Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Implementation of shared decision-making in oncology: development and pilot study of a nurse-led decision-coaching programme for women with ductal carcinoma in situ

Authors: Birte Berger-Höger, Katrin Liethmann, Ingrid Mühlhauser, Anke Steckelberg

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To implement informed shared decision-making (ISDM) in breast care centres, we developed and piloted an inter-professional complex intervention.

Methods

We developed an intervention consisting of three components: an evidence-based patient decision aid (DA) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ, a decision-coaching led by specialised nurses (breast care nurses and oncology nurses) and structured physician encounters.
In order to enable professionals to gain ISDM competencies, we developed and tested a curriculum-based training programme for specialised nurses and a workshop for physicians. After successful testing of the components, we conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of the entire revised intervention in two breast care centres. Here the acceptance of the intervention by women and professionals, the applicability to the breast care centres’ procedures, women’s knowledge, patient involvement in treatment decision-making assessed with the MAPPIN’SDM-observer instrument MAPPIN’Odyad, and barriers to and facilitators of the implementation were taken into consideration. We used questionnaires, structured verbal and written feedback and video recordings. Qualitative data were analysed descriptively, and mean values and ranges of quantitative data were calculated.

Results

To test the DA, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 27 women. Six expert reviews were obtained. The components of the nurse training were tested with 18 specialised nurses and 19 health science students. The development and piloting of the components were successful. The pilot test of the entire intervention included seven patients. In general, the intervention is applicable. Patients attained adequate knowledge (range of correct answers: 9–11 of 11). On average, a basic level of patient involvement in treatment decision-making was observed for nurses and patient–nurse dyads (M(MAPPIN-Odyad): 2.15 and M(MAPPIN-Onurse): 1.90). Relevant barriers were identified; physicians barely tolerated women’s preferences that were not in line with the medical recommendation. Classifying women as inappropriate for ISDM due to age or education led physicians to neglect eligible women during the recruitment phase.

Conclusion

Decision-coaching is feasible. Nevertheless, there are some indications that structural changes are needed for long-term implementation. We are currently evaluating the intervention in a cluster randomised controlled trial in 16 breast care centres.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Brown R, Butow P, Wilson-Genderson M, Bernhard J, Ribi K, Juraskova I. Meeting the decision-making preferences of patients with breast cancer in oncology consultations: impact on decision-related outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(8):857–62.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Charles C, Gafni A. The vexing problem of defining the meaning, role and measurement of values in treatment decision-making. J Comp Eff Res. 2014;3(2):197–209.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Bunge M, Mühlhauser I, Steckelberg A. What constitutes evidence-based patient information? Overview of discussed criteria. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(3):316–28.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Lenz M, Buhse S, Kasper J, Kupfer R, Richter T, Mühlhauser I. Decision aids for patients. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012;109(22–23):401–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–92.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Hoffmann TC, Montori VM, Del Mar C. The connection between evidence-based medicine and shared decision making. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1295–6.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Mühlhauser I, Meyer G, Steckelberg A. Patients demand informed participation in medical decision making, but the information data base and structures are not available. Z Allg Med. 2010;86(11):10–5.
10.
Lawler M, Le Chevalier T, Murphy MJ Jr, Banks I, Conte P, De Lorenzo F, et al. A catalyst for change: the European cancer patient’s bill of rights. Oncologist. 2014;19(3):217–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Bundesgesetzblatt. German patients’ rights act, vol. 9. Germany: Bundesanzeiger Cologne; 2013. p. 277–82.
12.
13.
14.
Härter M, Dirmaier J, Scholl I, Donner-Banzhoff N, Dierks ML, Eich W, Müller H, Klemperer D, Koch K, Bieber C. The long way of implementing patient-centered care and shared decision-making in Germany. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017;123-124:46–51.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(3):291–309.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Légaré F, Stacey D, Turcotte S, Cossi MJ, Kryworuchko J, Graham ID, et al. Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;9:CD006732.
17.
Stacey D, Murray MA, Legare F, Sandy D, Menard P, O'Connor A. Decision coaching to support shared decision making: a framework, evidence, and implications for nursing practice, education, and policy. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2008;5(1):25–35.CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Légaré F, Stacey D, Pouliot S, Gauvin FP, Desroches S, Kryworuchko J, et al. Interprofessionalism and shared decision-making in primary care: a stepwise approach towards a new model. J Interprof Care. 2010;25(1):18–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Gerlach A, Wiedemann R. Breast care nurses - nursing experts for breast cancer care. A path to “advanced nursing practice” in Germany? Pflege. 2010;23(6):393–402.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Eicher M, Kadmon I, Claassen S, Marquard S, Pennery E, Wengstrom Y, et al. Training breast care nurses throughout Europe: the EONS postbasic curriculum for breast cancer nursing. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(9):1257–62.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD001877.
24.
Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1998–2005.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC, Kalager M, Zahl PH. Breast cancer screening in Denmark: a cohort study of tumor size and Overdiagnosis. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 10.​7326/​M16-0270.
26.
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008; 10.​1136/​bmj.​a1655.
27.
Möhler R, Köpke S, Meyer G. Criteria for reporting the development and evaluation of complex interventions in healthcare: revised guideline (CReDECI 2). Trials. 2015;16:204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211.CrossRef
29.
Ajzen I. Attitudes, personality and behavior. New York: Open University Press; 2005.
30.
Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ. Press; 1962.
31.
32.
Elwyn G, O'Connor AM, Bennett C, Newcombe RG, Politi M, Durand MA, et al. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the international patient decision aid standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS One. 2009;4:e4705.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
De Morgan SE, Butow PN, Lobb EA, Price MA, Nehill C. Development and pilot testing of a communication aid to assist clinicians to communicate with women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Support Care Cancer. 2011;19(5):717–23.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Health Dialog, Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making. Ductal carcinoma in situ - Choosing your treatment. A shared decision-making program. Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making. Brochure and video; 2003–2011.
36.
Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis: basics and techniques. 11th ed. Weinheim: Beltz Pädagogik; 2010.
37.
38.
Berger B, Gerlach A, Groth S, Sladek U, Ebner K, Mühlhauser I, et al. Competence training in evidence-based medicine for patients, patient counsellors, consumer representatives and health care professionals in Austria: a feasibility study. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2013;107(1):44–52.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Steckelberg A, Hülfenhaus C, Kasper J, Mühlhauser I. Ebm@school - a curriculum of critical health literacy for secondary school students: results of a pilot study. Int J Public Health. 2009;54(3):158–65.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Buhse S, Mühlhauser I, Heller T, Kuniss N, Müller UA, Kasper J, et al. Informed shared decision-making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e009116.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Kern DE, Thomas PA, Hughes MT. Curriculum development for medical education. A six-step approach. 2nd ed. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press; 2009.
42.
43.
