Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Involving patients in primary care consultations: assessing preferences using discrete choice experiments. A behavioral intervention to improve obstetrical care. Cluster randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of audit and feedback and educational outreach on improving nursing practice and patient outcomes.
Shared decision-making (SDM) between professionals and patients is increasingly advocated from ethical principles. Some data are accruing about the effects of such approaches on health or other patient-based outcomes. These effects often vary substantially between studies.
                Our aim was to evaluate the effects of training GPs in SDM, and the use of simple risk communication aids in general practice, on patient-based outcomes.
                A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills; or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were randomly allocated to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations took place in 'research clinics' to evaluate the effects of more time for consultations, compared with usual surgery time. Patient-based outcomes were assessed at exit from consultation and 1 month follow-up. These were: COMRADE instrument (principal measures; subscales of risk communication and confidence in decision), and a range of secondary measures (anxiety, patient enablement, intention to adhere to chosen treatment, satisfaction with decision, support in decision making and SF-12 health status measure). Multilevel modelling was carried out with outcome score as the dependent variable, and follow-up point (i.e. exit or 1 month later for each patient), patient and doctor levels of explanatory variables.
                No statistically significant changes in patient-based outcomes due to the training interventions were found: COMRADE risk communication score increased 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to 2.32] after risk communication training and 0.9 (95% CI -0.89 to 2.35) after SDM training; and COMRADE satisfaction with communication score increased by 1.0 (95% CI -1.1 to 3.1) after risk communication, and decreased by 0.6 (95% CI 2.7 to -1.5) after SDM training. Patients' confidence in the decision (2.1 increase, 95% CI 0.7-3.5, P < 0.01) and expectation to adhere to chosen treatments (0.7 increase, 95% CI 0.04-1.36, P < 0.05) were significantly greater among patients seen in the research clinics (when more time was available) compared with usual surgery time. Most outcomes deteriorated between exit and 1 month later. There was no interaction between intervention effects.
                Patients can be more involved in treatment decisions, and risks and benefits of treatment options can be explained in more detail, without adversely affecting patient-based outcomes. SDM and risk communication may be advocated from values and ethical principles even without evidence of health gain or improvement in patient-based outcomes, but the resources required to enhance these professional skills must also be taken into consideration. These data also indicate the benefits of extra consultation time. A consulting method known as 'shared decision making' (SDM) has been described and operationalized in terms of several 'competences'. One of these competences concerns the discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment or care options-'risk communication'. Few data exist on clinicians' ability to acquire skills and implement the competences of SDM or risk communication in consultations with patients.
                The aims of this study were to evaluate the effects of skill development workshops for SDM and the use of risk communication aids on the process of consultations.
                A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. Half the consultations were randomly selected for audio-taping, of which 352 patients attended and were audio-taped successfully. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were allocated randomly to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations were audio-taped from each phase. Raters (independent, trained and blinded to study phase) assessed the audio-tapes using a validated scale to assess levels of patient involvement (OPTION: observing patient involvement), and to analyse the nature of risk information discussed. Clinicians completed questionnaires after each consultation, assessing perceived clinician-patient agreement and level of patient involvement in decisions. Multilevel modelling was carried out with the OPTION score as the dependent variable, and rater, consultation and clinician levels of data, standardized by rater within clinician.
                Following each of the interventions, the clinicians significantly increased their involvement of patients in decision making (OPTION score increased by 10.6 following risk communication training [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.9 -13.3; P < 0.001] and by 12.9 after SDM skill development (95% CI 10 -15.8, P < 0.001), a moderate effect size. The level of involvement achieved by the risk communication aids was significantly increased by the subsequent introduction of the skill development workshops (7.7 increase in OPTION score, 95% CI 3.4-12; P < 0.001). The alternative sequence (skills followed by risk communication aids) did not achieve this effect. The use of most risk information formats increased after the provision of specific risk communication aids (P < 0.001). Clinicians using the risk communication tools perceived significantly higher patient and clinician agreement on treatment (P < 0.001), patient satisfaction with information (P < 0.01), clinician satisfaction with decision (P < 0.01) and general overall satisfaction with the consultation (P < 0.001) than those who were exposed to SDM skill development workshops.
                These clinicians were able to acquire the skills to implement SDM competences and to use risk communication aids. Each intervention provided independent effects. Further progress towards greater patient involvement in health care decision making is possible, and skill development in this area should be incorporated into postgraduate professional development programmes. Shared decision making (SDM) involves patients and doctors contributing as partners to treatment decisions. It is not known whether or to what extent SDM contributes to the welfare arising from a consultation, and how important this contribution is relative to other attributes of a consultation.
                To identify patient preferences for SDM relative to other utility bearing attributes of a consultation.
                In parallel with a randomised trial in training GPs in SDM competencies and risk communication skills, a discrete choice experiment exercise was conducted to assess patients' utilities.
