Le partage des décisions en santé entre patients et médecins

Les nombreuses enquêtes portant sur la population de plusieurs pays industrialisés incluant le Canada indiquent que de plus en plus, dans le contexte des rencontres médecin-patient, les patients désirent participer activement aux décisions portant sur leur santé. Toutefois, ces enquêtes rapportent aussi que ce partage de la décision entre les patients et les médecins n’a pas préséance. Le présent texte donne les raisons expliquant l’intérêt de la population et des décideurs envers la prise de décision partagée. Il introduit les fondements conceptuels de la prise de décision partagée et fait état de quelques travaux empiriques dans ce domaine. À l’aide de données recueillies lors d’une étude descriptive des pratiques médicales en matière de dépistage prénatal du syndrome de Down, il discute la relation médecin-patiente lors de ces rencontres. Enfin, il propose quelques pistes de réflexion pour des recherches futures.Many surveys of populations in a number of industrialized countries, including Canada, indicate that when they meet with their physicians, patients increasingly wish to participate actively in decisions affecting their health. However, these surveys also report that the actual sharing of decisions between patients and physicians does not predominantly occur. This paper gives reasons explaining why the population and decision-makers are interested in the sharing of health-care decisions. It introduces the conceptual basis of shared decision-making and reports on a few empirical studies in this area. Using data obtained during a descriptive study of medical practices in prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome, it discusses the physician-patient relationship during these meetings. Finally, it proposes a few paths to be explored for future research

Using field notes to evaluate competencies in family medicine training: a study of predictors of intention

Background: Documenting feedback during clinical supervision using field notes (FN) is a recommended competency-based evaluation strategy that will require changes in the culture of medical education. This study identified factors influencing the intention to adopt FN in family medicine training, using the theory of planned behaviour.Methods: This mixed-methods study involved clinical teachers (CT) and residents from two family medicine units. Main outcomes were: 1) intention (and its predictors: attitude, perceived behavioural control (PBC) and normative belief) to use FN, assessed using a 7-item Likert scale questionnaire (1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree) and 2) related salient beliefs, explored in focus groups three and six months after FN implementation. Results: 27 CT and 28 residents participated. Intention to use FN was 6.20±1.20 and 5.74±1.03 in CT and residents respectively. Predictors of this intention were attitude and PBC (mutually influential: p = 0.04), and normative belief (p = 0.007). Focus groups identified underlying beliefs regarding their use (perceived advantages/disadvantages and facilitators/barriers). Conclusion: Intention to adopt field notes to document competency is influenced by attitude, perceived behavioural control and normative belief. Implementation of field notes should be preceded by interventions that target the identified salient beliefs to improve this competency-based evaluation strategy

Exploration of shared decision‐making processes among dieticians and patients during a consultation for the nutritional treatment of dyslipidaemia

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) holds great potential for improving the therapeutic efficiency and quality of nutritional treatment of dyslipidaemia by promoting patient involvement in decision making. Adoption of specific behaviours fostering SDM during consultations has yet to be studied in routine dietetic practice. Objective: Using a cross-sectional study design, we aimed to explore both dieticians’ and patients’ adoption of SDM behaviours in dietetic consultations regarding the nutritional treatment of dyslipidaemia. Methods: Twenty-six dieticians working in local health clinics in the Quebec City metropolitan area were each asked to identify one dyslipidaemic patient they would see in an upcoming consultation. Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), questionnaires were designed to study two targeted SDM behaviours: ‘to discuss nutritional treatment options for dyslipidaemia’ and ‘to discuss patients’ values and preferences about nutritional treatment options for dyslipidaemia’. These questionnaires were administered to the dietician–patient dyad individually before the consultation. Associations between TPB constructs (attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control) towards behavioural intentions were analysed using Spearman’s partial correlations. Results: Thirteen unique patient-dietician dyads completed the study. Perceived behavioural control was the only TPB construct significantly associated with both dieticians’ and patients’ intentions to adopt the targeted SDM behaviours (P < 0.05). Conclusions: As perceived behavioural control seems to determine dieticians’ and patients’ adoption of SDM behaviours, interventions addressing barriers and reinforcing enablers of these behaviours are indicated. This exploratory study highlights issues that could be addressed in future research endeavours to expand the knowledge base relating to SDM adoption in dietetic practice

Assessments of the Extent to which Health‐Care Providers Involve Patients in Decision Making: A Systematic Review of Studies Using the OPTION Instrument

Background: We have no clear overview of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in the decision-making process during consultations. The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument (OPTION) was designed to assess this. Objective: To systematically review studies that used the OPTION instrument to observe the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making across a range of clinical contexts, including different health professions and lengths of consultation. We conducted online literature searches in multiple databases (2001-12) and gathered further data through networking

Patient Engagement and its Evaluation Tools – Current Challenges and Future Directions; Comment on “Metrics and Evaluation Tools for Patient Engagement in Healthcare Organization- and System-Level Decision-Making: A Systematic Review”

Considering the growing recognition of the importance of patient engagement in healthcare decisions, research and delivery systems, it is important to ensure high quality and efficient patient engagement evaluation tools. In this commentary, we will first highlight the definition and importance of patient engagement. Then we discuss the psychometric properties of the patient engagement evaluation tools identified in a recent review on patient engagement in healthcare organization- and system-level decision-making. Lastly, we suggest future directions for patient engagement and its evaluation tools

Measuring organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Knowledge translation (KT) is an imperative in order to implement research-based and contextualized practices that can answer the numerous challenges of complex health problems. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) provides a conceptual framework to guide the implementation process in chronic care. Yet, organizations aiming to improve chronic care require an adequate level of organizational readiness (OR) for KT. Available instruments on organizational readiness for change (ORC) have shown limited validity, and are not tailored or adapted to specific phases of the knowledge-to-action (KTA) process. We aim to develop an evidence-based, comprehensive, and valid instrument to measure OR for KT in healthcare. The OR for KT instrument will be based on core concepts retrieved from existing literature and validated by a Delphi study. We will specifically test the instrument in chronic care that is of an increasing importance for the health system.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Phase one: We will conduct a systematic review of the theories and instruments assessing ORC in healthcare. The retained theoretical information will be synthesized in a conceptual map. A bibliography and database of ORC instruments will be prepared after appraisal of their psychometric properties according to the standards for educational and psychological testing. An online Delphi study will be carried out among decision makers and knowledge users across Canada to assess the importance of these concepts and measures at different steps in the KTA process in chronic care.</p> <p>Phase two: A final OR for KT instrument will be developed and validated both in French and in English and tested in chronic disease management to measure OR for KT regarding the adoption of comprehensive, patient-centered, and system-based CCMs.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study provides a comprehensive synthesis of current knowledge on explanatory models and instruments assessing OR for KT. Moreover, this project aims to create more consensus on the theoretical underpinnings and the instrumentation of OR for KT in chronic care. The final product--a comprehensive and valid OR for KT instrument--will provide the chronic care settings with an instrument to assess their readiness to implement evidence-based chronic care.</p

Evidence summaries (decision boxes) to prepare clinicians for shared decision-making with patients: a mixed methods implementation study

Background: Decision boxes (Dboxes) provide clinicians with research evidence about management options for medical questions that have no single best answer. Dboxes fulfil a need for rapid clinical training tools to prepare clinicians for clinician-patient communication and shared decision-making. We studied the barriers and facilitators to using the Dbox information in clinical practice. Methods: We used a mixed methods study with sequential explanatory design. We recruited family physicians, residents, and nurses from six primary health-care clinics. Participants received eight Dboxes covering various questions by email (one per week). For each Dbox, they completed a web questionnaire to rate clinical relevance and cognitive impact and to assess the determinants of their intention to use what they learned from the Dbox to explain to their patients the advantages and disadvantages of the options, based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Following the 8-week delivery period, we conducted focus groups with clinicians and interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Dbox information. Results: One hundred clinicians completed the web surveys. In 54% of the 496 questionnaires completed, they reported that their practice would be improved after having read the Dboxes, and in 40%, they stated that they would use this information for their patients. Of those who would use the information for their patients, 89% expected it would benefit their patients, especially in that it would allow the patient to make a decision more in keeping with his/her personal circumstances, values, and preferences. They intended to use the Dboxes in practice (mean 5.6 ± 1.2, scale 1–7, with 7 being “high”), and their intention was significantly related to social norm, perceived behavioural control, and attitude according to the TPB (P < 0.0001). In focus groups, clinicians mentioned that co-interventions such as patient decision aids and training in shared decision-making would facilitate the use of the Dbox information. Some participants would have liked a clear “bottom line” statement for each Dbox and access to printed Dboxes in consultation rooms. Conclusions: Dboxes are valued by clinicians. Tailoring of Dboxes to their needs would facilitate their implementation in practic

Validating a conceptual model for an inter-professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study

Rationale, aims and objectives Following increased interest in having inter-professional (IP) health care teams engage patients in decision making, we developed a conceptual model for an IP approach to shared decision making (SDM) in primary care. We assessed the validity of the model with stakeholders in Canada. Methods In 15 individual interviews and 7 group interviews with 79 stakeholders, we asked them to: (1) propose changes to the IP-SDM model; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to the model’s implementation in clinical practice; and (3) assess the model using a theory appraisal questionnaire.We performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts and a descriptive analysis of the questionnaires. Results Stakeholders suggested placing the patient at its centre; extending the concept of family to include significant others; clarifying outcomes; highlighting the concept of time; merging the micro, meso and macro levels in one figure; and recognizing the influence of the environment and emotions. The most common barriers identified were time constraints, insufficient resources and an imbalance of power among health professionals. The most common facilitators were education and training in inter-professionalism and SDM, motivation to achieve an IP approach to SDM, and mutual knowledge and understanding of disciplinary roles. Most stakeholders considered that the concepts and relationships between the concepts were clear and rated the model as logical, testable, having clear schematic representation, and being relevant to inter-professional collaboration, SDM and primary care. Conclusions Stakeholders validated the new IP-SDM model for primary care settings and proposed few modifications. Future research should assess if the model helps implement SDM in IP clinical practice

Economic evaluations of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions : a systematic review protocol

Introduction: Scaling science aims to help roll out evidence-based research results on a wide scale to benefit more individuals. Yet, little is known on how to evaluate economic aspects of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions. Methods and analysis: Using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on systematic reviews, we will conduct a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied in economic evaluations in scaling up strategies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must include a scaling up strategy of an evidence-based health intervention delivered and received by any individual or organisation in any country and setting. They must report costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We will consider full or partial economic evaluations, modelling and methodological studies. We searched peer-reviewed publications in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception onwards. We will search grey literature from international organisations, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancy firms websites and region-specific databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the records against the eligibility criteria and extract data using a pretested extraction form. We will extract data on study characteristics, scaling up strategies, economic evaluation methods and their components. We will appraise the methodological quality of included studies using the BMJ Checklist. We will narratively summarise the studies' descriptive characteristics, methodological strengths/weaknesses and the main drivers of cost-effectiveness outcomes. This study will help identify what are the trade-offs of scaling up evidence-based interventions to allocate resources efficiently