Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient feedback receiving care using a shared decision making tool for thyroid nodule evaluation—an observational study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Endocrine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. C.L. Zeballos-Palacios, I.G. Hargraves, P.A. Noseworthy et al. Developing 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. D.H. Grossoehme, Overview of qualitative research. J. Health Care Chaplain 20(3), 109–22 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/08854726.2014.925660

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. B.G. Glaser, The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc. Probl. 12(4), 436–445 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. NVivo (Version 12). QSR International Pty Ltd; 2018.

  24. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. J.P. Gao, Y.H. Jin, 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Chandani Patel Patel Chavez, Eddison Godinez Leiva, Diana Barb, Catherine Edwards, Ashok Srihari, Sreevidya Subbarayan & Naykky Singh Ospina

  2. College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Diliara Bagautdinova & Debbie Treise

  3. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit in Endocrinology (KER_Endo), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Jessica Hidalgo, Sandra Hartasanchez, Ian Hargraves, Kathryn Shepel, Juan P. Brito & Victor Montori

  4. Department of Otolaryngology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Deepa Danan, Peter Dziegielewski & Brian Hughley

  5. Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    M. Regina Castro, Diana Dean, John Morris, Mabel Ryder, Marius N. Stan, Juan P. Brito & Victor Montori

  6. Department of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Carma L. Bylund

Authors
  1. Chandani Patel Patel Chavez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eddison Godinez Leiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diliara Bagautdinova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jessica Hidalgo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sandra Hartasanchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Diana Barb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Deepa Danan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Peter Dziegielewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Catherine Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Brian Hughley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ashok Srihari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Sreevidya Subbarayan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. M. Regina Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Diana Dean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. John Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Mabel Ryder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Marius N. Stan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Ian Hargraves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Kathryn Shepel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Juan P. Brito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Carma L. Bylund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Debbie Treise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Victor Montori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Naykky Singh Ospina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naykky Singh Ospina.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-022-03277-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation