Shared decision-making in the Netherlands: Progress is made, but not for all. Time to become inclusive to patients.

Dutch initiatives targeting shared decision-making (SDM) are still growing, supported by the government, the Federation of Patients' Organisations, professional bodies and healthcare insurers. The large majority of patients prefers the SDM model. The Dutch are working hard to realise improvement in the application of SDM in daily clinical practice, resulting in glimpses of success with objectified improvement on observed behavior. Nevertheless, the culture shift is still ongoing. Large-scale uptake of SDM behavior is still a challenge. We haven't yet fully reached the patients' needs, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behavior. In all Dutch implementation projects, early adopters, believers or higher-educated persons have been overrepresented, while patients with limited health literacy have been underrepresented. This is a huge problem as 25% of the Dutch adult population have limited health literacy. To further enhance SDM there are issues to be addressed: We need to make physicians conscious about their limited application of SDM in daily practice, especially regarding preference and decision talk. We need to reward clinicians for the extra work that comes with SDM. We need to be inclusive to patients with limited health literacy, who are less often actually involved in decision-making and at the same time more likely to regret their chosen treatment compared to patients with higher health literacy.

Evaluation of the "3 Good Questions" program for shared decision-making in pediatric medicine: a feasibility study.

The "3 Good Questions" program was developed to increase shared decision making. The current pilot-study determined the feasibility of these questions to increase shared decision-making in Dutch pediatric medicine. Pre-/postintervention surveys were used to include children (10-18 years) at pediatric outpatient clinics of four hospitals in the Netherlands. After their appointment, two different groups of children completed the questionnaires. Group 1 filled in the survey before the intervention; group 2 completed the survey after active implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program. The primary outcome was to determine the feasibility (reach, applicability). Secondary outcomes were related to patient involvement in healthcare and treatment decisions and decision-making process between child and healthcare professional. In total, 168 and 114 children in groups 1 and 2 (61 vs 63% female, P = 0.68; age 13.3 ± 2.4 vs 13.8 ± 2.4 years, P = 0.72), respectively, completed the questionnaire. In group 2, 44% of children were aware of the "3 Good Questions", of whom 18% posed ≥ 1 of the "3 Good Questions" during their appointment (feasibility). The "3 Good Questions" program led to more shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9: P = < 0.001;95%CI: - 2.43 to - 1.17). The majority of children who have read or heard of the "3 Good Questions" would recommend this program to other children.Conclusion: Implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program seemed feasible, although it is necessary to further explore the implementation of this program at national level as a simple way for children and healthcare professionals to share decisions in practice. What is known • Children have the right to be included in decision-making, and inclusion can improve patient satisfaction and quality of care, and reduce costs. • The "3 Good Questions" program was successfully implemented in adult healthcare to increase shared decision making, and therefore these "3 Good Questions" have been adapted to a child version. What is new • In this pilot study, we found that the implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program to increase shared decision-making in pediatric medicine seemed feasible. Although it is necessary to further explore the implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program at national level as a simple way for children and healthcare professionals to share decisions in practice.

Towards More Shared Decision Making in Dermatology: Develop-ment of Evidence-based Decision Cards for Psoriasis and Atopic Eczema Treatments.

In shared decision making (SDM) patients and physi-cians make treatment decisions together based on the best available evidence and the values and preferences of patients. SDM is very suitable for use in dermatological practice, but is infrequently applied by dermatologists. To support the application of SDM in dermatology we developed Decision Cards: 1-page overviews of possible treatment options, for use during a patient-physician consultation. Decision Cards provide answers to patients' most frequently asked questions, based on (inter)national guidelines, Summary of Product Characteristics, relevant literature, and clinical expertise. Three evidence-based Decision Cards were developed: 1 for biologicals or apremilast in psoriasis, and 2 for atopic eczema (1 for topical, photo- or systemic therapy, and 1 for systemic therapy only). More cards for psoriasis are currently in development. Patients, dermatologists and researchers collaborated in the development of the Decision Cards. This paper shares the framework used for the development of the Decision Cards, in order to support others in the development process.