Objectives To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement. Design Multistage consultation process. Setting Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties. Participants 19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties. Results After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on “team talk,” “option talk,” and “decision talk,” to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals. Conclusions The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences.

To compare occupation-based and impairment-based approaches in occupational therapy and determine the feasibility of patient recruitment and retention. A multicenter, randomized, controlled pilot trial with a single blind assessor. Ten subacute rehabilitation units in Japan. Fifty-four patients with subacute stroke. The experimental group used the iPad application, Aid for Decision-making in Occupation Choice, to establish occupation-based goals, and evaluation and intervention were conducted mainly through real occupations. The control group was evaluated according to patients’ generic abilities and activities of daily living (ADL), and the intervention mainly involved the impairment-based approach. Short Form-36, Functional Independence Measure, Brunnstrom recovery stages, The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, and length of hospital stay. Of the 1465 potential participants, 54 (3%) subacute stroke patients were enrolled over 16 months and 68% (n = 36) were retained to the 2-month assessment: experimental group (n = 16); control group (n = 21). Although there was no significant intergroup difference for any outcomes, the experimental group had a small effect size advantage on the Short Form-36 “General health” (d = 0.42) and “Role emotional” (d = 0.43) subscales relative to the control group. A sample of 118 subacute stroke patients per group would be required for a lager study. Results suggest that the occupation-based approach has more potential to improve “General health” and “Role emotional” scores on the Short Form-36 than the impairment-based approach. Further investigation of study protocol with interventions and recruiting is needed prior to a larger trial.

Purpose: The iPad application aid for decision-making in occupation choice (ADOC) was developed to measure the client’s satisfaction with individualized occupational performance of meaningful and purposeful activities. The present study examined the reliability and validity of individualized satisfaction measurement using the ADOC. Method: The Japanese version of the ADOC was used by 36 occupational therapists on 92 of their clients (44 males, 48 females, mean age 66.4 ± 17.8 years). Convergent and discriminant validity were examined using Pearson’s correlation between ADOC satisfaction score and the Life Satisfaction Index K (LSIK) factors: Factor 1 (satisfaction with life), Factor 2 (optimistic and positive disposition) and Factor 3 (evaluation of own aging). Test–retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Ninety-two clients completed the validation study. Satisfaction with ADOC significantly correlated with LSIK Factor 1 (r = 0.297, p < 0.01), but not with Factors 2 or 3 (r = −0.045 and −0.089, respectively). Of the 92 clients, 78 participated in the test–retest reliability study. Good to moderate correlation was revealed (ICC = 0.712, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The Japanese version of the ADOC is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring client satisfaction with individualized occupational performance.

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate relationships between individuals’ ratings of satisfaction and performance of activities that they found meaningful and depressive symptoms. Data was obtained from 806 older adults (mean age 74.9 ± 6.3 years, women = 63.0%) who participated in a community-based health check survey (Tarumizu Study 2018). Participants selected meaningful activities from 95 activities using the Aid for Decision-Making in Occupation Choice and evaluated their satisfaction and performance. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) and defined by a GDS-15 score of ≥5. Non-linear logistic regression analyses were used separately by gender to examine the association between satisfaction and performance of meaningful activities and depressive symptoms. The prevalence of depressive symptoms was 15.8%. We found no significant difference between meaningful activity choice between older adults with depressive symptoms and those without, in both men and women. After adjusting for potential covariates, satisfaction was associated with depressive symptoms in both men (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.35–0.77) and women (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49–0.91), but performance was limited in women (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77–0.99). Our findings suggest that depressive symptoms are associated with satisfaction in meaningful activities regardless of activity categories.

Care-home residents are mostly inactive, have little interaction with staff, and are dependent on staff to engage in daily occupations. We recently developed an iPad application called the Aid for Decision-making in Occupation Choice (ADOC) to promote shared decision-making in activities and occupation-based goal setting by choosing from illustrations describing daily activities. This study aimed to evaluate if interventions based on occupation-based goal setting using the ADOC could focus on meaningful activities to improve quality of life and independent activities of daily living, with greater cost-effectiveness than an impairment-based approach as well as to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a large cluster, randomized controlled trial. In this single (assessor)-blind pilot cluster randomized controlled trial, the intervention group (ADOC group) received occupational therapy based on occupation-based goal setting using the ADOC, and the interventions were focused on meaningful occupations. The control group underwent an impairment-based approach focused on restoring capacities, without goal setting tools. In both groups, the 20-minute individualized intervention sessions were conducted twice a week for 4 months. Short Form-36 (SF-36) score, SF-6D utility score, quality adjusted life years (QALY), Barthel Index, and total care cost. We randomized and analyzed 12 facilities (44 participants, 18.5% drop-out rate), with 6 facilities each allocated to the ADOC (n = 23) and control (n = 21) groups. After the 4-month intervention, the ADOC group had a significantly greater change in the BI score, with improved scores (P = 0.027, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.87, intracluster correlation coefficient = 0.14). No other outcome was significantly different. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated using the change in BI score, was $63.1. The results suggest that occupational therapy using the ADOC for older residents might be effective and cost-effective. We also found that conducting an RCT in the occupational therapy setting is feasible. UMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000012994