The Impact Of Decision Aids On Adults Considering Hip Or Knee Surgery

Association of a Medicare Mandate for Shared Decision-Making With Cardiac Device Utilization

This cohort study evaluates the association between a Medicare shared decision-making mandate for use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators with the rate of use for this device.

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.

Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Shared decision-making is increasingly embraced in health care and recommended in cardiovascular guidelines. Patient involvement in health care decisions, patient-clinician communication, and models of patient-centered care are critical to improve health outcomes and to promote equity, but formal models and evaluation in cardiovascular care are nascent. Shared decision-making promotes equity by involving clinicians and patients, sharing the best available evidence, and recognizing the needs, values, and experiences of individuals and their families when faced with the task of making decisions. Broad endorsement of shared decision-making as a critical component of high-quality, value-based care has raised our awareness, although uptake in clinical practice remains suboptimal for a range of patient, clinician, and system issues. Strategies effective in promoting shared decision-making include educating clinicians on communication techniques, engaging multidisciplinary medical teams, incorporating trained decision coaches, and using tools (ie, patient decision aids) at appropriate literacy and numeracy levels to support patients in their cardiovascular decisions. This scientific statement shines a light on the limited but growing body of evidence of the impact of shared decision-making on cardiovascular outcomes and the potential of shared decision-making as a driver of health equity so that everyone has just opportunities. Multilevel solutions must align to address challenges in policies and reimbursement, system-level leadership and infrastructure, clinician training, access to decision aids, and patient engagement to fully support patients and clinicians to engage in the shared decision-making process and to drive equity and improvement in cardiovascular outcomes.

US practice adoption of patient-engagement strategies and spending for adults with diabetes and cardiovascular disease

Patient-engagement strategies are being encouraged by payers and governments, but with limited evidence about whether practice adoption of these strategies impacts utilization and spending. We examine the association of physician practice adoption of patient-engagement strategies (low vs moderate vs high) with potentially preventable utilization and total spending for patients with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease using US physician practice survey (n = 2086) and Medicare fee-for-service (n = 736 269) data. In adjusted analyses, there were no differences in potentially preventable utilization associated with practice adoption of patient-engagement strategies. Compared with patients attributed to practices with moderate adoption, patients attributed to practices with high adoption had higher total spending ($26 364 vs $25 991; P < .05) driven by spending for long-term services and supports, including home health agency, long-term care, skilled nursing facilities, and hospice payments. In contrast, patients attributed to practices with low adoption had higher total spending ($26 481 vs $25 991; P < .01) driven by spending for tests and acute care and clinical access spending. The results highlight that stakeholders that encourage the use of patient-engagement strategies should not necessarily expect reduced spending.

Patient preferences and decision-making when considering surgery for musculoskeletal disorders: A mixed methods systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The burden of Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) is large. Surgery is an important management option but the factors that shape patients' surgical decisions are not well understood. As prior reviews have explored only single data types or conditions, a mixed methods appraisal across the musculoskeletal spectrum was undertaken.

METHODS

A mixed-methods systematic, convergent segregated approach was used, with PubMed, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), Embase and PsycINFO searched to identify studies of adult patients' decisions about whether to undergo surgery. A narrative synthesis was conducted, with identified themes integrated across quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies.

RESULTS

Forty-six studies were included (24 quantitative, 19 qualitative and three mixed methods), with four decision-making themes identified (symptoms, sociodemographic and health factors, information and perceptions). Decision-making involves a complex interaction of individual sociodemographic, health and symptom information, integrated with individual perceptions of candidacy and surgical expectations. While most studies investigated hip and knee surgery, across all included conditions, patients are more likely to favour surgery if symptoms and/or dysfunction are higher, and if perceptions of surgical candidacy and processes (outcomes, inconvenience, and risk) are favourable. Other factors including age, general health, race, financial context, professional and non-professional communication, and information sources also impact decision-making but exert a less consistent impact upon the propensity to prefer surgery.

CONCLUSION

Patients are more likely to choose surgery for MSD when they have higher levels of symptoms or dysfunction and positive perceptions of surgical suitability and expectations. Other factors important to individuals, have a less consistent impact upon the propensity to prefer surgery. These findings have potential to aid the efficient referral of patients to orthopaedics. More research is needed to validate these findings across the spectrum of MSD.

Assessing Appropriateness for Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Shared Decision-Making Process

Purpose

The primary purpose of this study was to validate an appropriateness decision-aid tool as a part of engaging patients with glenohumeral arthritis in their surgical management. The associations between the final decision to have surgery and patient characteristics were examined.

Materials and Methods

This was an observational study. The demographics, overall health, patient-specific risk profile, expectations, and health-related quality of life were documented. Visual analog scale and the American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeon (ASES) measured pain and functional disability, respectively. Clinical and imaging examination documented clinical findings and extent of degenerative arthritis and cuff tear arthropathy. Appropriateness for arthroplasty surgery was documented by a 5-item Likert response survey and the final decision was documented as ready, not-ready, and would like to further discuss.

Results

Eighty patients, 38 women (47.5%), mean age: 72(8) participated in the study. The appropriateness decision aid showed excellent discriminate validity (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value of 0.93) in differentiating between patients who were “ready” and those who were “not-ready” to have surgery. Gender ( P  =  0.037), overall health ( P  =  .024), strength in external rotation ( P  =  .002), pain severity ( P  =  .001), ASES score ( P < .0001), and expectations ( P  =  .024) were contributing factors to the decision to have surgery. Imaging findings did not play a significant role in the final decision to have surgery.

Conclusions

A 5-item tool showed excellent validity in differentiating patients who were ready to have surgery versus those who were not. Patient's gender, expectations, strength, and self-reported outcomes were important factors in reaching the final decision.

Association of patient engagement strategies with utilisation and spending for musculoskeletal problems in the USA: a cross-sectional analysis of Medicare patients and physician practices

OBJECTIVE

Musculoskeletal problems like hip and knee osteoarthritis and low-back pain are preference sensitive conditions. Patient engagement strategies (PES), such as shared decision-making and motivational interviewing, can help align patients' preferences with treatment options and potentially reduce spending. We assess the association of physician practice-level adoption of PES with utilisation and spending.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study in which patients were matched across low, moderate and high levels of PES via coarsened exact matching.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care in 2190 physician practices.

PARTICIPANTS

39 336 hip, 48 362 knee and 67 940 low-back patients who were Medicare beneficiaries were matched to the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Total hip replacement (THR), total knee replacement (TKR), 1-2 level posterior lumbar fusion (LF), total annual spending, components of total annual spending.

RESULTS

Total annual spending for patients with musculoskeletal problems did not differ for practices with low versus moderate PES, low versus high PES or moderate versus high PES, but spending was significantly lower in some categories for practices with relatively higher PES adoption. For hospital-owned and health system-owned practices, the ORs of receiving LF were 0.632 (95% CI 0.396 to 1.009) for patients attributed to practices with high PES compared with patients attributed to practices with moderate PES. For independent practices, the odds of receiving THR were 1.403 (95% CI 1.035 to 1.902) for patients attributed to practices with moderate PES compared with patients attributed to practices with low PES.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice-level adoption of PES for patients with musculoskeletal problems was generally not associated with total spending. PES, however, may steer patients toward evidence-based treatments. Opportunities for overall spending reduction exist as indicated by the variation in the subcomponents of total spending by PES adoption.

Effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of a Patient Decision Aid (PtDA) for knee osteoarthritis.

METHOD

Randomized controlled trial, in which 193 patients were allocated to the PtDA or usual care. Outcome measures were the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), knowledge of osteoarthritis and arthroplasty, satisfaction with the decision-making process (SDMP) and treatment preference, assessed immediately after the intervention. At 6 months, the same measures were applied in non-operated patients, whereas those who underwent arthroplasty completed the SDMP and the Decisional Regret Scale (DRS).

RESULTS

The PtDA produced a significant immediate improvement of decisional conflict (MD = -11.65, 95%CI: -14.93, -8.37), objective knowledge (MD = 10.37, 99%IC: 3.15, 17.70) and satisfaction (MD = 6.77, 99%CI: 1.19, 12.34), and a different distribution of preferences (χ² = 8.74, p = 0.033). Patients with less than secondary education obtained a stronger effect on decisional conflict (p = 0.015 for the interaction) but weaker for knowledge (p = 0.051). At 6 months, there were no significant differences in any variable, including the rate of total knee replacement. Operated patients showed a low level of regret, which was not affected by the intervention.

CONCLUSION

The PtDA is effective immediately after its application, but it shows no effects in the medium-term. Future research should investigate which subgroups of patients could benefit more from this intervention, as well as the longitudinal evolution of decision-related psychological variables.

Problem with patient decision aids

Patient decision aids are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. Research shows that patient decision aids increase knowledge, accuracy of risk perceptions, alignment of care with patient values and preferences, and patient involvement in decision making. Some patient decision aids can reduce the use of invasive and potentially low-value procedures. On this basis, clinical practice guidelines and international organisations have begun to recommend the use of patient decision aids and shared decision making as a strategy to reduce medical overuse. Although patient decision aids hold promise for improving healthcare, there are fundamental issues with patient decision aids that need to be addressed before further progress can be made. The problems with patient decision aids are: (1) Guidelines for developing patient decision aids may not be sufficient to ensure developers select the best available evidence and present it appropriately; (2) Biased presentation of low-certainty evidence is common and (3) Biased presentation of low-certainty evidence is misleading, and could inadvertently support, low-value care. We explore these issues in the article and present a case study of online patient decision aids for musculoskeletal pain. We suggest ways to ensure patient decision aids help patients understand the evidence and, where possible, support high-quality care.