Background Shared Decision Making (SDM) is a process of engaging patients in health decisions that involve multiple medically appropriate treatment options. Despite growing public and policy support for patient engagement in health decisions, SDM is not widely practiced in clinical settings.

Politi, Mary; Dizon, Don S.; Frosch, Dominick L.; Kuzemchak, Marie D.; and Stiggelbout, Anne M., ,"Importance of clarifying patients' desired role in shared decision making to match their level of engagement with their preferences." BMJ.347,. f7066. (2013).

Introduction Since the Affordable Care Act was passed, more than 12 million individuals have enrolled in the health insurance marketplace. Without support, many struggle to make an informed plan choice that meets their health and financial needs. Methods We designed and evaluated a decision aid, Show Me My Health Plans (SMHP), that provides education, preference assessment, and an annual out-of-pocket cost calculator with plan recommendations produced by a tailored, risk-adjusted algorithm incorporating age, gender, and health status. We evaluated whether SMHP compared to HealthCare.gov improved health insurance decision quality and the match between plan choice, needs, and preferences among 328 Missourians enrolling in the marketplace. Results Participants who used SMHP had higher health insurance knowledge (LS-Mean = 78 vs. 62; P < 0.001), decision self-efficacy (LS-Mean = 83 vs. 75; P < 0.002), confidence in their choice (LS-Mean = 3.5 vs. 2.9; P < 0.001), and improved health insurance literacy (odds ratio = 2.52, P <0.001) compared to participants using HealthCare.gov. Those using SMHP were 10.3 times more likely to select a silver- or gold-tier plan (P < 0.0001). Discussion SMHP can improve health insurance decision quality and the odds that consumers select an insurance plan with coverage likely needed to meet their health needs. This study represents a unique context through which to apply principles of decision support to improve health insurance choices.

Clinicians' perceptions and opinions about value of DESIs can vary widely across doctor, patient and clinic characteristics. A one-size-fits-all approach to implementation might not be feasible, suggesting that flexible approaches to providing decision support for patients are needed to drive broader adoption.

Background. Cancer patients often do not make informed decisions regarding clinical trial participation. This study evaluated whether a web-based decision aid (DA) could support trial decisions compared with our cancer center's website. Methods. Adults diagnosed with cancer in the past 6 months who had not previously participated in a cancer clinical trial were eligible. Participants were randomized to view the DA or our cancer center's website (enhanced usual care [UC]). Controlling for whether participants had heard of cancer clinical trials and educational attainment, multivariable linear regression examined group on knowledge, self-efficacy for finding trial information, decisional conflict (values clarity and uncertainty), intent to participate, decision readiness, and trial perceptions. Results. Two hundred patients (86%) consented between May 2014 and April 2015. One hundred were randomized to each