Search

Background and Objectives Informal caregivers are rarely as involved as they want to be in the housing decisions of cognitively impaired older adults. Lack of awareness of available options and their benefits and risks may lead to decisions that do not reflect older adults' preferences, and to guilt and regret. We assessed the effect of training home care teams in interprofessional shared decision-making (SDM) on the proportion of caregivers who report being active in this decision. Research Design and Methods In a two-arm pragmatic cluster randomized trial with home care teams working in health centers in the Province of Quebec, we randomized health centers to receive training in interprofessional SDM (intervention) or not (control). Eligible caregivers had made a housing decision for a cognitively impaired adult aged 65 years or older who was receiving services from a home care team. The primary outcome was the proportion of caregivers reporting an active role in decision making. We performed intention-to-treat multilevel analysis. Results We consecutively enrolled a random group of 16 health centers and recruited 309 caregivers, among whom 296 were included in the analysis. In the intervention arm, the proportion of caregivers reporting an active role in decision making increased by 12% (95% CI −2% to 27%; p =.10). After removal of an influential cluster outlier, the proportion increased to 18% (95% CI: 7%–29%; p <.01). Discussion and Implications Training home care teams in interprofessional SDM increased caregiver involvement in health-related housing decisions for cognitively impaired older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: DOLCE (Improving Decision making On Location of Care with the frail Elderly and their caregivers) was a post-intervention clustered randomised trial (cRT) to assess the effect of training home care teams on interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM). Alongside the cRT, we sought to monitor healthcare providers' level of behavioural intention to engage in an IP-SDM approach and to identify factors associated with this intention.Methods: We conducted two cross-sectional surveys in the province of Quebec, Canada, one each at cRT entry and exit. Healthcare providers (e.g. nurses, occupational therapists and social workers) in the 16 participating intervention and control sites self-completed an identical paper-based questionnaire at entry and exit. Informed by the Integrated model for explaining healthcare professionals' clinical behaviour by Godin et al. (2008), we assessed their behavioural intention to engage in IP-SDM to support older adults and caregivers of older adults with cognitive impairment to make health-related housing decisions. We also assessed psychosocial variables underlying their behavioural intention and collected sociodemographic data. We used descriptive statistics and linear mixed models to account for clustering.Results: Between 2014 and 2016, 271 healthcare providers participated at study entry and 171 at exit. At entry, median intention level was 6 in a range of 1 (low) to 7 (high) (Interquartile range (IQR): 5-6.5) and factors associated with intention were social influence (β = 0.27, P <  0.0001), beliefs about one's capabilities (β = 0.43, P <  0.0001), moral norm (β = 0.31, P <  0.0001) and beliefs about consequences (β = 0.21, P <  0.0001). At exit, median intention level was 5.5 (IQR: 4.5-6.5). Factors associated with intention were the same but did not include moral norm. However, at exit new factors were kept in the model: working in rehabilitation (β = - 0.39, P = 0.018) and working as a technician (β = - 0.41, P = 0.069) (compared to as a social worker).Conclusion: Intention levels were high but decreased from entry to exit. Factors associated with intention also changed from study entry to study exit. These findings may be explained by the major restructuring of the health and social care system that took place during the 2 years of the study, leading to rapid staff turnover and organisational disturbance in home care teams. Future research should give more attention to contextual factors and design implementation interventions to withstand the disruption of system- and organisational-level disturbances.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02244359). Registered on September 19th, 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite health policy that promotes shared decision-making, it is not yet the norm in clinical practice. We aimed to assess how much shared decision-making Canadians experienced in health-related decisions in 2017. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey in January 2018 with a Web-based panel of Canadians representing all 10 provinces. We assessed their involvement in health-related decisions made with a health care professional over the previous year by asking about 1) discussion of choice of treatment or care plan, 2) presentation of advantages and disadvantages, 3) exploration of ideas and preferences, 4) discussion of preferred option and 5) match between preferred and actual level of participation. We computed an average shared decision-making score (range 1 [never] to 5 [always]). We presented characteristics of participants and responses using descriptive statistics and explored variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, geographical areas and care settings (home care or not) using multivariate weighted regressions. Results: Of the 1591 participants surveyed, 1010 (63.5%) reported receiving health care in the previous 12 months. The mean of the average shared decision-making score was 2.25/5 (standard deviation [SD] 1.16). After weighting, 42.8% of respondents reported that their health care professional often or always mentioned that they had a choice of treatment or care plan, 45.4% reported that advantages and disadvantages were often or always presented, 38.8% reported that they were often or always asked for their ideas or preferences, 40.2% reported that they were often or always asked about their preferred option, and 54.1% stated that their level of participation in decision-making often or always matched their preferred level of participation. Increasing age, rural setting, living in the province of Quebec and not being white significantly decreased the level of shared decision-making experienced. Older respondents (age ≥ 65 yr) receiving home care reported the least shared decision-making (mean score 1.7 [SD 0.5]). Interpretation: Canadians in all 10 provinces experienced a low degree of shared decision-making in 2017, with variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, care settings and geographical areas. Further efforts to foster implementation of shared decision-making are needed and should take these variations into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about the decision-making experiences of seniors and informal caregivers facing decisions about seniors’ housing decisions when objective decision making measures are used. Objectives: To report on seniors’ and caregivers’ experiences of housing decisions. Design: A cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach supplemented by qualitative data. Setting: Sixteen health jurisdictions providing home care services, Quebec province, Canada. Participants: Two separate samples of seniors aged ≥ 65 years and informal caregivers of cognitively impaired seniors who had made a decision about housing. Measurements: Information on preferred choice and actual choice about housing, role assumed in the decision, decisional conflict and decision regret was obtained through closed-ended questionnaires. Research assistants paraphrased participants’ narratives about their decision-making experiences and made other observations in standardized logbooks. Results: Thirty-one seniors (median age: 85.5 years) and 48 caregivers (median age: 65.1 years) were recruited. Both seniors and caregivers preferred that the senior stay at home (64.5% and 71.7% respectively). Staying home was the actual choice for only 32.2% of participating seniors and 36.2% of the seniors cared for by the participating caregivers. Overall, 93% seniors and 71% caregivers reported taking an active or collaborative role in the decision-making process. The median decisional conflict score was 23/100 for seniors and 30/100 for caregivers. The median decision regret score was the same for both (10/100). Qualitative analysis revealed that the housing decision was influenced by factors such as seniors’ health and safety concerns and caregivers’ burden of care. Some caregivers felt sad and guilty when the decision did not match the senior’s preference. Conclusion: The actual housing decision made for seniors frequently did not match their preferred housing option. Advanced care planning regarding housing and better decision support are needed for these difficult decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Men who have sex with Men (MSM) are a key population in the transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection. In Benin, there is a lack of strategic information to offer appropriate interventions for these populations who live hidden due to their stigmatization and discrimination. The objective is to identify contributing factors that affect HIV incidence in the MSM population. Study of a prospective cohort of 358 HIV-negative MSM, aged 18 years and over, reporting having had at least one oral or anal relationship with another man during the last 12 months, prior to recruitment. The monitoring lasted 30 months with a follow-up visit every six months. Univariate analyses and a Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression were used to examine the association between bio-behavioral, socio-demographic and knowledge-related characteristics with HIV incidence. The retention rate for the follow-up of the 358 participants was 94.5%. On the 813.5 person-years of follow-up, 48 seroconversions with an HIV incidence of 5.91 per 100 person-years were observed (95% CI: 4.46–7.85). Factors associated with the high risk of HIV were age (HR = 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2–0.8), living in couple (HR = 0.5 95% CI: 0.2–0.96) and the lack of condom systematic use with a male partner during high-risk sex (HR = 3.9; 95% CI: 1.4–11.1). HIV incidence is high within MSM population and particularly among young people. Targeted, suitable and cost-effective interventions for the delivery of the combination prevention package in an environment free of stigma and discrimination are necessary and vital for reaching the 90x90x90 target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Despite growing recognition that shared decision making ( SDM) is central for patient-centred primary care, adoption by physicians remains limited in routine practice. Objective To examine the characteristics of physicians, patients and consultations associated with primary care physicians' SDM behaviours during routine care. Methods A multicentre cross-sectional survey study was conducted with 114 unique patient-physician dyads recruited from 17 primary care clinics in Quebec and Ontario, Canada. Physicians' SDM behaviours were assessed with the 12-item OPTION scale scored by third observers using audio-recordings of consultations. Independent variables included 21 physician, patient and consultation characteristics. We assessed factors associated with OPTION scores using multivariate linear regression models. Results On the OPTION scale, where higher scores indicated greater SDM behaviours, physicians earned an overall mean score of 25.7±9.8 of 100. In the final adjusted regression model, higher OPTION scores were associated with physicians' social participation (involvement in one committee β=5.75, P=.04; involvement