Assessment of a Multimodal Strategy for Information and Collection of Advance Directives in a Comprehensive Cancer Center:Description of the Study Protocol

Background:Information on the possibility of drawing up Advance Directives(AD)is a necessity,and represents a major medical,ethical,and legal challenge.The difficulties are numerous,both organizational and cultural,and this is also true in the context of oncology,where ADs(and more broadly,advanced palliative care)are of critical importance.As an eminently sensitive subject,dealing with ADs(and therefore with end-of-life issues)requires both societal and medical/health-care acculturation.An institutional approach has therefore been developed,to deploy information tools,training professionals,and formalize the collection of AD.Such an approach cannot be implemented without an assessment not only of its objective results but also above all of its psychological effects,on both users(patients,family caregivers)and professionals.Methods:This longitudinal study,based on a mixed-method,interdisciplinary approach,will assess the impact of this information dissemination on AD,in terms of both potential positive and negative effects,using validated measurement methods.Thus,this study follows the 5 criteria of the RE-AIM model,designed to analyze the interest and impact of a device intended for users of the healthcare system;we will use a mixed methodology,relying on both a quantitative component(counting the number of people benefiting from the scheme,and those requesting support in drawing up their DA...,administering questionnaires),as well as a qualitative component(focus groups)which will enable us to study the subjective experiences of users,their relatives and the professionals involved in the scheme.Results:The results of this study will make it possible to determine the effects of this system of assistance in the drafting of ADs,which is currently being promoted by the legislator,but which is struggling to be implemented.

Preferences and attitudes of young Chinese clinicians about using a shared decision making tools for communicating cardiovascular risk

Objective: This study assesses the attitudes and preferences of Chinese clinicians toward their involvement in shared decision making (SDM). Methods: From May 2014 to May 2015, 200 Chinese clinicians from two hospitals were enrolled to complete a survey on their attitude towards SDM. We conducted the survey via face-to-face interviews before and after an educational intervention on SDM among young Chinese clinicians. The clinicians were asked to give the extent of agreement to SDM. They also gave the extent of difficulty in using decision aids (DAs) during the SDM process. The variation in the range of responses to each question before and after the SDM intervention was recorded. The frequency of changed responses was analyzed by using JMP 6.0 software. Data were statistically analyzed using Chi-square and Mann—Whitney U tests, as appropriate to the data type. Multiple logistic regressions were used to test for those factors significantly and independently associated with preference for an approach for each scenario. Results: Of the 200 young Chinese clinicians sampled, 59.0% indicated a preference for SDM and a desire to participate in SDM before receiving education or seeing the DA, and this number increased to 69.0% after seeing the DA with the sample video of the SDM process on Statin Choice. However, 28.5% of the respondents still reported that, in their current practice, they make clinical decisions on behalf of their patients. The clinicians who denied a desire to use the DA stated that the main barriers to implement SDM or DA use in China are lack of time and knowledge of SDM.