Search

ObjectivesTo describe the range of collaborative approaches to shared decision-making (SDM) observed in clinical encounters of patients with diabetes and their clinicians.DesignA secondary analysis of videorecordings obtained in a randomised trial comparing usual diabetes primary care with or without using a within-encounter conversation SDM tool.SettingUsing the purposeful SDM framework, we classified the forms of SDM observed in a random sample of 100 video-recorded clinical encounters of patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care.Main outcome measuresWe assessed the correlation between the extent to which each form of SDM was used and patient involvement (OPTION12-scale).ResultsWe observed at least one instance of SDM in 86 of 100 encounters. In 31 (36%) of these 86 encounters, we found only one form of SDM, in 25 (29%) two forms, and in 30 (35%), we found ≥3 forms of SDM. In these encounters, 196 instances of SDM were identified, with weighing alternatives (n=64 of 196, 33%), negotiating conflicting desires (n=59, 30%) and problemsolving (n=70, 36%) being similarly prevalent and developing existential insight accounting for only 1% (n=3) of instances. Only the form of SDM focused on weighing alternatives was correlated with a higher OPTION12-score. More forms of SDM were used when medications were changed (2.4 SDM forms (SD 1.48) vs 1.8 (SD 1.46); p=0.050).ConclusionsAfter considering forms of SDM beyond weighing alternatives, SDM was present in most encounters. Clinicians and patients often used different forms of SDM within the same encounter. Recognising a range of SDM forms that clinicians and patients use to respond to problematic situations, as demonstrated in this study, opens new lines of research, education and practice that may advance patient-centred, evidence-based care.

Merel M Ruissen,1– 3 Jacob K Sont,2 Heidi A van Vugt,4,5 Marleen Kunneman,2,3 Guy EHM Rutten,4 Eelco JP de Koning1 1Department of Medicine, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands; 2Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Section of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands; 3Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 4Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Department of General Practice, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; 5Dutch Diabetes Federation, Amersfoort, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Eelco JP de Koning, Department of Medicine, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands, Tel +31 71 52 62085, Fax +31 71 52 66881, Email e.j.p.de_koning@lumc.nlPurpose: Understanding which factors are important for healthcare decisions of patients with diabetes in clinical practice is important to personalise diabetes care strategies and tailor care plans to the individual. The main drivers for these healthcare decisions remain unclear. This study assessed which key factors are relevant for healthcare decisions during clinical consultations for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM), according to healthcare professionals.Materials and Methods: Annual diabetes reviews were performed as part of a trial assessing the impact of a consultation model facilitating person-centred diabetes care in six hospital outpatient clinics. After each consultation, we asked healthcare professionals to choose a maximum of three out of 20 factors that were most relevant for healthcare decisions about treatment goals and the professional support needed during the upcoming year. Factors were characterised as either person or disease-related. Percentages reflect the number of annual diabetes reviews in which the key factor was reported.Results: Seventeen physicians and eight diabetes specialist nurses reported the key factors relevant for healthcare decisions in 285 annual diabetes reviews (T1DM n = 119, T2DM n = 166). Healthcare professionals most often reported quality of life (31.9%), motivation (27.0%) and diabetes self-management (25.6%), and to a lesser extent glycaemic control (24.2%), to be important for decisions about treatment goals. For decisions about the professional support needed during the upcoming year patient’s preferences (33.7%), diabetes self-management (33.3%), quality of life (27.0%) and motivation (25.6%) were most often considered relevant by healthcare professionals.Conclusion: According to healthcare professionals, person-related factors such as quality of life, diabetes self-management and motivation are predominantly relevant for healthcare decisions about treatment goals and the professional support needed during the upcoming year.Keywords: diabetes mellitus, person-centred, preferences, shared decision making

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) mimetics are effective drugs for treatment of type 2 diabetes, and there is consequently extensive interest in increasing endogenous GLP-1 secretion and L-cell abundance. Here we identify G-protein–coupled bile acid receptor 1 (GPBAR1) as a selective regulator of intestinal L-cell differentiation. Lithocholic acid and the synthetic GPBAR1 agonist, L3740, selectively increased L-cell density in mouse and human intestinal organoids and elevated GLP-1 secretory capacity. L3740 induced expression of Gcg and transcription factors Ngn3 and NeuroD1. L3740 also increased the L-cell number and GLP-1 levels and improved glucose tolerance in vivo. Further mechanistic examination revealed that the effect of L3740 on L cells required intact GLP-1 receptor and serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 4 (5-HT4) signaling. Importantly, serotonin signaling through 5-HT4 mimicked the effects of L3740, acting downstream of GLP-1. Thus, GPBAR1 agonists and other powerful GLP-1 secretagogues facilitate L-cell differentiation through a paracrine GLP-1–dependent and serotonin-mediated mechanism.