Search

Objective: Growing interest in collaborative goal-setting has raised questions. First, are patients making the 'right choices' from a biomedical perspective? Second, are patients and providers setting goals of appropriate difficulty? Finally, what types of support will patients need to accomplish their goals? We analyzed goals and action plans from a trial of collaborative goal-setting among 302 residents of a high-poverty urban region who had multiple chronic conditions.Methods: Patients used a low-literacy aid to prioritize one of their chronic conditions and then set a goal for that condition with their primary care provider. Patients created patient-driven action plans for reaching these goals.Results: Patients chose to focus on conditions that were in poor control and set ambitious chronic disease management goals. The mean goal weight loss -16.8lbs (SD 19.5), goal HbA1C reduction was -1.3% (SD 1.7%) and goal blood pressure reduction was -9.8mmHg (SD 19.2mmHg). Patient-driven action plans spanned domains including health behavior (58.9%) and psychosocial (23.5%).Conclusions: High-risk, low-SES patients identified high priority conditions, set ambitious goals and generate individualized action plans for chronic disease management.Practice Implications: Practices may require flexible personnel who can support patients using a blend of coaching, social support and navigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate whether introducing tools, specifically designed for use in clinical encounters, namely Option Grids, into a clinical practice setting leads to higher levels of shared decision making.Methods: A stepped wedge trial design where 6 physiotherapists at an interface clinic in Oldham, UK, were sequentially instructed in how to use an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee. Patients with suspected or confirmed osteoarthritis of the knee were recruited, six per clinician prior to instruction, and six per clinician afterwards. We measured shared decision making, patient knowledge, and readiness to decide.Results: A total of 72 patients were recruited; 36 were allocated to the intervention group. There was an 8.4 point (95% CI 4.4 to 12.2) increase in the Observer OPTION score (range 0-100) in the intervention group. The mean gain in knowledge was 0.9 points (score range 0-5, 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5). There was no increase in encounter duration.Conclusion: Shared decision making increased when clinicians used the knee osteoarthritis Option Grid.Practice Implications: Tools designed to support collaboration and deliberation about treatment options lead to increased levels of shared decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]