Shared Decision-Making Tool for Self-Management of Home Therapies for Patients With Cystic Fibrosis.
ABSTRACT: Objective: Patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) undertake time-consuming programs of home therapies. Our objective was to develop a tool to help CF patients prioritize personal goals for some of these treatments. We describe the development and results of initial evaluation of this shared decision-making tool. Methods: Multicriteria decision-making method to develop a shared decision-making tool that integrates patient's values and perceptions of treatment impact on functionality/sense of well-being. Treatment efficacy data obtained through comprehensive review of English language literature and Cochrane reviews. Field study of 21 patients was performed to assess acceptability of the approach, understandability of the tool, and to determine whether there was sufficient patient-to-patient variability in treatment goals and patient preferences to make use of a personalized tool worthwhile. Results: Patients found the tool easy to understand and felt engaged as active participants in their care. The tool was responsive to variations in patient preferences. Priority scores were calculated (0-1.0 ± SD). Patients' most important treatment goals for improving lung health included improving breathing function (0.27 ± 0.11), improving functionality/sense of well-being (0.24 ± 0.13), preventing lung infection (0.21 ± 0.08), minimizing time to complete treatments (0.16 ± 0.12), and minimizing cost (0.11 ± 0.09). Conclusions: A shared decision-making tool that integrates patients' values and best evidence is feasible and could result in improved patient engagement in their own care.
Project description:Although patients with asthma would like more involvement in the decision-making process, and UK government policy concerning chronic conditions supports shared decision making, it is not widely used in practice.To investigate how nurses approach decision making in relation to inhaler choice and long-term inhaler use within a routine asthma consultation and to better understand the barriers and facilitators to shared decision making in practice.Semi-structured interviews were conducted with post-registration, qualified nurses who routinely undertook asthma consultations and were registered on a respiratory course. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using the Framework approach.Twenty participants were interviewed. Despite holding positive views about shared decision making, limited shared decision making was reported. Opportunities for patients to share decisions were only offered in relation to inhaler device, which were based on the nurse's pre-selected recommendations. Giving patients this 'choice' was seen as key to improving adherence.There is a discrepancy between nurses' understanding of shared decision making and the depictions of shared decision making presented in the academic literature and NHS policy. In this study, shared decision making was used as a tool to support the nurses' agenda, rather than as a natural expression of equality between the nurse and patient.There is a misalignment between the goals of practice nurses and the rhetoric regarding patient empowerment. Shared decision making may therefore only be embraced if it improves patient outcomes. This study indicates attitudinal shifts and improvements in knowledge of 'shared decision-making' are needed if policy dictates are to be realised.
Project description:Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at high risk for aortic valve replacement are a unique population with multiple treatment options, including medical therapy, surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Traditionally, in elderly populations, goals of treatment may favour quality of life over survival. Professional guidelines recommend that clinicians engage patients in shared decision making, a process that may lead to decisions more aligned with patient-defined goals of care. Goals of care for high-risk patients with AS are not well defined in the literature, and patient-reported barriers to shared decision making highlight the need for explicit encouragement from clinicians for patient involvement.The purpose of this study was to elicit and report patient-defined goals from elderly patients facing treatment decisions for severe AS.This analysis was conducted at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, an academic medical institution. In a retrospective manner, we qualitatively analysed goal statements reported by high-risk, elderly patients with severe AS evaluated for TAVR between June 2012 and August 2014.Forty-six patients provided treatment goals during consideration of TAVR and defined preferred outcomes as maintaining independence, staying alive, reducing symptoms or, most commonly, increasing their ability to do a specific activity or hobby.In the high-risk patient population considering TAVR, patient-reported goals may be obtained with a simple question delivered during the clinical encounter. Encouraging patients to define their goals may lead to a greater degree of shared decision making, as advocated in current professional guidelines.
Project description:<i>Background</i>. Most people with multiple sclerosis (MS) want to be involved in medical decision making about disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but new approaches are needed to overcome barriers to participation. <i>Objectives</i>. We sought to develop a shared decision-making (SDM) tool for MS DMTs, evaluate patient and provider responses to the tool, and address challenges encountered during development to guide a future trial. <i>Methods</i>. We created a patient-centered design process informed by image theory to develop the MS-SUPPORT SDM tool. Development included semistructured interviews and alpha and beta testing with MS patients and providers. Beta testing assessed dissemination and clinical integration strategies, decision-making processes, communication, and adherence. Patients evaluated the tool before and after a clinic visit. <i>Results</i>. MS-SUPPORT combines self-assessment with tailored feedback to help patients identify their treatment goals and preferences, correct misperceptions, frame decisions, and promote adherence. MS-SUPPORT generates a personal summary of their responses that patients can share with their provider to facilitate communication. Alpha testing (14 patients) identified areas needing improvement, resulting in reorganization and shortening of the tool. MS-SUPPORT was highly rated in beta testing (15 patients, 4 providers) on patient-provider communication, patient preparation, adherence, and other endpoints. Dissemination through both patient and provider networks appeared feasible. All patient testers wanted to share the summary report with their provider, but only 60% did. <i>Limitations</i>. Small sample size, no comparison group. <i>Conclusions</i>. The development process resulted in a patient-centered SDM tool for MS that may facilitate patient involvement in decision making, help providers understand their patients' preferences, and improve adherence, though further testing is needed. Beta testing in real-world conditions was critical to prepare the tool for future testing and inform the design of future studies.
Project description:Intensive therapies in pediatric malignancies increased survival rates but also occurrence of treatment-related morbidities. Therefore, supportive care fulfills an increasingly important role. In planning development of guidelines with incorporation of shared decision making, we noticed that little is known about the needs and preferences of patients and their parents. Our goals were therefore to investigate (1) which supportive care topics patients and parents regard as most important and (2) the preferred role they wish to fulfill in decision making.This qualitative study consisted of three focus groups (two traditional, one online) with patients and parents of two Dutch pediatric oncology centers. Data were transcribed as simple verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.Eleven adolescent patients and 18 parents shared detailed views on various aspects of supportive care. Themes of major importance were communication between patient and physician (commitment, accessibility, proactive attitude of physicians), well-timed provision of information, and the suitability and accessibility of psychosocial care. In contrast to prioritized supportive care topics by medical professionals, somatic issues (e.g., febrile neutropenia) were infrequently addressed. Patients and parents preferred to be actively involved in decision making in selected topics, such as choice of analgesics and anti-emetics, but not in, e.g., choice of antibiotics.Children with cancer and parents were provided a valuable insight into their views regarding supportive care and shared decision making. These results have important implications towards improving supportive care, both in selecting topics for guideline development and incorporating preferences of patients and parents herein.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic conditions present major health problems, affecting an increasing number of individuals who experience a variety of symptoms that impact their health related quality of life. Digital tools can be of support in chronic conditions, potentially improving patient-provider communication, promoting shared decision making for treatment and care, and possibly even improving patient outcomes. This study aimed to develop a digital tool for patient-provider communication in chronic health care settings and describes the data collection and subsequent content and software development of the InvolveMe tool. InvolveMe will provide patients with the opportunity to report symptoms and preferences to their health care providers (HCP), and to use secure messaging to interact with the HCPs. METHOD:The study employed a combination of interviews with patients with chronic conditions and focus groups with HCPs, examining experiences with chronic conditions and the potential use of a digital tool for support. Participants were recruited from two outpatient clinics at a university hospital. Data collected from interviews and focus groups were analysed using thematic analysis. Content and software development was informed by the data collection and by tool development workshops. RESULTS:Analyses from interviews with patients (n?=?14) and focus groups with HCPs (n?=?11) generated three main themes: 1) Making symptoms and challenges visible, 2) Mastering a new life, and 3) Digital opportunities for follow-up. Each main theme generated separate subthemes. Theme 1 and 2 gave input for content development of the symptom and needs assessment part of the tool, while theme 3 provided ideas for the software development of the InvolveMe tool. Tool development workshops with patients (n?=?6) and HCPs (n?=?6) supplemented the development. CONCLUSIONS:A digital tool such as InvolveMe has the potential to support shared decision making for patients with chronic health conditions. Through integration with an existing patient portal such a tool can provide opportunities for meaningful interactions and communication between patients and HCP's, particularly with regards to symptoms, needs and preferences for care.
Project description:Patient-centered approaches to improving medication adherence hold promise, but evidence of their effectiveness is unclear. This review reports the current state of scientific research around interventions to improve medication management through four patient-centered domains: shared decision-making, methods to enhance effective prescribing, systems for eliciting and acting on patient feedback about medication use and treatment goals, and medication-taking behavior.We reviewed literature on interventions that fell into these domains and were published between January 2007 and May 2013. Two reviewers abstracted information and categorized studies by intervention type.We identified 60 studies, of which 40% focused on patient education. Other intervention types included augmented pharmacy services, decision aids, shared decision-making, and clinical review of patient adherence. Medication adherence was an outcome in most (70%) of the studies, although 50% also examined patient-centered outcomes.We identified a large number of medication management interventions that incorporated patient-centered care and improved patient outcomes. We were unable to determine whether these interventions are more effective than traditional medication adherence interventions.Additional research is needed to identify effective and feasible approaches to incorporate patient-centeredness into the medication management processes of the current health care system, if appropriate.
Project description:Objectives To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement.Design Multistage consultation process.Setting Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties.Participants 19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties.Results After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on "team talk," "option talk," and "decision talk," to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals.Conclusions The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Shared decision-making incorporates patients' values and preferences to achieve high-quality decisions. The objective of this study was to develop an acceptable patient decision aid to facilitate shared decision-making for the management of small renal masses (SRMs). METHODS:The International Patient Decision Aids Standards were used to guide an evidence-based development process. Management options included active surveillance, thermal ablation, partial nephrectomy, and radical nephrectomy. A literature review was performed to provide incidence rates for outcomes of each option. Once a prototype was complete, alpha-testing was performed using a 10-question survey to assess acceptability with patients, patient advocates, urologists, and methodological experts. The primary outcome was acceptability of the decision aid. RESULTS:A novel patient decision aid was created to facilitate shared decision-making for the management of SRMs. Acceptability testing was performed with 20 patients, 10 urologists, two patient advocates, and one methodological expert. Responders indicated the decision aid was appropriate in length (82%, 27/33), well-balanced (82%, 27/33), and had language that was easy to follow (94%, 31/33). All patient responders felt the decision aid would have been helpful during their consultation and would recommend the decision aid for future patients (100%, 20/20). Most urologists reported they intend to use the decision aid (90%, 9/10). CONCLUSIONS:A novel patient decision aid was created to facilitate shared decision-making for management of SRMs. This clinical tool was acceptable with patients, patient advocates, and urologists and is freely available at: https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/decaids.html.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To describe and measure the shared decision-making (SDM) experience, including goal-setting experiences, from the perspective of patients and providers in diverse community-rehabilitation settings. DESIGN:Prospective, longitudinal surveys. SETTING:13 primary level-of-care community-rehabilitation sites in diverse areas varying in geography, patient population and provider discipline341 adult, English-speaking patient-participants, and 66 provider-participants. MEASURES:Alberta Shared decision-maKing Measurement Instrument (dyadic tool measuring SDM), WatLX (outpatient rehabilitation experience) and demographic questionnaire. Survey packages distributed at two timepoints (T0=recruitment; T1=3 months later). RESULTS:We found that among 341 patient-provider dyads, 26.4% agreed that the appointment at recruitment involved high-quality SDM. Patient perceptions of goal-setting suggested that 19.6% of patients did not set a goal for their care, and only 11.4% set goals in functional language that tied directly to an activity/role/responsibility that was meaningful to their life. Better SDM was clinically associated with higher total family income (p=0.045). CONCLUSIONS:These findings provide evidence for the importance of SDM and goal setting in community rehabilitation. Among patients, lower ratings of SDM corresponded with less recognition of their preferences. Actionable strategies include supporting financially vulnerable patients in realising SDM through training of providers to make extra space for such patients to share their preferences and better preparing patients to articulate their preferences. We recommend more research into strategies that advance highly functional goal setting with patients, and that lessen survey ceiling effects.