A decision aid is not the quick fix for improving shared decision-making in advanced Parkinson's disease: results of a mixed methods feasibility study.

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Neurology Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1007/s00415-025-12972-x
Frouke A P Nijhuis, Bas Schippers, Bastiaan R Bloem, Bart Post, Marjan J Meinders
{"title":"A decision aid is not the quick fix for improving shared decision-making in advanced Parkinson's disease: results of a mixed methods feasibility study.","authors":"Frouke A P Nijhuis, Bas Schippers, Bastiaan R Bloem, Bart Post, Marjan J Meinders","doi":"10.1007/s00415-025-12972-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Choosing a device-assisted treatment for persons with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) is a complex decision. We developed a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention to facilitate this decision. In this study, we evaluate the feasibility of this intervention from the patients' perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a multi-center, mixed-methods feasibility study with an uncontrolled pre-post-intervention design. Five neurologists and seven Parkinson nurse specialists from five Dutch hospitals participated. We aimed to enroll 20 PwPD in the usual-care group receiving decision support as usual, and 20 PwPD receiving the SDM intervention. The intervention consisted of a patient decision aid and a training for professionals. We evaluated feasibility by measuring acceptability, level of implementation, efficacy and the study procedures. For data collection, we used questionnaires, interviews, cognitive testing, consultation recordings, fieldnotes, and usage of the patient decision aid.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 19 PwPD in the usual-care group and 13 in the intervention group. Acceptability was good and implementation levels at the patient level were adequate: 92% of the participants used the patient decision aid, of which 77% the website and 69% the value clarification tool. The intervention improved PwPD's knowledge on treatment options, however, it did not improve SDM. The SDM intervention was not used as intended and the initial treatment preference of either the PwPD or the professional directed the information exchange.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Inclusion of PwPD for the study was limited. Acceptability of the SDM intervention was good, however, the patient decision aid should be used in collaboration between physicians and patients to enhance SDM.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>NTR6649, registered 28-08-2017 (available through ICTRP search portal).</p>","PeriodicalId":16558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology","volume":"272 4","pages":"269"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11906552/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-025-12972-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Choosing a device-assisted treatment for persons with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) is a complex decision. We developed a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention to facilitate this decision. In this study, we evaluate the feasibility of this intervention from the patients' perspective.

Methods: We performed a multi-center, mixed-methods feasibility study with an uncontrolled pre-post-intervention design. Five neurologists and seven Parkinson nurse specialists from five Dutch hospitals participated. We aimed to enroll 20 PwPD in the usual-care group receiving decision support as usual, and 20 PwPD receiving the SDM intervention. The intervention consisted of a patient decision aid and a training for professionals. We evaluated feasibility by measuring acceptability, level of implementation, efficacy and the study procedures. For data collection, we used questionnaires, interviews, cognitive testing, consultation recordings, fieldnotes, and usage of the patient decision aid.

Results: We included 19 PwPD in the usual-care group and 13 in the intervention group. Acceptability was good and implementation levels at the patient level were adequate: 92% of the participants used the patient decision aid, of which 77% the website and 69% the value clarification tool. The intervention improved PwPD's knowledge on treatment options, however, it did not improve SDM. The SDM intervention was not used as intended and the initial treatment preference of either the PwPD or the professional directed the information exchange.

Conclusions: Inclusion of PwPD for the study was limited. Acceptability of the SDM intervention was good, however, the patient decision aid should be used in collaboration between physicians and patients to enhance SDM.

Trial registration: NTR6649, registered 28-08-2017 (available through ICTRP search portal).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
决策援助并不是改善晚期帕金森氏症患者共同决策的权宜之计:这是一项混合方法可行性研究的结果。
背景:为帕金森病(PwPD)患者选择器械辅助治疗是一个复杂的决定。我们开发了共享决策(SDM)干预来促进这一决策。在本研究中,我们从患者的角度来评估这种干预的可行性。方法:我们进行了一项多中心、混合方法的可行性研究,采用无控制的干预前后设计。来自荷兰五家医院的五名神经科医生和七名帕金森症护理专家参与了研究。我们的目标是将20名PwPD纳入常规护理组,照常接受决策支持,20名PwPD接受SDM干预。干预包括患者决策辅助和专业人员培训。我们通过测量可接受性、实施水平、有效性和研究程序来评估可行性。在数据收集方面,我们使用了问卷调查、访谈、认知测试、咨询记录、现场记录和患者决策辅助工具的使用。结果:常规护理组19例,干预组13例。可接受性良好,患者层面的实施水平足够:92%的参与者使用患者决策辅助,其中77%使用网站,69%使用价值澄清工具。干预提高了PwPD对治疗方案的认识,但没有改善SDM。SDM干预没有按预期使用,PwPD或专业人员的初始治疗偏好指导了信息交换。结论:将PwPD纳入研究是有限的。SDM干预的可接受性较好,但患者决策辅助应在医患合作中使用,以增强SDM。试验注册:NTR6649,注册日期:2017年8月28日(可通过ICTRP检索门户获取)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Neurology
Journal of Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
558
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurology is an international peer-reviewed journal which provides a source for publishing original communications and reviews on clinical neurology covering the whole field. In addition, Letters to the Editors serve as a forum for clinical cases and the exchange of ideas which highlight important new findings. A section on Neurological progress serves to summarise the major findings in certain fields of neurology. Commentaries on new developments in clinical neuroscience, which may be commissioned or submitted, are published as editorials. Every neurologist interested in the current diagnosis and treatment of neurological disorders needs access to the information contained in this valuable journal.
期刊最新文献
Sonographic optic nerve sheath diameter measurement for detecting intracranial hypertension in a suspected population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic thresholds and influencing factors. Efficacy and safety of complement inhibitors and FcRn blockers in generalized AChR antibody-positive myasthenia gravis: a meta-analysis. Functional head impulse testing for detection and quantification of vestibular dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. Neurofilament light-chain (Nf-L) as a biomarker in seizures and status epilepticus of varying duration. Soluble TIM-3 and galectin-9 serve as additional diagnostic biomarkers in primary central nervous system lymphoma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1