Citations

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms.MethodsWe assessed 100 randomly selected video‐recorded primary care encounters, obtained as part of a randomized trial of an SDM intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Two coders, working independently, noted each instance of SDM, classified it as one of four problem‐based forms to SDM (weighing alternatives, negotiating conflicting issues, solving problems, or developing existential insight), and noted the occurrence and timing of each of the four canonical SDM steps: fostering choice awareness, providing information, stating preferences, and deciding. Descriptive analyses sought to determine the relative frequency of these steps across each of the four SDM forms within each encounter.ResultsThere were 485 SDM steps noted (mean 4.85 steps per encounter), of which providing information and stating preferences were the most common. There were 2.7 (38 steps in 14 encounters) steps per encounter observed in encounters with no discernible SDM form, 3.4 (105 steps in 31 encounters) with one SDM form, 5.2 (129 steps in 25 encounters) with two SDM forms, and 7.1 (213 steps in 30 encounters) when ≥3 SDM forms were observed within the encounter. The prescribed order of the four SDM steps was observed in, at best, 16 of the 100 encounters. Stating preferences was a common step when weighing alternatives (38%) or negotiating conflicts (59.3%) but less common when solving problems (29.2%). The distribution of SDM steps was similar to usual care with or without the SDM intervention.ConclusionThe normative steps of SDM are infrequently observed in their prescribed order regardless of whether an SDM intervention was used. Some steps are more likely in some SDM forms but no pattern of steps appears to distinguish among SDM forms.Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01293578.

Objectives To identify what patient-related characteristics have been reported to be associated with the occurrence of shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment. Design Scoping review. Eligibility criteria Peer-reviewed articles in English or Dutch reporting on associations between patient-related characteristics and the occurrence of SDM for actual treatment decisions. Information sources COCHRANE Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published until 25 March 2019. Results The search yielded 5289 hits of which 53 were retained. Multiple categories of patient characteristics were identified: (1) sociodemographic characteristics (eg, gender), (2) general health and clinical characteristics (eg, symptom severity), (3) psychological characteristics and coping with illness (eg, self-efficacy) and (4) SDM style or preference. Many characteristics showed no association or unclear relationships with SDM occurrence. For example, for female gender positive, negative and, most frequently, non-significant associations were seen. Conclusions A large variety of patient-related characteristics have been studied, but for many the association with SDM occurrence remains unclear. The results will caution often-made assumptions about associations and provide an important step to target effective interventions to foster SDM with all patients.

AbstractYoung adults living with type 1 diabetes often struggle to achieve what clinicians consider to be optimal levels of metabolic control. Despite the impact that this can have on a young person's future risk of complications, there are relatively few studies reporting new ways of organizing or delivering care to this cohort. In this article, we explore some of the reasons why young adult diabetes care is challenging, and describe approaches to “re‐imagining” how care might be improved. The work is informed by the ‘Making Care Fit’ collaborative and by a program of research, entitled D1 Now, involving co‐design of a complex person‐centered intervention with young adults.

Abstract Background: Trial recruitment of Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) is key for interventions that interact with socioeconomic factors and cultural norms, preferences, and values. We report on our experience enrolling BIPOC participants into a multicenter trial of a shared decision-making intervention about anticoagulation to prevent strokes, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: We enrolled patients with AF and their clinicians in 5 healthcare systems (three academic medical centers, an urban/suburban community medical center, and a safety-net inner-city medical center) located in three states (Minnesota, Alabama, and Mississippi) in the United States. Clinical encounters were randomized to usual care with or without a shared decision-making tool about anticoagulation. Analysis: We analyzed BIPOC patient enrollment by site, categorized reasons for non-enrollment, and examined how enrollment of BIPOC patients was promoted across sites.Results: Of 2247 patients assessed, 922 were enrolled of which 147 (16%) were BIPOC patients. In comparison to trial-eligible White participants, eligible Black participants more frequently did not enroll (102 (11%) vs. 185 (15%); p <.001). The rate of BIPOC patients enrollment varied substantially by site and was generally reflective of the population served at each participating site. Enrollment of BIPOC patients benefited most from including and prioritizing practices most likely to care for BIPOC patients, with lower yield from specific efforts to reach BIPOC clinic attendees and enrolling BIPOC patients first when possible. Conclusions: Enrollment from practices that have implemented policies that favor the care of BIPOC patients can contribute to generate trustworthy estimates of the effect of these interventions in clinical practice that are applicable to BIPOC populations. Best practices to optimize the enrollment of BIPOC participants into trials that examined complex and culturally sensitive interventions remain to be developed.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02905032)

Background Guidelines promote shared decision‐making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within‐encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision‐making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter‐level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow‐up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Abstract Background Guidelines promote shared decision-making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We recently showed that adding a within-encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. Purpose We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool affected patient adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety endpoints. Methods We conducted a multi-center, encounter-level randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with vs. without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice, AC) in patients with non-valvular AF considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months post-enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled [PDC] for DOAC, and as time in therapeutic range (TTR) for warfarin). We also followed for any safety outcomes (stroke [stroke or transient ischemic attack], major bleeding, or death). Results We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (AC=463, UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow-up. We found no differences between arms in either primary (78% of patients in AC filled their first prescription vs. 81% in UC) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (see Figure, PDCDOAC was 74.1% in AC vs. 71.6% in UC; TTRwarfarin was 66.6% in AC vs. 64.4% in UC). PDCDOAC was better (65%) in AC than in UC (55%) (OR 1.49, CIs 1.00, 2.22). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% (AC) of and 14% (UC) of participants. Conclusions This is the largest reported randomized trial in AF comparing usual care with and without an SDM tool to promote SDM. Although patients were more actively involved in SDM, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or clinical safety outcomes. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Other. Main funding source(s): The trial was funded by and conducted independently of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (RO1 HL131535-01). The funding body had no influence on the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Figure 1

Despite the evolving evidence in favor of shared decision making (SDM) and of decades-long calls for its adoption, SDM remains uncommon in routine care. Reflecting on this lack of progress, we sought to reimagine the future of SDM and the path to take us there. In late 2017, a multidisciplinary and international group of six researchers were challenged by a senior SDM scholar to envision the future and, based on a provocatively critical view of the present, to write letters to themselves from the year 2028. Letters were exchanged and discussed electronically. The group then met in person to discuss the letters. Since the letters painted a dystopian picture, they triggered questions about the nature of SDM, who should benefit from SDM, how to measure its contribution to care, and what new ways can be invented to design and test interventions to implement SDM in routine care. Through contrasting the purposefully generated dystopias with an ideal future for SDM, we generated reflections on a research agenda for SDM. These reflections hinged on recognizing SDM’s contributing to care, that is, as a way to advance the problematic human situation of patients. These focused on three distinct yet complimentary contributors to SDM: 1) the process of making decisions, 2) humanistic communication, and 3) fit-to-care of the resulting decision. The group then concluded that to move SDM from envisioned to routine practice, and to ensure it reaches all, particularly persons rendered vulnerable by current forms of health care, a substantial investment in implementation research is necessary. Perhaps the discussion of these reflections can contribute to a path forward that will improve the likelihood of the future we dream for SDM.