Abstract
Purpose
To characterize the feedback of patients with thyroid nodules receiving care using a shared decision making (SDM) tool designed to improve conversations with their clinicians related to diagnostic options (e.g. thyroid biopsy, ultrasound surveillance).
Methods
Investigators qualitatively analyzed post-encounter interviews with patients to characterize their feedback of a SDM tool used during their clinical visits. Additionally, investigators counted instances of diagnostic choice awareness and of patients’ expression of a diagnostic management preference in recordings of clinical encounters of adult patients presenting for evaluation of thyroid nodules in which the SDM tool was used.
Results
In total, 53 patients (42 (79%) women); median age 62 years were enrolled and had consultations supported by the SDM tool. Patients were favorable about the design of the SDM tool and its ability to convey information about options and support patient-clinician interactions. Patients identified opportunities to improve the tool through adding more content and improve its use in practice through training of clinicians in its use. There was evidence of diagnostic choice awareness in 52 (98%) of these visits and patients expressed a diagnostic management preference in 40 (76%).
Conclusion
User centered design including feedback from patients and real life observation supports the use of the SDM tool to facilitate collaboration between patients and clinicians.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
N. Singh Ospina, N.M. Iniguez-Ariza, M.R. Castro, Thyroid nodules: diagnostic evaluation based on thyroid cancer risk assessment. BMJ 368, l6670 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6670
J.A. Sosa, J.W. Hanna, K.A. Robinson, R.B. Lanman, Increases in thyroid nodule fine-needle aspirations, operations, and diagnoses of thyroid cancer in the United States. Surgery 154(6), 1420–6 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2013.07.006. discussion 1426-7
B.R. Haugen, E.K. Alexander, K.C. Bible et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid 26(1), 1–133 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1089/thy.2015.0020
N. Singh Ospina, N. Genere, J.K. Hoang, J.P. Brito, ACR TI-RADS recommendations: a call to contextualize radiologists’ recommendations for thyroid nodules with the clinical scenario. J. Am. Coll. Radio. 18(9), 1342–1344 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.04.019
E.G. Grant, F.N. Tessler, J.K. Hoang et al. Thyroid ultrasound reporting lexicon: white paper of the acr thyroid imaging, reporting and data system (TIRADS) committee. J. Am. Coll. Radio. 12(12 Pt A), 1272–9 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.07.011
N.M. Singh Ospina, D. Bagautdinova, I. Hargraves et al. Development and pilot testing of a conversation aid to support the evaluation of patients with thyroid nodules. Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf.) 96(4), 627–636 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.14599
I.G. Hargraves, V.M. Montori, J.P. Brito et al. Purposeful SDM: A problem-based approach to caring for patients with shared decision making. Patient Educ. Couns. 102(10), 1786–1792 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.07.020
V.M. Montori, M. Kunneman, J.P. Brito, Shared decision making and improving health care: the answer is not in. JAMA 318(7), 617–618 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.10168
P. Scalia, M.A. Durand, J.L. Berkowitz et al. The impact and utility of encounter patient decision aids: Systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Patient Educ. Couns. 102(5), 817–841 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.020
D. Stacey, F. Legare, K. Lewis et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 4, CD001431 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
S.A. Hartasanchez, I.G. Hargraves, J.E. Clark et al. The design and development of an encounter tool to support shared decision making about preventing cardiovascular events. Prev. Med Rep. 30, 101994 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101994
C.L. Zeballos-Palacios, I.G. Hargraves, P.A. Noseworthy et al. Develo** a conversation aid to support shared decision making: reflections on designing anticoagulation choice. Mayo Clin. Proc. 94(4), 686–696 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.08.030
N. Joseph-Williams, P. Abhyankar, L. Boland et al. What works in implementing patient decision aids in routine clinical settings? a rapid realist review and update from the international patient decision aid standards collaboration. Med Decis. Mak. 41(7), 907–937 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X20978208
G. Tong, Q. Geng, D. Wang, T. Liu, Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer 29(11), 6929–6941 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06184-y
C. Pope, P. van Royen, R. Baker, Qualitative methods in research on healthcare quality. Qual. Saf. Health Care 11(2), 148–52 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.11.2.148
L.J. Damschroder, D.C. Aron, R.E. Keith, S.R. Kirsh, J.A. Alexander, J.C. Lowery, Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 4, 50 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
A.L. Chapman, M. Hadfield, C.J. Chapman, Qualitative research in healthcare: an introduction to grounded theory using thematic analysis. J. R. Coll. Physicians Edinb. 45(3), 201–5 (2015). https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2015.305
D.H. Grossoehme, Overview of qualitative research. J. Health Care Chaplain 20(3), 109–22 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/08854726.2014.925660
B.G. Glaser, The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc. Probl. 12(4), 436–445 (1965)
A. Moser, I. Korstjens, Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. Eur. J. Gen. Pr. 24(1), 9–18 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091
G. Guest, E. Namey, M. Chen, A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS One 15(5), e0232076 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076
B. Saunders, J. Sim, T. Kingstone et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual. Quant. 52(4), 1893–1907 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
NVivo (Version 12). QSR International Pty Ltd; 2018.
H. Bomhof-Roordink, F.R. Gartner, A.M. Stiggelbout, A.H. Pieterse, Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review. BMJ Open 9(12), e031763 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763
M. Kunneman, M.E. Branda, I. Hargraves, A.H. Pieterse, V.M. Montori, Fostering Choice Awareness for Shared Decision Making: A Secondary Analysis of Video-Recorded Clinical Encounters. Mayo Clin. Proc. Innov. Qual. Outcomes 2(1), 60–68 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2017.12.002
P.A. Harris, R. Taylor, R. Thielke, J. Payne, N. Gonzalez, J.G. Conde, Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J. Biomed. Inf. 42(2), 377–81 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
G. Elwyn, H. Hutchings, A. Edwards et al. The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect. 8(1), 34–42 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.x
Z.D. Berger, J.P. Brito, N.S. Ospina et al. Patient centred diagnosis: sharing diagnostic decisions with patients in clinical practice. BMJ 359, j4218 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4218
J.R. Covvey, K.M. Kamal, E.E. Gorse et al. Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in oncology: a systematic review of the literature. Support Care Cancer 27(5), 1613–1637 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04675-7
J.P. Gao, Y.H. **, S.F. Yu, W.F. Wu, S.F. Han, Evaluate the effectiveness of breast cancer decision aids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomize clinical trails. Nurs. Open 8(5), 2091–2104 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.741
R.S. Barbour, Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog. BMJ 322(7294), 1115–7 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
Acknowledgements
We will like to thank the patients, caregivers and clinicians who participated in the study.
Author contributions
NSO, CB and JPB conceptualized and designed the study. NSO, CP and CB conducted the qualitative analysis. NSO and CP wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors assisted in the interpretation of the clinical findings, provided critical feedback on the manuscript, and approved the revised version.
Funding
This work was supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) grant support (NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) grant UL1 TR000064). NSO was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K08CA248972. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval
This study was performed with approval of the Institutional Review Board of the University of Florida and Mayo Clinic.
Consent to participate
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Patel Chavez, C.P., Godinez Leiva, E., Bagautdinova, D. et al. Patient feedback receiving care using a shared decision making tool for thyroid nodule evaluation—an observational study. Endocrine 80, 124–133 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-022-03277-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-022-03277-4