1) determine whether increased levels of Shared Decision-Making (SDM) affect consultation duration, 2) investigate the intervention characteristics involved. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were systematically searched for experimental and cross-sectional studies up to December 2021. A best-evidence synthesis was performed, and interventions characteristics that increased at least one SDM-outcome, were pooled and descriptively analyzed. Sixty-three studies were selected: 28 randomized clinical trials, 8 quasi-experimental studies, and 27 cross-sectional studies. Overall, pooling of data was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity. No differences in consultation duration were found more often than increased or decreased durations. . Consultation times (minutes:seconds) were significantly increased only among interventions that: 1) targeted clinicians only (Mean Difference [MD] 1:30, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0:24-2:37); 2) were performed in primary care (MD 2:05, 95%CI 0:11-3:59; 3) used a group format (MD 2:25, 95%CI 0:45-4:05); 4) were not theory-based (MD 4:01, 95%CI 0:38-7:23). Applying SDM does not necessarily require longer consultation durations. Theory-based, multilevel implementation approaches possibly lower the risk of increasing consultation durations. The commonly heard concern that time hinders SDM implementation can be contradicted, but implementation demands multifaceted approaches and space for training and adapting work processes.

Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer face multiple treatment options. Involving them in a shared decision-making (SDM) process is essential. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a multilevel implementation programme enhanced the level of SDM behaviour of clinicians observed in consultations. This before–after study was conducted in six Dutch hospitals. Patients with breast cancer who were facing a decision on surgery or neoadjuvant systemic treatment between April 2016 and September 2017 were included, and provided informed consent. Audio recordings of consultations made before and after implementation were analysed using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-5) instrument to assess whether clinicians adopted new behaviour needed for applying SDM. Patients scored their perceived level of SDM, using the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Hospital, duration of the consultation(s), age, and number of consultations per patient that might influence OPTION-5 scores were investigated using linear regression analysis. Consultations of 139 patients were audiotaped, including 80 before and 59 after implementation. Mean (s.d.) OPTION-5 scores, expressed on a 0–100 scale, increased from 38.3 (15.0) at baseline to 53.2 (14.8) 1 year after implementation (mean difference (MD) 14.9, 95 per cent c.i. 9.9 to 19.9). SDM-Q-9 scores of 105 patients (75.5 per cent) (72 before and 33 after implementation) were high and showed no significant changes (91.3 versus 87.6; MD −3.7, −9.3 to 1.9). The implementation programme had an association with OPTION-5 scores (β = 14.2, P < 0.001), hospital (β = 2.2, P = 0.002), and consultation time (β = 0.2, P < 0.001). A multilevel implementation programme supporting SDM in breast cancer care increased the adoption of SDM behaviour of clinicians in consultations.

Evaluation of a multilevel implementation program on shared decision making (SDM) for breast cancer clinicians. The program was based on the 'Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations-model' (MIDI). Key factors for effective implementation were included. Eleven breast cancer teams selected from two geographical areas participated; first six surgery teams and second five systemic therapy teams. A mixed method evaluation was carried out at the end of each period: Descriptive statistics were used for surveys and thematic content analysis for semi-structured interviews. Twenty-eight clinicians returned the questionnaire (42%). Clinicians (96%) endorse that SDM is relevant to breast cancer care. The program supported adoption of SDM in their practice. Limited financial means, time constraints and concurrent activities were frequently reported barriers. Interviews (n = 21) showed that using a 4-step SDM model - when reinforced by practical examples, handy cards, feedback and training - helped to internalize SDM theory. Clinicians experienced positive results for their patients and themselves. Task re-assignment and flexible outpatient planning reinforce sustainable change. Patient involvement was valued. Our program supported breast cancer clinicians to adopt SDM. To implement SDM, multilevel approaches are needed that reinforce intrinsic motivation by demonstrating benefits for patients and clinicians.

Background: Enhancing the application of shared decision-making (SDM) is critical for integrating patient preferences in breast cancer treatment choices. We investigated the effect of an adapted multilevel SDM implementation program in breast cancer care. Methods: Breast cancer patients qualifying for (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment were included in a multicenter before–after study. Consultations were audio recorded between June 2018 and July 2019 and analyzed using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-5) instrument to score SDM application by clinicians. The Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) was used to rate patients’ perceived SDM level. Consultation duration, decision types, number of options discussed and consultations per patient were monitored. Regression analysis was used to investigate the correlated variables and program components. Results: Mean OPTION-5 scores increased from 33.9 (n = 63) before implementation to 54.3 (n = 49) after implementation (p < 0.001). The SDM-Q-9 scores did not change: 91.1 (n = 51) at baseline versus 88.9 (n = 23) after implementation (p = 0.81). Without increasing consultation time, clinicians discussed more options after implementation. The regression analysis showed that exposure to the implementation program, redistribution of tasks and discussing feedback from consultations was associated with a higher level of SDM. Conclusion: The multilevel program helped clinicians achieve clinically relevant improvement in SDM, especially when it is tailored to (individuals in) teams and includes (e-)training, discussing feedback on consultations and redistribution of tasks.

Objective: We aim to provide a literature overview on patient‐reported barriers and facilitators to participation in Shared Decision Making (SDM) within the setting of oncology.Methodology: Within the set of selected studies for a larger qualitative meta‐summary, using five databases, we selected the studies that had surveyed patients with oncologic illness for further analysis in this paper. Search terms were based on the concepts: ‘decision making’, ‘patient participation’, ‘patient perceptions’ and ‘study design’ aimed at eliciting patients' perspective, including patient surveys, interviews and focus groups.Results: Out of the 90 studies that had been selected for the larger review, we selected 22 articles concerning oncologic illness for more detailed analysis in this review. In total, we identified 33 different barriers and facilitators. Based on the most frequently reported barriers and facilitators, we defined six broad analytical themes, reflecting patients' most frequently recurring challenges (Themes 1 and 2) and needs (Themes 3–6) in this setting: (1) ‘High burdens’, (2) ‘Low self‐efficacy to participate’, (3) ‘Clear information provision’, (4) ‘Social support’, (5) ‘Physicians’ support’, (6) ‘Education, preparation and assertiveness’.Conclusion: The high decisional and emotional burdens oncologic patients experience appear to be specific challenges to SDM in oncology, which often undermine patients' self‐efficacy to participate and complicate patients' engagement in SDM. However, when offered the right support, patients may overcome the existing burdens and become more empowered to engage in SDM.Practice Implications: These insights need to be integrated in SDM strategies so that they may serve the ethical imperative of greater equality and the inclusion of diverse patient groups in different SDM settings.