Co-Developing an Antibiotic Stewardship Tool for Dentistry: Shared Decision-Making for Adults with Toothache or Infection.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Thompson W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8615064 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivePatient values and preferences are an important component to decision making when tradeoffs exist that impact quality of life, such as tradeoffs between stroke prevention and hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) contemplating anticoagulant therapy. Our objective is to describe the development of an Atrial Fibrillation Guideline Support Tool (AFGuST) to assist the process of integrating patients' preferences into this decision.Materials and methodsCHA2DS2VASc and HAS-BLED were used to calculate risks for stroke and hemorrhage. We developed a Markov decision analytic model as a computational engine to integrate patient-specific risk for stroke and hemorrhage and individual patient values for relevant outcomes in decisions about anticoagulant therapy.ResultsIndividual patient preferences for health-related outcomes may have greater or lesser impact on the choice of optimal antithrombotic therapy, depending upon the balance of patient-specific risks for ischemic stroke and major bleeding. These factors have been incorporated into patient-tailored booklets which, along with an informational video, were developed through an iterative process with clinicians and patient focus groups.Key limitationsCurrent risk prediction models for hemorrhage, such as the HAS-BLED, used in the AFGuST, do not incorporate all potentially significant risk factors. Novel oral anticoagulant agents recently approved for use in the United States, Canada, and Europe have not been included in the AFGuST. Rather, warfarin has been used as a conservative proxy for all oral anticoagulant therapy.ConclusionsWe present a proof of concept that a patient-tailored decision-support tool could bridge the gap between guidelines and practice by incorporating individual patient's stroke and bleeding risks and their values for major bleeding events and stroke to facilitate a shared decision making process. If effective, the AFGuST could be used as an adjunct to published guidelines to enhance patient-centered conversations about the anticoagulation management.
| S-EPMC4708062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study examined the proportion of pregnant women with opioid use disorder (OUD) who made a decision to continue or taper pharmacotherapy for the treatment of OUD after using a shared decision-making aid and determined whether the aid reflected the principles of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS).MethodsA shared decision-making aid was developed with the IPDAS instrument to assist pregnant women with OUD receiving care at an outpatient obstetrics clinic in their decision to continue or taper pharmacotherapy for the treatment of OUD. After using the aid, the women (N=22) completed an anonymous survey about the extent to which the aid adhered to IPDAS principles.ResultsEighty-two percent (22 of 27) of eligible participants agreed to take part in the study. After the shared decision-making process, 95% (21 of 22) reported choosing to either continue (64%, 14 of 22) or taper (36%, 8 of 22) pharmacotherapy for the treatment of OUD. Participants agreed that they were provided with sufficient information (96%, 21 of 22), outcome probabilities (91%, 20 of 22), and decisional guidance (86%-95% [19 and 21 of 22, respectively]) to make an informed decision. Further, women reported that their choice reflected their values and preferences (77%-91% [17 and 20 of 22, respectively]).ConclusionsThis shared decision aid provides a tool for providers to use with pregnant women with OUD to ensure that patients make informed treatment decisions that reflect their individual preferences and values.
| S-EPMC9176026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe worldwide interest of both dentists and patients in esthetic dentistry has affected decision-making in dental practice. The aim of this study was to investigate contemporary dental practice in restorative dentistry and the relationship between evidence-based dentistry in caries research and decision-making in clinical practice in restorative dentistry.MethodsThe study was conducted through a structured questionnaire distributed randomly at the Jordanian Dental Association registered dentists in Jordan. The questionnaire aimed to clarify the degree of knowledge and practice of evidence-based dentistry in caries research the dentists hold regarding clinical decision-making in restorative dentistry.ResultsThe majority of the surveyed dentists (77%) treat teeth with irreversible pulpitis with root canal treatment rather than vital pulp therapy. 13.8% routinely insert a post and 23% routinely crown the tooth after root canal treatment regardless of the remaining tooth structure. Badly damaged teeth are treated with full crowns in 72% of the cases. Regarding Hollywood smile or smile makeover, the majority of dentists choose conservative approaches, and implants were the first choice to replace missing teeth for 93.8% of the surveyed dentists.ConclusionA higher degree of implementation of evidence-based dentistry in clinical decision-making was found in Prosthetic Dentistry than in Endodontics. Yet, the gap between evidence-based data and clinical practice needs bridging. More emphasis on communicating these data to educators to integrate them into the dental curriculum is a must.
| S-EPMC8741395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reports exist regarding a gradual approach to the care of patients with differences of sexual development. Each patient and family have different values and styles of learning that have to be taken into account. The goals of care should include education about the condition, counseling of the patient and family, and a complete outlining of treatment options. Motivated by a call from the 2010 Health Reform Law for the use of shared decision-making tools and the emphasis placed on these issues by the DSD Consensus Statement, we sought to develop and implement such tools for the DSD population.1-3 Thus, we developed an organized checklist for providers to share with a patients and families affected by CAIS, beginning with the initial visit. The development of the document enlisted input from physicians, clinical coordinator, advocacy groups and affected individuals. It allows providers to explain the process of care and develop a plan for delivery of that care over multiple visits spanning six months or more. The checklist is divided into five sections: 1) An overview addressing how much information is desired and in what manner the patient prefers to obtain information; 2) A preferred words list so that the patient can choose nomenclature that is most comfortable; 3) A list of topics to review over the course of multiple visits; 4) A list of questions to be answered by the providers or other resources over time, and; 5) A list of concerns to be addressed before surgical intervention is considered. An organized approach to long-term delivery of compassionate care and accurate information can be facilitated for patients with CAIS by the use of a shared decision-making checklist. Documentation of the care delivery process can stimulate referral to peer support and promote fully informed consent for treatment decisions. The use of the checklist should encourage trust in the provider, as well as aid in identifying and addressing stressors for the patient and family. The checklist will be updated and revised as new treatments and advanced technology emerges.
| S-EPMC7208826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The authors evaluated the reliability and validity of a tool for measuring older adults' decision-making competence (DMC). A sample of 205 younger adults (25-45 years), 208 young-older adults (65-74 years), and 198 old-older adults (75-97 years) made judgments and decisions related to health, finance, and nutrition. Reliable indices of comprehension, dimension weighting, and cognitive reflection were developed. Comparison of the performance of old-older and young-older adults was possible in this study, unlike previous research. As hypothesized, old-older adults performed more poorly than young-older adults; both groups of older adults performed more poorly than younger adults. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that a large amount of variance in decision performance across age groups (including mean trends) could be accounted for by social variables, health measures, basic cognitive skills, attitudinal measures, and numeracy. Structural equation modeling revealed significant pathways from 3 exogenous latent factors (crystallized intelligence, other cognitive abilities, and age) to the endogenous DMC latent factor. Further research is needed to validate the meaning of performance on these tasks for real-life decision making.
| S-EPMC2918639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe pregnancy rate after cancer treatment for female survivors is lower than that of the general population. Future infertility is a significant concern for patients with breast cancer and is associated with a poor quality of life. Reproductive-age patients with breast cancer have safe options when choosing a type of fertility preservation method to be applied. Better information and support resources aimed at women to support their decision making are needed.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop a web-based shared decision-making tool for helping patients with breast cancer make decisions on fertility preservation.MethodsWe used the action research cycle of observing, reflecting, planning, and acting to develop a web-based shared decision-making tool. The following four phrases were applied: (1) observe and reflect-collect and analyze the decision-making experiences of patients and health care providers; (2) reflect and plan-apply the initial results to create a paper design and modify the content; (3) plan and act-brainstorm about the web pages and modify the content; (4) act and observe-evaluate the effectiveness and refine the website's shared decision-making tool. Interviews, group meetings, and constant dialogue were conducted between the various participants at each step. Effectiveness was evaluated using the Preparation for Decision-Making scale.ResultsFive major parts were developed with the use of the action research approach. The Introduction (part 1) describes the severity of cancer treatment and infertility. Options (part 2) provides the knowledge of fertility preservation. The shared decision-making tool was designed as a step-by-step process (part 3) that involves the comparison of options, patient values, and preferences; their knowledge regarding infertility and options; and reaching a collective decision. Resources (part 4) provides information on the hospitals that provide such services, and References (part 5) lists all the literature cited in the website. The results show the web-based shared decision-making meets both patients' and health providers' needs and helps reproductive-age patients with breast cancer make decisions about fertility preservation.ConclusionsWe have created the first web-based shared decision-making tool for making fertility preservation decisions in Taiwan. We believe female patients of reproductive age will find the tool useful and its use will become widespread, which should increase patient autonomy and improve communication about fertility preservation with clinicians.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT04602910; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04602910.
| S-EPMC8074988 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7018920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to determine the factors influencing pancreatic surgery patients' perceptions of the shared decision-making process (SDM).BackgroundDecision-making in pancreatic surgery is complicated by the risk of morbidity and mortality and risk of early recurrence of disease. Improvement in SDM has the potential to improve the receipt of goal- and value-concordant care.MethodsThis cross-sectional survey included patients who underwent pancreatic surgery. The following components were studied in relation to SDM: modified satisfaction with decision scale (SWD), modified decisional regret scale (DRS), quality of physician and patient interaction, and the impact of quality of life (FACT-Hep). Correlations were computed using Pearson's correlation score and a regression model.ResultsThe survey completion rate was 72.2% (of 40/55) and the majority (72.5%) of patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. There were significant positive relationships between the SDM measure and (DRS, SWD; r = 0.70, P < 0.001) and responses to questions regarding how well the patient's actual recovery matched their expectations before treatment (r = 0.62, P < 0.001). The quality of the physician-patient relationship correlated with how well recovery matched expectations (r = 0.53, P = 0.002). SDM measure scores were significant predictors of the decision evaluation measure (R2(adj) = 0.48, P < 0.001), FACT-Hep (R2(adj) = 0.15, P < 0.001), and recovery expectations measure (R2(adj) = 0.37, P < 0.001).ConclusionsImproved SDM in pancreatic surgery is associated with more realistic recovery expectations, decreased decisional regret, and improved quality of life.
| S-EPMC10431427 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7676870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Policymakers and researchers are strongly encouraging clinicians to support patient autonomy through shared decision-making (SDM). In setting policies for clinical care, decision-makers need to understand that current models of SDM have tended to focus on major decisions (e.g., surgeries and chemotherapy) and focused less on everyday primary care decisions. Most decisions in primary care are substantive everyday decisions: intermediate-stakes decisions that occur dozens of times every day, yet are non-trivial for patients, such as whether routine mammography should start at age 40, 45, or 50. Expectations that busy clinicians use current models of SDM (here referred to as "detailed" SDM) for these decisions can feel overwhelming to clinicians. Evidence indicates that detailed SDM is simply not realistic for most of these decisions and without a feasible alternative, clinicians usually default to a decision-making approach with little to no personalization. We propose, for discussion and refinement, a compromise approach to personalizing these decisions (everyday SDM). Everyday SDM is based on a feasible process for supporting patient autonomy that also allows clinicians to continue being respectful health advocates for their patients. We propose that alternatives to detailed SDM are needed to make progress toward more patient-centered care.
| S-EPMC7572954 | biostudies-literature