Quality and effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment decision aids: a systematic review and environmental scan

The effects of shared decision making on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time: An umbrella review

OBJECTIVE

To review the effects of shared decision making (SDM) on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review and searched systematic reviews on SDM from PubMed, CINHAL, and Web of Science. We included reviews on SDM interventions used in a health care setting with patients. We assessed the eligibility of retrieved articles and evaluated whether the review addressed Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) characteristics.

RESULTS

Out of 3678 records, 48 reviews were included. Half of the reviews focused exclusively on RCT studies (n = 21). A little less than half were focused specifically on decision aids (n = 23). Thirty-two reviews discussed CFIR characteristics explicitly or implicitly; the majority of which were specific to intervention characteristics. Reviews tended to cluster around patient populations and tended to be low or critically low to moderate in their quality. Reviews of SDM on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time were highly uncertain but often ranged from neutral to positive.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that SDM implementation did not typically increase costs or increase consultation time while having some neutral to positive benefits on outcomes and quality for certain populations. Gaps in knowledge remain including better research on the climate where SDM is most effective.

A quasi-experimental study about shared decision-making and motivational interviewing on patients with a recent fracture attending Fracture Liaison Services

Shared decision-making (SDM) aims to improve patients' experiences with care, treatment adherence, and health outcomes. However, the effectiveness of SDM in patients with a recent fracture who require anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM) is unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a multicomponent adherence intervention (MCAI) including a patient decision aid (PDA) and motivational interviewing at Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) on multiple outcomes compared with usual care (UC). This pre-post superiority study included patients with a recent fracture attending FLS and with AOM treatment indication. The primary outcome was 1-year AOM persistence measured by pharmacy records. Secondary outcomes included treatment initiation, AOM adherence (measured by medication possession ratio [MPR]), decision quality (SDM process; 0-100, best), and decisional conflict (0-100, highest conflict), subsequent fractures, and mortality. Outcomes were tested in MCAI and UC groups at the first FLS visit and 4 and 12 months afterwards. Multiple imputation and uni- and multivariable analyses were performed. Post hoc analyses assessed the role of health literacy level. In total, 245 patients (MCAI: n = 136, UC: n = 109) were included. AOM persistence was 80.4% in the MCAI and 76.7% in the UC group (p=.626). SDM process scores were significantly better in MCAI (60.4 vs 55.1; p = .003). AOM initiation (97.8% vs 97.5%), MPR (90.9% vs 88.3%, p=.582), and decisional conflict (21.7 vs 23.0; p = .314) did not differ between groups. Results did not change importantly after adjustment. Stratified analyses by health literacy showed a better effect on MPR and SDM in those with adequate health literacy. This study showed no significant effect on AOM persistence; however, it demonstrated a significant positive effect of MCAI on SDM process in FLS attendees. (Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7236 [NTR7435]; version 1.0; 26-11-2020 https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/nl/trial/22858).

A person-centred consultation intervention to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines (iFraP): a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial protocol

Background

Good quality shared decision-making (SDM) conversations involve people with, or at risk of osteoporosis and clinicians collaborating to decide, where appropriate, which evidence-based medicines best fit the person's life, beliefs, and values. We developed the improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) intervention comprising a computerised Decision Support Tool (DST), clinician training package and information resources, for use in UK Fracture Liaison Service consultations.Two primary objectives to determine (1) the effect of the iFraP intervention on patient-reported ease in decision-making about osteoporosis medicines, and (2) cost-effectiveness of iFraP intervention compared to usual NHS care. Secondary objectives are to determine the iFraP intervention effect on patient reported outcome and experience measures, clinical effectiveness (osteoporosis medicine adherence), and to explore intervention acceptability, mechanisms, and processes underlying observed effects, and intervention implementation.

Methods

The iFraP trial is a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial in patients referred to a Fracture Liaison Service, with nested mixed methods process evaluation and health economic analysis. Participants aged ≥50 years (n=380) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to one of two arms: (1) iFraP intervention (iFraP-i) or (2) comparator usual NHS care (iFraP-u) and are followed up at 2-weeks and 3-months. The primary outcome is ease of decision-making assessed 2 weeks after the consultation using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The primary objectives will be addressed by comparing the mean DCS score in each trial arm (using analysis of covariance) for patients given an osteoporosis medicine recommendation, alongside a within-trial cost-effectiveness and value of information (VoI) analysis. Process evaluation data collection includes consultation recordings, semi-structured interviews, and DST analytics.

Discussion

The iFraP trial will answer important questions about the effectiveness of the new 'iFraP' osteoporosis DST, coupled with clinician training, on SDM and informed initiation of osteoporosis medicines.

Trial registration

ISRCTN 10606407, 21/11/2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10606407.

Cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent-adherence intervention in fracture liaison services

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a multi-component adherence intervention (MCAI), including a patient decision aid and motivational interviewing, compared to usual care in patients with a recent fracture attending fracture liaison services (FLS) and eligible for anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data on AOM initiation and one-year persistence were collected from a quasi-experimental study conducted between 2019 and 2023 in two Dutch FLS centers. An individual level, state-transition Markov model was used to simulate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with a societal perspective of MCAI vs usual care. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted including variation in additional FLS and MCAI costs (no MCAI cost in baseline).

RESULTS

MCAI was associated with gain in QALYs (0.0012) and reduction in costs (-€16) and is therefore dominant. At the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY, MCAI remained cost-effective when increasing costs of the FLS visit or the yearly maintenance cost for MCAI up to +€60. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated MCAI to be dominant in 54% of the simulations and cost-effective in 87% with a threshold of €50,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

A MCAI implemented in FLS centers may lead to cost-effective allocation of resources in FLS care, depending on extra costs.

Exploring practice and perspectives on shared decision-making about osteoporosis medicines in Fracture Liaison Services: the iFraP development qualitative study

Interviews and focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians, and GPs identified challenges relating to clinical and shared decision-making about bone health and osteoporosis medicines. Findings will inform the development of the multicomponent iFraP intervention to address identified training needs and barriers to implementation to facilitate SDM about osteoporosis medicines.

PURPOSE

The iFraP (improving uptake of Fracture Prevention treatments) study aimed to develop a multicomponent intervention, including an osteoporosis decision support tool (DST), to support shared decision-making (SDM) about osteoporosis medicines. To inform iFraP intervention development, this qualitative study explored current practice in relation to communication about bone health and osteoporosis medicines, anticipated barriers to, and facilitators of, an osteoporosis DST, and perceived training needs.

METHODS

Patients attending an FLS consultation (n = 8), FLS clinicians (n = 9), and general practitioners (GPs; n = 7) were purposively sampled to participate in a focus group and/or telephone interview. Data were transcribed, inductively coded, and then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as a deductive framework to systematically identify possible barriers to, and facilitators of, implementing a DST.

RESULTS

Inductive codes were deductively mapped to 12 TDF domains. FLS clinicians were perceived to have specialist expertise (knowledge). However, clinicians described aspects of clinical decision-making and risk communication as difficult (cognitive skills). Patients reflected on decisional uncertainty about medicines (decision processes). Discussions about current practice and the proposed DST indicated opportunities to facilitate SDM, if identified training needs are met. Potential individual and system-level barriers to implementation were identified, such as differences in FLS configuration and a move to remote consulting (environmental context and resources).

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding of current practice revealed unmet training needs, indicating that using a DST in isolation would be unlikely to produce a sustained shift to SDM. Findings will shape iFraP intervention development to address unmet needs.

Patients' preferences for fracture risk communication: the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study

The RICO study indicated that most patients would like to receive information regarding their fracture risk but that only a small majority have actually received it. Patients globally preferred a visual presentation of fracture risk and were interested in an online tool showing the risk.

PURPOSE

The aim of the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study was to assess patients' preferences regarding fracture risk communication.

METHODS

To assess patients' preferences for fracture risk communication, structured interviews with women with osteoporosis or who were at risk for fracture were conducted in 11 sites around the world, namely in Argentina, Belgium, Canada at Hamilton and with participants from the Osteoporosis Canada Canadian Osteoporosis Patient Network (COPN), Japan, Mexico, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA in California and Washington state. The interviews used to collect data were designed on the basis of a systematic review and a qualitative pilot study involving 26 participants at risk of fracture.

RESULTS

A total of 332 women (mean age 67.5 ± 8.0 years, 48% with a history of fracture) were included in the study. Although the participants considered it important to receive information about their fracture risk (mean importance of 6.2 ± 1.4 on a 7-point Likert scale), only 56% (i.e. 185/332) had already received such information. Globally, participants preferred a visual presentation with a traffic-light type of coloured graph of their FRAX® fracture risk probability, compared to a verbal or written presentation. Almost all participants considered it important to discuss their fracture risk and the consequences of fractures with their healthcare professionals in addition to receiving information in a printed format or access to an online website showing their fracture risk.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant communication gap between healthcare professionals and patients when discussing osteoporosis fracture risk. The RICO study provides insight into preferred approaches to rectify this communication gap.

Decision aids for promoting shared decision-making: A review of systematic reviews

In the context of shared decision-making (SDM), experts have advocated the use of validated decision aids (DAs) as valuable tools for facilitating SDM in various healthcare scenarios. This comprehensive review attempts to analyze a vast corpus of DA research by performing thorough searches across four prominent databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science). Independent reviewers selected relevant reviews, extracted data, and assessed review quality using the AMSTAR II tool. A total of 34 systematic reviews were identified and evaluated in this review, encompassing a wide range of outcomes associated with using DAs. These outcomes include patient knowledge, patient involvement in SDM, decision conflict, decision regret, satisfaction, and adherence. In addition, DAs positively affect healthcare provider outcomes by increasing satisfaction, reducing decision conflicts, and lengthening clinical consultations. This review highlights the need for additional research in specific contexts such as long-term care, mental health, and reproductive health to better understand the benefits and challenges of implementing DAs in these settings. Such research can contribute to the improvement of SDM practices and patient-centered care.

Healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences of osteoporosis medication treatment: a qualitative systematic review

This systematic review aimed to explore healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences and perspectives of osteoporosis medication treatment through thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. We found themes about how osteoporosis is perceived as a disease, treatment decision-making and what empowers HCPs to provide the best possible care.

PURPOSE

The systematic review aimed to describe the perspectives and experiences of HCPs regarding osteoporosis medication treatment.

METHODS

We performed searches in four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL) from database inception until May 2023 in any language. Data was analysed through inductive thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

We included 27 primary studies that incorporated the views of 495 different HCPs. The following themes were identified: low-priority disease, challenges in treatment decision-making, minimising drug burden, conscious of communication barriers, fragmented care and advice, confidence through experience and collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

HCPs were enthusiastic about optimising osteoporosis care through interprofessional collaboration and expertise, as well as educating and monitoring patients on treatment. They advocated for safety, comfort and reducing overall drug burden, especially in older patients with comorbidities. However, they had differences in opinions regarding who has responsibility for diagnosing and treating osteoporosis and struggled to provide the best possible care due to competing priorities, limited time and lack of adequate knowledge or evidence. The findings highlight the important and complementary role of different HCPs in osteoporosis treatment through a multidisciplinary model of care.

Development and usability of a decision aid to initiate anti-osteoporosis medication treatment in patients visiting the fracture liaison service with a recent fracture

This study describes the development of a decision aid (DA), aimed at supporting patients in their decision whether to start anti-osteoporosis medication. People with recent fractures or osteoporosis and health professionals were supportive of the DA initiative. An experimental study been started to assess (cost-)effectiveness of the DA.

PURPOSE

At fracture liaison services (FLS), patients with a recent fracture ánd osteoporosis or a prevalent vertebral fracture are advised to start anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM). This study describes the development of a decision aid (DA) to support patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) in their decision about whether to start AOM.

METHODS

The DA was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). A systematic procedure was chosen including scope, design, prototype development, and alpha testing. A previously developed DA for women with osteoporosis was used as a basis. Furthermore, input from literature searches, the Dutch guideline on management of osteoporosis, and from people with a fracture or osteoporosis was used. The updated DA was evaluated during alpha testing.

RESULTS

The DA facilitates the decision of patients whether to initiate AOM treatment and provides information on fractures and osteoporosis, general risk factors that increase the likelihood of a subsequent fracture, the role of lifestyle, personalized risk considerations of a subsequent fracture with and without AOM treatment, and AOM options and their characteristics in an option grid. Alpha testing with 15 patients revealed that patient preferences and needs were adequately presented, and several suggestions for improvement (e.g. adding more specific information, simplifying terminology, improving icon use) were accounted for. Participants from the alpha testing recommended use of the DA during outpatient visits.

CONCLUSION

Professionals and persons with osteoporosis were supportive of the proposed DA and its usability. The DA could help in a shared decision-making process between patients and HCPs.

The effects of decision aids for genetic counselling among people considering genetic testing: A systematic review

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of decision aids for genetic counsellees to improve their conflicts in decision-making and psychological well-being when considering genetic tests for inherited genetic diseases, and their knowledge about these tests and their genetic risks.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Six electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, OVID Nursing, APA PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched from inception to May 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

Only randomised controlled trials that examined the effect of decision aids for information provision centring genetic testing on outcomes including decisional conflicts, informed choice making, knowledge on genetic risks or genetic tests, and psychological outcomes among participants who had undergone genetic counselling were included. Their risk of bias was assessed using the Version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials. Results were presented narratively. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist.

RESULTS

Eight included studies examined the effect of booklet-based, computer-based, film-based or web-based decision aids on individuals considering genetic testing for their increased cancer risks. Despite contrasting findings across studies, they showed that decision aids enable genetic counsellees to feel more informed in decision-making on genetic tests, although most showed no effect on decisional conflict. Knowledge of genetic counsellees on genetic risks and genetic tests were increased after the use of decision aids. Most studies showed no significant effect on any psychological outcomes assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Review findings corroborate the use of decision aids to enhance the effective delivery of genetic counselling, enabling genetic counsellees to gain more knowledge of genetic tests and feel more informed in making decisions to have these tests.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Decision aids can be used to support nurse-led genetic counselling for better knowledge acquisition and decision-making among counsellees.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient or public contribution is not applicable as this is a systematic review.

A prospective study of shared decision-making in brain tumor surgery

PURPOSE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a key tenet of personalized care and is becoming an essential component of informed consent in an increasing number of countries. The aim of this study is to analyze patient and healthcare staff satisfaction with the SDM process before and after SDM was officially introduced as the standard of care. Decision grids are important tools in the SDM process, and we developed them for three different types of intracranial tumors.

METHODS

This prospective study was conducted in a high-volume neuro-oncological center on all consecutive eligible patients undergoing consideration of treatment for intracranial glioma and metastases. Twenty-two patients participated before and 74 after the introduction of SDM. Six and 5 staff members respectively participated in the analysis before and after team training and the introduction of SDM. The main outcome was patient and healthcare staff satisfaction with the SDM process.

RESULTS

Patients reported high satisfaction with the SDM process before (mean CollaboRATE score 26 of 27 points) and after (mean CollaboRATE score 26.3 of 27 points, p = 0.23) the introduction of SDM. Interestingly, staff attitude toward SDM improved significantly from 61.68 before to 90.95% after the introduction of SDM (p-value < 0.001). Decision grids that were developed for three different types of intracranial tumors are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Team training in SDM and the introduction of techniques into daily practice can increase staff satisfaction with the SDM process. High levels of patient satisfaction were observed before, with a non-significant increase after the introduction of SDM. Decision grids are an important tool to facilitate the conveyance and understanding of complex information and to achieve SDM in daily clinical practice.

Effective Communication and the Osteoporosis Care Gap

Many pharmacological treatments are now available to prevent the occurrence of fragility fractures in patients with osteoporosis. Despite this, concerns persist that many individuals who might benefit from osteoporosis treatment do not receive it-the "osteoporosis treatment gap." The underlying reasons for this gap are diverse and include those who are not identified as being eligible for treatment as well as those who intentionally choose not to take medications because of uncertainty, unanswered questions, or an inability to understand or do what is being asked of them. In this perspective article we highlight the importance of providing information on the causes and consequences of osteoporosis during encounters when treatment is being discussed as well as what osteoporosis treatment can achieve and what it cannot. We also review the importance of communicating the benefits and risks of treatment in absolute terms so that patients can understand what taking treatment will mean for them and discuss the utility of decision aids to assist in these conversations. We suggest it is not the treatment gap that is the problem but the care gap. This language acknowledges the importance of healthcare providers identifying those likely to benefit from treatment and increasing the quality of clinical conversations to promote patient engagement and involvement while respecting that treatment is not suitable or wanted by all. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis

The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) has revised the UK guideline for the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. Accredited by NICE, this guideline is relevant for all healthcare professionals involved in osteoporosis management.

INTRODUCTION

The UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) first produced a guideline on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in 2008, with updates in 2013 and 2017. This paper presents a major update of the guideline, the scope of which is to review the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older.

METHODS

Where available, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials were used to provide the evidence base. Conclusions and recommendations were systematically graded according to the strength of the available evidence.

RESULTS

Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and models of care for fracture prevention. Recommendations are made for training; service leads and commissioners of healthcare; and for review criteria for audit and quality improvement.

CONCLUSION

The guideline, which has received accreditation from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), provides a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals involved in its management. This position paper has been endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and by the European Society for the Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

Digital health interventions for osteoporosis and post-fragility fracture care

The growing burden from osteoporosis and fragility fractures highlights a need to improve osteoporosis management across healthcare systems. Sub-optimal management of osteoporosis is an area suitable for digital health interventions. While fracture liaison services (FLSs) are proven to greatly improve care for people with osteoporosis, such services might benefit from technologies that enhance automation. The term 'Digital Health' covers a variety of different tools including clinical decision support systems, electronic medical record tools, patient decision aids, patient apps, education tools, and novel artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. Within the scope of this review are AI solutions that use algorithms within health system registries to target interventions. Clinician-targeted, patient-targeted, or system-targeted digital health interventions could be used to improve management and prevent fragility fractures. This review was commissioned by The Royal Osteoporosis Society and Bone Research Academy during the production of the 2020 Research Roadmap (https://theros.org.uk), with the intention of identifying gaps where targeted research funding could lead to improved patient health. We explore potential uses of digital technology in the general management of osteoporosis. Evidence suggests that digital technologies can support multidisciplinary teams to provide the best possible patient care based on current evidence and to support patients in self-management. However, robust randomised controlled studies are still needed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these technologies.

Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments: a protocol for Development of a consultation intervention (iFraP-D)

INTRODUCTION

Prevention of fragility fractures, a source of significant economic and personal burden, is hindered by poor uptake of fracture prevention medicines. Enhancing communication of scientific evidence and elicitation of patient medication-related beliefs has the potential to increase patient commitment to treatment. The Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) programme aims to develop and evaluate a theoretically informed, complex intervention consisting of a computerised web-based decision support tool, training package and information resources, to facilitate informed decision-making about fracture prevention treatment, with a long-term aim of improving informed treatment adherence. This protocol focuses on the iFraP Development (iFraP-D) work.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The approach to iFraP-D is informed by the Medical Research Council complex intervention development and evaluation framework and the three-step implementation of change model. The context for the study is UK fracture liaison services (FLS), which enact secondary fracture prevention. An evidence synthesis of clinical guidelines and Delphi exercise will be conducted to identify content for the intervention. Focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians and general practitioners and a usual care survey will facilitate understanding of current practice, and investigate barriers and facilitators to change. Design of the iFraP intervention will be informed by decision aid development standards and theories of implementation, behaviour change, acceptability and medicines adherence. The principles of co-design will underpin all elements of the study through a dedicated iFraP community of practice including key stakeholders and patient advisory groups. In-practice testing of the prototype intervention will inform revisions ready for further testing in a subsequent pilot and feasibility randomised trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from North West-Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (19/NW/0559). Dissemination and knowledge mobilisation will be facilitated through national bodies and networks, publications and presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

researchregistry5041.

Preferences, satisfaction and decision-making processes in osteoporosis treatment: a systematic review of the literature

Aim: To synthesize information available in the literature on patients' preferences and satisfaction with osteoporosis treatment and their unmet needs on the treatment decision-making process. Materials & methods: Systematic literature review consulting international database and grey literature of articles published between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2019. Results: Nineteen publications were reviewed, 79% of them focused on evaluating the importance that patients attached to the mode and frequency of administration, adverse events and treatment efficacy. 21% of them provided information about treatment satisfaction and 26% regarding unmet needs on treatment-decision making process. Conclusion: Aligning treatment with patients' preferences, promoting physician-patient communication and identifying patients' concerns with treatment may contribute to improve treatment satisfaction and adherence and ultimately achieve the treatment goal.