Explore the vast range of titles available.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led US health systems to rapidly implement telehealth services to connect patients and clinicians. This rapid expansion of telehealth allowed us to explore how a telehealth experience may be best delivered across populations and contexts. We aimed to identify telehealth modality preferences (voice vs video) among clinicians and the populations they serve and explore the barriers to telehealth use from clinician and public perspectives. We conducted 2 independent, cross-sectional, web-based surveys. US physicians specializing in internal medicine, psychiatry, urology, orthopedic surgery, or obstetrics and gynecology completed a 23-item survey through Sermo's research panel. Quotas ensured equal representation across the selected clinical specialties. Adult members of the US general public completed a 26-item survey through Qualtrics' research panel. Quotas ensured the general public sample approximated the US population on educational attainment, gender, and rural residence. We recruited 253 clinician participants and 418 general public participants in September 2020, with survey completion rates of 22% (253/1139) and 93% (418/451), respectively. For the initial encounter, 85% (216/253; 95% CI 80%-89%) of clinicians and 51% (215/418; 95% CI 47%-56%) of public participants preferred video over voice only. In multiple logistic regression analyses, members of the public with broadband internet at home were more likely than those without broadband to prefer video over voice only for a first visit with a new clinician (57% vs 40%; odds ratio 2.09, 95% CI 1.25-3.49). In an established clinical relationship, 63% (160/253; 95% CI 57%-69%) of clinicians and 33% (137/418; 95% CI 28%-38%) of the general public preferred video over voice only when discussing a new clinical problem. For a follow-up visit, only 26% (65/253; 95% CI 20%-32%) of clinicians and 28% (117/418; 95% CI 24%-33%) of the general public preferred video over voice only. Clinicians and the general public agree that technology not working properly is their main source of telehealth frustration (86/249, 35% of clinicians; 62/220, 28% of public with telehealth experience). Other major frustrations include limitations on what content can be included in the visit (main frustration for 83/249, 33% of clinicians; 54/220, 25% of the public) and downloading new technology (52/220, 24% of the public). Although telehealth connections with video are increasingly common, important factors are associated with a preference for voice-only telehealth connections. Clinicians prefer video over voice-only connections more than patients do for new clinical relationships and new clinical problems. For follow-up care, both clinicians and the public prefer voice-only telephone visits over video. Barriers to video-enabled telehealth experiences include technology failures, varied technology platforms across providers, and a need for more reliable high-speed internet connection. Voice-only telephone-mediated services can potentially improve health care access and experiences in light of these barriers to video-based care.

Decision aids help patients consider the benefits and drawbacks of care options but rarely include cost information. We assessed the impact of a conversation-based decision aid containing information about low-risk prostate cancer management options and their relative costs. We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in outpatient urology practices within a US-based academic medical center. We randomised five clinicians to four intervention sequences and enroled patients newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Primary patient-reported outcomes collected postvisit included the frequency of cost conversations and referrals to address costs. Other patient-reported outcomes included: decisional conflict postvisit and at 3 months, decision regret at 3 months, shared decision-making postvisit, financial toxicity postvisit and at 3 months. Clinicians reported their attitudes about shared decision-making pre- and poststudy, and the intervention's feasibility and acceptability. We used hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient outcomes. The clinician was included as a random effect; fixed effects included education, employment, telehealth versus in-person visit, visit date, and enrolment period. Between April 2020 and March 2022, we screened 513 patients, contacted 217 eligible patients, and enroled 117/217 (54%) (51 in usual care, 66 in the intervention group). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was not associated with cost conversations (β = .82, p = .27), referrals to cost-related resources (β = -0.36, p = .81), shared decision-making (β = -0.79, p = .32), decisional conflict postvisit (β = -0.34, p= .70), or at follow-up (β = -2.19, p = .16), decision regret at follow-up (β = -9.76, p = .11), or financial toxicity postvisit (β = -1.32, p = .63) or at follow-up (β = -2.41, p = .23). Most clinicians and patients had positive attitudes about the intervention and shared decision-making. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, patients in the intervention group experienced more transient indecision (p < .02) suggesting increased deliberation between visit and follow-up. Despite enthusiasm from clinicians, the intervention was not significantly associated with hypothesised outcomes, though we were unable to robustly test outcomes due to recruitment challenges. Recruitment at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted eligibility, sample size/power, study procedures, and increased telehealth visits and financial worry, independent of the intervention. Future work should explore ways to support shared decision-making, cost conversations, and choice deliberation with a larger sample. Such work could involve additional members of the care team, and consider the detail, quality, and timing of addressing these issues. Patients and clinicians were engaged as stakeholder advisors meeting monthly throughout the duration of the project to advise on the study design, measures selected, data interpretation, and dissemination of study findings.

Direct and indirect costs of care influence patients’ health choices and the ability to implement those choices. Despite the significant impact of care costs on patients’ health and daily lives, patient decision aid (PtDA) and shared decision-making (SDM) guidelines almost never mention a discussion of costs of treatment options as part of minimum standards or quality criteria. Given the growing study of the impact of costs in health decisions and the rising costs of care more broadly, in fall 2021 we organized a symposium at the Society for Medical Decision Making’s annual meeting. The focus was on the role of cost information in PtDAs and SDM. Panelists gave an overview of work in this space at this virtual meeting, and attendees engaged in rich discussion with the panelists about the state of the problem as well as ideas and challenges in incorporating cost-related issues into routine care. This article summarizes and extends our discussion based on the literature in this area and calls for action. We recommend that PtDA and SDM guidelines routinely include a discussion of direct and indirect care costs and that researchers measure the frequency, quality, and response to this information.

Given the need for access to patient-facing materials in multiple languages, this study aimed to develop and pilot test an accurate and understandable translation of CollaboRATE, a three-item patient-reported measure of shared decision-making, for Spanish-speaking patients in the United States (US). We followed the Translate, Review, Adjudicate, Pre-test, Document (TRAPD) survey translation protocol. Cognitive interviews were conducted with Spanish-speaking adults within an urban Massachusetts internal medicine clinic. For the pilot test, all patients with weekday appointments between May 1 and May 29, 2015 were invited to complete CollaboRATE in either English or Spanish upon exit. We calculated the proportion of respondents giving the best score possible on CollaboRATE and compared scores across key patient subgroups. Four rounds of cognitive interviews with 26 people were completed between January and April 2015. Extensive, iterative refinements to survey items between interview rounds led to final items that were generally understood by participants with diverse educational backgrounds. Pilot data collection achieved an overall response rate of 73 percent, with 606 (49%) patients completing Spanish CollaboRATE questionnaires and 624 (51%) patients completing English CollaboRATE questionnaires. The proportion of respondents giving the best score possible on CollaboRATE was the same (86%) for both the English and Spanish versions of the instrument. Our translation method, guided by emerging best practices in survey and health measurement translation, encompassed multiple levels of review. By conducting four rounds of cognitive interviews with iterative item refinement between each round, we arrived at a Spanish language version of CollaboRATE that was understandable to a majority of cognitive interview participants and was completed by more than 600 pilot questionnaire respondents.

Objective To evaluate implementation of a patient decision aid for symptomatic uterine fibroid management to improve shared decision-making at five clinical settings across the United States. Methods We used a type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge design and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) planning and evaluation framework. We conducted clinician training, monthly reach tracking with feedback to site clinical leads, patient and clinician surveys, and visit audio-recordings. Implementation strategies included assessment of organizational readiness for shared decision-making, synchronous clinician training, audit and feedback of decision aid reach, and access to multiple decision aid formats. Outcomes and analyses included patient-level reach, clinician-level adoption, and associations of patient-reported decision aid exposure (as treated) and setting-level implementation (intention-to-treat) with patient-reported (collaboRATE measure) and observed (OPTION-5 measure) shared decision-making. We also designed and assessed setting-level plans for sustainability and other factors impacting sustained decision aid use. Results The decision aid was adopted by 72 of the 74 eligible gynecologists (97%) and reached 2553 patients across five settings. CollaboRATE scores improved among patients who reported receiving the decision aid (as-treated analysis, 69% vs. 59%; OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.16–2.27). CollaboRATE scores remained consistent before and after setting-level decision aid implementation (intention-to-treat analysis, 64% vs. 63%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61–1.22). Participants would prefer to receive a decision aid at multiple time points (91.9% before the visit, 90.7% during the visit, 86.5% after the visit). Shared decision-making experiences did not improve when comparing pre vs. post-implementation collaboRATE scores across included settings (intention-to-treat, 64% vs. 63%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61–1.22). Conclusion When patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids are given decision aids, they report higher shared decision-making scores. However, the differences we observed between the as-treated and intention-to-treat results suggest that unaddressed implementation challenges continue to limit the extent to which patients receive decision aids and likely hinder their overall impact. Future efforts to implement decision aids should explore enhancing their integration into clinical workflows and standard operating procedures, supported by organizational incentives that prioritize shared decision-making. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03985449; registered 6 June 2019.

IntroductionCoproduction introduces a fundamental shift in how healthcare service is conceptualised. The mechanistic idea of healthcare being a ‘product’ generated by the healthcare system and delivered to patients is replaced by that of a service co-created by the healthcare system and the users of healthcare services. Fjeldstad et al offer an approach for conceptualising value creation in complex service contexts that we believe is applicable to coproduction of healthcare service. We have adapted Fjeldstad’s value creation model based on a detailed case study of a renal haemodialysis service in Jonkoping, Sweden, which demonstrates coproduction characteristics and key elements of Fjeldstad’s model.Methods and analysisWe propose a five-part coproduction value creation model for healthcare service: (1) value chain, characterised by a standardised set of processes that serve a commonly occurring need; (2) value shop, which offers a customised response for unique cases; (3) a facilitated value network, which involves groups of individuals struggling with similar challenges; (4) interconnection between shop, chain and network elements and (5) leadership. We will seek to articulate and assess the value creation model through the work of a community of practice comprised of a diverse international workgroup with representation from executive, financial and clinical leaders as well as other key stakeholders from multiple health systems. We then will conduct pilot studies of a qualitative self-assessment process in participating health systems, and ultimately develop and test quantitative measures for assessing coproduction value creation.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health Institutional Review Board (D-HH IRB) as a minimal risk research study. Findings and scholarship will be disseminated broadly through continuous engagement with health system stakeholders, national and international academic presentations and publications and an internet-based electronic platform for publicly accessible study information.

Background Costs of care are important to patients making cancer treatment decisions, but clinicians often do not feel prepared to discuss treatment costs. We aim to (1) assess the impact of a conversation-based decision aid (Option Grid) containing cost information about slow-growing prostate cancer management options, combined with urologic surgeon training, on the frequency and quality of patient-urologic surgeon cost conversations, and (2) examine the impact of the decision aid and surgeon training on decision quality. Methods We will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in outpatient urology practices affiliated with a large academic medical center in the USA. We will randomize five urologic surgeons to four intervention sequences and enroll their patients with a first-time diagnosis of slow-growing prostate cancer independently at each period. Primary outcomes include frequency of cost conversations, initiator of cost conversations, and whether or not a referral is made to address costs. These outcomes will be collected by patient report (post-visit survey) and by observation (audio-recorded clinic visits) with consent. Other outcomes include the following: patient-reported decisional conflict post-visit and at 3-month follow-up, decision regret at 3-month follow-up, shared decision-making post-visit, communication post-visit, and financial toxicity post-visit and at 3-month follow-up; clinician-reported attitudes about shared decision-making before and after the study, and feasibility of sustained intervention use. We will use hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient-level outcomes, including urologic surgeon as a random effect to account for clustering of patient participants. Discussion This study evaluates a two-part intervention to improve cost discussions between urologic surgeons and patients when deciding how to manage slow-growing prostate cancer. Establishing the effectiveness of the strategy under study will allow for its replication in other clinical decision contexts. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397016 . Registered on 21 May 2020

Background Conversation aids can facilitate shared decision-making and improve patient-centered outcomes. However, few examples exist of sustained use of conversation aids in routine care due to numerous barriers at clinical and organizational levels. We explored factors that will promote the sustained use of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids. We examined differences in opinions between the two conversation aids and across socioeconomic strata. Methods We nested this study within a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of two early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, one text-based and one picture-based. These conversation aids facilitated more shared decision-making and improved the decision process, among other outcomes, across four health systems with socioeconomically diverse patient populations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patient participants across conversation aid assignment and socioeconomic status (SES) and collected observations and field notes. We interviewed trial surgeons and other stakeholders. Two independent coders conducted framework analysis using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development through Normalization Process Theory. We also conducted an inductive analysis. We conducted additional sub-analyses based on conversation aid assignment and patient SES. Results We conducted 73 semi-structured interviews with 43 patients, 16 surgeons, and 14 stakeholders like nurses, cancer center directors, and electronic health record (EHR) experts. Patients and surgeons felt the conversation aids should be used in breast cancer care in the future and were open to various methods of giving and receiving the conversation aid (EHR, email, patient portal, before consultation). Patients of higher SES were more likely to note the conversation aids influenced their treatment discussion, while patients of lower SES noted more influence on their decision-making. Intervention surgeons reported using the conversation aids did not lengthen their typical consultation time. Most intervention surgeons felt using the conversation aids enhanced their usual care after using it a few times, and most patients felt it appeared part of their normal routine. Conclusions Key factors that will guide the future sustained implementation of the conversation aids include adapting to existing clinical workflows, flexibility of use, patient characteristics, and communication preferences. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03136367 , registered on May 2, 2017

Background Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS). Methods We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS. Discussion The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

Patient characteristics have been linked to prevalence and quality of shared decision-making (SDM) behaviors across diverse studies of varied size and focus. We aim to evaluate the extent to which patient characteristics are associated with patient-rated SDM scores as measured by collaboRATE and whether or not collaboRATE varies at the provider group level. We used the 2017 California Patient Assessment Survey data set, which included adult patients of 153 California-based medical groups receiving services between January and October 2016. Mixed-effects logistic regression evaluated relationships between collaboRATE scores and patient characteristics. We analyzed 31 265 total survey responses. Among included covariates, patients’ health status, race, primary language, and mode of survey response were significantly associated with collaboRATE scores. Case-mix adjustment is common in healthcare quality measurement and can be useful in pay-for-performance systems. For those use cases, we recommend adjusting collaboRATE scores by patients’ age, health status, gender, race, and language spoken at home, and survey response mode. However, when case-mix adjustment is not required, we suggest highlighting observed disparities across diverse patient populations to improve attention to inequities in patient experience.