Integrating shared decision-making into primary care: lessons learned from a multi-centre feasibility randomized controlled trial

Catherine H Yu, Farid Medleg, Dorothy Choi, Catherine M Spagnuolo, Lakmini Pinnaduwage, Sharon E Straus, Paul Cantarutti, Karen Chu, Paul Frydrych, Amy Hoang-Kim, Noah Ivers, David Kaplan, Fok-Han Leung, John Maxted, Jeremy Rezmovitz, Joanna Sale, Sumeet Sodhi, Dawn Stacey, Deanna Telner, Catherine H Yu, Farid Medleg, Dorothy Choi, Catherine M Spagnuolo, Lakmini Pinnaduwage, Sharon E Straus, Paul Cantarutti, Karen Chu, Paul Frydrych, Amy Hoang-Kim, Noah Ivers, David Kaplan, Fok-Han Leung, John Maxted, Jeremy Rezmovitz, Joanna Sale, Sumeet Sodhi, Dawn Stacey, Deanna Telner

Abstract

Background: MyDiabetesPlan is a web-based, interactive patient decision aid that facilitates patient-centred, diabetes-specific, goal-setting and shared decision-making (SDM) with interprofessional health care teams.

Objective: Assess the feasibility of (1) conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) and (2) integrating MyDiabetesPlan into interprofessional primary care clinics.

Methods: We conducted a cluster RCT in 10 interprofessional primary care clinics with patients living with diabetes and at least two other comorbidities; half of the clinics were assigned to MyDiabetesPlan and half were assigned to usual care. To assess recruitment, retention, and resource use, we used RCT conduct logs and financial account summaries. To assess intervention fidelity, we used RCT conduct logs and website usage logs. To identify barriers and facilitators to integration of MyDiabetesPlan into clinical care across the IP team, we used audiotapes of clinical encounters in the intervention groups.

Results: One thousand five hundred and ninety-seven potentially eligible patients were identified through searches of electronic medical records, of which 1113 patients met the eligibility criteria upon detailed chart review. A total of 425 patients were randomly selected; of these, 213 were able to participate and were allocated (intervention: n = 102; control: n = 111), for a recruitment rate of 50.1%. One hundred and fifty-one patients completed the study, for a retention rate of 70.9%. A total of 5745 personnel-hours and $6104 CAD were attributed to recruitment and retention activities. A total of 179 appointments occurred (out of 204 expected appointments-two per participant over the 12-month study period; 87.7%). Forty (36%), 25 (23%), and 32 (29%) patients completed MyDiabetesPlan at least twice, once, and zero times, respectively. Mean time for completion of MyDiabetesPlan by the clinician and the patient during initial appointments was 37 min. From the clinical encounter transcripts, we identified diverse strategies used by clinicians and patients to integrate MyDiabetesPlan into the appointment, characterized by rapport building and individualization. Barriers to use included clinician-related, patient-related, and technical factors.

Conclusion: An interprofessional approach to SDM using a decision aid was feasible. Lower than expected numbers of diabetes-specific appointments and use of MyDiabetesPlan were observed. Addressing facilitators and barriers identified in this study will promote more seamless integration into clinical care. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: February 11, 2015. Protocol version: Version 1; February 26, 2015.

Keywords: Cluster randomized controlled trial; Diabetes mellitus; Interprofessional care; Medical informatics; Patient decision aid; Patient education; Priority setting; Qualitative methods; Shared decision-making.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT flow diagram. Abbreviations: DM, diabetes mellitus; FHT, family health team

References

    1. Yu CH, Stacey D, Sale J, Hall S, Kaplan DM, Ivers N, et al. Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care–systematic decision aid development and study protocol. Implement Sci. 2014;9:16.
    1. Coyne I, O'Mathúna DP, Gibson F, Shields L, Leclercq E, Sheaf G. Interventions for promoting participation in shared decision-making for children with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD008970.
    1. Duncan E, Best C, Hagen S. Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1:CD007297.
    1. Montori VM, Gafni A, Charles C. A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes. Health Expect. 2006;9(1):25–36.
    1. Serrano V, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Hargraves I, Gionfriddo MR, Tamhane S, Montori VM. Shared decision-making in the care of individuals with diabetes. Diabet Med. 2016;33(6):742–751.
    1. Legare F, Ratte S, Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Gravel K, Graham ID, et al. Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;5:Cd006732.
    1. Stacey D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(4):Art. No.: CD001431.
    1. Mullan RJ, Montori VM, Shah ND, Christianson TJ, Bryant SC, Guyatt GH, et al. The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid: a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(17):1560–1568.
    1. Peek ME, Wilson SC, Gorawara-Bhat R, Odoms-Young A, Quinn MT, Chin MH. Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making among African-Americans with diabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(10):1135–1139.
    1. Yu C, Choi D, Bruno BA, Thorpe KE, Straus SE, Cantarutti P, et al. Impact of MyDiabetesPlan, a web-based patient decision aid on decisional conflict, diabetes distress, quality of life, and chronic illness care in patients with diabetes: cluster randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e16984.
    1. D'Amour D, Oandasan I. Interprofessionality as the field of interprofessional practice and interprofessional education: an emerging concept. J Interprof Care. 2005;19(Suppl 1):8–20.
    1. Tamhane S, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Hargraves I, Montori VM. Shared decision-making in diabetes care. Curr Diab Rep. 2015;15(12):112.
    1. van Dam HA, van der Horst F, van den Borne B. Provider-patient interaction in diabetes care: effects on patient self-care and outcomes: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;51(1):17–28.
    1. Shojania KG, Ranjii SR, McDonald KM. Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: a meta-regression analysis. JAMA. 2006;296(4):427–440.
    1. Tricco AC, Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, Moher D, Turner L, Galipeau J, et al. Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2012;379(9833):2252–2261.
    1. MacGregor K, Handley M, Wong S, Sharifi C, Gjeltema K, Schillinger D, et al. Behavior-change action plans in primary care: a feasibility study of clinicians. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006;19(3):215–223.
    1. Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:Cd001431.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.
    1. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. 2012.
    1. Yu CH, Ivers NM, Stacey D, Rezmovitz J, Telner D, Thorpe K, et al. Impact of an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes on decisional conflict–study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:286.
    1. Yu CH, Ke C, Jovicic A, Hall S, Straus SE. Beyond pros and cons - developing a patient decision aid to cultivate dialog to build relationships: insights from a qualitative study and decision aid development. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19(1):186.
    1. McLeod L, Buckley G, Sweetman A. Ontario primary care models: a descriptive study. CMAJ Open. 2016;4(4):e679–e688.
    1. Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.
    1. Légaré F, Stacey D, Brière N, Desroches S, Dumont S, Fraser K, et al. A conceptual framework for interprofessional shared decision making in home care: protocol for a feasibility study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:23.
    1. O’Connor AM. User manual—decisional conflict scale. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 1993.
    1. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Earles J, Dudl RJ, Lees J, Mullan J, Jackson RA. Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: development of the Diabetes Distress Scale. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(3):626–631. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.3.626.
    1. Ware JE. SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: a user's manual. Boston: TH Institute; 1994.
    1. Glasgow RE, Whitesides H, Nelson CC, King DK. Use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) with diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(11):2655–2661. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.11.2655.
