A framework for practical issues was developed to inform shared decision-making tools and clinical guidelines

People Living with Chronic Pain Experience a High Prevalence of Decision Regret in Canada: A Pan-Canadian Online Survey

Background(1) To estimate the prevalence of decision regret in chronic pain care, and (2) to identify factors associated with decision regret.DesignWe conducted a pan-Canadian cross-sectional online survey and reported the results following the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies guidelines. We recruited a sample of adults experiencing chronic noncancer pain. We used a stratified proportional random sampling based on the population and chronic pain prevalence of each province. We measured decision regret with the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) and decisional needs with the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. We performed descriptive analysis to estimate the prevalence and level of decision regret and multilevel multivariable regression analysis to identify factors associated with regret according to the STRengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies recommendations.ResultsWe surveyed 1,649 people living with chronic pain, and 1,373 reported a most difficult decision from the 10 prespecified ones, enabling the collection of a DRS score. On a scale ranging from 0 to 100 where 1 reflects the presence of decision regret and 25 constitutes important decision regret, the mean DRS score in our sample was 28.8 (s = 19.6). Eighty-four percent of respondents experienced some decision regret and 50% at an important level. We identified 15 factors associated with decision regret, including 4 personal and 9 decision-making characteristics, and 2 consequences of the chosen option. Respondents with low education level and higher decisional conflict experienced more decision regret when the decision was deemed difficult.ConclusionsThis pan-Canadian survey highlighted a high prevalence and level of decision regret associated with difficult decisions for pain care. Decision making in pain care could be enhanced by addressing factors that contribute to decision regret.HighlightsWe conducted an online pan-Canadian survey and collected responses from a wide diversity of people living with chronic pain.More than 84% of respondents experienced decision regret and approximately 50% at an important level.We identified 15 factors associated with decision regret, including 4 personal and 9 decision-making characteristics, and 2 consequences of the chosen option.Our pan-Canadian survey reveals an urgent need of a shared decision-making approach in chronic pain care that can be potentiated by targeting multiple factors associated with decision regret.

Scoping review indicates heterogeneous methods for developing and integrating patient decision aids in the context of clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To review the methods used to develop and integrate patient decision aids (PDAs) based on the recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a scoping review covering bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase; searched until December 2023), gray literature, references, and expert consultations to identify eligible documents. Documents published from 2000 onwards and describing methods related to guideline-based PDA development or linking CPGs and PDAs were included. Two reviewers independently selected and analyzed the documents. Results were synthesized and presented narratively.

RESULTS

Based on 24 included documents, we categorized their methods into 4 topics. For topic (1), the selection of CPG recommendations for which PDAs are (most) needed, we found a total of 14 selection factors across n = 11 documents, with uncertainty/variability in patient preferences and trade-offs between options being the most frequently mentioned. Topic (2) (n = 24) covers methods for developing and/or updating guideline-based PDAs, such as forming a multidisciplinary development group, using CPGs and their evidence summaries along with other sources as the evidence base, and using digital solutions for semi-automated development and updating. Topic (3) (n = 12) covers methods for PDA quality assessment and/or user testing, such as finalizing and approving the PDAs after a review and feedback process from the CPG group and an iterative user testing process. Topic (4) (n = 20) covers methods for linking CPGs and PDAs, often through digital strategies.

CONCLUSION

We identified heterogeneous methods for developing and integrating PDAs based on CPG recommendations. Empirical testing is required to determine the most useful and practically feasible (combination of) methods. CPG organizations should focus on establishing adequate methods for linking CPG and PDA development to foster shared decision-making.

Clinicians' experience with infographic summaries from the BMJ Rapid Recommendations: a qualitative user-testing study among residents and interns at a large teaching hospital in Switzerland

OBJECTIVE

Clinicians need trustworthy clinical practice guidelines to succeed with evidence-based diagnosis and treatment at the bedside. The BMJ Rapid Recommendations explore innovative ways to enhance dissemination and uptake, including multilayered interactive infographics linked to a digitally structured authoring and publication platform (the MAGICapp). We aimed to assess user experiences of physicians in training in various specialties when they interact with these infographics.

DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative user-testing study to assess user experience of a convenience sample of physicians in training. User testing was carried out through guided think-aloud sessions. We assessed six facets of user experience using a revised version of Morville's framework: usefulness, understandability, usability, credibility, desirability and identification.

SETTING

Setting include Geneva's University Hospital, a large teaching hospital in Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants include a convenience sample of residents and interns without restriction regarding medical field or division of care.

RESULTS

Most users reported a positive experience. The infographics were understandable and useful to rapidly grasp the key elements of the recommendation, its rationale and supporting evidence, in a credible way. Some users felt intimidated by numbers or the amount of information, although they perceived there could be a learning curve while using generic formats. Plain language summaries helped complement the visuals but could be further highlighted. Despite their generally positive experience, several users had limited understanding of key GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) domains of the quality of evidence and remained uncertain by the implication of weak or conditional recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Our study allowed to identify several aspects of guideline formats that improve their understandability and usefulness. Guideline organisations can use our findings to adapt their presentation format to enhance their dissemination and uptake in clinical practice. Avenues for research include the interplay between infographics and the digital authoring platform, multiple comparisons and living guidelines.

People living with chronic pain in Canada face difficult decisions and decisional conflict concerning their care: data from the national DECIDE-PAIN survey

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is an imperative in chronic pain care. However, we know little about the decision-making process, especially in primary care where most chronic pain care is provided. We sought to understand decisional needs of people living with chronic pain in Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cross-sectional online survey of random samples of adults living in Canada with chronic noncancer pain and registered with the Leger Marketing panel. We followed the International Association for Study of Pain definition of chronic pain (i.e., persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than three months). We used a stratified proportional random sampling based on the population and chronic pain prevalence of each province to achieve representativeness. Based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, we collected data on difficult decisions (i.e., decision with more than one option and no clear best option) related to their chronic pain condition, the level of decisional conflict associated with the most difficult decisions (i.e., Decisional Conflict Scale), the assumed and preferred role during the decision-making process (i.e., Control Preferences Scale), and respondents' characteristics. We used descriptive quantitative analyses of survey responses.

RESULTS

Of the 31,545 invited panellists, 2,666 met the eligibility criteria, and 1,649 respondents from the 10 Canadian provinces completed the survey. Respondents had diverse socio-demographic profiles. Mean age was 51.8 years (SD = 16.3). Half were men (51.4%), most lived in urban areas (87.8%), mean pain duration was 8.5 years (SD = 9.6), and respondents reported an average number of painful body regions of 2.3 (SD = 1.5). We observed that 96.7% of respondents faced at least one difficult decision across their care pathways. These difficult decisions were related to numerous issues from the medical consultation, diagnosis, treatment, and daily life. Almost half of respondents made their most difficult decision with a primary care physician. One third of respondents experienced a high level of clinically significant decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale score ≥ 37.5). Two-thirds of respondents self-reported having a collaborative role during their decision while three-quarters wanted this role.

CONCLUSIONS

People living with chronic pain in Canada have unmet decisional needs and need support to make optimal decisions to manage their chronic pain. Our findings will guide future development of interventions to implement shared decision-making, especially to support primary care where discussions about difficult decisions often occur.

Development of a patient-centred tool for use in total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The aim of this project was to develop a tool using the experience of previous patients to inform patient-centred clinical decision-making in the context of total hip arthroplasty (THA). We sought out the patients' views on what is important for them, leveraging registry data, and providing outcome information that is perceived as relevant, understandable, adapted to a specific patient's profile, and readily available.

METHODS

We created the information tool "Patients like me" in four steps. (1) The knowledge basis was the systematically collected detailed exposure and outcome information from the Geneva Arthroplasty Registry established 1996. (2) From the registry we randomly selected 275 patients about to undergo or having already undergone THA and asked them via interviews and a survey which benefits and harms associated with the operation and daily life with the prosthesis they perceived as most important. (3) The identified relevant data (39 predictor candidates, 15 outcomes) were evaluated using Conditional Inference Trees analysis to construct a classification algorithm for each of the 15 outcomes at three different time points/periods. Internal validity of the results was tested using bootstrapping. (4) The tool was designed by and pre-tested with patients over several iterations.

RESULTS

Data from 6836 primary elective THAs operated between 1996 and 2019 were included. The trajectories for the 15 outcomes from the domains pain relief, activity improvement, complication (infection, dislocation, peri-prosthetic fracture) and what to expect in the future (revision surgery, need for contralateral hip replacement) over up to 20 years after surgery were presented for all patients and for specific patient profiles. The tool was adapted to various purposes including individual use, group sessions, patient-clinician interaction and surgeon information to complement the preoperative planning. The pre-test patients' feedback to the tool was unanimously positive. They considered it interesting, clear, complete, and complementary to other information received.

CONCLUSION

The tool based on a survey of patients' perceived concerns and interests and the corresponding long-term data from a large institutional registry makes past patients' experience accessible, understandable, and visible for today's patients and their clinicians. It is a comprehensive illustration of trajectories of relevant outcomes from previous "Patients like me". This principle and methodology can be applied in other medical fields.

Decision regret following surgical management of pilonidal disease

AIM

Surgical decision making in the context of pilonidal disease (PD) can be challenging. Current evidence for the management of PD is inadequate and optimum treatment is not clear. This paper reports on patient experience of shared decision making (SDM) and decision regret following surgical management of PD.

METHOD

The Pilonidal Trial. Studying the Treatment Options (PITSTOP) study (ISRCTN95551898) is a prospective cohort study of patients with PD treated between May 2019 and March 2022. This subanalysis reports the results of quantitative data capture between baseline and 6 months post-procedure. Baseline data consisted of patient and disease characteristics, surgical procedure and impression of SDM. Post-procedure data consisted of operative outcomes and decision regret. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyse the relationship between clinical outcomes and decision regret.

RESULTS

Overall, 677 patients were included, and follow-up data to 6 months were available for 476 (71%). Most (59.5%) patients underwent major excisional surgery; 45.1% of patients experienced a postoperative complication. Participant impression of SDM was positive, with a median CollaboRATE mean-score response of 3 (interquartile range: 3-4). Of the patients who underwent a 'leave open' approach, 20.6% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their treatment. Postoperative complications (β = 3.21, 95% CI: -12.75 to 7.25, p < 0.001) and disease recurrence (β = 11.5, 95% CI: -10.6 to 9.4, p < 0.001) were both associated with higher rates of decision regret.

CONCLUSION

The clinical outcomes, postoperative complications and recurrence, were associated with higher levels of decision regret. Surgeons treating patients with PD should practice SDM and ensure that patient priorities inform treatment approach.

Values and preferences towards the use of prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin during pregnancy: a convergent mixed-methods secondary analysis of data from the decision analysis in shared decision making for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy (DASH-TOP) study

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and the use of preventive low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) can be challenging. Clinical guidelines recommend eliciting pregnant individuals' preferences towards the use of daily injections of LMWH and discussing the best option through a shared decision-making (SDM) approach. Our aim was to identify individuals' preferences concerning each of the main clinical outcomes, and categorize attributes influencing the use of LMWH during pregnancy.

METHODS

Design: Convergent mixed-methods.

PARTICIPANTS

Pregnant women or those planning a pregnancy with VTE recurrence risk.

INTERVENTION

A SDM intervention about thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in pregnancy.

ANALYSIS

Quantitatively, we report preference scores assigned to each of the health states. Qualitatively, we categorized preference attributes using Burke's pentad of motives framework: act (what needs to be done), scene (patient's context), agent (perspectives and influence of people involved in the decision), agency (aspects of the medication), and purpose (patient's goals). We use mixed-method convergent analysis to report findings using side-by-side comparison of concordance/discordance.

RESULTS

We comprehensively determined preferences for using LMWH by pregnant individuals at risk of VTE: through value elicitation exercises we found that the least valued health state was to experience a pulmonary embolism (PE), followed by major obstetrical bleeding (MOB), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and using daily injections of LMWH (valued as closest to a 'healthy pregnancy'); through interviews we found that: previous experiences, access to care (scene) and shared decision-making (agent) affected preferences. LMWH's benefits were noted, but substantial drawbacks were described (agency). For participants, the main goal of using LMWH was avoiding any risks in pregnancy (purpose). Side-by-side comparisons revealed concordance and discordance between health states and motives.

CONCLUSIONS

Mixed-methods provide a nuanced understanding of LMWH preferences, by quantifying health states preferences and exploring attributes qualitatively. Incorporating both methods may improve patient-centered care around preference-sensitive decisions in thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy.

Physicians found an interactive tool displaying structured evidence summaries for multiple comparisons understandable and useful: a qualitative user testing study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and improve "Making Alternative Treatment Choices Intuitive and Trustworthy" (MATCH-IT)-a digital, interactive decision support tool displaying structured evidence summaries for multiple comparisons-to help physicians interpret and apply evidence from network meta-analysis (NMA) for their clinical decision-making.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a qualitative user testing study, applying principles from user-centered design in an iterative development process. We recruited a convenience sample of practicing physicians in Norway, Belgium, and Canada, and asked them to interpret structured evidence summaries for multiple comparisons-linked to clinical guideline recommendations-displayed in MATCH-IT. User testing included (a) introduction of a clinical scenario, (b) a think-aloud session with participant-tool interaction, and (c) a semistructured interview. We video recorded, transcribed, and analyzed user tests using directed content analysis. The results informed new updates in MATCH-IT.

RESULTS

Distributed across 5 development cycles we tested MATCH-IT with 26 physicians. Of these, 24 (94%) reported either no or sparse prior experience with interpretation of NMA. Physicians perceived MATCH-IT as easy to interpret and navigate, and appreciated its ability to provide an overview of the evidence. Visualization of effects in pictograms and inclusion of information on burden of treatment ("practical issues") were highlighted as potentially useful features in interacting with patients. We also identified problems, including undiscovered functionalities (drag and drop), suboptimal tutorial, and cumbersome navigation of the tool. In addition, physicians wanted definition/explanation of key terms (eg, outcomes and "certainty"), and there were concerns that overwhelming evidence from a large NMA would complicate applicability to clinical practice. This led to several updates with development of a new start page, tutorial, updated user interface for more efficient maneuvering, solutions to display definition of key terms and a "frequently asked questions" section. To facilitate interpretation of large networks, we improved categorization of results using color coding and added filtering functionality. These modifications allowed physicians to focus on interventions of interest and reduce information overload.

CONCLUSION

This study provides proof of concept that physicians can use MATCH-IT to understand NMA evidence. Key features of MATCH-IT in a clinical context include providing an overview of the evidence, visualization of effects, and the display of information on burden of treatments. However, unfamiliarity with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation concepts, time constraints, and accessibility at the point of care may be challenges for use. To what extent our results are transferable to real-world clinical contexts remains to be explored.

Treatment options for patients with pilonidal sinus disease: PITSTOP, a mixed-methods evaluation

Background

There is no consensus on optimal management of pilonidal disease. Surgical practice is varied, and existing literature is mainly single-centre cohort studies of varied disease severity, interventions and outcome assessments.

Objectives

A prospective cohort study to determine: • disease severity and intervention relationship • most valued outcomes and treatment preference by patients • recommendations for policy and future research.

Design

Observational cohort study with nested mixed-methods case study. Discrete choice experiment. Clinician survey. Three-stage Delphi survey for patients and clinicians. Inter-rater reliability of classification system.

Setting

Thirty-one National Health Service trusts.

Participants

Patients aged > 16 years referred for elective surgical treatment of pilonidal disease.

Interventions

Surgery.

Main outcome measures

Pain postoperative days 1 and 7, time to healing and return to normal activities, complications, recurrence. Outcomes compared between major and minor procedures using regression modelling, propensity score-based approaches and augmented inverse probability weighting to account for measured potential confounding features.

Results

Clinician survey: There was significant heterogeneity in surgeon practice preference. Limited training opportunities may impede efforts to improve practice. Cohort study: Over half of patients (60%; N = 667) had a major procedure. For these procedures, pain was greater on day 1 and day 7 (mean difference day 1 pain 1.58 points, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.01 points, n = 536; mean difference day 7 pain 1.53 points, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.95 points, n = 512). There were higher complication rates (adjusted risk difference 17.5%, 95% confidence interval 9.1 to 25.9%, n = 579), lower recurrence (adjusted risk difference -10.1%, 95% confidence interval -18.1 to -2.1%, n = 575), and longer time to healing (>34 days estimated difference) and time to return to normal activities (difference 25.9 days, 95% confidence interval 18.4 to 33.4 days). Mixed-methods analysis: Patient decision-making was influenced by prior experience of disease and anticipated recovery time. The burden involved in wound care and the gap between expected and actual time for recovery were the principal reasons given for decision regret. Discrete choice experiment: The strongest predictors of patient treatment choice were risk of infection/persistence (attribute importance 70%), and shorter recovery time (attribute importance 30%). Patients were willing to trade off these attributes. Those aged over 30 years had a higher risk tolerance (22.35-34.67%) for treatment failure if they could experience rapid recovery. There was no strong evidence that younger patients were willing to accept higher risk of treatment failure in exchange for a faster recovery. Patients were uniform in rejecting excision-and-leave-open because of the protracted nursing care it entailed. Wysocki classification analysis: There was acceptable inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.61). Consensus exercise: Five research and practice priorities were identified. The top research priority was that a comparative trial should broadly group interventions. The top practice priority was that any interventions should be less disruptive than the disease itself.

Limitations

Incomplete recruitment and follow-up data were an issue, particularly given the multiple interventions. Assumptions were made regarding risk adjustment.

Conclusions and future work

Results suggest the burden of pilonidal surgery is greater than reported previously. This can be mitigated with better selection of intervention according to disease type and patient desired goals. Results indicate a framework for future higher-quality trials that stratify disease and utilise broad groupings of common interventions with development of a patient-centred core outcome set.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN95551898.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/17/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 33. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Understanding contextual and practical factors to inform WHO recommendations on using chest imaging to monitor COVID-19 pulmonary sequelae: a qualitative study exploring stakeholders' perspective

BACKGROUND

A recommendation by the World Health Organization (WHO) was issued about the use of chest imaging to monitor pulmonary sequelae following recovery from COVID-19. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perspective of key stakeholders to understand their valuation of the outcome of the proposition, preferences for the modalities of chest imaging, acceptability, feasibility, impact on equity and practical considerations influencing the implementation of using chest imaging.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive design using in-depth interviews approach. Key stakeholders included adult patients who recovered from the acute illness of COVID-19, and providers caring for those patients. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) conceptual framework was used to guide data collection of contextual and practical factors related to monitoring using imaging. Data analysis was based on the framework thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

33 respondents, including providers and patients, were recruited from 15 different countries. Participants highly valued the ability to monitor progression and resolution of long-term sequelae but recommended the avoidance of overuse of imaging. Their preferences for the imaging modalities were recorded along with pros and cons. Equity concerns were reported across countries (e.g., access to resources) and within countries (e.g., disadvantaged groups lacked access to insurance). Both providers and patients accepted the use of imaging, some patients were concerned about affordability of the test. Facilitators included post- recovery units and protocols. Barriers to feasibility included low number of specialists in some countries, access to imaging tests among elderly living in nursing homes, experience of poor coordination of care, emotional exhaustion, and transportation challenges driving to a monitoring site.

CONCLUSION

We were able to demonstrate that there is a high value and acceptability using imaging but there were factors influencing feasibility, equity and some practical considerations associated with implementation. We had a few suggestions to be considered by the expert panel in the formulation of the guideline to facilitate its implementation such as using validated risk score predictive tools for lung complications to recommend the appropriate imaging modality and complementary pulmonary function test.

Adherence to evidence-based implementation of antimicrobial treatment guidelines among prescribers in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adherence to evidence-based standard treatment guidelines (STGs) enable healthcare providers to deliver consistently appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Irrational use of antimicrobials significantly contributes to antimicrobial resistance in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).  The best available evidence is needed to guide healthcare providers on adherence to evidence-based implementation of STGs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of adherence to evidence-based implementation of antimicrobial treatment guidelines among prescribers in SSA.

METHODS

The review followed the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of prevalence data. CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched with no language and publication year limitations. STATA version 17 were used for meta-analysis. The publication bias and heterogeneity were assessed using Egger's test and the I2 statistics. Heterogeneity and publication bias were validated using Duval and Tweedie's nonparametric trim and fill analysis using the random-effect analysis. The summary prevalence and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) of healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based implementation of STG were estimated using random effect model. The review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO code CRD42023389011. The PRISMA flow diagram and checklist were used to report studies included, excluded and their corresponding section in the manuscript.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies with a total of 17,017 study participants from 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa were included. The pooled prevalence of adherence to evidence-based implementation of antimicrobial treatment guidelines in SSA were 45%. The pooled prevalence of the most common clinical indications were respiratory tract (35%) and gastrointestinal infections (18%). Overall prescriptions per wards were inpatients (14,413) and outpatients (12,845). Only 391 prescribers accessed standard treatment guidelines during prescription of antimicrobials.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals' adherence to evidence-based implementation of STG for antimicrobial treatment were low in SSA. Healthcare systems in SSA must make concerted efforts to enhance prescribers access to STGs through optimization of mobile clinical decision support applications. Innovative, informative, and interactive strategies must be in place by the healthcare systems in SSA to empower healthcare providers to make evidence-based clinical decisions informed by the best available evidence and patient preferences, to ultimately improving patient outcomes and promoting appropriate antimicrobial use.

The impact of adding cost information to a conversation aid to support shared decision making about low-risk prostate cancer treatment: Results of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Decision aids help patients consider the benefits and drawbacks of care options but rarely include cost information. We assessed the impact of a conversation-based decision aid containing information about low-risk prostate cancer management options and their relative costs.

METHODS

We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in outpatient urology practices within a US-based academic medical center. We randomised five clinicians to four intervention sequences and enroled patients newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Primary patient-reported outcomes collected postvisit included the frequency of cost conversations and referrals to address costs. Other patient-reported outcomes included: decisional conflict postvisit and at 3 months, decision regret at 3 months, shared decision-making postvisit, financial toxicity postvisit and at 3 months. Clinicians reported their attitudes about shared decision-making pre- and poststudy, and the intervention's feasibility and acceptability. We used hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient outcomes. The clinician was included as a random effect; fixed effects included education, employment, telehealth versus in-person visit, visit date, and enrolment period.

RESULTS

Between April 2020 and March 2022, we screened 513 patients, contacted 217 eligible patients, and enroled 117/217 (54%) (51 in usual care, 66 in the intervention group). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was not associated with cost conversations (β = .82, p = .27), referrals to cost-related resources (β = -0.36, p = .81), shared decision-making (β = -0.79, p = .32), decisional conflict postvisit (β = -0.34, p= .70), or at follow-up (β = -2.19, p = .16), decision regret at follow-up (β = -9.76, p = .11), or financial toxicity postvisit (β = -1.32, p = .63) or at follow-up (β = -2.41, p = .23). Most clinicians and patients had positive attitudes about the intervention and shared decision-making. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, patients in the intervention group experienced more transient indecision (p < .02) suggesting increased deliberation between visit and follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Despite enthusiasm from clinicians, the intervention was not significantly associated with hypothesised outcomes, though we were unable to robustly test outcomes due to recruitment challenges. Recruitment at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted eligibility, sample size/power, study procedures, and increased telehealth visits and financial worry, independent of the intervention. Future work should explore ways to support shared decision-making, cost conversations, and choice deliberation with a larger sample. Such work could involve additional members of the care team, and consider the detail, quality, and timing of addressing these issues.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and clinicians were engaged as stakeholder advisors meeting monthly throughout the duration of the project to advise on the study design, measures selected, data interpretation, and dissemination of study findings.

Understanding factors influencing the use of clinical guidelines in low-income and middle-income settings: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

A scoping review was undertaken to determine the extent to which existing studies have examined factors influencing healthcare providers' use of clinical guidelines in low and middle-income country (LMIC) settings and determine which factors constrain or facilitate the use of clinical guidelines by healthcare providers.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

The literature search was conducted using PubMed in January 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We identified empirical studies, published between 2011-2021 in English, which included clinicians and/or nurses as healthcare providers, used a health facility as the study site, and were located in an LMIC.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Information extracted from the literature review was organised using themes and the findings synthesised using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The review identified five types of interacting factors that influence healthcare providers' use of and compliance with clinical guidelines. The factors identified are organisational factors, factors relating to individual healthcare providers, attributes of the clinical guidelines, patient-related factors and institutional factors. Organisational factors can be further divided into the physical work environment, organisational culture and working conditions. The effective use of clinical guidelines in LMIC settings is greatly impacted by the contextualisation of clinical guidelines, end-user engagement and alignment of the implementation of clinical guidelines with the institutional arrangements in the broader health system.

CONCLUSION

The development and evaluation of concrete interventions is vital to facilitate the implementation of clinical guidelines and improve healthcare service quality. Further studies are necessary to examine the relative importance of the five identified factors on the effective use of clinical guidelines in different contexts.

Digital encounter decision aids linked to clinical practice guidelines: results from user testing SHARE-IT decision aids in primary care

BACKGROUND

Encounter decision aids (EDAs) are tools that can support shared decision making (SDM), up to the clinical encounter. However, adoption of these tools has been limited, as they are hard to produce, to keep up-to-date, and are not available for many decisions. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation has created a new generation of decision aids that are generically produced along digitally structured guidelines and evidence summaries, in an electronic authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp). We explored general practitioners' (GPs) and patients' experiences with five selected decision aids linked to BMJ Rapid Recommendations in primary care.

METHODS

We applied a qualitative user testing design to evaluate user experiences for both GPs and patients. We translated five EDAs relevant to primary care, and observed the clinical encounters of 11 GPs when they used the EDA with their patients. We conducted a semi-structured interview with each patient after the consultation and a think-aloud interview with each GPs after multiple consultations. We used the Qualitative Analysis Guide (QUAGOL) for data analysis.

RESULTS

Direct observations and user testing analysis of 31 clinical encounters showed an overall positive experience. The EDAs created better involvement in decision making and resulted in meaningful insights for patients and clinicians. The design and its interactive, multilayered structure made the tool enjoyable and well-organized. Difficult terminology, scales and numbers hindered understanding of certain information, which was sometimes perceived as too specialized or even intimidating. GPs thought the EDA was not suitable for every patient. They perceived a learning curve was required and the need for time investment was a concern. The EDAs were considered trustworthy as they were provided by a credible source.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that EDAs can be useful tools in primary care by supporting actual shared decision making and enhancing patient involvement. The graphical approach and clear representation help patients better understand their options. To overcome barriers such as health literacy and GPs attitudes, effort is still needed to make the EDAs as accessible, intuitive and inclusive as possible through use of plain language, uniform design, rapid access and training.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was approved by the The Research Ethics Committee UZ/KU Leuven (Belgium) on 31-10-2019 with reference number MP011977.

Systematic review of shared decision-making in guidelines about colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to systematically evaluate quality of shared decision-making (SDM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).

METHODS

Search for CRC screening guidances was from 2010 to November 2021 in EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus and CDSR, and the World Wide Web. Three independent reviewers and an arbitrator rated the quality of each guidance using a SDM quality assessment tool (maximum score: 31). Reviewer agreement was 0.88.

RESULTS

SDM appeared in 41/83 (49.4%) CPGs and 9/19 (47.4%) CSs. None met all the quality criteria, and 51.0% (52/102) failed to meet any quality items. Overall compliance was low (mean 1.63, IQR 0-2). Quality was better in guidances published after 2015 (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p = 0.048) and when the term SDM was specifically reported (mean 4.5, IQR 2.5-4.5 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p < 0.001). CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews showed better SDM quality than consensus (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0, IQR 0-2, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

SDM quality was suboptimal and mentioned in less than half of the guidances, and recommendations were scarce. Guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based SDM recommendations in guidances to underpin the translation of evidence into practice.

Co-creating sensible care plans using shared decision making: Patients' reflections and observations of encounters

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how the use of a within-encounter SDM tool (compared to usual care in a randomized trial) contributes to care plans that make sense to patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation.

METHODS

In a planned subgroup of the trial, 123 patients rated post-encounter how much sense their decided-upon care plan made to them and explained why. We explored how sense ratings related to observed patient involvement (OPTION12), patient's decisional conflict, and adherence to their plan based on pharmacy records. We analyzed patient motives using Burke's pentad.

RESULTS

Plan sensibility was similarly high in both arms (Usual care n = 62: mean 9.4/10 (SD 1.0) vs SDM tool n = 61: 9.2/10 (SD 1.5); p = .8), significantly and weakly correlated to decisional conflict (rho=-0.28, p = .002), but not to OPTION12 or adherence. Plans made sense to most patients given their known efficacy, safety and what is involved in implementing them.

CONCLUSION

Adding an effective intervention to promote SDM did not affect how much, or why, care plans made sense to patients receiving usual care, nor patient adherence to them.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Evaluating the extent to which care plans make sense can improve SDM assessments, particularly when SDM extends beyond selecting from a menu of options.

New status report from Norway: Implementation of patient involvement in Norwegian health care

In Norway, shared decision-making (SDM) is on the top of the priorities announced by the health authorities. Accountability for implementing this priority has been delegated to the four health regions, and from there into particular departments, hospital trusts, working groups or SDM coordinators. Using abundant public funding, different approaches to producing and implementing patient decision aids have been developed. However, none of these is implemented by any Norwegian services on a regular basis, while the accessible decision aids on the national health platform are not quality approved and in very little use. An ongoing new project is aimed to resolve this dilemma. Health professional training has been developed as a meta-curriculum with multiple modules, adaptive to setting and user group, and designed as an open-source learning platform, based upon the experience of "SDM Ambassadors" delivering the training. Most of the modules are already implemented on a regular basis in the South-Eastern Health Region, and 5000 health care professionals have already graduated from the training modules. However, in the standard patient pathways, and in most of the national medical guidelines, the patient is still considered to be a passive receiver of directives or recommendations, rather than an active participant in their own health decisions. Considerable structural implementation has been done in the education guidelines of all health professions on all levels to embed SDM principles. Teaching in SDM skills, quality of information and evidence-based nursing has become standard in most of the programs at Norwegian universities. Nevertheless, we currently still have no reliable estimate on the degree to which patients are actually involved in their own health decision-making. Further efforts in the process of implementing the patient's choice in the health system should involve the municipal services, follow a research-based strategy, include monitoring and consider the quality level of the informational environment of health-related decisions.

PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations

CLINICAL QUESTION

In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients' values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults' average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform (www.magicapp.org) that also allows re-use and adaptation.

THE EVIDENCE

A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient's risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients' cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms.Because of the anticipated large variability of patients' values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit.The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

Evidence-based Urology: Trustworthy Guidelines

Clinical guidelines for guiding clinical decision-making must be trustworthy, especially when there is controversy or a shifting paradigm. In urology, the management of small renal masses is one area in which there is currently a paradigm shift towards active surveillance. A number of international guidelines address this paradigm shift to some extent, with varying degrees of rigor. To be trustworthy, guidelines should be developed by panels that include content experts - the traditional panel members - as well as methodologists with expertise in evidence interpretation, front-line clinicians who take care of the patients who constitute the target audience, and patient partners. At a minimum, panels should integrate four key concepts: (1) guidelines provide a systematic summary of evidence used to support answerable questions, including assessment of the quality of the evidence; (2) there is a clear and transparent link between the evidence and recommendations; (3) recommendations incorporate patient values and preferences; and (4) conflicts of interest are managed optimally. In this article we address several issues in four international guidelines, with an emphasis on guideline methods and implications for guidance statements. The strengths and limitations of available recommendations are reviewed and summarized with suggestions for improving the next iterations of guidelines on the management of small renal masses. PATIENT SUMMARY: Good clinical decision-making relies on trustworthy guidelines. We assessed four international guidelines on the management of small kidney tumors that illustrate some of the key issues in developing a trustworthy guideline. Patient values and preferences are under-represented in most clinical guidelines.

A scoping review of knowledge authoring tools used for developing computerized clinical decision support systems

OBJECTIVE

Clinical Knowledge Authoring Tools (CKATs) are integral to the computerized Clinical Decision Support (CDS) development life cycle. CKATs enable authors to generate accurate, complete, and reliable digital knowledge artifacts in a relatively efficient and affordable manner. This scoping review aims to compare knowledge authoring tools and derive the common features of CKATs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a keyword-based literature search, followed by a snowball search, to identify peer-reviewed publications describing the development or use of CKATs. We used PubMed and Embase search engines to perform the initial search (n = 1579). After removing duplicate articles, nonrelevant manuscripts, and not peer-reviewed publication, we identified 47 eligible studies describing 33 unique CKATs. The reviewed CKATs were further assessed, and salient characteristics were extracted and grouped as common CKAT features.

RESULTS

Among the identified CKATs, 55% use an open source platform, 70% provide an application programming interface for CDS system integration, and 79% provide features to validate/test the knowledge. The majority of the reviewed CKATs describe the flow of information, offer a graphical user interface for knowledge authors, and provide intellisense coding features (94%, 97%, and 97%, respectively). The composed list of criteria for CKAT included topics such as simulating the clinical setting, validating the knowledge, standardized clinical models and vocabulary, and domain independence. None of the reviewed CKATs met all common criteria.

CONCLUSION

Our scoping review highlights the key specifications for a CKAT. The CKAT specification proposed in this review can guide CDS authors in developing more targeted CKATs.

Shared decision-making in neurosurgery: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

In modern neurosurgery, there are often several treatment alternatives, with different risks and benefits. Shared decision-making (SDM) has gained interest during the last decade, although SDM in the neurosurgical field is not widely studied. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to present the current landscape of SDM in neurosurgery.

METHODS

A literature review was carried out in PubMed and Scopus. We used a search strategy based on keywords used in existing literature on SDM in neurosurgery. Full-text, peer-reviewed articles published from 2000 up to the search date February 16, 2021, with patients 18 years and older were included if articles evaluated SDM in neurosurgery from the patient's perspective.

RESULTS

We identified 22 articles whereof 7 covered vestibular schwannomas, 7 covered spinal surgery, and 4 covered gliomas. The other topics were brain metastases, benign brain lesions, Parkinson's disease and evaluation of neurosurgical care. Different methods were used, with majority using forms, questionnaires, or interviews. Effects of SDM interventions were studied in 6 articles; the remaining articles explored factors influencing patients' decisions or discussed SDM aids.

CONCLUSION

SDM is a tool to involve patients in the decision-making process and considers patients' preferences and what the patients find important. This scoping review illustrates the relative lack of SDM in the neurosurgical literature. Even though results indicate potential benefit of SDM, the extent of influence on treatment, outcome, and patient's satisfaction is still unknown. Finally, the use of decision aids may be a meaningful contribution to the SDM process.

Decision aids linked to evidence summaries and clinical practice guidelines: results from user-testing in clinical encounters

Background

Tools for shared decision-making (e.g. decision aids) are intended to support health care professionals and patients engaged in clinical encounters involving shared decision-making. However, decision aids are hard to produce, and onerous to update. Consequently, they often do not reflect best current evidence, and show limited uptake in practice. In response, we initiated the Sharing Evidence to Inform Treatment decisions (SHARE-IT) project. Our goal was to develop and refine a new generation of decision aids that are generically produced along digitally structured guidelines and evidence summaries.

Methods

Applying principles of human-centred design and following the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and GRADE methods for trustworthy evidence summaries we developed a decision aid prototype in collaboration with the Developing and Evaluating Communication strategies to support Informed Decisions and practice based on Evidence project (DECIDE). We iteratively user-tested the prototype in clinical consultations between clinicians and patients. Semi-structured interviews of participating clinicians and patients were conducted. Qualitative content analysis of both user-testing sessions and interviews was performed and results categorized according to a revised Morville’s framework of user-experience. We made it possible to produce, publish and use these decision aids in an electronic guideline authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp).

Results

Direct observations and analysis of user-testing of 28 clinical consultations between physicians and patients informed four major iterations that addressed readability, understandability, usability and ways to cope with information overload. Participants reported that the tool supported natural flow of the conversation and induced a positive shift in consultation habits towards shared decision-making. We integrated the functionality of SHARE-IT decision aids in MAGICapp, which has since generated numerous decision aids.

Conclusion

Our study provides a proof of concept that encounter decision aids can be generically produced from GRADE evidence summaries and clinical guidelines. Online authoring and publication platforms can help scale up production including continuous updating of electronic encounter decision aids, fully integrated with evidence summaries and clinical practice guidelines.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-021-01541-7.

Shared decision making in breast cancer screening guidelines: a systematic review of their quality and reporting

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a key component of evidence-based and patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to systematically review the quality of SDM proposals in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) concerning breast cancer (BC) screening.

METHODS

Guidances were identified, without language restrictions, using a prospectively planned systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and guideline websites) from January 2010 to August 2020. Duplicate data extraction used a 31-item SDM quality assessment tool; reviewer agreement was 98%.

RESULTS

SDM appeared only in 38 (49.4%) (33/68 CPGs, 4/9 CSs) documents (overall compliance with the quality tool: mean 5.74, IQR 3-8). CPGs and CSs specifically mentioning the term SDM (n = 12) had higher quality (mean 6.8, IQR 4-9 vs. mean 2.1, IQR 0-3; P = 0.001). No differences were found in mean quality comparing CPGs with CSs (3 vs. 1.6; P = 0.634), use of systematic review (4.2 vs. 2.9; P = 0.929) and publication in a journal (4 vs. 1.9; P = 0.094). Guidances with SDM were more recently reported than those without it (mean 41 vs. 57 months; P = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

More than half of all the guidelines did not meet SDM quality criteria. Those that explored it were more recently reported. There is an urgent need for promoting SDM in guidances concerning BC screening issued by institutions, professional associations and medical journals.

Patient values and preferences on valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review

The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients’ values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. We searched databases and grey literature until June 2020. We included studies of adults with aortic stenosis eliciting values and preferences about treatment, excluding medical management or palliative care. Qualitative findings were synthesised using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were narratively described. Evidence certainty was assessed using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We included eight studies. Findings ranged from low to very low certainty. Most studies only addressed TAVI. Studies addressing both TAVI and SAVR reported on factors affecting patients’ decision-making along with treatment effectiveness, instead of trade-offs between procedures. Willingness to accept risk varied considerably. To improve their health status, participants were willing to accept higher mortality risk than current evidence suggests for either procedure. No study explicitly addressed valve reintervention, and one study reported variability in willingness to accept shorter duration of known effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR. The most common themes were desire for symptom relief and improved function. Participants preferred minimally invasive procedures with shorter hospital stay and recovery. The current body of evidence on patients’ values, preferences and practical issues related to aortic stenosis management is of suboptimal rigour and reports widely disparate results regarding patients’ perceptions. These findings emphasise the need for higher quality studies to inform clinical practice guidelines and the central importance of shared decision-making to individualise care fitted to each patient.