Dataset Information

Evidence-Based Decision Aid for Patients With Parkinson Disease: Protocol for Interview Study, Online Survey, and Two Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Shared decision making is particularly important in situations with different treatment alternatives. For the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson disease, both pharmacological and surgical approaches can be applied. OBJECTIVE:In this research project, a series of studies will be conducted to investigate how decision aids for patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease should be designed in order to support the decision-making process. METHODS:In Study 1a, qualitative interviews will be conducted to determine which needs frequently occur for patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease. In Study 1b, the identified needs will then be rated for personal relevance by an independent group of patients in an online survey. In Study 2, a randomized controlled trial will be used to pretest different decision aids in a sample group of people who do not have a medical background and who do not have Parkinson disease. In Study 3, a randomized controlled trial will be used to investigate the effect of the decision aids that had been evaluated as positive in Study 2 with patients who have idiopathic Parkinson disease. RESULTS:This series of studies received ethical approval in January 2020. As of June 2020, data collection for Study 1a has started, and it is estimated that Studies 1a, 1b, 2, and 3 will take approximately 4, 4, 6, and 6 months to complete, respectively. It is planned to present the results and analyses at international conferences and to submit the results to peer-reviewed journals for publication, once the studies have been completed. The findings will also be shared with clinicians and patients through presentations at information events. CONCLUSIONS:This series of studies is intended to result in an evidence-based decision aid for patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease in order to support the informed and reflected shared decision-making process. We further intend to contribute to a deeper understanding of the individual preferences of patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease and the impact of those preferences on treatment decisions.

SUBMITTER: Bientzle M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7388050 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence-Based Decision Aid for Patients With Parkinson Disease: Protocol for Interview Study, Online Survey, and Two Randomized Controlled Trials.

Bientzle Martina M Kimmerle Joachim J Eggeling Marie M Cebi Idil I Weiss Daniel D Gharabaghi Alireza A

JMIR research protocols 20200714 7

<h4>Background</h4>Shared decision making is particularly important in situations with different treatment alternatives. For the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson disease, both pharmacological and surgical approaches can be applied.<h4>Objective</h4>In this research project, a series of studies will be conducted to investigate how decision aids for patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease should be designed in order to support the decision-making process.<h4>Methods</h4>In Study 1a, qualitativ ...[more]

PMID: 32673261

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDecision aids (DAs) may be used to facilitate an autonomous, informed decision to cease smoking and promote the uptake of evidence-based cessation assistance (ie, behavioral support, nicotine replacement therapy, or prescription medication). However, knowledge is lacking regarding their effective elements and (cost-)effectiveness.ObjectiveWe describe the development process of an online DA (called "VISOR") that helps smokers to choose evidence-based cessation assistance. Additionally, we provide a description of the protocol of an ongoing randomized controlled trial in which the DA containing an explicit value clarification method (VCM) and tailored advice is compared with a DA without an explicit VCM and tailored advice.MethodsThe development of "VISOR" was based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards guidelines. Viewpoints of end users (collected through 20 interviews with smokers) and clinical and scientific experts (assessed using 2 Delphi studies with 24 scientists and 38 clinicians) were assessed regarding cessation tool decision making and preferred DA content. These findings, together with principles from the Self-Determination Theory, served as input for the development of the online DA. A first DA prototype was alpha-tested in September 2019 and beta-tested for usability in December 2019; feedback was incorporated and resulted in a final version. The final DA contains (1) an information section, (2) an optional knowledge quiz, (3) a brief smoking assessment, (4) intuitive decision, (5) intermediate advice, (6) an explicit VCM, (7) tailored advice, and (8) access information. A randomized controlled trial is currently being conducted to assess the DA's (cost-)effectiveness compared to a DA that does not include the explicit VCM and the tailored advice; specifically, the DA's effect on smoking abstinence, uptake of evidence-based cessation assistance, smoking abstinence mediated through uptake of evidence-based cessation assistance, and decisional conflict are investigated. Participants are randomly allocated to receive access to 1 of the 2 DAs and are asked to complete 5 questionnaires (including the baseline questionnaire) over a period of 12 months. To evaluate the effects of the DA on the outcome measures, logistic and linear regression analyses as well as mediation analyses will be carried out. An economic evaluation will be performed to assess the cost-effectiveness.ResultsData regarding the effect of the VISOR DA are currently being collected, and data collection is expected to be concluded in 2021.ConclusionsBy making use of an iterative process that integrated different stakeholders' perspectives (including end users), we were able to systematically design an evidence-based DA. The study will contribute to the current knowledge regarding smoking cessation DA application, the added value of explicit VCMs, and the effect of behavioral and informed decision-making outcomes.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NL8270; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8270.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/21772.

Project description:BackgroundPatient decision aids (PtDAs) support patients and clinicians in shared decision-making (SDM). Real-world outcome information may improve patients' risk perception, and help patients make decisions congruent with their expectations and values. Our aim was to develop an online PtDA to support kidney failure treatment modality decision-making, that: 1) provides patients with real-world outcome information, and 2) facilitates SDM in clinical practice.MethodsThe International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) development process model was complemented with a user-centred and convergent mixed-methods approach. Rapid prototyping was used to develop the PtDA with a multidisciplinary steering group in an iterative process of co-creation. The results of an exploratory evidence review and a needs-assessment among patients, caregivers, and clinicians were used to develop the PtDA. Seven Dutch teaching hospitals and two national Dutch outcome registries provided real-world data on selected outcomes for all kidney failure treatment modalities. Alpha and beta testing were performed to assess the prototype and finalise development. An implementation strategy was developed to guide implementation of the PtDA in clinical practice.ResultsThe 'Kidney Failure Decision Aid' consists of three components designed to help patients and clinicians engage in SDM: 1) a paper hand-out sheet, 2) an interactive website, and 3) a personal summary sheet. A 'patients-like-me' infographic was developed to visualise survival probabilities for each treatment modality on the website. Other treatment outcomes were incorporated as event rates (e.g. hospitalisation rates) or explained in text (e.g. the flexibility of each treatment modality). No major revisions were needed after alpha and beta testing. During beta testing, some patients ignored the survival probabilities because they considered these too confronting. Nonetheless, patients agreed that every patient has the right to choose whether they want to view this information. Patients and clinicians believed that the PtDA would help patients make informed decisions, and that it would support values- and preferences-based decision-making. Implementation of the PtDA has started in October 2020.ConclusionsThe 'Kidney Failure Decision Aid' was designed to facilitate SDM in clinical practice and contains real-world outcome information on all kidney failure treatment modalities. It is currently being investigated for its effects on SDM in a clinical trial.

Project description:Risk stratification using genetic and other types of personal information could improve current best available approaches to ovarian cancer risk reduction, improving identification of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer and reducing unnecessary interventions for women at lower risk. Amounts of information given to women may influence key informed decision-related outcomes, e.g. knowledge. The primary aim of this study was to compare informed decision-related outcomes between women given one of two versions (gist vs. extended) of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management.This was an experimental survey study comparing the effects of brief (gist) information with lengthier, more detailed (extended) information on cognitions relevant to informed decision-making about participating in risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Women with no personal history of ovarian cancer were recruited through an online survey company and randomised to view the gist (n?=?512) or extended (n?=?519) version of a website-based decision aid and completed an online survey. Primary outcomes were knowledge and intentions. Secondary outcomes included attitudes (values) and decisional conflict.There were no significant differences between the gist and extended conditions in knowledge about ovarian cancer (time*group interaction: F?=?0.20, p?=?0.66) or intention to participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment (t(1029)?=?0.43, p?=?0.67). There were also no between-groups differences in secondary outcomes. In the sample overall (n?=?1031), knowledge about ovarian cancer increased from before to after exposure to the decision aid (from 5.71 to 6.77 out of a possible 10: t?=?19.04, p?<?0.001), and 74% of participants said that they would participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment.No differences in knowledge or intentions were found between women who viewed the gist version and women who viewed the extended version of a decision aid about risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Knowledge increased for women in both decision aid groups. Further research is needed to determine the ideal volume and type of content for decision aids about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management.This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry; registration number: ISRCTN48627877 .

Project description:BACKGROUND:Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES:To systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework. METHODS:1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice.2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness.3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity.4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis.5. Iterative refinement: Throughout the development process, the toolkit will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. DISCUSSION:Interprofessional shared decision-making regarding priority-setting with the use of a decision aid toolkit may help prioritize care of individuals with multiple comorbid conditions. Adhering to principles of user-centered design, we will develop and refine a toolkit to assess the feasibility of this approach.

Project description:Clinicians face challenges in promoting colorectal cancer screening due to multiple competing demands. A decision aid that clarifies patient preferences and improves decision quality can aid shared decision making and be effective at increasing colorectal cancer screening rates. However, exactly how such an intervention improves shared decision making is unclear. This study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, seeks to provide detailed understanding of how an interactive decision aid that elicits patient's risks and preferences impacts patient-clinician communication and shared decision making, and ultimately colorectal cancer screening adherence.This is a two-armed single-blinded randomized controlled trial with the target of 300 patients per arm. The setting is eleven community and three academic primary care practices in Metro Detroit. Patients are men and women aged between 50 and 75 years who are not up to date on colorectal cancer screening. ColoDATES Web (intervention arm), a decision aid that incorporates interactive personal risk assessment and preference clarification tools, is compared to a non-interactive website that matches ColoDATES Web in content but does not contain interactive tools (control arm). Primary outcomes are patient uptake of colorectal cancer screening; patient decision quality (knowledge, preference clarification, intent); clinician's degree of shared decision making; and patient-clinician concordance in the screening test chosen. Secondary outcome incorporates a Structural Equation Modeling approach to understand the mechanism of the causal pathway and test the validity of the proposed conceptual model based on Theory of Planned Behavior. Clinicians and those performing the analysis are blinded to arms.The central hypothesis is that ColoDATES Web will improve colorectal cancer screening adherence through improvement in patient behavioral factors, shared decision making between the patient and the clinician, and concordance between the patient's and clinician's preferred colorectal cancer screening test. The results of this study will be among the first to examine the effect of a real-time preference assessment exercise on colorectal cancer screening and mediators, and, in doing so, will shed light on the patient-clinician communication and shared decision making 'black box' that currently exists between the delivery of decision aids to patients and subsequent patient behavior.ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01514786.

Project description:Tamoxifen and raloxifene are chemopreventive drugs that can reduce women’s relative risk of primary breast cancer by 50%; however, most women eligible for these drugs have chosen not to take them. The reasons for low uptake may be related to women’s knowledge or attitudes towards the drugs. We aimed to examine the impact of an online breast cancer chemoprevention decision aid (DA) on informed intentions and decisions of women at high risk of breast cancer.We conducted a randomized clinical trial, assessing the effect of a DA about breast cancer chemoprevention on informed choices about chemoprevention. Women (n = 585), 46- to 74-years old old, completed online baseline, post-test, and three-month follow-up questionnaires. Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group, a standard control group that answered questions about chemoprevention at baseline, or a three-month control group that did not answer questions about chemoprevention at baseline. The main outcome measures were whether women’s intentions and decisions regarding chemoprevention drugs were informed, and whether women who viewed the DA were more likely to make informed decisions than women who did not view the DA, using a dichotomous composite variable ‘informed choice’ (yes/no) to classify informed decisions as those reflecting sufficient knowledge and concordance between a woman’s decision and relevant attitudes.Analyses showed that more intervention than standard control participants (52.7% versus 5.9%) made informed decisions at post-test, P <0.001. At the three-month follow-up, differences in rates of informed choice between intervention (16.9%) and both control groups (11.8% and 8.0%) were statistically non-significant, P = 0.067.The DA increased informed decision making about breast cancer chemoprevention, although the impact on knowledge diminished over time. This study was not designed to determine how much knowledge decision makers must retain over time. Examining informed decisions increases understanding of the impact of DAs. A standard for defining and measuring sufficient knowledge for informed decisions is needed.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00967824

Dataset Information

Evidence-Based Decision Aid for Patients With Parkinson Disease: Protocol for Interview Study, Online Survey, and Two Randomized Controlled Trials.

Publications

Evidence-Based Decision Aid for Patients With Parkinson Disease: Protocol for Interview Study, Online Survey, and Two Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure