Dunja Dreesens

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 OPTION ⁵ . Participants: Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians. Results: We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION ⁵ 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.

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.

Background: Because of practice variation and new developments in palliative pediatric care, the Dutch Association of Pediatrics decided to develop the clinical practice guideline (CPG) palliative care for children. With this guideline, the association also wanted to precipitate an attitude shift towards shared decision-making (SDM) and therefore integrated SDM in the CPG Palliative care for children. The aim was to gain insight if integrating SDM in CPGs can potentially encourage pediatricians to practice SDM. Its objectives were to explore pediatricians’ attitudes and thoughts regarding (1) recommendations on SDM in CPGs in general and the guideline Palliative care for children specifically; (2) other SDM enhancing strategies or tools linked to CPGs.Methods: Semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Pediatricians (15) were recruited through purposive sampling in three university-based pediatric centers in the Netherlands. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, coded by at least two authors and analyzed with NVivo.Results: Some pediatricians considered SDM a skill or attitude that cannot be addressed by clinical practice guidelines. According to others, however, clinical practice guidelines could enhance SDM. In case of the guideline Palliative care for children, the recommendations needed to focus more on how to practice SDM, and offer more detailed recommendations, preferring a recommendation stating multiple options. Most interviewed pediatricians felt that patient decisions aids were beneficial to patients, and could ensure that all topics relevant to the patient are covered, even topics the pediatrician might not consider him or herself, or deems less important. Regardless of the perceived benefit, some pediatricians preferred providing the information themselves instead of using a patient decision aid.Conclusions: For clinical practice guidelines to potentially enhance SDM, guideline developers should avoid blanket recommendations in the case of preference sensitive choices, and SDM should not be limited to recommendations on non-treatment decisions. Furthermore, preference sensitive recommendations are preferably linked with patient decision aids.

Background: Patient‐directed knowledge tools such as patient versions of guidelines and patient decision aids are increasingly developed to facilitate shared decision making. In this paper, we report how consensus was reached within the Netherlands on quality criteria for development, content and governance of these tools.Method: A 12‐month development and consensus study. The consortium worked on four work packages: (a) reviewing existing criteria; (b) drafting the quality criteria; (c) safe‐guarding the acceptability and feasibility of the draft criteria by participatory research in on‐going tool development projects; and (d) gaining formal support from national stakeholders on the quality criteria.Results: We reached consensus on a 8‐step guidance; describing minimal quality criteria for (a) the team composition; (b) setting the scope; (c) identifying needs; (d) the content and format; (e) testing the draft; (f) finalizing and approval; (g) dissemination and application, and (h) ownership and revision. The participants of the on‐going tool development projects were positive about the quality criteria in general, but divided as to the degree of detail. Whereas some expressed a clear desire for procedural standards, others felt that it would be sufficient to provide only general directions. Despite the different views as to the degree of detail, consensus was reached in three stakeholder meetings.Discussion: We successfully collaborated with all stakeholders and achieved formal support from national stakeholders on a set of minimum criteria for the development process, content and governance of patient‐directed knowledge tools.

Evidence-based guidelines whether national, regional or developed by specialty groups, must search for, and explicitly consider, evidence from sources other than conventional clinical trials and their quantitative data. This need for appraising and including knowledge from a wide variety of sources in guideline development is well recognised.1–3