Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review

Communicating Absolute Fracture Risk Reduction and the Acceptance of Treatment for Osteoporosis

Healthcare professionals frequently communicate the benefits of treatments as a relative risk reduction (RRR) in the likelihood of an event occurring. Here we evaluated whether presenting the benefits of osteoporosis treatment as a RRR in fractures compared with an absolute risk reduction (ARR) changed the patient's attitudes towards accepting treatment. We surveyed 160 individuals attending a specialised osteoporosis clinic for face-to-face consultations between May 2018 and Jan 2021. They were presented with information on RRR for the treatment being considered followed by ARR and after each question were asked about how likely they would be to start treatment on a 5-point scale (1 = very likely, 5 = very unlikely). Participants were less likely to accept treatment when it was presented as ARR (mean score 2.02 vs. 2.67, p < 0.001, 95% CI for difference - 0.82 vs - 0.47) and thirty-eight participants (23.7%) declined treatment with knowledge of their ARR when they would have accepted the same treatment based on the RRR. Individuals who declined treatment had a lower 5-year risk of fracture than those who accepted treatment (9.0 vs. 12.5%, p < 0.001, 95% CI - 5.0 to - 1.6) and as fracture risk decreased, the participant was less likely to accept treatment (Spearman r - 0.32, 95% CI - 0.46 to - 0.17, p ≤ 0.001). Whilst presentation of data as ARR more accurately reflects individual benefit and helps facilitate shared decision-making, clinicians should be aware that this will lead to a proportion of patients with lower fracture risk declining treatment for osteoporosis.

Arrhythmias as Presentation of Genetic Cardiomyopathy

There is increasing evidence regarding the prevalence of genetic cardiomyopathies, for which arrhythmias may be the first presentation. Ventricular and atrial arrhythmias presenting in the absence of known myocardial disease are often labelled as idiopathic, or lone. While ventricular arrhythmias are well-recognized as presentation for arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy in the right ventricle, the scope of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy has broadened to include those with dominant left ventricular involvement, usually with a phenotype of dilated cardiomyopathy. In addition, careful evaluation for genetic cardiomyopathy is also warranted for patients presenting with frequent premature ventricular contractions, conduction system disease, and early onset atrial fibrillation, in which most detected genes are in the cardiomyopathy panels. Sudden death can occur early in the course of these genetic cardiomyopathies, for which risk is not adequately tracked by left ventricular ejection fraction. Only a few of the cardiomyopathy genotypes implicated in early sudden death are recognized in current indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillators which otherwise rely upon a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤0.35 in dilated cardiomyopathy. The genetic diagnoses impact other aspects of clinical management such as exercise prescription and pharmacological therapy of arrhythmias, and new therapies are coming into clinical investigation for specific genetic cardiomyopathies. The expansion of available genetic information and implications raises new challenges for genetic counseling, particularly with the family member who has no evidence of a cardiomyopathy phenotype and may face a potentially negative impact of a genetic diagnosis. Discussions of risk for both probands and relatives need to be tailored to their numeric literacy during shared decision-making. For patients presenting with arrhythmias or cardiomyopathy, extension of genetic testing and its implications will enable cascade screening, intervention to change the trajectory for specific genotype-phenotype profiles, and enable further development and evaluation of emerging targeted therapies.

Polygenic risk for prostate cancer: Decreasing relative risk with age but little impact on absolute risk

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for a variety of diseases have recently been shown to have relative risks that depend on age, and genetic relative risks decrease with increasing age. A refined understanding of the age dependency of PRSs for a disease is important for personalized risk predictions and risk stratification. To further evaluate how the PRS relative risk for prostate cancer depends on age, we refined analyses for a validated PRS for prostate cancer by using 64,274 prostate cancer cases and 46,432 controls of diverse ancestry (82.8% European, 9.8% African American, 3.8% Latino, 2.8% Asian, and 0.8% Ghanaian). Our strategy applied a novel weighted proportional hazards model to case-control data to fully utilize age to refine how the relative risk decreased with age. We found significantly greater relative risks for younger men (age 30-55 years) compared with older men (70-88 years) for both relative risk per standard deviation of the PRS and dichotomized according to the upper 90^th percentile of the PRS distribution. For the largest European ancestral group that could provide reliable resolution, the log-relative risk decreased approximately linearly from age 50 to age 75. Despite strong evidence of age-dependent genetic relative risk, our results suggest that absolute risk predictions differed little from predictions that assumed a constant relative risk over ages, from short-term to long-term predictions, simplifying implementation of risk discussions into clinical practice.

Making sense of harms and benefits: Assessing the numeric presentation of risk information in ACOG obstetrical clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To assess the presentation of risk information in American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) obstetrical Practice Bulletins.

METHODS

We reviewed B- and C-graded recommendations in Practice Bulletins published from January 2017 to March 2020. We calculated the proportion of recommendations and outcomes that were presented numerically and, of these, the proportion that were presented in accordance with best practices of risk communication - in absolute formats, or as absolute changes in risk from baseline risks. We categorized outcomes as harms or benefits to compare their risk presentation.

RESULTS

In 21 obstetrical Practice Bulletins, there were 125 recommendations, with 46 (37%) describing risks numerically. Sixteen of these 46 recommendations (35%) presented an absolute change in risk from a baseline risk. For harms, 65% were presented as absolute risks and 25% as relative risks. For benefits, this was 55% and 48% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Most recommendations do not present numeric risk information. Of those that do, most do not use absolute risk measures.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Obstetrical practice guidelines should present numerical risk information wherever possible to support recommendations, increasing the use of absolute risk formats and absolute changes from baseline risks to increase risk comprehension.

Identifying content to improve risk assessment communications within the Risk Profile: Literature reviews and focus groups with expert and non-expert stakeholders

Objective

To improve consumer decision making, the results of risk assessments on food, feed, consumer products or chemicals need to be communicated not only to experts but also to non-expert audiences. The present study draws on evidence from literature reviews and focus groups with diverse stakeholders to identify content to integrate into an existing risk assessment communication (Risk Profile).

Methods

A combination of rapid literature reviews and focus groups with experts (risk assessors (n = 15), risk managers (n = 8)), and non-experts (general public (n = 18)) were used to identify content and strategies for including information about risk assessment results in the “Risk Profile” from the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Feedback from initial focus groups was used to develop communication prototypes that informed subsequent feedback rounds in an iterative process. A final prototype was validated in usability tests with experts.

Results

Focus group feedback and suggestions from risk assessors were largely in line with findings from the literature. Risk managers and lay persons offered similar suggestions on how to improve the existing communication of risk assessment results (e.g., including more explanatory detail, reporting probabilities for individual health impairments, and specifying risks for subgroups in additional sections). Risk managers found information about quality of evidence important to communicate, whereas people from the general public found this information less relevant. Participants from lower educational backgrounds had difficulties understanding the purpose of risk assessments. User tests found that the final prototype was appropriate and feasible to implement by risk assessors.

Conclusion

An iterative and evidence-based process was used to develop content to improve the communication of risk assessments to the general public while being feasible to use by risk assessors. Remaining challenges include how to communicate dose-response relationships and standardise quality of evidence ratings across disciplines.

[A new understanding of risk communication in public health emergencies]

Die Risikokommunikation öffentlicher Institutionen soll die Bevölkerung im Falle bestehender Risiken bei der Entscheidungsfindung unterstützen. In gesundheitlichen Notlagen wie der Coronavirus(SARS-CoV-2)-Pandemie spielt sie eine besonders wichtige Rolle. Bereits nach dem SARS-Ausbruch im Jahr 2003 hat die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) ihre Internationalen Gesundheitsvorschriften (IHR 2005) überarbeitet und gefordert, Risikokommunikation in allen Mitgliedsländern als einen Kernbereich in der Gesundheitspolitik zu etablieren. Während der gesundheitspolitische Akzent begrüßt wurde, konnten die Möglichkeiten der Risikokommunikation in diesem Bereich bisher nicht voll ausgeschöpft werden. Gründe sind u. a. Unstimmigkeiten im Begriffsverständnis der Risikokommunikation und die Vielzahl zur Verfügung stehender Methoden.

Der vorliegende Diskussionsartikel soll dazu beitragen, ein neues Verständnis von Risikokommunikation in Public-Health-Notlagen (Emergency Risk Communication – ERC) zu etablieren. Es wird vorgeschlagen, neben den Risiken die Chancen der Krise stärker einzubeziehen und Risikokommunikation noch mehr als einen kontinuierlichen Prozess zu begreifen, der an verschiedenen Stellen optimierbar ist. Der Earlier-Faster-Smoother-Smarter-Ansatz und hierbei insbesondere die frühere Erkennung von Gesundheitsgefahren (Earlier) könnten das Management von Public-Health-Notlagen zukünftig unterstützen.

A tool for translating polygenic scores onto the absolute scale using summary statistics

There is growing interest in the clinical application of polygenic scores as their predictive utility increases for a range of health-related phenotypes. However, providing polygenic score predictions on the absolute scale is an important step for their safe interpretation. We have developed a method to convert polygenic scores to the absolute scale for binary and normally distributed phenotypes. This method uses summary statistics, requiring only the area-under-the-ROC curve (AUC) or variance explained (R2) by the polygenic score, and the prevalence of binary phenotypes, or mean and standard deviation of normally distributed phenotypes. Polygenic scores are converted using normal distribution theory. We also evaluate methods for estimating polygenic score AUC/R2 from genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics alone. We validate the absolute risk conversion and AUC/R2 estimation using data for eight binary and three continuous phenotypes in the UK Biobank sample. When the AUC/R2 of the polygenic score is known, the observed and estimated absolute values were highly concordant. Estimates of AUC/R2 from the lassosum pseudovalidation method were most similar to the observed AUC/R2 values, though estimated values deviated substantially from the observed for autoimmune disorders. This study enables accurate interpretation of polygenic scores using only summary statistics, providing a useful tool for educational and clinical purposes. Furthermore, we have created interactive webtools implementing the conversion to the absolute ( https://opain.github.io/GenoPred/PRS_to_Abs_tool.html ). Several further barriers must be addressed before clinical implementation of polygenic scores, such as ensuring target individuals are well represented by the GWAS sample.

User-Centered Design of A Novel Risk Prediction Behavior Change Tool Augmented With an Artificial Intelligence Engine (MyDiabetesIQ): A Sociotechnical Systems Approach

Background

Diabetes and its complications account for 10% of annual health care spending in the United Kingdom. Digital health care interventions (DHIs) can provide scalable care, fostering diabetes self-management and reducing the risk of complications. Tailorability (providing personalized interventions) and usability are key to DHI engagement/effectiveness. User-centered design of DHIs (aligning features to end users’ needs) can generate more usable interventions, avoiding unintended consequences and improving user engagement.

Objective

MyDiabetesIQ (MDIQ) is an artificial intelligence engine intended to predict users’ diabetes complications risk. It will underpin a user interface in which users will alter lifestyle parameters to see the impact on their future risks. MDIQ will link to an existing DHI, My Diabetes My Way (MDMW). We describe the user-centered design of the user interface of MDIQ as informed by human factors engineering.

Methods

Current users of MDMW were invited to take part in focus groups to gather their insights about users being shown their likelihood of developing diabetes-related complications and any risks they perceived from using MDIQ. Findings from focus groups informed the development of a prototype MDIQ interface, which was then user-tested through the “think aloud” method, in which users speak aloud about their thoughts/impressions while performing prescribed tasks. Focus group and think aloud transcripts were analyzed thematically, using a combination of inductive and deductive analysis. For think aloud data, a sociotechnical model was used as a framework for thematic analysis.

Results

Focus group participants (n=8) felt that some users could become anxious when shown their future complications risks. They highlighted the importance of easy navigation, jargon avoidance, and the use of positive/encouraging language. User testing of the prototype site through think aloud sessions (n=7) highlighted several usability issues. Issues included confusing visual cues and confusion over whether user-updated information fed back to health care teams. Some issues could be compounded for users with limited digital skills. Results from the focus groups and think aloud workshops were used in the development of a live MDIQ platform.

Conclusions

Acting on the input of end users at each iterative stage of a digital tool’s development can help to prioritize users throughout the design process, ensuring the alignment of DHI features with user needs. The use of the sociotechnical framework encouraged the consideration of interactions between different sociotechnical dimensions in finding solutions to issues, for example, avoiding the exclusion of users with limited digital skills. Based on user feedback, the tool could scaffold good goal setting, allowing users to balance their palatable future complications risk against acceptable lifestyle changes. Optimal control of diabetes relies heavily on self-management. Tools such as MDMW/ MDIQ can offer personalized support for self-management alongside access to users’ electronic health records, potentially helping to delay or reduce long-term complications, thereby providing significant reductions in health care costs.

A web-based personalized decision support tool for patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ: development, content evaluation, and usability testing

PURPOSE

Patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) face trade-offs when deciding among different treatments, including surgery, radiation, and endocrine therapy. A less chosen option is active monitoring. While evidence from clinical trials is not yet available, observational studies show comparable results for active monitoring and immediate treatment on cancer outcomes in select subgroups of patients. We developed and tested a web-based decision support tool (DST) to help patients explore current knowledge about DCIS and make an informed choice.

METHODS

The DST, an interactive web application, was informed by literature reviews and formative work with patients, breast surgeons, and health communication experts. We conducted iterative interviews to evaluate the DST content among women with and without a history of breast cancer, as well as breast cancer experts. For usability testing, we conducted an online survey among women with and without a history of breast cancer.

RESULTS

For content evaluation, 5 women with and 10 women without a history of DCIS were interviewed. The sample included 11 White and 4 non-White women, with a mean age of 64 years. The expert sample consisted of 5 attendings and a physician assistant. The feedback was used to add, clarify, or reorganize information in the DST. For usability testing, 22 participants with a mean age of 61 years were recruited including 15 White and 7 Black women and 6 women with a history of DCIS. The mean usability score was 3.7 out of 5. Most participants (86%) found that the DST provided unbiased information about treatments. To improve usability, we reduced the per-page content and added navigation cues.

CONCLUSION

Content and usability evaluation showed that the DST helps patients explore trade-offs of active monitoring and immediate treatment. By adopting a personalized approach, the tool will enable informed decisions aligned with patients' values and expectations.

The development of a decision aid to support Hodgkin lymphoma survivors considering lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Decisions aids (DA) can support patients to make informed decisions about screening tests. This study describes the development and initial evaluation of a lung cancer screening (LCS) DA targeted towards survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

METHODS

A prototype decision aid booklet was developed and subsequently reviewed by a steering group who provided feedback. Revisions were made to produce the DA tested in this study. HL survivors were recruited to an online survey and/or focus groups. Lymphoma practitioners were invited to an interview study. In the online survey, decisional conflict scales and knowledge scales were completed before and after accessing the DA. The focus groups and interviews explored acceptability and comprehensibility and the decisional needs of stakeholders. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded. The framework method was used to analyse qualitative data.

RESULTS

38 HL survivors completed the online survey. Following exposure to the DA, knowledge of LCS and risk factors and decisional conflict scores (total score and subscale scores) improved significantly. 11 HL survivors took part in two focus groups (n = 5 and n = 6) and 11 practitioners were interviewed. Focus group and interview results: The language, format and length were considered acceptable. Both groups felt the DA was balanced and presented a choice. Icon arrays were felt to aid comprehension of absolute risk values and for some survivors, they reduced affective risk perceptions. Among survivors, the impact of radiation risk on decision making varied according to gender and screening interval, whilst practitioners did not anticipate it to be a major concern for patients. Both groups expressed that a screening offer could mitigate anxiety about lung cancer risk. As anticipated by practitioners, survivors expressed a desire to seek advice from their clinical team. Practitioners thought the DA would meet their informational needs regarding LCS  when supporting survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

The DA is considered acceptable by HL survivors and practitioners. The DA reduces decisional conflict and improves knowledge in HL survivors, suggesting that it would support HL survivors to make informed decisions when considering LCS in a future clinical trial.

How Do We Deal with Uncertain Information? Effects of Verbal and Visual Expressions of Uncertainty on Learning

Based on the knowledge generation model for visual analytics including uncertainty propagation and human trust building (Sacha et al. 2016), the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2014), the multimedia principle (Butcher, 2014), and previous studies on the effects of different uncertainty visualization styles, an integrated theoretical approach is proposed to examine the influence of different degrees of information uncertainty and different uncertainty visualization styles on processing pictures of two archeological reconstructions with accompanying audio explanations presented in a multimedia learning environment. A 4 × 3 design with condition (without uncertainty visualization vs. stop light colors vs. geometric contrast vs. both uncertainty visualizations) as the between-subjects factor and uncertainty value (uncertain vs. medium vs. certain) as the within-subject factor was used. The results showed that appearance of certain content, its uncertainty values, and their verbal scientific justifications were remembered better than uncertain ones. Furthermore, stop light colors enhanced the memory of uncertainty values compared to no uncertainty visualization and were better understood, discriminated, and transferred than geometric contrast. Geometric contrast decreased the memory of the appearance of uncertain architectural elements compared to no uncertainty visualization and was better than stop light colors regarding the memory of the appearance of certain architectural elements. The study integrates and extends existing theories by showing that certain contents are processed with higher priority than uncertain contents and that the multimedia effect is also valid for metainformation such as the uncertainties of contents. Finally, recommendations for designing learning material including uncertainty visualizations are given.

Prolongation of disease-free life: When is the benefit sufficient to warrant the effort of taking a preventive medicine?

The prolongation of disease-free life (PODL) required by people to be willing to accept an offer of a preventive treatment is unknown. Quantifying the required benefits could guide information and discussions about preventive treatment. In this study, we investigated how large the benefit in prolongation of a disease-free life (PODL) should be for individuals aged 50-80 years to accept a preventive treatment offer. We used a cross-sectional survey design based on a representative sample of 6847 Danish citizens aged 50-80 years. Data were collected in 2019 through a web-based standardized questionnaire administered by Statistics Denmark, and socio-demographic data were added from a national registry. We analyzed the data with chi-square tests and stepwise multinomial logistic regression. The results indicate that the required minimum benefit from the preventive treatment varied widely between individuals (1-week PODL = 14.8%, ≥4 years PODL = 39.2%), and that the majority of individuals (51.1%) required a PODL of ≥2 years. The multivariable analysis indicate that education and income were independently and negatively associated with requested minimum benefit, while age and smoking were independently and positively associated with requested minimum benefit to accept the preventive treatment. Most individuals aged 50-80 years required larger health benefits than most preventive medications on average can offer. The data support the need for educating patients and health care professionals on how to use average benefits when discussing treatment benefits, especially for primary prevention.

Evaluating the impact of a new educational tool on understanding of polygenic risk scores for alcohol use disorder

INTRODUCTION

As gene identification efforts have advanced in psychiatry, so have aspirations to use genome-wide polygenic information for prevention and intervention. Although polygenic risk scores (PRS) for substance use and psychiatric outcomes are not yet available in clinical settings, individuals can access their PRS through online direct-to-consumer resources. One of these widely used websites reports that alcohol use disorder is the third most requested PRS out of >1,000 conditions. However, data indicate that there are misunderstandings about complex genetic concepts, with a lower understanding of PRS being associated with a more negative impact of receiving polygenic risk information. There is a need to develop and evaluate educational tools to increase understanding of PRS.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of web-based educational information on understanding of PRS for alcohol use disorder. A total of 325 college students (70.4% female; 43.6% White; mean age = 18.9 years) from an urban, diverse university completed the study.

RESULTS

Overall, participants were highly satisfied with the educational information. Results from a one-way ANOVA indicated that there was a significant increase in overall understanding of PRS for alcohol use disorder (p-value < 0.001), among individuals who received educational information about PRS and alcohol use disorder, as compared to receiving no accompanying information (adj. p-value < 0.001), or educational information about alcohol use disorder only (adj. p-value < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

These findings suggest that the web-based educational tool could be provided alongside polygenic risk information in order to enhance understanding and interpretation of the information.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

[ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT05143073].

Effective communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk of fragility fracture: a scoping review

Two scoping reviews were conducted to review recommendations and guidelines for communication regarding general health risk, and to investigate communication strategies regarding risk of fracture. Healthcare professionals are invited to apply these recommendations to optimize a patient-centered approach to reducing risk of fracture.

INTRODUCTION

To conduct a scoping review of the medical literature regarding recommendations and tools for effective communication between healthcare professionals and patients regarding general health risk and risk of fracture.

METHODS

The scoping review was divided into two parts to search for (1) studies presenting recommendations and guidelines for communication regarding general health risk; (2) studies investigating communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk for fractures. Medline was searched in April 2020 to identify relevant studies.

RESULTS

The scoping review included 43 studies on communication with regard to general health risk and 25 studies about communication regarding risk of fracture. Recommendations for effective communication with regard to risk are presented. Communication of numeric data on risk should be adapted to the literacy and numeracy levels of the individual patient. Patient understanding of numerical data can be enhanced with appropriate use of visual aids (e.g., pie charts, icon arrays, bar charts, pictograms). The FRAX® tool is the most recommended and most used tool for assessing risk of fracture. Communication sent as individualized letters to patients following DXA scans has been studied, although patient understanding of their risk of fracture is often reported as low using this technique. Use of visual aids may improve patient understanding.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professionals are encouraged to apply recommendations presented in this scoping review in their clinical practice. Patient understanding of risk of fracture should be confirmed by making sure that patients feel free to ask questions and express their concerns. This will contribute to an optimal patient-centered approach. Developing online tools to convert the probability of fracture into patient-friendly visual presentations could facilitate communication between healthcare professionals and patients about risk of fracture.

How good are medical students at communicating risk? An implementation study at three German medical schools

OBJECTIVE

To assess the objective and subjective risk communication skills of medical students in three universities in Germany METHODS: We developed a risk communication skills Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) station and implemented it in three medical schools in Germany. 596 students contributed data to a risk communication checklist and a risk communication self-assessment. Multiple linear regression models were used to identify factors associated with the risk communication OSCE performance.

RESULTS

Participants in our study achieved on average 73.5% of the total risk communication skills score, which did not differ between locations (F(2-595) = 1.96; p = 0.142). The mean objective performance of students who assessed their skills as poor was significantly worse than the performance of students who assessed their skills as good (t(520) = -5.01, p < 0.001). The risk communication skills score was associated with native language but not with gender nor General Point Average (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical students demonstrated acceptable risk communication skills scores and were able to self-assess their performance. However, selected communication techniques should be re-emphasised in the undergraduate medical curriculum.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our research identified shortcomings in particular subgroups that can be addressed through tailored curriculum interventions.

Evidence-based urology: importance of relative vs absolute effect

In order to effectively apply research evidence - in particular the results of clinical trials - to daily patient care, clinicians need to understand the magnitude of treatment benefits and harms, and the ways authors may express that magnitude. Authors may express outcomes using either relative or absolute measures, or both together. Relative measures make the magnitude of treatment effect appear much greater than absolute. Absolute effects are, however, more important to patients than relative effects. Here, using examples from the urological literature, we discuss the concepts of relative and absolute measures. PATIENT SUMMARY: When presenting the results of a trial, different ways of describing the same risk can influence the way patients and their doctors perceive the results. Reports can choose relative or absolute measures - or report both. Absolute measures are more informative in understanding the risk of an outcome patients face when not treated, and how treatment improves that risk.

The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials

Background

The quality of evidence about the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical health interventions is often low, but little is known about the effects of communicating indications of evidence quality to the public.

Methods

In two blinded, randomised, controlled, online experiments, US participants (total n = 2140) were shown one of several versions of an infographic illustrating the effectiveness of eye protection in reducing COVID-19 transmission. Their trust in the information, understanding, feelings of effectiveness of eye protection, and the likelihood of them adopting it were measured.

Findings

Compared to those given no quality cues, participants who were told the quality of the evidence on eye protection was ‘low’, rated the evidence less trustworthy (p = .001, d = 0.25), and rated it as subjectively less effective (p = .018, d = 0.19). The same effects emerged compared to those who were told the quality of the evidence was ‘high’, and in one of the two studies, those shown ‘low’ quality of evidence said they were less likely to use eye protection (p = .005, d = 0.18). Participants who were told the quality of the evidence was ‘high’ showed no statistically significant differences on these measures compared to those given no information about evidence quality.

Conclusions

Without quality of evidence cues, participants responded to the evidence about the public health intervention as if it was high quality and this affected their subjective perceptions of its efficacy and trust in the provided information. This raises the ethical dilemma of weighing the importance of transparently stating when the evidence base is actually low quality against evidence that providing such information can decrease trust, perception of intervention efficacy, and likelihood of adopting it.

Using a Deliberative Poll on breast cancer screening to assess and improve the decision quality of laypeople

Balancing the benefits and harms of mammography screening is difficult and involves a value judgement. Screening is both a medical and a social intervention, therefore public opinion could be considered when deciding if mammography screening programmes should be implemented and continued. Opinion polls have revealed high levels of public enthusiasm for cancer screening, however, the public tends to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms. In the search for better public decision on mammography screening, this study investigated the quality of public opinion arising from a Deliberative Poll. In a Deliberative Poll a representative group of people is brought together to deliberate with each other and with experts based on specific information. Before, during and after the process, the participants’ opinions are assessed. In our Deliberative Poll a representative sample of the Danish population aged between 18 and 70 participated. They studied an online video and took part in five hours of intense online deliberation. We used survey data at four timepoints during the study, from recruitment to one month after the poll, to estimate the quality of decisions by the following outcomes: 1) Knowledge; 2) Ability to form opinions; 3) Opinion stability, and 4) Opinion consistency. The proportion of participants with a high level of knowledge increased from 1% at recruitment to 56% after receiving video information. More people formed an opinion regarding the effectiveness of the screening programme (12%), the economy of the programme (27%), and the ethical dilemmas of screening (10%) due to the process of information and deliberation. For 11 out of 14 opinion items, the within-item correlations between the first two inquiry time points were smaller than the correlations between later timepoints. This indicates increased opinion stability. The correlations between three pairs of opinion items deemed theoretically related a priori all increased, indicating increased opinion consistency. Overall, the combined process of online information and deliberation increased opinion quality about mammography screening by increasing knowledge and the ability to form stable and consistent opinions.

Brain Health Services: organization, structure, and challenges for implementation. A user manual for Brain Health Services-part 1 of 6

Dementia has a devastating impact on the quality of life of patients and families and comes with a huge cost to society. Dementia prevention is considered a public health priority by the World Health Organization. Delaying the onset of dementia by treating associated risk factors will bring huge individual and societal benefit. Empirical evidence suggests that, in higher-income countries, dementia incidence is decreasing as a result of healthier lifestyles. This observation supports the notion that preventing dementia is possible and that a certain degree of prevention is already in action. Further reduction of dementia incidence through deliberate prevention plans is needed to counteract its growing prevalence due to increasing life expectancy.An increasing number of individuals with normal cognitive performance seek help in the current memory clinics asking an evaluation of their dementia risk, preventive interventions, or interventions to ameliorate their cognitive performance. Consistent evidence suggests that some of these individuals are indeed at increased risk of dementia. This new health demand asks for a shift of target population, from patients with cognitive impairment to worried but cognitively unimpaired individuals. However, current memory clinics do not have the programs and protocols in place to deal with this new population.We envision the development of new services, henceforth called Brain Health Services, devoted to respond to demands from cognitively unimpaired individuals concerned about their risk of dementia. The missions of Brain Health Services will be (i) dementia risk profiling, (ii) dementia risk communication, (iii) dementia risk reduction, and (iv) cognitive enhancement. In this paper, we present the organizational and structural challenges associated with the set-up of Brain Health Services.

Dementia risk communication. A user manual for Brain Health Services-part 3 of 6

Growing evidence suggests dementia incidence can be reduced through prevention programs targeting risk factors. To accelerate the implementation of such prevention programs, a new generation of brain health services (BHS) is envisioned, involving risk profiling, risk communication, risk reduction, and cognitive enhancement. The purpose of risk communication is to enable individuals at risk to make informed decisions and take action to protect themselves and is thus a crucial step in tailored prevention strategies of the dementia incidence. However, communicating about dementia risk is complex and challenging.In this paper, we provide an overview of (i) perspectives on communicating dementia risk from an ethical, clinical, and societal viewpoint; (ii) insights gained from memory clinical practice; (iii) available evidence on the impact of disclosing APOE and Alzheimer's disease biomarker test results gathered from clinical trials and observational studies; (iv) the value of established registries in light of BHS; and (v) practical recommendations regarding effective strategies for communicating about dementia risk.In addition, we identify challenges, i.e., the current lack of evidence on what to tell on an individual level-the actual risk-and on how to optimally communicate about dementia risk, especially concerning worried yet cognitively unimpaired individuals. Ideally, dementia risk communication strategies should maximize the desired impact of risk information on individuals' understanding of their health/disease status and risk perception and minimize potential harms. More research is thus warranted on the impact of dementia risk communication, to (1) evaluate the merits of different approaches to risk communication on outcomes in the cognitive, affective and behavioral domains, (2) develop an evidence-based, harmonized dementia risk communication protocol, and (3) develop e-tools to support and promote adherence to this protocol in BHSs.Based on the research reviewed, we recommend that dementia risk communication should be precise; include the use of absolute risks, visual displays, and time frames; based on a process of shared decision-making; and address the inherent uncertainty that comes with any probability.

Teaching clinicians shared decision making and risk communication online: an evaluation study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the development and initial evaluation of a brief e-learning course as a means of teaching shared decision making and risk communication skills to clinicians of all specialties.

DESIGN

Comparison pre-course and post-course of scores in subjective confidence and objective knowledge about shared decision making and risk communication.

