Search

BackgroundDecision Aids (DAs) effectively translate medical evidence for patients but are not routinely used in clinical practice. Little is known about how DAs are used during patient-clinician encounters.ObjectiveTo characterize the content and communicative function of high-quality DAs during diagnostic clinic visits for prostate cancer.Participants252 men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had received a DA, 45 treating physicians at 4 US Veterans Administration urology clinics.MethodsQualitative analysis of transcribed audio recordings was used to inductively develop categories capturing content and function of all direct references to DAs (booklet talk). The presence or absence of any booklet talk per transcript was also calculated.ResultsBooklet talk occurred in 55% of transcripts. Content focused on surgical procedures (36%); treatment choice (22%); and clarifying risk classification (17%). The most common function of booklet talk was patient corroboration of physicians' explanations (42%), followed by either physician or patient acknowledgement that the patient had the booklet. Codes reflected the absence of DA use for shared decision-making. In regression analysis, predictors of booklet talk were fewer years of patient education (P = .027) and more time in the encounter (P = .027). Patient race, DA type, time reading the DA, physician informing quality and physician age did not predict booklet talk.ConclusionsResults show that good decision aids, systematically provided to patients, appeared to function not to open up deliberations about how to balance benefits and harms of competing treatments, but rather to allow patients to ask narrow technical questions about recommended treatments.

BackgroundWe know little about patient-physician communication during visits to discuss diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.ObjectiveTo examine the overall visit structure and how patients and physicians transition between communication activities during visits in which patients received new prostate cancer diagnoses.ParticipantsForty veterans and 18 urologists at one VA medical centre.MethodsWe coded 40 transcripts to identify major communication activities during visits and used empiric discourse analysis to analyse transitions between activities.ResultsWe identified five communication activities that occurred in the following typical sequence: 'diagnosis delivery', 'risk classification', 'options talk', 'decision talk' and 'next steps'. The first two activities were typically brief and involved minimal patient participation. Options talk was typically the longest activity; physicians explicitly announced the beginning of options talk and framed it as their professional responsibility. Some patients were unsure of the purpose of visit and/or who should make treatment decisions.ConclusionVisits to deliver the diagnosis of early stage prostate cancer follow a regular sequence of communication activities. Physicians focus on discussing treatment options and devote comparatively little time and attention to discussing the new cancer diagnosis. Towards the goal of promoting patient-centred communication, physicians should consider eliciting patient reactions after diagnosis delivery and explaining the decision-making process before describing treatment options.

Keywords: Key words: decision making; decision theory; informed consent; treatment refusal; medical ethics; theoretical models; patient participation; physician-patient relations. 699 Shared Decision MakingBeyond Shared Decision Making: An Expanded Typology of [...]

This article reports on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Symposium held in 2006 at the annual meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The symposium featured a debate regarding the proposition that 'decision aids are the best way to improve clinical decision making.' The formal debate addressed the theoretical problem of the appropriate gold standard for an improved decision, efficacy of decision aids, and prospects for implementation.Audience comments and questions focused on both theory and practice: the often unacknowledged roots of decision aids in expected utility theory and the practical problems of limited patient decision aid implementation in health care. The participants' vote on the proposition was approximately half for and half against. Keywords: patient decision aids; decision support; decision analysis; evidence-based medicine; values clarification. (Med Decis Making 2007;27:599-608), THE SYMPOSIUM This article reports on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Symposium, held 14 October 2006 at the Society for Medical Decision Making Annual Meeting in Cambridge, Massachusetts. [...]

Objective. To describe the extent to which patient decision aids (PtDAs) meet effectiveness standards of the International Patient Decision Aids Collaboration (IPDAS). Data sources. Five electronic databases (to July 2006) and personal contacts (to December 2006). Results. Among 55 randomized controlled trials, 38 (69%) used at least 1 measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion. Measures of decision quality were knowledge scores (27 trials), accurate risk perceptions (12 trials), and value congruence with the chosen option (3 trials). PtDAs improved knowledge scores relative to usual care (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 15.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.7 to 18.7); detailed PtDAs were somewhat more effective than simpler PtDAs (WMD = 4.6%, 95% CI = 3.0 to 6.2). PtDAs with probabilities improved accurate risk perceptions relative to those without probabilities (relative risk = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.4 to 1.9). Relative to simpler PtDAs, detailed PtDAs improved value congruence with the chosen option. Only 2 of 6 IPDAS decision process criteria were measured: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials). PtDAs improved these process measures relative to usual care (feeling uninformed WMD = -8.4, 95% CI = -11.9 to -4.8; unclear values WMD = -6.3, 95% CI = -10.0 to -2.7). There was no difference in process measures when detailed and simple PtDAs were compared. Conclusions. PtDAs improve decision quality and the decision process's measures of feeling informed and clear about values; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Several IPDAS decision process measures have not been used. Future trials need to use a minimum data set of IPDAS evaluation measures. The degree of detail PtDAs require for positive effects on IPDAS criteria should be explored. Key words: decision support techniques; patient education; patient participation; randomized controlled trials. (Med Decis Making 2007;27:554-574), Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are adjuncts to counseling that explain options, clarify personal values for the benefits versus harms, and guide patients in deliberation and communication. With the rapid proliferation [...]

Purpose The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility of a brief shared decision-making (SDM) goal-setting intervention among individuals with type 2 diabetes. Methods A convenience sample of [...]

How the possibility of treatment-induced sexual dysfunction affects men's decision making about benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) treatment has not been well studied. As part of a study (N = 188) [...]

Abstract Background The search for a reliable, valid and cost-effective comorbidity risk adjustment method for outcomes research continues to be a challenge. The most widely used tool, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) is limited due to frequent missing data in medical records and administrative data. Patient self-report data has the potential to be more complete but has not been widely used. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ) to predict functional capacity, quality of life (QOL) health outcomes compared to CCI medical records data. Method An SCQ-score was generated from patient interview, and the CCI score was generated by medical record review for 525 patients hospitalized for Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) at baseline, three months and eight months post-discharge. Linear regression models assessed the extent to which there were differences in the ability of comorbidity measures to predict functional capacity (Activity Status Index [ASI] scores) and quality of life (EuroQOL 5D [EQ5D] scores). Results The CCI (R2 = 0.245; p = 0.132) did not predict quality of life scores while the SCQ self-report method (R2 = 0.265; p < 0.0005) predicted the EQ5D scores. However, the CCI was almost as good as the SCQ for predicting the ASI scores at three and six months and performed slightly better in predicting ASI at eight-month follow up (R2 = 0.370; p < 0.0005 vs. R2 = 0.358; p < 0.0005) respectively. Only age, gender, family income and Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CESD) scores showed significant association with both measures in predicting QOL and functional capacity. Conclusions Although our model R-squares were fairly low, these results show that the self-report SCQ index is a good alternative method to predict QOL health outcomes when compared to a CCI medical record score. Both measures predicted physical functioning similarly. This suggests that patient self-reported comorbidity data can be used for predicting physical functional capacity and QOL and can serve as a reliable risk adjustment measure. Self-report comorbidity data may provide a cost-effective alternative method for risk adjustment in clinical research, health policy and organizational improvement analyses. Trial registration Clinical Trials.gov NCT00416026

Abstract Background Comorbidity is an important adjustment measure in research focusing on outcomes such as health status and mortality. One recurrent methodological issue concerns the concordance of comorbidity data obtained from different reporting sources. The purpose of these prospectively planned analyses was to examine the concordance of comorbidity data obtained from patient self-report survey interviews and hospital medical record documentation. Methods Comorbidity data were obtained using survey interviews and medical record entries from 525 hospitalized Acute Coronary Syndrome patients. Frequencies and descriptive statistics of individual and composite comorbidity data from both sources were completed. Individual item agreement was evaluated with simple and weighted kappas, Spearman Rho coefficients for composite scores. Results On average, patients reported more comorbidities during their patient survey interviews (mean = 1.78, SD = 1.99) than providers had documented in medical records (mean = 1.27, SD = 1.43). Higher proportions of positive responses were obtained from self-reports compared to medical records for all conditions except congestive heart failure and renal disease. Older age and higher depressive symptom levels were significantly associated with poorer levels of data concordance. Conclusion These results demonstrate that survey comorbidity data from ACS patients may not be entirely concordat with medical record documentation. In the absence of a gold standard, it is possible that hospital records did not include all pre-admission comorbidities and these patient survey interview methods may need to be refined. Self-report methods to facilitate some patients' complete recall of comorbid conditions may need to be refined by health services researchers. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00416026.