Abstract
Objective
The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Working Group is to determine the core set of outcome Domains and subDomains for measuring the effectiveness of shared decision making (SDM) interventions in rheumatology clinical trials.
Methods
Following the OMERACT Filter 2.0, and based on a previous literature review of SDM outcome domains and a nominal group process at OMERACT 2014, a) an online Delphi survey was conducted to gather feedback on the draft core set and refine its Domains and subDomains; and b) a workshop was held at the OMERACT 2016 meeting to gain consensus on the draft core set.
Results
A total of 170 participants completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, and 116 completed Round 2. Respondents came from 29 countries with 49% being patients/caregivers. Results showed that 14 out of 17 subDomains within the seven Domains exceeded the 70% criterion (endorsement ranged from 83% to 100% of respondents). At OMERACT 2016, only 8% of the 96 attendees were patients/caregivers. Despite initial votes of support in breakout groups, there was insufficient comfort about the conceptualization of these seven Domains and 17 SubDomains, for these to be endorsed at OMERACT 2016 (endorsement ranged from 17% to 68% of participants).
Conclusion
Differences between the Delphi survey and consensus meeting may be explained by the manner in which the outcomes were presented, variations in participant characteristics and the context of voting. Further efforts are needed to address the limited understanding of SDM and its outcomes among OMERACT stakeholders.
Key indexing terms: OMERACT, Rheumatology, Shared decision making
Introduction
Clinical practice guidelines endorse shared decision making (SDM) for the management of osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) (1–4). The SDM process allows patients and healthcare professionals to jointly make a decision based on the best available evidence for treatment options while respecting each patient’s values and preferences (5). The use of SDM interventions, such as patient decision aids, has been shown to reduce decisional conflict (i.e., patients feeling unsure about their best choice), increase knowledge of treatment options, clarify patients’ values, facilitate patient participation in decision making, and reduce overuse of interventions that are not beneficial for the majority (6). Decision coaching and question prompts are other interventions to facilitate SDM (7,8).
In rheumatology, the lack of consensus on how to measure the effectiveness of SDM process and outcomes, as well as the lack of patient involvement in devising such a consensus, creates a barrier to further evaluation of SDM interventions. Systematic reviews of SDM interventions show that a wide range of outcome Domains were assessed in trials (6,7). The most common outcome Domains concern the quality of the decision making process, such as decisional conflict and patient participation in decision making, as well as the quality of the choice made, such as patients’ knowledge and informed value-based choice (i.e., match between features that matter most to the informed patient and the chosen option) (6,7).
The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) (9) has identified a set of eight outcome Domains for evaluating the effectiveness of patient decision aids: (1) recognize the decision to be made; (2) know the options; (3) their features; (4) understand that values affect the decision; (5) clarify values; (6) discuss values with health providers; (7) participate in decision making in preferred ways; and (8) make an informed value-based choice. However, there is a need to gain consensus on the outcome Domains from all key stakeholders’ perspectives in rheumatology, especially patients, in order to assess the impact of SDM interventions in an exhaustive and meaningful manner.
The aim of this original research was to determine the core set of outcome Domains and subDomains for measuring the effectiveness of SDM interventions among adults with OA, RA and PsA. Although SDM outcome Domains may apply to various rheumatic conditions, this study focused on the most common debilitating conditions.
Materials and Methods
The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM working group followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 (10). Previous steps taken by this group included: (1) forming an OMERACT working group comprised of patients with rheumatic conditions, health professionals, and researchers; (2) conducting a literature review of Domains of SDM and developing a draft core set; and (3) obtaining the opinions of OMERACT members on the draft core set at a special interest group (SIG) session at the OMERACT 12 (2014) meeting in Budapest, Hungary. These steps and their results are described in more detail in a previous publication (11).
This work led to the development and refinement of a draft core set of seven Domains, with 12 subDomains, to be included in trials evaluating the effectiveness of SDM interventions in OA (Table 1). The current original study focused on the subsequent two phases of the project: (1) an electronic Delphi survey to gather feedback on the draft core set and refine it with input from a wide audience of experts in SDM and rheumatology; and (2) a Workshop held at the OMERACT 2016 consensus meeting to gain consensus on the draft core set among attending rheumatology stakeholders. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute (CHEOREB#16/07X). Anonymous identifiers were used when analysing the data.
Table 1.
Refined draft core set of outcome domains and subdomains*
| Domains | Subdomains |
|---|---|
| 1) Identifying the decision: The decision to be made is pointed out. | Identification of the decision |
| 2) Understanding information: The patients are aware of the available options, benefits, and harms. | Knowledge of features |
| Knowledge of options | |
| 3) Clarifying patients’ values: The patients feel clear about which features of the options matter the most to them | Patients’ understanding that their values influence their decision |
| Clarification of patient values | |
| Discussion of patient values with healthcare providers | |
| 4) Deliberating: The patients weigh the good and bad features of the options. | Patients’ ability to weigh the good and bad features of options |
| 5) Making the decision: A decision is made or postponed. | Patients’ involvement in decision making in preferred ways |
| 6) Putting the decision into practice: The patients adhere to the chosen option. | Adherence to the chosen option |
| 7) Impact of decision: The patients are confident and satisfied with the informed value-based choice and process. | Patient informed value-based choice (e.g., match between features that matter most to the informed patient and the option that is chosen) |
| Patient satisfaction with the decision-making process | |
| Decisional conflict |
This draft core set was created based on the 2014 draft core set, and was refined according to the SDM literature and IPDAS.
Electronic Delphi survey
A two-round electronic Delphi survey (12) created in RedCap and housed by the CHEO Research Institute was conducted to refine subDomains of the core set.
Eligible participants were patients with OA, RA and PsA, caregivers of patients with OA, RA and PsA, clinicians and researchers involved in rheumatology practice or research or in SDM research. Members of the OMERACT network were invited by e-mail to complete the online Delphi questionnaire by the chair of the OMERACT SDM working group (KTA). This invitation e-mail was initially sent and an additional e-mail was sent to OMERACT members a week later. Participants could also send the survey to other individuals who they thought fit the criteria using a snowball method. As a result of this, individuals from various consumer and research organizations participated in our survey (e.g., the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, the Cochrane Consumer Group). Those who completed Round 1 were invited to participate in Round 2. Two weekly reminders were sent to participants who did not respond to round 2. The invitation e-mail was first sent on April 12, 2016 for Round 1 and on April 28, 2016 for Round 2.
The Delphi questionnaire included information about the goals of the research project, the definition and importance of SDM, as well as the effectiveness of SDM interventions and concrete examples of these interventions (i.e., links to two rheumatology decision aids). The previous work conducted by our team was also described to explain how the draft core set was developed. The survey also listed the seven outcome Domains and 12 outcome subDomains of the draft core set (Table 1). The subDomains included those used in published trials of SDM interventions (6,7), included in the IPDAS (9), or suggested at the SIG at the OMERACT 2014 meeting (11). The Delphi survey was written in lay language and then modified using feedback from the OMERACT SDM working group, including a panel of patient research partners (i.e., patients involved in OMERACT). During Round 1, participants were asked to rate the importance of each subDomain on a 9-point Likert scale using the GRADE process and the RAND appropriateness rating system (13,14). Ratings of 7 to 9 indicated critically important subDomains, ratings of 4 to 6 indicated important but non-critical subDomains, and ratings of 1 to 3 indicated subDomains had low importance. Participants could add additional subDomains. All items were carried through to Round 2 together with descriptive statistics on participants’ Round 1 ratings (i.e., number of raters, mean score and percentage of respondents who rated each subDomain as critically important). In Round 2, participants reviewed the scores and rated the original core set, and the additional subDomains identified in Round 1. Criteria for including subDomains in the core set were defined a priori. SubDomains were to be included in the potential core set if at least 70% of participants found them critically important (rankings of 7 to 9) and if less than 15% of participants found them not important (rankings of 1 to 3) (15). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean score of each subDomain for patients/caregivers versus clinicians/researchers, and for respondents who had some versus no experience in SDM. Paired t-tests were conducted to compare the mean score of each subDomain between rounds.
OMERACT consensus meeting
A Workshop with breakout groups was held at the OMERACT 2016 meeting in Whistler, Canada, and followed three steps.
(Step 1) Presentation of background information
Meeting attendees were presented with a description of SDM and an example of a patient decision aid. Commonly assessed Domains and subDomains of SDM derived from the literature and the results of the Delphi survey were provided. To help attendees determine outcome Domains most important to them, two clinical vignettes, one with a high level of SDM behaviours and one with a low level (11), were performed by a clinician and patient research partners (found at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rfystn08dx6c042/AABnUMvPqBn-9dTJlkOF3jCsa?dl=0). Attendees were asked to complete a checklist of the draft core set to indicate whether the outcome Domains of SDM were present in each vignette.
(Step 2) Breakout group discussion
Attendees were then assigned to eight breakout groups to ensure representation of all key stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians). Each one of these groups was led by a facilitator and notes were taken by a reporter. In these groups, participants decided whether each Domain should be in the inner core set (essential to evaluate in all SDM trials), middle core set (relevant but not essential to assess in every SDM trial) or outer core set (should be part of a research agenda for future consideration). These Domains were displayed on a flip chart, and participants were given seven stickers to attribute to the various Domains (one per Domain). They also discussed reasons for including/excluding Domains from the core set.
(Step 3) Plenary voting
Rapporteurs from each breakout group presented a summary of their group’s discussion and vote at a final plenary session. Participants then voted using electronic voting clickers to decide whether each Domain should be in the inner core set, middle core set, outer core set or whether they had insufficient information to vote. Each outcome Domain was included in a category of the core set if at least 70% of participants endorsed it. A final vote was held to decide whether outcomes associated with SDM interventions were within the scope of OMERACT.
Results
Electronic Delphi Survey
Participants’ Characteristics
A total of 170 participants completed Delphi survey Round 1, and 116 completed Round 2 (Table 2). Participants came from 29 countries in North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Asia and Africa. There was an equal representation of clinicians/researchers and patients/caregivers in both rounds (52% versus 48% in Round 1, and 53% versus 47% in Round 2). The majority of patients were diagnosed with RA (73% in Round 1 and 69% in Round 2) followed by OA and PsA. Participants with no SDM experience accounted for 40% in Round 1, those with limited experience (i.e., had used or developed one SDM intervention) accounted for 35%, and those experienced in SDM (i.e., had used or developed two or more SDM interventions) accounted for 25%. Participants’ characteristics’ were similar in Round 2.
Table 2.
Demographic and disease-related characteristics of Delphi Participants
| Round 1 Participants | Round 2 Participants | |
|---|---|---|
| n=170 n (%) |
n=116 n (%) |
|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 31 (18) | 24 (21) |
| Female | 139 (82) | 92 (79) |
| Experience in SDM | ||
| None | 68 (40) | 45 (39) |
| Limited | 60 (35) | 41 (35) |
| Experienced | 42 (25) | 30 (26) |
| Role | ||
| Patient | 81 (48) | 54 (47) |
| Caregiver | 2 (1) | 2 (2) |
| Clinician | 67 (39) | 43 (37) |
| Researcher | 53 (31) | 36 (31) |
| Patient Consumer Groups | 14 (8) | 13 (11) |
| Member of Industry | 3 (2) | 3 (3) |
| Policy Maker | 1 (1) | 1 (1) |
| Diagnosed conditions among patients | ||
| Rheumatoid Arthritis | 59 (73) | 37 (69) |
| Osteoarthritis | 16 (20) | 9 (17) |
| Psoriatic Arthritis | 12 (15) | 9 (17) |
| Geographic location | ||
| Canada | 32 (19) | 23 (20) |
| United States of America | 32 (19) | 16 (14) |
| United Kingdom | 32 (19) | 21 (18) |
| The Netherlands | 12 (7) | 8 (7) |
| Other European Countries | 30 (18) | 26 (22) |
| Australia/New Zealand | 27 (16) | 19 (16) |
| Asia | 3 (2) | 2 (2) |
| Africa | 2 (1) | 1 (1) |
n: number of participants
Ratings of Outcome Domains by Delphi Participants
Delphi results for Round 1 showed that all 12 subDomains, representing all seven Domains, should be included in the potential core set (Table 3). Participants also suggested five new subDomains that were added in Round 2. The most important subDomains were knowledge of options, and values clarification and discussion. Compared to clinicians/researchers, patients/caregivers rated the following subDomains as more important: patients’ understanding that their values influence their decision (p= 0.018), values clarification (p=0.006) and discussion (p= 0.037), patients’ involvement in decision making (p= 0.029), patients’ ability to weigh good and bad features of options (p= 0.021), informed value-based choice (p= 0.035), decisional conflict (p= 0.001), and adherence to the chosen option (p= 0.005). All 12 subDomains reached the 70% threshold for patients/caregivers, while all except decisional conflict reached this threshold for clinicians/researchers.
Table 3.
Voting results for the suggested subdomains from the Delphi survey
| Subdomains | Round 1 Delphi Results (n (%)*) | Round 2 Delphi Results (n (%)*) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients/ Caregivers (n=81**) |
Clinicians/ Researchers (n=89**) |
All stakeholders (n=170**) |
Patients/ Caregivers (n=54**) |
Clinicians/ Researchers (n=62**) |
All stakeholders (n=116**) |
|
| Knowledge of the features of the options2 | 80 (99) | 84 (94) | 164 (96) | 54 (100) | 61 (100) | 115 (100) |
| Knowledge of the options2 | 76 (95) | 83 (93) | 159 (94) | 53 (98) | 61 (98) | 114 (98) |
| Values clarification3 | 73 (95) | 74 (84) | 147 (89) | 53 (100) | 58 (95) | 111 (97) |
| Values discussion3 | 76 (95) | 76 (86) | 152 (91) | 52 (96) | 59 (95) | 111 (96) |
| Patients’ ability to weigh the good and bad features of options4 | 74 (94) | 72 (82) | 146 (87) | 51 (94) | 58 (94) | 109 (94) |
| Informed value-based choice7 | 70 (89) | 70 (81) | 140 (85) | 50 (93) | 57 (92) | 107 (92) |
| Communication between patients and healthcare providers5 | ___ | ___ | ___ | 48 (89) | 57 (93) | 105 (91) |
| Satisfaction about decision-making process7 | 65 (83) | 68 (79) | 133 (81) | 49 (91) | 56 (90) | 105 (91) |
| Identification of the decision1 | 67 (84) | 68 (76) | 135 (80) | 48 (89) | 56 (90) | 104 (90) |
| Accurate expectations2 | ___ | ___ | ___ | 46 (85) | 57 (92) | 103 (89) |
| Patients’ involvement in decision making in preferred ways5 | 68 (87) | 63 (72) | 131 (79) | 51 (94) | 49 (79) | 100 (86) |
| Adherence to chosen option6 | 66 (86) | 63 (72) | 129 (78) | 48 (89) | 50 (81) | 98 (85) |
| Patients’ understanding that their values influence their decision3 | 68 (85) | 65 (74) | 133 (79) | 47 (87) | 50 (81) | 97 (84) |
| Confidence in decision making7 | ___ | ___ | ___ | 46 (85) | 50 (81) | 96 (83) |
| Decisional conflict7 | 63 (81) | 53 (60) ++ | 116 (70) | 42 (78) | 38 (61) ++ | 80 (69)++ |
| Trust in healthcare providers7 | ___ | ___ | ___ | 42 (78) | 38 (61) ++ | 80 (69)++ |
| Decisional regret7 | ___ | ___ | ___ | 41 (76) | 33 (54) ++ | 74 (64)++ |
n: number of participants
The percentage of participants and number of participants who rated a level of importance of 7 or higher on a scale of 1–9 for each domain.
The overall number of participants who responded to each round of the survey. However, there were missing data for some of the items.
These subdomains did not reach a threshold of 70%.
Subdomains related to identifying the decision
Subdomains related to understanding the information
Subdomains related to clarifying values
Subdomains related to deliberating
Subdomains related to making the decision
Subdomains related to putting the decision into practice
Subdomains related to the impact of the decision
For Delphi Round 2, results showed that 14 out of the 17 subDomains, representing all seven Domains, met the 70% criteria for inclusion in the potential core set (Table 3). The three subDomains failing to meet the 70% threshold were decisional conflict, decisional regret and trust in healthcare providers. The most important subDomains were knowledge of options and values clarification and discussion. According to patients/caregivers, all 17 subDomains reached the 70% threshold, while the same 14 subDomains that were important in the overall analysis were important to clinicians/researchers. Compared to clinicians/researchers, patients/caregivers had higher importance ratings for clarification of values (p=0.003) and involvement in decision making (p= 0.036). Ratings did not vary with respondents’ experience in SDM.
OMERACT Consensus Meeting
A total of 189 individuals attended the OMERACT meeting and 21 of them had previously answered the Delphi survey.
(a) Breakout groups
Initial voting was carried out in the eight breakout groups to help decide which items needed the most discussion. The majority of Domains were supported. Domains judged most important concerned the understanding of information and values clarification (each receiving 88% of votes) (Table 4). However, as the small group discussions progressed, it became clear that many participants had limited prior experience with SDM; many participants found it difficult to distinguish between the SDM process and outcomes.
Table 4.
Voting results of the OMERACT 2016 breakout groups
| Outcome Domains | Inner Core (necessary) n (%) |
Middle Core (optimal) n (%) |
Outer Core (research agenda) n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Understanding information2 (n total = 82) | 72 (88) | 5 (6) | 5 (6) |
| Clarifying patients’ values 3 (n total = 72) | 63 (88) | 2 (3) | 7 (10) |
| Making the decision5 (n total = 84) | 72 (86) | 6 (7) | 6 (7) |
| Identifying the decision1 (n total = 69) | 56 (81) | 9 (13) | 4 (6) |
| Impact of the decision7 (n total = 125) | 88 (70) | 14 (11) | 23 (18) |
| Putting the decision into practice6 (n total = 105) | 66 (63) | 14 (13) | 25 (24) |
| Deliberating4 (n total = 67) | 30 (45) | 19 (28) | 18 (27) |
n: number of votes
subdomains: identification of the decision
subdomains: knowledge of options, knowledge of features, accurate expectations
subdomains: patients’ understanding that their values influence their decision, values clarification, values discussion
subdomains: patients’ ability to weigh the good and bad features of options
subdomains: patients’ involvement in decision making in preferred ways, communication between patients and healthcare providers
subdomains: adherence to chosen option
subdomains: patient informed value-based choice, patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, confidence in decision-making.
(b) Plenary session
A total of 96 attendees (51% of attendees at the OMERACT meeting), including eight patient research partners, 83 clinicians/researchers and five policymakers, voted at the plenary session, held immediately after the breakout group discussions. According to this plenary vote, none of the Domains reached the 70% threshold (Table 5). Participants felt that the most important Domains to include in the inner core were the impact of the decision (68%), understanding information (67%) and clarifying and discussing patients’ values (62%). A further vote was taken to assess whether the audience supported this initiative going forward and 84% indicated their support.
Table 5.
Voting results of the OMERACT 2016 meeting plenary session
| Outcome Domains | Inner Core (necessary) n (%) | Middle Core (optimal) n (%) | Outer Core (research agenda) n (%) | Insufficient Information to Vote, n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impact of decision7 (n total = 93) | 63 (68) | 8 (9) | 14 (15) | 8 (9) |
| Understanding information2 (n total = 96) | 64 (67) | 6 (6) | 7 (7) | 19 (20) |
| Clarifying patients’ values3 (n total = 93) | 58 (62) | 10 (11) | 9 (10) | 16 (17) |
| Identifying the decision1 (n total = 94) | 57 (61) | 2 (2) | 13 (14) | 22 (23) |
| Making the decision5 (n total = 93) | 45 (48) | 12 (13) | 17 (18) | 19 (20) |
| Putting the decision into practice6 (n total = 94) | 33 (35) | 9 (10) | 25 (27) | 27 (29) |
| Deliberating4 (n total = 93) | 16 (17) | 7 (8) | 36 (39) | 34 (37) |
n: number of votes
subdomains: identification of the decision
subdomains: knowledge of options, knowledge of features, accurate expectations
subdomains: patients’ understanding that their values influence their decision, values clarification, values discussion
subdomains: patients’ ability to weigh the good and bad features of options
subdomains: patients’ involvement in decision making in preferred ways, communication between patients and healthcare providers
subdomains: adherence to chosen option
subdomains: patient informed value-based choice, patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, confidence in decision-making.
Discussion
The current study aimed to determine the core set of outcome Domains and subDomains for measuring the effectiveness of SDM interventions in rheumatology clinical trials. Results from the Delphi survey, with a high proportion of patients/caregivers (48%) and individuals with experience with SDM (60%), showed that 14 of 17 subDomains, representing all eight IPDAS Domains, were considered critically important. However, at the OMERACT 2016 Workshop and breakout groups, only 8% were patients and, despite their strong support for the core set, their views were outvoted by the other stakeholders who were predominantly rheumatology clinicians/researchers.
