Browsing by Subject "informed decision making"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Communicating to promote informed decisions in the context of early pregnancy loss
    (Elsevier, 2017) Brann, Maria; Bute, Jennifer J.; Communication Studies, School of Liberal Arts
    Objective. To evaluate residents’ ability to engage standardized patients in informed decision making during a pregnancy loss scenario. Methods. Forty patient encounters between interns and standardized patients were coded to assess informed decision-making practices, exploration of unexpressed concerns, and support provision. Results. Interns engaged in minimum informed decision making but did not address all of the communicative elements necessary for informed decisions, and most elements were only partially addressed. Patients in this study did not receive information about all management options, their concerns were not addressed, and there was limited support communicated for their decision. Conclusion. This study offers an initial assessment of a communicative approach to evaluate and improve decision making during early pregnancy loss. A comprehensive approach to making informed decisions must include discussion of all management options, exploration of patient preferences and concerns, and support for the patient’s decision. Practice Implications. Healthcare providers could benefit from communication skills training to communicate more effectively with patients to help them make more informed decisions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Development and Usability Testing of a Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Study Protocol
    (JMIR, 2017) Carter-Harris, Lisa; Comer, Robert Skipworth; Goyal, Anurag; Vode, Emilee Christine; Hanna, Nasser; Ceppa, DuyKhanh; Rawl, Susan M.; School of Nursing
    Background: Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in the screening-eligible population, and when patients visit their clinician never having heard of lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Therefore, methods to effectively support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are essential. To facilitate shared decision making about lung cancer screening, effective methods to prepare patients to have these important discussions with their clinician are needed. Objective: Our objective is to develop a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument version 4.0 that will support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions. Methods: Using a 3-phase process, we will develop and test a prototype of a computer-tailored decision support tool in a sample of lung cancer screening-eligible individuals. In phase I, we assembled a community advisory board comprising 10 screening-eligible individuals to develop the prototype. In phase II, we recruited a sample of 13 screening-eligible individuals to test the prototype for usability, acceptability, and satisfaction. In phase III, we are conducting a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer. Outcomes tested include lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), perception of being prepared to engage in a patient-clinician discussion about lung cancer screening, occurrence of a patient-clinician discussion about lung cancer screening, and stage of adoption for lung cancer screening. Results: Phases I and II are complete. Phase III is underway. As of July 15, 2017, 60 participants have been enrolled into the study, and have completed the baseline survey, intervention, and first follow-up survey. We expect to have results by December 31, 2017 and to have data analysis completed by March 1, 2018. Conclusions: Results from usability testing indicate that the computer-tailored decision support tool is easy to use, is helpful, and provides a satisfactory experience for the user. At the conclusion of phase III (pilot RCT), we will have preliminary effect sizes to inform a future fully powered RCT on changes in (1) knowledge about lung cancer and screening, (2) perceived risk of lung cancer, (3) perceived benefits of lung cancer screening, (4) perceived barriers to lung cancer screening, (5) self-efficacy for lung cancer screening, and (6) perceptions of being adequately prepared to engage in a discussion with their clinician about lung cancer screening.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Impact of including quantitative information in a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial
    (Elsevier, 2019) Schwartz, Peter H.; Imperiale, Thomas F.; Perkins, Susan M.; Schmidt, Karen K.; Althouse, Sandra; Rawl, Susan M.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Objective: Guidelines recommend that decision aids provide quantitative information about risks and benefits of available options. Impact of providing this information is unknown. Methods: Randomized trial comparing two decision aids about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT). 688 primary care patients due for CRC screening viewed a decision aid that uses words only (Verbal arm) vs. one that provides quantitative information (Quantitative arm). Main outcomes included perceived CRC risk, intent to be screened, and test preference, measured before and after viewing decision aid, and screening uptake at six months. Analyses were performed with ANCOVA and logistic regression. Results: Compared to the Verbal arm, those in the Quantitative arm had a larger increase in intent to undergo FIT (p = 0.011) and were more likely to switch their preferred test from non-FIT to FIT (28% vs. 19%, p = .010). There were decreases in perceived risk in the Verbal Arm but not the Quantitative Arm (p = 0.004). There was no difference in screening uptake. Numeracy did not moderate any effects. Conclusions: Quantitative information had relatively minor impact and no clearly negative effects, such as reducing uptake. Practice implications: Quantitative information may be useful but not essential for patients viewing decision aids.