Supporting early academic family medicine careers with the clinician scholar enhanced-skills program

Context: The Clinician Scholar Program (CSP) is an enhanced-skills (R3) residency program to train clinician researchers/educators/leaders for academic family practice. This article intends to share Laval University’s CSP development and evaluation strategy, and provide recommendations for similar innovations in other disciplines/settings. Methods This article uses Kern’s model to present the program development, and a program-oriented approach for program evaluation, carried from 2011 to 2017 using descriptive data. Questionnaires, reflexive texts and an Objective Structured Teaching Exam supported data collection. Results 7 CSP graduates and 14 controls participated in the program evaluation. Residents were highly satisfied with the program, nevertheless suggested allowing training later in career. The CSP enriched knowledge, skills and attitudes about academic practice. CSP increased residents’ entrustment level about academic competencies. All graduates joined an academic practice within five years of program completion. Conclusions Key recommendations to implement similar programs include academic medicine core training, project-based learning with learner-centered objectives, relevant and authentic learning and assessment, and multi-level program evaluation approach. Programs should consider concomitant graduate studies and opportunity to offer such training after a few years of clinical practice to meet other needs at a timely stage of career

Developing and user-testing Decision boxes to facilitate shared decision making in primary care - a study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Applying evidence is one of the most challenging steps of evidence-based clinical practice. Healthcare professionals have difficulty interpreting evidence and translating it to patients. Decision boxes are summaries of the most important benefits and harms of diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive health interventions provided to healthcare professionals before they meet the patient. Our hypothesis is that Decision boxes will prepare clinicians to help patients make informed value-based decisions. By acting as primers, the boxes will enhance the application of evidence-based practices and increase shared decision making during the clinical encounter. The objectives of this study are to provide a framework for developing Decision boxes and testing their value to users.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We will begin by developing Decision box prototypes for 10 clinical conditions or topics based on a review of the research on risk communication. We will present two prototypes to purposeful samples of 16 family physicians distributed in two focus groups, and 32 patients distributed in four focus groups. We will use the User Experience Model framework to explore users' perceptions of the content and format of each prototype. All discussions will be transcribed, and two researchers will independently perform a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic qualitative analysis of the data. The coding scheme will be developed a priori from the User Experience Model's seven themes (valuable, usable, credible, useful, desirable, accessible and findable), and will include new themes suggested by the data (inductive analysis). Key findings will be triangulated using additional publications on the design of tools to improve risk communication. All 10 Decision boxes will be modified in light of our findings.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will produce a robust framework for developing and testing Decision boxes that will serve healthcare professionals and patients alike. It is the first step in the development and implementation of a new tool that should facilitate decision making in clinical practice.</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

Processes for evidence summarization for patient decision aids: A Delphi consensus study

Abstract Background Patient decision aids (PDAs) should provide evidence‐based information so patients can make informed decisions. Yet, PDA developers do not have an agreed‐upon process to select, synthesize and present evidence in PDAs. Objective To reach the consensus on an evidence summarization process for PDAs. Design A two‐round modified Delphi survey. Setting and participants A group of international experts in PDA development invited developers, scientific networks, patient groups and listservs to complete Delphi surveys. Data collection We emailed participants the study description and a link to the online survey. Participants were asked to rate each potential criterion (omit, possible, desirable, essential) and provide qualitative feedback. Analysis Criteria in each round were retained if rated by >80% of participants as desirable or essential. If two or more participants suggested rewording, reordering or merging, the steering group considered the suggestion. Results Following two Delphi survey rounds, the evidence summarization process included defining the decision, reporting the processes and policies of the evidence summarization process, assembling the editorial team and managing (collect, manage, report) their conflicts of interest, conducting a systematic search, selecting and appraising the evidence, presenting the harms and benefits in plain language, and describing the method of seeking external review and the plan for updating the evidence (search, selection and appraisal of new evidence). Conclusion A multidisciplinary stakeholder group reached consensus on an evidence summarization process to guide the creation of high‐quality PDAs. Patient contribution A patient partner was part of the steering group and involved in the development of the Delphi survey

Addressing Health Literacy in Patient Decision Aids:An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition of the importance of addressing health literacy in patient decision aid (PtDA) development. PURPOSE: An updated review as part of IPDAS 2.0 examined the extent to which PtDAs are designed to meet the needs of low health literacy/disadvantaged populations. DATA SOURCES: Reference list of Cochrane review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of PtDAs (2014, 2017 and upcoming 2021 versions). STUDY SELECTION: RCTs that assessed the impact of PtDAs on low health literacy or other disadvantaged groups (i.e. ≥50% participants from disadvantaged groups and/or subgroup analysis in disadvantaged group/s). DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently extracted data into a standardized form including PtDA development and evaluation details. We searched online repositories and emailed authors to access PtDAs to verify reading level, understandability and actionability. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five out of 213 RCTs met inclusion criteria illustrating that only 12% of studies addressed the needs of low health literacy or other disadvantaged groups. Reading age was calculated in 8/25 studies (33%), which is recommended in previous IPDAS guidelines. We accessed and independently assessed 11 PtDAs. None were written at 6(th) grade level or below. Ten PtDAs met the recommended threshold for understandability, but only 5 met the recommended threshold for actionability. We also conducted a post-hoc subgroup meta-analysis and found that knowledge improvements after receiving a PtDA were greater in studies that reported using strategies to reduce cognitive demand in PtDA development compared to studies that did not (Chi(2)=14.11, p=0.0002, I(2)=92.9%). LIMITATIONS: We were unable to access 13 out of 24 PtDAs. CONCLUSIONS: Greater attention to health literacy and disadvantaged populations is needed in the field of PtDAs to ensure equity in decision support

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations:Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IDPAS)

International audienceBackground. The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied. Purpose. To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions. Data Sources. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Psy-cINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs. Study Selection. Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations. Data Extraction. Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Data Synthesis. Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I 2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I 2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = 29.59; 95% CI 218.94, 20.24 [I 2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I 2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI 20.22, 0.26 [I 2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials. Limitations. Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up. Conclusions. PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective

Policy and practices in primary care that supported the provision and receipt of care for older persons during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative case study in three Canadian provinces

Abstract Background The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults were felt throughout the health care system, from intensive care units through to long-term care homes. Although much attention has been paid to hospitals and long-term care homes throughout the pandemic, less attention has been paid to the impact on primary care clinics, which had to rapidly change their approach to deliver timely and effective care to older adult patients. This study examines how primary care clinics, in three Canadian provinces, cared for their older adult patients during the pandemic, while also navigating the rapidly changing health policy landscape. Methods A qualitative case study approach was used to gather information from nine primary care clinics, across three Canadian provinces. Interviews were conducted with primary care providers (n = 17) and older adult patients (n = 47) from October 2020 to September 2021. Analyses of the interviews were completed in the language of data collection (English or French), and then summarized in English using a coding framework. All responses that related to COVID-19 policies at any level were also examined. Results Two main themes emerged from the data: (1) navigating the noise: understanding and responding to public health orders and policies affecting health and health care, and (2) receiving and delivering care to older persons during the pandemic: policy-driven challenges & responses. Providers discussed their experiences wading through the health policy directives, while trying to provide good quality care. Older adults found the public health information overwhelming, but appreciated the approaches adapted by primary care clinics to continue providing care, even if it looked different. Conclusions COVID-19 policy and guideline complexities obliged primary care providers to take an important role in understanding, implementing and adapting to them, and in explaining them, especially to older adults and their care partners

Translation and psychometric evaluation of the German version of the IcanSDM measure – a cross-sectional study among healthcare professionals

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) is a key component of patient-centered care. To implement SDM in clinical practice and to evaluate its effects, it is helpful to know about HCPs' perception of SDM barriers. The measure IcanSDM was developed in Canada and assesses the perception of SDM barriers. To our knowledge, no equivalent measure exists in German. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate and adapt the IcanSDM measure to be used by a German-speaking population and evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods: This is a cross-sectional psychometric study based on a secondary analysis of baseline data from a SDM implementation study. The original 8-item IcanSDM was translated into German using a team translation protocol. We assessed comprehensibility via cognitive interviews with n =11 HCPs. Based on results of cognitive interviews, the translated IcanSDM version was revised. Two hundred forty-two HCPs filled out the measure. Psychometric analysis included acceptance (completion rate), item characteristics (response distribution, skewness, item difficulties, corrected item-total correlations, inter-item correlations), factorial structure (confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), model fit), and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha).Results: We translated and adapted the German IcanSDM successfully except for item 8, which had to be revised after the cognitive interviews. Completion rate was 98%. Skewness of the items ranged between -.797 and 1.25, item difficulties ranged between 21.63 and 70.85, corrected item-total-correlations ranged between .200 and .475, inter-item correlations ranged between .005 and .412. Different models based on CFA results did not provide a valid factorial structure. Cronbach's alpha ranged between .563 and .651 for different factor models. Conclusion: We provide the first German measure for assessing perception of SDM barriers by HCPs. The German IcanSDM is a brief measure with good acceptance. However, we found unsatisfying psychometric properties, which were comparable to results of the original scale. In a next step, the IcanSDM should be further developed and modified and predictive validity should be evaluated