Evaluating the feasibility of conducting a trial using a patient decision aid in implantable cardioverter defibrillator candidates: a randomized controlled feasibility trial

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.

Using Patient Decision Aids for Cardiology Care in Diverse Populations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools that help guide treatment decisions and support shared decision-making when there is equipoise between treatment options. This review focuses on decision aids that are available to support cardiac treatment options for underrepresented groups.

RECENT FINDINGS

PDAs have been developed to support multiple treatment decisions in cardiology related to coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, and cholesterol management. By considering the unique needs and preferences of diverse populations, PDAs can enhance patient engagement and promote equitable healthcare delivery in cardiology. In this review, we examine the benefits, challenges, and current trends in implementing PDAs, with a focus on improving decision-making processes and outcomes for patients from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. In addition, the article highlights key considerations when implementing PDAs and potential future directions in the field.

Shared decision making in cardiology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to improve shared decision making (SDM) in cardiology with particular focus on patient-centred outcomes such as decisional conflict.

METHODS

We searched Embase (OVID), the Cochrane library, PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases from inception to January 2021 for randomised controlled trials that investigated the effects of interventions to increase SDM in cardiology. The primary outcomes were decisional conflict, decisional anxiety, decisional satisfaction or decisional regret; a secondary outcome was knowledge gained by the patients.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies which reported on at least one outcome measure were identified, including a total of 4419 patients. Interventions to increase SDM had a significant effect on reducing decisional conflict (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.211, 95% CI -0.316 to -0.107) and increasing patient knowledge (SMD 0.476, 95% CI 0.351 to 0.600) compared with standard care.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to increase SDM are effective in reducing decisional conflict and increasing patient knowledge in the field of cardiology. Such interventions are helpful in supporting patient-centred healthcare and should be implemented in wider cardiology practice.

The development of a decision aid for shared decision making in the Dutch implantable cardioverter defibrillator patient population: A novel approach to patient education

Background

Counseling of Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients with regard to individual risks and benefits is challenging. An evidence-based decision aid tailored to the needs of Dutch ICD patients is not yet available. The objective of this pilot project was to structurally evaluate the current clinical practice in The Netherlands and the ICD patient experience, in order to develop an online decision aid to facilitate shared decision making in ICD procedures.

Methods

Between June 2016 and December 2017, a Dutch web-based decision aid was developed according to the Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) using the RAND-UCLA/multi-stepped Delphi model. Development process consisted of 5 stages in which the Dutch clinical practice was reviewed (stage 1), patients’ needs and their history of decision making was structurally assessed (stages 2A and B) and a modified Delphi consensus process was performed with an expert panel consisting of representatives from different medical fields (stage 3). Results from stages 1–3 were used to design and structure the content of an online-based decision aid (stage 4) which was finally evaluated in a usability testing by patients in stage 5.

Results and conclusion

This study describes the evidence-based approach to the development of the Dutch ICD decision aid. In our population, levels of shared decision-making experience were low. The ICD decision aid was structurally developed for the Dutch ICD patient population. Our upcoming multicenter stepped wedge clustered randomized trial will further evaluate the ICD decision aid in clinical practice.

Application of patient decision aids in treatment selection of cardiac surgery patients: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The choice of treatment is an unavoidable challenge faced in the day to day medical decision making pertaining to patients with organic heart disease. As a professional discipline, cardiac surgery focuses on creating and using the most advanced evidence-based patient decision aids (PtDAs) to achieve high-quality decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the basic situation, influencing factors, and the outcome of indicators of PtDAs among cardiac surgery patients.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant reviews on the application of PtDAs among cardiac surgery patients. The methodological framework proposed by Arskey and O'Malley was used to guide the scoping review. The extracted data was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.

RESULTS

After dual, blinded screening of titles and abstracts, 12 articles were included in the review. 10 were quantitative studies, 1 was a mixed study, 1 was a qualitative study.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the burden of heart disease and the huge evidence base, the application of PtDAs in cardiac surgery is obviously insufficient. The published literature mainly provide information about the factors to be solved from the perspective of researchers, and also summarize obstacle factors. This is the basis for the application and construction of PtDAs in cardiac surgery patients.

Randomized control trial evaluating the use of a shared decision-making aid for older ventral hernia patients in the Geriatric Assessment and Medical Preoperative Screening (GrAMPS) Program

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) is ideally suited to abdominal wall surgery in older adults given the breadth of decision making required by the hernia surgeon and the impact on quality of life (QOL) by various treatment options. Given the paucity of literature surrounding SDM in hernia patients, the feasibility of a novel, formalized SDM aid/tool was evaluated in a pilot randomized trial.

METHODS

Patients 60 years or older with a diagnosed ventral hernia were prospectively randomized at an academic hernia center. In the experimental arm, a novel SDM tool, based on the SHARE Approach, guided the consultation. Previously validated SDM assessments and patient's hernia knowledge retention was measured.

RESULTS

Eighteen (18) patients were randomized (9 control and 9 experimental). Cohorts were well matched in age (p = 0.51), comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Score: p = 0.43) and frailty (mFI-11: p = 0.19; Risk Analysis Index: p = 0.33). Consultation time was 11 min longer in the experimental cohort (p < 0.01). There was a trend towards better Decisional Conflict Scores in the experimental group (p = 0.25) and the experimental cohort had improved post-visit retained hernia knowledge (p < 0.01). All patients in the experimental arm (100%) enjoyed working through the SDM aid/tool and felt it was a worthwhile exercise.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating a formalized SDM tool into a busy hernia surgical practice is feasible and well received by patients. In addition, early results suggest it improves retention of basic hernia knowledge and may reduce patient's decisional conflict. Next steps include condensing the SDM tool to enhance efficiency within the clinic and beginning a large, randomized control trial.

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Development and field testing of a patient decision aid for management of acute Achilles tendon rupture: a study protocol

Background

Achilles tendon ruptures are common injuries in an otherwise healthy, active population. Several treatment options exist, with both surgical and non-surgical options. Each treatment option has a unique set of risks and harms, which may present patients with decisional conflict. The aim of the proposed study is to develop, alpha test and field test a patient decision aid for patients presenting with acute Achilles tendon ruptures.

Methods

This is a three-stage study protocol. First, we will assemble a multi-disciplinary steering group including patients, clinicians, educators, and researchers to develop the patient decision aid prototype using the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Second, we will perform a mixed-methods alpha test of the decision aid prototype with patients and clinicians experienced in acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Outcomes measured will include acceptability and usability of the patient decision aid measured using validated outcome scales and semi-structured interviews. A minimum of three rounds of feedback will be obtained. Results will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, reviewed by the steering group, to guide revisions to decision aid prototype at each round. The third stage will be field testing the revised decision aid prototype in usual clinical care. A pre-/post-study will be performed with patients with acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Patients will be recruited from the emergency department and complete the pre-consultation decision aid prior to a one-week follow up with their surgeon. The primary outcome of field testing will be feasibility of implementing the decision aid in the clinical setting and will be measured with recruitment and completion metrics. Secondary outcomes include acceptability of the decision aid, knowledge, preparedness for decision making, and decisional conflict, measured using validated outcome measures. Statistical analysis will be performed using descriptive analysis for primary outcomes and a student t-test and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test for secondary outcomes.

Discussion

This comprehensive study protocol outlines the development, alpha testing, and field testing of a patient decision aid for patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture. Systematic and transparent development and testing of patient decision aids is critical to improve decision aid quality.

Trial registration Not Applicable.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-021-01589-5.

Testing a nurse-led, pre-implantation educational intervention for primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator candidates: a randomized feasibility trial

AIMS

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) deliver therapy for life-threatening arrhythmias. Evidence suggests that ICD candidates have misconceptions regarding ICD therapy and unmet information needs. We undertook a pilot feasibility trial comparing a nurse-led educational intervention plus standard care, vs. standard pre-ICD implantation care. Secondary aims included examination of anxiety, quality of life, and shock anxiety.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator candidates were consented and randomized to standard pre-ICD implantation care vs. standard care plus a nurse-led educational intervention. The primary feasibility outcomes included: recruitment rate, consent rate, randomization rate, proportion of participants able to complete all questionnaires, time to deliver intervention, and intervention topics completion. At baseline, demographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety scores were collected. Four weeks post-ICD implantation, participants completed the PROMIS, Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS), and Florida Shock Anxiety Scale (FSAS). Twenty patients consented (10 per group). Feasibility targets were achieved for all but two outcomes: consent rate was 87% vs. 95% target, and completion of data collection measures was 85% vs. 90% target. Consent rate was lower than expected as one patient declined, and two could not be approached. Completion rate was lower than expected as two patients were lost to follow-up, and one did not receive an ICD during the study period, leading to incomplete post-implantation survey collections.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a trial comparing a nurse-led pre-implantation educational intervention to standard care in an outpatient setting. Further study to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention on patient-reported outcomes is warranted.

Clinician perspectives on a culturally adapted patient decision aid concerning maintenance therapy for asthma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Patients with persistent asthma often show poor adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Shared decision-making can improve adherence rates in this population. Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools to facilitate shared decision-making. To date, only one PDA, developed in a Canadian French-speaking population, exists for patients considering ICS maintenance therapy. This PDA has been culturally adapted in this study to contextualize to the needs of multi-ethnic Asian patients in Singapore. This study explored the views of local clinicians on the content, design and implementation of this newly-adapted PDA.

METHODS

24 clinicians, who were purposively sampled from polyclinics and a tertiary institution, were interviewed on the content, design and implementation of the PDA. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed via thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Clinicians generally accepted the design of the PDA. They suggested for the target users to be patients on Step 2 of GINA guidelines and the number of options to be reduced from four to two (do nothing or start inhaled corticosteroids). Moreover, they supported including a list of values for patients to select from given that Asian patients often do not articulate their values readily. The addition of more visual aids, the production of multilingual Asian editions and the involvement of nurses to administer the PDA was also suggested.

CONCLUSION

The PDA was culturally-adapted with local clinicians' perspectives to target multi-ethnic Asian patients with persistent asthma (Step 2 GINA guidelines). The main changes include a list of values and addition of visual aids.

Oral prednisolone for acute otitis media in children: a pilot, pragmatic, randomised, open-label, controlled study (OPAL study)

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is associated with high antibiotic prescribing rates. Antibiotics are somewhat effective in improving pain and middle ear effusion (MEE); however, they have unfavourable effects. Alternative treatments, such as corticosteroids as anti-inflammatory agents, are needed. Evidence for the efficacy of these remains inconclusive. We conducted a pilot study to test feasibility of a proposed large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the efficacy of corticosteroids for AOM.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot, pragmatic, parallel, open-label RCT of oral corticosteroids for paediatric AOM in primary and secondary/tertiary care centres in Indonesia. Children aged 6 months-12 years with AOM were randomised to either prednisolone or control (1:1). Physicians were blinded to allocation. Our objectives were to test the feasibility of our full RCT procedures and design, and assess the mechanistic effect of corticosteroids, using tympanometry, in suppressing middle ear inflammation by reducing MEE.

RESULTS

We screened 512 children; 62 (38%) of 161 eligible children were randomised and 60 were analysed for the primary clinical outcome. All study procedures were completed successfully by healthcare personnel and parents/caregivers, despite time constraints and high workload. All eligible, consenting children were appropriately randomised. One child did not take the medication and four received additional oral corticosteroids. Our revised sample size calculation verified 444 children are needed for the full RCT. Oral corticosteroids did not have any discernible effects on MEE resolution and duration. There was no correlation between pain or other symptoms and MEE change. However, prednisolone may reduce pain intensity at day 3 (Visual Analogue Scale mean difference - 7.4 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 13.4 to - 1.3, p = 0.018), but cause drowsiness (relative risk (RR) 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.8, p = 0.016). Tympanometry curves at day 7 may be improved (RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.9). We cannot yet confirm these as effects of corticosteroids due to insufficient sample size in this pilot study.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to conduct a large, pragmatic RCT of corticosteroids for paediatric AOM in Indonesia. Although oral corticosteroids may reduce pain and improve tympanometry curves, it requires an adequately powered clinical trial to confirm this.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Study registry number: ACTRN12618000049279. Name of registry: the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). Date of registration: 16 January 2018.

Decision Support for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Replacement: A Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Decision support can help patients facing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) replacement understand their options and reach an informed decision reflective of their preferences.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a decision support intervention for patients faced with the decision to replace their ICD.

METHODS

A pilot feasibility randomized trial was conducted. Patients approaching ICD battery depletion were randomized to decision support intervention or usual care. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment rates, intervention use, and completeness of data; secondary outcomes were knowledge, values-choice concordance, decisional conflict, involvement in decision making, and choice.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were randomized to intervention (n = 15) or usual care (n = 15). The intervention was used as intended, with 2% missing data. Patients in the intervention arm had better knowledge (77.4% vs 51.1%; P = .002). By 12 months, 8 of 13 (61.5%) in the intervention arm and 10 of 14 (71.4%) in the usual care arm accepted ICD replacement; 1 per arm declined (7.7% vs 7.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

It was feasible to deliver the intervention, collect data, despite slow recruitment. The decision support intervention has the potential to improve ICD replacement decision quality.

"I don't know exactly what you're referring to": the challenge of values elicitation in decision making for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

PURPOSE

Patients' values are a key component of patient-centered care and shared decision making in health care organizations. There is limited understanding on how patients' values guide their health related decision making or how patients understand the concept of values during these processes. This study investigated patients' understanding of their values in the context of considering the risks/benefits of receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A qualitative substudy was conducted within a feasibility trial with first-time ICD candidates randomized to receive a patient decision aid or usual care prior to specialist consultation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants post-implantation or post-specialist consultation.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients (ten male) aged 47-87 years participated. Of these, ten (62.5%) received the patient decision aid prior to specialist consultation. Findings revealed patients were confused by the word "values" and had difficulty expressing values related to risks/benefits during ICD decision making. When probed, values were conceptualized broadly capturing other factors such as desire to live, good quality of life, family's views, ICD information, control over decision, and medical authority.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed the difficulty patients considering an ICD had with articulating their values in the context of an ICD health decision and highlighted the challenge to effectively elicit patients' values within health decisions overall. It is suggested that there should be a shift away from the use of the word "values" when speaking directly to patients toward language such as "what matters to you the most" or "what is most important to you".