CDC guidelines for prescribing opioids for chronic pain recommend that patients and clinicians engage in shared decision-making (SDM), a practice often described as clinicians working with patients to find treatment options that match patient preferences. Some experts have argued otherwise given limited efficacy of opioid use for chronic pain, the potential effects of long-term opioid therapy on patient's decision-making capacity, and the societal consequences of opioid diversion. Chronic pain care involves reaching a shared understanding of how the patient's pain affects living and how to change this situation. The conversation to achieve this shared understanding and to change the problematic situation of the patient is called Purposeful SDM. Purposeful SDM as a method of collaborative care is a useful and usable framework for patient-centered chronic pain care with or without prescription opioids. Chronic pain or long-term opioid therapy do not render patients unable to participate in Purposeful SDM. And yet, some regulatory tools intended to make opioid prescribing safer, when used punitively, may undermine both the trust that sustains the patient-clinician relationship and the possibility of SDM. There is considerable nuance in chronic pain management and opioid prescribing decisions. The Purposeful SDM framework is based on and contributes to a collaborative, non-punitive relationship between patient and clinician to make chronic pain care fit while avoiding unintended harm from unilateral treatment decisions.

Currently, there is no adult-specific decision aid (DA) to support decision-making regarding recurrent tonsillitis. This study intends to address this gap by piloting a prototype DA.

Randomised clinical trial.

Single centre trial at a tertiary otolaryngology department.

Forty-three patients were randomised to either the DA or Treatment as Usual (TAU) group.

Primary objective: To measure how patients rate the quality of their decision-making experience at the time of the decision and at follow-up (SURE scale).

The level of decisional satisfaction at the time of the decision and follow-up, as well as to explore the numbers of people opting for surgery for each study condition (Shared tool and patient feedback).

Quality: This study demonstrates no statistically significant difference in how patients rate the quality of their treatment decision between DA and TAU, both at baseline (p = 0.553) and follow-up (p = 0.062). Satisfaction: This study showed a statistically significant level of decisional satisfaction at the time the decision was made for Qu2 of the Shared tool (U = 113, p = 0.026). No other significant difference was found between participants who received the DA and TAU.

The DA is an acceptable and useful tool that could be incorporated into the pathway for recurrent tonsillitis, helping to eliminate physician implicit bias. However, preliminary qualitative evidence from this pilot study does not suggest that including the DA improves the quality of decision-making.

IRAS ID - 230 362.

Breast reconstruction is an essential consideration for patients with breast cancer undergoing a mastectomy. Patients commonly report inadequate education as an important cause of dissatisfaction with breast reconstructive care. Information sources for breast reconstruction vary in quality, accuracy, and validity. We sought to determine what academic and nonacademic resources exist supporting decision-making for patients undergoing breast reconstruction.

A search was conducted of both academic literature and nonacademic social media sources. Three academic databases and 5 social media platforms were searched using keywords. Three independent reviewers performed the selection and data extraction of sources that met the inclusion criteria.

A total of 1172 academic articles and 1419 nonacademic records were screened, with 14 and 9 included for final review, respectively. Of the 5 nonacademic mediums searched, none were included from TikTok and Instagram. One decision-making tool (DMT) was included from Twitter, 4 from YouTube, and 4 from Google. Overall, the quality of available DMTs was very good. The one included academic DMT had a mean DISCERN score of 5, whereas the 4 DMTs from Google and Twitter had a median DISCERN score of 4. YouTube videos were ranked using the modified DISCERN tool with a median score of 5.

Accessibility was found to be a significant barrier for patients in academic and nonacademic platforms with significant knowledge required to effectively search these platforms for resources. Efforts must be made to improve accessibility and awareness of these DMTs, as such tools are essential in shared decision-making.

The use of shared decision-making (SDM) in mental healthcare has been viewed as at least as important as its use in non-mental healthcare settings, but it still does not routinely take place in this setting. To further explore SDM processes with people with lived experience, we provide a qualitative meta-summary on patient-reported barriers and facilitators to participation in SDM within the context of mental healthcare.

Within the set of selected studies for a larger qualitative meta-summary, using five databases, we selected the studies that had surveyed patients with mental illness for further analysis in this paper. Search terms were based on the concepts: 'decision making', 'patient participation', 'patient perceptions' and 'study design' of patient reporting, including patient surveys, interviews and focus groups.

Out of the 90 studies that had been selected for the larger review, we selected 13 articles concerning mental illness for more detailed analysis in this review. In total, we identified 29 different influencing factors and we found 6 major barriers: 'Lack of choice', 'Not being respected as a person', 'Feeling stigma from physician', 'Disease burden', 'Power imbalance' and 'Low self-efficacy to participate'. 'Clear information provision about options', 'Being respected as a person, being taken into account', 'Good physician-patient relationship' and 'Belief in the importance of one's own role' were the main facilitators.

Stigma and self-stigma still seem to persist in mental healthcare and continue to suppress patients' self-efficacy to participate in SDM in this setting. There is much discussion of inclusion and diversity worldwide, and these themes are just as topical for patients with mental health problems. Further work seems necessary to eradicate all stigma and self-stigma in this setting when striving for care that could be 'as shared as possible'.

The authors wish to thank Mr. Walter Geuens, a person with lived experience in mental healthcare, for his careful reading and thorough feedback on the final paper.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is crucial in patient-centered healthcare services, but its integration into routine medical care remains limited. This study aimed to investigate patients' experience with SDM in both outpatient and inpatient settings, exploring how the quality of care provided by doctors and patient's trust in doctors influence SDM across different contexts.

This study utilized data from the regional cross-sectional surveys, including the 2019 Inpatient Experience and the 2021 Specialist Outpatient Experience survey in Hong Kong. Multivariable logistic regression and path analysis were conducted.

A total of 20,675 participants were included (inpatients: n = 8,275; outpatients: n = 12, 400) in this study. The results indicated that inpatients perceiving better quality of doctor's care were significantly more likely to participate in SDM (OR = 1.29, 95%CI = 1.26-1.47, p < 0.001), with trust in doctors significantly moderating this association. Conversely, among outpatients, a higher quality of doctor's care was significantly associated with decreased SDM involvement (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.88-1.00, p = 0.04), with trust in doctors serving as a mediator in suppressing this association. Additionally, both subsets indicated that females, the elderly, individuals with good health status, less-educated people, and those living alone were less likely to engage in SDM.

These findings underscore the importance of tailoring SDM implementation to specific contexts, acknowledging the different challenges within outpatient and inpatient settings. Building trust is key to promoting SDM, with added support for vulnerable groups to ensure their involvement in decision-making.

To promote shared decision-making (SDM) during discharge planning of patients with stroke, a patient decision aid (PtDA) was implemented in seven Dutch hospitals. This mixed-methods process evaluation assessed: 1) PtDA use, 2) the SDM process, 3) facilitators and barriers influencing health care professional (HCP) adoption of the PtDA, and 4) HCP experiences with the PtDA.

Rates of PtDA use were derived from hospital registries and PtDA log data. SDM levels in consultations were quantitatively assessed using OPTION-5 (score range 0-100); the SDM process was analyzed qualitatively. Facilitators and barriers were identified via the MIDI questionnaire. HCP experiences were explored through interviews.

PtDA use varied across hospitals, with 10-96 % of patients receiving it and 27-100 % of those ultimately using it. OPTION-5 scores were low in both pre-implementation (n = 68, median:0, Q1-Q3:0-0) and post-implementation consultations (n = 49, median:0, Q1-Q3:0-15). Barriers included lack of whole-team engagement and limited recognition of PtDA benefits. Frequent PtDA use was associated with HCP confidence and self-efficacy in SDM.

Successful PtDA implementation in stroke care requires whole-team engagement, emphasis on PtDA benefits, and enhancing HCP confidence and self-efficacy in SDM.

Highlighting positive SDM outcomes and patient benefits may encourage HCPs to adopt the PtDA.

Decision-making in lumbar surgery for degenerative conditions is influenced by various factors, including patient expectations and empowerment. The role of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in guiding these decisions is underexplored. This study aims to understand the perspectives of patients and spine surgeons in decision-making for lumbar surgery and explore their perspectives on the relevance and influence of pre- and post-surgery PROs.

An exploratory qualitative study was conducted between February 2022 and November 2023. A total of 15 patients with degenerative lumbar conditions and 9 spine surgeons from 5 tertiary public hospitals in Singapore were recruited. Data were analyzed using a framework analysis approach, ensuring validity through member checking, reflexive journals, and data source triangulation.

Three overarching categories emerged: "expectations and outcomes," "decision empowerment," and "surgical experiences." There is a shift toward shared decision-making, highlighting the importance of patient-centric approaches. Surgical decisions are primarily influenced by PROs, particularly health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain relief. Patients prioritize pain relief and improvements in daily functioning, while surgeons also emphasize avoiding postoperative complications. Decision support tools, including PRO data, are essential but need better accessibility and integration within clinical settings. Positive surgical experiences are driven by clear communication, trust with surgeons, swift recovery, and no regrets post-surgery.

Our study emphasizes the importance of patient-centered approaches in lumbar surgery decision-making, particularly regarding pre- and post-surgery PROs. Implementing these approaches may enhance patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes, urging the surgical community to prioritize informed, empathetic decision-making to improve healthcare quality.

We aimed to understand what patients, caregivers and clinicians identified as the most important information from their audio-recorded clinic visits and why.

We recruited patients, caregivers and clinicians from primary and speciality care clinics at an academic medical centre in New Hampshire, U.S. Participants reviewed a recording or transcript of their visit, identifying meaningful moments and the reasons why. Two researchers performed a summative content analysis of the data.

Sixteen patients, four with caregivers, from six clinicians participated. Patients, caregivers and clinicians identified a median of 7.5 (3-20), 12.5 (6-50) and 18 (4-31) meaningful visit moments, respectively. Moments identified were similar across stakeholders, including patient education, symptoms, recommendations and medications. Four themes emerged as a rationale for finding visit information meaningful: providing and receiving information, sharing the patient experience, forming a care plan, and providing emotional support. Clinicians rarely identified patient statements as important.

There was considerable agreement between patients, clinicians and caregivers regarding visit information that is most valuable. Patient contributions may be undervalued by clinicians.

These findings can be used to improve patient-centred visit communication by focusing visit summaries and decision support on information of the most value to participants.

First permanent molars (FPMs) remain the most affected teeth by dental conditions in childhood. Maintaining the health of FPMs should be prioritised by dental professionals. However, if subjected to unfavourable circumstances, FPMs can become compromised and impact the child negatively. In this article, we highlight current thinking and provide practical tips to prevent FPMs from becoming compromised. The importance of including the young person in decision-making and the influence different dental conditions might have on management of FPMs are discussed. Finally, the impact and treatment options available for FPMs should they become compromised are explored, focusing on the main question of whether to restore or extract these teeth.

We aim to provide an updated literature overview on patient-reported barriers and facilitators to participation in SDM across different patient groups and healthcare settings to uncover the 'common ground' and to reach for a more generalizable, uniform and inclusive insight in patients' perspective on participation in SDM.

We conducted a qualitative meta-summary, using five databases. Search terms were based on the concepts: 'decision-making', 'patient participation', 'patient perceptions' and 'study design' (of patient reporting).

We found 9265 unique references, selected 209 studies for further sampling and finally withheld 90 studies for further analysis in this review. In total, we identified 34 different barriers and facilitators. Based on most frequently reported barriers and facilitators, we defined four broad analytical themes corresponding to patients' shared expectations concerning doctors', patients' and others' facilitative roles in SDM: (1) 'Doctors explaining well', (2) 'Doctors listening well, and fostering a trusting relationship', (3) 'Patients being assertive, (4) 'Patients being socially supported'.

The majority of barriers and facilitators we found transcended differences in patient characteristics or healthcare setting, suggesting that patients are, overall, facing shared challenges and opportunities in SDM, that are mostly generalizable and irrespective of variabilities in decisional setting or patient group. We uncovered new trends such as patients' growing openness to assertiveness and the involvement of significant others, and highlighted some culture-based nuances, compared to earlier literature.

These new insights need to be integrated in SDM strategies so that they may serve the ethical imperative of a greater equality and inclusion of diverse patient groups in different SDM settings.

Shared decision-making is an imperative in chronic pain care. However, we know little about the decision-making process, especially in primary care where most chronic pain care is provided. We sought to understand decisional needs of people living with chronic pain in Canada.

We conducted a population-based cross-sectional online survey of random samples of adults living in Canada with chronic noncancer pain and registered with the Leger Marketing panel. We followed the International Association for Study of Pain definition of chronic pain (i.e., persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than three months). We used a stratified proportional random sampling based on the population and chronic pain prevalence of each province to achieve representativeness. Based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, we collected data on difficult decisions (i.e., decision with more than one option and no clear best option) related to their chronic pain condition, the level of decisional conflict associated with the most difficult decisions (i.e., Decisional Conflict Scale), the assumed and preferred role during the decision-making process (i.e., Control Preferences Scale), and respondents' characteristics. We used descriptive quantitative analyses of survey responses.

Of the 31,545 invited panellists, 2,666 met the eligibility criteria, and 1,649 respondents from the 10 Canadian provinces completed the survey. Respondents had diverse socio-demographic profiles. Mean age was 51.8 years (SD = 16.3). Half were men (51.4%), most lived in urban areas (87.8%), mean pain duration was 8.5 years (SD = 9.6), and respondents reported an average number of painful body regions of 2.3 (SD = 1.5). We observed that 96.7% of respondents faced at least one difficult decision across their care pathways. These difficult decisions were related to numerous issues from the medical consultation, diagnosis, treatment, and daily life. Almost half of respondents made their most difficult decision with a primary care physician. One third of respondents experienced a high level of clinically significant decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale score ≥ 37.5). Two-thirds of respondents self-reported having a collaborative role during their decision while three-quarters wanted this role.

People living with chronic pain in Canada have unmet decisional needs and need support to make optimal decisions to manage their chronic pain. Our findings will guide future development of interventions to implement shared decision-making, especially to support primary care where discussions about difficult decisions often occur.

Medical consultations with older patients often include triadic conversations and decision-making processes involving physicians, patients, and family members. The presence of family members may change the communication dynamics and therefore increase the complexity of the consultation and decision-making process.

This study explored associations between physicians' shared decision-making (SDM) behaviour and patients' and family members' participation in the decision-making process.

Using an observational design, we analysed 95 recorded consultations between medical specialists, patients aged ≥65 years, and accompanying family members at a Dutch hospital. The OPTIONMCC was used to assess the physicians' SDM behaviour and patients' and family members' levels of involvement in SDM.

We found a strong positive correlation between physicians' behaviour and patients' and family members' participation in SDM (0.68 and 0.64, respectively, p < .01). Family members were more involved in SDM for patients aged 80 and older.

While not asserting causation, our study suggests physicians potentially play a facilitating role in shaping the SDM process together with proactive contributions from patients and family members.

The results offer new insights into triadic SDM and provide suggestions for refining the OPTIONMCC. Further research is recommended into participants' mutual directional influences in triadic SDM.

It is unknown how visual decision aids support communication and shared decision-making in everyday clinical practice, and how they are perceived by patients with varying levels of health literacy and their healthcare providers. Recently, three visual decision aids have been developed for renal replacement treatment, osteoarthritis of the knee, and osteoarthritis of the hip. This study aims to explore how patients and healthcare providers use and value these visual decision aids.

The evaluation of the visual decision aids was performed by coding video-recorded outpatient consultations (n = 35), by conducting reflective practice interviews with healthcare providers (n = 9), and through interviews with patients (n = 29). Consultations were coded using the 5-item OPTION instrument to measure shared decision-making, and self-developed items based on the visual decision aids and user guide.

Both healthcare providers and patients valued the use of the visual decision aids, especially the overview page with all treatment options. Accordingly, it was observed that most providers mainly used the overview page. However, providers in nephrology discussed the individual treatment pages more often than providers in osteoarthritis care. This study also showed that most providers were unfamiliar with the user guide for the visual decision aids.

Visual decision aids for nephrology and osteoarthritis care seem particularly useful for patients with limited health literacy. Healthcare providers in this study mainly used the overview page of the visual decision aids. Although this is valued by both providers and patients, it is also important to discuss the individual treatment pages, including the pros and cons, with patients. This study also points to differences between outpatient clinics or departments in the use and implementation of the visual decision aids. The visual decision aids for osteoarthritis are used to a limited extent. In nephrology clinics, the visual decision aid is implemented.

Shared decision-making is recommended as a person-centred approach to decision-making in antenatal care. Little is known about the implementation of shared decision-making in antenatal care.

An exploratory study to understand how shared decision-making is implemented in antenatal clinics and whether body mass index influences maternity clinicians' use of shared decision-making when providing antenatal care for women.

Twenty-six antenatal clinic consultations were audio-recorded with maternity clinicians and women with body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2, and a comparison group of women with body mass index 18.5-24.9 kg/m2. Data were analysed quantitatively using the OPTION12 scale. Narrative case studies are presented to compare shared decision-making behaviour related to induction of labour.

Twelve clinicians and 26 pregnant women were recruited to the study. The total scores ranged from 0 to 24, with a mean score of 9 and a median of 9.5 indicating low implementation of shared decision-making by clinicians and limited involvement of women in decision-making. No difference was observed in OPTION12 scores in decision-making for women by body mass index.

This study suggests that shared decision-making is limited in the antenatal clinic setting for all women, regardless of body mass index. Further research is required to confirm the findings of this exploratory study.

The perspectives of women with body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2 informed many aspects of this study including the language/terminology adopted by researchers. A consumer group reviewed the language used in the study materials, to ensure readability and avoidance of stigmatising terminology.

This study aimed to investigate how doctor-patient communication, trust in doctors impacted patients' experience and satisfaction in shared decision-making (SDM).

This study is based on the data from a cross-sectional survey (n = 12,401) conducted in 27 public specialist outpatient clinics in Hong Kong.

The multivariable regression models revealed that doctors' better communication skills were associated with lower decision-making involvement (odd ratio, 0.75 [95 % CI, 0.88-0.94], P < .001) but higher satisfaction with involvement (odd ratio, 6.88 [95 % CI, 5.99-7.93], P < .001). Similarly, longer consultation durations were associated with reduced involvement in decision-making (odd ratio, 0.71 [95 % CI, 0.66-0.73], P < .001) but increased satisfaction with involvement (odd ratio, 1.91 [95 % CI, 1.80-2.04], P < .001). Trust in doctors significantly mediated these associations, except for the association between consultation duration and patients' satisfaction with decision-making involvement.

Doctors' better communication skills and longer consultations might not necessarily increase patient involvement in SDM but correlated with increased satisfaction with involvement. Trust in doctors emerged as a mediator for participation and satisfaction in decision-making.

Clinics should consider patients' preferences and capabilities when tailoring communication strategies about decision-making and optimizing patient satisfaction.

To analyse communication about the natural course of self-limiting illnesses, as part of shared decision-making (SDM), in general practice consultations.

Natural history communication and SDM (using Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-12) and Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) items) were rated by two raters using transcripts from the UK 'One in a Million' database.

Of 55 eligible consultations, a 'wait and see' option was mentioned in 27 consultations (49 %), using varying terminology, with a general recovery timeframe provided in 21. Mean OPTION-12 score (of 100) was 25.2 (SD=7.4), indicating a low level of SDM. Mean ACEPP score (out of 5) was 1.2 (SD=0.5), indicating minimal communication about the options' benefits and harms. Recovery likelihood was quantified in only two consultations, while harms were quantified in none.

Communication about the natural history of self-limiting illnesses was generally limited. The 'wait and see' approach, along with its benefits and harms, was typically not explicitly presented as an option for patients to consider.

Improving clinicians' awareness of the importance of and skills for communicating the natural history of self-limiting illnesses, as part of SDM, may facilitate informed decision-making in managing these conditions.

This study investigated whether providers respected patient's autonomy, investigating providers' pattern of decisions and their associated characteristics.

Cross-sectional study, conducted through anonymous questionnaire with hypothetical clinical cases, presented to providers at one oncology center. Decision-making patterns were pre-stablished accordingly to the response´s pattern.

Of 151 responses, decisions patterns were paternalistic in 38%, shared in 38%, obstinate in 10.6% and consumerist in 13.2%. The consumerist providers reported never having participated in an EOL class in 35% and 30% had never trained in palliative care. Among providers with paternalistic pattern, 35.1% had never attended ethic lectures. In the obstinate group, 31.2% had no training in palliative care. When asked how subjects saw themselves about their pattern of decision, 100% of obstinate, 95% of consumerist and 89% of paternalistic patterns exhibited cognitive dissonance.

Significative differences between decisions and how the providers judge themselves were observed.

This study aimed to investigate how shared decision-making (SDM) and the use of different types of outcome information are applied in routine care management for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) in an academic outpatient clinic.

This qualitative study used the following: (a) observations of clinical encounters (N = 23) between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), (b) interviews with those patients (N = 17) and (c) interviews with those HCPs (N = 7). HCPs were not trained in SDM before the study. Audio recordings were transcribed literally. Transcriptions were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis.

Outcome information was hardly discussed with patients, apart from clinical outcome information at an individual level, such as MRI or lab results. This use of clinical outcome information did not automatically lead to a process of SDM. HCPs tended to implicitly present choices to patients after signalling and discussing 'problems'. In the interviews, patients indicated that they tended to consent to the advice given by HCPs and to prefer not too much change in treatment plans. However, they also emphasized the importance of being informed about available options with benefits and harms. We observed multiple discussions about patients' preferences, especially related to patients' experiences and priorities.

Overall, SDM and the use of different types of outcome information did not seem to be enacted in routine care management for people with MS, mostly because choices were not explicitly mentioned or discussed. However, discussions about patients' experiences and priorities did take place. Training HCPs further and developing patient information seem reasonable steps to proceed.

People with MS contributed as research participants and provided us with their experiences in interviews. Furthermore, representatives of two patient organizations contributed to the study by reviewing the interview protocol for people with MS.

To explore (1) documentation of shared decision-making (SDM) in diagnostic testing for dementia in electronic patient records (EPR) in general practice and (2) study whether documentation of SDM is related to specific patient characteristics.

In this retrospective observational study, EPRs of 228 patients in three Dutch general practices were explored for the documentation of SDM elements using Elwyn's model (team talk, option talk, decision talk). Patient characteristics (gender, age, comorbidities, chronic polypharmacy, the number of consultations on memory complaints) and decision outcome (wait-and-see, GP diagnostics, referral) were also extracted.

In EPRs of most patients (62.6 %), at least one SDM element was documented. Most often this concerned team talk (61.6 %). Considerably less often option talk (4.3 %) and decision talk (12.8 %) were documented. SDM elements were more frequently documented in patients with lower comorbidity scores and patients with a relatively high number of consultations. Decision talk was more frequently documented in referred patients.

Patients' and significant others' needs, goals, and wishes on diagnostic testing for dementia are often documented in EPRs.

Limited documentation of option and decision talk stresses the need for future SDM interventions to facilitate timely dementia diagnosis.

A substantial majority of patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer consists of individuals 65-year-old or above. Emerging treatment approaches, which utilize genomics-guided therapy and innovative biomarkers, are currently in development. Given the numerous choices in the metastatic context, it is necessary to adopt a personalized approach to decision-making for these patients.

The authors provide a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature on the use of systemic anticancer treatments in older women, specifically those aged 65 and above, who have metastatic breast cancer, focusing on the reported effectiveness and adverse effects of these treatments in this population.

The evidence to treat older patients with metastatic breast cancer primarily relies on subgroup analyses, whose interpretation should be approached with caution. In several clinical trials subgroup analysis, it has been observed that this population seem to have comparable benefits and toxicities to younger patients, but real-world data have showed older women exhibit worse rates of survival compared to younger women. Multiple factors are likely involved in this, but we postulate this is related to lower rates of guideline concordant, and factors such as comorbidity, lack of social supports, malnutrition, and geriatric factors like frailty and/or vulnerability. This underscores the importance of a broader assessment for patients with a geriatric perspective and involvement of multi-disciplinary team.

Shared decision-making has been increasingly discussed as a communication practice within veterinary medicine, and it is gaining more traction for diagnostic and treatment planning conversations and specifically offering a spectrum of care. This teaching tip describes the data from an investigation of veterinarians' shared decision-making in a pre-test/post-test communication skills training intervention that used a client-centered, skills-based communication approach. Practice teams from a purposive sample of four companion animal veterinary clinics in Texas participated in a 15-month communication skills intervention, including interactive group workshops and one-on-one communication coaching. To assess the outcome of the intervention, for nine participating veterinarians, appointments recorded pre- (n = 85) and post-intervention (n =  85) were analyzed using the Observer OPTION 5 instrument to assess shared decision-making. The intervention effect was evaluated using mixed logistic regression, adjusting for appointment type. The communication intervention did not significantly impact participating veterinarians' demonstration of shared decision-making (pre = 25.42, n = 55; post = 28.03, n = 56; p = 0.36). Appointment type was significantly associated with veterinarians' OPTION 5 scores (p = .0004) and health problem appointments (OPTION 5 = 30.07) demonstrated greater shared decision-making than preventive care appointments (OPTION 5 = 22.81). Findings suggest that client-centered, skills-based training traditionally used in veterinary curricula and continuing education may not foster the use of shared decision-making, which is a higher-order communication approach that may require a dedicated process-oriented training. This teaching tip highlights the need for a targeted stepwise approach to teach shared decision-making.

Prenatal genetic screens and diagnostic tests are vital components of prenatal care. The first prenatal visit is a critical time in the decision-making process when patients decide whether to use these tests in addition to address a series of other essential prenatal care aspects. We conducted this study to examine the role of a shared decision-making (SDM) instrument to support these discussions.

We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of patients allocated to an SDM tool or usual care at their first prenatal visit. Participants completed a baseline survey to measure decision-making needs and preferences. Direct observation was conducted and analyzed using the OPTION scale to measure SDM during prenatal genetic testing discussions.

Levels of SDM were similar across groups (P = 0.081). The highest levels of SDM were observed during screening test discussions (NEST 2.4 ± 0.9 v. control 2.6 ± 1.0). Lowest levels were observed in discussions about patients' preference for risk versus diagnostic information (NEST 1.0 ± 1.1 v. control 1.2 ± 1.3).

Study findings demonstrate the need for targeted patient-focused and provider-focused efforts to improve SDM to enhance patients' informed decision making about these options. Importantly, patients' baseline knowledge and attitudes need to be considered given that patients with less knowledge may need more carefully crafted communication.

Choices about whether, when, and how to use prenatal genetic tests are highly preference-based decisions, with patients' baseline attitudes about these options as a major driver in health care discussions.The decision-making process is also shaped by patient preferences regarding a shared or informed decision-making process for medical decisions that are highly personal and have significant ramifications for obstetric outcomes.There is a need to develop targeted efforts to improve decision making and enhance patients' ability to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic tests in early pregnancy.

Greater pain self-efficacy (PSE) is associated with reduced pain, fewer limitations, and increased quality of life after treatment for orthopedic conditions. The aims of this study were to (1) assess if PSE improves during a visit with an orthopedic surgeon and (2) identify modifiable visit factors that are associated with an increase in PSE.

We performed a prospective observational study of orthopedic clinic visits at a multispecialty clinic from February to May 2022. New patients who presented to one of six orthopedic surgeons were approached for the study. Patients who provided consent completed a pre-visit questionnaire including the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) and demographic questions. A trained research member recorded the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making Instrument (OPTION-5) score, number of questions asked, and visit duration. Immediately after the visit, patients completed a post-visit questionnaire consisting of the PSEQ and Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS).

Of 132 patients enrolled, 61 (46%) had improved PSE after the orthopedic visit, with 38 (29%) having improvement above a clinically significant threshold. There were no significant differences between patients with increased PSE and those without increased PSE when comparing the PICS, OPTION-5, questions asked, or visit duration.

Almost half of the patients had improvement in PSE during an orthopedic visit. The causal pathway to how to improve PSE and the durability of the improved PSE have implications in strategies to improve patient outcomes in orthopedic surgery, such as communication methods and shared decision-making. Future research can focus on studying different interventions that facilitate improving PSE. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(4):e197-e203.].

This study uses the diffusion of innovations (DOI) theory to comprehensively understand the adoption of shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical practice, specifically focusing on the 'knowledge' and 'persuasion' stages within DOI. We aim to understand the challenges and dynamics associated with SDM adoption, offering insights for more patient-centred decision-making in healthcare.

This qualitative study employs a modified framework analysis approach, integrating ethnographic and interview data from prior research, along with additional interviews. The framework used is based on the DOI theory.

This study was conducted in the obstetrics and gynaecology department of a tertiary teaching hospital in the Eastern region of the Netherlands. It included interviews with 20 participants, including gynaecologists, obstetrics registrars and junior doctors currently practising in the department. Additionally, data from prior research conducted within the same department were incorporated, ensuring the maintenance of contextual consistency.

Findings reveal a complex interplay between SDM's benefits and challenges. Clinicians value SDM for upholding patient autonomy and enhancing medical practice, viewing it as valuable for medical decision-making. Decision aids are seen as advantageous in supporting treatment decisions. Challenges include compatibility issues between patient and clinician preferences, perceptions of SDM as time-consuming and difficult and limitations imposed by the rapid pace of healthcare and its swift decisions. Additionally, perceived complexity varies by situation, influenced by colleagues' attitudes, with limited trialability and sparsely observed instances of SDM.

Clinicians' decision to adopt or reject SDM is multifaceted, shaped by beliefs, cognitive processes and contextual challenges. Cognitive dissonance is critical as clinicians reconcile their existing practices with the adoption of SDM. Practical strategies such as practice assessments, open discussions about SDM's utility and reflective practice through professional development initiatives empower clinicians to make the best informed decision to adopt or reject SDM.

This study explores how shared decision-making (SDM) is integrated in undergraduate nursing and medical education.

A dual-method design was applied. The integration of SDM in medicine and nursing education programs (i.e. SDM on paper) was explored through document analyses; the integration of SDM in curricula (i.e. SDM in class) through interviews with teachers and curriculum coordinators (N = 19).

A majority of the education programs featured SDM, mostly non-explicit. In curricula SDM was generally implicitly featured in compulsory courses across all study years. SDM was often integrated into preexisting theories and models and taught through various methods and materials. Generally, teachers and supervisors were not trained in SDM themselves. They assessed students' competence in SDM in a summative manner.

Overall, SDM was featured in undergraduate nursing and medical education, however, very implicitly.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been presented as the preferred approach for decisions where there is more than one acceptable option and has been identified a priority feature of high-quality patient-centered care. Considering the foundation of trust between general practitioners (GPs) and patients and the variety of diseases in primary care, the primary care context can be viewed as roots of SDM. GPs are requesting training programs to improve their SDM skills leading to a more patient-centered care approach. Because of the high number of training programs available, it is important to overview these training interventions specifically for primary care and to explore how these training programs are evaluated.

This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. Eight different databases were used in December 2022 and updated in September 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using ICROMS. Training effectiveness was analyzed using the Kirkpatrick evaluation model and categorized according to training format (online, live or blended learning).

We identified 29 different SDM training programs for GPs. SDM training has a moderate impact on patient (SMD 0.53 95% CI 0.15-0.90) and observer reported SDM skills (SMD 0.59 95%CI 0.21-0.97). For blended training programs, we found a high impact for quality of life (SMD 1.20 95% CI -0.38-2.78) and patient reported SDM skills (SMD 2.89 95%CI -0.55-6.32).

SDM training improves patient and observer reported SDM skills in GPs. Blended learning as learning format for SDM appears to show better effects on learning outcomes than online or live learning formats. This suggests that teaching facilities designing SDM training may want to prioritize blended learning formats. More homogeneity in SDM measurement scales and evaluation approaches and direct comparisons of different types of educational formats are needed to develop the most appropriate and effective SDM training format.

PROSPERO: A systematic review of shared-decision making training programs in a primary care setting. PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023393385 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023393385 .

Patients' preferences, values and contexts are important elements of the shared decision-making (SDM) process. We captured those elements into the concept of 'personal perspective elicitation' (PPE), which reflects the need to elicit patients' preferences, values and contexts in patient-clinician conversations. We defined PPE as: 'the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or contexts potentially relevant to decision-making'. Our goal was to operationalise the concept of PPE through the evaluation of preferences, values and contexts and explore how PPE occurs in clinical encounters.

Cross-sectional study: observational coding based on a novel coding scheme of audio-recorded outpatient clinical encounters where encounter patient decision aids were applied.

We audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions at three Dutch outpatient clinics. PPE was analysed using a novel observational coding scheme, distinguishing preferences, contexts and four Armstrong taxonomy value types (global, decisional, external and situational). We measured SDM using the Observer OPTION5.

Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians.

We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION5 score was 57.5 (SD:10.1). The audio-recordings gave a rich illustration of preferences, values and contexts that were discussed in the patient-clinician interactions. Examples of identified global values: appearance, beliefs, personality traits. Decisional values were related to the process of decision-making. External values related to asking advice from for example, the clinician or significant others. An identified situational value: a new job ahead. Contexts related to how the illness impacted the life (eg, sexuality, family, sports, work life) of patients.

The operationalisation of PPE, an important aspect of SDM, explores which preferences, values and contexts were discussed during patient-clinician interactions where an ePDA was used. The coding scheme appeared feasible to apply but needs further refinement.

Medical communication is an effective instrument for the medical practice. Due to the low status that medical communication still has within medicine and medical education, many physicians do not know how to use this instrument professionally. Using medical communication in a way that patients are well informed and involved is a prerequisite for them to make self-determined decisions. In this paper I analyze a consultation in an oncology ward to show the pitfalls of medical communication, especially in triadic communication, based on a case study to work out suggestions for optimization from the transcript. Mistakes in conducting conversations, which can be recognized as such in theory, unfortunately still happen in practice, which is why this case study is intended as an invitation to critically reflect on one's own conduct of conversations. The conclusion contains suggestions for the preparation as well as the conduct of the consultation during medical rounds.

The occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

To assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

We conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed.

In the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION12 item) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION12 as a dependent variable.

We included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION12 scores was 7.7 of 100 points (P < 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION12 score except for education level (p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION12 score (P = 0.033).

Most characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used.

Most sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making.Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used.SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.

In the field of healthcare delivery, shared decision making (SDM) refers to a collaborative process, wherein both patients and the healthcare professionals mutually work to make informed and consensus decisions with reference to the kind of medical care that will be administered to patients. The purpose of the current review is to explore SDM in health care, ascertain the role of medical education, and identify the ways to train and assess undergraduate medical students in competencies pertaining to SDM. An extensive search of all materials related to the topic was carried out on the PubMed and Google Scholar search engines and a total of 29 articles were selected based on their suitability with the current review objectives and analyzed. Keywords used in the search include learning resources in the title alone only (viz. shared decision making [ti] AND patient [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND medical education [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND assessment [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND self-assessment [ti]; shared decision making [ti]; shared decision making [ti]). In the domain of medical education, the promotion of SDM essentially will require a multipronged approach to enable its integration into the medical curriculum. However, we must remember that mere teaching-learning methods would not improve it unless they are supplemented with assessment methods, otherwise, we will fail to deliver sustained results. In conclusion, SDM in medical education and healthcare industry represents a transformative shift from the traditional paradigm to a patient-centered approach that empowers both patients and healthcare providers, including budding medical students. The need of the hour is to advocate and encourage structured integration of SDM in the medical curriculum and support the same with periodic assessments.

To improve Shared decision-making (SDM) regarding personalized post-treatment surveillance, the Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid (BCS-PtDA), integrating personalized risk information, was developed and implemented in eight hospitals. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to (1) assess the implementation and participation rates, (2) identify facilitators and barriers for use by health care professionals (HCPs), (3) quantify the observed level of SDM, and (4) evaluate risk communication and SDM application in consultations.

Implementation and participation rates and patients' BCS-PtDA use were calculated using hospital registry data and BCS-PtDA log data. HCPs' perspective on facilitators and barriers were collected using the MIDI framework. Observed SDM levels in consultation transcripts were quantified using the OPTION-5 scale. Thematic analysis was performed to assess consultation content.

The average PtDA implementation and participation rates were, respectively, 26% and 61%. HCPs reported that the PtDA supported choice awareness. Reported barriers for implementation were mainly increased workload and a lack of perceived benefits. The consultation analysis (n = 64) showed patients were offered a choice, but deliberation was lacking. Risk communication was generally adequate.

When the BCS-PtDA was used, patients were clearly given a choice regarding their post-treatment surveillance, but information provision and SDM application can be improved.

There is a growing interest in the involvement of family members of older patients with cancer in decision-making processes. The aim of this study is to identify how and to what extent family members, together with patients and physicians, are involved in triadic decision-making processes in clinical practice.

This study was conducted using an exploratory observational design. The Observer Patient Involvement Scale for patients with Multiple Chronicle Conditions (OPTIONMCC) was used to assess the interaction in triadic decision-making between patients, family members, and physicians. Physicians' behaviour was scored on a Likert-scale ranging from 0 (not observed) to 4 (executed to a high standard), while the behaviour of patients and their family members was scored on a scale from 0 (no or minimum participation) to 2 (active participation). Atlas.ti software was used to facilitate coding, and the SPSS statistical analysis platform was used to explore correlations between the shared decision-making (SDM) skills of the physician and the participation of patients and their family members.

In total, ten physicians performed 25 consultations with older patients and 30 family members. Patients showed higher levels of participation in the SDM process than family members (OPTIONMCC mean scores 0.96 vs 0.61). Physicians' SDM skills were observed at a low or moderate skill level (OPTIONMCC mean score 1.81). Exploratory correlation analysis showed that higher physician scores were related to higher levels of both patients' and family members' involvement in the decision-making process. The level of family members' involvement in SDM varied from no involvement at all to active involvement. Qualitative analysis of family involvement revealed that relatives are likely to: emphasize patients' values and goals of care; inquire about different treatment options; assist in the deliberation process; and ask for clarification of the further medical process. Physicians showed responsive behaviour towards family members but seldom actively involved them in the SDM process.

The study findings suggest that there is a need to include strategies to facilitate family involvement in current SDM models for older patients with cancer. Healthcare professionals in geriatric oncology might benefit from additional training covering family dynamics and managing challenging situations.

Shared decision making (SDM) is considered fundamental to person-centred care. However, applying SDM may be a challenge for residents in general practice, since it is a complex competence that requires the integration of knowledge and skills from several competency domains.

To support learning of SDM during medical residency, we aimed to gain insight in Dutch residents' observed and perceived SDM performance in general practice.

We evaluated residents' SDM performance from an observer, resident, and patient perspective. Consultations of first- and third-year residents were recorded. Trained observers used the validated Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) scale to assess observed SDM performance of residents in 98 actual recorded consultations. Perceived SDM performance was evaluated by residents and patients completing validated SDM questionnaires, supplemented with questions about (the context of) the consultation and perceived relevance of SDM immediately after the consultation. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics (mean, SD, minimums, and maximums) and explorative bivariate analyses.

The residents' observed mean SDM performance was 19.1 (range, 0-100, SD = 10.9), mean resident self-reported SDM performance was 56.9 (range, 0-100, SD = 18.5), and mean patient-reported SDM performance was 73.3 (range, 0-100, SD = 26.8). We found a significant and positive correlation between observed SDM performance and residents' perceived relevance of SDM for the consultation (t = 4.571, P ≤ 0.001) and the duration of the consultation (r = 0.390, P ≤ 0.001).

This study showed that there is room for increasing awareness of the potential incongruence between observed and perceived SDM performance during medical residency, in order to facilitate the implementation of SDM in clinical practice.

To support the optimisation of supervised exercise therapy (SET) in patients with intermittent claudication, we developed personalised outcomes forecasts (POFs), which visualise estimated walking distance and quality of life for individual patients. The POFs may enable healthcare professionals, such as physical and exercise therapists, to improve shared decision-making and patient outcomes.

To assess differences in patient outcomes (functional walking distance, maximal walking distance and health-related quality of life) and the level of shared decision-making before and after the implementation of POFs in the conservative treatment of patients with intermittent claudication.

An interrupted time series design was used to compare preimplementation and postimplementation differences on patient outcomes. Using routinely collected data, differences from baseline to 6 months were compared between patients before and patients after the implementation. To compare levels of shared decision-making, we conducted observations of initial consults within a sample of physical or exercise therapists both before and after the implementation. Audiorecords of observations were scored on shared decision-making using the OPTION-5 instrument.

Differences in improvements between patients with whom POFs were discussed (n=317) and patients before the implementation of POFs (n=721) did not reach statistical significance for both functional walking distance (experimental vs. control=+23%, p=0.11) and maximal walking distance (experimental vs. control=+21%, p=0.08). For health-related quality of life, the POFs-informed patients showed a statistically significant greater improvement of 4% (p=0.04). Increased levels of shared decision-making were observed in postimplementation consults (n=20) when compared with preimplementation consults (n=36), as the median OPTION-5 total score showed a statistically significant increase from 45 to 55 points (p=0.01).

Integrating POFs into daily practice of SET for patients with intermittent claudication could assist in improving health-related quality of life and enhancing patient involvement. Using POFs did not result in statistically significant different improvements between groups on walking distances.

NL8838.

Children with sickle cell disease (SCD) face various healthcare choices to be made during the disease process that may impact their lives. Shared decision-making (SDM) could improve their health outcomes. We assessed if, and to what extent, paediatricians engage children with SCD and/or their parents in the decision-making process. In this observational cross-sectional study, paediatric SCD patients and their parents visiting the outpatient paediatrics clinic of a university hospital participated in a SDM baseline measurement. Two evaluators independently and objectively analysed the level of patient involvement in decision-making from the audio-recordings of the consultations using the OPTION-5 instrument, a 0-20-point scale from which scores are usually expressed as a percentage of ideal SDM. The level of SDM, as perceived by patients, parents and paediatricians, was appreciated using the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc questionnaires, respectively. Scores could range from 0% (no SDM) to 100% (exemplary SDM). Twenty-four consultations in which a decision needed to be made about SCD treatment were audiotaped and analysed; six were from each paediatrician. The group consisted of 17 male and 7 female patients from various cultural backgrounds between 2 and 17 years old, with a mean age of 9.4 years (SD 4.2). Median OPTION-5 scores were 25.0% [IQR] 20.0-40.0%; range 0-55%). Median SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc scores were 56.7% (IQR 39.4-88.9%) and 68.9% (IQR 57.8-77.8%), respectively.

Although subjective scores of SDM were fair, the objectively scored level of SDM among children suffering from SCD leaves room for improvement. This may be realized by increasing knowledge about the benefits of SDM, child-centred SDM interventions and SDM-training for paediatricians that takes into account the complexity of intercultural challenges and risk communication between stakeholders.

• Children that suffer from sickle cell disease (SCD) are more vulnerable to factors that negatively impact the care that they receive as well as suboptimal health outcomes. • Shared decision-making (SDM) can help children participate in a collaborative decision-making process about their preferred treatment options and improve their health outcomes.

• The level of participation in the decision-making process for patients suffering from SCD and the families that they belong to leaves room for improvement. The impact of intercultural challenges and the quality and consistency of risk-communication between stakeholders in paediatric SDM needs further exploration. • Paediatricians are more confident about their ability to involve the child and parents compared to how children and their parents experience their level of involvement in a shared decision-making process.

This study investigated provider-related attributes of shared decision-making (SDM). It studied how physicians rank SDM cases compared to other cases, taking 'job satisfaction' and 'complexity' as ranking criteria.

Ten vignettes representing three cases of SDM, three cases dealing with patients' emotions and four with technical problems were designed to conduct a modified ordinal preference elicitation study. Gynaecologists and trainees ranked the vignettes for 'job satisfaction' or 'complexity'. Results were analysed by comparing the top three and down three ranked cases for each type of case using exact p-values obtained with custom-made randomisation tests.

Participants experienced more satisfaction significantly from performing technical cases than cases dealing with emotions or SDM. Moreover, technical cases were perceived as less complex than those dealing with emotions. However, results were inconclusive about whether gynaecologists find SDM complex.

Findings suggest gynaecologists experience lower satisfaction with SDM tasks, possibly due to them falling outside their comfort zone. Integrating SDM into daily routines and promoting culture change favouring dealing with non-technical problems might help mitigate issues in SDM implementation.

Our novel study assesses SDM in the context of task appraisal, illuminating the psychology of health professionals and providing valuable insights for implementation science.

Patient involvement in care is a major component of high quality of care and is becoming recognized worldwide with many beneficial for improving patient outcomes. However, a little is known about patient involvement in the Middle East region and Saudi Arabia in particular.

To evaluate patients' perceptions of their involvement during their interactions with healthcare providers in Saudi Arabia.

A qualitative exploratory study using semi structured interview was conducted from February 2022 to March 2022. Responses were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

We conducted seven interviews with patients with diabetes ranging in age from 19 to 69 years old. We identified the following themes:1) patients' perceptions of their involvement in care, 2) barriers to patient involvement, 3) effective communication, 4) empathy, and 5) culture. We found that patients had minimal knowledge of patient involvement in care.

There is a clear need to improve education and awareness of patient involvement in Saudi Arabia. By educating patients about the possibilities of patient involvement and explaining their role it will make it easier for patients to understand appropriate levels of involvement. In addition, there is a need to understand the patient-centred care culture in Saudi Arabia through establishing frameworks with the focus on culture and patient-centred healthcare delivery.

Delivering high-quality, patient-centered cancer care remains a challenge. Both the National Academy of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommend shared decision making to improve patient-centered care, but widespread adoption of shared decision making into clinical care has been limited. Shared decision making is a process in which a patient and the patient's health-care professional weigh the risks and benefits of different options and come to a joint decision on the best course of action for that patient on the basis of their values, preferences, and goals for care. Patients who engage in shared decision making report higher quality of care, whereas patients who are less involved in these decisions have statistically significantly higher decisional regret and are less satisfied. Decision aids can improve shared decision making-for example, by eliciting patient values and preferences that can then be shared with clinicians and by providing patients with information that may influence their decisions. However, integrating decision aids into the workflows of routine care is challenging. In this commentary, we explore 3 workflow-related barriers to shared decision making: the who, when, and how of decision aid implementation in clinical practice. We introduce readers to human factors engineering and demonstrate its potential value to decision aid design through a case study of breast cancer surgical treatment decision making. By better employing the methods and principles of human factors engineering, we can improve decision aid integration, shared decision making, and ultimately patient-centered cancer outcomes.

The majority of patients with perinatal depression (PND) in China do not receive adequate treatment. As forming a therapeutic alliance with patients is crucial for depression treatment, shared decision-making (SDM) shows promise in promoting patients' uptake of evidence-based mental health services, but its impact on patient outcomes and implementation in real-world maternal care remain uncertain. Therefore, this study aims to develop and evaluate an interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM) model for PND to enhance maternal mental health services.

This study contains four research phases: feasibility testing (Phase 1), toolkit development (Phase 2), usability evaluation (Phase 3), and effectiveness evaluation (Phase 4). During the development stage, focus group interviews will be conducted with expectant and new mothers, as well as maternal care providers for feasibility testing. A toolkit, including a patient decision aid along with its user guide and training materials, will be developed based on the findings of Phase 1 and syntheses of up-to-date evidence and appraised by the Delphi method. Additionally, a cognitive task analysis will be used for assessing the usability of the toolkit. During the evaluation stage, a prospective randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design will be used to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the IP-SDM care model. The study targets to recruit 410 expectant and new mothers who screen positive for depression. They will be randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the intervention group will receive decision aid, decision coaching, and clinical consultation, in addition to usual services, while the control group will receive usual services. The primary outcome is the quality of decision-making process, and the secondary outcomes include SDM, mental health service utilization and costs, depressive symptoms, and health-related quality of life. In-depth interviews will be used to explore the facilitating and hindering factors of SDM.

This study will develop an IP-SDM care model for PND that can be implemented in maternal care settings in China. This study will contribute to the understanding of how SDM impacts mental health outcomes and facilitate the integration of mental health services into maternal care.

ChiCTR2300072559. Registered on 16 June 2023.

Background: Medication adherence to inhalation medication is suboptimal in patients with COPD and asthma. Shared decision making (SDM) is proposed as an intervention to improve medication adherence. Despite its wide promotion, evidence of SDM's association with greater medication adherence is scarce. Also, it is unknown to what degree patients presently experience SDM and how it is associated with medication adherence. Objective: To (i) assess the level of SDM and (ii) medication adherence, (iii) explore the relation between SDM and medication adherence and iv) investigate possible underlying mechanisms. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study. A survey was distributed among Dutch patients with COPD and/or asthma using inhaled medication. Medication adherence was measured using the Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI-10), and SDM by the 9-item Shared Decision-Making questionnaire (SMD-Q-9). Feeling of competence, relatedness and feeling of autonomy from the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) were considered as possible mechanisms. The primary outcome was adherence. Results: A total of 396 patients with complete information on relevant covariates were included. Mean SDM-Q-9 score was 26.7 (SD 12.1, range 0-45) and complete adherence was 41.2%. The odds ratio for the association of SDM with adherence was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.02). This only changed minimally when adjusted for mediators (mediating effect <3%). Conclusion: The patient experienced level of SDM in daily practice and medication adherence have room for improvement. No association between SDM and medication adherence was observed. Factors related to feeling of competence, relatedness and feeling of autonomy did not meaningfully explain this finding.