Can consumers learn to ask three questions to improve shared decision making? A feasibility study of the ASK (AskShareKnow) Patient-Clinician Communication Model(®) intervention in a primary health-care setting

Heather L Shepherd, Alexandra Barratt, Anna Jones, Deborah Bateson, Karen Carey, Lyndal J Trevena, Kevin McGeechan, Chris B Del Mar, Phyllis N Butow, Ronald M Epstein, Vikki Entwistle, Edith Weisberg, Heather L Shepherd, Alexandra Barratt, Anna Jones, Deborah Bateson, Karen Carey, Lyndal J Trevena, Kevin McGeechan, Chris B Del Mar, Phyllis N Butow, Ronald M Epstein, Vikki Entwistle, Edith Weisberg

Abstract

Objective: To test the feasibility and assess the uptake and acceptability of implementing a consumer questions programme, AskShareKnow, to encourage consumers to use the questions '1. What are my options; 2. What are the possible benefits and harms of those options; 3. How likely are each of those benefits and harms to happen to me?' These three questions have previously shown important effects in improving the quality of information provided during consultations and in facilitating patient involvement.

Methods: This single-arm intervention study invited participants attending a reproductive and sexual health-care clinic to view a 4-min video-clip in the waiting room. Participants completed three questionnaires: (T1) prior to viewing the intervention; (T2) immediately after their consultation; and (T3) two weeks later.

Results: A total of 121 (78%) participants viewed the video-clip before their consultation. Eighty-four (69%) participants asked one or more questions, and 35 (29%) participants asked all three questions. For those making a decision, 55 (87%) participants asked one or more questions, while 27 (43%) participants asked all three questions. Eighty-seven (72%) participants recommended the questions. After two weeks, 47 (49%) of the participants recalled the questions.

Conclusions: Enabling patients to view a short video-clip before an appointment to improve information and involvement in health-care consultations is feasible and led to a high uptake of question asking in consultations.

Practice implications: This AskShareKnow programme is a simple and feasible method of training patients to use a brief consumer-targeted intervention that has previously shown important effects in improving the quality of information provided during consultations and in facilitating patient involvement and use of evidence-based questions.

Keywords: communication; consumer; patient empowerment; patient involvement; shared decision making.

©2015 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Recruitment flow.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of times each question asked.

References

    1. Barry MJ, Edgman‐Levitan S. Shared decision making — the pinnacle of patient‐centered care. New England Journal of Medicine, 2012; 366: 780–781.
    1. Irwig L, Irwig J, Trevena L, Sweet M. Smart Health Choices, Rev. and Updated Ed edition ed. London: Hammersmith Press, 2008: 256.
    1. Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I. Testing Treatments: Better Research for Better Healthcare, 1st reprint edition ed. London: Pinter & Martin; 2010: 128.
    1. Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract, 2006; 12: 13–23.
    1. Shepherd HL, Barratt A, Trevena LJ et al Three questions that patients can ask to improve the quality of information physicians give about treatment options: a cross‐over trial. Patient Education and Counseling, 2011; 84: 379–385.
    1. Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B et al How we design feasibility studies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2009; 36: 452–457.
    1. LaCoursiere SP. A theory of online social support. Advances in Nursing Science, 2001; 24: 60–77.
    1. James G. Winning in The Women's Health Care Marketplace: A Comprehensive Plan for Health Care Strategists. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1997.
    1. Nussbaum R. Studies of women's health care: selected results. Perm J, 2000; 4: 62–67.
    1. Pandey SK, Hart JJ, Tiwary S. Women's health and the internet: understanding emerging trends and implications. Social Science and Medicine, 2003; 56: 179–191.
    1. Carpenter C, ed. Empowering consumers to be better health care decision‐makers. Intel Internet Health Conference; 1998 October 27; San Francisco, CA.
    1. Fox S, Rainie L. The Online Health Care Revolution: How the Web Helps Americans Take Better Care of Themselves. Washington, DC: The Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2000.
    1. Degner LF, Sloan JA. Decision making during serious illness: what role do patients really want to play? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1992; 45: 941–950.
    1. Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton‐Smith K, March V. Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1980; 92: 832–836.
    1. Kinnersley P, Edwards A, Hood K et al Interventions before consultations to help patients address their information needs by encouraging question asking: systematic review. British Medical Journal, 2008; 337: a485.
    1. Belkora J, Miller M, Crawford B et al Evaluation of question‐listing at the Cancer Support Community. Transl Behav Med, 2013; 3: 162–171.
    1. Dimoska A, Butow PN, Lynch J et al Implementing patient question‐prompt lists into routine cancer care. Patient Education and Counseling, 2012; 86: 252–258.
    1. Lloyd A, Joseph‐Williams N, Edwards A, Rix A, Elwyn G. Patchy ‘coherence’: using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi‐faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC). Implementation Science, 2013; 8: 1–9. English.
    1. King E, Taylor J, Williams R, Vanson T. The MAGIC Programme: Evaluation. London: Office for Public Management, 2013.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj