Optimiser le co-enseignement patient/professionnel de santé.

INTRODUCTION: Patient engagement in the training of future health professionals is on the rise, given that the information patients transmit is immensely valuable to students. In addition, their involvement, alongside health professionals, in the formulation of academic materials should improve the quality of care in the long run. Little is written about good practice in involving patients in teaching, and even less about co-teaching, which is a demanding activity. We conducted a study with pairs of teachers who co-taught in health partnership workshops to develop best practice recommendations to optimize the roll-out of patient-healthcare professional co-teaching. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH: This qualitative study aims to present these recommendations of good practices of co-teaching. RESULTS: The data collected made it possible to develop, evaluate, and adjust six good practices to guide the pairs during the co-teaching process: knowledge of the subject taught, regular meetings, teaching framework and materials, role definition, symmetry and complementarity in the pair, and a debriefing session following each teaching session. CONCLUSION: Patient involvement in co-teaching requires rigorous preparation. The application of good practice recommendations facilitates this preparation process.

Six ways to get a grip on patient and family centered care during the undergraduate medical years.

Patient and family-centered care and patient engagement practices have strong evidence-based links with quality and safety for both patients and health care providers. Expectations for patient and family-centered care have advanced beyond hearing the patient perspective and taking patient wishes into account. A participatory approach including patients as partners in their care journey is expected, but attitudes toward patient and family-centered care remain barriers in practice. As health service organizations shift from a system-centered approach to a patient and family-centered care delivery model, black ice occurs. In this Black Ice article, we present some practical tips for medical educators to improve opportunities for medical students to develop knowledge, attitudes, and skills that support patient and family-centered care.

Le lien entre les soins axés sur le patient et la famille et l'engagement des patients d'un côté et la qualité et la sécurité des soins, tant pour les patients que pour les prestataires de services, de l'autre, a été solidement démontré. Les attentes en matière de soins axés sur le patient et la famille ont évolué et elles ne se limitent plus à recueillir le point de vue du patient et à prendre en considération ses souhaits. On préconise désormais une approche participative faisant intervenir les patients en tant que partenaires dans leur cheminement clinique. Toutefois, certaines attitudes à l'égard des soins axés sur le patient et la famille freinent la mise en pratique d'une telle démarche. Dans les organismes de services de santé, le passage d'une approche centrée sur le système à un modèle de prestation de soins axé sur le patient et la famille constitue un terrain glissant. Nous proposons ici quelques stratégies pratiques pour aider les enseignants en médecine à faciliter l'acquisition par les étudiants des connaissances, des attitudes et des habiletés qui favorisent les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

Trial Participation in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Barriers and Facilitators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials in neurodegenerative diseases often encounter selective enrollment and under-representation of certain patient populations. This delays drug development and substantially limits the generalizability of clinical trial results. To inform recruitment and retention strategies, and to better understand the generalizability of clinical trial populations, we investigated which factors drive participation. METHODS: We reviewed the literature systematically to identify barriers to and facilitators of trial participation in 4 major neurodegenerative disease areas: Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Huntington disease. Inclusion criteria included original research articles published in a peer-reviewed journal and evaluating barriers to and/or facilitators of participation in a clinical trial with a drug therapy (either symptomatic or disease-modifying). The Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies was used to assess and ensure the quality of the studies. Qualitative thematic analyses were employed to identify key enablers of trial participation. Subsequently, we pooled quantitative data of each enabler using meta-analytical models. RESULTS: Overall, we identified 36 studies, enrolling a cumulative sample size of 5,269 patients, caregivers, and health care professionals. In total, the thematic analysis resulted in 31 unique enablers of trial participation; the key factors were patient-related (own health benefit and altruism), study-related (treatment and study burden), and health care professional-related (information availability and patient-physician relationship). When meta-analyzed across studies, responders reported that the reason to participate was mainly driven by (1) the relationship with clinical staff (70% of the respondents; 95% CI 53%-83%), (2) the availability of study information (67%, 95% CI 38%-87%), and (3) the use or absence of a placebo or sham-control arm (53% 95% CI 32%-72%). There was, however, significant heterogeneity between studies (all p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: We have provided a comprehensive list of reasons why patients participate in clinical trials for neurodegenerative diseases. These results may help to increase participation rates, better inform patients, and facilitate patient-centric approaches, thereby potentially reducing selection mechanisms and improving generalizability of trial results.

Actions for mitigating the negative effects of patient participation in patient safety: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Recent research within the context of Obstetrics shows the added value of patient participation in in-hospital patient safety. Notwithstanding these benefits, recent research within an Obstetrics department shows that four different negative effects of patient participation in patient safety have emerged. However, the approach to addressing these negative effects within the perspective of patient participation in patient safety is currently lacking. For this reason, the aim of this study is to generate an overview of actions that could be taken to mitigate the negative effects of patient participation in patient safety within an Obstetrics department. METHODS: This study was conducted in the Obstetrics Department of a tertiary academic center. An explorative qualitative interview study included sixteen interviews with professionals (N = 8) and patients (N = 8). The actions to mitigate the negative effects of patient participation in patient safety, were analyzed and classified using a deductive approach. RESULTS: Eighteen actions were identified that mitigated the negative effects of patient participation in patient safety within an Obstetrics department. These actions were categorized into five themes: 'structure', 'culture', 'education', 'emotional', and 'physical and technology'. These five categories reflect the current approach to improving patient safety which is primarily viewed from the perspective of professionals rather than of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the identified actions are linked to changing the culture to generate more patient-centered care and change the current reality, which looks predominantly from the perspective of the professionals and too little from that of the patients. Furthermore, none of the suggested actions fit within a sixth anticipated category, namely, 'politics'. Future research should explore ways to implement a patient-centered care approach based on these actions. By doing so, space, money and time have to be created to elaborate on these actions and integrate them into the organizations' structure, culture and practices.

Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling initiatives in health and social services: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Scaling in health and social services (HSS) aims to increase the intended impact of proven effective interventions. Patient and public involvement (PPI) is critical for ensuring that scaling beneficiaries' interests are served. We aimed to identify PPI strategies and their characteristics in the science and practice of scaling in HSS. METHODS: In this scoping review, we included any scaling initiative in HSS that used PPI strategies and reported PPI methods and outcomes. We searched electronic databases (e.g., Medline) from inception to 5 February 2024, and grey literature (e.g., Google). Paired reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports. A narrative synthesis was performed and we used the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2). FINDINGS: We included 110 unique reports out of 24,579 records. In the past 5 years, the evidence on PPI in scaling has increased faster than in any previous period. We found 236 mutually nonexclusive PPI strategies among 120 scaling initiatives. Twenty-four initiatives did not target a specific country; but most of those that did so (n = 96) occurred in higher-income countries (n = 51). Community-based primary health care was the most frequent level of care (n = 103). Mostly, patients and the public were involved throughout all scaling phases (n = 46) and throughout the continuum of collaboration (n = 45); the most frequently reported ethical lens regarding the rationale for PPI was consequentialist-utilitarian (n = 96). Few papers reported PPI recruitment processes (n = 31) or incentives used (n = 18). PPI strategies occurred mostly in direct care (n = 88). Patient and public education was the PPI strategy most reported (n = 31), followed by population consultations (n = 30). CONCLUSIONS: PPI in scaling is increasing in HSS. Further investigation is needed to better document the PPI experience in scaling and ensure that it occurs in a meaningful and equitable way. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patients were involved in this review. They shared decisions on review questions, data collection instruments, protocol design, and findings dissemination. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework on 19 August 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/).

Amplifying the Patient's Voice in Oncology Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Solutions to Burdens and Barriers.

Dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs) provide early access to novel compounds of potential therapeutic benefit in addition to providing critical safety and dosing information. While access to trials for which a patient is eligible remains the largest barrier to enrollment on clinical trials, additional direct and indirect barriers unique to enrollment on DFOTs are often overlooked but worthy of consideration. Direct barriers including financial costs of care, travel and time investments, and logical challenges including correlative study designs are important to bear in mind when developing strategies to facilitate the patient experience on DFOTs. Indirect barriers such as strict eligibility criteria, washout periods, and concomitant medication restrictions should be accounted for during DFOT design to maintain the fidelity of the trial without being overly exclusionary. Involving patients and advocates and incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) throughout the process, from initial DFOT design, through patient recruitment and participation, is critical to informing strategies to minimize identified barriers to offer the benefit of DFOTs to all patients.

What guidance exists to support patient partner compensation practices? A scoping review of available policies and guidelines.

BACKGROUND: An integral aspect of patient engagement in research, also known as patient and public involvement, is appropriately recognising patient partners for their contributions through compensation (e.g., coauthorship, honoraria). Despite known benefits to compensating patient partners, our previous work suggested compensation is rarely reported and researchers perceive a lack of guidance on this issue. To address this gap, we identified and summarised available guidance and policy documents for patient partner compensation. METHODS: We conducted this scoping review in accordance with methods suggested by the JBI. We searched the grey literature (Google, Google Scholar) in March 2022 and Overton (an international database of policy documents) in April 2022. We included articles, guidance or policy documents regarding the compensation of patient partners for their research contributions. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesised document characteristics and recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 65 guidance or policy documents. Most documents were published in Canada (57%, n = 37) or the United Kingdom (26%, n = 17). The most common recommended methods of nonfinancial compensation were offering training opportunities to patient partners (40%, n = 26) and facilitating patient partner attendance at conferences (38%, n = 25). The majority of guidance documents (95%) suggested financially compensating (i.e., offering something of monetary value) patient partners for their research contributions. Across guidance documents, the recommended monetary value of financial compensation was relatively consistent and associated with the role played by patient partners and/or specific engagement activities. For instance, the median monetary value for obtaining patient partner feedback (i.e., consultation) was $19/h (USD) (range of $12-$50/h). We identified several documents that guide the compensation of specific populations, including youth and Indigenous peoples. CONCLUSION: Multiple publicly available resources exist to guide researchers, patient partners and institutions in developing tailored patient partner compensation strategies. Our findings challenge the perception that a lack of guidance hinders patient partner financial compensation. Future efforts should prioritise the effective implementation of these compensation strategies to ensure that patient partners are appropriately recognised. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: The patient partner coauthor informed protocol development, identified data items, and interpreted findings.

Perspectives on the essential skills of healthcare decision making in children and adolescents with intellectual disability.

BACKGROUND: Involvement in healthcare decisions is associated with better health outcomes for patients. For children and adolescents with intellectual disability, parents and healthcare professionals need to balance listening to a child's wishes with the responsibility of keeping them safe. However, there is a scarcity of literature evaluating how to effectively involve them in decision making. In this context, we review the concept of health literacy, focusing on the skills of healthcare decision making for children and adolescents with intellectual disability. METHODS: We describe the concept of health literacy and models explaining shared decision making (individuals and healthcare professionals collaborate in decision making process) and supported decision making (when a trusted person supports the individual to collaborate with the healthcare professional in the decision-making process), and a rapid review of the literature evaluating their efficacy. We discuss healthcare decision making for children and adolescents with intellectual disability in the context of relevant recommendations from the recent Disability Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People with Disability in Australia. RESULTS: Health literacy skills enable individuals to access, understand, appraise, remember and use health information and services. Shared decision making has been described for children with chronic conditions and supported decision making for adults with intellectual disability. Decision-making contributes to how individuals appraise and use healthcare. The rapid review found very limited evidence of outcomes where children and adolescents with intellectual disability have been supported to contribute to their healthcare decisions. Recommendations from the Disability Royal Commission highlight current needs for greater efforts to support and build the capacity of individuals with disability to be involved in the decisions that affect their life, including healthcare decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Existing rights frameworks and healthcare standards confirm the importance of providing all people with the opportunities to learn and practise health literacy skills including decision making. There is little literature examining interventions for healthcare decision making for children with intellectual disability. Childhood is a critical time for the development of skills and autonomy. Evidence for how children and adolescents with intellectual disability can learn and practice healthcare decision-making skills in preparation for adulthood is needed to reduce inequities in their autonomy.

Development of a web-based patient decision aid for myopia laser correction method.

BACKGROUND: In the context of healthcare centered on the patient, Patient Decision Aids (PtDAs) acts as an essential instrument, promoting shared decision-making (SDM). Considering the prevalent occurrence of myopia, the objective of this study is to furnish exhaustive and easily comprehensible information to assist patients in making well-informed decisions about their options for myopia laser correction. METHOD: The research team developed a decision guide for myopia patients considering laser correction, aiming to facilitate informed decisions. The study followed the first four stages of the IPDAS process model: "scope/scoping," "design," "prototype development," and "alpha testing." Ten semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 6) and corneal specialist ophthalmologists (n = 4) were conducted to understand the challenges in selecting a laser correction method. Online meetings with 4 corneal specialists were held to discuss challenging cases. A comparison table of harms and benefits was created. The initial prototype was developed and uploaded on the internet portal. User feedback on software and text aspects was incorporated into the final web software, which was reviewed by a health education expert for user-friendliness and effectiveness. RESULT: Educational needs assessment revealed concerns such as pain, daily life activities, return to work, the potential need for glasses ('number return'), eye prescription stability, and possible complications. These shaped the decision aid tool's content. Expert consensus was achieved in several areas, with some items added or extended. In areas lacking consensus, comments were added for clarity. Five clients assessed the web app (PDAIN), rating it 46/50 in user-centricity, 47/50 in usability, and 45/50 in accuracy and reliability, totaling 138/150. Post-piloting, software errors were documented and rectified. During the trial phase, five myopic users interacted with the software, leading to modifications. User feedback indicated the tool effectively enhanced understanding and influenced decision-making. CONCLUSION: PDAIN, serves as a facilitative tool in the process of selecting a corneal laser correction method for myopic patients. It enabling Nearsighted patients to make informed decisions.

Enhancing patient-clinician collaboration during treatment decision-making: study protocol for a community-engaged, mixed method hybrid type 1 trial of collaborative decision skills training (CDST) for veterans with psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Patient participation in treatment decision making is a pillar of recovery-oriented care and is associated with improvements in empowerment and well-being. Although demand for increased involvement in treatment decision-making is high among veterans with serious mental illness, rates of involvement are low. Collaborative decision skills training (CDST) is a recovery-oriented, skills-based intervention designed to support meaningful patient participation in treatment decision making. An open trial among veterans with psychosis supported CDST's feasibility and demonstrated preliminary indications of effectiveness. A randomized control trial (RCT) is needed to test CDST's effectiveness in comparison with an active control and further evaluate implementation feasibility. METHODS: The planned RCT is a hybrid type 1 trial, which will use mixed methods to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and implementation feasibility of CDST among veterans participating in a VA Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Recovery Center (PRRC) in Southern California. The first aim is to assess the effectiveness of CDST in comparison with the active control via the primary outcome, collaborative decision-making behavior during usual care appointments between veterans and their VA mental health clinicians, and secondary outcomes (i.e., treatment engagement, satisfaction, and outcome). The second aim is to characterize the implementation feasibility of CDST within the VA PRRC using the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model framework, including barriers and facilitators within the PRRC context to support future implementation. DISCUSSION: If CDST is found to be effective and feasible, implementation determinants gathered throughout the study can be used to ensure sustained and successful implementation at this PRRC and other PRRCs and similar settings nationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04324944. Registered on March 27, 2020. Trial registration data can be found in Appendix 1.

Involvement of children and young people in the conduct of health research: A rapid umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) have long been considered important to good research practice. There is growing, yet diverse, evidence in support of PPIE with children and young people (CYP). We must now understand the various approaches to involvement of CYP in research. AIMS: This rapid umbrella review aimed to provide an overview of when, how and to what extent CYP are involved in the conduct of health research, as well as the reported benefits, challenges, and facilitators of involvement. METHODS: We searched OVID Medline, Embase and PubMed. Published reviews were included if they reported meaningful involvement of CYP in the conduct of health research. Extracted data were synthesised using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The 26 reviews included were predominately systematic and scoping reviews, published within the last decade, and originating from North America and the United Kingdom. CYPs were involved in all stages of research across the literature, most commonly during research design and data collection, and rarely during research funding or data sharing and access. Researchers mostly engaged CYP using focus groups, interviews, advisory panels, questionnaires, and to a lesser extent arts-based approaches such as photovoice and drawing. Visual and active creative methods were more commonly used with children ≤12 years. The evidence showed a shared understanding of the benefits, challenges, and facilitators for involvement of CYP, such as time and resource commitment and building partnership. CONCLUSION: Overall, the review identified consistency in the range of methods and approaches used, and stages of research with which CYP are commonly involved. There is a need for more consistent reporting of PPIE in the literature, both in terminology and detail used. Furthermore, the impact of approaches to CYP involvement on research and community outcomes must be better evaluated. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review forms part of broader research initiatives being led by the authors. Together, these projects aim to support embedding of child voices in research practice and to explore the desirability and suitability of Young Persons Advisory Groups within birth cohort studies. The findings from this review, alongside public and stakeholder consultation, will inform development of resources such as practice recommendations to guide future involvement of CYP in health research undertaken at the author's respective institutions.

Leveraging Patient Engagement Through Collaboration for Improved Global Health Outcomes in Sarcoma.

In the dynamic landscape of oncology, collaborative efforts between the medical community and patient advocacy groups are pivotal in shaping standards of care and advancing research. Nowhere is this collaboration more evident than in sarcoma, a group of rare cancers posing unique challenges to diagnosis, management, and treatment, which profoundly affect patient outcomes. Here, we explore the vital role of patient-centric collaboration in improving global health outcomes in sarcoma, emphasizing the transformative power of collective action and shared expertise. Challenges in sarcoma care, including diagnostic complexities, disparities in access to care, and genomic tumor heterogeneity, underscore the urgent need for collaborative solutions. Initiatives like the Sarcoma European and Latin American Network (SELNET) and The Life Raft Group (LRG) exemplify successful models of collaborative research and patient advocacy, driving advancements in diagnosis, treatment, and disease understanding. Stakeholders across disciplines are uniting to improve sarcoma care and outcomes through the development of clinical practice guidelines, continuous medical education, patient registries, virtual tumor boards, and consortium-driven research endeavors, all of which foster the growth of global collaborative groups. The success of these collaborative efforts serves as a model for other rare diseases, highlighting the potential of collective action to drive progress and innovation in health care.

The Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals and Managers on Patient Involvement in Care Pathway Development: A Discourse Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The WHO advocates patient and public involvement as an ethical imperative, due to the value of the lived experience of patients. A deeper understanding of the shared meanings and underlying beliefs of healthcare professionals and managers for and against including patients in care pathway development. OBJECTIVE: To explore the considerations of healthcare professionals and managers on the involvement of patients and public in care pathway development. METHODS: In a medical rehabilitation centre we conducted a single case study that was part of a 2-year action research programme on blended care pathway development. Following 14 semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals and managers, we analysed their discourses on the value of patient involvement as well as the potential threats and opportunities. RESULTS: We identified four discourses. Patient as expert frames involvement as relevant, as adding new perspectives and as required to fully understand the patient's needs. Skills and representation is based on the construct that obtaining valuable insights from patients requires certain skills and competences. Self-protection focusses on personal, interprofessional objections to patient involvement. Professional knows best reveals expertise-related reasons for avoiding or postponing involvement. CONCLUSION: These discourses explain why patient and public involvement in care pathway development is sometimes postponed, limited in scope and level of participation, and/or avoided. The following strategies might minimise the paralysing effect of these discourses: strengthen the capabilities of all stakeholders involved; use a mix of complementary techniques to gain involvement in distinct phases of care pathway development; and create/facilitate a safe environment. Put together, these strategies would foster ongoing, reciprocal learning that could enhance patient involvement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study belonged to an action research programme on blended care pathway development (developing an integrated, coordinated patient care plan that combines remote, digital telehealth applications, self-management tools and face-to-face care). Multidisciplinary teams took a quality collaborative approach to quality improvement (considering patients as stakeholders) to develop 11 blended care pathways. Although professionals and managers were instructed to invite patients onto their teams and to attend care pathway design workshops, few teams (3/11) actually did. Unravelling why this happened will help improve patient and public involvement in care pathway development.

A rapid review of guidelines on the involvement of adolescents in health research.

BACKGROUND: Meaningful involvement of adolescents in health research is their fundamental human right and has many benefits. A lack of awareness among researchers on how to meaningfully involve adolescents in health research has been linked to adolescent under involvement in health research. To address this barrier, studies have reported the need for more guidance. To inform the development of better guidelines on adolescent involvement, there is a need to first consolidate the currently available guidance on adolescent involvement in health research and to identify the gaps in these guidelines. This review aims to systematically identify all the currently available guidelines on adolescent involvement in health research and evaluate their scope, content, context, and quality. METHODS: This rapid review was pre-registered with PROSPERO #CRD42021293586. It included documents that incorporated tangible recommendations on the involvement of adolescents in health research. We searched six databases for peer-reviewed literature: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. We conducted a grey literature search in Google Scholar, Google, websites of 472 relevant organisations and sought expert input. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation (AGREE-II) Instrument. Data was analysed using descriptive analyses and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We found that the current guidelines on adolescent involvement in health research are often narrow in scope, targeting specific users and populations while focusing on limited research areas. The guidelines individually fail to provide comprehensive coverage of recommendations across all topics related to adolescent research involvement, that are collectively addressed across all included guidelines. Furthermore, these guidelines tend to be context-specific and are generally of low quality, often due to inadequate stakeholder involvement and a lack of rigorous development methods. CONCLUSION: This review provides a consolidated list of guidelines on adolescent involvement in health research along with their quality scores as a resource for researchers to select the guidelines suitable for their research topic, context, and scope for adolescent involvement. There is a need to develop a set of guidelines on adolescent involvement in research, which are comprehensive in scope, cover all key aspects of adolescent involvement in health research, can be adapted for different contexts, and which are based on rigorous and systematic methods. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Adolescent co-researchers D. B. and C. W. were involved at different stages of the review process. D. B. screened 25% of the peer-reviewed articles at the title and abstract screening stage and 10% at full-text screening stage. C. W. extracted data from 10% of the included guidelines. Both co-researchers reviewed and shared their feedback on the article and are co-authors on this paper. They will also be invited to contribute to further dissemination of the findings from this review.

Assessing the association between quantity and quality of family caregiver participation in decision-making clinical encounters on patient activation in the metastatic breast cancer setting.

OBJECTIVE: Caregivers support individuals undergoing cancer treatment by assisting with activities, managing care, navigating healthcare systems, and communicating with care teams. We explored the quality and quantity of caregiver participation during recorded decision-making clinical appointments in women with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This was a convergent parallel mixed methods study that utilized qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. Caregiver participation quality was operationalized using a summative thematic content analysis to identify and sum caregiver actions performed during appointments. Performance of a greater number of actions was considered greater quality of participation. Caregiver participation quantity was measured by calculating the proportion of speaking time. Participation quality and quantity were compared to patient activation, assessed using the Patient Activation Measure 1-month post decision-making appointment. RESULTS: Fifty-three clinical encounters between patients with MBC, their caregivers, and oncologists were recorded. Identified caregiver actions included: General Support; Management of Treatment or Medication; Treatment History; Decision-Making; Insurance or Money; Pharmacy; Scheduling; Travel Concerns; General Cancer Understanding; Patient Specific Cancer Understanding; Caregiver-Initiated or Emphasis on Symptom Severity; and Caregiver Back-Up of Patient Symptom Description. Caregivers averaged 5 actions (SD 3): 48% of patient's caregivers had low quality (< 5 actions) and 52% had high quality (> 6 actions) participation. Regarding quantity, caregivers spoke on average for 4% of the encounter, with 60% of caregivers speaking less than 4% of the encounter (low quantity) and 40% of caregivers speaking more than 4% (high quantity). Greater quality and quantity of caregiver participation was associated with greater patient activation. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers perform a variety of actions during oncological decision-making visits aiding both patient and provider. Greater participation in terms of quantity and quality by the caregiver was associated with greater patient activism, indicating a need for better integration of the caregiver in clinical decision-making environments.

Patients and informal caregivers in the lead: a qualitative study on the experiences of patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals with involvement in treatment, e-health and self-management programs.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients and informal caregivers favor an active role in decisions concerning their health. Simultaneously, governments aim to shift treatment from a professional care setting to a community setting, in light of an ageing population, a decreasing number of health workers and allocation of scarce resources. This transition of care solicits patients' and informal caregivers' ability to self-manage. Therefore, the Maastricht University Medical Centre + has established the Academy for Patients and Informal caregivers. The aim is to proactively and professionally support patients and their informal caregivers to enhance their self-management. For that, the Academy offers activities in three categories: (1) instruction of nursing techniques, (2) training of e-health competencies and (3) the provision of self-management programs. Both patients with an episodic care need, as well as patients and informal caregivers with chronic illness, are eligible to participate in the Academy's activities. However, little is known about the experience of these interventions from the perspective of patients, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 patients, 8 informal caregivers and 19 health care professionals who either participated in, referred to or received patients from the Academy. Topics revolved around self-management and the Quadruple aim, covering topics such as patient experiences, healthcare costs, health and well-being of the population and improving work life for health professionals. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients and caregivers experienced an increase in the ability to manage health needs independently, leading to increased mental well-being and self-efficacy. They felt recognized as partners in care, although managing illness needs came with its own burdens. Health care professionals indicated that they felt assured of the quality, uniformity and availability of activities due to its central organization, with instruction nurses finding greater meaning in their work. On the level of health care systems, participants in this study mentioned a decrease in use of formal healthcare, whilst enabling a more equitable division of care. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders' experiences with the Academy for Patients and Informal caregivers indicate that participation contributes to development of self-management, whilst also improving working conditions, reducing the appeal to formal care and advancing equity in healthcare. The burden for patients and informal caregivers is to be considered in future developments.

Effects of a multicomponent communication training to involve older people in decisions to DEPRESCRIBE cardiometabolic medication in primary care (CO-DEPRESCRIBE): protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of medication for cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes has been incorporated in clinical guidelines but proves to be difficult to implement in primary care. Training of healthcare providers is needed to enhance deprescribing in eligible patients. This study will examine the effects of a blended training program aimed at initiating and conducting constructive deprescribing consultations with patients. METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial will be conducted in which local pharmacy-general practice teams in the Netherlands will be randomized to conducting clinical medication reviews with patients as usual (control) or after receiving the CO-DEPRESCRIBE training program (intervention). People of 75 years and older using specific cardiometabolic medication (diabetes drugs, antihypertensives, statins) and eligible for a medication review will be included. The CO-DEPRESCRIBE intervention is based on previous work and applies models for patient-centered communication and shared decision making. It consists of 5 training modules with supportive tools. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients with at least 1 cardiometabolic medication deintensified. Secondary outcomes include patient involvement in decision making, healthcare provider communication skills, health/medication-related outcomes, attitudes towards deprescribing, medication regimen complexity and health-related quality of life. Additional safety and cost parameters will be collected. It is estimated that 167 patients per study arm are needed in the final intention-to-treat analysis using a mixed effects model. Taking loss to follow-up into account, 40 teams are asked to recruit 10 patients each. A baseline and 6-months follow-up assessment, a process evaluation, and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. DISCUSSION: The hypothesis is that the training program will lead to more proactive and patient-centered deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. By a comprehensive evaluation, an increase in knowledge needed for sustainable implementation of deprescribing in primary care is expected. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT05507177).