in two or more committees β=7.74, P=.01), patients' status as employed (β=6.48, P=.02), clinically significant decisional conflict in patients (β=7.15, P=.002) and a longer duration of consultations (β=0.23, P=.002). Conclusion Physicians' social participation, patients' employment status and decisional conflict and the duration of consultations were associated with primary care physicians' SDM behaviours in routine care. These factors should be considered when designing strategies to implement SDM and promote more patient-centred care in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interventions to change health professionals' behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions. Methods: We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under "what materials?" we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses. Results: Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: "brief name" (87/87, 100%), "why" (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and "what" (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were "materials" (29/87, 33%), "who" (23/87, 26%), and "when and how much" (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: "tailoring" (8/87, 9%), "modifications" (3/87, 4%), and "how well (actual)" (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported "How", (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%. Conclusions: Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy-makers worldwide are increasingly interested in scaling up evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to larger populations, and implementation scientists are developing frameworks and methodologies for achieving this. But scaling-up does not always produce the desired results. Why not? We aimed to enhance awareness of the various pitfalls to be anticipated when planning scale-up. In lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the scale-up of health programs to prevent or respond to outbreaks of communicable diseases has been occurring for many decades. In high-income countries, there is new interest in the scaling up of interventions that address communicable and non-communicable diseases alike. We scanned the literature worldwide on problems encountered when implementing scale-up plans revealed a number of potential pitfalls that we discuss in this paper. We identified and discussed the following six major pitfalls of scaling-up EBIs: 1) the cost-effectiveness estimation pitfall, i.e. accurate cost-effectiveness estimates about real-world implementation are almost impossible, making predictions of economies of scale unreliable; 2) the health inequities pitfall, i.e. some people will necessarily be left out and therefore not benefit from the scaled-up EBIs; 3) the scaled-up harm pitfall, i.e. the harms as well as the benefits may be amplified by the scaling-up; 4) the ethical pitfall, i.e. informed consent may be a challenge on a grander scale; 5) the top-down pitfall, i.e. the needs, preferences and culture of end-users may be forgotten when scale-up is directed from above; and 6) the contextual pitfall, i.e. it may not be possible to adapt the EBIs to every context. If its pitfalls are addressed head on, scaling-up may be a powerful process for translating research data into practical improvements in healthcare in both LMICs and high-income countries, ensuring that more people benefit from EBIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is little information about the functions and behavior change techniques (BCTs) needed to implement shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice. To guide future implementation initiatives, we sought to develop a BCT taxonomy for SDM implementation interventions.Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of a 2018 Cochrane review on interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. We examined all 87 studies included in the review. We extracted relevant information on each study intervention into a spreadsheet. Coders had undergone a training workshop on intervention functions and online training on BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). We performed functions and BCTs coding trials, and identified coding rules. We used Michie's guide for designing behavior change interventions to code the functions and BCTs used in the interventions. Coders met to compare coding and discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. Data was analyzed using simple descriptive statistics.Results: Overall, 7 functions, 24 combinations of functions and 32 BCTs were used in the 87 SDM implementation interventions. The mean of functions per intervention was 2.5 and the mean of BCTs per intervention was 3.7. The functions Coercion and Restriction were not found. The most common function was Education (73 studies). Three combinations of functions were most common (e.g: Education + Persuasion, used in 10 studies). The functions associated with more effective SDM implementation interventions were Modeling and Training. The most effective combination of functions was Education + Training + Modeling + Enablement. The most commonly used BCT was Instruction on how to perform the behavior (43 studies). BCTs associated with more effective SDM implementation interventions were: Instruction on how to perform the behavior, Demonstration of the behavior, Feedback on behavior, Pharmacological support, Material reward, and Biofeedback. Twenty-five BCTs were associated with less effective SDM implementation interventions. Four new BCTs were identified: General information to support the behavior, Tailoring, Exercises to conceptually prepare for the behavior, and Experience sharing and learning.Conclusions: We established a BCT taxonomy specific to the field of SDM to guide future SDM implementation interventions. Four new BCTs should be added to BCTTv1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]