Development of a statin risk communication tool for use in cancer survivors: A pilot.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 87-87
Author(s):  
Nirupa Jaya Raghunathan ◽  
Deborah Korenstein ◽  
Nassim Anderson ◽  
Roberto Adsuar ◽  
Emily S. Tonorezos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Risk Communication ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Communication Tool ◽  
Statin Use

87 Background: There are currently over a million survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult (CAYA) cancer in the US, many of whom were treated with radiation therapy. Chest radiation with fields including the coronary arteries is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Of note, survivors are often unaware of this increased CVD risk or, if they are aware, do not know how to mitigate the risk. Visual aids and communicating risk in terms of absolute risk reductions are shown to improve patients’ understanding. The Institute of Medicine recommends use of decision aids to optimize patient discussions of benefits and harms of therapies. Our goal is to develop and pilot test a statin therapy risk communication tool for use in high-risk cancer survivors to improve shared decision making and patient knowledge of coronary artery disease risk. Methods: The Statin Risk Communication Tool, modeled after the validated Statin Choice decision aid, presents a pictorial representation of absolute risk of coronary heart disease risk in survivors of CAYA cancer treated with radiation to the chest. The intervention also presents data depicting absolute risk reduction of myocardial infarction with use of statins in similar risk populations (≥7.5% baseline risk). This pilot study compares the statin risk communication tool to usual care. The post-visit assessment uses Likert-like scales to explore patient perceptions of statin use, knowledge questions to assess patient understanding of the risks and benefits of using statins and the validated 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale to measure decisional satisfaction. We will also survey participants three months after introduction of the tool to ascertain statin use and attitudes towards the discussion of statins. Results: The timeline for data collection anticipates analyzable results by August 2017. Conclusions: This risk communication tool will be assessed for acceptability, knowledge enhancement, and decisional conflict. Additionally, we will gather qualitative data regarding usual care. With this information, a future randomized controlled trial across institutions could provide information on how CAYA survivors approach shared decision making with risk communication tools. Clinical trial information: NCT02895880.

scholarly journals 2166 Development of a statin risk communication tool for use in cancer survivors: A pilot

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 39-40
Author(s):  
Nirupa J. Raghunathan ◽  
Nassim Anderson ◽  
Emily Tonorezos ◽  
Deborah Korenstein
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Young Adult ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Risk Communication ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Adolescent And Young Adult ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Communication Tool

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: There are currently over a million survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer in the United States, many of whom were treated with radiation therapy. Chest radiation with fields including the coronary arteries is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Of note, survivors are often unaware of this increased cardiovascular disease risk or, if they are aware, do not know how to mitigate the risk. Visual aids and communicating risk in terms of absolute risk reductions are shown to improve patients’ understanding. The Institute of Medicine recommends use of decision aids to optimize patient discussions of benefits and harms of therapies. Our goal is to develop and pilot test a statin therapy risk communication tool for use in high-risk cancer survivors to improve shared decision making and patient knowledge of coronary artery disease risk. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Participants were recruited from the adult long-term follow-up clinic at Sloan Kettering Cancer Center into 2 arms, usual care Versus intervention with the statin risk communication tool. The post-visit assessment used Likert-like scales to explore patient perceptions of statin use. The study was not powered for significance as it was a feasibility study; descriptive statistics were run to compare the 2 groups. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Participants (n=45) had a mean age of 45. In the intervention group, 92% felt the information given was right compared with 73% of the usual care group. In all, 63% of the intervention arm felt the information was helpful, compared with 47% of those in usual care. And 53% of usual care would recommend the method to other patients and for other treatment choices compared to 67% of those in the intervention arm. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This risk communication tool was assessed for acceptability and found to be more acceptable compared with usual care. In addition, we will gather further information on knowledge enhancement and decisional conflict as well as qualitative data regarding the shared decision making experience. With this information, a future randomized-controlled trial across institutions could provide information on how childhood, adolescent, and young adult survivors approach shared decision making with risk communication tools.

Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-59
Author(s):  
Gisèle Diendéré ◽  
Imen Farhat ◽  
Holly Witteman ◽  
Ruth Ndjaboue
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Risk Communication ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Values Clarification ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Consultations

Background Measuring shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice is important to improve the quality of health care. Measurement can be done by trained observers and by people participating in the clinical encounter, namely, patients. This study aimed to describe the correlations between patients’ and observers’ ratings of SDM using 2 validated and 2 nonvalidated SDM measures in clinical consultations. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 238 complete dyads of health professionals and patients in 5 university-affiliated family medicine clinics in Canada. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires before and after audio-recorded medical consultations. Observers rated the occurrence of SDM during medical consultations using both the validated OPTION-5 (the 5-item “observing patient involvement” score) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-observer). Patients rated SDM using both the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q9) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-patient). Results Agreement was low between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using validated OPTION-5 and SDM-Q9, respectively (ρ = 0.07; P = 0.38). Observers’ ratings using RCVC-observer were correlated to patients’ ratings using either SDM-Q9 ( rpb = −0.16; P = 0.01) or RCVC-patients ( rpb = 0.24; P = 0.03). Observers’ OPTION-5 scores and patients’ ratings using RCVC-questions were moderately correlated ( rφ = 0.33; P = 0.04). Conclusion There was moderate to no alignment between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using both validated and nonvalidated measures. This lack of strong correlation emphasizes that observer and patient perspectives are not interchangeable. When assessing the presence, absence, or extent of SDM, it is important to clearly state whose perspectives are reflected.

scholarly journals Choice of Intensive Lifestyle Change and/or Metformin after Shared Decision Making for Diabetes Prevention: Results from the Prediabetes Informed Decisions and Education (PRIDE) Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110012
Author(s):  
Tannaz Moin ◽  
Jacqueline M. Martin ◽  
Carol M. Mangione ◽  
Jonathan Grotts ◽  
Norman Turk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Diabetes Prevention ◽  
Lifestyle Change ◽  
Diabetes Incidence ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Informed Decisions ◽  
Unit Increase ◽  
Pride Study

Introduction While the Diabetes Prevention Program Study demonstrated that intensive lifestyle change and metformin both reduce type 2 diabetes incidence, there are little data on patient preferences in real-world, clinical settings. Methods The Prediabetes Informed Decisions and Education (PRIDE) study was a cluster-randomized trial of shared decision making (SDM) for diabetes prevention. In PRIDE, pharmacists engaged patients with prediabetes in SDM using a decision aid with information about both evidence-based options. We recorded which diabetes prevention option(s) participants chose after the SDM visit. We also evaluated logistic regression models examining predictors of choosing intensive lifestyle change ± metformin, compared to metformin or usual care, and predictors of choosing metformin ± intensive lifestyle change, compared to intensive lifestyle change or usual care. Results Among PRIDE participants ( n = 515), 55% chose intensive lifestyle change, 8.5% chose metformin, 15% chose both options, and 21.6% declined both options. Women (odds ratio [OR] = 1.60, P = 0.023) had higher odds than men of choosing intensive lifestyle change. Patients >60 years old (OR = 0.50, P = 0.028) had lower odds than patients <50 years old of choosing metformin. Participants with higher body mass index (BMI) had higher odds of choosing intensive lifestyle change (OR = 1.07 per BMI unit increase, P = 0.005) v. other options and choosing metformin (OR = 1.06 per BMI unit increase, P = 0.008) v. other options. Conclusions Patients with prediabetes are making choices for diabetes prevention that generally align with recommendations and expected benefits from the published literature. Our results are important for policy makers and clinicians, as well as program planners developing systemwide approaches for diabetes prevention.

It may help you to know. . .": The early phase qualitative development of a rheumatoid arthritis goal elicitation tool

2021 ◽  
pp. jrheum.201615
Author(s):  
Julie Kahler ◽  
Ginnifer Mastarone ◽  
Rachel Matsumoto ◽  
Danielle ZuZero ◽  
Jacob Dougherty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Training Session ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Communication Tool ◽  
Group Setting ◽  
Patient Goals

Objective Treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include a patient-centered approach and shared decision making which includes a discussion of patient goals. We describe the iterative early development of a structured goal elicitation tool to facilitate goal communication for persons with RA and their clinicians. Methods Tool development occurred in three phases: 1) clinician feedback on the initial prototype during a communication training session; 2) semi-structured interviews with RA patients; and 3) community stakeholder feedback on elements of the goal elicitation tool in a group setting and electronically. Feedback was dynamically incorporated into the tool. Results Clinicians (n=15) and patients (n=10) provided feedback on the tool prototypes. Clinicians preferred a shorter tool de-emphasizing goals outside of their perceived treatment domain or available resources, highlighted the benefits of the tool to facilitate conversation but raised concern regarding current constraints of the clinic visit. Patients endorsed the utility of such a tool to support agenda setting and prepare for a visit. Clinicians, patients, and community stakeholders reported the tool was useful but identified barriers to implementation that the tool could itself resolve. Conclusion A goal elicitation tool for persons with RA and their clinicians was iteratively developed with feedback from multiple stakeholders. The tool can provide a structured way to communicate patient goals within a clinic visit and help overcome reported barriers, such as time constraints. Incorporating a structured communication tool to enhance goal communication and foster shared decision making may lead to improved outcomes and higher quality care in RA.

scholarly journals EFFECTS OF A SHARED DECISION MAKING INTERVENTION FOR OLDER ADULTS WITH CHRONIC CONDITIONS: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S296-S297
Author(s):  
Ruth E Pel-Littel ◽  
Bianca Buurman ◽  
Marjolein van de Pol ◽  
Linda Tulner ◽  
Mirella Minkman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Abstract Shared decision making (SDM) in older patients is more complex when multiple chronic conditions (MCC) have to be taken into account. The aim of this research is to explore the effect of the evidence based implementation intervention SDMMCC on (1) the preferred and perceived participation (2) decisional conflict and (3) actual SDM during consultations. 216 outpatients participated in a video observational study. The intervention existed of a SDM training for geriatricians and a preparatory tool for patients. Consultations were videotaped and coded with the OPTIONMCC. Pre- and post-consultation questionnaires were completed. Participation was measured by the Patients’ perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS). Decisional conflict was measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The patients mean age was 77 years, 56% was female. The preparatory tool was completed by 56 older adults (52%), of which 64% rated the tool as positive. The preparatory tool was used in 12% of the consultations. The mean overall OPTIONMCC score showed no significant changes on the level of SDM(39.3 vs 39.3 P0.98), however there were significant improvements on discussing goals and options on sub-items of the scale. There were no significant differences found in the match on preferred and perceived participation (86.5% vs 85.0% P 0.595) or in decisional conflict (22.7 vs 22.9 P0.630). The limited use of the preparatory tool could have biased the effect of the intervention. In future research more attention must be paid towards the implementation of preparatory tools, not only among patients but also among geriatricians.

The Promise of Electronic Health Records to Promote Shared Decision Making: A Narrative Review and a Look Ahead

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (8) ◽  
pp. 1040-1045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alyce Mei-Shiuan Kuo ◽  
Berry Thavalathil ◽  
Glyn Elwyn ◽  
Zsuzsanna Nemeth ◽  
Stuti Dang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Electronic Health Records ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Look Ahead ◽  
The Face ◽  
Electronic Health ◽  
The Impact

Background. Shared decision making (SDM) involves the sharing of best available evidence between patients and providers in the face of difficult decisions. We examine outcomes that occur when electronic health records (EHRs) are purposefully used with the goal of improving SDM and detail which EHR functions can benefit SDM. Methods. A systematic search of PubMed yielded 1369 articles. Studies were included only if they used EHR interventions to support SDM and included results that showed impact on SDM. Articles were excluded if they did not measure the impact of the intervention on SDM or did not discuss how SDM had been supported by the EHR. Results. Five studies demonstrated improved clinical outcomes, positive lifestyle behavior changes, more deliberation from patients regarding use of imaging, and less decisional conflict about medication use among patients with use of EHRs aiding SDM. Discussion. Few EHRs have integrated SDM, and even fewer evaluations of these exist. EHRs have potential in supporting providers during all steps of SDM. The promise of EHRs to support SDM has yet to be fully exploited.

Relationship Between Parental Intolerance of Uncertainty and Decisional Conflict in Pediatric Otolaryngologic Surgery

2020 ◽  
pp. 019459982097364
Author(s):  
Chelsea Cleveland ◽  
Vijay A. Patel ◽  
Shari A. Steinman ◽  
Reena Razdan ◽  
Michele M. Carr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Sex Education ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Intolerance Of Uncertainty ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Pediatric Otolaryngology ◽  
State Worry

Objective To assess the relationship between depression, anxiety, stress, worry, intolerance of uncertainty (IU), and shared decision making (SDM) in parents of pediatric otolaryngology surgical patients with their perceptions of decisional conflict (DC). Study Design Cross-sectional. Setting Academic pediatric otolaryngology outpatient clinic. Methods Participants were legal guardians of pediatric patients who met criteria for otolaryngologic surgery. Participants completed a demographic survey as well as validated Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS); Shared Decision-Making Scale (SDMS); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale–21 (DASS-21); Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ); and short form of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS-12). Results A total of 114 participants were enrolled. Respondents were predominantly female (93.0%) and married (60.5%). Most guardians had not consented previously for otolaryngologic surgery for their child (69.3%). Participants reported low levels of DC and depression as well as moderate levels of anxiety and stress. DC scores were not significantly correlated to DASS-21, PSWQ, or SDM. IUS-12 Total and subscale IUS-12 prospective negatively correlated with Total DC. DC was not related to age, sex, education level, previous otolaryngologic surgery, or type of surgery recommended. Conclusion In this group, an association was found between IU and DC. Clinicians should be aware that DC is not modified by previous surgical experience. Interventions aimed at addressing parental IU related to surgery may reduce DC. Further research efforts could help us understand how mental health relates to surgical decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document