Unravelling clinicians' shared decision-making adoption: a qualitative exploration through the lens of diffusion of innovations theory.

OBJECTIVES: This study uses the diffusion of innovations (DOI) theory to comprehensively understand the adoption of shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical practice, specifically focusing on the 'knowledge' and 'persuasion' stages within DOI. We aim to understand the challenges and dynamics associated with SDM adoption, offering insights for more patient-centred decision-making in healthcare. DESIGN: This qualitative study employs a modified framework analysis approach, integrating ethnographic and interview data from prior research, along with additional interviews. The framework used is based on the DOI theory. STUDY SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was conducted in the obstetrics and gynaecology department of a tertiary teaching hospital in the Eastern region of the Netherlands. It included interviews with 20 participants, including gynaecologists, obstetrics registrars and junior doctors currently practising in the department. Additionally, data from prior research conducted within the same department were incorporated, ensuring the maintenance of contextual consistency. RESULTS: Findings reveal a complex interplay between SDM's benefits and challenges. Clinicians value SDM for upholding patient autonomy and enhancing medical practice, viewing it as valuable for medical decision-making. Decision aids are seen as advantageous in supporting treatment decisions. Challenges include compatibility issues between patient and clinician preferences, perceptions of SDM as time-consuming and difficult and limitations imposed by the rapid pace of healthcare and its swift decisions. Additionally, perceived complexity varies by situation, influenced by colleagues' attitudes, with limited trialability and sparsely observed instances of SDM. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' decision to adopt or reject SDM is multifaceted, shaped by beliefs, cognitive processes and contextual challenges. Cognitive dissonance is critical as clinicians reconcile their existing practices with the adoption of SDM. Practical strategies such as practice assessments, open discussions about SDM's utility and reflective practice through professional development initiatives empower clinicians to make the best informed decision to adopt or reject SDM.

Preferences and considerations for interval cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: The patient's perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of advanced-stage ovarian cancer contains cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and chemotherapy. Achieving successful CRS (≤ 1 cm residual disease) is prognostically important, but may not be feasible peri-operatively while still risking complications. Therefore, patients' treatment expectations are important to discuss. We investigated patient considerations for interval CRS. METHODS: Patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer planned for interval CRS completed a questionnaire about the impact of chance of successful CRS, survival benefit and becoming care-dependent on decision-making regarding CRS. The questionnaire included a vignette study, in which patients repeatedly chose between two treatment scenarios with varying levels for chance of successful CRS, survival benefit and risk of complications including stoma. Patient preferences were analyzed, including differences between patients aged < 70 and ≥ 70 years. RESULTS: Among 85 included patients, 31 (37%) patients considered interval CRS worthwhile irrespective of survival benefit and 33 (39%) irrespective of chance of successful surgery. However, 34 patients (41%) considered interval CRS only worthwhile if survival benefit was > 12 months, while 41 (49%) thought so if chance of successful surgery was ≥ 25%. Older patients considered these factors more important. Overall, 27% considered becoming permanently dependent of home care unacceptable. In the vignette study (n = 72) risk of complications and stoma were considered less important than chance of successful CRS and survival benefit. CONCLUSION: Survival benefit, chance of successful surgery and becoming care-dependent are important factors in patient's decision for interval CRS, while risk of complications and stoma are less important. Our results are useful in shared decision-making for interval CRS in ovarian cancer.

Explorative observational study of Dutch patient-clinician interactions: operationalisation of personal perspective elicitation as part of shared decision-making in real-life audio-recorded consultations.

OBJECTIVES: Patients' preferences, values and contexts are important elements of the shared decision-making (SDM) process. We captured those elements into the concept of 'personal perspective elicitation' (PPE), which reflects the need to elicit patients' preferences, values and contexts in patient-clinician conversations. We defined PPE as: 'the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or contexts potentially relevant to decision-making'. Our goal was to operationalise the concept of PPE through the evaluation of preferences, values and contexts and explore how PPE occurs in clinical encounters. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study: observational coding based on a novel coding scheme of audio-recorded outpatient clinical encounters where encounter patient decision aids were applied. SETTING: We audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions at three Dutch outpatient clinics. PPE was analysed using a novel observational coding scheme, distinguishing preferences, contexts and four Armstrong taxonomy value types (global, decisional, external and situational). We measured SDM using the Observer OPTION5. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians. RESULTS: We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION5 score was 57.5 (SD:10.1). The audio-recordings gave a rich illustration of preferences, values and contexts that were discussed in the patient-clinician interactions. Examples of identified global values: appearance, beliefs, personality traits. Decisional values were related to the process of decision-making. External values related to asking advice from for example, the clinician or significant others. An identified situational value: a new job ahead. Contexts related to how the illness impacted the life (eg, sexuality, family, sports, work life) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The operationalisation of PPE, an important aspect of SDM, explores which preferences, values and contexts were discussed during patient-clinician interactions where an ePDA was used. The coding scheme appeared feasible to apply but needs further refinement.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to personalise follow-up care of ovarian cancer: what do patients think? A qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore ovarian cancer patients' preferences regarding follow-up care and, in particular, the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as an approach to personalise follow-up care. METHODS: Between May and June 2021, semi-structured interviews were conducted with ovarian cancer patients, who had finished their primary treatment at least 6 months prior and were receiving follow-up care at our centre. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. A thematic flow chart was created describing interacting themes. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were interviewed, of which 11 were familiar with PROMs. Two key themes emerged from the data: the need for reassurance and the wish for personalised care. A follow-up scheme using PROMs was identified as a separate theme with the potential to personalise care. Several barriers and facilitators of PROMs were mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian cancer patients have a desire for personalised follow-up care and seek reassurance. PROMs may be able to support both of these needs. Future research is needed to determine the most effective, patient-centred way to implement them. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: By understanding what patients' preferences are regarding follow-up care, more initiatives can be set up to personalise follow-up care, through which patient anxiety and dissatisfaction can be reduced.

Assessing the educational quality of shared decision-making interventions for residents: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Many studies on educational interventions to enhance residents' shared decision-making (SDM) skills show limited improvement in SDM skills and clinical outcomes. One plausible explanation for these suboptimal results is the insufficient emphasis on the educational quality of training interventions. METHODS: This review evaluates interventions' educational quality using an evaluation framework based on a previous study on effective skills transfer and a well-known SDM model. A systematic review was conducted, searching three databases until December 13, 2022. We assessed study quality by calculating MERSQI scores, examined the levels of study effects based on Kirkpatrick's model, and applied our evaluation framework to assess the interventions' educational quality. Given the heterogeneity among the studies, a meta-analysis was not feasible. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included. Role-play and feedback were common training characteristics (65% and 54% of interventions). Only four studies (15%) met our framework's high educational quality threshold. No correlation was found between MERSQI scores and educational quality. CONCLUSIONS: This review is a valuable attempt to assess the educational quality of SDM interventions beyond measuring study outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future evaluation frameworks should consider study results, training characteristics, and training content. Our framework offers a sound basis for such an evaluation framework.

Disentangling trust of patients with rare cancer in their healthcare professionals and the healthcare system: a qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: Patients with a rare cancer face challenges, e.g., delayed diagnosis, that may affect trust in the healthcare system and the healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved. This study aimed to explore trust of patients with a rare cancer in their HCPs and the healthcare system. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 purposively sampled patients with a rare cancer. The interview guide included topics related to trust, including level, development, barriers and facilitators, importance, and trust dimensions. Thematic analysis was conducted with use of Atlas.ti. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 50 years, 60% were female, and 70% were highly educated. Three themes were constructed: (1) "Confirmed expertise is a prerequisite of trust." Patients need confirmation of their HCPs' expertise, as it could not be assumed due to the rarity of their cancer; (2) "Trust depends on the adequacy of information and how it is provided." Limited information about rare cancer reduced patients' trust in health care, whereas interpersonal trust was mainly affected by how HCPs provided information; and (3) "Trust is built on properly coordinated and supportive care." Proper organization and cooperation within and between hospitals, and integration of supportive care, enhanced trust. CONCLUSION: Patients with a rare cancer experience challenges that influence trust in HCPs and the healthcare system. Further research should examine trust among subgroups of patients with a rare cancer, to enable development of tailored interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: HCPs may improve trust by focusing on expertise, effective information provision, proper coordination of care, and provision of adequate supportive care.

Is it fun or is it hard? Studying physician-related attributes of shared decision-making by ranking case vignettes.

Objective: This study investigated provider-related attributes of shared decision-making (SDM). It studied how physicians rank SDM cases compared to other cases, taking 'job satisfaction' and 'complexity' as ranking criteria. Methods: Ten vignettes representing three cases of SDM, three cases dealing with patients' emotions and four with technical problems were designed to conduct a modified ordinal preference elicitation study. Gynaecologists and trainees ranked the vignettes for 'job satisfaction' or 'complexity'. Results were analysed by comparing the top three and down three ranked cases for each type of case using exact p-values obtained with custom-made randomisation tests. Results: Participants experienced more satisfaction significantly from performing technical cases than cases dealing with emotions or SDM. Moreover, technical cases were perceived as less complex than those dealing with emotions. However, results were inconclusive about whether gynaecologists find SDM complex. Conclusion: Findings suggest gynaecologists experience lower satisfaction with SDM tasks, possibly due to them falling outside their comfort zone. Integrating SDM into daily routines and promoting culture change favouring dealing with non-technical problems might help mitigate issues in SDM implementation. Innovation: Our novel study assesses SDM in the context of task appraisal, illuminating the psychology of health professionals and providing valuable insights for implementation science.

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) and vaginal natural orifice hysterectomy (V-NOTES). Within the LH category we further differentiate the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) from the total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from their inception to December 2022): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the trial registries and relevant reference lists, and communicated with experts in the field for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction and quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvic-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction). MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 studies with 6811 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate certainty. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (12 RCTs, 1046 women) Return to normal activities was probably faster in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -10.91 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.95 to -3.87; 4 RCTs, 274 women; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after AH is assumed to be 42 days, then after VH it would be between 24 and 38 days. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (28 RCTs, 3431 women) Return to normal activities may be sooner in the LH group (MD -13.01 days, 95% CI -16.47 to -9.56; 7 RCTs, 618 women; I2 = 68%, low-certainty evidence), but there may be more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.93; 18 RCTs, 2594 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 37 days, then after laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 22 and 25 days. It also suggests that if the rate of ureter injury during abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 0.2%, then during laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 0.2% and 2%. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (22 RCTs, 2135 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for any of our primary outcomes. Both short- and long-term complications were rare in both groups. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (three RCTs, 296 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for our other primary outcomes. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH) versus LH (seven RCTs, 621 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates, quality of life or major long-term complications. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (three RCTs, 233 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury or major long-term complications. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) versus LH (two RCTs, 96 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of bladder injury. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Overall, adverse events were rare in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to AH. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because it is associated with faster return to normal activities, fewer wound/abdominal wall infections and shorter hospital stay. Where VH is not possible, LH has advantages over AH including faster return to normal activities, shorter hospital stay, and decreased risk of wound/abdominal wall infection, febrile episodes or unspecified infection, and transfusion. These advantages must be balanced against the increased risk of ureteric injury and longer operative time. When compared to LH, VH was associated with no difference in time to return to normal activities but shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay. RH and V-NOTES require further evaluation since there is a lack of evidence of any patient benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed with the patient and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. Surgical expertise is difficult to quantify and poorly reported in the available studies and this may influence outcomes in ways that cannot be accounted for in this review. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH has multiple advantages over AH, but at the cost of more ureteric injuries. Evidence is limited for RH and V-NOTES.

Can late lymphoscintigraphy be omitted in the sentinel node procedure in early-stage vulvar cancer?

INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, the sentinel lymph node procedure protocol consists of preoperative lymphoscintigraphy combined with intraoperative blue dye for identifying sentinel lymph nodes in early vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. This study aimed at investigating the role of early and late lymphoscintigraphy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From January 2015 to January 2019, early and late lymphoscintigraphies of 52 women were retrospectively analyzed. Lymphoscintigraphy was performed 30 minutes (early) and 2.5-4 hours (late) after vulvar injection of 99m Tc-labeled nanocolloid. We calculated the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) between number of sentinel lymph nodes detected on both images using the Lins concordance coefficient and correlated with clinicopathological data. RESULTS: Thirty-four women had a midline tumor and 18 had a lateral tumor. Detection rates with early and late scintigraphy were 88.5% and 98.1%, respectively. Median number of detected nodes was 1.0 (0-7) and 2.0 (0-7). Good statistical correlation between number of sentinel lymph nodes detected on early and late imaging was found (CCC = 0.76) in most patients. In 18 women (35%) a mismatch occurred: a higher number of nodes was detected on late imaging. In 11 of 18 women re-injection was performed because no sentinel lymph nodes were visualized on early images. Late imaging and intraoperative detection showed a good statistical correlation (CCC = 0.61). One woman showed an isolated groin recurrence despite negative sentinel lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed good statistical correlations between early and late scintigraphy in most patients. However, in 35% of women late scintigraphy detected more nodes. In case of poor visualization after the first scintigraphy, re-injection should be considered. Late scintigraphy is probably helpful in confirming successful re-injection and in showing deviating lymph flow in women with failed mapping after the first injection and successful re-injection. Because missing metastatic sentinel lymph nodes often leads to a poor prognosis, we prefer optimal correlations between imaging and intraoperative identification. Hence, late scintigraphy cannot be safely omitted.

Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Proponents of shared decision-making (SDM) advocate the elicitation of the patient's perspective. This scoping review explores if, and to what extent, the personal perspectives of patients are elicited during a clinical encounter, as part of a SDM process. We define personal perspective elicitation (PPE) as: the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or context. METHODS: A search was conducted in five literature databases from inception dates up to July 2020, to identify empirical studies about SDM (with/without SDM instrument). RESULTS: The search identified 4562 abstracts; 263 articles were read in full text, resulting in 99 included studies. Studies reported low levels of PPE. Integration of personal perspectives into the conversation or a future care plan was largely absent. The majority of the discussed content related to physical health, while social and psychological topics were mostly unaddressed. CONCLUSIONS: PPE occurs on a very low level in efforts to achieve SDM according to evaluation studies. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PPE is advocated but rarely achieved in SDM evaluation studies. Causes should be identified, followed by designing interventions to improve this aspect of SDM.

Development of an adjective-selection measure evaluating clinicians' attitudes towards using patient decision aids: The ADOPT measure.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of shared decision-making and patient decision aids (PDAs) is impeded by clinicians' attitudes. OBJECTIVE: To develop a measure of clinician attitude towards PDAs. METHODS: To develop the ADOPT measure, we used four stages, culminating in measure responses by medically qualified clinicians, 25 from each of the following specialties: emergency medicine, family medicine, oncology, obstetrics and gynaecology, orthopaedics, and psychiatry. To assess validity, we also posed three questions to assess the participants' attitudinal and behavioural endorsement of PDAs. Allocating a point per adjective, we calculated the sum as well as positive and negative scores. We used univariate logistic regression to determine associations between the scores and attitudinal or behavioural endorsements. RESULTS: 152 clinicians completed the measure. 'Time-saving' (39%) and 'easy' (34%) were the most frequently selected adjectives. 'Time-consuming' and 'unfamiliar' were the most frequently selected negative adjectives (both 19%). The sum scores were significantly associated with behavioural endorsement of PDAs. DISCUSSION: Clinicians were able to respond to adjective-selection methods and the ADOPT measure could help assess clinician attitudes to PDAs. Validation will require further research. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The ADOPT measure could help identify the extent and source of attitudinal resistance.

Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: To compare CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires when appreciating patient-perceived level of shared decision-making (SDM) in doctor-patient consultations. METHODS: Data were harvested from five separate studies on SDM, conducted in three university and one large community hospital in the Netherlands, using Dutch versions of both questionnaires. CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 scores were expressed as percentages. Correlation was assessed using Spearman's Rho coefficient. Bland&Altman analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement. Top scores were calculated to assess possible ceiling effects. RESULTS: The five studies included 442 patients. Median CollaboRATE scores (88.9%, IQR 81.5-100%) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than SDM-Q-9 scores (80.0%, IQR 64.4-100%). Correlation was moderate (Rho=0.53, p < 0.001). A systematic, 12.5-point higher score was found across the range of scores when using CollaboRATE. Top scores for CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 were present in 37.5% and 17% of questionnaires, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires showed a high level of patient-perceived SDM. However, CollaboRATE only moderately correlated with SDM-Q-9 and had a stronger ceiling effect. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: When choosing a SDM-measurement tool, its benefits and limitations should be weighed. These metrics should be combined with objective scores of SDM, as these may differ from the patients' subjective interpretation.

The Tell me tool: The development and feasibility of a tool for person-centred infertility care.

BACKGROUND: An important-and often missing-element of person-centred care is the inclusion of individual patients' values and preferences. This is challenging but especially important for high-burden fertility treatments. We describe the development of a clinical tool that aims to facilitate the delivery of person-centred fertility care by giving insight into the patients' values and preferences. METHODS: We developed the Tell me tool following the three principles of user-centred design: (1) early and continual focus on users; (2) iterative design; (3) measurement of user behaviour. Accordingly, our methods consisted of three phases: (1) conducting semi-structured interviews with 18 couples undergoing fertility treatment, followed by a consensus meeting with relevant stakeholders; (2) performing seven iterative improvement rounds; (3) testing the feasibility of the tool in 10 couples. RESULTS: The Tell me tool consists of a ranking assignment of 13 themes and two open-ended questions. These themes relate to the couples' wellbeing and experience of the treatment, such as mental health and shared decision making. The open-ended questions ask them to write down what matters most to them. The field test showed variation between the individual patients' answers. The tool proved to highlight what is important to the individual patient and gives insight into patients' personal contexts. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a tool that gives insight into the values and preferences of the individual patient. The tool seems feasible for facilitating person-centred fertility care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The tool was developed with a user-centred design that strongly involved patients.

Potential impact of encounter patient decision aids on the patient-clinician dialogue: a qualitative study on Dutch and American medical specialists' experiences.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the experiences among Dutch and American clinicians on the impact of using encounter patient decision aids (ePDAs) on their clinical practice, and subsequently to formulate recommendations for sustained ePDA use in clinical practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with clinicians who used 11 different ePDAs (applicable to their specialty) for 3 months after a short training. The verbatim transcribed interviews were coded with thematic analysis by six researchers via ATLAS.ti. SETTING: Nine hospitals in the Netherlands and two hospitals in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five clinicians were interviewed: 16 Dutch medical specialists from four different disciplines (gynaecologists, ear-nose-throat specialists, neurologists and orthopaedic surgeon), 5 American gynaecologists and 4 American gynaecology medical trainees. RESULTS: The interviews showed that the ePDA potentially impacted the patient-clinician dialogue in several ways. We identified six themes that illustrate this: that is, (1) communication style, for example, structuring the conversation; (2) the patient's role, for example, encouraging patients to ask more questions; (3) the clinician's role, for example, prompting clinicians to discuss more information; (4) workflow, for example, familiarity with the ePDA's content helped to integrate it into practice; (5) shared decision-making (SDM), for example, mixed experiences whether the ePDA contributed to SDM; and (6) content of the ePDA. Recommendations to possibly improve ePDA use based on the clinician's experiences: (1) add pictorial health information to the ePDA instead of text only and (2) instruct clinicians how to use the ePDA in a flexible (depending on their discipline and setting) and personalised way adapting the ePDA to the patients' needs (e.g., mark off irrelevant options). CONCLUSIONS: ePDAs contributed to the patient-clinician dialogue in several ways according to medical specialists. A flexible and personalised approach appeared appropriate to integrate the use of ePDAs into the clinician's workflow, and customise their use to individual patients' needs.

Structurally collecting patient feedback on trainee skills: A pilot study in Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study tested a tool that collects patient feedback on trainees' skills in shared decision-making (SDM) and general consultation. It also examined trainees' views on SDM and patient feedback, exploring potential skills improvement through reflexive practice. METHODS: Patients were asked to rate trainees after consultation in a six-itemed questionnaire. The questionnaire included 'CollaboRATE' (a validated tool to test SDM), the 'Net Promoter Score' and two open-ended questions. Questionnaire results were described quantitatively and tested for differences. Results were presented to trainees at three intervals. Trainees were interviewed afterwards. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Eleven trainees in Obstetrics and Gynaecology participated. Out of 1651 sent questionnaires 399 were returned (response rate 24%). Questionnaire results showed no differences when comparing trainees or group scores over time. Interview results were thematically analysed using the reflexivity framework. Trainees were able to reflect on their SDM skills. They valued receiving patient feedback, yet were able to formulate few learning points from it. CONCLUSION: Although skills improvement was not evident, patient feedback still has potential benefits. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patient feedback should be combined with facilitated reflections at timely intervals to reinforce behaviour change. Supervisors play an important role in facilitating reflections with trainees.

Implementation and sustainability factors of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids in diverse practices.

BACKGROUND: Conversation aids can facilitate shared decision-making and improve patient-centered outcomes. However, few examples exist of sustained use of conversation aids in routine care due to numerous barriers at clinical and organizational levels. We explored factors that will promote the sustained use of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids. We examined differences in opinions between the two conversation aids and across socioeconomic strata. METHODS: We nested this study within a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of two early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, one text-based and one picture-based. These conversation aids facilitated more shared decision-making and improved the decision process, among other outcomes, across four health systems with socioeconomically diverse patient populations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patient participants across conversation aid assignment and socioeconomic status (SES) and collected observations and field notes. We interviewed trial surgeons and other stakeholders. Two independent coders conducted framework analysis using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development through Normalization Process Theory. We also conducted an inductive analysis. We conducted additional sub-analyses based on conversation aid assignment and patient SES. RESULTS: We conducted 73 semi-structured interviews with 43 patients, 16 surgeons, and 14 stakeholders like nurses, cancer center directors, and electronic health record (EHR) experts. Patients and surgeons felt the conversation aids should be used in breast cancer care in the future and were open to various methods of giving and receiving the conversation aid (EHR, email, patient portal, before consultation). Patients of higher SES were more likely to note the conversation aids influenced their treatment discussion, while patients of lower SES noted more influence on their decision-making. Intervention surgeons reported using the conversation aids did not lengthen their typical consultation time. Most intervention surgeons felt using the conversation aids enhanced their usual care after using it a few times, and most patients felt it appeared part of their normal routine. CONCLUSIONS: Key factors that will guide the future sustained implementation of the conversation aids include adapting to existing clinical workflows, flexibility of use, patient characteristics, and communication preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03136367 , registered on May 2, 2017.

Encounter decision aids to facilitate shared decision-making with women experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding or symptomatic uterine fibroids: A before-after study.

OBJECTIVE: Is the level of shared decision-making (SDM) higher after introduction of a SDM package (including encounter decision aids on treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding and training for clinicians) than before?. METHODS: This before-after study, performed in OB-GYN practice, compared consultations before and after introduction of a SDM package. The target sample size was 25 patients per group. Women seeking treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding were eligible. After their appointments, patients filled out a three-item patient-reported SDM measure. Treatment discussions were audio-recorded and rated for SDM using Observer OPTION5. Consultation transcripts in the 'after' group were checked for adherence to the steps required for intended use of decision aids. RESULTS: 16 gynaecologists participated. 25 patients participated before introduction of the decision aids and 28 after. The proportion of women reporting optimal SDM was higher after introduction (75 %) than before (50 %;p < 0.001). The mean observer-rated level of SDM was also significantly higher after than before (MD = 12.50,95 % CI 5.53-19.47). CONCLUSION: The level of SDM was higher after the introduction of the package than before. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study was conducted in a real-life setting in three clinics, both large academic and small rural, offering opportunities for implementation in different type of organizations.

Multidisciplinary management of patients with pubic osteomyelitis, a rare but serious complication after surgery and radiation therapy for advanced gynaecological cancer.

Pubic osteomyelitis is a rare and often late-onset complication of radiation therapy and surgery for vulvar and vaginal carcinoma. It typically presents with vulvar pain, fever, vaginal discharge and/or gait disorders. Pubic osteomyelitis is often accompanied by fistulas or wound dehiscence in the pelvic area. Its accurate diagnosis and treatment are challenging and require a multidisciplinary team effort. In our patients, multiple combined surgical procedures, long-term antibiotic treatment and days to weeks of hospital admission were necessary to treat pubic osteomyelitis. We emphasise the importance of timely and adequate diagnosis and multidisciplinary approach resulting in a course of treatment that is as effective as possible, limiting the impact on quality of life, which is generally high in this group of patients.

Patients' and gynecologists' views on sentinel lymph node mapping in low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer: a Dutch vignette study.

OBJECTIVE: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping in endometrial cancer is gaining ground. However, patient views on this new technique are unknown. The aim of this study was to determine factors important to patients and gynecologists when considering SLN mapping in low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer. METHODS: We performed a vignette study. Patients who underwent a total hysterectomy for low- or intermediate-risk endometrial cancer between 2012 and 2015 were invited. Dutch gynecologists specializing in gynecologic oncology were also invited. We based the selection for attributes in the vignettes on literature and interviews: risk of complications of SLN mapping; chance of finding a metastasis; survival gain; risk of complications after radiotherapy; operation time; and hospital of surgery (travel time). We developed a questionnaire with 18 hypothetical scenarios. Each attribute level varied and for each scenario, participants were asked how strongly they would prefer SLN on a scale from 1 to 7. The strength of preference for each scenario was analyzed using linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: A total of 38% of patients (41/108) and 33% of gynecologists (42/126) participated in the study. Overall, they had a preference for SLN. The mean preference for patients was 4.29 (95% CI 3.72 to 4.85) and 4.39 (95% CI 3.99 to 4.78) for gynecologists. Patients' preferences increased from 3.4 in the case of no survival gain to 4.9 in the case of 3-year survival gain (P<0.05) and it decreased when travel time increased to >60 min (-0.4, P=0.024), or with an increased risk of complications after adjuvant radiotherapy (-0.6, P=0.002). For gynecologists all attributes except travel time were important. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients and gynecologists were in favor of SLN mapping in low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer. Most important to patients were survival gain, travel time, and complication risk after adjuvant radiotherapy. These preferences should be taken into account when counseling about SLN mapping.