Right For Me: protocol for a cluster randomised trial of two interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods

Rachel Thompson, Ruth Manski, Kyla Z Donnelly, Gabrielle Stevens, Daniela Agusti, Michelle Banach, Maureen B Boardman, Pearl Brady, Christina Colón Bradt, Tina Foster, Deborah J Johnson, Zhongze Li, Judy Norsigian, Melissa Nothnagle, Ardis L Olson, Heather L Shepherd, Lisa F Stern, Tor D Tosteson, Lyndal Trevena, Krishna K Upadhya, Glyn Elwyn, Rachel Thompson, Ruth Manski, Kyla Z Donnelly, Gabrielle Stevens, Daniela Agusti, Michelle Banach, Maureen B Boardman, Pearl Brady, Christina Colón Bradt, Tina Foster, Deborah J Johnson, Zhongze Li, Judy Norsigian, Melissa Nothnagle, Ardis L Olson, Heather L Shepherd, Lisa F Stern, Tor D Tosteson, Lyndal Trevena, Krishna K Upadhya, Glyn Elwyn

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the observed and theoretical advantages of shared decision-making in a range of clinical contexts, including contraceptive care, there remains a paucity of evidence on how to facilitate its adoption. This paper describes the protocol for a study to assess the comparative effectiveness of patient-targeted and provider-targeted interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods.

Methods and analysis: We will conduct a 2×2 factorial cluster randomised controlled trial with four arms: (1) video+prompt card, (2) decision aids+training, (3) video+prompt card and decision aids+training and (4) usual care. The clusters will be clinics in USA that deliver contraceptive care. The participants will be people who have completed a healthcare visit at a participating clinic, were assigned female sex at birth, are aged 15-49 years, are able to read and write English or Spanish and have not previously participated in the study. The primary outcome will be shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. Secondary outcomes will be the occurrence of a conversation about contraception in the healthcare visit, satisfaction with the conversation about contraception, intended contraceptive method(s), intention to use a highly effective method, values concordance of the intended method(s), decision regret, contraceptive method(s) used, use of a highly effective method, use of the intended method(s), adherence, satisfaction with the method(s) used, unintended pregnancy and unwelcome pregnancy. We will collect study data via longitudinal patient surveys administered immediately after the healthcare visit, four weeks later and six months later.

Ethics and dissemination: We will disseminate results via presentations at scientific and professional conferences, papers published in peer-reviewed, open-access journals and scientific and lay reports. We will also make an anonymised copy of the final participant-level dataset available to others for research purposes.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02759939.

Keywords: contraception; gynaecology; primary care; public health; shared decision-making.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: RT reports a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) during the conduct of the study and non-financial support from PCORI outside the submitted work. RT also reports ownership of copyright in several patient decision aids and a role as an editor of the text, ‘Shared Decision Making in Health Care’ but has not received any personal income connected to this ownership or role. RM, KZD, GS, DA, TF, DJJ, ZL, ALO, and TDT report a grant from PCORI during the conduct of the study. MB and KKU report personal fees from Dartmouth College during the conduct of the study. MBB reports a grant from PCORI and other payments from Dartmouth College during the conduct of the study. PB reports personal fees and non-financial support from Dartmouth College during the conduct of the study and non-financial support from Dartmouth College outside the submitted work. CCB reports personal fees and non-financial support from Dartmouth College during the conduct of the study. JN reports personal fees from Dartmouth College during the conduct of the study and non-financial support from PCORI outside the submitted work. MN reports personal fees and other payments from Dartmouth College during the conduct of the study. MN also reports a role as a healthcare provider and clinic representative in a clinic participating in the study. HLS reports a role as a developer of the AskShareKnow programme intervention components and related survey items that were adapted for use in the study but has not received any personal income connected to this role. LFS reports personal fees from Dartmouth College during the conduct of the study; grants from Bayer Health Care Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals and Gilead Pharmaceuticals Inc. outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hologic Inc. outside the submitted work. LT reports other payments from Dartmouth College during the conduct of the study. GE reports a grant from PCORI during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Emmi Solutions LLC, Washington State Health Department, Oxford University Press, the National Quality Forum, SciMentum LLC, EBSCO Health, & think LLC and ACCESS Federally Qualified Health Centers outside the submitted work. GE also reports ownership of copyright in the CollaboRATE measure of shared decision-making, the Observer OPTION measure of shared decision-making and several patient decision aids.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Data collection schematic
Figure 2
Figure 2
Survey invitation and reminder schedule.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Estimated sample sizes per trial arm. *Estimates of the total number of patients eligible for the study will be provided by clinics based on routinely collected data. ^Sample for primary outcome analyses.

References

    1. Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2006;60:301–12. 10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010
    1. Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A. What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ 1999;319:780–2. 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.780
    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997;44:681–92. 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3
    1. Elwyn G, Tilburt J, Montori V. The ethical imperative for shared decision-making. Eur J Pers Cent Healthc 2013;1:129–31. 10.5750/ejpch.v1i1.645
    1. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012;366:780–1. 10.1056/NEJMp1109283
    1. Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making 2015;35:114–31. 10.1177/0272989X14551638
    1. World Health Organization. Ensuring human rights in the provision of contraceptive information and services: Guidance and recommendations. Geneva, Switzerland: 2014.
    1. Gavin L, Moskosky S. Providing quality family planning services: Recommendations of CDC and the U. S. Office of Population Affairs. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014;63:1–60.
    1. Dehlendorf C, Rodriguez MI, Levy K, et al. . Disparities in family planning. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;202:214–20. 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.08.022
    1. Légaré F, Stacey D, Turcotte S, et al. . Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;9:CD006732.
    1. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, et al. . Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2012;345:e5661 10.1136/bmj.e5661
    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 Educ Couns 2011;84:379–85. 10.1016/j.pec.2011.07.022
    1. Shepherd HL, Barratt A, Jones A, et al. . 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. Health Expect 2016;19:1160–8. 10.1111/hex.12409
    1. Elwyn G, Pickles T, Edwards A, et al. . Supporting shared decision making using an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee in an interface musculoskeletal clinic: A stepped wedge trial. Patient Educ Couns 2016;99:571–7. 10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.011
    1. Politi MC, Adsul P, Kuzemchak MD, et al. . Clinicians’ perceptions of digital vs. paper-based decision support interventions. J Eval Clin Pract 2015;21:175–9. 10.1111/jep.12269
    1. Donnelly KZ, Foster TC, Thompson R. What matters most? The content and concordance of patients' and providers' information priorities for contraceptive decision making. Contraception 2014;90:280–7. 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.04.012
    1. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, et al. . Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:26–33. 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155
    1. Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci 2012;7:37 10.1186/1748-5908-7-37
    1. Qualtrics. Qualtrics [Internet]. Provo, Utah, USA: 2015.
    1. Stuart GS, Grimes DA. Social desirability bias in family planning studies: a neglected problem. Contraception 2009;80:108–12. 10.1016/j.contraception.2009.02.009
    1. Dehlendorf C, Bellanca H, Policar M. Performance measures for contraceptive care: what are we actually trying to measure? Contraception 2015;91:433–7. 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.02.002
    1. Barr PJ, Thompson R, Walsh T, et al. . The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Internet Res 2014;16:e2 10.2196/jmir.3085
    1. Elwyn G, Barr PJ, Grande SW, et al. . Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2013;93:102–7. 10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.009
    1. Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, et al. . The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns 2010;80:94–9. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034
    1. Lerman CE, Brody DS, Caputo GC, et al. . Patients' Perceived Involvement in Care Scale: relationship to attitudes about illness and medical care. J Gen Intern Med 1990;5:29–33.
    1. Weisman CS, Maccannon DS, Henderson JT, et al. . Contraceptive counseling in managed care: preventing unintended pregnancy in adults. Womens Health Issues 2002;12:79–95. 10.1016/S1049-3867(01)00147-5
    1. Trussell J, Efficacy C. et al. : Hatcher R, Hatcher R, Trussell J, Contraceptive Technology. 20th ed New York: Ardent Media, 2011.
    1. Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ, et al. . Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making 2003;23:281–92. 10.1177/0272989X03256005
    1. O’Connor A. User manual: Decision Regret Scale [Internet]. Ottawa, 1996.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) phase 7 questionnaire: topic reference. Atlanta, GA: 2012.
    1. Kavanaugh ML, Schwarz EB. Prospective assessment of pregnancy intentions using a single- versus a multi-item measure. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2009;41:238–43. 10.1363/4123809
    1. Cahill S, Singal R, Grasso C, et al. . Do ask, do tell: high levels of acceptability by patients of routine collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data in four diverse American community health centers. PLoS One 2014;9:e107104 10.1371/journal.pone.0107104
    1. Census Bureau US. The American Community Survey 2015. Washington, DC: 2015.
    1. Jones RK, Finer LB, Singh S. Characteristics of U S. Abortion Patients, 2008. New York: 2010.
    1. Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, et al. . Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:561–6. 10.1007/s11606-008-0520-5
    1. Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med 2004;36:588–94.
    1. Wallace LS, Rogers ES, Roskos SE, et al. . Brief report: screening items to identify patients with limited health literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:874–7. 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00532.x
    1. Dageforde LA, Cavanaugh KL, Moore DE, et al. . Validation of the Written Administration of the Short Literacy Survey. J Health Commun 2015;20:835–42. 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018572
    1. Sarkar U, Schillinger D, López A, et al. . Validation of self-reported health literacy questions among diverse English and Spanish-speaking populations. J Gen Intern Med 2011;26:265–71. 10.1007/s11606-010-1552-1
    1. Porter SR. Raising response rates: What works? New dir inst res 2004;2004:5–21. 10.1002/ir.97
    1. Brueton VC, Tierney JF, Stenning S, et al. . Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2014;4:e003821 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003821
    1. Barr PJ, Forcino RC, Thompson R, et al. . Evaluating CollaboRATE in a clinical setting: analysis of mode effects on scores, response rates and costs of data collection. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014681 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014681
    1. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Hood K, et al. . Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Fam Pract 2004;21:347–54. 10.1093/fampra/cmh402
    1. Hintze J. PASS 2008. NCSS, LLC [Internet]. Kaysville, UT, 2008.
    1. Donner A, Klar N. Design and analysis of cluster randomization trial in health research. London: Arnold, 2000.
    1. Hrynaszkiewicz I, Norton ML, Vickers AJ, et al. . Preparing raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers. BMJ 2010;340:c181 10.1136/bmj.c181
    1. Donner A, Klar N. Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials. Am J Public Health 2004;94:416–22. 10.2105/AJPH.94.3.416
    1. Eldridge SM, Ashby D, Feder GS. Informed patient consent to participation in cluster randomized trials: an empirical exploration of trials in primary care. Clin Trials 2005;2:91–8. 10.1191/1740774505cn070oa
    1. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for clinical trial sponsors: establishment and operation of clinical trial data monitoring committees. Rockville, MD, 2006.
    1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals [Internet], 2015

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj