Dataset Information

Shared decision-making in the BREATHE asthma intervention trial: A research protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To evaluate the preliminary effectiveness of the BRief Evaluation of Asthma THerapy intervention, a 7-min primary care provider-delivered shared decision-making protocol that uses motivational interviewing to address erroneous asthma disease and medication beliefs.

Design

A multi-centre masked two-arm group-randomized clinical trial.

Methods

This 2-year pilot study is funded (September 2016) by the National Institute of Nursing Research. Eight providers will be randomized to one of two arms: the active intervention (N = 4) or a dose-matched attention control (N = 4). Providers will deliver the intervention to which they were randomized to 10 Black adult patients with uncontrolled asthma (N = 80). Patients will be followed three months postintervention to test the preliminary intervention effects on asthma control (primary outcome) and on medication adherence, lung function, and asthma-related quality of life (secondary outcomes).

Discussion

This study will evaluate the preliminary impact of a novel shared decision-making intervention delivered in a real world setting to address erroneous disease and medication beliefs as a means of improving asthma control in Black adults. Results will inform a future, large-scale randomized trial with sufficient power to test the intervention's effectiveness.

Impact

Shared decision-making is an evidence-based intervention with proven effectiveness when implemented in the context of labour- and time-intensive research protocols. Medication adherence is linked with the marked disparities evident in poor and minority adults with asthma. Addressing this requires a novel multifactorial approach as we have proposed. To ensure sustainability, shared decision-making interventions must be adapted to and integrated into real-world settings.

Trial registration

Registered at clincialtrials.gov as NCT03036267 and NCT03300752.

SUBMITTER: George M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8260028 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Practice facilitation is a method of introducing and sustaining organizational change. It involves the use of skilled healthcare professionals called practice facilitators (PFs) to help address the challenges associated with implementing evidence-based guidelines and complex interventions into practice. PFs provide a framework for translating research into practice by building relationships, improving communication, fostering change, and sharing resources. Nurses are well positioned to serve as PFs for the implementation of complex interventions, however, there is little evidence currently available to describe nurses in this role. Additionally, the best strategies to implement complex interventions into practices are still not fully understood. Combining practice facilitation with the train-the-trainer model has the potential to spread knowledge and skills. Shared decision making (SDM), which involves patients and providers jointly engaging in decisions around treatment options, has been shown to improve outcomes for patients with asthma. The goal of this manuscript is to describe and evaluate the practice facilitation process from the ADAPT-NC Study which successfully utilized research nurses to implement a complex asthma SDM toolkit intervention into primary care practices. Methods:As part of a larger study, 10 primary care practices were recruited for a facilitator-led dissemination intervention involving a 12-week rollout of an asthma SDM toolkit (trial registration: 1.28.2014, #NCT02047929). An experienced lead PF trained research nurses as PFs from each of the 4 participating practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in a train-the-trainer model utilizing a one-day training event and subsequent remote meetings. Evaluation of PF engagement was measured through process improvement surveys. Results:Overall, the asthma SDM intervention was successfully implemented within the 4 PBRNs. All 10 facilitator-led practices remained engaged with their PFs, with 8 out of the 10 practices able to incorporate and sustain SDM visits or clinics. Responses from the surveys for process improvement yielded improved PF communication and team dynamics over time. Conclusions:This study demonstrated effective use of research nurses as practice facilitators during the dissemination of an asthma SDM intervention into primary care practices, adding to the knowledge of best practices by describing a model of large-scale implementation of a complex intervention through practice facilitation with nurses. Trial registration:"Comparing Traditional and Participatory Dissemination of a Shared Decision Making Intervention" was retrospectively registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ on January 28th, 2014 (NCT02047929).

Project description:IntroductionSocioeconomic disparities for breast cancer surgical care exist. Although the aetiology of the observed socioeconomic disparities is likely multifactorial, patient engagement during the surgical consult is critical. Shared decision-making may reduce health disparities by addressing barriers to patient engagement in decision-making that disproportionately impact socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. In this trial, we test the impact of a decision aid on increasing socioeconomically disadvantaged patients' engagement in breast cancer surgery decision-making.Methods and analysisThis multisite randomised trial is conducted through 10 surgical clinics within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). We plan a stepped-wedge design with clinics randomised to the time of transition from usual care to the decision aid arm. Study participants are female patients, aged ≥18 years, with newly diagnosed stage 0-III breast cancer who are planning breast surgery. Data collection includes a baseline surgeon survey, baseline patient survey, audio-recording of the surgeon-patient consultation, a follow-up patient survey and medical record data review. Interviews and focus groups are conducted with a subset of patients, surgeons and clinic stakeholders. The effectiveness of the decision aid at increasing patient engagement (primary outcome) is evaluated using generalised linear mixed-effects models. The extent to which the effect of the decision aid intervention on patient engagement is mediated through the mitigation of barriers is tested in joint linear structural equation models. Qualitative interviews explore how barriers impact engagement, especially for socioeconomically disadvantaged women.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol has been approved by the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review Board, and Certificate of Confidentiality has been obtained. We plan to disseminate the findings through journal publications and national meetings, including the NCORP network. Our findings will advance the science of medical decision-making with the potential to reduce socioeconomic health disparities.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03766009).

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:BackgroundClinicians 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.Methods/designThis 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.DiscussionThe 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.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01514786.

Project description:AimsTo assess the intervention effects of BREATHE (BRief intervention to Evaluate Asthma THErapy), a novel brief shared decision-making intervention and evaluate feasibility and acceptability of intervention procedures.DesignGroup-randomized longitudinal pilot study.MethodsIn total, 80 adults with uncontrolled persistent asthma participated in a trial comparing BREATHE (N = 40) to a dose-matched attention control intervention (N = 40). BREATHE is a one-time shared decision-making intervention delivered by clinicians during routine office visits. Ten clinicians were randomized and trained on BREATHE or the control condition. Participants were followed monthly for 3 months post-intervention. Data were collected from December 2017 - May 2019 and included surveys, lung function tests, and interviews.ResultsParticipants were Black/multiracial (100%) mostly female (83%) adults (mean age 45). BREATHE clinicians delivered BREATHE to all 40 participants with fidelity based on expert review of audiorecordings. While the control group reported improvements in asthma control at 1-month and 3-month follow-up, only BREATHE participants had better asthma control at each timepoint (β = 0.77; standard error (SE)[0.17]; p ≤ 0.0001; β = 0.71; SE[0.16]; p ≤ 0.0001; β = 0.54; SE[0.15]; p = .0004), exceeding the minimally important difference. BREATHE participants also perceived greater shared decision-making occurred during the intervention visit (β = 7.39; SE[3.51]; p = .03) and fewer symptoms at follow-up (e.g., fewer nights woken, less shortness of breath and less severity of symptoms) than the controls. Both groups reported improved adherence and fewer erroneous medication beliefs.ConclusionBREATHE is a promising brief tailored intervention that can be integrated into office visits using clinicians as interventionists. Thus, BREATHE offers a pragmatic approach to improving asthma outcomes and shared decision-making in a health disparity population.ImpactThe study addressed the important problem of uncontrolled asthma in a high-risk vulnerable population. Compared with the dose-matched attention control condition, participants receiving the novel brief tailored shared decision-making intervention had significant improvements in asthma outcomes and greater perceived engagement in shared decision-making. Brief interventions integrated into office visits and delivered by clinicians may offer a pragmatic approach to narrowing health disparity gaps. Future studies where other team members (e.g., office nurses, social workers) are trained in shared decision-making may address important implementation science challenges as it relates to adoption, maintenance, and dissemination. TRAIL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov # NCT03300752.

Project description:BackgroundThe Pre-Consultation Educational Group INTERVENTION pilot study seeks to assess the feasibility and inform the optimal design for a definitive randomized controlled trial that aims to improve the quality of decision-making in postmastectomy breast reconstruction patients.Methods/designThis is a mixed-methods pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial that will follow a single-center, 1:1 allocation, two-arm parallel group superiority design.SettingThe University Health Network, a tertiary care cancer center in Toronto, Canada.ParticipantsAdult women referred to one of three plastic and reconstructive surgeons for delayed breast reconstruction or prophylactic mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction.InterventionWe designed a multi-disciplinary educational group workshop that incorporates the key components of shared decision-making, decision-support, and psychosocial support for cancer survivors prior to the initial surgical consult. The intervention consists of didactic lectures by a plastic surgeon and nurse specialist on breast reconstruction choices, pre- and postoperative care; a value-clarification exercise led by a social worker; and discussions with a breast reconstruction patient.ControlUsual care includes access to an informational booklet, website, and patient volunteer if desired.OutcomesExpected pilot outcomes include feasibility, recruitment, and retention targets. Acceptability of intervention and full trial outcomes will be established through qualitative interviews. Trial outcomes will include decision-quality measures, patient-reported outcomes, and service outcomes, and the treatment effect estimate and variability will be used to inform the sample size calculation for a full trial.DiscussionOur pilot study seeks to identify the (1) feasibility, acceptability, and design of a definitive RCT and (2) the optimal content and delivery of our proposed educational group intervention. Thirty patients have been recruited to date (8 April 2013), of whom 15 have been randomized to one of three decision support workshops. The trial will close as planned in May 2013.Trial registrationNCT01857882.

Project description:RationalePoor adherence to asthma controller medications results in poor treatment outcomes.ObjectivesTo compare controller medication adherence and clinical outcomes in 612 adults with poorly controlled asthma randomized to one of two different treatment decision-making models or to usual care.MethodsIn shared decision making (SDM), nonphysician clinicians and patients negotiated a treatment regimen that accommodated patient goals and preferences. In clinician decision making, treatment was prescribed without specifically eliciting patient goals/preferences. The otherwise identical intervention protocols both provided asthma education and involved two in-person and three brief phone encounters.Measurements and main resultsRefill adherence was measured using continuous medication acquisition (CMA) indices-the total days' supply acquired per year divided by 365 days. Cumulative controller medication dose was measured in beclomethasone canister equivalents. In follow-up Year 1, compared with usual care, SDM resulted in: significantly better controller adherence (CMA, 0.67 vs. 0.46; P < 0.0001) and long-acting beta-agonist adherence (CMA, 0.51 vs. 0.40; P = 0.0225); higher cumulative controller medication dose (canister equivalent, 10.9 vs. 5.2; P < 0.0001); significantly better clinical outcomes (asthma-related quality of life, health care use, rescue medication use, asthma control, and lung function). In Year 2, compared with usual care, SDM resulted in significantly lower rescue medication use, the sole clinical outcome available for that year. Compared with clinician decision making, SDM resulted in: significantly better controller adherence (CMA, 0.67 vs. 0.59; P = 0.03) and long-acting beta-agonist adherence (CMA, 0.51 vs. 0.41; P = 0.0143); higher cumulative controller dose (CMA, 10.9 vs. 9.1; P = 0.005); and quantitatively, but not significantly, better outcomes on all clinical measures.ConclusionsNegotiating patients' treatment decisions significantly improves adherence to asthma pharmacotherapy and clinical outcomes. Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00217945 and NCT00149526).

Project description:Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common ongoing health problem that places patients at risk of stroke. Whether and how a patient addresses this risk depends on each patient's goals, context, and values. Consequently, leading cardiovascular societies recommend using shared decision making (SDM) to individualize antithrombotic treatment in patients with AF. The aim of this study is to assess the extent to which the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool promotes high-quality SDM and influences anticoagulation uptake and adherence in patients with AF at risk of strokes.This study protocol describes a multicenter, encounter-level, randomized trial to assess the effect of using the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool in the clinical encounter, compared to usual care. The participating centers include an academic hospital system, a suburban community group practice, and an urban safety net hospital, all in Minnesota, USA. Patients with ongoing nonvalvular AF at risk of strokes (CHA2DS2-VASc score???1 in men, or???2 in women) will be eligible for participation. We aim to include 999 patients and their clinicians. The primary outcome is the quality of SDM as perceived by participants, and as assessed by a post-encounter survey that ascertains (a) knowledge transfer, (b) concordance of the decision made, (c) quality of communication, and (d) satisfaction with the decision-making process. Recordings of encounters will be reviewed to assess the extent of patient involvement and how participants use the tool (fidelity). Anticoagulant use, choice of agent, and adherence will be drawn from patients' medical and pharmacy records. Strokes and bleeding events will be drawn from patient records.This study will provide a valid and precise measure of the effect of the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool on SDM quality and processes, and on the treatment choices and adherence to therapy among AF patients at risk of stroke.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02905032 . Registered on 9 September 2016.