Shared Decision-Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening for Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sepucha KR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11344228 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Shared Decision-Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening for Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.
Sepucha Karen R KR Chang Yuchiao Y Valentine K D KD Atlas Steven J SJ Han Paul K J PKJ Leavitt Lauren J LJ Mancini Brittney B Richter James M JM Siegel Lydia C LC Fairfield Kathleen M KM Simmons Leigh H LH
JAMA network open 20240801 8
<h4>Importance</h4>Decisions about whether to stop colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests in older adults can be difficult and may benefit from shared decision-making (SDM).<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the effect of physician training in SDM and electronic previsit reminders (intervention) vs reminders only (comparator) on receipt of the patient-preferred approach to CRC screening and on overall CRC screening rates of older adults at 12 months.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This was ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundEliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet providers often fail to comply with patient preferences that differ from their own.PurposeTo determine whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) influences provider willingness to comply with patient preferences when selecting a desired CRC screening option.DesignRandomized controlled trial.Setting/participantsAsymptomatic, average-risk patients due for CRC screening in an urban safety net health care setting.InterventionPatients were randomized 1:1 to a decision aid alone (n= 168) or decision aid plus risk assessment (n= 173) arm between September 2012 and September 2014.OutcomesThe primary outcome was concordance between patient preference and test ordered; secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, test completion rates, and provider satisfaction.ResultsAlthough providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in selecting an appropriate screening test for their average-risk patients, no significant differences in concordance were observed between the decision aid alone and decision aid plus risk assessment groups (88.1% v. 85.0%,P= 0.40) or high- and low-risk groups (84.5% v. 87.1%,P= 0.51). Concordance was highest for colonoscopy and relatively low for tests other than colonoscopy, regardless of study arm or risk group. Failure to comply with patient preferences was negatively associated with satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, and test completion rates.LimitationsSingle-institution setting; lack of provider education about the utility of risk stratification into their decision making.ConclusionsProviders perceived risk stratification to be useful in their decision making but often failed to comply with patient preferences for tests other than colonoscopy, even among those deemed to be at low risk of ACN.
| S-EPMC4818180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBecause major surgery carries significant risks for older adults with comorbid conditions, shared decision-making is recommended to ensure patients receive care consistent with their goals. However, it is unknown how often shared decision-making is used for these patients.ObjectiveTo describe the use of shared decision-making during discussions about major surgery with older adults.Design, setting, and participantsThis study is a secondary analysis of conversations audio recorded during a randomized clinical trial of a question prompt list. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 31, 2018, from 43 surgeons and 446 patients 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity at outpatient surgical clinics at 5 academic centers.InterventionsPatients received a question prompt list brochure that contained questions they could ask a surgeon.Main outcomes and measuresThe 5-domain Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-making (OPTION5) score (range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater shared decision-making) was used to measure shared decision-making.ResultsA total of 378 surgical consultations were analyzed (mean [SD] patient age, 71.9 [7.2] years; 206 [55%] male; 312 [83%] White). The mean (SD) OPTION5 score was 34.7 (20.6) and was not affected by the intervention. The mean (SD) score in the group receiving the question prompt list was 36.7 (21.2); in the control group, the mean (SD) score was 32.9 (19.9) (effect estimate, 3.80; 95% CI, -0.30 to 8.00; P = .07). Individual surgeon use of shared decision-making varied greatly, with a lowest median score of 10 (IQR, 10-20) to a high of 65 (IQR, 55-80). Lower-performing surgeons had little variation in OPTION5 scores, whereas high-performing surgeons had wide variation. Use of shared decision-making increased when surgeons appeared reluctant to operate (effect estimate, 7.40; 95% CI, 2.60-12.20; P = .003). Although longer conversations were associated with slightly higher OPTION5 scores (effect estimate, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001), 57% of high-scoring transcripts were 26 minutes long or less. On multivariable analysis, patient age and gender, patient education, surgeon age, and surgeon gender were not significantly associated with OPTION5 scores.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that although shared decision-making is important to support the preferences of older adults considering major surgery, surgeon use of shared decision-making is highly variable. Skillful shared decision-making can be done in less than 30 minutes; however, surgeons who engage in high-scoring shared decision-making are more likely to do so when surgical intervention is less obviously beneficial for the patient.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.
| S-EPMC8943640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making is critical to optimal patient-centered care. For elective operations, when there is sufficient time for deliberate discussion, little is known about how surgeons navigate decision-making and how surgeons align care with patient preferences. In this context, we sought to explore surgeons' approaches to decision-making for adults ≥65 years at high-risk of postoperative complications or death.MethodsWe conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with 46 practicing surgeons across Michigan. Transcripts were iteratively analyzed through steps informed by inductive thematic analysis.ResultsFour major themes emerged characterizing how surgeons approach high-risk surgical decision-making for older adults: (1) risk assessment was defined as the process used by surgeons to identify and analyze factors that may negatively impact outcome; (2) expectations and goals described the process of surgeons engaging with patients and families to discuss potential outcomes and desired objectives; (3) external and internal motivating factors outlined extrinsic dynamics (eg, quality metrics, referrals) and intrinsic drivers (eg, surgeons' personal experiences) that influenced high-risk decision-making; and (4) decision-making approaches and challenges encompassed the roles of patients and surgeons and obstacles to engaging in a true shared decision-making process.ConclusionAlthough shared decision-making is strongly recommended, we found that surgeons who perform high-risk operations among older adults predominantly focused on assessing risk and setting expectations with patients and families rather than inviting them to actively participate in the decision-making process. Surgeons also reported influences on decision-making from quality metrics, referrals, and personal experiences. Patient involvement, however, was seldom discussed suggesting that surgeons may not be engaging in true shared decision-making when benefits should be weighed against a high likelihood of harm.
| S-EPMC8405456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFrail older adults and caregivers need support from their home care teams in making difficult housing decisions, such as whether to remain at home, with or without assistance, or move into residential care. However, home care teams are often understaffed and busy, and shared decision-making training is costly. Nevertheless, overall awareness of shared decision-making is increasing. We hypothesized that distributing a decision aid could be sufficient for providing decision support without the addition of shared decision-making training for home care teams.ObjectiveWe evaluated the effectiveness of adding web-based training and workshops for care teams in interprofessional shared decision-making to passive dissemination of a decision guide on the proportion of frail older adults or caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults reporting active roles in housing decision-making.MethodsWe conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial with home care teams in 9 health centers in Quebec, Canada. Participants were frail older adults or caregivers of cognitively impaired frail older adults facing housing decisions and receiving care from the home care team at one of the participating health centers. The intervention consisted of a 1.5-hour web-based tutorial for the home care teams plus a 3.5-hour interactive workshop in interprofessional shared decision-making using a decision guide that was designed to support frail older adults and caregivers in making housing decisions. The control was passive dissemination of the decision guide. The primary outcome was an active role in decision-making among frail older adults and caregivers, measured using the Control Preferences Scale. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict and perceptions of how much care teams involved frail older adults and caregivers in decision-making. We performed an intention-to-treat analysis.ResultsA total of 311 frail older adults were included in the analysis, including 208 (66.9%) women, with a mean age of 81.2 (SD 7.5) years. Among 339 caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults, 239 (70.5%) were female and their mean age was 66.4 (SD 11.7) years. The intervention increased the proportion of frail older adults reporting an active role in decision-making by 3.3% (95% CI -5.8% to 12.4%, P=.47) and the proportion of caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults by 6.1% (95% CI -11.2% to 23.4%, P=.49). There was no significant impact on the secondary outcomes. However, the mean score for the frail older adults' perception of how much health professionals involved them in decision-making increased by 5.4 (95% CI -0.6 to 11.4, P=.07) and the proportion of caregivers who reported decisional conflict decreased by 7.5% (95% CI -16.5% to 1.6%, P=.10).ConclusionsAlthough it slightly reduced decisional conflict for caregivers, shared decision-making training did not equip home care teams significantly better than provision of a decision aid for involving frail older adults and their caregivers in decision-making.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02592525; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02592525.
| S-EPMC9533197 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe aimed to systematically evaluate quality of shared decision-making (SDM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).MethodsSearch for CRC screening guidances was from 2010 to November 2021 in EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus and CDSR, and the World Wide Web. Three independent reviewers and an arbitrator rated the quality of each guidance using a SDM quality assessment tool (maximum score: 31). Reviewer agreement was 0.88.ResultsSDM appeared in 41/83 (49.4%) CPGs and 9/19 (47.4%) CSs. None met all the quality criteria, and 51.0% (52/102) failed to meet any quality items. Overall compliance was low (mean 1.63, IQR 0-2). Quality was better in guidances published after 2015 (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p = 0.048) and when the term SDM was specifically reported (mean 4.5, IQR 2.5-4.5 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p < 0.001). CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews showed better SDM quality than consensus (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0, IQR 0-2, p = 0.040).ConclusionSDM quality was suboptimal and mentioned in less than half of the guidances, and recommendations were scarce. Guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based SDM recommendations in guidances to underpin the translation of evidence into practice.
| S-EPMC9786598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Thousands of colonoscopies were canceled during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. As facilities resumed services, some patients were hesitant to reschedule. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a decision aid plus telephone coaching would increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and improve patient reports of shared decision making (SDM). A randomized controlled trial assigned adults aged 45-75 without prior history of CRC who had a colonoscopy canceled from March to May 2020 to intervention (n = 400) or usual care control (n = 400) arms. The intervention arm received three-page decision aid and call from decision coach from September 2020 through November 2020. Screening rates were collected at 6 months. A subset (n = 250) in each arm was surveyed 8 weeks after randomization to assess SDM (scores range 0-4, higher scores indicating more SDM), decisional conflict, and screening preference. The sample was on average, 60 years old, 53% female, 74% White, non-Hispanic, and 11% Spanish speaking. More intervention arm patients were screened within 6 months (35% intervention vs 23% control, p < 0.001). The intervention respondents reported higher SDM scores (mean difference 0.7 [0.4, 0.9], p < 0.001) and less decisional conflict than controls (-21% [-35%, -7%], p = 0.003). The majority in both arms preferred screening versus delaying (68% intervention vs. 65% control, p = 0.75). An SDM approach that offered alternatives and incorporated patients' preferences resulted in higher screening rates. Patients who are overdue for CRC screening may benefit from proactive outreach with SDM support.
| S-EPMC9939149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceFor antidepressants, the translation of evidence of comparative effectiveness into practice is suboptimal. This deficit directly affects outcomes and quality of care for patients with depression. To overcome this problem, we developed the Depression Medication Choice (DMC) encounter decision aid, designed to help patients and clinicians consider the available antidepressants and the extent to which they improved depression and other issues important to patients.ObjectiveEstimate the effect of DMC on quality of the decision-making process and depression outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsWe conducted a cluster randomized trial of adults with moderate to severe depression considering treatment with an antidepressant. Primary care practices in 10 rural, suburban, and urban primary care practices across Minnesota and Wisconsin were randomly allocated to treatment of depression with or without use of the DMC decision aid.InterventionDepression Medication Choice, a series of cards, each highlighting the effect of the available options on an issue of importance to patients for use during face-to-face consultations.Main outcomes and measuresDecision-making quality as judged by patient knowledge and involvement in decision making, patient and clinician decisional comfort (Decisional Conflict Scale) and satisfaction, encounter duration, medication adherence, depression symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9).ResultsWe enrolled 117 clinicians and 301 patients (67% women; mean [SD] age, 44 [15] years; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 15 [4]) into the trial. Compared with usual care (UC), use of DMC significantly improved patients' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 75%; P = .02), knowledge (DMC, 65% vs UC, 56%; P = .03), satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], from 1.25 [P = .81] to RR, 2.4 [P = .002] depending on satisfaction domain), and involvement (DMC, 47% vs UC, 33%; P<.001). It also improved clinicians' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 68%; P < .001) and satisfaction (RR, 1.64; P = .02). There were no differences in encounter duration, medication adherence, or improvement of depression control between arms.Conclusions and relevanceThe DMC decision aid helped primary care clinicians and patients with moderate to severe depression select antidepressants together, improving the decision-making process without extending the visit. On the other hand, DMC had no discernible effect on medication adherence or depression outcomes. By translating comparative effectiveness into patient-centered care, use of DMC improved the quality of primary care for patients with depression.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01502891.
| S-EPMC4754973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk due to age and smoking history after a shared decision-making conversation. However, little is known about best strategies for incorporating shared decision-making, especially in a busy primary care setting.ObjectiveTo develop a novel tool, Lung Cancer Assessment of Risk and Education (LungCARE) to guide LCS decisions among eligible primary care patients.DesignPilot cluster randomized controlled trial of LungCARE versus usual care.ParticipantsPatients of providers in a university primary care clinic, who met criteria for LCS.InterventionProviders were randomized to LungCARE intervention or control. LungCARE participants completed a computer tablet-based video assessment of lung cancer educational needs in the waiting room prior to a primary care visit. Patient and provider both received a summary handout of patient concerns and responses.Main measuresAll eligible patients completed baseline interviews by telephone. One week after the index visit, participants completed a follow-up telephone survey that assessed patient-physician discussion of LCS, referral to and scheduling of LCS, as well as LCS knowledge and acceptability of LungCARE. Two months after index visit, we reviewed patients' electronic health records (EHRs) for evidence of a shared decision-making conversation and referral to and receipt of LCS.Key resultsA total of 66 participants completed baseline and follow-up visits (34: LungCARE; 32: usual care). Mean age was 65.9 (± 6.0). Based on EHR review, compared to usual care, LungCARE participants were more likely to have discussed LCS with their physicians (56% vs 25%; p = 0.04) and to be referred to LCS (44% vs 13%; p < 0.02). Intervention participants were also more likely to complete LCS (32% vs 13%; p < 0.01) and had higher knowledge scores (mean score 6.5 (± 1.7) vs 5.5 (± 1.4; p < 0.01).ConclusionsLungCARE increased discussion, referral, and completion of LCS and improved LCS knowledge.Clinical trial registrationNCT03862001.
| S-EPMC10651593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent US colorectal cancer screening guidelines that call for shared decision making regarding the choice among several recommended screening options are difficult to implement. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an established method well suited for supporting shared decision making. Our study goal was to determine whether a streamlined form of MCDA using rank-order-based judgments can accurately assess patients' colorectal cancer screening priorities.MethodsWe converted priorities for 4 decision criteria and 3 subcriteria regarding colorectal cancer screening obtained from 484 average-risk patients using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in a prior study into rank-order-based priorities using rank order centroids. We compared the 2 sets of priorities using Spearman rank correlation and nonparametric Bland-Altman limits of agreement analysis. We assessed the differential impact of using the rank-order-based versus the AHP-based priorities on the results of a full MCDA comparing 3 currently recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies. Generalizability of the results was assessed using Monte Carlo simulation.ResultsCorrelations between the 2 sets of priorities for the 7 criteria ranged from 0.55 to 0.92. The proportions of differences between rank-order-based and AHP-based priorities that were more than ±0.15 ranged from 1% to 16%. Differences in the full MCDA results were minimal, and the relative rankings of the 3 screening options were identical more than 88% of the time. The Monte Carlo simulation results were similar.ConclusionsRank-order-based MCDA could be a simple, practical way to guide individual decisions and assess population decision priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening strategies. Additional research is warranted to further explore the use of these methods for promoting shared decision making.
| S-EPMC4055507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).ObjectiveWe examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.DesignMulticenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.ApproachWe performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.ParticipantsWe interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.ResultsAll clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.
| S-EPMC7018920 | biostudies-literature