Preferences of Patients and Pharmacists with Regard to the Management of Drug-Drug Interactions: A Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis

Parental rights or parental wrongs: Parents' metacognitive knowledge of the factors that influence their school choice decisions

School choice initiatives-which empower parents to choose which schools their children attend-are built on the assumptions that parents know what features of a school are most important to their family and that they are capable of focusing on the most important features when they make their decisions. However, decades of psychological research suggest that decision makers lack metacognitive knowledge of the factors that influence their decisions. We sought to reconcile this discrepancy between the policy assumptions and the psychological research. To do so, we asked participants to complete Choice-Based Conjoint surveys in which they made series of choices between different hypothetical schools. We then asked participants to self-report the weight they placed on each attribute when making their choices. Across four studies, we found that participants did not know how much weight they had placed on various school attributes. Average correlations between stated and revealed weights ranged from r = .34-.54. Stated weights predicted different choices than revealed weights in 16.41-20.63% of decisions. These metacognitive limitations persisted regardless of whether the participants were parents or non-parents (Study 1a/1b), the nature of the attributes that participants used to evaluate alternatives (Study 2), and whether or not decision makers had access to school ratings that could be used as metacognitive aids (Study 3). In line with prior psychological research-and in contract to policy assumptions-these findings demonstrate that decision makers do not have particularly strong metacognitive knowledge of the factors that influence their school choice decisions. As a result, parents making school choice decisions are likely to seek out and use the wrong information, thus leading to suboptimal school choices. Future research should replicate these results in more ecologically valid samples and test new approaches to school choice that account for these metacognitive limitations.

Need for numbers: assessing cancer survivors' needs for personalized and generic statistical information

Background

Statistical information (e.g., on long-term survival or side effects) may be valuable for healthcare providers to share with their patients to facilitate shared decision making on treatment options. In this pre-registered study, we assessed cancer survivors’ need for generic (population-based) versus personalized (tailored towards patient/tumor characteristics) statistical information after their diagnosis. We examined how information coping style, subjective numeracy, and anxiety levels of survivors relate to these needs and identified statistical need profiles. Additionally, we qualitatively explored survivors’ considerations for (not) wanting statistical information.

Methods

Cancer survivors’ need for statistics regarding incidence, survival, recurrence, side effects and quality of life were assessed with an online questionnaire. For each of these topics, survivors were asked to think back to their first cancer diagnosis and to indicate their need for generic and personalized statistics on a 4-point scale (‘not at all’- ‘very much’). Associations between information coping style, subjective numeracy, and anxiety with need for generic and personalized statistics were examined with Pearson’s correlations. Statistical need profiles were identified using latent class analysis. Considerations for (not) wanting statistics were analyzed qualitatively.

Results

Overall, cancer survivors (n = 174) had a higher need for personalized than for generic statistics (p < .001, d = 0.74). Need for personalized statistics was associated with higher subjective numeracy (r = .29) and an information-seeking coping style (r = .41). Three statistical need profiles were identified (1) a strong need for both generic and personalized statistics (34%), (2) a stronger need for personalized than for generic statistics (55%), and (3) a little need for both generic and personalized statistics (11%). Considerations for wanting personalized cancer statistics ranged from feelings of being in control to making better informed decisions about treatment. Considerations for not wanting statistics related to negative experience with statistics and to the unpredictability of future events for individual patients.

Conclusions

In light of the increased possibilities for using personalized statistics in clinical practice and decision aids, it appears that most cancer survivors want personalized statistical information during treatment decision-making. Subjective numeracy and information coping style seem important factors influencing this need. We encourage further development and implementation of data-driven personalized decision support technologies in oncological care to support patients in treatment decision making.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-02005-2.

A Shared Decision-making Tool for Drug Interactions Between Warfarin and Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs: Design and Usability Study

Background

Exposure to life-threatening drug-drug interactions (DDIs) occurs despite the widespread use of clinical decision support. The DDI between warfarin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is common and potentially life-threatening. Patients can play a substantial role in preventing harm from DDIs; however, the current model for DDI decision-making is clinician centric.

Objective

This study aims to design and study the usability of DDInteract, a tool to support shared decision-making (SDM) between a patient and provider for the DDI between warfarin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Methods

We used an SDM framework and user-centered design methods to guide the design and usability of DDInteract—an SDM electronic health record app to prevent harm from clinically significant DDIs. The design involved iterative prototypes, qualitative feedback from stakeholders, and a heuristic evaluation. The usability evaluation included patients and clinicians. Patients participated in a simulated SDM discussion using clinical vignettes. Clinicians were asked to complete eight tasks using DDInteract and to assess the tool using a survey adapted from the System Usability Scale.

Results

The designed DDInteract prototype includes the following features: a patient-specific risk profile, dynamic risk icon array, patient education section, and treatment decision tree. A total of 4 patients and 11 clinicians participated in the usability study. After an SDM session where patients and clinicians review the tool concurrently, patients generally favored pain treatments with less risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Clinicians successfully completed the tasks with a mean of 144 (SD 74) seconds and rated the usability of DDInteract as 4.32 (SD 0.52) of 5.

Conclusions

This study expands the use of SDM to DDIs. The next steps are to determine if DDInteract can improve shared decision-making quality and to implement it across health systems using interoperable technology.

Preferences of patients regarding community pharmacy services: A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

The community pharmacy profession is in transition, with emphasis on the provision of cognitive pharmaceutical services (CPS). In contrast, previous research showed that the general public prefers more convenience related services. However, this was based on currently available services and not on innovative services.

OBJECTIVE

To identify patients' preferences regarding innovative pharmacy services and whether they tend towards convenience related or CPS.

DESIGN

Online survey using a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were from the AMP pharmacy patient panel.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Preferences (utility scores) and the identification of specific classes (latent class analysis).

RESULTS

In total 2462 panel members (27.3%) filled out the completed the online DCE questionnaire. The majority of participants were male (54.1%) with an average age of 65.3 years and used on average 4.6 medicines. Four patient classes were distinguished based on preferences for services. Highly preferred were an online mediation record, prescription drugs for minor ailments without a doctors' prescription and clinical testing with diagnosis by the pharmacist.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The majority of participants tend towards a more CPS focused approach by the community pharmacist. Patients visiting community pharmacies can have a diverging set of preferences regarding services being provided. In daily practice, community pharmacists should provide both convenience and CPS related services to address this diverse set of preferences.

Implementation of an animated medication information tool in community pharmacies, with a special focus on patients with limited health literacy

OBJECTIVES

The animated medication information tool 'Watchyourmeds' provides information in an accessible manner through animated videos and therefore appears to be especially suitable for people with limited health literacy. This study aimed to assess the implementation of this animated medication information tool in Dutch community pharmacies, with a special focus on patients with limited health literacy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was sent to approximately 75% of the ±1900 community pharmacies in the Netherlands through email newsletters of pharmacy networks.

KEY FINDINGS

140 pharmacists (⁓10%) completed the survey and 125 of them (89%) indicated that they offered the animated medication information tool to their patients. 108 pharmacists indicated that the tool was offered to all patients, not only to patients with limited health literacy. The distribution method was primarily passive (patients were given a leaflet and were not explicitly pointed to or informed about the tool). Two frequently cited motivations for offering the tool were that it complemented other sources of information and that the health insurer provided a financial incentive. The main reasons patients refused to use the tool were that they had no access to or no affinity for the required technology.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the tool is used in community pharmacies and that it is offered to all patients, regardless of their presumed health literacy level. A more active method of offering the tool may be warranted to better reach patients with limited health literacy.

Current Knowledge about Providing Drug-Drug Interaction Services for Patients-A Scoping Review

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) pose a major problem to patient safety. eHealth solutions have the potential to address this problem and generally improve medication management by providing digital services for health care professionals and patients. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) to alert physicians or pharmacists about DDIs are common, and there is an extensive body of research about CDSS for professionals. Information about DDIs is commonly requested by patients, but little is known about providing similar support to patients. The aim of this scoping review was to explore and describe current knowledge about providing digital DDI services for patients. Using a broad search strategy and an established framework for scoping reviews, 19 papers were included. The results show that although some patients want to check for DDIs themselves, there are differences between patients, in terms of demands and ability. There are numerous DDI services available, but the existence of large variations regarding service quality implies potential safety issues. The review includes suggestions about design features but also indicates a substantial knowledge gap highlighting the need for further research about how to best design and provide digital DDI to patients without risking patient safety or having other unintended consequences.

Patients' Use and Perceptions of a Drug-Drug Interaction Database: A Survey of Janusmed Interactions

Janusmed interactions is a drug-drug interactions (DDI) database available online for healthcare professionals (HCP) at all levels of the healthcare system including pharmacies. The database is aimed at HCP but is also open to the public for free, for those individuals who register for a personal account. The aim of this study was to investigate why and how patients use the database Janusmed interactions, how they perceive content and usability, and how they would react if they found an interaction. A web-based questionnaire was sent by email to all users who had registered for Janusmed interactions as a “patient” (n = 3219). A total of 406 patients completed the survey (response rate 12.6%). The study shows that there is an interest among patients to use a DDI database to check their own or a relative’s medication. The respondents found the database easy to use and perceive they understand the information aimed at HCP. Most patients stated they would talk to their HCP if they found an interaction and not adjust their treatment by themselves. However, the respondents in this study are actively searching for information and seem to have high health literacy. Thus, the findings are not generalizable for the general population.

Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review

Introduction

Despite the recognised importance of participant understanding for valid and reliable discrete choice experiment (DCE) results, there has been limited assessment of whether, and how, people understand DCEs, and how ‘understanding’ is conceptualised in DCEs applied to a health context.

Objectives

Our aim was to identify how participant understanding is conceptualised in the DCE literature in a health context. Our research questions addressed how participant understanding is defined, measured, and used.

Methods

Searches were conducted (June 2019) in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Econlit databases, as well as hand searching. Search terms were based on previous DCE systematic reviews, with additional understanding keywords used in a proximity-based search strategy. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed journal articles in the field of health, related to DCE or best-worst scaling type 3 (BWS3) studies, and reporting some consideration or assessment of participant understanding. A descriptive analytical approach was used to chart relevant data from each study, including publication year, country, clinical area, subject group, sample size, study design, numbers of attributes, levels and choice sets, definition of understanding, how understanding was tested, results of the understanding tests, and how the information about understanding was used. Each study was categorised based on how understanding was conceptualised and used within the study.

Results

Of 306 potentially eligible articles identified, 31 were excluded based on titles and abstracts, and 200 were excluded on full-text review, resulting in 75 included studies. Three categories of study were identified: applied DCEs (n = 52), pretesting studies (n = 7) and studies of understanding (n = 16). Typically, understanding was defined in relation to either the choice context, such as attribute terminology, or the concept of choosing. Very few studies considered respondents’ engagement as a component of understanding. Understanding was measured primarily through qualitative pretesting, rationality or validity tests included in the survey, and participant self-report, however reporting and use of the results of these methods was inconsistent.

Conclusions

Those conducting or using health DCEs should carefully select, justify, and report the measurement and potential impact of participant understanding in their specific choice context. There remains scope for research into the different components of participant understanding, particularly related to engagement, the impact of participant understanding on DCE validity and reliability, the best measures of understanding, and methods to maximise participant understanding.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40271-020-00467-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Communicating tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects: Only words or also numbers?

BACKGROUND

The increased availability of patient reported outcome data makes it feasible to provide patients tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects. However, it is unclear how such information influences patients' risk interpretations compared to generic population-based risks, and which message format should be used to communicate such individualized statistics.

METHODS

A web-based experiment was conducted in which participants (n = 141) read a hypothetical treatment decision-making scenario about four side effect risks of adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced colon cancer. Participants were cancer patients or survivors who were recruited from an online Dutch cancer patient panel. All participants received two tailored risks (of which the reference class was based on their age, gender and tumor stage) and two generic risks conveying the likelihood of experiencing the side effects. The risks were presented either in words-only ('common' and 'very common'), or in a combination of words and corresponding numerical estimates ('common, 10 out of 100' and 'very common, 40 out of 100'). Participants' estimation of the probability, accuracy of their estimation, and perceived likelihood of occurrence were primary outcomes. Perceived personal relevance and perceived uncertainty were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Tailored risks were estimated as higher and less accurate than generic risks, but only when they were presented in words; Such differences were not found in the verbal and numerical combined condition. Although tailoring risks did not impact participants' perceived likelihood of occurrence, tailored risks were perceived as more personally relevant than generic risks in both message formats. Finally, tailored risks were perceived as less uncertain than generic risks, but only in the verbal-only condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering current interest in the use of personalized decision aids for improving shared decision-making in oncology, it is important that clinicians consider how tailored risks of treatment side effects should be communicated to patients. We recommend both clinicians who communicate probability information during consultations, and decision aid developers, that verbal descriptors of tailored risks should be supported by numerical estimates of risks levels, to avoid overestimation of risks.

Medication safety in patients with hepatic impairment: A survey of community pharmacists' knowledge level and their practice in caring for these patients

Aims

To study community pharmacists' level of knowledge on medication safety in patients with hepatic impairment and their practice in caring for these patients.

Methods

Pharmacists from Dutch community pharmacies (n = 1545) were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey consisted of 27 questions covering 2 main topics: knowledge and current practice. The level of knowledge was measured by a 6‐item knowledge test. Multiple linear regression was used to identify predictors of correctly answered responses.

Results

In total, 338 pharmacists (22%) completed the questionnaire. The mean knowledge score was 2.8 (standard deviation 1.6). Only 30.3% of respondents were able to appropriately advise on use of analgesics in severe cirrhosis. Postgraduate education on hepatic impairment, knowledge of recently developed practical guidance, and fewer years of practice were associated with a higher level of knowledge. In total, 70.4% indicated to evaluate medication safety in a patient with hepatic impairment at least once weekly. In the past 6 months, 83.3% of respondents consulted a prescriber about a patient with hepatic impairment. Frequently encountered barriers in practice were insufficient knowledge on the topic and a lack of essential patient information (i.e. diagnosis and severity of the impairment).

Conclusion

Community pharmacists regularly evaluate the safety of medication in patients with hepatic impairment, yet their level of knowledge was insufficient and additional education is needed. Pharmacists experienced several difficulties in providing pharmaceutical care. If these issues are resolved, pharmacists can play a more active role in ensuring medication safety in their patients with hepatic impairment.