Correlates of Control Preferences, Participation in Decision-making and Activation in Patients with Substance Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of Substance Use Disorder (SUD) is complex and therefore including patients in the therapeutic process is needed. Patient-Centered Care (PCC) and Shared Decision-Making (SDM) have been associated with greater satisfaction, self-control, and less substance use. However, correlates of SDM have not been investigated in this population. METHOD: A cross-sectional analysis was carried out in 214 SUD patients to identify sociodemographic, clinical and psychological correlates of preferences and perceptions about participation in SDM and degree of activation. The Control Preference Scale (CPS), the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-9-Q) and the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) were used to assess the PCC elements. Multinomial logistic regression was used to analyze the correlates of the CPS variables (preferred role, perceived role, and role matching). For SDM-9-Q and PAM, multilevel linear regression was used. RESULTS: Preferring an active role, compared to a shared one, was significantly associated with higher educational level, lower neuroticism, absence of affective and alcohol use disorders, and higher quality of life. Perceiving greater participation was significantly associated with not being a new patient, having fewer legal problems, higher severity of alcohol consumption, not presenting polydrug use and main substance use different than opioids or sedatives. Activation was associated with higher scores in the personality trait activity, a preference for an active role and greater perception of being involved in the decision process. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with milder clinical profiles prefer an active role compared to a shared one. Patients who prefer or perceive a shared or passive role did not show relevant differences. Greater activation was related to preference for an active role and the perception of having been involved in decisions.

My anesthesia Choice-HF: development and preliminary testing of a tool to facilitate conversations about anesthesia for hip fracture surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients often desire involvement in anesthesia decisions, yet clinicians rarely explain anesthesia options or elicit preferences. We developed My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture, a conversation aid about anesthesia options for hip fracture surgery and tested its preliminary efficacy and acceptability. METHODS: We developed a 1-page, tabular format, plain-language conversation aid with feedback from anesthesiologists, decision scientists, and community advisors. We conducted an online survey of English-speaking adults aged 50 and older. Participants imagined choosing between spinal and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Before and after viewing the aid, participants answered a series of questions regarding key outcomes, including decisional conflict, knowledge about anesthesia options, and acceptability of the aid. RESULTS: Of 364/409 valid respondents, mean age was 64 (SD 8.9) and 59% were female. The proportion indicating decisional conflict decreased after reviewing the aid (63-34%, P < 0.001). Median knowledge scores increased from 50% correct to 67% correct (P < 0.001). 83% agreed that the aid would help them discuss options and preferences. 76.4% would approve of doctors using it. CONCLUSION: My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture decreased decisional conflict and increased knowledge about anesthesia choices for hip fracture surgery. Respondents assessed it as acceptable for use in clinical settings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Use of clinical decision aids may increase shared decision-making; further testing is warranted.

Shared decision-making in psoriasis care: Evaluation of how patients' perception of clinicians' delivery of care changes by age and sex.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) refers to a collaborative process in which clinicians assist patients in making medically informed, evidence-based decisions that align with their values and preferences. There is a paucity of literature on SDM in dermatology. OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess whether male and female psoriasis patients evaluate their clinicians' engagement in SDM differently across different age groups. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using data from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS). RESULTS: A weighted total of 7,795,608 psoriasis patients were identified. SDM Scores ranged from 1 to 4, with 4 representing the most favorable patient evaluation of their clinicians' engagement in SDM. We conducted multivariate linear regression to compare mean SDM Scores in male psoriasis patients versus female psoriasis patients across different patient age groups. Female patients ages 60-69 perceived significantly greater clinician engagement in SDM compared to age-matched male patients (female patient perception of SDM 3.65 [95%CI:3.61-3.69] vs. male patient perception of SDM 3.50 [95%CI:3.43-3.58], p<0.005). The same trend of older female patients evaluating their clinicians' engagement in SDM significantly higher than their age-matched male counterparts exists for the age group >70 (p<0.005). No significant differences between male and female patients' evaluations of their clinicians' engagement in SDM were demonstrated in subjects younger than 60. All calculations were adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to older male psoriasis patients, older female psoriasis patients evaluated their clinicians to be more engaged in shared decision-making.