This study is one of the first to seek consensus on SDM outcome Domains with a considerable amount of both patient and clinician/researcher input. With nearly equally-sized groups of patients/caregivers and clinicians/researchers in the Delphi survey, the weight of both sets of opinions were relatively equivalent. Although three subDomains did not meet the 70% threshold in the overall Delphi results, they did among patients. This is consistent with the IPDAS Delphi survey, which found higher endorsement of outcome Domains among patients versus researchers (9). These contrasting levels of stakeholder endorsement pose the question of whether studies should ensure a balance in number of patients/caregivers and other stakeholders, and if not, whether results should be weighted to allow for opinions of both sets to be equally taken into account.
While all seven Domains included subDomains considered important in the Delphi survey, none reached the 70% threshold at the final plenary vote. These contrasting levels of endorsement may be explained by differences in participant characteristics and a different voting context in each setting. The lower proportion of patients at the consensus meeting compared to the Delphi survey (8% at meeting versus 47% in Delphi Round 2) may have led to lower levels of outcome Domain endorsement, since patients tend to rate SDM outcome Domains higher than other stakeholders. Additionally, since the Delphi survey was sent via e-mail to potential participants, those taking the time to complete it may have been more motivated due to particular SDM interest or expertise, leading to stronger endorsement compared to attendees at a meeting not specifically dedicated to SDM. Furthermore, because the second reminder for the Delphi survey was a few days before the OMERACT meeting, it is possible that only a subset of more motivated individuals found the time to answer the second round, thus potentially leading to stronger endorsement of the subDomains of the core set. Any effects from relatively lower SDM familiarity among consensus meeting participants may also have been heightened by the influences of group pressure that are more likely to arise in a face-to-face setting than an online survey (16). However, as the final vote at the consensus meeting demonstrated, there is interest in continuing this work within OMERACT.
Breakout group discussions and plenary session voting results revealed some challenges in the comprehension of SDM concepts used, possibly because of the complexity of Domains that included various subDomains. Attendees also mentioned confusion about the fact that some Domains assessed the SDM process rather than its outcomes, and seemed to prefer outcomes, as shown by the high endorsement for the impact of the decision at the plenary session. These findings underscore the need to revise and clarify terms and definitions used by our working group, to promote better understanding of SDM process and outcome Domains. Using the language suggested by Sepucha and colleagues (17) about the quality of the decision-making process and the quality of the choice made may help to increase comprehension of SDM outcome Domains.
The results of the plenary session vote could be due partly to the participants’ lack of experience with SDM, above-mentioned process/outcome confusion and the preference for outcomes of SDM rather than its process. The relatively low percentage of OMERACT attendees who voted at the plenary session (51%) may further reflect a lack of interest or experience with SDM within OMERACT or simply participant fatigue experienced on the last day of the meeting. It is also possible that voting and non-voting participants at the plenary session may have had different opinions on the core set but we do not have the data to verify this hypothesis.
This experience shows the importance of involving all key stakeholders to the same extent and to ensure clarity and a shared understanding of the core set of outcome domains. Many OMERACT attendees seemed to lack sufficient confidence in understanding to vote in favour of the core set. Further efforts should aim at providing additional education about SDM, dispelling its myths (18), promoting understanding of its process and outcomes using clear terms and definitions, and ensuring patients’ voices are heard throughout the consensus process. The next steps include the development of a white paper to justify and describe this work, the conduct of interviews with opinion leaders within OMERACT and the SDM community (from all key stakeholder groups) to increase the clarity and relevance of the core set among OMERACT, as well as further consensus building efforts (Delphi survey and consensus meeting) after ensuring a thorough understanding of opinion leaders within OMERACT through educational activities (e.g., webinars).
Meaningfully enhancing communication with patients as part of this initiative will facilitate the development of consensus on a core set to assess the effectiveness and safety of SDM interventions, as well as contextual factors that may impact their outcomes (see OMERACT master checklist in supplementary material). Patients’ high endorsement of outcome Domains suggests a need to further develop this core set in spite of the lack of clinician/researcher endorsement. As an OMERACT patient research partner phrased it: “Patients must be involved in their care and treatment decisions not just to ensure patient-centred care but also so that patients understand and take responsibility for these decisions. SDM is the wave of the future; we can’t run away from it, we have to tackle it together.”
What this study adds.
This study is one of the first to seek consensus on SDM outcome Domains with a considerable amount of both patient and clinician/researcher input.
This study used a two-round online Delphi survey and an OMERACT face-to-face consensus meeting of key stakeholders, which are validated methods to determine core sets of outcome Domains.
This study revealed contrasting levels of endorsement depending on stakeholder group as well as context for voting. Endorsement was higher among patients compared to clinicians/researchers, while respondents to the online Delphi survey showed higher levels of endorsement than those at the face-to-face consensus meeting.
In the Delphi survey, patients/caregivers gave higher importance ratings than clinicians/researchers with respect to clarification of values and involvement in decision making, both of which assess the SDM process. The consensus meeting, comprised mostly of clinicians/researchers, determined that the most important Domain to include in the core set was the impact of the decision.
Further efforts will address the promotion of understanding of SDM and its outcome Domains among OMERACT stakeholders to help gain consensus on the core set.
Acknowledgments
Funding:
K. Toupin-April is funded by the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute and The Arthritis Society. J. Barton’s research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, under Award Number K23-AR-064372. L. Fraenkel’s research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, under Award Number AR060231-01. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. D. Stacey holds a University of Ottawa Research Chair in Knowledge Translation to Patients. F. Légaré holds a Canada Research Chair in Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Primary Care. R. Christensen’s research at the Parker Institute is supported by grants from The Oak Foundation. L. March’s research is supported by the Northern Sydney Local Health District. J. Kaufman and S. Hill receive funding from the Research Council of Norway (COMMVAC 2 project grant number 220873). S. Hill is also supported by a Funding and Service Agreement, Department of Health and Human Services, Victoria, and La Trobe University.
The authors thank participants of OMERACT 13 (2016) who participated in the working group on shared decision making. We also thank members of the working group: Sarah Collins, Thomas Chong, Pamela Richards, Ailsa Bosworth, Pamela Montie, Francis Guillemin, Jennifer Petkovic, Viviane Grandpierre, Melissa Mannion, Cécile Gaujoux-Viala, Anne Stiggelbout, Ayano Kelly and Nick Bansback. Finally, we would like to thank the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance for disseminating our Delphi survey.
Footnotes
Author contributions: KTA conceived the design, collected data, performed the analysis of all the data and drafted the manuscript. JB conceived the design, collected some of the data, performed some of the analysis and edited the manuscript. LF conceived the design, interpreted data and edited the manuscript. LCL conceived the design, interpreted data and edited the manuscript. PB conceived the design, collected some of the data, interpreted data and edited the manuscript. MDW conceived the design, collected some of the data, interpreted data and edited the manuscript. DS contributed to the study design, interpreted data and edited the manuscript. FL contributed to the study design, interpreted data and edited the manuscript. AM advised in the study design, interpreted data and edited the manuscript. BS contributed to the study design, collected some of the data, interpreted data and edited the manuscript. AL gave the patient perspective, contributed to the study design, interpreted data and edited the manuscript. CH gave the patient perspective, contributed to the study design, interpreted data and edited the manuscript. LG contributed to the study design, interpreted data and edited the manuscript. RC contributed to the study design, advised on statistical analyses and edited the manuscript. MSV, MSA, AB, TM, LM, CP, JEJ, SS, WC, RA, SK, EM, JK, SH, LJM, VW, DB and YE contributed to the study design, interpreted data and edited the manuscript. PT conceived the design, interpreted data and edited the manuscript.
Financial Conflict: There is no financial conflict.
Contributor Information
Karine Toupin April, Associate Scientist, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatrics and School of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Jennifer Barton, VA Portland Health Care System, Associate Professor, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA.
Liana Fraenkel, Professor of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, USA.
Linda C. Li, Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia; Senior Scientist, Arthritis Research Centre of Canada, Vancouver, Canada.
Peter Brooks, Professor, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Maarten De Wit, Patient Research Partner, VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dawn Stacey, Full Professor, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Senior Scientist, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
France Légaré, Full Professor, Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.
Alexa Meara, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Beverley Shea, Clinical Scientist, Bruyère Research Institute, Senior Methodologist, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Adjunct Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Anne Lyddiatt, Patient Research Partner, Canada.
Cathie Hofstetter, Patient Research Partner, Canada.
Laure Gossec, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, GRC-08, Paris, France ; Pitie-Salpétrière Hospital, AP-HP, Rheumatology Department, Paris, France.
Robin Christensen, Professor, Senior Biostatistician, Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Marieke Scholte Voshaar, Patient Research Partner, Department Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Maria E. Suarez-Almazor, Professor, Department of General Internal Medicine, Section of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Annelies Boonen, Professor of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Caphri Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Tanya Meade, Professor, Western Sydney University and Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Lyn March, Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Sydney, Institute of Bone and Joint Research and Department of Rheumatology, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Christoph Pohl, Rheumatologist, Department of Internal Medicine II Rheumatology, Clinical Immunology, Osteology, Physical Therapy and Sports Medicine, Schlosspark-Klinik, Charité, University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Janet Elizabeth Jull, Postdoctoral Fellow, Integrated Knowledge Translation Network and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Sigogini Sivarajah, Research assistant, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Willemina Campbell, Patient Research Partner, Canada.
Rieke Alten, Professor of Medicine, Head of Department of Internal Medicine II, Director of Rheumatology Research Center, Rheumatology, Clinical Immunology, Osteology, Physical Therapy and Sports Medicine, Schlosspark-Klinik, Charité, University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Suvi Karuranga, Researcher, Access to Medicine Foundation, Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Esi Morgan, Associate Professor, Division of Rheumatology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, USA.
Jessica Kaufman, Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Sophie Hill, Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Lara J. Maxwell, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice-Changing Research and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Vivian Welch, Scientist, Bruyere Research Institute, Bruyere Continuing Care and School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Dorcas Beaton, Musculoskeletal Health & Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael’s Hospital, Senior Scientist, Institute for Work & Health, Associate Professor, Institute Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Yasser El-Miedany, Professor, Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Ain Shams University, Egypt; Honorary senior clinical lecturer, King’s college London, United Kingdom.
Peter Tugwell, Professor, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Senior Scientist, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, and Institute of Population Health, Centre for Global Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Reference list
- 1.Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JW, Breedveld FC, Boumpas D, Burmester G, et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:631–7. doi: 10.1136/ard.2009.123919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. South Melbourne: The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; 2009. Available from: www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp119-juvenile-arthritis.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Smolen JS, Landewé R, Breedveld FC, Buch M, Burmester G, Dougados M, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:492–509. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Gossec L, Smolen JS, Ramiro S, de Wit M, Cutolo M, Dougados M, et al. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2015 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75:499–510. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:301–12. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Bennett C, Murray MA, Mullan S, Legare F. Decision coaching to prepare patients for making health decisions: a systematic review of decision coaching in trials of patient decision aids. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:E22–E33. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12443311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Shepherd HL, Barratt A, Jones A, Bateson D, Carey K, Trevena LJ, 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. doi: 10.1111/hex.12409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.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 Aug 26;333:417. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Boers M, Kirwan JR, Wells G, Beaton D, Gossec L, d’Agostino MA, et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT Filter 2. 0. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:745–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Toupin April K, Barton J, Fraenkel L, Li L, Grandpierre V, Guillemin F, et al. Development of a Draft Core Set of Domains for Measuring Shared Decision Making in Osteoarthritis: An OMERACT Special Interest Group on Shared Decision Making. J Rheumatol. 2015;42:2442–7. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.141205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1008–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Schunemann H, Brozek J, Oxman AD. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Vol Version 3.22009. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Brook RH. Appropriateness: the next frontier. BMJ. 1994;308:218. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6923.218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Boers M, Kirwan JR, Tugwell P, et al. The OMERACT Handbook. 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Dalkey NC. The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion. In: Dalkey NC, Rourke DL, Lewis R, Snyder D, editors. Studies in the quality of life: Delphi and decision-making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1972. pp. 13–54. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sepucha KR, Borkhoff CM, Lally J, Levin CA, Matlock DD, Ng CJ, et al. Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:S12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Légaré F, Thompson-Leduc P. Twelve myths about shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;96:281–6. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.06.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]