Decision quality instrument for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a psychometric evaluation

Measure of Caregiver Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Knowledge Is Responsive to Decision Aid on Treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

OBJECTIVE

Adapt and test a measure of knowledge for caregivers of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and evaluate the impact of the information component of a decision aid (DA) on participant knowledge.

METHODS

A set of seven knowledge items were created based on prior knowledge measures and clinical guidelines. As part of a larger cross-sectional survey study of caregivers of children diagnosed with ADHD, caregivers were randomized to one of two arms: 1) a DA arm, where participants reviewed the information component of the Cincinnati Children's Hospital's DA, and 2) a control arm, where participants were not shown a DA. All participants completed the seven knowledge items. Knowledge items were assessed for difficulty, quality of distractors, acceptability, and redundancy. Total knowledge scores (0-100) for the DA and control arm were compared.

RESULTS

Caregivers were assigned to the DA arm (n = 243) or the control arm (n = 260). All 7 knowledge items were retained as no items were too difficult or too easy, all response options were used, there were little missing data, and no items were redundant. The overall knowledge score was normally distributed, and almost covered the full range of scores (5-100). Those who received the DA component had higher knowledge scores (M=68, SD=23) than those who did not receive the DA component (M=60, SD=19, P < .01, d=0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

The Caregiver ADHD Knowledge (CAKe) measure was acceptable and demonstrated construct validity as those who were assigned to review the DA component demonstrated greater knowledge than those who were not assigned to review the DA component.

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.

Predictive Tool Use and Willingness for Surgery in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Despite the increasing number of tools available to predict the outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the effect of these predictive tools on patient decision-making remains uncertain.

Objective

To assess the effect of an online predictive tool on patient-reported willingness to undergo TKA.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This parallel, double-masked, 2-arm randomized clinical trial compared predictive tool use with treatment as usual (TAU). The study was conducted between June 30, 2022, and July 31, 2023. Participants were followed up for 6 months after enrollment. Participants were recruited from a major Australian private health insurance company and from the surgical waiting list for publicly funded TKA at a tertiary hospital. Eligible participants had unilateral knee osteoarthritis, were contemplating TKA, and had previously tried nonsurgical interventions, such as lifestyle modifications, physiotherapy, and pain medications.

Intervention

The intervention group was provided access to an online predictive tool at the beginning of the study. This tool offered information regarding the likelihood of improvement in quality of life if patients chose to undergo TKA. The predictions were based on the patient's age, sex, and baseline symptoms. Conversely, the control group received TAU without access to the predictive tool.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measure was the reduction in participants' willingness to undergo surgery at 6 months after tool use as measured by binomial logistic regression. Secondary outcome measures included participant treatment preference and the quality of their decision-making process as measured by the Knee Decision Quality Instrument.

Results

Of 211 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 65.8 [8.3] years; 118 female [55.9%]), 105 were allocated to the predictive tool group and 106 to the TAU group. After adjusting for baseline differences in willingness for surgery, the predictive tool did not significantly reduce the primary outcome of willingness for surgery at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.42-1.71; P = .64).

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite the absence of treatment effect on willingness for TKA, predictive tools might still enhance health outcomes of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Additional research is needed to optimize the design and implementation of predictive tools, address limitations, and fully understand their effect on the decision-making process in TKA.

Trial Registration

ANZCTR.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12622000072718.

Authenticity and the argument from testability: a bottom-up approach : Author

Jesper Ahlin Marceta published an article in this journal in which he formulated his "argument from testability", stating that it is impossible, at least practically, to operationalize procedural authenticity. That is, using procedural accounts of authenticity, one cannot reliably differentiate between authentic and inauthentic desires. There are roughly two ways to respond to the argument from testability: top-down and bottom-up. Several authors have endeavored the top-down approach by trying to show that some conceptions of authenticity might be operationalizable after all. At present, however, the bottom-up approach has not been put to the test. That is, no attempt has been made to use a currently existing assessment tool to guide the development of an account of authenticity. In this paper, I will investigate what it means to develop an account of authenticity bottom-up based on measures of concordance. More specifically, I will investigate the following three research questions. First, how do concordance and authenticity relate at a conceptual level? As crucial similarities exist between these concepts, concordance measures seem to offer a good starting point for the bottom-up approach. Second, how do judgements of concordance differ from judgements of authenticity? Both their scope and the way they are justified will turn out to be different. This suggests novel ways to react to Marceta's argument from testability. Third, should we develop a theory of concordance? The positive answer to this question will point towards a central limitation of the bottom-up approach.

Decision regret following opening wedge high tibial osteotomy: Older age as a risk factor

BACKGROUND

Understanding risk factors that can predict decision regret after surgical procedures can potentially increase the quality of patient decision making and reduce decision regret after opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO). The purpose of the present study was to identify the risk factors that predict the likelihood of decision regret after OWHTO.

METHOD

Questionnaires were administered to 98 eligible OWHTO recipients more than one year post-operatively. They answered "Yes" or "No" to the question "Would you go for the same choice (OWHTO) if you had to do it over again?" Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted using the decision regret questionnaire as the dependent variable against patient characteristics and surgery related factors. A receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve were constructed and calculated for age at surgery. Cut-off values were determined using the Youden principle and receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Among the 98 respondents, 18 (18%) reported regretting their decision. Older age at surgery was the only predictive risk factor for decision regret (P < 0.01). The area under the curve for the model using age to predict failure was 0.722. The cut-off value was 71 years. Patients aged 71 years or more had a 7.841 odds ratio for decision regret (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Older age emerged as a predictive risk factor for decision regret after OWHTO. Patients aged 71 years or older had a higher decision regret rate after OWHTO than younger patients and should more carefully weigh the suitability of OWHTO against other options.

A protocol for a cluster randomized trial of care delivery models to improve the quality of smoking cessation and shared decision making for lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Patients eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) are those at high risk of lung cancer due to their smoking histories and age. While screening for LCS is effective in lowering lung cancer mortality, primary care providers are challenged to meet beneficiary eligibility for LCS from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, including a patient counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit with the use of patient decision aid(s) prior to screening.

METHODS

We will use an effectiveness-implementation type I hybrid design to: 1) identify effective, scalable smoking cessation counseling and SDM interventions that are consistent with recommendations, can be delivered on the same platform, and are implemented in real-world clinical settings; 2) examine barriers and facilitators of implementing the two approaches to delivering smoking cessation and SDM for LCS; and 3) determine the economic implications of implementation by assessing the healthcare resources required to increase smoking cessation for the two approaches by delivering smoking cessation within the context of LCS. Providers from different healthcare organizations will be randomized to usual care (providers delivering smoking cessation and SDM on site) vs. centralized care (smoking cessation and SDM delivered remotely by trained counselors). The primary trial outcomes will include smoking abstinence at 12-weeks and knowledge about LCS measured at 1-week after baseline.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide important new evidence about the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel care delivery model for addressing the leading cause of lung cancer deaths and supporting high-quality decisions about LCS.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

NCT04200534 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04200534.

Acceptability and Feasibility of Delivering Decision Aids to Veterans for Management of Knee Osteoarthritis - A Pilot Study

Introduction

Decision aids are effective tools in facilitating patient-centered care and patient involvement in the decision-making process. Given unique barriers to providing patient-centered care for Veterans, implementation of decision aids may improve overall quality of care. We aimed to assess the acceptability and feasibility of video-based and pamphlet-based decision aid use in Veterans with knee osteoarthritis.

Materials and Methods

Veterans considering treatment for knee osteoarthritis received either an online video-based aid, pamphlet-based aid, or both before their surgical consult. At their visit, patients completed written pre-visit and post-visit questionnaires. The pre-visit questionnaire included questions about the patient's demographics, decision-making preferences, experiences using the assigned decision aids, and the Hip-Knee Decision Quality Instrument. The post-visit questionnaire assessed the patient's overall experience with the decision-making process and how use of the decision aid influenced their discussion with the physician.

Results

All 16 patients who received the pamphlet-based aid reviewed the decision aid before their visit, compared to only five of the 12 patients who received the video-based aid. Thirteen of 20 patients indicated that they preferred to share treatment decision-making with their physician. Seventeen of 20 patients believed they would feel comfortable questioning the treatment recommendation of their surgeon after decision aid use. Most patients reported a positive experience using their decision aid, regardless of modality, and found it easily comprehensible and useful in visit preparation. A preference for a pamphlet-based aid was expressed by the majority of patients.

Conclusion

Veterans considering treatment for knee osteoarthritis are well prepared to engage in a patient-centered care experience. Most patients preferred sharing the decision-making process with their physician and felt comfortable questioning them about treatment recommendations. Decision aids helped Veterans feel more informed about their treatment options and improved engagement and discussion with their physician. Pamphlet-based aids were utilized more reliably than video-based aids.

Decision regret after primary hip and knee replacement surgery

BACKGROUND

Decision regret (DR) is a recognised patient centered outcome measure following a therapeutic intervention. This study aimed to measure DR following primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA), to assess for differences between these patients and explore possible contributory factors.

METHOD

DR was measured using the DR scale in a group of THA and TKA patients, between February 2017 and December 2018, who had made a decision to have joint replacement surgery within the previous year and were able to reflect on their outcomes.

RESULTS

On analysis a significantly greater proportion of TKA patients reported moderate or severe (Mod/Sev) DR [17.1% (56/328)] compared to THA patients [4.8% (18/376)]. Conversely, a significantly reduced proportion of TKA patients reported having No DR [42.1% (138/328)] compared to THA patients [66.7% (251/376)]. On multivariate logistic regression analysis joint replacement type (TKA/THA) and change in Oxford score were significant predictors of DR with gender, age, BMI and ASA grade not significantly associated. TKA patients were more than twice as likely to have Mod/Sev DR compared THA patients (Odds Ratio = 2.33 (95% CI 1.24-4.39)). Patients with poorer improvements in pain and function 1-year post-operatively (measured by Oxford scores) reported greater levels of DR.

CONCLUSION

TKA patients were significantly more likely to report greater levels of DR 1-year following surgery compared to THA patients. For both TKA and THA patients, greater levels of DR were associated with poorer Oxford scores. The use of decision aids to reduce post-operative DR in joint replacement patients should be examined especially for knee replacement patients.

Rethinking Decision Quality: Measures, Meaning, and Bioethics

Studies of patient decision-making use many different measures to evaluate the quality of decisions and the decision-making process, partly to determine whether the ethical goals of informed consent, patient autonomy, and shared decision-making have been achieved. We describe these measures, grouped under three main approaches, and review their limitations, leading to three conclusions. First, no measure or combination of measures can provide a complete assessment of decision quality. Second, the quality of a decision is best characterized vaguely, for instance as "good," "satisfactory," or "poor," and these categorizations depend on qualitative judgments that go beyond quantitative measures. Third, bioethicists should focus on identifying and addressing poor or problematic decisions, rather than trying to incrementally increase decision quality, quantified by a measure. Decision-quality measures can be useful in research and in advancing important goals of bioethics, as long as the challenges of defining and measuring decision quality are recognized.

Validation of the Trust in the Surgical Decision Scale

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a short measure of trust in the surgical decision making process.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Having a reliable and valid measure of trust is important to assess the quality of the patient-surgeon relationship when decisions about surgical procedures are made.

METHODS

A previously published 10-item trust scale was qualitatively tested with patients, and a revised set of 14 items was tested using a web-based survey of 300 people who had hip, knee or back surgery in the past 2 years. The 14 items were evaluated using patterns of correlations and relevance to medical decision making to create a 5-item version. A 5-item subset was compared to the 14-item version to assess reliability and validity of patient's trust in the surgical decision making process.

RESULTS

Of the 300 participants, 32% had hip surgery, 33% had knee surgery, and 34% back surgery. Mean age was 53 years, 45% female, 80% White, and 36% had a high school degree or less. The item intercorrelations for the 14 items were 0.43-0.72 and 0.58-0.71 for the 5 items. Correlation between the versions was 0.96 (P < 0.01). The 14- and 5-item versions were positively correlated with participants' shared decision making process scores (0.42 and 0.41, both P = 0.01), internal consistency reliability scores were 0.95 and 0.89, respectively, and were negatively correlated with their Decision Regret scores (-0.51 and -0.48, both P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The 5-item Trust in the Surgical Decision Scale has strong evidence of validity and reliability for patients who underwent common orthopedic procedures.

Evaluating willingness for surgery using the SMART Choice (Knee) patient prognostic tool for total knee arthroplasty: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Approximately 1 in 5 patients feel unsatisfied after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Prognostic tools may aid in the patient selection process and reduce the proportion of patients who experience unsatisfactory surgery. This study uses the prognostic tool SMART Choice (Patient Prognostic Tool for Total Knee Arthroplasty) to predict patient improvement after TKA. The tool aims to be used by the patient without clinician input and does not require clinical data such as X-ray findings or blood results. The objective of this study is to evaluate the SMART Choice tool on patient decision making, particularly willingness for surgery. We hypothesise that the use of the SMART Choice tool will influence willingness to undergo surgery, especially when used earlier in the patient TKA journey.

METHODS

This is a multicentred, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial conducted in Melbourne, Australia. Participants will be recruited from the St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne (SVHM) Orthopaedic Clinic, and the client base of HCF, Australia (private health insurance company). Patients over 45 years of age who have been diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis and considering TKA are eligible for participation. Participants will be randomised to either use the SMART Choice tool or treatment as usual. The SMART Choice tool provides users with a prediction for improvement or deterioration / no change after surgery based on utility score change calculated from the Veterans-RAND 12 (VR-12) survey. The primary outcome of the study is patient willingness for TKA surgery. The secondary outcomes include evaluating the optimal timing for tool use and using decision quality questionnaires to understand the patient experience when using the tool. Participants will be followed up for 6 months from the time of recruitment.

DISCUSSION

The SMART Choice tool has the potential to improve patient decision making for TKA. Although many prognostic tools have been developed for other areas of surgery, most are confined within academic bodies of work. This study will be one of the first to evaluate the impact of a prognostic tool on patient decision making using a prospective clinical trial, an important step in transitioning the tool for use in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) - ACTRN12622000072718 . Prospectively registered - 21 January 2022.

Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into shared decision-making in the management of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a major clinical and public health concern. The primary surgical treatment of knee OA is total knee replacement (TKR), a procedure that aims to alleviate pain and restore physical function. TKR is expensive, however, and based on professional guidelines, inappropriately performed in up to a third of patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) help evaluate treatment options by quantifying health outcomes that matter to patients and can thus inform shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and health professionals.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a US-based 2-year, two-site hybrid type 1 study to assess clinical effectiveness and implementation of a machine learning-based patient decision aid (PDA) integrating patient-reported outcomes and clinical variables to support SDM for patients with knee OA considering TKR. Substudy 1: At one study site, a randomised controlled trial is evaluating the clinical effectiveness of the PDA and SDM process on decision quality as measured after the baseline consultation and treatment choice measured 3 and 6 months after the baseline visit among 200 patients with knee OA. Substudy 2: At a second study site, a qualitative assessment using principles of behaviour design and intervention mapping is evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of the PROMs, PDA and SDM process by interviewing seven health professionals and 25 patients before and 25 patients after PDA implementation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been obtained from The University of Texas at Austin Institutional Review Board (protocol number: 2018-11-0042). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Study results will be disseminated through conference presentations, publications and professional societies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04805554.

Shared Decision-Making Is Associated with Better Outcomes in Patients with Knee But Not Hip Osteoarthritis: The DECIDE-OA Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend shared surgical decision-making, yet it is unclear whether shared decision-making improves health outcomes in patients who are considering knee and hip replacement. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether patients who made high-quality, informed, patient-centered (IPC) decisions had better health outcomes, higher satisfaction, and less decision regret compared with those who made lower-quality decisions.

METHODS

A multisite, randomized study of 2 decision aids for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis was utilized to collect data on decision-making and health outcomes at 2 time points: shortly after the initial surgical evaluation and about 6 months after treatment. We calculated the percentage of patients who made an IPC decision and examined the a priori hypotheses that IPC decisions would be associated with better health outcomes, satisfaction, and less regret at 6 months. Linear and logistic regression models were utilized to examine the relationships.

RESULTS

The analytic sample included 854 patients with a mean age of 65 years (standard deviation, 9 years), of whom 58% were female, 93% were White non-Hispanic, 67% had knee (compared with hip) osteoarthritis, and 62% underwent operative treatment within 6 months of the initial evaluation. The majority of patients (68%) made IPC decisions. The IPC group had significantly larger gains in quality of life (mean difference in EuroQol-5 Dimension, 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.07; p < 0.001) compared with the non-IPC group. For knee patients, the IPC group also had significantly better Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (mean difference, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 8.3; p = 0.004), higher satisfaction (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.3; p = 0.003), much better pain relief (aOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.5; p = 0.002), and were more likely to have no decision regret (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.1; p = 0.003). For hip patients, IPC decisions were not associated with better Harris hip scores or satisfaction and were associated with more regret.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher-quality decisions predicted small improvements in health outcomes, as well as greater satisfaction and less regret for patients with knee osteoarthritis, but not for patients with hip osteoarthritis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Real-world patient data: Can they support decision making and patient engagement?

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) capture data related to patients' perception of their health status and aspects of health care delivery. In parallel, digital innovations have advanced the administration, storage, processing, and accessibility of PROs, allowing these data to become actively incorporated in day-to-day clinical practice along the entire patient care pathway. Further, the emergence of shared decision making, where patients are engaged in informed treatment selection aligned with their preferences, values, and needs, can be realized by PROs and technology. This technology-enabled, data-driven approach provides insights which, when actioned, can enhance musculoskeletal care of patients and populations, while enriching the clinician-patient experience of decision making. In this review, we provide an overview of the opportunities enabled by PROs and technology for the cycle of orthopedic care.

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

Background

Clinical guidelines recommend engaging patients in shared decision making for common orthopedic procedures; however, limited work has assessed what is occurring in practice. This study assessed the quality of shared decision making for elective hip and knee replacement and spine surgery at four network-affiliated hospitals.

Methods

A cross-sectional sample of 875 adult patients undergoing total hip or knee joint replacement (TJR) for osteoarthritis or spine surgery for lumbar herniated disc or lumbar spinal stenosis was selected. Patients were mailed a survey including measures of Shared Decision Making (SDMP scale) and Informed, Patient-Centered (IPC) decisions. We examined decision-making across sites, surgeons, and conditions, and whether the decision-making measures were associated with better health outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for clustering of patients within surgeons.

Results

Six hundred forty-six surveys (74% response rate) were returned with sufficient responses for analysis. Patients who had TJR reported lower SDMP scores than patients who had spine surgery (2.2 vs. 2.8; p < 0.001). Patients who had TJR were more likely to make IPC decisions (OA = 70%, Spine = 41%; p < 0.001). SDMP and IPC scores varied widely across surgeons, but the site was not predictive of SDMP scores or IPC decisions (all p > 0.09). Higher SDMP scores and IPC decisions were associated with larger improvements in global health outcomes for patients who had TJR, but not patients who had spine surgery.

Conclusions

Measures of shared decision making and decision quality varied among patients undergoing common elective orthopedic procedures. Routine measurement of shared decision making provides insight into areas of strength across these different orthopedic conditions as well as areas in need of improvement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04853-x.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Effectiveness of patient decision aids for total hip and knee arthroplasty decision-making: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) compared to alternative interventions (including usual care) on decision quality and quality of the decision-making process for adults with hip and knee osteoarthritis considering primary elective total joint arthroplasty.

METHODS

A systematic review guided by Cochrane methods and PRISMA reporting guidelines. Studies were searched in five databases. Included studies were RCTs evaluating the effect of PtDAs on total joint arthroplasty decision-making. Study quality was appraised with Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Quality and strength of recommendations were appraised with GRADE.

RESULTS

Ten included studies were conducted in North American using the same PtDA. Compared to usual care, PtDA groups demonstrated increased decision quality (e.g., higher knowledge, more informed values-based choices) and quality of the decision making process (e.g., decreased decisional conflict) (6 trials). Secondary outcomes showed increased surgeon satisfaction within the consultation and no difference in patient satisfaction or uptake of the chosen option (surgery: RR 1.03, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.25; I² = 66%; 4 trials). When PtDAs formtats were compared, there were similar effects but no difference between PtDAs (4 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

There was low to very low GRADE certainty of evidence for the effect of PtDAs on decision quality and quality of the decision-making process compared to usual care. No differences were found when different formats of PtDAs were compared (moderate to very low GRADE certainty of evidence).

Qualitative characterizations of misinformed disclosure reactions to medications for opioid use disorders and their consequences

INTRODUCTION

Methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone medications are among the most effective treatment options for opioid use disorders, yet many people remain misinformed about their benefits and hold negative perceptions about the use of medications to treat opioid use disorders. Such perceptions, especially negative perceptions based on misinformation, may be especially harmful or stigmatizing within the context of disclosure (i.e., telling another about one's opioid use disorder history or treatment), inhibiting important recovery outcomes and sources of social support.

METHODS

Therefore, using the Disclosure Process Model as a framework, the current study seeks to characterize and compare participants' perceptions of stigmatizing reactions to their disclosures of MOUD use that stem from misinformation about methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone. Participants included people who are actively receiving MOUD as treatment.

RESULTS

Results suggest that participants (N = 52) receiving both types of medications experienced similar stigmatizing reactions to disclosures. Participants also reported treatment consequences of misinformed reactions to their disclosure, such as dropping out of support groups (e.g., Narcotics Anonymous) or prematurely ending their medication use. Further, the paper provides participants' recommendations for avoiding or managing misinformed disclosure reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term intervention efforts may promote strategies to manage misinformation, equipping individuals to respond to misinformation surrounding their medication use. Long-term interventions may target misinformation about methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone medications to increase health literacy, reduce stigma, and combat cultural ambivalence within communities, as well as promote recovery among people receiving medications for opioid use disorder.

An individualized decision aid for physicians and patients for total knee replacement in osteoarthritis (Value-based TKR study): study protocol for a multi-center, stepped wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

Total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the most commonly performed routine procedures in the world. Prognostic studies indicate that the number of TKR will further increase constituting growing burden on healthcare systems. There is also substantial regional heterogeneity in TKR rates within and between countries. Despite the known therapeutic effects, a subset of patients undergoing TKR does not benefit from the procedure as intended. To improve the appropriateness of TKR indication, the EKIT initiative (“evidence and consensus based indication critera for total arthroplasty”) developed a clinical guideline for Germany on the indication of TKR. This guideline is the basis for a digital medical decision aid (EKIT tool) to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) in order to improve decision quality for elective surgery. The aim of this cluster randomized trial is to investigate the effectiveness of the EKIT tool on decision quality.

Methods

The Value-based TKR study is a prospective pragmatic multi-center, stepped wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial (SW-RCT). The EKIT tool provides (1) a systematic presentation of individual patient and disease-specific information (symptoms, expectations), (2) the fulfillment of the indication criteria and (3) health information about safety and effectiveness of TKR. All study sites will follow routine care as control clusters until the start of the intervention. In total, there will be 10 clusters (study sites) and 6 sequential steps over 16 month, with clusters receiving the intervention with a minimum 2 months of standard routine care. The primary outcome is patients’ decision quality measured with the Decision Quality Instrument (DQI)-Knee Osteoarthritis questionnaire. Furthermore, we will collect information on global patient satisfaction, patient reported outcome measures and the fulfilment of the individual expectations 12 months after SDM. The power calculation yielded an estimated power of 89% using robust Poisson regression under the following assumptions: 10 study sites with a total of N=1,080 patients (including a dropout rate of 11%), a 10% increase in decision quality due to the use of the EKIT tool, and a significance level of 5%.

Discussion

There is a high potential for transferring the intervention into routine practice if the evaluation is positive.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04837053. Registered on 08/04/2021.

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.

Psychometric evaluation of a decision quality instrument for medication decisions for treatment of depression symptoms

BACKGROUND

A high quality treatment decision means patients are informed and receive treatment that matches their goals. This research examined the reliability and validity of the Depression Decision Quality Instrument (DQI), a survey to measure the extent to which patients are informed and received preferred treatment for depression.

METHODS

Participants were aged 18 and older from 17 US cities who discussed medication or counseling with a physician in the past year, and physicians who treated patients with depression who practiced in the same cities. Participants were mailed a survey that included the Depression-DQI, a tool with 10 knowledge and 7 goal and concern items. Patients were randomly assigned to either receive a patient decision aid (DA) on treatment of depression or no DA. A matching score was created by comparing the patient's preferred treatment to their self-reported treatment received. Concordant scores were considered matched, discordant were not. We examined the reliability and known group validity of the Depression-DQI.

RESULTS

Most patients 405/504 (80%) responded, 79% (320/405) returned the retest survey, and 60% (114/187) of physicians returned the survey. Patients' knowledge scores on the 10-item scale ranged from 14.6 to 100% with no evidence of floor or ceiling effects. Retest reliability for knowledge was moderate and for goals and concerns ranged from moderate to good. Mean knowledge scores differentiated between patients and physicians (M = 63 [SD = 15] vs. M = 81 [SD = 11], p < 0.001), and between patients who did and didn't receive a DA (M = 64 [SD = 16] vs. M = 61 [SD = 14], p = 0.041). 60.5% of participants received treatment that matched their preference. Based on the multivariate logistic regression, 'avoiding taking anti-depressants' was the only goal that was predictive of taking mediation (OR = 0.73 [0.66, 0.80], p < 0.01). Shared Decision Making Process scores were similar for those who matched their preference and those who didn't (M = 2.18 [SD = 0.97] vs. M = 2.06 [SD = 1.07]; t(320) =  - 1.06, p = 0.29). Those who matched had lower regret scores (matched M = 1.72 [SD = 0.74] vs. unmatched M = 2.32 [SD = 0.8]; t(301) =  - 6.6, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The Depression DQI demonstrated modest reliability and validity. More work is needed to establish validity of the method to determine concordance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01152307.

Effects of a medical second opinion programme on patients' decision for or against knee arthroplasty and their satisfaction with the programme

BACKGROUND

German social legislation gives patients the right to obtain a second opinion before elective surgery and defines quality criteria for reimbursement by statutory health insurances. However, the effects of second opinions before elective surgery are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a second opinion programme in patients recommended for knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

The largest statutory health insurance funds in Bavaria offered patients who had been recommended to have knee arthroplasty the opportunity to partake in a second opinion programme which consisted of an in person presentation to an experienced knee surgeon. In this cohort study, consecutive patients from this second opinion programme who signed informed consent were included from 07/10/2016 to 14/02/2020. Data were collected before and after the second opinion visit.

RESULTS

A total of 141 (66%) of 215 patients who presented for a second opinion participated in the evaluation study. The second opinion physician recommended knee arthroplasty to 40% of the patients, later knee arthroplasty if the conditions worsened to 40%, and no knee arthroplasty to 20%. After receiving the second opinion 28 of 56 (41%) undecided patients preferred knee arthroplasty, 14 no knee arthroplasty, 14 remained undecided. Four of 46 patients with a preference for "arthroplasty" changed their decision to "no arthroplasty", five of 35 patients from "no arthroplasty" to "arthroplasty". The patients were more confident in their decision according to the decision confidence scale (before: 5.4 ± 3.0; after: 7.8 ± 2.5; p < 0.001). They rated their satisfaction with the second opinion programme with a mean grade of 1.35 (± 0.60) (best:1; worst:6). Logistic regression analyses showed that the recommendation of the second opinion physician for joint arthroplasty was associated with the guideline criteria radiological severity of osteoarthritis (p = 0.001) and knee-joint-specific quality of life (p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

The second opinion of an experienced knee surgeon frequently deviates from the initial recommendation for knee arthroplasty. The association of guideline criteria to the second recommendation suggests a high quality of the second opinion. From the patient perspective, the second opinion reduces uncertainties in their treatment decision.

Do Decision Aids Benefit Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To review the effect of patient decision aids for adults making treatment decisions regarding the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of adults using patient decision aids to make treatment decisions for chronic musculoskeletal pain in the outpatient setting.

RESULTS

Of 477 records screened, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions included osteoarthritis of the hip, knee, or trapeziometacarpal joint and back pain. Thirteen studies evaluated the use of a decision aid for deciding between surgical and nonsurgical management. The remaining four studies evaluated decision aids for nonsurgical treatment options. Outcomes included decision quality, pain, function, and surgery utilization. The effects of decision aids on decision-making outcomes were mixed. Comparing decision aids with usual care, all five studies that examined knowledge scores found improvement in patient knowledge. None of the four studies that evaluated satisfaction with the decision-making process found a difference with use of a decision aid. There was limited and inconsistent data on other decision-related outcomes. Of the eight studies that evaluated surgery utilization, seven found no difference in surgery rates with use of a decision aid. Five studies made comparisons between different types of decision aids, and there was no clearly superior format.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids may improve patients' knowledge about treatment options for chronic musculoskeletal pain but largely did not impact other outcomes. Future efforts should focus on improving the effectiveness of decision aids and incorporating nonpharmacologic and nonsurgical management options.

Are We Improving? Update and Critical Appraisal of the Reporting of Decision Process and Quality Measures in Trials Evaluating Patient Decision Aids

Background

In 2014, a systematic review found large gaps in the quality of reporting of measures used in 86 published trials evaluating the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs). The purpose of this study was to update that review.

Methods

We examined measures of decision making used in 49 randomized controlled trials included in the 2014 and 2017 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of PtDAs. Data on development of the measures, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability were independently abstracted by 2 paired reviewers.

Results

Information from 273 measures was abstracted, and 109 of these covered the core domains of decision processes (n = 55) and decision quality including informed choice/knowledge (n = 48) and values-choice concordance (n = 12). Very few studies reported data on the performance and clinical sensibility of measures, with reliability (23%) and validity (6%) being the most common. Studies using new measures were less likely to include information about their psychometric performance compared with previously published measures.

Limitations

The review was limited to reporting of measures in studies included in the Cochrane review and did not consult prior publications.

Conclusion

There continues to be very little reported about the development or performance of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PtDAs in published trials. Minimum reporting standards have been published, and efforts to require investigators to use them are needed.

Comparison of an Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Patient Decision Aid vs Educational Material on Decision Quality, Shared Decision-Making, Patient Experience, and Functional Outcomes in Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Decision aids can help inform appropriate selection of total knee replacement (TKR) for advanced knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, few decision aids combine patient education, preference assessment, and artificial intelligence (AI) using patient-reported outcome measurement data to generate personalized estimations of outcomes to augment shared decision-making (SDM).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of an AI-enabled patient decision aid that includes education, preference assessment, and personalized outcome estimations (using patient-reported outcome measurements) on decision quality, patient experience, functional outcomes, and process-level outcomes among individuals with advanced knee OA considering TKR in comparison with education only.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial at a single US academic orthopedic practice included 129 new adult patients presenting for OA-related knee pain from March 2019 to January 2020. Data were analyzed from April to May 2020.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized into a group that received a decision aid including patient education, preference assessment, and personalized outcome estimations (intervention group) or a group receiving educational material only (control group) alongside usual care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was decision quality, measured using the Knee OA Decision Quality Instrument (K-DQI). Secondary outcomes were collaborative decision-making (assessed using the CollaboRATE survey), patient satisfaction with consultation (using a numerical rating scale), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) score, consultation time, TKR rate, and treatment concordance.

RESULTS

A total of 69 patients in the intervention group (46 [67%] women) and 60 patients in the control group (37 [62%] women) were included in the analysis. The intervention group showed better decisional quality (K-DQI mean difference, 20.0%; SE, 3.02; 95% CI, 14.2%-26.1%; P < .001), collaborative decision-making (CollaboRATE, 8 of 69 [12%] vs 28 of 60 [47%] patients below median; P < .001), satisfaction (numerical rating scale, 9 of 65 [14%] vs 19 of 58 [33%] patients below median; P = .01), and improved functional outcomes at 4 to 6 months (mean [SE] KOOS JR, 4.9 [2.24] points higher in intervention group; 95% CI, 0.8-9.0 points; P = .02). The intervention did not significantly affect consultation time (mean [SE] difference, 2.23 [2.18] minutes; P = .31), TKR rates (16 of 69 [23%] vs 7 of 60 [12%] patients; P = .11), or treatment concordance (58 of 69 [84%] vs 44 of 60 [73%] patients; P = .19).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, an AI-enabled decision aid significantly improved decision quality, level of SDM, satisfaction, and physical limitations without significantly impacting consultation times, TKR rates, or treatment concordance in patients with knee OA considering TKR. Decision aids using a personalized, data-driven approach can enhance SDM in the management of knee OA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03956004.

Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure

Background

The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity.

Method

Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results.

Results

Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality ( d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores ( d = 0.57, P < 0.001), and lower decision regret ( d = −0.34, P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was present in all validity analyses.

Limitations

Included studies all focused on surgical decisions, several had small sample sizes, and many were retrospective.

Conclusion

SDM Process scores showed resilience to coding changes, and a scheme using the short, partial credit, with equal weights was adopted. The SDM Process scores demonstrated a small, positive relationship with decision quality and were consistently related to lower decision conflict and less regret, providing evidence of validity across several surgical decisions.

Choice of dialysis modality: patients' experiences and quality of decision after shared decision-making

BACKGROUND

Patients with kidney failure experience a complex decision on dialysis modality performed either at home or in hospital. The options have different levels of impact on their physical and psychological condition and social life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an intervention designed to achieve shared decision-making for dialysis choice. Specific objectives were: 1) to measure decision quality as indicated by patients' knowledge, readiness and achieved preferences; and 2) to determine if patients experienced shared decision-making.

METHOD

A mixed methods descriptive study was conducted using both questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Eligible participants were adults with kidney failure considering dialysis modality. The intervention, based on the Three-Talk model, consisted of a patient decision aid and decision coaching meetings provided by trained dialysis coordinators. The intervention was delivered to 349 patients as part of their clinical pathway of care. After the intervention, 148 participants completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and the Decision Quality Measurement, and 29 participants were interviewed. Concordance between knowledge, decision and preference was calculated to measure decision quality. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively.

RESULTS

The participants obtained a mean score for shared decision-making of 86 out of 100. There was no significant difference between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (97 versus 83; p = 0.627). The participants obtained a knowledge score of 82% and a readiness score of 86%. Those choosing home-based treatment had higher knowledge score than those choosing hospital-based treatment (84% versus 75%; p = 0.006) but no significant difference on the readiness score (87% versus 84%; p = 0.908). Considering the chosen option and the knowledge score, 83% of the participants achieved a high-quality decision. No significant difference was found for decision quality between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (83% versus 83%; p = 0.935). Interview data informed the interpretation of these results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was no control group, over 80% of participants exposed to the intervention and responded to the surveys experienced shared decision-making and reached a high-quality decision. Both participants who chose home- and hospital-based treatment experienced the intervention as shared decision-making and made a high-quality decision. Qualitative findings supported the quantitative results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The full trial protocol is available at ClinicalTrials. Gov ( NCT03868800 ). The study has been registered retrospectively.

Advanced decision-making using patient-reported outcome measures in total joint replacement

Up to one-third of total joint replacement (TJR) procedures may be performed inappropriately in a subset of patients who remain dissatisfied with their outcomes, stressing the importance of shared decision-making. Patient-reported outcome measures capture physical, emotional, and social aspects of health and wellbeing from the patient's perspective. Powerful computer systems capable of performing highly sophisticated analysis using different types of data, including patient-derived data, such as patient-reported outcomes, may eliminate guess work, generating impactful metrics to better inform the decision-making process. We have created a shared decision-making tool which generates personalized predictions of risks and benefits from TJR based on patient-reported outcomes as well as clinical and demographic data. We present the protocol for a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the impact of this tool on decision quality, level of shared decision-making, and patient and process outcomes. We also discuss current concepts in this field and highlight opportunities leveraging patient-reported data and artificial intelligence for decision support across the care continuum.

Routine patient-reported experience measurement of shared decision-making in the USA: a qualitative study of the current state according to frontrunners

OBJECTIVES

To identify and describe instances of routine patient-reported shared decision-making (SDM) measurement in the USA, and to explore barriers and facilitators of routine patient-reported SDM measurement for quality improvement.

SETTING

Payer and provider healthcare organisations in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Current or former adult employees of healthcare organisations with prior SDM activity and that may be conducting routine SDM measurement (n=21).

OUTCOMES

Qualitative interview and survey data collected through snowball sampling recruitment strategy to inform barriers and facilitators of routine patient-reported SDM measurement.

RESULTS

Three participating sites routinely measured SDM from patients' perspectives, including one payer organisation and two provider organisations-with the largest measurement effort taking place in the payer organisation. Facilitators of SDM measurement included SDM as a core organisational value or strategic priority, trialability of SDM measurement programmes, flexibility in how measures can be administered and existing momentum from payer-mandated measurement programmes. Barriers included competing organisational priorities with regard to patient-reported measurement and lack of perceived comparative advantage of patient-reported SDM measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers have a unique opportunity to encourage emphasis on SDM within healthcare organisations, including routine patient-reported measurement of SDM; however, provider organisations are currently best placed to make effective use of this type of data.

Decision Support Strategies for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: Less Is More: A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial (DECIDE-OA Study)

BACKGROUND

As guidelines and payers increasingly recommend use of patient decision aids (DAs), evidence about the comparative effectiveness of available DAs is critical for organizations interested in implementing them. The primary purpose of this study was to compare 2 DAs with regard to their ability to help patients become informed and receive their preferred treatment (that is, make an informed patient-centered decision), shared decision-making, surgical rates, and surgeon satisfaction.

METHODS

We performed a multisite factorial randomized trial enrolling patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly assigned to use a long, detailed DA (long DA) or short, interactive DA (short DA). Eight surgeons were randomly assigned to receive a patient preference report detailing the patient's goals and treatment preferences or to administer usual care.

RESULTS

We distributed 1,636 pre-visit surveys, 1,220 of which were returned (75% response rate), and 1,124 post-visit surveys, 967 of which were returned (86% response rate). The patients in the sample had a mean age (and standard deviation) of 65 ± 10 years, 57% were female, 89% were white non-Hispanic, and 67% had knee osteoarthritis. The majority (67.2%) made informed patient-centered decisions, and the rate did not vary significantly between the DA groups (p = 0.97) or between the surgeon groups (p = 0.23). Knowledge scores were higher for the short-DA group (mean difference = 9%; p < 0.001). More than half of the sample (60.5%) had surgery within 6 months after the visit, and rates did not differ significantly by DA or surgeon group. Overall, the surgeons were highly satisfied and reported that the majority (88.7%) of the visits were of normal duration or shorter.

CONCLUSIONS

The DECIDE-OA study is, to our knowledge, the first randomized comparative effectiveness study of 2 orthopaedic DAs. The short DA outperformed the long DA with regard to knowledge scores and was comparable with respect to other outcomes. The surgeons reported high satisfaction and normal visit duration with both DAs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Surgeons need to ensure that patients with osteoarthritis are well-informed and have a clear preference regarding whether to undergo hip or knee replacement surgery. The DAs used in this study may help surgeons involve patients in elective surgery decisions and meet the requirements of informed consent.

Impact of Timing on Measurement of Decision Quality and Shared Decision Making: Longitudinal Cohort Study of Breast Cancer Patients

Purpose.The objective of this study was to examine whether scores of shared decision-making measures differ when collected shortly after (1 month) or long after (1 year) breast cancer surgical treatment decisions. Methods. Longitudinal, multisite survey of breast cancer (BC) patients, with measurements at 1 month and 1 year after surgery at 4 cancer centers. Patients completed the BC Surgery Decision Quality Instrument (used to generate a knowledge score, ratings of goals, and concordance with treatment preferences) and Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process survey at both time points. We tested several hypotheses related to the scores over time, including whether the scores discriminated between sites that did and did not offer formal decision support services. Exploratory analyses examined factors associated with large increases and decreases in scores over time. Results. Across the 4 sites, 229 patients completed both assessments. The mean total knowledge scores (69.2% [SD 16.6%] at 1 month and 69.4% [SD 17.7%] at 1 year, P = 0.86), SDM Process scores (2.7 [SD 1.1] 1 month v. 2.7 [SD 1.2] 1 year, P = 0.68), and the percentage of patients receiving their preferred treatment (92% at 1 month and 92% at 1 year, P = 1.0) were not significantly different over time. The site using formal decision support had significantly higher knowledge and SDM Process scores at 1 month, and only the SDM Process scores remained significantly higher at 1 year. A significant percentage of patients had large changes in their individual knowledge and SDM Process scores, with increases balancing out decreases. Conclusion. For population-level assessments, it is reasonable to survey BC patients up to a year after the decision, greatly increasing feasibility of measurement. For those evaluating decision support interventions, shorter follow-up is more likely to detect an impact on knowledge scores.

Duration of military service is associated with decision quality in Veterans considering total knee replacement: case series

Purpose

Due to the nature of military service, the patient–physician relationship in Veterans is unlike that seen in civilian life. The structure of the military is hypothesized to result in barriers to open patient–physician communication and patient participation in elective care decision-making. Decision quality is a measure of concordance between a chosen treatment and the aspects of medical care that matter most to an informed patient; high decision quality is synonymous with patient-centered care. While past research has examined how age and other demographic factors affect decision quality in Veterans, duration of military service, rank at discharge, and years since discharge have not been studied.

Patients and methods

We enrolled 25 Veterans with knee osteoarthritis at a VA hospital. Enrollees completed a survey with demographic, military service, and decision-making preference questions and the Hip-Knee Decision Quality Instrument (HK-DQI), which measures patients’ knowledge about their disease process, concordance of their treatment decision, and the considered elements in their decision-making process.

Results

The HK-DQI knowledge score had a significant, positive correlation with duration of military service (R²=0.36, p=0.004). Rank at discharge and years since discharge did not show a significant correlation with decision quality (p=0.500 and p=0.317, respectively). The concordance score did not show a statistically significant correlation with rank, duration of service, and years since discharge (p=0.640, p=0.486 and p=0.795, respectively). Additionally, decision process score was not significantly associated with rank, duration of military service, and years since discharge (p=0.380, p=0.885, and p=0.474, respectively).

Conclusion

Decision quality in Veterans considering treatment for knee osteoarthritis appears to be correlated positively with duration of military service. These findings may present an opportunity for identification of Veterans at most risk of low decision quality and customization of shared decision-making methods for Veterans by characteristics of military service.

Comparison of Three Measures of Shared Decision Making: SDM Process_4, CollaboRATE, and SURE Scales

Objective. If shared decision making (SDM) is to be part of quality assessment, it is necessary to have good measures of SDM. The purpose of this study is to compare the psychometric performance of 3 short patient-reported measures of SDM. Methods. Patients who met with a specialist to discuss possible surgery for hip or knee osteoarthritis (hips/knees), lumbar herniated disc, or lumbar spinal stenosis (backs) were surveyed shortly after the visit and again 6 months later. Some of the patients saw a patient decision aid (PDA) prior to the meeting. The 3 SDM measures were the SDM Process_4 (SDMP) survey, CollaboRATE, and SURE scale. The follow-up survey included measures of decision regret, satisfaction, and decision quality. Results. Patients in the sample (N = 649) had a mean age of 63.3 years, 51% were female, 60% were college educated, and there were more hip/knee patients than back patients (69% v. 31%). Forty-nine percent had surgery. For hips/knees, the SDMP and SURE scores were significantly associated with viewing all of the PDA compared with those who did not (P < 0.001), but not for CollaboRATE (P = 0.35). For backs, none of the scores were significantly associated with viewing all the PDA. All 3 scores were significantly associated with less regret and higher satisfaction (P < 0.001) for hips/knees. For backs, only SURE and CollaboRATE were significantly associated with less regret, and only SDMP was significantly associated with higher satisfaction. For hips/knees and backs, the SDMP and SURE scales were significantly associated with an informed patient-centered decision (P < 0.001), but this relationship was not significant for CollaboRATE (hips/knees: P = 0.24; backs: P = 0.25). Discussion. Each measure has some evidence of validity. SURE and SDMP better discriminate the use of PDAs and have higher decision quality.

Pilot Study Examining Feasibility and Comparing the Effectiveness of Decision Aids for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Trial

Background. There are many patient decision aids (DAs) available, yet there is limited evidence on comparative effectiveness of different tools. Objective. To examine feasibility of a study protocol and gather preliminary data on comparative effectiveness. Methods. Adult patients seeing a surgeon to discuss treatment for hip or knee osteoarthritis were randomized to hip and knee DAs from two vendors. Pre-visit survey included Hip/Knee Decision Quality Instrument, DA usage, health literacy, and quality of life (EQ-5D). Surgical status was ascertained 6 months post-visit. We examined response rates, eligibility, and compared the two DAs on amount of use, knowledge scores, and receipt of preferred treatment. Results. Overall response rate was 58/74 (78%) and did not differ by study arm. More patients in DA-A group reported reviewing all the DAs (64.5% DA-A v. 24.0% DA-B, P = 0.003). Knowledge scores were similar across arms (55.2% DA-A v. 48.8% DA-B, P = 0.4). For DA-B, knowledge scores were higher for those who reviewed all the DAs compared with those who did not (80% knowledge v. 39% knowledge, respectively, P = 0.004), while scores for DA-A did not vary by usage (62% knowledge v. 53% knowledge, respectively, P = 0.3). A similar percentage of each group received their preferred treatment (77% v. 73%, P = 0.8). Patients who were unsure about preferred treatment at baseline were more likely to have surgery in the DA-A arm compared with the DA-B arm (55% v. 20%, P = 0.1). Limitations. Small sample; patients were only surveyed pre-visit. Conclusion. Despite having different content and formats, the two DAs had similar overall effectiveness. Patients were more likely to review all of DA-A; however, patients who reviewed all of DA-B had the highest knowledge scores.

Protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the comparative effectiveness of strategies to promote shared decision making for hip and knee osteoarthritis (DECIDE-OA study)

INTRODUCTION

There are several different interventions available to promote shared decision making (SDM); however, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of different approaches.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of patient-directed and physician-directed decision support strategies on the quality of treatment decisions for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA).

TRIAL DESIGN

A 2×2 factorial randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

One academic medical centre, one community hospital and one orthopaedic specialty hospital.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

The enrolment targets were 8 surgeons and 1120 patients diagnosed with hip or knee OA. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two different decision aids (DAs) stratified by site. The DAs varied in length, content and the level of detail regarding treatment options. Both DAs were available by paper or online.Surgeons were randomly assigned to receive a report detailing patients' goals and treatment preferences at the time of the visit or not. Eligible patients received their assigned DA before their visit and completed three surveys: before the visit (timepoint (T)1), 1-week postvisit (T2) and 6 months from either the visit date or surgery date for patients who underwent surgery (T3). Study staff and participating surgeons were not blinded, but the statistician conducting the analyses was blinded to the arms.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND ANALYSIS

The primary study outcome was decision quality, the percentage of patients who were well informed and received their preferred treatment. Secondary outcomes included involvement in decision making, surgical rates, health outcomes, decision regret and satisfaction. A logistic regression model with the generalised estimating equations approach was used to compare rates of decision quality between the groups and account for the clustering of patients within providers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained through the institutional review board at the main site. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02729831; Pre-results.

An individualized patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) based patient decision aid and surgeon report for patients considering total knee arthroplasty: protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

While the rates of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continue to rise worldwide, there are concerns about whether all surgeries are appropriate. Guidelines for appropriateness suggest that patients should have realistic expectations for total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and that the patient and their surgeon should agree that the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether routinely collected pre- and post-TKA patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could be integrated into a patient decision aid to better inform these appropriateness criteria. This randomised trial will evaluate the preliminary efficacy of a tailored PROM-based patient decision aid and surgeon report (compared to usual care) for patients considering TKA on decision quality.

METHODS

This is a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial conducted at one site in Alberta, Canada. Adults over the age of 30 years, who have been scheduled for a TKA consultation at the Edmonton Bone and Joint Centre with a participating surgeon, who understand, speak, and read English, and can provide informed consent, are eligible to participate. Participants will be randomised to receive a PROM-based patient decision aid and surgeon report before their surgical consultation or usual care. The decision aid will provide patients with information on their expected outcomes based on the EQ-5D-5L PROM, and these estimates are individualized based on clinical and demographic characteristics. The primary outcome of this trial is decision quality. Analysis will consider outcomes intention to treat, and feasibility outcomes for implementing the trial to routine practise.

DISCUSSION

This patient decision aid and surgeon report intervention could contribute to improved treatment decision-making for patients considering total knee arthroplasty.

TRIAL REGISTRATION (REGISTRY AND NUMBER)

ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03240913. Registered on August 1, 2017.

Responsiveness of a Brief Measure of Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge

Our aim was to examine the responsiveness of a lung cancer screening brief knowledge measure (LCS-12). Eligible participants were aged 55-80 years, current smokers or had quit within 15 years, and English speaking. They completed a baseline pretest survey, viewed a lung cancer screening video-based patient decision aid, and then filled out a follow-up posttest survey. We performed a paired samples t-test, calculated effect size, and calculated absolute and relative percent improvement for each item. Participants (n = 30) were primarily White (63%) with less than a college degree (63%), and half were female (50%). Mean age was 61.5 years (standard deviation [SD] = 4.67) and average smoking history was 30.4 pack-years (range = 4.6-90.0). Mean score on the 12-item measure increased from 47.3% correct on the pretest to 80.3% correct on the posttest (mean pretest score = 5.67 vs. mean posttest score = 9.63; mean score difference = 3.97, SD = 2.87, 95% CI = 2.90, 5.04). Total knowledge scores improved significantly and were responsive to the decision aid intervention (paired samples t-test = 7.57, p < .001; Cohen's effect size = 1.59; standard response mean [SRM] = 1.38). All individual items were responsive, yet two items had lower absolute responsiveness than the others (item 8: "Without screening, is lung cancer often found at a later stage when cure is less likely?" pretest correct = 83.3% vs. posttest = 96.7%, responsiveness = 13.4%; and item 10: "Can a CT scan find lung disease that is not cancer?" pretest correct = 80.0% vs. posttest = 93.3%, responsiveness = 13.3%). The LCS-12 knowledge measure may be a useful outcome measure of shared decision making for lung cancer screening.

Military Service and Decision Quality in the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis

Background

Decision quality measures the degree to which care decisions are knowledge-based and value-aligned. Because military service emphasizes hierarchy, command, and mandates some healthcare decisions, military service may attenuate patient autonomy in healthcare decisions and lower decision quality. VA is the nation's largest provider of orthopedic care. We compared decision quality in a sample of VA and non-VA patients seeking care for knee osteoarthritis.

Methods

Our study sample consisted of patients newly referred to our orthopedic clinic for the management of knee osteoarthritis. None of the study patients were exposed to a knee osteoarthritis decision aid. Consenting patients were administered the Hip/Knee Decision Quality Instrument (HK-DQI). In addition, they were surveyed about decision-making preferences and demographics. We compared results to a non-VA cohort from our academic institution's arthroplasty database.

Results

The HK-DQI Knowledge Score was lower in the VA cohort (45%, SD = 22, n = 25) compared with the non-VA cohort (53%, SD = 21, n = 177) (p = 0.04). The Concordance Score was lower in the VA cohort (36%, SD = 49%) compared with the control cohort (70%, SD 46%) (p = 0.003). Non-VA patients were more likely to make a high-quality decision (p = 0.05). Non-VA patients were more likely to favor a shared decision-making process (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Decision quality is lower in Veterans with knee osteoarthritis compared with civilians, placing them at risk for lower treatment satisfaction and possibly unwarranted surgical utilization. Our future work will examine if this difference is from conditioned military service behaviors or confounding demographic factors, and if conventional shared decision-making techniques will correct this deficiency.

Resistance to discontinuing breast cancer screening in older women: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Screening mammography is associated with reduced breast cancer-specific mortality; however, among older women, evidence suggests that the potential harms of screening may outweigh the benefits. We used a qualitative approach to examine the willingness of older women from different racial/ethnic groups to discontinue breast cancer screening.

METHODS

Women ≥70 years of age who reported having a screening mammogram in the past 3 years and/or reported that they intended to continue screening in the future were recruited for in-depth interviews. Participants who intended to continue screening were asked to describe how the following hypothetical scenarios would impact a decision to discontinue screening: health concerns or limited life expectancy, a physician's recommendation to discontinue, reluctance to undergo treatment, and recommendations from experts or governmental panels to stop screening. Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were audio-recorded. Data coding and analysis followed inductive and deductive approaches.

RESULTS

Regardless of the scenario, participants (n = 29) expressed a strong intention to continue screening. Based on the hypothetical physician recommendations, intentions to continue screening appeared to remain strong. They did not envision a change in their health status that would lead them to discontinue screening and were skeptical of expert/government recommendations. There were no differences observed according to age, race/ethnicity, or education.

CONCLUSIONS

Among older women who planned to continue screening, intentions to continue breast cancer screening appear to be highly resilient and resistant to recommendations from physicians or expert/government panels.

Explanation and elaboration of the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines: examples of reporting SUNDAE items from patient decision aid evaluation literature

This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) article expands on the 26 items in the Standards for UNiversal reporting of Decision Aid Evaluations guidelines. The E&E provides a rationale for each item and includes examples for how each item has been reported in published papers evaluating patient decision aids. The E&E focuses on items key to reporting studies evaluating patient decision aids and is intended to be illustrative rather than restrictive. Authors and reviewers may wish to use the E&E broadly to inform structuring of patient decision aid evaluation reports, or use it as a reference to obtain details about how to report individual checklist items.

Effect of patient decision aid was influenced by presurgical evaluation among patients with osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND

Decision aids help patients make total joint arthroplasty decisions, but presurgical evaluation might influence the effects of a decision aid. We compared the effects of a decision aid among patients considering total knee arthroplasty at 2 surgical screening clinics with different evaluation processes.

METHODS

We performed a subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Patients were recruited from 2 surgical screening clinics: an academic clinic providing 20-minute physician consultations and a community clinic providing 45-minute physiotherapist/nurse consultations with education. We compared the effects of decision quality, decisional conflict and surgery rate using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ² tests and the Breslow-Day test.

RESULTS

We evaluated 242 patients: 123 from the academic clinic (61 who used the decision aid and 62 controls) and 119 from the community clinic (59 who used the decision aid and 60 controls). Results suggested a between-site difference in the effect of the decision aid on the patients' decision quality (p = 0.09): at the academic site, patients who used the decision were more likely to make better-quality decisions than controls (54% v. 35%, p = 0.044), but not at the community site (47% v. 51%, p = 0.71). Fewer patients who used decision aids at the academic site than at the community site experienced decisional conflict (p = 0.007) (33% v. 52%, p = 0.05 at the academic site and 40% v. 24%, p = 0.08 at the community site). The effect of the decision aid on surgery rates did not differ between sites (p = 0.65).

CONCLUSION

The decision aid had a greater effect at the academic site than at the community site, which provided longer consultations with more verbal education. Hence, decision aids might be of greater value when more extensive total knee arthroplasty presurgical assessment and counselling are either impractical or unavailable.

Decision aids for patients considering total joint replacement: a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a key priority to improve patient-centred care, and can play an important role in helping patients decide whether to undergo total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Patient decision aids can support SDM; however, they may incur an upfront cost. We aimed to estimate the health and economic effects of patient decision aids for TJA.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 2-year follow-up. 343 patients were recruited from two orthopedic screening clinics in Ottawa, Canada. Patients were randomized to either a patient decision aid plus surgeon preference report (decision aid) or usual care. Primary outcomes were costs (in 2014 CAD$), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs were calculated by multiplying self-reported resource use by unit costs. QALYs were calculated by mapping the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) to EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) health utilities. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 5%. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data, and bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 167 intervention and 167 control group patients. The decision aid arm had fewer surgeries over the 2-year period thereby incurring a negative incremental cost of -$560 (95% CI: -$1358 to $426) per patient while providing 0.05 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.13) additional QALYs per patient. Consequently, the decision aid arm was dominant.

CONCLUSION

The use of a patient decision aid was associated with fewer health care costs, while producing similar health outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CT00911638 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Patient Decision Aids Improve Decision Quality and Patient Experience and Reduce Surgical Rates in Routine Orthopaedic Care: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are effective in randomized controlled trials, yet little is known about their impact in routine care. The purpose of this study was to examine whether decision aids increase shared decision-making when used in routine care.

METHODS

A prospective study was designed to evaluate the impact of a quality improvement project to increase the use of decision aids for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis, lumbar disc herniation, or lumbar spinal stenosis. A usual care cohort was enrolled before the quality improvement project and an intervention cohort was enrolled after the project. Participants were surveyed 1 week after a specialist visit, and surgical status was collected at 6 months. Regression analyses adjusted for clustering of patients within clinicians and examined the impact on knowledge, patient reports of shared decision-making in the visit, and surgical rates. With 550 surveys, the study had 80% to 90% power to detect a difference in these key outcomes.

RESULTS

The response rates to the 1-week survey were 70.6% (324 of 459) for the usual care cohort and 70.2% (328 of 467) for the intervention cohort. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in any patient characteristic between the 2 cohorts. More patients received decision aids in the intervention cohort at 63.6% compared with the usual care cohort at 27.3% (p = 0.007). Decision aid use was associated with higher knowledge scores, with a mean difference of 18.7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.4 to 26.1 points; p < 0.001) for the usual care cohort and 15.3 points (95% CI, 7.5 to 23.0 points; p = 0.002) for the intervention cohort. Patients reported more shared decision-making (p = 0.009) in the visit with their surgeon in the intervention cohort, with a mean Shared Decision-Making Process score (and standard deviation) of 66.9 ± 27.5 points, compared with the usual care cohort at 62.5 ± 28.6 points. The majority of patients received their preferred treatment, and this did not differ by cohort or decision aid use. Surgical rates were lower in the intervention cohort for those who received the decision aids at 42.3% compared with 58.8% for those who did not receive decision aids (p = 0.023) and in the usual care cohort at 44.3% for those who received decision aids compared with 55.7% for those who did not receive them (p = 0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality improvement project successfully integrated patient decision aids into a busy orthopaedic clinic. When used in routine care, decision aids are associated with increased knowledge, more shared decision-making, and lower surgical rates.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

There is increasing pressure to design systems of care that inform and involve patients in decisions about elective surgery. In this study, the authors found that patient decision aids, when used as part of routine orthopaedic care, were associated with increased knowledge, more shared decision-making, higher patient experience ratings, and lower surgical rates.

Ten Years, Forty Decision Aids, And Thousands Of Patient Uses: Shared Decision Making At Massachusetts General Hospital

Shared decision making is a core component of population health strategies aimed at improving patient engagement. Massachusetts General Hospital's integration of shared decision making into practice has focused on the following three elements: developing a culture receptive to, and health care providers skilled in, shared decision making conversations; using patient decision aids to help inform and engage patients; and providing infrastructure and resources to support the implementation of shared decision making in practice. In the period 2005-15, more than 900 clinicians and other staff members were trained in shared decision making, and more than 28,000 orders for one of about forty patient decision aids were placed to support informed patient-centered decisions. We profile two different implementation initiatives that increased the use of patient decision aids at the hospital's eighteen adult primary care practices, and we summarize key elements of the shared decision making program.

Effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with depression: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Shared decision making is an important component of patient‐centred care and decision aids are tools designed to support patients' decision making and help patients with depression to make informed choices.

Objective

The study aim was to assess the effectiveness of a web‐based decision aid for patients with unipolar depression.

Design

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants

Adults diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and recruited in primary care centres were included and randomized to the decision aid (n=68) or usual care (n=79).

Intervention

Patients in the decision aid group reviewed the decision aid accompanied by a researcher.

Outcome measures

Knowledge about treatment options, decisional conflict, treatment intention and preference for participation in decision making. We also developed a pilot measure of concordance between patients' goals and concerns about treatment options and their treatment intention.

Results

Intervention significantly improved knowledge (P<.001) and decisional conflict (P<.001), and no differences were observed in treatment intention, preferences for participation, or concordance. One of the scales developed to measure goals and concerns showed validity issues.

Conclusion

The decision aid “Decision making in depression” is effective improving knowledge of treatment options and reducing decisional conflict of patients with unipolar depression. More research is needed to establish a valid and reliable measure of concordance between patients' goals and concerns regarding pharmacological and psychological treatment, and the choice made.

Anxiety symptoms prior to a prostate cancer diagnosis: Associations with knowledge and openness to treatment

AIM

Research suggests that anxiety may be a common response to a cancer diagnosis, but research is needed to examine anxiety before diagnosis. Anxiety before diagnosis may relate to the comprehension of relevant health information or openness to potential treatments. This study examined anxiety and these outcomes in men who were waiting to learn of a prostate cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

One goal of this study was to determine whether anxiety would increase as men came closer to learning the results of their prostate cancer biopsy. Another goal was to test whether anxiety was associated with knowledge about prostate cancer or openness to different treatments.

METHODS

Men (N = 265) who were facing a prostate cancer diagnosis were surveyed at two time points. Time 1 occurred at the time of biopsy, and Time 2 occurred immediately before men received their biopsy result. At each time point, men reported their anxiety about prostate cancer and their biopsy result. At Time 2, they completed a knowledge test of information about prostate cancer and reported their openness to different potential treatments.

RESULTS

Anxiety symptoms increased as men came closer to learning their diagnosis. Also, higher anxiety was associated with lower knowledge and greater openness to particular treatments like surgery. Interactions showed that when anxiety increased from Time 1 to Time 2, having high or low knowledge mattered less to treatment openness.

CONCLUSION

Waiting for a cancer diagnosis is an important time period in which anxiety may increase and relate to information processing and openness to treatments. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Men undergoing prostate cancer screening have been found to experience high and low levels of anxiety. Research has shown that negative emotions like anxiety are common following a cancer diagnosis, but little research has examined emotions right before diagnosis. Anxiety has been associated with information processing and motivation to engage in preventive behaviours. What does this study add? Applies and tests a theoretical idea related to how anxiety may change as one approaches personally relevant threatening health feedback. Shows relationships between changes in anxiety and knowledge in the context of waiting for actual health feedback. Associates increased anxiety in the prostate cancer context with knowledge and openness to different treatments.

Hierarchical structure and importance of patients' reasons for treatment choices in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a concept mapping study

OBJECTIVES

To improve patients' use of conservative treatment options of hip and knee OA, in-depth understanding of reasons underlying patients' treatment choices is required. The current study adopted a concept mapping method to thematically structure and prioritize reasons for treatment choice in knee and hip OA from a patients' perspective.

METHODS

Multiple reasons for treatment choices were previously identified using in-depth interviews. In consensus meetings, experts derived 51 representative reasons from the interviews. Thirty-six patients individually sorted the 51 reasons in two card-sorting tasks: one based on content similarity, and one based on importance of reasons. The individual sortings of the first card-sorting task provided input for a hierarchical cluster analysis (squared Euclidian distances, Ward's method). The importance of the reasons and clusters were examined using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The hierarchical structure of reasons for treatment choices showed a core distinction between two categories of clusters: barriers [subdivided into context (e.g. the healthcare system) and disadvantages] and outcome (subdivided into treatment and personal life). At the lowest level, 15 clusters were identified of which the clusters Physical functioning, Risks and Prosthesis were considered most important when making a treatment decision for hip or knee OA.

CONCLUSION

Patients' treatment choices in knee and hip OA are guided by contextual barriers, disadvantages of the treatment, outcomes of the treatment and consequences for personal life. The structured overview of reasons can be used to support shared decision-making.