Search

Background: Coaching and guidance are structured approaches that can be used within or alongside patient decision aids (PtDAs) to facilitate the process of decision making. Coaching is provided by an individual, and guidance is embedded within the decision support materials. The purpose of this paper is to: a) present updated definitions of the concepts "coaching" and "guidance"; b) present an updated summary of current theoretical and empirical insights into the roles played by coaching/guidance in the context of PtDAs; and c) highlight emerging issues and research opportunities in this aspect of PtDA design. Methods: We identified literature published since 2003 on shared decision making theoretical frameworks inclusive of coaching or guidance. We also conducted a sub-analysis of randomized controlled trials included in the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration Review of PtDAs with search results updated to December 2010. The sub-analysis was conducted on the characteristics of coaching and/or guidance included in any trial of PtDAs and trials that allowed the impact of coaching and/or guidance with PtDA to be compared to another intervention or usual care. Results: Theoretical evidence continues to justify the use of coaching and/or guidance to better support patients in the process of thinking about a decision and in communicating their values/preferences with others. In 98 randomized controlled trials of PtDAs, 11 trials (11.2%) included coaching and 63 trials (64.3%) provided guidance. Compared to usual care, coaching provided alongside a PtDA improved knowledge and decreased mean costs. The impact on some other outcomes (e.g., participation in decision making, satisfaction, option chosen) was more variable, with some trials showing positive effects and other trials reporting no differences. For values-choice agreement, decisional conflict, adherence, and anxiety there were no differences between groups. None of these outcomes were worse when patients were exposed to decision coaching alongside a PtDA. No trials evaluated the effect of guidance provided within PtDAs. Conclusions: Theoretical evidence continues to justify the use of coaching and/or guidance to better support patients to participate in decision making. However, there are few randomized controlled trials that have compared the effectiveness of coaching used alongside PtDAs to PtDAs without coaching, and no trials have compared the PtDAs with guidance to those without guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare professionals and organizations, policy makers, and the public are calling for safe and effective care that is centered on patients' needs, values, and preferences. The goals of interprofessional shared decision making and decision support are to help patients and professionals agree on choices that are effective, health promoting, realistic, and consonant with patients' and professionals' values and preferences. This requires collaboration among professionals and with patients and their family caregivers. Continuing professional development is urgently needed to help healthcare professionals acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to create and sustain a culture of collaboration. We describe a model that can be used to design, implement, and evaluate continuing education curricula in interprofessional shared decision making and decision support. This model aligns curricular goals, objectives, educational strategies, and evaluation instruments and strategies with desired learning and organizational outcomes. Educational leaders and researchers can institutionalize such curricula by linking them with quality improvement and patient safety initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assisting patients and their families in complex decision making is a foundational skill in palliative care; however, palliative care clinicians and scientists have just begun to establish an evidence base for best practice in assisting patients and families in complex decision making. Decision scientists aim to understand and clarify the concepts and techniques of shared decision making (SDM), decision support, and informed patient choice in order to ensure that patient and family perspectives shape their health care experience. Patients with serious illness and their families are faced with myriad complex decisions over the course of illness and as death approaches. If patients lose capacity, then surrogate decision makers are cast into the decision-making role. The fields of palliative care and decision science have grown in parallel. There is much to be gained in advancing the practices of complex decision making in serious illness through increased collaboration. The purpose of this article is to use a case study to highlight the broad range of difficult decisions, issues, and opportunities imposed by a life-limiting illness in order to illustrate how collaboration and a joint research agenda between palliative care and decision science researchers, theorists, and clinicians might guide best practices for patients and their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To appraise instruments used as primary outcome measures in trials measuring the effectiveness of patient decision support interventions. Methods: Primary outcome measures were identified in trials of patient decision aids included in the 2003 Cochrane Review. Instruments were appraised for: use in calculating sample size, appropriateness, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, acceptability, and feasibility. Results: Of the 35 trials, there were 35 unique primary outcome measures and 8 instruments were appraised. Actual or preferred choice was the primary outcome measure in 18 trials. Two instruments met at least 6 of 8 appraisal criteria: Control Preference Scale (n =2 trials) and Decisional Conflict Scale (n =5 trials). The Decision Conflict Scale was used to calculate sample size in 4 trials. Conclusion: Decision was the most consistent outcome measure. Most publications provided inadequate detail for appraising the instruments. Four instruments (Decisional Conflict, Control Preferences, Genetic Testing Knowledge Questionnaire, and McBride's Satisfaction with Decision) measured one or more International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria for evaluating effectiveness. Practice implications: Selecting relevant and high quality outcome measures remains challenging and is an important area for further research in the field of shared decision making. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Comfort care without transport to hospital was not traditionally a paramedic practice. The novel Paramedics Providing Palliative Care at Home Program includes a new clinical practice guideline, medications, a database to manage and share goals of care, and palliative care training. This study determined essential elements for implementation, scale, and spread of this Program. Methods: Deliberative dialogs, a qualitative method, were held with diverse stakeholders/experts in one province with the Program (Nova Scotia, March 2018) and one without (British Columbia, July 2018). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed the discussion guide and was used in a framework analysis. Four team members analyzed the data independently; themes were derived by consensus with the broader research team. Results: CFIR constructs framed several key elements. Inter-sectoral communication is critical but challenged by privacy concerns and the siloed structure of the health system. Locally adapted training is an essential characteristic of the intervention; cost is a factor. A shift in mindset away from traditional paramedic roles is required; this can be facilitated by paramedic champions and a positive implementation climate. Early engagement of diverse stakeholders and planning for sustainability is key. Conclusion: This framework analysis using CFIR constructs can guide successful scale and spread of the program. The constructs of Outer setting: Cosmopolitanism; Characteristics of the intervention: Adaptability; Inner Setting: Implementation climate; and Processes: Engagement, and Planning, emerged as essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's views on using family satisfaction data to improve the process of intensive care medicine. According to the author, elucidation of the key determinants to family satisfaction will be achieved only by using both quantitative and qualitative research designs. The author states that engaging patients and families earlier in the decision making process may afford patients the opportunity to share their values and preferences.

Background: Coaching and guidance are structured approaches that can be used within or alongside patient decision aids (PtDAs) to facilitate the process of decision making. Coaching is provided by an individual, and guidance is embedded within the decision support materials. The purpose of this paper is to: a) present updated definitions of the concepts "coaching" and "guidance"; b) present an updated summary of current theoretical and empirical insights into the roles played by coaching/guidance in the context of PtDAs; and c) highlight emerging issues and research opportunities in this aspect of PtDA design.Methods: We identified literature published since 2003 on shared decision making theoretical frameworks inclusive of coaching or guidance. We also conducted a sub-analysis of randomized controlled trials included in the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration Review of PtDAs with search results updated to December 2010. The sub-analysis was conducted on the characteristics of coaching and/or guidance included in any trial of PtDAs and trials that allowed the impact of coaching and/or guidance with PtDA to be compared to another intervention or usual care.Results: Theoretical evidence continues to justify the use of coaching and/or guidance to better support patients in the process of thinking about a decision and in communicating their values/preferences with others. In 98 randomized controlled trials of PtDAs, 11 trials (11.2%) included coaching and 63 trials (64.3%) provided guidance. Compared to usual care, coaching provided alongside a PtDA improved knowledge and decreased mean costs. The impact on some other outcomes (e.g., participation in decision making, satisfaction, option chosen) was more variable, with some trials showing positive effects and other trials reporting no differences. For values-choice agreement, decisional conflict, adherence, and anxiety there were no differences between groups. None of these outcomes were worse when patients were exposed to decision coaching alongside a PtDA. No trials evaluated the effect of guidance provided within PtDAs.Conclusions: Theoretical evidence continues to justify the use of coaching and/or guidance to better support patients to participate in decision making. However, there are few randomized controlled trials that have compared the effectiveness of coaching used alongside PtDAs to PtDAs without coaching, and no trials have compared the PtDAs with guidance to those without guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-quality patient-centred care for hospitalised patients at the end of life requires health care teams to engage patients and families in communication and decision-making about goals of care. In the absence of such engagement, patient preferences may not be reflected in their care, and patients may be subjected to unwanted life-sustaining technologies such as mechanical ventilation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The DECIDE (DECIsion-making about goals of care for seriously ill, hospitalised medical patients) study was conducted with the aims of identifying barriers and ideas for improving end-of-life communication and decision-making with seriously ill patients in Canadian hospitals. Its qualitative component involved interviews with 30 physicians and nurses asking them to recall and describe hospital-based goals of care communication and decision-making incidents that had gone ‘well’ or ‘unwell’. This article explores a dominant pattern in participants’ accounts, which is a norm of waiting to initiate end-of-life discussions until seriously ill patients are within days or even hours of death. Attending to clinicians’ explanations of when and why goals of care discussions are routinely delayed provides opportunity to clarify and critically consider important and normally unarticulated rationales underlying end-of-life discussion practices between health care teams and patients/families in Canadian hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The original version of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) recommended that patient decision aids (PtDAs) should be carefully developed, user-tested and open to scrutiny, with a well- documented and systematically applied development process. We carried out a review to check the relevance and scope of this quality dimension and, if necessary, to update it. Methods: Our review drew on three sources: a) published papers describing PtDAs evaluated in randomised controlled trials and included in the most recent Cochrane Collaboration review; b) linked papers cited in the trial reports that described how the PtDAs had been developed; and c) papers and web reports outlining the development process used by organisations experienced in developing multiple PtDAs. We then developed an extended model of the development process indicating the various steps on which documentation is required, as well as a checklist to assess the frequency with which each of the elements was publicly reported. Results: Key features common to all patient decision aid (PtDA) development processes include: scoping and design; development of a prototype; 'alpha' testing with patients and clinicians in an iterative process; 'beta' testing in 'real life' conditions (field tests); and production of a final version for use and/or further evaluation. Only about half of the published reports on the development of PtDAs that we reviewed appear to have been field tested with patients, and even fewer had been reviewed or tested by clinicians not involved in the development process. Very few described a distribution strategy, and surprisingly few (17%) described a method for reviewing and synthesizing the clinical evidence. We describe a model development process that includes all the original elements of the original IPDAS criterion, expanded to include consideration of format and distribution plans as well as prototype development. Conclusions: The case for including each of the elements outlined in our model development process is pragmatic rather than evidence-based. Optimal methods for ensuring that each stage of the process is carried out effectively require further development and testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients living with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are faced with numerous decisions across the trajectory of their illness. Shared decision making (SDM) offers a patient-centered approach to engage patients in decision making in meaningful ways. Using an SDM approach, patients and providers collaborate to make healthcare decisions by taking into account the best available empirical evidence, in conjunction with the patient's values, preferences, and individual circumstances. In this article, we outline the principles of SDM; highlight the broad range and context of decisions faced by patients living with ESRD; review decision-support interventions; and consider opportunities and challenges for implementing SDM into usual ESRD practice. A summary of current knowledge and areas for research and further investigation concludes the paper. Because nephrology team members spend a lot of time interacting with patients during treatments and follow-up care, they are well positioned to engage in SDM. Healthcare systems need innovation in communication to ensure the ethical application of important technological improvements in renal treatments, and to ensure that patient decision-support processes are available. SDM is a promising innovation to support the recalibration of care for patients living with end-stage renal disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community-led approaches can increase public engagement in Advance Care Planning (ACP). Better understanding of the experiences and perspectives of community staff and volunteers who host and facilitate community-led, peer-facilitated ACP workshops is valuable when considering the spread of these approaches. Content analysis of qualitative data from community-based hospice societies delivering ACP workshops to the public in British Columbia: one-on-one interviews with 5 organizational representatives and focus groups with 13 peer facilitators. Three main categories emerged: 1) ACP is about 'Living well'; 2) Transitioning focus from legal forms to conversations; 3) Benefits to all involved. Community staff and volunteers acknowledge the role they could play in promoting ACP in their communities. They recognize the benefits to the facilitators and public participants from following a community-led approach that emphasizes the importance of ACP conversations over the completion of relevant legal forms. Additional potential benefits of this approach, as reported by the organizational representatives, are increased volunteer engagement, more community partnerships, and an enhanced organizational profile. This community-led model can be a meaningful and approachable way to engage the public in ACP. Hospice societies are well positioned in the community to incorporate ACP workshops into their programming. • Community-led approaches are being used to increase public engagement in advance care planning (ACP). • Hospice organizations are well positioned in the community to promote ACP. • ACP workshops should focus on conversations rather than legal forms. • Workshops are mutually beneficial to participants, facilitators and organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Upon admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), all patients should discuss their goals of care and express their wishes concerning life-sustaining interventions (e.g., cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)). Without such discussions, interventions that prolong life at the cost of decreasing its quality may be used without appropriate guidance from patients. Objectives: To adapt an existing decision aid about CPR to create a wiki-based decision aid individually adapted to each patient’s risk factors; and to document the use of a wiki platform for this purpose. Methods: We conducted three weeks of ethnographic observation in our ICU to observe intensivists and patients discussing goals of care and to identify their needs regarding decision making. We interviewed intensivists individually. Then we conducted three rounds of rapid prototyping involving 15 patients and 11 health professionals. We recorded and analyzed all discussions, interviews and comments, and collected sociodemographic data. Using a wiki, a website that allows multiple users to contribute or edit content, we adapted the decision aid accordingly and added the Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation (GO-FAR) prediction rule calculator. Results: We added discussion of invasive mechanical ventilation. The final decision aid comprises values clarification, risks and benefits of CPR and invasive mechanical ventilation, statistics about CPR, and a synthesis section. We added the GO-FAR prediction calculator as an online adjunct to the decision aid. Although three rounds of rapid prototyping simplified the information in the decision aid, 60% (n = 3/5) of the patients involved in the last cycle still did not understand its purpose. Conclusions: Wikis and user-centered design can be used to adapt decision aids to users’ needs and local contexts. Our wiki platform allows other centers to adapt our tools, reducing duplication and accelerating scale-up. Physicians need training in shared decision making skills about goals of care and in using the decision aid. A video version of the decision aid could clarify its purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review answering the following questions: (a) what specific activities do caregivers (CGs) contribute to patients’ self-care in heart failure (HF)?; and (b) how mature (or developed) is the science of the CG contribution to self-care? Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the terms heart failure and caregiv* as well as the keywords ‘careers’, ‘family members’ and ‘lay persons’ for studies published between 1948 and September 2012. Inclusion criteria for studies were: informal CGs of adult HF patients–either as dependent/independent variable in quantitative studies or participant in qualitative studies; English language. Exclusion criteria for studies were: formal CGs; pediatric, adult congenital, or devices or transplant CGs; mixed diagnosis; non-empiric reports or reports publishing duplicate results. Each study was abstracted and confirmed by two authors. After CG activities were identified and theoretically categorized, an analysis across studies was conducted. Results: Forty papers were reviewed from a pool of 283 papers. CGs contribute substantively to HF patients’ self-care characterized from concrete (weighing the patient) to interpersonal (providing understanding). Only two studies attempted to quantify the impact of CGs’ activities on patients’ self-care reporting a positive impact. Our analysis provides evidence for a rapidly developing science that is based largely on observational research. Conclusions and implications of key findings: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to examine CGs’ contributions in depth. Informal caregivers play a major role in HF self-care. Longitudinal research is needed to examine the impact of CGs’ contributions on patient self-care outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Although the assistance of caregivers is critical to patients undertaking self-care, little is known about their participation in visits and involvement in decision making. We sought to examine this caregiver participation in shared decision making through videographic analysis. Methods We identified video recordings from outpatient visits in which a healthcare professional, patient, and caregiver participated, drawn from five practice-based randomized trials testing the efficacy of decision aids vs. usual care. Two reviewers, working independently, coded videos to explore caregiver engagement in the clinical encounter, clinician facilitation of that engagement, and the influence of decision aids in the engagement process. Results In most of the 37 videos coded, caregivers’ participation was self-triggered. We saw no impact of the use of decision aids on caregiver participation. Clinicians did not address the caregivers’ preferred level of involvement in decision making in any of the video recorded encounters analyzed. Conclusion In this analysis, most clinicians did not engage caregivers in outpatient visits for chronic care. While the use of decision aids improves communication between patient and clinician, they do not appear to affect caregiver involvement during consultations. Practice implications Research on the comparative effectiveness of ways to engage caregivers to optimize patient-important outcomes, including enhancing the shared decision making process is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids. Methods: Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary. Results: Values clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single "best" practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect. Conclusions: Values clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The original version of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) recommended that patient decision aids (PtDAs) should be carefully developed, user-tested and open to scrutiny, with a well-documented and systematically applied development process. We carried out a review to check the relevance and scope of this quality dimension and, if necessary, to update it.Methods: Our review drew on three sources: a) published papers describing PtDAs evaluated in randomised controlled trials and included in the most recent Cochrane Collaboration review; b) linked papers cited in the trial reports that described how the PtDAs had been developed; and c) papers and web reports outlining the development process used by organisations experienced in developing multiple PtDAs. We then developed an extended model of the development process indicating the various steps on which documentation is required, as well as a checklist to assess the frequency with which each of the elements was publicly reported.Results: Key features common to all patient decision aid (PtDA) development processes include: scoping and design; development of a prototype; 'alpha' testing with patients and clinicians in an iterative process; 'beta' testing in 'real life' conditions (field tests); and production of a final version for use and/or further evaluation. Only about half of the published reports on the development of PtDAs that we reviewed appear to have been field tested with patients, and even fewer had been reviewed or tested by clinicians not involved in the development process. Very few described a distribution strategy, and surprisingly few (17%) described a method for reviewing and synthesizing the clinical evidence. We describe a model development process that includes all the original elements of the original IPDAS criterion, expanded to include consideration of format and distribution plans as well as prototype development.Conclusions: The case for including each of the elements outlined in our model development process is pragmatic rather than evidence-based. Optimal methods for ensuring that each stage of the process is carried out effectively require further development and testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Following increased interest in having inter-professional (IP) health care teams engage patients in decision making, we developed a conceptual model for an IP approach to shared decision making (SDM) in primary care. We assessed the validity of the model with stakeholders in Canada. Methods In 15 individual interviews and 7 group interviews with 79 stakeholders, we asked them to: (1) propose changes to the IP-SDM model; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to the model's implementation in clinical practice; and (3) assess the model using a theory appraisal questionnaire. We performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts and a descriptive analysis of the questionnaires. Results Stakeholders suggested placing the patient at its centre; extending the concept of family to include significant others; clarifying outcomes; highlighting the concept of time; merging the micro, meso and macro levels in one figure; and recognizing the influence of the environment and emotions. The most common barriers identified were time constraints, insufficient resources and an imbalance of power among health professionals. The most common facilitators were education and training in inter-professionalism and SDM, motivation to achieve an IP approach to SDM, and mutual knowledge and understanding of disciplinary roles. Most stakeholders considered that the concepts and relationships between the concepts were clear and rated the model as logical, testable, having clear schematic representation, and being relevant to inter-professional collaboration, SDM and primary care. Conclusions Stakeholders validated the new IP-SDM model for primary care settings and proposed few modifications. Future research should assess if the model helps implement SDM in IP clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most shared decision-making (SDM) models within healthcare have been limited to the patient-physician dyad. As a first step towards promoting an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary care, this article reports how an interprofessional and interdisciplinary group developed and achieved consensus on a new interprofessional SDM model. The key concepts within published reviews of SDM models and interprofessionalism were identified, analysed, and discussed by the group in order to reach consensus on the new interprofessional SDM (IP-SDM) model. The IP-SDM model comprises three levels: the individual (micro) level and two healthcare system (meso and macro) levels. At the individual level, the patient presents with a health condition that requires decision-making and follows a structured process to make an informed, value-based decision in concert with a team of healthcare professionals. The model acknowledges (at the meso level) the influence of individual team members' professional roles including the decision coach and organizational routines. At the macro level it acknowledges the influence of system level factors (i.e. health policies, professional organisations, and social context) on the meso and individual levels. Subsequently, the IP-SDM model will be validated with other stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To conduct a theory analysis of shared decision making (SDM) conceptual models and determine the extent to which the models are relevant to interprofessional collaboration in clinical practice. Methods: Theory analysis of SDM models identified from three systematic reviews and personal files. Eligible publications: model of SDM; described concepts with relational statements. Two independently appraised models. Results: Of 54 publications, 15 unique models included 18 core concepts. Of two models that included more than one health professional collaborating with the patient, one included 3 of 10 elements of interprofessional collaboration and the other included 1 element. Fourteen were rated as having no logical fallacies, 10 as parsimonious, 7 had been empirically tested, 4 provided testable hypotheses, and 3 described the development process. Conclusion: Most SDM models failed to encompass an interprofessional approach. Those that included at least two professionals met few of the elements of interprofessional collaboration and had limited description of SDM processes. Although models were rated as logically adequate and parsimonious, only half were tested and few were developed using an explicit process. Practice implications: Appraisal of SDM models highlights the need for a model that is more inclusive of an interprofessional approach. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose/Objectives: To describe the determinants of place of end-of-life (EOL) care for patients with cancer.Data Sources: A systematic literature review of primary research studies (1997-2007) was conducted. Studies that investigated place of EOL care or identified place of EOL care in relation to outcomes were examined, their critical quality was appraised, and references were mapped.Data Synthesis: Of the 735 articles identified, 39 (representing 33 studies) met inclusion criteria. Two main research designs emerged: large-scale epidemiologic reports and smaller descriptive studies. Findings suggest that factors related to the disease, the individual, and the care and social environment influence place of EOL care for patients with cancer. Social support, healthcare inputs (from services and programs and healthcare provider contact), and patient preferences were the most important factors.Conclusions: Most patients with terminal cancer prefer home palliation; however, most die in an institution. The reasons are complex, with various determinants influencing decisions regarding place of EOL care.Implications for Nursing: Findings may highlight evidence-based interventions to assist patients and families facing decisions regarding place of EOL care. A clearer understanding of factors that influence place of EOL care for patients with cancer could enhance healthcare policy and guide needs-based modifications of the healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is defined as a process by which a healthcare choice is made by practitioners together with the patient. Although many diagnostic and therapeutic processes in primary care integrate more than one type of health professional, most SDM conceptual models and theories appear to be limited to the patient-physician dyad. The objectives of this study are to develop a conceptual model and propose a set of measurement tools for enhancing an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary healthcare. Methods/Design: An inventory of SDM conceptual models, theories and measurement tools will be created. Models will be critically assessed and compared according to their strengths, limitations, acknowledgement of interprofessional roles in the process of SDM and relevance to primary care. Based on the theory analysis, a conceptual model and a set of measurements tools that could be used to enhance an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary healthcare will be proposed and pilot-tested with key stakeholders and primary healthcare teams. Discussion: This study protocol is informative for researchers and clinicians interested in designing and/or conducting future studies and educating health professionals to improve how primary healthcare teams foster active participation of patients in making health decisions using a more coordinated approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids.Methods: Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary.Results: Values clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single "best" practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect.Conclusions: Values clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]