Dataset Information

OPADIA Study: Is a Patient Questionnaire Useful for Enhancing Physician-Patient Shared Decision Making on Physical Activity Micro-objectives in Diabetes?

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Regular physical activity (PA) is recommended by all type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management guidelines. The OPADIA study aimed to determine whether using a specific patient questionnaire (Optima-PA©) could help T2DM patients increase their PA by leading to better physician-patient communication and improved levels of shared decision making concerning Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic, Timely (SMART)-PA micro-objectives.

Methods

Physicians participating in this multicentre, prospective, randomised, real-life study were allocated to a standard group (T2DM patients managed according to usual clinical practice, n = 24) or the OPTIMA-PA group (additional use of the questionnaire, n = 30). The main outcome was the percentage of inclusion visits ending with the setting up of at least one SMART-PA micro-objective. Other outcomes were the impact of the OPTIMA-PA questionnaire on patient perceptions of shared decision making (ENTRED questionnaire) and the impact of the OPTIMA-PA questionnaire and establishing SMART-PA micro-objectives as well as patient-perceived physician empathy (ENTRED questionnaire) and GP aptitude for patient-centredness (SEPCQ scores) on patient PA levels over a 3-month period (IPAQ-SF scores).

Results

One hundred twenty-two patients were included in the standard group and 134 in the OPTIMA-PA group. Unexpectedly, more inclusion visits ended with SMART-PA micro-objectives being set up in the standard group (p < 0.001): 81.1% (n = 99/122) versus 59.7% (n = 80/134). However, fewer patients in the OPTIMA-PA group felt that GPs made decisions alone (32% versus 60%; p < 0.0001). Positive correlations were also observed between GP patient-centredness and patient-perceived GP empathy or increased patient PA over the study period.

Conclusion

Although the OPTIMA-PA questionnaire did not directly promote setting up of SMART-PA micro-objectives in T2DM patients, the OPADIA study demonstrated that this tool was effective at improving patient-physician relationships by increasing patient involvement in therapeutic decision making. Our study also highlighted the importance of GP aptitude for patient-centredness for improving PA in T2DM patients.

SUBMITTER: Consoli SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7467497 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

OPADIA Study: Is a Patient Questionnaire Useful for Enhancing Physician-Patient Shared Decision Making on Physical Activity Micro-objectives in Diabetes?

Consoli Silla M SM Duclos Martine M Grimaldi André A Penfornis Alfred A Bineau Sébastien S Sabin Bénédicte B Pouriel Mathilde M Freund Eva E Dejager Sylvie S

Advances in therapy 20200415 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>Regular physical activity (PA) is recommended by all type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management guidelines. The OPADIA study aimed to determine whether using a specific patient questionnaire (Optima-PA©) could help T2DM patients increase their PA by leading to better physician-patient communication and improved levels of shared decision making concerning Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic, Timely (SMART)-PA micro-objectives.<h4>Methods</h4>Physicians participating i ...[more]

PMID: 32297283

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGoal attainment of guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is suboptimal. Little is known about how patient factors influence physicians' treatment decision-making in hypercholesterolemia. We examined physicians' treatment recommendations in high-risk patients whose LDL-C remained uncontrolled despite statin monotherapy.MethodsPhysicians completed a questionnaire prior to randomization into period I of a two-period randomized controlled trial evaluating LDL-C goal attainment in patients whose LDL-C remained ≥100 mg/dL after 5 weeks' treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg/day (NCT01154036). Physicians' treatment recommendations were surveyed for two hypothetical and one real scenario: (1) LDL-C presumed near goal (between 100-105 mg/dL), (2) LDL-C presumed far from goal (~120 mg/dL), and (3) observed baseline LDL-C of enrolled patients. Prognostic factors considered during decision-making were identified by regression analysis. Observed lipid outcomes at the end of period I (following 6 weeks' treatment with ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, or rosuvastatin 10 mg) were compared with estimated LDL-C outcomes for physicians' treatment recommendations after 6 weeks (based on individual patients' pre-randomization LDL-C and expected incremental change).ResultsQuestionnaires were completed for 1,534 patients. No change in therapy, or double atorvastatin dose, were frequently recommended, even when LDL-C was far from goal (6.5% and 52.2% of patients, respectively). Double atorvastatin dose was commonly recommended in all scenarios (43-52% of patients). More intensive LDL-C-lowering regimens were recommended infrequently e.g. double atorvastatin dose and add ezetimibe only <12% in all scenarios. Overall, cardiovascular risk factors and desire to achieve a more aggressive LDL-C goal were prominent factors in decision-making for treatment. Comparison of observed and estimated LDL-C levels showed that physicians tended to overestimate the effectiveness of their recommendations.ConclusionsThis study provides insight into physicians' perspectives on clinical management of hypercholesterolemia and highlights a gap in knowledge translation from guidelines to clinical practice. The need for lower LDL-C and cardiovascular risk were key drivers in clinical decision-making, but physicians' treatment choices were more conservative than guideline recommendations, potentially resulting in poorer LDL-C reduction. When compared with actual outcomes, projected LDL-C control was better if physicians used more comprehensive strategies rather than simply doubling the statin dose.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01154036.

Project description:PURPOSE:The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc measure patient and physician perception of the extent of shared decision making (SDM) during a physician-patient consultation. So far, no self-report instrument for SDM was available in Dutch, and validation of the scales in other languages has been limited. The aim of this study was to translate both scales into Dutch and assess their psychometric characteristics. METHODS:Participants were patients and their treating physicians (general practitioners and medical specialists). Patients (N = 182) rated their consultation using the SDM-Q-9, 43 physicians rated their consultations using the SDM-Q-Doc (N = 201). Acceptability, reliability (internal consistency), and the factorial structure of the instruments were determined. For convergent validity the CPSpost was used. RESULTS:Reliabilities of both scales were high (alpha SDM-Q-9 0.88; SDM-Q-Doc 0.87). The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc total scores correlated as expected with the CPSpost (SDM-Q-9: r = 0.29; SDM-Q-Doc: r = 0.48) and were significantly different between the CPSpost categories, with lowest mean scores when the physician made the decision alone. Principal Component Analyses showed a two-component model for each scale. A confirmatory factor analysis yielded a mediocre, but acceptable, one-factor model, if Item 1 was excluded; for both scales the best indices of fit were obtained for a one-factor solution, if both Items 1 and 9 were excluded. CONCLUSION:The Dutch SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrate good acceptance and reliability; they correlated as expected with the CPSpost and are suitable for use in Dutch primary and specialised care. Although the best model fit was found when excluding Items 1 and 9, we believe these items address important aspects of SDM. Therefore, also based on the coherence with theory and comparability with other studies, we suggest keeping all nine items of the scale. Further research on the SDM-concept in patients and physicians, in different clinical settings and different countries, is necessary to gain a better understanding of the SDM-construct and its measurement.

Project description:DECISION + 2, a training program for physicians, is designed to implement shared decision making (SDM) in the context of antibiotics use for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs). We evaluated the impact of DECISION + 2 on SDM implementation as assessed by patients and physicians, and on physicians' intention to engage in SDM.From 2010 to 2011, a multi-center, two-arm, parallel randomized clustered trial appraised the effects of DECISION + 2 on the decision to use antibiotics for patients consulting for ARTIs. We randomized 12 family practice teaching units (FPTUs) to either DECISION + 2 or usual care. After the consultation, both physicians and patients independently completed questionnaires based on the D-Option scale regarding SDM behaviors during the consultation. Patients also answered items assessing the role they assumed during the consultation (active/collaborative/passive). Before and after the intervention, physicians completed a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to measure their intention to engage in SDM. To account for the cluster design, we used generalized estimating equations and generalized linear mixed models to assess the impact of DECISION + 2 on the outcomes of interest.A total of 270 physicians (66% women) participated in the study. After DECISION + 2, patients' D-Option scores were 80.1 ± 1.1 out of 100 in the intervention group and 74.9 ± 1.1 in the control group (p = 0.001). Physicians' D-Option scores were 79.7 ± 1.8 in the intervention group and 76.3 ± 1.9 in the control group (p = 0.2). However, subgroup analyses showed that teacher physicians D-Option scores were 79.7 ± 1.5 and 73.0 ± 1.4 respectively (p = 0.001). More patients reported assuming an active or collaborative role in the intervention group (67.1%), than in the control group (49.2%) (p = 0.04). There was a significant relation between patients' and physicians' D-Option scores (p < 0.01) and also between patient-reported assumed roles and both D-Option scores (as assessed by patients, p < 0.01; and physicians, p = 0.01). DECISION + 2 had no impact on the intention of physicians to engage in SDM.DECISION + 2 positively influenced SDM behaviors as assessed by patients and teacher physicians. Physicians' intention to engage in SDM was not affected by DECISION + 2.ClinicalTrials.gov trials register no. NCT01116076.

Project description:Importance:Professional guidelines have identified key communication skills for shared decision-making for critically ill patients, but it is unclear how intensivists interpret and implement them. Objective:To compare the self-evaluations of intensivists reviewing transcripts of their own simulated intensive care unit family meetings with the evaluations of trained expert colleagues. Design, Setting, and Participants:A posttrial web-based survey of intensivists was conducted between January and March 2019. Intensivists reviewed transcripts of simulated intensive care unit family meetings in which they participated in a previous trial from October 2016 to November 2017. In the follow-up survey, participants identified if and how they performed key elements of shared decision-making for an intensive care unit patient at high risk of death. Transcript texts that intensivists self-identified as examples of key communication skills recommended by their professional society's policy on shared decision-making were categorized. Main Outcomes and Measures:Comparison of the evaluations of 2 blinded nonparticipant intensivist colleagues with the self-reported responses of the intensivists. Results:Of 116 eligible intensivists, 76 (66%) completed the follow-up survey (mean [SD] respondent age was 43.1 [8.1] years; 72% were male). Sixty-one of 76 intensivists reported conveying prognosis; however, blinded colleagues who reviewed the deidentified transcripts were less likely to report that prognosis had been conveyed than intensivists reviewing their own transcripts (42 of 61; odds ratio, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.44; P < .001). When reviewing their own transcript, intensivists reported presenting many choices, with the most common choice being code status. They also provided a variety of recommendations, with the most common being to continue the current treatment plan. Thirty-three participants (43%) reported that they offered care focused on comfort, but blinded colleagues rated only 1 (4%) as explaining this option in a clear manner. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, guidelines for shared decision-making and end of life care were interpreted by intensivists in disparate ways. In the absence of training or personalized feedback, self-assessment of communication skills may not be interpreted consistently.

Dataset Information

OPADIA Study: Is a Patient Questionnaire Useful for Enhancing Physician-Patient Shared Decision Making on Physical Activity Micro-objectives in Diabetes?

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

OPADIA Study: Is a Patient Questionnaire Useful for Enhancing Physician-Patient Shared Decision Making on Physical Activity Micro-objectives in Diabetes?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets