Dataset Information

Supporting shared decision-making and people's understanding of medicines: An exploration of the acceptability and comprehensibility of patient information.

ABSTRACT: Background:Patient information may assist in promoting shared decision-making, however it is imperative that the information presented is comprehensible and acceptable to the target audience. Objective:This study sought to explore the acceptability and comprehensibility of the ' Medicines in Scotland: What's the right treatment for you?' factsheet to the general public. Methods:Qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with members of the public. An interview schedule was developed to explore the acceptability and comprehensibility of the factsheet. Participants were recruited by a researcher who distributed information packs to attendees (n=70) of four community pharmacies. Interviews, (12-24 minutes duration), were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a framework approach. Results:Nineteen participants returned a consent form (27.1%), twelve were interviewed. Six themes were identified: formatting of the factsheet and interpretation; prior health knowledge and the factsheet; information contained in the factsheet; impact of the factsheet on behaviour; uses for the factsheet; and revisions to the factsheet. Conclusions:The factsheet was generally perceived as helpful and comprehensive. It was highlighted that reading the leaflet may generate new knowledge and may have a positive impact on behaviour.

SUBMITTER: Smith KG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5742002 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Supporting shared decision-making and people's understanding of medicines: An exploration of the acceptability and comprehensibility of patient information.

Smith Katie Gibson KG Booth Jill L JL Stewart Derek D Pfleger Sharon S Mciver Laura L Maclure Kathrine K

Pharmacy practice 20171001 4

<h4>Background</h4>Patient information may assist in promoting shared decision-making, however it is imperative that the information presented is comprehensible and acceptable to the target audience.<h4>Objective</h4>This study sought to explore the acceptability and comprehensibility of the ' Medicines in Scotland: What's the right treatment for you?' factsheet to the general public.<h4>Methods</h4>Qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with members of the public. An in ...[more]

PMID: 29317925

Similar Datasets

Project description:This article describes the process undertaken to identify and validate behavioral and normative beliefs and behavioral intent based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and applied to men between the ages of 45 and 70 in the context of their participation in shared decision-making (SDM) in medically uncertain situations. This article also discusses the preliminary results of the aforementioned processes and explores potential future uses of this information that may facilitate greater understanding, efficiency and effectiveness of clinician-patient consultations.Twenty-five male subjects from the Philadelphia community participated in this study. Individual semi-structure patient interviews were conducted until data saturation was reached. Based on their review of the patient interview transcripts, researchers conducted a qualitative content analysis to identify prevalent themes and, subsequently, create a category framework. Qualitative indicators were used to evaluate respondents' experiences, beliefs, and behavioral intent relative to participation in shared decision-making during medical uncertainty.Based on the themes uncovered through the content analysis, a category framework was developed to facilitate understanding and increase the accuracy of predictions related to an individual's behavioral intent to participate in shared decision-making in medical uncertainty. The emerged themes included past experience with medical uncertainty, individual personality, and the relationship between the patient and his physician. The resulting three main framework categories include 1) an individual's Foundation for the concept of medical uncertainty, 2) how the individual Copes with medical uncertainty, and 3) the individual's Behavioral Intent to seek information and participate in shared decision-making during times of medically uncertain situations.The theme of Coping (with uncertainty) emerged as a particularly critical behavior/characteristic amongst the subjects. By understanding a subject's disposition with regard to coping, researchers were better able to make connections between a subject's prior experiences, their knowledge seeking activities, and their intent to participate in SDM. Despite having information and social support, the subjects still had to cope with the idea of uncertainty before determining how to proceed with regard to shared decision-making. In addition, the coping category reinforced the importance of information seeking behaviors and preferences for shared decision-making.This study applies and extends the field of behavioral and health informatics to assist medical practice and decision-making in situations of medical uncertainty. More specifically, this study led to the development of a category framework that facilitates the identification of an individual's needs and motivational factors with regard to their intent to participate in shared decision-making in situations of medical uncertainty.

Project description:BackgroundThe field of rehabilitation has seen a recent rise in technologies to support shared decision-making (SDM). Usability testing during the design process of SDM technologies is needed to optimize adoption and realize potential benefits. There is variability in how usability is defined and measured. Given the complexity of usability, a thorough examination of the methodologies used to measure usability to develop the SDM technologies used in rehabilitation care is needed.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to answer the following research questions: which methods and measures have been used to produce knowledge about the usability of rehabilitation technologies aimed at supporting SDM at the different phases of development and implementation? Which parameters of usability have been measured and reported?MethodsThis review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework. An electronic search was performed in the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from January 2005 up to November 2020. In total, 2 independent reviewers screened all retrieved titles, abstracts, and full texts according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. The International Organization for Standardization framework was used to define the scope of usability (effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction). The characteristics of the studies were outlined in a descriptive summary. Findings were categorized based on usability parameters, technology interventions, and measures of usability.ResultsA total of 38 articles were included. The most common SDM technologies were web-based aids (15/33, 46%). The usability of SDM technologies was assessed during development, preimplementation, or implementation, using 14 different methods. The most frequent methods were questionnaires (24/38, 63%) and semistructured interviews (16/38, 42%). Satisfaction (27/38, 71%) was the most common usability parameter mapped to types of SDM technologies and usability evaluation methods. User-centered design (9/15, 60%) was the most frequently used technology design framework.ConclusionsThe results from this scoping review highlight the importance and the complexity of usability evaluation. Although various methods and measures were shown to be used to evaluate the usability of technologies to support SDM in rehabilitation, very few evaluations used in the included studies were found to adequately span the selected usability domains. This review identified gaps in usability evaluation, as most studies (24/38, 63%) relied solely on questionnaires rather than multiple methods, and most questionnaires simply focused on the usability parameter of satisfaction. The consideration of end users (such as patients and clinicians) is of particular importance for the development of technologies to support SDM, as the process of SDM itself aims to improve patient-centered care and integrate both patient and clinician voices into their rehabilitation care.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).ObjectiveWe examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.DesignMulticenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.ApproachWe performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.ParticipantsWe interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.ResultsAll clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Surgical treatments are being offered to more patients than ever before, and increasingly to high-risk patients (typically multimorbid and over 75). Shared decision making is seen as essential practice. However, little is currently known about what 'good' shared decision making involves nor how it applies in the context of surgery for high-risk patients. This new study aims to identify how high-risk patients, their families and clinical teams negotiate decision making for major surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Focusing on major joint replacement, colorectal and cardiac surgery, we use qualitative methods to explore how patients, their families and clinicians negotiate decision making (including interactional, communicative and informational aspects and the extent to which these are perceived as shared) and reflect back on the decisions they made. Phase 1 involves video recording 15 decision making encounters about major surgery between patients, their carers/families and clinicians; followed by up to 90 interviews (with the same patient, carer and clinician participants) immediately after a decision has been made and again 3-6 months later. Phase 2 involves focus groups with a wider group of (up to 90) patients and (up to 30) clinicians to test out emerging findings and inform development of shared decision making scenarios (3-5 summary descriptions of how decisions are made). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study forms the first part in a 6-year programme of research, Optimising Shared decision-makIng for high-RIsk major Surgery (OSIRIS). Ethical challenges around involving patients at a challenging time in their lives will be overseen by the programme steering committee, which includes strong patient representation and a lay chair. In addition to academic outputs, we will produce a typology of decision making scenarios for major surgery to feed back to patients, professionals and service providers and inform subsequent work in the OSIRIS programme.

Project description:BackgroundRandomised trials are considered the gold standard in providing robust evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. However, there are relatively few initiatives to help increase public understanding of what randomised trials are and why they are important. This limits the overall acceptance of and public participation in clinical trials. The People's Trial aims to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims by actively involving them in all aspects of trial design. This was done by involving the public in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial.MethodsUsing a reflexive approach, we describe the processes of development, conduct, and dissemination of The People's Trial.ResultsOver 3000 members of the public, from 72 countries, participated in The People's Trial. Through a series of online surveys, the public designed a trial called The Reading Trial. They chose the question the trial would try to answer and decided the components of the trial question. In December 2019, 991 participants were recruited to a trial to answer the question identified and prioritised by the public, i.e. 'Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison with not reading a book in bed?' We report the processes of The People's Trial in seven phases, paralleling the steps of a randomised trial, i.e. question identification and prioritisation, recruitment, randomisation, trial conduct, data analysis, and sharing of findings. We describe the decisions we made, the processes we used, the challenges we encountered, and the lessons we learned.ConclusionThe People's Trial involved the public successfully in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial demonstrating the potential for such initiatives to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818 . Registered on 4 December 2019.

Dataset Information

Supporting shared decision-making and people's understanding of medicines: An exploration of the acceptability and comprehensibility of patient information.

Publications

Supporting shared decision-making and people's understanding of medicines: An exploration of the acceptability and comprehensibility of patient information.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets