ObjectiveIssues regarding clinician communication remain an important source of complaints within healthcare. This systematic review aims to determine cancer patients' and their family caregivers'... Show moreObjectiveIssues regarding clinician communication remain an important source of complaints within healthcare. This systematic review aims to determine cancer patients' and their family caregivers' views on which clinicians' communication behaviors can harm (i.e. eliciting negative feelings/consequences for patients/family caregivers).MethodsWe searched for all types of peer-reviewed studies that determined adult (>= 18 years) cancer patients' and/or family caregivers' perspectives on which clinicians' communication behaviors can harm in several databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier), supplemented by expert-consultation. Studies were screened using the Artificial intelligence screening tool of ASReview and data was analyzed using Thematic Analysis. To assess the quality of the studies the Qualsyst critical appraisal tool was used.ResultsA total of 47 studies were included. Four main themes of harmful communication behaviors were identified: (1) Lack of tailored information provision (e.g. giving too little or too much/specific information) (2) Lack of tailored decision making (ranging from; patient exclusion, to the patients' responsibility, and/or haste) (3) Lack of feeling seen and heard (seen as a disease, not as a human being; not listened to concerns and emotions) (4) Lack of feeling held and remembered (forgotten agreements; lack of care continuity).ConclusionsOur results reveal an overview of patients' and family caregivers' perspectives on which clinicians' communication behaviors can harm. Harm could be prevented when information and decision involvement are tailored and patients' and family caregivers' needs to feel seen, heard, held and remembered are met. Show less
Background: Videos have been an important medium for providing health and risk communication to the public during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health officials, health care professionals, and... Show moreBackground: Videos have been an important medium for providing health and risk communication to the public during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health officials, health care professionals, and policy makers have used videos to communicate pandemic-related content to large parts of the population. Evidence regarding the outcomes of such communication, along with their determinants, is however limited.Objective: The aim of this study was to test the impact of nonvisual information factors of video communication on 4 outcomes: trust, comprehension, intentions, and behavior.Methods: Twelve short health communication videos related to pandemics were produced and shown to a large sample of participants, applying a randomized controlled between-subjects design. Three factors were included in the creation of the videos: the topic (exponential growth, handwashing, and burden of pandemics on the health care system), the source (expert and nonexpert), and a call to action (present or absent). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 video intervention, and 1194 valid replies were collected. The data were analyzed using factorial ANOVA.Results: The 3 pandemic-related topics did not affect trust, comprehension, intentions, or behavior. Trust was positively influenced by an expert source (2.5%), whereas a nonexpert source instead had a positive effect on the proxy for behavior (5.7%) compared with the expert source. The inclusion of a call to action had a positive effect on both trust (4.1%) and comprehension (15%).Conclusions: Trust and comprehension in pandemic-related video communication can be enhanced by using expert sources and by including a call to action, irrespective of the topic being communicated. Intentions and behavior appear to be affected to a small extent by the 3 factors tested in this study. Show less
Visser, M.; Smaling, H.J.A.; Parker, D.; Steen, J.T. van der 2022
A diagnosis of dementia often comes with difficulties in understanding a conversational context and expressing how one feels. So far, research on how to facilitate advance care planning (ACP) for... Show moreA diagnosis of dementia often comes with difficulties in understanding a conversational context and expressing how one feels. So far, research on how to facilitate advance care planning (ACP) for people with dementia focused on defining relevant themes and topics for conversations, or on how to formalize decisions made by surrogate decision makers, e.g., family members. The aim of this review is to provide a better scope of the existing research on practical communication aspects related to dementia in ACP conversations. In November 2020, seven databases were searched to select papers for inclusion (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Psycinfo, Amed, and Cinahl). This search was updated in December 2021. The search strategy consisted of three tiers (related terms to "dementia, " "communication " and "ACP "), intersected by using the Boolean term "AND, " and resulted in 787 studies. Two researchers followed explicit criteria for two sequential levels of screening, based on titles and abstracts and full papers. A total of 22 studies were included for data analysis. Seven topics (i.e., importance of having ACP conversations, knowledge gap, inclusion of people with dementia in ACP conversations, policy vs. practice, adapting to cognitive changes, adapting to psychosocial changes, and adapting to emotional changes) emerged clustered around two themes (i.e., communicating with people with dementia in ACP, and changes in communication due to dementia). This scoping review provides practical suggestions for healthcare professionals to improve ACP communication and uncovered gaps in research on communication aspects related to dementia in ACP conversations, such as non-verbal behavior, timing and implementation, and personal preferences. Show less
Verhoef, M.J.; Nijs, E. de; Sweep, B.; Warmerdam-Vergroesen, D.; Horeweg, N.; Pieterse, A.; ... ; Linden, Y. van der 2022
Objectives: Question prompt lists (QPLs) support patients and family to ask questions they consider important during conversations with clinicians. We aimed to evaluate how a QPL developed for... Show moreObjectives: Question prompt lists (QPLs) support patients and family to ask questions they consider important during conversations with clinicians. We aimed to evaluate how a QPL developed for specialist palliative care is used during consultations and is perceived by patients and family, and how non-specialist clinicians would use the QPL. We further developed the QPL using these perspectives. Methods: The QPL is part of a conversation guide on palliative care. Patients and family were asked to select topics and questions before consultation with a palliative care consultant. This qualitative study (2016-2018) included 18 interviews with patients and family who had used the QPL, 17 interviews with non-specialist clinicians and 32 audiotaped consultations with palliative care consultants. The data were analysed thematically and iteratively to adjust the QPL accordingly. Results: All participants considered the QPL elaborate, but recommended keeping all content. Patients and family found that it helps to structure thoughts, ask questions and regain a sense of control. They also felt the QPL could support them in gathering information. Although it could evoke strong emotions, their real challenge was being in the palliative phase. Clinicians considered the QPL especially helpful as an overview of possible discussion topics. During audiotaped consultations, topics other than those selected were also addressed. Conclusion: By using the QPL, patients and family felt empowered to express their information needs. Its use may not be as unsettling as clinicians assume. Nevertheless, clinicians who hand out the QPL should introduce the QPL properly to optimise its use. 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
Purpose Shared decision making calls for clinician communication strategies that aim to foster choice awareness and to present treatment options neutrally, such as by not showing a preference.... Show morePurpose Shared decision making calls for clinician communication strategies that aim to foster choice awareness and to present treatment options neutrally, such as by not showing a preference. Evidence for the effectiveness of these communication strategies to enhance patient involvement in treatment decision making is lacking. We tested the effects of 2 strategies in an online randomized video-vignettes experiment. Methods We developed disease-specific video vignettes for rheumatic disease, cancer, and kidney disease showcasing a physician presenting 2 treatment options. We tested the strategies in a 2 (choice awareness communication present/absent) by 2 (physician preference communication present/absent) randomized between-subjects design. We asked patients and disease-naive participants to view 1 video vignette while imagining being the patient and to report perceived room for involvement (primary outcome), understanding of treatment information, treatment preference, satisfaction with the consultation, and trust in the physician (secondary outcomes). Differences across experimental conditions were assessed using 2-way analyses of variance. Results A total of 324 patients and 360 disease-naive respondents participated (mean age, 52 +/- 14.7 y, 54% female, 56% lower educated, mean health literacy, 12 +/- 2.1 on a 3-15 scale). The results showed that choice awareness communication had a positive (M-present = 5.2 v. M-absent = 5.0, P = 0.042, eta(2)(partial) = 0.006) and physician preference communication had no (M-present = 5.0 v. M-absent = 5.1, P = 0.144, eta(2)(partial) = 0.003) significant effect on perceived room for involvement in decision making. Physician preference communication steered patients toward preferring that treatment option (M-present = 4.7 v. M-absent = 5.3, P = 0.006, eta(2)(partial) = 0.011). The strategies had no significant effect on understanding, satisfaction, or trust. Conclusions This is the first experimental evidence for a small effect of fostering choice awareness and no effect of physician preference on perceived room to participate in decision making. Physician preference steered patients toward preferring that option. Show less
Objective: Shared decision making (SDM) for cancer treatment yields positive results. However, it appears that discussing essential topics for SDM is not fully integrated into treatment decision... Show moreObjective: Shared decision making (SDM) for cancer treatment yields positive results. However, it appears that discussing essential topics for SDM is not fully integrated into treatment decision making yet. Therefore, we aim to explore to what extent discussion of therapy options, treatment consequences, and personal priorities is preferred and perceived by (former) cancer patients.Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed by the Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organisations among (former) cancer patients in 2018.Results: Among 3785 (former) cancer patients, 3254 patients (86%) had discussed treatments with their health care provider (HCP) and were included for analysis. Mean age was 62.1 +/- 11.5; 55% were female. Discussing the option to choose no (further) treatment was rated by 2751 (84.5%) as very important (median score 9/10-IQR 8-10). Its occurrence was perceived by 28% (N = 899), and short- and long-term treatment consequences were discussed in 81% (N = 2626) and 53% (N = 1727), respectively. An unmet wish to discuss short- and long-term consequences was reported by 22% and 26%, respectively. Less than half of the (former) cancer patients perceived that personal priorities (44%) and future plans (34%) were discussed.Conclusion: In the perception of (former) cancer patients, several essential elements for effective SDM are insufficiently discussed during cancer treatment decision making. Show less
Akkermans, A.; Lamerichs, J.; Schultz, M.; Cherpanath, T.; Woensel, J. van; Heerde, M. van; ... ; Vos, M. de 2021
Background: Intensive care doctors have to find the right balance between sharing crucial decisions with families of patients on the one hand and not overburdening them on the other hand. This... Show moreBackground: Intensive care doctors have to find the right balance between sharing crucial decisions with families of patients on the one hand and not overburdening them on the other hand. This requires a tailored approach instead of a model based approach. Aim: To explore how doctors involve families in the decision-making process regarding life-sustaining treatment on the neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care. Design: Exploratory inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations. Setting/participants: One hundred four family members (61% female, 39% male) and 71 doctors (60% female, 40% male) of 36 patients (53% female, 47% male) from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care of a large university medical center participated. Results: We identified eight relevant and distinct communicative behaviors. Doctors' sequential communicative behaviors either reflected consistent approaches-a shared approach or a physician-driven approach-or reflected vacillating between both approaches. Doctors more often displayed a physician-driven or a vacillating approach than a shared approach, especially in the adult intensive care. Doctors did not verify whether their chosen approach matched the families' decision-making preferences. Conclusions: Even though tailoring doctors' communication to families' preferences is advocated, it does not seem to be integrated into actual practice. To allow for true tailoring, doctors' awareness regarding the impact of their communicative behaviors is key. Educational initiatives should focus especially on improving doctors' skills in tactfully exploring families' decision-making preferences and in mutually sharing knowledge, values, and treatment preferences. Show less
Background Health-care providers increasingly have to discuss uncertainty with patients. Awareness of uncertainty can affect patients variably, depending on how it is communicated. To date, no... Show moreBackground Health-care providers increasingly have to discuss uncertainty with patients. Awareness of uncertainty can affect patients variably, depending on how it is communicated. To date, no overview existed for health-care professionals on how to discuss uncertainty.Objective To generate an overview of available recommendations on how to communicate uncertainty with patients during clinical encounters.Search strategy A scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched following the PRISMA-ScR statement. Independent screening by two researchers was performed of titles and abstracts, and subsequently full texts.Inclusion criteria Any (non-)empirical papers were included describing recommendations for any health-care provider on how to orally communicate uncertainty to patients.Data extraction Data on provided recommendations and their characteristics (eg, target group and strength of evidence base) were extracted. Recommendations were narratively synthesized into a comprehensible overview for clinical practice.Results Forty-seven publications were included. Recommendations were based on empirical findings in 23 publications. After narrative synthesis, 13 recommendations emerged pertaining to three overarching goals: (a) preparing for the discussion of uncertainty, (b) informing patients about uncertainty and (c) helping patients deal with uncertainty.Discussion and conclusions A variety of recommendations on how to orally communicate uncertainty are available, but most lack an evidence base. More substantial research is needed to assess the effects of the suggested communicative approaches. Until then, health-care providers may use our overview of communication strategies as a toolbox to optimize communication about uncertainty with patients.Patient or public contribution Results were presented to stakeholders (physicians) to check and improve their practical applicability. Show less
Introduction: Uncertainty is omnipresent in cancer care, including the ambiguity of diagnostic tests, efficacy and side effects of treatments, and/or patients' long-term prognosis. During second... Show moreIntroduction: Uncertainty is omnipresent in cancer care, including the ambiguity of diagnostic tests, efficacy and side effects of treatments, and/or patients' long-term prognosis. During second opinion consultations, uncertainty may be particularly tangible: doubts and uncertainty may drive patients to seek more information and request a second opinion, whereas the second opinion in turn may also affect patients' level of uncertainty. Providers are tasked to clearly discuss all of these uncertainties with patients who may feel overwhelmed by it. The aim of this study was to explore how oncologists communicate about uncertainty during second opinion consultations in medical oncology.Methods: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of audio-recorded consultations collected in a prospective study among cancer patients (N = 69) who sought a second opinion in medical oncology. We purposively selected 12 audio-recorded second opinion consultations. Any communication about uncertainty by the oncologist was double coded by two researchers and an inductive analytic approach was chosen to allow for novel insights to arise.Results: Seven approaches in which oncologists conveyed or addressed uncertainty were identified: (1) specifying the degree of uncertainty, (2) explaining reasons of uncertainty, (3) providing personalized estimates of uncertainty to patients, (4) downplaying or magnifying uncertainty, (5) reducing or counterbalancing uncertainty, and (6) providing support to facilitate patients in coping with uncertainty. Moreover, oncologists varied in their (7) choice of words/language to convey uncertainty (i.e., "I" vs. "we"; level of explicitness).Discussion: This study identified various approaches of how oncologists communicated uncertain issues during second opinion consultations. These different approaches could affect patients' perception of uncertainty, emotions provoked by it, and possibly even patients' behavior. For example, by minimizing uncertainty, oncologists may (un)consciously steer patients toward specific medical decisions). Future research is needed to examine how these different ways of communicating about uncertainty affect patients. This could also facilitate a discussion about the desirability of certain communication strategies. Eventually, practical and evidence-based guidance needs to be developed for clinicians to optimally inform patients about uncertain issues and support patients in dealing with these. Show less
Versluijs, Y.; Lemmers, M.; Brown, L.E.; Gonzalez, A.I.; Kortlever, J.T.P.; Ring, D. 2021
This study assessed the correlation of 9 questions addressing communication effectiveness (the Communication Effectiveness Questionnaire [CEQ]) with other patient-reported experience measures ... Show moreThis study assessed the correlation of 9 questions addressing communication effectiveness (the Communication Effectiveness Questionnaire [CEQ]) with other patient-reported experience measures (PREMs; satisfaction, perceived empathy) as well as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; pain intensity, activity tolerance) in patients with musculoskeletal illness or injury. In a cross-sectional study, 210 patients visiting an orthopedic surgeon completed the CEQ and measures of satisfaction with the visit, perceived empathy, pain intensity, and activity tolerance. We