Considering the balance: development of a scale to assess patient views on trade-offs in competing health outcomes

Outcome prioritization and preferences among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy in a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Older adults with cancer facing competing treatments must prioritize between various outcomes. This study assessed health outcome prioritization among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a randomized trial addressing vulnerabilities in older adults with cancer. Patients completed three validated outcome prioritization tools: 1) Health Outcomes Tool: prioritizes outcomes (survival, independence, symptoms) using a visual analog scale; 2) Now vs. Later Tool: rates the importance of quality of life at three times-today versus 1 or 5 years in the future; and 3) Attitude Scale: rates agreement with outcome-related statements. The authors measured the proportion of patients prioritizing various outcomes and evaluated their characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 219 patients (median [range] age 71 [65-88], 68% with metastatic disease) were included. On the Health Outcomes Tool, 60.7% prioritized survival over other outcomes. Having localized disease was associated with choosing survival as top priority. On the Now vs. Later Tool, 50% gave equal importance to current versus future quality of life. On the Attitude Scale, 53.4% disagreed with the statement "the most important thing to me is living as long as I can, no matter what my quality of life is"; and 82.2% agreed with the statement "it is more important to me to maintain my thinking ability than to live as long as possible".

CONCLUSION

Although survival was the top priority for most participants, some older individuals with cancer prioritize other outcomes, such as cognition and function. Clinicians should elicit patient-defined priorities and include them in decision-making.

Proposed Implementation of a Patient-Centered Self-Assessment Tool for Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors among Academic and Community Practice Sites: The City of Hope Model

Neuroendocrine tumors are a rare type of cancer found in hormone-producing cells throughout the body. Research on disease-specific patient education assessments in this population is lacking. We previously demonstrated the feasibility and validity of NET VITALS, a patient-centered self-assessment designed to improve patients' knowledge of their neuroendocrine tumor diagnosis/treatment and facilitate communication with their physician. In this report, we provide a brief overview of patient assessments that have been used for patients with neuroendocrine tumors. We summarize NET VITALS and present a proposed infrastructure for its implementation into standard clinical care in both academic and community practice settings at City of Hope. Incorporating NET VITALS into standard of care treatment for patients with neuroendocrine tumors may improve patients' overall clinical care experience.

Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy - A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify methods used to assess medication preferences in older adults and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages with respect to their applicability to the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO) were searched. Eligible studies elicited individual treatment or outcome preferences in a context that involved long-term pharmacological treatment options. We included studies with a study population aged ≥ 65 years and/or with a mean or median age of ≥ 75 years. Qualitative studies, studies assessing preferences for only two different treatments, and studies targeting preferences for life-sustaining treatments were excluded. The identified preference measurement methods were evaluated based on four criteria (time budget, cognitive demand, variety of pharmacological aspects, and link with treatment strategies) judged to be relevant for the elicitation of patient preferences in polypharmacy.

RESULTS

Sixty articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. Fifty-five different instruments to assess patient preferences, based on 24 different elicitation methods, were identified. The most commonly applied preference measurement techniques were "medication willingness" (description of a specific medication with inquiry of the participant's willingness to take it), discrete choice experiments, Likert scale-based questionnaires, and rank prioritization. The majority of the instruments were created for disease-specific or context-specific settings. Only three instruments (Outcome Prioritization Tool, a complex intervention, "MediMol" questionnaire) dealt with the broader issue of geriatric multimorbidity. Only seven of the identified tools showed somewhat favorable characteristics for a potential use of the respective method in the context of polypharmacy.

CONCLUSION

Up to now, few instruments have been specifically designed for the assessment of medication preferences in older patients with multimorbidity. To facilitate valid preference elicitation in the context of geriatric polypharmacy, future research should focus on suitable characteristics of existing techniques to develop new measurement approaches for this increasingly relevant population.

Development of a Clinically Feasible Process for Identifying Individual Health Priorities

OBJECTIVES

To develop a values-based, clinically feasible process to help older adults identify health priorities that can guide clinical decision-making.

DESIGN

Prospective development and feasibility study.

SETTING

Primary care practice in Connecticut.

PARTICIPANTS

Older adults with 3 or more conditions or taking 10 or more medications (N=64).

INTERVENTION

The development team of patients, caregivers, and clinicians used a user-centered design framework-ideate → prototype → test →redesign-to develop and refine the value-based patient priorities care process and medical record template with trained clinician facilitators.

MEASUREMENTS

We used descriptive statistics of quantitative measures (percentage accepted invitation and completed template, duration of process) and qualitative analysis of barriers and enablers (challenges and solutions identified, facilitator perceptions).

RESULTS

We developed and refined a process for identifying patient health priorities that was typically completed in 35 to 45 minutes over 2 sessions; 64 patients completed the process. Qualitative analyses were used to elucidate the characteristics and training needed for the patient priorities facilitators, as well as perceived benefits and challenges of the process. Refinements based on our experience and feedback include streamlining the process for greater feasibility, balancing fidelity to the process while customizing to individuals, encouraging patients to share their priorities with their clinicians, and simplifying the template transmitted to clinicians.

CONCLUSION

Trained facilitators conducted this process in a busy primary care practice, suggesting that patient priorities identification is feasible and acceptable, although testing in additional settings is necessary. We hope to show that clinicians can align care with patients' health priorities.

Health-Related Decisions for Serious Illness Among Ethnically Diverse Older Adults

We investigated the influence of sociodemographic factors, acculturation, ethnicity, health status, and spirituality on older adults' health-related decisions when confronted with a choice between competing options. The sample included 451 participants: African Americans (15.74%), Afro-Caribbeans (25.5%), European Americans (36.36%), and Hispanic Americans (22.4%). Compared with others, European Americans and Hispanic Americans favored quality of life over a lengthy life. Sociodemographic factors, acculturation, ethnicity, health status, and spirituality accounted for variations of decisions. The variability of decisions calls for multiple care options to explore the value of different trade-offs in order to avoid predetermined clinical practice guidelines, especially in nursing.

Patient and caregiver goals for dementia care

PURPOSE

Most health outcome measures for chronic diseases do not incorporate specific health goals of patients and caregivers. To elicit patient-centered goals for dementia care, we conducted a qualitative study using focus groups of people with early-stage dementia and dementia caregivers.

METHODS

We conducted 5 focus groups with 43 participants (7 with early-stage dementia and 36 caregivers); 15 participants were Spanish-speaking. Verbatim transcriptions were independently analyzed line-by-line by two coders using both deductive and inductive approaches. Coded texts were grouped into domains and developed into a goal inventory for dementia care.

RESULTS

Participants identified 41 goals for dementia care within five domains (medical care, physical quality of life, social and emotional quality of life, access to services and supports, and caregiver support). Caregiver goals included ensuring the safety of the person with dementia and managing caregiving stress. Participants with early-stage dementia identified engaging in meaningful activity (e.g., work, family functions) and not being a burden on family near the end of life as important goals. Participants articulated the need to readdress goals as the disease progressed and reported challenges in goal-setting when goals differed between the person with dementia and the caregiver (e.g., patient safety vs. living independently at home). While goals were similar among English- and Spanish-speaking participants, Spanish-speaking participants emphasized the need to improve community education about dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient- and caregiver-identified goals for care are different than commonly measured health outcomes for dementia. Future work should incorporate patient-centered goals into clinical settings and assess their usefulness for dementia care.

The Influence of Hypothetical Death Scenarios on Multidimensional End-of-Life Care Preferences

Background:

Differences in end-of-life (EOL) care preferences (eg, location of death, use of life-sustaining treatments, openness to hastening death, etc) based on hypothetical death scenarios and associated physical and/or cognitive losses have yet to be investigated within the palliative care literature.

Aim:

The purpose of this study was to explore the multidimensional EOL care preferences in relation to 3 different hypothetical death scenarios: pancreatic cancer (acute death), Alzheimer disease (gradual death), and congestive heart failure (intermittent death).

Design:

General linear mixed-effects regression models estimated whether multidimensional EOL preferences differed under each of the hypothetical death scenarios; all models controlled for personal experience and familiarity with the disease, presence of an advance directive, religiosity, health-related quality of life, and relevant demographic characteristics.

Setting/Participants:

A national sample of healthy adults aged 50 years and older (N = 517) completed electronic surveys detailing their multidimensional preferences for EOL care for each hypothetical death scenario.

Results:

The average age of the participants was 60.1 years (standard deviation = 7.6), 74.7% were female, and 66.1% had a college or postgraduate degree. Results revealed significant differences in multidimensional care preferences between hypothetical death scenarios related to preferences for location of death (ie, home vs medical facility) and preferences for life-prolonging treatment options. Significant covariates of participants’ multidimensional EOL care preferences included age, sex, health-related quality of life, and religiosity.

Conclusion:

Our hypothesis that multidimensional EOL care preferences would differ based on hypothetical death scenarios was partially supported and suggests the need for disease-specific EOL care discussions.

Older Adults of Underrepresented Populations and Their End-of-Life Preferences: An Integrative Review

This integrative review was conducted to examine the evidence for understanding diversity in end-of-life preferences among older adults of underrepresented groups. Findings from 21 studies were critically examined, grouped, and compared across studies, populations, and settings. Five major themes emerged: advance directives, hospice and palliative care, communication, knowledge and information, and home and family. Despite multidisciplinary attention, content and methodological limitations narrowed understanding of what matters most to these groups when making decisions at end of life. Rigorous longitudinal studies with more ethnically diverse samples are needed to detect modifiable factors related to disparities at the end of life.

A Delphi process to address medication appropriateness for older persons with multiple chronic conditions

Background

Frameworks exist to evaluate the appropriateness of medication regimens for older patients with multiple medical conditions (MCCs). Less is known about how to translate the concepts of the frameworks into specific strategies to identify and remediate inappropriate regimens.

