Interactive Inflammatory Bowel Disease Biologics Decision Aid Does Not Improve Patient Outcomes Over Static Education: Results From a Randomized 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.

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.

Patient education interventions for the management of inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a life-long condition for which currently there is no cure. Patient educational interventions deliver structured information to their recipients. Evidence suggests patient education can have positive effects in other chronic diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the different types of educational interventions, how they are delivered, and to determine their effectiveness and safety in people with IBD.

SEARCH METHODS

On 27 November 2022, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP with no limitations to language, date, document type, or publication status. Any type of formal or informal educational intervention, lasting for any time, that had content focused directly on knowledge about IBD or skills needed for direct management of IBD or its symptoms was included. Delivery methods included face-to-face or remote educational sessions, workshops, guided study via the use of printed or online materials, the use of mobile applications, or any other method that delivers information to patients.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published, unpublished and ongoing randomised control trials (RCTs) that compare educational interventions targeted at people with IBD to any other type of intervention or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment of the included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager Web. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 2708 randomised participants, aged 11 to 75 years. Two studies examined populations who all had ulcerative colitis (UC); the remaining studies examined a mix of IBD patients (UC and Crohn's disease). Studies considered a range of disease activity states. The length of the interventions ranged from 30 minutes to 12 months. Education was provided in the form of in-person workshops/lectures, and remotely via printed materials or multimedia, smartphones and internet learning. Thirteen studies compared patient education interventions plus standard care against standard care alone. The interventions included seminars, information booklets, text messages, e-learning, a multi professional group-based programme, guidebooks, a staff-delivered programme based on an illustrated book, a standardised programme followed by group session, lectures alternating with group therapy, educational sessions based on an IBD guidebook, internet blog access and text messages, a structured education programme, and interactive videos. Risk of bias findings were concerning in all judgement areas across all studies. No single study was free of unclear or high of bias judgements. Reporting of most outcomes in a homogeneous fashion was limited, with quality of life at study end reported most commonly in six of the 14 studies which allowed for meta-analysis, with all other outcomes reported in a more heterogeneous manner that limited wider analysis. Two studies provided data on disease activity. There was no clear difference in disease activity when patient education (n = 277) combined with standard care was compared to standard care (n = 202). Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in reducing disease activity in patients with IBD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.20), moderate-certainty evidence. Two studies provided continuous data on flare-up/relapse. There was no clear difference for flare-ups or relapse when patient education (n = 515) combined with standard care was compared to standard care (n = 507), as a continuous outcome. Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in reducing flare-ups or relapse in patients with IBD (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies provided dichotomous data on flare-up/relapse. The evidence is very uncertain on whether patient education combined with standard care (n = 157) is different to standard care (n = 150) in reducing flare-ups or relapse in patients with IBD (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.18; very low-certainty evidence). Six studies provided data on quality of life. There was no clear difference in quality of life when patient education combined with standard care (n = 721) was compared to standard care (n = 643). Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in improving quality of life in patients with IBD (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.18; moderate-certainty evidence). The included studies did not report major differences on healthcare access. Medication adherence, patient knowledge and change in quality of life showed conflicting results that varied between no major differences and differences in favour of the educational interventions. Only five studies reported on adverse events. Four reported zero total adverse events and one reported one case of breast cancer and two cases of surgery in their interventions groups, and zero adverse events in their control group. Two studies compared delivery methods of patient education, specifically: web-based patient education interventions versus colour-printed books or text messages; and one study compared frequency of patient education, specifically: weekly educational text messages versus once every other week educational text messages. These did not show major differences for disease activity and quality of life. Other outcomes were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The ways in which patient educational support surrounding IBD may impact on disease outcomes is complex. There is evidence that education added to standard care is probably of no benefit to disease activity or quality of life when compared with standard care, and may be of no benefit for occurrence of relapse when compared with standard care. However, as there was a paucity of specific information regarding the components of education or standard care, the utility of these findings is questionable. Further research on the impact of education on our primary outcomes of disease activity, flare-ups/relapse and quality of life is probably not indicated. However, further research is necessary, which should focus on reporting details of the educational interventions and study outcomes that educational interventions could be directly targeted to address, such as healthcare access and medication adherence. These should be informed by direct engagement with stakeholders and people affected by Crohn's and colitis.