Elicitation of preferences in the second half of the shared decision making process needs attention; a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: It is known that the use of a Patient Decision Aid (PtDA), combined with advice for professionals on how and when to use it, can enhance the involvement of patients in the treatment decision. However, we need more knowledge with respect to the intention-behaviour gap. This study aims to analyse patients' experiences with the Shared Decision Making (SDM) process to find clues to close this gap. METHODS: This qualitative study was part of a pilot study aiming to implement SDM in early adopter breast cancer teams. Patients were given access to a personalised PtDA. Breast cancer teams were instructed on how and when to deliver the PtDA. We interviewed 20 patients about their experience with the PtDA and SDM in general. RESULTS: Most patients experienced SDM, though to a certain extent. Choice talk and option talk were commonly experienced, however the elicitation of preferences and decision talk was rare. The PtDA was used by the majority of patients (N = 13), all indicating that it was useful, especially to recall all the information given. Patients appreciated the contribution of breast cancer nurses in the SDM process. They considered them as true case managers, easy to approach and supportive. CONCLUSION: Although patients felt well-informed and satisfied about risk-communication, the elicitation of preferences appeared very limited to non-existent. We recommend that breast cancer teams divide tasks in the SDM process and reallocate the elicitation of preferences to the nurses in a well-defined clinical pathway.

Does lack of deeper understanding of shared decision making explains the suboptimal performance on crucial parts of it? An example from breast cancer care.

PURPOSE: Although most of the clinicians in breast cancer care seem to approve of shared decision making (SDM), actual implementation is limited. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences, issues and concerns of early-adopter professionals with regards to shared decision making. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study was part of a pilot study aimed at implementing SDM in breast cancer teams. We interviewed 27 clinicians; 9 breast cancer surgeons, 11 nurse practitioners and 7 nurses. The teams were exposed to a multifaceted implementation programme, among others: a patient decision aid (PtDA), a procedure to disseminate the PtDA and advice on redesigning the clinical pathway. RESULTS: Participants considered SDM, including the delivery of the PtDA, to be a team effort, in which every professional should take responsibility. Most clinicians primarily focused on the first steps of SDM ignoring preference and decision talk. The remaining steps, like the uptake of the PtDA in the clinical pathway, were regarded as challenging, with surgeons, intentionally or unconsciously, delegating this responsibility to nurses. One barrier to successfully implementing SDM seems to lie in the fact that clinicians were unaware of their lack of competency regarding SDM. CONCLUSIONS: A deeper understanding is needed among clinicians of what SDM actually is and how a PtDA contributes to this process. Nurses play an important role in the delivery of the PtDA, but their role is not clearly defined. Teams should consider a clear realignment of tasks between surgeons and nurses, which implies redesign of the pathway.

Developing a patient decision aid for the treatment of women with early stage breast cancer: the struggle between simplicity and complexity.

BACKGROUND: A patient decision aid (PtDA) can support shared decision making (SDM) in preference-sensitive care, with more than one clinically applicable treatment option. The development of a PtDA is a complex process, involving several steps, such as designing, developing and testing the draft with all the stakeholders, known as alpha testing. This is followed by testing in 'real life' situations, known as beta testing, and then finalising the definite version. Our aim was developing and alpha testing a PtDA for primary treatment of early stage breast cancer, ensuring that the tool is considered relevant, valid and feasible by patients and professionals. METHODS: Our qualitative descriptive study applied various methods including face-to-face think-aloud interviews, a focus group and semi-structured telephone interviews. The study population consisted of breast cancer patients facing the choice between breast-conserving therapy with or without preceding neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and mastectomy, and professionals involved in breast cancer care in dedicated multidisciplinary breast cancer teams. RESULTS: A PtDA was developed in four iterative test rounds, taking nearly 2 years, involving 26 patients and 26 professionals. While the research group initially opted for simplicity for the sake of implementation, the clinicians objected that the complexity of the decision could not be ignored. Other topics of concern were the conflicting views of professionals and patients regarding side effects, the amount of information and how to present it. CONCLUSION: The development was an extensive process, because the professionals rejected the simplifications proposed by the research group. This resulted in the development of a completely new draft PtDA, which took double the expected time and resources. The final version of the PtDA appeared to be well-appreciated by professionals and patients, although its acceptability will only be proven in actual practice (beta testing). TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR TC 5721 .