A patient decision aid to support shared decision-making on anti-thrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation: randomised controlled trial

Screening strategies for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation therapy to prevent AF-related stroke has been shown to be cost-effective. A national screening programme for AF may prevent AF-related events, but would involve a substantial investment of NHS resources.

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of screening tests for AF, update a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating screening strategies for AF, develop an economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies and review observational studies of AF screening to provide inputs to the model.

Design

Systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Setting

Primary care.

Participants

Adults.

Intervention

Screening strategies, defined by screening test, age at initial and final screens, screening interval and format of screening {systematic opportunistic screening [individuals offered screening if they consult with their general practitioner (GP)] or systematic population screening (when all eligible individuals are invited to screening)}.

Main outcome measures

Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios; the odds ratio of detecting new AF cases compared with no screening; and the mean incremental net benefit compared with no screening.

Review methods

Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A DTA meta-analysis was perfomed, and a decision tree and Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies.

Results

Diagnostic test accuracy depended on the screening test and how it was interpreted. In general, the screening tests identified in our review had high sensitivity (> 0.9). Systematic population and systematic opportunistic screening strategies were found to be similarly effective, with an estimated 170 individuals needed to be screened to detect one additional AF case compared with no screening. Systematic opportunistic screening was more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening, as long as the uptake of opportunistic screening observed in randomised controlled trials translates to practice. Modified blood pressure monitors, photoplethysmography or nurse pulse palpation were more likely to be cost-effective than other screening tests. A screening strategy with an initial screening age of 65 years and repeated screens every 5 years until age 80 years was likely to be cost-effective, provided that compliance with treatment does not decline with increasing age.

Conclusions

A national screening programme for AF is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Systematic opportunistic screening is more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening. Nurse pulse palpation or modified blood pressure monitors would be appropriate screening tests, with confirmation by diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiography interpreted by a trained GP, with referral to a specialist in the case of an unclear diagnosis. Implementation strategies to operationalise uptake of systematic opportunistic screening in primary care should accompany any screening recommendations.

Limitations

Many inputs for the economic model relied on a single trial [the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly (SAFE) study] and DTA results were based on a few studies at high risk of bias/of low applicability.

Future work

Comparative studies measuring long-term outcomes of screening strategies and DTA studies for new, emerging technologies and to replicate the results for photoplethysmography and GP interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiography in a screening population.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013739.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Trends in the prevalence and management of pre-stroke atrial fibrillation, the South London Stroke Register, 1995-2014

Background

Previous studies have found low use of anticoagulation prior to stroke, in people with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study examined data on patients with AF-related stroke from a population-based stroke register, and sought to examine changes in management of AF prior to stroke, and reasons for suboptimal treatment, in those who were known to be at a high risk of stroke.

Methods

The South London Stroke Register (SLSR) is an ongoing population-based register recording first-in-a-lifetime stroke. Trends in the prevalence of AF, and antithrombotic medication prescribed before the stroke, were investigated from 1995 to 2014. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the factors associated with appropriate management.

Results

Of the 5041 patients on the register, 816 (16.2%) were diagnosed with AF before their stroke. AF related stroke increased substantially among Black Carribean and Black African patients, comprising 5% of the overall cohort in 1995–1998, increasing to 25% by 2011–2014 (p<0.001). Anticoagulant prescription in AF patients at high-risk of stroke (CHADS2 score [> = 2]) increased from 9% (1995–1998) to 30% (2011–2014) (p<0.001). Antiplatelet prescription was more commonly prescribed throughout all time periods (43% to 64% of high-risk patients.) Elderly patients (>65) were significantly less likely to be prescribed an anticoagulant, with ethnicity, gender and deprivation showing no association with anticoagulation.

Conclusions

Most AF-related strokes occurred in people who could have been predicted to be at high risk before their stroke, yet were not prescribed optimal preventative treatment. The elderly,despite being at highest stroke risk, were rarely prescribed anticoagulants.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Educational and behavioural interventions for anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with one or more risk factors for stroke; however, anticoagulation control (time in therapeutic range (TTR)) with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is dependent on many factors. Educational and behavioural interventions may impact patients' ability to maintain their international normalised ratio (INR) control. This is an updated version of the original review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of educational and behavioural interventions for oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) on TTR in patients with AF.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches from the previous review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) in The Cochrane Library (January 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1949 to February week 1 2016), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE Ovid (1980 to Week 7 2016), PsycINFO Ovid (1806 to Week 1 February 2016) and CINAHL Plus with Full Text EBSCO (1937 to 16/02/2016). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any educational and behavioural intervention compared with usual care, no intervention, or intervention in combination with other self-management techniques among adults with AF who were eligible for, or currently receiving, OAT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of the review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We included outcome data on TTR, decision conflict (patient's uncertainty in making health-related decisions), percentage of INRs in the therapeutic range, major bleeding, stroke and thromboembolic events, patient knowledge, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), beliefs about medication, illness perceptions, and anxiety and depression. We pooled data for three outcomes - TTR, anxiety and depression, and decision conflict - and reported mean differences (MD). Where insufficient data were present to conduct a meta-analysis, we reported effect sizes and confidence intervals (CI) from the included studies. We evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials with a total of 2246 AF patients (ranging from 14 to 712 by study) were included within the review. Studies included education, decision aids, and self-monitoring plus education interventions. The effect of self-monitoring plus education on TTR was uncertain compared with usual care (MD 6.31, 95% CI -5.63 to 18.25, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 69 participants, very low-quality evidence). We found small but positive effects of education on anxiety (MD -0.62, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.04, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 587 participants, low-quality evidence) and depression (MD -0.74, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.14, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 587 participants, low-quality evidence) compared with usual care. The effect of decision aids on decision conflict favoured usual care (MD -0.1, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.02, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 721 participants, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions regarding the impact of educational or behavioural interventions on TTR in AF patients receiving OAT. Thus, more trials are needed to examine the impact of interventions on anticoagulation control in AF patients and the mechanisms by which they are successful. It is also important to explore the psychological implications for patients suffering from this long-term chronic condition.

Factors influencing implementation of a patient decision aid in a developing country: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Most studies on barriers and facilitators to implementation of patient decision aids (PDAs) are conducted in the west; hence, the findings may not be transferable to developing countries. This study aims to use a locally developed insulin PDA as an exemplar to explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing PDAs in Malaysia, an upper middle-income country in Asia.

METHODS

Qualitative methodology was adopted. Nine in-depth interviews (IDIs) and three focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with policymakers (n = 6), medical officers (n = 13), diabetes educators (n = 5) and a nurse, who were involved in insulin initiation management at an academic primary care clinic. The interviews were conducted with the aid of a semi-structured interview guide based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged, and they were lack of shared decision-making (SDM) culture, role boundary, lack of continuity of care, impact on consultation time and reminder network. Healthcare providers' (HCPs) paternalistic attitude, patients' passivity and patient trust in physicians rendered SDM challenging which affected the implementation of the PDA. Clear role boundaries between the doctors and nurses made collaborative implementation of the PDA challenging, as nurses may not view the use of insulin PDA to be part of their job scope. The lack of continuity of care might cause difficulties for doctors to follow up on insulin PDA use with their patient. While time was the most commonly cited barrier for PDA implementation, use of the PDA might reduce consultation time. A reminder network was suggested to address the issue of forgetfulness as well as to trigger interest in using the PDA. The suggested reminders were peer reminders (i.e. HCPs reminding one another to use the PDA) and system reminders (e.g. incorporating electronic medical record prompts, displaying posters/notices, making the insulin PDA available and visible in the consultation rooms).

CONCLUSIONS

When implementing PDAs, it is crucial to consider the healthcare culture and system, particularly in developing countries such as Malaysia where concepts of SDM and PDAs are still novel.

Improving stroke prevention therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation in primary care: protocol for a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial

Background

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is growing as the population ages, and at least 15% of ischemic strokes are attributed to AF. However, many high-risk AF patients are not offered guideline-recommended stroke prevention therapy due to a variety of system, provider, and patient-level barriers.

Methods

We will conduct a pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial randomizing primary care clinics to test a “toolkit” of quality improvement interventions in primary care. In keeping with the recommendations of the chronic care model to simultaneously activate patients and facilitate proactive care by providers, the toolkit includes provider-focused strategies (education, audit and feedback, electronic decision support, and reminders) plus patient-directed strategies (educational letters and reminders). The trial will include two feedback cycles at baseline and approximately 6 months and a final data collection at approximately 12 months. The study will be powered to show a difference of 10% in the primary outcome of proportion of patients receiving guideline-recommended stroke prevention therapy. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle and will be blind to treatment allocation. Unit of analysis will be the patient; models will use generalized estimating equations to account for clustering at the clinical level.

Discussion

Stroke prevention therapy using anticoagulation in patients with AF is known to reduce strokes by two thirds or more in clinical trials, but most studies indicate under-use of this treatment in real-world practice. If the toolkit successfully improves care for patients with AF, stakeholders will be engaged to facilitate broader application to maximize the potential to improve patient outcomes. The intervention toolkit tested in this project could also provide a model to improve quality of care for other chronic cardiovascular conditions managed in primary care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01927445). Registered August 14, 2014 at https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0523-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A qualitative study of decision-making about the implantation of cardioverter defibrillators and deactivation during end-of-life care

Background

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death or for survivors of cardiac arrest. All ICDs combine a shock function with a pacing function to treat fast and slow heart rhythms, respectively. The pacing function may be very sophisticated and can provide so-called cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure using a pacemaker (cardiac resynchronisation therapy with pacemaker) or combined with an ICD [cardiac resynchronisation therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D)]. Decision-making about these devices involves considering the benefit (averting sudden cardiac death), possible risks (inappropriate shocks and psychological problems) and the potential need for deactivation towards the end of life.

Objectives

To explore patients’/relatives’ and clinicians’ views/experiences of decision-making about ICD and CRT-D implantation and deactivation, to establish how and when ICD risks, benefits and consequences are communicated to patients, to identify individual and organisational facilitators and barriers to discussions about implantation and deactivation and to determine information and decision-support needs for shared decision-making (SDM).

Data sources

Observations of clinical encounters, in-depth interviews and interactive group workshops with clinicians, patients and their relatives.

Methods

Observations of consultations with patients being considered for ICD or CRT-D implantation were undertaken to become familiar with the clinical environment and to optimise the sampling strategy. In-depth interviews were conducted with patients, relatives and clinicians to gain detailed insights into their views and experiences. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently. Interactive workshops with clinicians and patients/relatives were used to validate our findings and to explore how these could be used to support better SDM.

Results

We conducted 38 observations of clinical encounters, 80 interviews (44 patients/relatives, seven bereaved relatives and 29 clinicians) and two workshops with 11 clinicians and 11 patients/relatives. Patients had variable knowledge about their conditions, the risk of sudden cardiac death and the clinical rationale for ICDs, which sometimes resulted in confusion about the potential benefits. Clinicians used various metaphors, verbal descriptors and numerical risk methods, including variable disclosure of the potential negative impact of ICDs on body image and the risk of psychological problems, to convey information to patients/relatives. Patients/relatives wanted more information about, and more involvement in, deactivation decisions, and expressed a preference that these decisions be addressed at the time of implantation. There was no consensus among clinicians about the initiation or timing of such discussions, or who should take responsibility for them. Introducing deactivation discussions prior to implantation was thus contentious; however, trigger points for deactivation discussions embedded within the pathway were suggested to ensure timely discussions.

Limitations

Only two patients who were prospectively considering deactivation and seven bereaved relatives were recruited. The study also lacks the perspectives of primary care clinicians.

Conclusions

There is discordance between patients and clinicians on information requirements, in particular the potential consequences of implantation on psychological well-being and quality of life in the short and long term (deactivation). There were no agreed points across the care pathway at which to discuss deactivation. Codesigned information tools that present balanced information on the benefits, risks and consequences, and SDM skills training for patients/relative and clinicians, would support better SDM about ICDs.

Future work

Multifaceted SDM interventions that focus on skills development for SDM combined with decision-support tools are warranted, and there is a potential central role for heart failure nurses and physiologists in supporting and preparing patients/relatives for such discussions.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The effect of simulated narratives that leverage EMR data on shared decision-making: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making can improve patient satisfaction and outcomes. To participate in shared decision-making, patients need information about the potential risks and benefits of treatment options. Our team has developed a novel prototype tool for shared decision-making called hearts like mine (HLM) that leverages EHR data to provide personalized information to patients regarding potential outcomes of different treatments. These potential outcomes are presented through an Icon array and/or simulated narratives for each "person" in the display. In this pilot project we sought to determine whether the inclusion of simulated narratives in the display affects individuals' decision-making. Thirty subjects participated in this block-randomized study in which they used a version of HLM with simulated narratives and a version without (or in the opposite order) to make a hypothetical therapeutic decision. After each decision, participants completed a questionnaire that measured decisional confidence. We used Chi square tests to compare decisions across conditions and Mann-Whitney U tests to examine the effects of narratives on decisional confidence. Finally, we calculated the mean of subjects' post-experiment rating of whether narratives were helpful in their decision-making.

RESULTS

In this study, there was no effect of simulated narratives on treatment decisions (decision 1: Chi squared = 0, p = 1.0; decision 2: Chi squared = 0.574, p = 0.44) or Decisional confidence (decision 1, w = 105.5, p = 0.78; decision 2, w = 86.5, p = 0.28). Post-experiment, participants reported that narratives helped them to make decisions (mean = 3.3/4).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that simulated narratives had no measurable effect on decisional confidence or decisions and most participants felt that the narratives were helpful to them in making therapeutic decisions. The use of simulated stories holds promise for promoting shared decision-making while minimizing their potential biasing effect.

Clinician time used for decision making: a best case workflow study using cardiovascular risk assessments and Ask Mayo Expert algorithmic care process models

Background

Risk calculation is increasingly used in lipid management, congestive heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. The risk scores are then used for decisions about statin use, anticoagulation, and implantable defibrillator use. Calculating risks for patients and making decisions based on these risks is often done at the point of care and is an additional time burden for clinicians that can be decreased by automating the tasks and using clinical decision-making support.

Methods

Using Morae Recorder software, we timed 30 healthcare providers tasked with calculating the overall risk of cardiovascular events, sudden death in heart failure, and thrombotic event risk in atrial fibrillation. Risk calculators used were the American College of Cardiology Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk calculator (AHA-ASCVD risk), Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM risk), and CHA₂DS₂VASc. We also timed the 30 providers using Ask Mayo Expert care process models for lipid management, heart failure management, and atrial fibrillation management based on the calculated risk scores. We used the Mayo Clinic primary care panel to estimate time for calculating an entire panel risk.

Results

Mean provider times to complete the CHA₂DS₂VASc, AHA-ASCVD risk, and SHFM were 36, 45, and 171 s respectively. For decision making about atrial fibrillation, lipids, and heart failure, the mean times (including risk calculations) were 85, 110, and 347 s respectively.

Conclusion

Even under best case circumstances, providers take a significant amount of time to complete risk assessments. For a complete panel of patients this can lead to hours of time required to make decisions about prescribing statins, use of anticoagulation, and medications for heart failure. Informatics solutions are needed to capture data in the medical record and serve up automatically calculated risk assessments to physicians and other providers at the point of care.

Feedback from Outcome Measures and Treatment Effectiveness, Treatment Efficiency, and Collaborative Practice: A Systematic Review

Due to recent increases in the use of feedback from outcome measures in mental health settings, we systematically reviewed evidence regarding the impact of feedback from outcome measures on treatment effectiveness, treatment efficiency, and collaborative practice. In over half of 32 studies reviewed, the feedback condition had significantly higher levels of treatment effectiveness on at least one treatment outcome variable. Feedback was particularly effective for not-on-track patients or when it was provided to both clinicians and patients. The findings for treatment efficiency and collaborative practice were less consistent. Given the heterogeneity of studies, more research is needed to determine when and for whom feedback is most effective.

Decision aids to help older people make health decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Decision aids have been overall successful in improving the quality of health decision making. However, it is unclear whether the impact of the results of using decision aids also apply to older people (aged 65+). We sought to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids as compared to usual care or alternative intervention(s) for older adults facing treatment, screening or care decisions.

METHODS

A systematic search of (1) a Cochrane review of decision aids and (2) MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane library central registry of studies and Cinahl. We included published RCTs/CCTs of interventions designed to improve shared decision making (SDM) by older adults (aged 65+) and RCTs/CCTs that analysed the effect of the intervention in a subgroup with a mean age of 65+. Based on the International Patient Decision aid Standards (IPDAS), the primary outcomes were attributes of the decision and the decision process. Other behavioral, health, and health system effects were considered as secondary outcomes. If data could be pooled, a meta-analysis was conducted. Data for which meta-analysis was not possible were synthesized qualitatively.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 11,034 references. After abstract and full text screening, 22 papers were included. Decision aids performed better than control resp. usual care interventions by increasing knowledge and accurate risk perception in older people (decision attributes). With regard to decision process attributes, decision aids resulted in lower decisional conflict and more patient participation.

CONCLUSIONS

This review shows promising results on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults. Decision aids improve older adults' knowledge, increase their risk perception, decrease decisional conflict and seem to enhance participation in SDM. It must however be noted that the body of literature on the effectiveness of decision aids for older adults is still in its infancy. Only one decision aid was specifically developed for older adults, and the mean age in most studies was between 65 and 70, indicating that the oldest-old were not included. Future research should expand on the design, application and evaluation of decision aids for older, more vulnerable adults.

The relationship between child- and parent-reported shared decision making and child-, parent-, and clinician-reported treatment outcome in routinely collected child mental health services data

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) between service users and providers is increasingly being suggested as a key component of good healthcare. The aim of this research was to explore whether child- and parent-reported experience of SDM was associated with child- and parent-reported improvement in psychosocial difficulties and clinician-reported functioning at the end of treatment in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS).

METHOD

The sample comprised N = 177 children (62% female; 31% aged 6-12 and 69% aged 13-18) with a variety of mental health problems from 17 services where routinely collected data consisted of presenting problems at outset, child- and parent-reported change in symptoms between Time 1 and Time 2 (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; SDQ), clinician-reported change in functioning between Time 1 and Time 2 (Children's Global Assessment Scale; CGAS), and experience of SDM at Time 2 (as measured by responses to the Experience of Service Questionnaire; ESQ).

RESULTS

Analysis revealed that both child- and parent-reported experience of SDM were associated with higher levels of child- and parent-reported improvement in psychosocial difficulties. However, child-reported experience of SDM was only associated with higher levels of child-reported improvement when their parents also reported higher levels of SDM.

CONCLUSION

In CAMHS, involving both children and parents in decision making may contribute to enhanced treatment outcomes.

Features of Computer-Based Decision Aids: Systematic Review, Thematic Synthesis, and Meta-Analyses

Background

Patient information and education, such as decision aids, are gradually moving toward online, computer-based environments. Considerable research has been conducted to guide content and presentation of decision aids. However, given the relatively new shift to computer-based support, little attention has been given to how multimedia and interactivity can improve upon paper-based decision aids.

Objective

The first objective of this review was to summarize published literature into a proposed classification of features that have been integrated into computer-based decision aids. Building on this classification, the second objective was to assess whether integration of specific features was associated with higher-quality decision making.

Methods

Relevant studies were located by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. The review identified studies that evaluated computer-based decision aids for adults faced with preference-sensitive medical decisions and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. A thematic synthesis was conducted to develop the classification of features. Subsequently, meta-analyses were conducted based on standardized mean differences (SMD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported knowledge or decisional conflict. Further subgroup analyses compared pooled SMDs for decision aids that incorporated a specific feature to other computer-based decision aids that did not incorporate the feature, to assess whether specific features improved quality of decision making.

Results

Of 3541 unique publications, 58 studies met the target criteria and were included in the thematic synthesis. The synthesis identified six features: content control, tailoring, patient narratives, explicit values clarification, feedback, and social support. A subset of 26 RCTs from the thematic synthesis was used to conduct the meta-analyses. As expected, computer-based decision aids performed better than usual care or alternative aids; however, some features performed better than others. Integration of content control improved quality of decision making (SMD 0.59 vs 0.23 for knowledge; SMD 0.39 vs 0.29 for decisional conflict). In contrast, tailoring reduced quality of decision making (SMD 0.40 vs 0.71 for knowledge; SMD 0.25 vs 0.52 for decisional conflict). Similarly, patient narratives also reduced quality of decision making (SMD 0.43 vs 0.65 for knowledge; SMD 0.17 vs 0.46 for decisional conflict). Results were varied for different types of explicit values clarification, feedback, and social support.

Conclusions

Integration of media rich or interactive features into computer-based decision aids can improve quality of preference-sensitive decision making. However, this is an emerging field with limited evidence to guide use. The systematic review and thematic synthesis identified features that have been integrated into available computer-based decision aids, in an effort to facilitate reporting of these features and to promote integration of such features into decision aids. The meta-analyses and associated subgroup analyses provide preliminary evidence to support integration of specific features into future decision aids. Further research can focus on clarifying independent contributions of specific features through experimental designs and refining the designs of features to improve effectiveness.

The choice dilemma in chronic hematological conditions: Why choosing is not only a medical issue? A psycho-cognitive perspective

Research in cognitive psychology focused on risk perception and decision making was shown to facilitate treatment choice and patient's satisfaction with decision in a number of medical conditions, increasing perceived alliance between patient and physician, and adherence to treatment. However, this aspect has been mostly neglected in the literature investigating choice of treatment for chronic hematological conditions. In this paper, a patient centered model and a shared decision making (SDM) approach to treatment switch in chronic hematological conditions, in particular chronic myeloid leukemia, atrial fibrillation, and β-thalassemia is proposed. These pathologies have a series of implications requiring important decisions about new available treatments. Although new generation treatments may provide a significant improvement in patient's health and health-related quality of life (HrQoL), a significant percentage of them is uncertain about or refuse treatment switch, even when strongly suggested by healthcare guidelines. Possible cognitive and emotional factors which may influence decision making in this field and may prevent appropriate risk-and-benefits evaluation of new treatment approaches are reviewed. Possible adaptive strategies to improve quality of care, patient participation, adherence to treatment and final satisfaction are proposed, and implications relatively to new treatment options available are discussed.

Development of a shared decision-making tool to assist patients and clinicians with decisions on oral anticoagulant treatment for atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

Decision aids (DAs) are increasingly used to operationalize shared decision-making (SDM) but their development is not often described. Decisions about oral anticoagulants (OACs) for atrial fibrillation (AF) involve a trade-off between lowering stroke risk and increasing OAC-associated bleeding risk, and consideration of how treatment affects lifestyle. The benefits and risks of OACs hinge upon a patient's risk factors for stroke and bleeding and how they value these outcomes. We present the development of a DA about AF that estimates patients' risks for stroke and bleeding and assesses their preferences for outcomes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Based on a literature review and expert discussions, we identified stroke and major bleeding risk prediction models and embedded them into risk assessment modules. We identified the most important factors in choosing OAC treatment (warfarin used as the default reference OAC) through focus group discussions with AF patients who had used warfarin and clinician interviews. We then designed preference assessment and introductory modules accordingly. We integrated these modules into a prototype AF SDM tool and evaluated its usability through interviews.

RESULTS

Our tool included four modules: (1) introduction to AF and OAC treatment risks and benefits; (2) stroke risk assessment; (3) bleeding risk assessment; and (4) preference assessment. Interactive risk calculators estimated patient-specific stroke and bleeding risks; graphics were developed to communicate these risks. After cognitive interviews, the content was improved. The final AF tool calculates patient-specific risks and benefits of OAC treatment and couples these estimates with patient preferences to improve clinical decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The AF SDM tool may help patients choose whether OAC treatment is best for them and represents a patient-centered, integrative approach to educate patients on the benefits and risks of OAC treatment. Future research is needed to evaluate this tool in a real-world setting. The development process presented can be applied to similar SDM tools.

Values and preferences for oral antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: physician and patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

Exploration of values and preferences in the context of anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) remains limited. To better characterize the distribution of patient and physician values and preferences relevant to decisions regarding anticoagulation in patients with AF, we conducted interviews with patients at risk of developing AF and physicians who manage patients with AF.

METHODS

We interviewed 96 outpatients and 96 physicians in a multicenter study and elicited the maximal increased risk of bleeding (threshold risk) that respondents would tolerate with warfarin vs. aspirin to achieve a reduction in three strokes in 100 patients over a 2-year period. We used the probabilistic version of the threshold technique.

RESULTS

The median threshold risk for both patients and physicians was 10 additional bleeds (10 P = 0.7). In both groups, we observed large variability in the threshold number of bleeds, with wider variability in patients than clinicians [patient range: 0-100, physician range: 0-50]. We observed one cluster of patients and physicians who would tolerate <10 bleeds and another cluster of patients, but not physicians, who would accept more than 35.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest wide variability in patient and physician values and preferences regarding the trade-off between strokes and bleeds. Results suggest that in individual decision making, physician and patient values and preferences will often be discordant; this mandates tailoring treatment to the individual patient's preferences.

Net Clinical Benefits of Guidelines and Decision Tool Recommendations for Oral Anticoagulant Use among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The 2012 American College of Chest Physicians' Evidence-Based Clinical Practice (CHEST), the 2012 European Society of Cardiology, and the 2014 American Heart Association guidelines and published decision tools by LaHaye and Casciano offer oral anticoagulant (OAC) recommendations for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of our study was to compare the net clinical benefit (NCB) of OAC prescribing that was concordant with these decision aids.

METHODS

A cohort study of the 2001-2013 LifeLink claims data was used. NCB in concordance with each decision aid was defined as adverse events (thromboembolic and major bleed events) prevented per 10,000 person-years. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the relative risk of AF adverse events associated in concordance with each decision aid adjusted for potential confounders.

FINDINGS

The study included 15,129 patients with AF, contributing 33,512 person-years. The NCB of the CHEST guidelines was the highest (NCB = 30.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 28.66, 31.49) and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines the lowest (NCB = 7.38; 95% CI = 5.97, 8.80). Significant unadjusted decreases in the risk of AF adverse events associated with concordant OAC use/nonuse were found for the CHEST guidelines (hazard ratio [HR] = .825; 95% CI = .695, .979), Casciano tool (HR = .838; 95% CI = .706, .995), and LaHaye tool (HR = .841; 95% CI = .709, .999); however, none were significant after multivariate adjustment.

CONCLUSION

Concordant OAC use with any of the decision aids except for the aggressive LaHaye tool led to a positive NCB. The decision aids based on the CHA2DS2-VASc algorithm did not consistently improve the NCB compared to CHADS2-based aids. Recommending OAC use when CHA2DS2-VASc score = 1 resulted in a lower NCB when all other factors guiding recommendations were held constant.

Outcome-Relevant Effects of Shared Decision Making

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is considered a gold standard for the cooperation of doctor and patient. SDM improves patients' overall satisfaction and their confidence in decisions that have been taken. The extent to which it might also positively affect patient-relevant, disease-related endpoints is a matter of debate.

METHODS

We systematically searched the PubMed database and the Cochrane Library for publications on controlled intervention studies of SDM. The quality of the intervention and the risk of bias in each publication were assessed on the basis of pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The effects of SDM on patient-relevant, disease-related endpoints were compared, and effect sizes were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 22 trials that differed widely regarding the patient populations studied, the types of intervention performed, and the mode of implementation of SDM. In ten articles, 57% of the endpoints that were considered relevant were significantly improved by the SDM intervention compared to the control group. The median effect size (Cohen's d) was 0.53 (0.14-1.49). In 12 trials, outcomes did not differ between the two groups. In all 22 studies identified, 39% of the relevant outcomes were significantly improved compared with the control groups.

CONCLUSION

The trials performed to date to addressing the effect of SDM on patient-relevant, disease-related endpoints are insufficient in both quantity and quality. Although just under half of the trials reviewed here indicated a positive effect, no final conclusion can be drawn. A consensus-based standardization of both SDM-promoting measures and appropriate clinical studies are needed.

Interventional tools to improve medication adherence: review of literature

Medication adherence and persistence is recognized as a worldwide public health problem, particularly important in the management of chronic diseases. Nonadherence to medical plans affects every level of the population, but particularly older adults due to the high number of coexisting diseases they are affected by and the consequent polypharmacy. Chronic disease management requires a continuous psychological adaptation and behavioral reorganization. In literature, many interventions to improve medication adherence have been described for different clinical conditions, however, most interventions seem to fail in their aims. Moreover, most interventions associated with adherence improvements are not associated with improvements in other outcomes. Indeed, in the last decades, the degree of nonadherence remained unchanged. In this work, we review the most frequent interventions employed to increase the degree of medication adherence, the measured outcomes, and the improvements achieved, as well as the main limitations of the available studies on adherence, with a particular focus on older persons.

Patients' Experience of Shared Decision Making Using an Online Patient Decision Aid for Osteoarthritis of the Knee--A Service Evaluation

AIMS

The aims of the present study were to gain a perspective of patients' experience of an online patient decision aid (PDA) for osteoarthritis of the knee (OA knee) as a method of shared decision making in a Musculoskeletal Clinical Assessment and Treatment Service (MSK CATS).

METHODS

In the MSK CATS, patients with OA knee discuss their condition and treatment options with the clinician. In the present study, patients, in addition to this discussion, used an online patient decision aid and subsequently completed a questionnaire regarding their experience of both of these processes.

RESULTS

Most patients felt that both the clinical discussion and the PDA were easy to understand, user friendly, and not biased towards any treatment, but thought that the PDA gave a better understanding of OA knee. Most patients had already decided on their treatment following the clinical discussion alone, but one found that the PDA helped them change their mind about treatment.

CONCLUSION

The PDA was a useful adjunct to the clinical discussion and could be best used for a selection of patients within the MSK CATS setting at a point where further clinical discussion could take place if necessary.

Patients or Volunteers? The Impact of Motivation for Trial Participation on the Efficacy of Patient Decision Aids: A Secondary Analysis of a Cochrane Systematic Review

Background. Efficacy of patient decision aids (PtDAs) may be influenced by trial participants’ identity either as patients seeking to benefit personally from involvement or as volunteers supporting the research effort. Aim. To determine if study characteristics indicative of participants’ trial identity might influence PtDA efficacy. Methods. We undertook exploratory subgroup meta-analysis of the 2011 Cochrane review of PtDAs, including trials that compared PtDA with usual care for treatment decisions. We extracted data on whether participants initiated the care pathway, setting, practitioner interactions, and 6 outcome variables (knowledge, risk perception, decisional conflict, feeling informed, feeling clear about values, and participation). The main subgroup analysis categorized trials as “volunteerism” or “patienthood” on the basis of whether participants initiated the care pathway. A supplementary subgroup analysis categorized trials on the basis of whether any volunteerism factors were present (participants had not initiated the care pathway, had attended a research setting, or had a face-to-face interaction with a researcher). Results. Twenty-nine trials were included. Compared with volunteerism trials, pooled effect sizes were higher in patienthood trials (where participants initiated the care pathway) for knowledge, decisional conflict, feeling informed, feeling clear, and participation. The subgroup difference was statistically significant for knowledge only ( P = 0.03). When trials were compared on the basis of whether volunteerism factors were present, knowledge was significantly greater in patienthood trials ( P < 0.001), but there was otherwise no consistent pattern of differences in effects across outcomes. Conclusions. There is a tendency toward greater PtDA efficacy in trials in which participants initiate the pathway of care. Knowledge acquisition appears to be greater in trials where participants are predominantly patients rather than volunteers.

Developing an Atrial Fibrillation Guideline Support Tool (AFGuST) for shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

Patient values and preferences are an important component to decision making when tradeoffs exist that impact quality of life, such as tradeoffs between stroke prevention and hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) contemplating anticoagulant therapy. Our objective is to describe the development of an Atrial Fibrillation Guideline Support Tool (AFGuST) to assist the process of integrating patients' preferences into this decision.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CHA2DS2VASc and HAS-BLED were used to calculate risks for stroke and hemorrhage. We developed a Markov decision analytic model as a computational engine to integrate patient-specific risk for stroke and hemorrhage and individual patient values for relevant outcomes in decisions about anticoagulant therapy.

RESULTS

Individual patient preferences for health-related outcomes may have greater or lesser impact on the choice of optimal antithrombotic therapy, depending upon the balance of patient-specific risks for ischemic stroke and major bleeding. These factors have been incorporated into patient-tailored booklets which, along with an informational video, were developed through an iterative process with clinicians and patient focus groups.

KEY LIMITATIONS

Current risk prediction models for hemorrhage, such as the HAS-BLED, used in the AFGuST, do not incorporate all potentially significant risk factors. Novel oral anticoagulant agents recently approved for use in the United States, Canada, and Europe have not been included in the AFGuST. Rather, warfarin has been used as a conservative proxy for all oral anticoagulant therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a proof of concept that a patient-tailored decision-support tool could bridge the gap between guidelines and practice by incorporating individual patient's stroke and bleeding risks and their values for major bleeding events and stroke to facilitate a shared decision making process. If effective, the AFGuST could be used as an adjunct to published guidelines to enhance patient-centered conversations about the anticoagulation management.

Patient-centered interventions to improve medication management and adherence: a qualitative review of research findings

OBJECTIVE

Patient-centered approaches to improving medication adherence hold promise, but evidence of their effectiveness is unclear. This review reports the current state of scientific research around interventions to improve medication management through four patient-centered domains: shared decision-making, methods to enhance effective prescribing, systems for eliciting and acting on patient feedback about medication use and treatment goals, and medication-taking behavior.

METHODS

We reviewed literature on interventions that fell into these domains and were published between January 2007 and May 2013. Two reviewers abstracted information and categorized studies by intervention type.

RESULTS

We identified 60 studies, of which 40% focused on patient education. Other intervention types included augmented pharmacy services, decision aids, shared decision-making, and clinical review of patient adherence. Medication adherence was an outcome in most (70%) of the studies, although 50% also examined patient-centered outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a large number of medication management interventions that incorporated patient-centered care and improved patient outcomes. We were unable to determine whether these interventions are more effective than traditional medication adherence interventions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Additional research is needed to identify effective and feasible approaches to incorporate patient-centeredness into the medication management processes of the current health care system, if appropriate.

Preferences for oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a best-best discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is recognised as a growing clinical and public health problem in many countries, owing to disability and death from stroke associated with the condition, high hospitalisation costs and an increasing prevalence with ageing populations. Under-treatment with oral anticoagulants has been a significant challenge of treatment, historically related to patient concerns over the safety and convenience of warfarin, which until recently was the only oral anticoagulant available.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to examine: (1) patient preferences for attributes of warfarin and the new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) in AF; (2) which attributes are most important; and (3) whether current under-treatment is likely to improve with the new oral anticoagulants.

METHODS

This study was conducted in Melbourne, Australia, with members of the general public with or without AF aged ≥40 years, where those without AF proxy for newly-diagnosed patients. Participants completed a computerised best-best discrete choice experiment (and follow-up interview) as if they had AF with a moderate-to-high risk of stroke. Choice data were modelled using mixed rank-ordered logit. Relative value was explored via estimation of marginal rates of substitution with predicted probability analysis used to simulate potential uptake of oral anticoagulants.

RESULTS

Seventy-six participants were recruited and completed the study. Efficacy (stroke risk) was more important than safety (bleed risk, antidote), which were both considerably more important than convenience factors (blood tests, dose frequency, drug or food interactions). Cost was also important. Predicted use of the new oral anticoagulants (and under-treatment of AF) using simulation, given moderate-to-high risk of stroke, is 25 % (52 %), 54 % (29 %) and 70 % (21 %) assuming a market price of AUD$120/month, AUD$30/month (subsidised price) and AUD$30/month with an antidote, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the study sample and the modelled attributes, the overall profiles of the new oral anticoagulants were preferred to warfarin as their cost decreased. Public subsidisation and the development of antidotes (such as vitamin K for warfarin) for the new oral anticoagulants may have a positive effect on the under-treatment of AF.

Shared decision-making and comparative effectiveness research for patients with chronic conditions: an urgent synergy for better health

Chronic conditions are the most important cause of morbidity, mortality and health expense in the USA. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) seeks to provide evidence supporting the relative value of alternative courses of action. This research often concludes with estimates of the likelihood of desirable and undesirable outcomes associated with each option. Patients with chronic conditions should engage with their clinicians in deciding which of these options best fits their goals and context. In practicing shared decision-making (SDM), clinicians and patients should make use of CER to inform their deliberations. In these ways, SDM and CER are interrelated. SDM translates CER into patient-centered practice, while CER provides the backbone evidence about options and outcomes in SDM interventions. In this review, we explore the potential for a SDM-CER synergy in improving healthcare for patients with chronic conditions.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Shared decision-making to improve attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder care

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of a shared decision-making intervention with parents of children newly diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

METHODS

Seven pediatricians participated in a pre/post open trial of decision aids for use before and during the office visit to discuss diagnosis and develop a treatment plan. Encounters pre- (n=21, control group) and post-intervention implementation (n=33, intervention group) were compared. We video-recorded encounters and surveyed parents.

RESULTS

Compared to controls, intervention group parents were more involved in shared decision-making (31.2 vs. 43.8 on OPTION score, p<0.01), more knowledgeable (6.4 vs. 8.1 questions correct, p<0.01), and less conflicted about treatment options (16.2 vs. 10.7 on decisional conflict total score, p=0.06). Visit duration was unchanged (41.0 vs. 41.6min, p=0.75). There were no significant differences in the median number of follow-up visits (0 vs. 1 visits, p=0.08), or the proportion of children with medication titration (62% vs. 76%, p=0.28), or parent-completed behavior rating scale to assess treatment response (24% vs. 39%, p=0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Our intervention increased shared decision-making with parents. Parents were better informed about treatment options without increasing visit duration.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interventions are available to prepare parents for visits and enable physicians to elicit parent preferences and involvement in decision-making.

Patient preference for involvement, experienced involvement, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with physician: a structural equation model test

Background

A comprehensive model of the relationships among different shared decision-making related constructs and their effects on patient-relevant outcomes is largely missing. Objective of our study was the development of a model linking decision-making in medical encounters to an intermediate and a long-term endpoint. The following hypotheses were tested: physicians are more likely to involve patients who have a preference for participation and are willing to take responsibility in the medical decision-making process, increased patient involvement decreases decisional conflict, and lower decisional conflict favourably influences patient satisfaction with the physician.

Methods

This model was tested in a German primary care sample (N = 1,913). Psychometrically tested instruments were administered to assess the following: patients’ preference for being involved in medical decision-making, patients’ experienced involvement in medical decision-making, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with the primary care provider. Structural equation modelling was used to explore multiple associations. The model was tested and adjusted in a development sub-sample and cross-validated in a confirmatory sample. Demographic and clinical characteristics were accounted for as possible confounders.

Results

Local and global indexes suggested an acceptable fit between the theoretical model and the data. Increased patient involvement was strongly associated with decreased decisional conflict (standardised regression coefficient Β = −.73). Both high experienced involvement (Β = .34) and low decisional conflict (B = -.28) predicted higher satisfaction with the physician. Patients’ preference for involvement was negatively associated with the experienced involvement (B = −.24).

Conclusion

Altogether, our model could be largely corroborated by the collected empirical data except the unexpected negative association between preference for involvement and experienced involvement. Future research on the associations among different SDM-related constructs should incorporate longitudinal studies in order to strengthen the hypothesis of causal associations.

Educational and behavioural interventions for anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation who are at moderate-to-high risk of stroke, however anticoagulation control (time in therapeutic range (TTR)) is dependent on many factors. Educational and behavioural interventions may impact on patients' ability to maintain their International Normalised Ratio (INR) control.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects on TTR of educational and behavioural interventions for oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) in The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 7 of 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to week 4 July 2012), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE Ovid (1947 to Week 31 2012), PsycINFO Ovid (1806 to 2012 week 5 July) on 8 August 2012 and CINAHL Plus with Full Text EBSCO (to August 2012) on 9 August 2012. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The primary outcome analysed was TTR. Secondary outcomes included decision conflict (patient's uncertainty in making health-related decisions), percentage of INRs in the therapeutic range, major bleeding, stroke and thromboembolic events, patient knowledge, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and anxiety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors independently extracted data. Where insufficient data were present to conduct a meta-analysis, effect sizes and confidence intervals (CIs) of the included studies were reported. Data were pooled for two outcomes, TTR and decision conflict.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials with a total of 1215 AF patients (number of AF participants included in the individual trials ranging from 14 to 434) were included within the review. Studies included education, decision aids, and self-monitoring plus education.For the primary outcome of TTR, data for the AF participants in two self-monitoring plus education trials were pooled and did not favour self-monitoring plus education or usual care in improving TTR, with a mean difference of 6.31 (95% CI -5.63 to 18.25). For the secondary outcome of decision conflict, data from two decision aid trials favoured usual care over the decision aid in terms of reducing decision conflict, with a mean difference of -0.1 (95% CI -0.2 to -0.02).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated that there is insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions regarding the impact of educational or behavioural interventions on TTR in AF patients receiving OAT. Thus, more trials are needed to examine the impact of interventions on anticoagulation control in AF patients and the mechanisms by which they are successful. It is also important to explore the psychological implications for patients suffering from this long-term chronic condition.

Multimedia educational interventions for consumers about prescribed and over-the-counter medications

BACKGROUND

Health consumers increasingly want access to accurate, evidence-based information about their medications. Currently, education about medications (that is, information that is designed to achieve health or illness related learning) is provided predominantly via spoken communication between the health provider and consumer, sometimes supplemented with written materials. There is evidence, however, that current educational methods are not meeting consumer needs. Multimedia educational programs offer many potential advantages over traditional forms of education delivery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of multimedia patient education interventions about prescribed and over-the-counter medications in people of all ages, including children and carers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1950 to June 2011), EMBASE (1974 to June 2011), CINAHL (1982 to June 2011), PsycINFO (1967 to June 2011), ERIC (1966 to June 2011), ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Database (to June 2011) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of multimedia-based patient education about prescribed or over-the-counter medications in people of all ages, including children and carers, if the intervention had been targeted for their use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Where possible, we contacted study authors to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 studies that enrolled a total of 8112 participants. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the comparators used and the outcomes measured, which limited the ability to pool data. Many of the studies did not report sufficient information in their methods to allow judgment of their risk of bias. From the information that was reported, three of the studies had a high risk of selection bias and one was at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of the outcome assessors. None of the included studies reported the minimum clinically important difference for the outcomes that were measured. We have therefore reported results from the studies but have been unable to interpret whether differences were of clinical importance.The main findings of the review are as follows.Knowledge: There is low quality evidence that multimedia education was more effective than usual care (non-standardised education provided as part of usual clinical care) or no education (standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.58, six studies with 817 participants). There was considerable statistical heterogeneity (I(2) = 89%), however, all but one of the studies favoured the multimedia group. There is moderate quality evidence that multimedia education was not more effective at improving knowledge than control multimedia interventions (i.e. multimedia programs that do not provide information about the medication) (mean difference (MD) of knowledge scores 2.78%, 95% CI -1.48 to 7.0, two studies with 568 participants). There is moderate quality evidence that multimedia education was more effective when added to a co-intervention (written information or brief standardised instructions provided by a health professional) compared with the co-intervention alone (MD of knowledge scores 24.59%, 95% CI 22.34 to 26.83, two studies with 381 participants).Skill acquisition: There is moderate quality evidence that multimedia education was more effective than usual care or no education (MD of inhaler technique score 18.32%, 95% CI 11.92 to 24.73, two studies with 94 participants) and written education (risk ratio (RR) of improved inhaler technique 2.14, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.44, two studies with 164 participants). There is very low quality evidence that multimedia education was equally effective as education by a health professional (MD of inhaler technique score -1.01%, 95% CI -15.75 to 13.72, three studies with 130 participants).Compliance with medications: There is moderate quality evidence that there was no difference between multimedia education and usual care or no education (RR of complying 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08, two studies with 4552 participants).We could not determine the effect of multimedia education on other outcomes, including patient satisfaction, self-efficacy and health outcomes, due to an inadequate number of studies from which to draw conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that multimedia education about medications is more effective than usual care (non-standardised education provided by health professionals as part of usual clinical care) or no education, in improving both knowledge and skill acquisition. It also suggests that multimedia education is at least equivalent to other forms of education, including written education and education provided by a health professional. However, this finding is based on often low quality evidence from a small number of trials. Multimedia education about medications could therefore be considered as an adjunct to usual care but there is inadequate evidence to recommend it as a replacement for written education or education by a health professional. Multimedia education may be considered as an alternative to education provided by a health professional, particularly in settings where provision of detailed education by a health professional is not feasible. More studies evaluating multimedia educational interventions are required in order to increase confidence in the estimate of effect of the intervention.Conclusions regarding the effect of multimedia education were limited by the lack of information provided by study authors about the educational interventions, and variability in their content and quality. Studies testing educational interventions should provide detailed information about the interventions and comparators. Research is required to establish a framework that is specific for the evaluation of the quality of multimedia educational programs. Conclusions were also limited by the heterogeneity in the outcomes reported and the instruments used to measure them. Research is required to identify a core set of outcomes which should be measured when evaluating patient educational interventions. Future research should use consistent, reliable and validated outcome measures so that comparisons can be made between studies.

A pilot randomized controlled trial of a decision support tool to improve the quality of communication and decision-making in individuals with atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

To design a tool for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) to inform individuals of their individual stroke and bleeding risks, assist in clarifying priorities, and promote communication.

DESIGN

Clustered randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Primary care clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals with NVAF (N = 135).

INTERVENTION

Completion of tool before regularly scheduled visit.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes included the 100-point informed and values clarity subscales of the decisional conflict scale (lower scores indicate individual is more informed and has greater clarity). Secondary outcomes included knowledge, patient-clinician communication, and change in treatment.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine individuals were enrolled in the intervention group and 66 in the control group. After their visit, intervention participants had lower scores on the informed (mean difference = -11.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -21.1 to -2.7) and values clarity subscales (mean difference = -14.6, 95% CI = -22.6 to -6.6). Greater proportions of intervention participants knew medications for reducing stroke risk (61% vs 31%, P < .001) and side effects (49% vs 37%, P = .07). Stroke (71% vs 12%) and bleeding risk (69% vs 20%) were discussed more frequently in the intervention than control group (P < .001). Five intervention participants expressed a preference for medication that was not concordant with their current treatment plan. There was no change in treatment plan in either group.

CONCLUSION

The tool was effective in improving perceived and actual knowledge and values clarity and in increasing physician-patient communication but did not change treatment.

Triaging patients at risk of influenza using a patient portal

Vanderbilt University has a widely adopted patient portal, MyHealthAtVanderbilt, which provides an infrastructure to deliver information that can empower patient decision making and enhance personalized healthcare. An interdisciplinary team has developed Flu Tool, a decision-support application targeted to patients with influenza-like illness and designed to be integrated into a patient portal. Flu Tool enables patients to make informed decisions about the level of care they require and guides them to seek timely treatment as appropriate. A pilot version of Flu Tool was deployed for a 9-week period during the 2010-2011 influenza season. During this time, Flu Tool was accessed 4040 times, and 1017 individual patients seen in the institution were diagnosed as having influenza. This early experience with Flu Tool suggests that healthcare consumers are willing to use patient-targeted decision support. The design, implementation, and lessons learned from the pilot release of Flu Tool are described as guidance for institutions implementing decision support through a patient portal infrastructure.

Computerised decision aids: a systematic review of their effectiveness in facilitating high-quality decision-making in various health-related contexts

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review existing empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of computerised decision aids (CDAs) in enabling high-quality decision-making in preference-sensitive health-related contexts.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified via Medline, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases (1990-October 2010). Only randomised controlled trials with at least one decision quality or decision process variable outcome were included.

RESULTS

Of 1467 identified articles, 28 studies met all inclusion criteria, evaluating 26 unique CDAs. CDAs performed better than standard consultations/education regarding improved knowledge and lower decisional conflict, and were found not to increase anxiety. CDAs facilitated greater satisfaction with the decision-making process than standard education. The effects on risk perceptions, value congruence with the chosen option, preferred roles in decision-making and decisional self-efficacy need further evaluation. A paucity of CDAs adhered to decision theories.

CONCLUSIONS

CDAs showed similar effects as non-computerised DAs on various outcomes. Further research into the potentially superior effects of CDAs on feeling informed, values-clarity, and decisional conflict is required.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The more remarkable effects on knowledge and risk perceptions were reported when unique features of interactive computerised media were used. The potential benefit of tailored information, values-clarification, and integration of CDAs into shared decision-making consultations remains unresolved.

Atrial fibrillation

The management of atrial fibrillation has evolved greatly in the past few years, and many areas have had substantial advances or developments. Recognition of the limitations of aspirin and the availability of new oral anticoagulant drugs that overcome the inherent drawbacks associated with warfarin will enable widespread application of effective thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulants. The emphasis on stroke risk stratification has shifted towards identification of so-called truly low-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who do not need antithrombotic therapy, whereas oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in patients with one or more risk factors for stroke. New antiarrhythmic drugs, such as dronedarone and vernakalant, have provided some additional opportunities for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation. However, the management of the disorder is increasingly driven by symptoms. The availability of non-pharmacological approaches, such as ablation, has allowed additional options for the management of atrial fibrillation in patients who are unsuitable for or intolerant of drug approaches.

Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Development of clinical practice guidelines involves making trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management strategies. Although the relative value of health states to patients should provide the basis for these trade-offs, few guidelines have systematically summarized the relevant evidence. We conducted a systematic review relating to values and preferences of patients considering antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

We included studies examining patient preferences for alternative approaches to antithrombotic prophylaxis and studies that examined, in the context of antithrombotic prophylaxis or treatment, how patients value alternative health states and experiences with treatment. We conducted a systematic search and compiled structured summaries of the results. Steps in the process that involved judgment were conducted in duplicate.

RESULTS

We identified 48 eligible studies. Sixteen dealt with atrial fibrillation, five with VTE, four with stroke or myocardial infarction prophylaxis, six with thrombolysis in acute stroke or myocardial infarction, and 17 with burden of antithrombotic treatment.

CONCLUSION

Patient values and preferences regarding thromboprophylaxis treatment appear to be highly variable. Participant responses may depend on their prior experience with the treatments or health outcomes considered as well as on the methods used for preference elicitation. It should be standard for clinical practice guidelines to conduct systematic reviews of patient values and preferences in the specific content area.

Engaging older people in decisions about their healthcare: the case for shared decision making

Shared decision making in clinical practice involves both the healthcare professional, an expert in the clinical condition and the patient who is an expert in what is important to them. A consultation involving shared decision making enables an examination of the options available, consideration of the risks and benefits whilst incorporating the values of the patient into the decision making process. A decision is aimed at, which is both clinically appropriate and is congruent with the patient's values.

Older people have been shown to value involvement, to varying degrees, in decisions about their care and treatment. The case of atrial fibrillation shows the opportunities for, and benefits of, sharing with older people decision making about their healthcare.

Development of a tool to improve the quality of decision making in atrial fibrillation

Background

Decision-making about appropriate therapy to reduce the stroke risk associated with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) involves the consideration of trade-offs among the benefits, risks, and inconveniences of different treatment options. The objective of this paper is to describe the development of a decision support tool for NVAF based on the provision of individualized risk estimates for stroke and bleeding and on preparing patients to communicate with their physicians about their values and potential treatment options.

Methods

We developed a tool based on the principles of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. The tool focuses on the patient-physician dyad as the decision-making unit and emphasizes improving the interaction between the two. It is built on the recognition that the application of patient values to a specific treatment decision is complex and that the final treatment choice is best made through a process of patient-clinician communication.

Results

The tool provides education incorporating patients ' illness perceptions to explain the relationship between NVAF and stroke, and then presents individualized risk estimates, derived using separate risk calculators for stroke and bleeding over a clinically meaningful time period (5 years) associated with no treatment, aspirin, and warfarin. Sequelae of both stroke and bleeding outcomes are also described. Patients are encouraged to verbalize how they value the incremental risks and benefits associated with each option and write down specific concerns to address with their physician. A physician prompt to encourage patients to discuss their opinions is included as part of the decision support tool. In pilot testing with 11 participants (mean age 78 ± 9 years, 64% with ≤ high-school education), 8 (72%) rated ease of completion as "very easy," and 9 (81%) rated amount of information as "just right."

Conclusions

The risks and benefits of different treatment options for reduction of stroke in NVAF vary widely according to patients' comorbidities. This tool facilitates the provision of individualized outcome data and encourages patients to communicate with their physicians about these risks and benefits. Future studies will examine whether use of the tool is associated with improved quality of decision making.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update, we searched from January 2006 to December 2009 in MEDLINE (Ovid); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, issue 4 2009); CINAHL (Ovid) (to September 2008 only); EMBASE (Ovid); PsycINFO (Ovid); and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed potential risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, were:A) decision attributes;B) decision making process attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health system effects. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 34,316 unique citations, 86 studies involving 20,209 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included. Thirty-one of these studies are new in this update. Twenty-nine trials are ongoing. There was variability in potential risk of bias across studies. The two criteria that were most problematic were lack of blinding and the potential for selective outcome reporting, given that most of the earlier trials were not registered.Of 86 included studies, 63 (73%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: A) criteria involving decision attributes: knowledge scores (51 studies); accurate risk perceptions (16 studies); and informed value-based choice (12 studies); and B) criteria involving decision process attributes: feeling informed (30 studies) and feeling clear about values (18 studies).A) Criteria involving decision attributes:Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions by increasing knowledge (MD 13.77 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.40 to 16.15; n = 26). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simpler decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 4.97 out of 100; 95% CI 3.22 to 6.72; n = 15). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.08; n = 14). The effect was stronger when probabilities were expressed in numbers (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.37; n = 11) rather than words (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.48; n = 3). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification compared to those without explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients achieving decisions that were informed and consistent with their values (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.52; n = 8).B) Criteria involving decision process attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -6.43 of 100; 95% CI -9.16 to -3.70; n = 17); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -4.81; 95% CI -7.23 to -2.40; n = 14); c) reduced the proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; n = 11); and d) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; n = 9). Decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in the four studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 12) and/or the decision making process (n = 12), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. There were no studies evaluating the decision process attributes relating to helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made or understand that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomesExposure to decision aids compared to usual care continued to demonstrate reduced choice of: major elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; n = 11). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care also resulted in reduced choice of PSA screening (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; n = 7). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, there was reduced choice of menopausal hormones (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from -8 minutes to +23 minutes (median 2.5 minutes). Decision aids do not appear to be different from comparisons in terms of anxiety (n = 20), and general health outcomes (n = 7), and condition specific health outcomes (n = 9). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

New for this updated review is evidence that: decision aids with explicit values clarification exercises improve informed values-based choices; decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication; and decision aids have a variable effect on length of consultation.Consistent with findings from the previous review, which had included studies up to 2006: decision aids increase people's involvement, and improve knowledge and realistic perception of outcomes; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the choice of discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, cost-effectiveness, and use with developing and/or lower literacy populations need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have positive effects on attributes of the decision or decision-making process.

Patient and cardiologist perceptions on decision making for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in selected patients, they are also associated with potential risks. Periprocedural decision making requires understanding both benefits and risks.

METHODS

This qualitative study aims to understand cardiologists' and patients' perspectives about decision making surrounding ICD implantation using semi-structured, in-depth interviews. We interviewed 11 cardiologists (including four electrophysiologists) and 20 patients (14 with ICDs; six who declined ICDs). The data were analyzed through the theoretical lens of patient-centered care using the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Cardiologists emphasized the benefits of ICD therapy but varied substantially in the extent to which they emphasized the various risks associated with ICD implantation with patients. Cardiologists indicated that they were influenced by the benefits of therapy as presented in published guidelines. Many patients who chose to receive an ICD indicated that they followed the advice of their physician without questioning the risks and benefits of the device. Some ICD recipients described not learning many of the risks until after device implantation or when they experienced these side effects. Patients who declined ICD implantation were concerned that the ICD was unnecessary or believed that the risks related to sudden death without an ICD did not apply to them. Only one patient considered the trade-off between dying quickly versus living longer with progressive heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

In our sample, cardiologists' desire to adhere to published guidelines appears to inhibit shared decision making. The marked variability in the discussions surrounding ICD decisions highlights a need for an improved process of ICD decision making.

Computerized clinical decision support systems for drug prescribing and management: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review

Background

Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) for drug therapy management are designed to promote safe and effective medication use. Evidence documenting the effectiveness of CCDSSs for improving drug therapy is necessary for informed adoption decisions. The objective of this review was to systematically review randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of CCDSSs for drug therapy management on process of care and patient outcomes. We also sought to identify system and study characteristics that predicted benefit.

Methods

We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We updated our earlier reviews (1998, 2005) by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Inspec, and other databases, and consulting reference lists through January 2010. Authors of 82% of included studies confirmed or supplemented extracted data. We included only randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect on process of care or patient outcomes of a CCDSS for drug therapy management compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.

Results

Sixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria, including 41 new studies since our previous review. Methodological quality was generally high and unchanged with time. CCDSSs improved process of care performance in 37 of the 59 studies assessing this type of outcome (64%, 57% of all studies). Twenty-nine trials assessed patient outcomes, of which six trials (21%, 9% of all trials) reported improvements.

Conclusions

CCDSSs inconsistently improved process of care measures and seldomly improved patient outcomes. Lack of clear patient benefit and lack of data on harms and costs preclude a recommendation to adopt CCDSSs for drug therapy management.

A new computer-based counselling system for the promotion of physical activity in patients with chronic diseases--results from a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a computer-based counselling system (CBCS) for the improvement of attitudes towards physical activity in chronically ill patients and to pilot its efficacy and acceptance in primary care.

METHODS

The system is tailored to patients' disease and motivational stage. During a pilot study in five German general practices, patients answered questions before, directly and 6 weeks after using the CBCS. Outcome criteria were attitudes and self-efficacy. Qualitative interviews were performed to identify acceptance indicators.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients participated (mean age: 64.5 years, 53% males; 38% without previous computer experience). Patients' affective and cognitive attitudes changed significantly, self-efficacy showed only minor changes. Patients mentioned no difficulties in interacting with the CBCS. However, perception of the system's usefulness was inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

Computer-based counselling for physical activity related attitudes in patients with chronic diseases is feasible, but the circumstances of use with respect to the target group and its integration into the management process have to be clarified in future studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATION

This study adds to the understanding of computer-based counselling in primary health care. Acceptance indicators identified in this study will be validated as part of a questionnaire on technology acceptability in a subsequent study.

Impact on decisions to start or continue medicines of providing information to patients about possible benefits and/or harms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of providing information about medicines to patients on decisions about starting or continuing them is unknown.

PURPOSE

To estimate the impact on decisions to start or continue medicines, of providing information to patients about possible benefits and/or harms.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches from 1980 to October 2010; reference and citation searches of included studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Two investigators assessed studies' eligibility against inclusion criteria: randomized or pseudorandomized trials; participants older than 16 years and deciding for themselves; one group received information about possible benefits and/or harms of a potentially beneficial medicine, compared with another who did not; d) a measure of decision about starting or continuing a medicine.

DATA EXTRACTION

One investigator extracted all data, checked by a second.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eight studies were included, covering a range of medicines. There was no consistent impact of interventions on decisions about whether to start or continue medicines (pooled odds ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.70; P = 0.74). Among those who received more information, knowledge was increased (pooled mean difference 8.47; 95% CI 2.17-14.77; P = 0.008), and decisional conflict was reduced (pooled mean difference -0.15; 95% CI -0.24 to -0.06; P = .001).

LIMITATIONS

A small number of studies across different clinical contexts, of uncertain heterogeneity, were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing information to patients about possible benefits and/or harms has no consistent effect on the number who decide to start or continue medicines, although it increases patients' knowledge and reduces their decisional conflict.

The role of standardized data and terminological systems in computerized clinical decision support systems: literature review and survey

INTRODUCTION

Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) should be seamlessly integrated with existing clinical information systems to enable automatic provision of advice at the time and place where decisions are made. It has been suggested that a lack of agreed data standards frequently hampers this integration. We performed a literature review to investigate whether CDSSs used standardized (i.e. coded or numerical) data and which terminological systems have been used to code data. We also investigated whether a lack of standardized data was considered an impediment for CDSS implementation.

METHODS

Articles reporting an evaluation of a CDSS that provided a computerized advice based on patient-specific data items were identified based on a former literature review on CDSS and on CDSS studies identified in AMIA's 'Year in Review'. Authors of these articles were contacted to check and complete the extracted data. A questionnaire among the authors of included studies was used to determine the obstacles in CDSS implementation.

RESULTS

We identified 77 articles published between 1995 and 2008. Twenty-two percent of the evaluated CDSSs used only numerical data. Fifty one percent of the CDSSs that used coded data applied an international terminology. The most frequently used international terminology were the ICD (International Classification of Diseases), used in 68% of the cases and LOINC (Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes) in 12% of the cases. More than half of the authors experienced barriers in CDSS implementation. In most cases these barriers were related to the lack of electronically available standardized data required to invoke or activate the CDSS.

CONCLUSION

Many CDSSs applied different terminological systems to code data. This diversity hampers the possibility of sharing and reasoning with data within different systems. The results of the survey confirm the hypothesis that data standardization is a critical success factor for CDSS development.