed consent. The research team will take an integrated approach to knowledge translation.

Project description:IntroductionGlobally, about half of all pregnancies are unintended and/or unwanted and three-fifths of these end in induced abortion. When faced with a choice to terminate pregnancy, women's abortion decision-making processes are often complex and multiphasic and maybe amplified in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) which bear the major burden of abortion-related morbidity and mortality. Our review aims to (1) describe abortion decision-making trajectories for women in LMICs and (2) investigate factors influencing the choice of abortion decision-making trajectories in LMICs.Methods and analysisWe will search and retrieve published and unpublished qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods, community and/or hospital-based studies conducted in LMICs from 1 January 2000 up to 16 February 2021. We will search Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycInfo, Ovid Global Health, Web of Science (including Social Science Citation Index), Scopus, IBSS, CINAHL via EBSCO, WHO Global Index Medicus, the Cochrane Library, WHO website, ProQuest and Google Scholar. We will search reference lists of eligible studies and contact experts for additional data/information, if required. We will extract all relevant data to answer our research questions and assess study quality using the appropriate appraisal tools. Depending on the extracted data, our analysis will use sequential or convergent synthesis methods proposed by Hong et al. For qualitative studies, we will synthesise evidence using thematic synthesis, meta-ethnography or 'best-fit' framework synthesis; and for quantitative findings, we will provide a narrative synthesis and/or meta-analysis. We will do sensitivity analyses and assess confidence in our findings using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, and Evaluation -Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQUal) for qualitative findings and Grades of Recommednation, Assessment, and Evaluation (GRADE) for quantitative findings.Ethics and disseminationWe did not require ethics approval for this systematic review. We will publish our findings in an open-access peer-reviewed journal with global and maternal health readership. We will also present our findings at national and international scientific conferences.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer risk and life expectancy vary substantially across patients eligible for low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening (LCS), which has important consequences for optimizing LCS decisions for different patients. To account for this heterogeneity during decision-making, web-based decision support tools are needed to enable quick calculations and streamline the process of obtaining individualized information that more accurately informs patient-clinician LCS discussions. We created DecisionPrecision, a clinician-facing web-based decision support tool, to help tailor the LCS discussion to a patient's individualized lung cancer risk and estimated net benefit.ObjectiveThe objective of our study is to test two strategies for implementing DecisionPrecision in primary care at eight Veterans Affairs medical centers: a quality improvement (QI) training approach and academic detailing (AD).MethodsPhase 1 comprised a multisite, cluster randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of standard implementation (adding a link to DecisionPrecision in the electronic health record vs standard implementation plus the Learn, Engage, Act, and Process [LEAP] QI training program). The primary outcome measure was the use of DecisionPrecision at each site before versus after LEAP QI training. The second phase of the study examined the potential effectiveness of AD as an implementation strategy for DecisionPrecision at all 8 medical centers. Outcomes were assessed by comparing absolute tool use before and after AD visits and conducting semistructured interviews with a subset of primary care physicians (PCPs) following the AD visits.ResultsPhase 1 findings showed that sites that participated in the LEAP QI training program used DecisionPrecision significantly more often than the standard implementation sites (tool used 190.3, SD 174.8 times on average over 6 months at LEAP sites vs 3.5 SD 3.7 at standard sites; P<.001). However, this finding was confounded by the lack of screening coordinators at standard implementation sites. In phase 2, there was no difference in the 6-month tool use between before and after AD (95% CI -5.06 to 6.40; P=.82). Follow-up interviews with PCPs indicated that the AD strategy increased provider awareness and appreciation for the benefits of the tool. However, other priorities and limited time prevented PCPs from using them during routine clinical visits.ConclusionsThe phase 1 findings did not provide conclusive evidence of the benefit of a QI training approach for implementing a decision support tool for LCS among PCPs. In addition, phase 2 findings showed that our light-touch, single-visit AD strategy did not increase tool use. To enable tool use by PCPs, prediction-based tools must be fully automated and integrated into electronic health records, thereby helping providers personalize LCS discussions among their many competing demands. PCPs also need more time to engage in shared decision-making discussions with their patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02765412; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02765412.

Project description:IntroductionColorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes can reduce incidence and mortality from this condition if adherence to them is high. As patient experience and satisfaction are key factors in determining adherence to screening programmes, they need to be measured. Furthermore, to promote highly patient-centred healthcare, the perception of patients regarding shared decision-making during CRC screening needs to be known. This study aims to assess the experience, satisfaction and participation in decision-making of participants in a CRC screening programme and of patients diagnosed with CRC through this programme in relation to the diagnostic and therapeutic processes of cancer.Methods and analysisThe CyDESA study is a mixed-methods study with a four phase sequential design. In phase 1, we will conduct a systematic review of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for patient experience or satisfaction with CRC screening. In case no located PREM can be applied, in phase 2, we will develop a new PREM. We will use the Delphi methodology to reach consensus among experts and patients and will conduct a pilot test of the developed PREM. Phase 3 is a multicentric cross-sectional study based on self-reported questionnaires that will be conducted at three Spanish hospitals (n=843). The objective is to find out about the experience, satisfaction and participation in decision-making of participants in the CRC screening programme who have had a positive screening test result according to their final screening diagnosis: false positives, colorectal polyps or CRC. Phase 4 is a qualitative phenomenological study based on individual interviews. It will explore the experiences of participants in the CRC screening programme and of those diagnosed with CRC.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval by the Ethics Committees of Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Hospital de Sant Pau and Parc de Salut Mar. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberNCT04610086.

Project description:BackgroundOsteoarthritis is a leading cause of pain and disability. Knee osteoarthritis accounts for nearly four-fifths of the burden of osteoarthritis internationally, and 10% of adults in the United Kingdom have the condition. Shared decision-making (SDM) supports patients to make more informed choices about treatment and care while reducing inequities in access to treatment. We evaluated the experience of a team adapting an SDM tool for knee osteoarthritis and the tool's implementation potential within a local clinical commissioning group (CCG) area in southwest England. The tool aims to prepare patients and clinicians for SDM by providing evidence-based information about treatment options relevant to disease stage.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the experiences of a team adapting an SDM tool from one health context to another and the implementation potential of the tool in the local CCG area.MethodsA partnership approach using mixed methods was used to respond to recruitment challenges and ensure that study aims could be addressed within time restrictions. A web-based survey was used to obtain clinicians' feedback on experiences of using the SDM tool. Qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone or video call with a sample of stakeholders involved in adapting and implementing the tool in the local CCG area. Survey findings were summarized as frequencies and percentages. Content analysis was conducted on qualitative data using framework analysis, and data were mapped directly to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).ResultsOverall, 23 clinicians completed the survey, including first-contact physiotherapists (11/23, 48%), physiotherapists (7/23, 30%), specialist physiotherapists (4/23, 17%), and a general practitioner (1/23, 4%). Eight stakeholders involved in commissioning, adapting, and implementing the SDM tool were interviewed. Participants described barriers and facilitators to the adaptation, implementation, and use of the tool. Barriers included a lack of organizational culture that supported and resourced SDM, lack of clinician buy-in and awareness of the tool, challenges with accessibility and usability, and lack of adaptation for underserved communities. Facilitators included the influence of clinical leaders' belief that SDM tools can improve patient outcomes and National Health Service resource use, clinicians' positive experiences of using the tool, and improving awareness of the tool. Themes were mapped to 13 of the 14 TDF domains. Usability issues were described, which did not map to the TDF domains.ConclusionsThis study highlights barriers and facilitators to adapting and implementing tools from one health context to another. We recommend that tools selected for adaptation should have a strong evidence base, including evidence of effectiveness and acceptability in the original context. Legal advice should be sought regarding intellectual property early in the project. Existing guidance for developing and adapting interventions should be used. Co-design methods should be applied to improve adapted tools' accessibility and acceptability.

Dataset Information

Factors influencing the implementation of shared decision-making in breast cancer care: protocol for a mixed-methods study.

Introduction

Objective

Method and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Factors influencing the implementation of shared decision-making in breast cancer care: protocol for a mixed-methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets