1
|
Aref HAT, Turk T, Dhanani R, Xiao A, Olson J, Paul P, Dennett L, Yacyshyn E, Sadowski CA. Development and evaluation of shared decision-making tools in rheumatology: A scoping review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2024; 66:152432. [PMID: 38554593 DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2023] [Revised: 03/07/2024] [Accepted: 03/11/2024] [Indexed: 04/01/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heba A T Aref
- Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada
| | - Tarek Turk
- Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada
| | - Ruhee Dhanani
- Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada
| | - Andrew Xiao
- Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada
| | - Joanne Olson
- Faculty of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada
| | - Pauline Paul
- Faculty of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada
| | - Liz Dennett
- Geoffrey and Robyn Sperber Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada
| | - Elaine Yacyshyn
- Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada
| | - Cheryl A Sadowski
- Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Naye F, Toupin-April K, de Wit M, LeBlanc A, Dubois O, Boonen A, Barton JL, Fraenkel L, Li LC, Stacey D, March L, Barber CEH, Hazlewood GS, Guillemin F, Bartlett SJ, Berthelsen DB, Mather K, Arnaud L, Akpabio A, Adebajo A, Schultz G, Sloan VS, Gill TK, Sharma S, Scholte-Voshaar M, Caso F, Nikiphorou E, Nasef SI, Campbell W, Meara A, Christensen R, Suarez-Almazor ME, Jull JE, Alten R, Morgan EM, El-Miedany Y, Singh JA, Burt J, Jayatilleke A, Hmamouchi I, Blanco FJ, Fernandez AP, Mackie S, Jones A, Strand V, Monti S, Stones SR, Lee RR, Nielsen SM, Evans V, Srinivasalu H, Gérard T, Demers JL, Bouchard R, Stefan T, Dugas M, Bergeron F, Beaton D, Maxwell LJ, Tugwell P, Décary S. OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2024; 65:152344. [PMID: 38232625 DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2023.152344] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2023] [Revised: 11/30/2023] [Accepted: 12/05/2023] [Indexed: 01/19/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florian Naye
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation, Research Centre of the CHUS, CIUSSS de l'Estrie-CHUS, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001, 12e Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke, Quebec J1H 5N4, Canada
| | - Karine Toupin-April
- School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; Institut du savoir Montfort, Ottawa, Canada
| | | | - Annie LeBlanc
- Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada; VITAM Centre de recherche en santé durable, Quebec City, Canada
| | - Olivia Dubois
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation, Research Centre of the CHUS, CIUSSS de l'Estrie-CHUS, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001, 12e Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke, Quebec J1H 5N4, Canada
| | - Annelies Boonen
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Caphri Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Jennifer L Barton
- VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA
| | - Liana Fraenkel
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, USA
| | - Linda C Li
- Department of Physical Therapy, Arthritis Research Canada, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Dawn Stacey
- School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Lyn March
- Department of Medicine, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Department of Rheumatology, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Claire E H Barber
- Department of Medicine, Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
| | | | | | - Susan J Bartlett
- Divisions of Clinical Epidemiology, Rheumatology and Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Trials Unit, McGill University, Canada; Research Institute - McGill University Health Centre, Canada; Johns Hopkins Medicine Division of Rheumatology, Montreal, Canada
| | - Dorthe B Berthelsen
- Section for Biostatistics and Evidence-Based Research, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen & Research Unit of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical Research, Odense & Department of Rehabilitation, Municipality of Guldborgsund, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Nykoebing, Denmark
| | | | - Laurent Arnaud
- Department of Rheumatology, CRMR RESO, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, France
| | | | - Adewale Adebajo
- Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health, University of Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Victor S Sloan
- Sheng Consulting LLC, Flemington, NJ, USA; The Peace Corps, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Tiffany K Gill
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Australia
| | - Saurab Sharma
- School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Centre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia
| | - Marieke Scholte-Voshaar
- Patient Research Partner, Department of Pharmacy and Department of Research & Innovation, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Pharmacy, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen
| | - Francesco Caso
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Italy
| | - Elena Nikiphorou
- Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, King's College Hospital, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, UK; Rheumatology Department, King's College Hospital, London, UK
| | - Samah Ismail Nasef
- Department of Rheumatology and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt
| | - Willemina Campbell
- Patient research partner, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Canada
| | - Alexa Meara
- Division of Rheumatology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
| | - Robin Christensen
- Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, & Department of Rheumatology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Maria E Suarez-Almazor
- Department of General Internal Medicine, Section of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | | | - Rieke Alten
- Department of Internal Medicine II, Rheumatology Research Center, Rheumatology, Clinical Immunology, Osteology, Physical Therapy and Sports Medicine, Schlosspark-Klinik, Charité, University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Esi M Morgan
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Division of Rheumatology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | | | | | - Jennifer Burt
- Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services, St. Clare's Mercy Hospital, St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
| | | | - Ihsane Hmamouchi
- Health Sciences Research Centre (CReSS), Faculty of Medicine, International University of Rabat (UIR), Rabat, Morocco
| | - Francisco J Blanco
- Departamento de Fisioterapia, Medicina y Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain
| | - Anthony P Fernandez
- Departments of Dermatology and Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Sarah Mackie
- Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Chapel Allerton Hospital, University of Leeds, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Allyson Jones
- Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Vibeke Strand
- Division of Immunology/Rheumatology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Sara Monti
- Department of Rheumatology, Policlinico S. Matteo, IRCCS Fondazione, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
| | - Simon R Stones
- Patient research partner, Envision Pharma Group, Wilmslow, UK
| | - Rebecca R Lee
- Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Division of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Sabrina Mai Nielsen
- Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Odense University Hospital, and University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Demark, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Vicki Evans
- Patient Research Partner and Discipline of Optometry, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia
| | - Hemalatha Srinivasalu
- Pediatric Rheumatology, Children's National Hospital, Washington DC, USA; GW School of Medicine, Washington DC, USA
| | - Thomas Gérard
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation, Research Centre of the CHUS, CIUSSS de l'Estrie-CHUS, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001, 12e Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke, Quebec J1H 5N4, Canada
| | | | - Roxanne Bouchard
- Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada
| | - Théo Stefan
- Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada
| | - Michèle Dugas
- Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada
| | | | | | - Lara J Maxwell
- Centre for Practice Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Peter Tugwell
- Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, and School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Simon Décary
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation, Research Centre of the CHUS, CIUSSS de l'Estrie-CHUS, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001, 12e Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke, Quebec J1H 5N4, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Stacey D, Lewis KB, Smith M, Carley M, Volk R, Douglas EE, Pacheco-Brousseau L, Finderup J, Gunderson J, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Bravo P, Steffensen K, Gogovor A, Graham ID, Kelly SE, Légaré F, Sondergaard H, Thomson R, Trenaman L, Trevena L. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 1:CD001431. [PMID: 38284415 PMCID: PMC10823577 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawn Stacey
- School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
- Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | | | | | - Meg Carley
- Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Robert Volk
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Elisa E Douglas
- Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Jeanette Finderup
- Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Michael J Barry
- Informed Medical Decisions Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Carol L Bennett
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Paulina Bravo
- Education and Cancer Prevention, Fundación Arturo López Pérez, Santiago, Chile
| | - Karina Steffensen
- Center for Shared Decision Making, IRS - Lillebælt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
| | - Amédé Gogovor
- VITAM - Centre de recherche en santé durable, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada
| | - Ian D Graham
- Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
- School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventative Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Shannon E Kelly
- Cardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - France Légaré
- Centre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne de l'Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Université Laval, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Richard Thomson
- Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Logan Trenaman
- Department of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gates M, Pillay J, Nuspl M, Wingert A, Vandermeer B, Hartling L. Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools. Syst Rev 2023; 12:51. [PMID: 36945065 PMCID: PMC10029308 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02181-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2022] [Accepted: 02/02/2023] [Indexed: 03/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care. METHODS For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I2 = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I2 = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I2 = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I2 = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated. CONCLUSION An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle Gates
- Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 1C9 Canada
| | - Jennifer Pillay
- Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 1C9 Canada
| | - Megan Nuspl
- Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 1C9 Canada
| | - Aireen Wingert
- Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 1C9 Canada
| | - Ben Vandermeer
- Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 1C9 Canada
| | - Lisa Hartling
- Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 1C9 Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Johnson AM, Brimhall AS, Johnson ET, Hodgson J, Didericksen K, Pye J, Harmon GJC, Sewell KB. A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient education through patient portals. JAMIA Open 2023; 6:ooac085. [PMID: 36686972 PMCID: PMC9847535 DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooac085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2021] [Revised: 09/01/2022] [Accepted: 10/18/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective The objective of this study was to systematically review all literature studying the effect of patient education on patient engagement through patient portals. Introduction Patient portals provide patients access to health records, lab results, medication refills, educational materials, secure messaging, appointment scheduling, and telehealth visits, allowing patients to take a more active role in their health care decisions and management. A debate remains around whether these additional aids actually improve patient engagement and increase their ability to manage their own health conditions. This systematic review looks specifically at the effect of educational materials included in patient portals. Materials and Methods In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, the literature search was mapped across 5 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, PsychINFO, Embase), and implemented on June 2, 2020. Results Fifty-two studies were included in the review. Forty-six (88.5%) reported rates of patient utilization of educational resources in the patient portal. Thirty (57.9%) shared patients' perceptions of the usefulness of the education materials. Twenty-one (40.4%) reported changes in health outcomes following educational interventions through the patient portal. This review found that efforts are indeed being made to raise awareness of educational resources in patient portals, that patients are increasingly utilizing these resources, that patients are finding them useful, and that they are improving health outcomes. Conclusion It seems that patient portals are becoming a powerful tool for patient education and engagement, and show promise as a means of achieving the quadruple aim of healthcare. Moving forward, research should establish more uniform methods of measurement in order to strengthen the literature surrounding the effectiveness of patient education through patient portals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam M Johnson
- Corresponding Author: Adam M. Johnson, MS, Department of Human Development & Family Science, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA;
| | - Andrew S Brimhall
- Department of Human Development & Family Science, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
| | - Erica T Johnson
- Department of Human Development & Family Science, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
| | - Jennifer Hodgson
- Department of Human Development & Family Science, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
| | - Katharine Didericksen
- Department of Human Development & Family Science, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
| | - Joseph Pye
- Department of Family Medicine, ECU Health, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
| | - G J Corey Harmon
- Laupus Library, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
| | - Kerry B Sewell
- Laupus Library, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Non-Adherence to Anti-Osteoporosis Medication: Factors Influencing and Strategies to Overcome It. A Narrative Review. J Clin Med 2022; 12:jcm12010014. [PMID: 36614816 PMCID: PMC9821321 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12010014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2022] [Revised: 12/13/2022] [Accepted: 12/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
To evaluate the reasons for inadequate adherence to osteoporosis therapy and to describe the strategies for improving adherence to and persistence with regular medications, we conducted a review of the literature. The primary outcome of the study was the determination of the factors adverse to the onset and maintenance of anti-osteoporosis therapies. Secondly, we focused on studies whose efforts led to finding different strategies to improve adherence and persistence. We identified a total of 26 articles. The most recurrent and significant factors identified were aging, polypharmacy, and smoking habits. Different strategies to guide patients in their osteoporosis care have been identified, such as monitoring and follow-up via telephone calls, email, and promotional meetings, and proactive care interventions such as medication monitoring, post-fracture care programs, and decision aids. Changes in the drugs regimen and dispensation are strategies tried to lead to better adherence and persistence, but also improved satisfaction of patients undergoing anti-osteoporosis treatment. Patient involvement is an important factor to increase medication persistence while using a flexible drugs regimen.
Collapse
|
7
|
Nogués X, Carbonell MC, Canals L, Lizán L, Palacios S. Current situation of shared decision making in osteoporosis: A comprehensive literature review of patient decision aids and decision drivers. Health Sci Rep 2022; 5:e849. [PMID: 36425899 PMCID: PMC9679236 DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.849] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2022] [Revised: 06/20/2022] [Accepted: 07/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and Aims Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microstructural deterioration of bone tissues, resulting in bone fragility and increased fracture risk. It is the most common bone-related disease in the population. However, the proportion of patients who start treatment but discontinue it during the first year is very high (around 50%). Endeavors are made to promote patient participation in treatment by implementing patient decision aids (PDA), whose function is to help the patient make disease-related decisions. We aim to summarize the characteristics of the currently available PDA for osteoporosis, as well as deciding factors. Methods Comprehensive review of the literature. Results Currently, eleven PDAs can be found for osteoporosis. These PDA have different characteristics or options such as information about treatments tailored to patient needs, graphic information of the results (to facilitate understanding), personal histories (learning), tests to check the knowledge acquired, provision of evidence, clinical practice guidelines or a final summary to share with their doctor. Only five of these PDAs can be considered complete since they provide relevant disease information and therapeutic options to the patient, promote patient's reflection and foment patient-physician discussion. Conclusions This study provides an update on the current state of decision making on osteoporosis and available PDA, which can help engage the patient through shared decision-making by considering, among other things, patient preferences. Physicians should consider PDA, as it may promote adherence and effectiveness of treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xavier Nogués
- Internal Medicine Department, Instituto de investigación hospital del Mar (IMIM)—Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Fragilidad y Envejecimiento Saludable (CIBERFES)Universitat Autonòma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
| | - María Cristina Carbonell
- Department of Medicine, Atenció Primària Barcelona—Institut Català de la Salut (ICS), Grupo GREMPALUniversidad de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
| | - Laura Canals
- Department of MedicineAmgen EuropeRisch‐RotkreuzSwitzerland
| | - Luis Lizán
- Department of Outcomes ResearchOutcomes'10Castellón de la PlanaSpain
- Department of MedicineUniversitat Jaume ICastellón de la PlanaSpain
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0265401. [PMID: 35294494 PMCID: PMC8926249 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265401] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2021] [Accepted: 03/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Interventions to change health professionals’ behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions. Methods We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under “what materials?” we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses. Results Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: “brief name” (87/87, 100%), “why” (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and “what” (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were “materials” (29/87, 33%), “who” (23/87, 26%), and “when and how much” (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: “tailoring” (8/87, 9%), “modifications” (3/87, 4%), and “how well (actual)” (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported “How”, (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%. Conclusions Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.
Collapse
|
9
|
Willis VC, Thomas Craig KJ, Jabbarpour Y, Scheufele EL, Arriaga YE, Ajinkya M, Rhee KB, Bazemore A. Digital Health Interventions to Enhance Prevention in Primary Care: Scoping Review. JMIR Med Inform 2022; 10:e33518. [PMID: 35060909 PMCID: PMC8817213 DOI: 10.2196/33518] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2021] [Revised: 11/19/2021] [Accepted: 12/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Disease prevention is a central aspect of primary care practice and is comprised of primary (eg, vaccinations), secondary (eg, screenings), tertiary (eg, chronic condition monitoring), and quaternary (eg, prevention of overmedicalization) levels. Despite rapid digital transformation of primary care practices, digital health interventions (DHIs) in preventive care have yet to be systematically evaluated. Objective This review aimed to identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings. Methods A scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms covering primary care professionals, prevention and care management, and digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings, excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (eg, health care performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford levels of evidence were abstracted. Results The search yielded 5274 citations, of which 1060 full-text articles were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technologies, including EHRs (166/241, 68.9%), clinical decision support (88/241, 36.5%), telehealth (88/241, 36.5%), and multiple technologies (154/241, 63.9%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (131/241, 54.4%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (213/241, 88.4%). DHI users were providers (205/241, 85.1%), patients (111/241, 46.1%), or multiple types (89/241, 36.9%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (179/241, 70.1%), and statistically significant improvements were common (192/241, 79.7%). Results were summarized across the following 5 topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. The quality of the included studies was moderate to low. Conclusions Preventive DHIs in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and nonclinical outcomes, and across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US were limited primarily to EHR platforms, and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluations of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Van C Willis
- Center for Artificial Intelligence, Research, and Evaluation, IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, United States
| | - Kelly Jean Thomas Craig
- Center for Artificial Intelligence, Research, and Evaluation, IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, United States
| | - Yalda Jabbarpour
- Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, The Robert Graham Center, American Academy of Family Physicians, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Elisabeth L Scheufele
- Center for Artificial Intelligence, Research, and Evaluation, IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, United States
| | - Yull E Arriaga
- Center for Artificial Intelligence, Research, and Evaluation, IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, United States
| | - Monica Ajinkya
- Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, The Robert Graham Center, American Academy of Family Physicians, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Kyu B Rhee
- Center for Artificial Intelligence, Research, and Evaluation, IBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, United States
| | - Andrew Bazemore
- The American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY, United States
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Cornelissen D, Boonen A, Evers S, van den Bergh JP, Bours S, Wyers CE, van Kuijk S, van Oostwaard M, van der Weijden T, Hiligsmann M. Improvement of osteoporosis Care Organized by Nurses: ICON study - Protocol of a quasi-experimental study to assess the (cost)-effectiveness of combining a decision aid with motivational interviewing for improving medication persistence in patients with a recent fracture being treated at the fracture liaison service. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021; 22:913. [PMID: 34715838 PMCID: PMC8555732 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04743-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 09/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Given the health and economic burden of fractures related to osteoporosis, suboptimal adherence to medication and the increasing importance of shared-decision making, the Improvement of osteoporosis Care Organized by Nurses (ICON) study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of a multi-component adherence intervention (MCAI) for patients with an indication for treatment with anti–osteoporosis medication, following assessment at the Fracture Liaison Service after a recent fracture. The MCAI involves two consultations at the FLS. During the first consultation, a decision aid is will be used to involve patients in the decision of whether to start anti-osteoporosis medication. During the follow-up visit, the nurse inquires about, and stimulates, medication adherence using motivational interviewing techniques. Methods A quasi-experimental trial to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness and feasibility of an MCAI, consisting of a decision aid (DA) at the first visit, combined with nurse-led adherence support using motivational interviewing during the follow-up visit, in comparison with care as usual, in improving adherence to oral anti-osteoporosis medication for patients with a recent fracture two Dutch FLS. Medication persistence, defined as the proportion of patients who are persistent at one year assuming a refill gap < 30 days, is the primary outcome. Medication adherence, decision quality, subsequent fractures and mortality are the secondary outcomes. A lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis using a model-based economic evaluation and a process evaluation will also be conducted. A sample size of 248 patients is required to show an improvement in the primary outcome with 20%. Study follow-up is at 12 months, with measurements at baseline, after four months, and at 12 months. Discussion We expect that the ICON-study will show that the MCAI is a (cost-)effective intervention for improving persistence with anti-osteoporosis medication and that it is feasible for implementation at the FLS. Trial registration This trial has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, part of the Dutch Cochrane Centre (Trial NL7236 (NTR7435)). Version 1.0; 26-11-2020.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dennis Cornelissen
- Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | - Annelies Boonen
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center; and Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Silvia Evers
- Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Centre for Economic Evaluation and Machine Learning, Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Joop P van den Bergh
- Department of Internal Medicine, VieCuri Medical Center, Venlo, The Netherlands.,Department of Internal Medicine, Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium
| | - Sandrine Bours
- Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center; and Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Caroline E Wyers
- Department of Internal Medicine, VieCuri Medical Center, Venlo, The Netherlands.,Department of Internal Medicine, Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Sander van Kuijk
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Marsha van Oostwaard
- Department of Internal Medicine, VieCuri Medical Center, Venlo, The Netherlands.,Department of Internal Medicine, Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Trudy van der Weijden
- Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Mickaël Hiligsmann
- Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Behavioral Intentions to Use Patient Portals to Disclose HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Histories with Sexual Partners Among U.S. Sexual Minority Men. AIDS Behav 2021; 25:1199-1209. [PMID: 33185776 DOI: 10.1007/s10461-020-03092-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/08/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
Disclosure of HIV and other sexually transmitted infection (HIV/STI) testing history to sexual partners is low among gay, bisexual, and other U.S. sexual minority men (SMM). Patient portals (PP) could increase HIV/STI testing history disclosure. This study estimated the predictive validity of the Enhancing Dyadic Communication (EDC) latent construct for perceived behavioral intentions to use PP for HIV/STI test disclosures. A randomized subset of SMM completed the Patient Portal Sexual Health Instrument as part of the 2018 American Men's Internet Survey. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated associations between EDC and intentions to use PP for test disclosures. Among a sample of 1,509 SMM aged 15 to 77 years, EDC was associated with intentions to use PP to disclose test history with main partners (aOR 2.17; 95% CI 1.90 to 2.47) and non-main partners (aOR 2.39; 95%CI 2.07 to 2.76). Assessing EDC could be useful in clinical settings for interventions encouraging patients to communicate with partners about testing.
Collapse
|
12
|
McLean B, Hossain N, Donison V, Gray M, Durbano S, Haase K, Alibhai SMH, Puts M. Providing Medical Information to Older Adults in a Web-Based Environment: Systematic Review. JMIR Aging 2021; 4:e24092. [PMID: 33560228 PMCID: PMC8294635 DOI: 10.2196/24092] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2020] [Revised: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 01/06/2021] [Indexed: 01/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Cancer is a disease that predominantly affects older adults, and several organizations recommend the completion of a geriatric assessment to help with cancer treatment decision-making. Owing to a shortage of geriatric teams and the vast number of older adults diagnosed with cancer each year, a web-based geriatric assessment may improve access to geriatric assessment for older adults. We systematically reviewed the literature to obtain the latest evidence for the design of our web-based geriatric assessment tool Comprehensive Health Assessment for My Plan. Objective This review aimed to probe the following questions: what is the impact of providing health test results to older adults in a web-based environment without the presence of a health care provider for patient-centered outcomes, including satisfaction, perceived harm, empowerment, quality of life, and health care use (eg, hospitalization, physician visits, emergency room visits, and costs), and what recommendations do older adults and developers have for designing future apps or websites for older adults? Methods This systematic review was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) statement. Studies were limited to publications in English that examined a web-based tool that provided test results to older adults (aged ≥65 years) without the presence of a health care provider. A health sciences librarian performed the search on November 29, 2019, on the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2018. The findings are summarized narratively and in tabular format. Results A total of 26,898 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers, of which 94 studies were selected for a full-text review, and 9 studies were included in this review. There were only 2 randomized controlled trials of high quality that explored the effects of receiving health care results on the web via eHealth tools for older adults or provided evidence-based recommendations for designing such tools. Older adults were generally satisfied with receiving screening results via eHealth tools, and several studies suggested that receiving health screening results electronically improved participants’ quality of life. However, user interfaces that were not designed with older adults in mind and older adults’ lack of confidence in navigating eHealth tools proved challenging to eHealth uptake and use. All 9 studies included in this systematic review made recommendations on how to design eHealth tools that are intuitive and useful for older adults. Conclusions eHealth tools should incorporate specific elements to ensure usability for older adults. However, more research is required to fully elucidate the impact of receiving screening and results via eHealth tools without the presence of a health care provider for patient-centered outcomes in this target population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bianca McLean
- Michael G DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Nazia Hossain
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Valentina Donison
- Lawrence S Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Mikaela Gray
- Gerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Kristen Haase
- School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Shabbir Muhammad Husayn Alibhai
- Department of Medicine, Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Martine Puts
- Lawrence S Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Sex and gender considerations in implementation interventions to promote shared decision making: A secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0240371. [PMID: 33031475 PMCID: PMC7544054 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240371] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2020] [Accepted: 09/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Shared decision making (SDM) in healthcare is an approach in which health professionals support patients in making decisions based on best evidence and their values and preferences. Considering sex and gender in SDM research is necessary to produce precisely-targeted interventions, improve evidence quality and redress health inequities. A first step is correct use of terms. We therefore assessed sex and gender terminology in SDM intervention studies. Materials and methods We performed a secondary analysis of a Cochrane review of SDM interventions. We extracted study characteristics and their use of sex, gender or related terms (mention; number of categories). We assessed correct use of sex and gender terms using three criteria: “non-binary use”, “use of appropriate categories” and “non-interchangeable use of sex and gender”. We computed the proportion of studies that met all, any or no criteria, and explored associations between criteria met and study characteristics. Results Of 87 included studies, 58 (66.7%) mentioned sex and/or gender. The most mentioned related terms were “female” (60.9%) and “male” (59.8%). Of the 58 studies, authors used sex and gender as binary variables respectively in 36 (62%) and in 34 (58.6%) studies. No study met the criterion “non-binary use”. Authors used appropriate categories to describe sex and gender respectively in 28 (48.3%) and in 8 (13.8%) studies. Of the 83 (95.4%) studies in which sex and/or gender, and/or related terms were mentioned, authors used sex and gender non-interchangeably in 16 (19.3%). No study met all three criteria. Criteria met did not vary according to study characteristics (p>.05). Conclusions In SDM implementation studies, sex and gender terms and concepts are in a state of confusion. Our results suggest the urgency of adopting a standardized use of sex and gender terms and concepts before these considerations can be properly integrated into implementation research.
Collapse
|
14
|
Paskins Z, Torres Roldan VD, Hawarden AW, Bullock L, Meritxell Urtecho S, Torres GF, Morera L, Espinoza Suarez NR, Worrall A, Blackburn S, Chapman S, Jinks C, Brito JP. Quality and effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment decision aids: a systematic review and environmental scan. Osteoporos Int 2020; 31:1837-1851. [PMID: 32500301 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05479-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2020] [Accepted: 05/25/2020] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
Decision aids (DAs) are evidence-based tools that support shared decision-making (SDM) implementation in practice; this study aimed to identify existing osteoporosis DAs and assess their quality and efficacy; and to gain feedback from a patient advisory group on findings and implications for further research. We searched multiple bibliographic databases to identify research studies from 2000 to 2019 and undertook an environmental scan (search conducted February 2019, repeated in March 2020). A pair of reviewers, working independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, evaluated each trial's risk of bias, and conducted DA quality assessment using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Public contributors (patients and caregivers with experience of osteoporosis and fragility fractures) participated in discussion groups to review a sample of DAs, express preferences for a new DA, and discuss plans for development of a new DA. We identified 6 studies, with high or unclear risk of bias. Across included studies, use of an osteoporosis DA was reported to result in reduced decisional conflict compared with baseline, increased SDM, and increased accuracy of patients' perceived fracture risk compared with controls. Eleven DAs were identified, of which none met the full set of IPDAS criteria for certification for minimization of bias. Public contributors expressed preferences for encounter DAs that are individualized to patients' own needs and risk. Using a systematic review and environmental scan, we identified 11 decision aids to inform patient decisions about osteoporosis treatment and 6 studies evaluating their effectiveness. Use of decision aids increased accuracy of risk perception and shared decision-making but the decision aids themselves fail to comprehensively meet international quality standards and patient needs, underpinning the need for new DA development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Z Paskins
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
- Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Partnership Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, ST6 7AG, UK.
| | - V D Torres Roldan
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Endocrinology Department, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - A W Hawarden
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
- Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Partnership Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, ST6 7AG, UK
| | - L Bullock
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - S Meritxell Urtecho
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Endocrinology Department, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - G F Torres
- Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru
| | - L Morera
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Endocrinology Department, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - N R Espinoza Suarez
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Endocrinology Department, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - A Worrall
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - S Blackburn
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - S Chapman
- School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - C Jinks
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - J P Brito
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Endocrinology Department, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Haga SB. Toward digital-based interventions for medication adherence and safety. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2020; 19:735-746. [DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2020.1764935] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Susanne B Haga
- Duke School of Medicine, Center for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Cornelissen D, Boonen A, Bours S, Evers S, Dirksen C, Hiligsmann M. Understanding patients' preferences for osteoporosis treatment: the impact of patients' characteristics on subgroups and latent classes. Osteoporos Int 2020; 31:85-96. [PMID: 31606825 PMCID: PMC6946725 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-019-05154-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2019] [Accepted: 08/30/2019] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED This study revealed patterns in osteoporosis patients' treatment preferences, which cannot be related to socio-demographic or clinical characteristics, implicating unknown underlying reasons. Therefore, to improve quality of care and treatment, patients should have an active role in treatment choice, irrespective of their characteristics. INTRODUCTION Patient centeredness is important to improve the quality of care. Accounting for patient preferences is a key element of patient centeredness, and understanding preferences are important for successful and adherent treatment. This study was designed to identify different preferences profiles and to investigate how patient characteristics influence treatment preferences of patients for anti-osteoporosis drugs. METHODS Data from a discrete choice experiment among 188 osteoporotic patients were used. The hypothetical treatment options were characterized by three attributes: treatment efficacy, side effects, and mode/frequency of administration. A mixed logit model was used to measure heterogeneity across the sample. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify potential effect of patient characteristics. Latent class modeling (LCM) was applied. Associations between patients' characteristics and the identified latent classes were explored with chi-square. RESULTS All treatment options were important for patients' decision regarding osteoporotic treatment. Significant heterogeneity was observed for most attributes. Subgroup analyses revealed that patients with a previous fracture valued efficacy most, and patients with a fear of needles or aged > 65 years preferred oral tablets. Elderly patients disliked intravenous medication. Three latent classes were identified, in which 6-month subcutaneous injection was preferred in two classes (86%), while oral tablets were preferred in the third class (14%). No statistically significant associations between the profiles regarding socio-demographic or clinical characteristics could be found. CONCLUSIONS This study revealed patterns in patients' preferences for osteoporosis treatment, which cannot be related to specific socio-demographic or clinical characteristics. Therefore, patients should be involved in clinical decision-making to reveal their preferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Cornelissen
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | - A Boonen
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Department of Internal Medicine, Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre and CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - S Bours
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Department of Internal Medicine, Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre and CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - S Evers
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Centre for economic evaluation, Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - C Dirksen
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - M Hiligsmann
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Han HR, Gleason KT, Sun CA, Miller HN, Kang SJ, Chow S, Anderson R, Nagy P, Bauer T. Using Patient Portals to Improve Patient Outcomes: Systematic Review. JMIR Hum Factors 2019; 6:e15038. [PMID: 31855187 PMCID: PMC6940868 DOI: 10.2196/15038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 67] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2019] [Revised: 08/23/2019] [Accepted: 08/31/2019] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND With the advent of electronic health record (EHR) systems, there is increasing attention on the EHR system with regard to its use in facilitating patients to play active roles in their care via secure patient portals. However, there is no systematic review to comprehensively address patient portal interventions and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to synthesize evidence with regard to the characteristics and psychobehavioral and clinical outcomes of patient portal interventions. METHODS In November 2018, we conducted searches in 3 electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and a total of 24 articles met the eligibility criteria. RESULTS All but 3 studies were conducted in the United States. The types of study designs varied, and samples predominantly involved non-Hispanic white and highly educated patients with sizes ranging from 50 to 22,703. Most of the portal interventions used tailored alerts or educational resources tailored to the patient's condition. Patient portal interventions lead to improvements in a wide range of psychobehavioral outcomes, such as health knowledge, self-efficacy, decision making, medication adherence, and preventive service use. Effects of patient portal interventions on clinical outcomes including blood pressure, glucose, cholesterol, and weight loss were mixed. CONCLUSIONS Patient portal interventions were overall effective in improving a few psychological outcomes, medication adherence, and preventive service use. There was insufficient evidence to support the use of patient portals to improve clinical outcomes. Understanding the role of patient portals as an effective intervention strategy is an essential step to encourage patients to be actively engaged in their health care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hae-Ra Han
- The Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, United States
- The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Cardiovascular and Chronic Care, Baltimore, MD, United States
- The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Community Innovation and Scholarship, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Kelly T Gleason
- The Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Chun-An Sun
- The Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Hailey N Miller
- The Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Soo Jin Kang
- Daegu University, Department of Nursing, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| | - Sotera Chow
- The Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Rachel Anderson
- The Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Paul Nagy
- The Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Tom Bauer
- The Johns Hopkins Hospitals and Health System, Baltimore, MD, United States
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Hiligsmann M, Cornelissen D, Vrijens B, Abrahamsen B, Al-Daghri N, Biver E, Brandi ML, Bruyère O, Burlet N, Cooper C, Cortet B, Dennison E, Diez-Perez A, Gasparik A, Grosso A, Hadji P, Halbout P, Kanis JA, Kaufman JM, Laslop A, Maggi S, Rizzoli R, Thomas T, Tuzun S, Vlaskovska M, Reginster JY. Determinants, consequences and potential solutions to poor adherence to anti-osteoporosis treatment: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). Osteoporos Int 2019; 30:2155-2165. [PMID: 31388696 PMCID: PMC6811382 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-019-05104-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2019] [Accepted: 07/18/2019] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Many patients at increased risk of fractures do not take their medication appropriately, resulting in a substantial decrease in the benefits of drug therapy. Improving medication adherence is urgently needed but remains laborious, given the numerous and multidimensional reasons for non-adherence, suggesting the need for measurement-guided, multifactorial and individualized solutions. INTRODUCTION Poor adherence to medications is a major challenge in the treatment of osteoporosis. This paper aimed to provide an overview of the consequences, determinants and potential solutions to poor adherence and persistence to osteoporosis medication. METHODS A working group was organized by the European Society on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal diseases (ESCEO) to review consequences, determinants and potential solutions to adherence and to make recommendations for practice and further research. A systematic literature review and a face-to-face experts meeting were undertaken. RESULTS Medication non-adherence is associated with increased risk of fractures, leading to a substantial decrease in the clinical and economic benefits of drug therapy. Reasons for non-adherence are numerous and multidimensional for each patient, depending on the interplay of multiple factors, suggesting the need for multifactorial and individualized solutions. Few interventions have been shown to improve adherence or persistence to osteoporosis treatment. Promising actions include patient education with counselling, adherence monitoring with feedback and dose simplification including flexible dosing regimen. Recommendations for practice and further research were also provided. To adequately manage adherence, it is important to (1) understand the problem (initiation, implementation and/or persistence), (2) to measure adherence and (3) to identify the reason of non-adherence and fix it. CONCLUSION These recommendations are intended for clinicians to manage adherence of their patients and to researchers and policy makers to design, facilitate and appropriately use adherence interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Hiligsmann
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| | - D Cornelissen
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - B Vrijens
- Research and Development, AARDEX Group and Department of Public Health, University of Liège, Liege, Belgium
| | - B Abrahamsen
- Open Patient Data Explorative Network, Institute of Clinical Resesarch, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Medicine, Holbæk Hospital, Holbæk, Denmark
- NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - N Al-Daghri
- Chair for Biomarkers of Chronic Diseases, Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - E Biver
- Division of Bone Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - M L Brandi
- FirmoLab, Fondazione FIRMO e Università di Firenze, Florence, Italy
| | - O Bruyère
- Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Liège, Belgium and WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, University of Liège, Liege, Belgium
| | - N Burlet
- Global Head of Patient Insights Innovation, Patient Solution Unit, Sanofi, Lyon, France
| | - C Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - B Cortet
- Department of Rheumatology and EA 4490, University-Hospital of Lille, Lille, France
| | - E Dennison
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - A Diez-Perez
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, IMIM-Parc Salut Mar, CIBERFES, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - A Gasparik
- Department of Public Health, University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures, Targu Mures, Romania
| | - A Grosso
- Patient partner, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - P Hadji
- Frankfurt Centre of Bone Health, Frankfurt, Germany & Philips-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| | - P Halbout
- International Osteoporosis Foundation, Nyon, Switzerland
| | - J A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Mary McKillop Health Institute, Catholic University of Australia, Melbourne, Australia
| | - J M Kaufman
- Department of Endocrinology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - A Laslop
- Scientific Office, Austrian Federal Office for Safety in Health Care, Vienna, Austria
| | - S Maggi
- CNR Aging Branch-NI, Padua, Italy
| | - R Rizzoli
- Division of Bone Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - T Thomas
- Department of Rheumatology, Hôpital Nord, CHU Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne and INSERM U1059, Université de Lyon-Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne, France
| | - S Tuzun
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty, İstanbul University Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - M Vlaskovska
- Medical Faculty, Department of Pharmacology, Medical University Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
| | - J Y Reginster
- Chair for Biomarkers of Chronic Diseases, Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
- Division of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Liège, Belgium and WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, University of Liège, Liege, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Dang S, Thavalathil B, Ruiz D, Gómez-Orozco C, Gómez-Marín O, Levis S. A Patient Portal Intervention for Menopause Knowledge and Shared Decision-Making. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2019; 28:1614-1622. [PMID: 31390282 DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2018.7461] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Menopause is a time often fraught with changes and symptoms, which may require difficult choices and decision-making. During this period, women would benefit from a better understanding and in-depth discussions with providers regarding menopause, associated conditions, and appropriate therapy. Patient portals offer a potential means to improve knowledge and shared decision-making (SDM) about menopause. Materials and Methods: This protocol article explores the feasibility of using the secure messaging (SM) function of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Patient Portal, "My HealtheVet" to implement an educational intervention and measure its impact on knowledge and SDM in the management of menopause. Results: This is a quality improvement pilot study in which women veterans of menopausal age in the Miami VA are offered an educational intervention via a patient portal, while women veterans in two neighboring VA facilities are not. Intervention participants receive weekly SMs with information on menopause symptoms, and treatment. After 6-months, all participants are surveyed on menopause knowledge, SDM, and satisfaction with the program. Conclusion: This study is among the first to assess the impact of an innovative patient portal intervention to improve knowledge and SDM between patients and providers regarding menopause. If successful, our program will add to the "meaningful use" of patient portals and offer a scalable and timely resource for SDM about menopause.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stuti Dang
- Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (11 GRC), Miami Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Miami, Florida.,Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
| | - Berry Thavalathil
- South Florida Veterans Affairs Foundation for Research and Education Miami, Florida
| | - Diana Ruiz
- Research Service, Miami VA Healthcare System, Miami, Florida
| | - Carlos Gómez-Orozco
- Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
| | - Orlando Gómez-Marín
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health Science, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
| | - Silvina Levis
- Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (11 GRC), Miami Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Miami, Florida.,Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Metting E, Schrage AJ, Kocks JW, Sanderman R, van der Molen T. Assessing the Needs and Perspectives of Patients With Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease on Patient Web Portals: Focus Group Study. JMIR Form Res 2018; 2:e22. [PMID: 30684436 PMCID: PMC6334706 DOI: 10.2196/formative.8822] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2017] [Revised: 04/27/2018] [Accepted: 06/18/2018] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND As accessibility to the internet has increased in society, many health care organizations have developed patient Web portals (PWPs), which can provide a range of self-management options to improve patient access. However, the available evidence suggests that they are used inefficiently and do not benefit patients with low health literacy. Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common chronic diseases that require ongoing self-management. Moreover, patients with COPD are typically older and have lower health literacy. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to obtain and present an overview of patients' perspectives of PWPs to facilitate the development of a portal that better meets the needs of patients with asthma and COPD. METHODS We performed a focus group study using semistructured interviews in 3 patient groups from the north of the Netherlands who were recruited through the Dutch Lung Foundation. Each group met 3 times for 2 hours each at a 1-week interval. Data were analyzed with coding software, and patient descriptors were analyzed with nonparametric tests. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research were followed when conducting the study. RESULTS We included 29 patients (16/29, 55% male; mean age 65 [SD 10] years) with COPD (n=14), asthma-COPD overlap (n=4), asthma (n=10), or other respiratory disease (n=1). There was a large variation in the internet experience; some patients hardly used the internet (4/29, 14%), whereas others used internet >3 times a week (23/29, 79%). In general, patients were positive about having access to a PWP, considering access to personal medical records as the most important option, though only after discussion with their physician. A medication overview was considered a useful option. We found that communication between health care professionals could be improved if patients could use the PWP to share information with their health care professionals. However, as participants were worried about the language and usability of portals, it was recommended that language should be adapted to the patient level. Another concern was that disease monitoring through Web-based questionnaire use would only be useful if the results were discussed with health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS Participants were positive about PWPs and considered them a logical step. Today, most patients tend to be better educated and have internet access, while also being more assertive and better informed about their disease. A PWP could support these patients. Our participants also provided practical suggestions for implementation in current and future PWP developments. The next step will be to develop a portal based on these recommendations and assess whether it meets the needs of patients and health care providers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esther Metting
- Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD, Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Aaltje Jantine Schrage
- Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD, Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Janwillem Wh Kocks
- Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD, Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Robbert Sanderman
- GZW-Health Psychology-GZW-General, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.,Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
| | - Thys van der Molen
- Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD, Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Kuo AMS, Thavalathil B, Elwyn G, Nemeth Z, Dang S. The Promise of Electronic Health Records to Promote Shared Decision Making: A Narrative Review and a Look Ahead. Med Decis Making 2018; 38:1040-1045. [PMID: 30226100 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x18796223] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Shared decision making (SDM) involves the sharing of best available evidence between patients and providers in the face of difficult decisions. We examine outcomes that occur when electronic health records (EHRs) are purposefully used with the goal of improving SDM and detail which EHR functions can benefit SDM. METHODS A systematic search of PubMed yielded 1369 articles. Studies were included only if they used EHR interventions to support SDM and included results that showed impact on SDM. Articles were excluded if they did not measure the impact of the intervention on SDM or did not discuss how SDM had been supported by the EHR. RESULTS Five studies demonstrated improved clinical outcomes, positive lifestyle behavior changes, more deliberation from patients regarding use of imaging, and less decisional conflict about medication use among patients with use of EHRs aiding SDM. DISCUSSION Few EHRs have integrated SDM, and even fewer evaluations of these exist. EHRs have potential in supporting providers during all steps of SDM. The promise of EHRs to support SDM has yet to be fully exploited.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alyce Mei-Shiuan Kuo
- University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL (AMK).,Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Miami Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Miami, FL (BT, SD).,The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH (GE).,Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL (ZN, SD)
| | - Berry Thavalathil
- University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL (AMK).,Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Miami Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Miami, FL (BT, SD).,The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH (GE).,Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL (ZN, SD)
| | - Glyn Elwyn
- University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL (AMK).,Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Miami Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Miami, FL (BT, SD).,The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH (GE).,Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL (ZN, SD)
| | - Zsuzsanna Nemeth
- University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL (AMK).,Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Miami Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Miami, FL (BT, SD).,The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH (GE).,Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL (ZN, SD)
| | - Stuti Dang
- University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL (AMK).,Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Miami Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Miami, FL (BT, SD).,The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH (GE).,Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL (ZN, SD)
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Mercer MB, Rose SL, Talerico C, Wells BJ, Manne M, Vakharia N, Jolly S, Milinovich A, Bauman J, Kattan MW. Use of Visual Decision Aids in Physician-Patient Communication: A Pilot Investigation. J Patient Exp 2018; 5:167-176. [PMID: 30214921 PMCID: PMC6134541 DOI: 10.1177/2374373517746177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION A risk calculator paired with a personalized decision aid (RC&DA) may foster shared decision-making in primary care. We assessed the feasibility of using an RC&DA with patients in a primary care outpatient clinic and patients' experiences regarding communication and decision-making. METHODS This pilot study was conducted with 15 patients of 3 primary care physicians at a clinic within a tertiary medical center. An atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator was used to generate a personalized RC&DA that displayed absolute 10-year risk information as an icon array graphic. Patient perceptions of utility of the RC&DA, preferences for decision-making, and uncertainty with risk reduction decisions were measured with a semi-structured interview. RESULTS Patients reported that the RC&DA was easy to understand and knowledge gained was useful to modify their ASCVD risk. Patients used the RC&DA to make decisions and reported low uncertainty with those decisions. CONCLUSIONS Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of, and positive patient experiences related to using, an RC&DA to facilitate shared decision-making between physicians and patients in an outpatient primary care setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary Beth Mercer
- Office of Patient Experience, Department of Bioethics, Cleveland Clinic,
Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Susannah L Rose
- Office of Patient Experience, Department of Bioethics, Cleveland Clinic,
Cleveland, OH, USA
| | | | - Brian J Wells
- Translational Science Institute, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center,
Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Mahesh Manne
- Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Nirav Vakharia
- Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Stacey Jolly
- Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Alex Milinovich
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH,
USA
| | - Janine Bauman
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH,
USA
| | - Michael W Kattan
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH,
USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Légaré F, Adekpedjou R, Stacey D, Turcotte S, Kryworuchko J, Graham ID, Lyddiatt A, Politi MC, Thomson R, Elwyn G, Donner‐Banzhoff N. Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 7:CD006732. [PMID: 30025154 PMCID: PMC6513543 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006732.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 222] [Impact Index Per Article: 37.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- France Légaré
- Université LavalCentre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne de l'Université Laval (CERSSPL‐UL)2525, Chemin de la CanardièreQuebecQuébecCanadaG1J 0A4
| | - Rhéda Adekpedjou
- Université LavalDepartment of Social and Preventive MedicineQuebec CityQuebecCanada
| | - Dawn Stacey
- University of OttawaSchool of Nursing451 Smyth RoadOttawaONCanada
| | - Stéphane Turcotte
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec (CRCHUQ) ‐ Hôpital St‐François d'Assise10 Rue de l'Espinay, D6‐727Québec CityQCCanadaG1L 3L5
| | - Jennifer Kryworuchko
- The University of British ColumbiaSchool of NursingT201 2211 Wesbrook MallVancouverBritish ColumbiaCanadaV6T 2B5
| | - Ian D Graham
- University of OttawaSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventative Medicine600 Peter Morand CrescentOttawaONCanada
| | - Anne Lyddiatt
- No affiliation28 Greenwood RoadIngersollONCanadaN5C 3N1
| | - Mary C Politi
- Washington University School of MedicineDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery660 S Euclid AveSt LouisMissouriUSA63110
| | - Richard Thomson
- Newcastle UniversityInstitute of Health and SocietyBaddiley‐Clark BuildingRichardson RoadNewcastle upon TyneUKNE2 4AX
| | - Glyn Elwyn
- Cardiff UniversityCochrane Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine2nd Floor, Neuadd MeirionnyddHeath ParkCardiffWalesUKCF14 4YS
| | - Norbert Donner‐Banzhoff
- University of MarburgDepartment of Family Medicine / General PracticeKarl‐von‐Frisch‐Str. 4MarburgGermanyD‐35039
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Ye S, Leppin AL, Chan AY, Chang N, Moise N, Poghosyan L, Montori VM, Kronish I. An Informatics Approach to Implement Support for Shared Decision Making for Primary Prevention Statin Therapy. MDM Policy Pract 2018; 3:2381468318777752. [PMID: 30288449 PMCID: PMC6157431 DOI: 10.1177/2381468318777752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2017] [Accepted: 04/20/2018] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background. Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended prior to initiation of statin therapy for primary prevention but is underutilized. We designed an informatics decision-support tool to facilitate use of the Mayo Clinic Statin Choice decision aid at the point-of-care and evaluated its impact. Methods. Using an iterative approach, we designed and implemented a single-click decision-support tool embedded within the electronic health records (EHRs) to automate the calculation of 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk and populate the Statin Choice decision aid. We surveyed primary care providers at two clinics regarding their attitudes about SDM before and after deployment of intervention, as well as their usage of and perceived competence regarding SDM for primary prevention statin therapy. Three-month web traffic to the Statin Choice website was calculated before and after deployment of the intervention. Results. Pre-post surveys were completed by 60 primary care providers (24 [40%] attending physicians and 36 [60%] housestaff physicians). After deployment of the EHR tool, respondents were more aware of the Statin Choice decision aid (P < 0.001), reported being more competent regarding SDM (P = 0.047), and reported using decision aids more often when considering statin initiation (P = 0.043). There was no significant change in attitudes about SDM as measured through the Patient Provider Orientation Scale (pre 4.23 ± 0.40 v. post 4.16 ± 0.38, P = 0.11) and the SDM belief scale (pre 21.4 ± 2.1 v. post 21.1 ± 2.0, P = 0.35). Web-based usage rates for the Statin Choice decision aid increased from 3.4 to 5.2 per 1,000 outpatient clinic visits (P = 0.002). Conclusions. Implementation of a point-of-care decision-support tool increased the usage of decision aids for primary prevention statin therapy. This effect does not appear to be mediated by any concomitant changes in physician attitude toward SDM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siqin Ye
- Division of Cardiology Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Aaron L Leppin
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Amy Y Chan
- NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York
| | - Nancy Chang
- Division of General Internal Medicine Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Nathalie Moise
- Division of General Internal Medicine Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | | | - Victor M Montori
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Ian Kronish
- Division of General Internal Medicine Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|