Undetermined impact of patient decision support interventions on healthcare costs and savings: systematic review

Decisions With Patients, Not for Patients: Shared Decision-Making in Allergy and Immunology

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an increasingly implemented patient-centered approach to navigating patient preferences regarding diagnostic and treatment options and supported decision-making. This therapeutic approach prioritizes the patient's perspectives, considering current medical evidence to provide a balanced approach to clinical scenarios. In light of numerous recent guideline recommendations that are conditional in nature and are clinical scenarios defined by preference-sensitive care options, there is a tremendous opportunity for SDM and validated decision aids. Despite the expansion of the literature on SDM, formal acceptance among clinicians remains inconsistent. Surprisingly, a significant disparity exists between clinicians' self-reported adherence to SDM principles and patients' perceptions of its implementation during clinical encounters. This discrepancy underscores a fundamental issue in the delivery of health care, where clinicians may overestimate their integration of SDM, while patients' experiences suggest otherwise. This review critically examines the factors contributing to this inconsistency, including barriers within the health care system, clinician attitudes and behaviors, and patient expectations and preferences. By elucidating these factors in the fields of food allergy, asthma, eosinophilic esophagitis, and other allergic diseases, this review aims to provide insights into bridging the gap between clinician perception and patient experience in SDM. Addressing this discordance is crucial for advancing patient-centered care and ensuring that SDM is not merely a theoretical concept but a tangible reality in the.

Preference Sensitive Care and Shared Decision-Making in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Scoping Review

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review exploring the extent to which preference sensitivity has been studied in treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), utilizing shared decision-making (SDM) as a proxy.

BACKGROUND

Preference-sensitive care involves situations where multiple treatment options exist with significant tradeoffs in cost, outcome, recovery time, and quality of life. LSS has gained research focus as a preference-sensitive care scenario.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review protocol in accordance with "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews" regulations was registered with the Open Science Framework (ID: 9ewup) and conducted across multiple databases from January 2000 to October 2022. Study selection and characterization were performed by 3 independent reviewers and an unbiased moderator.

RESULTS

The search resulted in the inclusion of 16 studies varying in design and sample size, with most published between 2016 and 2021. The studies examined variables related to SDM, patient preferences, surgeon preferences, and decision aids (DAs). The outcomes assessed included treatment choice, patient satisfaction, and patient understanding. Several studies reported that SDM influenced treatment choice and patient satisfaction, while the impact on patient understanding was less clear. DAs were used in some studies to facilitate SDM.

CONCLUSION

The scoping review identified a gap in comprehensive studies analyzing the preference sensitivity of treatment for LSS and the role of DAs. Further research is needed to better understand the impact of patient preferences on treatment decisions and the effectiveness of DAs in LSS care. This review provides a foundation for future research in preference-sensitive care and SDM in the context of lumbar stenosis treatment.

Usability of an Automated System for Real-Time Monitoring of Shared Decision-Making for Surgery: Mixed Methods Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Improving shared decision-making (SDM) for patients has become a health policy priority in many countries. Achieving high-quality SDM is particularly important for approximately 313 million surgical treatment decisions patients make globally every year. Large-scale monitoring of surgical patients' experience of SDM in real time is needed to identify the failings of SDM before surgery is performed. We developed a novel approach to automating real-time data collection using an electronic measurement system to address this. Examining usability will facilitate its optimization and wider implementation to inform interventions aimed at improving SDM.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the usability of an electronic real-time measurement system to monitor surgical patients' experience of SDM. We aimed to evaluate the metrics and indicators relevant to system effectiveness, system efficiency, and user satisfaction.

METHODS

We performed a mixed methods usability evaluation using multiple participant cohorts. The measurement system was implemented in a large UK hospital to measure patients' experience of SDM electronically before surgery using 2 validated measures (CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9). Quantitative data (collected between April 1 and December 31, 2021) provided measurement system metrics to assess system effectiveness and efficiency. We included adult patients booked for urgent and elective surgery across 7 specialties and excluded patients without the capacity to consent for medical procedures, those without access to an internet-enabled device, and those undergoing emergency or endoscopic procedures. Additional groups of service users (group 1: public members who had not engaged with the system; group 2: a subset of patients who completed the measurement system) completed user-testing sessions and semistructured interviews to assess system effectiveness and user satisfaction. We conducted quantitative data analysis using descriptive statistics and calculated the task completion rate and survey response rate (system effectiveness) as well as the task completion time, task efficiency, and relative efficiency (system efficiency). Qualitative thematic analysis identified indicators of and barriers to good usability (user satisfaction).

RESULTS

A total of 2254 completed surveys were returned to the measurement system. A total of 25 service users (group 1: n=9; group 2: n=16) participated in user-testing sessions and interviews. The task completion rate was high (169/171, 98.8%) and the survey response rate was good (2254/5794, 38.9%). The median task completion time was 3 (IQR 2-13) minutes, suggesting good system efficiency and effectiveness. The qualitative findings emphasized good user satisfaction. The identified themes suggested that the measurement system is acceptable, easy to use, and easy to access. Service users identified potential barriers and solutions to acceptability and ease of access.

CONCLUSIONS

A mixed methods evaluation of an electronic measurement system for automated, real-time monitoring of patients' experience of SDM showed that usability among patients was high. Future pilot work will optimize the system for wider implementation to ultimately inform intervention development to improve SDM.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079155.

Combined surveillance and treatment register for children with cerebral palsy: the protocol of the Netherlands CP register

INTRODUCTION

Cerebral palsy (CP) is a childhood onset, lifelong, condition. Early detection and timely treatment of potential problems during the child's development are important to prevent secondary impairments and improve function. Clinical management of children with CP requires a spectrum of multidisciplinary interventions, which have an impact on short-term and long-term outcomes. However, there is a lack of knowledge about a personalised approach in this heterogeneous population. Various CP registers with different aims have been developed worldwide, which has made an important contribution to our understanding of CP. The purpose of this protocol is to describe the unique design of a combined multidisciplinary surveillance and treatment register for children with CP in the Netherlands, which aims to improve quality of care and to enhance an individual treatment approach.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Netherlands CP Register combines a multidisciplinary surveillance programme with a standardised protocol for treatment registry. The register systematically collects real-life surveillance and treatment data of children with CP. The register contributes to daily care at the individual level by screening for potential secondary impairments using a decision-support tool, by visualising individual development using a dashboard, and by supporting goal setting and shared decision-making for interventions. The register provides a platform at the national level for quality of care improvement and a comprehensive database of real-life data allowing multicentre studies with a long-term follow-up. People with lived experience of CP, healthcare professionals from different disciplines and researchers collaborated in the development of the register.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Netherlands CP register was submitted to the Medical Ethics Review Committee of VU University Medical Center (Amsterdam, the Netherlands), who judged the register not to be subject to the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. A scientific board reviews requests for dissemination of data from the register for specific research questions.

Shared decision making: a personal view from two kidney doctors and a patient

Shared decision making (SDM) combines the clinician's expertise in the treatment of disease with the patient's expertise in their lived experience and what is important to them. All decisions made in the care of patients with kidney disease can potentially be explored through SDM. Adoption of SDM in routine kidney care faces numerous institutional and practical barriers. Patients with chronic disease who have become accustomed to paternalistic care may need support to engage in SDM-even though most patients actively want more involvement in decisions about their care. Nephrologists often underestimate the risks and overestimate the benefits of investigations and treatments and often default to recommending burdensome treatments rather than discussing prognosis openly. Guideline bodies continue to issue recommendations written for healthcare professionals without providing patient decision aids. To mitigate health inequalities, care needs to be taken to provide SDM to all patients, not just the highly health-literate patients least likely to need additional support in decision making. Kidney doctors spend much of their time in the consulting room, and it is unjustifiable that so little attention is paid to the teaching, audit and maintenance of consultation skills. Writing letters to the patient to summarise the consultation rather than sending them a copy of a letter between health professionals sets the tone for a consultation in which the patient is an active partner. Adoption of SDM will require nephrologists to relinquish long-established paternalistic models of care and restructure care around the values and preferences of patients.

Women's preference to apply shared decision-making in breast cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

To analyse women's stated preferences for establishing the relative importance of each attribute of shared decision-making (SDM) and their willingness to pay (WTP) for more participatory care in breast cancer screening programmes (BCSP).

DESIGN

A discrete choice experiment was designed with 12 questions (choice tasks). It included three attributes: 'How the information is obtained', regarding benefits and harms; whether there is a 'Dialogue for scheduled mammography' between the healthcare professional and the woman; and, 'Who makes the decision', regarding participation in BCSP. Data were obtained using a survey that included 12 choice tasks, 1 question on WTP and 7 socioeconomic-related questions. The analysis was performed using conditional mixed-effect logit regression and stratification according to WTP.

SETTING

Data collection related to BCSP was conducted between June and November 2021 in Catalonia, Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-five women aged between 50 and 60.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Women's perceived utility of each attribute, trade-off on these attributes and WTP for SDM in BCSP.

RESULT

The only significant attribute was 'Who makes the decision'. The decision made alone (coefficient=2.879; 95% CI=2.297 to 3.461) and the decision made together with a healthcare professional (2.375; 95% CI=1.573 to 3.177) were the options preferred by women. The former contributes 21% more utility than the latter. Moreover, 52.3% of the women stated a WTP of €10 or more for SDM. Women's preferences regarding attributes did not influence their WTP.

CONCLUSIONS

The participant women refused a current paternalistic model and preferred either SDM or informed decision-making in BCSP.

Shared decision-making in urology and female pelvic floor medicine and reconstructive surgery

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a hallmark of patient-centred care that uses informed consent to help guide patients with making complex health-care decisions. In SDM, patients and providers work together to determine the best course of action based on both the current available evidence and the patient's values and preferences. SDM not only provides a framework for the legal and ethical obligations providers need to fulfil for informed consent, but also leads to improved knowledge of treatment options and satisfaction of decision-making for patients. Tools such as decision aids have been developed to support SDM for complex decisions. Several decision aids are available for use in the field of urology and female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, but these decision aids are also associated with barriers to SDM implementation including patient, provider and systematic challenges. However, solutions to such barriers to SDM include continued development of SDM tools to improve patient engagement, expand training of providers in SDM communication models and a process to encourage implementation of SDM.

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To update a previous systematic review to determine if patient decision aid (PDA) interventions generate savings in healthcare settings, and if so, from which perspective (ie, patient, organisation providing care, society).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Campbell Collaboration Library, EconLit, Business Source Complete, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) from 15 March 2013 to 25 January 2019. The references of studies that met the eligibility criteria and any publications related to conference abstracts or registered clinical trials were reviewed to increase the sensitivity of the search.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Full and partial economic evaluations with an experimental, quasi-experimental or randomised controlled design were included. The intervention had to satisfy the pre-determined minimum conditions necessary to be defined as a PDA, and (for full evaluations) provide details on the comparator used.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

All study outcomes and economic data were extracted. The reporting and quality of the economic analyses were independently assessed by two health economists.

RESULTS

Of 5066 studies, 22 studies were included, including the 8 studies from the previous review. Twelve studies reported cost-savings (range=US$10 to US$81 156; US dollars in 2020), primarily from the organisational or health system perspective, and 10 studies did not. However, due to the quality of the economic analyses, and the related issues with the interpretative validity of results it would be inappropriate to say that PDAs will generate savings, from any perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether PDAs will generate savings. Greater consensus on what constitutes a PDA and the need to compare them against usual care over a sufficient time horizon to allow valid assessment of costs and outcomes is required.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019118457.

Information Access and Use by Patients With Cancer and Their Friends and Family: Development of a Grounded Theory

Background

Information has been identified as a commonly unmet supportive care need for those living with cancer (ie, patients and their friends and family). The information needed to help individuals plan their lives around the consequences of cancer, such as the receipt of health care, is an example of an important informational need. A suitable theory to guide the development of interventions designed to meet this informational need has not been identified by the authors.

Objective

The aim of this study is to generate a grounded theory capable of guiding the development of interventions designed to assist those living with cancer in meeting their informational needs.

