Search

The aim of this study was to explore women's preferences and experiences of degree of control in decision making when planning an induction of labor (IOL). This multi‐method study was conducted using semi‐structured individual interviews and the completion of two Control Preferences Scales by eight postnatal women from a metropolitan health service in Melbourne, Australia. Four themes were generated from the interview data: "shared decision making"; "changing expectations"; "IOL experience"; and "informed consent." Women's expectations of, and preferences for, an IOL changed during pregnancy and were influenced by their perception of risk to the fetus, indication for the procedure, and trust in clinicians. Information that was personalized to the woman to include practical aspects, risks, and alternative options was rarely provided. Overall, women reported that they did not experience the degree of control they preferred when planning an IOL. Clinician understanding of decision making preferences of women when planning an IOL can assist with care that is individualized and aligned to women's values, which is crucial to improving the quality of care provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Listening to patient voices is critical, in terms of how people experience their condition as well as their treatment preferences. This research explored the patient journey, therapy attributes and goals among treatment experienced adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We sought to understand patient experiences, needs and expectations to identify areas for improvement of treatment and care delivery. Methods: Two online surveys were developed for completion by CLL patients. In Stage 1, participants completed a best-worst scaling (BWS) task to evaluate eleven previously validated healthcare journey moments that matter (MTM). Responses were used to generate the patient experience index (PEI) score. In Stage 2, participants completed a survey that included both a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess drivers of treatment preferences by evaluating the relative attribute importance (RAI) of seven features and a BWS exercise which explored long-term treatment goals. Results: Twenty-five patients completed Stage 1 and thirty patients Stage 2. Treatment experience was balanced between oral and intravenous medication. The most important/least satisfied MTM were treatment effectiveness, access to support and other treatments as well as monitoring progress. The median PEI score was 66.2 (out of 100). DCE results demonstrated that patients most value treatments for CLL that are associated with prolonged progression free survival (PFS; RAI: 24.6%), followed by treatments that have a lower risk of severe side effects and lower out-of-pocket costs (RAI: 19.5%, 17.4%, respectively). The remainder of the weight in decision making (38.5%) was split between the remaining attributes, namely 'mild to moderate side effects' (13.4%), 'long-term risks' (12.2%), type of treatment (i.e., oral, IV or a combination of oral and IV; 8.7%) and treatment duration (i.e., ongoing versus fixed; 4.2%). Patients preferred oral to intravenous therapy. The most valued long-term treatment goal was to be physically healthy, followed by living a long life, spending time with family/friends, and avoiding hospitalization. Conclusion: Treatment experienced patients with CLL are focused on receiving effective, safe therapies and value long PFS. Consideration and discussion of other attributes, such as once daily dosing, oral only medication, out-of-pocket costs and access to support services may affect patient treatment choices and ultimately enhance their healthcare experience and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Australian cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend absolute CVD risk assessment, but less than half of eligible patients have the required risk factors recorded due to fragmented implementation over the last decade. Co-designed decision aids for general practitioners (GPs) and consumers have been developed that improve knowledge barriers to guideline-recommended CVD risk assessment and management. This study used a stakeholder consultation process to identify and pilot test the feasibility of implementation strategies for these decision aids in Australian primary care. Methods: This mixed methods study included: (1) stakeholder consultation to map existing implementation strategies (2018-20); (2) interviews with 29 Primary Health Network (PHN) staff from all Australian states and territories to identify new implementation opportunities (2021); (3) pilot testing the feasibility of low, medium, and high resource implementation strategies (2019-21). Framework Analysis was used for qualitative data and Google analytics provided decision support usage data over time. Results: Informal stakeholder discussions indicated a need to partner with existing programs delivered by the Heart Foundation and PHNs. PHN interviews identified the importance of linking decision aids with GP education resources, quality improvement activities, and consumer-focused prevention programs. Participants highlighted the importance of integration with general practice processes, such as business models, workflows, medical records and clinical audit software. Specific implementation strategies were identified as feasible to pilot during COVID-19: (1) low resource: adding website links to local health area guidelines for clinicians and a Heart Foundation toolkit for primary care providers; (2) medium resource: presenting at GP education conferences and integrating the resources into audit and feedback reports; (3) high resource: auto-populate the risk assessment and decision aids from patient records via clinical audit software. Conclusions: This research identified a wide range of feasible strategies to implement decision aids for CVD risk assessment and management. The findings will inform the translation of new CVD guidelines in primary care. Future research will use economic evaluation to explore the added value of higher versus lower resource implementation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore the perspectives of clinicians' decision‐making processes and considerations in line with the Choosing Wisely principles during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Design: An exploratory qualitative approach was used. Methods: Data were collected via semi‐structured interviews to encourage participants to discuss their own experience in making clinical decisions during the COVID‐19 pandemic. A total of 12 clinicians from across disciplines were interviewed to reach data saturation. Interview data were analysed considering the Choosing Wisely principles. Results: Five main themes as they relate to clinician decision‐making emerged and included; prioritizing care and treatment, uncertainty regarding best practice as a result of rapidly changing guidelines, organizational challenges to clinical decision‐making, the use of telehealth and enabling consumer engagement with health services. Conclusion: Despite the disruption caused by COVID‐19, clinicians were mindful of necessary care and worked to ensure that core care was not compromised during the first wave of the pandemic. The need for clinicians to protect both their own safety and that of their colleagues arose as an additional factor that influenced clinicians' decision‐making process during the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 vaccine uptake among 5–11-year-olds is significantly lower than that of the 12+ age group. Some parents may have decided against vaccinating their children for COVID-19; others may be undecided and may be seeking more information to support their decision. We aimed to assess the effect of a decision support tool on parents' level of decisional conflict, vaccine hesitancy, and intention to vaccinate. We conducted a single-arm, cross-sectional online pre-post intervention survey of parents from Victoria, Australia, who had not yet vaccinated their 5–11-year-old child for COVID-19. We measured change in decisional conflict, intention, and hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines for children before and after viewing a decision support tool. We used logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with reduced decisional conflict. Between May and September 2022, 108 parents took part in the study. The tool reduced decision conflict in 25% (27/107) of parents, with reduced decisional conflict more likely among parents initially undecided about vaccinating, compared to parents who did not intend to vaccinate their child (OR, 12.58 95% CI 3.21 to 9.30). For most parents, hesitancy (83%, 90/108) and intention (89%, 96/108) remained the same. The decision support tool was modestly effective at reducing decisional conflict, particularly among undecided parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Consent forms that are difficult to understand may jeopardize informed consent. The aim of this study was to determine whether consent documents for cardiology-related procedures could be easily read and understood by patients with low health literacy.Methods: All 37 cardiology-related consent forms with patient information material were retrieved from a publicly available suite of documents from one state in Australia. Two raters independently assessed documents and resolved discrepancies through discussion. Understandability was assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed materials (PEMAT-P). Readability was assessed using the Gunning Fog Index, SMOG and Flesch Reading Ease formulas. Images were assessed using the 5C Image checklist. Results were analyzed descriptively.Results: Only 1 of 37 forms met the general PEMAT-P threshold (70%) for being 'understandable'. The average readability score was high, requiring a grade 10-12 level of education to understand. Most images lacked useful captions, had low visual clarity, and were not purpose-designed for the material.Conclusions: The current format for cardiology consent forms does not meet recommended standards for understandability and readability.Practice Implications: Development of consent forms would benefit from taking health literacy principles into account with patient input, and purpose-designed images should be included in all forms to reinforce text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study is to analyze guidance about medical decision making contained in ethics codes. The primary question we address is which of the main decision-making models - informed decision making (IDM), shared decision making (SDM), or paternalism - is promoted by these codes.Methods: We manually searched codes of medical ethics for guidance on medical decision making. Our analysis focused on the major international code, the World Medical Association International Code of Medical Ethics (ICME), and national codes of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, Germany, France and Norway.Results: The ICME does not promote any specific model of medical decision making. 10 of the 11 analyzed national codes contain guidance about IDM, while only four refer to SDM. Some codes contain articles which are imprecise with regard to the question of medical decision making.Conclusions: All of the analyzed national codes should be updated or amended. In particular, given the great importance of SDM in medicine, codes which do not contain relevant guidance should be updated.Practice Implications: Relevant amendments introduced to ethics codes could contribute to promoting of adequate standards of medical decision making (especially those regarding SDM) among doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Involvement in healthcare decisions is associated with better health outcomes for patients. For children and adolescents with intellectual disability, parents and healthcare professionals need to balance listening to a child's wishes with the responsibility of keeping them safe. However, there is a scarcity of literature evaluating how to effectively involve them in decision making. In this context, we review the concept of health literacy, focusing on the skills of healthcare decision making for children and adolescents with intellectual disability., Methods: We describe the concept of health literacy and models explaining shared decision making (individuals and healthcare professionals collaborate in decision making process) and supported decision making (when a trusted person supports the individual to collaborate with the healthcare professional in the decision-making process), and a rapid review of the literature evaluating their efficacy. We discuss healthcare decision making for children and adolescents with intellectual disability in the context of relevant recommendations from the recent Disability Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People with Disability in Australia., Results: Health literacy skills enable individuals to access, understand, appraise, remember and use health information and services. Shared decision making has been described for children with chronic conditions and supported decision making for adults with intellectual disability. Decision-making contributes to how individuals appraise and use healthcare. The rapid review found very limited evidence of outcomes where children and adolescents with intellectual disability have been supported to contribute to their healthcare decisions. Recommendations from the Disability Royal Commission highlight current needs for greater efforts to support and build the capacity of individuals with disability to be involved in the decisions that affect their life, including healthcare decision making., Conclusions: Existing rights frameworks and healthcare standards confirm the importance of providing all people with the opportunities to learn and practise health literacy skills including decision making. There is little literature examining interventions for healthcare decision making for children with intellectual disability. Childhood is a critical time for the development of skills and autonomy. Evidence for how children and adolescents with intellectual disability can learn and practice healthcare decision-making skills in preparation for adulthood is needed to reduce inequities in their autonomy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To describe the lived experience of people who have undergone sequential partial foot and transtibial amputation. Methods: Using a narrative inquiry approach, adults with experience of sequential partial foot amputation and transtibial amputation on the same limb were sampled until data saturation. Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Each interview was read, coded and a thematic summary with quotes was returned to each participant for verification. Data were triangulated through independent coding and analysis. Results: The lived experiences of the 10 participants were characterized by three themes: enduring complications eventually resolved, health and wellbeing improved with knowledge, and advice from the lived experience. The foot complications that led to partial foot amputation often endured until after transtibial amputation, where participants reported being able to get on with their life. At the point of partial foot amputation, participants had little knowledge about the surgical procedure, likely outcomes or common risks. In the lead up to transtibial amputation, structured systems provided access to peer support and conversations with healthcare professionals. As participants' knowledge improved, many people were able to exercise control over their healthcare decisions. Conclusions: The lived experience highlights the importance of high-quality information and meaningful conversations to inform decision making and prepare people for life with limb loss. Partial foot amputation is associated with high rates of complications and subsequent transtibial amputation At the point of partial foot amputation, most people seem unaware of what the surgery involves or the likelihood of complications and reamputation This research suggests that people facing the prospect of partial foot amputation may benefit from access to the structured systems already in place for most people facing transtibial amputation Access to high-quality information, peer support, and meaningful conversations with healthcare providers can support informed decision making and help people prepare for the likelihood of complications and reamputation following partial foot amputation [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a structured patient‐centred educational exchange to facilitate a shared conversation about stroke prevention medications. Methods: Participants (18 years or older) with a principal diagnosis of stroke or transient ischaemic attack were purposively sampled from the stroke unit of a 780‐bed teaching hospital in Australia and consented to participate in the study. A patient‐centred educational exchange was conducted face to face at the bedside before discharge and by telephone post discharge. The structure of these sessions was adapted from academic detailing, an educational strategy, which includes identifying experience, listening to the needs of the audience, and tailoring messages to influence behaviour. To facilitate sharing of needs, three questionnaires, validated as research tools, were used to identify participants' experience, perceptions, and beliefs. The identified perceptions were used to personalize educational messages. The outcomes of the study were to provide descriptions of patients' perceptions necessities and concerns about their condition and medications, provide examples of personalized responses to these, evaluate acceptability by patients, and determine the time taken to share the information. Results: Sixteen participants completed both the bedside session (average duration 27 minutes) and the telephone follow‐up (average duration 23 minutes). The strongest patient concern identified was having another stroke. Personalized responses included emphasizing long‐term treatment in response to the perception that stroke will last for a short time, reinforcement of necessity for medications, and further exploration of concerns. Conclusion: The questionnaires engaged the participants, allowing them to share perceptions and beliefs, facilitating a patient‐centred educational exchange in a timely manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Decisions about driving for individuals living with dementia (ILWD) can be challenging. There are limited evidence-based person-centred interventions in the United Kingdom that support decisions about transitioning to not driving or guidelines for developing decision aids for ILWD. This study aimed to understand the important features of a decision aid through the cultural adaptation of Australian dementia and driving decision aid (DDDA) for ILWD residing in the United Kingdom., Methods: This qualitative study was theoretically underpinned by a person-centred framework and conducted over three stages: (1) Development of a draft UK-specific DDDA; (2) semistructured interviews with ILWD and an online survey with stakeholders to obtain their views on a draft UK DDDA and (3) content analysis and synthesis of qualitative data to inform the final version of the decision aid., Results: Eleven ILWD and six of their spouses participated in interviews, and 102 stakeholders responded to an online survey. The four broad features identified as important to include in a decision aid for drivers living with dementia were: a structured and interactive format; positive and supportive messaging and presentation; relevant and concise content and choice-centred. The perceived benefits of the decision aid were identified as supporting conversations, enhancing collaborative decision making and enabling agency with decisions about driving and future mobility options., Conclusions: Decision aids that are underpinned by interactive choice-driven questions enhance a person-centred approach to decisions about driving. Positively framing decision aids through the presentation and content can facilitate engagement with the decision-making process about driving. The findings have implications for the development of decision aids designed for ILWD on other important health and social topics., Patient and Public Involvement: Advocating for the development of a UK DDDA were ILWD. Healthcare professionals contributed to the development of a draft UK DDDA. Former and current drivers living with dementia, family members, healthcare professionals and other support networks of ILWD participated in interviews or an online survey which informed the final version of the UK DDDA., (© 2024 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To explore individuals' perceptions and acceptability of a 'wait and see' approach, and phrases to describe this, for managing self-limiting illnesses (those that typically resolve spontaneously)., Methods: Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 30 Australians. Two researchers independently conducted a thematic analysis of interview transcripts, and all authors agreed on final themes., Results: Four themes emerged: Interpretation of what 'wait and see' meant varied and encompassed whether individuals had already sought medical care; Individuals' experiences and circumstances influenced the acceptability of a 'wait and see' approach; Symptom management was perceived as the most reassuring phrase to describe this approach; Individuals highly valued clear communication about a 'wait and see' approach and wanted a collaborative and action-oriented plan for the waiting period., Conclusion: Individuals generally accepted a 'wait and see' approach, although less so for some illnesses and in some circumstances. They wanted it at least presented as an option when appropriate, with 'symptom management' as the preferred terminology. Clear communication and collaborative decision-making were valued., Practice Implications: When 'wait and see' is a reasonable option, clinicians should communicate this to patients, support them in decision-making, and provide a plan for the waiting period if the option is chosen., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Finding Your Way is a culturally adapted shared decision making (SDM) resource for Aboriginal (First Nations) people of Australia. It integrates the Eight Ways of Aboriginal Learning (8 Ways) and was created by Aboriginal health workers and community members in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. To explore the perceived acceptability, usability, and feasibility of Finding Your Way as a SDM resource for Aboriginal people making health and wellbeing decisions. The web-based resources were disseminated using social media, professional networks, publications, and the 'Koori grapevine'. Thirteen 'champions' also promoted the resources. An online questionnaire was available on the website for three months. Framework analysis determined early indications of its acceptability, usability, and feasibility. Web and social media analytics were also analysed. Partnership with and leadership by Aboriginal people was integrated at all phases of the project. The main landing page was accessed 5219 times by 4259 users. 132 users completed the questionnaire. The non-linear and visual aspects of the resources 'speak to mob' and identified with Aboriginal culture. The inclusion of social and emotional well-being, and the holistic approach were well received by the small number of users who opted to provide feedback. They suggested that non-digital formats and guidance on the resources are required to support use in clinical practice. The 8 Ways enabled the development of a culturally safe SDM resource for Aboriginal people, which was well received by users who took the time to provide feedback after a brief dissemination process. Additional accessible formats, practice guides and training are required to support uptake in clinical practice. Finding Your Way could be used to help improve experiences, health literacy, decision making quality and outcomes of healthcare for Aboriginal Australians. [Display omitted] • Gaps in health and life-expectancy inequalities for Aboriginal people in Australia. • Finding Your Way is one of the first culturally adapted shared decision making resources. • A mixed methods approach explored acceptability, usability, and feasibility. • The non-linear and visual aspects 'speak to mob' and identify with Aboriginal culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. The aims of the present study were to investigate doctors' attitudes regarding the discussion and writing of not for resuscitation (NFR) orders and to identify potential barriers to the completion of these orders. Methods. A questionnaire-based convenience study was undertaken at a tertiary hospital. Likert scales and openended questions were directed to issues surrounding the discussion, timing, understanding and writing of NFR orders, including legal and personal considerations. Results. Doctors thought the presence of an NFR order both should and does alter care delivered by nursing staff, particularly delivery of pain relief, nursing observations and contacting the medical emergency team. Eighty-five per cent of doctors believed they needed somebody else's consent to write an NFR order (seeking of consent is not a requirement in most Australian jurisdictions). Conclusion. There are complex barriers to the writing and implementation of NFR orders, including doctors' knowledge around the need for consent when cardiopulmonary resuscitation is likely to be futile or excessively burdensome. Doctors also believed that NFR orders result in changes to goals-of-care, suggesting a confounding of NFR orders with palliative care. Furthermore, doctors are willing to write NFR orders where there is clear medical indication and the patient is imminently dying, but are otherwise reliant on patients and family to initiate discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Financial cost is a barrier for many older adults in their decision to obtain hearing aids (HAs). This study aimed to examine conversations about the cost of HAs in detail within initial audiology appointments.Design: Sixty-two initial audiology appointments were video-recorded. The data were analysed using conversation analysis.Study sample: Participants included 26 audiologists, 62 older adults and 17 companions.Results: Audiologists and clients displayed interactional difficulty during conversations about cost. Clients often had emotional responses to the cost of HAs, which were not attended to by audiologists. It was typical for audiologists to present one HA cost option at a time, which led to multiple rejections from clients which made the interactions difficult. Alternatively, when audiologists offered multiple cost options at once this led to a smoother interaction.Conclusions: Audiologists and clients were observed to have difficulty talking about HA costs. Offering clients multiple HA cost options at the same time can engage clients in the decision-making process and lead to a smoother interaction between audiologist and client in the management phase of appointments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Cancer survivors are living longer, prompting greater focus on managing cancer as a chronic condition. Shared care between primary care providers ( PCPs) and cancer specialists, involving explicit partnership in how care is communicated, could ensure effective transitions between services. However, little is known about cancer patients' and survivors' preferences regarding shared care. Objective To explore Australian cancer survivors' views on shared care: what cancer survivors need from shared care; enablers and barriers to advancing shared care; and what successful shared care looks like. Setting and Participants Community forum held in Adelaide, Australia, in 2015 with 21 participants: 11 cancer survivors, 2 family caregivers, and 8 clinicians and researchers (members of PC4-Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group). Intervention Qualitative data from group discussion of the objectives. Results Participants stressed that successful shared care required patients being at the centre, ensuring accurate communication, ownership, and access to their medical records. PCPs were perceived to lack skills and confidence to lead complex cancer care. Patients expressed burden in being responsible for navigating information sharing and communication processes between health professionals and services. Effective shared care should include: shared electronic health records, key individuals as care coordinators; case conferences; shared decision making; preparing patients for self-management; building general practitioners' skills; and measuring outcomes. Discussion and Conclusions There was clear support for shared care but a lack of good examples to help guide it for this population. Recognizing cancer as a chronic condition requires a shift in how care is provided to these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Appropriate treatment for youth depression is an important public health priority. Shared decision making has been recommended, yet no decision aids exist to facilitate this. Objectives The main objective of this study was to evaluate an online decision aid for youth depression. Design An uncontrolled cohort study with pre-decision, immediately post-decision and follow-up measurements. Setting and Participants Young people (n=66) aged 12-25 years with mild, mild-moderate or moderate-severe depression were recruited from two enhanced primary care services. Intervention Online decision aid with evidence communication, preference elicitation and decision support components. Main outcome measures The main outcome measures were ability to make a decision; whether the decision was in line with clinical practice guidelines, personal preferences and values; decisional conflict; perceived involvement; satisfaction with decision; adherence; and depression scores at follow-up. Results After using the decision aid, clients were more likely to make a decision in line with guideline recommendations (93% vs 70%; P=.004), were more able to make a decision (97% vs 79%; P=.022), had significantly reduced decisional conflict (17.8 points lower (95% CI: 13.3-22.9 points lower) on the Decisional Conflict Scale (range 0-100)) and felt involved and satisfied with their decision. At follow-up, clients had significantly reduced depression symptoms (2.7 points lower (95% CI: 1.3-4.0 points lower) on the Patient Health Questionnaire nine-item scale (range 0-27)) and were adherent to 88% (95% CI: 82%-94%) of treatment courses. Discussion and Conclusions A decision aid for youth depression can help ensure evidence-based, client-centred care, promoting collaboration in this often difficult to engage population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions., Methods: We evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM., Results: A total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P  < 0.001, d  = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P  < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P  < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P  < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P  < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge., Conclusions: The Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention)., Trial Registration: ANZCTR376477., Highlights: We conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.

Objective: The study aimed to determine the effects of presenting uncertainty of quantitative risk information about medication harms and benefits on intention to take medication and psychosocial outcomes.Methods: 147 participants were randomized into four hypothetical scenarios: (1) harm/benefit presented as point-estimates, (2) harm as point/benefit as range, (3) harm as range/benefit as point, (4) harm/benefit as ranges. We assessed participants' intention to take medication, understanding, decisional conflict, and perceived benefit and harm. Participants viewed the scenario again with swapped range vs. point-estimate presentations; intention was re-assessed at time 2.Results: There were no significant differences in intention across arms (p=0.93). There was an increase in intention to take medication between time 1 and time 2 in arm 4 (both harm/benefit presented as ranges, then point estimates). Understanding was greater when information was presented as point estimates compared to ranges, for both benefit (all questions correct: 74% vs 42%; χ2=15.28, df=2, p<0.001) and harm (all questions correct: 70% vs 43%; χ2=11.19, df=2, p=0.004) CONCLUSION: Changes in benefit information appear to be more influential in changing intention to take medication than harm information. Presenting uncertainty decreases understanding of information.Practice Implication: The findings may help develop optimal ways to present uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with low literacy and low health literacy have poorer health outcomes. Literacy and health literacy are distinct but overlapping constructs that impact wellbeing. Interventions that target both could improve health outcomes.Methods/design: This is a cluster randomised controlled trial with a qualitative component. Participants are 300 adults enrolled in basic language, literacy and numeracy programs at adult education colleges across New South Wales, Australia. Each adult education institute (regional administrative centre) contributes (at least) two classes matched for student demographics, which may be at the same or different campuses. Classes (clusters) are randomly allocated to receive either the health literacy intervention (an 18-week program with health knowledge and skills embedded in language, literacy, and numeracy training (LLN)), or the standard Language Literacy and Numeracy (LLN) program (usual LLN classes, specifically excluding health content). The primary outcome is functional health literacy skills - knowing how to use a thermometer, and read and interpret food and medicine labels. The secondary outcomes are self-reported confidence, more advanced health literacy skills; shared decision making skills, patient activation, health knowledge and self-reported health behaviour. Data is collected at baseline, and immediately and 6 months post intervention. A sample of participating teachers, students, and community health workers will be interviewed in-depth about their experiences with the program to better understand implementation issues and to strengthen the potential for scaling up the program.Discussion: Outcomes will provide evidence regarding real-world implementation of a health literacy training program with health worker involvement in an Australian adult education setting. The evaluation trial will provide insight into translating and scaling up health literacy education for vulnerable populations with low literacy.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000213448 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured lists of disease and treatment‐specific questions intended to encourage patient question‐asking during consultations with clinicians. The aim of this study was to develop a QPL intended for use by parents of children affected by attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: The QPL content (111 questions) was derived through thematic analysis of existing ADHD‐ and QPL‐related resources. A modified Delphi method, involving a three‐round web‐based survey, was used to reach consensus about the QPL content. Thirty‐six experts were recruited into either a professional [paediatricians, child and adolescent psychiatrists, psychologists, researchers (n =28)] or non‐professional panel [parents of children diagnosed with ADHD, ADHD consumer advocates (n = 8)]. Panel members were asked to rate the importance of the QPL content using a five‐point scale ranging from ‘Essential’ to ‘Should not be included’. Results: A total of 122 questions, including 11 new questions suggested by panellists, were rated by both panels. Of these, 88 (72%) were accepted for inclusion in the QPL. Of the accepted questions, 39 were re‐rated during two follow‐up survey rounds and 29 (74%) were subsequently accepted for inclusion. The questions covered key topics including diagnosis, understanding ADHD, treatment, health‐care team, monitoring ADHD, managing ADHD, future expectations and support and information. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first ADHD‐specific QPL to be developed and the first use of the Delphi method to validate the content of any QPL. It is anticipated that the QPL will assist parents in obtaining relevant, reliable information and empowering their treatment decisions by enhancing the potential for shared decision making with clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SUMMARY Background For patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are progressing to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) a decision of whether to undertake dialysis or conservative care is a critical component of the patient journey. Shared decision making for complex decisions such as this could be enhanced by a decision aid, a practice which is well utilised in other disciplines but limited for nephrology. Methods A multidisciplinary team in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) utilised current decision-making theory and best practice to develop the 'My Kidneys, My Choice', a decision aid for the treatment of kidney disease. Results A patient-centred, five-sectioned tool is now complete and freely available to all ANZ units to support the ESKD education and shared decision-making process. Distribution and education have occurred across ANZ and evaluation of the decision aid in practice is in the first phase. Conclusions Development of a new tool such as an ESKD decision aid requires vision, multidisciplinary input and ongoing implementation resources. This tool is being integrated into ANZ, ESKD education practice and is promoting the philosophy of shared decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared Decision Making (SDM) is widely accepted as the preferred method for reaching treatment decisions in the oncology setting including those about clinical trial participation: however, there is some disagreement between researchers over the components of SDM. Specific standardized coding systems are needed to help overcome this difficulty. The first objective was to describe the development of an oncology specific SDM coding system, the DAS-O. The second objective was to provide reliability and validity data supporting the DAS-O. Consultation data were available from tertiary cancer center out patient oncology clinics in: Australia, New Zealand (ANZ), Switzerland, Germany and Austria (SGA). Patients were women with a confirmed diagnosis of early stage breast