Communication and shared decision-making after stillbirth: Results of the ShaDeS study

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is included in guidelines for bereavement care after a stillbirth, as it can improve women’s long-term health and wellbeing. SDM within the stillbirth context is still not common, and Italy does not yet have standardised guidelines. Aim: The ShaDeS (Shared Decision-Making in Stillbirth) study aims to investigate how Italian women with a stillbirth perceive their own centrality in decision-making processes around bereavement care and how this might impact satisfaction of care. Methods: The ShaDeS study is a cross-sectional study based on a web survey consisted of four sections: socio- demographic information and medical history, communication of bad news and bereavement care, decisions about childbirth (SDM-Q-9, SHARED, and DCS), and decisions and communication about autopsy (CPS). Findings: 187 women answered the survey. For the 41.1% of women that did not have an emergency childbirth, the SDM-Q-9 median score was 66.6 (0–100 range), and the SHARED median score was 3.5 (1–5 range). 29.4% of participants reached the proposed cutoff of 37.5 in the DCS (0–100 range) suggesting a difficulty in reaching decisions. Satisfaction scores were lower for those with such difficulties (p < 0.0001). Of the 64.5% of women that discussed autopsy, 28.3% were involved in an SDM approach, despite this being associated with higher levels of satisfaction of care (p < 0.05). Conclusion: An SDM approach is only moderately widespread amongst our participants, despite it being signif- icantly related to higher levels of satisfaction. Further studies should investigate the tools that both patients and healthcare professionals need for an SDM approach

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Italy: Predictors of Acceptance, Fence Sitting and Refusal of the COVID-19 Vaccination

Background: The hesitancy in taking the COVID-19 vaccine is a global challenge. The need to identify predictors of COVID-19 vaccine reluctance is critical. Our objectives were to evaluate sociodemographic, psychological, and behavioral factors, as well as attitudes and beliefs that influence COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the general population of Italy. Methods: A total of 2,015 people were assessed in two waves (March, April and May, 2021). Participants were divided into three groups: (1) individuals who accepted the vaccination (“accepters”); (2) individuals who refused the vaccination (“rejecters”); and (3) individuals who were uncertain about their attitudes toward the vaccination (“fence sitters”). Group comparisons were performed using ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test and chi-square tests. The strength of the association between the groups and the participants' characteristics was analyzed using a series of multinomial logistic regression models with bootstrap internal validation (one for each factor). Results: The “fence sitters” group, when compared to the others, included individuals of younger age, lower educational level, and worsening economic situation in the previous 3 months. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, the following features emerged as the main risk factors for being “fence sitters” (compared with vaccine “accepters”): reporting lower levels of protective behaviors, trust in institutions and informational sources, frequency of use of informational sources, agreement with restrictions and higher conspirative mentality. Higher levels of COVID-19 perceived risk, trust in institutions and informational sources, frequency of use of informational sources, agreement with restrictions and protective behaviors were associated with a higher likelihood of becoming “fence sitters” rather than vaccine “rejecters.” Conclusions: The “fence sitters” profile revealed by this study is intriguing and should be the focus of public programmes aimed at improving adherence to the COVID-19 vaccination campaign

The interplay of perceived risks and benefits in deciding to become vaccinated against COVID-19 while pregnant or breastfeeding: A cross-sectional study in Italy.

The present study examined the role of the perception of risks and benefits for the mother and her babies in deciding about the COVID-19 vaccination. In this cross-sectional study, five hypotheses were tested using data from a convenience sample of Italian pregnant and/or breastfeeding women (N = 1104, July–September 2021). A logistic regression model estimated the influence of the predictors on the reported behavior, and a beta regression model was used to evaluate which factors influenced the willingness to become vaccinated among unvaccinated women. The COVID-19 vaccination overall risks/benefits tradeoff was highly predictive of both behavior and intention. Ceteris paribus, an increase in the perception of risks for the baby weighed more against vaccination than a similar increase in the perception of risks for the mother. Additionally, pregnant women resulted in being less likely (or willing) to be vaccinated in their status than breastfeeding women, but they were equally accepting of vaccination if they were not pregnant. COVID-19 risk perception predicted intention to become vaccinated, but not behavior. In conclusion, the overall risks/benefits tradeoff is key in predicting vaccination behavior and intention, but the concerns for the baby weigh more than those for the mother in the decision, shedding light on this previously neglected aspect

The impact of mental health recovery narratives on recipients experiencing mental health problems: Qualitative analysis and change model.

BACKGROUND: Mental health recovery narratives are stories of recovery from mental health problems. Narratives may impact in helpful and harmful ways on those who receive them. The objective of this paper is to develop a change model identifying the range of possible impacts and how they occur. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with experience of mental health problems and recovery (n = 77). Participants were asked to share a mental health recovery narrative and to describe the impact of other people's recovery narratives on their own recovery. A change model was generated through iterative thematic analysis of transcripts. RESULTS: Change is initiated when a recipient develops a connection to a narrator or to the events descripted in their narrative. Change is mediated by the recipient recognising experiences shared with the narrator, noticing the achievements or difficulties of the narrator, learning how recovery happens, or experiencing emotional release. Helpful outcomes of receiving recovery narratives are connectedness, validation, hope, empowerment, appreciation, reference shift and stigma reduction. Harmful outcomes are a sense of inadequacy, disconnection, pessimism and burden. Impact is positively moderated by the perceived authenticity of the narrative, and can be reduced if the recipient is experiencing a crisis. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that incorporate the use of recovery narratives, such as peer support, anti-stigma campaigns and bibliotherapy, can use the change model to maximise benefit and minimise harms from narratives. Interventions should incorporate a diverse range of narratives available through different mediums to enable a range of recipients to connect with and benefit from this material. Service providers using recovery narratives should preserve authenticity so as to maximise impact, for example by avoiding excessive editing

The COVID-19 vaccine communication handbook. A practical guide for improving vaccine communication and fighting misinformation

This handbook is for journalists, doctors, nurses, policy makers, researchers, teachers, students, parents – in short, it’s for everyone who wants to know more: About the COVID-19 vaccines; How to talk to others about them; How to challenge misinformation about the vaccines.Published versio

Clarifying Values: An updated review

Background: Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids. Methods: Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary. Results: Values clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single "best" practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect. Conclusions: Values clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness

Clarifying values: an updated and expanded systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment. Purpose To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Study Selection We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods. Data Extraction Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation. Data Synthesis Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ2 = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ2 = 6.08, P = 0.05). Limitations Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories. Conclusions Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret

Numbers in Medicine: Ingredients for an effective and transparent risk communication

Nowadays, we have much more information about our health than we had in the past, and numerical information is, or should be, commonplace in the communication between doctors and patients. Indeed, evidence-based medicine is the gold standard for public health decisions, for the development of national and international guidelines, as well as for clinical practice on individual patients. In this perspective, risk communication, conveyed mainly through numerical information, need to take into account how people perceive and understand this information. Psychological research on this issue has shown that people are affected by the way information is presented when making judgments and decisions. This paper aims to illustrate some of the main issues to be considered when designing risk communication in the medical domain. By examining some examples of non-transparent risk communication, we will illustrate the effectiveness of different types of numerical information (natural frequencies, 1 in n. percentages) and discuss the concepts of absolute and relative risk, highlighting the importance of making explicit the reference class. Additionally, considering that the same treatment can be described in terms of likelihood of survival or death, and that, although the two information are complementary, people seem to be affected by the communicator's choice, we will examine the various types of frames used in the medical domain and discuss the more recent research findings. Making explicit the reference class to which probabilities refer can also help to understand the results of a clinical test. In a simplistic way, people often think that a positive test result means that a disease is present and that a negative test result means that it is not. Even when it is acknowledged that no test is 100% certain, the margin of error and the extent to which it is affected by the frequency of the disease in the population are difficult to grasp, even by experts. For instance, even with a very precise test, a positive test result is associated with a very low likelihood of having the disease (positive predictive value) when the disease is rare. Research has also shown that people with low numeracy (the ability to reason and to apply simple numerical concepts) are especially susceptible to misunderstanding of numerical information when it is referred to groups of people and that are likely to be affected by stories about single cases (see, for instance, the current debate about childhood vaccinations). Finally, we will discuss about the new frontiers of medical research, resulting in a continuous increase in the complexity of risk communication. For example, with the progress of medical genetics and the possibility to determine the presence of genetic mutations that can be linked to the risk of developing diseases, the complexity of the information to be communicated is clearly increasing. Even if people are driven by the desire to know, we need to remember that it is not always possible to act upon the information obtained (e.g., would you want to know whether you have a genetic predisposition for Alzheimer, considering that at present there is no effective treatment?) and that the decisions made by our «present Self» might not be the same of those that our «future Self» would made for its health

What’s in a name: Drug names convey implicit information about their riskiness and efficacy

The present research provides empirical evidence that drug names may entail implicit promises about their therapeutic power. We asked people to evaluate the perceived efficacy and risk associated with hypothetical drug names and other secondary related measures. We compared opaque (without meaning), functional (targeting the health issue that the drug is meant to solve) and persuasive (targeting the expected outcome of the treatment) names. Persuasive names were perceived as more efficacious and less risky than both opaque and functional names, suggesting that names that target the expected outcome of the drug may bias the perception of risk and efficacy. Implications for health-related communication are discussed in light of both the increasing use of over-the-counter drugs and the concern about people's low health literac