Shared Decision-Making for a Dialysis Modality.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yu X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8720663 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPatients with kidney failure experience a complex decision on dialysis modality performed either at home or in hospital. The options have different levels of impact on their physical and psychological condition and social life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an intervention designed to achieve shared decision-making for dialysis choice. Specific objectives were: 1) to measure decision quality as indicated by patients' knowledge, readiness and achieved preferences; and 2) to determine if patients experienced shared decision-making.MethodA mixed methods descriptive study was conducted using both questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Eligible participants were adults with kidney failure considering dialysis modality. The intervention, based on the Three-Talk model, consisted of a patient decision aid and decision coaching meetings provided by trained dialysis coordinators. The intervention was delivered to 349 patients as part of their clinical pathway of care. After the intervention, 148 participants completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and the Decision Quality Measurement, and 29 participants were interviewed. Concordance between knowledge, decision and preference was calculated to measure decision quality. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively.ResultsThe participants obtained a mean score for shared decision-making of 86 out of 100. There was no significant difference between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (97 versus 83; p = 0.627). The participants obtained a knowledge score of 82% and a readiness score of 86%. Those choosing home-based treatment had higher knowledge score than those choosing hospital-based treatment (84% versus 75%; p = 0.006) but no significant difference on the readiness score (87% versus 84%; p = 0.908). Considering the chosen option and the knowledge score, 83% of the participants achieved a high-quality decision. No significant difference was found for decision quality between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (83% versus 83%; p = 0.935). Interview data informed the interpretation of these results.ConclusionsAlthough there was no control group, over 80% of participants exposed to the intervention and responded to the surveys experienced shared decision-making and reached a high-quality decision. Both participants who chose home- and hospital-based treatment experienced the intervention as shared decision-making and made a high-quality decision. Qualitative findings supported the quantitative results.Trial registrationThe full trial protocol is available at ClinicalTrials. Gov ( NCT03868800 ). The study has been registered retrospectively.
| S-EPMC7409698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) may choose to undergo dialysis in-center or at home, but uptake of home dialysis in the US has been minimal despite its benefits over in-center dialysis. Factors that may have led patients to select home dialysis over in-center dialysis are poorly understood in the literature, and interventions to improve selection of home dialysis have focused on patient knowledge and shared decision-making processes between patients and providers. The purpose of this study was to explore micro- and macro-level factors surrounding dialysis modality decision-making among patients undergoing in-center and home dialysis, and explore what leads patients to select home dialysis over in-center dialysis.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in a dialysis clinic at a large Midwestern research hospital, from September 2019 to December 2020. Participants were 18 years or older, undergoing dialysis for ESKD, and had the cognitive ability to provide consent. Surveys assessing demographic and clinical information were administered to participants following their interviews.ResultsForty patients completed interviews and surveys (20 [50%] in-center dialysis, 17 [43%] female, mean [SD] age, 59 [15.99] years). Qualitative findings suggested that healthcare access and engagement before entering nephrology care, after entering nephrology care, and following dialysis initiation influenced patients' awareness regarding their kidney disease status, progression toward ESKD, and dialysis options. Potential modifiers of these outcomes include race, ethnicity, and language barriers. Most participants adopted a passive-approach during decision-making. Finally, fatigue, concerns regarding one's dialyzing schedule, and problems with fistula/catheter access sites contributed to overall satisfaction with one's dialysis modality.ConclusionsFindings point to broader factors affecting dialysis selection, including healthcare access and racial/ethnic inequities. Providing dialysis information before entering nephrology and after dialysis initiation may improve patient agency in decision-making. Additional resources should be prioritized for patients of underrepresented backgrounds. Dialysis decision-making may be appropriately modeled under the social-ecological framework to inform future interventions.
| S-EPMC9356453 | 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
Project description:A shared decision-making tool could help elderly patients with advanced chronic kidney disease decide about initiating dialysis therapy. Because mortality may be high in the first few months after initiating dialysis therapy, incorporating early mortality predictors in such a tool would be important for an informed decision. Our objective is to derive and validate a predictive risk score for early mortality after initiating dialysis therapy.Retrospective observational cohort, with development and validation cohorts.US Renal Data System and claims data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for 69,441 (aged ?67 years) patients with end-stage renal disease with a previous 2-year Medicare history who initiated dialysis therapy from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2010.Demographics, predialysis care, laboratory data, functional limitations, and medical history.All-cause mortality in the first 3 and 6 months.Predicted mortality by logistic regression.The simple risk score (total score, 0-9) included age (0-3 points), low albumin level, assistance with daily living, nursing home residence, cancer, heart failure, and hospitalization (1 point each), and showed area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC)=0.69 in the validation sample. A comprehensive risk score with additional predictors was also developed (with AUROC=0.72, high concordance between predicted vs observed risk). Mortality probabilities were estimated from these models, with the median score of 3 indicating 12% risk in 3 months and 20% in 6 months, and the highest scores (?8) indicating 39% risk in 3 months and 55% in 6 months.Patients who did not choose dialysis therapy and did not have a 2-year Medicare history were excluded.Routinely available information can be used by patients with chronic kidney disease, families, and their nephrologists to estimate the risk of early mortality after dialysis therapy initiation, which may facilitate informed decision making regarding treatment options.
| S-EPMC4658211 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6485676 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore how people with chronic kidney disease who are pre-dialysis, family members and healthcare professionals together navigate common shared decision-making processes and to assess how this impacts future treatment choice.DesignCoproductive qualitative study, underpinned by the Making Good Decisions in Collaboration shared decision-model. Semistructured interviews with a purposive sample from February 2019 - January 2020. Interview data were analysed using framework analysis. Coproduction of logic models/roadmaps and recommendations.SettingFive Welsh kidney services.Participants95 participants (37 patients, 19 family members and 39 professionals); 44 people supported coproduction (18 patients, 8 family members and 18 professionals).FindingsShared decision-making was too generic and clinically focused and had little impact on people getting onto home dialysis. Preferences of where, when and how to implement shared decision-making varied widely. Apathy experienced by patients, caused by lack of symptoms, denial, social circumstances and health systems issues made future treatment discussions difficult. Families had unmet and unrecognised needs, which significantly influenced patient decisions. Protocols containing treatment hierarchies and standards were understood by professionals but not translated for patients and families. Variation in dialysis treatment was discussed to match individual lifestyles. Patients and professionals were, however, defaulting to the perceived simplest option. It was easy for patients to opt for hospital-based treatments by listing important but easily modifiable factors.ConclusionsShared decision-making processes need to be individually tailored with more attention on patients who could choose a home therapy but select a different option. There are critical points in the decision-making process where changes could benefit patients. Patients need to be better educated and their preconceived ideas and misconceptions gently challenged. Healthcare professionals need to update their knowledge in order to provide the best advice and guidance. There needs to be more awareness of the costs and benefits of the various treatment options when making decisions.
| S-EPMC8634024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Physicians face a challenge in promoting colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) in the face of multiple competing demands. A decision aid (DA) that clarifies patient preferences and improves decision quality could aid shared decision making (SDM) and be effective at increasing CRCS rates. However, exactly how such DA improves SDM is not clear. This 4-year R01 study funded by the National Cancer Institute seeks to provide detailed understanding of how an interactive DA affects patient-physician communication and SDM, and ultimately CRCS adherence.
| 2118961 | ecrin-mdr-crc