Search

Abstract Introduction Shared decision making (SDM) requires an active role of both clinicians and patients. We aimed to conceptualise patient readiness for SDM about treatment, and to develop a patient questionnaire to assess readiness. Methods We used the results of a scoping review and a qualitative study to inform the patient readiness construct. We conducted five additional rounds of data collection to finalise the construct definition and develop the Patient Readiness for SDM Questionnaire (ReadySDM) in an oncological setting: (1) longitudinal interviews with patients with cancer during and after a treatment decision‐making process; (2) a pilot study among experts, clinicians, and patients for feedback on the concept and items; (3) a field test among (former) patients with cancer to test item format and content validity, and to reduce the number of items; (4) cognitive interviews with people with low literacy to test the comprehensibility of the questionnaire; and (5) a field test among (former) patients who faced a cancer treatment decision in the last year, to test the content validity of the final version of the questionnaire. Results A total of 251 people participated in the various rounds of data collection. We identified eight elements of patient readiness for SDM about treatment: (1) understanding of and attitude towards SDM; (2) information skills; (3) skills in communicating and claiming space; (4) self‐awareness; (5) consideration skills; (6) self‐efficacy; (7) emotional distress; and (8) experienced time. We developed the 20‐item ReadySDM to retrospectively measure these elements in an oncological setting. Conclusion We conducted a thorough procedure to conceptualise patient readiness and to develop the ReadySDM. The questionnaire aims to provide novel insights into ways to enhance SDM in daily practice. Patient or Public Contribution Multiple people with lived experience were involved in various phases of the study. They were asked for input on the study design, the conceptualisation of readiness, and the development of the questionnaire.

Abstract Introduction For too many people, their care plans are designed without fully accounting for who they are, the lives they live, what matters to them or what they aspire to achieve. We aimed to summarize instruments capable of measuring dimensions of patient–clinician collaboration to make care fit. Methods We systematically searched several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to September 2021 for studies using quantitative measures to assess, evaluate or rate the work of making care fit by any participant in real‐life clinical encounters. Eligibility was assessed in duplicate. After extracting all items from relevant instruments, we coded them deductively on dimensions relevant to making care fit (as presented in a recent Making Care Fit Manifesto), and inductively on the main action described. Results We included 189 papers, mostly from North America (N = 83, 44%) and in the context of primary care (N = 54, 29%). Half of the papers (N = 88, 47%) were published in the last 5 years. We found 1243 relevant items to assess efforts of making care fit, included within 151 instruments. Most items related to the dimensions ‘Patient‐clinician collaboration: content’ (N = 396, 32%) and ‘Patient‐clinician collaboration: manner’ (N = 382, 31%) and the least related to ‘Ongoing and iterative process’ (N = 22, 2%) and in ‘Minimally disruptive of patient lives’ (N = 29, 2%). The items referred to 27 specific actions. Most items referred to ‘Informing’ (N = 308, 25%) and ‘Exploring’ (N = 93, 8%), the fewest items referred to ‘Following up’, ‘Comforting’ and ‘Praising’ (each N = 3, 0.2%). Discussion Measures of the work that patients and clinicians do together to make care fit focus heavily on the content of their collaborations, particularly on exchanging information. Other dimensions and actions previously identified as crucial to making care fit are assessed infrequently or not at all. The breadth of extant measures of making care fit and the lack of appropriate measures of this key construct limit both the assessment and the successful implementation of efforts to improve patient care. Patient Contribution Patients and caregivers from the ‘Making care fit Collaborative’ were involved in drafting the dimensions relevant to patient–clinician collaboration.

Background: Patients with cancer often have to make complex decisions about treatment, with the options varying in risk profiles and effects on survival and quality of life. Moreover, inefficient care paths make it hard for patients to participate in shared decision-making. Data-driven decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, support personalized care, improve health outcomes and promote health equity. However, decision-support tools currently seldom consider quality of life or individual preferences, and their use in clinical practice remains limited, partly because they are not well integrated in patients’ care paths. Aim and objectives: The central aim of the 4D PICTURE project is to redesign patients’ care paths and develop and integrate evidence-based decision-support tools to improve decision-making processes in cancer care delivery. This article presents an overview of this international, interdisciplinary project. Design, methods and analysis: In co-creation with patients and other stakeholders, we will develop data-driven decision-support tools for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer and melanoma. We will support treatment decisions by using large, high-quality datasets with state-of-the-art prognostic algorithms. We will further develop a conversation tool, the Metaphor Menu, using text mining combined with citizen science techniques and linguistics, incorporating large datasets of patient experiences, values and preferences. We will further develop a promising methodology, MetroMapping, to redesign care paths. We will evaluate MetroMapping and these integrated decision-support tools, and ensure their sustainability using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. We will explore the generalizability of MetroMapping and the decision-support tools for other types of cancer and across other EU member states. Ethics: Through an embedded ethics approach, we will address social and ethical issues. Discussion: Improved care paths integrating comprehensive decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, their significant others and healthcare providers in decision-making and improve outcomes. This project will strengthen health care at the system level by improving its resilience and efficiency.

Abstract Introduction The assessment of using patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) within comprehensive care follow‐up programmes, specifically focused on health screening, remains largely unexplored. PROs were implemented in our late effects and comprehensive care programme after paediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for nonmalignant diseases. The programme focuses solely on screening of physical and mental health and on discussing PROs during the consultation. Methods The primary method of this study was semistructured interviews to explore the perspective of both patients and healthcare providers' (HCP) on the use of PROs, which were thematically analyzed. Additionally, an explorative quantitative approach with patient‐reported experience measures (PREMS) was used, with a pretest–posttest design, to assess whether the use of PROs was accompanied by more patient‐centred care. Results From the patient‐interviews (N = 15) four themes were extracted: use of PROs (1) help to discuss topics; (2) make the patients feel understood; (3) create a moment of self‐reflection; and (4) make consultations more efficient. Pre‐ and postimplementation analysis of PREMs (N = 40) did not show significant differences in terms of patient‐centeredness. Conclusion Our results demonstrate the added value of integrating PROs for health screening purposes within the long‐term follow‐up programme after paediatric HSCT, as perceived by both patient and HCP. With the active use of PROs, patients are stimulated to consciously assess their health status. Patient Contribution This study included patients as participants. Caregivers were approached if patients were below a certain age. Additionally, preliminary results were shared with all patients (including nonparticipants) during a patient conference day.

Abstract Introduction Guidelines on chronic kidney disease (CKD) recommend that nephrologists use clinical prediction models (CPMs). However, the actual use of CPMs seems limited in clinical practice. We conducted a national survey study to evaluate: 1) to what extent CPMs are used in Dutch CKD practice, 2) patients’ and nephrologists’ needs and preferences regarding predictions in CKD, and 3) determinants that may affect the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with CKD patients to inform the development of two online surveys; one for CKD patients and one for nephrologists. Survey participants were recruited through the Dutch Kidney Patient Association and the Dutch Federation of Nephrology. Results A total of 126 patients and 50 nephrologists responded to the surveys. Most patients (89%) reported they had discussed predictions with their nephrologists. They most frequently discussed predictions regarded CKD progression: when they were expected to need kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (n = 81), and how rapidly their kidney function was expected to decline (n = 68). Half of the nephrologists (52%) reported to use CPMs in clinical practice, in particular CPMs predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease. Almost all nephrologists (98%) reported discussing expected CKD trajectories with their patients; even those that did not use CPMs (42%). The majority of patients (61%) and nephrologists (84%) chose a CPM predicting when patients would need KRT in the future as the most important prediction. However, a small portion of patients indicated they did not want to be informed on predictions regarding CKD progression at all (10–15%). Nephrologists not using CPMs (42%) reported they did not know CPMs they could use or felt that they had insufficient knowledge regarding CPMs. According to the nephrologists, the most important determinants for the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice were: 1) understandability for patients, 2) integration as standard of care, 3) the clinical relevance. Conclusion Even though the majority of patients in Dutch CKD practice reported discussing predictions with their nephrologists, CPMs are infrequently used for this purpose. Both patients and nephrologists considered a CPM predicting CKD progression most important to discuss. Increasing awareness about existing CPMs that predict CKD progression may result in increased adoption in clinical practice. When using CPMs regarding CKD progression, nephrologists should ask whether patients want to hear predictions beforehand, since individual patients’ preferences vary.

Background Standardisation of outcome measures is integral to value-based healthcare (VBHC), which may conflict with patient-centred care, focusing on personalisation.Objectives We aimed to provide an overview of measures used to assess the effect of VBHC implementation and to examine to what extent the evidence indicates that VBHC supports patient-centred care.Design A scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology.Sources of evidence We searched the following databases on 18 February 2021: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science.Eligibility criteria We included empirical papers assessing the effect of the implementation of VBHC, published after introduction of VBHC in 2006.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers double-screened papers and data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by the other. We classified the study measures used in included papers into six categories: process indicator, cost measure, clinical outcome, patient-reported outcome, patient-reported experience or clinician-reported experience. We then assessed the patient-centredness of the study measures used.Results We included 39 studies using 94 unique study measures. The most frequently used study measures (n=72) were process indicators, cost measures and clinical outcomes, which rarely were patient-centred. The less frequently used (n=20) patient-reported outcome and experience measures often measured a dimension of patient-centred care.Conclusion Our study shows that the evidence on VBHC supporting patient-centred care is limited, exposing a knowledge gap in VBHC research. The most frequently used study measures in VBHC research are not patient-centred. The major focus seems to be on measures of quality of care defined from a provider, institution or payer perspective.

Abstract Background There is a great need for the development of personalized prediction models (PPMs) that can predict the rate of disease progression for persons with Parkinson's disease (PD), based on their individual characteristics. In this study, we aimed to clarify the perspective of persons diagnosed with PD on the value of such hypothetical PPMs. Methods We organized four focus group discussions, each including five persons with PD who were diagnosed within the last 5 years. The sessions focused on what they think of receiving a personalized prediction; what outcomes are important to them; if and how the possibility of influencing the prognosis would change the way they think of personalized predictions; how they deal with the uncertainty from a PPM; and what barriers and facilitators they expect for using a PPM. Results The wish of persons with PD for receiving personalized prognostic information was highly heterogenous, for various reasons. Most persons with PD would like to receive more personalized prognostic information, mainly to better prepare themselves and their loved ones for the future. The prediction provided should be as personalized as possible, and there should be adequate supervision and coaching by a professional when providing the information. They were particularly interested in receiving prognostic information when their interventions would be available that could subsequently influence the identified prognostic factor and thereby affect the disease course beneficially. Conclusion Most persons with PD in this study want more insight into their own future by means of prediction models, provided that this is explained and supervized properly by professionals. Patient or Public Contribution Two patient‐researchers were involved in the study design, conduct of the study, interpretation of the data and in preparation of the manuscript.

Abstract Background Patient decision aids (PtDAs) support patients and clinicians in shared decision-making (SDM). Real-world outcome information may improve patients’ risk perception, and help patients make decisions congruent with their expectations and values. Our aim was to develop an online PtDA to support kidney failure treatment modality decision-making, that: 1) provides patients with real-world outcome information, and 2) facilitates SDM in clinical practice. Methods The International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) development process model was complemented with a user-centred and convergent mixed-methods approach. Rapid prototyping was used to develop the PtDA with a multidisciplinary steering group in an iterative process of co-creation. The results of an exploratory evidence review and a needs-assessment among patients, caregivers, and clinicians were used to develop the PtDA. Seven Dutch teaching hospitals and two national Dutch outcome registries provided real-world data on selected outcomes for all kidney failure treatment modalities. Alpha and beta testing were performed to assess the prototype and finalise development. An implementation strategy was developed to guide implementation of the PtDA in clinical practice. Results The ‘Kidney Failure Decision Aid’ consists of three components designed to help patients and clinicians engage in SDM: 1) a paper hand-out sheet, 2) an interactive website, and 3) a personal summary sheet. A ‘patients-like-me’ infographic was developed to visualise survival probabilities for each treatment modality on the website. Other treatment outcomes were incorporated as event rates (e.g. hospitalisation rates) or explained in text (e.g. the flexibility of each treatment modality). No major revisions were needed after alpha and beta testing. During beta testing, some patients ignored the survival probabilities because they considered these too confronting. Nonetheless, patients agreed that every patient has the right to choose whether they want to view this information. Patients and clinicians believed that the PtDA would help patients make informed decisions, and that it would support values- and preferences-based decision-making. Implementation of the PtDA has started in October 2020. Conclusions The ‘Kidney Failure Decision Aid’ was designed to facilitate SDM in clinical practice and contains real-world outcome information on all kidney failure treatment modalities. It is currently being investigated for its effects on SDM in a clinical trial.

Abstract An increasing number of older patients have to decide on a treatment plan for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), involving dialysis or conservative care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended as the model for decision-making in such preference-sensitive decisions. The aim of SDM is to come to decisions that are consistent with the patient’s values and preferences and made by the patient and healthcare professional working together. In clinical practice, however, SDM appears to be not yet routine and needs further implementation. A shift from a biomedical to a person-centered conception might help to make the process more shared. Shared should, therefore, be interpreted as two persons bringing two perspectives to the table, that both need to be explored during the decision-making process. Starting from the patient’s perspective will enable to determine the mutual goals of care first and, subsequently, determine the best way for achieving those goals. To perform such SDM, the healthcare professional needs to become a skilled companion, being part of the patient’s relational context, and start asking the right questions about what matters to the patient as person. In this article, we describe the need for a person-centered conception of SDM for the setting of older patients with advanced CKD.