cancer. Reliability data were from 18 randomly selected coded transcripts drawn from ANZ and SGA. Concurrent validity data are from 55 (ANZ) consultations. Inter and Intra rater reliability data was evaluated using Kappa correlation statistics and correlation coefficients. Correlation coefficients were used to assess concurrent validity between the DAS-O and two other SDM coding systems, OPTION and DSAT. Inter and Intra rater reliability for the system were high with average Kappas of 0.58 and 0.65 respectively. Correlation coefficients between DAS-O and OPTION was 0.73 and >0.5 for DSAT. We have developed a reliable and valid coding system for identifying and rating the quality of SDM in breast cancer consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Participation by patients in their own health care improves quality and safety. Question prompt lists (QPLs) can improve participation, particularly with doctors' endorsement. Few data have explored doctors' attitudes on these tools. We sought the experiences and attitudes of general practitioners and other specialists toward patient question asking and QPLs in their practice., Methods: In-depth, semistructured interviews and focus groups with purposively selected Australian doctors were conducted. Interview guides were used to explore doctors' experiences of patient question asking, patients' lists, and a sample QPL created using an Australian government-funded online tool, "Question Builder." Recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analyzed thematically using the method by Braun and Clarke., Results: Focus groups with 3 to 9 participants and a further 17 individual interviews were conducted. There was a total of 40 participants, 23 general practitioners and 17 other specialists (e.g., physicians, surgeons, pediatricians). Our analysis was summarized into several themes. 1) The doctors expected, encouraged, and had significant experience of patient question asking and patients' lists. They described many barriers for patients and their efforts to ensure patients had the information they needed. 2) The doctors felt responsible for creating an environment conducive to patient question asking, the delivery of answers, having strategies for unanswered questions, and balancing the agendas of both parties in the consultation. 3) Structured QPLs that prepared patients and facilitated the consultation agenda were viewed positively. The degree of time pressures participating doctors experienced in their context had a strong influence on how they responded to the sample QPL., Conclusion: Doctors in this study expected patients to ask questions and endorsed the benefits of QPLs. However, there were more diverse views about the feasibility of implementing them in practice. Designing QPLs to fit within current workflows, via more succinct and tailored designs, may result in wider doctor acceptance and endorsement, hence maximizing the benefits of QPLs with improved patient participation and patient safety.

Background: The use of cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines based on absolute risk assessment is poor around the world, including Australia. Behavioural barriers amongst GPs and patients include capability (e.g. difficulty communicating/understanding risk) and motivation (e.g. attitudes towards guidelines/medication). This paper outlines the theory-based development of a website for GP guidelines, and piloting of a new risk calculator/decision aid.Methods: Stage 1 involved identifying evidence-based solutions using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework, informed by previous research involving 400 GPs and 600 patients/consumers. Stage 2 co-developed website content with GPs. Stage 3 piloted a prototype website at a national GP conference. Stage 4 iteratively improved the website based on "think aloud" interviews with GPs and patients. Stage 5 was a feasibility study to evaluate potential efficacy (guidelines-based recommendations for each risk category), acceptability (intended use) and demand (actual use over 1 month) amongst GPs (n = 98).Results: Stage 1 identified GPs as the target for behaviour change; the need for a new risk calculator/decision aid linked to existing audit and feedback training; and online guidelines as a delivery format. Stage 2-4 iteratively improved content and format based on qualitative feedback from GP and patient user testing over three rounds of website development. Stage 5 suggested potential efficacy with improved identification of hypothetical high risk patients (from 26 to 76%) and recommended medication (from 57 to 86%) after viewing the website (n = 42), but prescribing to low risk patients remained similar (from 19 to 22%; n = 37). Most GPs (89%) indicated they would use the website in the next month, and 72% reported using it again after one month (n = 98). Open feedback identified implementation barriers including a need for integration with medical software, low health literacy resources and pre-consultation assessment.Conclusions: Following a theory-based development process and user co-design, the resulting intervention was acceptable to GPs with high intentions for use, improved identification of patient risk categories and more guidelines-based prescribing intentions for high risk but not low risk patients. The effectiveness of linking the intervention to clinical practice more closely to address implementation barriers will be evaluated in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Choosing Wisely, an international effort to reduce low value care worldwide, considers communication between clinicians and patients during routine clinical encounters a key mechanism for change. In Australia, Choosing Wisely has developed a 5 Questions resource to facilitate better conversations. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the Choosing Wisely Australia 5 Questions resource and a video designed to prepare patients for question-asking and participation in shared decision-making on (a) self-efficacy to ask questions and participate in shared decision-making, (b) intention to participate in shared decision-making and (c) a range of secondary outcomes. The secondary aim of this study is to determine whether participants' health literacy modifies the effects of the interventions., Methods and Analysis: We will use 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design (preparation video: yes, no × Choosing Wisely 5 Questions resource: yes, no × health literacy: adequate, inadequate). Participants will be recruited by an online market research company, presented with a hypothetical non-specific low back pain scenario, and randomised to study groups stratified by health literacy. Quantitative primary and secondary outcome data will be analysed as intention-to-treat using appropriate regression models (ie, linear regression for continuous outcomes, logistic regression for dichotomous categorical outcomes)., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (protocol number: 2018/965). The results from this work will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international journals, conferences and updates with collaborating public health bodies. Resources developed for this study will be made available to patients and clinicians following trial completion., Trial Registration Number: This trial has been registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (trial number: 376477) and the stage is Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RL is an employee of NPS MedicineWise which facilitates Choosing Wisely Australia. The University of Sydney owns intellectual property on the video and DM, MT, KM and RET are contributors to the intellectual property., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To explore how decisions are made in real-life general practice consultations with older patients (65+ years), and examine how general practitioners (GPs) communicate risk and benefit information and evidence, and integrate patient preferences., Methods: Secondary analysis of 20 video-recorded consultations with older patients in Australian primary healthcare settings. Consultations were analysed qualitatively using the Framework method and quantitatively using the Observer OPTION 5 scale and the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool., Results: Overall, Observer OPTION 5 and ACEPP scores were low, with mean total scores of 11.3 (out of 100) and 10.4 (out of 40) respectively. Together with qualitative findings, these results suggest that shared decision-making did not occur, and that healthcare options (including anticipated benefits and risks), evidence and patient preferences were rarely discussed in our sample of consultations with older people. GPs often unilaterally made treatment decisions (usually pharmacotherapy) while patients reverted to a passive decision-making role., Conclusion: We observed a lack of shared decision-making in our primary care study, with little engagement of older patients in decisions about their health., Practice Implications: Training and support tools may be needed to enhance the capacity and self-efficacy of providers and older patients to share healthcare decisions., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

This paper describes a novel model to providing interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional collaboration (IPC) within a simulated healthcare environment, in the higher education setting. The RIPE Model (Reflective Interprofessional Education Model) was developed for the purpose of enhancing IPE and IPC, clinical judgement, and decision-making between health professional students (pharmacy and nursing students) at the patient's simulated hospital bedside. A foundation 'unfolding' case utilizing the RIPE model was piloted with first year Master of pharmacy students and postgraduate nursing students at an Australian university and included a pharmacy practitioner acting as a resident medical officer (RMO) for the purpose of the teaching module. The RIPE model rotated students through 10 stations (including 2 reflection stations) to unpack an unfolding case. The development of the RIPE model, processes, and future directions are included in this article. The RIPE Model provides the flexibility to adapt and tailor different cases and scenarios to include other health professional students to enhance educational outcomes, with the feedback of the learning to potentially improve future patient outcomes. Furthermore, the model has the potential to be tailored and utilized for the purpose of upskilling practicing pharmacists for Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and changing scopes of practice., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) empowers patients to consider and communicate their current and future treatment goals. However, it can be an emotionally charged process for patients with kidney disease and their caregivers. This study aimed to describe the perspectives and attitudes of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and their caregivers toward ACP., Study Design: Qualitative study., Setting & Participants: Patients with ESRD (n=24) and their caregivers (n=15) aged 36 to 91 years at various stages of ACP ("not commenced," "in progress," or "completed") from 3 renal services., Methodology: Semistructured interviews., Analytical Approach: Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis., Results: 5 major themes were identified: articulating core values (avoiding futile and undignified treatment, reevaluating terms of dialysis, framing a life worth living, and refusing to be a burden), confronting conversations (signifying death and defeat, accepting inevitable death, and alleviating existential tension), negotiating mutual understanding (broaching taboos and assisting conflicted caregivers), challenging patient autonomy (family pressures to continue dialysis, grief diminishing caregivers' capacity, and leveraging support), and decisional disempowerment (lacking medical transparency and disappointment with clinical disinterest)., Limitations: Only English-speaking patients/caregivers participated in the interview., Conclusions: ACP provides patients with ESRD and their caregivers a conduit for accepting and planning for impending death and to express treatment preferences based on self-dignity and value of living. However, ACP can be considered taboo, may require caregivers to overcome personal and decisional conflict, and may be complex if patients and caregivers are unable to accept the reality of the patient's illness. We suggest that ACP facilitators and clinicians make ACP more acceptable and less confrontational to patients and caregivers and that strategies be put in place to support caregivers who may be experiencing overwhelming grief or who have conflicting goals, particularly when they are called on to make end-of-life decisions., (Copyright © 2017 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Research suggests that desired family involvement (FI) in medical decision making may depend on cultural values. Unfortunately, the field lacks cross-cultural studies that test this assumption. As a result, providers may be guided by incomplete information or cultural biases rather than patient preferences., Methods: Researchers developed 6 culturally relevant disease scenarios varying from low to high medical seriousness. Quota samples of approximately 290 middle-aged urban residents in Australia, China, Malaysia, India, South Korea, Thailand, and the USA completed an online survey that examined desired levels of FI and identified individual difference predictors in each country. All reliability coefficients were acceptable. Regression models met standard assumptions., Results: The strongest finding across all 7 countries was that those who desired higher self-involvement (SI) in medical decision making also wanted lower FI. On the other hand, respondents who valued relational-interdependence tended to want their families involved - a key finding in 5 of 7 countries. In addition, in 4 of 7 countries, respondents who valued social hierarchy desired higher FI. Other antecedents were less consistent., Conclusion: These results suggest that it is important for health providers to avoid East-West cultural stereotypes. There are meaningful numbers of patients in all 7 countries who want to be individually involved and those individuals tend to prefer lower FI. On the other hand, more interdependent patients are likely to want families involved in many of the countries studied. Thus, individual differences within culture appear to be important in predicting whether a patient desires FI. For this reason, avoiding culture-based assumptions about desired FI during medical decision making is central to providing more effective patient centered care.

Background: Enhancing health literacy can play a major role in improving healthcare and health across the globe. To build higher-order (communicative/critical) health literacy skills among socially disadvantaged Australians, we developed a novel shared decision making (SDM) training programme for adults with lower literacy. The programme was delivered by trained educators within an adult basic education health literacy course., Objective: To explore the experience of teaching SDM within a health literacy programme and investigate whether communicative/critical health literacy content meets learner needs and teaching and institutional objectives., Design and Participants: Qualitative interview study with 11 educators who delivered the SDM programme. Transcripts were analysed using the Framework approach; a matrix-based method of thematic analysis., Results: Teachers noted congruence in SDM content and the institutional commitment to learner empowerment in adult education. The SDM programme was seen to offer learners an alternative to their usual passive approach to healthcare decision making by raising awareness of the right to ask questions and consider alternative test/treatment options. Teachers valued a structured approach to training building on foundational skills, with language reinforcement and take-home resources, but many noted the need for additional time to develop learner understanding and cover all aspects of SDM. Challenges for adult learners included SDM terminology, computational numerical risk tasks and understanding probability concepts., Discussion and Conclusions: SDM programmes can be designed in a way that both supports teachers to deliver novel health literacy content and empowers learners. Collaboration between adult education and healthcare sectors can build health literacy capacity of those most in need., (© 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Despite the importance of shared decision making for delivering patient-centered care in rheumatology, there is no consensus on how to measure its process and outcomes. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group is to determine the core set of domains for measuring shared decision making in intervention studies in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), from the perspectives of patients, health professionals, and researchers., Methods: We followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 method to develop a draft core domain set by (1) forming an OMERACT working group; (2) conducting a review of domains of shared decision making; and (3) obtaining opinions of all those involved using a modified nominal group process held at a session activity at the OMERACT 12 meeting., Results: In all, 26 people from Europe, North America, and Australia, including 5 patient research partners, participated in the session activity. Participants identified the following domains for measuring shared decision making to be included as part of the draft core set: (1) identifying the decision, (2) exchanging information, (3) clarifying views, (4) deliberating, (5) making the decision, (6) putting the decision into practice, and (7) assessing the effect of the decision. Contextual factors were also suggested., Conclusion: We proposed a draft core set of shared decision-making domains for OA intervention research studies. Next steps include a workshop at OMERACT 13 to reach consensus on these proposed domains in the wider OMERACT group, as well as to detail subdomains and assess instruments to develop a core outcome measurement set.

Context: Cancer caregivers have important roles in delivering practical, emotional, and end-of-life support to patients; however, they express multiple unmet needs, particularly information on future care planning. Early regular communication and decision making may improve access to timely information, alleviate anxiety, reduce uncertainty, and improve coping strategies., Objectives: This study examines how cancer caregivers view advance care planning (ACP) to inform an ACP program in an Australian cancer center., Methods: This study used a qualitative descriptive design with grounded theory overtones. Eighteen caregivers of patients from lung and gastrointestinal tumor streams participated in focus groups or semistructured interviews, which incorporated the vignette technique., Results: Caregivers believe that, although confronting, ACP discussions can be helpful. Conversations are sometimes patient initiated, although caregivers may intend to sensitively broach conversations over time. Findings highlight the impact of caregiver hierarchies, adaptive family decision-making styles, and complex cultural influences on decision making. Some caregivers may develop subsidiary care intentions, based on "knowing" or overriding patients' desires. Hindrances on caregivers supporting patients' ACPs include limited information access, patient or caregiver resistance to engage in conversations, and ACPs association in oncology with losing hope. Many caregivers wanted professional support and further opportunities to obtain information, develop subsidiary plans, and help patients engage in ACP discussions., Conclusion: Findings highlight the influence of cancer caregivers and family dynamics over ACP decisions and actualization of future care plans. A patient- and family-centered care approach to ACP, promoting shared decision making and caregiver support, is recommended. Given that caregivers may override and, plausibly, misinterpret patients' desires, caregivers' subsidiary planning warrants further investigation., (Copyright © 2014 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)