Do Decision Aids Benefit Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain? A Systematic Review

People living with chronic pain in Canada face difficult decisions and decisional conflict concerning their care: data from the national DECIDE-PAIN survey

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is an imperative in chronic pain care. However, we know little about the decision-making process, especially in primary care where most chronic pain care is provided. We sought to understand decisional needs of people living with chronic pain in Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cross-sectional online survey of random samples of adults living in Canada with chronic noncancer pain and registered with the Leger Marketing panel. We followed the International Association for Study of Pain definition of chronic pain (i.e., persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than three months). We used a stratified proportional random sampling based on the population and chronic pain prevalence of each province to achieve representativeness. Based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, we collected data on difficult decisions (i.e., decision with more than one option and no clear best option) related to their chronic pain condition, the level of decisional conflict associated with the most difficult decisions (i.e., Decisional Conflict Scale), the assumed and preferred role during the decision-making process (i.e., Control Preferences Scale), and respondents' characteristics. We used descriptive quantitative analyses of survey responses.

RESULTS

Of the 31,545 invited panellists, 2,666 met the eligibility criteria, and 1,649 respondents from the 10 Canadian provinces completed the survey. Respondents had diverse socio-demographic profiles. Mean age was 51.8 years (SD = 16.3). Half were men (51.4%), most lived in urban areas (87.8%), mean pain duration was 8.5 years (SD = 9.6), and respondents reported an average number of painful body regions of 2.3 (SD = 1.5). We observed that 96.7% of respondents faced at least one difficult decision across their care pathways. These difficult decisions were related to numerous issues from the medical consultation, diagnosis, treatment, and daily life. Almost half of respondents made their most difficult decision with a primary care physician. One third of respondents experienced a high level of clinically significant decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale score ≥ 37.5). Two-thirds of respondents self-reported having a collaborative role during their decision while three-quarters wanted this role.

CONCLUSIONS

People living with chronic pain in Canada have unmet decisional needs and need support to make optimal decisions to manage their chronic pain. Our findings will guide future development of interventions to implement shared decision-making, especially to support primary care where discussions about difficult decisions often occur.

Psychological distress does not predict decisional regret in patients undergoing spinal reconstruction for adult spinal deformity

PURPOSE

The study aimed to assess the link between preoperative psychological distress and postoperative decisional regret in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery patients. We hypothesized that greater pre-surgery distress would correlate with higher post-surgery regret. This evaluation was based on a retrospective case series from an institution with standardized surgical guidelines for ASD.

METHODS

This IRB-approved retrospective study analyzed our institution's ASD database from 2014 to 2020. Eligible patients had a minimum two-year post-op follow-up and preoperative psychological distress assessment. Patients were grouped based on psychological distress levels: green, yellow, and yellow minus. Regret post-surgery was assessed using the Decision Regret Scale and SRS-22 Question 22. Logistic regression evaluated the impact of distress levels on regret, controlling for age and sex.

RESULTS

Out of 167 eligible patients, 112 responded and were analyzed. No significant demographic differences were observed between responders and non-responders. Using the Decision Regret Scale, 41% expressed no regret, while 63% expressed no regret with the SRS-22 questionnaire's Single-Item scale. Only the yellow minus group showed significant regret difference based on osteotomy, with non-recipients more likely to express regret.

CONCLUSION

This study found no significant link between psychological distress and post-operative regret in adult spinal deformity surgery after a minimum 2-year follow-up. Although nearly 60% exhibited some post-surgery regret, predicting regret based on psychological burden or demographics remains challenging. Further research is essential to identify factors contributing to post-operative regret in spinal deformity surgery patients.

Personalised decision support in the management of patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary physiotherapy care: a cluster randomised controlled trial (the SupportPrim project)

ABSTRACT

We developed the SupportPrim PT clinical decision support system (CDSS) using the artificial intelligence method case-based reasoning to support personalised musculoskeletal pain management. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the CDSS for patients in physiotherapy practice. A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in primary care in Norway. We randomised 44 physiotherapists to (1) use the CDSS alongside usual care or (2) usual care alone. The CDSS provided personalised treatment recommendations based on a case base of 105 patients with positive outcomes. During the trial, the case-based reasoning system did not have an active learning capability; therefore, the case base size remained the same throughout the study. We included 724 patients presenting with neck, shoulder, back, hip, knee, or complex pain (CDSS; n = 358, usual care; n = 366). Primary outcomes were assessed with multilevel logistic regression using self-reported Global Perceived Effect (GPE) and Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). At 12 weeks, 165/298 (55.4%) patients in the intervention group and 176/321 (54.8%) in the control group reported improvement in GPE (odds ratio, 1.18; confidence interval, 0.50-2.78). For PSFS, 173/290 (59.7%) patients in the intervention group and 218/310 (70.3%) in the control group reported clinically important improvement in function (odds ratio, 0.41; confidence interval, 0.20-0.85). No significant between-group differences were found for GPE. For PSFS, there was a significant difference favouring the control group, but this was less than the prespecified difference of 15%. We identified several study limitations and recommend further investigation into artificial intelligence applications for managing musculoskeletal pain.

Shared decision-making in advanced physiotherapy and first contact physiotherapy management of adults with musculoskeletal disorders in the United Kingdom: An online cross-sectional survey

RATIONALE

Advanced practice physiotherapy roles (Advanced Physiotherapy Practitioners [APPs] and First Contact Physiotherapists [FCPs]) are pivotal in supporting patients to manage their musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. Having a greater understanding of how decisions are made by these practitioners will inform competency frameworks and improve the provision of patient-centred care.

AIM

To evaluate the current knowledge, views and use of shared decision-making in MSK advanced physiotherapy practice in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey using an online questionnaire was used to collect demographic information, knowledge, views and self-reported use of shared decision-making (SDM) of APPs and FCPs who work with adults with MSK disorders in the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Responses from 49 participants (25 APPs and 24 FCPs) were included in the study. In total, 80% of participants had received SDM training and overall high levels of knowledge were shown. Only 12% of participants used a communication model to facilitate SDM. In total, 80% of participants reported making decisions together with the patient either always or most of the time. FCPs favoured a more patient-led approach to decision-making compared to APPs who favoured collaborative decision-making. The most commonly reported barriers to SDM included lack of time, lack of patient education resources, lack of access to patient decision aids and treatment pathway restrictions.

CONCLUSIONS

The responses in this study showed that overall APPs and FCPs have good knowledge of SDM and report routine use of collaborative and patient-led decision-making approaches.

Decisional regret following corrective adult spinal deformity surgery: a single institution study of incidence and risk factors

PURPOSE

To assess the characteristics and risk factors for decisional regret following corrective adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery at our hospital.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of a single-surgeon ASD database. Adult patients (> 40 years) who underwent ASD surgery from May 2016 to December 2020 with minimum 2-year follow-up were included (posterior-only, ≥ 4 levels fused to the pelvis) (n = 120). Ottawa decision regret questionnaires, a validated and reliable 5-item Likert scale, were sent to patients postoperatively. Regret scores were defined as (1) low regret: 0-39 (2) medium to high regret: 40-100. Risk factors for medium or high decisional regret were identified using multivariate models.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were successfully contacted and 77 patients consented to participate. Nonparticipants were older, had a higher incidence of anxiety, and higher ASA class. There were 7 patients that reported medium or high decisional regret (9%). Ninety percentage of patients believed that surgery was the right decision, 86% believed that surgery was a wise choice, and 87% would do it again. 8% of patients regretted the surgery and 14% believed that surgery did them harm. 88% of patients felt better after surgery. On multivariate analysis, revision fusion surgery was independently associated with an increased risk of medium or high decisional regret (adjusted odds ratio: 6.000, 95% confidence interval: 1.074-33.534, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

At our institution, we found a 9% incidence of decisional regret. Revision fusion was associated with increased decisional regret. Estimates for decisional regret should be based on single-institution experiences given differences in patient populations.

Decision aids for promoting shared decision-making: A review of systematic reviews

In the context of shared decision-making (SDM), experts have advocated the use of validated decision aids (DAs) as valuable tools for facilitating SDM in various healthcare scenarios. This comprehensive review attempts to analyze a vast corpus of DA research by performing thorough searches across four prominent databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science). Independent reviewers selected relevant reviews, extracted data, and assessed review quality using the AMSTAR II tool. A total of 34 systematic reviews were identified and evaluated in this review, encompassing a wide range of outcomes associated with using DAs. These outcomes include patient knowledge, patient involvement in SDM, decision conflict, decision regret, satisfaction, and adherence. In addition, DAs positively affect healthcare provider outcomes by increasing satisfaction, reducing decision conflicts, and lengthening clinical consultations. This review highlights the need for additional research in specific contexts such as long-term care, mental health, and reproductive health to better understand the benefits and challenges of implementing DAs in these settings. Such research can contribute to the improvement of SDM practices and patient-centered care.

Managing Chronic Pain in Cancer Survivorship: Communication Challenges and Opportunities as Described by Cancer Survivors

OBJECTIVES

Many cancer survivors experience chronic pain after completing curative-intent treatment. Based on available data, chronic pain may be undertreated in this context; however, little is known about cancer survivors' experiences with clinical management of chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to better understand cancer survivors' pain management experiences after curative-intent treatment.

METHODS

We conducted 13 semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of cancer survivors who had completed treatment for stage I-III breast, head/neck, lung or colorectal cancer. We used a thematic approach to qualitative data analysis.

RESULTS

Participants described that chronic pain often goes unrecognized by their providers, potentially due to limitations in how pain is assessed clinically and the tendency of both cancer survivors and providers to minimize or invalidate the pain experience. To improve communication, participants suggested that providers ask more open-ended questions about their pain, help them to establish functional goals, and provide patients with options for pain management.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

This study demonstrates the importance of provider-initiated communication around pain management for cancer survivors to make them feel more supported in their care. Communication and shared decision-making interventions may improve cancer survivor-provider communication around chronic pain management, addressing an important gap in survivorship care.

The impact of a patient decision aid on treatment choices after anterior cruciate ligament injuries

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to investigate whether exposure to a patient decision aid (PDA) had an impact on the proportion of patients selecting non-surgical or surgical treatments after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and whether exposure to a PDA affected the proportion of patients switching from non-surgical to surgical treatment within the first year.

METHODS

In a consecutive case series, proportions of surgery and non-surgery were compared before and after patients' exposure to a PDA. Data were collected from the health records of patients with ACL injuries who presented to the Clinic of Sports Traumatology. To identify proportional differences between the two groups, t-tests and proportion tests were used.

RESULTS

In total, 1,053 patients with ACL injuries were included: 563 patients with no exposure to the PDA (January 2015 to January 2017) and 490 patients with exposure to the PDA (January 2017 to January 2019). Before implementing the PDA, 27% of the patients selected non-surgical treatment. After implementing the PDA, 30% choose non-surgical treatment (p > 0.05). Before implementing the PDA, 21% of patients who initially chose non-surgical treatment had surgery within the first year. After implementation of the PDA, this number fell to 16%, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0,05).

CONCLUSION

Exposure to the PDA did not significantly alter the proportion of ACL injury patients selecting non-surgical or surgical treatments or the proportion of patients switching to surgery within the first year.

Developing a patient decision aid for Achilles tendon rupture management: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVE

To develop and user-test a patient decision aid portraying the benefits and harms of non-surgical management and surgery for Achilles tendon ruptures.

DESIGN

Mixed methods.

SETTING

A draft decision aid was developed using guidance from a multidisciplinary steering group and existing patient decision aids. Participants were recruited through social media.

PARTICIPANTS

People who have previously sustained an Achilles tendon rupture and health professionals who manage these patients.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid from health professionals and patients who had previously suffered an Achilles tendon rupture. The feedback was used to redraft the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, redrafting according to feedback and further interviews was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Questionnaire data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

We interviewed 18 health professionals (13 physiotherapists, 3 orthopaedic surgeons, 1 chiropractor, 1 sports medicine physician) and 15 patients who had suffered an Achilles tendon rupture (median time since rupture was 12 months). Most health professionals and patients rated the aid's acceptability as good-excellent. Interviews showcased agreement among health professionals and patients on most aspects of the decision aid: introduction, treatment options, comparing benefits and harms, questions to ask health professionals and formatting. However, health professionals had differing views on details about Achilles tendon retraction distance, factors that modify the risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms.

CONCLUSION

Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to both patients and health professionals, and our study highlights the views of key stakeholders on important information to consider when developing a patient decision aid for Achilles tendon rupture management. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of this tool on the decision-making of people considering Achilles tendon surgery is warranted.

Feasibility and Acceptability of the Pain Profile, a Clinical Questionnaire Aimed at Improving Pain Care

Purpose

Despite being one of the most common medical complaints, chronic pain is difficult to manage due to ineffective communication between providers and patients and time restraints during appointments. Patient-centered questionnaires have the potential to optimize communication by assessing a patient's pain history, prior treatments, and associated comorbidities to develop an effective treatment plan. This study aimed to analyze the feasibility and acceptability of a pre-visit clinical questionnaire aimed at improving communication and pain care.

Patients and Methods

The "Pain Profile" questionnaire was piloted across two specialty pain clinics in a large academic medical center. Patient and provider surveys were conducted with patients who completed the Pain Profile questionnaire and providers who use it in practice. Surveys consisted of multiple-choice and open-ended questions regarding the helpfulness, usability, and implementation of the questionnaire. Descriptive analyses of patient and provider surveys were conducted. Qualitative data were analyzed using matrix framework-based coding.

Results

A total of 171 patients and 32 clinical providers completed the feasibility and acceptability surveys. 77% of patients (N= 131) found the Pain Profile helpful in communicating their pain experiences and 69% of providers (N= 22) found it helpful in guiding clinical decisions. The section that assessed the impact of pain was rated most helpful by patients (4/5) while the open-ended section asking patients to describe their pain history was rated least helpful by patients and providers (3.7/5 and 4.1/5, respectively). Both patients and providers provided suggestions to future iterations of the Pain Profile, including the addition of opioid risk and mental health screening tools.

Conclusion

The Pain Profile questionnaire was feasible and acceptable in a pilot study at a large academic site. Future testing in a large-scale, fully powered trial is needed to assess the effectiveness of the Pain Profile in optimizing communication and pain management.

Effect of Information Content and General Practitioner Recommendation to Exercise on Treatment Beliefs and Intentions for Knee Osteoarthritis: An Online Multi-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effects of general osteoarthritis (OA) information in addition to a treatment option grid and general practitioner (GP) recommendation to exercise on treatment beliefs and intentions.

METHODS

An online randomized trial of 735 people 45 years old or older without OA who were recruited from a consumer survey network. Participants read a hypothetical scenario about visiting their GP for knee problems and were randomized to the following: i) 'general information', ii) 'option grid' (general information plus option grid), or iii) 'option grid plus recommendation' (general information plus option grid plus GP exercise recommendation). The primary outcome was an agreement that exercise is the best management option (0-10 numeric rating scale; higher scores indicating higher agreement that exercise is best). The secondary outcomes were beliefs about other management options and management intentions. Linear regression models estimated the mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) between-group difference in postintervention scores, adjusted for baseline.

RESULTS

Option grid plus recommendation led to higher agreement that exercise is the best management by a mean of 0.4 units (95% CI: 0.1-0.6) compared with general information. There were no other between-group differences for the primary outcome. Option grid led to higher agreement that surgery was best, and x-rays were necessary, compared with general information (mean between-group differences: 0.7 [CI: 0.2-1.1] and 0.5 [CI: 0.1-1.0], respectively) and option grid plus recommendation (0.5 [CI: 0.1-0.9] and 0.9 [CI: 0.4-1.3]).

CONCLUSION

Addition of an option grid and GP exercise recommendation to general OA information led to more favorable views that exercise was best for the hypothetical knee problem. However, differences were small and of unclear clinical importance.

The impact of a patient decision aid on intention to undergo surgery for subacromial pain syndrome: An online randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of a patient decision aid for people considering shoulder surgery.

METHODS

Participants with shoulder pain considering shoulder surgery (n = 425) were recruited online and randomised to (i) a decision aid outlining the benefits and harms of shoulder surgery and non-surgical options (then randomised to a side-by-side vs. top-and-bottom display of options); and (ii) general information about shoulder pain from the NHS. Outcomes included treatment intention (primary), knowledge, attitudes, informed choice, and decisional conflict. Linear and logistic regression models were used to evaluate between-groups differences in outcomes.

RESULTS

409 participants (96%) had post-intervention data. Mean age was 41.3 years, 44.2% were female. There was no between-group difference in post-intervention treatment intention (MD -0.2, 95% CI: -3.3 to 2.8) and likelihood of intending to have shoulder surgery (OR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.3-1.5). The decision aid slightly improved knowledge (MD 4.4, 95% CI: 0.2-8.6), but not any other secondary outcomes. The display of options did not influence any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In this online trial, a co-designed patient decision aid had no effect on treatment intention, attitudes, informed choice, and decisional conflict, but a small effect on improving knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Research is needed to understand reasons for the lack of anticipated effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000992808).

Decisional Regret Among Older Adults Undergoing Corrective Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity: A Single Institutional Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of decisional regret among older adults undergoing surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Among older adults (≥65 years old), ASD is a leading cause of disability, with a population prevalence of 60% to 70%. While surgery is beneficial and results in functional improvement, in over 20% of older adults outcomes from surgery are less desirable.

METHODS

Older adults with ASD who underwent spinal surgery at a quaternary medical center from January 1, 2016 to March 1, 2019, were enrolled in this study. Patients were categorized into medium/high or low-decisional regret cohorts based on their responses to the Ottawa decision regret questionnaire. Decisional regret assessments were completed 24 months after surgery. The primary outcome measure was prevalence of decisional regret after surgery. Factors associated with high decisional regret were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients (mean age, 69.5 yrs) met the study inclusion criteria. Overall, 80% agreed that having surgery was the right decision for them, and 77% would make the same choice in future. A total of 21% regretted the choice that they made, and 21% responded that surgery caused them harm. Comparing patient cohorts reporting medium/high- versus low-decisional regret, there were no differences in baseline demographics, comorbidities, invasiveness of surgery, length of stay, discharge disposition, or extent of functional improvement 12-months after surgery. After adjusting for sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, invasiveness of surgery, and presence of a postoperative complication, older adults with preoperative depression had a 4.0 fold increased odds of high-decisional regret (P  = 0.04). Change in health related quality of life measures were similar between all groups at 12-months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

While the majority of older adults were appropriately counseled and satisfied with their decision, one-in-five older adults regret their decision to undergo surgery. Preoperative depression was associated with medium/high decisional regret on multivariate analysis.Level of Evidence: 4.

Are patients really getting what they want? The routine implementation of decision aids for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis in the high value healthcare collaborative and alignment between patient treatment choice and receipt

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Alignment between patients' treatment choices and treatments received is acknowledged as an important outcome of shared decision-making (SDM), yet recent research suggests that patients' choices do not always align with their actual treatment trajectories. This paper explores the alignment of patient-expressed treatment choices (for surgery or medical management) after exposure to decision aids and treatments received among patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis within High Value Healthcare Collaborative (HVHC) systems as the collaborative integrated decision aids intended to support SDM into routine clinical practice.

METHOD

This retrospective cohort study examines data from adult (≥18 years) patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis who received decision aids as part of orthopaedic consultations within HVHC systems between 2012 and 2015. Multivariable logistic regression explored the association between patient-level characteristics with the odds of treatment choice-receipt alignment.

RESULTS

The majority of patients with knee osteoarthritis (68.3%) and hip osteoarthritis (71.9%) received treatments aligned with their choices following exposure to decision aids, but analyses reveal important differences in the odds of such alignment across patient characteristics. In adjusted models, African American patients with knee osteoarthritis had 50% lower odds of receiving treatment aligned with their choices compared with Caucasian patients (OR = 0.52, P < .05). Medicare- or Medicaid-insured knee patients had 49% and 59% lower odds (respectively) of receiving choice-aligned treatments relative to privately insured patients. Patients with knee (OR = 0.40, P < .01) or hip (OR = 0.75, P < .05) osteoarthritis at earlier decision-making stages had lower odds of receiving treatments congruent with their choices.

CONCLUSION

This work elucidates the odds of treatment choice-aligned care for patients within health care systems attempting to routinely integrate decision aids to support SDM into clinical practice and underscores the gaps in achieving this alignment among African American patients, those with public insurance and those at early decision-making stages.

Overcoming Overuse Part 5: Is Shared Decision Making Our Excalibur?

Shared decision making is recommended as a strategy to help patients identify what matters most to them and make informed decisions about musculoskeletal care. In part 5 of the Overcoming Overuse series, we look at the evidence supporting shared decision making as a strategy to help curb overuse. Using shared decision making in clinical consultations may help to reduce the overuse of options that are not beneficial and to increase use of care supported by evidence. Shared decision making could support clinicians in promoting uptake of active rehabilitation options with a favorable balance of benefits to harms. Shared decision making facilitates conversations about unnecessary tests or treatments and could be a key strategy for overcoming overuse. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(2):53-56. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0103.

Improving patient-provider communication about chronic pain: development and feasibility testing of a shared decision-making tool

Background

Chronic pain has emerged as a disease in itself, affecting a growing number of people. Effective patient-provider communication is central to good pain management because pain can only be understood from the patient’s perspective. We aimed to develop a user-centered tool to improve patient-provider communication about chronic pain and assess its feasibility in real-world settings in preparation for further evaluation and distribution.

Methods

To identify and prioritize patient treatment goals for chronic pain, strategies to improve patient-provider communication about chronic pain, and facilitate implementation of the tool, we conducted nominal group technique meetings and card sorting with patients with chronic pain and experienced providers (n = 12). These findings informed the design of the PainAPP tool. Usability and beta-testing with patients (n = 38) and their providers refined the tool and assessed its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact.

Results

Formative work revealed that patients felt neither respected nor trusted by their providers and focused on transforming providers’ negative attitudes towards them, whereas providers focused on gathering patient information. PainAPP incorporated areas prioritized by patients and providers: assessing patient treatment goals and preferences, functional abilities and pain, and providing patients tailored education and an overall summary that patients can share with providers.

Beta-testing involved 38 patients and their providers. Half of PainAPP users shared their summaries with their providers. Patients rated PainAPP highly in all areas. All users would recommend it to others with chronic pain; nearly all trusted the information and said it helped them think about my treatment goals (94%), understand my chronic pain (82%), make the most of my next doctor’s visit (82%), and not want to use opioids (73%). Beta-testing revealed challenges delivering the tool and summary report to patients and providers in a timely manner and obtaining provider feedback.

Conclusions

PainAPP appears feasible for use, but further adaptation and testing is needed to assess its impact on patients and providers.

Trial registration

This study was approved by the University of New England Independent Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research (012616–019) and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (protocol ID: NCT03425266) prior to enrollment. The trial was prospectively registered and was approved on February 7, 2018.

Musculoskeletal Pain in Older Adults: A Clinical Review

Persistent pain in older adults is a widely prevalent and disabling condition that is the manifestation of multiple contributing physical, mental, social, and age-related factors. To effectively treat pain, the clinician must assess and address contributing factors using a comprehensive approach that includes pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies within the context of a strong therapeutic relationship among the patient, caregivers, and a multidisciplinary team. This article reviews the current understanding of persistent pain in older adults and suggests a general approach to its assessment and management, followed by specific considerations for musculoskeletal pain conditions commonly seen in older adults.

The effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for patients with hip osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a health condition sensitive to patient’s preferences and values regarding the benefits and risks of the different treatment options. In this sense, patient decision aids (PtDA) can play an important role in helping patients to incorporate their values, needs, and preferences into the decision-making process, thus improving person-centered care. Previous research has focused almost exclusively on knee OA, and therefore, the aim of this study is to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a PtDA for patients with hip OA.

Methods

The general design consists of two phases: (1) design a web-based PtDA for patients with hip OA, following the recommended procedures: systematic review of safety/effectiveness of treatments, and an iterative process of development with the help of an Advisory Committee composed of health professionals and patients, and (2) to evaluate the impact of the PtDA on hip OA patients’ decision-making process related with their treatment. For that aim, a multicenter randomized controlled trial will be carried out with 124 patients with hip OA in Tenerife (Spain) comparing intervention or usual care.

Discussion

PtDAs have been recommended as a useful and effective resource for improving PCC in many health conditions. The intervention is intended to empower patients by fostering their active participation during the decision-making process about their treatment and by ensuring they make informed decisions congruent with their values and preferences. This study will contribute to the scientific knowledge about effectiveness of PtDAs in hip OA, in order to improve the quality of health care offered to these patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04241978. Registered on 24 January 2020.