An experimental evaluation of patient decision aid design to communicate the effects of medications on the rate of progression of structural joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis

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.

Impact of an educational tool on young women's knowledge of cervical cancer screening recommendations

PURPOSE

Current cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend 3-year screening intervals, in contrast to the previous recommendation of annual screening, to prevent over screening and overtreatment. We evaluated the impact of viewing a tablet-based educational tool prior to seeing a clinician on young women's knowledge and understanding of cervical cancer screening, HPV vaccination follow-up of abnormal pap smears, and comfort in communicating with their providers.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was part of a cluster-randomized study of fourteen primary care clinics from January 2015 to December 2016. We developed the cervical cancer education tool in English and Spanish using a community-based approach that included formative work and cognitive interviewing. Clinics were randomized to use the intervention (tablet-based patient education tool) or to participate as a control group. We administered surveys to a convenience sample of 229 English- or Spanish-speaking women aged 19 to 35 years in these clinics. We used descriptive analyses and logistic regression models with cluster-robust standard errors to compare differences among the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared to women seen in control clinics, women seen in intervention clinics demonstrated greater knowledge regarding human papilloma virus (HPV (p = 0.004) and understanding (p < 0.001) of cervical cancer screening. Comfort in communicating with providers was not statistically different (p = 0.053). Women in the intervention group felt that the tool helped them understand that an abnormal Pap smear does not require immediate treatment (61.5%).

CONCLUSION

Innovative online patient education that is offered prior to patients' interaction with their clinicians can improve their knowledge about cervical cancer prevention and treatment.

Healthcare Provider Analogies as Memorable Messages

Healthcare providers must explain medical information to patients in a way that patients can understand. Provider use of analogies is one strategy that may help patients better understand medical information. The present study, guided by a memorable message framework, investigated whether participants remembered any analogies used by their healthcare providers, and included a content analysis of the function the analogies served, the types of analogies participants remembered, and the body systems associated with the health issues that were described. Almost one-quarter of participants recalled an analogy used by a provider. The most frequently recalled analogies functioned to describe health conditions or phenomena, followed by elements of the body, and treatments or something external to the body. Analogies were most frequently used to describe health issues associated with the cardiovascular system, musculoskeletal system, digestive system, dental, eye, or skin issues, or the nervous system. The analogies were categorized as mechanical, a feeling or experience, random object, structure, food, nature, war/battle, or medical/body. Provider analogies may be a type of memorable message for some patients. Providers could consider using suitable analogies to explain health issues when communicating with patients, and be trained in effective use of analogies.

Framing Benefits in Decision Aids: Effects of Varying Contextualizing Statements on Decisions About Sacubitril-Valsartan for Heart Failure

Background. Presenting numeric data alone may result in patients underappreciating clinically significant benefits. Contextualizing statements to counter this may raise concern about absence of neutrality. These issues arose during construction of a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan, a heart failure medication associated with a ∼3% absolute reduction in 2-year mortality that carries high out-of-pocket cost. A contextualizing statement framing this as a “pretty big benefit” was incorporated. The impact of statements like this within decision aids is unknown. Objective. This online Qualtrics survey sought to deepen understanding of benefit framing by testing the impact of varying contextualizing statements within a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan. Design. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of six abbreviated versions of a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan that varied only by contextualizing statement (ranging from strongly neutral to strongly positive and using relative and absolute risk reductions). Participants were asked to answer questions regarding the likelihood of taking the medication at a cost of $50/month and their perception of the drug’s benefits. Results. A total of 1873 participants who were demographically similar to the heart failure population completed the survey. Fifty-four percent were willing to take sacubitril-valsartan at $50/month. Each of the five experimental contextualizing statements was compared with the baseline version; no significant differences were observed in reported likelihood of taking sacubitril-valsartan. After controlling for demographics and covariates, group assignment did not predict likelihood of taking the medication. Higher income, better self-reported health status, and younger age were associated with increased likelihood of taking sacubitril-valsartan. Limitations. This study used a hypothetical scenario and evaluated one method of delivering contextualizing statements. Conclusions. Contextualizing statements as tested within this decision aid did not affect decision making.

Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

BACKGROUND

The objective of this International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS) review is to update and synthesize theoretical and empirical evidence on how balanced information can be presented and measured in patient decision aids (PtDAs).

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team conducted a scoping review using 2 search strategies in multiple electronic databases evaluating the ways investigators defined and measured the balance of information provided about options in PtDAs. The first strategy combined a search informed by the Cochrane Review of the Effectiveness of Decision Aids with a search on balanced information. The second strategy repeated the search published in the 2013 IPDAS update on balanced presentation.

RESULTS

Of 2450 unique citations reviewed, the full text of 168 articles was screened for eligibility. Sixty-four articles were included in the review, of which 13 provided definitions of balanced presentation, 8 evaluated mechanisms that may introduce bias, and 42 quantitatively measured balanced with methods consistent with the IPDAS criteria in PtDAs. The revised definition of balanced information is, "Objective, complete, salient, transparent, evidence-informed, and unbiased presentation of text and visual information about the condition and all relevant options (with important elements including the features, benefits, harms and procedures of those options) in a way that does not favor one option over another and enables individuals to focus attention on important elements and process this information."

CONCLUSIONS

Developers can increase the balance of information in PtDAs by informing their structure and design elements using the IPDAS checklist. We suggest that new PtDA components pertaining to balance be evaluated for cognitive bias with experimental methods as well by objectively evaluating patients' and content experts' beliefs from multiple perspectives.

Effectiveness of pictographs in improving patient education outcomes: a systematic review

The objective of this review was to investigate process of pictograph development and the effectiveness of pictographs in patient education. We conducted searches in Medline/PubMed, CINAHL with full text, PsycInfo, ERIC and Cochrane Library with keywords: (pictograph or pictorial) AND (patient education) NOT (children or adolescent or youth or child or teenagers). After excluding manuscripts that did not meet inclusion criteria, 56 articles were included between the time of the last review on this topic (January 2008) and May 2019. There are 17 descriptive studies, 27 randomized control trial studies, 9 quasi-experimental studies and 2 unique literatures in the systematic review. Major goals of the studies are pictograph development or validation. The majority of manuscripts (n = 48) supported the approach. However, six studies did not find significant differences in the outcome. Differences in patient population, pictograph designs and author-developed outcome measurements made it difficult to compare the findings. There is a lack of evidence on validating information outcome measurements. This review demonstrated that implementing pictographs into patient education is a promising approach for better information understanding and health management. Pictographic interventions need to be carefully developed and validated with both the targeted patient population and the clinical experts.

Benefits and harms of selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) to reduce breast cancer risk: a cross-sectional study of methods to communicate risk in primary care

BACKGROUND

In Australia, evidence-based guidelines recommend that women consider taking selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) to reduce their risk of breast cancer. In practice, this requires effective methods for communicating the harms and benefits of taking SERMs so women can make an informed choice.

AIM

To evaluate how different risk presentations influence women's decisions to consider taking SERMs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional, correlational study of Australian women in general practice.

METHOD

Three risk communication formats were developed that included graphics, numbers, and text to explain the reduction in breast cancer risk and risk of side effects for women taking SERMs (raloxifene or tamoxifen). Women aged 40-74 years in two general practices were shown the risk formats using vignettes of hypothetical women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer and asked to choose 'If this was you, would you consider taking a SERM?' Descriptive statistics and predictors (risk format, level of risk, and type of SERM) of choosing SERMs were determined by logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 288 women were recruited (an 88% response rate) between March and May 2017. The risk formats that showed a government statement and an icon array were associated with a greater likelihood of considering SERMs relative to one that showed a novel expected frequency tree. Risk formats for raloxifene and for the high-risk vignettes were also more strongly associated with choosing to consider SERMs. No associations were found with any patient demographics.

CONCLUSION

Specific risk formats may lead to more women considering taking SERMs to reduce breast cancer risk, especially if they are at high risk of the condition. Raloxifene may be a more acceptable SERM to patients.

Preference Phenotypes in Support of Shared Decision-Making at Point-of-Care for Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study

OBJECTIVE

In this proof-of-concept study, we sought to evaluate whether a value clarification tool enabling patients to view a set of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment preference phenotypes could be used to support shared decision-making at the point-of-care.

METHODS

We conducted a pretest/post test study. English-speaking patients with RA presenting to their scheduled outpatient visits were asked to participate. Visits for patients with active RA were transcribed. Shared decision-making components were measured using a quantitative coding scheme based on an established model of shared decision-making.

RESULTS

Forty-six visits were included in the pretest and 40 in the post test phases. Providers offered more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (2 or more) in the post test visits (60%) compared to the pretest visits (47.8%). Overall, more patients vocalized their values and/or preferences in the post test visits compared to the pretest visits for treatment escalation decisions including a choice of 1 new DMARD (90.9% versus 56.3%), 2 or more new DMARDs (95.8% versus 86.4%), as well as prednisone (87.5% versus 66.7%). Providers were also more likely to base their recommendations on patients' values and/or preferences in the post test (100% of 6 visits) than the pretest (64.3% of 14 visits) phases during visits in which a recommendation was made. The mean ± SD length of the visit was 29.9 ± 11.6 minutes and 25.1 ± 10.7 minutes in the pretest and post test phases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an early indication that a value clarification tool allowing patients to consider a set of preference phenotypes can support shared decision-making at the point-of-care without extending visit time.

Factors Influencing the Uptake of Canadian Research Findings into the Care of Children with Arthritis: A Healthcare Provider Perspective

OBJECTIVE

To determine barriers and facilitators to the uptake of findings from the Research in Arthritis in Canadian Children emphasizing Outcomes (ReACCh-Out) study into clinical care by pediatric rheumatologists (PR) and allied health professionals (AHP) caring for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in Canada.

METHODS

PR and AHP participated in this qualitative study through telephone interviews. Interview guides were developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework and focused on the use of information from the ReACCh-Out study in the practice of counseling patients and families. A directed content analysis approach was used for coding.

RESULTS

Nineteen interviews (8 PR and 11 AHP) were completed. All PR had knowledge of the ReACCh-Out study. Three major themes were identified: (1) both groups are motivated to use information from research in clinical care; (2) volume and emotional effect of information on families are barriers; and (3) specific timepoints in care trigger providing this information. AHP had less knowledge of the ReACCh-Out study, did not feel it was their primary role to provide this information, and have a desire for more opportunity to participate in academic forums related to research.

CONCLUSION

We have described a comprehensive overview of the barriers and facilitators perceived by healthcare providers in the translation of knowledge from JIA research into use in clinical practice. These findings provide a foundation for the development of knowledge translation strategies in the care of children with JIA and other rheumatic diseases.

Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients' Motivations for Accepting or Resisting Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment Regimens

OBJECTIVE

Patient refusal of and nonadherence to treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) can adversely affect disease outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This qualitative study describes how RA patients' feelings in response to experiences and information affected their decisions to accept (agree to adopt, initiate, and implement) or resist (refuse, avoid, and discontinue) DMARD treatment regimens.

METHODS

A total of 48 RA patients were interviewed about their experiences making decisions about DMARDs. The interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for themes related to their internal motivations for accepting or resisting treatment regimens, using a narrative analysis approach.

RESULTS

In addition to feelings about the necessity and dangers of medications, patients' feelings towards their identity as an ill person, the act of taking medication, and the decision process itself were important drivers of patient's decisions. For patients' motivations to accept treatment regimens, 2 themes emerged: a desire to return to a normal life, and fear of future disability due to RA. For motivations to resist treatment regimens, 5 themes emerged: fear of medications, maintaining control over health, denial of sick identity, disappointment with treatment, and feeling overwhelmed by the cognitive burden of deciding.

CONCLUSION

Feelings in response to experiences and information played a major role in how patients weighed the benefits and costs of treatment options, suggesting that addressing patients' feelings may be important when rheumatologists counsel about therapeutic options. Further research is needed to learn how best to address patients' feelings throughout the treatment decision-making process.

Comparison of the Effects of a Pharmaceutical Industry Decision Guide and Decision Aids on Patient Choice to Intensify Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects a pharmaceutical industry decision guide and International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS) compliant patient decision aids (PtDA) on patient medication beliefs and choice to intensify therapy.

METHODS

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, who had never taken etanercept (Enbrel), took part in a mail survey. They were presented with a hypothetical decision scenario where they were asked to consider adding etanercept to their current regimen. Each patient was randomized to review 1 of 3 forms of an etanercept-specific decision support: a long PtDA (LONG DA), a short PtDA (SHORT DA), or the manufacturer's Enbrel decision guide (Pharm Booklet).

RESULTS

We had 402 RA patients participate in the study (response rate, 52%). Of the patients randomized to the Pharm Booklet, 30.6% elected to initiate etanercept. Only 14.6% and 14.0% of patients who reviewed the LONG DA or SHORT DA choose to take etanercept (χ2 = 15.7; P < 0.001). Patients who reviewed the LONG DA or SHORT DA had a greater increase in knowledge about etanercept than those who reviewed the Pharm Booklet. There was no difference in decisional conflict among the groups. A logistic regression model explained 44.2% (R2 = 0.442) of patient choice to intensify therapy by initiating etanercept. The strongest predictor of choice to intensify therapy were beliefs about etanercept's ability to improve symptoms (OR = 2.56, 96%CI [1.71, 3.80]), and its use by others like the respondent (OR = 2.24, 95%CI [1.49, 3.35]). Mediation analysis confirmed the presence of a partial mediating effect of decision support on patients' intent to take etanercept (OR = 0.59, 95%CI [0.39, 0.89]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients supported by the Pharm Booklet were twice as likely to choose to intensify therapy. The Pharm Booklet's effects are partially mediated through persuasive communication techniques that influence patients' beliefs that symptoms will improve, and increase social normative beliefs, rather than by increasing the relevant knowledge, clarifying patient values about positive or negative treatment outcomes, or increasing their self-efficacy.

Patient Decision Aids for Prenatal Genetic Testing: Probability, Embodiment, and Problematic Integration

Patient decision aids (PDAs) are documents that attempt to support patient participation in biomedical decision making by discussing information and options. Scholars have called for further elaboration and application of communication theory relating to the construction and uses of PDAs. This article analyzes gateway documents, a genre of PDAs that includes texts from noncommercial websites returned during an initial inquiry for decision-making information. Problematic integration theory informs and extends a meaning of balance in a sample of four PDAs for prenatal genetic testing. The study addresses several communication opportunities, including discussions of benefits, disadvantages, providers' scientific knowledge, and patients' embodied knowledge. The PDA authors' emphases on statistical risk without more inclusive considerations of embodied knowledge highlight a conclusion that the documents in the sample are imbalanced. This research serves to introduce a theoretical communication context for analysis of PDAs that may assist scholars in further contributions to the interdisciplinary field of biomedical communication.

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.

Medication Risk Communication in Rheumatology: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here?

This paper reviews findings from recent research examining issues related to the risk communication process within the context of rheumatologic conditions. Five specific questions are addressed. First, to what extent do patients with rheumatic disorders exhibit adequate knowledge relevant to disease and medication risks and risk management? Second, what sources do patients use when attempting to find information about disease and medication risks and risk management? Third, what types of information about disease and medication risks and risk management do rheumatologists provide during routine office visits. Fourth, what governmental regulations attempt to increase consumer access to information about medication risks and risk management? Finally, what other educational resources are available to facilitate patient-provider communication concerning disease and medication risks and risk management? The findings reported identify gaps in patient knowledge concerning medication risks and risk management, highlight areas for improvement, and identify resources that may enhance medication risk communication.

The CREATE Method for Expressing Continuous Outcome Data in Absolute Terms for Use in Patient Treatment Decision Aids: A Validation Study

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids (PtDAs) supplement advice from health care professionals by communicating the absolute risk or benefit of treatment options (i.e., X/100). As such, PtDAs have been amenable to binary outcomes only. We aimed to develop and test the validity of the Conversion to Risk Estimates through Application of Normal Theory (CREATE) method for estimating absolute risk based on continuous outcome data.

METHODS

CREATE is designed to derive an estimate of the proportion of those who experience a clinically relevant degree of change (CRDoC). We used a 2-stage validation process using real and simulated change score data, respectively. First, using raw data from published intervention trials, we calculated the proportion of patients with a CRDoC and compared that with our CREATE-derived estimate using chi-square tests of association. Second, 200,000 simulated distributions of change scores were generated with widely varying distribution characteristics. Actual and CREATE-derived estimates were compared for each simulated distribution, and relative differences were summarized graphically.

RESULTS

The absolute difference between the estimated and actual CRDoC did not exceed 5% for any of the samples based on real data. Applying the CREATE method to 200,000 simulated scenarios demonstrated that the CREATE method should be avoided for outcomes where the underlying distribution can be reasonably assumed to have high levels of skew or kurtosis.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that standard statistical theory can be used to estimate continuous outcomes in absolute terms with reasonable accuracy for use in PtDAs; caution is advised if outcome summary statistics are assumed to have been derived from highly skewed distributions.

English language proficiency, health literacy, and trust in physician are associated with shared decision making in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Treat-to-target guidelines promote shared decision making (SDM) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Also, because of high cost and potential toxicity of therapies, SDM is central to patient safety. Our objective was to examine patterns of perceived communication around decision making in 2 cohorts of adults with RA.

METHODS

Data were derived from patients enrolled in 1 of 2 longitudinal, observational cohorts [University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) RA Cohort and RA Panel Cohort]. Subjects completed a telephone interview in their preferred language that included a measure of patient-provider communication, including items about decision making. Measures of trust in physician, education, and language proficiency were also asked. Logistic regression was performed to identify correlates of suboptimal SDM communication. Analyses were performed on each sample separately.

RESULTS

Of 509 patients across 2 cohorts, 30% and 32% reported suboptimal SDM communication. Low trust in physician was independently associated with suboptimal SDM communication in both cohorts. Older age and limited English proficiency were independently associated with suboptimal SDM in the UCSF RA Cohort, as was limited health literacy in the RA Panel Cohort.

CONCLUSION

This study of over 500 adults with RA from 2 demographically distinct cohorts found that nearly one-third of subjects report suboptimal SDM communication with their clinicians, regardless of cohort. Lower trust in physician was independently associated with suboptimal SDM communication in both cohorts, as was limited English language proficiency and older age in the UCSF RA Cohort and limited health literacy in the RA Panel Cohort. These findings underscore the need to examine the influence of SDM on health outcomes in RA.

The design of a low literacy decision aid about rheumatoid arthritis medications developed in three languages for use during the clinical encounter

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care is a priority among policy makers, clinicians and patients both nationally and internationally. Demands on patients to have basic knowledge of RA, treatment options, and details of risk and benefit when making medication decisions with clinicians can be overwhelming, especially for those with limited literacy or limited English language proficiency. The objective of this study is to describe the development of a medication choice decision aid for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in three languages using low literacy principles.

METHODS

Based on the development of a diabetes decision aid, the RA decision aid (RA Choice) was developed through a collaborative process involving patients, clinicians, designers, decision-aid and health literacy experts. A combination of evidence synthesis and direct observation of clinician-patient interactions generated content and guided an iterative process of prototype development.

RESULTS

Three iterations of RA Choice were developed and field-tested before completion. The final tool organized data using icons and plain language for 12 RA medications across 5 issues: frequency of administration, time to onset, cost, side effects, and special considerations. The tool successfully created a conversation between clinician and patient, and garnered high acceptability from clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of collaboratively developing an RA decision aid designed to promote shared decision making resulted in a graphically-enhanced, low literacy tool. The use of RA Choice in the clinical encounter has the potential to enhance communication for RA patients, including those with limited health literacy and limited English language proficiency.

A content analysis of visual cancer information: prevalence and use of photographs and illustrations in printed health materials

Researchers and practitioners have an increasing interest in visual components of health information and health communication messages. This study contributes to this evolving body of research by providing an account of the visual images and information featured in printed cancer communication materials. Using content analysis, 147 pamphlets and 858 images were examined to determine how frequently images are used in printed materials, what types of images are used, what information is conveyed visually, and whether or not current recommendations for the inclusion of visual content were being followed. Although visual messages were found to be common in printed health materials, existing recommendations about the inclusion of visual content were only partially followed. Results are discussed in terms of how relevant theoretical frameworks in the areas of behavior change and visual persuasion seem to be used in these materials, as well as how more theory-oriented research is necessary in visual messaging efforts.

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.

Providing information about options in patient decision aids

BACKGROUND

Legal, ethical, and psychological arguments indicate that patients need to receive information about their health situations before their care decisions are made. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are designed to help patients make decisions; therefore, they should provide information that results in patients understanding their health situation. We reviewed studies that assessed the impact of PtDAs on patient knowledge and on their feeling of being uninformed.

METHODS

Our data sources were a published Cochrane Collaboration review that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before 2010 and a systematic review we conducted of RCTs published in 2010. We included trials that compared 1) PtDAs to usual care, and 2) PtDAs with simple information to PtDAs with more detailed information. Outcomes included patients' knowledge and their feeling of being uninformed. Data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Meta-analyses of similar studies estimated the size of differences.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine RCTs compared a PtDA to usual care and all showed higher knowledge scores for patients in the PtDA groups; a meta-analysis estimated the advantage at 14 (of 100) points. Sixteen (of 39) studies used the Feeling Uninformed subscale; a meta-analysis estimated a reduction of 7 (of 100) points in the PtDA group over usual care. Twenty-one studies compared simple- to more-detailed information in PtDAs. There was a small overall advantage for more detailed information on knowledge scores; a meta-analysis estimated the advantage at 5 (of 100) points. Only one study found higher mean knowledge scores for simpler information. Nine (of 21) studies reported using the Feeling Uninformed subscale and a meta-analysis suggested a reduction of 3 (of 100) points for the more-detailed PtDAs over those with simpler information. Only one study found that simpler information resulted in patients feeling more informed.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that PtDAs result in patients having higher knowledge scores and in reduced feelings of being uninformed over patients who receive usual care. It also appears that PtDAs with more detailed information generally result in slightly higher knowledge and lower "Feeling Uninformed" scores than those with simpler information, but the differences are small and can be reversed under some circumstances.

Balancing the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids: an updated review

Background

Standards for patient decision aids require that information and options be presented in a balanced manner; this requirement is based on the argument that balanced presentation is essential to foster informed decision making. If information is presented in an incomplete/non-neutral manner, it can stimulate cognitive biases that can unduly affect individuals’ knowledge, perceptions of risks and benefits, and, ultimately, preferences. However, there is little clarity about what constitutes balance, and how it can be determined and enhanced. We conducted a literature review to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to balancing the presentation of information and options.

Methods

A literature search related to patient decision aids and balance was conducted on Medline, using MeSH terms and PubMed; this search supplemented the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration’s review of patient decision aids trials. Only English language articles relevant to patient decision making and addressing the balance of information and options were included. All members of the team independently screened clusters of articles; uncertainties were resolved by seeking review by another member. The team then worked in sub-groups to extract and synthesise data on theory, definitions, and evidence reported in these studies.

Results

A total of 40 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, six explained the rationale for balancing the presentation of information and options. Twelve defined “balance”; the definition of “balance” that emerged is as follows: “The complete and unbiased presentation of the relevant options and the information about those options—in content and in format—in a way that enables individuals to process this information without bias”. Ten of the 40 articles reported assessing the balance of the relevant decision aid. All 10 did so exclusively from the users’ or patients’ perspective, using a five-point Likert-type scale. Presenting information in a side-by-side display form was associated with more respondents (ranging from 70% to 96%) judging the information as “balanced”.

Conclusion

There is a need for comparative studies investigating different ways to improve and measure balance in the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids.

Influence of patient characteristics on perceived risks and willingness to take a proposed anti-rheumatic drug

Background

The causes of the underutilization of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDS) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are not fully known, but may in part, relate to individual patient factors including risk perception. Our objective was to identify the determinants of risk perception (RP) in RA patients and predictors of their willingness to take a proposed DMARD (DMARD willingness).

Methods

A cross-sectional mail survey of RA patients in a community rheumatology practice. Patients were presented a hypothetical decision scenario where they were asked to consider switching DMARDs. They evaluated how risky the proposed medication was and how likely they would be to take it.

Results

The completed sample included 1009 RA patients. The overall survey response rate was 71%. Patient characteristics: age 61.6 years (range 18-93), 75% female, minority 6.5%, low or marginal health literacy 8.8%, depression 15.0%, duration RA 13.1 years (range 0.5 – 68). Regression models demonstrated that health literacy, independent of low educational achievement or other demographic (including race), was a common predictor of both RP and DMARD willingness. There was partial mediation of the effects of HL on DMARD willingness through RP. Depression and happiness had no significant effect on RP or DMARD willingness. RP was influenced by negative RA disease and treatment experience, while DMARD willingness was affected mainly by perceived disease control.

Conclusions

Risk aversion may be the result of potentially recognizable and correctable cognitive defect. Heightened clinician awareness, formal screening for low health literacy or cognitive impairment in high-risk populations, may identify patients could benefit from additional decision support.