Can Upstream Patient Education Improve Fracture Care in a Digital World? Use of a Decision Aid for the Treatment of Displaced Diaphyseal Clavicle Fractures

Co-designing resources for rehabilitation via telehealth for people with moderate to severe disability post stroke

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid transition to telehealth. Telehealth presents challenges for rehabilitation of stroke survivors with moderate-to-severe physical disability, which traditionally relies on physical interactions. The objective was to co-design resources to support delivery of rehabilitation via telehealth for this cohort.

DESIGN

Four-stage integrated knowledge translation co-design approach. Stage 1: Research team comprising researchers, clinicians and stroke survivors defined the research question and approach. Stage 2: Workshops and interviews were conducted with knowledge users (participants) to identify essential elements of the program. Stage 3: Resources developed by the research team. Stage 4: Resources reviewed by knowledge users and adapted.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-one knowledge users (clinicians n = 11, stroke survivors n = 7, caregivers n = 3) RESULTS: All stakeholders emphasised the complexities of telehealth rehabilitation for stroke and the need for individualised programs. Shared decision-making was identified as critical. Potential risks and benefits of telehealth were acknowledged and strategies to ameliorate risks and deliver effective rehabilitation were identified. Four freely available online resources were co-designed; three resources to support clinicians with shared decision-making and risk management and a decision-aid to support stroke survivors and caregivers throughout the process. Over six months, 1129 users have viewed the webpage; clinician resources were downloaded 374 times and the decision-aid was downloaded 570 times.

CONCLUSIONS

The co-design process identified key elements for delivery of telehealth rehabilitation to stroke survivors with moderate-to-severe physical disability and led to development of resources to support development of an individualised telehealth rehabilitation plan. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of these resources. CONTRIBUTION OF PAPER.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments

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.

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.

Surgeons Consider Initial Nonoperative Treatment With Potential for Future Conversion to Reverse Arthroplasty a Reasonable Option for Older, Relatively Infirm, and Less-Active Patients

OBJECTIVES

Two recent developments favor initial nonoperative treatment of proximal humerus fractures among the older, relatively infirm, less-active patients that represent most patients with such fractures: (1) evidence of minimal benefit of open reduction, internal fixation over nonoperative treatment, and (2) evidence of the effectiveness of the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. As one step in determining the feasibility of a strategy of initial nonoperative treatment of proximal humerus fracture among older, relatively infirm, less-active people, we performed a survey-based experiment to measure factors associated with surgeon recommendation for initial nonoperative treatment.

METHODS

Members of the Science of Variation Group viewed 8 hypothetical patients with radiographs of complex proximal humeral fractures and 7 randomized patient variables. For each scenario, surgeons were asked whether they would recommend (1) initial nonoperative treatment with bailout reverse arthroplasty or (2) immediate reverse arthroplasty.

RESULTS

The mean percentage of recommendations for initial nonoperative treatment was 63%, with wide variation by surgeon (range 0%-100%). In multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression, recommendation for initial nonoperative treatment was associated with specific radiographs, older age, having a comorbidity, being homebound, surgical subspecialists, and more than 20 years in practice.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that surgeons may consider initial nonoperative treatment with potential for future conversion to reverse arthroplasty an acceptable treatment option, particularly for older, less-active, more infirm individuals, and relatively less displaced fractures with little comminution.