Isabelle Scholl

“Many miles to go …”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice

BackgroundTwo decades of research has established the positive effect of using patient-targeted decision support interventions: patients gain knowledge, greater understanding of probabilities and increased confidence in decisions. Yet, despite their efficacy, the effectiveness of these decision support interventions in routine practice has yet to be established; widespread adoption has not occurred. The aim of this review was to search for and analyze the findings of published peer-reviewed studies that investigated the success levels of strategies or methods where attempts were made to implement patient-targeted decision support interventions into routine clinical settings.MethodsAn electronic search strategy was devised and adapted for the following databases: ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, HMIC, Medline, Medline-in-process, OpenSIGLE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Social Services Abstracts, and the Web of Science. In addition, we used snowballing techniques. Studies were included after dual independent assessment.ResultsAfter assessment, 5322 abstracts yielded 51 articles for consideration. After examining full-texts, 17 studies were included and subjected to data extraction. The approach used in all studies was one where clinicians and their staff used a referral model, asking eligible patients to use decision support. The results point to significant challenges to the implementation of patient decision support using this model, including indifference on the part of health care professionals. This indifference stemmed from a reported lack of confidence in the content of decision support interventions and concern about disruption to established workflows, ultimately contributing to organizational inertia regarding their adoption.ConclusionsIt seems too early to make firm recommendations about how best to implement patient decision support into routine practice because approaches that use a ‘referral model’ consistently report difficulties. We sense that the underlying issues that militate against the use of patient decision support and, more generally, limit the adoption of shared decision making, are under-investigated and under-specified. Future reports from implementation studies could be improved by following guidelines, for example the SQUIRE proposals, and by adopting methods that would be able to go beyond the ‘barriers’ and ‘facilitators’ approach to understand more about the nature of professional and organizational resistance to these tools. The lack of incentives that reward the use of these interventions needs to be considered as a significant impediment.

Measurement of shared decision making - a review of instruments

The last years have seen a clear move towards shared decision making (SDM) and increased patient involvement in many countries. However, as the field of SDM research is still relatively young, new instruments for the measurement of (shared) decision making (process, outcome and surrounding elements) are constantly being developed. Thus, the aims of this structured review were to give an update on current developments regarding the measurement in the field of SDM, as well as to give a short overview of published and unpublished instruments. We conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed and the Web of Science database, performed hand searches of relevant journals and contacted key authors in the field. We found eight scales that have been subjected to further psychometric testing, eleven new and psychometrically tested instruments and nine developments that are still in the publishing process. The results show that there is a trend towards measuring SDM processes from a dyadic approach (assessing both the patients and the clinicians perspective). More and more scales have been developed and tested in languages other than English, which indicates the growing research efforts in various countries. While reliability of most scales is good, they differ in their extent of validation. Further psychometric testing is needed, as well as the development of a theoretical measurement framework in order to improve consistency of measured constructs across research groups.

An Integrative Model of Patient-Centeredness – A Systematic Review and Concept Analysis

Background Existing models of patient-centeredness reveal a lack of conceptual clarity. This results in a heterogeneous use of the term, unclear measurement dimensions, inconsistent results regarding the effectiveness of patient-centered interventions, and finally in difficulties in implementing patient-centered care. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the different dimensions of patient-centeredness described in the literature and to propose an integrative model of patient-centeredness based on these results. Methods Protocol driven search in five databases, combined with a comprehensive secondary search strategy. All articles that include a definition of patient-centeredness were eligible for inclusion in the review and subject to subsequent content analysis. Two researchers independently first screened titles and abstracts, then assessed full texts for eligibility. In each article the given definition of patient-centeredness was coded independently by two researchers. We discussed codes within the research team and condensed them into an integrative model of patient-centeredness. Results 4707 records were identified through primary and secondary search, of which 706 were retained after screening of titles and abstracts. 417 articles (59%) contained a definition of patient-centeredness and were coded. 15 dimensions of patient-centeredness were identified: essential characteristics of clinician, clinician-patient relationship, clinician-patient communication, patient as unique person, biopsychosocial perspective, patient information, patient involvement in care, involvement of family and friends, patient empowerment, physical support, emotional support, integration of medical and non-medical care, teamwork and teambuilding, access to care, coordination and continuity of care. In the resulting integrative model the dimensions were mapped onto different levels of care. Conclusions The proposed integrative model of patient-centeredness allows different stakeholders to speak the same language. It provides a foundation for creating better measures and interventions. It can also be used to inform the development of clinical guidance documents and health policy directives, and through this support the shift towards patient-centered health care.

