Dataset Information

Making sense of diabetes medication decisions: a mixed methods cluster randomized trial using a conversation aid intervention.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To determine the effectiveness of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool versus guideline-informed usual care in translating evidence into primary care, and to explore how use of the tool changed patient perspectives about diabetes medication decision making.

Methods

In this mixed methods multicenter cluster randomized trial, we included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and their primary care clinicians. We compared usual care with or without a within-encounter SDM conversation aid. We assessed participant-reported decisions made and quality of SDM (knowledge, satisfaction, and decisional conflict), clinical outcomes, adherence, and observer-based patient involvement in decision-making (OPTION12-scale). We used semi-structured interviews with patients to understand their perspectives.

Results

We enrolled 350 patients and 99 clinicians from 20 practices and interviewed 26 patients. Use of the conversation aid increased post-encounter patient knowledge (correct answers, 52% vs. 45%, p = 0.02) and clinician involvement of patients (Mean between-arm difference in OPTION12, 7.3 (95% CI 3, 12); p = 0.003). There were no between-arm differences in treatment choice, patient or clinician satisfaction, encounter length, medication adherence, or glycemic control. Qualitative analyses highlighted differences in how clinicians involved patients in decision making, with intervention patients noting how clinicians guided them through conversations using factors important to them.

Conclusions

Using an SDM conversation aid improved patient knowledge and involvement in SDM without impacting treatment choice, encounter length, medication adherence or improved diabetes control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Future interventions may need to focus specifically on patients with signs of poor treatment fit.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01502891.

SUBMITTER: Kunneman M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8428215 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care needs to be patient-centered, integrated, and interprofessional to help patients with complex needs manage the burden of medication-related problems. Considering the growing problem of polypharmacy, increasing attention has been paid to how and when medication-related decisions should be coordinated across multidisciplinary care teams. Improved knowledge on how integrated electronic health records (EHRs) can support interprofessional shared decision-making for medication therapy management is necessary to continue improving patient care. OBJECTIVE:The objective of our study was to examine how physicians and pharmacists understand and communicate patient-focused medication information with each other and how this knowledge can influence the design of EHRs. METHODS:This study is part of a broader cross-Canada study between patients and health care providers around how medication-related decisions are made and communicated. We visited community pharmacies, team-based primary care clinics, and independent-practice family physician clinics throughout Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and Quebec. Research assistants conducted semistructured interviews with physicians and pharmacists. A modified version of the Multidisciplinary Framework Method was used to analyze the data. RESULTS:We collected data from 19 pharmacies and 9 medical clinics and identified 6 main themes from 34 health care professionals. First, Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making was not occurring and clinicians made decisions based on their understanding of the patient. Physicians and pharmacists reported indirect Communication, incomplete Information specifically missing insight into indication and adherence, and misaligned Processes of Care that were further compounded by EHRs that are not designed to facilitate collaboration. Scope of Practice examined professional and workplace boundaries for pharmacists and physicians that were internally and externally imposed. Physicians decided on the degree of the Physician-Pharmacist Relationship, often predicated by colocation. CONCLUSIONS:We observed limited communication and collaboration between primary care providers and pharmacists when managing medications. Pharmacists were missing key information around reason for use, and physicians required accurate information around adherence. EHRs are a potential tool to help clinicians communicate information to resolve this issue. EHRs need to be designed to facilitate interprofessional medication management so that pharmacists and physicians can move beyond task-based work toward a collaborative approach.

Project description:IntroductionShared decision making is an interpersonal process whereby healthcare providers collaborate with and support patients in decision-making. Older adults receiving home care need support with decision-making. We will explore what older adults receiving home care and their caregivers need for making better health-related decisions.Methods and analysisThis two-phase sequential exploratory mixed methods study will be conducted in a pan-Canadian healthcare organisation, SE Health. First, we will create a participant advisory group to advise us throughout the research process. In phase 1 (qualitative), we will recruit a convenience sample of 15-30 older adults and caregivers receiving home care to participate in open-ended semi-structured interviews. Phase 1 participants will be invited to share what health-related decisions they face at home and what they need for making better decisions. In phase 2 (quantitative), interdisciplinary health and social care providers will be invited to answer a web-based survey to share their views on the decisional needs of older adults and their caregivers. The survey will include questions informed by findings from qualitative interviews in phase 1, and a workbook for assessing decisional needs based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Finally, qualitative and quantitative results will be triangulated (by methods, investigator, theory and source) to develop a comprehensive understanding of decision-making needs from the perspective of older adults, caregivers and health and social care providers. We will use the quality of mixed methods studies in health services research guidelines and the Checklist for Reporting the Results of Internet E-Surveys checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the research ethics boards at Southlake Regional Health Centre and Université Laval. This study will inform the design of decision support interventions. Further dissemination plans include summary briefs for study participants, tailored reports for home care decision makers and policy makers, and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberNCT04327830.

Project description:BackgroundDecision aids help patients consider the benefits and drawbacks of care options but rarely include cost information. We assessed the impact of a conversation-based decision aid containing information about low-risk prostate cancer management options and their relative costs.MethodsWe conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in outpatient urology practices within a US-based academic medical center. We randomised five clinicians to four intervention sequences and enroled patients newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Primary patient-reported outcomes collected postvisit included the frequency of cost conversations and referrals to address costs. Other patient-reported outcomes included: decisional conflict postvisit and at 3 months, decision regret at 3 months, shared decision-making postvisit, financial toxicity postvisit and at 3 months. Clinicians reported their attitudes about shared decision-making pre- and poststudy, and the intervention's feasibility and acceptability. We used hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient outcomes. The clinician was included as a random effect; fixed effects included education, employment, telehealth versus in-person visit, visit date, and enrolment period.ResultsBetween April 2020 and March 2022, we screened 513 patients, contacted 217 eligible patients, and enroled 117/217 (54%) (51 in usual care, 66 in the intervention group). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was not associated with cost conversations (β = .82, p = .27), referrals to cost-related resources (β = -0.36, p = .81), shared decision-making (β = -0.79, p = .32), decisional conflict postvisit (β = -0.34, p= .70), or at follow-up (β = -2.19, p = .16), decision regret at follow-up (β = -9.76, p = .11), or financial toxicity postvisit (β = -1.32, p = .63) or at follow-up (β = -2.41, p = .23). Most clinicians and patients had positive attitudes about the intervention and shared decision-making. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, patients in the intervention group experienced more transient indecision (p < .02) suggesting increased deliberation between visit and follow-up.DiscussionDespite enthusiasm from clinicians, the intervention was not significantly associated with hypothesised outcomes, though we were unable to robustly test outcomes due to recruitment challenges. Recruitment at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted eligibility, sample size/power, study procedures, and increased telehealth visits and financial worry, independent of the intervention. Future work should explore ways to support shared decision-making, cost conversations, and choice deliberation with a larger sample. Such work could involve additional members of the care team, and consider the detail, quality, and timing of addressing these issues.Patient or public contributionPatients and clinicians were engaged as stakeholder advisors meeting monthly throughout the duration of the project to advise on the study design, measures selected, data interpretation, and dissemination of study findings.