文章基本信息

标题：Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: results of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial
本地全文：下载
作者：Isabelle Scholl ; Pola Hahlweg ; Anja Lindig 等
期刊名称：Implementation Science
印刷版ISSN：1748-5908
电子版ISSN：1748-5908
出版年度：2021
卷号：16
DOI：10.1186/s13012-021-01174-4
语种：English
出版社：BioMed Central
摘要：Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is preferred by many patients in cancer care. However, despite scientific evidence and promotion by health policy makers, SDM implementation in routine health care lags behind. This study aimed to evaluate an empirically and theoretically grounded implementation program for SDM in cancer care. Methods In a stepped wedge design, three departments of a comprehensive cancer center sequentially received the implementation program in a randomized order. It included six components: training for health care professionals (HCPs), individual coaching for physicians, patient activation intervention, patient information material/decision aids, revision of quality management documents, and reflection on multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Outcome evaluation comprised four measurement waves. The primary endpoint was patient-reported SDM uptake using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Several secondary implementation outcomes were assessed. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted to evaluate reach and fidelity. Data were analyzed using mixed linear models, qualitative content analysis, and descriptive statistics. Results A total of 2,128 patient questionnaires, 559 questionnaires from 408 HCPs, 132 audio recordings of clinical encounters, and 842 case discussions from 66 MDTMs were evaluated. There was no statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint SDM uptake. Patients in the intervention condition were more likely to experience shared or patient-lead decision-making than in the control condition ( d=0.24). HCPs in the intervention condition reported more knowledge about SDM than in the control condition ( d = 0.50). In MDTMs the quality of psycho-social information was lower in the intervention than in the control condition ( d = − 0.48). Further secondary outcomes did not differ statistically significantly between conditions. All components were implemented in all departments, but reach was limited (e.g., training of 44% of eligible HCPs) and several adaptations occurred (e.g., reduced dose of coaching). Conclusions The process evaluation provides possible explanations for the lack of statistically significant effects in the primary and most of the secondary outcomes. Low reach and adaptations, particularly in dose, may explain the results. Other or more intensive approaches are needed for successful department-wide implementation of SDM in routine cancer care. Further research is needed to understand factors influencing implementation of SDM in cancer care. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351, registered 8 January 2018. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01174-4.
关键词：Shared decision-making; Implementation science; Cancer; Health services research; Stepped wedge design; Cluster randomized controlled trial; Outcome evaluation; Process evaluation