Paskins, Zoé

Abstract Background/Aims In shared decision-making conversations, patients with or at risk of osteoporosis and their clinicians collaborate to decide which drug treatments fit best for each person. The Perceptions and Practicalities Approach (PAPA) specifies three core considerations of drug uptake and commitment: 1) patient’s perceived personal need for treatment (necessity beliefs). 2) patient concerns about the potential adverse consequences of drugs (e.g. side effects). 3) practical difficulties (e.g. limitations in capacity and resources). This study aims to explore how discussions about perceptions and practicalities of osteoporosis drug treatment arise and evolve in the context of clinical consultations about osteoporosis. Methods Secondary analysis of 38 video-recorded primary care consultations from a Mayo Clinic trial evaluating the Osteoporosis Choice Decision Aid. Video-recorded consultations included ‘usual care’ (n = 24) and decision aid (n = 14). Patient participants were aged 50 and over with osteopenia or osteoporosis not already receiving drug treatment. A quantitative coding scheme, informed by the PAPA, was developed to extract: i) how clinicians framed the ‘problem’ of osteoporosis, including: bone density results, fracture risk, physical impact, social impact, or psychological impact of fracture. ii) whether clinicians asked about the patients’ views of osteoporosis, patients own bone health, and the necessity, concerns, or practical issues associated with osteoporosis drugs. iii) whether clinicians personalised discussions about osteoporosis drugs to patients perceived: importance or need, side effects or harms, or practical issues. Two independent study team members dual extracted data, with a third member resolving discrepancies. Extracted data was summarised using descriptive statistics. Results Commonly, clinicians framed osteoporosis using the patient’s bone density results (n = 38,100%) and fracture risk (n = 30,79%). In contrast, few clinicians acknowledged the potential physical impacts of fracture (n = 5,13%), with no clinicians discussing the possible psychological or social impacts. Clinicians asked 24 questions to elicit patient views in 16 of the 38 encounters (42%, range 0-4 questions per consult). The 24 questions concerned patient views about osteoporosis (n = 1,4%), their bone health (n = 5,21%), or the necessity (n = 1,4%), concerns (n = 2,8%), or practical issues associated with osteoporosis drugs (n = 2,8%). Importantly, 14 consultations (37%) contained no questions to elicit patient views. Across the 38 consultations, clinicians personalised information about the patient’s need for osteoporosis drugs in 15 consultations (39%), with less personalisation about the side effects/harms (n = 10,26%), or practical issues (n = 6,16%) associated with osteoporosis drugs. Conclusion Clinical consultations rarely considered key personal determinants of osteoporosis drug uptake and commitment. Even when clinicians used an osteoporosis decision aid, few discussions specifically elicited or addressed patients’ personal treatment necessity beliefs, concerns and practical difficulties. Additionally, clinicians seldom acknowledged the potential physical and psychosocial impacts of osteoporosis. The findings demonstrate the need for multicomponent interventions, incorporating the PAPA-based approach, to facilitate shared decision-making that takes account of patient perceptions and practicalities. Disclosure A.W. Hawarden: Grants/research support; AH is funded by a Versus Arthritis Clinical Doctoral Fellowship (grant reference 227260). L. Bullock: None. M. León-García: Grants/research support; ML-G had financial support from the Spanish Health Institute Carlos III (ISCIII) co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (Grant number: F18/00014).. S.A. Hartasanchez: None. I. Hargraves: None. R. Horne: None. A. Maraboto: None. M. Kunneman: Grants/research support; MK had financial support from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) (#016.196.138). C. Jinks: Grants/research support; CJ is part funded by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. Z. Paskins: Grants/research support; ZP is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Clinician Scientist Award (CS-2018-18-ST2-010)/NIHR Academy].

AbstractIntroductionFor too many people, their care plans are designed without fully accounting for who they are, the lives they live, what matters to them or what they aspire to achieve. We aimed to summarize instruments capable of measuring dimensions of patient–clinician collaboration to make care fit.MethodsWe systematically searched several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to September 2021 for studies using quantitative measures to assess, evaluate or rate the work of making care fit by any participant in real‐life clinical encounters. Eligibility was assessed in duplicate. After extracting all items from relevant instruments, we coded them deductively on dimensions relevant to making care fit (as presented in a recent Making Care Fit Manifesto), and inductively on the main action described.ResultsWe included 189 papers, mostly from North America (N = 83, 44%) and in the context of primary care (N = 54, 29%). Half of the papers (N = 88, 47%) were published in the last 5 years. We found 1243 relevant items to assess efforts of making care fit, included within 151 instruments. Most items related to the dimensions ‘Patient‐clinician collaboration: content’ (N = 396, 32%) and ‘Patient‐clinician collaboration: manner’ (N = 382, 31%) and the least related to ‘Ongoing and iterative process’ (N = 22, 2%) and in ‘Minimally disruptive of patient lives’ (N = 29, 2%). The items referred to 27 specific actions. Most items referred to ‘Informing’ (N = 308, 25%) and ‘Exploring’ (N = 93, 8%), the fewest items referred to ‘Following up’, ‘Comforting’ and ‘Praising’ (each N = 3, 0.2%).DiscussionMeasures of the work that patients and clinicians do together to make care fit focus heavily on the content of their collaborations, particularly on exchanging information. Other dimensions and actions previously identified as crucial to making care fit are assessed infrequently or not at all. The breadth of extant measures of making care fit and the lack of appropriate measures of this key construct limit both the assessment and the successful implementation of efforts to improve patient care.Patient ContributionPatients and caregivers from the ‘Making care fit Collaborative’ were involved in drafting the dimensions relevant to patient–clinician collaboration.