Department of Population Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS, USA.
The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Implement Sci. 2024 Nov 5;19(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s13012-024-01404-5.
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.
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.
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).
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.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03985449; registered 6 June 2019.
评估在美国五个临床地点实施用于管理有症状子宫肌瘤的患者决策辅助工具,以改善共享决策。
我们采用了 3 型混合有效性实施阶梯式设计和 Reach、Effectiveness、Adoption、Implementation、Maintenance(RE-AIM)规划和评估框架。我们对临床医生进行了培训,每月进行一次触及情况的跟踪并向现场临床负责人提供反馈,对患者和临床医生进行了调查,并对就诊录音进行了记录。实施策略包括评估对共享决策的组织准备情况、同步临床医生培训、对决策辅助工具触及情况的审核和反馈,以及提供多种决策辅助工具格式。结果和分析包括患者层面的触及情况、临床医生层面的采用情况,以及患者报告的决策辅助工具暴露情况(按治疗分配)与患者报告的(collaboRATE 措施)和观察到的(OPTION-5 措施)共享决策之间的关联。我们还设计并评估了影响持续使用决策辅助工具的可持续性和其他因素的设置层面计划。
该决策辅助工具被五个地点的 74 名符合条件的妇科医生中的 72 名(97%)采用,共覆盖了 2553 名患者。报告接受决策辅助工具的患者的 collaboRATE 评分有所提高(按治疗分配分析,69%对 59%;OR 1.6,95%CI 1.16-2.27)。在设置层面实施决策辅助工具前后,collaboRATE 评分保持一致(意向治疗分析,64%对 63%;OR 0.86,95%CI 0.61-1.22)。参与者更愿意在多个时间点收到决策辅助工具(就诊前 91.9%,就诊时 90.7%,就诊后 86.5%)。在比较纳入的设置中,实施前后 collaboRATE 评分(意向治疗,64%对 63%;OR 0.86,95%CI 0.61-1.22),共享决策体验并没有改善。
当有症状的子宫肌瘤患者获得决策辅助工具时,他们报告的共享决策评分更高。然而,我们在按治疗分配和意向治疗结果之间观察到的差异表明,未解决的实施挑战继续限制了患者获得决策辅助工具的程度,并可能阻碍其整体影响。未来实施决策辅助工具的努力应探索增强其融入临床工作流程和标准操作程序,同时通过支持将共享决策作为优先事项的组织激励措施。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03985449;注册于 2019 年 6 月 6 日。