Search

Context Decision aids (DAs) aim to support patients in the process of shared decision-making for complex treatment decisions. To improve patient-centered care in uro-oncology, it is essential to evaluate the availability and quality of existing DAs. Objective To assess the quality of existing DAs for patients across the most prevalent uro-oncological entities. Evidence acquisition This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic literature search (MedLine, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, and CCMed) was conducted to identify DAs for treatment decisions for patients with prostate, renal, or bladder cancer. All studies reporting on the development or evaluation of DAs were included. The DAs were examined based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and the evaluation studies were compared in accordance with Standards for Universal reporting of a patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE). Evidence synthesis The literature search identified 1995 potentially relevant publications. Thirty-two studies reporting on 25 DAs met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two DAs address prostate cancer, two renal tumor, and one bladder cancer. In the majority of DAs (n = 20), patients can enter individual data. A few (n = 6) DAs allow for personalization using a risk-adapted presentation of treatment options. The percentage of IPDAS criteria met in DAs ranged between 50% and 100% (median 87.5%), and the studies’ adherence to the SUNDAE checklist was between 62% and 96% (median 86.6%). Evaluation studies suggest that interventions are likely efficacious. However, a preliminary meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between "DA" and "usual care" for decisional conflict or decisional regret. Conclusions This review highlights that a number of well-developed DAs exist in urology. However, there is a need for specific instruments targeting kidney and bladder cancer. Personalization of tools and adherence to international standards of DAs should be further improved. Patient summary The majority of uro-oncological decision aids target prostate cancer, whereas fewer address kidney or bladder cancer. The quality of the existing instruments is high, but can be increased further to better address specific needs of individual patients.

ObjectivesTo develop and validate a values clarification tool, the Short Graphic Values History Tool (GVHT), designed to support person-centred decision making during serious illness.MethodsThe development phase included input from experts and laypersons and assessed acceptability with patients/family members. In the validation phase, we recruited additional participants into a before–after study. Our primary validation hypothesis was that the tool would reduce scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) at 1–2 weeks of follow-up. Our secondary validation hypotheses were that the tool would improve values clarity (reduce scores) more than other DCS subscales and increase engagement in advance care planning (ACP) processes related to identification and discussion of one’s values.ResultsIn the development phase, the tool received positive overall ratings from 22 patients/family members in hospital (mean score 4.3; 1=very poor; 5=very good) and family practice (mean score 4.5) settings. In the validation phase, we enrolled 157 patients (mean age 71.8 years) from family practice, cancer clinic and hospital settings. After tool completion, decisional conflict decreased (−6.7 points, 95% CI −11.1 to −2.3, p=0.003; 0–100 scale; N=100), with the most improvement seen in the values clarity subscale (−10.0 points, 95% CI −17.3 to −2.7, p=0.008; N=100), and the ACP-Values process score increased (+0.4 points, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.6, p=0.001; 1–5 scale; N=61).ConclusionsThe Short GVHT is acceptable to end users and has some measure of validity. Further study to evaluate its impact on decision making during serious illness is warranted.

Background Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment. Purpose To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Study Selection We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods. Data Extraction Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation. Data Synthesis Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ2 = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ2 = 6.08, P = 0.05). Limitations Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories. Conclusions Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Purpose: the aim of expanded preconception carrier screening (ECS) is to inform any couple wishing to conceive about their chances of having children with severe autosomal or X-linked recessive conditions. Responsible implementation of ECS as reproductive genetic screening in routine care requires assessment of benefits and harms. We examined the psychological outcomes of couple-based ECS for 50 autosomal recessive (AR) conditions provided by general practitioners (GPs) to couples from the Dutch general population.Methods: Dutch GPs invited 4,295 women aged 18-40. We examined anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI-6), worry, decisional conflict (DCS) over time in participants declining GP counseling or attending GP counseling with/without testing.Results: one hundred ninety couples participated; 130 attended counseling, of whom 117 proceeded with testing. No carrier couples were identified. Before counseling, worry (median 6.0) and anxiety (mean 30-34) were low and lower than the population reference (36.4), although some individuals reported increased anxiety or worry. At follow-up, test acceptors reported less anxiety than test decliners (mean 29 vs. 35); differences in anxiety after testing compared to before counseling were not meaningful. Most participants (90%) were satisfied with their decision (not) to undergo testing.Conclusion: some individuals reported temporarily clinically relevant distress. Overall, the psychological outcomes are acceptable and no barrier to population-wide implementation.

Objective The evaluation of the effect of a mammography decision aid (DA) designed for older women at risk for lower health literacy (LHL) on their knowledge of mammography’s benefits and harms and decisional conflict. Methods Using a pretest-posttest design, women > 75 years at risk for LHL reviewing a mammography DA before and after their [B] primary care provider visit. Women were recruited from an academic medical center and community health centers and clinics. Results Of 147 eligible women approached, 43 participated. Receipt of the DA significantly affected knowledge of mammography’s benefits and harms [B] (pre-test (M = 3.75, SD = 1.05) to post-test (M = 4.42, SD = 1.19), p = .03). Receipt of the DA did not significantly affect decisional conflict (pre-test (M = 3.10, SD = .97) to post-test (M = 3.23, SD = 1.02), p = .71, higher scores = lower decisional conflict). The majority of the women (97%) indicated that the DA was helpful. Conclusions Women found a mammography screening DA helpful and its use was associated with these women having increased knowledge of mammography’s benefits and harms. Practice Implications With the shift toward shared decision-making for women > 75 years, there is a need to engage women of all literacy levels to participate in these decisions and have tools such as the one tested in this study.

Objectives Although postpartum rooming-in is encouraged by the World Health Organization, independent separated nursery care is still widely adopted in Eastern countries. Our aim is to evaluate the effect of shared decision making (SDM) assisted by patient decision aids on subjective decisional conflict and regret among women who are required to make choices regarding postpartum infant care. Methods A total of 196 pregnant women who came for routine checkups 1 month before delivery were randomly assigned to the SDM group or the classic group. Before the mothers were discharged after delivery, their decision-making difficulties were evaluated. The primary outcome was the decisional conflict, which was assessed using the SURE (Sure of myself; Understand information; Risk-benefit ratio; Encouragement) scale. The secondary outcome was the decisional regret, which was measured using the Decision Regret scale. Results Compared with the classic group, SDM group had surer feelings about the choice (P＜.001), felt more confident about knowing the benefits and risks of each option (P＜.001), had a clearer understanding of the benefits and risks (P＜.001), and felt sufficiently supported with enough advice to make a suitable choice (P＜.001). No significant difference was noted in the Decision Regret scores between groups. The choice of 24-hour rooming-in, 12-hour rooming-in, and separated nursery care was not significantly different between groups. Conclusions SDM reduced the decisional conflict and uncertainty of the mothers. Available choices of postpartum mother–infant care should be provided to mothers through SDM that includes individual values, health goals, and clear knowledge and transparency.

Objective To understand the impact of cost conversations on the following decision-making outcomes: patients’ knowledge about their conditions and treatment options, decisional conflict, and patient involvement. Patients and Methods In 2020 we performed a secondary analysis of a randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters from trials run between 2007 and 2015. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized trials and one pre–post-prospective study comparing care with and without shared decision-making (SDM) tools. Results The majority of trial participants were female (61%) and White (86%), with a mean age of 56, some college education (68%), and an income greater than or equal to $40,000 per year (75%), and who did not participate in an encounter aided by an SDM tool (52%). Cost conversations occurred in 106 encounters (48%). In encounters with SDM tools, having a cost conversation lead to lower uncertainty scores (2.1 vs 2.6, P=.02), and higher knowledge (0.7 vs 0.6, P=.04) and patient involvement scores (20 vs 15.7, P=.009) than in encounters using SDM tools where cost conversations did not occur. In a multivariate model, we found slightly worse decisional conflict scores when patients started cost conversations as opposed to when the clinicians started cost conversations. Furthermore, we found higher levels of knowledge when conversations included indirect versus direct cost issues. Conclusion Cost conversations have a minimal but favorable impact on decision-making outcomes in clinical encounters, particularly when they occurred in encounters aided by an SDM tool that raises cost as an issue.

Based on the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child (CRC), it is a child’s right to participate in all matters concerning its wellbeing. Little is known about chronically and/or critically ill children’s participation in pediatric shared decision-making (SDM). We explored medical literature to see if and how these children participate in pediatric SDM. We searched relevant medical databases published between January 2008 and January 2020 for studies targeting children aged 4–18 years old, suffering from a chronic and/or critical disease. We found 9 relevant studies. SDM interventions mostly used were decision aids (n=8), questionnaires for caretakers/parents and children (n=4), and a SDM toolkit (n=2). Perceived involvement in SDM and knowledge increased amongst children, adolescents, and caretakers following these interventions. Decisional conflict measured using the 0–100 point DCS scale (higher scores indicate more decisional conflict) was reduced by 15.9 points in one study (pConclusion: Stakeholders should advocate initiatives to facilitate a child’s participation preferences regarding pediatric SDM since decision support tools help chronically ill children to be more involved in SDM as they increase the children’s knowledge and satisfaction and reduce decisional conflicts. What is Known:• Decision aids can help improve participation, knowledge, satisfaction, and health outcomes.• Quality and consistency of the information exchange impact quality and outcome of SDM. What is New:• Depending on a child’s age, evolving capacities, and communication and participation preferences, more evidence is needed on which tools are suitable for chronically ill children to ensure their preferred participation in pediatric SDM.• Pediatricians adopt healthcare SDM tools and techniques that do not always take into account that a child’s right to participate in pediatric SDM including the tendency to use interventions that are not specifically designed for pediatrics.

Background Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces lung cancer mortality, but it also carries a range of risks. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process of engaging patients in their health care decisions and is a vital component of LCS. Research Question What is the quality of SDM among patients recently assessed for LCS? Study Design and Methods Cross-sectional study of screened patients recruited from two academic tertiary care centers in the South Central Region of the United States. Self-reported surveys assessed patient demographics, values related to outcomes of LCS, knowledge, SDM components including receipt of educational materials, and decisional conflict. Results Recently screened patients (n = 266) possessed varied LCS knowledge, answering an average of 41.4% of questions correctly. Patients valued finding cancer early over concerns about harms. Patients indicated that LCS benefits were presented to them by a health care provider far more often than harms (68.3% vs 20.8%, respectively), and 30.7% reported they received educational materials about LCS during the screening process. One-third of patients had some decisional conflict (33.6%) related to their screening decisions, whereas most patients (86.6%) noted that they were involved in the screening decision as much as they wanted. In multivariate models, non-White race and having less education were related to lower knowledge scores. Non-White patients and former smokers were more likely to be conflicted about the screening decision. Most patients (n = 227 [85.3%]) indicated that a health care provider had discussed smoking cessation or abstinence with them. Interpretation Among recently screened patients, the quality of decision-making about LCS is highly variable. The low use of educational materials including decision aids and imbalance of conveying benefit vs risk information to patients is concerning. A structured approach using decision aids may assist with providing a balanced presentation of information and may improve the quality of SDM.

Background Achilles tendon ruptures are common injuries in an otherwise healthy, active population. Several treatment options exist, with both surgical and non-surgical options. Each treatment option has a unique set of risks and harms, which may present patients with decisional conflict. The aim of the proposed study is to develop, alpha test and field test a patient decision aid for patients presenting with acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Methods This is a three-stage study protocol. First, we will assemble a multi-disciplinary steering group including patients, clinicians, educators, and researchers to develop the patient decision aid prototype using the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Second, we will perform a mixed-methods alpha test of the decision aid prototype with patients and clinicians experienced in acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Outcomes measured will include acceptability and usability of the patient decision aid measured using validated outcome scales and semi-structured interviews. A minimum of three rounds of feedback will be obtained. Results will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, reviewed by the steering group, to guide revisions to decision aid prototype at each round. The third stage will be field testing the revised decision aid prototype in usual clinical care. A pre-/post-study will be performed with patients with acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Patients will be recruited from the emergency department and complete the pre-consultation decision aid prior to a one-week follow up with their surgeon. The primary outcome of field testing will be feasibility of implementing the decision aid in the clinical setting and will be measured with recruitment and completion metrics. Secondary outcomes include acceptability of the decision aid, knowledge, preparedness for decision making, and decisional conflict, measured using validated outcome measures. Statistical analysis will be performed using descriptive analysis for primary outcomes and a student t-test and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test for secondary outcomes. Discussion This comprehensive study protocol outlines the development, alpha testing, and field testing of a patient decision aid for patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture. Systematic and transparent development and testing of patient decision aids is critical to improve decision aid quality. Trial registration Not Applicable.

OBJECTIVES Numerous therapies exist for adult obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), creating potential for patient decisional conflict (DC) that impacts treatment adherence and post-treatment regret. We evaluated the prevalence of elevated DC in OSA patients presenting for positive airway pressure (PAP) alternative therapies and identified gaps in available resources about OSA therapies. STUDY DESIGN Cross-sectional study. METHODS A cross-sectional study was performed based on questionnaires completed by adult OSA patients presenting to an academic sleep surgery clinic from March to October 2020. Surveys examined sleep symptoms, sleep apnea treatment history, goals of therapy, and the SURE checklist, a validated 4-item DC screening scale. Additional qualitative data about OSA decision tool needs were queried with structured interviews in a smaller subset of patients. RESULTS Among 100 respondents, 60 were open to multiple treatment options, whereas 22 were not interested in surgical treatment. Eighty-one respondents (81%) had elevated DC (SURE score

Objective: To broadly synthesize literature regarding decision aids (DAs) supporting decision making about diet, physical activity, sleeping and substance use a scoping review was performed. Methods: Multiple sources were used: (1) Scientific literature searches, (2) excluded references from a Cochrane review regarding DAs for treatments and screenings, and (3) results from additional searches. Interventions had to (1) support informed decision making and (2) provide information and help to choose between at least two options. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts. Relevant information was extracted descriptively. Results: Thirty-five scientific articles and four DAs (grey literature) were included. Results were heterogeneous. Twenty-nine (94%) studies described substance use DAs. All DAs offered information and value and/or preference clarification. Many other elements were included (e.g., goal-setting). DA's effects were mixed. Few studies used standardized measures, e.g., decisional conflict (n = 4, 13%). Some positive behavioral effects were reported: e.g., smoking abstinence (n = 1). Conclusions: This research shows only some positive behavioral effects of DAs. However, studies reported heterogeneous results/outcomes, impeding knowledge synthesis. Areas of improvement were identified, e.g., establishing which intervention elements are effective regarding health behavior decision making. Practice implications: DAs can potentially be beneficial in supporting people to change health behaviors-especially regarding smoking. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Objective This study piloted a patient education and decision aid tool about prescription pain relievers to determine potential impact on: comfort receiving an opioid prescription; knowledge about opioids; decisional conflict about whether to take an opioid; and shared decision making with the prescribing physician. Methods Patients with acute pain were recruited from two emergency departments (ED), and randomized to complete the tool (N = 65) or a time-matched control (N = 59) on a tablet. Data collection involved: a baseline survey; a post-test immediately following the assigned program; a discharge survey after seeing the physician; and a 6-week follow-up survey. Results Knowledge increased and comfort receiving an opioid decreased as hypothesized, but did not reach statistical significance. Despite the lack of knowledge differences, the tool had significant positive impact on patients feeling more informed and experiencing less decisional conflict. Shared decision making with the prescribing physician was not impacted. Conclusion A patient decision aid can help ED patients feel more informed and less conflicted about prescription pain relievers but did not impact shared decision-making. Practice Implications Patient education programs implemented in the ED should consider engaging physicians in the program to help to promote patient-centered approaches in the treatment of acute pain.

Objectives Emotional distress can be a potential barrier to shared decision making (SDM), yet affect is typically not systematically assessed in medical consultation. We examined whether urological patients report anxiety or depression prior to a consultation and if emotional distress predicts decisional conflict thereafter. Methods We recruited a large sample of urological outpatients (N = 397) with a range of different diagnoses (42 % oncological). Prior to a medical consultation, patients filled in questionnaires, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. After the consultation, patients completed the Decisional Conflict Scale. We scored the rate of anxiety and depression in our sample and conducted multiple regression analysis to examine if emotional distress before the consultation predicts decisional conflict thereafter. Results About a quarter of patients reported values at or above cut-off for clinically relevant emotional distress. Emotional distress significantly predicted a higher degree of decisional conflict. There were no differences in emotional distress between patients with and without uro-oncological diagnosis. Conclusions Emotional distress is common in urology patients – oncological as well as non-oncological. It predicts decisional conflict after physician consultation. Practice Implications Emotional distress should be systematically assessed in clinical consultations. This may improve the process and outcome of SDM.

PURPOSE Multiple efforts are underway to increase the inclusion of racial minority participants in genomic research and new forms of individualized medicine. These efforts should include studies that characterize how individuals from minority communities experience genomic medicine in diverse health-care settings and how they integrate genetic knowledge into their understandings of health-care needs. METHODS As part of a large, multisite genomic sequencing study, we surveyed individuals to assess their decision to pursue genomic risk evaluation. Participants included Latino patients recruited at Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, Arizona, and non-Latino patients recruited at a large academic medical center (Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN). Both groups agreed to receive individualized genomic risk assessments. RESULTS Comparisons between cohorts showed that Latino respondents had lower levels of decisional conflict about pursuing genomic screening but generally scored lower on genetic knowledge. Latino respondents were also more likely to have concerns about the misuse of genomic information, despite both groups having similar views about the value of genomic risk evaluation. CONCLUSION Our results highlight the importance of evaluating sociocultural factors that influence minority patient engagement with genomic medicine in diverse health-care settings.

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the use of a standardized prenatal genetic testing educational video and its effects on patient uptake of prenatal testing, patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and decisional regret. STUDY DESIGN This was an IRB-approved randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to intervention (standardized video education) or control (no video education). The video education group viewed a 5-minute educational video on genetic testing options, and the control group did not review the video. Both groups answered validated questionnaires to assess maternal knowledge (Maternal Serum Screening Knowledge Questionnaire [MSSK]), conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale [DCS]), and regret (Decisional Regret Scale [DRS]). The primary outcome was genetic testing uptake; secondary outcomes were knowledge-based test score, and level of decisional conflict and regret. RESULTS We enrolled 210 patients between 2016 and 2020, with 208 patients randomized, 103 patients in the video education group and 105 patients in the control group. Four patients were excluded from the video education group for missing data. Video education was associated with a 39% lower chance of prenatal testing compared with patients who did not receive video education, (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.92). Patients in the video education group had higher mean MSSKQ scores by 2.9 points (8.5 vs. 5.7, p

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of web-based decision aids (WDAs) on cancer-related clinical care in terms of different decision categories and by different cancer types. Literature retrieval utilized highly inclusive algorithms searching randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library and manual searching of eligible studies from reference lists of relevant articles. Two researchers examined the articles selected separately and extracted the information about the studies (e.g., decision category, sample sizes, and outcome indicators) using a data-extracting form and performed risk of bias assessment of the included studies with Begg’s test, Egger’s test, and Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Meta-analysis of the pooled effects of WDAs on outcome indicators was performed via Review Manager 5.2. A total of 24 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, involving 9846 participants. Overall meta-analysis revealed statistically significant effects on cancer decisional conflict, knowledge, and making informed choice with the overall effect sizes being –0.29 (standardized mean difference, SMD), 0.47 (SMD), and 1.92 (risk ratio, RR) respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed significant effects in indicators including decisional conflict, knowledge, satisfaction, participation in decision-making, and screening behavior, though some extent of heterogeneity and quality flaws existed among the included studies. Although our research results showed evidence of WDA effects on certain outcome indicators of cancer decisions, these results should be interpreted with caution given the heterogeneity and quality flaws. It is still premature to conclude whether WDA was effective in optimizing cancer clinical decision-making, and more efforts are needed in this area. CRD42020218991

OBJECTIVESOur goal was to examine post hoc patient satisfaction and the decision-making process of choosing a prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR).METHODSWe surveyed 113 patients who were operated on for AVR at 60–70 years of age, including 74 patients with a mechanical valve (MECH) and 39 with a bioprosthesis (BIO). The study focused on quality of life and the decision pathway in relation to prosthesis choice and valve-related complications. Decisional conflict was defined as the post hoc uncertainty perceived by patients regarding their choice of prosthesis.RESULTSThe survey was performed at a median of 5.2 (3.2–8.1) years after the AVR. Patients with a biological valve were older (BIO: 68.4 years [66.2–69.4] vs MECH: 63.9 [61.9–66.7]; P CONCLUSIONSAlthough 30% of the responders showed a decisional conflict related to prosthesis-specific interferences, global patient satisfaction with the prosthesis choice for AVR is excellent. Increasing the patient’s involvement in the prosthesis choice through shared accountability and improved information is recommended to decrease the choice-related uncertainty.

Shared decision-making is a principle of health care delivery across the world. The first international standard decision aid for tinnitus care was developed in 2018. This decision aid is in use across the UK. It is free to use and access from the British Tinnitus Association website. Our objective was to compare routine care with the care that also included the decision aid as part of care for their patients.A multi-site service evaluation included pre-post comparison of decisional conflict in sequential new patients seeking help with tinnitus. Informal interviews with staff and service managers explored how practical and feasible the decision aid was in routine practice.We present data from four contrasting clinical services, including services in England and Wales, acute and community services and those operated by Hearing Therapists and Audiologists.Across these contrasting services, the inclusion of the decision aid was associated with a reduction in decisional conflict in patients. The decision aid was feasible to administer, acceptable to patients and clinicians without creating a burden in appointments.These evaluations suggest that the decision aid is feasible to administer and reduces patient decisional conflict. It appears to benefit clinical services in practice.

Women face complicated decisions regarding psychotropic medication use during pregnancy. Patient decision aids (PDAs) could be a valuable tool to assist with decision-making. The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of PDAs in this population. A systematic search of the literature was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Three major databases were searched to identify articles published between 2006 and June 2020. Studies were included if they evaluated use of a PDA for women considering medication for mental illness during pregnancy. A total of 4629 titles were returned from the search; however, only three studies met inclusion criteria and were selected for analysis. Two were pilot randomised controlled trials in women considering antidepressant use during pregnancy, and one was a non-randomised study in women considering medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). The PDAs had good acceptability across all three studies. The randomised trials assessed knowledge, decisional conflict, depression, and anxiety, with non-significant trends towards reduced decisional conflict and anxiety in the PDA groups. PDAs have the potential to assist women with mental illnesses to make decisions regarding medication use during pregnancy; however, current evidence is too limited to evaluate the effectiveness of PDAs for this population.

BACKGROUND The increasing proportion of telemedicine and virtual care in orthopaedic surgery presents an opportunity for upstream delivery of patient facing tools, such as decision aids. Displaced diaphyseal clavicle fractures (DDCFs) are ideal for a targeted intervention because there is no superior treatment, and decisions are often dependent on patient's preference. A decision aid provided before consultation may educate a patient and minimize decisional conflict similarly to inperson consultation with an orthopaedic traumatologist. METHODS Patients with DDCF were enrolled into 2 groups. The usual care group participated in a discussion with a trauma fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon. Patients in the intervention group were administered a DDCF decision aid designed with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Primary comparisons were made based on a decisional conflict score. Secondary outcomes included treatment choice, pain score, QuickDASH, and opinion toward cosmetic appearance. RESULTS A total of 41 patients were enrolled. Decisional conflict scores were similar and low between the 2 groups: 11.8 (usual care) and 11.4 (decision aid). There were no differences in secondary outcomes between usual care and the decision aid. DISCUSSION Our decision aid for the management of DDCF produces a similarly low decisional conflict score to consultation with an orthopaedic trauma surgeon. This decision aid could be a useful resource for surgeons who infrequently treat this injury or whose practices are shifting toward telemedicine visits. Providing a decision aid before consultation may help incorporate patient's values and preferences into the decision-making process between surgery and nonoperative management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background Decision support can help patients facing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) replacement understand their options and reach an informed decision reflective of their preferences. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a decision support intervention for patients faced with the decision to replace their ICD. Methods A pilot feasibility randomized trial was conducted. Patients approaching ICD battery depletion were randomized to decision support intervention or usual care. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment rates, intervention use, and completeness of data; secondary outcomes were knowledge, values-choice concordance, decisional conflict, involvement in decision making, and choice. Results A total of 30 patients were randomized to intervention (n = 15) or usual care (n = 15). The intervention was used as intended, with 2% missing data. Patients in the intervention arm had better knowledge (77.4% vs 51.1%; P = .002). By 12 months, 8 of 13 (61.5%) in the intervention arm and 10 of 14 (71.4%) in the usual care arm accepted ICD replacement; 1 per arm declined (7.7% vs 7.1%, respectively). Conclusion It was feasible to deliver the intervention, collect data, despite slow recruitment. The decision support intervention has the potential to improve ICD replacement decision quality.

BACKGROUND: Many seriously ill hospitalized patients have cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as part of their care plan, but CPR is unlikely to achieve the goals of many seriously ill hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a multicomponent decision support intervention changes documented orders for CPR in the medical record, compared to usual care. DESIGN: Open-label randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: Patients on internal medicine and neurology wards at two tertiary care teaching hospitals who had a 1-year mortality greater than 10% as predicted with a validated model and whose care plan included CPR, if needed. INTERVENTION: Both the control and intervention groups received usual communication about CPR at the discretion of their care team. The intervention group participated in a values clarification exercise and watched a CPR video decision aid. MAIN MEASURE: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had a no-CPR order at 14 days after enrollment. KEY RESULTS: We recruited 200 patients between October 2017 and October 2018. Mean age was 77 years. There was no difference between the groups in no-CPR orders 14 days after enrollment (17/100 (17%) intervention vs 17/99 (17%) control, risk difference, − 0.2%) (95% confidence interval − 11 to 10%; p = 0.98). In addition, there were no differences between groups in decisional conflict summary score or satisfaction with decision-making. Patients in the intervention group had less conflict about understanding treatment options (decisional conflict knowledge subscale score mean (SD), 17.5 (26.5) intervention arm vs 40.4 (38.1) control; scale range 0–100 with lower scores reflecting less conflict). CONCLUSIONS: Among seriously ill hospitalized patients who had CPR as part of their care plan, this decision support intervention did not increase the likelihood of no-CPR orders compared to usual care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Frailty Network, The Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06605-y.

Background Breast cancer (BC) patients who are treated with mastectomy are frequently offered immediate breast reconstruction. This study aimed to assess decisional conflict in patients considering immediate breast reconstruction, and to identify factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict (CSDC). Methods Baseline data of a multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of an online decision aid for BC patients considering immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy were analyzed. Participants completed questionnaires assessing sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, decisional conflict and other patient-reported outcomes related to decision-making such as breast reconstruction preference, knowledge, information resources used, preferred involvement in decision-making, information coping style, and anxiety. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with CSDC (score > 37.5 on decisional conflict). Results Of the 250 participants, 68% experienced CSDC. Patients with a slight preference for breast reconstruction (odds ratio (OR) = 6.19, p, Highlights • A majority of patients considering immediate breast reconstruction experience decisional conflict. • Patients without a strong preference for breast reconstruction are more likely to experience decisional conflict. • Patients with more anxiety are more likely to experience decisional conflict.

We are now living in the era of shared decision making and informed consent where the decision to undergo surgery is no longer decided by the operating surgeon alone. This involves a degree of decisiveness on the part of the patient. Decisional conflict is defined as a state of uncertainty about the course of action to be taken by the patients. Decisional conflict scale is a 16-item validated psychometric scale that measures decisional conflict objectively. In this study, we aim to introduce the concept of a decisional conflict and document its prevalence in patients undergoing surgery in a tertiary care center. This was a prospective observational study carried out in a tertiary care center between September 2019 and March 2020. The decisional conflict scale data was collected from the patients in the ward before shifting them to the operating theater. The maximum score possible was 80 and the minimum was 16. The higher the score is, the lesser the conflict. We chose an arbitrary cut-off value of 75% which equated to a score of 60 on the scale. The modified Kuppuswamy scale was used to calculate the socioeconomic status of patients. We had a total of 227 patients enrolled in the study. In our study, it was noted that 169 (74.45%) patients did not have a decisional conflict while 58 (25.55%) had a decisional conflict. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of education, occupation, income, and socioeconomic status. On subgroup analysis, it was noted that patients had a maximum conflict in 2 questions: (1) information about the available choices and (2) the risks and complications of the surgery. Measuring decisional conflict in surgical patients is feasible. Decisional conflict cuts across groups irrespective of patient gender, education, occupation, income, and socioeconomic status.

Introduction Previously, a web-based, patient-facing decision aid for lung cancer screening, shouldiscreen.com, was developed and evaluated. An initial evaluation was completed before the Medicare coverage decision and recruited a nondiverse sample of mostly former smokers, limiting the understanding of the potential effectiveness of the tool among diverse populations. This study evaluates shouldiscreen.com among African Americans in Metro Detroit. Methods Using insights obtained from participatory workshops in this population, content changes to shouldiscreen.com were implemented, and this modified version was evaluated with a before–after study. Measures included knowledge of lung cancer screening, decisional conflict, and concordance between individual preference and screening eligibility. Surveys occurred between April and July 2018. Participants were contacted 6 months after the survey to assess subsequent screening behaviors. Analysis took place in 2019. Results Data were collected from 74 participants aged 45–77 years, who were current/former smokers with no history of lung cancer. The average knowledge score increased by 25% from 5.7 (SD=1.94) before to 7.1 (SD=2.30) after (out of 13 points). Decisional conflict was halved between before and after. Concordance between individual preference and eligibility for screening increased from 22% (SD=41) to 35% (SD=47). Half of the participants felt uncomfortable answering surveys electronically and requested paper versions. Conclusions The use of the tool led to small improvements in lung cancer screening knowledge and increased concordance with current recommendations. Additional design modifications and modes of information delivery of these decision aids should be considered to increase their efficacy in helping populations with lower educational attainment and computer literacy.

Aim and Method To determine the effect on decisional-related and clinical outcomes of decision aids for depression treatment in adults in randomised clinical trials. In January 2019, a systematic search was conducted in five databases. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Meta-analyses were performed, and standardised and weighted mean differences were calculated, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated with GRADE methodology. Results Six randomised clinical trials were included. The pooled estimates showed that decision aids for depression treatment had a beneficial effect on patients’ decisional conflict, patient knowledge and information exchange between patient and health professional. However, no statistically significant effect was found for doctor facilitation, treatment adherence or depressive symptoms. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. Clinical implications Using decision aids to choose treatment in patients with depression may have a a beneficial effect on decisional-related outcomes, but it may not translate into an improvement in clinical outcomes.

Background Decisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients. Research Question What kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools? Study Design and Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening. Results After screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients’ knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as “high” by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies). Interpretation Evidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools. Clinical Trial Registration PROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a hematologic malignancy characterized by a poor prognosis but also a paradoxical possibility of cure. This renders decision-making complex and imminent. Unfortunately, many patients with AML misestimate their prognosis and treatment risk. While decision aids can improve illness understanding and reduce decisional conflict, there are no validated decision aids for AML. We developed and tested a novel AML decision aid (NCT03442452). Patients (n = 20) were recruited at Duke University from May 2018 to February 2019. Participants completed assessments of AML knowledge and decisional conflict, before and after using the electronic decision aid. The primary endpoint was feasibility (endpoint met if > 80% of study participants completed all study components). Secondary analyses of efficacy were conducted using paired t tests for dependent pre-/post-samples. The primary endpoint of feasibility was met (100% of participants completed all study components). Secondary analyses showed improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict after using the decision aid. Knowledge scores improved from a mean of 11.8 (out of 18) correct items at baseline to 15.1 correct items after using the decision aid (mean difference 3.35; p < 0.0001). Decisional conflict scores reduced significantly from baseline to post-test as well (mean difference − 6.5; p = 0.02). These findings suggest that our AML decision aid is a useful tool to improve the patient experience and promote shared decision-making in AML. A randomized efficacy trial is planned.

Initiatives to reduce potentially preventable hospitalizations of nursing home residents have focused on staff response to changes in condition and advance care planning. Yet, resident and family insistence on transfer has been one of the most intractable sources of these hospitalizations, although not the target of active intervention until now. Consented residents and family members in the intervention group received a newly developed decision aid entitled, “Go to the Hospital or Stay Here?,” providing information on the risks and benefits of transfer versus remaining in the nursing home. This person-centered decision aid was developed from the results of 271 interviews of residents, families, and providers to identify what they wanted to know and any misunderstandings surrounding the transfer process. Engaging residents in the decision respects their right to participate and provides the information they need to make a deliberative decision. The intervention group showed a gain in knowledge and reduction in decisional conflict but reported decreased decisional preparation. There was no decrease in transfers compared to the control group. Evaluation of the decision guide by residents and families was positive. Targets: Nursing home residents and their family members. Intervention: To provide information regarding the decision to stay in the nursing home or transfer to acute care due to a change in condition. Mechanisms of Action: Decision aid “Go the “Hospital or Stay Here?” to impart knowledge regarding the decision to remain in the nursing home or transfer to acute care. Outcomes: Use of the Guide was found to increase residents' and family members' knowledge and decrease decisional conflict, but it did not increase decisional preparation. No reduction in transfers was found. Residents and families rated the Guide as very helpful. [ Research in Gerontological Nursing, 13 (6), 309–319.]

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is increasingly offered to a broader population and raises challenges of how to best educate and counsel the volume of screened individuals. For this study, we compared three educational tools (brochure, video and comic) about ECS on knowledge and decision making. A convenience online sample of 151 pregnant women was randomized to one of three groups (Video, n = 42; Comic n = 54; Brochure n = 55). Knowledge scores were significantly higher for the comic group compared to the video or the brochure groups (p < .001). No significant differences in preparation for decision making, decisional conflict, or perceptions of shared decision making were identified between the study groups. This study suggests that a comic about ECS may improve patient attention and retention of information. The use of graphic narratives may enable individuals to better understand medical information in general.

Background: African-American men have an elevated risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer. Shared decision-making (SDM) about prostate cancer screening is recommended but does not always occur. Methods: We pilot-tested an online decision aid (DA) in primary care settings using a pre/postevaluation design among African-American men ages 45 to 70 years. Men completed surveys before and after using the DA, which had interactive segments (e.g., values clarification) and provided individualized assessment of prostate cancer risk. Primary outcomes included prostate cancer knowledge, confidence in ability to make informed decisions, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with the decision. Immediately after the clinical visit, patients reported the degree to which they were engaged by their provider in SDM. Results: Among this sample of men (n = 49), use of the DA was associated with increased knowledge about prostate cancer [mean = 55.3% vs. 71.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 9.8–22.1; P < 0.001], reduced decisional conflict (mean = 33.4 vs. 23.6; 95% CI, −18.1 to −1.6; P = 0.002) on a scale from 0 to 100, and a decreased preference to be screened (88% vs. 69%; 95% CI, 0.09–0.64; P = 0.01). Most (89%) reported that the DA prepared them well/very well for SDM with their provider. Following the clinical visit with providers, scores on perceived involvement in SDM were 68.1 (SD 29.1) on a 0 to 100 scale. Conclusions: The DA improved men's knowledge, reduced decisional conflict, and promoted the perception of being prepared for SDM. Impact: Findings suggest that use of an online DA to improve SDM outcomes warrants further testing in a future trial.

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a contraceptive decision aid in reducing decisional conflict among women seeking reversible contraception. Study Design We conducted a randomized trial of a computer-based decision aid compared to a control group for women presenting for reversible contraception at two clinics affiliated with an academic medical center. The primary outcome was change in decisional conflict, measured before and after the healthcare visit using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. We hypothesized the decision aid would reduce the decisional conflict score by 10 points on a 100-point scale (0 = no conflict, 100 = high conflict) compared to the control group. Secondary outcomes included contraceptive method chosen and satisfaction with the healthcare visit. Results We enrolled and randomized 253 women, and 241 had complete data for our primary outcome. Overall, pre-visit decisional conflict scores were low, reflecting low levels of decisional conflict in our sample; median score 15 (range 0–80) in the decision aid and 10 (0–85) in the control group (p = 0.45). Both groups had a similar reduction in median decisional conflict after the healthcare visit: −10 (−80 to 25) and −10 (−60 to 5) in the decision aid and control groups respectively (p = 0.99). Choice of contraception (p = 0.23) and satisfaction with healthcare provider (p = 0.79) also did not differ by study group. Conclusions Decisional conflict around contraception was low in both groups at baseline. Use of a computerized contraceptive decision aid did not reduce decisional conflict, alter method choice, or impact satisfaction compared to the control group among women choosing reversible contraception. Implications Use of a computerized contraceptive decision aid did not reduce decisional conflict or alter method choice compared to the control group among women choosing reversible contraception. Future studies could focus on testing the decision aid in different clinical settings, especially where barriers to providing comprehensive contraceptive counseling exist.

Background Decision support tools improve decisional conflict and elicit patient preferences related to prostate cancer treatment. It was hypothesized that men using the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) would be more likely to pursue guideline-concordant treatment. Methods Men from a trial assessing the P3P decision support intervention were identified. The primary exposure was allocation to P3P (vs usual care), and the outcome was appropriate treatment per guidelines (eg, low risk = active surveillance). It was assessed whether providers recommended against any treatment options (ie, restricted). A multivariable model was fit for men with low-risk cancer that estimated the odds of the outcome of interest. Results This study identified 295 men in the cohort: 113 (38%) had low-risk disease, 119 (40%) had favorable intermediate-risk disease, and 63 (21%) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Among low-risk patients, more men pursued active surveillance after using P3P whether they were given unrestricted (62% vs 54% with usual care; P = .54) or restricted options (71% vs 59% with usual care; P = .34). After adjustments, only Black race (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.89) and restricted options (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.65) had an inverse association with the receipt of surveillance for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. An impact associated with P3P versus usual care (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.36-2.20) was not observed. Conclusions Among men in a trial assessing a decision support tool, Black race and restricted treatment options were associated with less use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Although the P3P instrument ameliorates decisional conflict, its use was not associated with more appropriate alignment of treatment with disease risk.

