Effect of a multilevel implementation programme on shared decision-making in breast cancer care

被引:15
作者
van Veenendaal, H. [1 ,2 ]
Voogdt-Pruis, H. R. [2 ,3 ]
Ubbink, D. T. [4 ]
Hilders, C. G. J. M. [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus Univ, Erasmus Sch Hlth Policy & Management, POB 1738, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Dutch Assoc Oncol Patient Org, Utrecht, Netherlands
[3] EnCorps, Hilversum, Netherlands
[4] Amsterdam Univ Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[5] Reinier de Graaf Hosp, Delft, Netherlands
关键词
INVOLVE PATIENTS; CONSULTATIONS; SATISFACTION; EXTENT; POWER;
D O I
10.1093/bjsopen/zraa002
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer face multiple treatment options. Involving them in a shared decision-making (SDM) process is essential. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a multilevel implementation programme enhanced the level of SDM behaviour of clinicians observed in consultations. Methods: This before-after study was conducted in six Dutch hospitals. Patients with breast cancer who were facing a decision on surgery or neoadjuvant systemic treatment between April 2016 and September 2017 were included, and provided informed consent. Audio recordings of consultations made before and after implementation were analysed using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-5) instrument to assess whether clinicians adopted new behaviour needed for applying SDM. Patients scored their perceived level of SDM, using the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Hospital, duration of the consultation(s), age, and number of consultations per patient that might influence OPTION-5 scores were investigated using linear regression analysis. Results: Consultations of 139 patients were audiotaped, including 80 before and 59 after implementation. Mean (s.d.) OPTION-5 scores, expressed on a 0-100 scale, increased from 38.3 (15.0) at baseline to 53.2 (14.8) 1 year after implementation (mean difference (MD) 14.9, 95 per cent c.i. 9.9 to 19.9). SDM-Q-9 scores of 105 patients (75.5 per cent) (72 before and 33 after implementation) were high and showed no significant changes (91.3 versus 87.6; MD -3.7, -9.3 to 1.9). The implementation programme had an association with OPTION-5 scores (beta = 14.2, P < 0.001), hospital (beta = 2.2, P = 0.002), and consultation time (beta = 0.2, P < 0.001). Conclusion: A multilevel implementation programme supporting SDM in breast cancer care increased the adoption of SDM behaviour of clinicians in consultations.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]   Navigating the Unknown: Shared Decision-Making in the Face of Uncertainty [J].
Berger, Zackary .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2015, 30 (05) :675-678
[2]   Shared decision making coding systems: How do they compare in the oncology context? [J].
Butow, Phyllis ;
Juraskova, Ilona ;
Chang, Sarah ;
Lopez, Anna-Lena ;
Brown, Richard ;
Bernhard, Jurg .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2010, 78 (02) :261-268
[4]   Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument [J].
Couet, Nicolas ;
Desroches, Sophie ;
Robitaille, Hubert ;
Vaillancourt, Hugues ;
Leblanc, Annie ;
Turcotte, Stephane ;
Elwyn, Glyn ;
Legare, France .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2015, 18 (04) :542-561
[5]   Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in oncology: a systematic review of the literature [J].
Covvey, Jordan R. ;
Kamal, Khalid M. ;
Gorse, Erin E. ;
Mehta, Zumi ;
Dhumal, Trupti ;
Heidari, Elham ;
Rao, Deepika ;
Zacker, Christopher .
SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER, 2019, 27 (05) :1613-1637
[6]   Training health professionals in shared decision making: Update of an international environmental scan [J].
Diouf, Ndeye Thiab ;
Menear, Matthew ;
Robitaille, Hubert ;
Guerard, Genevieve Painchaud ;
Legare, France .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2016, 99 (11) :1753-1758
[7]   Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies-A systematic review [J].
Doherr, Hanna ;
Christalle, Eva ;
Kriston, Levente ;
Haerter, Martin ;
Scholl, Isabelle .
PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (03)
[8]   The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks [J].
Elwyn, G ;
Hutchings, H ;
Edwards, A ;
Rapport, F ;
Wensing, M ;
Cheung, WY ;
Grol, R .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2005, 8 (01) :34-42
[9]   "Many miles to go ... ": a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice [J].
Elwyn, Glyn ;
Scholl, Isabelle ;
Tietbohl, Caroline ;
Mann, Mala ;
Edwards, Adrian G. K. ;
Clay, Catharine ;
Legare, France ;
van der Weijden, Trudy ;
Lewis, Carmen L. ;
Wexler, Richard M. ;
Frosch, Dominick L. .
BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2013, 13
[10]   Determinants of innovation within health care organizations - Literature review and Delphi study [J].
Fleuren, M ;
Wiefferink, K ;
Paulussen, T .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2004, 16 (02) :107-123