Assessing the quality of shared decision making for elective orthopedic surgery across a large healthcare system: cross-sectional survey study

Preference Sensitive Care and Shared Decision-Making in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Scoping Review

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review exploring the extent to which preference sensitivity has been studied in treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), utilizing shared decision-making (SDM) as a proxy.

BACKGROUND

Preference-sensitive care involves situations where multiple treatment options exist with significant tradeoffs in cost, outcome, recovery time, and quality of life. LSS has gained research focus as a preference-sensitive care scenario.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review protocol in accordance with "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews" regulations was registered with the Open Science Framework (ID: 9ewup) and conducted across multiple databases from January 2000 to October 2022. Study selection and characterization were performed by 3 independent reviewers and an unbiased moderator.

RESULTS

The search resulted in the inclusion of 16 studies varying in design and sample size, with most published between 2016 and 2021. The studies examined variables related to SDM, patient preferences, surgeon preferences, and decision aids (DAs). The outcomes assessed included treatment choice, patient satisfaction, and patient understanding. Several studies reported that SDM influenced treatment choice and patient satisfaction, while the impact on patient understanding was less clear. DAs were used in some studies to facilitate SDM.

CONCLUSION

The scoping review identified a gap in comprehensive studies analyzing the preference sensitivity of treatment for LSS and the role of DAs. Further research is needed to better understand the impact of patient preferences on treatment decisions and the effectiveness of DAs in LSS care. This review provides a foundation for future research in preference-sensitive care and SDM in the context of lumbar stenosis treatment.

Evidence-based and Patient-centered Indication for Knee Arthroplasty - Update of the Guideline

Knee arthroplasty is one of the most frequently performed operations in Germany, with approximately 170000 procedures per year. It is therefore essential that physicians should adhere to an appropriate, and patient-centered indication process. The updated guideline indication criteria for knee arthroplasty (EKIT-Knee) contain recommendations, which are based on current evidence and agreed upon by a broad consensus panel. For practical use, the checklist has also been updated.For this guideline update, a systematic literature research was conducted in order to analyse (inter-)national guidelines and systematic reviews focusing on osteoarthritis of the knee and knee arthroplasty, to answer clinically relevant questions on diagnostic, predictors of outcome, risk factors and contraindications.Knee arthroplasty should solely be performed in patients with radiologically proven moderate or severe osteoarthritis of the knee (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 or 4), after previous non-surgical treatment for at least three months, in patients with high subjective burden with regard to knee-related complaints and after exclusion of possible contraindications (infection, comorbidities, BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2). Modifiable risk factors (such as smoking, diabetes mellitus, anaemia) should be addressed and optimised in advance. After meeting current guideline indications, a shared decision-making process between patients and surgeons is recommended, in order to maintain high quality surgical management of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.The update of the S2k-guideline was expanded to include unicondylar knee arthroplasty, the preoperative optimisation of modifiable risk factors was added and the main indication criteria were specified.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table.

RESULTS

We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table.

CONCLUSION

We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Cancer care pathways across seven countries in Europe: What are the current obstacles? And how can artificial intelligence help?

BACKGROUND

Cancer poses significant challenges for healthcare professionals across the disease pathway including cancer imaging. This study constitutes part of the user requirement definition of INCISIVE EU project. The project has been designed to explore the full potential of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies in cancer imaging to streamline diagnosis and management. The study aimed to map cancer care pathways (breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancers) across INCISIVE partner countries, and identify bottle necks within these pathways.

METHODS

Email interviews were conducted with ten oncology specialised healthcare professionals representing INCISIVE partner countries: Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Italy, Finland, the United Kingdom (UK) and Serbia. A purposive sampling strategy was employed for recruitment and data was collected between December 2020 and April 2021. Data was entered into Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to allow content examination and comparative analysis.

RESULTS

The analysed pathways all shared a common characteristic: inequalities in relation to delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment. All the studied countries, except the UK, lacked official national data about diagnostic and therapeutic delays. Furthermore, a considerable variation was noted regarding the availability of imaging and diagnostic services across the seven countries. Several concerns were also noted for inefficiencies/inequalities with regards to national screening for the four investigated cancer types.

CONCLUSIONS

Delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment are an ongoing challenge and a source for inequalities. It is important to have systematic reporting of diagnostic and therapeutic delays in all countries to allow the proper estimation of its magnitude and support needed to address it. Our findings also support the orientation of the current policies towards early detection and wide scale adoption and implementation of cancer screening, through research, innovation, and technology. Technologies involving AI can have a great potential to revolutionise cancer care delivery.

POLICY SUMMARY

This study highlights the widespread delay in cancer diagnosis across Europe and supports the need for, systematic reporting of delays, improved availability of imaging services, and optimised national screening programs. The goal is to enhance cancer care delivery, encourage early detection, and implement research, innovation, and AI-based technologies for improved cancer imaging.

Patients Consistently Report Worse Outcomes Following Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between primary TKA (pTKA) and revision TKA (rTKA) have not been well-studied. Therefore, we compared pTKA and rTKA patients by the rates of achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Improvement (MCID-I) and Worsening (MCID-W).

METHODS

A total of 2,448 patients (2,239 pTKAs/209 rTKAs) were retrospectively studied. Patients who completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10a (PF10a), PROMIS Global-Mental, or PROMIS Global-Physical questionnaires were identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Patient-reported outcome measures and MCID-I/MCID-W rates were compared. Multivariate logistic regression models measured relationships between surgery type and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent rTKA (all causes) had lower rates of improvement and higher rates of worsening compared to pTKA patients for KOOS-PS (MCID-I: 54 versus 68%, P < .001; MCID-W: 18 versus 8.6%, P < .001), PF10a (MCID-I: 44 versus 65%, P < .001; MCID-W: 22 versus 11%, P < .001), PROMIS Global-Mental (MCID-I: 34 versus 45%, P = .005), and PROMIS Global-Physical (MCID-I: 51 versus 60%, P = .014; MCID-W: 29 versus 14%, P < .001). Undergoing revision was predictive of worsening postoperatively for KOOS-PS, PF10a, and PROMIS Global-Physical compared to pTKA. Postoperative scores were significantly higher for all 4 PROMs following pTKA.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported significantly less improvement and higher rates of worsening following rTKA, particularly for PROMs that assessed physical function. Although pTKA patients did better overall, the improvement rates may be considered relatively low and should prompt discussions on improving outcomes following pTKA and rTKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Implementation of a Decision Aid for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis in Orthopedics: A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation

BACKGROUND

In orthopedics, the use of patient decision aids (ptDAs) is limited. With a mixed-method process evaluation, we investigated patient factors associated with accepting versus declining the use of the ptDA, patients' reasons for declining the ptDA, and clinicians' perceived barriers and facilitators for its use.

METHODS

Patients with an indication for joint replacement surgery (N = 153) completed questionnaires measuring demographics, physical functioning, quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), and a visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at 1 time point. Subsequently, their clinician offered them the relevant ptDA. Using a retrospective design, we compared patients who used the ptDA (59%) with patients who declined (41%) on all these measures as well as the chosen treatment. If the use of the ptDA was declined, patients' reasons were recorded by their clinician and analysed (n = 46). To evaluate the experiences of clinicians (n = 5), semistructured interviews were conducted and thematically analyzed. Clinicians who did not use the ptDA substantially (<10 times) were also interviewed (n = 3).

RESULTS

Compared with patients who used the ptDA, patients who declined use had higher VAS pain scores (7.2 v. 6.2, P < .001), reported significantly worse quality of life (on 4 of 6 EQ-5D-3L subscales), and were less likely to receive nonsurgical treatment (4% v. 28%, P < .001). Of the patients who declined to use the ptDA, 46% said they had enough information and felt ready to make a decision without the ptDA. The interviews revealed that clinicians considered the ptDAs most useful for newly diagnosed patients who had not received previous treatment.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the uptake of a ptDA may be improved if it is introduced in the early disease stages of hip and knee osteoarthritis.

HIGHLIGHTS

Patients who declined the use of a patient decision aid (ptDA) for hip and knee osteoarthritis reported more pain and worse quality of life.Most patients who declined to use a ptDA felt sufficiently well informed to make a treatment decision.Patients who declined the ptDA were more likely to have received prior treatment in primary care.Clinicians found the ptDA to be a helpful addition to the consultation, particularly for newly diagnosed patients.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Instruments to assess appropriateness of hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess criteria and psychometric properties of instruments for assessing appropriateness of elective joint arthroplasty (JA) for adults with primary hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic review guided by Cochrane methods and PRISMA guidelines. Studies were searched in five databases. Eligible articles include all study designs developing, testing, and/or using an instrument to assess JA appropriateness. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. Instruments were compared with Hawker et al. JA consensus criteria. Psychometric properties of instruments were described and appraised guided by Fitzpatrick's and COSMIN approaches.

RESULTS

Of 55 instruments included, none met all Hawker et al. JA consensus criteria. Criteria the most met were pain (n = 50), function (n = 49), quality of life (n = 33), and radiography (n = 24). Criteria the least met were clinical evidence of OA (n = 18), expectations (n = 15), readiness for surgery (n = 11), conservative treatments (n = 8), and patient/surgeon agree benefits outweigh risks (n = 0). Instrument by Arden et al. met the most criteria (6 of 9). The most tested psychometric properties were appropriateness (n = 55), face/content validity (n = 55), predictive validity (n = 29), construct validity and feasibility (n = 24). The least tested psychometric properties were intra-rater reliability (n = 3), internal consistency (n = 5), and inter-rater reliability (n = 13). Instruments by Gutacker et al. and Osborne et al. met the most psychometric properties (4 of 10).

CONCLUSION

Most instruments included traditional criteria for assessing JA appropriateness but did not include a trial of conservative treatments or shared decision-making elements. There was limited evidence on psychometric properties.

Gender differences in the decision-making process for undergoing total knee replacement

OBJECTIVE

To assess gender differences in the decision-making process for treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A secondary analysis of a randomized trial was conducted (n = 193). Knowledge of OA and total knee replacement (TKR), decisional conflict, satisfaction with the decision-making process, treatment preference and TKR uptake 6 months later were compared by gender. Multivariate regression models were developed to identify gender-specific predictors.

RESULTS

Women showed less knowledge (MD = -7.68, 95% CI: -13.9, -1.46, p = 0.016), reported less satisfaction (MD = -6.95, 95% CI: -11.7, -2.23, p = 0.004) and gave more importance to avoiding surgery (U = 2.09, p = 0.019). In women, more importance attributed to the time needed to relieve symptoms significantly reduced the odds of surgery (OR = 0.76, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The provision of information and/or promotion of shared decision-making could be of lower quality in female patients, although other explanations such as differences in information needs or preference for involvement in decision-making cannot be ruled out with the current evidence. Given the study's limitations, especially regarding the sample size, further confirmation is needed.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A systematic, shared decision-making approach in consultation is needed to avoid potential gender-based biases.

Measuring shared decision-making in younger and older adults with depression

BACKGROUND

This study examined the performance of the shared decision-making (SDM) Process scale in patients with depression, compared alternative wording of two items in the scale and explored performance in younger adults.

METHODS

A web-based non-probability panel of respondents with depression aged 18-39 (younger) or 40-75 (older) who talked with a health-care provider about starting or stopping treatment for depression in the past year were surveyed. Respondents completed one of two versions of the SDM Process scale that differed in the wording of pros and cons items and completed measures of decisional conflict, decision regret and who made the decision (mainly the respondent, mainly the provider or together). A subset of respondents completed a retest survey by 1 week. We examined how version and age group impacted SDM Process scores and calculated construct validity and retest reliability. We hypothesized that patients with higher SDM Process scores would show less decisional conflict using the SURE scale (range = 0-4); top score = no conflict versus other and less regret (range 1-4; higher scores indicated more regret).

RESULTS

The sample (N = 494) was majority White, non-Hispanic (82%) and female (72%), 48% were younger and 23% had a high school education or less. SDM Process scores did not differ by version (P = 0.09). SDM Process scores were higher for younger respondents (M = 2.6, SD = 1.0) than older respondents (M = 2.3, SD = 1.1; P = 0.001). Higher SDM Process scores were also associated with no decisional conflict (M = 2.6, SD = 0.99 vs. M = 2.1, SD = 1.2; P < 0.001) and less decision regret (r = -0.18, P < 0.001). Retest reliability was intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.81.

CONCLUSIONS

The SDM Process scale demonstrated validity and retest reliability in younger adults, and changes to item wording did not impact scores. Although younger respondents reported more SDM, there is room for improvement in SDM for depression treatment decisions.