Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26017564›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Coaching patients in the use of decision and communication aids: RE-AIM evaluation of a patient support program.

Jeff Belkora, Shelley Volz, Meredith Loth, Alexandra Teng, Margot Zarin-Pass, Dan Moore, Laura Esserman

Registry-linked trialAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03855735 ("Sufficiency, Accuracy, Clarity, Contextualization, and Interpersonal Adaptation - Safe, Digitally Supported Communication in Gynecology and Obstetrics), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03855735 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

"Sufficiency, Accuracy, Clarity, Contextualization, and Interpersonal Adaptation - Safe, Digitally Supported Communication in Gynecology and Obstetrics: TeamBaby"

TypeinterventionalSponsorJacobs University Bremen gGmbHRan2019 to 2023Enrolled424ConditionsPregnancy RelatedArmsTeamBaby Online Communication Training (IG1) and TeamBaby Web-App Communication Training (IG2)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Research progress in decision-making aids for breast cancer patients.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Impact of Timing on Measurement of Decision Quality and Shared Decision Making: Longitudinal Cohort Study of Breast Cancer Patients.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jeff BelkoraPhilip R. Lee Institute For Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 3333, California St, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA. Jeff.belkora@ucsf.edu.
Shelley VolzPhilip R. Lee Institute For Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 3333, California St, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA. Shelley.volz@ucsf.edu.
Meredith LothPhilip R. Lee Institute For Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 3333, California St, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA. Meredith.Loth@gmail.com.
Alexandra TengPhilip R. Lee Institute For Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 3333, California St, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA. Alexandra.Teng@ucsf.edu.
Margot Zarin-PassPhilip R. Lee Institute For Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 3333, California St, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA. Margot.Zarin-Pass@ucsf.edu.
Dan MooreHelen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, 1600 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA. dmoore@cc.ucsf.edu.
Laura EssermanCarol Franc Buck Breast Care Center, University of California, San Francisco, 1600 Divisadero Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA. Laura.Esserman@ucsf.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecision aids educate patients about treatment options and outcomes. Communication aids include question lists, consultation summaries, and audio-recordings. In efficacy studies, decision aids increased patient knowledge, while communication aids increased patient question-asking and information recall. Starting in 2004, we trained successive cohorts of post-baccalaureate, pre-medical interns to coach patients in the use of decision and communication aids at our university-based breast cancer clinic.

methodsFrom July 2005 through June 2012, we used the RE-AIM framework to measure Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance of our interventions.

results1. Reach: Over the study period, our program sent a total of 5,153 decision aids and directly administered 2,004 communication aids. In the most recent program year (2012), out of 1,524 eligible patient appointments, we successfully contacted 1,212 (80%); coached 1,110 (73%) in the self-administered use of decision and communication aids; sent 958 (63%) decision aids; and directly administered communication aids for 419 (27%) patients. In a 2010 survey, coached patients reported self-administering one or more communication aids in 81% of visits 2. Effectiveness: In our pre-post comparisons, decision aids were associated with increased patient knowledge and decreased decisional conflict. Communication aids were associated with increased self-efficacy and number of questions; and with high ratings of patient preparedness and satisfaction 3. Adoption: Among visitors sent decision aids, 82% of survey respondents reviewed some or all; among those administered communication aids, 86% reviewed one or more after the visit 4. IMPLEMENTATION: Through continuous quality adaptations, we increased the proportion of available staff time used for patient support (i.e. exploitation of workforce capacity) from 29% in 2005 to 84% in 2012 5. Maintenance: The main barrier to sustainability was the cost of paid intern labor. We addressed this by testing a service learning model in which student interns work as program coaches in exchange for academic credit rather than salary. The feasibility test succeeded, and we are now expanding the use of unpaid interns.

conclusionWe have sustained a clinic-wide implementation of decision and communication aids through a novel staffing model that uses paid and unpaid student interns as coaches.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesAdultBreast NeoplasmsCaliforniaFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicProgram EvaluationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26017564
PMCPMC4446845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.