Methods

Modified Delphi method involving iterative rounds of input from panel members. Panelists (n = 9) represented the disciplines of nursing, medicine and pharmacy. Included among the physicians were two geriatricians, one general internist, one family practitioner, one cardiologist and two nephrologists. They participated in 3 rounds of web-based anonymous surveys.

Results

The panel reached consensus on a set of markers to identify problems with medication regimens, including patient/caregiver report of non-adherence, medication complexity, cognitive impairment, medications identified by expert opinion as inappropriate for older persons, excessively tight blood sugar and blood pressure control among persons with diabetes mellitus, patient/caregiver report of adverse medication effects or medications not achieving desired outcomes, and total number of medications. The panel also reached consensus on approaches to address these problems, including endorsement of strategies to discontinue medications with known benefit if necessary because of problems with feasibility or lack of alignment with patient goals.

Conclusions

The results of the Delphi process provide the basis for an algorithm to improve medication regimens among older persons with MCCs. The algorithm will require assessment not only of medications and diagnoses but also cognition and social support, and it will support discontinuation of medications both when risks outweigh benefits and when regimens are not feasible or do not align with goals.

Older Adults' Recognition of Trade-Offs in Healthcare Decision-Making

OBJECTIVES

To examine older persons' understanding of healthcare decision-making involving trade-offs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Primary care clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Community-living persons aged 65 and older (N = 50).

MEASUREMENTS

After being primed to think about trade-offs with a focus on chronic disease management, participants were asked to describe a decision they had made in the past involving a trade-off. If they could not, they were asked to describe a decision they might face in the future and were then given an example of a decision. They were also asked about communication with their primary care provider about their priorities when faced with a trade-off.

RESULTS

Forty-four participants (88%) were able to describe a healthcare decision involving a trade-off; 25 provided a decision in the past, 17 provided a decision they might face in the future, and two provided a future decision after hearing an example. One participant described a nonmedical decision, and two participants described goals without providing a trade-off. Of the healthcare decisions, 26 involved surgery, seven were end-of life decisions, seven involved treatment of chronic disease, and four involved chemotherapy. When asked whether their providers should know their health outcome priorities, 44 (88%) replied yes, and 35 (70%) believed their providers knew their priorities, but only 18 (36%) said that they had had a specific conversation about priorities.

CONCLUSION

The majority of participants were able to recognize the trade-offs involved in healthcare decision-making and wanted their providers to know their priorities regarding the trade-offs. Despite being primed to think about the trade-offs involved in day-to-day treatment of chronic disease, participants most frequently described episodic, high-stakes decisions including surgery and end-of-life care.

Patients' priorities for treatment decision making during periods of incapacity: quantitative survey

OBJECTIVE

Clinical practice aims to respect patient autonomy by basing treatment decisions for incapacitated patients on their own preferences. Yet many patients do not complete an advance directive, and those who do frequently just designate a family member to make decisions for them. This finding raises the concern that clinical practice may be based on a mistaken understanding of patient priorities. The present study aimed to collect systematic data on how patients prioritize the goals of treatment decision making.

METHOD

We employed a self-administered, quantitative survey of patients in a tertiary care center.

RESULTS

Some 80% or more of the 1169 respondents (response rate = 59.8%) ranked six of eight listed goals for treatment decision making as important. When asked which goal was most important, 38.8% identified obtaining desired or avoiding unwanted treatments, 20.0% identified minimizing stress or financial burden on their family, and 14.6% identified having their family help to make treatment decisions. No single goal was designated as most important by 25.0% of participants.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Patients endorsed three primary goals with respect to decision making during periods of incapacity: being treated consistent with their own preferences; minimizing the burden on their family; and involving their family in the decision-making process. However, no single goal was prioritized by a clear majority of patients. These findings suggest that advance care planning should not be limited to documenting patients' treatment preferences. Clinicians should also discuss and document patients' priorities for how decisions are to be made. Moreover, future research should evaluate ways to modify current practice to promote all three of patients primary goals for treatment decision making.

Relationship between universal health outcome priorities and willingness to take medication for primary prevention of myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

To determine how well universal health outcome priorities represent individuals' preferences in specific clinical situations.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Community.

PARTICIPANTS

Community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older (N = 357).

MEASUREMENTS

Participants used three tools assessing universal health outcome priorities related to two common trade-offs: quality versus quantity of life and future health versus present inconveniences and burdens of treatment. The tools' ability to identify participants who were unwilling to take a medication that reduced the risk of myocardial infarction but caused dizziness and fatigue was analyzed.

RESULTS

There were consistent and significant associations between unwillingness to take the medication and prioritizing quality of life or future health for all three tools in the expected direction (P < .05). Despite these associations, the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values for the tools were generally modest (0.49-0.83). The tool with the most specific statements resembling the medication scenario had the best specificity (0.97) and PPV (0.83).

CONCLUSION

Universal health outcome priorities only modestly identified older persons who would be unwilling to take a medication for primary prevention of myocardial infarction that causes adverse effects. Although tools that are the most general in their assessment of priorities have the benefit of being applicable across the widest range of scenarios, tools with greater specificity may be necessary to inform individual treatment decisions.