Effectiveness of question prompt lists in patients with breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

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.

Enhancing doctor-patient relationships in community health care institutions: the Patient Oriented Four Habits Model (POFHM) trial-a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial protocol

BACKGROUND

The poor relationship between doctors and patients is a long-standing, global problem. However, current interventions tend to focus on the training of physicians, while patient-targeted interventions still need to be improved. Considering that patients play a significant role in outpatient consultations, we developed a protocol to assess the effectiveness of the Patient Oriented Four Habits Model (POFHM) in improving doctor-patient relationships.

METHODS

A cross-sectional incomplete stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial design will be conducted in 8 primary healthcare institutions (PHCs). Following phase I of "usual care" as control measures for each PHC, either a patient- or doctor-only intervention will be implemented in phase II. In phase III, both patients and doctors will be involved in the intervention. This study will be conducted simultaneously in Nanling County and West Lake District. The primary outcomes will be evaluated after patients complete their visit: (1) patient literacy, (2) sense of control and (3) quality of doctor-patient communication. Finally, a mixed-effects model and subgroup analysis will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions.

DISCUSSION

Fostering good consultation habits for the patient is a potentially effective strategy to improve the quality of doctor-patient communication. This study evaluates the implementation process and develops a rigorous quality control manual using a theoretical domain framework under the collective culture of China. The results of this trial will provide substantial evidence of the effectiveness of patient-oriented interventions. The POFHM can benefit the PHCs and provide a reference for countries and regions where medical resources are scarce and collectivist cultures dominate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

AsPredicted #107,282 on Sep 18, 2022; https://aspredicted.org/QST_MHW.

Ask questions (ASQ): Implementation of a question prompt list communication intervention in a network of outpatient medical oncology clinics

OBJECTIVE

This descriptive, single-arm study assessed the implementation and patient perceptions of an evidence-based Question Prompt List (QPL), the ASQ brochure, across a network of oncology clinics in a diverse patient population.

METHOD

The QPL was revised in collaboration with stakeholders. Implementation was assessed using the RE-AIM framework. Eligible patients were scheduled for a first appointment with an oncologist at any of eight participating clinics. All participants received the ASQ brochure and completed three surveys: one at baseline, one immediately before, and one following their appointment. Surveys assessed sociodemographic characteristics; communication-related outcomes (perceived knowledge, self-efficacy in interacting with physicians, trust in physicians, distress); and perceptions of the ASQ brochure. Analyses included descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Reach: Participants (n = 81) represented the diverse population served by the clinic network.

EFFICACY

All outcomes improved significantly, with no significant differences by clinic site or patient race. Adoption: All eight invited clinics participated and recruited patients. Patient perceptions of the ASQ brochure were overwhelmingly positive.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the ASQ brochure was successful in this oncology clinic network providing care to a diverse patient population.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This evidence-based communication intervention can be implemented widely in similar medical contexts and populations.