Dataset Information

Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: results of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is preferred by many patients in cancer care. However, despite scientific evidence and promotion by health policy makers, SDM implementation in routine health care lags behind. This study aimed to evaluate an empirically and theoretically grounded implementation program for SDM in cancer care.

Methods

In a stepped wedge design, three departments of a comprehensive cancer center sequentially received the implementation program in a randomized order. It included six components: training for health care professionals (HCPs), individual coaching for physicians, patient activation intervention, patient information material/decision aids, revision of quality management documents, and reflection on multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Outcome evaluation comprised four measurement waves. The primary endpoint was patient-reported SDM uptake using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Several secondary implementation outcomes were assessed. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted to evaluate reach and fidelity. Data were analyzed using mixed linear models, qualitative content analysis, and descriptive statistics.

Results

A total of 2,128 patient questionnaires, 559 questionnaires from 408 HCPs, 132 audio recordings of clinical encounters, and 842 case discussions from 66 MDTMs were evaluated. There was no statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint SDM uptake. Patients in the intervention condition were more likely to experience shared or patient-lead decision-making than in the control condition (d=0.24). HCPs in the intervention condition reported more knowledge about SDM than in the control condition (d = 0.50). In MDTMs the quality of psycho-social information was lower in the intervention than in the control condition (d = - 0.48). Further secondary outcomes did not differ statistically significantly between conditions. All components were implemented in all departments, but reach was limited (e.g., training of 44% of eligible HCPs) and several adaptations occurred (e.g., reduced dose of coaching).

Conclusions

The process evaluation provides possible explanations for the lack of statistically significant effects in the primary and most of the secondary outcomes. Low reach and adaptations, particularly in dose, may explain the results. Other or more intensive approaches are needed for successful department-wide implementation of SDM in routine cancer care. Further research is needed to understand factors influencing implementation of SDM in cancer care.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 , registered 8 January 2018.

SUBMITTER: Scholl I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8715412 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Shared decision-making (SDM) has become increasingly important in health care. However, despite scientific evidence, effective implementation strategies, and a prominent position on the health policy agenda, SDM is not widely implemented in routine practice so far. Therefore, we developed a program for routine implementation of SDM in oncology by conducting an analysis of the current state and a needs assessment in a pilot study based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Based on these results, the main aim of our current study is to evaluate the process and outcome of this theoretically and empirically grounded multicomponent implementation program designed to foster SDM in routine cancer care. METHODS:We use a stepped wedge design, a variant of the cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention to be implemented is SDM. Three participating clinics of one comprehensive cancer center will be randomized and receive the multicomponent SDM implementation program in a time-delayed sequence. The program consists of the following strategies: (a) SDM training for health care professionals, (b) individual coaching for physicians, (c) patient activation strategy, (d) provision of patient information material and decision aids, (e) revision of the clinics' quality management documents, and (f) critical reflection of current organization of multidisciplinary team meetings. We will conduct a mixed methods outcome and process evaluation. The outcome evaluation will consist of four measurement points. The primary outcome is adoption of SDM, measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. A range of other implementation outcomes will be assessed (i.e., acceptability, readiness for implementing change, appropriateness, penetration). The implementation process will be evaluated using stakeholder interviews and field notes. This will allow adapting interventions if necessary. DISCUSSION:This study is the first large study on routine implementation of SDM conducted in German cancer care. We expect to foster implementation of SDM at the enrolled clinics. Insights gained from this study, using a theoretically and empirically grounded approach, can inform other SDM implementation studies and health policy developments, both nationally and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 . Registered 8 January 2018.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is highly relevant in oncology but rarely implemented in routine care. In a stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, the outcome evaluation of a theoretically and empirically based multi-component SDM implementation program did not show a statistically significant effect on patient-reported SDM uptake. Within this SDM implementation trial, a thorough a priori planned process evaluation was conducted. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate factors influencing SDM implementation in the context of a multi-component SDM implementation program.MethodsWe conducted qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge SDM implementation trial. Qualitative data included interviews with nurses and physicians of participating departments, field notes by the study team, and meeting minutes. Data were analyzed via deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis on basis of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).ResultsTranscripts of 107 interviews with 126 nurses and physicians, 304 pages of field note documentation, and 125 pages of meeting minutes were analyzed. Major factors influencing SDM implementation were found for all domains of the CFIR: a) four regarding characteristics of the individuals involved (e.g., perceived personal relevance, individual motivation to change), b) eleven regarding the inner setting (e.g., leadership engagement, networks and communication, available resources, compatibility with clinical practice), c) two regarding the outer setting (e.g., culture of health care delivery), d) eight regarding characteristics of the intervention (e.g., relative advantage, adaptability), and e) three regarding the implementation process (e.g., integration into existing structures). Furthermore, we found strong interrelations between several of the influencing factors within and between domains.ConclusionsThis comprehensive process evaluation complements the outcome evaluation of the SDM implementation trial and adds to its interpretation. The identified influencing factors can be used for planning, conducting, and evaluating SDM implementation in the future.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351, registered 8 January 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03393351.

Project description:BackgroundThe primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events is often less intense in persons at higher CV risk and vice versa. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that clinicians and patients use shared decision making (SDM) to arrive at an effective and feasible prevention plan that is congruent with each person's CV risk and informed preferences. However, SDM does not routinely happen in practice. This study aims to integrate into routine care an SDM decision tool (CV PREVENTION CHOICE) at three diverse healthcare systems in the USA and study strategies that foster its adoption and routine use.MethodsThis is a mixed method, hybrid type III stepped wedge cluster randomized study to estimate (a) the effectiveness of implementation strategies on SDM uptake and utilization and (b) the extent to which SDM results in prevention plans that are risk-congruent. Formative evaluation methods, including clinician and stakeholder interviews and surveys, will identify factors likely to impact feasibility, acceptability, and adoption of CV PREVENTION CHOICE as well as normalization of CV PREVENTION CHOICE in routine care. Implementation facilitation will be used to tailor implementation strategies to local needs, and implementation strategies will be systematically adjusted and tracked for assessment and refinement. Electronic health record data will be used to assess implementation and effectiveness outcomes, including CV PREVENTION CHOICE reach, adoption, implementation, maintenance, and effectiveness (measured as risk-concordant care plans). A sample of video-recorded clinical encounters and patient surveys will be used to assess fidelity. The study employs three theoretical approaches: a determinant framework that calls attention to categories of factors that may foster or inhibit implementation outcomes (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), an implementation theory that guides explanation or understanding of causal influences on implementation outcomes (Normalization Process Theory), and an evaluation framework (RE-AIM).DiscussionBy the project's end, we expect to have (a) identified the most effective implementation strategies to embed SDM in routine practice and (b) estimated the effectiveness of SDM to achieve feasible and risk-concordant CV prevention in primary care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04450914 . Posted June 30, 2020 TRIAL STATUS: This study received ethics approval on April 17, 2020. The current trial protocol is version 2 (approved February 17, 2021). The first subject had not yet been enrolled at the time of submission.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making improves the quality of patient care. Unfortunately, shared decision-making is not yet common practice among vascular surgeons. Thus, decision support tools were developed to assist vascular surgeons and their patients in using shared decision-making. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of decision support tools to improve shared decision-making during vascular surgical consultations in which a treatment decision is to be made.MethodsThe study design is a multicentre stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Eligible patients are adult patients, visiting the outpatient clinic of a participating medical centre for whom several treatment options are feasible and who face a primary treatment decision for their abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid artery disease, intermittent claudication, or varicose veins. Patients and vascular surgeons in the intervention group receive decision support tools that may help them adopt shared decision-making when making the final treatment decision. These decision support tools are decision aids, consultation cards, decision cards, and a practical training. Decision aids are informative websites that help patients become more aware of the pros and cons of the treatment options and their preferences regarding the treatment choice. Consultation cards with text or decision cards with images are used by vascular surgeons during consultation to determine which aspect of a treatment is most important to their patient. In the training vascular surgeons can practice shared decision-making with a patient actor, guided by a medical psychologist. This trial aims to include 502 vascular surgical patients to achieve a clinically relevant improvement in shared decision-making of 10 out of 100 points, using the 5-item OPTION instrument to score the audio-recordings of consultations.DiscussionIn the OVIDIUS trial the available decision support tools for vascular surgical patients are implemented in clinical practice. We will evaluate whether these tools actually improve shared decision-making in the consultation room. The stepped-wedge cluster-randomised study design will ensure that at the end of the study all participating centres have implemented at least some of the decision support tools and thereby a certain level of shared decision-making.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Registry, NTR6487 . Registered 7 June 2017. URL: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=6487.

Project description:BackgroundStepped wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRT) are increasingly used to evaluate new clinical programs, yet there is limited guidance on practical aspects of applying this design. We report our early experiences conducting a SW-CRT to examine an inpatient mobility program (STRIDE) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). We provide recommendations for future research using this design to evaluate clinical programs.MethodsBased on data from study records and reflections from the investigator team, we describe and assess the design and initial stages of a SW-CRT, from site recruitment to program launch in 8 VHA hospitals.ResultsSite recruitment consisted of thirty 1-h conference calls with representatives from 22 individual VAs who expressed interest in implementing STRIDE. Of these, 8 hospitals were enrolled and randomly assigned in two stratified blocks (4 hospitals per block) to a STRIDE launch date. Block 1 randomization occurred in July 2017 with first STRIDE launch in December 2017; block 2 randomization occurred in April 2018 with first STRIDE launch in January 2019. The primary study outcome of discharge destination will be assessed using routinely collected data in the electronic health record (EHR). Within randomized blocks, two hospitals per sequence launched STRIDE approximately every 3 months with primary outcome assessment paused during the 3-month time period of program launch. All sites received 6-8 implementation support calls, according to a pre-specified schedule, from the time of recruitment to program launch, and all 8 sites successfully launched within their assigned 3-month window. Seven of the eight sites initially started with a limited roll out (for example on one ward) or modified version of STRIDE (for example, using existing staff to conduct walks until new positions were filled).ConclusionsFuture studies should incorporate sufficient time for site recruitment and carefully consider the following to inform design of SW-CRTs to evaluate rollout of a new clinical program: (1) whether a blocked randomization fits study needs, (2) the amount of time and implementation support sites will need to start their programs, and (3) whether clinical programs are likely to include a "ramp-up" period. Successful execution of SW-CRT designs requires both adherence to rigorous design principles and also careful consideration of logistical requirements for timing of program roll out.Trial registrationClinicalsTrials.gov NCT03300336 . Prospectively registered on 3 October 2017.

Project description:BackgroundFrail older adults and caregivers need support from their home care teams in making difficult housing decisions, such as whether to remain at home, with or without assistance, or move into residential care. However, home care teams are often understaffed and busy, and shared decision-making training is costly. Nevertheless, overall awareness of shared decision-making is increasing. We hypothesized that distributing a decision aid could be sufficient for providing decision support without the addition of shared decision-making training for home care teams.ObjectiveWe evaluated the effectiveness of adding web-based training and workshops for care teams in interprofessional shared decision-making to passive dissemination of a decision guide on the proportion of frail older adults or caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults reporting active roles in housing decision-making.MethodsWe conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial with home care teams in 9 health centers in Quebec, Canada. Participants were frail older adults or caregivers of cognitively impaired frail older adults facing housing decisions and receiving care from the home care team at one of the participating health centers. The intervention consisted of a 1.5-hour web-based tutorial for the home care teams plus a 3.5-hour interactive workshop in interprofessional shared decision-making using a decision guide that was designed to support frail older adults and caregivers in making housing decisions. The control was passive dissemination of the decision guide. The primary outcome was an active role in decision-making among frail older adults and caregivers, measured using the Control Preferences Scale. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict and perceptions of how much care teams involved frail older adults and caregivers in decision-making. We performed an intention-to-treat analysis.ResultsA total of 311 frail older adults were included in the analysis, including 208 (66.9%) women, with a mean age of 81.2 (SD 7.5) years. Among 339 caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults, 239 (70.5%) were female and their mean age was 66.4 (SD 11.7) years. The intervention increased the proportion of frail older adults reporting an active role in decision-making by 3.3% (95% CI -5.8% to 12.4%, P=.47) and the proportion of caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults by 6.1% (95% CI -11.2% to 23.4%, P=.49). There was no significant impact on the secondary outcomes. However, the mean score for the frail older adults' perception of how much health professionals involved them in decision-making increased by 5.4 (95% CI -0.6 to 11.4, P=.07) and the proportion of caregivers who reported decisional conflict decreased by 7.5% (95% CI -16.5% to 1.6%, P=.10).ConclusionsAlthough it slightly reduced decisional conflict for caregivers, shared decision-making training did not equip home care teams significantly better than provision of a decision aid for involving frail older adults and their caregivers in decision-making.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02592525; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02592525.

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.

Project description:BackgroundIn trials, hospital walking programs have been shown to improve functional ability after discharge, but little evidence exists about their effectiveness under routine practice conditions.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of implementation of a supervised walking program known as STRIDE (AssiSTed EaRly MobIlity for HospitalizeD VEterans) on discharge to a skilled-nursing facility (SNF), length of stay (LOS), and inpatient falls.DesignStepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03300336).Setting8 Veterans Affairs hospitals from 20 August 2017 to 19 August 2019.PatientsAnalyses included hospitalizations involving patients aged 60 years or older who were community dwelling and admitted for 2 or more days to a participating medicine ward.InterventionHospitals were randomly assigned in 2 stratified blocks to a launch date for STRIDE. All hospitals received implementation support according to the Replicating Effective Programs framework.MeasurementsThe prespecified primary outcomes were discharge to a SNF and hospital LOS, and having 1 or more inpatient falls was exploratory. Generalized linear mixed models were fit to account for clustering of patients within hospitals and included patient-level covariates.ResultsPatients in pre-STRIDE time periods (n = 6722) were similar to post-STRIDE time periods (n = 6141). The proportion of patients with any documented walk during a potentially eligible hospitalization ranged from 0.6% to 22.7% per hospital. The estimated rates of discharge to a SNF were 13% pre-STRIDE and 8% post-STRIDE. In adjusted models, odds of discharge to a SNF were lower among eligible patients hospitalized in post-STRIDE time periods (odds ratio [OR], 0.6 [95% CI, 0.5 to 0.8]) compared with pre-STRIDE. Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. There were no differences in LOS (rate ratio, 1.0 [CI, 0.9 to 1.1]) or having an inpatient fall (OR, 0.8 [CI, 0.5 to 1.1]).LimitationDirect program reach was low.ConclusionAlthough the reach was limited and variable, hospitalizations occurring during the STRIDE hospital walking program implementation period had lower odds of discharge to a SNF, with no change in hospital LOS or inpatient falls.Primary funding sourceU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (Optimizing Function and Independence QUERI).