Abstract Background Although shared decision making is championed as the preferred model for patient care by patient organizations, researchers and medical professionals, its application in daily practice remains limited. We previously showed that residents more often prefer paternalistic decision making than their supervisors. Because both the views of residents on the decision-making process in medical consultations and the reasons for their ‘paternalism preference’ are unknown, this study explored residents’ views on the decision-making process in medical encounters and the factors affecting it. Methods We interviewed 12 residents from various specialties at a large Dutch teaching hospital in 2019–2020, exploring how they involved patients in decisions. All participating residents provided written informed consent. Data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection in an iterative process informing adaptations to the interview topic guide when deemed necessary. Constant comparative analysis was used to develop themes. We ceased data collection when information sufficiency was achieved. Results Participants described how active engagement of patients in discussing options and decision making was influenced by contextual factors (patient characteristics, logistical factors such as available time, and supervisors’ recommendations) and by limitations in their medical and shared decision-making knowledge. The residents’ decision-making behavior appeared strongly affected by their conviction that they are responsible for arriving at the correct diagnosis and providing the best evidence-based treatment. They described shared decision making as the process of patients consenting with physician-recommended treatment or patients choosing their preferred option when no best evidence-based option was available. Conclusions Residents’ decision making appears to be affected by contextual factors, their medical knowledge, their knowledge about SDM, and by their beliefs and convictions about their professional responsibilities as a doctor, ensuring that patients receive the best possible evidence-based treatment. They confuse SDM with acquiring informed consent with the physician’s treatment recommendations and with letting patients decide which treatment they prefer in case no evidence based guideline recommendation is available. Teaching SDM to residents should not only include skills training, but also target residents’ perceptions and convictions regarding their role in the decision-making process in consultations.

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to identify and summarize how value-based healthcare (VBHC) is conceptualized in the literature and implemented in hospitals. Furthermore, an overview was created of the effects of both the implementation of VBHC and the implementation strategies used. Methods A scoping review was conducted by searching online databases for articles published between January 2006 and February 2021. Empirical as well as non-empirical articles were included. Results 1729 publications were screened and 62 were used for data extraction. The majority of the articles did not specify a conceptualization of VBHC, but only conceptualized the goals of VBHC or the concept of value. Most hospitals implemented only one or two components of VBHC, mainly the measurement of outcomes and costs or Integrated Practice Units (IPUs). Few studies examined effects. Implementation strategies were described rarely, and were evaluated even less. Conclusions VBHC has a high level of interpretative variability and a common conceptualization of VBHC is therefore urgently needed. VBHC was proposed as a shift in healthcare management entailing six reinforcing steps, but hospitals have not implemented VBHC as an integrative strategy. VBHC implementation and effectiveness could benefit from the interdisciplinary collaboration between healthcare and management science. Trial registration This scoping review was registered on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/jt4u7/ (OSF | The implementation of Value-Based Healthcare: a Scoping Review).

Abstract Background Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) are subjective outcomes of disease and/or treatment in clinical research. For effective evaluations of PROs, high response rates are crucial. This study assessed the impact of the delivery method on the patients’ response rate. Methods A cohort of patients with a unilateral vestibular schwannoma (a condition with substantial impact on quality of life, requiring prolonged follow-up) was assigned to three delivery methods: email, regular mail, and hybrid. Patients were matched for age and time since the last visit to the outpatient clinic. The primary outcome was the response rate, determinants other than delivery mode were age, education and time since the last consultation. In addition, the effect of a second reminder by telephone was evaluated. Results In total 602 patients participated in this study. The response rates for delivery by email, hybrid, and mail were 45, 58 and 60%, respectively. The response rates increased after a reminder by telephone to 62, 67 and 64%, respectively. A lower response rate was associated with lower level of education and longer time interval since last outpatient clinic visit. Conclusion The response rate for PRO varies by delivery method. PRO surveys by regular mail yield the highest response rate, followed by hybrid and email delivery methods. Hybrid delivery combines good response rates with the ease of digitally returned questionnaires.

Abstract Purpose Solutions to improve the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in oncology often focus on the consultation, with limited effects. In this study, we used a service design perspective on the care path of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). We aimed to understand how experiences of patients, their significant others, and medical professionals over the entire care path accumulate to support their ability to participate in SDM. Participants and methods We used qualitative interviews including design research techniques with 13 patients, 13 significant others, and 11 healthcare professionals, involved in the diagnosis or treatment of LAPC. The topic list was based on the literature and an auto‐ethnography of the illness trajectory by a caregiver who is also a service design researcher. We conducted a thematic content analysis to identify themes influencing the ability to participate in SDM. Results We found four interconnected themes: (1) Decision making is an ongoing and unpredictable process with many decision moments, often unannounced. The unpredictability of the disease course, tumor response to treatment, and consequences of choices on the quality of life complicate decision making; (2) Division of roles, tasks, and collaboration among professionals and between professionals and patients and/or their significant others is often unclear to patients and their significant others; (3) It involves “work” for patients and their significant others to obtain and understand information; (4) In “their disease journey,” patients are confronted with unexpected energy drains and energy boosts, that influence their level of empowerment to participate in SDM. Conclusion The service design perspective uncovered how the stage for SDM is often set outside the consultation, which might explain the limited effect currently seen of interventions focusing on consultation itself. Our findings serve as a starting point for (re)designing care paths to improve the implementation of SDM in oncology.

Objectives To provide a comprehensive overview of interventions that support shared decision-making (SDM) for treatment modality decisions in advanced kidney disease (AKD). To provide summarised information on their content, use and reported results. To provide an overview of interventions currently under development or investigation.Design The JBI methodology for scoping reviews was followed. This review conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO, PROSPERO and Academic Search Premier for peer-reviewed literature. Other online databases (eg, clinicaltrials.gov, OpenGrey) for grey literature.Eligibility for inclusion Records in English with a study population of patients >18 years of age with an estimated glomerular filtration rate

Abstract Background Health‐care providers increasingly have to discuss uncertainty with patients. Awareness of uncertainty can affect patients variably, depending on how it is communicated. To date, no overview existed for health‐care professionals on how to discuss uncertainty. Objective To generate an overview of available recommendations on how to communicate uncertainty with patients during clinical encounters. Search strategy A scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched following the PRISMA‐ScR statement. Independent screening by two researchers was performed of titles and abstracts, and subsequently full texts. Inclusion criteria Any (non‐)empirical papers were included describing recommendations for any health‐care provider on how to orally communicate uncertainty to patients. Data extraction Data on provided recommendations and their characteristics (eg, target group and strength of evidence base) were extracted. Recommendations were narratively synthesized into a comprehensible overview for clinical practice. Results Forty‐seven publications were included. Recommendations were based on empirical findings in 23 publications. After narrative synthesis, 13 recommendations emerged pertaining to three overarching goals: (a) preparing for the discussion of uncertainty, (b) informing patients about uncertainty and (c) helping patients deal with uncertainty. Discussion and conclusions A variety of recommendations on how to orally communicate uncertainty are available, but most lack an evidence base. More substantial research is needed to assess the effects of the suggested communicative approaches. Until then, health‐care providers may use our overview of communication strategies as a toolbox to optimize communication about uncertainty with patients. Patient or public contribution Results were presented to stakeholders (physicians) to check and improve their practical applicability.

Introduction: An important aspect of Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) is providing the full cycle of care for a specific medical condition through interprofessional collaboration. This requires employees from diverse professional backgrounds to interact, but there is limited knowledge on how professionals perceive such interprofessional collaboration. We aimed to provide insight into how different professionals perceive Integrated Practice Unit (IPU) composition and what factors influence the quality of interprofessional collaboration within IPUs. Methods: A survey was administered to employees from different professional backgrounds (medical specialists, nurses, allied health professionals, administrative employees) working in IPUs to assess their perception of the composition of their IPU and the quality of the interactions. Subsequently, semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the findings of the survey. Results: Medical specialists and nurses were most frequently considered to be part of an IPU and indicated that they have high quality interactions. Allied health professionals were less often considered part of the team by all other professional groups and all report low quality interaction with this group. The extent to which a professional group is perceived as a team member depends on their visibility, involvement in the treatment of the patient, and shared interest. Differences in the quality of interprofessional collaboration are influenced by organizational structures, knowledge of each other’s expertise, and by ways of communication. Conclusions: In VBHC, there seems to be a lack of common perception of an IPU’s composition and a failure to always achieve high quality interprofessional collaboration. Given the importance of interprofessional collaboration in VBHC, effort should be invested in achieving a shared understanding and improved collaboration.

Abstract Background Existing measures to assess shared decision making (SDM) have often been developed based on an ill‐defined underlying construct, and many assess physician behaviours only or focus on a single patient‐physician encounter. Objective To (a) develop a patient and a physician questionnaire to measure SDM in oncology and (b) determine their content validity and comprehensibility. Methods A systematic review of SDM models and an oncology‐specific SDM model informed the domains of the SDM construct. We formulated items for each SDM domain. Cancer patients and physicians rated content validity in an online questionnaire. We assumed a formative measurement model and performed online field‐testing in cancer patients to inform further item reduction. We tested item comprehension in cognitive interviews with cancer patients and physicians. Results We identified 17 domains and formulated 132 items. Twelve cancer patients rated content validity at item level, and 11 physicians rated content validity at domain level. We field‐tested the items among 131 cancer patients and conducted cognitive interviews with eight patients and five physicians. These phases resulted in the 15‐item iSHAREpatient and 15‐item iSHAREphysician questionnaires, covering 13 domains. Conclusions We thoroughly developed the iSHARE questionnaires. They both assess patient and physician behaviours and cover the entire SDM process rather than a single consultation.

Objectives To identify what patient-related characteristics have been reported to be associated with the occurrence of shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment.Design Scoping review.Eligibility criteria Peer-reviewed articles in English or Dutch reporting on associations between patient-related characteristics and the occurrence of SDM for actual treatment decisions.Information sources COCHRANE Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published until 25 March 2019.Results The search yielded 5289 hits of which 53 were retained. Multiple categories of patient characteristics were identified: (1) sociodemographic characteristics (eg, gender), (2) general health and clinical characteristics (eg, symptom severity), (3) psychological characteristics and coping with illness (eg, self-efficacy) and (4) SDM style or preference. Many characteristics showed no association or unclear relationships with SDM occurrence. For example, for female gender positive, negative and, most frequently, non-significant associations were seen.Conclusions A large variety of patient-related characteristics have been studied, but for many the association with SDM occurrence remains unclear. The results will caution often-made assumptions about associations and provide an important step to target effective interventions to foster SDM with all patients.

BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is particularly important in oncology as many treatments involve serious side effects, and treatment decisions involve a trade-off between benefits and risks. However, the implementation of SDM in oncology care is challenging, and clinicians state that it is difficult to apply SDM in their actual workplace. Training clinicians is known to be an effective means of improving SDM but is considered time consuming. ObjectiveThis study aims to address the effectiveness of an individual SDM training program using the concept of deliberate practice. MethodsThis multicenter, single-blinded randomized clinical trial will be performed at 12 Dutch hospitals. Clinicians involved in decisions with oncology patients will be invited to participate in the study and allocated to the control or intervention group. All clinicians will record 3 decision-making processes with 3 different oncology patients. Clinicians in the intervention group will receive the following SDM intervention: completing e-learning, reflecting on feedback reports, performing a self-assessment and defining 1 to 3 personal learning questions, and participating in face-to-face coaching. Clinicians in the control group will not receive the SDM intervention until the end of the study. The primary outcome will be the extent to which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process, as scored using the Observing Patient Involvement–5 instrument. As secondary outcomes, patients will rate their perceived involvement in decision-making, and the duration of the consultations will be registered. All participating clinicians and their patients will receive information about the study and complete an informed consent form beforehand. ResultsThis trial was retrospectively registered on August 03, 2021. Approval for the study was obtained from the ethical review board (medical research ethics committee Delft and Leiden, the Netherlands [N20.170]). Recruitment and data collection procedures are ongoing and are expected to be completed by July 2022; we plan to complete data analyses by December 2022. As of February 2022, a total of 12 hospitals have been recruited to participate in the study, and 30 clinicians have started the SDM training program. ConclusionsThis theory-based and blended approach will increase our knowledge of effective and feasible training methods for clinicians in the field of SDM. The intervention will be tailored to the context of individual clinicians and will target the knowledge, attitude, and skills of clinicians. The patients will also be involved in the design and implementation of the study. Trial RegistrationNetherlands Trial Registry NL9647; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9647 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/35543

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is often considered the ideal for decision-making in oncology. Views of specific groups such as ethnic minorities have seldom been considered in its development. Aim In this study we seek to assess in oncology if there is a need for adaptation of the current SDM model to ethnic minorities and to formulate possible adjustments. Design This study is embedded in empirical bioethics, an interdisciplinary approach integrating empirical data with ethical reasoning to formulate normative conclusions regarding a practice. For the empirical social scientific part, a cross-sectional qualitative study will be conducted; for the ethical reflection the Reflective Equilibrium will be used to develop a coherent view on the application of SDM among ethnic minorities in oncology. Method Semi-structured interviews combined with visual methods (timelines and relational maps) will be held with healthcare professionals (HCPs), ethnic minority patients, and their relatives to identify values steering the behavior of these actors in SDM. In addition, focus groups (FGs) will be held with ethnic minority community members to identify value structures at the group level. Respondents will be recruited through organizations with access to ethnic minorities and collaborating hospitals. Data will be analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis through the lens of Schwartz’s value theory. The results of the empirical phase will be included in the RE to formulate possible adjustments of the SDM model, if needed. Discussion The integration of empirical data with ethical reflection is an innovative method in decision-making. This method enables a systematic and profound assessment of the need for adaptation of SDM and the formulation of theoretically and empirically based suggestions for adaptations of the model. Findings of this study may enrich the SDM model.

Introduction: Uncertainty is omnipresent in cancer care, including the ambiguity of diagnostic tests, efficacy and side effects of treatments, and/or patients' long-term prognosis. During second opinion consultations, uncertainty may be particularly tangible: doubts and uncertainty may drive patients to seek more information and request a second opinion, whereas the second opinion in turn may also affect patients' level of uncertainty. Providers are tasked to clearly discuss all of these uncertainties with patients who may feel overwhelmed by it. The aim of this study was to explore how oncologists communicate about uncertainty during second opinion consultations in medical oncology.Methods: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of audio-recorded consultations collected in a prospective study among cancer patients (N = 69) who sought a second opinion in medical oncology. We purposively selected 12 audio-recorded second opinion consultations. Any communication about uncertainty by the oncologist was double coded by two researchers and an inductive analytic approach was chosen to allow for novel insights to arise.Results: Seven approaches in which oncologists conveyed or addressed uncertainty were identified: (1) specifying the degree of uncertainty, (2) explaining reasons of uncertainty, (3) providing personalized estimates of uncertainty to patients, (4) downplaying or magnifying uncertainty, (5) reducing or counterbalancing uncertainty, and (6) providing support to facilitate patients in coping with uncertainty. Moreover, oncologists varied in their (7) choice of words/language to convey uncertainty (i.e., “I” vs. “we”; level of explicitness).Discussion: This study identified various approaches of how oncologists communicated uncertain issues during second opinion consultations. These different approaches could affect patients' perception of uncertainty, emotions provoked by it, and possibly even patients' behavior. For example, by minimizing uncertainty, oncologists may (un)consciously steer patients toward specific medical decisions). Future research is needed to examine how these different ways of communicating about uncertainty affect patients. This could also facilitate a discussion about the desirability of certain communication strategies. Eventually, practical and evidence-based guidance needs to be developed for clinicians to optimally inform patients about uncertain issues and support patients in dealing with these.

IntroductionPatients with advanced kidney disease (AKD) have to make difficult treatment modality decisions as their disease progresses towards end-stage kidney disease. International guidelines in nephrology suggest shared decision-making (SDM) to help patients make timely treatment modality decisions that align with their values and preferences. However, systematic reviews or scoping reviews on these SDM interventions and on their reported use or outcomes are lacking. This limits the adoption of SDM in clinical practice and hampers further research and development on the subject. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of these SDM interventions by means of a scoping review of the literature. Scoping reviews can provide a broad overview of a topic, identify gaps in the research knowledge base and report on the types of evidence that address and inform practices. This paper presents our study protocol.Methods and analysisThe proposed scoping review will be performed in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. It will cover both qualitative and quantitative scientific literature, as well as the grey literature on SDM interventions for treatment modality decisions in AKD. Only literature written in English will be considered for inclusion. Two independent reviewers will participate in an iterative process of screening the literature, paper selection and data extraction. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion until consensus is reached or after consultation with the research team when needed. Results will be reported with descriptive statistics and diagrammatic or tabular displayed information, accompanied by narrative summaries as explained in the JBI guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the conduct of this study is not required. We will analyse previously collected data for the proposed scoping review. Our results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated through conferences and/or seminars.

Objective Many treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) acknowledge preference-sensitive decisions in how they motivate and phrase their recommendations.Design We performed a qualitative analysis of the content of CPGs and verified the results in semistructured interviews with CPG panel members.Setting Dutch oncology CPGs issued in 2010 or later, concerning primary treatment with curative intent.Participants 14 CPG panel members.Main outcomes For treatment recommendations from six CPG modules, two researchers extracted the following: strength of recommendation in terms of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and its consistency with the CPG text; completeness of presentation of benefits and harms; incorporation of patient preferences; statements on the panel’s benefits–harm trade-off underlying recommendation; and advice on patient involvement in decision-making.Results We identified 32 recommendations, 18 were acknowledged preference-sensitive decisions. Three of 14 strong recommendations should have been weak based on the module text. The reporting of benefits and harms, and their probabilities, was sufficiently complete and clear to inform the strength of the recommendation in one of the six modules only. Numerical probabilities were seldom presented. None of the modules presented information on patient preferences. CPG panel’s preferences were not made explicit, but appeared to have impacted 15 of 32 recommendations. Advice to involve patients and their preferences in decision-making was given for 20 recommendations (14 weak). Interviewees confirmed these findings. Explanations for lack of information were, for example, that clinicians know the information and that CPGs must be short. Explanations for trade-offs made were cultural-historical preferences, compliance with daily care, presumed role of CPGs and lack of time.Conclusions The motivation and phrasing of CPG recommendations do not stimulate choice awareness and a neutral presentation of options, thus hindering shared decision-making.

Objectives To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting.Design Systematic review.Eligibility criteria Peer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM.Information sources Academic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019.Results Forty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall, Describe treatment options was the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were: Make the decision (75%), Patient preferences (65%), Tailor information (65%), Deliberate (58%), Create choice awareness (55%), and Learn about the patient (53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time, Describe treatment options and Make the decision are the two components which are present in most models in any time period. Create choice awareness stood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time.Conclusions This review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key.Trial registration PROSPERO registration CRD42015019740

To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies.In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397.We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated.Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.

Non-adherence to statins is substantial and is associated with numerous perceptions and experiences. However, time limits in clinical practice constrain in depth explorations of these perceptions and experiences.To propose and examine a strategy aimed at an efficient assessment of a wide array of perceptions and experiences regarding the efficacy, side effects, and practical problems of statins. Furthermore, to assess associations between this wide array of experiences and perceptions and non-adherence and to examine whether patients' 'perceived self-efficacy' moderated these associations.Patients were recruited through community pharmacies. A wide array of specific patient perceptions and experiences was efficiently assessed using the electronic Tailored Medicine Inventory that allows people to skip irrelevant questions. Adherence was measured through self-report and pharmacy refill data.Of the two-hundred twenty-nine patients who participated (mean age 63.9, standard deviation 10.2), 40%-70% doubted the necessity of or lacked knowledge about the efficacy of statins, 20%-35% of the patients were worried about joint and muscle side effects or had experienced these, and 23% had encountered practical problems regarding information about statins, intake of tablets, the package, or the blister. Experiencing more practical problems was associated with increased unintentional non-adherence (Odds ratio 1.54, 95%CI:1.13-2.10, P < 0.01), whereas worrying about side effects was associated with increased intentional non-adherence (Odds ratio 1.90, 95%CI:1.17-3.08, P < 0.01). Higher 'perceived self-efficacy' did not moderate these associations.Insight into patients' specific barriers with regard to appropriate statin use may reveal personal reasons for being non-adherent. The Tailored Medicine Inventory is a promising tool to devise individualized intervention strategies aimed at improving adherence by the clinician-patient alliance.

PURPOSE:The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc measure patient and physician perception of the extent of shared decision making (SDM) during a physician-patient consultation. So far, no self-report instrument for SDM was available in Dutch, and validation of the scales in other languages has been limited. The aim of this study was to translate both scales into Dutch and assess their psychometric characteristics. METHODS:Participants were patients and their treating physicians (general practitioners and medical specialists). Patients (N = 182) rated their consultation using the SDM-Q-9, 43 physicians rated their consultations using the SDM-Q-Doc (N = 201). Acceptability, reliability (internal consistency), and the factorial structure of the instruments were determined. For convergent validity the CPSpost was used. RESULTS:Reliabilities of both scales were high (alpha SDM-Q-9 0.88; SDM-Q-Doc 0.87). The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc total scores correlated as expected with the CPSpost (SDM-Q-9: r = 0.29; SDM-Q-Doc: r = 0.48) and were significantly different between the CPSpost categories, with lowest mean scores when the physician made the decision alone. Principal Component Analyses showed a two-component model for each scale. A confirmatory factor analysis yielded a mediocre, but acceptable, one-factor model, if Item 1 was excluded; for both scales the best indices of fit were obtained for a one-factor solution, if both Items 1 and 9 were excluded. CONCLUSION:The Dutch SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrate good acceptance and reliability; they correlated as expected with the CPSpost and are suitable for use in Dutch primary and specialised care. Although the best model fit was found when excluding Items 1 and 9, we believe these items address important aspects of SDM. Therefore, also based on the coherence with theory and comparability with other studies, we suggest keeping all nine items of the scale. Further research on the SDM-concept in patients and physicians, in different clinical settings and different countries, is necessary to gain a better understanding of the SDM-construct and its measurement.