Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department Among Patients With Limited Health Literacy: Beyond Slower and Louder

A systematic review of instruments to measure health literacy of patients in emergency departments

OBJECTIVES

Knowledge of patient's health literacy (HL) in the emergency department (ED) can facilitate care delivery and reduce poor health outcomes. This systematic review investigates HL measurement instruments used in the ED and their psychometric properties, accuracy in detecting limited HL, and feasibility.

METHODS

We searched in five biomedical databases for studies published between 1990 and January 2021, evaluating HL measurement instruments tested in the ED on internal consistency, criterion validity, diagnostic accuracy, or feasibility. Reviewers screened studies for relevance and assessed methodologic quality with published criteria. Data were synthesized around study and instrument characteristics and outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Of the 2,376 references screened, seven met our inclusion criteria. Studied instruments varied in objective (n = 5) and subjective (n = 6) measurement of HL skills, and in HL constructs measured. The Brief Health Literacy Screen (BHLS) and the Subjective Numeracy Scale demonstrate acceptable and good internal consistency across studies. None of the instruments perform consistently well on criterion validity. The Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Revised and the Newest Vital Sign, both objective tests with short administration times, demonstrate good accuracy in one study with high risk of bias. The BHLS, a short subjective measure, shows moderate accuracy across studies including one with low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Several short instruments seem valid in measuring HL and accurate in detecting limited HL among ED patients, each with its practical advantages and disadvantages and specific measurement of HL. Additional research is necessary to develop a robust evidence base supporting these instruments.

Clinician Factors Rather Than Patient Factors Affect Discussion of Treatment Options

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making aims to combine what matters most to a patient with clinician expertise to develop a personalized health strategy. It is a dialogue between patient and clinician in which preferences are expressed, misconceptions reoriented, and available options are considered. To improve patient involvement, it would help to know more about specific barriers and facilitators of patient-clinician communication. Health literacy, the ability to obtain, process, and understand health information, may affect patient participation in decision-making. If the patient is quiet, deferential, and asks few questions, the clinician may assume a more paternalistic style. A patient with greater agency and engagement could be the catalyst for shared decisions.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We assessed (1) whether effective clinician communication and effort is related to patient health literacy, and (2) if there are other factors associated with effective clinician communication and effort.

METHODS

We combined a prospective, cross-sectional cohort of 86 audio-recorded visits of adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem at an urban community hospital in the Netherlands with a cohort of 72 audio-recorded hand surgery visits from a tertiary hospital in the United States collected for a prior study. The American cohort represents a secondary use of data from a set of patients from a separate study using audio-recorded visits and administering similar questionnaires that assessed different endpoints. In both cohorts, adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem were screened. In total, 165 patients were initially screened, of which 96% (158) participated. Eight percent (13) of visits were excluded since the final diagnosis remained unclear, 8% (12) since it was not the first consultation for the current problem, 5% (8) in which only one treatment option was available, and < 1% (1) since there was a language barrier. A total of 123 patients were analyzed, 68 from the Netherlands and 55 from the United States. The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy test, validated in both English and Dutch, measures the ability to use health information and is based on a nutrition label from an ice cream container. It was used to assess patient health literacy on a scale ranging from 0 (low) to 6 (high). The 5-item Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) instrument is commonly used to assess the quality of patient-clinician discussion of options. Scores may be influenced by clinician effort to involve patients in decision-making as well as patient engagement and agency. Each item is scored from 0 (no effort) to 4 (maximum effort), with a total maximum score of 20. Two independent raters reached agreement (kappa value 0.8; strong agreement), after which all recordings were scored by one investigator. Visit duration and patient questions were assessed using the audio recordings. Patients had a median (interquartile range) age of 54 (38 to 66) years, 50% were men, 89% were white, 66% had a nontraumatic diagnosis, median (IRQ) years of education was 16 (12 to 18) years, and median (IQR) health literacy score was 5 (2 to 6). Median (IQR) visit duration was 9 (7 to 12) minutes. Cohorts did not differ in important ways. The number of visits per clinician ranged from 14 to 29, and the mean overall communication effectiveness and effort score for the visits was low (8.5 ± 4.2 points of 20 points). A multivariate linear regression model was used to assess factors associated with communication effectiveness and effort.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between health literacy and clinician communication effectiveness and effort (r = 0.087 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.26]; p = 0.34), nor was there a difference in means (SD) when categorizing health literacy as inadequate (7.8 ± 3.8 points) and adequate (8.9 ± 4.5 points; mean difference 1.0 [95% CI -2.6 to 0.54]; p = 0.20). After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, patient questions, and health literacy, we found that longer visit duration (per 1 minute increase: r2 = 0.31 [95% CI -0.14 to 0.48]; p < 0.001), clinician 3 (compared with clinician 1: OR 33 [95% CI 4.8 to 229]; p < 0.001) and clinician 5 (compared with clinician 1: OR 11 [95% CI 1.5 to 80]; p = < 0.02) were independently associated with more effective communication and effort, whereas clinician 6 was associated with less effective communication and effort (compared with clinician 1: OR 0.08 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.75]; p = 0.03). Clinicians' communication strategies (the clinician variable on its own) accounted for 29% of the variation in communication effectiveness and effort, longer visit duration accounted for 11%, and the full model accounted for 47% of the variation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The finding that the overall low mean communication effectiveness and effort differed between clinicians and was not influenced by patient factors including health literacy suggests clinicians may benefit from training that moves them away from a teaching or lecturing style where patients receive rote directives regarding their health. Clinicians can learn to adapt their communication to specific patient values and needs using a guiding rather than directing communication style (motivational interviewing).Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study.