This study describes the study protocol of a manualized brief hope intervention that is based on the theoretical proposition - hope theory.Patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease often had decisional regret when facing the tension of treatment alternatives between dialysis initiation and palliative care. Hope has been found to account for therapeutic changes in clients with depressive symptoms, heightens positive expectations, and striving to accomplish chosen goals. Nevertheless, little is known about the effect of hope on decisional conflict and its influences to the quality of life in these chronic kidney disease patients.This study is a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial.Participants will be recruited from a regional hospital (approved in April 2018). They will be randomly assigned in equal numbers to either the brief hope intervention or the control arm on completion of the baseline assessment on the possible need of dialysis initiation. Participants in the intervention group will receive the pre-dialysis education and a 4-week Brief Hope Intervention [consisting of four sessions at weekly intervals (two face-to-face sessions and two telephone follow-up sessions in between)], while those allocated to the control arm will receive the renal education and social chats. Outcome measures will be carried out prior to the intervention (baseline), immediately, and 1 month after the intervention. These consist of the hope level, decisional conflict, and quality of life. Healthcare resources use data will be reported.The study results have the potential to add scientific evidence to the research-tested programme when developing renal services integral to multimodal care management to optimize decision-making and attain better health outcomes.目的: 本研究描述了一个基于理论命题-希望理论的可操作性短期干预的研究方案。 背景: 慢性肾脏疾病5期患者在面对透析和姑息治疗较为紧张,因此,一般情况下,其都会后悔在这个过程中所作的决定。研究发现,希望可以对抑郁症患者的治疗产生影响,增强其积极的期望,致使其努力实现选定的目标。然而,人们并未充分了解希望在决策冲突中的作用以及其对慢性肾病患者生活质量的影响。 设计: 本研究为单盲、随机对照试验。 方法: 将从地区医院招募参与者(2018年4月获得批准)。如果已经完成透析用基线评估,所有参与者都将随机分配给短期希望干预组或对照组,且两组的人数相同。干预组的参与者接受透析前教育和为期4周的简短希望干预【包括每周4次的讨论(两次面对面讨论和两次电话随访)】,而控制组的参与者将接受肾脏知识教育,并将参与社交聊天。需要分别在干预前(基线)、干预时和干预后1个月对结果进行测量。具体内容包括希望水平、决策冲突和生活质量。此外,需要对医疗资源的使用数据进行报告。 影响: 本研究结果可能用作经研究验证的项目的科学证据,以便开发多种模式的肾脏护理及管理服务,最终优化决策并确保患者获得更好的健康结果。.

OBJECTIVES: Families describe decision-making about gastrostomy tube (g-tube) placement as challenging. We measured caregiver decisional conflict before and after initial g-tube consultation to evaluate the potential benefit of a decision aid and feasibility in testing it. METHODS: Families presenting for initial consultation about g-tube placement completed the decisional conflict scale (DCS) at 1 or 2 of 3 time points: before consultation, after consultation, and after viewing a video. The decision support consultation was a 2-hour structured meeting with a pediatric hospitalist, nurse practitioner, and dietitian that was focused on clarifying the indication, feasibility, safety, and family values around tube placement. The video described decision-making and lived experiences of families with tube feeding. RESULTS: We measured the decisional conflict of 61 caregivers. Preconsultation decisional conflict scores were high (mean = 38.7), but there was substantial variation between families (SD = 19.4). Baseline scores did not vary between clinically relevant subgroups. Postconsultation DCS scores were lower (17.9 and SD = 13.5 for consult alone; 12.7 and SD = 13.2 for consult with video). Three caregivers (7.7%) of families had residual decisional conflict scores >37.5, the threshold conventionally associated with decision delay. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring decisional conflict among caregivers deciding about pediatric g-tube is feasible during the clinical encounter. Residual decisional conflict after our institution’s current decision support consultation model (with or without an additional video) was low, so development of an additional structured decision aid is not warranted. Further study of preconsult DCS variability across different clinical subgroups may help identify families benefiting from additional decisional support.

Shared decision making (SDM) is a popular care paradigm between patients and clinicians to facilitate treatment agreement by building consensus and sharing information. Decisional aids (DAs) are tools frequently used in SDM for improving knowledge sharing and facilitating the decision process. The use and outcomes of decisional aids in surgery, however, have not been investigated. This study investigates whether SDM in surgery benefits any type of surgical patient compared with non-SDM treatment using patient-defined outcomes, such as an increase in knowledge and decisional satisfaction, as well as decreased decisional regret and anxiety. The search strategy was developed with a medical librarian to address the question of whether SDM in surgery benefits any type of surgical patient compared with non-SDM treatment using patient-defined outcomes. Seven databases (Medline [Ovid], Embase [Ovid], Cochrane [Wiley], Africa-Wide [EBSCO], Global Health [Ovid], Global Index Medicus (WHO), Web of Science [Clarivate Analytics]) were searched from inception until September 9th, 2019, with no language restriction. A two-person title and abstract screen was performed, followed by a full-text publication review. A DerSimonian–Laird random effects model was used for the meta-analysis, with heterogeneity established. Mean and standard deviation were collected for all study outcomes. Study eligibility was determined with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool. In total, 6060 studies were retrieved. After duplicates were removed, 5303 titles and abstracts were screened, and of 356 full texts reviewed, 42 studies were included in the analysis. Heterogeneity was high in three of six variables (surgery chosen, decisional conflict, and knowledge gained), moderate in two (decisional anxiety and decisional satisfaction), and low in one (decisional regret). For all except the rates of surgical intervention, the results for decisional conflict, knowledge gained, decisional satisfaction, and decisional anxiety were significant at a 95% confidence interval. Decisional conflict decreased in 20/24 of the papers that recorded it; rates of choosing surgery decreased in 8 of the 11; and patient knowledge increased in 19 of the 22 that recorded it. The majority of papers had risk of bias, however, with the evidence of generally low quality. The results suggest that SDM in surgery is associated with greater quality of patient satisfaction and value agreement, leading to decreased conflict and anxiety, and increased knowledge and translation. This data is useful in guiding the development of SDM protocols for use in surgical disciplines. Registered on PROSPERO—ID: CRD42018097286 [13]. Shared decision making (SDM) has been used in various healthcare disciplines to benefit patient care but has not been explored in surgical disciplines. This study investigated whether SDM in surgery benefits surgical patients compared with non-SDM treatment using patient-defined outcomes. Patients who used SDM in surgery were found to have less conflict and more satisfaction making decisions, as well as increased knowledge about their surgery compared with non-SDM patients. This study suggests that SDM is likely to benefit surgical patients to have better care outcomes.

Guidelines recommend individualized breast cancer screening and prevention interventions for women in their 40s. Yet, few primary care clinicians assess breast cancer risk.Pretest-Posttest trial.Women aged 40-49 years were recruited from one large Boston-based academic primary care practice between July 2017 and April 2019.Participants completed a pretest, received a personalized breast cancer risk report, saw their primary care clinician, and completed a posttest.Using mixed effects models, changes in screening intentions (0-100 scale [0=will not screen to 100=will screen]), mammography knowledge, decisional conflict, and receipt of screening were examined. Analyses were conducted from June 2019 to February 2020.Patient (n=337) mean age was 44.1 (SD=2.9) years, 61.4% were non-Hispanic white, and 76.6% were college graduates; 306 (90.5%) completed follow-up (203 with 5-year breast cancer risk1.1%). Screening intentions declined from pre- to post-visit (79.3 to 68.0, p0.0001), especially for women with 5-year risk1.1% (77.2 to 63.3, p0.0001), but still favored screening. In the 2 years prior, 37.6% had screening mammography compared with 41.8% over a mean 16 months follow-up (p=0.17). Mammography knowledge increased and decisional conflict declined. Eleven (3.3%) women met criteria for breast cancer prevention medications (ten discussed medications with their clinicians), 22 (6.5%) for MRI (19 discussed MRI with their clinician), and 67 (19.8%) for genetic counseling (47 discussed with the clinician).Receipt of a personalized breast cancer report was associated with women in their 40s making more-informed and less-conflicted mammography screening decisions and with high-risk women discussing breast cancer prevention interventions with clinicians.This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.govNCT03180086.

Background Both patients and surrogate decision-makers experience decisional conflict when making a major medical treatment decision with life or death implications. The relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict while making a major medical treatment decision is not understood. Objective To identify the prevalence of individuals making major medical treatment decisions for themselves or someone else and to explore the relationships between decisional conflict and circumstances of the decision as well as the decision-maker. Design Two-phase survey study: in phase 1, we screened for who made a major treatment decision; in phase 2, we asked eligible respondents about their experience making the decision. Participants Address-based random sample of 4000 Wisconsin residents; 1072 completed phase 1 and 464 completed phase 2. Main Measures We asked respondents about types of decisions made, the most difficult decision made, and characteristics of the decision-maker and the decision. We included the Decisional Conflict Scale and four domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. Open-ended questions also allowed respondents to describe their experiences. Key Results About 43% of respondents reported making a major medical treatment decision. Decisions about major surgery and life support were regarded as the most difficult decisions. Respondents who made the decision for a spouse/partner (β = 6.65, p = 0.012), parent (β = 9.27, p < 0.001), or someone else (β = 10.7, p < 0.001) had higher decisional conflict. Respondents who reported higher ability to actively engage with healthcare providers (β = − 5.24, p = 0.002) and to understand health information well enough to know what to do (β = − 6.12, p = 0.001) had lower decisional conflict. Conclusions The need to make major treatment decisions is likely to increase and making decisions on someone else’s behalf appeared to be especially difficult. Improving communication to encourage patient and family engagement in the decision-making conversation, particularly for individuals with limited health literacy, may be helpful. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-020-06125-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction. Shared decision making involves educating the patient, eliciting their goals, and collaborating on a decision for treatment. Goal elicitation is challenging for physicians as previous research has shown that patients do not bring up their goals on their own. Failure to properly elicit patient goals leads to increased patient misconceptions and decisional conflict. We performed a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a simple goal elicitation tool in improving patient involvement in decision making. Methods. We conducted a randomized, single-blind study of new patients presenting to a single, outpatient surgical center. Prior to their consultation, the intervention group received a demographics questionnaire and a goal elicitation worksheet. The control group received a demographics questionnaire only. After the consultation, both groups were asked to complete the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS) survey. We compared the mean PICS scores for the intervention and control groups using a nonparametric Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test. Secondary analysis included a qualitative content analysis of the patient goals. Results. Our final cohort consisted of 96 patients (46 intervention, 50 control). Both groups were similar in terms of demographic composition. The intervention group had a significantly higher mean (SD) PICS score compared to the control group (9.04 [2.15] v. 7.54 [2.27], P < 0.01). Thirty-nine percent of patient goals were focused on receiving a diagnosis or treatment, while 21% of patients wanted to receive education regarding their illness or their treatment options. Discussion. A single-step goal elicitation tool was effective in improving patient-perceived involvement in their care. This tool can be efficiently implemented in both academic and nonacademic settings.

Background Shared decision making (SDM) has been increasingly implemented to improve health‐care outcomes. Despite the mixed efficacy of SDM to provide better patient‐guided care, its use in surgery has not been studied. The aim of this study was to systematically review SDM application in surgery. Design The search strategy, developed with a medical librarian, included nine databases from inception until June 2019. After a 2‐person title and abstract screen, full‐text publications were analysed. Data collected included author, year, surgical discipline, location, study duration, type of decision aid, survey methodology and variable outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative cross‐sectional studies, as well as RCTs, were included. Results A total of 6060 studies were retrieved. A total of 148 were included in the final review. The majority of the studies were in plastic surgery, followed by general surgery and orthopaedics. The use of SDM decreased surgical intervention rate (12 of 22), decisional conflict (25 of 29), and decisional regret (5 of 5), and increased decisional satisfaction (17 of 21), knowledge (33 of 35), SDM preference (13 of 16), and physician trust (4 of 6). Time increase per patient encounter was inconclusive. Cross‐sectional studies showed that patients prefer shared treatment and surgical treatment varied less. The results of SDM per type of decision aid vary in terms of their outcome. Conclusion SDM in surgery decreases decisional conflict, anxiety and surgical intervention rates, while increasing knowledge retained decisional satisfaction, quality and physician trust. Surgical patients also appear to prefer SDM paradigms. SDM appears beneficial in surgery and therefore worth promoting and expanding in use.

Despite efforts to increase the diversity of cancer clinical trial participants, African Americans are still underrepresented. While perceptions of participation have been studied, the objective of this study was to compare perceptions and decisional conflict towards clinical trials among African American cancer patients who have and have not participated in clinical trials to identify key areas for intervention. Post hoc analysis also looked at whether they had been asked to participate and how that group differed from those who did. Forty-one African American cancer patients were surveyed at two urban cancer centers and asked to agree/disagree to statements related to clinical trials perceptions (facilitators, barriers, beliefs, values, support, and helpfulness), and complete the O'Connor Decisional Conflict Scale. Independent-samples t tests compared participants by clinical trials participation status; 41% had participated in a clinical trial. Results revealed significant perceptual differences among the groups in three main areas: helpfulness of clinical trials, facilitators to participate in clinical trials, and barriers to participating in clinical trials. Post hoc analysis indicated that those who were not asked about clinical trials and had not participated differed significantly in all areas compared with participants. Additionally, clinical trial participants reported significantly lower decisional conflict in most items compared with both those who had and had not be asked to participate. These differences can give practitioners clues as to how to bridge the gap from non-participator to participator. Messages could then be infused in the clinician-patient dyad when introducing and discussing clinical trials, potentially providing a more effective strategy for communicating with African American patients.

Background Shared decision making (SDM) is the process through which patients and their medical provider mutually explore therapy goals, risk/benefit, and treatment options regarding medical care. Decision aids are tools that aid in the process of values clarification and help assess decisional needs and potential decisional conflicts. Objective To develop and assess acceptability of a decision aid for commercial peanut allergy therapies. Methods The creation of this decision aid occurred in 3 stages, including a qualitative study to assess decisional needs, development of a draft decision aid through multiple iterations in accordance with international guidelines and decision aid experts, and assessment of decisional acceptability, decisional conflict, and decisional self-efficacy related to using the decision aid. Results The decision aid went through 9 iterations, resulting in a 4-page aid with 7 parts, explaining the therapies, key risks and benefits of therapy choices, relative importance of key attributes of the therapies, and a self-check assessment regarding informational adequacy and how to take the next steps. A total of 24 subjects assessed the decision aid, noting it had good acceptability, high decisional self-efficacy (mean score 91.9/100), and low decisional conflict (mean score 20.2/100). Respondents rated the information content as adequate and sufficient and the information regarding the therapy choices as fair and balanced without a clear bias or presenting a “best choice.” Conclusion We have developed this decision aid as a tool to help caregivers navigate the complexity of decision making for peanut allergy treatment options. The decision aid was noted to have good acceptability, with scores reflective of the instrument enhancing decisional self-efficacy and reducing decisional conflict.

There are several treatment options for localized prostate cancer with very similar outcome but vary in terms of technique and side effect profiles and risks. Considering the potential difficulty in choosing the best treatment, a patient decision aid (PDA) is used to help patients in their decision-making process. However, the use and applicability of PDA in a country in Asia Pacific region like Malaysia is still unknown. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a PDA modified to the local context in improving patients’ knowledge, decisional conflict, and preparation for decision making among men with localized prostate cancer. Sixty patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to control and intervention groups. A self-administered questionnaire, which evaluate the knowledge on prostate cancer (23 items), decisional conflict (10 items) and preparation for decision-making (10 items), was given to all participants at pre- and post-intervention. Data were analyzed using independent T test and paired T test. The intervention group showed significant improvement in knowledge (p = 0.02) and decisional conflict (p = 0.01) from baseline. However, when compared between the control and intervention groups, there were no significant differences at baseline and post-intervention on knowledge, decisional conflict and preparation for decision-making. A PDA on treatment options of localized prostate cancer modified to the local context in an Asia Pacific country improved patients’ knowledge and decisional conflict but did not have significant impact on the preparation for decision-making. The study was also registered under the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12614000668606 registered on 25/06/2014.

Background Improving the quality of information and communication is a priority in organised breast cancer screening and an ethical duty. Programmes must offer the information each woman is looking for, promoting informed decision-making. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a web-based dynamic decision aid (DA). Methods A pragmatic randomised trial carried out in six regional organised screening programmes recruited women at the first invitation receiving DA or a web-based standard brochure (SB). The primary outcome was informed choice measured on knowledge, attitudes, and intentions. Follow-up period: 7–10 days. Secondary outcomes included participation rate, satisfaction, decisional conflict, and acceptability of DA. Results Two thousand one hundred and nineteen women were randomised and 1001 completed the study. Respectively, 43.9% and 36.9% in the DA and SB reached the informed choice. The DA gave a 13-point higher proportion of women aware about overdiagnosis compared to SB (38.3% versus 25.2%, p Conclusion DA increases informed choice. Complete information including the pros, cons, controversies, and overdiagnosis–overtreatment issues boost a woman’s knowledge without reducing the rate of actual screening participation. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT 03097653.

Communication between patients and family caregivers plays a key role in successful end-of-life (EOL) care. In the majority of cases, health-care providers (HCP) are responsible for leading this communication in clinical settings. This systematic review aimed to examine the evidence for the efficacy of HCP-led interventions in enhancing communication between patients and family caregivers. The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and involved a search of MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, and PsycINFO as well as a manual search for additional articles on Google Scholar without date restrictions. Of 2955 articles retrieved, 8 meeting the eligibility criteria were included in the review. A quality appraisal of the selected studies was performed using the van Tulder Scale, with 5 of 8 studies rated as high quality. All 8 studies employed psychoeducational interventions involving both patients and surrogate/family caregivers. Common elements of the interventions reviewed included encouraging participant dyads to share their concerns about the patient’s medical condition, clarify their goals and values for EOL care, and discuss their EOL care preferences. Of 8 interventions reviewed, 6 measured EOL care preference congruence within dyads as a primary outcome, and all 6 interventions were effective in increasing congruence. Secondary outcomes measured included decisional conflict and relationship quality, with mixed outcomes reported. This review suggests that HCP-led EOL communication interventions show promise for improving EOL care preference congruence. However, further studies with improved methodological rigor are needed to establish the optimal timing, intensity, and duration of interventions.

Genomic newborn screening raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence is required to build a framework to introduce this technology safely and effectively. We investigated the choices made by a diverse group of parents with newborns when offered tiered genomic information from exome sequencing. This population-derived cohort comprised infants with congenital deafness. Parents were offered exome sequencing and choice regarding the scope of analysis. Options were choice A, diagnostic analysis only; choice B, diagnostic analysis plus childhood-onset diseases with medical actionability; or choice C, diagnostic analysis plus childhood-onset diseases with or without medical actionability. Of the 106 participants, 72 (68%) consented to receive additional findings with 29 (27.4%) selecting choice B and 43 (40.6%) opting for choice C. Family size, ethnicity, and age of infant at time of recruitment were the significant predictors of choice. Parents who opted to have additional findings analysis demonstrated less anxiety and decisional conflict. These data provide evidence from a culturally diverse population that choice around additional findings is important and the age of the infant when this choice is offered impacts on their decision. We found no evidence that offering different levels of genomic information to parents of newborns has a negative psychological impact.

Purpose of review Patient decision aids are educational tools used to assist patients and clinicians in healthcare decisions. As healthcare moves toward patient-centered care, these tools can provide support to anesthesiologists by facilitating shared decision-making. Recent findings Recent research has shown that patient decision aids are beneficial in the clinical setting for patients and physicians. Studies have shown that patients feel better informed, have better knowledge, and have less anxiety, depression, and decisional conflict after using patient decision aids. In addition, a structured approach for the development of patient decision aids in the field of anesthesia has been established. Summary Patient decision aids can support patient-centered care delivery and shared decision-making, especially in the field of anesthesia. Current research involves implementing the use of patient decision aids in the discussion for monitored anesthesia care. Further development of quality metrics is needed to improve the decision aids and maximize decision quality.

Objective Using an online decision aid developed to support parental decision making about newborn genomic sequencing, we tested whether adding a values clarification exercise to educational content would improve decision making outcomes and influence intention to pursue genomic sequencing. We also examined whether the effect of values clarification varied depending on one's health literacy level. Method In an online experiment, women and men aged 18 to 44 who were either pregnant or had a pregnant partner, were currently trying to get pregnant, or were preparing for a pregnancy within the next 2 years were randomly assigned to complete either a decision aid with educational information about newborn genomic sequencing or a decision aid with the same educational information and a values clarification exercise. Results Of the 1,000 participants who completed the decision aid, those who completed the values clarification exercise reported less decision regret, F(1, 995) = 6.19, p = .01, and were clearer about their personal values, F(1, 995) = 6.39, p = .01. Moderation analyses revealed that the benefit of values clarification on decisional conflict was particularly evident among participants with lower health literacy, B = -3.94, SE = 1.67, t = -2.36, p = .018. There was not a significant moderation effect of health literacy and decision aid condition on decision regret. Conclusions Adding a values clarification exercise to decision aids for parents making decisions about genomic sequencing may improve the decision-making experience and provide some benefit to individuals with lower health literacy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Introduction. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has guided practitioners and patients facing difficult decisions for 20 years. It asserts that decision support interventions that address patients’ decisional needs improve decision quality. Purpose. To update the ODSF based on a synthesis of evidence. Methods. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews, searching 9 electronic databases. Eligible reviews included decisional needs assessments, decision support interventions, and decisional outcome measures guided by the ODSF. We extracted data and synthesized results narratively. Eight ODSF developers/expert users from 4 disciplines revised the ODSF. Results. Of 4656 citations, we identified 4 eligible reviews (>250 studies, >100 different decisions, >50,000 patients, 18 countries, 5 continents). They reported current ODSF decisional needs and their most frequent manifestations in the areas of inadequate knowledge/information, unclear values, decisional conflict/uncertainty, and inadequate support. They uncovered 11 new manifestations of 6 decisional needs. Using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) to assess decisional needs, average scores were elevated at baseline and declined shortly after decision making, even without information interventions. Patient decision aids were superior to usual care in reducing total DCS scores and improving decision quality. We revised the ODSF by refining definitions of 6 decisional needs and adding new interventions to address 4 needs. We added a decision process outcome and eliminated secondary outcomes unlikely to improve across a range of decisions, retaining the implementation/continuance of the chosen option and appropriate use/costs of health services. Conclusions. We updated the ODSF to reflect the current evidence and identified implications for practice and further research.