Dataset Information

What Exactly Is Shared Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).

Objective

We examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.

Design

Multicenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.

Approach

We performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.

Participants

We 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.

Results

All 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.

Conclusions

Our 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.

SUBMITTER: Melzer AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7018920 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What Exactly Is Shared Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening.

Melzer Anne C AC Golden Sara E SE Ono Sarah S SS Datta Santanu S Crothers Kristina K Slatore Christopher G CG

Journal of general internal medicine 20191119 2

<h4>Background</h4>Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).<h4>Objective</h4>We examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.<h4>Design</h4>Multicenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.<h4>Approach</h4>We performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcrib ...[more]

PMID: 31745852

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE:To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. DESIGN:Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS:We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). APPROACH:Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. KEY RESULTS:Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk due to age and smoking history after a shared decision-making conversation. However, little is known about best strategies for incorporating shared decision-making, especially in a busy primary care setting.ObjectiveTo develop a novel tool, Lung Cancer Assessment of Risk and Education (LungCARE) to guide LCS decisions among eligible primary care patients.DesignPilot cluster randomized controlled trial of LungCARE versus usual care.ParticipantsPatients of providers in a university primary care clinic, who met criteria for LCS.InterventionProviders were randomized to LungCARE intervention or control. LungCARE participants completed a computer tablet-based video assessment of lung cancer educational needs in the waiting room prior to a primary care visit. Patient and provider both received a summary handout of patient concerns and responses.Main measuresAll eligible patients completed baseline interviews by telephone. One week after the index visit, participants completed a follow-up telephone survey that assessed patient-physician discussion of LCS, referral to and scheduling of LCS, as well as LCS knowledge and acceptability of LungCARE. Two months after index visit, we reviewed patients' electronic health records (EHRs) for evidence of a shared decision-making conversation and referral to and receipt of LCS.Key resultsA total of 66 participants completed baseline and follow-up visits (34: LungCARE; 32: usual care). Mean age was 65.9 (± 6.0). Based on EHR review, compared to usual care, LungCARE participants were more likely to have discussed LCS with their physicians (56% vs 25%; p = 0.04) and to be referred to LCS (44% vs 13%; p < 0.02). Intervention participants were also more likely to complete LCS (32% vs 13%; p < 0.01) and had higher knowledge scores (mean score 6.5 (± 1.7) vs 5.5 (± 1.4; p < 0.01).ConclusionsLungCARE increased discussion, referral, and completion of LCS and improved LCS knowledge.Clinical trial registrationNCT03862001.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough molecular testing is crucial for many patients with lung cancer, the decision to carry out molecular testing is not easy to make in actual clinical scenarios. Using a specific decision aid (DA) to conduct shared decision-making (SDM) may help ameliorate this problem. However, no DA currently exists for lung cancer molecular testing (DA_LCMT). We aim to develop an evidence-based, iteratively refined DA, which may facilitate SDM and improve the quality of SDM.Methods and analysisAfter considering the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, International Patient Decision Aid Standards and Food and Drug Administration guidance about methods to identify what is important to patients, semistructured interviews with qualitative research methods will be used to generate the decision-making needs of patients with lung cancer diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma by intraoperative frozen pathological sections. Input will be provided by patients and other stakeholders, including thoracic surgeons, nurses, hospital administrators, molecular testing company staff and insurance company staff. Then, a modified Delphi method will be used to develop the DA_LCMT V.1.0 (DA_LCMT 1.0). Structured interviews with qualitative research methods will be used in the cognitive debriefing (alpha tests) and field testing (beta tests) to revise and improve the DA_LCMT from version 1.0 to the final version, version 3.0. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the baseline characteristics of the patients and other stakeholders. Qualitative data will be analysed using the three steps of grounded theory: generate a codebook, update the codebook and create a comprehensive list of related items.Ethics and disseminationEthics Committee for Medical Research and New Medical Technology of Sichuan Cancer Hospital approved this study. This protocol is based on the latest version 1.0, dated 31 October 2021. The study was also approved by the Ethics Committees of The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Zigong First People's Hospital and Jiangyou People's Hospital. The results of this study will be presented at medical conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT05191485.

Dataset Information

What Exactly Is Shared Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening.

Background

Objective

Design

Approach

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

What Exactly Is Shared Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets