Browsing by Author "Litwiller, Abigail"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluating Shared Decision Making in Trial of Labor After Cesarean Counseling Using Objective Structured Clinical Examinations
    (Association of American Medical Colleges, 2020) Tucker Edmonds, Brownsyne; Hoffman, Shelley M.; Laitano, Tatiana; McKenzie, Fatima; Panoch, Janet; Litwiller, Abigail; Di Corcia, Mark J.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine
    Introduction Although shared decision making (SDM) is optimal for trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) counseling, resources to assess residents' clinical competency and communication skills are lacking. We addressed this gap by developing and testing an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) to evaluate whether learners were able to use SDM in TOLAC counseling. Methods We created three simulation scenarios with increasing complexity to assess the skills of residents in their first, second, or third postgraduate year in using SDM in TOLAC counseling. All cases involved a standardized patient requesting a TOLAC consultation. Residents were provided with a medical history and instructed to counsel and develop a care plan. A 10-item scoring rubric was used, and each item was rated 0 (absent), 1 (partial), or 2 (complete). Three coders independently rated the encounters; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Results Over 3 years, 39 residents participated in 60 OSCE encounters. The majority provided complete discussions of the clinical issue (93%), chances of success (72%), and maternal and fetal risks (100% and 85%, respectively) but obtained partial assessments of understanding (78%). Discussions of benefits were typically absent, with the exception of the maternal benefits (47%). More than 40% of residents did not discuss the patient's goals, 53% lacked discussion of uncertainties related to TOLAC, and half failed to explore the patient's preference, with most deferring a decision to a future encounter. Discussion Residents consistently discussed diagnosis, prognosis, and maternal risks yet infrequently addressed goals and preferences—two critical elements of SDM.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluating Shared Decision-Making in Postpartum Contraceptive Counseling Using Objective Structured Clinical Examinations
    (Mary Ann Liebert, 2022-12-26) Tucker Edmonds, Brownsyne; Hoffman, Shelley M.; Laitano, Tatiana; McKenzie, Fatima; Panoch, Janet; Litwiller, Abigail; DiCorcia, Mark J.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine
    Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) may support widespread uptake of progestin-containing long-acting reversible contraceptives in the immediate postpartum period. We piloted an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) to evaluate first-year obstetrics and gynecology resident physicians' use of SDM in postpartum contraception counseling. Methods: As part of their 2015 and 2016 OSCEs, first-year OB/GYN residents were instructed to provide contraceptive counseling to a Standardized Patient (SP) portraying a 29-year-old postpartum patient seen during rounds on the morning following her delivery. Three investigators independently scored each resident encounter using a 10-item rubric adapted from a 9-item SDM measure and assigned scores of 0 (absent), 1 (partial), or 2 (complete). Each encounter was video and audio recorded, then transcribed for qualitative analysis. Descriptive statistics was produced using SPSS version 24. Results: Eighteen residents participated. The majority (78%) discussed contraceptive options and timing of initiation. Nearly 33% elicited factors most important to the SP in influencing her preference. Only 6% discussed the benefits of exclusive breastfeeding, and few addressed the uncertainty of progesterone on milk supply and production. Conclusion: Although residents conveyed ample clinical information, the vast majority did not discuss elements of SDM, such as her preferences, values, and goals for future fertility and breastfeeding. Our work revealed that critical elements of SDM are often not explored and deliberated by resident physicians. Trainings (e.g., OSCEs) are needed to equip residents with effective communication skills to facilitate more SDM in postpartum contraceptive care.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Preference Elicitation Tool for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    (Springer, 2015-04) Hess, Lisa M.; Litwiller, Abigail; Byron, John; Stutsman, John; Kasper, Kelly; Learman, Lee A.; Department of Epidemiology, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health
    Background It is estimated that one-third of women will experience abnormal menstrual bleeding. The majority of these cases are not due to cancer or pregnancy complications and, as a result, women are faced with a variety of treatment alternatives, the selection of which is largely dependent on personal preferences for care rather than clinical outcomes. Objective This randomized trial was designed to evaluate a preference elicitation tool to promote physician–patient collaborative decision making for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Methods Adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) was used to create a preference elicitation tool in English and in Spanish. Women with AUB were enrolled to the study and randomly assigned to ACA or usual counseling at the initial clinic visit at four clinics (three in Indianapolis, IN, USA, and one in Southern Pines, NC, USA). The ACA tool elicited preferences across eight attributes: treatment efficacy; sexual function; medical care; cost; fertility; frequency of medication use; permanence; and recovery time. t tests were used to compare differences in the primary outcomes of decision regret and treatment satisfaction at the follow-up visit. The study was designed to have 80 % power to detect significant differences between groups for the primary outcomes of regret and satisfaction. Results Women were enrolled in the study between September 2009 and March 2012. 183 participants were randomized to ACA and 191 to usual counseling. Overall, mean (standard deviation) treatment satisfaction was high at 35.71 (9.72) (scale of 0–44), and decision regret was low at 25.9 (21.0) (scale of 0–100), creating ceiling effects for the selected outcome variables; there were no significant differences between the ACA and control groups at the follow-up assessment. There was a strong inverse relationship between age and decision regret (p = 0.007). Exploratory subgroup analysis in the youngest quartile comprising 64 women aged 19–35 years showed a statistically non-significant difference in mean regret scores for the ACA group versus usual counseling (24.6 vs. 34.6, respectively; p = 0.08). Conclusions A preference elicitation tool at the initial consultation visit did not reduce decision regret or improve treatment satisfaction among patients with AUB; however, there is a need for additional research to further understand this tool’s potential role in promoting collaborative decision making, which may be particularly important among younger women.