                Twenty general practices in South Wales, UK.
                Five hundred and eighty-four responders from 747 patients attending the randomised trial (response rate = 78%). All patients had one of four conditions (atrial fibrillation, menorrhagia, menopausal symptoms or prostatism) and attended a consultation with a doctor in their own practice. Patients were randomised to attend a consultation either with a doctor who had received no training in the study or risk communication training alone or SDM training alone, or both combined.
                Five key utility bearing attributes of a consultation were identified. All significantly influenced patient's choice of preferred consultation style (P<0.001). Larger increases in utility were associated with changes on "doctor listens" attribute, followed by easily understood information, a shared treatment decision, more information and longer consultation. Utilities were influenced by whether the doctor had received risk communication training alone or SDM training alone, or both combined, prior to the consultations. The randomised trial itself had identified that the communication processes of these consultations changed significantly, with greater patient involvement in decision making, after the training interventions.
                Shared treatment decisions were valued less than some other attributes of a consultation. However, patient utilities for such involvement appeared responsive to changes in experiences of consultations. This suggests that SDM may gain greater value among patients once they have experienced it. Implementation of evidence-based obstetrical practices remains a significant challenge. Effective strategies to disseminate and implement such practices are needed.
                We randomly assigned 19 hospitals in Argentina and Uruguay to receive a multifaceted behavioral intervention (including selection of opinion leaders, interactive workshops, training of manual skills, one-on-one academic detailing visits with hospital birth attendants, reminders, and feedback) to develop and implement guidelines for the use of episiotomy and management of the third stage of labor or to receive no intervention. The primary outcomes were the rates of prophylactic use of oxytocin during the third stage of labor and of episiotomy. The main secondary outcomes were postpartum hemorrhage and birth attendants' readiness to change their behavior with regard to episiotomies and management of the third stage of labor. The outcomes were measured at baseline, at the end of the 18-month intervention, and 12 months after the end of the intervention.
                The rate of use of prophylactic oxytocin increased from 2.1% at baseline to 83.6% after the end of the intervention at hospitals that received the intervention and from 2.6% to 12.3% at control hospitals (P=0.01 for the difference in changes). The rate of use of episiotomy decreased from 41.1% to 29.9% at hospitals receiving the intervention but remained stable at control hospitals, with preintervention and postintervention values of 43.5% and 44.5%, respectively (P<0.001 for the difference in changes). The intervention was also associated with reductions in the rate of postpartum hemorrhage of 500 ml or more (relative rate reduction, 45%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 71) and of 1000 ml or more (relative rate reduction, 70%; 95% CI, 16 to 78). Birth attendants' readiness to change also increased in the hospitals receiving the intervention. The effects on the use of episiotomy and prophylactic oxytocin were sustained 12 months after the end of the intervention.
                A multifaceted behavioral intervention increased the prophylactic use of oxytocin during the third stage of labor and reduced the use of episiotomy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00070720 [ClinicalTrials.gov]; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN82417627 [controlled-trials.com].).
                Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. Current understanding of implementation methods is limited, and research has focused on changing doctors' behaviors.
                Our aim was to evaluate the impact of audit and feedback and educational outreach in improving nursing practice and patient outcomes.
                Using a factorial design, cluster randomized controlled trial, we evaluated 194 community nurses in 157 family practices and 1078 patients with diagnosis of urinary incontinence (UI) for nurses compliance with evidence-linked review criteria for the assessment and management of UI and impact on psychologic and social well-being and symptoms. In the outreach arms, nurses' self-reported barriers informed development of tailored strategies.
                In comparison with educational materials alone, the implementation methods tested did not improve care at 6 months follow-up. Moderate rates of improvement (10-17% of patients) in performance for the assessment of UI and greater rates of improvement (20-30% of patients) for the management of care were found but effects were similar across arms. Improvement in patient outcomes was more consistently positive for educational outreach than for audit and feedback but differences were not significant. Adjustment for caseload size, severity or duration of UI and patients' age did not alter results.
                Printed educational materials alone may be as effective as audit and feedback and educational outreach in improving nurses' performance and outcomes of care for people with UI. Greater understanding of the underlying processes in improving performance within multidisciplinary teams through further, theory-driven studies with "no intervention" control groups and longer follow-up are needed.
The results of this Cochrane review do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about the most effective types of intervention for increasing healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. Healthcare professional training may be important, as may the implementation of patient-mediated interventions such as decision aids. Given the paucity of evidence, however, those motivated by the ethical impetus to increase SDM in clinical practice will need to weigh the costs and potential benefits of interventions. Subsequent research should involve well-designed studies with adequate power and procedures to minimise bias so that they may improve estimates of the effects of interventions on healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. From a measurement perspective, consensus on how to assess professionals' adoption of SDM is desirable to facilitate cross-study comparisons.