The purpose of this study is to learn more about how patients and healthcare providers interact in order to improve shared decision making. The investigators plan to test an intervention with two separate educational components-one for patients and one for providers-designed to encourage patients to ask questions and increase their level of involvement in their own care, while simultaneously training providers to be more receptive to patients' questions and concerns. Patients in the intervention group will receive three short (30-45 minute) trainings focused on developing and asking questions and will be interviewed three times over the course of the intervention to see how it has affected the quality of their care. Providers receiving the intervention will participate in three separate trainings, including a 12-hour group workshop, an additional two hour training, and six hours of individual instruction, including personalized feedback based on three audio-recorded patient visits. Previous studies looking at patient engagement and involvement in decision-making have shown that increased engagement is linked with improved outcomes, but that providers are sometimes not prepared to develop a collaborative relationship with patients. The investigators think that training both patients and providers to work together and communicate more effectively will improve quality of care and increase patient satisfaction more than interventions that focus on only one side of the clinical encounter. One of the major goals in studying patient-provider communication is to improve shared decision-making and see how it contributes to racial and ethnic disparities in mental health care, since minority patients have been shown to be less involved in care and have been shown to be perceived and treated differently by providers.
The Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research (CMMHR) at Cambridge Health Alliance has recently been selected for funding by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to address the importance of patient-provider communication, shared decision making, and therapeutic alliance. Our research team demonstrated that a psycho-educational intervention (DECIDE-PA) improves patient activation and self-management in behavioral health care. However, the investigators found that providers were unresponsive or reacted negatively to patients' activation. In response, the investigators propose to combine DECIDE-PA with provider coaching (DECIDE-PC) to increase providers' receptivity to patient activation, and improve Shared Decision Making (SDM). The investigators also focus on quality of care, responding to clinic administrators who require interventions that improve quality of behavioral health care (mental health and substance treatments). Aims: 1) Test the effectiveness of DECIDE PA+PC compared to usual care in improving SDM and patient-perceived quality of behavioral health care; 2) Test whether patient-centered communication and therapeutic alliance mediate the effect of the DECIDE PA+PC intervention on SDM; 3) Explore whether ethnic/racial or language matching between patient and provider moderates the effect of DECIDE PA+PC on SDM and quality of behavioral health care. Intervention: The DECIDE PA+PC intervention is designed to improve the quality of mental health care for adult behavioral health patients by engaging minority participants in asking questions about their treatment. The intervention is administered to patients and providers and is designed to improve patient activation, self-management, and therapeutic alliance. For patients, the DECIDE PA is designed to help patients identify concerns about their condition or treatment and generate questions for providers regarding these concerns. The DECIDE PA intervention consists of 3-4 brief training sessions for patients delivered by Care Managers. For providers, the DECIDE PC is designed to help providers improve therapeutic alliance, patient-provider communication, continuance in care, and satisfaction with services for patients in concordant and discordant ethnic/racial dyads. The DECIDE PC training for providers consists of 1.5 days of training which focuses on augmenting patient-centered communication and therapeutic alliance as a possible underlying pathway by which SDM can take place. The training also addresses 1) lack of perspective taking; 2) frequent attributional errors that providers make; and 3) decreased receptivity to patient participation and collaboration in decision making. The training includes provider coaching totaling 15-20 hours. Methods: For Aim 1, implement a randomized controlled trial comparing DECIDE-PA+PC with usual care on Shard Decision Making (SDM) and perceived quality of care. Identify treatment effects using multi-level models that account for nesting of observations, patients, providers, and clinics. For Aim 2, identify underlying mechanisms of the effect of the DECIDE-PA+PC intervention on SDM. Mediation analysis techniques are used that allow for rigorous testing of causal pathways and statistical adjustment for spurious correlation is used in instances where mediators and SDM measurement are contemporaneous. For Aim 3, expand Aim 1 models to test whether DECIDE-PA+PC impacts SDM and perceived quality differentially by ethnic/racial concordant/discordant dyads. Usual Care: Usual care across clinics is described by clinicians as answering their patients' questions during the clinical encounter. Clinicians report that on average they perceive their patients as having limited involvement in decision-making. No DECIDE training for patients or providers will be applied to the control condition while the control provider and control patient are participating in the study. Once the control provider and control patient complete their participation in the study, they will be offered the DECIDE trainings. Participating Sites: The investigators plan to administer the intervention to patients and providers at four participating Cambridge Health Alliance clinics, along with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston Children's Hospital, South Cove Community Health Center, Edward M Kennedy Health Center (Great Brook Valley Health Center), and two community health centers through Harbor Health Services (Neponset Health Center and Geiger Gibson Community Health Center).
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
481
The DECIDE-PA intervention teaches patients strategies for asking questions and communicating more effectively with their behavioral health care provider in order to improve shared decision making.
The DECIDE-PC intervention trains providers in patient-centered communication techniques and encourages providers to be receptive to patients who take a more active role during the clinical encounter in order to improve shared decision making.
South Cove Community Health Center
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
South End Community Health Center
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Family Services of Greater Boston
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Ambulatory Psychiatry Unit)
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Latino Mental Health)
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Cambridge Health Alliance (Windsor Clinic, Macht Building, Central Street, Malden Primary Care Mental Health)
Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
Edward M Kennedy Health Center (Great Brook Valley Health Center)
Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
Shared Decision Making (OPTION) Independent Blind Coder Assessment Scores
12 items designed to assess SDM quality in medical visit. Rated on 5 point Likert scales ranging from 0 (behavior not observed) -- 4 (clinician exhibited behavior to high standard). Final scores are the sum of the rating and range from 0-44. Final scores were transformed to a scale that ranges from 0 (lowest SDM) - 100 (highest SDM).
Time frame: Follow-up assessment (2 months)
Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 Patient Version)
Evaluates patient SDM from a patient-provider visit based on their perception of nine steps deemed essential to SDM in a clinical encounter. Rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Final scores are sum of rating, which ranges between 0 and 45. Converted to 0 (lowest level) and 100 (highest level).
Time frame: End-of-intervention Assessment (5 months)
Provider Shared Decision Making in Behavioral Health (SDM -BH) Provider Version
The 10 items was developed by research team to evaluate provider SDM from a patient-provider visit in behavioral health. Items are rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree). Final scores are sum of rating, which ranges between 6 and 60. A high score indicates good communication and that decision making was shared between patient and provider, as perceived by the provider.
Time frame: Follow-up Assessment (2 months)
Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 Provider Version)
Evaluates provider SDM from a patient-provider visit based on their perception of nine steps deemed essential to SDM in a clinical encounter. Rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Final scores are sum of rating, which ranges between 0 and 45. Converted to 0 (lowest level) and 100 (highest level).
Time frame: Follow-up Assessment (2 months)
Perceptions of Care Survey - Global Evaluation of Care Scale (PoC)
Assesses patient perceptions of care in psychiatric settings. Includes 3 items, final scores are scored externally, and range from 0 (lowest quality) to 100 (highest quality).
Time frame: End-of-intervention Assessment (5 months)
Patient Shared Decision Making in Behavioral Health (SDM -BH)- Patient Version
The 10 items was developed by research team to evaluate patient SDM from a patient-provider visit in behavioral health. Items are rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree). Final scores are sum of rating, which ranges between 6 and 60. A high score indicates good communication and that decision making was shared between patient and provider, as perceived by the patient.
Time frame: End-of-intervention Assessment (5 months)
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.