Implementing Shared Decision-Making: Consider All the Consequences

The ethical argument that shared decision-making is “the right” thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences

A Framework for Evaluating Learning Progressions on Features Related to Their Intended Uses

In recent years, learning progressions (LPs) have captured the interest of educators and policy makers. There have been numerous efforts to develop LPs aligned to college and career readiness standards, to unpack these standards, and to provide more clarity on the pathways students follow to reach them. There is great variation, however, in the structure, content, and features of LPs, and these have implications for the LP’s most appropriate use. The purpose of this research was to devise a framework to understand and evaluate key features of an LP, including its structure, content, usability, and validity evidence. We maintain that educators and other stakeholders should understand these key features so they can evaluate whether an LP is appropriate for an intended use

Reducing Variation in the “Standard of Care” for Cancer Screening

Standard of care for cancer screening: the term implies certainty and consensus. Physicians, patients, and organizations have created guidelines, policies, and regulations regarding how, when, and for whom screening should be used or reimbursed; cumulatively, these statements become the standards of care. However, these standards vary markedly across organ type, often without rationale or evidence. In this Viewpoint, we highlight 3 areas in which cancer screening standards differ markedly for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer: funding, quality measures, and reporting. These variations were delineated through a cross-disciplinary collaboration among scientists, health care organizations, and society leaders within the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening Through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium.1 PROSPR studies how breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening is implemented in diverse, real-world settings

Screening Colonoscopy in the US: Attitudes and Practices of Primary Care Physicians

BACKGROUND: Rising colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the last decade are attributable almost entirely to increased colonoscopy use. Little is known about factors driving the increase, but primary care physicians (PCPs) play a central role in CRC screening delivery. OBJECTIVE: Explore PCP attitudes toward screening colonoscopy and their associations with CRC screening practice patterns. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data from a nationally representative survey conducted in 2006-2007. PARTICIPANTS: 1,266 family physicians, general practitioners, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists. MAIN MEASURES: Physician-reported changes in the volume of screening tests ordered, performed or supervised in the past 3 years, attitudes toward colonoscopy, the influence of evidence and perceived norms on their recommendations, challenges to screening, and practice characteristics. RESULTS: The cooperation rate (excludes physicians without valid contact information) was 75%; 28% reported their volume of FOBT ordering had increased substantially or somewhat, and the majority (53%) reported their sigmoidoscopy volume decreased either substantially or somewhat. A majority (73%) reported that colonoscopy volume increased somewhat or substantially. The majority (86%) strongly agreed that colonoscopy was the best of the available CRC screening tests; 69% thought it was readily available for their patients; 59% strongly or somewhat agreed that they might be sued if they did not offer colonoscopy to their patients. All three attitudes were significantly related to substantial increases in colonoscopy ordering. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs report greatly increased colonoscopy recommendation relative to other screening tests, and highly favorable attitudes about colonoscopy. Greater emphasis is needed on informed decision-making with patients about preferences for test options

Racial and ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening from three U.S. healthcare settings

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to characterize racial and ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal findings across 3 U.S. healthcare settings. METHODS: Data were from 2016 to 2019 and were analyzed in 2022, reflecting sites within the Multi-level Optimization of the Cervical Cancer Screening Process in Diverse Settings & Populations Research Center, part of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process consortium, including a safety-net system in the southwestern U.S., a northwestern mixed-model system, and a northeastern integrated healthcare system. Screening uptake was evaluated among average-risk patients (i.e., no previous abnormalities) by race and ethnicity as captured in the electronic health record, using chi-square tests. Among patients with abnormal findings requiring follow-up, the proportion receiving colposcopy or biopsy within 6 months was reported. Multivariable regression was conducted to assess how clinical, socioeconomic, and structural characteristics mediate observed differences. RESULTS: Among 188,415 eligible patients, 62.8% received cervical cancer screening during the 3-year study period. Screening use was lower among non-Hispanic Black patients (53.2%) and higher among Hispanic (65.4%,) and Asian/Pacific Islander (66.5%) than among non-Hispanic White patients (63.5%, all p\u3c0.001). Most differences were explained by the distribution of patients across sites and differences in insurance. Hispanic patients remained more likely to screen after controlling for a variety of clinical and sociodemographic factors (risk ratio=1.14, CI=1.12, 1.16). Among those receiving any screening test, Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive Pap-only testing (versus receiving co-testing). Follow-up from abnormal results was low for all groups (72.5%) but highest among Hispanic participants (78.8%, p\u3c0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort receiving care across 3 diverse healthcare settings, cervical cancer screening and follow-up were below 80% coverage targets. Lower screening for Black patients was attenuated by controlling for insurance and site of care, underscoring the role of systemic inequity. In addition, it is crucial to improve follow-up after abnormalities are identified, which was low for all populations

Perceived and Actual Breast Cancer Risk

Perceived risk can influence health behaviors. Studies using various populations and breast cancer risk bias assessment methods have identified both risk over- and underestimation. Among 1803 women in primary care settings, 47 percent were at average epidemiologic risk (Gail-calculated relative risk ±50 percent of age-adjusted population average) and 55 percent perceived themselves to be at average risk (compared to same-age others) but there were mismatches or ‘biases’: 31 percent underestimated personal risk; 26 percent overestimated. Multiple logistic regression revealed that smokers were more likely to overestimate risk. Overestimation decreased with more education. Mammography use did not independently predict perception bias but, among never-screened women aged over 40 years, those contemplating mammograms were most likely to overestimate risk; precontemplators were most likely to underestimate. Implications for research and intervention are discussed.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66881/2/10.1177_135910539800300203.pd

“All about the money?” A qualitative interview study examining organizational- and system-level characteristics that promote or hinder shared decision-making in cancer care in the United States

Background!#!Despite decades of ethical, empirical, and policy support, shared decision-making (SDM) has failed to become standard practice in US cancer care. Organizational and health system characteristics appear to contribute to the difficulties in implementing SDM in routine care. However, little is known about the relevance of the different characteristics in specific healthcare settings. The aim of the study was to explore how organizational and health system characteristics affect SDM implementation in US cancer care.!##!Methods!#!We conducted semi-structured interviews with diverse cancer care stakeholders in the USA. Of the 36 invited, 30 (83%) participants consented to interview. We used conventional content analysis to analyze transcript content.!##!Results!#!The dominant theme in the data obtained was that concerns regarding a lack of revenue generation, or indeed, the likely loss of revenue, were a major barrier preventing implementation of SDM. Many other factors were prominent as well, but the view that SDM might impair organizational or individual profit margins and reduce the income of some health professionals was widespread. On the organizational level, having leadership support for SDM and multidisciplinary teams were viewed as critical to implementation. On the health system level, views diverged on whether embedding tools into electronic health records (EHRs), making SDM a criterion for accreditation and certification, and enacting legislation could promote SDM implementation.!##!Conclusion!#!Cancer care in the USA has currently limited room for SDM and is prone to paying lip service to the idea. Implementation efforts in US cancer care need to go further than interventions that target only the clinician-patient level. On a policy level, SDM could be included in alternative payment models. However, its implementation would need to be thoroughly assessed in order to prevent further misdirected incentivization through box ticking

Organizational- and system-level characteristics that influence implementation of shared decision-making and strategies to address them — a scoping review

Abstract Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is poorly implemented in routine care, despite being promoted by health policies. No reviews have solely focused on an in-depth synthesis of the literature around organizational- and system-level characteristics (i.e., characteristics of healthcare organizations and of healthcare systems) that may affect SDM implementation. A synthesis would allow exploration of interventions to address these characteristics. The study aim was to compile a comprehensive overview of organizational- and system-level characteristics that are likely to influence the implementation of SDM, and to describe strategies to address those characteristics described in the literature. Methods We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. The search strategy included an electronic search and a secondary search including gray literature. We included publications reporting on projects that promoted implementation of SDM or other decision support interventions in routine healthcare. We screened titles and abstracts, and assessed full texts for eligibility. We used qualitative thematic analysis to identify organizational- and system-level characteristics. Results After screening 7745 records and assessing 354 full texts for eligibility, 48 publications on 32 distinct implementation projects were included. Most projects (N = 22) were conducted in the USA. Several organizational-level characteristics were described as influencing the implementation of SDM, including organizational leadership, culture, resources, and priorities, as well as teams and workflows. Described system-level characteristics included policies, clinical guidelines, incentives, culture, education, and licensing. We identified potential strategies to influence the described characteristics, e.g., examples how to facilitate distribution of decision aids in a healthcare institution. Conclusions Although infrequently studied, organizational- and system-level characteristics appear to play a role in the failure to implement SDM in routine care. A wide range of characteristics described as supporting and inhibiting implementation were identified. Future studies should assess the impact of these characteristics on SDM implementation more thoroughly, quantify likely interactions, and assess how characteristics might operate across types of systems and areas of healthcare. Organizations that wish to support the adoption of SDM should carefully consider the role of organizational- and system-level characteristics. Implementation and organizational theory could provide useful guidance for how to address facilitators and barriers to change