Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Part 16: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods-Contrasting and Complementary Approaches

Qualitative methods have been increasingly applied in our literature, providing richness to data and incorporating the nuances of patient and family perspectives. These qualitative research techniques provide breadth and depth beyond what can be gleaned through quantitative methods alone. When both quantitative and qualitative approaches are coupled, their findings provide complementary information which can further substantiate study conclusions. We thus aim to provide insight into qualitative and quantitative methods in comparison and contrast to each other, as well as guidance on when each approach is most apt. In relation, we also describe mixed methods and the theory supporting their framework. In doing so, we provide the foundation for an ensuing, more detailed exposition of qualitative methods.

Considerations for shared decision-making in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

Shared decision-making is an approach where physicians and patients work together to determine a personalized treatment course. Such an approach is integral to patient-centered care in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). CRSwNP is a chronic inflammatory condition of the sinonasal cavity that can severely impact physical health, smell, and quality of life (QOL). Traditional standard-of-care treatment options include topical (i.e. sprays) and oral corticosteroids and endoscopic sinus surgery, but more recently, novel corticosteroid delivery methods (i.e. high volume irrigations, recently-approved exhalation breath-powered delivering devices, and drug-eluting steroid implants) and 3 new FDA approved biologics directed against type II immunomodulators have become available. The availability of these therapeutics offers exciting new opportunities in CRSwNP management but requires personalized and shared-decision making as each modality has variable impacts on CRSwNP and related comorbid conditions. Studies have published treatment algorithms, but the practical use of these lean guidelines is heavily influenced by the lens of the treating physician, the most common being otolaryngologists and allergy immunologists. Clinical equipoise occurs when there is no basis for one intervention to be regarded as “better” than another. While most guidelines, in general, support the use of topical corticosteroids with or without oral corticosteroids followed by ESS for the majority of unoperated CRSwNP patients, there are situations of clinical equipoise that arise particularly in CRSwNP who have failed surgery or those with severe comorbid conditions. In the shared decision-making process, clinicians and patients must consider symptomatology, goals, comfort, compliance, treatment efficacy, and treatment cost when determining the initial choice of therapy and escalation of therapy with the potential use of multiple modalities for recalcitrant CRSwNP. A summary of salient considerations that might constitute shared decision-making is presented in this summary.

Use of a Novel Clinical Decision-Making Tool in Vestibular Schwannoma Treatment

OBJECTIVE

To determine the usefulness of a personalized tool and its effect on the decision-making process for those with vestibular schwannoma (VS).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

Single institution, academic tertiary care lateral skull base surgery program.

PATIENTS

Patients diagnosed with VS.

INTERVENTIONS

A comprehensive clinical decision support (CDS) tool was constructed from a previously published retrospective patient-reported data obtained from members of the Acoustic Neuroma Association from January to March 2017. Demographic, tumor, and treatment modality data, including associated side effects, were collected for 775 patients and integrated in an interactive and personalized web-based tool.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pre- and posttool questionnaires assessing the process of deciding treatment for VS using a decisional conflict scale (DCS) and satisfaction with decision (SWD) scale were compared.

RESULTS

A pilot study of 33 patients evaluated at a single institution tertiary care center with mean ± SD age of 63.9 ± 13.5 years and with average tumor size of 7.11 ± 4.75 mm were surveyed. CDS implementation resulted in a mean ± SD total DCS score decrease from 43.6 ± 15.5 to 37.6 ± 16.4 ( p < 0.01) and total SWD score increase from 82.8 ± 16.1 to 86.2 ± 14.4 ( p = 0.04), indicating a significant decrease in decisional conflict and increase in satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing a decision-making tool after diagnosis of VS reduced decisional conflict and improved satisfaction with decision. Patients considered the tool to be an aid to their medical knowledge, further improving their comfort and understanding of their treatment options. These findings provide a basis for developing predictive tools that will assist patients in making informed medical decisions in the future.

Decision aid and preference assessment of topical anesthesia for otolaryngology procedures

OBJECTIVES

To determine preference patterns for topical anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy pre-coronavirus (2019 coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) pandemic and analyze outcomes based on preference, using a decision aid format.

METHODS

A decision aid was developed with expert and patient input. New patients presenting to subspecialty clinics over a 2-month pre-COVID-19 period completed a pre-procedure survey about their priorities, then were asked to choose between topical oxymetazoline/lidocaine spray or none. A post-procedure outcome survey followed.

RESULTS

Of 151 patients, 90.1% patients elected to have topical anesthesia. Top patient priorities were "I want the scope to be easy for the doctor" and "I want to be as comfortable as possible." Patients who strongly wanted to avoid medication (P = .002) and bad taste (P = .003) were more likely to select no spray, whereas those who wanted to avoid pain received anesthetic (P = .011). According to the post-procedure assessment, 95.4% of patients were satisfied or strongly satisfied their choice, and this did not correlate with anesthetic vs none.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient preferences are easily elicited and correlate with treatment choices. Most patients chose to have topical anesthetic and were willing to tolerate side effects; however, both patients with and without topical anesthetic were satisfied with their choices. This decision aid can be used to optimize shared decision making in the otolaryngology clinic. Given the aerosolizing potential of both spray and no spray conditions, this insight may be consequential when devising office protocols for post-COVID-19 practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Characterizing Decisional Conflict in Patients Presenting to Sleep Surgery Clinic and an Exploration of Resource Limitations

OBJECTIVES

Numerous therapies exist for adult obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), creating potential for patient decisional conflict (DC) that impacts treatment adherence and post-treatment regret. We evaluated the prevalence of elevated DC in OSA patients presenting for positive airway pressure (PAP) alternative therapies and identified gaps in available resources about OSA therapies.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed based on questionnaires completed by adult OSA patients presenting to an academic sleep surgery clinic from March to October 2020. Surveys examined sleep symptoms, sleep apnea treatment history, goals of therapy, and the SURE checklist, a validated 4-item DC screening scale. Additional qualitative data about OSA decision tool needs were queried with structured interviews in a smaller subset of patients.

RESULTS

Among 100 respondents, 60 were open to multiple treatment options, whereas 22 were not interested in surgical treatment. Eighty-one respondents (81%) had elevated DC (SURE score < 4). High DC was not associated with CPAP history, OSA severity, or daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale score ≥ 10). Elevated DC was related to uncertainty regarding optimal treatment choice in 54% of respondents (n = 54), and lack of knowledge regarding risks and benefits of each treatment option in 71% (n = 71). Common themes identified in 9 interviewed patients suggested helpful resources should ideally compare treatment modalities and educate on surgery details, efficacy, and recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of OSA patients presenting to sleep surgery clinics have elevated decisional conflict influenced by limited knowledge about options and the risks and benefits of each therapy. There is a need for decision tools that can reduce decisional conflict and promote equitable knowledge about PAP alternative OSA treatments.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4 Laryngoscope, 2021.

Clinical Decision Support Systems in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: A State of the Art Review

OBJECTIVE

To offer practical, evidence-informed knowledge on clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and their utility in improving care and reducing costs in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. This primer on CDSSs introduces clinicians to both the capabilities and the limitations of this technology, reviews the literature on current state, and seeks to spur further progress in this area.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

Scoping review of CDSS literature applicable to otolaryngology clinical practice. Investigators identified articles that incorporated knowledge-based computerized CDSSs to aid clinicians in decision making and workflow. Data extraction included level of evidence, Osheroff classification of CDSS intervention type, otolaryngology subspecialty or domain, and impact on provider performance or patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Of 3191 studies retrieved, 11 articles met formal inclusion criteria. CDSS interventions included guideline or protocols support (n = 8), forms and templates (n = 5), data presentation aids (n = 2), and reactive alerts, reference information, or order sets (all n = 1); 4 studies had multiple interventions. CDSS studies demonstrated effectiveness across diverse domains, including antibiotic stewardship, cancer survivorship, guideline adherence, data capture, cost reduction, and workflow. Implementing CDSSs often involved collaboration with health information technologists.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

While the published literature on CDSSs in otolaryngology is finite, CDSS interventions are proliferating in clinical practice, with roles in preventing medical errors, streamlining workflows, and improving adherence to best practices for head and neck disorders. Clinicians may collaborate with information technologists and health systems scientists to develop, implement, and investigate the impact of CDSSs in otolaryngology.

Evaluation of the literature surrounding shared decision-making in elective rhinological surgery: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

[1] review all studies utilizing SDM in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) [2], increase awareness of otolaryngologists to shared decision-making, and [3] provide a framework for its incorporation into research and clinical practice.

METHODS

systematic search was performed in November 2019 using PubMed/MEDLINE 1947-, CINAHL Complete 1937-, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science Core Collection (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI) 1900-. All databases were searched from their inception through the date of search. Studies were eligible if they involved a discussion of SDM in the management of CRS. Studies were excluded if they lacked original patient data or outcomes of interest. Identified studies were screened by title/abstract, followed by full-text review. PRISMA guidelines were strictly followed.

RESULTS

in total, 416 articles met screening criteria. Six were eligible for full text review. Only one study - an expert panel of the framework for the presurgical treatment of CRS - pertained to SDM. While this study mentions that SDM is a critically important piece to optimize care quality, it does not directly investigate the effects of SDM in CRS.

CONCLUSION

this review represents a significant negative study that identifies a clear gap in the rhinology literature. Despite the recognized importance of SDM, there have been no interventional studies in the literature to investigate SDM in CRS. This review highlights the need for exploring the role of SDM in rhinological surgery, outlines an overview of SDM and its impact on patient outcomes, and provides a proposed framework for incorporating SDM in research and clinical practice.

Shared Decision-making in Head and Neck Surgery: A Review

Importance

Shared decision-making is a partnership between physicians and patients whereby patient values and preferences are incorporated with the best medical evidence. Shared decision-making may reduce decisional conflict, improve value-choice congruence, and increase patient involvement. Despite potential benefit in many key areas of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, both clinical and research focuses on shared decision-making are scarce. Head and neck surgical oncology is of particular interest owing to the frequency by which preference-sensitive decisions must be made. Information used in this review was obtained between January 1 and February 1, 2020.

Observations

Various conceptual models have been developed in an attempt to define the concept of shared decision-making. More than 40 instruments have endeavored to measure the construct of shared decision-making. However, in head and neck surgery, few studies to date have explicitly done so. Situations of clinical equipoise, such as in the management of indeterminate thyroid nodules and in the treatment of laryngeal cancer, are frequent. In contrast, value-option incongruence may occur when patient values do not align with the most oncologically sound treatment choice, such as when the resection and reconstruction of oral cancer may leave patients with significant sequelae. Several patient decision aids have been developed to improve shared decision-making in specific clinical scenarios, for example, in considering total laryngectomy or primary chemoradiotherapy.

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite its potential benefit, there is a dearth of research and clinical applications of shared decision-making in head and neck surgery. Shared decision-making represents an area of substantial need in this regard, and additional efforts should be put forth.

Treatment decision-making among patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: A qualitative study

Oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OPSCC) is now the most common site of head and neck squamous cell cancer. Despite the focus on treatment deintensification in clinical trials, little is known about the preferences, experiences and needs of patients with OPSCC when deciding between surgery and radiation therapy as primary treatment with curative intent. In this qualitative study, pre-treatment and post-treatment oropharyngeal cancer patients were recruited to take part in one-on-one interviews (n = 11 pre-treatment) and focus group discussions (n = 15 post-treatment) about treatment decision-making. Recordings were transcribed and assessed for emergent themes using framework analysis. From the one-on-one interviews and focus group discussions with OPSCC patients, fourteen themes were identified. Participants expressed alarm at diagnosis, decisional conflict, and a variety of roles in decision-making (physician-controlled, shared, and autonomous). Decisions were driven by the perceived recommendation of the treatment team, a desire for physical (surgical) tumor removal, fear of adverse effects of treatment, and patient-specific values. Although participants felt well-informed by their treating physicians, they identified a need for additional patient-centered information. Participants were critical of the poor quality of information available on the internet, and acknowledged the advantage of hearing the experiences of post-treatment patients. The experiences identified herein may be used to guide patient-centered communication during patient counseling and to inform interventions designed to support patients' needs at diagnosis, ultimately helping to implement high-quality, patient-centered care.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Part XII: Assessing Patient Preferences

OBJECTIVE

To provide a contemporary resource to update clinicians and researchers on the current state of assessment of patient preferences.

DATA SOURCES

Published studies and literature regarding patient preferences, evidence-based practice, and patient-centered management in otolaryngology.

REVIEW METHODS

Patients make choices based on both physician input and their own preferences. These preferences are informed by personal values and attitudes, and they ideally result from a deliberative evaluation of the risks, benefits, and other outcomes pertaining to medical care. To date, rigorous evaluation of patient preferences for otolaryngologic conditions has not been integrated into clinical practice or research. This installment of the "Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology" series focuses on formal assessment of patient preferences and the optimal methods to determine them.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods have been developed to optimize our understanding of patient preferences.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Understanding these patient preferences may help promote an evidence-based approach to the care of individual patients.

Evidence based medicine - decades later

After more than two decades of enthusiasm surrounding the concept of evidence based medicine, wide variation in its implementation is still present. Some have suggested that evidence based medicine may be a failed model. We propose that the highly formulaic approach of evidence based medicine has evolved toward a more personalized, integrated and contextualized method, consistent with the principle of shared decision making advanced by the Institute of Medicine. Evidence based medicine remains an essential prerequisite but ultimately, only the practitioner's clinical expertise, knowledge and practical wisdom will provide the ability to apply general rules of evidence to particular clinical situations.

Perceptions and observations of shared decision making during pediatric otolaryngology surgical consultations

Objective

Increased parental involvement in the decision-making process when considering elective surgeries for their children, termed shared decision-making (SDM), may lead to positive outcomes. The objective of this study was to describe perceived and observed levels of SDM during pediatric otolaryngology consultations.

Methods

One hundred and seventeen parents and their children undergoing elective surgical consultations were prospectively enrolled. The visits were videotaped and coded using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale. Following the encounter, all participants completed a questionnaire that measured perceived levels of SDM (SDM-Q-9). Surgeons also completed a similar questionnaire (SDM-Q-Doc). Spearman’s correlation coefficient was determined to measure the associations between observed and perceived levels of SDM.

Results

The overall OPTION scores were low (median score of 14 out of 48) and not significantly correlated with perceived levels of SDM (SDM-Q-9, p = 0.415; SDM-Q-Doc, p = 0.236), surgery type (p = 0.197), or patient demographic factors. The OPTION scores were positively correlated with consultation length (p < 0.001). There was great variability in the level to which each OPTION items were observed during the consultation (not present in any visits to present in 96.6% of the visits).

Conclusions

Observed levels of SDM were consistently low, but higher levels were observed when the surgeon spent more time during the consultation. Observed levels of SDM did not match perceived levels of SDM, which were consistently rated higher by both caregivers and surgeons.