Teaching communication skills in medical education : Best practice example of an interdisciplinary seminar in radiation oncology.

BACKGROUND: Communication with patients is challenging, especially in radiation oncology. Therefore, radiation oncology is particularly suited to sensitize medical students for this topic and to train them competently. We report on experiences with an innovative teaching project for fourth- and fifth-year medical students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The course, funded as an innovative teaching project by the medical faculty, was offered as an optional course for medical students in 2019 and again in 2022 after a pandemic-related break. The curriculum and evaluation form were developed through a two-stage Delphi process. The course consisted of, first, participation during counselling of patients prior to radiotherapy, mainly on topics with shared decision-making, and, second, a 1-week interdisciplinary block seminar with practical exercises. The topics covered a broad spectrum of the competence areas defined in the National Competence-Based Learning Objectives Catalog for Medicine (NKLM). The number of participants was limited to approximately 15 students because of the practical components. RESULTS: So far, 30 students (all at least in the seventh semester or higher) have participated in the teaching project. The most frequent reasons for participation were the desire to acquire competence in breaking bad news and confidence in talking to patients. The overall evaluation of the course was very positive, with a grade of 1.08 + 0.28 (on a scale of 1 = totally agree to 5 = totally disagree) plus German grade 1 (very good) to 6 (very bad). Notably, participants' expectations regarding specific competencies (e.g., breaking bad news) were also met. CONCLUSION: Although the evaluation results cannot be generalized to the entirety of medical students due to the limited number of voluntary participants, the very positive evaluation shows the need for such projects among students and can also be seen as an indication that radiation oncology as a patient-centered discipline is particularly well suited to teach medical communication.

Nurse-led coaching of shared decision-making for women with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast care centers: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with breast cancer demand informed shared decision-making. Guidelines support these claims. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether an informed shared decision-making intervention for women with 'ductal carcinoma in situ' comprising an evidence-based decision aid with nurse-led decision coaching enhances the extent of the mutual shared decision-making behavior of patients and professionals regarding treatment options, and to analyze implementation barriers. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial with accompanying process evaluation. SETTING: Certified breast care centers in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: Women with ductal carcinoma in situ and no previous history of breast cancer facing a primary treatment decision. METHODS: Sixteen breast centers were randomized to intervention or standard care to recruit 192 patients (partially-blinded). All coaching sessions and physician consultations were videotaped to assess the primary outcome 'extent of patient involvement in shared decision-making' using the MAPPIN-Odyad observer instrument (scores 0 to 4). Secondary endpoints included the sub-measures of the MAPPIN-inventory (MAPPIN-Onurse, MAPPIN-Ophysician, MAPPIN-Opatient, MAPPIN-Qnurse, MAPPIN-Qpatient and MAPPIN-Qphysician), 'informed choice', 'decisional conflict' and 'duration of consultations'. Primary intention-to-treat analyses were on cluster level comparing means of cluster values using t-tests. An accompanying process evaluation was conducted comprising 1) analysis of all video recordings with focus on procedures and intervention fidelity and 2) field notes of researchers and feedback from professionals and patients assessed by questionnaires and interviews with focus on barriers and facilitators for implementation at different time points. RESULTS: Due to protracted recruitment, the study was terminated after 14 centers had included 64 patients (intervention group 36, control group 28). Patient participation in informed shared decision-making was significantly higher in the intervention group (mean (SD) score 2.29 (0.56) vs. 0.42 (0.51) in the control group; difference 1.88 (95% CI 1.26-2.50, p < 0.0001). 47.7% women in the intervention group made informed choices, but none in the control group, difference 47.7% (95% CI 12.6-82.7%, p = 0.016). In the intervention group physician consultations lasted 12.8 (6.6) min. vs. 24.3 (6.3) min. in the control group. Physicians' attitudes, false incentives and structural barriers hindered implementation of informed shared decision-making. Nurses appreciated their new roles. CONCLUSIONS: Informed shared decision-making is not yet implemented in German breast care centers. Nurse-led decision coaching grounded on evidence-based patient information enhances informed shared decision-making. Trial registration No. ISRCTN46305518.

Risk knowledge of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis - Results of an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Adequate disease and treatment-related risk knowledge of people with Multiple Sclerosis (pwMS) is a prerequisite for informed choices in medical encounters. Previous work showed that MS risk knowledge is low among pwMS and role preferences are different in Italy and Germany. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the level of risk knowledge and role preferences in 8 countries and assessed putative variables associated with risk knowledge. METHODS: An online-survey was performed based on the Risk knowledge questionnaire for people with relapsing-remitting MS (RIKNO 2.0), the electronic Control Preference Scale (eCPS), and other patient questionnaires. Inclusion criteria of participants were: (1) age ≥18 years, (2) a diagnosis of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), (3) being in a decision making process for a disease modifying drug. RESULTS: Of 1939 participants from Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Serbia, Spain and Turkey, 986 (51%) (mean age 38.6 years [range 18-67], 77% women, 7.8 years of disease duration) completed the RIKNO 2.0, with a mean of 41% correct answers. There were less than 50 participants in the UK and Estonia and data were not analysed. Risk knowledge differed across countries (p < 0.001). Variables significantly associated with higher risk knowledge were higher education (p < 0.001), previous experience with disease modifying drugs (p = 0.001), correct answer to a medical data interpretation question (p < 0.001), while higher fear for wheelchair dependency was negatively associated to risk knowledge (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: MS risk knowledge was overall low and differed across participating countries. These data indicate that information is an unmet need of most pwMS.

Implementation of shared decision-making in oncology: development and pilot study of a nurse-led decision-coaching programme for women with ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: To implement informed shared decision-making (ISDM) in breast care centres, we developed and piloted an inter-professional complex intervention. METHODS: We developed an intervention consisting of three components: an evidence-based patient decision aid (DA) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ, a decision-coaching led by specialised nurses (breast care nurses and oncology nurses) and structured physician encounters. In order to enable professionals to gain ISDM competencies, we developed and tested a curriculum-based training programme for specialised nurses and a workshop for physicians. After successful testing of the components, we conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of the entire revised intervention in two breast care centres. Here the acceptance of the intervention by women and professionals, the applicability to the breast care centres' procedures, women's knowledge, patient involvement in treatment decision-making assessed with the MAPPIN'SDM-observer instrument MAPPIN'Odyad, and barriers to and facilitators of the implementation were taken into consideration. We used questionnaires, structured verbal and written feedback and video recordings. Qualitative data were analysed descriptively, and mean values and ranges of quantitative data were calculated. RESULTS: To test the DA, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 27 women. Six expert reviews were obtained. The components of the nurse training were tested with 18 specialised nurses and 19 health science students. The development and piloting of the components were successful. The pilot test of the entire intervention included seven patients. In general, the intervention is applicable. Patients attained adequate knowledge (range of correct answers: 9-11 of 11). On average, a basic level of patient involvement in treatment decision-making was observed for nurses and patient-nurse dyads (M(MAPPIN-Odyad): 2.15 and M(MAPPIN-Onurse): 1.90). Relevant barriers were identified; physicians barely tolerated women's preferences that were not in line with the medical recommendation. Classifying women as inappropriate for ISDM due to age or education led physicians to neglect eligible women during the recruitment phase. CONCLUSION: Decision-coaching is feasible. Nevertheless, there are some indications that structural changes are needed for long-term implementation. We are currently evaluating the intervention in a cluster randomised controlled trial in 16 breast care centres.

Efficacy of the doktormitSDM training module in supporting shared decision making - Results from a multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Training to improve physicians' shared decision making (SDM) competencies with proven effectiveness and efficiency is rare. This study evaluated the brief in situ training module 'doktormitSDM'. METHODS: In a multicenter RCT, each physician recorded four consultations, each of which included a diagnostic or treatment decision (N=152 consultations from seven medical specialties). The doktormitSDM training module included two video-based individual coaching sessions (15min) at the physicians' workplaces, supplemented by a manual and a video tutorial. Primary endpoint was the compound measure SDMmass (based on the MAPPIN'SDM system) which incorporates patient and observer perceptions of involvement and doctor-patient concordance on perceived involvement. RESULTS: SDMmass increased significantly in the intervention group compared to the controls (effect size 0.58; p=0.05; t-test). This effect tended to persist at follow-up (effect size 0.63; p=0.06). Patients' perceived involvement increased accordingly (effect sizes 0.9/.58; p=0.01/.07). CONCLUSION: The doktormitSDM training module is effective and efficient at improving SDM competencies. This is the first SDM training to be evaluated with a compound measure simultaneously considering doctor, patient and observer ratings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Owing to its very brief form and its reference to the doctors' own consultation videos, the doktormitSDM training module meets clinicians' needs and time constraints.

Training doctors briefly and in situ to involve their patients in making medical decisions-Preliminary testing of a newly developed module.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out preliminary evaluation of a training module for doctors to enhance their ability to involve their patients in medical decision making. The training refers to the shared decision-making (SDM) communication concept. METHODS: The training module includes a comprehensive manual, a corresponding video tutorial with communication examples and a 15-minute face-to-face feedback session based on an SDM analysis of a consultation recording provided by the trainee. Ten trainees (four neurologists, three dentists, and three general practitioners) participating in the pretest each recorded four clinical consultations (total sample: N=40) and received three training components. After the training, doctors provided feedback on the module's feasibility in a questionnaire. Communication performance of doctors, patients and doctor-patient dyads was assessed by trained observers and self-assessed by doctors and patients using the MAPPIN'SDM approach. Training effects were determined using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests comparing baseline values with post-intervention performance as assessed in the fourth consultations. RESULTS: The face-to-face training sessions were short and feasible with regard to clinical reality. Participants considered the training supportive for acquiring SDM skills and recommended more emphasis on the face-to-face feedback. Communication improved according to observers rating doctors (P=.05) and doctor-patient dyads (P=.07) and to doctors' own judgements (P=.02). No improvement was observed in patients' SDM behaviour (P=.11); accordingly, patients' judgements did not indicate improvement (P=.14). CONCLUSIONS: The training is designed to meet clinicians' needs. Improvement of risk communication after training encourages optimization according to doctors' feedback. Following this study, the efficacy of the training is now being examined in a randomized controlled trial.

Validation of the Norwegian version of MAPPIN'SDM, an observation-based instrument to measure shared decision-making in clinical encounters.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the Norwegian version of MAPPIN'SDM observer scales with regard to reliability, accuracy and the extent to which the scales include the essentials of the shared decision-making concept. METHODS: Three MAPPIN'SDM scales, focusing on the skills of doctor, patient and dyad, were applied to audiovisual records of 35 decision sequences. Inter-rater reliabilities were determined based on kappa coefficients. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated with regard to an expert reference standard. Convergent validities were calculated with the OPTION5 scale. MAPPIN'SDM was qualitatively compared to OPTION5 using Makoul & Clayman's Integrative Model structure. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliabilities were high on average over 11 items in each of three observer scales (MAPPINdoctor=0.77, MAPPINpatient=0.82, MAPPINdyad=0.77). Patient involvement was detected accurately (MAPPINdyad: mean sensitivity/specificity 93/91%). Comparison with OPTION5 showed weak to moderate correlation (Spearman's ρ/p-value: MAPPINdoctor:=0.44/0.009, MAPPINpatient: 0.38/0.024, MAPPINdyad 0.40/0.016) and little content overlap. CONCLUSION: MAPPIN'SDMnorge is capable of assessing SDM highly reliably and accurately. Divergence from OPTION5 reflects explicit disagreement regarding the concept's assumptions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: MAPPIN'SDMnorge is ready for use in Norway. In-depth debate on the SDM concept's essentials is urgently needed.

Informed shared decision-making supported by decision coaches for women with ductal carcinoma in situ: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with breast cancer want to participate in treatment decision-making. Guidelines have confirmed the right of informed shared decision-making. However, previous research has shown that the implementation of informed shared decision-making is suboptimal for reasons of limited resources of physicians, power imbalances between patients and physicians and missing evidence-based patient information. We developed an informed shared decision-making program for women with primary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The program provides decision coaching for women by specialized nurses and aims at supporting involvement in decision-making and informed choices. In this trial, the informed shared decision-making program will be evaluated in breast care centers. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted to compare the informed shared decision-making program with standard care. The program comprises an evidence-based patient decision aid and training of physicians (2 hours) and specialized breast care and oncology nurses (4 days) in informed shared decision-making. Sixteen certified breast care centers will be included, with 192 women with primary DCIS being recruited. Primary outcome is the extent of patients' involvement in shared decision-making as assessed by the MAPPIN-Odyad (Multifocal approach to the 'sharing' in shared decision-making: observer instrument dyad). Secondary endpoints include the sub-measures of the MAPPIN-inventory (MAPPIN-Onurse, MAPPIN-Ophysician, MAPPIN-Opatient, MAPPIN-Qnurse, MAPPIN-Qpatient and MAPPIN-Qphysician), informed choice, decisional conflict and the duration of encounters. It is expected that decision coaching and the provision of evidence-based patient decision aids will increase patients' involvement in decision-making with informed choices and reduce decisional conflicts and duration of physician encounters. Furthermore, an accompanying process evaluation will be conducted. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the implementation of decision coaches in German breast care centers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46305518 , date of registration: 5 June 2015.

An informed shared decision making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: protocol of a cluster randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: International and national societies claim a patient centred approach including shared decision making (SDM) in diabetes care. In a previous project, a SDM programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction has been developed. It is aimed at supporting patients with type 2 diabetes to make informed choices on preventive options, to share the decision making process with the health care team, and to improve adherence to the chosen treatment. In this study, the programme will be implemented and evaluated in primary care practices. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster randomised, controlled trial will be conducted to compare the SDM programme with standard care enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes (N = 306) from primary care practices (N = 24). The intervention programme comprises a six hours provider training, a patient decision aid including evidence-based information, a 90 minutes structured teaching session provided by medical assistants, a sheet to document the patients' individual treatment goals, and a structured consultation with the general practitioner for sharing information, setting treatment goals, and for adapting treatment regimens if necessary. Patients in the control group receive a brief extract of recommendations of the German National Disease Management Guideline on the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Primary outcome measure is adherence to blood pressure treatment and statin treatment at 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures comprise informed choice and the achievement of patients' treatment goals. Analyses will be carried out on intention-to-treat basis. Concurrent qualitative methods will be used to explore the implementation processes. DISCUSSION: At the end of this study, information on the efficacy of the SDM programme in the primary care context will be available. In addition, processes that might interfere with or that might promote a successful implementation will be identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN77300204 .

Adherence to behavioural interventions in multiple sclerosis: Follow-up meeting report (AD@MS-2).

After an initial meeting in 2013 that reviewed adherence to disease modifying therapy, the AD@MS group conducted a follow-up meeting in 2014 that examined adherence to behavioural interventions in MS (e.g. physical activity, diet, psychosocial interventions). Very few studies have studied adherence to behavioural interventions in MS. Outcomes beyond six months are lacking, as well as implementation work in the community. Psychological interventions need to overcome stigma and other barriers to facilitate initiation and maintenance of behaviour change. A focus group concentrated on physical activity and exercise as one major behavioural intervention domain in MS. The discussion revealed that patients are confronted with multiple challenges when attempting to regularly engage in physical activity. Highlighted needs for future research included an improved understanding of patients' and health experts' knowledge and attitudes towards physical activity as well as a need for longitudinal research that investigates exercise persistence.

Investigating a training supporting Shared Decision Making (IT'S SDM 2011): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared Decision Making (SDM) is regarded as the best practice model for the communicative challenge of decision making about treatment or diagnostic options. However, randomized controlled trials focusing the effectiveness of SDM trainings are rare and existing measures of SDM are increasingly challenged by the latest research findings. This study will 1) evaluate a new physicians' communication training regarding patient involvement in terms of SDM, 2) validate SDM(MASS), a new compound measure of SDM, and 3) evaluate the effects of SDM on the perceived quality of the decision process and on the elaboration of the decision. METHODS: In a multi-center randomized controlled trial with a waiting control group, 40 physicians from 7 medical fields are enrolled. Each physician contributes a sequence of four medical consultations including a diagnostic or treatment decision.The intervention consists of two condensed video-based individual coaching sessions (15 min.) supported by a manual and a DVD. The interventions alternate with three measurement points plus follow up (6 months).Realized patient involvement is measured using the coefficient SDM(MASS) drawn from the Multifocal Approach to the Sharing in SDM (MAPPIN'SDM) which includes objective involvement, involvement as perceived by the patient, and the doctor-patient concordance regarding their judges of the involvement. For validation purposes, all three components of SDM(MASS) are supplemented by similar measures, the OPTION observer scale, the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q) and the dyadic application of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Training effects are analyzed using t-tests. Spearman correlation coefficients are used to determine convergent validities, the influence of involvement (SDMMASS) on the perceived decision quality (DCS) and on the elaboration of the decision. The latter is operationalised by the ELAB coefficient from the UP24 (Uncertainty Profile, 24 items version). DISCUSSION: Due to the rigorous blinded randomized controlled design, the current trial promises valid and reliable results. On the one hand, we expect this condensed time-saving training to be adopted in clinical routine more likely than previous trainings. On the other hand, the exhaustivity of the MAPPIN'SDM measurement system qualifies it as a reference measure for simpler instruments and to deepen understanding of decision-making processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78716079.