Objective: To develop valid and realistic manipulations for video-vignette research using expert opinion rounds, in preparation of an experimental study on clinicians' (un)reasonable argumentative... Show moreObjective: To develop valid and realistic manipulations for video-vignette research using expert opinion rounds, in preparation of an experimental study on clinicians' (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment de-cisions in neonatal care. Methods: In three rounds, N = 37 participants (parents/clinicians/researchers) provided feedback on four video -vignette scripts and completed listing, ranking, and rating exercises to determine which (un)reasonable argu-ments clinicians may provide to support treatment decisions. Results: Round 1: participants deemed the scripts realistic. They judged that, on average, clinicians should provide two arguments for a treatment decision. They listed 13-20 reasonable arguments, depending on the script. Round 2: participants ranked the two most salient, reasonable arguments per script. Round 3: participants rated the most plausible, unreasonable arguments from a predefined list. These results guided the design of 12 experimental conditions. Conclusion: Expert opinion rounds are an effective method to develop video-vignettes that are theoretically sound and ecologically realistic and offer a powerful means to include stakeholders in experimental research design. Our study yielded some preliminary insights into what are considered prevalent (un)reasonable arguments for clinicians' treatment plans. Practice implications: We provide hands-on guidelines on involving stakeholders in the design of video-vignette experiments and the development of video-based health communication interventions - both for research and practice. Show less
Visser, L.N.C.; Fruijtier, A.; Kunneman, M.; Schoonenboom, N.; Staekenborg, S.S.; Wind, H.A.; ... ; Filer, W.M. van der 2023
Objective: We investigated motivations of patients and care partners for their memory clinic visit, and whether these are expressed in consultations.Methods: We included data from 115 patients (age... Show moreObjective: We investigated motivations of patients and care partners for their memory clinic visit, and whether these are expressed in consultations.Methods: We included data from 115 patients (age 71 +/- 11, 49% Female) and their care partners (N = 93), who completed questionnaires after their first consultation with a clinician. Audio-recordings of these consultations were available from 105 patients. Motivations for visiting the clinic were content-coded as reported by patients in the questionnaire, and expressed by patients and care partners in consultations.Results: Most patients reported seeking a cause for symptoms (61%) or to confirm/exclude a (dementia) diagnosis (16%), yet 19% reported another motivation: (more) information, care access, or treatment/advice. In the first consultation, about half of patients (52%) and care partners (62%) did not express their motivation(s). When both expressed a motivation, these differed in about half of dyads. A quarter of patients (23%) expressed a different/complementary motivation in the consultation, then reported in the questionnaire.Conclusion: Motivations for visiting a memory clinic can be specific and multifaceted, yet are often not addressed during consultations. Practice implications: We should encourage clinicians, patients, and care partners to talk about motivations for visiting the memory clinic, as a starting point to personalize (diagnostic) care. Show less
Objectives To describe the range of collaborative approaches to shared decision-making (SDM) observed in clinical encounters of patients with diabetes and their clinicians.Design A secondary... Show moreObjectives To describe the range of collaborative approaches to shared decision-making (SDM) observed in clinical encounters of patients with diabetes and their clinicians.Design A secondary analysis of videorecordings obtained in a randomised trial comparing usual diabetes primary care with or without using a within-encounter conversation SDM tool.Setting Using the purposeful SDM framework, we classified the forms of SDM observed in a random sample of 100 video-recorded clinical encounters of patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care.Main outcome measures We assessed the correlation between the extent to which each form of SDM was used and patient involvement (OPTION12-scale).Results We observed at least one instance of SDM in 86 of 100 encounters. In 31 (36%) of these 86 encounters, we found only one form of SDM, in 25 (29%) two forms, and in 30 (35%), we found ≥3 forms of SDM. In these encounters, 196 instances of SDM were identified, with weighing alternatives (n=64 of 196, 33%), negotiating conflicting desires (n=59, 30%) and problemsolving (n=70, 36%) being similarly prevalent and developing existential insight accounting for only 1% (n=3) of instances. Only the form of SDM focused on weighing alternatives was correlated with a higher OPTION12-score. More forms of SDM were used when medications were changed (2.4 SDM forms (SD 1.48) vs 1.8 (SD 1.46); p=0.050).Conclusions After considering forms of SDM beyond weighing alternatives, SDM was present in most encounters. Clinicians and patients often used different forms of SDM within the same encounter. Recognising a range of SDM forms that clinicians and patients use to respond to problematic situations, as demonstrated in this study, opens new lines of research, education and practice that may advance patient-centred, evidence-based care. Show less
Objective: To evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms. Methods: We assessed 100 randomly... Show moreObjective: To evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms. Methods: We 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. Results: There 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. Conclusion: The 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. Show less