Kuckartz U. Qualitative content analysis: methods, practice and computer assistance. 1st ed. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa; 2012.
44.
Flick U. Social sciences. Methods and applications – overview for bachelor degree courses. 1st ed. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch; 2009.
45.
Hahlweg P, Hoffmann J, Härter M, Frosch DL, Elwyn G, Scholl I. In absentia: an exploratory study of how patients are considered in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0139921.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
47.
Wilson AR, Marotti L, Bianchi S, Biganzoli L, Claassen S, Decker T, et al. The requirements of a specialist breast centre. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(17):3579–87.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Kasper J, Hoffmann F, Heesen C, Köpke S, Geiger F. MAPPIN’SDM - the multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making. PLoS One. 2012;7:e34849.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Geiger F, Liethmann K, Reitz D, Galalae R, Kasper J. Efficacy of the doktormitSDM training module in supporting shared decision making - results from a multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2017; 10.​1016/​j.​pec.​2017.​06.​022.
50.
Morrow M, Katz SJ. Addressing overtreatment in DCIS. What should physicians do now? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv290.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for omprovement. JAMA. 2013;310(8):797–8.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Shepherd HL, Butow PN, Tattersall MH. Factors which motivate cancer doctors to involve their patients in reaching treatment decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(2):229–35.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Joseph-Williams N, Edwards A, Elwyn G. Power imbalance prevents shared decision making. BMJ. 2014;348:g3178.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Legare F, Ratte S, Gravel K, Graham ID. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):526–35.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Kane HL, Halpern MT, Squiers LB, Treiman KA, McCormack LA. Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(6):377–88.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Rummer A, Scheibler F. Patient Rights: Informed choice as patient relevant outcome. Dtsch Arztebl. 2016;113(8): A322-24.
57.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Self-reported use of shared decision-making among breast cancer specialists and perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing this approach. Health Expect. 2004;7(4):338–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Belkora J, Davison B, Durand M-A, Eden K, et al. Coaching and guidance with patient decision aids: a review of theoretical and empirical evidence. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
59.
Kearing S, Berg SZ, Lurie JD. Can decision support help patients with spinal Stenosis make a treatment choice? A prospective study assessing the impact of a patient decision aid and health coaching. Spine. 2016;41(7):563–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
60.
Heisler M, Choi H, Palmisano G, Mase R, Richardson C, Fagerlin A, et al. Comparison of community health worker-led diabetes medication decision-making support for low-income Latino and African American adults with diabetes using e-health tools versus print materials: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(Suppl 10):S13–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Vodermaier A, Caspari C, Koehm J, Kahlert S, Ditsch N, Untch M. Contextual factors in shared decision making: a randomised controlled trial in women with a strong suspicion of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009;100(4):590–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Rahn A, Köpke S, Kasper J, Vettorazzi E, Mühlhauser I, Heesen C. Evaluator-blinded trial evaluating nurse-led immunotherapy DEcision coaching in persons with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (DECIMS) and accompanying process evaluation: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Mühlhauser I, Meyer G. Evidence based medicine: clarification and perspectives. Dtsch Arztebl. 2016;113(11):A 486–8.
64.
65.
Berger-Höger B, Liethmann K, Mühlhauser I, Haastert B, Steckelberg A. Informed shared decision-making supported by decision coaches for women with ductal carcinoma in situ: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:452.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
66.
Institute of Medicine. Sharing clinical trial data: maximizing benefits, minimizing risk. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015.
67.
Silverstein MJ. The University of Southern California/van Nuys prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg. 2003;186(4):337–43.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Pang J-MB, Gorringe KL, Fox SB. Ductal carcinoma in situ – update on risk assessment and management. Histopathology. 2016;68(1):96–109.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Lebeau A. Management der in-situ-Karzinome [management of carcinoma in situ]. In: Kreienberg R, Möbus V, Jonat W, Kühn T, editors. Mammakarzinom interdisziplinär [breast cancer interdisciplinary]. 4th ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2010.
70.
Metadata
Title
Implementation of shared decision-making in oncology: development and pilot study of a nurse-led decision-coaching programme for women with ductal carcinoma in situ
Authors
Birte Berger-Höger
Katrin Liethmann
Ingrid Mühlhauser
Anke Steckelberg
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0548-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment

Research article

Using record linkage to validate notification and laboratory data for a more accurate assessment of notifiable infectious diseases

Study protocol

A study protocol of the effectiveness of PEGASUS: a multi-centred study comparing an intervention to promote shared decision making about breast reconstruction with treatment as usual

Study protocol

A mobile and web-based clinical decision support and monitoring system for diabetes mellitus patients in primary care: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Software Review

Clinical records anonymisation and text extraction (CRATE): an open-source software system

Research article

Predicting progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia using neuropsychological data: a supervised learning approach using time windows