SETTING

Online and open to all specialties and levels of clinical experience, including students.

PARTICIPANTS

The course is freely available online and all who started the course from September 2018 to May 2020 were invited to participate in the evaluation study.

INTERVENTION

The self-guided e-learning course is made up of four modules and takes approximately 2 hours to complete. It is hosted on the website of the Winton Centre for Risk Communication and the UK's National Health Service e-learning platform.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pre-course and post-course confidence in performing shared decision making (as measured by a 10-item scale adapted from the OPTION tool; total score range 10-50), and objective knowledge about basic principles of shared decision making and risk communication, as measured by performance on four knowledge questions and three calculations. At course commencement, a single item from the Berlin Numeracy Test, and the eight-item Subjective Numeracy Test were also asked.

RESULTS

Of 366 unique participants who consented and commenced the course, 210 completed all modules and the final post-course test. Participants' mean age was 38.1 years, 69% were in current clinical practice and had a mean of 10.5 years of clinical practice. Numeracy was relatively low, with 50.7% correctly answering the Berlin Numeracy Test item pre-course. Participants who completed the course showed a significant improvement in their confidence by a mean summed score of 3.7 units (95% CI 2.9 to 4.6, p<0.0001) from a mean pre-course of 37.4 (SD 6.1) to post-course of 41.1 (SD 6.9). There was an increase in the proportion of correct answers for most knowledge questions (p<0.0001, p=0.013 for two directly compared), although no improvement in most skill questions that involved numbers (eg, calculating relative risks). Participants with higher numeracy appeared to show higher skill and confidence on most questions.

CONCLUSIONS

This online, free e-learning course was successful in increasing participants' confidence in, and some aspects of knowledge about, shared decision making and risk communication. It also highlighted the need for improvements in clinicians' numerical skills as a vital part of training. We suggest that the course is used in combination with practical face-to-face experience and more intensive numerical skills training.

Association Between Neighborhood Disadvantage and Functional Well-being in Community-Living Older Persons

IMPORTANCE

Neighborhood disadvantage is a novel social determinant of health that could adversely affect the functional well-being of older persons. Deficiencies in resource-poor environments can potentially be addressed through social and public health interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether estimates of active and disabled life expectancy differ on the basis of neighborhood disadvantage after accounting for individual-level socioeconomic characteristics and other prognostic factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective longitudinal cohort study included 754 nondisabled community-living persons, aged 70 years or older, who were members of the Precipitating Events Project in south central Connecticut from March 1998 to June 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Disability in 4 essential activities of daily living (bathing, dressing, walking, and transferring) was assessed each month. Scores on the Area Deprivation Index, a census-based socioeconomic measure with 17 education, employment, housing quality, and poverty indicators, were obtained through linkages with the 2000 Neighborhood Atlas. Area Deprivation Index scores were dichotomized at the 80th state percentile to distinguish neighborhoods that were disadvantaged (81-100) from those that were not (1-80).

RESULTS

Among the 754 participants, the mean (SD) age was 78.4 (5.3) years, and 487 (64.6%) were female. Within 5-year age increments from 70 to 90, active life expectancy was consistently lower in participants from neighborhoods that were disadvantaged vs not disadvantaged, and these differences persisted and remained statistically significant after adjustment for individual-level race and ethnicity, education, income, and other prognostic factors. At age 70 years, adjusted estimates (95% CI) for active life expectancy (in years) were 12.3 (11.5-13.1) in the disadvantaged group and 14.2 (13.5-14.7) in the nondisadvantaged group. At each age, participants from disadvantaged neighborhoods spent a greater percentage of their projected remaining life disabled, relative to those from nondisadvantaged neighborhoods, with adjusted values (SE) ranging from 17.7 (0.8) vs 15.3 (0.5) at age 70 years to 55.0 (1.7) vs 48.1 (1.3) at age 90 years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this prospective longitudinal cohort study, living in a disadvantaged neighborhood was associated with lower active life expectancy and a greater percentage of projected remaining life with disability. By addressing deficiencies in resource-poor environments, new or expanded social and public health initiatives have the potential to improve the functional well-being of community-living older persons and, in turn, reduce health disparities in the US.

Feasibility of assessing utilities with a single-item standard gamble questionnaire in patients with melanoma

OBJECTIVES

To determine the feasibility of eliciting utilities with a standard gamble self-completion questionnaire that uses a single-item approach in melanoma patients.

METHODS

150 patients with low-risk melanoma completed a paper standard gamble questionnaire. Six scenarios described the adjuvant treatment of high-risk melanoma with interferon alfa-2b with varied side effects. Patients were asked to directly state the maximum death risk they would accept to prevent these health states. Methods were the same as in a study by Kilbridge et al. (J Clin Oncol 19(3):812-823, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.3.812 ), except that they used computerised interviews and an iterative risk variation (Ping-Pong method) to elicit utilities.

RESULTS

The rate of missing values in the standard gamble was 1.0%. The percentage of patients who misordered scenarios was very similar to the reference study (11.3% vs. 11.2%). Mean utilities were also similar with a maximum difference of 0.02 points, but median utilities were not (between 0.21 points below and 0.05 points above the reference study).

CONCLUSIONS

One-item utility elicitation with questionnaires might be a feasible alternative to computerised face-to-face interviews to conduct a standard gamble in melanoma patients.

Informing Patients With Esophagogastric Cancer About Treatment Outcomes by Using a Web-Based Tool and Training: Development and Evaluation Study

Background

Due to the increasing use of shared decision-making, patients with esophagogastric cancer play an increasingly important role in the decision-making process. To be able to make well-informed decisions, patients need to be adequately informed about treatment options and their outcomes, namely survival, side effects or complications, and health-related quality of life. Web-based tools and training programs can aid physicians in this complex task. However, to date, none of these instruments are available for use in informing patients with esophagogastric cancer about treatment outcomes.

Objective

This study aims to develop and evaluate the feasibility of using a web-based prediction tool and supporting communication skills training to improve how physicians inform patients with esophagogastric cancer about treatment outcomes. By improving the provision of treatment outcome information, we aim to stimulate the use of information that is evidence-based, precise, and personalized to patient and tumor characteristics and is communicated in a way that is tailored to individual information needs.

Methods

We designed a web-based, physician-assisted prediction tool—Source—to be used during consultations by using an iterative, user-centered approach. The accompanying communication skills training was developed based on specific learning objectives, literature, and expert opinions. The Source tool was tested in several rounds—a face-to-face focus group with 6 patients and survivors, semistructured interviews with 5 patients, think-aloud sessions with 3 medical oncologists, and interviews with 6 field experts. In a final pilot study, the Source tool and training were tested as a combined intervention by 5 medical oncology fellows and 3 esophagogastric outpatients.

Results

The Source tool contains personalized prediction models and data from meta-analyses regarding survival, treatment side effects and complications, and health-related quality of life. The treatment outcomes were visualized in a patient-friendly manner by using pictographs and bar and line graphs. The communication skills training consisted of blended learning for clinicians comprising e-learning and 2 face-to-face sessions. Adjustments to improve both training and the Source tool were made according to feedback from all testing rounds.

Conclusions

The Source tool and training could play an important role in informing patients with esophagogastric cancer about treatment outcomes in an evidence-based, precise, personalized, and tailored manner. The preliminary evaluation results are promising and provide valuable input for the further development and testing of both elements. However, the remaining uncertainty about treatment outcomes in patients and established habits in doctors, in addition to the varying trust in the prediction models, might influence the effectiveness of the tool and training in daily practice. We are currently conducting a multicenter clinical trial to investigate the impact that the combined tool and training have on the provision of information in the context of treatment decision-making.

Effect of different visual presentations on the comprehension of prognostic information: a systematic review

Background

Understanding prognostic information can help patients know what may happen to their health over time and make informed decisions. However, communicating prognostic information well can be challenging.

Purpose

To conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesize research that has evaluated visual presentations that communicate quantitative prognostic information to patients or the public.

Data sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (from inception to December 2020), and forward and backward citation search.

Study selection

Two authors independently screened search results and assessed eligibility. To be eligible, studies required a quantitative design and comparison of at least one visual presentation with another presentation of quantitative prognostic information. The primary outcome was comprehension of the presented information. Secondary outcomes were preferences for or satisfaction with the presentations viewed, and behavioral intentions.

Data extraction

Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data.

Data synthesis

Eleven studies (all randomized trials) were identified. We grouped studies according to the presentation type evaluated. Bar graph versus pictograph (3 studies): no difference in comprehension between the groups. Survival vs mortality curves (2 studies): no difference in one study; higher comprehension in survival curve group in another study. Tabular format versus pictograph (4 studies): 2 studies reported similar comprehension between groups; 2 found higher comprehension in pictograph groups. Tabular versus free text (3 studies): 2 studies found no difference between groups; 1 found higher comprehension in a tabular group.

Limitations

Heterogeneity in the visual presentations and outcome measures, precluding meta-analysis.

Conclusions

No visual presentation appears to be consistently superior to communicate quantitative prognostic information.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-021-01612-9.

Statements considering intervention effects in Finnish clinical practice guidelines: Recommending interventions with non-numeric effect-sizes or unspecified outcomes

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Representation of benefits and harms associated with specific interventions in an understandable and comparable way is crucial for informed decision making that clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) aim to enhance. Therefore, we investigated how statements concerning the effects of interventions considered and described benefits and harms, magnitude of effect and its uncertainty, numeric and non-numeric information, and outcomes in Finnish CPGs.

METHODS

We selected 10 CPGs on common diseases and risk factors published by The Finnish Medical Society, Duodecim. All the statements which were graded with the level of evidence from high to very low (levels A-D) were included in analyses. From these statements, assessments were made regarding whether the statement considered benefits or harms, whether relative or absolute numeric measures were shown, whether the statement supported or was against the intervention considered, and what outcome was reported.

RESULTS

Of the 10 CPGs, 448 statements were assessed. Most of the statements of effects considered intervention benefits (87%) rather than harms. Half of the statements considering harms were represented in a way that supported the intervention. Most of the statements (94%) did not include numeric estimates of magnitude of the effect. When numeric estimates of magnitude of the effect were present, they were most frequently relative measures and were typically placed in a statement considering (a) intervention benefits with a primary outcome, (b) given the grade of A for level of evidence, and (c) that supported the use of intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Finnish CPGs, the statements were rarely framed with both absolute and relative numeric measures of an intervention's effect. Harms were rarely reported with a grade indicating the level of evidence. The users of CPGs would benefit from more consistent and understandable framing of statements considering both benefits and harms of interventions.

A scoping review of practice recommendations for clinicians' communication of uncertainty

BACKGROUND

Health-care providers increasingly have to discuss uncertainty with patients. Awareness of uncertainty can affect patients variably, depending on how it is communicated. To date, no overview existed for health-care professionals on how to discuss uncertainty.

OBJECTIVE

To generate an overview of available recommendations on how to communicate uncertainty with patients during clinical encounters.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched following the PRISMA-ScR statement. Independent screening by two researchers was performed of titles and abstracts, and subsequently full texts.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Any (non-)empirical papers were included describing recommendations for any health-care provider on how to orally communicate uncertainty to patients.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data on provided recommendations and their characteristics (eg, target group and strength of evidence base) were extracted. Recommendations were narratively synthesized into a comprehensible overview for clinical practice.

RESULTS

Forty-seven publications were included. Recommendations were based on empirical findings in 23 publications. After narrative synthesis, 13 recommendations emerged pertaining to three overarching goals: (a) preparing for the discussion of uncertainty, (b) informing patients about uncertainty and (c) helping patients deal with uncertainty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

A variety of recommendations on how to orally communicate uncertainty are available, but most lack an evidence base. More substantial research is needed to assess the effects of the suggested communicative approaches. Until then, health-care providers may use our overview of communication strategies as a toolbox to optimize communication about uncertainty with patients.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Results were presented to stakeholders (physicians) to check and improve their practical applicability.

The communication of uncertainty in health: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a scoping review of existing studies that examine communication strategies that address uncertainty in health and categorize them using the taxonomy of uncertainty.

METHODS

Relevant articles retrieved from ten databases were categorized according to the dimensions of the taxonomy of uncertainty, and study characteristics were extracted from each article.

RESULTS

All articles (n = 63) explored uncertainty in the context of probabilistic risk and related to scientific issues (n = 63; 100%). The majority focused on complexity (n = 24; 38.1%) and uncertainty experienced by patients (n = 52; 82.5%). Most utilized quantitative methods (n = 46; 73.0%), hypothetical scenarios (n = 49; 77.8%), and focused on cancer (n = 20; 31.7%). Theory guided messages and study design in fewer than half (n = 27; 42.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in terminology used to refer to different types of uncertainties preclude a unified research agenda on uncertainty communication. Research predominately focuses on probability as the source of uncertainty, uncertainties related to scientific issues, and uncertainty experienced by patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Additional efforts are needed to understand providers' experience of uncertainty, and to identify strategies to address ambiguity. Future studies should use consistent terminology to allow for coherence and advancement of uncertainty communication scholarship. Continued efforts to refine the existing taxonomy should be undertaken.

Preference between medical outcomes and travel times: an analysis of liver transplantation

Background

There is evidence of a volume outcome relationship for liver transplantation. In Germany, there is a minimum volume threshold of 20 transplantations per year for each center. Thresholds potentially lead to centralization of the healthcare supply, generating longer travel times.

Objective

This study assessed whether patients are willing to travel longer times to transplantation centers for better outcomes (lower hospital mortality and higher 3-year survival) and identified patient characteristics influencing their choices.

Methods

Participants were recruited in hospitals and via random samples at registration offices. Discrete choice experiments were used to identify trade-offs in their choices between local and regional centers. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to measure patients’ preferences and quantify potentially influencing characteristics.

Results

Overall, 82.22% (in-hospital mortality) and 84.44% (3-year survival) of the participants opted to accept a longer travel time in order to receive a liver transplantation with better outcomes.

Conclusion

Most participants were willing to trade shorter travel times for lower mortality risks and higher 3-year survival in cases of liver transplantation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-021-02258-x.

The Impact of Reproductive Issues on Preferences of Women with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis for Disease-Modifying Treatments

BACKGROUND

Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is an incurable disease characterised by relapses (periods of function loss) followed by full or partial recovery, and potential permanent disability over time. Many disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) exist that help reduce relapses and slow disease progression. Most are contraindicated during conception/pregnancy and some require a discontinuation period before trying to conceive. Although around three-quarters of people with RRMS are women, there is limited knowledge about how reproductive issues impact DMT preference.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to measure the preferences for DMTs of women with RRMS who are considering pregnancy.

DESIGN

An online discrete choice experiment (DCE).

METHODS

Participants chose between two hypothetical DMTs characterised by a set of attributes, then indicated if they preferred their choice to no treatment. Attributes were identified from interviews and focus groups with people with RRMS and MS professionals, as well as literature reviews, and included the probability of problems with pregnancy, discontinuation of DMTs, and breastfeeding safety. In each DCE task, participants were asked to imagine making decisions in three scenarios: now; when trying to conceive; and when pregnant.

ANALYSIS

Two mixed logit models were estimated, one to assess the statistical significance between scenarios and one in maximum acceptable risk space to allow comparison of the magnitudes of parameters between scenarios.

SAMPLE

Women with RRMS who were considering having a child in the future, recruited from a UK MS patient register.

RESULTS

Sixty respondents completed the survey. Participants preferred no treatment in 12.6% of choices in the 'now' scenario, rising significantly to 37.6% in the 'trying to conceive' scenario and 60.3% in the 'pregnant' scenario (Kruskal-Wallis p < 0.001). This pattern corresponds with results from models that included a no-treatment alternative-specific constant (ASC) capturing differences between taking and not taking a DMT not specified by the attributes. The ASC was lower in the trying to conceive scenario than in the now scenario, and lower still in the pregnant scenario, indicating an intrinsic preference for no treatment. Participants also placed relatively less preference on reducing relapses and avoiding disease progression in the trying to conceive and pregnant scenarios compared with a lower risk of problems with pregnancy. In the trying to conceive scenario, participants' preference for treatments with shorter washout periods increased.

CONCLUSION

Women with RRMS considering having a child prefer DMTs with more favourable reproduction-related attributes, even when not trying to conceive. Reproductive issues also influenced preferences for DMT attributes not directly related to pregnancy, with preferences dependent on the life circumstances in which choices were made. The design of the DCE highlights the benefits of considering the scenario in which participants make choices, as they may change over time.

Comparing the impact of an icon array versus a bar graph on preference and understanding of risk information: Results from an online, randomized study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the best way to convey the probability of serious events occurring in the future (i.e., risk of stroke or death) to persons with low numeracy or graph literacy proficiency. To address this gap, we developed and user-tested a bar graph and compared it to icon arrays to assess its impact on understanding and preference for viewing risk information.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the: (i) formats' impact on participants' understanding of risk information; (ii) formats' impact on understanding and format preference across numeracy and graph literacy subgroups; (iii) rationale supporting participants' preference for each graphical display format.

METHODS

An online sample (evenly made up of participants with high and low objective numeracy and graph literacy) was randomized to view either the icon array or the bar graph. Each format conveyed the risk of major stroke and death five years after choosing surgery, a stent, or medication to treat carotid artery stenosis. Participants answered questions to assess their understanding of the risk information. Lastly, both formats were presented in parallel, and participants were asked to identify their preferred format to view risk information and explain their preference.

RESULTS

Of the 407 participants, 197 were assigned the icon array and 210 the bar graph. Understanding of risk information and format preference did not differ significantly between the two trial arms, irrespective of numeracy and graph literacy proficiency. High numeracy and graph literacy proficiency was associated with high understanding (p<0.01) and a preference for the bar graph (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of one format over another on understanding. The majority of participants preferred viewing the risk information using the bar graph format.

Communicating personalised statin therapy-effects as 10-year CVD-risk or CVD-free life-expectancy: does it improve decisional conflict? Three-armed, blinded, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether communicating personalised statin therapy-effects obtained by prognostic algorithm leads to lower decisional conflict associated with statin use in patients with stable cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with standard (non-personalised) therapy-effects.

DESIGN

Hypothesis-blinded, three-armed randomised controlled trial SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 303 statin users with stable CVD enrolled in a cohort INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard practice (control-group) or one of two intervention arms. Intervention arms received standard practice plus (1) a personalised health profile, (2) educational videos and (3) a structured telephone consultation. Intervention arms received personalised estimates of prognostic changes associated with both discontinuation of current statin and intensification to the most potent statin type and dose (ie, atorvastatin 80 mg). Intervention arms differed in how these changes were expressed: either change in individual 10-year absolute CVD risk (iAR-group) or CVD-free life-expectancy (iLE-group) calculated with the SMART-REACH model (http://U-Prevent.com).

OUTCOME

Primary outcome was patient decisional conflict score (DCS) after 1 month. The score varies from 0 (no conflict) to 100 (high conflict). Secondary outcomes were collected at 1 or 6 months: DCS, quality of life, illness perception, patient activation, patient perception of statin efficacy and shared decision-making, self-reported statin adherence, understanding of statin-therapy, post-randomisation low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and physician opinion of the intervention. Outcomes are reported as median (25th- 75th percentile).

RESULTS

Decisional conflict differed between the intervention arms: median control 27 (20-43), iAR-group 22 (11-30; p-value vs control 0.001) and iLE-group 25 (10-31; p-value vs control 0.021). No differences in secondary outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSION

In patients with clinically manifest CVD, providing personalised estimations of treatment-effects resulted in a small but significant decrease in decisional conflict after 1 month. The results support the use of personalised predictions for supporting decision-making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR6227/NL6080.

Clinician Conceptualization of the Benefits of Treatments for Individual Patients

IMPORTANCE

Knowing the expected effect of treatment on an individual patient is essential for patient care.

OBJECTIVE

To explore clinicians' conceptualizations of the chance that treatments will decrease the risk of disease outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This survey study of attending and resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants was conducted in outpatient clinical settings in 8 US states from June 2018 to November 2019. The survey was an in-person, paper, 26-item survey in which clinicians were asked to estimate the probability of adverse disease outcomes and expected effects of therapies for diseases common in primary care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Estimated chance that treatments would benefit an individual patient.

RESULTS

Of 723 clinicians, 585 (81%) responded, and 542 completed all the questions necessary for analysis, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 32 (29-44) years, 287 (53%) women, and 294 (54%) White participants. Clinicians consistently overestimated the chance that treatments would benefit an individual patient. The median (IQR) estimated chance that warfarin would prevent a stroke in the next year was 50% (5%-80%) compared with scientific evidence, which indicates an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.2% to 1.0% based on a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 39% to 50%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that antihypertensive therapy would prevent a cardiovascular event within 5 years was 30% (10%-70%) vs evidence of an ARR of 0% to 3% based on an RRR of 0% to 28%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that bisphosphonate therapy would prevent a hip fracture in the next 5 years was 40% (10%-60%) vs evidence of ARR of 0.1% to 0.4% based on an RRR of 20% to 40%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that moderate-intensity statin therapy would prevent a cardiovascular event in the next 5 years was 20% (IQR 5%-50%) vs evidence of an ARR of 0.3% to 2% based on an RRR of 19% to 33%. Estimates of the chance that a treatment would prevent an adverse outcome exceeded estimates of the absolute chance of that outcome for 60% to 70% of clinicians. Clinicians whose overestimations were greater were more likely to report using that treatment for patients in their practice (eg, use of warfarin: correlation coefficient, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.40-0.53; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this survey study, clinicians significantly overestimated the benefits of treatment to individual patients. Clinicians with greater overestimates were more likely to report using treatments in actual patients.

Implementing the 2016 American Academy of Pediatrics Guideline on Brief Resolved Unexplained Events: The Parent's Perspective

OBJECTIVES

A "brief resolved unexplained event" refers to sudden alterations in an infant's breathing, color, tone, or responsiveness that prompt the parent or caregiver to seek emergency medical care. A recently published clinical practice guideline encourages discharging many of these infants home from the emergency department if they have a benign presentation. The goal is to avoid aggressive inpatient investigations of uncertain benefit. The present research explored parents' reactions to the prospect of returning home with their infant following such an event.

METHODS

The study used qualitative research methods to analyze semistructured, audio-recorded interviews of parents who had witnessed a brief resolved unexplained event between 2011 and 2015 and taken their infant to the emergency department of an academic teaching hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 22 parent interviews were conducted. The infants included 8 boys and 14 girls aged 3.6 ± 3.5 months (mean ± SD). Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts revealed a near-universal apprehension about the child's well-being, ambivalence about the best course of action after the evaluation in the emergency department, and need for reassurance about the unlikelihood of a recurrence. Parents did not, however, answer the main research question with a single voice: attitudes toward the return-home scenario ranged from unthinkable to extreme relief. Two-thirds of parents expressed at least some reservations about the idea of returning home.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful implementation of the 2016 guideline will require close attention to the parent's point of view. Otherwise, parental resistance is likely to compromise clinicians' best efforts.

Restricted mean survival time versus conventional measures for treatment decision-making

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Restricted mean survival time (RMST) summarizes treatment effect in terms of a gain or loss in the event-free days. It remains uncertain whether communicating treatment benefit and harm using RMST-based summary is more effective than conventional summary based on absolute and relative risk reduction. We compared the effect of RMST-based approach and conventional approach on decisional conflict using an example of intensive versus standard blood pressure-lowering strategies.

DESIGN

On-line survey.

SETTING

A convenience sample of patients in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred adults aged 65 and older with hypertension requiring anti-hypertensive treatment (response rate 85.5%).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly assigned to either RMST-based summary or conventional summary about the benefit and harm of blood pressure-lowering strategies.

MEASUREMENTS

Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), ranging from 0 (no conflict) to 100 (high conflict), and preference for intensive blood pressure-lowering strategy.

RESULTS

Participants assigned to RMST-based approach (n = 100) and conventional approach (n = 100) had similar age (mean [standard deviation, SD]: 72.3 [5.6] vs 72.8 [5.5] years) and proportions of female (50 [50.0%] vs 61 [61.0%]) and white race (92 [92.0%] vs 92 [92.0%]). The mean (SD) DCS score was 25.2 (15.0) for RMST-based approach and 25.6 (14.1) for conventional approach (p = 0.84). The number (%) of participants who preferred intensive strategy was 10 (10.0%) for RMST-based approach and 14 (14.0%) for conventional approach (p = 0.52). The results were consistent in subgroups defined by age, sex, education level, cardiovascular disease status, and predicted mortality risk categories.

CONCLUSION

In a sample of relatively healthy older adults with hypertension, RMST-based approach was as effective as conventional approach on decisional conflict about choosing a blood pressure-lowering strategy. This study provides proof-of-concept evidence that RMST-based approach can be used in conjunction with absolute and relative risk reduction for communicating treatment benefit and harm in a decision aid.

Decision-making about participation in colorectal cancer screening in Sweden: Autonomous, value-dependent but uninformed?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate knowledge, values and preferences, and involvement among screening participants and non-participants in relation to colorectal cancer (CRC) and screening decision.

METHODS

Individuals (N = 2748) from the Screening of Swedish Colons trial were invited to respond to the SCREESCO questionnaire, assessing information/knowledge, values/preferences, and involvement.

RESULTS

Respondents' (screening participants, n = 1320; non-participants, n = 161) knowledge varied across items; 90 % recognised faecal blood as a CRC symptom, but less than half cited overweight, smoking, alcohol, and physical inactivity as risk factors. Incidence and case fatality were often over- and underestimated, respectively (>45 and 40 %). Non-participants were more uncertain about their CRC risk (p = 0.015) and less convinced that screening reduces the risk of dying from CRC (p < 0.001). In decision-making, screening participants took most into consideration the importance of early detection and CRC worry, and non-participants the risk of discomfort and complications due to the screening examination (p < 0.001). Most individuals made the decision without involving others.

CONCLUSION

For informed and shared decisions, efforts need to be made to increase public knowledge about CRC and to develop interventions to support individuals in decision-making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These results can inform and guide future initiatives to facilitate high quality decisions and CRC screening uptake in Sweden.

Effectiveness of an Intervention Aimed at Improving Information for Patients with High Cardiovascular Risk: INFORISK Clinical Trial

Background: The concept of global cardiovascular risk is not usually well understood by patients in consultation. Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open clinical trial of one-year duration to evaluate the effectiveness in reducing global cardiovascular risk with an intervention aimed at high-risk patients to improve information on the cardiovascular risk compared to the usual care. The intervention was focused on providing information about cardiovascular risk in a more understandable way, explaining the best practices to reduce cardiovascular risk, and tailoring information to the individual. Results: Four-hundred and sixty-four subjects participated in the study; 59.3% were men, and the mean age was 61.0 (SD 8.0) years. Significant reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (−3.12 mmHg), body mass index (BMI) (−0.34 kg/m²), abdominal circumference (−1.24 cm), and REGICOR cardiovascular risk (−0.63) were observed in the intervention group. Overall, no differences in cardiovascular risk score were observed between groups at the end of follow-up. Conclusions: Providing an easy-to-understand assessment of the cardiovascular risk motivated high-risk patients to adopt a healthier lifestyle and improved cardiovascular risk after one year in the intervention group. Clinicians should assess a patient’s baseline understanding of their CV risk using tools other than absolute risk before making treatment recommendations.

Practising shared decision making in primary care

Making healthcare decisions collaboratively between patients and doctors can be challenging in primary care, as clinical encounters are often short. Conflicts between patients and doctors during the decision-making process may affect both patient and doctor satisfaction and result in medico-legal consequences. With the increasing recognition of the importance of patient empowerment, shared decision making (SDM) can serve as a practical consultation model for primary care doctors (PCDs) to guide patients in making informed healthcare choices. Although more research is needed to find effective ways to implement SDM in the real world, the 6-step approach presented in this paper can guide PCDs to practise SDM in their daily practice. Implementation of SDM can be further enhanced by incorporating SDM training into undergraduate and postgraduate curricula and using evidence-based tools such as patient decision aids.

Perceptions of Illness Severity, Treatment Goals, and Life Expectancy: The ePISTLE Study

Introduction

A better understanding of factors influencing perceived life expectancy (PLE), interactions between patient prognostic beliefs, experiences of illness, and treatment behavior is urgently needed.

Methods

Case-notes at 3 hemodialysis units were screened: patients with ≥20% 1-year mortality risk were included. Patients and their health care professionals (HCPs) were invited to complete a structured interview or mixed-methods questionnaire. Four hundred eleven patient notes were screened. Seventy-seven eligible patients were approached and 51 were included.

Results

Patients predicted significantly higher life expectancies than HCPs (P < 0.0001). Documented cognitive impairment, gender, or increasing age did not affect 1- or 5-year PLE. PLE influenced priorities of care: one-fifth of patients who estimated themselves to have >95% 1-year survival preferred “care focusing on relieving pain and discomfort,” compared with nearly three-quarters of those reporting a ≤50% chance of 1-year survival. Twenty of 51 (39%) patients believed transplantation was an option for them, despite only 4 being waitlisted at the time of the interview. Patients who thought they were transplant candidates were significantly more confident they would be alive at 1 and 5 years and to want resuscitation attempted. Cognitive impairment had no effect on perceived transplant candidacy. A high symptom burden was present and underrecognized by HCPs. High symptom burden was associated with significantly lower PLE at both 1 and 5 years, increased anxiety/depression scores, and treatment choices more likely to prioritize relief of suffering.

Conclusion

There is a disparity between patient PLE and those of their HCPs. Severity of symptom burden and beliefs regarding PLE or transplant candidacy affect patient treatment preferences.