Exploring the Health Care Challenges and Health Care Needs of Arabic-Speaking Immigrants with Cardiovascular Disease in Australia

The Arabic-speaking immigrant group, which makes up the fourth largest language group in Australia, has a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease. The objective of this study was to explore the health care challenges and needs of Arabic-speaking immigrants with cardiovascular disease (CVD), using a comparative approach with English-speaking patients with CVD as the comparable group. Methods: Participants were recruited from community settings in Melbourne, Australia. Face-to-face semi-structured individual interviews were conducted at the recruitment sites. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, and coded thematically. Results: 29 participants with CVD were recruited; 15 Arabic-speaking and 14 English-speaking. Arabic-speaking immigrants, and to a lesser extent English-speaking patients with CVD may have specific health care challenges and needs. Arabic-speaking immigrants’ health care needs include: effective health care provider (HCP)-patient communication, accessible care, participation in decision-making, and empowerment. English-speaking participants viewed these needs as important for CVD management. However, only a few English-speaking participants cited these needs as unmet health care needs. Conclusion: This study suggests that Arabic-speaking immigrants with CVD may have unique needs including the need for privacy, effective HCP-patient communication that takes into account patients’ limited English proficiency, and pharmacist-physician collaboration. Therefore, there may be a need to identify a health care model that can address these patients’ health care challenges and needs. This, in turn, may improve their disease management and health outcomes.

Factors Associated With Patient Involvement in Emergency Care Decisions: A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making in the emergency department (ED) can increase patient engagement for patients presenting with chest pain. However, little is known regarding which factors are associated with actual patient involvement in decision making or patients' desired involvement in emergency care decisions. We examined which factors were associated with patients' actual and desired involvement in decision making among ED chest pain patients.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of a shared decision-making intervention in ED patients with low-risk chest pain. We evaluated the degree to which patients were involved in decision making using the OPTION-12 (observing patient involvement) scale and patients' reported desire for involvement in decision making using the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). We measured the associations of patient factors with OPTION-12 and CPS scores using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Of the 898 patients enrolled, mean (±SD) age was 51.5 (±11.4) years and 59% were female. Multivariable analysis revealed that only two factors were significantly associated with OPTION-12 scores: study site and use of the decision aid. OPTION-12 scores were 10.3 (standard error = 0.6) points higher for patients randomized to the decision aid compared to usual care (p < 0.001). Higher health literacy was associated with lower scores on the CPS, indicating greater desire for involvement (odds ratio = 0.91, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' reported desire for involvement in decision making was higher among those with higher health literacy. After study site and other potential confounding factors were adjusted for, only use of the decision aid was associated with observed patient involvement in decision making. As the science and practice of shared decision making in the ED moves toward implementation, high-fidelity integration of the decision aid into the flow of care will be necessary to realize desired outcomes.

State of the Science: Tools and Measurement for Shared Decision Making

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as an approach to selecting medical tests and treatments for many situations. The goal of SDM is to ensure that patients are well informed, are meaningfully involved in decisions, and receive treatments that meet their goals and preferences. There is considerable evidence about the tools used to promote SDM, called patient decision aids, and many different measures have been developed to assess the impact of SDM. However, fairly little is known about the applicability of the tools and measures in the emergency department (ED) setting. This article builds on insights from two keynote lectures presented at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference discussing the state of the science for measurement of SDM and the design of patient decision aids to promote SDM conversations and highlights some key areas for further research to advance SDM in the ED.