2021 ISAKOS Biennial Congress ePoster
Development and Test of a Decision Aid for Shared Decision Making in Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury
Hanne Mainz, PhD, Aarhus N, Region Midtjylland DENMARK
Lone Frandsen, RN, DN, Aarhus DENMARK
Peter Faunoe, MD, Risskov DENMARK
Martin Lind, MD, PhD, Prof., Aarhus N DENMARK
Kirsten Lomborg, Prof, Copenhagen DENMARK
Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Region Midtjylland, DENMARK
FDA Status Not Applicable
Summary
Patients with anterior crucial ligament injury are faced with a choice between surgery or non-surgical treatment with intensive rehabilitation. In this study we developed, tested and evaluated a patient decision aid for shared decision-making to support patients and doctors to choose the best treatment option in accordance with the patient´ s individual values, lifestyle and conditions.
ePosters will be available shortly before Congress
Abstract
Background
Patients with anterior crucial ligament injury are faced with a choice between surgery or non-surgical treatment with intensive rehabilitation. Evidence shows that surgical treatment is not superior to non-surgical treatment. To offer patients a treatment meeting their individual values, lifestyle and conditions, patients must be involved in the decision-making. The aim of the study was to develop and evaluate a patient decision aid to support shared decision-making.
Method
Development of the patient decision aid was based on international criteria, current literature, and former patients’ experiences and suggestions on how to optimize the decision-making process. The patient decision aid was evaluated by the SDM-Q9 questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with patients and doctors.
Results
A patient decision aid for patients with and an anterior crucial ligament injury was developed. On a scale from 0-5, patients experienced a high degree of shared decision-making in their treatment decision both before (score 4.3) and after (score 4.3) implementation of the patient decision aid. No statically significant difference was found (p=0.72). From interviews, patients expressed that they found the patient decision aid very useful. Especially, reflection time was important for some patients. Doctors reported that the patient decision aid improved shared decision-making by supporting the dialogue clarifying patients’ values concerning issues important for treatment choices.
Conclusion
No statically significant difference in the SDM Q9-score was found between patients’ perceptions of shared decision-making before and after implementation of a patient decision aid. However, patients experienced the decision aid as very useful when making treatment decisions, and doctors reported that it improved the dialogue clarifying patients’ values important for the treatment options.