The impact of different modalities for activating patients in a community health center setting

Development and Acceptability of Provider Training to Increase Treatment Engagement of Parents in Their Children's Behavioral Health Care Need

BACKGROUND: Disruptive, Impulse-Control, and Conduct disorders (DIC) affect 5 million children in the United States and often require comprehensive and long-term behavioral health care for which sustained parental involvement is essential. Our research team is developing an intervention to improve parental engagement in the behavioral health care of their children with DIC. The intervention, which will be a modification of an evidence-based shared decision-making intervention called DECIDE, will include a parent component and a provider component. AIM: To determine the acceptability of the provider component of the modified DECIDE intervention. METHODS: The provider intervention is an asynchronous self-paced online training program made up of five modules: introduction, shared decision-making, perspective-taking, attributional errors, and being a responsive provider. The training was piloted with 41 providers in two public child and adolescent treatment programs. Following completion of the training, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the providers to assess the acceptability of the training. The interviews were analyzed with conventional content analysis. RESULTS: The provider training was well received by providers, and many had made practice changes based on what they had learned. Several offered recommendations for improvement, most notably the need to tailor the training based on provider role, discipline, and level of expertise. CONCLUSIONS: The feedback given by providers will be used to refine future iterations of the provider training component of the modified DECIDE intervention. Psychiatric nurses and other clinicians may draw from strategies incorporated in the training program to improve parent engagement in the treatment of children with DIC.

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.

Status and factors associated with patient activation and its relationship with HIV clinic outcomes among Yi minority people living with HIV in Liangshan, China: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Patient activation is determined by an individual's knowledge, skills and confidence in managing his/her health. It is vital for people living with HIV (PLWH) to enhance their self-management skills and health outcomes, especially those from low- and middle-income regions, since they are at higher risk of worse health outcomes. However, literature from those regions is limited, especially in China.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the status and factors associated with patient activation among Yi minority PLWH in Liangshan, China and to determine whether patient activation is associated with HIV clinic outcomes.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 403 Yi minority people living with HIV in Liangshan between September and October 2021. All participants completed an anonymous survey measuring sociodemographic characteristics, HIV-related information, patient activation and illness perception. Multivariate linear regression and multivariate binary logistic regression were used to explore factors associated with patient activation and the association between patient activation and HIV outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) score was low (mean = 29.8, standard deviation = 4.1). Participants with negative illness perception, low income, and self-rated antiretroviral therapy (ART) effect based on self-perception were most likely to have a lower PAM score (β = -0.3, -0.2, -0.1, respectively; all p < 0.05); those with having disease knowledge learning experiences and an HIV-positive spouse were more likely to have a higher PAM score (β = 0.2, 0.2, respectively; both p < 0.001). A higher PAM score (AOR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.14) was associated with viral suppression, mediated by gender (AOR=2.25, 95% CI: 1.38, 3.69).

CONCLUSION

Low patient activation level among Yi minority PLWH impacts HIV care. Our findings indicate patient activation is associated with viral suppression for minority PLWH in low- and middle-income settings, suggesting that tailored interventions enhancing patient activation may improve viral suppression.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

Assessment of inflammatory bowel disease educational videos for increasing patient engagement and family and friends' levels of understanding

OBJECTIVE

We developed five educational videos through a user-centered approach for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and their families and friends. Here, we assessed if IBD patient activation and family and friends' abilities to understand IBD patients' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (i.e., perspective taking) changed after watching the videos.

METHODS

Through a pre-post survey, we assessed patient activation and perspective taking levels in people with a self-reported IBD diagnosis and their family and friends, respectively, before and after watching one of the videos.

RESULTS

Among 767 participants with IBD, patient activation scores increased significantly after watching each video. In regression analyses, patient activation levels were less likely to increase in biologic-naïve participants after viewing the coping video. Among 232 people who knew someone with IBD, perspective taking scores increased significantly in 8/9 domains, which was more likely to occur among women.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational videos developed through a user-centered approach were associated with higher self-reported IBD patient activation scores and perspective taking levels among family and friends.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These videos, which are now widely disseminated on social media, serve as a model for how to create educational materials for improving patient activation and empathy in the social media era.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Sex and gender considerations in implementation interventions to promote shared decision making: A secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) in healthcare is an approach in which health professionals support patients in making decisions based on best evidence and their values and preferences. Considering sex and gender in SDM research is necessary to produce precisely-targeted interventions, improve evidence quality and redress health inequities. A first step is correct use of terms. We therefore assessed sex and gender terminology in SDM intervention studies.

Materials and methods

We performed a secondary analysis of a Cochrane review of SDM interventions. We extracted study characteristics and their use of sex, gender or related terms (mention; number of categories). We assessed correct use of sex and gender terms using three criteria: “non-binary use”, “use of appropriate categories” and “non-interchangeable use of sex and gender”. We computed the proportion of studies that met all, any or no criteria, and explored associations between criteria met and study characteristics.

Results

Of 87 included studies, 58 (66.7%) mentioned sex and/or gender. The most mentioned related terms were “female” (60.9%) and “male” (59.8%). Of the 58 studies, authors used sex and gender as binary variables respectively in 36 (62%) and in 34 (58.6%) studies. No study met the criterion “non-binary use”. Authors used appropriate categories to describe sex and gender respectively in 28 (48.3%) and in 8 (13.8%) studies. Of the 83 (95.4%) studies in which sex and/or gender, and/or related terms were mentioned, authors used sex and gender non-interchangeably in 16 (19.3%). No study met all three criteria. Criteria met did not vary according to study characteristics (p>.05).

Conclusions

In SDM implementation studies, sex and gender terms and concepts are in a state of confusion. Our results suggest the urgency of adopting a standardized use of sex and gender terms and concepts before these considerations can be properly integrated into implementation research.

Patient decision-making personas: An application of a patient-centered cognitive task analysis (P-CTA)

Personas can be used to understand patterns of variation in patients' performance of cognitive work, particularly self-care decision making. In this study, we used a patient-centered cognitive task analysis (P-CTA) to develop self-care decision-making personas. We collected data from 24 older adults with chronic heart failure and 14 support persons, using critical incident and fictitious scenario interviews. Qualitative analyses produced three personas but revealed that individuals exemplify different personas across situations. The Rule-Following persona seeks clear rules, exercises caution under uncertainty, and grounds actions in confidence in clinician experts. The Researching persona seeks information to gain better understanding, invents strategies, and conducts experiments independently or with clinicians. The Disengaging persona does not actively seek rules or information and does not attempt to reduce uncertainty or conduct experiments. We discuss the situational nature of personas, their use in design, and the benefits of P-CTA for studying patient decision making.

"Get Ready and Empowered About Treatment" (GREAT) Study: a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Activation in Persons Living with HIV

BACKGROUND

Little is known about strategies to improve patient activation, particularly among persons living with HIV (PLWH).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of a group intervention and individual coaching on patient activation for PLWH.

DESIGN

Pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

SITES

Eight practices in New York and two in New Jersey serving PLWH.

PARTICIPANTS

Three hundred sixty PLWH who received care at participating practices and had at least limited English proficiency and basic literacy.

INTERVENTION

Six 90-min group training sessions covering use of an ePersonal Health Record loaded onto a handheld mobile device and a single 20-30 min individual pre-visit coaching session.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was change in Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Secondary outcomes were changes in eHealth literacy (eHEALS), Decision Self-efficacy (DSES), Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS), health (SF-12), receipt of HIV-related care, and change in HIV viral load (VL).

KEY RESULTS

The intervention group showed significantly greater improvement than the control group in the primary outcome, the PAM (difference 2.82: 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-5.32). Effects were largest among participants with lowest quartile PAM at baseline (p < 0.05). The intervention doubled the odds of improving one level on the PAM (odds ratio 1.96; 95% CI 1.16-3.31). The intervention group also had significantly greater improvement in eHEALS (difference 2.67: 95% CI 1.38-3.9) and PICS (1.27: 95% CI 0.41-2.13) than the control group. Intervention effects were similar by race/ethnicity and low education with the exception of eHealth literacy where effects were stronger for minority participants. No statistically significant effects were observed for decision self-efficacy, health status, adherence, receipt of HIV relevant care, or HIV viral load.

CONCLUSIONS

The patient activation intervention modestly improved several domains related to patient empowerment; effects on patient activation were largest among those with the lowest levels of baseline patient activation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at Clinical Trials.Gov (NCT02165735).

Difficulty Hearing Is Associated With Low Levels of Patient Activation

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Patient activation encompasses the knowledge, skills, and confidence that equip adults to participate actively in their healthcare. Patients with hearing loss may be less able to participate due to poor aural communication. We examined whether difficulty hearing is associated with lower patient activation.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

A nationally representative sample of Americans aged 65 years and older (n = 13 940) who participated in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) during the years 2011 to 2013.

MEASUREMENT

Self-reported degree of difficulty hearing ("no trouble," "a little trouble," and "a lot of trouble") and overall activation based on aggregated scored responses to 16 questions from the MCBS Patient Activation Supplement: low activation (below the mean minus 0.5 SDs), high activation (above the mean plus 0.5 SDs), and medium activation (the remainder). Sociodemographic and self-reported clinical measures were also included.

RESULTS

"A little trouble" hearing was reported by 5655 (40.6%) of respondents, and "a lot of trouble" hearing was reported by 893 (6.4%) of respondents. Difficulty hearing was significantly associated with low patient activation: in analyses using multivariable multinomial logistic regression, respondents with "a little trouble" hearing had 1.42 times the risk of low vs high activation (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27-1.58), and those with "a lot of trouble" hearing had 1.70 times the risk of low vs high activation (95% CI = 1.29-2.11), compared with those with "no trouble" hearing.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly half of people aged 65 years and older reported difficulty hearing, and those reporting difficulty were at risk of low patient activation. That risk rose with increased difficulty hearing. Given the established link between activation and outcomes of care, and in view of the association between hearing loss and poor healthcare quality and outcomes, clinicians may be able to improve care for people with hearing loss by attending to aural communication barriers.

Assessing the Impact of a Game-Centered Mobile App on Community-Dwelling Older Adults' Health Activation

Background:

Older adults experience normative age-graded declines in physical and cognitive performance and many must manage one or more chronic conditions. Exercise programs can help to improve both their physical health and their knowledge, skill, and confidence in managing aspects of their own healthcare, yet a significant barrier is motivating them to adhere to such programs. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the impact of a game-centered mobile app (Bingocize®) on older adults’ knowledge, skill, and confidence for managing aspects of their healthcare.

Methods:

Community-dwelling older adults (N=84) with mobility and not engaged in any structured exercise program were recruited from rural community senior centers in Kentucky and Tennessee. Participants were randomly assigned to (a) a version that included health education, or (b) health education and an exercise component. Participants used the app in a group setting for 10 weeks, twice per week, for one hour. The Patient Activation Measure (PAM-10) was used to assess group changes in knowledge, skill, and confidence for managing aspects of their healthcare. The design was a two (Group: Exercise + Health Education vs. Health Education-only) x two (Time: Pre- vs. Post-intervention) and an analyses of variance, with significance p<.05, was used to detect within and between group differences.

Results:

PAM-10 values significantly increased from pre- to post-intervention for both groups, as did knowledge of the health topics (all p < 0.05). Attendance was >93% in both groups.

Conclusions:

Bingocize® engendered high attendance and improved health activation of older adults; however, additional research is needed to examine whether changes in activation result in long-term changes in health behaviour. The Bingocize® mobile app is an enjoyable and effective way to increase health activation in community-dwelling older adults.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology, Part 8: Shared Decision Making—Impact, Incentives, and Instruments

In our previous installment, we introduced shared decision making (SDM) as a collaborative process in which patients, families, and clinicians develop a mutually optimized treatment plan when more than 1 reasonable treatment option exists. In this subsequent installment of our Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Series, we expand on the topic of SDM, including the related current state of clinical decision making, the impact of SDM on health care utilization and patient satisfaction, the potential role of system and society changes, the experience with SDM as it relates to race and ethnicity, existing financial incentives, and the validated instruments that assess the extent to which SDM occurs.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Part 7: Introduction to Shared Decision Making

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative process in which patients, families, and clinicians develop a mutually agreed upon treatment plan when more than one reasonable treatment option exists. This cooperative engagement fosters improvements in patient satisfaction, disease management, and outcomes and also has the capacity to promote evidence-based care. Thus, this seventh installment of our Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology series focuses on SDM. We introduce SDM, including its potential to reduce decisional conflict and decisional regret, when it should be used, its potential benefits, barriers to implementation, and its role in the management of chronic disease and otolaryngological conditions.

Patient Activation is Inconsistently Associated with Positive Health Behaviors Among Obese Safety Net Patients

We examine the association of patient activation and physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption among obese safety net patients. Adult obese patients (n = 198) of three safety net clinics completed a survey assessing patient activation, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, care experiences, and health status. Multivariate logistic regression models incrementally assessed the adjusted relation of patient activation and physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption. In adjusted analyses, higher activated patients had higher odds [Odds ratio (OR) 1.58, p < 0.01] of consuming fruits and vegetables daily than less activated patients. There was no significant association between patient activation and regular physical activity. Engaging in regular physical activity appears to be difficult, even for highly activated patients. In contrast, additional fruit and vegetable consumption is a relatively easier change. Patient activation was inconsistently associated with two positive health behaviors among obese safety net patients.

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.

Enhancing mHealth Technology in the Patient-Centered Medical Home Environment to Activate Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Multisite Feasibility Study Protocol

BACKGROUND

The potential of mHealth technologies in the care of patients with diabetes and other chronic conditions has captured the attention of clinicians and researchers. Efforts to date have incorporated a variety of tools and techniques, including Web-based portals, short message service (SMS) text messaging, remote collection of biometric data, electronic coaching, electronic-based health education, secure email communication between visits, and electronic collection of lifestyle and quality-of-life surveys. Each of these tools, used alone or in combination, have demonstrated varying degrees of effectiveness. Some of the more promising results have been demonstrated using regular collection of biometric devices, SMS text messaging, secure email communication with clinical teams, and regular reporting of quality-of-life variables. In this study, we seek to incorporate several of the most promising mHealth capabilities in a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) workflow.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to address underlying technology needs and gaps related to the use of mHealth technology and the activation of patients living with type 2 diabetes. Stated differently, we enable supporting technologies while seeking to influence patient activation and self-care activities.

METHODS

This is a multisite phased study, conducted within the US Military Health System, that includes a user-centered design phase and a PCMH-based feasibility trial. In phase 1, we will assess both patient and provider preferences regarding the enhancement of the enabling technology capabilities for type 2 diabetes chronic care management. Phase 2 research will be a single-blinded 12-month feasibility study that incorporates randomization principles. Phase 2 research will seek to improve patient activation and self-care activities through the use of the Mobile Health Care Environment with tailored behavioral messaging. The primary outcome measure is the Patient Activation Measure scores. Secondary outcome measures are Summary of Diabetes Self-care Activities Measure scores, clinical measures, comorbid conditions, health services resource consumption, and technology system usage statistics.

RESULTS

We have completed phase 1 data collection. Formal analysis of phase 1 data has not been completed. We have obtained institutional review board approval and began phase 1 research in late fall 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

The study hypotheses suggest that patients can, and will, improve their activation in chronic care management. Improved activation should translate into improved diabetes self-care. Expected benefits of this research to the scientific community and health care services include improved understanding of how to leverage mHealth technology to activate patients living with type 2 diabetes in self-management behaviors. The research will shed light on implementation strategies in integrating mHealth into the clinical workflow of the PCMH setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02949037. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02949037. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6oRyDzqei).

Patient activation and the use of information to support informed health decisions

OBJECTIVES

Patients and consumers make many choices that affect their health and their health care. Some of these decisions are informed by evidence, but many are not. A growing body of research indicates that those who are more activated or engaged in their health are more likely to seek out and use information to inform their health decisions. In this paper we review the evidence about patient activation and information seeking, health behaviors, and health outcomes. We also review what is known about how to increase patient activation, and how best to support patients who are at different levels of activation to use information to support their choices.

DISCUSSION

Strategies can be tailored to support and information for patients at different levels of activation. These strategies might be implemented in different clinical settings and situations, tailored and targeted approaches for care transitions, health coaching, and in the use of shared-decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to support informed consumer choices have largely been a 'one size fits all' approach. Understanding consumers, and trying to meet them where they are, is likely to be the focus of the 'next generation' of interventions to support informed consumer choices.

When patient activation levels change, health outcomes and costs change, too

Patient engagement has become a major focus of health reform. However, there is limited evidence showing that increases in patient engagement are associated with improved health outcomes or lower costs. We examined the extent to which a single assessment of engagement, the Patient Activation Measure, was associated with health outcomes and costs over time, and whether changes in assessed activation were related to expected changes in outcomes and costs. We used data on adult primary care patients from a single large health care system where the Patient Activation Measure is routinely used. We found that results indicating higher activation in 2010 were associated with nine out of thirteen better health outcomes-including better clinical indicators, more healthy behaviors, and greater use of women's preventive screening tests-as well as with lower costs two years later. Changes in activation level were associated with changes in over half of the health outcomes examined, as well as costs, in the expected directions. These findings suggest that efforts to increase patient activation may help achieve key goals of health reform and that further research is warranted to examine whether the observed associations are causal.

Mobile application as a prenatal education and engagement tool: A randomized controlled pilot

OBJECTIVES

Research has shown that mobile applications provide a powerful alternative to traditional paper diaries; however, little data exists in comparing apps to the traditional mode of paper as a patient education and engagement tool in the clinical setting. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of a mobile app versus a spiral-notebook guide throughout prenatal care.

METHODS

This randomized (n=173) controlled pilot was conducted at an East Coast community hospital. Chi-square and repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test intervention effects in the sample of 127 pregnant mothers who completed their prenatal care in the healthcare system.

RESULTS

Patients who were distributed the mobile application used the tool to record information about pregnancy more frequently (p=.04) and developed greater patient activation (p=.02) than patients who were distributed notebooks. No difference was detected on interpersonal clinical communication.

CONCLUSION

A mobile application successfully activated a patient population in which self-management is a critical factor.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study shows that mobile apps can prompt greater use and result in more activated patients. Findings may be translated to other patient populations who receive recurring care for chronic disease.

Supporting Patient Behavior Change: Approaches Used by Primary Care Clinicians Whose Patients Have an Increase in Activation Levels

PURPOSE

We aimed to identify the strategies used to support patient behavior change by clinicians whose patients had an increase in patient activation.

METHODS

This mixed methods study was conducted in collaboration with Fairview Health Services, a Pioneer Accountable Care Organization. We aggregated data on the change in patient activation measure (PAM) score for 7,144 patients to the primary care clinician level. We conducted in-depth interviews with 10 clinicians whose patients' score increases were among the highest and 10 whose patients' score changes were among the lowest. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed to identify key strategies that differentiated the clinicians whose patients had top PAM change scores.

RESULTS

Clinicians whose patients had relatively large activation increases reported using 5 key strategies to support patient behavior change (mean = 3.9 strategies): emphasizing patient ownership; partnering with patients; identifying small steps; scheduling frequent follow-up visits to cheer successes, problem solve, or both; and showing caring and concern for patients. Clinicians whose patients had lesser change in activation were far less likely to describe using these approaches (mean = 1.3 strategies). Most clinicians, regardless of group, reported developing their own approach to support patient behavior change. Those whose patients showed high activation change reported spending more time with patients on counseling and education than did those whose patients showed less improvement in activation.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians vary in the strategies they use to promote behavior change and in the time spent with patients on such activities. The 5 key strategies used by clinicians with high patient activation change are promising approaches to supporting patient behavior change that should be tested in a larger sample of clinicians to validate their effectiveness.

Show Me My Health Plans: a study protocol of a randomized trial testing a decision support tool for the federal health insurance marketplace in Missouri

BACKGROUND

The implementation of the ACA has improved access to quality health insurance, a necessary first step to improving health outcomes. However, access must be supplemented by education to help individuals make informed choices for plans that meet their individual financial and health needs.

METHODS/DESIGN

Drawing on a model of information processing and on prior research, we developed a health insurance decision support tool called Show Me My Health Plans. Developed with extensive stakeholder input, the current tool (1) simplifies information through plain language and graphics in an educational component; (2) assesses and reviews knowledge interactively to ensure comprehension of key material; (3) incorporates individual and/or family health status to personalize out-of-pocket cost estimates; (4) assesses preferences for plan features; and (5) helps individuals weigh information appropriate to their interests and needs through a summary page with "good fit" plans generated from a tailored algorithm. The current study will evaluate whether the online decision support tool improves health insurance decisions compared to a usual care condition (the healthcare.gov marketplace website). The trial will include 362 individuals (181 in each group) from rural, suburban, and urban settings within a 90 mile radius around St. Louis. Eligibility criteria includes English-speaking individuals 18-64 years old who are eligible for the ACA marketplace plans. They will be computer randomized to view the intervention or usual care condition.

DISCUSSION

Presenting individuals with options that they can understand tailored to their needs and preferences could help improve decision quality. By helping individuals narrow down the complexity of health insurance plan options, decision support tools such as this one could prepare individuals to better navigate enrollment in a plan that meets their individual needs. The randomized trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02522624) on August 6, 2015.

The association between patient activation and accessing online health information: results from a national survey of US adults

BACKGROUND

There are increasing opportunities for the public to access online health information, but attitudinal barriers to use are less well-known. Patient activation is associated with key health outcomes, but its relationship with using online health information is not known.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the relationship between patient activation and the likelihood of accessing a range of different types of online health information in a nationally representative US sample.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional nationally representative survey.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Data were from an online (n = 2700) and random digit dial telephone survey (n = 700) of US adults (total n = 3400).

MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED

Respondent characteristics and the Patient Activation Measure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported access of five types of online health information in the past 12 months (online medical records, cost estimation tools, quality comparison tools, health information about a specific condition, preventive health information).

RESULTS

Approximately, one-fifth of the sample had accessed their medical record (21.6%), treatment cost estimation tools (17.3%) and hospital and physician quality comparison tools (21.8%). Nearly half of the sample had accessed information about medical conditions or treatments (48.3%) or preventive health and well-being (45.9%). In multivariable analyses adjusted for participant characteristics, respondents with greater patient activation were more likely to have accessed all types of health information other than cost estimation tools.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Activated people are more likely to make use of online heath information. Increasing patient activation could improve the public's ability to participate in health care and personal health self-management by encouraging health information seeking.

The Role of Patient Activation in Preferences for Shared Decision Making: Results From a National Survey of U.S. Adults

Studies investigating preferences for shared decision making (SDM) have focused on associations with sociodemographic variables, with few investigations exploring patient factors. We aimed to investigate the relationship between patient activation and preferences for SDM in 6 common medical decisions among a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of American adults. Adults older than 18 were recruited online (n = 2,700) and by telephone (n = 700). Respondents completed sociodemographic assessments and the Patient Activation Measure. They were also asked whether they perceived benefit (yes/no) in SDM in 6 common medical decisions. Nearly half of the sample (45.9%) reached the highest level of activation (Level 4). Activation was associated with age (p < .001), higher income (p = .001), higher education (p = .010), better self-rated health (p < .001), and fewer chronic conditions (p = .050). The proportion of people who agreed that SDM was beneficial varied from 53.1% (deciding the necessity of a diagnostic test) to 71.8% (decisions associated with making lifestyle changes). After we controlled for participant characteristics, higher activation was associated with greater perceived benefit in SDM across 4 of the 6 decisions. Preferences for SDM varied among 6 common medical scenarios. Low patient activation is an important barrier to SDM that could be ameliorated through the development of behavioral interventions.

The association between patient activation and medication adherence, hospitalization, and emergency room utilization in patients with chronic illnesses: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review of the published literature on the association between the PAM (Patient Activation Measure) and hospitalization, emergency room use, and medication adherence among chronically ill patient populations.

METHODS

A literature search of several electronic databases was performed. Studies published between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2014 that used the PAM measure and examined at least one of the outcomes of interest among a chronically ill study population were identified and systematically assessed.

RESULTS

Ten studies met the eligibility criteria. Patients who scored in the lower PAM stages (Stages 1 and 2) were more likely to have been hospitalized. Patients who scored in the lowest stage were also more likely to utilize the emergency room. The relationship between PAM stage and medication adherence was inconclusive in this review.

CONCLUSION

Chronically ill patients reporting low stages of patient activation are at an increased risk for hospitalization and ER utilization.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Future research is needed to further understand the relationship between patient activation and medication adherence, hospitalization and/or ER utilization in specific chronically ill (e.g. diabetic, asthmatic) populations. Research should also consider the role of patient activation in the development of effective interventions which seek to address the outcomes of interest.

Impacting delayed pediatric influenza vaccination: a randomized controlled trial of text message reminders

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination coverage is low, especially among low-income populations. Most doses are generally administered early in the influenza season, yet sustained vaccination efforts are crucial for achieving optimal coverage. The impact of text message influenza vaccination reminders was recently demonstrated in a low-income population. Little is known about their effect on children with delayed influenza vaccination or the most effective message type.

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of educational plus interactive text message reminders on influenza vaccination of urban low-income children unvaccinated by late fall.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Parents of 5,462 children aged 6 months-17 years from four academically affiliated pediatric clinics who were unvaccinated by mid-November 2011.

INTERVENTION

Eligible parents were stratified by their child's age and pediatric clinic site and randomized using a 1:1:1 allocation to educational plus interactive text message reminders, educational-only text message reminders, or usual care. Using an immunization registry-linked text messaging system, parents of intervention children received up to seven weekly text message reminders. One of the messages sent to parents in the educational plus interactive text message arm allowed selection of more information about influenza and influenza vaccination.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Influenza vaccination by March 31, 2012. Data were collected and analyzed between 2012 and 2014.

RESULTS

Most children were publicly insured and Spanish speaking. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. More children of parents in the educational plus interactive text message arm were vaccinated (38.5%) versus those in the educational-only text message (35.3%; difference=3.3%, 95% CI=0.02%, 6.5%; relative risk ratio (RRR)=1.09, 95% CI=1.002, 1.19) and usual care (34.8%; difference=3.8%, 95% CI=0.6%, 7.0%; RRR=1.11, 95% CI=1.02-1.21) arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Text message reminders with embedded educational information and options for interactivity have a small positive effect on influenza vaccination of urban, low-income, minority children who remain unvaccinated by late fall.

The effect of online chronic disease personas on activation: within-subjects and between-groups analyses

BACKGROUND

Although self-management of chronic disease is important, engaging patients and increasing activation for self-care using online tools has proven difficult. Designing more tailored interventions through the application of condition-specific personas may be a way to increase engagement and patient activation. Personas are developed from extensive interviews with patients about their shared values and assumptions about their health. The resulting personas tailor the knowledge and skills necessary for self-care and guide selection of the self-management tools for a particular audience.

OBJECTIVE

Pre-post changes in self-reported levels of activation for self-management were analyzed for 11 chronic health personas developed for 4 prevalent chronic diseases.

METHODS

Personas were created from 20 to 25 hour-long nondirected interviews with consumers with a common, chronic disease (eg, diabetes). The interviews were transcribed and coded for behaviors, feelings, and beliefs using the principles of grounded theory. A second group of 398 adults with self-reported chronic disease were recruited for online testing of the personas and their impact on activation. The activation variables, based on an integrated theory of health behavior, were knowledge of a given health issue, perceived self-management skills, confidence in improving health, and intention to take action in managing health. Pre-post changes in activation were analyzed with a mixed design with 1 within-subjects factor (pre-post) and 1 between-group factor (persona) using a general linear model with repeated measures.

RESULTS

Sixteen pre-post changes for 4 measures of activation were analyzed. All but 2 of the within-subjects effects were statistically significant and all changes were in the direction of increased activation scores at posttest. Five significant differences between personas were observed, showing which personas performed better. Of low activation participants, 50% or more shifted to high activation across the 4 measures with minimal changes (≤5%) in the reverse direction.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of participants using a persona-tailored learning path reported high levels of satisfaction with their online user experience and increased levels of activation about their own health. In the body of work on patient activation, the current study adds to understanding of both short-term impact and the content of a brief, online intervention for engagement of specific groups in self-management.

Taking the long view: how well do patient activation scores predict outcomes four years later?

Patient activation is an important predictor of health outcomes and health care usage, yet we do not know how enduring the benefits of greater patient activation are. This study uses a large panel survey of people with chronic conditions (n = 4,865) to examine whether a baseline patient activation measure predicts outcomes 4 years later, and whether changes in patient activation measure scores are associated with changes in outcomes. The findings indicate that the benefits of health activation are enduring, yielding benefits in the form of better self-management, improved functioning, and lower use of costly health care services over time. Furthermore, the findings indicate that when activation levels change, many outcomes change in the same direction. Patient activation seems to be an important and modifiable factor for influencing chronic disease outcomes; health care delivery systems can use this information to personalize and improve care.

Using text messages to improve patient-doctor communication among racial and ethnic minority adults: an innovative solution to increase influenza vaccinations

Despite the 2010 CDC recommendation that all adults receive influenza vaccinations, in the 2013-2014 influenza season, only 35% of Blacks and 37% of Hispanics were vaccinated, compared to 40% of Whites. This disparity could be due to poor patient-doctor communication, among other barriers. Doctors provide more health information to active communicators; unfortunately, they perceive minority patients to be poor communicators. A novel way to prompt minority patients to better communicate with their doctors is through mHealth. Text messaging is a simple, low cost, mHealth platform widely-used among racial and ethnic minorities. A text message campaign could be effective in providing vaccine education and prompting patients to converse with their doctors about influenza vaccinations. Text prompts could improve patient communication, thus increasing their likelihood of vaccination. This campaign could accomplish Healthy People 2020 goals: increase influenza vaccination, improve patient-doctor communication, increase use of mHealth, and reduce health disparities.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) can reduce overuse of options not associated with benefits for all and respects patient rights, but has not yet been widely adopted in practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched for primary studies in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialsied Register and PsycINFO for the period March 2009 to August 2012. We searched the Clinical Trials.gov registry and the proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference. We scanned the bibliographies of relevant papers and studies. We contacted experts in the field to identify papers published after August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM where the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based outcome measures (OBOM) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The three overall categories of intervention were: interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. Studies in each category were compared to studies in the same category, to studies in the other two categories, and to usual care, resulting in nine comparison groups. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes separately. We calculated the median of the standardized mean difference (SMD), or risk difference, and range of effect across studies and categories of intervention. We assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were included, 38 randomised and one non-randomised controlled trial. Categorical measures did not show any effect for any of the interventions. In OBOM studies, interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals had a positive effect compared to usual care (SMD of 2.83) and compared to interventions targeting patients alone (SMD of 1.42). Studies comparing interventions targeting patients with other interventions targeting patients had a positive effect, as did studies comparing interventions targeting healthcare professionals with usual care (SDM of 1.13 and 1.08 respectively). In PROM studies, only three comparisons showed any effect, patient compared to usual care (SMD of 0.21), patient compared to another patient (SDM of 0.29) and healthcare professional compared to another healthcare professional (SDM of 0.20). For all comparisons, interpretation of the results needs to consider the small number of studies, the heterogeneity, and some methodological issues. Overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes, assessed with the GRADE tool, ranged from low to very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether interventions to improve adoption of SDM are effective given the low quality of the evidence. However, any intervention that actively targets patients, healthcare professionals, or both, is better than none. Also, interventions targeting patients and healthcare professionals together show more promise than those targeting only one or the other.

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.

IDEAS for a healthy baby--reducing disparities in use of publicly reported quality data: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Publicly reported performance on quality measures is intended to enable patients to make more informed choices. Despite the growing availability of these reports, patients' use remains limited and disparities exist. Low health literacy and numeracy are two barriers that may contribute to these disparities. Patient navigators have helped patients overcome barriers such as these in other areas, such as cancer care and may prove useful for overcoming barriers to using publicly reported quality data.

METHODS/DESIGN

The goals of this study are: to determine the efficacy of a patient navigator intervention to assist low-income pregnant women in the use of publicly available information about quality of care when choosing a pediatrician; to evaluate the relative importance of factors influencing women's choice of pediatric practices; to evaluate the effect of the intervention on patient engagement in management of their own and their child's health care; and to assess variation in efficacy of the intervention for sub-groups based on parity, age, and race/ethnicity. English speaking women ages 16 to 50 attending a prenatal clinic at a large urban medical center will be randomized to receive an in-person navigator intervention or an informational pamphlet control between 20 to 34 weeks of gestation. The intervention will include in-person guided use of the Massachusetts Health Quality Partners website, which reports pediatric practices' performance on quality measures and patient experience. The primary study outcomes will be the mean scores on a) clinical quality and b) patient experience measures.

DISCUSSION

Successful completion of the study aims will yield important new knowledge about the value of guided website navigation as a strategy to increase the impact of publicly reported quality data and to reduce disparities in use of these data.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01784575.

Extending Physician ReACH: influencing patient activation and behavior through multichannel physician communication

OBJECTIVE

Despite evidence-based recommendations, physical activity as a self-management technique is underutilized. Many physical activity interventions require significant resources, ranging from repeated phone follow-up with nursing staff to intensive sessions with cooperating physical therapists. This intervention, Extending Physician ReACH (Relationship And Communication in Healthcare), examined physician to patient communication tactics for promoting walking exercise to patients with type 2 diabetes, using limited clinic time and financial resources.

METHODS

This was a single-site, six-month prospective intervention, which implemented theoretically driven, evidenced-based information factor strategies. Of the 128 volunteers who participated in the initial clinic visit, 67 patients with type 2 diabetes completed the six-month intervention.

RESULTS

Significant intervention effects were detected risk perception, social norms, and patient activation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was designed to identify information factors that could affect physician success in motivating patients with type 2 diabetes to enact the ADA physical activity recommendations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The success of this intervention models a strategy through which clinicians can reach beyond "one-shot" persuasion without placing onerous time and resource demands on physicians.