Methods

Classic grounded theory was used to analyze data collected through digitally recorded one-on-one audio interviews with 31 patients with cancer and 29 friends and family members. These interviews focused on how the participants had accessed and used information to plan their lives and what barriers they faced in obtaining and using this information.

Results

The theory that emerged consisted of 4 variables: personal projects, cancer as a source of disruption to personal projects, information as the process of accessing and interpreting cancer-related data (CRD) to inform action, and CRD quality as defined by accessibility, credibility, applicability, and framing. CRD quality as a moderator of personal project disruption by cancer is the core concept of this theory.

Conclusions

Informational resources providing accessible, credible, applicable, and positively framed CRD are likely key to meeting the information needs of those affected by cancer. Web-based informational resources delivering high-quality CRD focused on assisting individuals living with cancer in maintaining and planning their personal projects are predicted to improve quality of life. Research is needed to develop and integrate resources informed by this theoretical framework into clinical practice.

The Benefits and Challenges of Using Patient Decision Aids to Support Shared Decision Making in Health Care

Shared decision making (SDM) and patient-centered care require patients to actively participate in the decision-making process. Yet with the increasing number and complexity of cancer treatment options, it can be a challenge for patients to evaluate clinical information and make risk-benefit trade-offs to choose the most appropriate treatment. Clinicians face time constraints and communication challenges, which can further hamper the SDM process. In this article, we review patient decision aids (PDAs) as a means of supporting SDM by presenting clinical information and risk data to patients in a format that is accessible and easy to understand. We outline the benefits and limitations of PDAs as well as the challenges in their development, such as a lengthy and complex development process and implementation obstacles. Lastly, we discuss future trends and how change on multiple levels-PDA developers, clinicians, hospital administrators, and health care insurers-can support the use of PDAs and consequently SDM. Through this multipronged approach, patients can be empowered to take an active role in their health and choose treatments that are in line with their values.

Measuring the Benefits of Decision Aids for Economic Evaluation

Decision aids, sometimes known as decision-support tools, are increasingly used to help patients to understand treatment options and to reach an informed decision consistent with their own values, yet methods for their economic evaluation have received limited attention. This is at odds with the increasingly rigorous methods being applied to assess the cost effectiveness of other health technologies. This paper reviews current approaches to evaluating decision aids and proposes a new method for assessing their benefits relative to other interventions in a resource-constrained health system that seeks to improve health, equity and patient satisfaction. Current evaluation frameworks are found to be unsuitable for the economic evaluation of decision aids since their objectives are broader than health maximisation. Decision aids may generate significant non-health benefits such as improved patient knowledge and satisfaction, which cannot be assessed using cost-utility analysis. A stated-preference consultation time trade-off (CTTO) is proposed in which a proportion of hypothetical physician consultation is traded for use of the decision aid. A decision aid provides information for a patient to make an informed choice and therefore may be considered to be a substitute for physician time. The CTTO can be reported in consultation minutes or converted to monetary units using the cost of physician time. These values may be used, alongside the implementation cost, for economic evaluation.

Enhancing Equitable Access to Assistive Technologies in Canada: Insights from Citizens and Stakeholders

Les besoins en technologies d’assistance augmentent au Canada, mais l’accès à ces technologies est inégal et fragmentaire, ce qui ferait en sorte que des besoins demeureraient non comblés. Cette étude visait à identifier les valeurs et préférences des citoyens concernant les moyens à utiliser pour favoriser un accès équitable aux technologies d’assistance. Elle visait également à impliquer les décideurs politiques, les parties prenantes et les chercheurs dans des discussions afin d’élaborer des actions dans ce domaine. Au printemps 2017, nous avons organisé trois panels de citoyens et un dialogue avec les parties prenantes. Les principales conclusions des panels ont été incluses dans une synthèse qui a été partagée avec les participants du dialogue. Trente-sept citoyens ont participé aux panels et ont souligné l’importance de l’accès à de l’information fiable, d’un accès équitable aux technologies d’assistance (et ce, quelle que soit la capacité de payer), et de la collaboration. Les vingt-deux participants au dialogue ont fait valoir la nécessité d’un cadre d’orientation pour appuyer l’évolution des pratiques dans l’ensemble au pays. Le cadre d’orientation proposé combinerait des politiques et programmes simplifiés incluant la collecte et l’évaluation de données robustes pour appuyer l’innovation et l’imputabilité à travers le pays.

Patient decision aid for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for use in the consultation: a feasibility study

Background

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (cpm) continue to rise internationally despite evidence-based guidance strongly discouraging its use in most women with unilateral breast cancer. The purpose of the present study was to develop and assess the feasibility of a knowledge translation tool [a patient decision aid (da)] designed to enhance evidence-informed shared decision-making about cpm.

Methods

A consultation da was developed using the Ottawa Patient Decision Aid Development eTraining in consultation with clinicians and knowledge translation experts. The final da was then assessed for feasibility with health care professionals and patients across Canada. The assessment involved a survey completed online (health care professionals) or by telephone (patients). Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for closed-ended questions and qualitative content analysis for open-ended questions.

Results

The 51 participants who completed the survey included 39 health care professionals and 12 patients. The da was acceptable; 88% of participants viewed it as having the right amount of information or slightly more or less information than they would like. Almost all participants (98%) felt that the da would prepare patients to make better decisions. The aid was perceived to be usable, with 73% of participants stating that they would be willing to use or share the da.

Conclusions

The cpm patient da developed for the present study was viewed by health care professionals and patients across Canada to be acceptable and usable during the clinical consultation. It holds promise as a knowledge translation tool to be used by clinicians in consultation with women who have unilateral breast cancer to enhance evidence-informed and shared decision-making with respect to undergoing cpm.

Could shared decision making affect staying in hospital? A cross-sectional pilot study

Background

Shared Decision Making (SDM) is an approach where clinicians and patients share the best available evidence to make decision and where patients opinions are considered. This approach provides benefits for patients, clinicians and health care system. The aim of the present study is to investigate the patients’ perception of their participation in treatment choices and to identify the possible influences of variables in decision aids and therapeutic choices. Furthermore the present study evaluates the impact of SDM on the length of hospital stay and the health expenditure in Piemonte, an Italian region.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was performed in 2016. The patients were selected after hospitalization to clinical and surgical units at the Rivoli and Susa Hospital. Data were collected through the questionnaire and the Hospital Discharge Registers. STROBE guidelines for observational studies were used. A descriptive analysis was conducted. Frequencies and percentages of the categorical variables were reported. Statistical analyses were performed using t-test, chi-square test and Mann-Whitney test.

Results

The final sample was made of 174 subjects. More than half of the sample reported a SDM approach. Female gender (p = 0.027) and lower age (p = 0.047) are associated with an increased possibility to report SDM. Receiving “good” or “excellent” information, having their own request fulfilled and their opinions took into account by healthcare professionals, were all found to be predictors for an approach recognized as SDM (p ≤ 0.05). The perception that healthcare professionals spent a proper amount of time with the patients and used an understendable language are factors increase the chance of a “shared” decision process (p ≤ 0.05). The patients trust in the information given by the healthcare professional is not affecting their perception about the decision making process (P = 0.195). No significant difference where recorded in length of stay and hospital expenditure.

Conclusions

The data show the role played by different dimension of the patients-clinician relationship and that the strongest determinant of a perceived shared decision making approach are healthcare professional-depending.

Shared Decision Making in Psoriasis: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies

BACKGROUND

Patients with psoriasis face numerous treatment and self-management decisions. Shared decision making is a novel approach where patients' preferences and values are considered in cooperation with healthcare professionals before making treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to explore what is illuminated in psoriasis research regarding shared decision making, and to estimate the effects of shared decision-making interventions in this context.

METHODS

Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies were eligible for inclusion. We searched six electronic databases up to January 2018. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria. The SPIDER framework was used to identify eligibility criteria for study inclusion. Narrative and thematic syntheses were utilized to identify prominent themes emerging from the data.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included in the review. Of these, we included 18 studies (19 papers) to describe what was illuminated with regard to shared decision making in psoriasis research. Four major themes emerged: interpersonal communication; exchange of competence and knowledge; different world view; and involvement and preference, organized under two analytical themes; "Co-creation of decisions" and "Organization of treatment and treatment needs". For shared decision-making effects, we included four controlled studies. These varied in scope and interventional length and showed limited use of shared decision making-specific outcome measures, reflecting the early stage of the literature. Because of study heterogeneity, a meta-synthesis was not justified.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be a need to strengthen the relationship between medical doctors and patients with psoriasis. The evident lack of knowledge about each other's competence and the lack of self-efficacy for both patients and providers challenges the basic principles of shared decision making. The effects of shared decision making in psoriasis are inconclusive, and more research appears necessary to determine the possible benefits of shared decision-making interventions.

Effects of Shared Decision Making on Distress and Health Care Utilization Among Patients With Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Lung cancer is associated with significant distress, poor quality of life, and a median prognosis of less than one year. Benefits of shared decision making (SDM) have been described for multiple diseases, either by the use of decisions aids or as part of supportive care interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to summarize the effects of interventions facilitating SDM on distress and health care utilization among patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in the CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO databases. Studies were eligible when conducted in a population of patients with lung cancer, evaluated the effects of an intervention that facilitated SDM, and measured distress and/or health care utilization as outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies, detailed in 13 publications, were included: nine randomized trials and three retrospective cohort studies. All studies reported on a supportive care intervention facilitating SDM as part of their intervention. Eight studies described effects on distress, and eight studies measured effects on health care utilization. No effect was found in studies measuring generic distress. Positive effects, in favor of the intervention groups, were observed in studies using anxiety-specific measures (n = 1) or depression-specific measures (n = 3). Evidence for reductions in health care utilization was found in five studies.

CONCLUSION

Although not supported by all studies, our findings suggest that facilitating SDM in the context of lung cancer may lead to improved emotional outcomes and less aggressive therapies. Future studies, explicitly studying the effects of SDM by using decision aids, are needed to better elucidate potential benefits.

Variation in costs among surgeons for lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common condition in the elderly for which costs vary substantially by region. Comparing differences between surgeons from a single institution, thereby omitting regional variation, could aid in identifying factors associated with higher costs and individual drivers of costs. The use of decision aids (DAs) has been suggested as one of the possible tools for diminishing costs and cost variation.

PURPOSE

(1) To determine factors associated with higher costs for treatment of spinal stenosis in the first year after diagnosis in a single institution; (2) to find individual drivers of costs for providers with higher costs; and (3) to determine if the use of DAs can decrease costs and cost variability.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 10,858 patients in 18 different practices diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis between January 2003 and July 2015 in three associated hospitals of a single institution.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean cost for a patient per provider in US dollars within 1 year after diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

We collected all diagnostic testing, office visits, injections, surgery, and occupational or physical therapy related to lumbar spinal stenosis within 1 year after initial diagnosis. We used multivariable linear regression to determine independent predictors for costs. Providers were grouped in tiers based on mean total costs per patient to find drivers of costs. To assess the DAs effect on costs and cost variability, we matched DA patients one-to-one with non-DA patients.

RESULTS

Male gender (β 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.15, p<.001), seeing an additional provider (β 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86, p<.001), and having an additional spine diagnosis (β 0.79, 95% CI 0.74-0.84, p<.001) were associated with higher costs. Providers in the high cost tier had more office visits (p<.001), more imaging procedures (p<.001), less occupational or physical therapy (p=.002), and less surgery (p=.001) compared with the middle tier. Eighty-two patients (0.76%) received a DA as part of their care; there was no statistically significant difference between the DA group and the matched group in costs (p=.975).

CONCLUSIONS

Male gender, seeing an additional provider, and having an additional spine diagnosis were independently associated with higher costs. The main targets for cost reduction we found are imaging procedures and number of office visits. Decision aids were not found to affect cost.

Return on Investment for a Payer-Provider Partnership to Improve Care Management of Employees and Early Retirees

OBJECTIVE

A large employer partnered with local health care providers to pilot test an intensive nurse care manager program for employees and retirees. We evaluated its impact on health care utilization and costs.

METHODS

A database was developed containing 2011 to 2015 health care enrollment and claims data for 2914 patients linked to their nurse care manager data. We used a difference-in-difference design to compare health care costs and utilization of members recruited for the pilot program and a propensity-score-matched comparison group.

RESULTS

We found statistically significant reductions in doctors' office visits and prescription drug costs. A return-on-investment analysis determined that the program saved $0.83 for every dollar spent over the 2-year pilot study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Employer-driven care management programs can succeed at reducing utilization, although they may not achieve cost neutrality in the short run.

Stewardship of primary care physicians to contain cost in health care: an international cross-sectional survey

PURPOSE

Physician stewardship towards cost control is potentially important in enhancing the financial sustainability of health care systems.

OBJECTIVE

Aim of this study was to identify the level of stewardship of cost containment of primary care physicians (PCPs) and to assess the associations between stewardship and characteristics of PCPs and health care systems.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey among 10 countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA. Participants were a random sample of 33312 PCPs with 11547 responses (34.7%). Outcome measure was a stewardship scale addressing cost-awareness and cost-consideration.

RESULTS

Across countries, 41.6% and 45.7% of the PCPs responded that they often were aware of treatment costs and considered cost, respectively. Female PCPs were less aware of costs (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.69-0.81) and considered costs less frequently in making treatment decisions (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.76-0.89). Older PCPs were more aware of the costs than younger PCPs for all age categories compared to those <35 years (P < 0.001). PCPs older than 65 years (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.54-0.78) and 55-64 years (OR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.73-0.97) were less likely to consider costs than the youngest age group. Cost-consideration of PCPs residing in countries with a single payer system was lower (OR: 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.95) than their colleagues in multiple payer systems.

CONCLUSION

PCPs show moderate stewardship of health care resources with large intercountry differences. Cost-awareness may not be a necessary precondition for cost-consideration, and policies aimed at raising cost-consideration may be more important.

Overtreatment in the United States

BACKGROUND

Overtreatment is a cause of preventable harm and waste in health care. Little is known about clinician perspectives on the problem. In this study, physicians were surveyed on the prevalence, causes, and implications of overtreatment.

METHODS

2,106 physicians from an online community composed of doctors from the American Medical Association (AMA) masterfile participated in a survey. The survey inquired about the extent of overutilization, as well as causes, solutions, and implications for health care. Main outcome measures included: percentage of unnecessary medical care, most commonly cited reasons of overtreatment, potential solutions, and responses regarding association of profit and overtreatment.

FINDINGS

The response rate was 70.1%. Physicians reported that an interpolated median of 20.6% of overall medical care was unnecessary, including 22.0% of prescription medications, 24.9% of tests, and 11.1% of procedures. The most common cited reasons for overtreatment were fear of malpractice (84.7%), patient pressure/request (59.0%), and difficulty accessing medical records (38.2%). Potential solutions identified were training residents on appropriateness criteria (55.2%), easy access to outside health records (52.0%), and more practice guidelines (51.5%). Most respondents (70.8%) believed that physicians are more likely to perform unnecessary procedures when they profit from them. Most respondents believed that de-emphasizing fee-for-service physician compensation would reduce health care utilization and costs.

CONCLUSION

From the physician perspective, overtreatment is common. Efforts to address the problem should consider the causes and solutions offered by physicians.

Overtreatment in the United States

Background

Overtreatment is a cause of preventable harm and waste in health care. Little is known about clinician perspectives on the problem. In this study, physicians were surveyed on the prevalence, causes, and implications of overtreatment.

Methods

2,106 physicians from an online community composed of doctors from the American Medical Association (AMA) masterfile participated in a survey. The survey inquired about the extent of overutilization, as well as causes, solutions, and implications for health care. Main outcome measures included: percentage of unnecessary medical care, most commonly cited reasons of overtreatment, potential solutions, and responses regarding association of profit and overtreatment.

Findings

The response rate was 70.1%. Physicians reported that an interpolated median of 20.6% of overall medical care was unnecessary, including 22.0% of prescription medications, 24.9% of tests, and 11.1% of procedures. The most common cited reasons for overtreatment were fear of malpractice (84.7%), patient pressure/request (59.0%), and difficulty accessing medical records (38.2%). Potential solutions identified were training residents on appropriateness criteria (55.2%), easy access to outside health records (52.0%), and more practice guidelines (51.5%). Most respondents (70.8%) believed that physicians are more likely to perform unnecessary procedures when they profit from them. Most respondents believed that de-emphasizing fee-for-service physician compensation would reduce health care utilization and costs.

Conclusion

From the physician perspective, overtreatment is common. Efforts to address the problem should consider the causes and solutions offered by physicians.

Is Shared Decision Making a Utopian Dream or an Achievable Goal?

The idea of shared decision making (SDM) between patient and physician grew out of a generalized challenge to traditional social hierarchies that occurred in the middle of the last century. Governments have espoused SDM, thousands of articles about it have been published, and evidence has shown that it improves some of the healthcare processes as well as patient outcomes. Yet it has not been widely adopted. From their cross-disciplinary perspective (practical theology and clinical medicine), the authors locate this reluctance in the unfolding of scientific paradigm shifts, summarize the perceived risks and benefits of SDM and the evidence for each, and suggest practical, achievable approaches for clinicians. Finally, they explore some important emerging territories for SDM.

Do choosing wisely tools meet criteria for patient decision aids? A descriptive analysis of patient materials

OBJECTIVES

Choosing Wisely is a remarkable physician-led campaign to reduce unnecessary or harmful health services. Some of the literature identifies Choosing Wisely as a shared decision-making approach. We evaluated the patient materials developed by Choosing Wisely Canada to determine whether they meet the criteria for shared decision-making tools known as patient decision aids.

DESIGN

Descriptive analysis of all Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials.

DATA SOURCE

In May 2015, we selected all Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials from its official website.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Four team members independently extracted characteristics of the English materials using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) modified 16-item minimum criteria for qualifying and certifying patient decision aids. The research team discussed discrepancies between data extractors and reached a consensus. Descriptive analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Of the 24 patient materials assessed, 12 were about treatments, 11 were about screening and 1 was about prevention. The median score for patient materials using IPDAS criteria was 10/16 (range: 8-11) for screening topics and 6/12 (range: 6-9) for prevention and treatment topics. Commonly missed criteria were stating the decision (21/24 did not), providing balanced information on option benefits/harms (24/24 did not), citing evidence (24/24 did not) and updating policy (24/24 did not). Out of 24 patient materials, only 2 met the 6 IPDAS criteria to qualify as patient decision aids, and neither of these 2 met the 6 certifying criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient materials developed by Choosing Wisely Canada do not meet the IPDAS minimal qualifying or certifying criteria for patient decision aids. Modifications to the Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials would help to ensure that they qualify as patient decision aids and thus as more effective shared decision-making tools.

Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences

BACKGROUND

The ethical argument that shared decision-making is "the right" thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences.

MAIN ARGUMENT

To date, many more studies have evaluated patient decision aids rather than other approaches to shared decision-making, and the outcomes measured have typically been focused on short-term cognitive and affective outcomes, for example knowledge and decisional conflict. From a clinicians perspective, the shared decision-making process could be viewed as either intrinsically rewarding and protective, or burdensome and impractical, yet studies have not focused on the impact on professionals, either positive or negative. At interactional levels, group, team, and microsystem, the potential long-term consequences could include the development of a culture where deliberation and collaboration are regarded as guiding principles, where patients are coached to assess the value of interventions, to trade-off benefits versus harms, and assess their burdens-in short, to new social norms in the clinical workplace. At organizational levels, consistent shared decision-making might boost patient experience evaluations and lead to fewer complaints and legal challenges. In the long-term, shared decision-making might lead to changes in resource utilization, perhaps to reductions in cost, and to modification of workforce composition. Despite the gradual shift to value-based payment, some organizations, motivated by continued income derived from achieving high volumes of procedures and contacts, will see this as a negative consequence.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that a broader conceptualization and measurement of shared decision-making would provide a more substantive evidence base to guide implementation. We outline a framework which illustrates a hypothesized set of proximal, distal, and distant consequences that might occur if collaboration and deliberation could be achieved routinely, proposing that well-informed preference-based patient decisions might lead to safer, more cost-effective healthcare, which in turn might result in reduced utilization rates and improved health outcomes.

Development of patient decision support tools for motor neuron disease using stakeholder consultation: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Motor neuron disease (MND) is a terminal, progressive, multisystem disorder. Well-timed decisions are key to effective symptom management. To date, there are few published decision support tools, also known as decision aids, to guide patients in making ongoing choices for symptom management and quality of life. This protocol is to develop and validate decision support tools for patients and families to use in conjunction with health professionals in MND multidisciplinary care. The tools will inform patients and families of the benefits and risks of each option, as well as the consequences of accepting or declining treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study is being conducted from June 2015 to May 2016, using a modified Delphi process. A 2-stage, 7-step process will be used to develop the tools, based on existing literature and stakeholder feedback. The first stage will be to develop the decision support tools, while the second stage will be to validate both the tools and the process used to develop them. Participants will form expert panels, to provide feedback on which the development and validation of the tools will be based. Participants will be drawn from patients with MND, family carers and health professionals, support association workers, peak body representatives, and MND and patient decision-making researchers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the study has been granted by Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), approval number 5201500658. Knowledge translation will be conducted via publications, seminar and conference presentations to patients and families, health professionals and researchers.

Patient-centred care, health behaviours and cardiovascular risk factor levels in people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes: 5-year follow-up of the ADDITION-Plus trial cohort

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between the experience of patient-centred care (PCC), health behaviours and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor levels among people with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Population-based prospective cohort study.

SETTING

34 general practices in East Anglia, UK, delivering organised diabetes care.

PARTICIPANTS

478 patients recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes aged between 40 and 69 years enrolled in the ADDITION-Plus trial.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported and objectively measured health behaviours (diet, physical activity, smoking status), CVD risk factor levels (blood pressure, lipid levels, glycated haemoglobin, body mass index, waist circumference) and modelled 10-year CVD risk.

RESULTS

Better experiences of PCC early in the course of living with diabetes were not associated with meaningful differences in self-reported physical activity levels including total activity energy expenditure (β-coefficient: 0.080 MET h/day (95% CI 0.017 to 0.143; p=0.01)), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (β-coefficient: 5.328 min/day (95% CI 0.796 to 9.859; p=0.01)) and reduced sedentary time (β-coefficient: -1.633 min/day (95% CI -2.897 to -0.368; p=0.01)). PCC was not associated with clinically meaningful differences in levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (β-coefficient: 0.002 mmol/L (95% CI 0.001 to 0.004; p=0.03)), systolic blood pressure (β-coefficient: -0.561 mm Hg (95% CI -0.653 to -0.468; p=0.01)) or diastolic blood pressure (β-coefficient: -0.565 mm Hg (95% CI -0.654 to -0.476; p=0.01)). Over an extended follow-up of 5 years, we observed no clear evidence that PCC was associated with self-reported, clinical or biochemical outcomes, except for waist circumference (β-coefficient: 0.085 cm (95% CI 0.015 to 0.155; p=0.02)).

CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence that experience of PCC early in the course of diabetes was associated with clinically important changes in health-related behaviours or CVD risk factors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN99175498; Post-results.

Cost effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for parents deciding about MMR vaccination: a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care

BACKGROUND

Levels of measles in England and Wales are at their highest for 18 years, and strategies targeting the different groups of parents who do not vaccinate their children continue to be needed. Decision aids for decisions regarding childhood immunisation appear to be effective in achieving an increase in vaccine uptake but their cost effectiveness is unknown.

AIM

To assess the cost effectiveness of a web-based decision aid to increase uptake of the MMR vaccine.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Economic evaluation conducted alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial using urban GP practices in the north of England.

METHOD

Fifty GP practices in the north of England were randomised to one of three trial arms: decision aid, leaflet, usual practice. A total of 220 first-time parents (child aged 3-12 months) were recruited. Parents self-reported their contacts with the NHS and other previous/expected resource utilisation; associated costs were calculated. Vaccine-uptake data were collected from GP practices. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken and provided the incremental cost per first-vaccine uptake. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data and findings were adjusted for baseline differences in parents' levels of decisional conflict regarding MMR vaccination.

RESULTS

Of the 220 first-time parents recruited to the study, 179 completed the baseline and post-intervention questionnaires. MMR uptake was highest for those receiving the decision aid (42 out of 42, 100%) versus usual practice (61 out of 62, 98%) and leaflet arm (69 out of 75, 92%), and was associated with lower cost (-£9.20 versus usual practice and -£7.17 versus leaflet).

CONCLUSION

The decision aid has a high chance of being cost effective, regardless of the value placed on obtaining additional vaccinations. It also appears to offer an efficient means of decision support for parents.

Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is advocated as the model for decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions. In this paper we sketch the history of the concept of SDM, evidence on the occurrence of the steps in daily practice, and provide a clinical audience with communication strategies to support the steps involved. Finally, we discuss ways to improve the implementation of SDM.

RESULTS

The plea for SDM originated almost simultaneously in medical ethics and health services research. Four steps can be distinguished: (1) the professional informs the patient that a decision is to be made and that the patient's opinion is important; (2) the professional explains the options and their pros and cons; (3) the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences and the professional supports the patient in deliberation; (4) the professional and patient discuss the patient's wish to make the decision, they make or defer the decision, and discuss follow-up. In practice these steps are seen to occur to a limited extent.

DISCUSSION

Knowledge and awareness among both professionals and patients as well as tools and skills training are needed for SDM to become widely implemented.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Professionals may use the steps and accompanying communication strategies to implement SDM.

Capturing patients' experiences to change Parkinson's disease care delivery: a multicenter study

Capturing patients’ perspectives has become an essential part of a quality of care assessment. The patient centeredness questionnaire for PD (PCQ-PD) has been validated in The Netherlands as an instrument to measure patients’ experiences. This study aims to assess the level of patient centeredness in North American Parkinson centers and to demonstrate the PCQ-PD’s potential as a quality improvement instrument. 20 Parkinson Centers of Excellence participated in a multicenter study. Each center asked 50 consecutive patients to complete the questionnaire. Data analyses included calculating case mix-adjusted scores for overall patient centeredness (scoring range 0–3), six subscales (0–3), and quality improvement (0–9). Each center received a feedback report on their performance. The PCQ-PD was completed by 972 PD patients (median 50 per center, range 37–58). Significant differences between centers were found for all subscales, except for emotional support (p < 0.05). The information subscale (mean 1.62 SD 0.62) and collaboration subscale (mean 2.03 SD 0.58) received the lowest experience ratings. 14 centers (88 %) who returned the evaluation survey claimed that patient experience scores could help to improve the quality of care. Nine centers (56 %) utilized the feedback to change specific elements of their care delivery process. PD patients are under-informed about critical care issues and experience a lack of collaboration between healthcare professionals. Feedback on patients’ experiences facilitated Parkinson centers to improve their delivery of care. These findings create a basis for collecting patients’ experiences in a repetitive fashion, intertwined with existing quality of care registries.

The limited effect of information on Israeli pregnant women at advanced maternal age who decide to undergo amniocentesis

Background

A primary goal of amniocentesis is the detection of trisomy 21 (Down syndrome- DS) in the fetus. This procedure involves a small risk of miscarriage. As the risk of DS increases with maternal age, screening tests (maternal serum triple test and others) and age are used to generate a risk assessment, and amniocentesis is offered to women with high risk. In Israel, amniocentesis is government funded for women of advanced maternal age (AMA, i.e., ≥35 years), even if their risk assessment is low.

The purpose of this study was to explore the reasons AMA women undergo amniocentesis, their knowledge about risk estimates, and to evaluate whether their decision is informed.

Methods

Shortly after undergoing amniocentesis, 42 consecutive women without a medical indication for amniocentesis other than age, completed a questionnaire that assessed their knowledge and opinions regarding screening tests, pregnancy termination, amniocentesis risks and the factors that affected their decision.

Results

Women rarely deliberated before undergoing amniocentesis. One third of those who had the screening test did not wait for the results before undergoing amniocentesis. Only one third of those who received the screening results remembered their risk estimation before going ahead with amniocentesis. Almost half (41 %) cited “age” as their main reason for undergoing amniocentesis, though only 44 % of these women could recall their age related DS risk. Sixty percent estimated their DS risk as low or very low but still had amniocentesis. Most participants (74 %) stated that they would consider termination of the pregnancy if the fetus was diagnosed with an intellectual deficit.

Conclusions

These results cast doubt on whether AMA women’s decision to undergo amniocentesis is based on risk estimates, as women seem to disregard risk estimates, and sometimes not even wait for them when making the decision. The policy of funding amniocentesis solely on the basis of age may have led to the conception that being over 35 alone is sufficient reason to undergo amniocentesis. This finding should inform policy makers, as it raises questions about the link between public funding and the choices of individual women, and has implications for healthcare expenditures.

A framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of patient decision aids: A case study using colorectal cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

Patient decision aids are important tools for facilitating balanced, evidence-based decision making. However, the potential of decision aids to lower health care utilization and costs is uncertain; few studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of decision aids that change patient behavior. Using an example of a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening, we provide a framework for analyzing the cost-effectiveness of decision aids.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model with two strategies (decision aid or no decision aid) was used to calculate expected costs in U.S. dollars and benefits measured in life-years saved (LYS). Data from a systematic review of ten studies about decision aid effectiveness was used to calculate the percentage increase in the number of people choosing screening instead of no screening. We then calculated the incremental cost per LYS with the use of the decision aid.

RESULTS

The no decision aid strategy had an expected cost of $3023 and yielded 18.19 LYS. The decision aid strategy cost $3249 and yielded 18.20 LYS. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the decision aid strategy was $36,126 per LYS. Results were sensitive to the cost of the decision aid and the percentage change in behavior caused by the decision aid.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides proof-of-concept evidence for future studies examining the cost-effectiveness of decision aids. The results suggest that decision aids can be beneficial and cost-effective.

Choosing Wisely in the UK: the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges' initiative to reduce the harms of too much medicine

A Malhotra and colleagues explain how and why a US initiative to get doctors to stop using interventions with no benefit is being brought to the UK

Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens

Decision aids can help shared decision making, but most have been hard to produce, onerous to update, and are not being used widely. Thomas Agoritsas and colleagues explore why and describe a new electronic model that holds promise of being more useful for clinicians and patients to use together at the point of care

Exploring the Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Patient Decision Aids for Use in Adults with Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Background. There is increasing evidence highlighting the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs), but evidence supporting their cost-effectiveness is lacking. We consider patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), in whom a PtDA may decrease nonadherence to treatment by empowering patients to receive the option that is most congruent with their own values. Objective. To determine the potential costs and benefits of delivering a PtDA to patients with moderate OSA. Methods. A Markov cohort decision-analytic model was developed for patients with moderate OSA, comparing a PtDA to usual care over 5 years from a societal perspective. Data for patient preference for treatment options was taken from a recent randomized crossover trial, event data (cardiovascular, motor vehicle accidents) came from national databases and published literature. Potential improvements in adherence are unknown, so we considered a realistic range of values. Outcome measures were 5-year costs (in 2010 Canadian dollars), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results. When adherence to treatment was unchanged, the PtDA strategy was dominated by incurring lower QALYs and higher costs. When nonadherence was decreased by 20% in the PtDA arm (corresponding to an increase in adherence from 63% to 70% for continuous positive airway pressure and from 77% to 82% for mandibular advancement splints in year 1), the ICER fell to $62,414/QALY. Costs associated with the treatment devices and delivering the PtDA had the greatest effect on cost-effectiveness. Limitations. The model relies on surrogate measures and opinions for key parameters. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of PtDAs will depend on contextual factors, but a framework is described for properly considering their long-term cost-effectiveness. A number of important questions around the appropriateness of benefit measurement for PtDA trials are highlighted.

The cost-effectiveness of patient decision aids: A systematic review

The Affordable Care Act includes provisions to encourage patient-centered care through the use of shared decision making (SDM) and patient decision aids (PtDA). PtDAs are tools that can help encourage SDM by providing information about competing treatment options and elucidating patients׳ values and preferences. Implementing PtDAs into routine practice may incur additional costs through training or increases in physician time. Prominent commentaries have proposed that these costs might be offset if patients choose less expensive options than their providers. However, the cost-effectiveness of PtDAs to date is unclear. The aim of this study was to review the economic evidence from PtDA trials. Our search identified 5347 articles, with 29 included following full-text review. Only one economic evaluation of a PtDA has been completed, which found a PtDA to be cost-saving in women with menorrhagia. Other studies included in the review indicated that PtDAs will likely increase up-front costs, but in some contexts may reduce short-term costs by reducing the uptake of invasive treatments, such as elective surgery. Few studies comprehensively captured long-term costs or measured benefits in a manner conducive to economic evaluation (QALYs or general health utilities). Our review suggests that policy makers currently have insufficient economic evidence to appropriately consider their investments in PtDAs.

Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a '4S' hierarchy

Making decisions informed by the best-available science is an objective for many organisations managing the environment or natural resources. Yet, available science is still not widely used in environmental policy and practice. We describe a '4S' hierarchy for organising relevant science to inform decisions. This hierarchy has already revolutionised clinical practice. It is beginning to emerge for environmental management, although all four levels need substantial development before environmental decision-makers can reliably and efficiently find the evidence they need. We expose common bypass routes that currently lead to poor or biased representation of scientific knowledge. We argue that the least developed level of the hierarchy is that closest to decision-makers, placing synthesised scientific knowledge into environmental decision support systems.

Twelve myths about shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

As shared decision makes increasing headway in healthcare policy, it is under more scrutiny. We sought to identify and dispel the most prevalent myths about shared decision making.

METHODS

In 20 years in the shared decision making field one of the author has repeatedly heard mention of the same barriers to scaling up shared decision making across the healthcare spectrum. We conducted a selective literature review relating to shared decision making to further investigate these commonly perceived barriers and to seek evidence supporting their existence or not.

RESULTS

Beliefs about barriers to scaling up shared decision making represent a wide range of historical, cultural, financial and scientific concerns. We found little evidence to support twelve of the most common beliefs about barriers to scaling up shared decision making, and indeed found evidence to the contrary.

CONCLUSION

Our selective review of the literature suggests that twelve of the most commonly perceived barriers to scaling up shared decision making across the healthcare spectrum should be termed myths as they can be dispelled by evidence.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our review confirms that the current debate about shared decision making must not deter policy makers and clinicians from pursuing its scaling up across the healthcare continuum.

Primum non nocere: shared informed decision making in low back pain--a pilot cluster randomised trial

Background

Low back pain is a common and disabling condition leading to large health service and societal costs. Although there are several treatment options for back pain little is known about how to improve patient choice in treatment selection. The purpose of this study was to pilot a decision support package to help people choose between low back pain treatments.

Methods

This was a single-centred pilot cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in a community physiotherapy service. We included adults with non-specific low back pain referred for physiotherapy. Intervention participants were sent an information booklet prior to their first consultation. Intervention physiotherapists were trained to enhance their skills in shared informed decision making. Those in the control arm received care as usual. The primary outcome was satisfaction with the treatment received at four months using a five-point Likert Scale dichotomised into “satisfaction” (very satisfied or somewhat satisfied) and “non-satisfaction” (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).

Results

We recruited 148 participants. In the control arm 67% of participants were satisfied with their treatment and in the intervention arm 53%. The adjusted relative risk of being satisfied was 1.28 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 2.09). For most secondary outcomes the trend was towards worse outcomes in the intervention group. For one measure; the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, this difference was clinically important (2.27, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 4.47). Mean healthcare costs were slightly lower (£38 saving per patient) within the intervention arm but health outcomes were also less favourable (0.02 fewer QALYs); the estimated probability that the intervention would be cost-effective at an incremental threshold of £20,000 per QALY was 16%.

Conclusion

We did not find that this decision support package improved satisfaction with treatment; it may have had a substantial negative effect on clinical outcome, and is very unlikely to prove cost-effective. That a decision support package might have a clinically important detrimental effect is of concern. To our knowledge this has not been observed previously. Decision support packages should be formally tested for clinical and cost-effectiveness, and safety before implementation.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46035546 registered on 11/02/10.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-282) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.