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

Polydopamine-Based Biomaterials in Orthopedic Therapeutics: Properties, Applications, and Future Perspectives

Polydopamine is a versatile and modifiable polymer, known for its excellent biocompatibility and adhesiveness. It can also be engineered into a variety of nanoparticles and biomaterials for drug delivery, functional modification, making it an excellent choice to enhance the prevention and treatment of orthopedic diseases. Currently, the application of polydopamine biomaterials in orthopedic disease prevention and treatment is in its early stages, despite some initial achievements. This article aims to review these applications to encourage further development of polydopamine for orthopedic therapeutic needs. We detail the properties of polydopamine and its biomaterial types, highlighting its superior performance in functional modification on nanoparticles and materials. Additionally, we also explore the challenges and future prospects in developing optimal polydopamine biomaterials for clinical use in orthopedic disease prevention and treatment.

Development and evaluation of shared decision-making tools in rheumatology: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) tools are facilitators of decision-making through a collaborative process between patients/caregivers and clinicians. These tools help clinicians understand patient's perspectives and help patients in making informed decisions based on their preferences. Despite their usefulness for both patients and clinicians, SDM tools are not widely implemented in everyday practice. One barrier is the lack of clarity on the development and evaluation processes of these tools. Such processes have not been previously described in the field of rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development and evaluation processes of shared decision-making (SDM) tools used in rheumatology.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (e.g., EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched for relevant articles. Guidelines for the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews were followed. Studies included were: addressing SDM among adults in rheumatology, focusing on development and/or evaluation of SDM tool, full texts, empirical research, and in the English language.

RESULTS

Of the 2030 records screened, forty-six reports addressing 36 SDM tools were included. Development basis and evaluation measures varied across the studies. The most commonly reported development basis was the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria (19/36, 53 %). Other developmental foundations reported were: The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) (6/36, 16 %), Informed Medical Decision Foundation elements (3/36, 8 %), edutainment principles (2/36, 5.5 %), and others (e.g. DISCERN and MARKOV Model) (9/31,29 %). The most commonly used evaluation measures were the Decisional Conflict Scale (18/46, 39 %), acceptability and knowledge (7/46, 15 %), and the preparation for decision-making scale (5/46,11 %).

CONCLUSION

For better quality and wider implementation of such tools, there is a need for detailed, transparent, systematic, and consistent reporting of development methods and evaluation measures. Using established checklists for reporting development and evaluation is encouraged.

Assessment of eHealth literacy to reduce financial toxicity and improve shared decision-making in cancer patients: A cross-sectional study

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the associations between eHealth literacy, preferences for financial decision-making, and financial toxicity (FT) in a sample of Chinese cancer patients.

Methods

Eligible cancer patients were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey from January to April 2021. Three measures (eHealth literacy scale, control preference scale, and COST) were used to analyze patients' eHealth literacy, decisional preferences, and FT, respectively. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Kruskal-Wallis H test assessed the differences between population subgroups. Binary logistic and multivariate linear regression models were used to assess the relationships between eHealth literacy, decisional preferences, and FT.

Results

A total of 590 cancer patients completed the questionnaire. We found that high FT was associated with poor ECOG performance, severe cancer stage, and longer cancer duration. Patients who preferred to adopt collaborative attitude toward decision-making showed a significantly higher eHealth literacy. However, there was an inverse relationship between eHealth literacy and a patient-driven attitude toward decision-making in female cancer patients. Regression analysis indicated that patients who were highly educated and actively employed might report a higher eHealth literacy. A significant relationship was found between high eHealth literacy and low FT. However, this relationship became insignificant when the background characteristics of cancer patients were taken into account.

Conclusions

A relationship between enhanced eHealth literacy, preference for collaborative decision-making, and low risk of FT is identified.

Practical implication

Interventions to improve patients' ability to use quality and reliable web-based information on cancer care should be encouraged.

The development and utility of a multicriteria patient decision aid for people contemplating treatment for osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

There are a range of treatment options for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee and hip, each with a unique profile of risks and benefits. Patient decision aids can help incorporate patient preferences in treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to develop and test the utility of a patient decision aid for OA that was developed using a multicriteria decision analytic framework.

METHODS

People contemplating treatment for OA who had accessed the website myjointpain.org.au were invited to participate in the study by using the online patient decision aid. Two forms of the patient decision aid were created: A shorter form and a longer form, which allowed greater customization that was offered to respondents after they had completed the shorter form. Respondents also completed questions asking about their experience using the patient decision aid.

RESULTS

A total of 625 self-selected respondents completed the short-form and 180 completed the long-form. Across both forms, serious side effects, pain and function were rated as the most important treatment outcomes. Most respondents (64%) who completed the longer form reported that using the tool was a positive experience, 38% reported that using the tool had changed their mind and 48% said that using the tool would improve the quality of their decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the findings suggest that this patient decision aid may be of use to a substantial number of people in facilitating appropriate treatment decision-making.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Service users of myjointpain.org.au were involved through their participation in the study, and their feedback will guide the development of future iterations of the tool.

Improving the Process of Shared Decision-Making by Integrating Online Structured Information and Self-Assessment Tools

The integration of face-to-face communication and online processes to provide access to information and self-assessment tools may improve shared decision-making (SDM) processes. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of implementing an online SDM process with topics and content developed through a participatory design approach. We analyzed the triggered and completed SDM cases with responses from participants at a medical center in Taiwan. Data were retrieved from the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database of the hospital for analysis. Each team developed web-based patient decision aids (PDA) with empirical evidence in a multi-digitized manner, allowing patients to scan QR codes on a leaflet using their mobile phones and then read the PDA content online. From July 2019 to December 2020, 48 web-based SDM topics were implemented in the 24 clinical departments of this hospital. The results showed that using the REDCap system improved SDM efficiency and quality. Implementing an online SDM process integrated with face-to-face communication enhanced the practice and effectiveness of SDM, possibly through the flexibility of accessing information, self-assessment, and feedback evaluation.

Patient Engagement Approaches in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Review of Two Decades

Patient engagement is a comprehensive approach to health care where the physician inspires confidence in the patient to be involved in their own care. Most research studies of patient engagement in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) have come in the past 5 years (2015-2020), with no reviews investigating the different patient engagement methods in TJA. The primary purpose of this review is to examine patient engagement methods in TJA. The search identified 31 studies aimed at patient engagement methods in TJA. Based on our review, the conclusions therein strongly suggest that patient engagement methods in TJA demonstrate benefits throughout care delivery through tools focused on promoting involvement in decision making and accessible care delivery (eg, virtual rehabilitation, remote monitoring). Future work should understand the influence of social determinants on patient involvement in care, and overall cost (or savings) of engagement methods to patients and society.

Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

BACKGROUND

The objective of this International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS) review is to update and synthesize theoretical and empirical evidence on how balanced information can be presented and measured in patient decision aids (PtDAs).

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team conducted a scoping review using 2 search strategies in multiple electronic databases evaluating the ways investigators defined and measured the balance of information provided about options in PtDAs. The first strategy combined a search informed by the Cochrane Review of the Effectiveness of Decision Aids with a search on balanced information. The second strategy repeated the search published in the 2013 IPDAS update on balanced presentation.

RESULTS

Of 2450 unique citations reviewed, the full text of 168 articles was screened for eligibility. Sixty-four articles were included in the review, of which 13 provided definitions of balanced presentation, 8 evaluated mechanisms that may introduce bias, and 42 quantitatively measured balanced with methods consistent with the IPDAS criteria in PtDAs. The revised definition of balanced information is, "Objective, complete, salient, transparent, evidence-informed, and unbiased presentation of text and visual information about the condition and all relevant options (with important elements including the features, benefits, harms and procedures of those options) in a way that does not favor one option over another and enables individuals to focus attention on important elements and process this information."

CONCLUSIONS

Developers can increase the balance of information in PtDAs by informing their structure and design elements using the IPDAS checklist. We suggest that new PtDA components pertaining to balance be evaluated for cognitive bias with experimental methods as well by objectively evaluating patients' and content experts' beliefs from multiple perspectives.

Decision Making for Treatment After ACL Injury From an Orthopaedic Surgeon and Patient Perspective: Results From the NACOX Study

Background:

In the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, there is little evidence of when and why a decision for ACL reconstruction (ACLR) or nonoperative treatment (non-ACLR) is made.

Purpose:

To (1) describe the key characteristics of ACL injury treatment decisions and (2) compare patient-reported knee instability, function, and preinjury activity level between patients with non-ACLR and ACLR treatment decisions.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A total of 216 patients with acute ACL injury were evaluated during the first year after injury. The treatment decision was non-ACLR in 73 patients and ACLR in 143. Reasons guiding treatment decision were obtained from medical charts and questionnaires to patients and orthopaedic surgeons. Patient-reported instability and function were obtained via questionnaires and compared between patients with non-ACLR and ACLR treatment decisions. The ACLR treatment group was classified retrospectively by decision phase: acute phase (decision made between injury day and 31 days after injury), subacute phase (decision made between 32 days and up to 5 months after injury), and late phase (decision made 5-12 months after injury). Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and group comparisons were made using parametric or nonparametric tests as appropriate.

Results:

The main reasons for a non-ACLR treatment decision were no knee instability and no problems with knee function. The main reasons for an ACLR treatment decision were high activity demands and knee instability. Patients in the non-ACLR group were significantly older (P = .031) and had a lower preinjury activity level than did those in the acute-phase (P < .01) and subacute-phase (P = .006) ACLR decision groups. There were no differences in patient-reported instability and function between treatment decision groups at baseline, 4 weeks after injury, or 3 months after injury.

Conclusion:

Activity demands, not patient-reported knee instability, may be the most important factor in the decision-making process for treatment after ACL injury. We suggest a decision-making algorithm for patients with ACL injuries and no high activity demands; waiting for >3 months can help distinguish those who need surgical intervention from those who can undergo nonoperative management.

Registration:

NCT02931084 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Understanding shared decision-making experience among vulnerable population: Focus group with food bank clients

Introduction

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a critical component of delivering patient-centered care. Members of vulnerable populations may play a passive role in clinical decision-making; therefore, understanding their prior decision-making experiences is a key step to engaging them in SDM.

Objective

To understand the previous healthcare experiences and current expectations of vulnerable populations on clinical decision-making regarding therapeutic options.

Methods

Clients of a local food bank were recruited to participate in focus groups. Participants were asked to share prior health decision experiences, explain difficulties they faced when making a therapeutic decision, describe features of previous satisfactory decision-making processes, share factors under consideration when choosing between treatment options, and suggest tools that would help them to communicate with healthcare providers. We used the inductive content analysis to interpret data gathered from the focus groups.

Results

Twenty-six food bank clients participated in four focus groups. All participants lived in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. Four themes emerged: prior negative clinical decision-making experience with providers, patients preparing to engage in SDM, challenges encountered during the decision-making process, and patients' expectations of decision aids. Participants also reported they were unable to discuss therapeutic options at the time of decision-making. They also expressed financial concerns and the need for sufficiently detailed information to evaluate risks.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest the necessity of developing decision aids that would improve the engagement of vulnerable populations in the SDM process, including consideration of affordability, use of patient-friendly language, and incorporation of drug-drug and drug-food interactions information.

Gaps in appropriate use of treatment strategies in osteoarthritis

Optimal management of osteoarthritis (OA) requires a combination of therapies, with behavioral (e.g., exercise and weight management) and rehabilitative components at the core, accompanied by pharmacological treatments and, in later stages, consideration of joint replacement surgery. Although multiple sets of OA treatment guidelines have been developed, there are gaps in the implementation of these recommendations. Key areas of concern include the underuse of exercise, weight management, and other behavioral and rehabilitation strategies as well as the overuse of opioid analgesics. In this review, we describe the major categories of treatment strategies for OA, including self-management, physical activity, weight management, physical therapy and other rehabilitative therapies, pharmacotherapies, and joint replacement surgery. For each category, we discuss the current evidence base to report on appropriate use, data regarding adherence to treatment recommendations, and potential approaches to optimize use.

Patients' perceived needs of osteoarthritis health information: A systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Optimal management of osteoarthritis requires active patient participation. Understanding patients' perceived health information needs is important in order to optimize health service delivery and health outcomes in osteoarthritis. We aimed to review the existing literature regarding patients' perceived health information needs for OA.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was performed of publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO (1990-2016). Descriptive data regarding study design and methodology were extracted and risk of bias assessed. Aggregates of patients' perceived needs of osteoarthritis health information were categorized.

RESULTS

30 studies from 2876 were included: 16 qualitative, 11 quantitative and 3 mixed-methods studies. Three areas of perceived need emerged: (1) Need for clear communication: terms used were misunderstood or had unintended connotations. Patients wanted clear explanations. (2) Need for information from various sources: patients wanted accessible health professionals with specialist knowledge of arthritis. The Internet, whilst a source of information, was acknowledged to have dubious reliability. Print media, television, support groups, family and friends were utilised to fulfil diverse information needs. (3) Needs of information content: patients desired more information about diagnosis, prognosis, management and prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients desire more information regarding the diagnosis of osteoarthritis, its impact on daily life and its long-term prognosis. They want more information not only about pharmacological management options, but also non-pharmacological options to help them manage their symptoms. Also, patients wanted this information to be delivered in a clear manner from multiple sources of health information. To address these gaps, more effective communication strategies are required. The use of a variety of sources and modes of delivery may enable the provision of complementary material to provide information more successfully, resulting in better patient adherence to guidelines and improved health outcomes.

Activity demands and instability are the most important factors for recommending to treat ACL injuries with reconstruction

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to (1) study and compare the factors that Swedish orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists consider important for recommending ACL reconstruction and, (2) to assess how orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists consider their own and each others, as well as patients', roles are in the treatment decision.

METHODS

A web-based survey assessing the relevance of 21 predetermined factors, in the choice to recommend ACL reconstruction, was sent to orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists. Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of the assessment made by themselves, the other clinician (physical therapists rated the importance of surgeons, surgeons rated the importance of physical therapists), and the patients' preferences.

RESULT

Orthopaedic surgeons agreed of eight, and physical therapists of seven factors as important in the choice to recommend ACL reconstruction. The factors both groups reported as important were; "patient's wishes to return to contact/pivoting sports", "instability in physical activity", "instability in activities of daily living despite adequate rehabilitation", "physically demanding occupation", and "young age". Both professions rated their own and each others assessments as well as patient's wishes as important for the decision to recommend ACL reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists agree about factors that are important for their decision to recommend ACL reconstruction, showing that both professions share a common ground in perceptions of factors that are important in recommending ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic study: Level III.

Evaluation of a Patient Decision Aid for Unicompartmental or Total Knee Arthroplasty for Medial Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Many patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis are candidates for either unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A novel patient decision aid (PDA) was developed to educate patients on both interventions and prepare them for making the decision with their surgeon. The study objective was to evaluate the acceptability and usefulness of a PDA for informing and helping patients reach a surgical preference without increasing decisional conflict.

METHODS

A PDA was developed in accordance with the criteria listed by Ottawa Decision Support Framework and prospectively tested in UKA and TKA patients, who were mailed the PDAs to complete at home along with outcome measures before surgeon consultation. Of 50 patients who consented to participate, 45 patients (26 men, 19 women) used the PDA. Quantitative analysis of acceptability, decisional conflict, knowledge, and preferred surgical option was then performed.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 64.6 years (range, 50-80 years). Patients rated the PDA as acceptable: 84.4% indicated balanced presentation of information and 77.8% asserted that PDA helped them to make decisions between UKA and TKA. Mean knowledge score was 86.6% and total decisional conflict was 19.7 out of 100. Of 45, 33 stated a preferred option (24 UKA; 9 TKA; 12 unsure).

CONCLUSION

Patients understood the majority of the benefits and risks for each surgical option without increasing decisional conflict. The decision aid for advanced medial compartment osteoarthritis is shown to be acceptable and useful for choosing between UKA and TKA.

Current concepts of shared decision making in orthopedic surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Shared Decision Making (SDM) model, a collaborative decision making process between the physician and patient to make an informed clinical decision that enhances the chance of treatment success as defined by each patient's preferences and values, has become a new and promising tool in the healthcare process; however, minimal data exists on its application in the orthopedic surgical specialty. Increasing evidence has demonstrated that this once novel idea can be implemented successfully in the orthopedic setting to improve patient outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

SDM can be applied without significant increases in the office length. Patients report that a physician that takes the time to listen to them is among the most important factors in their care. When time was focused on the SDM process, there was a direct correlation between the time spent with a patient and patient satisfaction. Patients exposed to a decision aid prior to surgery gained a greater knowledge from baseline to make a higher quality decision that was consistent with their values. Involving family members preoperatively can help all patients adhere to postoperative regimens. Exposing patients to a decision aid can reduce expensive elective surgeries, in favor of non-operative management. Incorporating patient goals into the decision-making process has increased satisfaction, compliance, and outcomes. SDM is a two-way exchange of information that attempts to correct the inequality of power between the patient and physician. Decision-aids are helpful tools that facilitate the decision-making process. Treatment decisions are consistent with patient preferences and values when there may be no "best" therapy. A good patient-physician relationship is essential during the process to reduce decisional conflict and increase overall patient outcomes.

Knee osteoarthritis: Therapeutic alternatives in primary care

AIM

To discusses pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic alternatives for managing knee osteoarthritis in primary care by primary health care nurse practitioners.

METHODS

A case example is presented, the evidence-based guideline recommendations of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons are reviewed, and a plan of care is developed.

RESULTS

Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis seen in primary care, and it is a major public health issue because the aging population and widespread obesity have drastically increased incidence. Osteoarthritis is clinically associated with escalating chronic pain, physical disability, and decreased quality of life. Early diagnosis of mild osteoarthritis in relatively young patients presents an opportunity for primary health care providers to manage pain, increase quality of life, and decrease risk of disability.

CONCLUSION

Primary health care providers can implement these recommendations in their own practices to provide care to patients with knee osteoarthritis based on current best evidence.

Medication Risk Communication in Rheumatology: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here?

This paper reviews findings from recent research examining issues related to the risk communication process within the context of rheumatologic conditions. Five specific questions are addressed. First, to what extent do patients with rheumatic disorders exhibit adequate knowledge relevant to disease and medication risks and risk management? Second, what sources do patients use when attempting to find information about disease and medication risks and risk management? Third, what types of information about disease and medication risks and risk management do rheumatologists provide during routine office visits. Fourth, what governmental regulations attempt to increase consumer access to information about medication risks and risk management? Finally, what other educational resources are available to facilitate patient-provider communication concerning disease and medication risks and risk management? The findings reported identify gaps in patient knowledge concerning medication risks and risk management, highlight areas for improvement, and identify resources that may enhance medication risk communication.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Development and Alpha-testing of a Stepped Decision Aid for Patients Considering Nonsurgical Options for Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Management

Objective.

To develop an innovative stepped patient decision aid (StDA) comparing the benefits and harms of 13 nonsurgical treatment options for managing osteoarthritis (OA) and to evaluate its acceptability and effects on informed decision making.

Methods.

Guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, the process involved (1) developing a decision aid with evidence on 13 nonsurgical treatments from the 2012 American College of Rheumatology OA clinical practice guidelines; and (2) interviewing patients with OA and healthcare providers to test its acceptability and effects on knowledge and decisional conflict.

Results.

The StDA helped make the decision explicit, and presented evidence on 13 OA treatments clustered into 5 steps or levels according to their benefits and harms. Probabilities of benefits and harms were presented using pictograms of 100 faces formatted to allow comparisons across sets of options. It also included a values clarification exercise and knowledge test. Feedback was obtained from 49 patients and 7 healthcare providers. They found that the StDA presented evidence in a clear manner, and helped patients clarify their values and make an informed decision. Some participants found that there was too much information and others said that there was not enough on each treatment option.

Conclusion.

This innovative StDA allows patients to consider both the evidence and their values for multiple options. The findings are being used to revise and plan future evaluation. The StDA is an example of how research evidence in guidelines can be implemented in practice.

Role of decision aids in orthopaedic surgery

Medical treatment of patients inherently entails the risk of undesired complication or side effects. It is essential to inform the patient about the expected outcomes, but also the possible undesired outcomes. The patients preference and values regarding the potential outcomes should be involved in the decision making process. Even though many orthopaedic surgeons are positive towards shared decision-making, it is minimally introduced in the orthopaedic daily practice and decision-making is still mostly physician based. Decision aids are designed to support the physician and patient in the shared- decision-making process. By using decision aids, patients can learn more about their condition and treatment options in advance to the decision-making. This will reduce decisional conflict and improve participation and satisfaction.