Objectives: To estimate the level of contamination in an encounter-randomized trial evaluating a shared decision-making (SDM) tool. Study Design and Setting: We assessed contamination at three... Show moreObjectives: To estimate the level of contamination in an encounter-randomized trial evaluating a shared decision-making (SDM) tool. Study Design and Setting: We assessed contamination at three levels: (1) tool contamination (whether the tool was physically present in the usual care encounter), (2) functional contamination (whether components of the SDM tool were recreated in the usual care encounters without directly accessing the tool), and (3) learned contamination (whether clinicians "got better at SDM"in the usual care encounters as assessed by the OPTION-12 score). For functional and learned contamination, the interaction with the number of exposures to the tool was assessed.Results: We recorded and analyzed 830 of 922 randomized encounters. Of the 411 recorded encounters randomized to usual care, the SDM tool was used in nine (2.2%) encounters. Clinicians discussed at least one patient-important issue in 377 usual care encounters (92%) and the risk of stroke in 214 encounters (52%). We found no significant interaction between number of times the SDM tool was used and subsequent functional or learned contamination. Conclusion: Despite randomly assigning clinicians to use an SDM tool in some and not other encounters, we found no evidence of contamination in usual care encounters. (c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Show less
Kunneman, M.; Branda, M.E.; Ridgeway, J.L.; Tiedje, K.; May, C.R.; Linzer, M.; ... ; Shah, N.I.D. 2022
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... Show moreBackground: 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. Eligible Black participants were significantly less likely (p < .001) to enroll (102, 11%) than trial-eligible White participants (185, 15%). The enrollment rate of BIPOC patients varied by site. The inclusion and prioritization of clinical practices that care for more BIPOC patients contributed to a higher enrollment rate into the trial. Specific efforts to reach BIPOC clinic attendees and prioritize their enrollment had lower yield. Conclusions: Best practices to optimize the enrollment of BIPOC participants into trials that examined complex and culturally sensitive interventions remain to be developed. This study suggests a high yield from enrolling BIPOC patients from practices that prioritize their care. Show less
Objectives: Purposeful SDM posits four modes of shared decision making (SDM). The use of each mode depends on the type of problem of care that is being addressed. We sought to identify how current... Show moreObjectives: Purposeful SDM posits four modes of shared decision making (SDM). The use of each mode depends on the type of problem of care that is being addressed. We sought to identify how current observer-based SDM measures apply to each mode of Purposeful SDM.Methods: Four coders, working independently, evaluated 192 items pertaining to 12 observer-based SDM process measures. They classified the items into 6 themes that vary across Purposeful SDM modes and then into one of the four modes (weighing, negotiating, problem-solving, developing insight). Disagreements were resolved by consensus.Results: The items were classified as pertaining to the following themes: problem (28), roles/participation (84), options (62), preferences (21), decision (15), and evaluation (6). They were then classified as pertaining particularly to the SDM modes of weighing (54), negotiating (5), problem-solving (0), and developing insight (0) modes, with 191 items applying broadly to all modes of Purposeful SDM.Conclusions: Observer-based SDM measures describe behaviors pertinent to all modes but lack items sensitive to behaviors particular to some modes of SDM. Practice Implications: New or revised observer-based measures of the SDM process could help estimate the extent to which the appropriate SDM mode is being used to address the patient's problem.(c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
Kunneman, M.; Hargraves, I.G.; Sivly, A.L.; Branda, M.E.; LaVecchia, C.M.; Labrie, N.H.M.; ... ; Montori, V. 2022
Objective: To evaluate how the use of a within-encounter SDM tool (compared to usual care in a randomized trial) contributes to care plans that make sense to patients with atrial fibrillation... Show moreObjective: To evaluate how the use of a within-encounter SDM tool (compared to usual care in a randomized trial) contributes to care plans that make sense to patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation. Methods: In a planned subgroup of the trial, 123 patients rated post-encounter how much sense their decided-upon care plan made to them and explained why. We explored how sense ratings related to observed patient involvement (OPTION12), patient's decisional conflict, and adherence to their plan based on pharmacy records. We analyzed patient motives using Burke's pentad. Results: Plan sensibility was similarly high in both arms (Usual care n = 62: mean 9.4/10 (SD 1.0) vs SDM tool n = 61: 9.2/10 (SD 1.5); p = .8), significantly and weakly correlated to decisional conflict (rho = -0.28, p = .002), but not to OPTION12 or adherence. Plans made sense to most patients given their known efficacy, safety and what is involved in implementing them. Conclusion: Adding an effective intervention to promote SDM did not affect how much, or why, care plans made sense to patients receiving usual care, nor patient adherence to them. Practice Implications: Evaluating the extent to which care plans make sense can improve SDM assessments, particularly when SDM extends beyond selecting from a menu of options. Show less
Morrissey, E.C.; Dinneen, S.F.; Lowry, M.; Koning, E.J.P. de; Kunneman, M. 2022
Young 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... Show moreYoung 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. Show less
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.... Show moreObjectives 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. Show less
Objectives: To assess the extent to which shared decision making (SDM) can take place in telemedicine (remote SDM). Methods: We searched Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus from 2010 until August 7th,... Show moreObjectives: To assess the extent to which shared decision making (SDM) can take place in telemedicine (remote SDM). Methods: We searched Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus from 2010 until August 7th, 2020 for articles on remote SDM in the care of any patient using any technology. We also conducted a search for telemedicine articles citing key reports on SDM outcome measures. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full text eligible studies, and synthesized their content using thematic analysis. Results: Of the 12 eligible articles, most were European with patients with chronic disease or mental and behavioral health. 8 articles used synchronous remote SDM and 1 used asynchronous remote SDM. Themes related to interactional workability of both telemedicine technologies and SDM emerged, namely access to broadband, digital literacy, and satisfaction with the convenience of remote visits. Conclusions: Telemedicine technologies may foster virtual interactions that support remote SDM, which, in turn, may promote productive patient-clinician interactions and patient-centered care. Practice implications: Digitally-mediated consultations surged amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The extent to which SDM frameworks developed for in-person use need any adaptation for remote SDM remains unclear. Investment in innovation, design, implementation, and effectiveness research to advance remote SDM are needed. Show less
Noseworthy, P.A.; Branda, M.E.; Kunneman, M.; Hargraves, I.G.; Sivly, A.L.; Brito, J.P.; ... ; SDM4AFib Shared Decision-Making At 2022
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)... Show moreBACKGROUND 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. Show less
Ruissen, M.M.; Sont, J.K.; Vugt, H.A. van; Kunneman, M.; Rutten, G.E.H.M.; Koning, E.J.P. de 2022
Purpose: Understanding which factors are important for healthcare decisions of patients with diabetes in clinical practice is important to personalise diabetes care strategies and tailor care plans... Show morePurpose: Understanding which factors are important for healthcare decisions of patients with diabetes in clinical practice is important to personalise diabetes care strategies and tailor care plans to the individual. The main drivers for these healthcare decisions remain unclear. This study assessed which key factors are relevant for healthcare decisions during clinical consultations for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM), according to healthcare professionals. Materials and Methods: Annual diabetes reviews were performed as part of a trial assessing the impact of a consultation model facilitating person-centred diabetes care in six hospital outpatient clinics. After each consultation, we asked healthcare professionals to choose a maximum of three out of 20 factors that were most relevant for healthcare decisions about treatment goals and the professional support needed during the upcoming year. Factors were characterised as either person or disease-related. Percentages reflect the number of annual diabetes reviews in which the key factor was reported. Results: Seventeen physicians and eight diabetes specialist nurses reported the key factors relevant for healthcare decisions in 285 annual diabetes reviews (T1DM n = 119, T2DM n = 166). Healthcare professionals most often reported quality of life (31.9%), motivation (27.0%) and diabetes self-management (25.6%), and to a lesser extent glycaemic control (24.2%), to be important for decisions about treatment goals. For decisions about the professional support needed during the upcoming year patient's preferences (33.7%), diabetes self-management (33.3%), quality of life (27.0%) and motivation (25.6%) were most often considered relevant by healthcare professionals. Conclusion: According to healthcare professionals, person-related factors such as quality of life, diabetes self-management and motivation are predominantly relevant for healthcare decisions about treatment goals and the professional support needed during the upcoming year. Show less
Objective: Adherence to guideline-recommended medications after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is suboptimal. Patient fidelity to treatment regimens may be related to their knowledge of the risk... Show moreObjective: Adherence to guideline-recommended medications after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is suboptimal. Patient fidelity to treatment regimens may be related to their knowledge of the risk of death following AMI, the pros and cons of medications, and to their involvement in treatment decisions. Shared decision-making may improve both patients' knowledge and involvement in treatment decisions. Methods: In a pilot trial, patients hospitalized with AMI were randomized to the use of the AMI Choice conversation tool or to usual care. AMI Choice includes a pictogram of the patient's estimated risk of mortality at 6 months with and without guidelinerecommended medications, ie, aspirin, statins, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Primary outcomes were patient knowledge and conflict with the decision made assessed via post-encounter surveys. Secondary outcomes were patient involvement in the decision-making process (observer-based OPTION12 scale) and 6-month medication adherence. Results: Patient knowledge of the expected survival benefit from taking medications was significantly higher (62% vs 16%, p<0.0001) in the AMI Choice group (n = 53) compared to the usual care group (n = 53). Both groups reported similarly low levels of conflict with the decision to start the medications (13 (SD 24.2) vs 16 (SD 22) out of 100; p=0.16). The extent to which clinicians in the AMI Choice group involved their patients in the decision-making process was high (OPTION12 score 53 out of 100, SD 12). Medication adherence at 6-months was relatively high in both groups and not different between groups. Conclusion: The AMI Choice conversation tool improved patients' knowledge of their estimated risk of short-term mortality after an AMI and the pros and cons of treatments to reduce this risk. The effect on patient fidelity to recommended medications of using this SDM tool and of SDM in general should be tested in larger trials enrolling patients at high risk for nonadherence. Show less
Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes.... Show moreShared 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. Show less
