Dataset Information

Using behavioral theory and shared decision-making to understand clinical trial recruitment: interviews with trial recruiters.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusions

Identified 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.

SUBMITTER: Brehaut JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8058968 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Shared Decision-making (SDM), a medical decision-making model, was popularized in the late 1980s in reaction to then predominate paternalistic decision-making, aiming to better meet the needs of patients. Extensive research has been conducted internationally examining the benefits of SDM implementation; however, existing theory on how SDM works, for whom, in which circumstances, and why is limited. While literature has shown positive patient, health care provider, and system benefits (SDM outputs), further research is required to understand the nuances of this type of decision-making. As such, we set out to address: "In which situations, how, why, and for whom does SDM between patients and health care providers contribute to improved engagement in the Shared Decision-making process?" METHODS:To achieve our study goals we conducted a seven-step realist synthesis process, which included: (1) preliminary program theory development, (2) search strategy development, (3) selection and appraisal of literature in accordance with realist methodology, (4) data extraction, (5) identification of relevant formal theories, (6) data analysis and synthesis, and (7) formation of a revised program theory with the input of stakeholders. This process was done in accordance with RAMESES guidelines and publication standards for a realist synthesis. Expert consultations were also held to ensure consistency within the SDM literature. RESULTS:Through our realist synthesis, we developed a program theory of SDM which includes three contexts (pre-existing relationship, difficulty of decision, and system support), eight mechanism sets (anxiety, trust, perception of other party capacity, perception of time, self-efficacy, world view, perception of capacity to external support, and recognition of decision), and one outcome (engagement in SDM). CONCLUSIONS:As far as the authors of this paper are aware, this paper is the first to begin unpacking how SDM works, for whom, in which circumstances, and why. By examining key mechanism sets and exploring how they facilitate or inhibit SDM, we have produced a program theory that may assist health care professionals, policy makers, and patients. While further research is suggested to further unpack the concepts identified within this paper, this provides an initial understanding into the theory behind SDM. REGISTRATION:PROSPERO: CRD42017062609.

Project description:ObjectivesThis 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).DesignThis is a qualitative exploratory study using semistructured interviews.SettingThis study was conducted in a large metropolitan public healthcare organisation in urban Australia.ParticipantsFollowing 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.FindingsEighteen 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.ConclusionsShared 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.

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: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: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:IMPORTANCE:For antidepressants, the translation of evidence of comparative effectiveness into practice is suboptimal. This deficit directly affects outcomes and quality of care for patients with depression. To overcome this problem, we developed the Depression Medication Choice (DMC) encounter decision aid, designed to help patients and clinicians consider the available antidepressants and the extent to which they improved depression and other issues important to patients. OBJECTIVE:Estimate the effect of DMC on quality of the decision-making process and depression outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted a cluster randomized trial of adults with moderate to severe depression considering treatment with an antidepressant. Primary care practices in 10 rural, suburban, and urban primary care practices across Minnesota and Wisconsin were randomly allocated to treatment of depression with or without use of the DMC decision aid. INTERVENTION:Depression Medication Choice, a series of cards, each highlighting the effect of the available options on an issue of importance to patients for use during face-to-face consultations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Decision-making quality as judged by patient knowledge and involvement in decision making, patient and clinician decisional comfort (Decisional Conflict Scale) and satisfaction, encounter duration, medication adherence, depression symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9). RESULTS:We enrolled 117 clinicians and 301 patients (67% women; mean [SD] age, 44 [15] years; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 15 [4]) into the trial. Compared with usual care (UC), use of DMC significantly improved patients' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 75%; P = .02), knowledge (DMC, 65% vs UC, 56%; P =?.03), satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], from 1.25 [P =?.81] to RR, 2.4 [P =?.002] depending on satisfaction domain), and involvement (DMC, 47% vs UC, 33%; P<.001). It also improved clinicians' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 68%; P <?.001) and satisfaction (RR, 1.64; P =?.02). There were no differences in encounter duration, medication adherence, or improvement of depression control between arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:The DMC decision aid helped primary care clinicians and patients with moderate to severe depression select antidepressants together, improving the decision-making process without extending the visit. On the other hand, DMC had no discernible effect on medication adherence or depression outcomes. By translating comparative effectiveness into patient-centered care, use of DMC improved the quality of primary care for patients with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01502891.

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:Background. Accurate diagnosis of patients' preferences is central to shared decision making. Missing from clinical practice is an approach that links pretreatment preferences and patient-reported outcomes. Objective. We propose a Bayesian collaborative filtering (CF) algorithm that combines pretreatment preferences and patient-reported outcomes to provide treatment recommendations. Design. We present the methodological details of a Bayesian CF algorithm designed to accomplish 3 tasks: 1) eliciting patient preferences using conjoint analysis surveys, 2) clustering patients into preference phenotypes, and 3) making treatment recommendations based on the posttreatment satisfaction of like-minded patients. We conduct a series of simulation studies to test the algorithm and to compare it to a 2-stage approach. Results. The Bayesian CF algorithm and 2-stage approaches performed similarly when there was extensive overlap between preference phenotypes. When the treatment was moderately associated with satisfaction, both methods made accurate recommendations. The kappa estimates measuring agreement between the true and predicted recommendations were 0.70 (95% confidence interval = 0.052-0.88) and 0.73 (0.56-0.90) under the Bayesian CF and 2-stage approaches, respectively. The 2-stage approach failed to converge in settings in which clusters were well separated, whereas the Bayesian CF algorithm produced acceptable results, with kappas of 0.73 (0.56-0.90) and 0.83 (0.69-0.97) for scenarios with moderate and large treatment effects, respectively. Limitations. Our approach assumes that the patient population is composed of distinct preference phenotypes, there is association between treatment and outcomes, and treatment effects vary across phenotypes. Findings are also limited to simulated data. Conclusion. The Bayesian CF algorithm is feasible, provides accurate cluster treatment recommendations, and outperforms 2-stage estimation when clusters are well separated. As such, the approach serves as a roadmap for incorporating predictive analytics into shared decision making.