Dataset Information

Semistructured interviews regarding patients' perceptions of Choosing Wisely and shared decision-making: an Australian study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study aimed to examine how patients perceive shared decision-making regarding CT scan referral and use of the five Choosing Wisely questions with their general practitioner (GP).

Design

This is a qualitative exploratory study using semistructured interviews.

Setting

This study was conducted in a large metropolitan public healthcare organisation in urban Australia.

Participants

Following purposive sampling, 20 patients and 2 carers participated. Patient participants aged 18 years or older were eligible if they were attending the healthcare organisation for a CT scan and referred by their GP. Carers/family were eligible to participate when they were in the role of an unpaid carer and were aged 18 years or older. Participants were required to speak English sufficiently to provide informed consent. Participants with cognitive impairment were excluded.

Findings

Eighteen interviews were conducted with the patient only. Two interviews were conducted with the patient and the patient's carer. Fourteen participants were female. Five themes resulted from the thematic analysis: (1) needing to know, (2) questioning doctors is not necessary, (3) discussing scans is not required, (4) uncertainty about questioning and (5) valuing the Choosing Wisely questions. Participants reported that they presented to their GP with a health problem that they needed to understand and address. Participants accepted their GPs decision to prescribe a CT scan to identify the nature of their problem. They reported ambivalence about engaging in shared decision-making with their doctor, although many participants reported valuing the Choosing Wisely questions.

Conclusions

Shared decision-making is an important principle underpinning Choosing Wisely. Practice implementation requires understanding patients' motivations to engage in shared decision-making with a focus on attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and emotions. Systems-level support and education for healthcare practitioners in effective communication is important. However, this needs to emphasise communication with patients who have varying degrees of motivation to engage in shared decision-making and Choosing Wisely.

SUBMITTER: Allen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6720255 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Semistructured interviews regarding patients' perceptions of Choosing Wisely and shared decision-making: an Australian study.

Allen Jacqueline J King Richard R Goergen Stacy K SK Melder Angela A Neeman Naama N Hadley Annemarie A Hutchinson Alison M AM

BMJ open 20190828 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>This study aimed to examine how patients perceive shared decision-making regarding CT scan referral and use of the five Choosing Wisely questions with their general practitioner (GP).<h4>Design</h4>This is a qualitative exploratory study using semistructured interviews.<h4>Setting</h4>This study was conducted in a large metropolitan public healthcare organisation in urban Australia.<h4>Participants</h4>Following purposive sampling, 20 patients and 2 carers participated. Patien ...[more]

PMID: 31467057

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions.MethodsWe evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM.ResultsA total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P < 0.001, d = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge.ConclusionsThe Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention).Trial registrationANZCTR376477.HighlightsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Choosing Wisely, an international effort to reduce low value care worldwide, considers communication between clinicians and patients during routine clinical encounters a key mechanism for change. In Australia, Choosing Wisely has developed a 5 Questions resource to facilitate better conversations. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the Choosing Wisely Australia 5 Questions resource and a video designed to prepare patients for question-asking and participation in shared decision-making on (a) self-efficacy to ask questions and participate in shared decision-making, (b) intention to participate in shared decision-making and (c) a range of secondary outcomes. The secondary aim of this study is to determine whether participants' health literacy modifies the effects of the interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will use 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design (preparation video: yes, no × Choosing Wisely 5 Questions resource: yes, no × health literacy: adequate, inadequate). Participants will be recruited by an online market research company, presented with a hypothetical non-specific low back pain scenario, and randomised to study groups stratified by health literacy. Quantitative primary and secondary outcome data will be analysed as intention-to-treat using appropriate regression models (ie, linear regression for continuous outcomes, logistic regression for dichotomous categorical outcomes). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (protocol number: 2018/965). The results from this work will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international journals, conferences and updates with collaborating public health bodies. Resources developed for this study will be made available to patients and clinicians following trial completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:This trial has been registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (trial number: 376477) and the stage is Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundDigital health-tracking tools are changing mental health care by giving patients the ability to collect passively measured patient-generated health data (PGHD; ie, data collected from connected devices with little to no patient effort). Although there are existing clinical guidelines for how mental health clinicians should use more traditional, active forms of PGHD for clinical decision-making, there is less clarity on how passive PGHD can be used.ObjectiveWe conducted a qualitative study to understand mental health clinicians' perceptions and concerns regarding the use of technology-enabled, passively collected PGHD for clinical decision-making. Our interviews sought to understand participants' current experiences with and visions for using passive PGHD.MethodsMental health clinicians providing outpatient services were recruited to participate in semistructured interviews. Interview recordings were deidentified, transcribed, and qualitatively coded to identify overarching themes.ResultsOverall, 12 mental health clinicians (n=11, 92% psychiatrists and n=1, 8% clinical psychologist) were interviewed. We identified 4 overarching themes. First, passive PGHD are patient driven-we found that current passive PGHD use was patient driven, not clinician driven; participating clinicians only considered passive PGHD for clinical decision-making when patients brought passive data to clinical encounters. The second theme was active versus passive data as subjective versus objective data-participants viewed the contrast between active and passive PGHD as a contrast between interpretive data on patients' mental health and objective information on behavior. Participants believed that prioritizing passive over self-reported, active PGHD would reduce opportunities for patients to reflect upon their mental health, reducing treatment engagement and raising questions about how passive data can best complement active data for clinical decision-making. Third, passive PGHD must be delivered at appropriate times for action-participants were concerned with the real-time nature of passive PGHD; they believed that it would be infeasible to use passive PGHD for real-time patient monitoring outside clinical encounters and more feasible to use passive PGHD during clinical encounters when clinicians can make treatment decisions. The fourth theme was protecting patient privacy-participating clinicians wanted to protect patient privacy within passive PGHD-sharing programs and discussed opportunities to refine data sharing consent to improve transparency surrounding passive PGHD collection and use.ConclusionsAlthough passive PGHD has the potential to enable more contextualized measurement, this study highlights the need for building and disseminating an evidence base describing how and when passive measures should be used for clinical decision-making. This evidence base should clarify how to use passive data alongside more traditional forms of active PGHD, when clinicians should view passive PGHD to make treatment decisions, and how to protect patient privacy within passive data-sharing programs. Clear evidence would more effectively support the uptake and effective use of these novel tools for both patients and their clinicians.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To explore the reasons that doctors choose to leave UK medicine after their foundation year two posts. SETTING:All four regions of Scotland. PARTICIPANTS:Foundation year two doctors (F2s) working throughout Scotland who were considering leaving UK medicine after foundation training were recruited on a volunteer basis. Maximum variation between participants was sought. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Semistructured interviews were coded using template analysis. Six perspectives, described by Feldman and Ng, were used as the initial coding template. The codes were then configured to form a framework that explores the interplay of factors influencing Foundation Year 2 (F2) doctors' decisions to leave UK medicine. RESULTS:Seventeen participants were interviewed. Six perspectives were explored. Structural influences (countrywide and worldwide issues) included visas, economic and political considerations, structure of healthcare systems and availability of junior doctor jobs worldwide. Organisational influences (the National Health Service (NHS) and other healthcare providers) included staffing and compensation policies, the working environment and the learning environment. Occupational influences (specific to being a junior doctor) comprised the junior doctor contract, role and workload, pursuit of career interests and the structure of training. Work group influences (relationships with colleagues) included support at work, task interdependence and use of locums. Personal life influences consisted of work-life balance, and support in resolving work-life conflict. The underlying theme of 'taking a break' recurred through multiple narratives. CONCLUSIONS:F2s give reasons similar to those given by any professional considering a change in their job. However, working within the NHS as an F2 doctor brought specific challenges, such as a need to make a choice of specialty within the F2 year, exposure to workplace bullying and difficulties in raising concerns. Despite these challenges, most F2s did not view their decision to leave as a permanent job change, but as a temporary break from their current working lives.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to investigate Australian pharmacists' views about their role in physician-assisted suicide (PAS), their ethical and legal concerns and overall thoughts about PAS in pharmacy. DESIGN:Semistructured interviews of pharmacists incorporating a previously validated vignette and thematic analysis. SETTING:Australia (face to face or phone call). PARTICIPANTS:40 Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency registered pharmacists, majority women (65%) with varied experiences in community, hospital, industry, academia, government and other fields. RESULTS:Emergent themes from the interviews were: legal and logistical framework, ethical framework, training and guidance and healthcare budget. More than half the participants supported the role of pharmacists in the supply of medicines for PAS, while less than half were either against or unsure of the legislation of PAS in Australia. Shared concerns included transparency of prescribing practices and identification of authorised physicians involved in PAS, which were consistent with existing literature. Religious faith, emotion and professional autonomy were key indicators for the implementation of conscientious objection to the supply of medicines in PAS. Re-evaluation of current guidelines, pharmacist training and government reimbursement was also of significance from participants' perspectives. CONCLUSION:This study revealed current concerns of practising pharmacists in Australia, including previously undocumented perspectives on the pharmacoeconomic impact of and barriers relating to PAS. The need for training of all healthcare professionals involved, the provision of clear guidelines, including regulation around storage, administration and disposal of medicines dispensed for PAS and the updating of current therapeutic guidelines around end-of-life care were all issues delineated by this study. These findings highlighted the need for current and future policies to account for all stakeholders involved in PAS, not solely prescribers.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Choosing Wisely holds promise for increasing awareness of low-value care in physiotherapy. However, it is unclear how physiotherapists' view Choosing Wisely recommendations. The aim of this study was to evaluate physiotherapists' feedback on Choosing Wisely recommendations and investigate agreement with each recommendation. SETTING:The Australian Physiotherapy Association emailed a survey to all 20 029 physiotherapist members in 2015 seeking feedback on a list of Choosing Wisely recommendations. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 9764 physiotherapists opened the email invitation (49%) and 543 completed the survey (response rate 5.6%). Participants were asked about the acceptability of the wording of recommendations using a closed (Yes/No) and free-text response option (section 1). Then using a similar response format, participants were asked whether they agreed with each Choosing Wisely recommendation (sections 2-6). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES:We performed a content analysis of free-text responses (primary outcome) and used descriptive statistics to report agreement and disagreement with each recommendation (secondary outcome). RESULTS:There were 872 free-text responses across the six sections. A total of 347 physiotherapists (63.9%) agreed with the 'don't' style of wording. Agreement with recommendations ranged from 52.3% (electrotherapy for back pain) to 76.6% (validated decision rules for imaging). The content analysis revealed that physiotherapists felt that blanket rules were inappropriate (range across recommendations: 13.9%-30.1% of responses), clinical experience is more valuable than evidence (11.7%-28.3%) and recommendations would benefit from further refining or better defining key terms (7.3%-22.4%). CONCLUSIONS:Although most physiotherapists agreed with both the style of wording for Choosing Wisely recommendations and with the recommendations, their feedback highlighted a number of areas of disagreement and suggestions for improvement. These findings will support the development of future recommendations and are the first step towards increasing the impact Choosing Wisely has on physiotherapy practice.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trial recruitment is a continuing challenge for medical researchers. Previous efforts to improve study recruitment have rarely been informed by theories of human decision making and behavior change. We investigate the trial recruitment strategies reported by study recruiters, guided by two influential theoretical frameworks: shared decision-making (SDM) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) in order to explore the utility of these frameworks in trial recruitment.MethodsWe interviewed all nine active study recruiters from a multi-site, open-label pilot trial assessing the feasibility of a large-scale randomized trial. Recruiters were primarily nurses or master's-level research assistants with a range of 3 to 30 years of experience. The semi-structured interviews included questions about the typical recruitment encounter, questions concerning the main components of SDM (e.g. verifying understanding, directive vs. non-directive style), and questions investigating the barriers to and drivers of their recruitment activities, based on the TDF. We used directed content analysis to code quotations into TDF domains, followed by inductive thematic analysis to code quotations into sub-themes within domains and overarching themes across TDF domains. Responses to questions related to SDM were aggregated according to level of endorsement and informed the thematic analysis.ResultsThe analysis helped to identify 28 sub-themes across 11 domains. The sub-themes were organized into six overarching themes: coordinating between people, providing guidance to recruiters about challenges, providing resources to recruiters, optimizing study flow, guiding the recruitment decision, and emphasizing the benefits to participation. The SDM analysis revealed recruiters were able to view recruitment interactions as successful even when enrollment did not proceed, and most recruiters took a non-directive (i.e. providing patients with balanced information on available options) or mixed approach over a directive approach (i.e. focus on enrolling patient in study). Most of the core SDM constructs were frequently endorsed.ConclusionsIdentified sub-themes can be linked to TDF domains for which effective behavior change interventions are known, yielding interventions that can be evaluated as to whether they improve recruitment. Despite having no formal training in shared decision-making, study recruiters reported practices consistent with many elements of SDM. The development of SDM training materials specific to trial recruitment could improve the informed decision-making process for patients.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:As shared decision making (SDM) has received increased attention as a method to improve the patient-centeredness of emergency department (ED) care, we sought to determine patients' desired level of involvement in medical decisions and their perceptions of potential barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. METHODS:We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of adult ED patients at three academic medical centers across the United States. The survey included 32 items regarding patient involvement in medical decisions including a modified Control Preference Scale and questions about barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. Items were developed and refined based on prior literature and qualitative interviews with ED patients. Research assistants administered the survey in person. RESULTS:Of 797 patients approached, 661 (83%) agreed to participate. Participants were 52% female, 45% white, and 30% Hispanic. The majority of respondents (85%-92%, depending on decision type) expressed a desire for some degree of involvement in decision making in the ED, while 8% to 15% preferred to leave decision making to their physician alone. Ninety-eight percent wanted to be involved with decisions when "something serious is going on." The majority of patients (94%) indicated that self-efficacy was not a barrier to SDM in the ED. However, most patients (55%) reported a tendency to defer to the physician's decision making during an ED visit, with about half reporting they would wait for a physician to ask them to be involved. CONCLUSION:We found that the majority of ED patients in our large, diverse sample wanted to be involved in medical decisions, especially in the case of a "serious" medical problem, and felt that they had the ability to do so. Nevertheless, many patients were unlikely to actively seek involvement and defaulted to allowing the physician to make decisions during the ED visit. After fully explaining the consequences of a decision, clinicians should make an effort to explicitly ascertain patients' desired level of involvement in decision making.

Dataset Information

Semistructured interviews regarding patients' perceptions of Choosing Wisely and shared decision-making: an Australian study.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Findings

Conclusions

Publications

Semistructured interviews regarding patients' perceptions of Choosing Wisely and shared decision-making: an Australian study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets