Danielle Schubbe

Bio: Danielle Schubbe is an academic researcher from The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. The author has contributed to research in topics: Conversation & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 13 publications receiving 82 citations. Previous affiliations of Danielle Schubbe include Dartmouth College.

What matters most: Randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata.

Abstract: Background Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with early-stage breast cancer are more likely to report poorer physician-patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery, lower involvement in decision making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. The objective of this study was to understand how to support women across socioeconomic strata in making breast cancer surgery choices. Methods We conducted a 3-arm (Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, and usual care), multisite, randomized controlled superiority trial with surgeon-level randomization. The Option Grid (text only) and Picture Option Grid (pictures plus text) conversation aids were evidence-based summaries of available breast cancer surgery options on paper. Decision quality (primary outcome), treatment choice, treatment intention, shared decision making (SDM), anxiety, quality of life, decision regret, and coordination of care were measured from T0 (pre-consultation) to T5 (1-year after surgery. Results Sixteen surgeons saw 571 of 622 consented patients. Patients in the Picture Option Grid arm (n = 248) had higher knowledge (immediately after the visit [T2] and 1 week after surgery or within 2 weeks of the first postoperative visit [T3]), an improved decision process (T2 and T3), lower decision regret (T3), and more SDM (observed and self-reported) compared to usual care (n = 257). Patients in the Option Grid arm (n = 66) had higher decision process scores (T2 and T3), better coordination of care (12 weeks after surgery or within 2 weeks of the second postoperative visit [T4]), and more observed SDM (during the surgical visit [T1]) compared to usual care arm. Subgroup analyses suggested that the Picture Option Grid had more impact among women of lower SES and health literacy. Neither intervention affected concordance, treatment choice, or anxiety. Conclusions Paper-based conversation aids improved key outcomes over usual care. The Picture Option Grid had more impact among disadvantaged patients. Lay summary The objective of this study was to understand how to help women with lower incomes or less formal education to make breast cancer surgery choices. Compared with usual care, a conversation aid with pictures and text led to higher knowledge. It improved the decision process and shared decision making (SDM) and lowered decision regret. A text-only conversation aid led to an improved decision process, more coordinated care, and higher SDM compared to usual care. The conversation aid with pictures was more helpful for women with lower income or less formal education. Conversation aids with pictures and text helped women make better breast cancer surgery choices.

Women Who Are Young, Non-White, and with Lower Socioeconomic Status Report Higher Financial Toxicity up to 1 Year After Breast Cancer Surgery: A Mixed-Effects Regression Analysis.

Abstract: PURPOSE We examined self-reported financial toxicity and out-of-pocket expenses among adult women with breast cancer. METHODS Patients spoke English, Spanish, or Mandarin Chinese, were aged 18+ years, had stage I-IIIA breast cancer, and were eligible for breast-conserving and mastectomy surgery. Participants completed surveys about out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity at 1 week, 12 weeks, and 1 year postsurgery. RESULTS Three hundred ninety-five of 448 eligible patients (88.2%) from the parent trial completed surveys. Excluding those reporting zero costs, crude mean ± SD out-of-pocket costs were $1,512 ± $2,074 at 1 week, $2,609 ± $6,369 at 12 weeks, and $3,308 ± $5,000 at 1 year postsurgery. Controlling for surgery, cancer stage, and demographics with surgeon and clinic as random effects, higher out-of-pocket costs were associated with higher financial toxicity 1 week and 12 weeks postsurgery (p < .001). Lower socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs at each time point (p = .002-.013). One week postsurgery, participants with lower SES reported financial toxicity scores 1.02 points higher than participants with higher SES (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-1.95). Black and non-White/non-Black participants reported financial toxicity scores 1.91 (95% CI, 0.46-3.37) and 2.55 (95% CI, 1.11-3.99) points higher than White participants. Older (65+ years) participants reported financial toxicity scores 2.58 points lower than younger (<65 years) participants (95% CI, -3.41, -1.74). Younger participants reported significantly higher financial toxicity at each time point. DISCUSSION Younger age, non-White race, and lower SES were associated with higher financial toxicity regardless of costs. Out-of-pocket costs increased over time and were positively associated with financial toxicity. Future work should reduce the impact of cancer care costs among vulnerable groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE This study was one of the first to examine out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity up to 1 year after breast cancer surgery. Younger age, Black race, race other than Black or White, and lower socioeconomic status were associated with higher financial toxicity. Findings highlight the importance of addressing patients' financial toxicity in several ways, particularly for groups vulnerable to its effects.

US-based cross-sectional survey of clinicians' knowledge and attitudes about shared decision-making across healthcare professions and specialties.

Abstract: Objective In this study, we aim to compare shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge and attitudes between US-based physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians across surgical and family medicine specialties. Setting We administered a cross-sectional, web-based survey between 20 September 2017 and 1 November 2017. Participants 272 US-based NPs, PA and physicians completed the survey. 250 physicians were sent a generic email invitation to participate, of whom 100 completed the survey. 3300 NPs and PAs were invited, among whom 172 completed the survey. Individuals who met the following exclusion criteria were excluded from participation: (1) lack of English proficiency; (2) area of practice other than family medicine or surgery; (3) licensure other than physician, PA or NP; (4) practicing in a country other than the US. Results We found few substantial differences in SDM knowledge and attitudes across clinician types, revealing positive attitudes across the sample paired with low to moderate knowledge. Family medicine professionals (PAs) were most knowledgeable on several items. Very few respondents (3%; 95% CI 1.5% to 6.2%) favoured a paternalistic approach to decision-making. Conclusions Recent policy-level promotion of SDM may have influenced positive clinician attitudes towards SDM. Positive attitudes despite limited knowledge warrant SDM training across occupations and specialties, while encouraging all clinicians to promote SDM. Given positive attitudes and similar knowledge across clinician types, we recommend that SDM is not confined to the patient-physician dyad but instead advocated among other health professionals.

Does pictorial health information improve health behaviours and other outcomes? A systematic review protocol

Abstract: Introduction Most health information is verbal or written, yet words alone may not be the most effective way to communicate health information. Lower health literacy is prevalent in the US and is linked to limited understanding of one’s medical condition and treatment. Pictures increase comprehension, recall, adherence and attention in health settings. This is called pictorial superiority. No systematic review has examined the impact of pictorial health information among patients and consumers, including those with lower health literacy. Methods and analysis This systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the characteristics and effectiveness of pictorial health information on patient and consumer health behaviours and outcomes, as well as differentially among individuals of lower literacy/lower health literacy. We will conduct a systematic search across selected databases, as well as grey literature, from inception until June 2018. We will include randomised controlled trials in all languages with all types of participants that assess the effect of pictorial health information on patients’ and consumers’ health behaviours and outcomes. Two independent reviewers will conduct the primary screening of articles and data extraction for the selected articles with a third individual available to resolve conflicts. We will assess the quality of all included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We will combine all selected studies and do a test of heterogeneity. If there is sufficient homogeneity, we will pool studies into a meta-analysis. Independent of the heterogeneity of included studies, we will also conduct a narrative synthesis. Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is required. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084743.

Shared Decision-making in the Medical Encounter: What Does It Mean? (Or, It Takes at Least Two to Tango)

Abstract: Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated as an ideal model of treatment decision-making in the medical encounter. To date, the concept has been rather poorly and loosely defined. This paper attempts to provide greater conceptual clarity about shared treatment decision-making, identify some key characteristics of this model, and discuss measurement issues. The particular decision-making context that we focus on is potentially life threatening illnesses, where there are important decisions to be made at key points in the disease process, and several treatment options exist with different possible outcomes and substantial uncertainty. We suggest as key characteristics of shared decision-making (1) that at least two participants-physician and patient be involved; (2) that both parties share information; (3) that both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment; and (4) that an agreement is reached on the treatment to implement. Some challenges to measuring shared decision-making are discussed as well as potential benefits of a shared decision-making model for both physicians and patients.

Evidence Bulletin: Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Abstract: Evidence Bulletins are accessible summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews about communicating with and involving consumers and carers. Each bulletin summarises one recently published or updated review and presents a summary of the key results, the relevance to Australian health care, and related resources. We encourage you to: use our bulletins in your organisation print and copy bulletins forward bulletins on to others let us know who your audience is, how useful the resources are to them, and ways in which they could be improved. Evidence Bulletins are downloadable PDFs. If you wish to go on our mailing list to receive new Evidence Bulletins by email, or if you would like any of the bulletins in an accessible format, please contact us at cochrane-review@latrobe.edu.au.

Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: are we all talking about the same thing?

Abstract: Objective. This article aims to explore 1) whether after all the research done on shared decision making (SDM) in the medical encounter, a clear definition (or definitions) of SDM exists; 2) whether authors provide a definition of SDM when they use the term; 3) and whether authors are consistent, throughout a given paper, with respect to the research described and the definition they propose or cite. Methods. The authors searched different databases (Medline, HealthStar, Cinahl, Cancerlit, Sociological Abstracts, and Econlit) from 1997 to December 2004. The keywords used were informed decision making and shared decision making as these are the keywords more often encountered in the literature. The languages selected were English and French. Results. The 76 reported papers show that 1) several authors clearly define what they mean by SDM or by another closely related phrase, such as informed shared decision making. 2) About a third of the papers reviewed (25/76) cite these authors although 8 of them do not use the term in a manner consistent with the definition cited. 3) Certain authors use the term SDM inconsistently with the definition they propose, and some use the terms informed decision making and SDM as if they were synonymous. 4) Twenty-one papers do not provide or cite any definition, or their use of the term (i.e., SDM) is not consistent with the definition they provide. Conclusion. Although several clear definitions of shared decision making have been proposed, they are cited by only about a third of the papers reviewed. In the other papers, authors refer to the term without specifying or citing a definition or use the term inconsistently with their definition. This is a problem because having a clear definition of the concept and following this definition are essential to guide and focus research. Authors should use the term consistently with the identified definition.