Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles

Decision Support Tools for Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Do Not Meet Health Literacy Needs: A Systematic Environmental Scan and Evaluation

A shared decision-making approach is considered optimal in primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Evidence-based patient decision aids can facilitate this but do not always meet patients' health literacy needs. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans are increasingly used in addition to traditional cardiovascular risk scores, but the availability of high-quality decision aids to support shared decision-making is unknown. We used an environmental scan methodology to review decision support for CAC scans and assess their suitability for patients with varying health literacy. We systematically searched for freely available web-based decision support tools that included information about CAC scans for primary CVD prevention and were aimed at the public. Eligible materials were independently evaluated using validated tools to assess qualification as a decision aid, understandability, actionability, and readability. We identified 13 eligible materials. Of those, only one qualified as a decision aid, and one item presented quantitative information about the potential harms of CAC scans. None presented quantitative information about both benefits and harms of CAC scans. Mean understandability was 68%, and actionability was 48%. Mean readability (12.8) was much higher than the recommended grade 8 level. Terms used for CAC scans were highly variable. Current materials available to people considering a CAC scan do not meet the criteria to enable informed decision-making, nor do they meet the health literacy needs of the general population. Clinical guidelines, including CAC scans for primary prevention, must be supported by best practice decision aids to support decision-making.

The impact of a patient decision aid on intention to undergo surgery for subacromial pain syndrome: An online randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of a patient decision aid for people considering shoulder surgery.

METHODS

Participants with shoulder pain considering shoulder surgery (n = 425) were recruited online and randomised to (i) a decision aid outlining the benefits and harms of shoulder surgery and non-surgical options (then randomised to a side-by-side vs. top-and-bottom display of options); and (ii) general information about shoulder pain from the NHS. Outcomes included treatment intention (primary), knowledge, attitudes, informed choice, and decisional conflict. Linear and logistic regression models were used to evaluate between-groups differences in outcomes.

RESULTS

409 participants (96%) had post-intervention data. Mean age was 41.3 years, 44.2% were female. There was no between-group difference in post-intervention treatment intention (MD -0.2, 95% CI: -3.3 to 2.8) and likelihood of intending to have shoulder surgery (OR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.3-1.5). The decision aid slightly improved knowledge (MD 4.4, 95% CI: 0.2-8.6), but not any other secondary outcomes. The display of options did not influence any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In this online trial, a co-designed patient decision aid had no effect on treatment intention, attitudes, informed choice, and decisional conflict, but a small effect on improving knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Research is needed to understand reasons for the lack of anticipated effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000992808).

Effects of side-effect risk framing strategies on COVID-19 vaccine intentions: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Fear over side-effects is one of the main drivers of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. A large literature in the behavioral and communication sciences finds that how risks are framed and presented to individuals affects their judgments of its severity. However, it remains unknown whether such framing changes can affect COVID-19 vaccine behavior and be deployed as policy solutions to reduce hesitancy.

Methods

We conducted a pre-registered randomized controlled trial among 8998 participants in the United States and the United Kingdom to examine the effects of different ways of framing and presenting vaccine side-effects on individuals' willingness to get vaccinated and their perceptions of vaccine safety.

Results

Adding a descriptive risk label ('very low risk') next to the numerical side-effect and providing a comparison to motor-vehicle mortality increased participants' willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine by 3.0 percentage points (p=0.003) and 2.4 percentage points (p=0.049), respectively. These effects were independent and additive and combining both framing strategies increased willingness to receive the vaccine by 6.1 percentage points (p<0.001). Mechanistically, we find evidence that these framing effects operate by increasing individuals' perceptions of how safe the vaccine is.

Conclusions

Low-cost side-effect framing strategies can meaningfully affect vaccine intentions at a population level.

Funding

Heidelberg Institute of Global Health.

Clinical trial number

German Clinical Trials Registry (#DRKS00025551).

Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think-aloud study

BACKGROUND

Many countries are introducing low-dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake.

METHODS

This study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi-structured, 'think aloud' interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening-naïve current and former smokers (aged 55-73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition.

RESULTS

The leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response-participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement-participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension-participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand.

CONCLUSION

The TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study.

Supporting Health and Medical Decision Making: Findings and Insights from Fuzzy-Trace Theory

HIGHLIGHTS

Fuzzy-trace theory (FTT) supports practical approaches to improving health and medicine.FTT differs in important respects from other theories of decision making, which has implications for how to help patients, providers, and health communicators.Gist mental representations emphasize categorical distinctions, reflect understanding in context, and help cue values relevant to health and patient care.Understanding the science behind theory is crucial for evidence-based medicine.

Cocreation with Dutch patients of decision-relevant information to support shared decision-making about adjuvant treatment in breast cancer care

BACKGROUND

To support patients in shared decision-making about treatment options, patient decision aids (PtDAs) usually provide benefit/harm information and value clarification methods (VCMs). Recently, personalized risk information from prediction models is also being integrated into PtDAs. This study aimed to design decision-relevant information (i.e., personalized survival rates, harm information and VCMs) about adjuvant breast cancer treatment in cocreation with patients, in a way that suits their needs and is easily understandable.

METHODS

Three cocreation sessions with breast cancer patients (N = 7-10; of whom N = 5 low health literate) were performed. Participants completed creative assignments and evaluated prototypes of benefit/harm information and VCMs. Prototypes were further explored through user testing with patients (N = 10) and healthcare providers (N = 10). The researchers interpreted the collected data, for example, creative and homework assignments, and participants' presentations, to identify key themes. User tests were transcribed and analysed using ATLAS.ti to assess the understanding of the prototypes.

RESULTS

Important information needs were: (a) need for overview/structure of information directly after diagnosis and; (b) need for transparent benefit/harm information for all treatment options, including detailed harm information. Regarding VCMs, patients stressed the importance of a summary/conclusion. A bar graph seemed the most appropriate way of displaying personalized survival rates; the impact of most other formats was perceived as too distressful. The concept of 'personalization' was not understood by multiple patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A PtDA about adjuvant breast cancer treatment should provide patients with an overview of the steps and treatment options, with layers for detailed information. Transparent information about the likelihood of benefits and harm should be provided. Given the current lack of information on the likelihood of side effects/late effects, efforts should be made to collect and share these data with patients. Further quantitative studies are needed to validate the results and to investigate how the concept of 'personalization' can be communicated.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Ten breast cancer patients participated in three cocreation sessions to develop decision-relevant information. Subsequent user testing included 10 patients. The Dutch Breast Cancer Association (BVN) was involved as an advisor in the general study design.

Medical decision-making with tables and graphs: The role of cognition, emotions, and analytic thinking

The shift from one-way to two-way communication in healthcare decision-making has heightened the need to understand the role of display formats including tables and graphs as decision aids. In this paper, we investigate cognitive and affective influences on decision-making involving display formats. We find that a display format's impact on decision quality is mediated by two distinct components of cognition (verbatim and gist knowledge), and that tables compared to bar graphs improve decision quality. We also find evidence that analytic thinking and lower negative affect can improve decision quality. Implications for marketers, better engaging patients, and encouraging improved decision-making are discussed.

Measuring the Impact of Quantitative Information on Patient Understanding: Approaches for Assessing the Adequacy of Patient Knowledge about Colorectal Cancer Screening

Background. Guidelines recommend that decision aids disclose quantitative information to patients considering colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but the impact on patient knowledge and decision making is limited. An important challenge for assessing any disclosure involves determining when an individual has “adequate knowledge” to make a decision. Methods. We analyzed data from a trial that randomized 213 patients to view a decision aid about CRC screening that contained verbal information (qualitative arm) versus one containing verbal plus quantitative information (quantitative arm). We analyzed participants’ answers to 8 “qualitative knowledge” questions, which did not cover the quantitative information, at baseline (T0) and after viewing the decision aid (T1). We introduce a novel approach that defines adequate knowledge as correctly answering all of a subset of questions that are particularly relevant because of the participant’s test choice (“Choice-Based Knowledge Assessment”). Results. Participants in the quantitative arm answered a higher mean number of knowledge questions correctly at T1 than did participants in the qualitative arm (7.3 v. 6.9, P < 0.05), and they more frequently had adequate knowledge at T1 based on a cutoff of 6 or 7 correct out of 8 (94% v. 83%, P < 0.05, and 86% v. 71%, P < 0.05, respectively). Members of the quantitative group also more frequently had adequate knowledge at T1 when assessed by Choice-Based Knowledge Assessment (87% v. 76%, P < 0.05). Conclusions. Patients who viewed quantitative information in addition to verbal information had greater qualitative knowledge and more frequently had adequate knowledge compared with those who viewed verbal information alone, according to most ways of defining adequate knowledge. Quantitative information may have helped participants better understand qualitative or gist concepts.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID# NCT01415479

Highlights

Patients who viewed quantitative information in a decision aid about colorectal cancer screening were more knowledgeable about nonquantitative information and were more likely to have adequate knowledge according to a variety of approaches for assessing that, compared with individuals who viewed only qualitative information. This result supports the inclusion of quantitative information in decision aids. Researchers assessing patient understanding should consider a variety of ways to define adequate knowledge when assessing decision quality.

Decision aids linked to the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: results of the acceptability of a decision aid for patients with generalized anxiety disorder

Background

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most prevalent mental health problems. Patients with GAD have unmet needs related to the information received about their disorder, its treatments and their participation in the decision-making process. The aim of this study is to develop and assess the acceptability of a patient decision aid (PtDA) for patients with GAD.

Method

The PtDA was developed following the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The recommendations of the Spanish clinical practice guideline (CPG) for patients with GAD were used as the basis. The first prototype was developed by an expert committee, further improvements were made with patients (n = 2), clinical experts (n = 13) and the project management group (n = 7). The acceptability of this second draft was assessed by patients non-involved in the previous phases (n = 11).

Results

The final PtDA version included a brief description of GAD and its treatments. Most participants agreed that the PtDA was easy to use, visually appealing and useful. At least half of the participants learned new things about treatments and adverse effects.

Conclusions

A PtDA was developed for patients with GAD based on recommendations from the Spanish CPG. It was improved and accepted by patients and clinical experts involved. An evaluation of its effectiveness on the shared decision-making process during the clinical encounter is planned.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01899-2.

Implementing shared decision-making in Australia

Person-centred care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) are part of national clinical standards for an increasing number of areas of health care delivery. In addition to existing standards for accrediting hospitals, day surgery facilities, public dental services and medical education in Australia, new standards governing primary health care and digital mental health services have been added. Implementation and measurement of PCC and SDM to comply with standards, and training of health professionals, remain challenges for the Australian health sector. Consumer involvement in health research, policy and clinical service governance continues to increase and the National Health and Medical Research Council has begun to encourage consumer and community involvement in health and medical research. This increased consumer engagement and moves towards more PCC provision is reflected in a focus on encouraging patients to ask questions during their clinical care and supports improvements in consumer health literacy. SDM support tools are now being culturally adapted whilst a need for more systemic approaches to their development and implementation persists. With increasing resources and tools for all aspects of PCC and SDM challenges to find sustainable solutions to ensure tools are kept up to date with the best available evidence remain.

Opportunities to enhance parental well-being during prenatal counseling for congenital heart disease

Prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease (CHD) can be a life-altering and traumatic event for expectant parents. Parental anxiety, depression, and traumatic stress are common following a prenatal cardiac diagnosis and if untreated, symptoms often persist long-term. During prenatal counseling, parents must try to manage psychological distress, navigate uncertainty, process complex medical information, and make high-stakes medical decisions for their unborn child and their family. Physicians must deliver the diagnosis, describe the expected perinatal management plan, discuss short and long-term prognoses and introduce elements of uncertainty that may exist for the particular diagnosis. Physican training in these important skills is highly variable and many in our field acknowledge the need for improved guidance on best practices for counseling and supporting parents during pregnancy and early parenthood after prenatal diagnosis, while also sustaining physicians' own emotional well-being. We describe these challenges and the opportunities that exist to improve the current state of prenatal counseling in CHD.

Development and user-testing of a digital patient decision aid to facilitate shared decision-making for people with stable angina

Background

Research shows that people with stable angina need decision support when considering elective treatments. Initial treatment is with medicines but patients may gain further benefit with invasive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Choosing between these treatments can be challenging for patients because both confer similar benefits but have different risks. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are evidence-based interventions that support shared decision-making (SDM) when making healthcare decisions. This study aimed to develop and user-test a digital patient decision aid (CONNECT) to facilitate SDM for people with stable angina considering invasive treatment with elective PCI.

Methods

A multi-phase study was conducted to develop and test CONNECT (COroNary aNgioplasty dECision Tool) using approaches recommended by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration: (i) Steering Group assembled, (ii) review of clinical guidance, (iii) co-design workshops with patients and cardiology health professionals, (iv) first prototype developed and ‘alpha’ tested (semi-structured cognitive interviews and 12-item acceptability questionnaire) with patients, cardiologists and cardiac nurses, recruited from two hospitals in Northern England, and (v) final PtDA refined following iterative user-feedback. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data from the interviews analysed using deductive content analysis.

Results

CONNECT was developed and user-tested with 34 patients and 29 cardiology health professionals. Findings showed that CONNECT was generally acceptable, usable, comprehensible, and desirable. Participants suggested that CONNECT had the potential to improve care quality by personalising consultations and facilitating SDM and informed consent. Patient safety may be improved as CONNECT includes questions about symptom burden which can identify asymptomatic patients unlikely to benefit from PCI, as well as those who may need to be fast tracked because of worsening symptoms.

Conclusions

CONNECT is the first digital PtDA for people with stable angina considering elective PCI, developed in the UK using recommended processes and fulfilling international quality criteria. CONNECT shows promise as an approach to facilitate SDM and should be evaluated in a clinical trial. Further work is required to standardise the provision of probabilistic risk information for people considering elective PCI and to understand how CONNECT can be accessible to underserved communities.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01882-x.

Numeracy and the Motivational Mind: The Power of Numeric Self-efficacy

BACKGROUND

Objective numeracy appears to support better medical decisions and health outcomes. The more numerate generally understand and use numbers more and make better medical decisions, including more informed medical choices. Numeric self-efficacy-an aspect of subjective numeracy that is also known as numeric confidence-also relates to decision making via emotional reactions to and inferences from experienced difficulty with numbers and via persistence linked with numeric comprehension and healthier behaviors over time. Furthermore, it moderates the effects of objective numeracy on medical outcomes.

PURPOSE

We briefly review the numeracy and decision-making literature and then summarize more recent literature on 3 separable effects of numeric self-efficacy. Although dual-process theories can account for the generally superior decision making of the highly numerate, they have neglected effects of numeric self-efficacy. We discuss implications for medical decision-making (MDM) research and practice. Finally, we propose a modification to dual-process theories, adding a "motivational mind" to integrate the effects of numeric self-efficacy on decision-making processes (i.e., inferences from experienced difficulty with numbers, greater persistence, and greater use of objective-numeracy skills) important to high-quality MDM.

CONCLUSIONS

The power of numeric self-efficacy (confidence) has been little considered in MDM, but many medical decisions and behaviors require persistence to be successful over time (e.g., comprehension, medical-recommendation adherence). Including numeric self-efficacy in research and theorizing will increase understanding of MDM and promote development of better decision interventions.

HIGHLIGHTS

Research demonstrates that objective numeracy supports better medical decisions and health outcomes.The power of numeric self-efficacy (aka numeric confidence) has been little considered but appears critical to emotional reactions and inferences that patients and others make when encountering numeric information (e.g., in decision aids) and to greater persistence in medical decision-making tasks involving numbers.The present article proposes a novel modification to dual-process theory to account for newer findings and to describe how numeracy mechanisms can be better understood.Because being able to adapt interventions to improve medical decisions depends in part on having a good theory, future research should incorporate numeric self-efficacy into medical decision-making theories and interventions.

Implementation of a Web-Based Tool for Shared Decision-making in Lung Cancer Screening: Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Evaluation

Background

Lung cancer risk and life expectancy vary substantially across patients eligible for low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening (LCS), which has important consequences for optimizing LCS decisions for different patients. To account for this heterogeneity during decision-making, web-based decision support tools are needed to enable quick calculations and streamline the process of obtaining individualized information that more accurately informs patient-clinician LCS discussions. We created DecisionPrecision, a clinician-facing web-based decision support tool, to help tailor the LCS discussion to a patient’s individualized lung cancer risk and estimated net benefit.

Objective

The objective of our study is to test two strategies for implementing DecisionPrecision in primary care at eight Veterans Affairs medical centers: a quality improvement (QI) training approach and academic detailing (AD).

Methods

Phase 1 comprised a multisite, cluster randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of standard implementation (adding a link to DecisionPrecision in the electronic health record vs standard implementation plus the Learn, Engage, Act, and Process [LEAP] QI training program). The primary outcome measure was the use of DecisionPrecision at each site before versus after LEAP QI training. The second phase of the study examined the potential effectiveness of AD as an implementation strategy for DecisionPrecision at all 8 medical centers. Outcomes were assessed by comparing absolute tool use before and after AD visits and conducting semistructured interviews with a subset of primary care physicians (PCPs) following the AD visits.

Results

Phase 1 findings showed that sites that participated in the LEAP QI training program used DecisionPrecision significantly more often than the standard implementation sites (tool used 190.3, SD 174.8 times on average over 6 months at LEAP sites vs 3.5 SD 3.7 at standard sites; P<.001). However, this finding was confounded by the lack of screening coordinators at standard implementation sites. In phase 2, there was no difference in the 6-month tool use between before and after AD (95% CI −5.06 to 6.40; P=.82). Follow-up interviews with PCPs indicated that the AD strategy increased provider awareness and appreciation for the benefits of the tool. However, other priorities and limited time prevented PCPs from using them during routine clinical visits.

Conclusions

The phase 1 findings did not provide conclusive evidence of the benefit of a QI training approach for implementing a decision support tool for LCS among PCPs. In addition, phase 2 findings showed that our light-touch, single-visit AD strategy did not increase tool use. To enable tool use by PCPs, prediction-based tools must be fully automated and integrated into electronic health records, thereby helping providers personalize LCS discussions among their many competing demands. PCPs also need more time to engage in shared decision-making discussions with their patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02765412; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02765412

Primary Care Providers’ Perceptions of the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of a Mammography Decision Aid for Women Aged 75 and Older

Background. Clinicians need to find decision aids (DAs) useful for their successful implementation. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an exploratory study to learn primary care clinicians’ (PCPs) perspectives on a mammography DA for women ≥75 to inform its implementation. Methods. We sent a cross-sectional survey to 135 PCPs whose patients had participated in a randomized trial of the DA. These PCPs practiced at 1 of 11 practices in Massachusetts or North Carolina. PCPs were asked closed-ended and open-ended questions on shared decision making (SDM) around mammography with women ≥75 and on the DA’s acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Results. Eighty PCPs participated (24 [30%] from North Carolina). Most (n = 69, 86%) thought that SDM about mammography with women ≥75 was extremely/very important and that they engaged women ≥75 in SDM around mammography frequently/always (n = 49, 61%). Regarding DA acceptability, 60% felt the DA was too long. Regarding appropriateness, 70 (89%) thought it was somewhat/very helpful and that it would help patients make more informed decisions; 55 (70%) would recommend it. Few (n = 6, 8%) felt they had other resources to support this decision. Regarding feasibility, 53 (n = 67%) thought it would be most feasible for patients to receive the DA before a visit from medical assistants rather than during or after a visit or from health educators. Most (n = 62, 78%) wanted some training to use the DA. Limitations. Sixty-nine percent of PCPs in this small study practiced in academic settings. Conclusions. Although PCPs were concerned about the DA’s length, most found it helpful and informative and felt it would be feasible for medical assistants to deliver the DA before a visit. Implications. Study findings may inform implementation of this and other DAs.

Interventions Using Heart Age for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Communication: Systematic Review of Psychological, Behavioral, and Clinical Effects

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk communication is a challenge for clinical practice, where physicians find it difficult to explain the absolute risk of a CVD event to patients with varying health literacy. Converting the probability to heart age is increasingly used to promote lifestyle change, but a rapid review of biological age interventions found no clear evidence that they motivate behavior change.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we aim to identify the content and effects of heart age interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies presenting heart age interventions to adults for CVD risk communication in April 2020 (later updated in March 2021). The Johanna Briggs risk of bias assessment tool was applied to randomized studies. Behavior change techniques described in the intervention methods were coded.

RESULTS

From a total of 7926 results, 16 eligible studies were identified; these included 5 randomized web-based experiments, 5 randomized clinical trials, 2 mixed methods studies with quantitative outcomes, and 4 studies with qualitative analysis. Direct comparisons between heart age and absolute risk in the 5 web-based experiments, comprising 5514 consumers, found that heart age increased positive or negative emotional responses (4/5 studies), increased risk perception (4/5 studies; but not necessarily more accurate) and recall (4/4 studies), reduced credibility (2/3 studies), and generally had no effect on lifestyle intentions (4/5 studies). One study compared heart age and absolute risk to fitness age and found reduced lifestyle intentions for fitness age. Heart age combined with additional strategies (eg, in-person or phone counseling) in applied settings for 9582 patients improved risk control (eg, reduced cholesterol levels and absolute risk) compared with usual care in most trials (4/5 studies) up to 1 year. However, clinical outcomes were no different when directly compared with absolute risk (1/1 study). Mixed methods studies identified consultation time and content as important outcomes in actual consultations using heart age tools. There were differences between people receiving an older heart age result and those receiving a younger or equal to current heart age result. The heart age interventions included a wide range of behavior change techniques, and conclusions were sometimes biased in favor of heart age with insufficient supporting evidence. The risk of bias assessment indicated issues with all randomized clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review provide little evidence that heart age motivates lifestyle behavior change more than absolute risk, but either format can improve clinical outcomes when combined with other behavior change strategies. The label for the heart age concept can affect outcomes and should be pretested with the intended audience. Future research should consider consultation time and differentiate between results of older and younger heart age.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

NPRR2-10.1101/2020.05.03.20089938.

Interventions Using Heart Age for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Communication: Systematic Review of Psychological, Behavioral, and Clinical Effects

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk communication is a challenge for clinical practice, where physicians find it difficult to explain the absolute risk of a CVD event to patients with varying health literacy. Converting the probability to heart age is increasingly used to promote lifestyle change, but a rapid review of biological age interventions found no clear evidence that they motivate behavior change.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we aim to identify the content and effects of heart age interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies presenting heart age interventions to adults for CVD risk communication in April 2020 (later updated in March 2021). The Johanna Briggs risk of bias assessment tool was applied to randomized studies. Behavior change techniques described in the intervention methods were coded.

RESULTS

From a total of 7926 results, 16 eligible studies were identified; these included 5 randomized web-based experiments, 5 randomized clinical trials, 2 mixed methods studies with quantitative outcomes, and 4 studies with qualitative analysis. Direct comparisons between heart age and absolute risk in the 5 web-based experiments, comprising 5514 consumers, found that heart age increased positive or negative emotional responses (4/5 studies), increased risk perception (4/5 studies; but not necessarily more accurate) and recall (4/4 studies), reduced credibility (2/3 studies), and generally had no effect on lifestyle intentions (4/5 studies). One study compared heart age and absolute risk to fitness age and found reduced lifestyle intentions for fitness age. Heart age combined with additional strategies (eg, in-person or phone counseling) in applied settings for 9582 patients improved risk control (eg, reduced cholesterol levels and absolute risk) compared with usual care in most trials (4/5 studies) up to 1 year. However, clinical outcomes were no different when directly compared with absolute risk (1/1 study). Mixed methods studies identified consultation time and content as important outcomes in actual consultations using heart age tools. There were differences between people receiving an older heart age result and those receiving a younger or equal to current heart age result. The heart age interventions included a wide range of behavior change techniques, and conclusions were sometimes biased in favor of heart age with insufficient supporting evidence. The risk of bias assessment indicated issues with all randomized clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review provide little evidence that heart age motivates lifestyle behavior change more than absolute risk, but either format can improve clinical outcomes when combined with other behavior change strategies. The label for the heart age concept can affect outcomes and should be pretested with the intended audience. Future research should consider consultation time and differentiate between results of older and younger heart age.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

NPRR2-10.1101/2020.05.03.20089938.

Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment.

Purpose

To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL.

Study Selection

We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods.

Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation.

Data Synthesis

Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ² = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ² = 6.08, P = 0.05).

Limitations

Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories.

Conclusions

Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Using Mixed Methods With Multiple Stakeholders to Inform Development of a Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Women With Limited Health Literacy

Background. When stakeholders offer divergent input, it can be unclear how to prioritize information for decision aids (DAs) on mammography screening. Objectives. This analysis triangulates perspectives (breast cancer screening experts, primary care providers [PCPs], and patients with limited health literacy [LHL]) to understand areas of divergent and convergent input across stakeholder groups in developing a breast cancer screening DA for younger women with LHL. Design. A modified online Delphi panel of 8 experts rated 57 statements for inclusion in a breast cancer screening DA over three rounds. Individual interviews with 25 patients with LHL and 20 PCPs from a large safety net hospital explored informational needs about mammography decision making. Codes from the qualitative interviews and open-ended responses from the Delphi process were mapped across stakeholders to ascertain areas where stakeholder preferences converged or diverged. Results. Four themes regarding informational needs were identified regarding 1) the benefits and harms of screening, 2) different screening modalities, 3) the experience of mammography, and 4) communication about breast cancer risk. Patients viewed pain as the primary harm, while PCPs and experts emphasized the harm of false positives. Patients, but not PCPs or experts, felt that information about the process of getting a mammogram was important. PCPs believed that mammography was the only evidence-based screening modality, while patients believed breast self-exam was also important for screening. All stakeholders described incorporating personal risk information as important. Limitations. As participants came from one hospital, perceptions may reflect local practices. The Delphi sample size was small. Conclusions. Patients, experts, and PCPs had divergent views on the most important information needed for screening decisions. More evidence is needed to guide integration of multiple stakeholder perspectives into the content of DAs.

Redevelopment of the Predict: Breast Cancer website and recommendations for developing interfaces to support decision-making

Objectives

To develop a new interface for the widely used prognostic breast cancer tool: Predict: Breast Cancer. To facilitate decision‐making around post‐surgery breast cancer treatments. To derive recommendations for communicating the outputs of prognostic models to patients and their clinicians.

Method

We employed a user‐centred design process comprised of background research and iterative testing of prototypes with clinicians and patients. Methods included surveys, focus groups and usability testing.

Results

The updated interface now caters to the needs of a wider audience through the addition of new visualisations, instantaneous updating of results, enhanced explanatory information and the addition of new predictors and outputs. A programme of future research was identified and is now underway, including the provision of quantitative data on the adverse effects of adjuvant breast cancer treatments.

Based on our user‐centred design process, we identify six recommendations for communicating the outputs of prognostic models including the need to contextualise statistics, identify and address gaps in knowledge, and the critical importance of engaging with prospective users when designing communications.

Conclusions

For prognostic algorithms to fulfil their potential to assist with decision‐making they need carefully designed interfaces. User‐centred design puts patients and clinicians needs at the forefront, allowing them to derive the maximum benefit from prognostic models.