Conceptualising patient empowerment: a mixed methods study.

BackgroundIn recent years, interventions and health policy programmes have been established to promote patient empowerment, with a particular focus on patients affected by long-term conditions. However, a clear definition of patient empowerment is lacking, making it difficult to assess effectiveness of interventions designed to promote it. The aim in this study was to develop a conceptual map of patient empowerment, including components of patient empowerment and relationships with other constructs such as health literacy, self-management and shared decision-making.MethodsA mixed methods study was conducted comprising (i) a scoping literature review to identify and map the components underpinning published definitions of patient empowerment (ii) qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (patients, patient representatives, health managers and health service researchers) to further develop the conceptual map. Data were analysed using qualitative methods. A combination of thematic and framework analysis was used to integrate and map themes underpinning published definitions of patient empowerment with the views of key UK stakeholders.ResultsThe scoping literature review identified 67 articles that included a definition of patient empowerment. A range of diverse definitions of patient empowerment was extracted. Thematic analysis identified key underpinning themes, and these themes were used to develop an initial coding framework for analysis of interview data. 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders. Transcripts were analysed using the initial coding framework, and findings were used to further develop the conceptual map. The resulting conceptual map describes that patient empowerment can be conceived as a state ranging across a spectrum from low to high levels of patient empowerment, with the level of patient empowerment potentially measurable using a set of indicators. Five key components of the conceptual map were identified: underpinning ethos, moderators, interventions, indicators and outcomes. Relationships with other constructs such as health literacy, self-management and shared decision-making are illustrated in the conceptual map.ConclusionA novel conceptual map of patient empowerment grounded in published definitions of patient empowerment and qualitative interviews with UK stakeholders is described, that may be useful to healthcare providers and researchers designing, implementing and evaluating interventions to promote patient empowerment.

Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire – physician version (SDM-Q-Doc)

OBJECTIVE To develop and psychometrically test a brief instrument for assessing the physicians perspective of the shared decision-making process in clinical encounters. METHODS We adapted the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) for patients to generate a new version for physicians (SDM-Q-Doc). The physician version was tested in clinical encounters between 29 physicians and 324 patients in German outpatient care contexts. Analyses of the extent to which the instrument was accepted, the reliability of the instrument, and the factorial structure of the scale were performed. RESULTS Physicians showed a high level of acceptance toward the SDM-Q-Doc. Item discrimination parameters were above .4 for all but one item. An analysis of internal consistency yielded a Cronbachs α of .88. Factor analysis confirmed a one-dimensional structure. CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that the SDM-Q-Doc is a well-accepted and reliable instrument for assessing the physicians perspective during SDM processes in clinical encounters. To our knowledge, the SDM-Q-Doc is the first psychometrically tested scale available for assessing the physicians perspective. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS The SDM-Q-Doc can be used in studies that analyze the effectiveness of the implementation of SDM and as a quality indicator in quality assurance programs and health service assessments.

Assessment of Patient Empowerment - A Systematic Review of Measures

Background Patient empowerment has gained considerable importance but uncertainty remains about the best way to define and measure it. The validity of empirical findings depends on the quality of measures used. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of studies assessing psychometric properties of questionnaires purporting to capture patient empowerment, evaluate the methodological quality of these studies and assess the psychometric properties of measures identified. Methods Electronic searches in five databases were combined with reference tracking of included articles. Peer-reviewed articles reporting psychometric testing of empowerment measures for adult patients in French, German, English, Portuguese and Spanish were included. Study characteristics, constructs operationalised and psychometric properties were extracted. The quality of study design, methods and reporting was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed using Terwee’s 2007 criteria. Findings 30 studies on 19 measures were included. Six measures are generic, while 13 were developed for a specific condition (N=4) or specialty (N=9). Most studies tested measures in English (N=17) or Swedish (N=6). Sample sizes of included studies varied from N=35 to N=8261. A range of patient empowerment constructs was operationalised in included measures. These were classified into four domains: patient states, experiences and capacities; patient actions and behaviours; patient self-determination within the healthcare relationship and patient skills development. Quality assessment revealed several flaws in methodological study quality with COSMIN scores mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of psychometric properties of included measures was intermediate to positive. Certain psychometric properties were not tested for most measures. Discussion Findings provide a basis from which to develop consensus on a core set of patient empowerment constructs and for further work to develop a (set of) appropriately validated measure(s) to capture this. The methodological quality of psychometric studies could be improved by adhering to published quality criteria.

Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary Care

Purpose The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc measure patient and physician perception of the extent of shared decision making (SDM) during a physician-patient consultation. So far, no self-report instrument for SDM was available in Dutch, and validation of the scales in other languages has been limited. The aim of this study was to translate both scales into Dutch and assess their psychometric characteristics. Methods Participants were patients and their treating physicians (general practitioners and medical specialists). Patients (N = 182) rated their consultation using the SDM-Q-9, 43 physicians rated their consultations using the SDM-Q-Doc (N = 201). Acceptability, reliability (internal consistency), and the factorial structure of the instruments were determined. For convergent validity the CPSpost was used. Results Reliabilities of both scales were high (alpha SDM-Q-9 0.88; SDM-Q-Doc 0.87). The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc total scores correlated as expected with the CPSpost (SDM-Q-9: r = 0.29; SDM-Q-Doc: r = 0.48) and were significantly different between the CPSpost categories, with lowest mean scores when the physician made the decision alone. Principal Component Analyses showed a two-component model for each scale. A confirmatory factor analysis yielded a mediocre, but acceptable, one-factor model, if Item 1 was excluded; for both scales the best indices of fit were obtained for a one-factor solution, if both Items 1 and 9 were excluded. Conclusion The Dutch SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrate good acceptance and reliability; they correlated as expected with the CPSpost and are suitable for use in Dutch primary and specialised care. Although the best model fit was found when excluding Items 1 and 9, we believe these items address important aspects of SDM. Therefore, also based on the coherence with theory and comparability with other studies, we suggest keeping all nine items of the scale. Further research on the SDM-concept in patients and physicians, in different clinical settings and different countries, is necessary to gain a better understanding of the SDM-construct and its measurement.

Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale – an attempt to establish convergent validity

While there has been a clear move towards shared decision‐making (SDM) in the last few years, the measurement of SDM‐related constructs remains challenging. There has been a call for further psychometric testing of known scales, especially regarding validity aspects.

Assessment of trust in physician: a systematic review of measures.

Over the last decades, trust in physician has gained in importance. Studies have shown that trust in physician is associated with positive health behaviors in patients. However, the validity of empirical findings fundamentally depends on the quality of the measures in use. Our aim was to provide an overview of trust in physician measures and to evaluate the methodological quality of the psychometric studies and the quality of psychometric properties of identified measures. We conducted an electronic search in three databases (Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo). The secondary search strategy included reference and citation tracking of included full texts and consultation of experts in the field. Retrieved records were screened independently by two reviewers. Full texts that reported on testing of psychometric properties of trust in physician measures were included in the review. Study characteristics and psychometric properties were extracted. We evaluated the quality of design, methods and reporting of studies with the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed with Terwee’s 2007 quality criteria. After screening 3284 records and assessing 169 full texts for eligibility, fourteen studies on seven trust in physician measures were included. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA and used English measures. All but one measure were generic. Sample sizes range from 25 to 1199 participants, recruited in very heterogeneous settings. Quality assessments revealed several flaws in the methodological quality of studies. COSMIN scores were mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of measures’ psychometric properties was intermediate. Several trust in physician measures have been developed over the last years, but further psychometric evaluation of these measures is strongly recommended. The methodological quality of psychometric property studies could be improved by adhering to quality criteria like the COSMIN checklist.

A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process

Objectives To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement. Design Multistage consultation process. Setting Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties. Participants 19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties. Results After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on “team talk,” “option talk,” and “decision talk,” to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals. Conclusions The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences.