Impact of an online, individualised, patient reported outcome measures based patient decision aid on patient expectations, decisional regret, satisfaction, and health-related quality-of-life for patients considering total knee arthroplasty: Results from a randomised controlled trial

Six-month pain and function outcome expectations were established for total knee arthroplasty using the smallest worthwhile effect

INTRODUCTION

Interpretations of patient-reported outcome measures following knee arthroplasty lack context and typically do not account for costs, risks and benefits compared to an alternative treatment. The primary purpose of our paper is to estimate expectations patients have for pain and function destination outcome, six-months following surgery relative to the outcome expected if knee arthroplasty was not done. Secondary purposes were to determine if statistically significant changes in the smallest worthwhile six-month outcome occurred following an interactive discussion and to assess the construct validity of the expected six-month outcome obtained at baseline.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a prospective longitudinal cohort study of 121 patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. Smallest worthwhile effect estimates were determined and expected six-month KOOS Pain and Function, daily activity measures were established during a pre-operative visit.

RESULTS

The average six-month expected (the destination of interest) KOOS Pain score was 75 (IQR = 64 to 86) and the average KOOS Function, daily activity score was 74 (IQR = 59 to 86). The smallest worthwhile effect discussion led to significant changes in expected destination scores. For example, KOOS Pain expected outcome changed from 87.7 (9.8) to 75.0 (13.6), a statistically significant reduction in expected outcome (t(119) = 16.942, p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Six-month expected KOOS outcomes following knee arthroplasty were established and approximate the average six-month outcomes reported in the literature. Validity of these estimates was established. These data can be used to aid shared decision-making discussions regarding patient expectations of knee arthroplasty outcomes during a patient encounter.

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.

Exploring patient perspectives on EQ-5D-5L data visualization within an individualized decision aid for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Alberta, Canada

BACKGROUND

Decision aids can help patients set realistic expectations. In this study, we explored alternative presentations to visualise patient-reported outcomes (EQ-5D-5L) data within an online, individualized patient decision aid for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) that, in part, generates individualized comparisons based on age, sex and body mass index, to enhance usability prior to implementation into routine clinical practice.

METHODS

We used data visualization techniques to modify the presentation of EQ-5D-5L outcomes data within the decision aid. The EQ-5D-5L data was divided into two parts allowing patients to compare themselves to similar individuals (1) pre-surgery and (2) 1-year post-surgery. We created 2 versions for each part and sought patient feedback on comprehension, usefulness, and visual appeal. Patients from an urban orthopedic clinic were recruited and their ratings and comments were recorded using a researcher-administered checklist. Data were managed using Microsoft Excel, R version 3.6.1 and ATLAS.ti V8 and analyzed using descriptive statistics and directed content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 24 and 25 patients participated in Parts 1 and 2, respectively. Overall, there was a slight preference for Version 1 in Part 1 (58.3%) and Version 2 in Part 2 (64%). Most participants demonstrated adequate comprehension for all versions (range 50-72%) and commented that the instructions were clear. While 50-60% of participants rated the content as useful, including knowing the possible outcomes of surgery, some participants found the information interesting only, were unsure how to use the information, or did not find it useful because they had already decided on a treatment. Participants rated visual appeal for all versions favorably but suggested improvements for readability, mainly larger font and image sizes and enhanced contrast between elements.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results, we will produce an enhanced presentation of EQ-5D-5L data within the decision aid. These improvements, along with further usability testing of the entire decision aid, will be made before implementation of the decision aid in routine clinical practice. Our results on patients' perspectives on the presentation of EQ-5D-5L data to support decision making for TKA treatments contributes to the knowledge on EQ-5D-5L applications within healthcare systems for clinical care.

Evaluating a web-based personalized decision report for total knee or hip replacement: Lessons learned from patients

RATIONALE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in the context of clinical care, but evaluation of patients' perspectives of PRO-based applications in routine care remains limited.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This paper investigates patients' acceptability of a personalized web-based decision report for total knee or hip replacement and identifies opportunities to refine the report.

METHOD

This qualitative evaluation was embedded in a pragmatic cluster randomized trial of the report. We interviewed 25 patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis about their experiences using the personalized decision report in the context of a surgical consultation. The web-based report contained current descriptive PRO scores of pain, function and general physical health; tailored predicted postoperative PRO scores (i.e., personalized likely outcomes based on actual knee or hip replacement outcomes of similar patients in a national registry); and information about alternative nonoperative treatments. Two trained researchers analysed the interview data qualitatively using a combination of inductive and deductive coding.

RESULTS

We identified three major categories for evaluation: content of report, presentation of data in report and engagement with report. Patients generally liked the report overall but specifically valued different pages of the report based on where they were in the surgical decision-making process. Patients identified areas of confusion in data presentation related to graph orientation, terminology and interpretation of T-scores. Patients also highlighted support needs to meaningfully engage with the information in the report.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight areas of opportunity to further refine this personalized web-based decision report and similar patient-facing PRO applications for routine clinical care. Specific examples include additional tailoring of reports via filterable web-based dashboards and scalable educational supports to facilitate more independent patient understanding and use.