A prospective cohort study of shared decision making in lung cancer diagnostics

Impact of using a patient decision aid

Stine R. Søndergaard*, Poul Henning Madsen, Ole Hilberg, Karina M. Jensen, Karina Olling, Karina D. Steffensen

*Kontaktforfatter for dette arbejde

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the impact on patient-reported outcomes of introducing Shared Decision Making (SDM) and a Patient Decision Aid (PtDA) in the initial process of lung cancer diagnostics. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study, where a control cohort was consulted according to usual clinical practice. After introducing SDM through a PtDA and training of the staff, the SDM cohort was enrolled in the study. All patients completed four questionnaires: the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) before and after the consultation, the CollaboRATE scale after the consultation, and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). Results: Patients exposed to SDM and a PtDA had significantly improved DCS scores after the consultation compared to the control group (a difference of 10.26, p = 0.0128) and significantly lower DRS scores (a difference of 8.98, p = 0.0197). Of the 82 control patients and 52 SDM patients 29% and 54%, respectively, gave the maximum score on the CollaboRATE scale (Pearson's chi 2 8.0946, p = 0.004). Conclusion: The use of SDM and a PtDA had significant positive impact on patient-reported outcomes. Practice implications: Our results may encourage the increased uptake of SDM in the initial process of lung cancer diagnostics.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftPatient Education and Counseling
Vol/bind102
Udgave nummer11
Sider (fra-til)1961-1968
ISSN0738-3991
DOI
StatusUdgivet - nov. 2019

Fingeraftryk

Decision Support Techniques
Cohort Studies
Prospective Studies
Referral and Consultation
Control Groups

Citer dette

@article{7cf32144eda5490687688982ee95cfa1,
title = "A prospective cohort study of shared decision making in lung cancer diagnostics: Impact of using a patient decision aid",
abstract = "Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the impact on patient-reported outcomes of introducing Shared Decision Making (SDM) and a Patient Decision Aid (PtDA) in the initial process of lung cancer diagnostics. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study, where a control cohort was consulted according to usual clinical practice. After introducing SDM through a PtDA and training of the staff, the SDM cohort was enrolled in the study. All patients completed four questionnaires: the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) before and after the consultation, the CollaboRATE scale after the consultation, and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). Results: Patients exposed to SDM and a PtDA had significantly improved DCS scores after the consultation compared to the control group (a difference of 10.26, p = 0.0128) and significantly lower DRS scores (a difference of 8.98, p = 0.0197). Of the 82 control patients and 52 SDM patients 29{\%} and 54{\%}, respectively, gave the maximum score on the CollaboRATE scale (Pearson's chi 2 8.0946, p = 0.004). Conclusion: The use of SDM and a PtDA had significant positive impact on patient-reported outcomes. Practice implications: Our results may encourage the increased uptake of SDM in the initial process of lung cancer diagnostics.",
keywords = "CollaboRATE, Decisional conflict, Decisional regret, Lung cancer diagnostics, Patient decision aid, Shared decision making",
author = "S{\o}ndergaard, {Stine R.} and Madsen, {Poul Henning} and Ole Hilberg and Jensen, {Karina M.} and Karina Olling and Steffensen, {Karina D.}",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.pec.2019.05.018",
language = "English",
volume = "102",
pages = "1961--1968",
journal = "Patient Education and Counseling",
issn = "0738-3991",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "11",

}

A prospective cohort study of shared decision making in lung cancer diagnostics : Impact of using a patient decision aid. / Søndergaard, Stine R.; Madsen, Poul Henning; Hilberg, Ole; Jensen, Karina M.; Olling, Karina; Steffensen, Karina D.

I: Patient Education and Counseling, Bind 102, Nr. 11, 11.2019, s. 1961-1968.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A prospective cohort study of shared decision making in lung cancer diagnostics

T2 - Impact of using a patient decision aid

AU - Søndergaard, Stine R.

AU - Madsen, Poul Henning

AU - Hilberg, Ole

AU - Jensen, Karina M.

AU - Olling, Karina

AU - Steffensen, Karina D.

PY - 2019/11

Y1 - 2019/11

N2 - Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the impact on patient-reported outcomes of introducing Shared Decision Making (SDM) and a Patient Decision Aid (PtDA) in the initial process of lung cancer diagnostics. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study, where a control cohort was consulted according to usual clinical practice. After introducing SDM through a PtDA and training of the staff, the SDM cohort was enrolled in the study. All patients completed four questionnaires: the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) before and after the consultation, the CollaboRATE scale after the consultation, and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). Results: Patients exposed to SDM and a PtDA had significantly improved DCS scores after the consultation compared to the control group (a difference of 10.26, p = 0.0128) and significantly lower DRS scores (a difference of 8.98, p = 0.0197). Of the 82 control patients and 52 SDM patients 29% and 54%, respectively, gave the maximum score on the CollaboRATE scale (Pearson's chi 2 8.0946, p = 0.004). Conclusion: The use of SDM and a PtDA had significant positive impact on patient-reported outcomes. Practice implications: Our results may encourage the increased uptake of SDM in the initial process of lung cancer diagnostics.

AB - Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the impact on patient-reported outcomes of introducing Shared Decision Making (SDM) and a Patient Decision Aid (PtDA) in the initial process of lung cancer diagnostics. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study, where a control cohort was consulted according to usual clinical practice. After introducing SDM through a PtDA and training of the staff, the SDM cohort was enrolled in the study. All patients completed four questionnaires: the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) before and after the consultation, the CollaboRATE scale after the consultation, and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). Results: Patients exposed to SDM and a PtDA had significantly improved DCS scores after the consultation compared to the control group (a difference of 10.26, p = 0.0128) and significantly lower DRS scores (a difference of 8.98, p = 0.0197). Of the 82 control patients and 52 SDM patients 29% and 54%, respectively, gave the maximum score on the CollaboRATE scale (Pearson's chi 2 8.0946, p = 0.004). Conclusion: The use of SDM and a PtDA had significant positive impact on patient-reported outcomes. Practice implications: Our results may encourage the increased uptake of SDM in the initial process of lung cancer diagnostics.

KW - CollaboRATE

KW - Decisional conflict

KW - Decisional regret

KW - Lung cancer diagnostics

KW - Patient decision aid

KW - Shared decision making

U2 - 10.1016/j.pec.2019.05.018

DO - 10.1016/j.pec.2019.05.018

M3 - Journal article

VL - 102

SP - 1961

EP - 1968

JO - Patient Education and Counseling

JF - Patient Education and Counseling

SN - 0738-3991

IS - 11

ER -