A decision aid to assist in adjuvant therapy choices for breast cancer

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

The decision aid is the easy part: workflow challenges of shared decision making in cancer care

Delivering high-quality, patient-centered cancer care remains a challenge. Both the National Academy of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommend shared decision making to improve patient-centered care, but widespread adoption of shared decision making into clinical care has been limited. Shared decision making is a process in which a patient and the patient's health-care professional weigh the risks and benefits of different options and come to a joint decision on the best course of action for that patient on the basis of their values, preferences, and goals for care. Patients who engage in shared decision making report higher quality of care, whereas patients who are less involved in these decisions have statistically significantly higher decisional regret and are less satisfied. Decision aids can improve shared decision making-for example, by eliciting patient values and preferences that can then be shared with clinicians and by providing patients with information that may influence their decisions. However, integrating decision aids into the workflows of routine care is challenging. In this commentary, we explore 3 workflow-related barriers to shared decision making: the who, when, and how of decision aid implementation in clinical practice. We introduce readers to human factors engineering and demonstrate its potential value to decision aid design through a case study of breast cancer surgical treatment decision making. By better employing the methods and principles of human factors engineering, we can improve decision aid integration, shared decision making, and ultimately patient-centered cancer outcomes.

Decision Aids for Decision Making about Locally Advance Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is a subset of breast cancer with locoregional progression without distant metastasis. The multimodality treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal and targeted therapy if required) could significantly improve results in this specific group of patients. The complex and multiple options of treatment with similar mortality rates but different outcomes depending on the patient's desires, preferences and social environment require aid to facilitate the individual patient's decisions (e.g. Decision Aids (DAs) targeting patients considering primary or adjuvant treatment in LABC). In this context, DAs have been proven fundamental to help patients and clinicians share and agree on the best value option. The current systematic review aimed to evaluate the existing DAs related to these patients with LABC and identify current status and possible improvement areas (possible scarcity and heterogeneity of instruments, the status of their development, explanation of their purpose,…). No previous systematic reviews have been published on this topic. Following Prospero registration no: CRD42021286173, studies about LABC DAs were identified, without data or language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases in December 2021. Quality was assessed using Qualsyst criteria (range 0.0-1.0). The quality of the 17 selected studies ranged from 0.46 to 0.95. Of them, 14/17 (82%) were DAs about treatment, only one (6%) about diagnosis, and 2/17 (12%) about the employment of DAs. No screening or follow-up DAs were retrieved. Twelve (70.6%) DAs were online tools. They varied broadly regarding their characteristics and purposes. Most of the studies focused on developing and testing different DAs (5/17; 29.4%) and their impact (7/17; 41.2%). Only 4/17 (23.5%) analysed their implementation and cost. These instruments have proven to improve patient's knowledge and decision-making, decrease patient anxiety, and patients tend to undergo treatment. However, nowadays, there is still a need for further research and consensus on methodology to develop practical DAs.

The lived experience during the peri-diagnostic period of breast cancer: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the existing research that investigates the lived experience during the peri-diagnostic period of breast cancer.

METHODS

Nine databases were searched for relevant literature between January 2007 and April 2019. Data were extracted and categorized using deductive and inductive approaches.

RESULTS

A majority of the 66 studies included used qualitative methods to retrospectively explore the treatment decision making process of female breast cancer patients. Patients experienced uncertainty, emotional distress, and a need for more information from providers and relied on social support and family guidance during this period.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review show that the burdens experienced during the peri-diagnostic period parallel those in later periods of cancer care. However, these burdens are prompted by different circumstances. More research is needed to explore the lived experience during this period through the use of mixed-methods and by recruiting a diverse sample with regards to role in the breast cancer experience, age, gender, race, and ethnicity.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interventions positioned at earlier points in the breast cancer experience should provide informational support, which could be delivered through shared decision making models. Additional support could be facilitated by patient navigation programs and health information technology.

Computer-Based Decision Tools for Shared Therapeutic Decision-making in Oncology: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic decision-making in oncology is a complex process because physicians must consider many forms of medical data and protocols. Another challenge for physicians is to clearly communicate their decision-making process to patients to ensure informed consent. Computer-based decision tools have the potential to play a valuable role in supporting this process.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to investigate the extent to which computer-based decision tools have been successfully adopted in oncology consultations to improve patient-physician joint therapeutic decision-making.

METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist and guidelines. A literature search was conducted on February 4, 2021, across the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (from 2005 to January 28, 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (December 2020), MEDLINE (from 1946 to February 4, 2021), Embase (from 1947 to February 4, 2021), Web of Science (from 1900 to 2021), Scopus (from 1969 to 2021), and PubMed (from 1991 to 2021). We used a snowball approach to identify additional studies by searching the reference lists of the studies included for full-text review. Additional supplementary searches of relevant journals and gray literature websites were conducted. The reviewers screened the articles eligible for review for quality and inclusion before data extraction.

RESULTS

There are relatively few studies looking at the use of computer-based decision tools in oncology consultations. Of the 4431 unique articles obtained from the searches, only 10 (0.22%) satisfied the selection criteria. From the 10 selected studies, 8 computer-based decision tools were identified. Of the 10 studies, 6 (60%) were conducted in the United States. Communication and information-sharing were improved between physicians and patients. However, physicians did not change their habits to take advantage of computer-assisted decision-making tools or the information they provide. On average, the use of these computer-based decision tools added approximately 5 minutes to the total length of consultations. In addition, some physicians felt that the technology increased patients' anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the 10 selected studies, 6 (60%) demonstrated positive outcomes, 1 (10%) showed negative results, and 3 (30%) were neutral. Adoption of computer-based decision tools during oncology consultations continues to be low. This review shows that information-sharing and communication between physicians and patients can be improved with the assistance of technology. However, the lack of integration with electronic health records is a barrier. This review provides key requirements for enhancing the chance of success of future computer-based decision tools. However, it does not show the effects of health care policies, regulations, or business administration on physicians' propensity to adopt the technology. Nevertheless, it is important that future research address the influence of these higher-level factors as well.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021226087; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021226087.