evaluated correlations between CEQ and other PREMs and CEQ and PROMs. We measured ceiling effects of the PREMs. Communication effectiveness correlated moderately with other PREMs such as satisfaction (rho = 0.54; P < .001) and perceived empathy (rho = 0.54; P < .001). Communication effectiveness did not correlate with PROMs: pain intensity (rho = -0.01; P = .93) and activity tolerance (rho = -0.05; P = .44). All of the experience measures have high ceiling effects: perceived empathy 37%, satisfaction 80%, and CEQ 46%. The observation of notable correlations of various PREMs, combined with their high ceiling effects, direct us to identify a likely common statistical construct (which we hypothesize as "relationship") accounting for variation in PREMs, and then develop a PREM which measures that construct in a manner that results in a Gaussian distribution of scores. At least within the limitations of current experience measures, there seems to be no association between illness (PROMs) and experience (PREMs). Show less
Purpose: This study focusses on identifying values and preferences of patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals who have dealt with lower limb amputation for no-option chronic limb... Show morePurpose: This study focusses on identifying values and preferences of patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals who have dealt with lower limb amputation for no-option chronic limb threatening ischemia. No-option chronic limb threatening ischemia is defined as limb ischemia for which no treatment options exist and where lower limb amputation is necessary in the short term. The values and preferences identified in this study can help improve decision-making processes.Patients and Methods: This was a qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews to gather data from patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals. Participants were selected from the patient and employee population of an academic medical center in The Netherlands. Nine patients and seven caregivers who dealt with lower limb amputation for no-option chronic limb threatening ischemia six to twelve months prior to the interview and were not cognitively impaired were selected. Nine healthcare professionals dealing with patients with no-option chronic limb threatening ischemia and lower limb amputation were selected.Results: Lower limb amputation was explicitly discussed late in the disease process, sometimes during an emergency setting. Patients stated goals were never discussed, healthcare professionals stated they were. The most important goal for patients was to live independently after lower limb amputation. Patients and caregivers feel healthcare professionals should be upfront about the possible necessity of lower limb amputation. Reasons to undergo lower limb amputation were absence of treatment options, pain and wanting to enjoy life again. Participants indicated accelerating lower limb amputation was not a viable option.Conclusion: All stakeholders reported overlapping values and preferences regarding main reasons for lower limb amputation, the primary goals after lower limb amputation, and the absence of a desire to accelerate lower limb amputation. The main difference in values and preferences is the preferred timing of discussing lower limb amputation. Show less
Boom, V.E.A.; Kamp, L.T. van der; Zuilen, A.D. van; Ranitz, W.L. de; Bos, W.J.; Jellema, W.T.; ... ; Kaasjager, K. 2020
Introduction eConsultation in nephrology is an innovative way for general practitioners (GPs) to consult a nephrologist. Studies have shown that questions from GPs can be answered and intended... Show moreIntroduction eConsultation in nephrology is an innovative way for general practitioners (GPs) to consult a nephrologist. Studies have shown that questions from GPs can be answered and intended referrals can be avoided by eConsultation. However, follow-up data are lacking. The primary aim of this study was therefore to assess whether patients for whom a referral to the outpatient clinic of a medical specialist was avoided in the short term were not then referred for the same problem within one year after the eConsultation. Methods All eConsultations sent between June 2017 and April 2018 to seven nephrologists in three different hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Exclusion criteria were duplications and missing data on follow-up. Data were obtained from the eConsultation application forms and from GP medical records. Results A total of 173 eConsultations were included. Of the 32 patients for whom a referral was initially prevented, 91% (95% confidence interval 75-98) had not been referred to a specialist for the same problem within one year after the eConsultation. Discussion eConsultation in the field of nephrology can prevent referrals in the long term. It can therefore contribute to a more modern and efficient health-care system in which chronic care is provided by GPs in close proximity to patients, while specialist support is easily available and accessible through eConsultation when necessary. Show less
Background: Compliance rates with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected alongside arthroplasty registries vary in the literature. We described the feasibility of a routinely collected... Show moreBackground: Compliance rates with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected alongside arthroplasty registries vary in the literature. We described the feasibility of a routinely collected set PROMs alongside the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Methods: The longitudinal Leiden Orthopaedics Outcomes of OsteoArthritis Study is a multicenter (7 hospitals), observational study including patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty (THA or TKA). A set of PROMs: Short Form-12, EuroQol 5 Dimensions, Hip/Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Oxford Hip/Knee Score was collected preoperatively and at 6, 12, 24 months, and every 2 years thereafter. Participation rates and response rates were recorded. Results: Between June 2012 and December 2014, 1796 THA and 1636 TKA patients were invited, of whom 1043 THA (58%; mean age 68 years [standard deviation, SD: 10]) and 970 TKA patients (59%; mean age 71 years [SD 9.5]) participated in the study. At 6 months, 35 THA/38 TKA patients were lost to follow-up. Response rates were 90% for THA (898/1000) and 89% for TKA (827/932) participants. At 1 and 2 years, 8 and 18 THA and 17 and 11 TKA patients were lost to follow-up, respectively. The response rates among those eligible were 87% (866/992) and 84% (812/972) for THA and 84% (771/917) and 83% (756/906) for TKA patients, respectively. The 2-year questionnaire was completed by 78.5% of the included THA patients and by 77.9% of the included TKA patients. Conclusions: About 60% of patients undergoing THA or TKA complete PROMs preoperatively, with more than 80% returning follow-up PROMs. To increase the participation rates, more efforts concerning the initial recruitment of patients are needed. Show less
Matsuda, A.; Inoue, K.; Momiyama, M.; Kobayashi, K.; Kubota, K.; Ohkubo, T.; ... ; Yamaoka, K. 2019
The 10-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI-10) questionnaire was used as an indirect measure of the patients' perception of the strength of their therapeutic connection... Show moreThe 10-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI-10) questionnaire was used as an indirect measure of the patients' perception of the strength of their therapeutic connection with their physician. The English version of the PEPPI-10 could serve as a valuable research tool for analyzing the relationship between patient and physician. The incidence of breast cancer is amongst the highest in Japan, and Patient Reported Outcome is often used as an outcome measure for breast cancer. It is particularly important to establish a strong patient-physician interaction for patients with breast cancer, since these patients require long-term treatment. We designed the present study to assess the reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the PEPPI-10 in female Japanese breast cancer outpatients. A cross-sectional study was performed at the Saitama Cancer Center, Japan. From August 2014 to August 2015, the Japanese versions of the PEPPI-10 that measure patient-perceived self-efficacy and the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ) that measure illness perception were used for 92 breast cancer patients who received outpatient chemotherapy (mean age: 52.9 years, Cancer Stage I or Stage II : 82.6%, receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: 69.6%). We found that the Japanese version of the PEPPI-10 scale had a high coefficient of internal consistency (Cronbach's a coefficient, 0.83) for reliability, and concurrent validity analysis indicated that the utility of PEPPI-10 was moderately correlated with that of the BIPQ. In conclusion, the Japanese version of the PEPPI-10 is a useful tool that can empower breast cancer outpatients during the course of their treatment. Show less
Kunneman, M.; LaVecchia, C.M.; Ospina, N.S.; Abu Dabrh, A.M.; Behnken, E.M.; Wilson, P.; ... ; Montori, V.M. 2019
Background Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self... Show moreBackground Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self-reported SDM measures. Methods We asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3-item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open-ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient. Results In Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores ("less" SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001). Conclusion Reflection-before-quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient-reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects. Show less
Noordman, J.; Driesenaar, J.A.; Bruinessen, I.R. van; Portielje, J.E.A.; Dulmen, S. van 2019
