Stéphane Turcotte

Patients’ Perceptions of Sharing in Decisions

AbstractBackground: Shared decision making is the process in which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the health professional and the patient. Little is known about what patients view as effective or ineffective strategies to implement shared decision making in routine clinical practice. Objective: This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of interventions to improve health professionals’ adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice, as seen by patients. Data Sources: We searched electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) from their inception to mid-March 2009. We found additional material by reviewing the reference lists of the studies found in the databases; systematic reviews of studies on shared decision making; the proceedings of various editions of the International Shared Decision Making Conference; and the transcripts of the Society for Medical Decision Making’s meetings. Study Selection: In our study selection, we included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses in which patients evaluated interventions to improve health professionals’ adoption of shared decision making. The interventions in question consisted of the distribution of printed educational material; educational meetings; audit and feedback; reminders; and patient-mediated initiatives (e.g. patient decision aids). Study Appraisal: Two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data. Statistical analyses considered categorical and continuous process measures. We computed the standardized effect size for each outcome at the 95% confidence interval. The primary outcome of interest was health professionals’ adoption of shared decision making as reported by patients in a self-administered questionnaire. Results: Of the 6764 search results, 21 studies reported 35 relevant comparisons. Overall, the quality of the studies ranged from 0% to 83%. Only three of the 21 studies reported a clinically significant effect for the primary outcome that favored the intervention. The first study compared an educational meeting and a patient-mediated intervention with another patient-mediated intervention (median improvement of 74%). The second compared an educational meeting, a patient-mediated intervention, and audit and feedback with an educational meeting on an alternative topic (improvement of 227%). The third compared an educational meeting and a patient-mediated intervention with usual care (p = 0.003). All three studies were limited to the patient-physician dyad. Limitations: To reduce bias, future studies should improve methods and reporting, and should analyze costs and benefits, including those associated with training of health professionals. Conclusions: Multifaceted interventions that include educating health professionals about sharing decisions with patients and patient-mediated interventions, such as patient decision aids, appear promising for improving health professionals’ adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice as seen by patients.

Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument.

We have no clear overview of the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in the decision‐making process during consultations. The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument (OPTION) was designed to assess this.

Training family physicians in shared decision-making to reduce the overuse of antibiotics in acute respiratory infections: a cluster randomized trial

Background: Few interventions have proven effective in reducing the overuse of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. We evaluated the effect of DECISION+2, a shared decision-making training program, on the percentage of patients who decided to take antibiotics after consultation with a physician or resident. Methods: We performed a randomized trial, clustered at the level of family practice teaching unit, with 2 study arms: DECISION+2 and control. The DECISION+2 training program included a 2-hour online tutorial followed by a 2-hour interactive seminar about shared decision-making. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who decided to use antibiotics immediately after consultation. We also recorded patients’ perception that shared decision-making had occurred. Two weeks after the initial consultation, we assessed patients’ adherence to the decision, repeat consultation, decisional regret and quality of life. Results: We compared outcomes among 181 patients who consulted 77 physicians in 5 family practice teaching units in the DECISION+2 group, and 178 patients who consulted 72 physicians in 4 family practice teaching units in the control group. The percentage of patients who decided to use antibiotics after consultation was 52.2% in the control group and 27.2% in the DECISION+2 group (absolute difference 25.0%, adjusted relative risk 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.34–0.68). DECISION+2 was associated with patients taking a more active role in decision-making (Z = 3.9, p < 0.001). Patient outcomes 2 weeks after consultation were similar in both groups. Interpretation: The shared decision-making program DECISION+2 enhanced patient participation in decision-making and led to fewer patients deciding to use antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. This reduction did not have a negative effect on patient outcomes 2 weeks after consultation. ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT01116076.

Fish oil and argan oil intake differently modulate insulin resistance and glucose intolerance in a rat model of dietary-induced obesity

We investigated the potential metabolic benefits of fish oil (FO) or vegetable argan oil (AO) intake in a dietary model of obesity-linked insulin resistance. Rats were fed a standard chow diet (controls), a high-fat/high-sucrose (HFHS) diet, or an HFHS diet in which 6% of the fat was replaced by either FO or AO feeding, respectively. The HFHS diet increased adipose tissue weight and insulin resistance as revealed by increased fasting glucose and exaggerated glycemic and insulin responses to a glucose tolerance test (intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test). Fish oil feeding prevented fat accretion, reduced fasting glycemia, and normalized glycemic or insulin responses to intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test as compared with HFHS diet. Unlike FO consumption, AO intake failed to prevent obesity, yet restored fasting glycemia back to chow-fed control values. Insulin-induced phosphorylation of Akt and Erk in adipose tissues, skeletal muscles, and liver was greatly attenuated in HFHS rats as compared with chow-fed controls. High-fat/high-sucrose diet-induced insulin resistance was also confirmed in isolated hepatocytes. Fish oil intake prevented insulin resistance by improving or fully restoring insulin signaling responses in all tissues and isolated hepatocytes. Argan oil intake also improved insulin-dependent phosphorylations of Akt and Erk; and in adipose tissue, these responses were increased even beyond values observed in chow-fed controls. Taken together, these results strongly support the beneficial action of FO on diet-induced insulin resistance and glucose intolerance, an effect likely explained by the ability of FO to prevent HFHS-induced adiposity. Our data also show for the first time that AO can improve some of the metabolic and insulin signaling abnormalities associated with HFHS feeding.

Validation of SURE, a Four-Item Clinical Checklist for Detecting Decisional Conflict in Patients

Background: We sought to determine the psychometric properties of SURE, a 4-item checklist designed to screen for clinically significant decisional conflict in clinical practice. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of a clustered randomized trial assessing the effect of DECISION+2, a 2-hour online tutorial followed by a 2-hour interactive workshop on shared decision making, on decisions to use antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. Patients completed SURE and also the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), as the gold standard, after consultation. We evaluated internal consistency of SURE using the Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient (KR-20). We compared DCS and SURE scores using the Spearman correlation coefficient. We assessed sensitivity and specificity of SURE scores (cut-off score ≤3 out of 4) by identifying patients with and without clinically significant decisional conflict (DCS score >37.5 on a scale of 0–100). Results: Of the 712 patients recruited during the trial, 654 completed both tools. SURE scores showed adequate internal consistency (KR-20 coefficient of 0.7). There was a significant correlation between DCS and SURE scores (Spearman’s ρ = −0.45, P < 0.0001). The prevalence of clinically significant decisional conflict as estimated by the DCS was 5.2% (95% CI 3.7–7.3). Sensitivity and specificity of SURE ≤3 were 94.1% (95% CI 78.9–99.0) and 89.8% (95% CI 87.1–92.0), respectively. Conclusions: SURE shows adequate psychometric properties in a primary care population with a low prevalence of clinically significant decisional conflict. SURE has the potential to be a useful screening tool for practitioners, responding to the growing need for detecting clinically significant decisional conflict in patients.

The decisional conflict scale: moving from the individual to the dyad level

Decisional conflict is a central determinant of decision making, particularly in the context of uncertainty. It is also one of the most frequently reported outcomes in studies on decision support interventions. Decisional conflict is defined as personal uncertainty about which option to choose. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) is a self-administered questionnaire that was originally designed to assess decisional conflict in patients. The scale has since been adapted to and tested among health professionals, since decisional conflict as seen by doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers has proven useful in evaluating the quality of the shared decision making (SDM) process. In recent years, however, more and more researchers have found that evaluating the perspectives of the patient and the health professional as interdependent members of a dyad, rather than as two autonomous individuals, offers exciting avenues for developing interventions to improve decision making in the clinical setting. For that reason, the SDM community has increasingly turned its attention to a dyadic approach to SDM. In this paper, we briefly review the history of the Dyadic Decisional Conflict Scale (D-DCS), update its psychometrics based on published work, and propose a research agenda for refining it further.

Visual and automated assessment of matrix metalloproteinase-14 tissue expression for the evaluation of ovarian cancer prognosis.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the membrane type 1 matrix metalloproteinase-14 (or MT1-MMP) tissue expression, as assessed visually on digital slides and by digital image analysis, could predict outcomes in women with ovarian carcinoma. Tissue microarrays from a cohort of 211 ovarian carcinoma women who underwent a debulking surgery between 1993 and 2006 at the CHU de Québec (Canada) were immunostained for matrix metalloproteinase-14. The percentage of MMP-14 staining was assessed visually and with the Calopix software. Progression was evaluated using the CA-125 and/or the RECIST criteria according to the GCIG criteria. Dates of death were obtained by record linkage with the Québec mortality files. Adjusted hazard ratios of death and progression with their 95% confidence intervals were estimated using the Cox model. Comparisons between the two modalities of MMP-14 assessment were done using the box plots and the Kruskal–Wallis test. The highest levels of MMP-14 immunostaining were associated with nonserous histology, early FIGO stage, and low preoperative CA-125 levels (P<0.05). In bivariate analyses, the higher level of MMP-14 expression (>40% of MMP-14-positive cells) was inversely associated with progression using visual assessment (hazard ratio=0.39; 95% confidence interval: 0.18–0.82). A similar association was observed with the highest quartile of MMP-14-positive area assessed by digital image analysis (hazard ratio=0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.28–0.82). After adjustment for standard prognostic factors, these associations were no longer significant in the ovarian carcinoma cohort. However, in women with serous carcinoma, the highest quartile of MMP-14-positive area was associated with progression (adjusted hazard ratio=0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.24–0.99). There was no association with overall survival. The digital image analysis of MMP-14-positive area matched the visual assessment using three categories (>40% vs 21–40 vs <20%). Higher levels of MMP-14 immunostaining were associated with standard factors of better ovarian carcinoma prognosis. In women with serous carcinoma, high expression of MMP-14 was associated with lower progression.

Shared decision-making behaviours in health professionals: a systematic review of studies based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour.

Shared decision making (SDM) requires health professionals to change their practice. Socio‐cognitive theories, such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), provide the needed theoretical underpinnings for designing behaviour change interventions.

Shared decision making does not influence physicians against clinical practice guidelines.

Background While shared decision making (SDM) and adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are important, some believe they are incompatible. This study explored the mutual influence between physicians’ intention to engage in SDM and their intention to follow CPGs. Methods Embedded within a clustered randomized trial to assess the impact of training physicians in SDM about using antibiotics to treat acute respiratory tract infections, this study evaluated physicians’ intentions to both engage in SDM and follow CPGs. A self-administered questionnaire based on the theory of planned behavior evaluated both behavioral intentions and their respective determinants (attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control) at study entry and exit. We used path analysis to explore the relationships between the intentions. We conducted statistical analyses using the maximum likelihood method and the variance-covariance matrix. Goodness of fit indices encompassed the chi-square statistic, the comparative fit index and the root mean square error of approximation. Results We analyzed 244 responses at entry and 236 at exit. In the control group, at entry we observed that physicians’ intention to engage in SDM (r = 0, t = 0.03) did not affect their intention to follow CPGs; however, their intention to follow CPGs (r = −0.31 t = −2.82) did negatively influence their intention to engage in SDM. At exit, neither behavioral intention influenced the other. In the experimental group, at entry neither behavioral intention influenced the other; at exit, the intention to engage in SDM still did not influence the intention to use CPGs, although the intention to follow CPGs (r = −0.15 t = −2.02) slightly negatively influenced the intention to engage in SDM, but this was not clinically significant. Conclusion Physicians’ intention to engage in SDM does not affect their intention to adopt CPGs even after SDM training. Physicians’ intention to adopt CPGs had no clinically significant influence on intention to engage in SDM. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01116076

Impact of DECISION + 2 on patient and physician assessment of shared decision making implementation in the context of antibiotics use for acute respiratory infections

BackgroundDECISION + 2, a training program for physicians, is designed to implement shared decision making (SDM) in the context of antibiotics use for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs). We evaluated the impact of DECISION + 2 on SDM implementation as assessed by patients and physicians, and on physicians’ intention to engage in SDM.MethodsFrom 2010 to 2011, a multi-center, two-arm, parallel randomized clustered trial appraised the effects of DECISION + 2 on the decision to use antibiotics for patients consulting for ARTIs. We randomized 12 family practice teaching units (FPTUs) to either DECISION + 2 or usual care. After the consultation, both physicians and patients independently completed questionnaires based on the D-Option scale regarding SDM behaviors during the consultation. Patients also answered items assessing the role they assumed during the consultation (active/collaborative/passive). Before and after the intervention, physicians completed a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to measure their intention to engage in SDM. To account for the cluster design, we used generalized estimating equations and generalized linear mixed models to assess the impact of DECISION + 2 on the outcomes of interest.ResultsA total of 270 physicians (66% women) participated in the study. After DECISION + 2, patients’ D-Option scores were 80.1 ± 1.1 out of 100 in the intervention group and 74.9 ± 1.1 in the control group (p = 0.001). Physicians’ D-Option scores were 79.7 ± 1.8 in the intervention group and 76.3 ± 1.9 in the control group (p = 0.2). However, subgroup analyses showed that teacher physicians D-Option scores were 79.7 ± 1.5 and 73.0 ± 1.4 respectively (p = 0.001). More patients reported assuming an active or collaborative role in the intervention group (67.1%), than in the control group (49.2%) (p = 0.04). There was a significant relation between patients’ and physicians’ D-Option scores (p < 0.01) and also between patient-reported assumed roles and both D-Option scores (as assessed by patients, p < 0.01; and physicians, p = 0.01). DECISION + 2 had no impact on the intention of physicians to engage in SDM.ConclusionDECISION + 2 positively influenced SDM behaviors as assessed by patients and teacher physicians. Physicians’ intention to engage in SDM was not affected by DECISION + 2.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov trials register no. NCT01116076.