Shared decision making in peri-operative medicine: Miles to go in Indian scenario

Shared Decision Making (SDM) in peri-operative medicine is increasingly encouraged as an ideal model of treatment decision making in the medical encounter. Moreover, it has the potential to improve the quality of the decision-making process for patients and ultimately, patient outcomes. This review focuses on several published literature on SDM in peri-operative medicine, its Implementation, barriers faced by Patient and the Provider, Myths regarding SDM and current scenario of SDM in India. Within the anesthetic community, patient consent is vigorously guided. However, this community suffers from lack of advancements in implementing the patient-focused rather than doctor-focused characteristics of SDM. Out of the several barriers, the most common barrier towards the implementation of SDM is the lack of time from the provider community. Within the anesthesia domain, the consultations discussed directly preceding the surgery do not pursue the customary and highly organized stages of typical outpatient consultations. Under these backgrounds and to be successfully implemented, it becomes imperative to begin the process of SDM pre-operative assessment clinic targeting both the high- and low-risk patients. It is critical to summarise that SDM does not end at the time of anesthesia for the peri-operative healthcare professional, but it gets to carry forward until patient discharge. Therefore, it is carried as the Pinnacle of Patient-Centred Care.

Heading in a new direction? Recommendations for future research on patient decision aids

Decision aids can improve a number of patient outcomes, but they are not commonly used in clinical practice. This commentary paper provides suggestions for potential next steps of decision aid research, with the aim to facilitate their implementation. We suggest to further standardise clinically meaningful outcomes and outcome measures that should be used to examine the impact of decision aids. Second, using mediation analysis and active control groups could help tease out and explore variables that influence decision aids' effectiveness to help healthcare providers decide when and how to use them in clinical practice. Third, effectiveness trials should be clearly reported and replicated to investigate under what circumstances decision aids work best. Specific checklists for decision aid trials should be used to ensure that all relevant factors are reported in detail. Addressing the above issues will help identify what specific components of decision aids are effective and should be implemented. We can then move towards conducting implementation trials which help increase the use of decision aids in "real-world" healthcare.

Communicating prognosis to women with early breast cancer - overview of prediction tools and the development and pilot testing of a decision aid

Background

Shared decision-making in oncology requires information on individual prognosis. This comprises cancer prognosis as well as competing risks of dying due to age and comorbidities. Decision aids usually do not provide such information on competing risks. We conducted an overview on clinical prediction tools for early breast cancer and developed and pilot-tested a decision aid (DA) addressing individual prognosis using additional chemotherapy in early, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer as an example.

Methods

Systematic literature search on clinical prediction tools for the effects of drug treatment on survival of breast cancer. The DA was developed following criteria for evidence-based patient information and International Patient Decision Aids Standards. We included data on the influence of age and comorbidities on overall prognosis. The DA was pilot-tested in focus groups. Comprehension was additionally evaluated through an online survey with women in breast cancer self-help groups.

Results

We identified three prediction tools: Adjuvant!Online, PREDICT and CancerMath. All tools consider age and tumor characteristics. Adjuvant!Online considers comorbidities, CancerMath displays age-dependent non-cancer mortality. Harm due to therapy is not reported.

Twenty women participated in focus groups piloting the DA until data saturation was achieved. A total of 102 women consented to participate in the online survey, of which 86 completed the survey. The rate of correct responses was 90.5% and ranged between 84 and 95% for individual questions.

Conclusions

None of the clinical prediction tools fulfilled the requirements to provide women with all the necessary information for informed decision-making. Information on individual prognosis was well understood and can be included in patient decision aids.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-3988-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of Patient Gender and Race and Physician Communication on Colorectal Cancer Diagnostic Visits in Primary Care

Background: Patient gender and race, and physician-patient communication are associated with clinical outcomes. Aim: To understand the role of these factors in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) during primary care visits as measured by appropriate outcome. Materials and Methods: Caucasian and African American unannounced standardized patients (USPs) of both genders presented to 207 primary care physicians (PCPs) from community and academic practices in Ohio and Virginia as new patients with CRC symptoms. PCPs were blinded to the diagnosis. Physician subjects consented to audiotaping the encounter. Medical records were obtained. Communication elements were coded by trained observers and appropriate visit outcomes were coded from the medical record and audiofiles, defined as (1) recommendation for colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy/fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or (2) referral to gastroenterologist. Results: A total of 141 of 367 USP visits (38%) resulted in appropriate clinical outcomes. Patient race was not associated with outcome, but being a male USP was (χ² = 4.12, p = 0.04). Relational communication was represented as a latent variable with seven indicators (alpha = 0.84) and was independently associated with outcome (beta = 0.15; p = 0.025). After controlling for clustered sampling, relational communication, and race, structural equational modeling indicated that female USPs were less likely to have an appropriate clinical visit outcome (beta = -0.13; p = 0.033). Conclusions: Using a novel and innovative methodology capturing PCP behaviors during real-time clinician-patient interaction, appropriate clinical outcome was independently associated with being male and PCP relational communication factors such as encouraging patient communication, being engaged and expressive in the physician-patient conversation, and appearing friendly and sincere. There are persistent biases in the delivery of health care to female patients and further research into targeted communication skills programs may be warranted.

Multilevel Influences on Patient-Oncologist Communication about Genomic Test Results: Oncologist Perspectives

Thousands of women with early-stage breast cancer receive gene-expression profile (GEP) tests to guide chemotherapy decisions. However, many patients report a poor understanding of how their test results inform treatment decision-making. We applied models of patient-centered communication and informed decision-making to assess which variables oncologists' perceive as most influential to effective communication with their patients about GEP results and intervention modalities and approaches that could support more effective conversations about treatment decisions in routine clinical care. Medical oncologists who were part of a practice group in the mid-Atlantic US completed an online, cross-sectional survey in 2016. These data were merged with de-identified electronic patient and practice data. Of the 83 oncologists contacted, 29 completed the survey (35% response rate, representing 52% of the test-eligible patients in the practice network). There were no significant differences between survey responders and nonresponders. Oncologists reported patient-related variables as most influential, including performance status (65.5%), pretesting preferences for chemotherapy (55.2%), and comprehension of complex test results (55.2%). Oncologists endorsed their experience with testing (58.6%) and their own confidence in using the test results (48.3%) as influential as well. They indicated that a clinical decision support tool incorporating patient comorbidities, age, and potential benefits from chemotherapy would support their own practice and that they could share these results and other means of communication support using print materials (79.3%) with their patients in clinic (72.4%). These preferred intervention characteristics could be integrated into routine care, ultimately facilitating more effective communication about genomic testing (such as GEP) and its role in treatment selection.

Ethical implications of the use of decision aids for antenatal counseling at the limits of gestational viability

Shared decision-making is a recent priority in neonatology. However, its implementation is at an early stage. Decision aids are tools designed to assist in shared decision-making. They help patients competently participate in making healthcare decisions. There are limited studies in neonatology on the formal use of decision aids as used in adult medicine. Decision aids are relatively new, even in adult medicine where they were pioneered; therefore, there is a lack of systematic oversight to their development and use. Despite evidence reporting a powerful effect on patients' decisions, decision aids are not subject to quality control, leading to potentially enormous ethical implications. These include: (i) possible introduction of developers' biases; (ii) use of outdated or incorrect information; (iii) misuse to steer a patient towards less expensive treatments; (iv) clinician liability if negative patient outcomes occur, since decision aids are currently not standard of care.

