UPFRONT项目:量身定制的患者决策辅助工具的实施和评估,以支持有关无症状子宫肌瘤管理的共同决策。

IF 8.8 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Implementation Science Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.1186/s13012-024-01404-5
Rachel C Forcino, Marie-Anne Durand, Danielle Schubbe, Jaclyn Engel, Erika Banks, Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso, Tina Foster, Tessa Madden, Raymond M Anchan, Mary Politi, Anne Lindholm, Rossella M Gargiulo, Maya Seshan, Marisa Tomaino, Jingyi Zhang, Stephanie C Acquilano, Sade Akinfe, Anupam Sharma, Johanna W M Aarts, Glyn Elwyn
{"title":"UPFRONT项目:量身定制的患者决策辅助工具的实施和评估,以支持有关无症状子宫肌瘤管理的共同决策。","authors":"Rachel C Forcino, Marie-Anne Durand, Danielle Schubbe, Jaclyn Engel, Erika Banks, Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso, Tina Foster, Tessa Madden, Raymond M Anchan, Mary Politi, Anne Lindholm, Rossella M Gargiulo, Maya Seshan, Marisa Tomaino, Jingyi Zhang, Stephanie C Acquilano, Sade Akinfe, Anupam Sharma, Johanna W M Aarts, Glyn Elwyn","doi":"10.1186/s13012-024-01404-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate implementation of a patient decision aid for symptomatic uterine fibroid management to improve shared decision-making at five clinical settings across the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge design and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) planning and evaluation framework. We conducted clinician training, monthly reach tracking with feedback to site clinical leads, patient and clinician surveys, and visit audio-recordings. Implementation strategies included assessment of organizational readiness for shared decision-making, synchronous clinician training, audit and feedback of decision aid reach, and access to multiple decision aid formats. Outcomes and analyses included patient-level reach, clinician-level adoption, and associations of patient-reported decision aid exposure (as treated) and setting-level implementation (intention-to-treat) with patient-reported (collaboRATE measure) and observed (OPTION-5 measure) shared decision-making. We also designed and assessed setting-level plans for sustainability and other factors impacting sustained decision aid use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The decision aid was adopted by 72 of the 74 eligible gynecologists (97%) and reached 2553 patients across five settings. CollaboRATE scores improved among patients who reported receiving the decision aid (as-treated analysis, 69% vs. 59%; OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.16-2.27). CollaboRATE scores remained consistent before and after setting-level decision aid implementation (intention-to-treat analysis, 64% vs. 63%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.22). Participants would prefer to receive a decision aid at multiple time points (91.9% before the visit, 90.7% during the visit, 86.5% after the visit). Shared decision-making experiences did not improve when comparing pre vs. post-implementation collaboRATE scores across included settings (intention-to-treat, 64% vs. 63%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.22).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids are given decision aids, they report higher shared decision-making scores. However, the differences we observed between the as-treated and intention-to-treat results suggest that unaddressed implementation challenges continue to limit the extent to which patients receive decision aids and likely hinder their overall impact. Future efforts to implement decision aids should explore enhancing their integration into clinical workflows and standard operating procedures, supported by organizational incentives that prioritize shared decision-making.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03985449; registered 6 June 2019.</p>","PeriodicalId":54995,"journal":{"name":"Implementation Science","volume":"19 1","pages":"75"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536971/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The UPFRONT project: tailored implementation and evaluation of a patient decision aid to support shared decision-making about management of symptomatic uterine fibroids.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel C Forcino, Marie-Anne Durand, Danielle Schubbe, Jaclyn Engel, Erika Banks, Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso, Tina Foster, Tessa Madden, Raymond M Anchan, Mary Politi, Anne Lindholm, Rossella M Gargiulo, Maya Seshan, Marisa Tomaino, Jingyi Zhang, Stephanie C Acquilano, Sade Akinfe, Anupam Sharma, Johanna W M Aarts, Glyn Elwyn\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13012-024-01404-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate implementation of a patient decision aid for symptomatic uterine fibroid management to improve shared decision-making at five clinical settings across the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge design and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) planning and evaluation framework. We conducted clinician training, monthly reach tracking with feedback to site clinical leads, patient and clinician surveys, and visit audio-recordings. Implementation strategies included assessment of organizational readiness for shared decision-making, synchronous clinician training, audit and feedback of decision aid reach, and access to multiple decision aid formats. Outcomes and analyses included patient-level reach, clinician-level adoption, and associations of patient-reported decision aid exposure (as treated) and setting-level implementation (intention-to-treat) with patient-reported (collaboRATE measure) and observed (OPTION-5 measure) shared decision-making. We also designed and assessed setting-level plans for sustainability and other factors impacting sustained decision aid use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The decision aid was adopted by 72 of the 74 eligible gynecologists (97%) and reached 2553 patients across five settings. CollaboRATE scores improved among patients who reported receiving the decision aid (as-treated analysis, 69% vs. 59%; OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.16-2.27). CollaboRATE scores remained consistent before and after setting-level decision aid implementation (intention-to-treat analysis, 64% vs. 63%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.22). Participants would prefer to receive a decision aid at multiple time points (91.9% before the visit, 90.7% during the visit, 86.5% after the visit). Shared decision-making experiences did not improve when comparing pre vs. post-implementation collaboRATE scores across included settings (intention-to-treat, 64% vs. 63%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.22).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids are given decision aids, they report higher shared decision-making scores. However, the differences we observed between the as-treated and intention-to-treat results suggest that unaddressed implementation challenges continue to limit the extent to which patients receive decision aids and likely hinder their overall impact. Future efforts to implement decision aids should explore enhancing their integration into clinical workflows and standard operating procedures, supported by organizational incentives that prioritize shared decision-making.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03985449; registered 6 June 2019.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implementation Science\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"75\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536971/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implementation Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01404-5\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01404-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估无症状子宫肌瘤管理患者决策辅助工具的实施情况,以改进美国五家临床机构的共同决策:方法:我们采用了第 3 类混合效果-实施阶梯式楔形设计以及覆盖、效果、采用、实施、维护(RE-AIM)规划和评估框架。我们对临床医生进行了培训,每月对覆盖范围进行跟踪,并向现场临床负责人、患者和临床医生进行了反馈,还进行了就诊录音调查。实施策略包括评估共同决策的组织准备情况、同步临床医生培训、决策辅助工具使用率的审核和反馈,以及多种决策辅助工具格式的使用。结果和分析包括患者层面的覆盖率、临床医生层面的采用率,以及患者报告的决策辅助接触(按治疗)和环境层面的实施(意向治疗)与患者报告的(collaboRATE 测量)和观察到的(OPTION-5 测量)共同决策的关联。我们还设计并评估了环境层面的可持续性计划以及影响决策辅助工具持续使用的其他因素:在 74 位符合条件的妇科医生中,有 72 位(97%)采用了决策辅助工具,在五种情况下有 2553 位患者使用了该工具。报告接受决策辅助工具的患者的 CollaboRATE 评分有所提高(治疗分析,69% 对 59%;OR 1.6,95% CI 1.16-2.27)。CollaboRATE 评分在决策辅助系统实施前后保持一致(意向治疗分析,64% 对 63%;OR 0.86,95% CI 0.61-1.22)。参与者希望在多个时间点收到决策辅助工具(91.9% 在就诊前,90.7% 在就诊中,86.5% 在就诊后)。如果比较实施前与实施后在不同环境下的 CollaboRATE 评分,共同决策经验并没有改善(意向治疗,64% 对 63%;OR 0.86,95% CI 0.61-1.22):结论:当有症状的子宫肌瘤患者获得决策辅助工具时,他们报告的共同决策得分较高。然而,我们观察到的治疗结果与意向治疗结果之间的差异表明,尚未解决的实施难题继续限制着患者接受决策辅助工具的程度,并可能阻碍其整体效果。未来实施决策辅助工具的工作应探索如何将其更好地融入临床工作流程和标准操作程序,并辅以优先考虑共同决策的组织激励机制:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03985449;注册时间:2019年6月6日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The UPFRONT project: tailored implementation and evaluation of a patient decision aid to support shared decision-making about management of symptomatic uterine fibroids.

Objective: To evaluate implementation of a patient decision aid for symptomatic uterine fibroid management to improve shared decision-making at five clinical settings across the United States.

Methods: We used a type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge design and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) planning and evaluation framework. We conducted clinician training, monthly reach tracking with feedback to site clinical leads, patient and clinician surveys, and visit audio-recordings. Implementation strategies included assessment of organizational readiness for shared decision-making, synchronous clinician training, audit and feedback of decision aid reach, and access to multiple decision aid formats. Outcomes and analyses included patient-level reach, clinician-level adoption, and associations of patient-reported decision aid exposure (as treated) and setting-level implementation (intention-to-treat) with patient-reported (collaboRATE measure) and observed (OPTION-5 measure) shared decision-making. We also designed and assessed setting-level plans for sustainability and other factors impacting sustained decision aid use.

Results: The decision aid was adopted by 72 of the 74 eligible gynecologists (97%) and reached 2553 patients across five settings. CollaboRATE scores improved among patients who reported receiving the decision aid (as-treated analysis, 69% vs. 59%; OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.16-2.27). CollaboRATE scores remained consistent before and after setting-level decision aid implementation (intention-to-treat analysis, 64% vs. 63%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.22). Participants would prefer to receive a decision aid at multiple time points (91.9% before the visit, 90.7% during the visit, 86.5% after the visit). Shared decision-making experiences did not improve when comparing pre vs. post-implementation collaboRATE scores across included settings (intention-to-treat, 64% vs. 63%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.22).

Conclusion: When patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids are given decision aids, they report higher shared decision-making scores. However, the differences we observed between the as-treated and intention-to-treat results suggest that unaddressed implementation challenges continue to limit the extent to which patients receive decision aids and likely hinder their overall impact. Future efforts to implement decision aids should explore enhancing their integration into clinical workflows and standard operating procedures, supported by organizational incentives that prioritize shared decision-making.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03985449; registered 6 June 2019.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Implementation Science
Implementation Science 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
14.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
78
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Implementation Science is a leading journal committed to disseminating evidence on methods for integrating research findings into routine healthcare practice and policy. It offers a multidisciplinary platform for studying implementation strategies, encompassing their development, outcomes, economics, processes, and associated factors. The journal prioritizes rigorous studies and innovative, theory-based approaches, covering implementation science across various healthcare services and settings.
期刊最新文献
Outcomes of the ROSE Sustainment (ROSES) Study, a sequential multiple assignment randomized implementation trial to determine the minimum necessary intervention to sustain a postpartum depression prevention program in agencies serving low-income pregnant people. Training and education provided to local change champions within implementation trials: a rapid systematic review. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of ECHO and coaching implementation strategies in a jail/provider MOUD implementation trial. Looking under the hood of a hybrid two-way texting intervention to improve early retention on antiretroviral therapy in Malawi: an implementation fidelity evaluation. Improving the adoption of a school-based nutrition program: findings from a collaborative network of randomised trials.
×
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:481959085
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