Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30649604›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2019

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of encounter decision aids in breast cancer care.

Pola Hahlweg, Isabell Witzel, Volkmar Müller, Glyn Elwyn, Marie-Anne Durand, Isabelle Scholl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

Pola HahlwegDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. p.hahlweg@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8768-8594
Isabell WitzelDepartment of Gynecology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Volkmar MüllerDepartment of Gynecology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Glyn ElwynThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Level 5, Williamson Translational Research Building, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA.
Marie-Anne DurandThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Level 5, Williamson Translational Research Building, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA.
Isabelle SchollDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7639-0880

Funding

research funding through faculty resources of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (German: Forschungsförderfonds der Medizinischen Fakultät der Universität Hamburg) NWF 15_10
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeShared decision-making is currently not widely implemented in breast cancer care. Encounter decision aids support shared decision-making by helping patients and physicians compare treatment options. So far, little was known about adaptation needs for translated encounter decision aids, and encounter decision aids for breast cancer treatments were not available in Germany. This study aimed to adapt and evaluate the implementation of two encounter decision aids on breast cancer treatments in routine care.

methodsWe conducted a multi-phase qualitative study: (1) translation of two breast cancer Option Grid™ decision aids; comparison to national clinical standards; cognitive interviews to test patients' understanding; (2) focus groups to assess acceptability; (3) testing in routine care using participant observation. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

resultsPhysicians and patients reacted positively to the idea of encounter decision aids, and reported being interested in using them; patients were most receptive. Several adaptation cycles were necessary. Uncertainty about feasibility of using encounter decision aids in clinical settings was the main physician-reported barrier. During real-world testing (N = 77 encounters), physicians used encounter decision aids in one-third of potentially relevant encounters. However, they did not use the encounter decision aids to stimulate dialogue, which is contrary to their original scope and purpose.

conclusionsThe idea of using encounter decision aids was welcomed, but more by patients than by physicians. Adaptation was a complex process and required resources. Clinicians did not follow suggested strategies for using encounter decision aids. Our study indicates that production of encounter decision aids alone will not lead to successful implementation, and has to be accompanied by training of health care providers.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAdultBreast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPhysiciansBreast cancerCross-cultural adaptationEncounter decision aidsOption Grid™ decision aidsShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID30649604
PMCPMC6435605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.