Initiation of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Black and White Women With Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant endocrine therapy reduces risk of recurrence and mortality in women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, yet many women never initiate it. We examined the influence of race, sociocultural factors, and process-of-care factors on initiation of adjuvant endocrine therapy in a racially diverse sample.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible women were originally recruited for the Narrowing the Gaps in Adjuvant Therapy Study (2006-2011). Sociocultural and process-of-care factors were collected via telephone surveys before adjuvant therapy. Clinical factors were abstracted from charts. Penalized LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) logistic regression model was used to identify variables associated with initiation.

RESULTS

Of the 270 women, 55.6% were black and the rest were white. Most women (74.8%) initiated therapy. A significant interaction (P = .008) was found between race and age. Black women aged ≤ 50 years had the lowest initiation (59.7%) compared to black women > 50 years (87.1%), white women ≤ 50 years (73.7%), or white women > 50 years (72.0%). Multivariate analysis found that younger black women exhibited a marginally higher risk of noninitiation compared to older black women. Additionally, ratings of financial access, presence of comorbidities, and levels of communication were all associated with endocrine therapy initiation.

CONCLUSION

Black women ≤ 50 years of age and women with financial constraints may be important subgroups for interventions. Patient-provider communication appears to be an important leverage point to foster therapy uptake.

Constructing a relevant decision aid for parents of children with bronchopulmonary dysplasia

BACKGROUND

To develop and test a decision aid for counseling parents of children with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD).Local problem:Parental education about complex conditions is not standardized and communication and understanding may not be adequate.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 33 neonatal clinicians and 12 parents of children with BPD using a qualitative research design. The interviews were used to identify education topics that were felt to be important in BPD education. These topics were then used to create a visual decision aid to be used in counseling sessions with parents. The decision aid was then used in mock counseling sessions with 15 'experienced' participants and 7 'naïve' participants to assess its efficacy. The participants completed a pre and post test to assess change in knowledge as well as an 11-question Likert style acceptability survey.

INTERVENTION

Implementation of a decision aid while educating parents about BPD.

RESULTS

Topics identified during the interviews were used to create eight educational cards which included pictures, pictographs and statistics. Overall, participants thought the decision aid contained an appropriate amount of information, were easy to understand and improved their knowledge about BPD. Testing demonstrated a significant increase in knowledge in both the 'experienced' (P<0.0001) and 'naïve' group (P=0.0064).

CONCLUSION

A decision aid for parents of children with BPD may improve understanding of the condition and help facilitate communication between parents and doctors.

Are online prediction tools a valid alternative to genomic profiling in the context of systemic treatment of ER-positive breast cancer?

Background

Clinicians use clinical and pathological parameters, such as tumour size, grade and nodal status, to make decisions on adjuvant treatments for breast cancer. However, therapeutic decisions based on these features tend to vary due to their subjectivity. Computational and mathematical algorithms were developed using clinical outcome data from breast cancer registries, such as Adjuvant! Online and NHS PREDICT. More recently, assessments of molecular profiles have been applied in the development of better prognostic tools.

Methods

Based on the available literature on online registry-based tools and genomic assays, we evaluated whether these online tools could be valid and accurate alternatives to genomic and molecular profiling of the individual breast tumour in aiding therapeutic decisions, particularly in patients with early ER-positive breast cancer.

Results and conclusions

Early breast cancer is currently considered a systemic disease and a complex ecosystem with behaviour determined by the complex genetic and molecular signatures of the tumour cells, mammary stem cells, microenvironment and host immune system. We anticipate that molecular profiling will continue to evolve, expanding beyond the primary tumour to include the tumour microenvironment, cancer stem cells and host immune system. This should further refine therapeutic decisions and optimise clinical outcome.

This article was specially invited by the editors and represents work by leading researchers.

Do online prognostication tools represent a valid alternative to genomic profiling in the context of adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer? A systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Decision-making regarding adjuvant chemotherapy has been based on clinical and pathological features. However, such decisions are seldom consistent. Web-based predictive models have been developed using data from cancer registries to help determine the need for adjuvant therapy. More recently, with the recognition of the heterogenous nature of breast cancer, genomic assays have been developed to aid in the therapeutic decision-making.

METHODS

We have carried out a comprehensive literature review regarding online prognostication tools and genomic assays to assess whether online tools could be used as valid alternatives to genomic profiling in decision-making regarding adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer has been recently recognized as a heterogenous disease based on variations in molecular characteristics. Online tools are valuable in guiding adjuvant treatment, especially in resource constrained countries. However, in the era of personalized therapy, molecular profiling appears to be superior in predicting clinical outcome and guiding therapy.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Treatment preferences of advanced ovarian cancer patients for adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy

BACKGROUND

The GOG-218 and ICON-7 studies recently showed that adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer increased progression-free survival. However, the high cost and long treatment duration prevents the incorporation of bevacizumab in practice. The aim of this study was to explore and quantify patients' preferences for adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and trade-off question were designed and distributed to 102 ovarian cancer patients. Participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical first-line therapies that differed in terms of effectiveness, safety, and the financial burden. A trade-off technique varying the cost of bevacizumab was used to quantify a willingness-to-pay threshold for selecting bevacizumab.

RESULTS

All attributes of the DCE had a statistically significant impact on respondents' preferences and the financial burden was the most important attribute. The results of the trade-off question showed that more than half of patients would prefer to add bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy when the cost of the drug was reduced to 17% (1/6) of the baseline cost.

CONCLUSION

Patients' preferences for bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of ovarian cancer depend primarily on drug costs. Our results suggest that the current cost of bevacizumab is sufficiently high that the majority of ovarian cancer patients are not willing to pay to accept a small increase in progression-free survival.

The impact of health information technology on cancer care across the continuum: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Health information technology (HIT) has the potential to play a significant role in the management of cancer. The purpose of this review is to identify and examine empirical studies that investigate the impact of HIT in cancer care on different levels of the care continuum.

METHODS

Electronic searches were performed in four academic databases. The authors used a three-step search process to identify 122 studies that met specific inclusion criteria. Next, a coding sheet was used to extract information from each included article to use in an analysis. Logistic regression was used to determine study-specific characteristics that were associated with positive findings.

RESULTS

Overall, 72.4% of published analyses reported a beneficial effect of HIT. Multivariate analysis found that the impact of HIT differs across the cancer continuum with studies targeting diagnosis and treatment being, respectively, 77 (P = .001) and 39 (P = .039) percentage points less likely to report a beneficial effect when compared to those targeting prevention. In addition, studies targeting HIT to patients were 31 percentage points less likely to find a beneficial effect than those targeting providers (P = .030). Lastly, studies assessing behavior change as an outcome were 41 percentage points less likely to find a beneficial effect (P = .006), while studies targeting decision making were 27 percentage points more likely to find a beneficial effect (P = .034).

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, HIT interventions seem to be more successful when targeting physicians, care in the prevention phase of the cancer continuum, and/or decision making. An agenda for future research is discussed.

Patient-mediated knowledge translation (PKT) interventions for clinical encounters: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient-mediated knowledge translation (PKT) interventions engage patients in their own health care. Insight on which PKT interventions are effective is lacking. We sought to describe the type and impact of PKT interventions.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of PKT interventions, defined as strategies that inform, educate and engage patients in their own health care. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from 2005 to 2014 for English language studies that evaluated PKT interventions delivered immediately before, during or upon conclusion of clinical encounters to individual patients with arthritis or cancer. Data were extracted on study characteristics, PKT intervention (theory, content, delivery, duration, personnel, timing) and outcomes. Interventions were characterized by type of patient engagement (inform, activate, collaborate). We performed content analysis and reported summary statistics.

RESULTS

Of 694 retrieved studies, 16 were deemed eligible (5 arthritis, 11 cancer; 12 RCTs, 4 cohort studies; 7 low, 3 uncertain, 6 high risk of bias). PKT interventions included print material in 10 studies (brochures, booklets, variety of print material, list of websites), electronic material in 10 studies (video, computer program, website) and counselling in 2 studies. They were offered before, during and after consultation in 4, 1 and 4 studies, respectively; as single or multifaceted interventions in 10 and 6 studies, respectively; and by clinicians, health educators, researchers or volunteers in 4, 3, 5 and 1 study, respectively. Most interventions informed or activated patients. All studies achieved positive impact in one or more measures of patient knowledge, decision-making, communication and behaviour. This was true regardless of condition, PKT intervention, timing, personnel, type of engagement or delivery (single or multifaceted). No studies assessed patient harms, or interventions for providers to support PKT intervention delivery. Two studies evaluated the impact on providers of PKT interventions aimed at patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Single interventions involving print material achieved beneficial outcomes as did more complex interventions. Few studies were eligible, and no studies evaluated patient harms, or provider outcomes. Further research is warranted to evaluate these PKT interventions in more patients, or patients with different conditions; different types of PKT interventions for patients and for providers; and potential harms associated with interventions.

A systematic review of decision aids for patients making a decision about treatment for early breast cancer

Several complex treatment decisions may be offered to women with early stage breast cancer, about a range of treatments from different modalities including surgery, radiotherapy, and endocrine and chemotherapy. Decision aids can facilitate shared decision-making and improve decision-related outcomes. We aimed to systematically identify, describe and appraise the literature on treatment decision aids for women with early breast cancer, synthesise the data and identify breast cancer decisions that lack a decision aid. A prospectively developed search strategy was applied to MEDLINE, the Cochrane databases, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and abstract databases from major conferences. Data were extracted into a pre-piloted form. Quality and risk of bias were measured using Qualsyst criteria. Results were synthesised into narrative format. Thirty-three eligible articles were identified, evaluating 23 individual treatment decision aids, comprising 13 randomised controlled trial reports, seven non-randomised comparative studies, eight single-arm pre-post studies and five cross-sectional studies. The decisions addressed by these decision aids were: breast conserving surgery versus mastectomy (+/- reconstruction); use of chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy; radiotherapy; and fertility preservation. Outcome measures were heterogeneous, precluding meta-analysis. Decisional conflict decreased, and knowledge and satisfaction increased, without any change in anxiety or depression, in most studies. No studies were identified that evaluated decision aids for neoadjuvant systemic therapy, or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Decision aids are available and improved decision-related outcomes for many breast cancer treatment decisions including surgery, radiotherapy, and endocrine and chemotherapy. Decision aids for neoadjuvant systemic therapy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy could not be found, and may be warranted.

Informed Decision Making: Assessment of the Quality of Physician Communication about Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about how physicians present diagnosis and treatment planning in routine practice in preference-sensitive treatment decisions. We evaluated completeness and quality of informed decision making in localized prostate cancer post biopsy encounters.

METHODS

We analyzed audio-recorded office visits of 252 men with presumed localized prostate cancer (Gleason 6 and Gleason 7 scores) who were seeing 45 physicians at 4 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Data were collected between September 2008 and May 2012 in a trial of 2 decision aids (DAs). Braddock's previously validated Informed Decision Making (IDM) system was used to measure quality. Latent variable models for ordinal data examined the relationship of IDM score to treatment received.

RESULTS

Mean IDM score showed modest quality (7.61±2.45 out of 18) and high variability. Treatment choice and risks and benefits were discussed in approximately 95% of encounters. However, in more than one-third of encounters, physicians provided a partial set of treatment options and omitted surveillance as a choice. Informing quality was greater in patients treated with surveillance (β = 1.1, p = .04). Gleason score (7 vs 6) and lower age were often cited as reasons to exclude surveillance. Patient preferences were elicited in the majority of cases, but not used to guide treatment planning. Encounter time was modestly correlated with IDM score (r = 0.237, p = .01). DA type was not associated with IDM score.

DISCUSSION

Physicians informed patients of options and risks and benefits, but infrequently engaged patients in core shared decision-making processes. Despite patients having received DAs, physicians rarely provided an opportunity for preference-driven decision making. More attention to the underused patient decision-making and engagement elements could result in improved shared decision making.

How can we best respect patient autonomy in breast cancer treatment decisions?

Helping patients to maximize their autonomy in breast cancer decision-making is an important aspect of patient-centered care. Shared decision-making is a strategy that aims to maximize patient autonomy by integrating the values and preferences of the patient with the biomedical expertise of the physician. Application of this approach in breast cancer decision-making has not been uniform across cancer-specific interventions (e.g., surgery, chemotherapy), and in some circumstances may present challenges to evidence-based care delivery. Increasingly precise estimates of individual patients' risk of recurrence and commensurate predicted benefit from certain therapies hold significant promise in helping patients exercise autonomous decision-making for their breast cancer care, yet will also likely complicate decision-making for certain subgroups of patients.

Primum non nocere: shared informed decision making in low back pain--a pilot cluster randomised trial

Background

Low back pain is a common and disabling condition leading to large health service and societal costs. Although there are several treatment options for back pain little is known about how to improve patient choice in treatment selection. The purpose of this study was to pilot a decision support package to help people choose between low back pain treatments.

Methods

This was a single-centred pilot cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in a community physiotherapy service. We included adults with non-specific low back pain referred for physiotherapy. Intervention participants were sent an information booklet prior to their first consultation. Intervention physiotherapists were trained to enhance their skills in shared informed decision making. Those in the control arm received care as usual. The primary outcome was satisfaction with the treatment received at four months using a five-point Likert Scale dichotomised into “satisfaction” (very satisfied or somewhat satisfied) and “non-satisfaction” (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).

Results

We recruited 148 participants. In the control arm 67% of participants were satisfied with their treatment and in the intervention arm 53%. The adjusted relative risk of being satisfied was 1.28 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 2.09). For most secondary outcomes the trend was towards worse outcomes in the intervention group. For one measure; the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, this difference was clinically important (2.27, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 4.47). Mean healthcare costs were slightly lower (£38 saving per patient) within the intervention arm but health outcomes were also less favourable (0.02 fewer QALYs); the estimated probability that the intervention would be cost-effective at an incremental threshold of £20,000 per QALY was 16%.

Conclusion

We did not find that this decision support package improved satisfaction with treatment; it may have had a substantial negative effect on clinical outcome, and is very unlikely to prove cost-effective. That a decision support package might have a clinically important detrimental effect is of concern. To our knowledge this has not been observed previously. Decision support packages should be formally tested for clinical and cost-effectiveness, and safety before implementation.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46035546 registered on 11/02/10.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-282) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Provider perspectives on presenting risk information and managing worry about recurrence among breast cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Although worry about recurrence is a persistent concern among breast cancer survivors, little is known about physicians' confidence about presenting recurrence risk information, identifying women with considerable worry, and helping women manage worry.

METHODS

Between January and June 2012, we surveyed 750 surgeons and 750 medical oncologists randomly sampled from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. We tested differences between surgeons and medical oncologists on confidence of presenting risk, identifying and managing worry using chi-square statistic and Student's t-tests and developed multiple variable logistic regression models to explain odds regarding confidence and use of different strategies for managing worry.

RESULTS

The analytic sample included 403 surgeons and 363 medical oncologists (n = 766; response rate = 60%). Compared with surgeons, medical oncologists were significantly more likely to report confidence in: presenting risk information (87.5% vs 73.2%), identifying women who are worried (74.1% vs 63.9%), and managing worry (66.9% vs 52.4%). Confidence in managing worry was associated with more regular inquiry about worry (p = 0.009). Models of the likelihood of using different management strategies varied by provider type (e.g., surgeons more likely than medical oncologists to recommend support group or online resources, oncologists more likely to refer to psychologist or use medications, all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Cancer providers, particularly surgeons, may benefit from educational training to raise confidence in identifying women with high levels of worry and managing women with considerable worry. Communication between specialties and primary care physicians on efforts to manage worry is necessary for coordinated, quality care for women with breast cancer.

Shared decision-making and comparative effectiveness research for patients with chronic conditions: an urgent synergy for better health

Chronic conditions are the most important cause of morbidity, mortality and health expense in the USA. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) seeks to provide evidence supporting the relative value of alternative courses of action. This research often concludes with estimates of the likelihood of desirable and undesirable outcomes associated with each option. Patients with chronic conditions should engage with their clinicians in deciding which of these options best fits their goals and context. In practicing shared decision-making (SDM), clinicians and patients should make use of CER to inform their deliberations. In these ways, SDM and CER are interrelated. SDM translates CER into patient-centered practice, while CER provides the backbone evidence about options and outcomes in SDM interventions. In this review, we explore the potential for a SDM-CER synergy in improving healthcare for patients with chronic conditions.

Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making

BACKGROUND

Decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been shown to enable patients to identify a preferred screening option, but the extent to which such tools facilitate shared decision making (SDM) from the perspective of the provider is less well established.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to elicit provider feedback regarding the impact of a CRC screening decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care providers participating in a clinical trial evaluating the impact of a novel CRC screening decision aid on SDM and adherence.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Perceptions of the impact of the tool on decision-making and implementation issues.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine of 42 (71%) eligible providers responded, including 27 internists and two nurse practitioners. The majority (>60%) felt that use of the tool complimented their usual approach, increased patient knowledge, helped patients identify a preferred screening option, improved the quality of decision making, saved time and increased patients' desire to get screened. Respondents were more neutral is their assessment of whether the tool improved the overall quality of the patient visit or patient satisfaction. Fewer than 50% felt that the tool would be easy to implement into their practices or that it would be widely used by their colleagues.

CONCLUSION

Decision aids for CRC screening can improve the quality and efficiency of SDM from the provider perspective but future use is likely to depend on the extent to which barriers to implementation can be addressed.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

The value of personalised risk information: a qualitative study of the perceptions of patients with prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To explore the experiences of patients with prostate cancer with risk information and their perceptions of the value of personalised risk information in treatment decisions.

DESIGN

A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups. Semistructured interviews explored participants' experiences with using risk information, and their perceptions of the potential value of personalised risk information produced by clinical prediction models.

PARTICIPANTS

English-speaking patients, ages 54-82, diagnosed with prostate cancer within the past 3 years, residing in rural and non-rural geographic locations in Maine (USA), and attending prostate cancer patient support groups.

SETTING

6 focus groups were conducted with 27 patients; separate groups were held for patients with low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk disease defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

RESULTS

Several participants reported receiving risk information that was imprecise rather than precise, qualitative rather than quantitative, indirect rather than direct and focused on biomarker values rather than clinical outcomes. Some participants felt that personalised risk information could be useful in helping them make better informed decisions, but expressed scepticism about its value. Many participants favoured decision-making strategies that were heuristic-based and intuitive rather than risk-based and deliberative, and perceived other forms of evidence-emotions, recommendations of trusted physicians, personal narratives-as more reliable and valuable in treatment decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with prostate cancer appear to have little experience using personalised risk information, may favour heuristic-based over risk-based decision-making strategies and may perceive personalised risk information as less valuable than other types of evidence. These decision-making approaches and perceptions represent potential barriers to the clinical use of personalised risk information. Overcoming these barriers will require providing patients with greater exposure to risk information, education about the nature and value of personalised risk information and training in deliberative decision-making strategies. More research is needed to confirm these findings and address these needs.

Multimedia educational interventions for consumers about prescribed and over-the-counter medications

BACKGROUND

Health consumers increasingly want access to accurate, evidence-based information about their medications. Currently, education about medications (that is, information that is designed to achieve health or illness related learning) is provided predominantly via spoken communication between the health provider and consumer, sometimes supplemented with written materials. There is evidence, however, that current educational methods are not meeting consumer needs. Multimedia educational programs offer many potential advantages over traditional forms of education delivery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of multimedia patient education interventions about prescribed and over-the-counter medications in people of all ages, including children and carers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1950 to June 2011), EMBASE (1974 to June 2011), CINAHL (1982 to June 2011), PsycINFO (1967 to June 2011), ERIC (1966 to June 2011), ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Database (to June 2011) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of multimedia-based patient education about prescribed or over-the-counter medications in people of all ages, including children and carers, if the intervention had been targeted for their use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Where possible, we contacted study authors to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 studies that enrolled a total of 8112 participants. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the comparators used and the outcomes measured, which limited the ability to pool data. Many of the studies did not report sufficient information in their methods to allow judgment of their risk of bias. From the information that was reported, three of the studies had a high risk of selection bias and one was at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of the outcome assessors. None of the included studies reported the minimum clinically important difference for the outcomes that were measured. We have therefore reported results from the studies but have been unable to interpret whether differences were of clinical importance.The main findings of the review are as follows.Knowledge: There is low quality evidence that multimedia education was more effective than usual care (non-standardised education provided as part of usual clinical care) or no education (standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.58, six studies with 817 participants). There was considerable statistical heterogeneity (I(2) = 89%), however, all but one of the studies favoured the multimedia group. There is moderate quality evidence that multimedia education was not more effective at improving knowledge than control multimedia interventions (i.e. multimedia programs that do not provide information about the medication) (mean difference (MD) of knowledge scores 2.78%, 95% CI -1.48 to 7.0, two studies with 568 participants). There is moderate quality evidence that multimedia education was more effective when added to a co-intervention (written information or brief standardised instructions provided by a health professional) compared with the co-intervention alone (MD of knowledge scores 24.59%, 95% CI 22.34 to 26.83, two studies with 381 participants).Skill acquisition: There is moderate quality evidence that multimedia education was more effective than usual care or no education (MD of inhaler technique score 18.32%, 95% CI 11.92 to 24.73, two studies with 94 participants) and written education (risk ratio (RR) of improved inhaler technique 2.14, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.44, two studies with 164 participants). There is very low quality evidence that multimedia education was equally effective as education by a health professional (MD of inhaler technique score -1.01%, 95% CI -15.75 to 13.72, three studies with 130 participants).Compliance with medications: There is moderate quality evidence that there was no difference between multimedia education and usual care or no education (RR of complying 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08, two studies with 4552 participants).We could not determine the effect of multimedia education on other outcomes, including patient satisfaction, self-efficacy and health outcomes, due to an inadequate number of studies from which to draw conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that multimedia education about medications is more effective than usual care (non-standardised education provided by health professionals as part of usual clinical care) or no education, in improving both knowledge and skill acquisition. It also suggests that multimedia education is at least equivalent to other forms of education, including written education and education provided by a health professional. However, this finding is based on often low quality evidence from a small number of trials. Multimedia education about medications could therefore be considered as an adjunct to usual care but there is inadequate evidence to recommend it as a replacement for written education or education by a health professional. Multimedia education may be considered as an alternative to education provided by a health professional, particularly in settings where provision of detailed education by a health professional is not feasible. More studies evaluating multimedia educational interventions are required in order to increase confidence in the estimate of effect of the intervention.Conclusions regarding the effect of multimedia education were limited by the lack of information provided by study authors about the educational interventions, and variability in their content and quality. Studies testing educational interventions should provide detailed information about the interventions and comparators. Research is required to establish a framework that is specific for the evaluation of the quality of multimedia educational programs. Conclusions were also limited by the heterogeneity in the outcomes reported and the instruments used to measure them. Research is required to identify a core set of outcomes which should be measured when evaluating patient educational interventions. Future research should use consistent, reliable and validated outcome measures so that comparisons can be made between studies.

Doing palliative care in the oncology office

Palliative care is cited as providing improved communication, symptom control, treatment knowledge, and survival. The authors feel primary palliative care skills should be part of a physician's armamentarium.

Using decision aids to improve treatment choices for women with breast cancer

SUMMARY Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women worldwide and decision-making regarding treatment options can be complex; however, patients often desire to be involved in health-related decisions. There has been a growing body of research into decision-support tools such as decision aids (DAs). Generally, DAs outperform standard care over a range of decision-making outcomes and there are some that have been developed for use with breast cancer patients across the treatment trajectory, which have been evaluated for use in practice. There is scope for developing additional DAs for cancer patients, however, there are some limitations and barriers that need to be overcome as part of the implementation process. Consideration for the mechanisms for maintaining relevancy of materials and ease of accessibility is also needed.

Facilitating healthy coping in patients with diabetes: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to summarize recent literature on approaches to supporting healthy coping in diabetes in 2 specific areas: (1) the impact of different approaches to diabetes treatment on healthy coping and (2) the effectiveness of interventions specifically designed to support healthy coping.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified 129 articles published August 1, 2006, to April 30, 2011, addressing diabetes in relation to emotion, quality of life, depression, adjustment, anxiety, coping, family therapy, behavior therapy, psychotherapy, problem solving, couples therapy, or marital therapy.

RESULTS

Evidence suggests that treatment choice may significantly influence quality of life, with treatment intensification in response to poor metabolic control often improving quality of life. The recent literature provides support for a variety of healthy coping interventions in diverse populations, including diabetes self-management education, support groups, problem-solving approaches, and coping skills interventions for improving a range of outcomes; cognitive behavior therapy and collaborative care for treating depression; and family therapy for improving coping in youths.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthy coping in diabetes has received substantial attention in the past 5 years. A variety of approaches show positive results. Research is needed to compare the effectiveness of different approaches in different populations and determine how to overcome barriers to intervention dissemination and implementation.

Accuracy validation of adjuvant! online in Taiwanese breast cancer patients--a 10-year analysis

Background

Adjuvant! Online ( http://www.adjuvantonline.com) is an Internet-based software program that allows clinicians to make predictions about the benefits of adjuvant therapy and 10-year survival probability for early-stage breast cancer patients. This model has been validated in Western countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and Holland. The aim of our study was to investigate the performance and accuracy of Adjuvant! Online in a cohort of Taiwanese breast cancer patients.

Methods

Data on the prognostic factors and clinical outcomes of 559 breast cancer patients diagnosed at the National Cheng Kung University Hospital in Tainan between 1992 and 2001 were enrolled in the study. Comprehensive demographic, clinical outcome data, and adjuvant treatment data were entered into the Adjuvant! Online program. The outcome prediction at 10 years was compared with the observed and predicted outcomes using Adjuvant! Online.

Results

Comparison between low- and high-risk breast cancer patient subgroups showed significant differences in tumor grading, tumor size, and lymph node status (p < 0.0001). The mean 10-year predicted death probability in 559 patients was 19.44%, and the observed death probability was 15.56%. Comparison with the Adjuvant! Online-predicted breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) showed significant differences in the whole cohort (p < 0.001). In the low-risk subgroup, the predicted and observed outcomes did not differ significantly (3.69% and 3.85%, respectively). In high-risk patients, Adjuvant! Online overestimated breast cancer-specific survival (p = 0.016); the predicted and observed outcomes were 21.99% and 17.46%, respectively.

Conclusions

Adjuvant! Online accurately predicted 10-year outcomes and assisted in decision making about adjuvant treatment in low-risk breast cancer patients in our study, although the results were less accurate in the high-risk subgroup. Development of a prognostic program based on a national database should be considered, especially for high-risk breast cancer patients in Taiwan.

Psychosocial and Quality of Life in Women Receiving the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay: The Impact of Decision Style in Women with Intermediate RS

Multigene assays such as the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) quantify risk for recurrence and potential benefit from chemotherapy in early-stage, ER+ breast cancers. Few studies have assessed the impact of testing on patient-reported outcomes such as cancer-related distress or quality of life. The few studies that have assessed these outcomes do not consider potential modifiers, such as the patients' level of involvement in the treatment decision-making process. In the current study, 81 breast cancer patients who received the RS assay completed cross-sectional surveys. We used linear multiple regression to assess whether test result, decision-making role (passive versus shared/active), and their interaction contributed to current levels of distress, quality of life, and decisional conflict. There were no associations between these variables and test result or decision-making role. However, women who received an intermediate RS and took a passive role in their care reported higher-cancer-related distress and cancer worry and lower quality of life than those who took a shared or active role. These data should be confirmed in prospective samples, as these poorer outcomes could be amenable to intervention.

Clinical validity/utility, change in practice patterns, and economic implications of risk stratifiers to predict outcomes for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

At least 14 stratifiers exist to assess recurrence risk, chemotherapy response, and overall survival (OS) in women with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). These stratifiers have not been compared using a recently developed rigorous framework. We performed a systematic review of the literature on clinical validity/utility, change in clinical practice, and economic implications of ESBC stratifiers.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and bibliographies of relevant studies. Data were extracted by two investigators and graded using a previously published framework. The Level-of-Evidence determination for each study was summarized, and the studies that provide evidence on change in clinical practice and economic implications are reported.

RESULTS

Fifty-six articles published original evidence addressing the 21-gene recurrence score (n = 31), 70-gene signature (n = 14), Adjuvant! Online (n = 12), 5-antibody immunohistochemistry panel (n = 3), 5-gene expression index (n = 1), and 14-gene signature (n = 1). The 21-gene recurrence score satisfied Level I evidence (the highest level of evidence among five levels) for estimating distant recurrence risk (DRR), OS, and response to adjuvant chemotherapy, and Level II for estimating local recurrence risk. The 5-antibody immunohistochemistry panel and 70-gene signature satisfied Level II evidence for estimating DRR and OS. Adjuvant! Online satisfied Level II evidence for estimating DRR, OS, and chemotherapy response. The 5-gene expression index satisfied Level III evidence for predicting DRR. The 14-gene signature satisfied Level III evidence for predicting DRR and OS. Ten studies reported changes in clinical practice patterns; seven studies reported economic implications.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence on the ability of stratifiers to predict risks of recurrence and response to chemotherapy in ESBC is growing. Level-of-Evidence determinations using the newer framework provide a solid scientific foundation for clinical recommendations.

Individualized estimation of the benefit of radical prostatectomy from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Although there is randomized evidence that radical prostatectomy improves survival, there are few data on how benefit varies by baseline risk.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to create a statistical model to calculate the decrease in risk of death associated with surgery for an individual patient, using stage, grade, prostate-specific antigen, and age as predictors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 695 men with T1 or T2 prostate cancer participated in the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 trial (SPCG-4).

INTERVENTION

Patients in SPCG-4 were randomized to radical prostatectomy or conservative management.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Competing risk models were created separately for the radical prostatectomy and the watchful waiting group, with the difference between model predictions constituting the estimated benefit for an individual patient.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Individualized predictions of surgery benefit varied widely depending on age and tumor characteristics. At 65 yr of age, the absolute 10-yr risk reduction in prostate cancer mortality attributable to radical prostatectomy ranged from 4.5% to 17.2% for low- versus high-risk patients. Little expected benefit was associated with surgery much beyond age 70. Only about a quarter of men had an individualized benefit within even 50% of the mean. A limitation is that estimates from SPCG-4 have to be applied cautiously to contemporary patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model suggests that it is hard to justify surgery in patients with Gleason 6, T1 disease or in those patients much above 70 yr of age. Conversely, surgery seems unequivocally of benefit for patients who have Gleason 8, or Gleason 7, stage T2. For patients with Gleason 6 T2 and Gleason 7 T1, treatment is more of a judgment call, depending on patient preference and other clinical findings, such as the number of positive biopsy cores and comorbidities.

Development and pretesting of a decision-aid to use when counseling parents facing imminent extreme premature delivery

OBJECTIVE

To develop and pretest a decision-aid to help parents facing extreme premature delivery during antenatal counseling regarding delivery room resuscitation.

STUDY DESIGN

Semistructured interviews with 31 clinicians and with 30 parents of children born <26 weeks' gestation were conducted following standard methods of qualitative research. These characterized perceptions of prenatal counseling to identify information that parents value when making decisions regarding delivery room resuscitation. These parental needs were formatted into a decision-aid. We assessed the primary outcome of how effectively the decision-aid improved knowledge during a simulated counseling session. Two groups of women were studied: parents with a history of prematurity ("experienced") and healthy women without prior knowledge of prematurity ("naïve").

RESULTS

Interviewees thought that visual formats to present survival and short- and long-term outcome information facilitated their own preparation, recall, and understanding. Accordingly, we designed a decision-aid as a set of cards with pictures and pictographs to show survival rates and complications. There was significant improvement in knowledge in 13 "experienced" parents (P = .04) and 11 "naïve" women (P < .0001). Participants found the cards useful and easy to understand.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision-aid for parents facing extreme premature delivery may improve their understanding of complicated information during antenatal counseling.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update, we searched from January 2006 to December 2009 in MEDLINE (Ovid); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, issue 4 2009); CINAHL (Ovid) (to September 2008 only); EMBASE (Ovid); PsycINFO (Ovid); and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed potential risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, were:A) decision attributes;B) decision making process attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health system effects. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 34,316 unique citations, 86 studies involving 20,209 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included. Thirty-one of these studies are new in this update. Twenty-nine trials are ongoing. There was variability in potential risk of bias across studies. The two criteria that were most problematic were lack of blinding and the potential for selective outcome reporting, given that most of the earlier trials were not registered.Of 86 included studies, 63 (73%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: A) criteria involving decision attributes: knowledge scores (51 studies); accurate risk perceptions (16 studies); and informed value-based choice (12 studies); and B) criteria involving decision process attributes: feeling informed (30 studies) and feeling clear about values (18 studies).A) Criteria involving decision attributes:Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions by increasing knowledge (MD 13.77 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.40 to 16.15; n = 26). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simpler decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 4.97 out of 100; 95% CI 3.22 to 6.72; n = 15). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.08; n = 14). The effect was stronger when probabilities were expressed in numbers (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.37; n = 11) rather than words (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.48; n = 3). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification compared to those without explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients achieving decisions that were informed and consistent with their values (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.52; n = 8).B) Criteria involving decision process attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -6.43 of 100; 95% CI -9.16 to -3.70; n = 17); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -4.81; 95% CI -7.23 to -2.40; n = 14); c) reduced the proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; n = 11); and d) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; n = 9). Decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in the four studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 12) and/or the decision making process (n = 12), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. There were no studies evaluating the decision process attributes relating to helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made or understand that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomesExposure to decision aids compared to usual care continued to demonstrate reduced choice of: major elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; n = 11). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care also resulted in reduced choice of PSA screening (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; n = 7). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, there was reduced choice of menopausal hormones (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from -8 minutes to +23 minutes (median 2.5 minutes). Decision aids do not appear to be different from comparisons in terms of anxiety (n = 20), and general health outcomes (n = 7), and condition specific health outcomes (n = 9). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

New for this updated review is evidence that: decision aids with explicit values clarification exercises improve informed values-based choices; decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication; and decision aids have a variable effect on length of consultation.Consistent with findings from the previous review, which had included studies up to 2006: decision aids increase people's involvement, and improve knowledge and realistic perception of outcomes; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the choice of discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, cost-effectiveness, and use with developing and/or lower literacy populations need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have positive effects on attributes of the decision or decision-making process.

Impact on decisions to start or continue medicines of providing information to patients about possible benefits and/or harms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of providing information about medicines to patients on decisions about starting or continuing them is unknown.

PURPOSE

To estimate the impact on decisions to start or continue medicines, of providing information to patients about possible benefits and/or harms.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches from 1980 to October 2010; reference and citation searches of included studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Two investigators assessed studies' eligibility against inclusion criteria: randomized or pseudorandomized trials; participants older than 16 years and deciding for themselves; one group received information about possible benefits and/or harms of a potentially beneficial medicine, compared with another who did not; d) a measure of decision about starting or continuing a medicine.

DATA EXTRACTION

One investigator extracted all data, checked by a second.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eight studies were included, covering a range of medicines. There was no consistent impact of interventions on decisions about whether to start or continue medicines (pooled odds ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.70; P = 0.74). Among those who received more information, knowledge was increased (pooled mean difference 8.47; 95% CI 2.17-14.77; P = 0.008), and decisional conflict was reduced (pooled mean difference -0.15; 95% CI -0.24 to -0.06; P = .001).

LIMITATIONS

A small number of studies across different clinical contexts, of uncertain heterogeneity, were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing information to patients about possible benefits and/or harms has no consistent effect on the number who decide to start or continue medicines, although it increases patients' knowledge and reduces their decisional conflict.

A pilot trial of decision aids to give truthful prognostic and treatment information to chemotherapy patients with advanced cancer

Most cancer patients do not have an explicit discussion about prognosis and treatment despite documented adverse outcomes. Few decision aids have been developed to assist the difficult discussions of palliative management. We developed decision aids for people with advanced in curable breast, colorectal, lung, and hormone-refractory prostate cancers facing first-, second-, third-, and fourth-line chemotherapy. We recruited patients from our urban oncology clinic after gaining the permission of their treating oncologist. We measured knowledge of curability and treatment benefit before and after the intervention. Twenty-six of 27 (96%) patients completed the aids, with ameanage of 63, 56% female, 56% married, 56% African American, and 67% with a high school education or more. Most patients (14/27, 52%) thought a person with their advanced cancer could be cured, which was reduced (to 8/26, 31%, P = 0.15) after the decision aid. Nearly all overestimated the effect of palliative chemotherapy. No distress was noted, and hope did not change. The majority (20/27, 74%) found the information helpful to them, and almost all (25/27, 93%) wanted to share the information with their family and physicians. It is possible to give incurable patients their prognosis, treatment options, and options for improving end-of-life care without causing distress or lack of hope. Almost all find the information helpful and want to share it with doctors and family. Research is needed to test the findings in a larger sample and measure the outcomes of truthful information on quality of life, quality of care, and costs.

The advantages and challenges of unannounced standardized patient methodology to assess healthcare communication

OBJECTIVE

This paper provides an overview of the implementation of using unannounced standardized patients (USPs) to conduct health communication research in clinical settings.

METHODS

Certain types of health communication situations are difficult to capture because of their rarity or unpredictable nature. In primary care the real reasons for a visit are frequently unknown until the consultation is well under way. Therefore, it is logistically difficult for communication studies to capture many real-time communications between patients and their physicians. Although the USP methodology is ideal for capturing these communication behaviors, challenges to using this method include developing collaborative relationships with clinical practices, logistical issues such as safeguarding the identity of the USP, training USPs and creating their identities, maintaining fidelity to the role, and analyzing the resultant data.

RESULTS

This paper discusses the challenges and solutions to USP implementation. We provide an example of how to implement a USP study using an on-going study being conducted in primary care practices.

CONCLUSION

This paper explores the advantages and challenges as well as strategies to overcome obstacles to implementing a USP study.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Despite the challenges, USP methodology can contribute much to our understanding of health communication and practice.

A comprehensive observational coding scheme for analyzing instrumental, affective, and relational communication in health care contexts

Many observational coding schemes have been offered to measure communication in health care settings. These schemes fall short of capturing multiple functions of communication among providers, patients, and other participants. After a brief review of observational communication coding, the authors present a comprehensive scheme for coding communication that is (a) grounded in communication theory, (b) accounts for instrumental and relational communication, and (c) captures important contextual features with tailored coding templates: the Siminoff Communication Content & Affect Program (SCCAP). To test SCCAP reliability and validity, the authors coded data from two communication studies. The SCCAP provided reliable measurement of communication variables including tailored content areas and observer ratings of speaker immediacy, affiliation, confirmation, and disconfirmation behaviors.