Results from a randomized trial of a web-based, tailored decision aid for women at high risk for breast cancer

Personalized anesthesia and precision medicine: a comprehensive review of genetic factors, artificial intelligence, and patient-specific factors

Precision medicine, characterized by the personalized integration of a patient's genetic blueprint and clinical history, represents a dynamic paradigm in healthcare evolution. The emerging field of personalized anesthesia is at the intersection of genetics and anesthesiology, where anesthetic care will be tailored to an individual's genetic make-up, comorbidities and patient-specific factors. Genomics and biomarkers can provide more accurate anesthetic protocols, while artificial intelligence can simplify anesthetic procedures and reduce anesthetic risks, and real-time monitoring tools can improve perioperative safety and efficacy. The aim of this paper is to present and summarize the applications of these related fields in anesthesiology by reviewing them, exploring the potential of advanced technologies in the implementation and development of personalized anesthesia, realizing the future integration of new technologies into clinical practice, and promoting multidisciplinary collaboration between anesthesiology and disciplines such as genomics and artificial intelligence.

Impact of timing and format of patient decision aids for breast cancer patients on their involvement in and preparedness for decision making - the IMPACTT randomised controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

After curative surgery for early-stage breast cancer, patients face a decision on whether to undergo surgery alone or to receive one or more adjuvant treatments, which may lower the risk of recurrence. Variations in survival outcomes are often marginal but there are differences in the side effects and other features of the options that patients may value differently. Hence, the patient's values and preferences are critical in determining what option to choose. It is well-researched that the use of shared decision making and patient decision aids can support this choice in a discussion between patient and clinician. However, it is still to be investigated what impact the timing and format of the patient decision aid have on shared decision making outcomes. In this trial, we aim to investigate the impact of a digital pre-consult compared to a paper-based in-consult patient decision aid on patients' involvement in shared decision making, decisional conflict and preparedness to make a decision.

METHODS

The study is a randomised controlled trial with 204 patients at two Danish oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients are newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and offered adjuvant treatments after curative surgery to lower the risk of recurrence. Participants will be randomised to receive either an in-consult paper-based patient decision aid or a pre-consult digital patient decision aid. Data collection includes patient and clinician-reported outcomes as well as observer-reported shared decision making based on audio recordings of the consultation. The primary outcome is the extent to which patients are engaged in a shared decision making process reported by the patient. Secondary aims include the length of consultation, preparation for decision making, preferred role in shared decision making and decisional conflict.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first known randomised, controlled trial comparing a digital, pre-consult patient decision aid to an identical paper-based, in-consult patient decision aid. It will contribute evidence on the impact of patient decision aids in terms of investigating if pre-consult digital patient decisions aids compared to in-consult paper-based decision aids support the cancer patients in being better prepared for decision making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05573022).

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.

Development of 'gastrostomy tube - is it for me?', a web-based patient decision aid for people living with motor neurone disease considering having a gastrostomy tube placed

Objective: To develop and pilot a web-based patient decision aid (PDA) to support people living with motor neurone disease (plwMND) considering having a gastrostomy tube placed. Methods: In Phase 1, content and design were informed by semi-structured interviews, literature reviews and a prioritization survey. In Phase 2, the prototype PDA was tested with users and developed iteratively with feedback from surveys and 'think-aloud' interviews. Phase 1 and 2 participants were plwMND, carers and healthcare professionals (HCPs). In Phase 3, the PDA was evaluated by plwMND using validated questionnaires and HCPs provided feedback in focus groups. Results: Sixteen plwMND, 16 carers and 25 HCPs took part in Phases 1 and 2. Interviews and the literature review informed a prioritization survey with 82 content items. Seventy-seven per cent (63/82) of the content of the PDA was retained. A prototype PDA, which conforms to international standards, was produced and improved during Phase 2. In Phase 3, 17 plwMND completed questionnaires after using the PDA. Most plwMND (94%) found the PDA completely acceptable and would recommend it to others in their position, 88% had no decisional conflict, 82% were well prepared and 100% were satisfied with their decision-making. Seventeen HCPs provided positive feedback and suggestions for use in clinical practice. Conclusion: Gastrostomy Tube: Is it for me? was co-produced with stakeholders and found to be acceptable, practical and useful. Freely available from the MND Association website, the PDA is a valuable tool to support the shared decision-making process for gastrostomy tube placement.

Does health literacy affect older people's avoidance of medical care? The sense of medical care policy alienation and perceptions of control

We aimed to clarify whether health literacy (HL)  impacts medical care avoidance through an underexplored mediator: a sense of policy alienation towards medical care policy for residents (SPA-M). A moderated mediation model with control perception as a moderator was used to analyze the inner relationship between HL and SPA-M. A cross-sectional survey of 470 people ≥ 60 years old, revealed a significant negative association between HL and medical care avoidance intention, which bootstrapped moderated mediation analysis confirmed is partially mediated by SPA-M. When older people's control perception was high, HL had a significant negative impact on medical care avoidance intention through SPA-M; for low control perception, the effect was insignificant. This study elucidates HL's impact of HL on medical care avoidance, highlighting control perception's relevance to medical care policymaking for older people.

GPs' willingness to prescribe aspirin for cancer preventive therapy in Lynch syndrome: a factorial randomised trial investigating factors influencing decisions

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2020 guidelines recommends aspirin for colorectal cancer prevention for people with Lynch syndrome. Strategies to change practice should be informed by understanding the factors influencing prescribing.

AIM

To investigate the optimal type and level of information to communicate with GPs to increase willingness to prescribe aspirin.

DESIGN AND SETTING

GPs in England and Wales (n = 672) were recruited to participate in an online survey with a 23 factorial design. GPs were randomised to one of eight vignettes describing a hypothetical patient with Lynch syndrome recommended to take aspirin by a clinical geneticist.

METHOD

Across the vignettes, the presence or absence of three types of information was manipulated: 1) existence of NICE guidance; 2) results from the CAPP2 trial; 3) information comparing risks/benefits of aspirin. The main effects and all interactions on the primary (willingness to prescribe) and secondary outcomes (comfort discussing aspirin) were estimated.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant main effects or interactions of the three information components on willingness to prescribe aspirin or comfort discussing harms and benefits. In total, 80.4% (540/672) of GPs were willing to prescribe, with 19.7% (132/672) unwilling. GPs with prior awareness of aspirin for preventive therapy were more comfortable discussing the medication than those unaware (P = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

It is unlikely that providing information on clinical guidance, trial results, and information comparing benefits and harms will increase aspirin prescribing for Lynch syndrome in primary care. Alternative multilevel strategies to support informed prescribing may be warranted.

An Adaptation, Extension and Pre-Testing of an Interactive Decision Aid for Men Diagnosed with Localized Prostate Cancer in Iceland: A Mixed-Method Study

In this study an interactive decision aid (DA) for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer was adapted, extended and pre-tested. The DA's prototype was based on a literature review and other empirically tested DAs. Semi-structured interviews with 12 men (age 65-80) diagnosed with localized prostate cancer were conducted to get feedback on content, usability, and the DA's layout. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and themes were identified using deductive and inductive coding. Participants found the accessibility of the information and the explicit values clarification tool helpful. Four themes were identified: (1) usability and design, (2) content and knowledge, (3) deciding factors of decision-making, and (4) social support. Participants valued receiving extensive and realistic information on surgery/radiation therapy side effects and getting unbiased presentations of treatment options. Following the thematic analysis, the DA was revised and tested in a survey among 11 newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients (age 60-74). The participants valued the DA and found it helpful when making a treatment decision, and all reported that they would recommend it to others making a prostate cancer treatment decision. The DA is currently being tested in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). This is the first DA developed for prostate cancer patients in Iceland and if the results of the RCT show that it is more effective than standard care in assisting newly diagnosed patients with their treatment decision, the DA can be easily translated and adapted to cultures similar to Iceland such as the Nordic countries.

Evaluation of a patient decision aid for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers choosing an ovarian cancer prevention strategy

OBJECTIVE

Risk-reducing surgery is advised to BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers around the age of 40 years to reduce ovarian cancer risk. In the TUBA-study, a multicenter preference study (NCT02321228), BRCA1/2-PV carriers are offered a choice: the standard strategy of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or the novel strategy of risk-reducing salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy. We evaluated feasibility and effectiveness of a patient decision aid for this choice.

METHODS

Premenopausal BRCA1/2-PV carriers were counselled for risk-reducing surgical options in the TUBA-study; the first cohort was counselled without and the second cohort with decision aid. Evaluation was performed using digital questionnaires for participating women and their healthcare professionals. Outcome measures included actual choice, feasibility (usage and experiences) and effectiveness (knowledge, cancer worry, decisional conflict, decisional regret and self-estimated influence on decision).

RESULTS

283 women were counselled without and 282 women with decision aid. The novel strategy was chosen less frequently in women without compared with women with decision aid (67% vs 78%, p = 0.004). The decision aid was graded with an 8 out of 10 by both women and professionals, and 78% of the women would recommend this decision aid to others. Users of the decision aid reported increased knowledge about the options and increased insight in personal values. Knowledge on cancer risk, decisional conflict, decisional regret and cancer worry were similar in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the patient decision aid for risk-reducing surgery is feasible, effective and highly appreciated among BRCA1/2-PV carriers facing the decision between salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy.

Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of web-based decision aids (WDAs) on cancer-related clinical care in terms of different decision categories and by different cancer types.

METHODS

Literature retrieval utilized highly inclusive algorithms searching randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library and manual searching of eligible studies from reference lists of relevant articles. Two researchers examined the articles selected separately and extracted the information about the studies (e.g., decision category, sample sizes, and outcome indicators) using a data-extracting form and performed risk of bias assessment of the included studies with Begg's test, Egger's test, and Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Meta-analysis of the pooled effects of WDAs on outcome indicators was performed via Review Manager 5.2.

RESULTS

A total of 24 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, involving 9846 participants. Overall meta-analysis revealed statistically significant effects on cancer decisional conflict, knowledge, and making informed choice with the overall effect sizes being -0.29 (standardized mean difference, SMD), 0.47 (SMD), and 1.92 (risk ratio, RR) respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed significant effects in indicators including decisional conflict, knowledge, satisfaction, participation in decision-making, and screening behavior, though some extent of heterogeneity and quality flaws existed among the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our research results showed evidence of WDA effects on certain outcome indicators of cancer decisions, these results should be interpreted with caution given the heterogeneity and quality flaws. It is still premature to conclude whether WDA was effective in optimizing cancer clinical decision-making, and more efforts are needed in this area.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020218991.

Evaluation of a computerized contraceptive decision aid: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a contraceptive decision aid in reducing decisional conflict among women seeking reversible contraception.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a randomized trial of a computer-based decision aid compared to a control group for women presenting for reversible contraception at two clinics affiliated with an academic medical center. The primary outcome was change in decisional conflict, measured before and after the healthcare visit using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. We hypothesized the decision aid would reduce the decisional conflict score by 10 points on a 100-point scale (0 = no conflict, 100 = high conflict) compared to the control group. Secondary outcomes included contraceptive method chosen and satisfaction with the healthcare visit.

RESULTS

We enrolled and randomized 253 women, and 241 had complete data for our primary outcome. Overall, pre-visit decisional conflict scores were low, reflecting low levels of decisional conflict in our sample; median score 15 (range 0-80) in the decision aid and 10 (0-85) in the control group (p = 0.45). Both groups had a similar reduction in median decisional conflict after the healthcare visit: -10 (-80 to 25) and -10 (-60 to 5) in the decision aid and control groups respectively (p = 0.99). Choice of contraception (p = 0.23) and satisfaction with healthcare provider (p = 0.79) also did not differ by study group.

CONCLUSIONS

Decisional conflict around contraception was low in both groups at baseline. Use of a computerized contraceptive decision aid did not reduce decisional conflict, alter method choice, or impact satisfaction compared to the control group among women choosing reversible contraception.

IMPLICATIONS

Use of a computerized contraceptive decision aid did not reduce decisional conflict or alter method choice compared to the control group among women choosing reversible contraception. Future studies could focus on testing the decision aid in different clinical settings, especially where barriers to providing comprehensive contraceptive counseling exist.

Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: A Practical Guide for the Primary Care Provider

Several organizations, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the United States Preventive Services Task Force, recommend incorporation of breast cancer risk-based counseling and chemoprevention into routine well-woman care. However, primary care providers report both discomfort with and a lack of medical knowledge on this topic. In this review we present a practical, evidence-based guide for incorporating breast cancer risk assessment and chemoprevention into routine care. We advocate a stepwise approach consisting of: (1) risk assessment and communication, (2) selection of appropriate chemoprevention based on risk-benefit analysis, (3) shared decision-making regarding chemoprevention, and (4) management of chemoprevention side effects. We encourage providers to identify high-risk women and refer them to genetic counseling or a high-risk breast cancer clinic. For women who are not considered high risk, we suggest using the Gail model to estimate a woman's 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer. Usually, the benefits of chemoprevention outweigh the risks of chemoprevention once a woman's 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer reaches 3%. For these women there are several factors that need to be considered when selecting a chemoprevention agent, including patient preference, thrombotic history, menopausal status, absence or presence of a uterus, and bone mineral density. We advocate an evidence-based shared decision-making approach that reflects the woman's individual preferences when communicating risk and counseling about chemoprevention. After starting a chemoprevention agent, close follow-up is important as side effects of chemoprevention are common, including vasomotor symptoms and arthralgias. We also review evidence-based management of chemoprevention side effects.

Feasibility and Efficacy of Decision Aids to Improve Decision Making for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background. The decision-making process for women considering breast reconstruction following mastectomy is complex. Research suggests that fewer than half of women undergoing mastectomy have adequate knowledge and make treatment decisions that are concordant with their underlying values. This systematic review assesses the feasibility and efficacy of preoperative decision aids (DAs) to improve the patient decision-making process for breast reconstruction. Methods. A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Databases published prior to January 4, 2018. Studies that assessed the impact of a DA on patient decision making for breast reconstruction were identified. The effect of preoperative DAs on decisional conflict in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was measured with inverse variance-weighted mean differences (mean difference [MD] ± 95% confidence interval [CI]). Results. Among 1299 unique articles identified, 1197 were excluded after reviewing titles and abstracts against selection criteria. Among the 17 studies included in this review, 11 assessed the efficacy of DAs for breast reconstruction and 6 additional studies described the development and usability of these DAs. Studies suggest that DAs reduce patient-reported decisional conflict (MD, –4.55 [95% CI, –8.65 to –0.45], P = 0.03 in the fixed-effects model and MD, –4.70 [95% CI, –10.75 to 1.34], P = 0.13 in the random-effects model). Preoperative DAs also improved patient satisfaction with information and perceived involvement in the decision-making process. Conclusions. The existing literature suggests that DAs reduce decisional conflict, improve self-reported satisfaction with information, and improve perceived involvement in the decision-making process for women considering breast reconstruction.

Facilitating decision-making in women undergoing genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer: BRECONDA randomized controlled trial results

BACKGROUND

Decision-making concerning risk-reducing mastectomy for women at hereditary risk of breast cancer entails complex personal choices. Deciding whether and how to restore breast shape after risk-reducing mastectomy is a key part of this process. We developed a web-based decision aid, BRECONDA (Breast Reconstruction Decision Aid), to assist women in decision-making regarding breast reconstruction.

METHOD

This study assessed the efficacy of BRECONDA to assist women at increased risk of breast cancer in making decisions regarding risk-reducing mastectomy in terms of decisional conflict, knowledge, and satisfaction with information. Women at hereditary risk of breast cancer (N = 64) were recruited into this randomized controlled trial from four Australian hereditary cancer clinics. Participants initially provided online consent and completed baseline questionnaires assessing decisional conflict, knowledge, and satisfaction with information. They were then randomly assigned to either: 1) Intervention - unlimited access to BRECONDA, with usual care; or, 2) Control - usual care. At 2-months follow-up (N = 60) the outcomes were re-assessed. Intervention participants also completed user acceptability ratings for the intervention overall and specific key modules.

RESULTS

MANCOVA analyses indicated that Intervention participants reported lower decisional conflict (P = 0.027), and greater knowledge (P = 0.019) and satisfaction with information (P < 0.0005) at 2-months follow-up compared with Controls. Intervention participants reported high user acceptability and satisfaction with the intervention.

CONCLUSION

BRECONDA benefits women considering risk-reducing mastectomy by reducing decisional conflict, and improving knowledge and satisfaction with information. These benefits, coupled with high user acceptability, demonstrate the feasibility of implementing BRECONDA in the hereditary cancer risk context.

Reducing Decisional Conflict and Enhancing Satisfaction with Information among Women Considering Breast Reconstruction following Mastectomy: Results from the BRECONDA Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Deciding whether or not to have breast reconstruction following breast cancer diagnosis is a complex decision process. This randomized controlled trial assessed the impact of an online decision aid [Breast RECONstruction Decision Aid (BRECONDA)] on breast reconstruction decision-making.

METHODS

Women (n = 222) diagnosed with breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ, and eligible for reconstruction following mastectomy, completed an online baseline questionnaire. They were then assigned randomly to receive either standard online information about breast reconstruction (control) or standard information plus access to BRECONDA (intervention). Participants then completed questionnaires at 1 and 6 months after randomization. The primary outcome was participants' decisional conflict 1 month after exposure to the intervention. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict at 6 months, satisfaction with information at 1 and 6 months, and 6-month decisional regret.

RESULTS

Linear mixed-model analyses revealed that 1-month decisional conflict was significantly lower in the intervention group (27.18) compared with the control group (35.5). This difference was also sustained at the 6-month follow-up. Intervention participants reported greater satisfaction with information at 1- and 6-month follow-up, and there was a nonsignificant trend for lower decisional regret in the intervention group at 6-month follow-up. Intervention participants' ratings for BRECONDA demonstrated high user acceptability and overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Women who accessed BRECONDA benefited by experiencing significantly less decisional conflict and being more satisfied with information regarding the reconstruction decisional process than women receiving standard care alone. These findings support the efficacy of BRECONDA in helping women to arrive at their breast reconstruction decision.

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.

Decision making for breast cancer prevention among women at elevated risk

Several medical management approaches have been shown to be effective in preventing breast cancer and detecting it early among women at elevated risk: 1) prophylactic mastectomy; 2) prophylactic oophorectomy; 3) chemoprevention; and 4) enhanced screening routines. To varying extents, however, these approaches are substantially underused relative to clinical practice recommendations. This article reviews the existing research on the uptake of these prevention approaches, the characteristics of women who are likely to use various methods, and the decision-making processes that underlie the differing choices of women. It also highlights important areas for future research, detailing the types of studies that are particularly needed in four key areas: documenting women's perspectives on their own perceptions of risk and prevention decisions; explicit comparisons of available prevention pathways and their likely health effects; the psychological, interpersonal, and social processes of prevention decision making; and the dynamics of subgroup variation. Ultimately, this research could support the development of interventions that more fully empower women to make informed and values-consistent decisions, and to move towards favorable health outcomes.

Utah's 72-Hour Waiting Period for Abortion: Experiences Among a Clinic-Based Sample of Women

CONTEXT

In 2012, Utah became the first state to enact a 72-hour waiting period for abortion. Despite debate about the law's potential effects, research has not examined women's experiences with it.

METHODS

A cohort of 500 women recruited at four family planning facilities in Utah in 2013-2014 completed baseline surveys at the time of an abortion information visit and follow-up telephone interviews three weeks later. Logistic regression and coding of open-ended responses were used to examine which women had abortions and, for those who did not, their reasons.

RESULTS

Among the 309 women completing follow-up, 86% had had an abortion, 8% were no longer seeking abortion, 3% had miscarried or discovered they had not been pregnant, and 2% were still seeking abortion; one woman was still deciding, and the waiting period had pushed one woman beyond her facility's gestational limit for abortion. At the information visit, women reported little conflict about the abortion decision (mean score on a scale of 0-100 was 13.9 for those who eventually had an abortion and 28.5 for others). Low decisional conflict, but not socioeconomic status, was associated with having an abortion (odds ratio, 1.1). On average, eight days elapsed between the information visit and the abortion.

CONCLUSION

As most women in this cohort were not conflicted about their decision when they sought care, the 72-hour waiting requirement seems to have been unnecessary. Individualized patient counseling for the small minority who were conflicted when they presented for care may have been more appropriate.

Decision-to-Implement Worksheet for Evidence-based Interventions: From the WWAMI Region Practice and Research Network

BACKGROUND

Health-related scientific discoveries are often not applied in clinical settings after publication, even when recommended by a trusted journal or professional association. This article describes an assessment tool we developed for use by primary care clinicians and practice administrators to evaluate whether to implement recommended evidence-based interventions in their practices.

METHODS

We used dissemination and implementation theory to develop a worksheet to guide decision making about whether interventions are suitable for implementation in primary care practice settings. We tested the tool by analyzing how members of a primary care practice-based research network rated 4 evidence-based interventions.

RESULTS

The median likelihood of implementation ranged from 2 to 3.5 on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high). Raters' level of agreement with statements about 3 intervention characteristics was associated (P < .05) with a higher likelihood of implementation using Spearman rank-order correlation: simple to implement, testable before fully implementing, and modifiable to meet the needs of the practice. Raters found the worksheet helpful in thinking through potential implementation, especially the prompts about modifiability and relevance to the practice's patients and priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

The Decision-to-Implement Worksheet provides a new resource for primary care practices that want to assess whether evidence-based interventions are suitable to adopt or adapt to meet their needs.

Clinician-Reported Barriers to Implementing Breast Cancer Chemoprevention in the UK: A Qualitative Investigation

AIMS

The use of tamoxifen and raloxifene as preventive therapy for women at increased risk of breast cancer was approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2013. We undertook a qualitative investigation to investigate the factors affecting the implementation of preventive therapy within the UK.

METHODS

We recruited general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10) and clinicians working in family history or clinical genetics settings (FHCG clinicians) (n = 15) to participate in semi-structured interviews. Data were coded thematically within the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

FHCG clinicians focussed on the perceived lack of benefit of preventive therapy and difficulties interpreting the NICE guidelines. FHCG clinicians felt poorly informed about preventive therapy, and this discouraged patient discussions on the topic. GPs were unfamiliar with the concept of preventive therapy, and were not aware that they may be asked to prescribe it for high-risk women. GPs were reluctant to initiate therapy because it is not licensed, but were willing to continue a prescription if it had been started in secondary or tertiary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers to implementing preventive therapy within routine clinical practice are common and could be addressed by engaging all stakeholders during the development of policy documents.

Are cancer-related decision aids appropriate for socially disadvantaged patients? A systematic review of US randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is considered a key component of high quality cancer care and may be supported by patient decision aids (PtDAs). Many patients, however, face multiple social disadvantages that may influence their ability to fully participate in SDM or to use PtDAs; additionally, these social disadvantages are among the determinants of health associated with greater cancer risk, unwarranted variations in care and worse outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review is to describe the extent to which disadvantaged social groups in the United States (US) have been included in trials of cancer-related PtDAs and to highlight strategies, lessons learned and future opportunities for developing and evaluating PtDAs that are appropriate for disadvantaged populations.

METHODS

We selected cancer-related US studies from the Cochrane 2014 review of PtDAs and added RCTs meeting Cochrane criteria from searches of PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO (January 2010 to December 2013); and reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts; three reviewers independently screened full text articles, performed data extraction and assessed: 1) inclusion of participants based on seven indicators of social disadvantage (limited education; female gender; uninsured or Medicaid status; non-U.S. nativity; non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity; limited English proficiency; low-literacy), and 2) attention to social disadvantage in the development or evaluation of PtDAs.

RESULTS

Twenty-three of 39 eligible RCTs included participants from at least one disadvantaged subgroup, most frequently racial/ethnic minorities or individuals with limited education and/or low-literacy. Seventeen studies discussed strategies and lessons learned in attending to the needs of disadvantaged social groups in PtDA development; 14 studies targeted disadvantaged groups or addressed subgroup differences in PtDA evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The diversity of the US population is represented in a majority of cancer-related PtDA RCTs, but fewer studies have tailored PtDAs to address the multiple social disadvantages that may impact patients' participation in SDM. More detailed attention to the comprehensive range of social factors that determine cancer risk, variations in care and outcomes is needed in the development and evaluation of PtDAs for disadvantaged populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered 24 October 2014 in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews ( CRD42014014470 ).

Features of Computer-Based Decision Aids: Systematic Review, Thematic Synthesis, and Meta-Analyses

Background

Patient information and education, such as decision aids, are gradually moving toward online, computer-based environments. Considerable research has been conducted to guide content and presentation of decision aids. However, given the relatively new shift to computer-based support, little attention has been given to how multimedia and interactivity can improve upon paper-based decision aids.

Objective

The first objective of this review was to summarize published literature into a proposed classification of features that have been integrated into computer-based decision aids. Building on this classification, the second objective was to assess whether integration of specific features was associated with higher-quality decision making.

Methods

Relevant studies were located by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. The review identified studies that evaluated computer-based decision aids for adults faced with preference-sensitive medical decisions and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. A thematic synthesis was conducted to develop the classification of features. Subsequently, meta-analyses were conducted based on standardized mean differences (SMD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported knowledge or decisional conflict. Further subgroup analyses compared pooled SMDs for decision aids that incorporated a specific feature to other computer-based decision aids that did not incorporate the feature, to assess whether specific features improved quality of decision making.

Results

Of 3541 unique publications, 58 studies met the target criteria and were included in the thematic synthesis. The synthesis identified six features: content control, tailoring, patient narratives, explicit values clarification, feedback, and social support. A subset of 26 RCTs from the thematic synthesis was used to conduct the meta-analyses. As expected, computer-based decision aids performed better than usual care or alternative aids; however, some features performed better than others. Integration of content control improved quality of decision making (SMD 0.59 vs 0.23 for knowledge; SMD 0.39 vs 0.29 for decisional conflict). In contrast, tailoring reduced quality of decision making (SMD 0.40 vs 0.71 for knowledge; SMD 0.25 vs 0.52 for decisional conflict). Similarly, patient narratives also reduced quality of decision making (SMD 0.43 vs 0.65 for knowledge; SMD 0.17 vs 0.46 for decisional conflict). Results were varied for different types of explicit values clarification, feedback, and social support.

Conclusions

Integration of media rich or interactive features into computer-based decision aids can improve quality of preference-sensitive decision making. However, this is an emerging field with limited evidence to guide use. The systematic review and thematic synthesis identified features that have been integrated into available computer-based decision aids, in an effort to facilitate reporting of these features and to promote integration of such features into decision aids. The meta-analyses and associated subgroup analyses provide preliminary evidence to support integration of specific features into future decision aids. Further research can focus on clarifying independent contributions of specific features through experimental designs and refining the designs of features to improve effectiveness.

Launching a virtual decision lab: development and field-testing of a web-based patient decision support research platform

BACKGROUND

Over 100 trials show that patient decision aids effectively improve patients' information comprehension and values-based decision making. However, gaps remain in our understanding of several fundamental and applied questions, particularly related to the design of interactive, personalized decision aids. This paper describes an interdisciplinary development process for, and early field testing of, a web-based patient decision support research platform, or virtual decision lab, to address these questions.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary stakeholder panel designed the web-based research platform with three components: a) an introduction to shared decision making, b) a web-based patient decision aid, and c) interactive data collection items. Iterative focus groups provided feedback on paper drafts and online prototypes. A field test assessed a) feasibility for using the research platform, in terms of recruitment, usage, and acceptability; and b) feasibility of using the web-based decision aid component, compared to performance of a videobooklet decision aid in clinical care.

RESULTS

This interdisciplinary, theory-based, patient-centered design approach produced a prototype for field-testing in six months. Participants (n = 126) reported that: the decision aid component was easy to use (98%), information was clear (90%), the length was appropriate (100%), it was appropriately detailed (90%), and it held their interest (97%). They spent a mean of 36 minutes using the decision aid and 100% preferred using their home/library computer. Participants scored a mean of 75% correct on the Decision Quality, Knowledge Subscale, and 74 out of 100 on the Preparation for Decision Making Scale. Completing the web-based decision aid reduced mean Decisional Conflict scores from 31.1 to 19.5 (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining decision science and health informatics approaches facilitated rapid development of a web-based patient decision support research platform that was feasible for use in research studies in terms of recruitment, acceptability, and usage. Within this platform, the web-based decision aid component performed comparably with the videobooklet decision aid used in clinical practice. Future studies may use this interactive research platform to study patients' decision making processes in real-time, explore interdisciplinary approaches to designing web-based decision aids, and test strategies for tailoring decision support to meet patients' needs and preferences.

Shared decision making and patient decision aids: knowledge, attitudes, and practices among Hawai'i physicians

As the health care field moves toward patient-centered care (PCC), increasing emphasis has been placed on the benefits of patient decision aids for promoting shared decision making (SDM). This study provides a baseline measure of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) among Hawai'i's physicians with respect to patient decision aids (DAs). Physicians throughout the State of Hawai'i were invited to complete a survey assessing their knowledge, attitudes, and practices with respect to the clinical use of DAs. One hundred and seventy four valid surveys were analyzed. Reported awareness and use of DAs were low, but recognition of the benefits of SDM and openness to the use of DAs were very high. The leading perceived barriers to the implementation of DAs were lack of awareness, lack of resources, and limited physician time to learn about DA technology. However, a significant majority of the respondents reported that DAs could empower patients by improving knowledge (88%), increasing satisfaction with the consultation process (81%), and increasing compliance (74%). Among physicians currently employing DAs, use of brochures or options matrix sheets was the most common aid tool. However, leading recommended DA formats were paper-based brochures for clinic use (75%) and interactive online website programs for outside clinic use (73.5%). Given growing emphasis on the PCC model and the recognized desire of many patients to participate in the medical decision making process, positive responses toward SDM and the use of DAs by Hawai'i physicians are promising.