    1. Francis J, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM, Foy R, Kaner EFS, Smith L, Bonetti D. Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behavior—a manual for health services researchers. In United Kingdom: Centre for Health Services Research. United Kingdom: Centre for Health Services Research; 2004.
    1. Kvale S. InterViews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1996.
    1. Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358(9280):483–488.
    1. Sandelowski M. Theory unmasked: the uses and guises of theory in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1993;16(3):213–218.
    1. Patton M. Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 1980.
    1. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1189–1208.
    1. Raftery J, Young A, Stanton L, Milne R, Cook A, Turner D, Davidson P. Theme 6: the cost of randomised trials, trends and determinants. In: Clinical trial metadata: defining and extracting metadata on the design, conduct, results and costs of 125 randomised clinical trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Southampton, UK. NIHR Journals Library; 2015.
    1. Murray E, Sweeting M, Dack C, Pal K, Modrow K, Hudda M, et al. Web-based self-management support for people with type 2 diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes): randomised controlled trial in English primary care. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e016009.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences—ScienceDirect. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. Lattie EG, Kaiser SM, Alam N, Tomasino KN, Sargent E, Rubanovich CK, et al. A practical do-it-yourself recruitment framework for concurrent eHealth clinical trials: identification of efficient and cost-effective methods for decision making (part 2) J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(11):e11050.
    1. Bhatt DL, Mehta C. Adaptive designs for clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(1):65–74.
    1. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, Connor JT, Tunis S, Whicher D, et al. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(3):206–209.
    1. Green ME, Harris SB, Webster-Bogaert S, Han H, Kotecha J, Kopp A, et al. Impact of a provincial quality-improvement program on primary health care in Ontario: a population-based controlled before-and-after study. CMAJ Open. 2017;5(2):E281–E289.
    1. George A, Rubin G. Non-attendance in general practice: a systematic review and its implications for access to primary health care. Fam Pract. 2003;20(2):178–184.
    1. Patil SJ, Ruppar T, Koopman RJ, Lindbloom EJ, Elliott SG, Mehr DR, et al. Peer support interventions for adults with diabetes: a meta-analysis of hemoglobin A1c outcomes. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14(6):540–551.
    1. Verhoeven F, Tanja-Dijkstra K, Nijland N, Eysenbach G, van Gemert-Pijnen L. Asynchronous and synchronous teleconsultation for diabetes care: a systematic literature review. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(3):666–684.
    1. Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Edwards A, Stobbart L, Tomson D, Macphail S, et al. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS: lessons from the MAGIC programme. BMJ. 2017;357:j1744.
    1. Manna R, Banerjee SC, Johnson Shen M, Korc-Grodzicki B, Alici Y, Gangai N, et al. Geriatric communication skills training: Shared decision making and care planning for the older cancer patient and the caregiver. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:80.
    1. Gong J, Zhang Y, Feng J, Huang Y, Wei Y, Zhang W. Influence of framing on medical decision making. EXCLI J. 2013;12:20–29.
    1. Nelson L, Hale T, Lyles CR, Altschuler A, Chawla N, Kowalski C, et al. User-centered design of a tablet waiting room tool for complex patients to prioritize discussion topics for primary care visits. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016;4(3):e6187.
    1. Kivela K, Elo S, Kyngas H, Kaariainen M. The effects of health coaching on adult patients with chronic diseases: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;97(2):147–157.
    1. Vaportzis E, Giatsi Clausen M, Gow AJ. Older adults perceptions of technology and barriers to interacting with tablet computers: a focus group study. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1687.
    1. Weiss CO, Varadhan R, Puhan MA, Vickers A, Bandeen-Roche K, Boyd CM, et al. Multimorbidity and evidence generation. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(4):653–660.
    1. Walters SJ, et al. Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e015276.
    1. Fatehi F, Menon A, Bird D. Diabetes care in the digital era: a synoptic overview. Curr Diab Rep. 2018;18(7):38.
    1. Misra-Hebert AD, Hu B, Pantalone KM, Pfoh ER. Primary care health care use for patients with type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Diabetes Care. 2021; dc210853.
    1. Bryman A. Quantity and quality in social research. London: Routledge; 1988.
    1. Kuzel A. Sampling in qualitative research. In: Crabtree B, Miller W, editors. Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1999. pp. 33–45.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe