Clinical effectiveness of a patient decision aid to improve decision quality and glycaemic control in people with diabetes making treatment choices: a cluster randomised controlled trial (PANDAs) in general practice

Developing and Evaluating SEE-Diabetes: A Patient-Centered Educational Decision Support System for Diabetes Car

OBJECTIVES

This feasibility study evaluated the effectiveness of Support-Engage-Empower-Diabetes (SEE-Diabetes), a patient-centered educational tool designed to promote shared decision-making of diabetes management in older adults. We aimed to assess SEE-Diabetes's ability to facilitate patient engagement and collaborative goal setting, as measured by the Observational Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale and Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-Doc). We hypothesized that these instruments would effectively differentiate between healthcare providers who actively leveraged SEE-Diabetes to guide patient-centric conversations and set goals compared to those who did not.

METHODS

SEE-Diabetes, developed through a 4-year user-centered design process, was employed in simulated clinical encounters at the University of Missouri Health Care. We conducted an analysis of 12 clinical encounters using video recordings. This analysis involved three simulated patients and four providers, two internals and two externals, utilizing a mixed-methods approach. We assessed the decision-making process using SEE-Diabetes by SDM-Q-Doc, OPTION scale, and conversation analysis.

RESULTS

The average scores for the SDM-Q-Doc and the OPTION scale, out of a possible 100, were 52.6 and 75.9, respectively. Our findings revealed that active provider engagement with SEE-Diabetes during patient interactions served as an effective medium to facilitate shared decision-making and to set patient-centered goals. Providers who actively utilized SEE-Diabetes to guide conversations, ask open-ended questions, and incorporate patient input into goal setting demonstrated significantly higher OPTION and SDM-Q-Doc scores compared to those who used the tool less frequently or primarily for documentation purposes. Providers expressed positive feedback, highlighting its conciseness, patient-centricity, and optimism about integrating SEE-Diabetes into their future practices.

CONCLUSION

SEE-Diabetes showed considerable promise in improving interactions between patients and providers, presenting an innovative approach to diabetes management for older adults. This tool has the potential to not only close communication gaps but also enable patients to take a more active role in their healthcare decisions.

Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In diabetes care and management guidelines, shared decision-making (SDM) implementation is explicitly recommended to help patients and health care providers to make informed shared decisions that enable informed choices and the selection of treatments. Despite widespread calls for SDM to be embedded in health care, there is little evidence to support SDM in the management and care of diabetes. It is still not commonly utilized in routine care settings because its effects remain poorly understood. Hence, the current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes adult patients.

METHODS

Literature sources were searched in MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane library and HINARI bibliographic databases and Google Scholar. When these records were searched and reviewed, the PICO criteria (P: population, I: intervention, C: comparator, and O: outcome) were applied. The extracted data was exported to RevMan software version 5.4 and STATA 17 for further analysis. The mean differences (MD) of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were pooled using a random effect model (REM), and sub-group analysis were performed to evaluate the effect size differences across the duration of the follow-up period, modes of intervention, and baseline glycated hemoglobin level of patient groups. The sensitivity analysis was performed using a leave-one-out meta-analysis to quantify the impact of each study on the overall effect size in mean difference HbA1c%. Finally, the statistically significant MD of HbA1c% between the intervention groups engaged in SDM and control groups received usual care was declared at P ˂0.05, using a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

In the database search, 425 records were retrieved, with only 17 RCT studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 5416 subjects were included, out of which 2782(51.4%) were included in trial arms receiving SDM and 2634(48.6%) were included in usual diabetes care. The Higgins (I2) test statistics were calculated to be 59.1%, P = 0.002, indicating statistically significant heterogeneity was observed among the included studies, and REM was used as a remedial to estimate the pooled MD of HbA1c% level between patients who participated in SDM and received usual care. As a result, the pooled MD showed that the SDM significantly lowered HbA1c by 0.14% compared to the usual care (95% CI = [-0.26, -0.02], P = 0.02). SDM significantly decreased the level of HbA1c by 0.14% (95% CI = -0.28, -0.01, P = 0.00) when shared decisions were made in person or face-to-face at the point of care, but there was no statistically significant reduction in HbA1c levels when patients were engaged in online SDM. In patients with poorly controlled glycaemic level (≥ 8%), SDM significantly reduced level of HbA1c by 0.13%, 95% CI = [-0.29, -0.03], P = 0.00. However, significant reduction in HbA1c was not observed in patients with ˂ 8%, HbA1c baseline level.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, statistically significant reduction of glycated hemoglobin level was observed among T2DM adult patients who participated in shared decision-making compared to those patients who received diabetes usual care that could lead to improved long-term health outcomes, reducing the risk of diabetes-related complications. Therefore, we strongly suggest that health care providers and policy-makers should integrate SDM into diabetes health care and management, and further study should focus on the level of patients' empowerment, health literacy, and standardization of decision supporting tools to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM in diabetes patients.

Technology-supported shared decision-making in chronic conditions: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To describe the role of patients with a chronic disease, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and technology in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), and to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM and CDSSs interventions.

METHODS

Randomized controlled studies published between 2011 and 2021 were identified and screened independently by two reviewers, followed by data extraction and analysis. SDM elements and interactive styles were identified to shape the roles of patients, HCPs and technology.

RESULTS

Forty-three articles were identified and reported on 21 SDM-studies, 15 CDSS-studies, 2 studies containing both an SDM-tool and a CDSS, and 5 studies with other decision support components. SDM elements were mostly identified in SDM-tools and interactions styles were least common in the other decision support components.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients within the included RCTs mainly received information from SDM-tools and occasionally CDSSs when it concerns treatment strategies. HCPs provide and clarify information using SDM-tools and CDSSs. Technology provides interactions, which can support more active SDM. SDM-tools mostly showed evidence for positive effects on SDM outcomes, while CDSSs mostly demonstrated positive effects on clinical outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Technology-supported SDM has potential to optimize SDM when patients, HCPs and technology collaborate well together.

The Impact of a Digital Contraceptive Decision Aid on User Outcomes: Results of an Experimental, Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Nearly 40% of unplanned pregnancies in the USA are the result of inconsistent or incorrect contraceptive use. Finding ways to increase women's comfort and satisfaction with contraceptive use is therefore critical to public health. One promising pathway for improving patient outcomes is through the use of digital decision aids that assist women and their physicians in choosing a contraceptive option that women are comfortable with. Testing the ability of these aids to improve patient outcomes is therefore a necessary first step toward incorporating this technology into traditional physician appointments.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a novel contraceptive decision aid at minimizing decisional conflict and increasing comfort with contraception among adult women.

METHODS

In total, 310 adult women were assigned to use either the Tuune contraceptive decision aid or a control aid modeled after a leading online contraceptive prescriber's patient intake form. Participants then completed self-report measures of decisional conflict, contraceptive expectations, satisfaction, and contraceptive use intentions. Individual between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) models were used to examine these outcomes.

RESULTS

Women using the Tuune decision aid (vs. those using the control aid) reported lower decisional conflict, more positive contraceptive expectations, greater satisfaction with the decision aid and recommendation, and more positive contraceptive use intentions.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of Tuune improved each of the predicted patient outcomes relative to a control decision aid. Online decision aids, particularly when used alongside physician consultations, may be an effective tool for increasing comfort with contraceptive use.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION #

NCT05177783, ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05177783.

A systematic review of shared decision making training programs for general practitioners

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) has been presented as the preferred approach for decisions where there is more than one acceptable option and has been identified a priority feature of high-quality patient-centered care. Considering the foundation of trust between general practitioners (GPs) and patients and the variety of diseases in primary care, the primary care context can be viewed as roots of SDM. GPs are requesting training programs to improve their SDM skills leading to a more patient-centered care approach. Because of the high number of training programs available, it is important to overview these training interventions specifically for primary care and to explore how these training programs are evaluated.

METHODS

This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. Eight different databases were used in December 2022 and updated in September 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using ICROMS. Training effectiveness was analyzed using the Kirkpatrick evaluation model and categorized according to training format (online, live or blended learning).

RESULTS

We identified 29 different SDM training programs for GPs. SDM training has a moderate impact on patient (SMD 0.53 95% CI 0.15-0.90) and observer reported SDM skills (SMD 0.59 95%CI 0.21-0.97). For blended training programs, we found a high impact for quality of life (SMD 1.20 95% CI -0.38-2.78) and patient reported SDM skills (SMD 2.89 95%CI -0.55-6.32).

CONCLUSION

SDM training improves patient and observer reported SDM skills in GPs. Blended learning as learning format for SDM appears to show better effects on learning outcomes than online or live learning formats. This suggests that teaching facilities designing SDM training may want to prioritize blended learning formats. More homogeneity in SDM measurement scales and evaluation approaches and direct comparisons of different types of educational formats are needed to develop the most appropriate and effective SDM training format.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: A systematic review of shared-decision making training programs in a primary care setting. PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023393385 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023393385 .

Impact of timing and format of patient decision aids for breast cancer patients on their involvement in and preparedness for decision making - the IMPACTT randomised controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

After curative surgery for early-stage breast cancer, patients face a decision on whether to undergo surgery alone or to receive one or more adjuvant treatments, which may lower the risk of recurrence. Variations in survival outcomes are often marginal but there are differences in the side effects and other features of the options that patients may value differently. Hence, the patient's values and preferences are critical in determining what option to choose. It is well-researched that the use of shared decision making and patient decision aids can support this choice in a discussion between patient and clinician. However, it is still to be investigated what impact the timing and format of the patient decision aid have on shared decision making outcomes. In this trial, we aim to investigate the impact of a digital pre-consult compared to a paper-based in-consult patient decision aid on patients' involvement in shared decision making, decisional conflict and preparedness to make a decision.

METHODS

The study is a randomised controlled trial with 204 patients at two Danish oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients are newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and offered adjuvant treatments after curative surgery to lower the risk of recurrence. Participants will be randomised to receive either an in-consult paper-based patient decision aid or a pre-consult digital patient decision aid. Data collection includes patient and clinician-reported outcomes as well as observer-reported shared decision making based on audio recordings of the consultation. The primary outcome is the extent to which patients are engaged in a shared decision making process reported by the patient. Secondary aims include the length of consultation, preparation for decision making, preferred role in shared decision making and decisional conflict.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first known randomised, controlled trial comparing a digital, pre-consult patient decision aid to an identical paper-based, in-consult patient decision aid. It will contribute evidence on the impact of patient decision aids in terms of investigating if pre-consult digital patient decisions aids compared to in-consult paper-based decision aids support the cancer patients in being better prepared for decision making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05573022).

Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

The effect of shared decision-making (SDM) and the extent of its use in interventions to improve cardiovascular risk remain unclear.

Objective

To assess the extent to which SDM is used in interventions aimed to enhance the management of cardiovascular risk factors and to explore the association of SDM with decisional outcomes, cardiovascular risk factors, and health behaviors.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, a literature search was conducted in the Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for articles published from inception to June 24, 2022, without language restrictions.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SDM-based interventions with standard of care for cardiovascular risk factor management were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The systematic search resulted in 9365 references. Duplicates were removed, and 2 independent reviewers screened the trials (title, abstract, and full text) and extracted data. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Decisional outcomes, cardiovascular risk factor outcomes, and health behavioral outcomes.

Results

This review included 57 RCTs with 88 578 patients and 1341 clinicians. A total of 59 articles were included, as 2 RCTs were reported twice. Nearly half of the studies (29 [49.2%]) tested interventions that targeted both patients and clinicians, and an equal number (29 [49.2%]) exclusively focused on patients. More than half (32 [54.2%]) focused on diabetes management, and one-quarter focused on multiple cardiovascular risk factors (14 [23.7%]). Most studies (35 [59.3%]) assessed cardiovascular risk factors and health behaviors as well as decisional outcomes. The quality of studies reviewed was low to fair. The SDM intervention was associated with a decrease of 4.21 points (95% CI, -8.21 to -0.21) in Decisional Conflict Scale scores (9 trials; I2 = 85.6%) and a decrease of 0.20% (95% CI, -0.39% to -0.01%) in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (18 trials; I2 = 84.2%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of the current state of research on SDM interventions for cardiovascular risk management, there was a slight reduction in decisional conflict and an improvement in HbA1c levels with substantial heterogeneity. High-quality studies are needed to inform the use of SDM to improve cardiovascular risk management.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Assessing an Online Patient Decision Aid about Upper Extremity Reconstructive Surgery for Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: Pilot Testing Knowledge, Decisional Conflict, and Acceptability

Background. While nerve and tendon transfer surgery can restore upper extremity function and independence after midcervical spinal cord injury, few individuals (∼14%) undergo surgery. There is limited information regarding these complex and time-sensitive treatment options. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) convey complex health information and help individuals make informed, preference-consistent choices. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a newly created PtDA for people with spinal cord injury who are considering options to optimize upper extremity function. Methods. The PtDA was developed by our multidisciplinary group based on clinical evidence and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. A prospective pilot study enrolled adults with midcervical spinal cord injury to evaluate the PtDA. Participants completed surveys about knowledge and decisional conflict before and after viewing the PtDA. Acceptability measures and suggestions for further improvement were also solicited. Results. Forty-two individuals were enrolled and completed study procedures. Participants had a 20% increase in knowledge after using the PtDA (P < 0.001). The number of participants experiencing decisional conflict decreased after viewing the PtDA (33 v. 18, P = 0.001). Acceptability was high. To improve the PtDA, participants suggested adding details about specific surgeries and outcomes. Limitations. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we used an entirely virtual study methodology and recruited participants from national networks and organizations. Most participants were older than the general population with a new spinal cord injury and may have different injury causes than typical surgical candidates. Conclusions. A de novo PtDA improved knowledge of treatment options and reduced decisional conflict about reconstructive surgery among people with cervical spinal cord injury. Future work should explore PtDA use for improving knowledge and decisional conflict in the nonresearch, clinical setting.

Highlights

People with cervical spinal cord injury prioritize gaining upper extremity function after injury, but few individuals receive information about treatment options.A newly created patient decision aid (PtDA) provides information about recovery after spinal cord injury and the role of traditional tendon and newer nerve transfer surgery to improve upper extremity upper extremity function.The PtDA improved knowledge and decreased decisional conflict in this pilot study.Future work should focus on studying dissemination and implementation of the ptDA into clinical practice.

HbA1c as a shared treatment goal in type 2 diabetes? A secondary analysis of the DEBATE trial

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major health problem in the western world. Despite a widespread implementation of integrated care programs there are still patients with poorly controlled T2DM. Shared goal setting within the process of Shared Decision Making (SDM) may increase patient's compliance and adherence to treatment regimen. In our secondary analysis of the cluster-randomized controlled DEBATE trial, we investigated if patients with shared vs. non-shared HbA1c treatment goal, achieve their glycemic goals.

METHODS

In a German primary care setting, we collected data before intervention at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. Patients with T2DM with an HbA1c ≥ 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) at the time of recruitment and complete data at baseline and after 24 months were eligible for the presented analyses. Using a generalized estimating equation analysis, we analysed the association between the achievement of HbA1c goals at 24 months based on their shared vs. non-shared status, age, sex, education, partner status, controlled for baseline HbA1c and insulin therapy.

RESULTS

From N = 833 recruited patients at baseline, n = 547 (65.7%) from 105 General Practitioners (GPs) were analysed. 53.4% patients were male, 33.1% without a partner, 64.4% had a low educational level, mean age was 64.6 (SD 10.6), 60.7% took insulin at baseline, mean baseline HbA1c was 9.1 (SD 1.0). For 287 patients (52.5%), the GPs reported to use HbA1c as a shared goal, for 260 patients (47.5%) as a non-shared goal. 235 patients (43.0%) reached the HbA1c goal after two years, 312 patients (57.0%) missed it. Multivariable analysis shows that shared vs. non-shared HbA1c goal setting, age, sex, and education are not associated with the achievement of the HbA1c goal. However, patients living without a partner show a higher risk of missing the goal (p = .003; OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.25-2.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Shared goal setting with T2DM patients targeting on HbA1c-levels had no significant impact on goal achievement. It may be assumed, that shared goal setting on patient-related clinical outcomes within the process of SDM has not been fully captured yet.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at ISRCTN registry under the reference ISRCTN70713571.

Randomized Control Trial of the Impact of Patient Decision Aid Developed for Chinese Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Patients

INTRODUCTION

Patient decision aid (PDA) is a tool to prompt shared decision-making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a PDA on Chinese primary open-angle glaucoma patients.

METHODS

All subjects were randomized into control and PDA group. The questionnaires, including 1) glaucoma knowledge; 2) 8-item Morisky medication adherence scale (MMAS-8); 3) 10-item glaucoma medication adherence self-efficacy scale (GMASES-10); and 4) 16-item decision conflict scale (DCS), were evaluated at baseline, 3- and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Totally, 156 subjects participated in this study, including 77 in the control group and 79 in the PDA group. Compared to the control group, PDA group showed around 1 point more improvement in disease knowledge at both 3 and 6 months (both p < 0.05), 2.5 (95% CI: [1.0, 4.1]) and 1.9 (95% CI: [0.2, 3.7]) points more improvement in GMASES-10 at 3 and 6 months, respectively, and reduction in DCS by 8.8 (95% CI: [4.6, 12.9]) points more at 3 months and 13.5 (95% CI: [8.9, 18.0]) points more at 6 months. No difference was detected in MMAS-8.

CONCLUSION

PDA led to improvement in disease knowledge and self-confidence in medication adherence and reduced decision conflict compared to control group for at least 6 months.

A Decision Aid for Postpartum Adolescent Family Planning: A Quasi-Experimental Study in Tanzania

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the effects of our postpartum Green Star family planning decision aid on the decisional conflict, knowledge, satisfaction, and uptake of long-acting reversible contraception among pregnant adolescents in Tanzania.

METHODS

We used a facility-based pre-post quasi-experimental design. The intervention arm received routine family planning counseling and the decision aid. The control received only routine family planning counseling. The primary outcome was the change in decisional conflict measured using the validated decision conflict scale (DCS). The secondary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, and contraception uptake.

RESULTS

We recruited 66 pregnant adolescents, and 62 completed this study. The intervention group had a lower mean score difference in the DCS than in the control (intervention: -24.7 vs. control: -11.6, p < 0.001). The mean score difference in knowledge was significantly higher in the intervention than in the control (intervention: 4.53 vs. control: 2.0, p < 0.001). The mean score of satisfaction was significantly higher in the intervention than in the control (intervention: 100 vs. control: 55.8, p < 0.001). Contraceptive uptake was significantly higher in the intervention [29 (45.3%)] than in the control [13 (20.3%)] (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The decision aid demonstrated positive applicability and affordability for pregnant adolescents in Tanzania.

Effects of mobile health interventions on health-related outcomes in older adults with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic condition that is associated with multiple comorbidities. Apart from pharmacological approaches, patient self-management remains the gold standard of care for diabetes. Improving patients' self-management among the elderly with mobile health (mHealth) interventions is critical, especially in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the extent of mHealth efficacy in managing T2DM in the older population remains unknown. Hence, the present review examined the effectiveness of mHealth interventions on cardiometabolic outcomes in older adults with T2DM.

METHODS

A systematic search from the inception till May 31, 2021, in the MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases was conducted, and 16 randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The results showed significant benefits on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (mean difference -0.24%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.44, -0.05; p = 0.01), postprandial blood glucose (-2.91 mmol/L; 95% CI: -4.78, -1.03; p = 0.002), and triglycerides (-0.09 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.17, -0.02; p = 0.010), but not on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.06 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.14, 0.02; p = 0.170), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (0.05 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.13; p = 0.220), and blood pressure (systolic blood pressure -0.82 mm Hg; 95% CI: -4.65, 3.00; p = 0.670; diastolic blood pressure -1.71 mmHg; 95% CI: -3.71, 0.29; p = 0.090).

CONCLUSIONS

Among older adults with T2DM, mHealth interventions were associated with improved cardiometabolic outcomes versus usual care. Its efficacy can be improved in the future as the current stage of mHealth development is at its infancy. Addressing barriers such as technological frustrations may help strategize approaches to further increase the uptake and efficacy of mHealth interventions among older adults with T2DM.

Effectiveness of Shared Decision-making Training Programs for Health Care Professionals Using Reflexivity Strategies: Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) leads to better health care processes through collaboration between health care professionals and patients. Training is recognized as a promising intervention to foster SDM by health care professionals. However, the most effective training type is still unclear. Reflexivity is an exercise that leads health care professionals to question their own values to better consider patient values and support patients while least influencing their decisions. Training that uses reflexivity strategies could motivate them to engage in SDM and be more open to diversity.

OBJECTIVE

In this secondary analysis of a 2018 Cochrane review of interventions for improving SDM by health care professionals, we aimed to identify SDM training programs that included reflexivity strategies and were assessed as effective. In addition, we aimed to explore whether further factors can be associated with or enhance their effectiveness.

METHODS

From the Cochrane review, we first extracted training programs targeting health care professionals. Second, we developed a grid to help identify training programs that used reflexivity strategies. Third, those identified were further categorized according to the type of strategy used. At each step, we identified the proportion of programs that were classified as effective by the Cochrane review (2018) so that we could compare their effectiveness. In addition, we wanted to see whether effectiveness was similar between programs using peer-to-peer group learning and those with an interprofessional orientation. Finally, the Cochrane review selected programs that were evaluated using patient-reported or observer-reported outcome measurements. We examined which of these measurements was most often used in effective training programs.

RESULTS

Of the 31 training programs extracted, 24 (77%) were interactive, among which 10 (42%) were considered effective. Of these 31 programs, 7 (23%) were unidirectional, among which 1 (14%) was considered effective. Of the 24 interactive programs, 7 (29%) included reflexivity strategies. Of the 7 training programs with reflexivity strategies, 5 (71%) used a peer-to-peer group learning strategy, among which 3 (60%) were effective; the other 2 (29%) used a self-appraisal individual learning strategy, neither of which was effective. Of the 31 training programs extracted, 5 (16%) programs had an interprofessional orientation, among which 3 (60%) were effective; the remaining 26 (84%) of the 31 programs were without interprofessional orientation, among which 8 (31%) were effective. Finally, 12 (39%) of 31 programs used observer-based measurements, among which more than half (7/12, 58%) were effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM training programs that include reflexivity strategies. Its conclusions open avenues for enriching future SDM training programs with reflexivity strategies. The grid developed to identify training programs that used reflexivity strategies, when further tested and validated, can guide future assessments of reflexivity components in SDM training.

Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Interventions to change health professionals’ behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

Methods

We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under “what materials?” we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses.

Results

Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: “brief name” (87/87, 100%), “why” (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and “what” (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were “materials” (29/87, 33%), “who” (23/87, 26%), and “when and how much” (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: “tailoring” (8/87, 9%), “modifications” (3/87, 4%), and “how well (actual)” (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported “How”, (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%.

Conclusions

Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.

Value of Patient-Centered Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Present the value of a person-centered approach in diabetes management and review current evidence supporting its practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early evidence from glycemic control trials in diabetes resulted in most practice guidelines adopting a glucose-centric intensive approach for management of the disease, consistently relying on HbA1c as a marker of metabolic control and success. This paradigm has been recently dispelled by new evidence that shows that intensive glycemic control does not provide a significant benefit regarding patient-important microvascular and macrovascular hard outcomes when compared to moderate glycemic targets. The goals of diabetes therapy are to reduce the risks of acute and chronic complications and increase quality of life while incurring least burden of treatment and disruption to the patient's life. A person-centered approach to diabetes management is achieved through shared decision making, integration of evidence-based care and patient´s needs, values and preferences, and minimally disruptive approaches to diabetes care and at the same time offer practical guidance to clinicians and patients on achieving this type of care.

Integrating behaviour change interventions and patient decision aids: How to accomplish synergistic effects?

People make numerous health-related choices each day: For example, deciding to brush one's teeth or to eat well and healthy - or not to do these activities. To support complex decisions and subsequent behaviour change, both Behaviour Change Interventions (BCIs) and Patient Decision Aids (PtDAs) have been developed and evolved independently to support people in health-related decision making. In this paper, we critically review BCIs and PtDAs, examine their similarities and differences, and identify potential for integration of expertise to increase the benefits for people engaging with healthcare and health behaviours. The two approaches appear to mainly differ in terms of their (1) goals and foci, (2) theoretical basis, (3) development frameworks, (4) active ingredients and (5) effect evaluation. To facilitate the integration of scientific insights from these two fields, we recommend to (1) bring both fields together and promote interprofessional discussions, (2) train (health) professionals to recognise strengths of both approaches, (3) investigate the synergy of the two fields, (4) be prepared for and try to mitigate a culture shock when the fields start to interact. Knowledge generated by researching PtDAs could be used to facilitate decisional processes that enable patients to choose goals that are in line with their values and preferences, while insights from researching BCIs could be used to facilitate engagement with, and implementation of those goals. This integration could allow researchers and intervention providers to increase the benefits for people engaging with healthcare and health behaviours.

Practices and pitfalls in medication adherence in hemodialysis settings - a focus-group study of health care professionals

BACKGROUND

Medication nonadherence is common among patients with hemodialysis, leading to poorer patient outcomes. Health care professionals have an important role in assessing risk of nonadherence and intervening to support adherence. The aim of this study was to explore physicians' and nurses' current medication adherence practices in hemodialysis settings.

METHOD

A generic qualitative design with inductive content analysis and focus group methodology. Focus groups with health care professionals were conducted in four Nephrology Centers, representing three different regions of Denmark. An interview guide was developed in collaboration with 3 patient representatives.

RESULTS

Six focus group interviews involving a total of forty-two health care professionals were conducted. Five main categories were identified; Laboratory tests are the "gold standard" for assessing adherence, suggesting that abnormal results motivated investigation of adherence, Varying practices for supporting adherence, alluding to the impact of individual clinician priority and preference on choice of adherence interventions, Unclear allocation of roles and responsibility, specifically referring to uncertainty in the delegation of roles between physicians and nurses, Navigating time and resource limitations, intimating the resources needed to support medication adherence and Suggestions for future strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest implementing systematic use of validated patient-reported outcome measures for assessing adherence and deprescribing tools to support adherence, as these instruments might identify the patients who are in most need of support and promote patient adherence to their prescribed medications. The findings also point to a need for interdisciplinary clarification of roles and responsibilities regarding medication adherence, with the aim of building a strong collaborative partnership between professions.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Decision Aids for Upper-Extremity Conditions

PURPOSE

Decision aids (DAs) are tools designed to correct misconceptions, help people weigh the pros and cons of each option, and choose an option consistent with their values. This randomized controlled trial tested the difference in decision regret between patients who reviewed a DA at the end of the visit and those who did not. Secondary study questions addressed differences in pain self-efficacy, pain intensity, satisfaction, physical function, and treatment choice.

METHODS

We enrolled 147 patients who visited an orthopedic upper-extremity surgeon for a condition that could be treated surgically or nonsurgically. We randomized 76 of these patients to review a DA as part of the visit (52%). At baseline, we measured results using the Pain Self-Efficacy short form, PROMIS Physical Function computer adaptive test, pain intensity on an 11-point ordinal scale, and satisfaction with the visit on an 11-point ordinal scale, as well as whether patients understood all received information and felt adequately educated to decide (no/yes), and choice of surgery, injection, or another treatment. Four to six weeks later, the survey by phone consisted of the PROMIS Physical Function computer adaptive test, pain intensity, satisfaction with the visit, the sense of a well-informed decision, and the Decision Regret Scale. We assessed factors independently associated with each measure.

RESULTS

People who reviewed a DA had significantly less decision regret 4 to 6 weeks after the visit compared with those who did not. High pain self-efficacy was associated with lower likelihood to choose surgery during the initial visit, better physical function rates, and lower reported pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids reduce decision regret, which suggests that they help people organize their thoughts and make decisions more consistent with their values.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Hand surgeons can consider the use of DAs as a method for improving the quality of shared decisions.

20th Anniversary Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 3 Overview of Systematic Reviews and Updated Framework

Introduction. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has guided practitioners and patients facing difficult decisions for 20 years. It asserts that decision support interventions that address patients' decisional needs improve decision quality. Purpose. To update the ODSF based on a synthesis of evidence. Methods. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews, searching 9 electronic databases. Eligible reviews included decisional needs assessments, decision support interventions, and decisional outcome measures guided by the ODSF. We extracted data and synthesized results narratively. Eight ODSF developers/expert users from 4 disciplines revised the ODSF. Results. Of 4656 citations, we identified 4 eligible reviews (>250 studies, >100 different decisions, >50,000 patients, 18 countries, 5 continents). They reported current ODSF decisional needs and their most frequent manifestations in the areas of inadequate knowledge/information, unclear values, decisional conflict/uncertainty, and inadequate support. They uncovered 11 new manifestations of 6 decisional needs. Using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) to assess decisional needs, average scores were elevated at baseline and declined shortly after decision making, even without information interventions. Patient decision aids were superior to usual care in reducing total DCS scores and improving decision quality. We revised the ODSF by refining definitions of 6 decisional needs and adding new interventions to address 4 needs. We added a decision process outcome and eliminated secondary outcomes unlikely to improve across a range of decisions, retaining the implementation/continuance of the chosen option and appropriate use/costs of health services. Conclusions. We updated the ODSF to reflect the current evidence and identified implications for practice and further research.

Effects of patient decision aids in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids on knowledge, decisional conflict and decisional self-efficacy outcomes in patients with diabetes.

METHODS

A comprehensive database search was performed using the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBASCO), CNKI, VIP, Wan Fang Database and the Ottawa Decision Aid Library Inventory (http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/index.html) from inception to 13 October 2019. Two reviewers independently searched databases, screened articles, extracted data and evaluated the risk bias of included studies. Then Rev Man 5.3 software was adopted for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Ten articles containing 1,452 people with diabetes were selected. The results of meta-analysis showed that patient decision aids had a positive effect on reducing decisional conflict and improving decisional self-efficacy among patients with type 2 diabetes. Meanwhile, this article also revealed that patient decision aids have beneficial short-term effects on improving knowledge, but there was no significant long-term effect.

CONCLUSION

Patient decision aids are capable of becoming support tools to improve shared decision making. Further implementation studies are required to transform patient decision aids tools into clinical practice.

Patient decision aids in clinical practice for people with diabetes: a scoping review

Background

People with diabetes need to make regular choices that influence their long-term morbidity and mortality. Patient decision aids are validated tools and when used collaboratively between healthcare professionals, patients and carers, can help guide value-based discussions which encourage choices that are well informed and personally relevant.

Objective

To explore the use and effect of patient decision aids in the management of diabetes.

Method

A scoping review design was used. Medline, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between January 1998 and December 2018.

Results

Patient decision aids are not commonly or widely used in diabetes management. They offer a suitable adjunct to practice within the domains of healthcare knowledge, active participation, and communication, and shared decision-making between patients and healthcare professionals.

Conclusion

Patient decision aids can offer a simple and easy-to-use method to potentially improve diabetes health literacy, through the process of shared decision-making and two-way conversations. However, there are current limitations on using them to positively influence clinical outcomes or long-term changes in self-care behaviors within the management of diabetes. Further research to explore the validity of using patient decision aids long term in these areas is required.

Sex and gender considerations in implementation interventions to promote shared decision making: A secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) in healthcare is an approach in which health professionals support patients in making decisions based on best evidence and their values and preferences. Considering sex and gender in SDM research is necessary to produce precisely-targeted interventions, improve evidence quality and redress health inequities. A first step is correct use of terms. We therefore assessed sex and gender terminology in SDM intervention studies.

Materials and methods

We performed a secondary analysis of a Cochrane review of SDM interventions. We extracted study characteristics and their use of sex, gender or related terms (mention; number of categories). We assessed correct use of sex and gender terms using three criteria: “non-binary use”, “use of appropriate categories” and “non-interchangeable use of sex and gender”. We computed the proportion of studies that met all, any or no criteria, and explored associations between criteria met and study characteristics.

Results

Of 87 included studies, 58 (66.7%) mentioned sex and/or gender. The most mentioned related terms were “female” (60.9%) and “male” (59.8%). Of the 58 studies, authors used sex and gender as binary variables respectively in 36 (62%) and in 34 (58.6%) studies. No study met the criterion “non-binary use”. Authors used appropriate categories to describe sex and gender respectively in 28 (48.3%) and in 8 (13.8%) studies. Of the 83 (95.4%) studies in which sex and/or gender, and/or related terms were mentioned, authors used sex and gender non-interchangeably in 16 (19.3%). No study met all three criteria. Criteria met did not vary according to study characteristics (p>.05).

Conclusions

In SDM implementation studies, sex and gender terms and concepts are in a state of confusion. Our results suggest the urgency of adopting a standardized use of sex and gender terms and concepts before these considerations can be properly integrated into implementation research.

20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 2 Subanalysis of a Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids

Background. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has guided the development of patient decision aids (PtDAs) for 20 years and needs updating across a range of decisions and hypothesized outcomes. Purpose. To determine the effectiveness of ODSF-developed PtDAs on hypothesized outcomes and to recommend framework changes. Data Source. A subanalysis of randomized controlled trials included in the 2017 Cochrane review of PtDAs comparing PtDAs to usual care in adults considering health treatment or screening decisions (searched to 2015). Study Selection. Trials in the original review that evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Data Synthesis. Meta-analyses of ODSF outcomes with similar measurements and descriptions of other reported outcomes. Results. Of 105 trials, 24 evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Compared with usual care, ODSF PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference [MD] 13.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.32−17.37; 14 trials), increased accurate risk perceptions (risk ratio [RR] 2.41; 95% CI 1.66−3.48; 7 trials), and increased congruence between informed values and chosen options (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09−1.59; 4 trials). They reduced perceived decisional needs as measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale (MD −5.92; 95% CI −8.58 to −3.26; 15 trials) and the proportion of undecided patients (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.50−0.83; 13 trials). Non-ODSF PtDAs, designed with or without a specific framework, also outperformed usual care. Few ODSF trials measured secondary outcomes. Limitations. The included trials had heterogeneity. Conclusion. ODSF PtDAs address decisional needs and improve decision quality; the best indicator of addressing perceived uncertainty is “proportion undecided.” Secondary ODSF outcomes should be reduced to adherence to one’s chosen option and use/costs of health services, which warrant further research.

Psychosocial aspects and contributions of behavioural science to medication-taking for adults with type 2 diabetes

The aim of this narrative review was to determine the contribution of behavioural and psychosocial research to the field of medication-taking for adults with type 2 diabetes over the past 25 years. We review the behavioural and psychosocial literature relevant to adults with type 2 diabetes who are treated with oral antidiabetes agents, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and insulin. Delayed uptake of, omission of and non-persistence with medications are significant problems among adults with type 2 diabetes. At each stage of the course of diabetes, during which medication to lower blood glucose is initiated or intensified, ~50% of people take less medication than prescribed. Research aimed at increasing optimal medication-taking behaviour has targeted 'forgetfulness', developing interventions which aid medication-taking, such as reminder devices, with limited success. In parallel, investigation of beliefs about medication has provided insights into the perceived necessity of and concerns about medication and how these inform medication-taking decisions. Guidance is available for health professionals to facilitate shared decision-making, particularly with insulin therapy; however, interventions addressing medication beliefs are limited. Optimal medication-taking behaviour is essential to prevent hyperglycaemia in adults with type 2 diabetes. Evidence from the past 25 years has demonstrated the association between medication beliefs and medication-taking behaviour. Health professionals need to address medication concerns, and establish and demonstrate the utility of diabetes medication with the individual within the clinical consultation. There are interventions that may assist diabetes health professionals in the shared decision-making process, but further development and more robust evaluation of these tools and techniques is required.

Supporting care for suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus in general practice with a clinical decision support system: a mixed methods pilot cluster randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

We developed a complex intervention called DECIDE (ComputeriseD dECisIonal support for suboptimally controlleD typE 2 Diabetes mellitus in Irish General Practice) which used a clinical decision support system to address clinical inertia and support general practitioner (GP) intensification of treatment for adults with suboptimally controlled type2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The current study explored the feasibility and potential impact of DECIDE.

DESIGN

A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Conducted in 14 practices in Irish General Practice.

PARTICIPANTS

The DECIDE intervention was targeted at GPs. They applied DECIDE to patients with suboptimally controlled T2DM, defined as a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥70 mmol/mol and/or blood pressure ≥150/95 mmHg.

INTERVENTION

The intervention incorporated training and a web-based clinical decision support system which supported; (i) medication intensification actions; and (ii) non-pharmacological actions to support care. Control practices delivered usual care.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Feasibility and acceptability was determined using thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPs, combined with data from the DECIDE website. Clinical outcomes included HbA1c, medication intensification, blood pressure and lipids.

RESULTS

We recruited 14 practices and 134 patients. At 4-month follow-up, all practices and 114 patients were followed up. GPs reported finding decision support helpful navigating increasingly complex medication algorithms. However, the majority of GPs believed that the target patient group had poor engagement with GP and hospital services for a range of reasons. At follow-up, there was no difference in glycaemic control (-3.6 mmol/mol (95% CI -11.2 to 4.0)) between intervention and control groups or in secondary outcomes including, blood pressure, total cholesterol, medication intensification or utilisation of services. Continuation criteria supported proceeding to a definitive randomised trial with some modifications.

CONCLUSION

The DECIDE study was feasible and acceptable to GPs but wider impacts on glycaemic and blood pressure control need to be considered for this patient population going forward.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN69498919.

The effect of computerized decision support systems on cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) is notoriously difficult because of multi-morbidity and the different phenotypes and severities of cardiovascular disease. Computerized decision support systems (CDSS) enable the clinician to integrate the latest scientific evidence and patient information into tailored strategies. The effect on cardiovascular risk factor management is yet to be confirmed.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effects of CDSS on CVRM, defined as the change in absolute values and attainment of treatment goals of systolic blood pressure (SBP), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and HbA1c. Also, CDSS characteristics related to more effective CVRM were identified. Eligible articles were methodologically appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated mean differences, relative risks, and if appropriate (I² < 70%), pooled the results using a random-effects model.

Results

Of the 14,335 studies identified, 22 were included. Four studies reported on SBP, 3 on LDL-c, 10 on CVRM in patients with type II diabetes and 5 on guideline adherence. The CDSSs varied considerably in technical performance and content. Heterogeneity of results was such that quantitative pooling was often not appropriate. Among CVRM patients, the results tended towards a beneficial effect of CDSS, but only LDL-c target attainment in diabetes patients reached statistical significance. Prompting, integration into the electronical health record, patient empowerment, and medication support were related to more effective CVRM.

Conclusion

We did not find a clear clinical benefit from CDSS in cardiovascular risk factor levels and target attainment. Some features of CDSS seem more promising than others. However, the variability in CDSS characteristics and heterogeneity of the results – emphasizing the immaturity of this research area - limit stronger conclusions. Clinical relevance of CDSS in CVRM might additionally be sought in the improvement of shared decision making and patient empowerment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-019-0824-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision making in chronic illnesses: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered approach in which clinicians and patients work together to find and choose the best course of action for each patient's particular situation. Six SDM key elements can be identified: situation diagnosis, choice awareness, option clarification, discussion of harms and benefits, deliberation of patient preferences, and making the decision. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) require that a decision aid (DA) support these key elements. Yet, the extent to which DAs support these six key SDM elements and how this relates to their impact remain unknown.

METHODS

We searched bibliographic databases (from inception until November 2017), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, and experts for randomized controlled trials of DAs in patients with cardiovascular, or chronic respiratory conditions or diabetes. Reviewers worked in duplicate and independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial, and DA characteristics, and evaluated the quality of each trial.

RESULTS

DAs most commonly clarified options (20 of 20; 100%) and discussed their harms and benefits (18 of 20; 90%; unclear in two DAs); all six elements were clearly supported in 4 DAs (20%). We found no association between the presence of these elements and SDM outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

DAs for selected chronic conditions are mostly designed to transfer information about options and their harms and benefits. The extent to which their support of SDM key elements relates to their impact on SDM outcomes could not be ascertained.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016050320 .

Decision aids for people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus: an effectiveness rapid review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To perform a rapid review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating patient decision aids (PtDAs) for people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We searched Medline and the Cochrane Library for RCTs assessing PtDAs in people with Type 2 diabetes. PtDAs were defined as tools designed to help people engage in decision-making about healthcare options, such as making treatment choices or setting therapeutic goals. The study selection process was facilitated by an automated screening tool to identify RCTs. We classified outcomes into seven domains and conducted meta-analyses using random effects models.

RESULTS

We included a total of 15 studies, nine of which were cluster RCTs, that evaluated 10 PtDAs. Thirteen trials compared a PtDA with usual care or usual care plus educational material, whereas two RCTs compared individually tailored vs. non-tailored PtDAs. Meta-analyses showed a favourable effect of PtDAs compared with usual care in reducing decisional conflict [weighted mean difference (WMD) -4.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.93 to -1.39] and in improving knowledge (WMD 20.46, 95% CI 9.13 to 3.77). Use of PtDAs resulted in more active involvement in decision-making during the consultation, although no effect was evident in terms of glycaemic control or self-reported medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

PtDAs for people with Type 2 diabetes can improve the quality of decision-making and increase knowledge transfer. Interpretation of our findings is attenuated due to limitations related to the rapid review approach, including searching only two databases and performing data extraction and risk of bias assessment by a single reviewer.

Development of a Patient Decision Aid on the Choice of Diabetes Medication for Filipino Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To develop a locally adapted patient decision aid (PtDA) on treatment intensification among Filipino patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and to test the feasibility of using PtDAs in a low middle-income country.

METHODOLOGY

A qualitative approach and an iterative process of development of a PtDA were employed for this study. We describe the process of developing a Filipino version of the Diabetes Medication Decision Aid. This PtDA was designed to help the patient choose the appropriate treatment intensification based on his own values and preferences, in consultation with his physician. The process involved decisional needs assessment through focus group discussions and key informant interviews, systematic literature review, iterative process of the development of a PtDA with clinical encounters (pilot testing), and preliminary field testing.

RESULTS

Decisional needs assessment revealed that Filipino patients are open to participate in shared decision-making if given the opportunity, including those with low socioeconomic status who likely have low health literacy. Physicians prefer to have visual aid tools to help them support their patient's decision-making. A PtDA prototype of a set of flash cards in Filipino was created and revised in an iterative method. We developed a more visually appealing tool after inputs from the expert panel and patient advisory group. Its use during clinical encounters provided additional insights from patients and clinicians on how to improve the PtDA. Preliminary field testing showed that its use is feasible in the target patient population.

CONCLUSION

Filipino patients, clinicians, and diabetes nurse educators have contributed to the creation of the first Filipino PtDA for diabetes treatment intensification.

A Review of Decision Aids for Patients Considering More Than One Type of Invasive Treatment

With continuous advances in medicine, patients are faced with several medical or surgical treatment options for their health conditions. Decision aids may be useful in helping patients navigate these options and choose based on their goals and values. We reviewed the literature to identify decision aids and better understand the effect on patient decision-making. We identified 107 decision aids designed to help patients make decisions between medical treatment or screening options; 39 decision aids were used to help patients choose between a medical and surgical treatment, and five were identified that aided patients in deciding between a major open surgical procedure and a less invasive option. Many of the decision aids were used to help patients decide between prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer screening or treatment options. Although most decision aids were not associated with a significant effect on the actual decision made, they were largely associated with increased patient knowledge, decreased decisional conflict, more accurate perception of risks, increased satisfaction with their decision, and no increase in anxiety surrounding their decision. These data identify a gap in use of decision aids in surgical decision-making and highlight the potential to help surgical patients make value-based, knowledgeable decisions regarding their treatment.

Informed shared decision-making programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To translate an informed shared decision-making programme (ISDM-P) for patients with type 2 diabetes from a specialised diabetes centre to the primary care setting.

DESIGN

Patient-blinded, two-arm multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial of 6 months follow-up; concealed randomisation of practices after patient recruitment and acquisition of baseline data.

SETTING

22 general practices providing care according to the German Disease Management Programme (DMP) for type 2 diabetes.

PARTICIPANTS

279 of 363 eligible patients without myocardial infarction or stroke.

INTERVENTIONS

The ISDM-P comprises a patient decision aid, a corresponding group teaching session provided by medical assistants and a structured patient-physician encounter.Control group received standard DMP care.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary endpoint was patient adherence to antihypertensive or statin drug therapy by comparing prescriptions and patient-reported uptake after 6 months. Secondary endpoints included informed choice, risk knowledge (score 0-11 from 11 questions) and prioritised treatment goals of patients and doctors.

RESULTS

ISDM-P: 11 practices with 151 patients; standard care: 11 practices with 128 patients; attrition rate: 3.9%. There was no difference between groups regarding the primary endpoint. Mean drug adherence rates were high for both groups (80% for antihypertensive and 91% for statin treatment). More ISDM-P patients made informed choices regarding statin intake, 34% vs 3%, OR 16.6 (95% CI 4.4 to 63.0), blood pressure control, 39% vs 3%, OR 22.2 (95% CI 5.3 to 93.3) and glycated haemoglobin, 43% vs 3%, OR 26.0 (95% CI 6.5 to 104.8). ISDM-P patients achieved higher levels of risk knowledge, with a mean score of 6.96 vs 2.86, difference 4.06 (95% CI 2.96 to 5.17). In the ISDM-P group, agreement on prioritised treatment goals between patients and doctors was higher, with 88.5% vs 57%.

CONCLUSIONS

The ISDM-P was successfully implemented in general practices. Adherence to medication was very high making improvements hardly detectable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN77300204; Results.

Supporting general practitioner-based care for poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (the DECIDE study): feasibility study and protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Control of T2DM can be challenging for healthcare professionals for a number of reasons, including poor concordance with medications, difficulties modifying lifestyle behaviour and also clinical inertia, which is defined as a reluctance among health professionals to intensify medications. A complex intervention, called ComputeriseD dECisIonal support for poorly controlleD typE 2 Diabetes mellitus in Irish General Practice (DECIDE), was developed, identifying T2DM patients with poor glycaemic and blood pressure control and aiming to target clinical inertia, by supporting therapeutic action, including GP-led medication intensification where appropriate. A small-scale, uncontrolled, non-randomised feasibility study highlighted the acceptability of the DECIDE intervention within Irish General Practice. This paper presents a protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the DECIDE intervention.

METHODS/DESIGN

The pilot cluster RCT will involve 14 practices and 140 patients in Irish General Practice. Intervention GPs will participate in the DECIDE intervention, comprising (a) a training programme for the practices and (b) a web-based clinical decision support system supporting treatment escalation, tailored to specific patient information. Only patients who have poorly controlled T2DM (defined as HbA1c > 70 mmol/mol and/or BP > 150/95) will be included. The primary outcomes will include measures of feasibility such as recruitment and retention of practices and acceptability of the intervention and also HbA1c. Secondary outcomes will include medication intensification, blood pressure and lipids. Control GPs will continue to provide usual care. A process evaluation will be performed to determine whether the intervention is delivered as intended and treatment fidelity assessed to monitor and enhance the reliability and validity of interventions. An exploratory health economic analysis will examine the potential costs and cost effectiveness of the intervention relative to the control.

DISCUSSION

A pilot cluster RCT will establish the feasibility of a complex intervention which aims to support primary care for patients with poorly controlled T2DM in Irish General Practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol for the pilot cluster RCT is registered on the ISRCTN Registry at: ISRCTN69498919.

Impact of decision aids used during clinical encounters on clinician outcomes and consultation length: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinicians' satisfaction with encounter decision aids is an important component in facilitating implementation of these tools. We aimed to determine the impact of decision aids supporting shared decision making (SDM) during the clinical encounter on clinician outcomes.

METHODS

We searched nine databases from inception to June 2017. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of decision aids used during clinical encounters with an unaided control group were eligible for inclusion. Due to heterogeneity among included studies, we used a narrative evidence synthesis approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-five papers met inclusion criteria including 22 RCTs and 3 qualitative or mixed-methods studies nested in an RCT, together representing 23 unique trials. These trials evaluated healthcare decisions for cardiovascular prevention and treatment (n=8), treatment of diabetes mellitus (n=3), treatment of osteoporosis (n=2), treatment of depression (n=2), antibiotics to treat acute respiratory infections (n=3), cancer prevention and treatment (n=4) and prenatal diagnosis (n=1). Clinician outcomes were measured in only a minority of studies. Clinicians' satisfaction with decision making was assessed in only 8 (and only 2 of them showed statistically significantly greater satisfaction with the decision aid); only three trials asked if clinicians would recommend the decision aid to colleagues and only five asked if clinicians would use decision aids in the future. Outpatient consultations were not prolonged when a decision aid was used in 9 out of 13 trials. The overall strength of the evidence was low, with the major risk of bias related to lack of blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors.

CONCLUSION

Decision aids can improve clinicians' satisfaction with medical decision making and provide helpful information without affecting length of consultation time. Most SDM trials, however, omit outcomes related to clinicians' perspective on the decision making process or the likelihood of using a decision aid in the future.

Managing diabetes in people with dementia: a realist review

BACKGROUND

Dementia and diabetes mellitus are common long-term conditions that coexist in a large number of older people. People living with dementia and diabetes may be at increased risk of complications such as hypoglycaemic episodes because they are less able to manage their diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the key features or mechanisms of programmes that aim to improve the management of diabetes in people with dementia and to identify areas needing further research.

DESIGN

Realist review, using an iterative, stakeholder-driven, four-stage approach. This involved scoping the literature and conducting stakeholder interviews to develop initial programme theories, systematic searches of the evidence to test and develop the theories, and the validation of programme theories with a purposive sample of stakeholders.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-six stakeholders (user/patient representatives, dementia care providers, clinicians specialising in dementia or diabetes and researchers) took part in interviews and 24 participated in a consensus conference.

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched from 1990 to March 2016: MEDLINE (PubMed), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, The Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, AgeInfo (Centre for Policy on Ageing - UK), Social Care Online, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) portfolio database, NHS Evidence, Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) and Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA).

RESULTS

We included 89 papers. Ten papers focused directly on people living with dementia and diabetes, and the rest related to people with dementia or diabetes or other long-term conditions. We identified six context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations that provide an explanatory account of how interventions might work to improve the management of diabetes in people living with dementia. This includes embedding positive attitudes towards people living with dementia, person-centred approaches to care planning, developing skills to provide tailored and flexible care, regular contact, family engagement and usability of assistive devices. A general metamechanism that emerges concerns the synergy between an intervention strategy, the dementia trajectory and social and environmental factors, especially family involvement. A flexible service model for people with dementia and diabetes would enable this synergy in a way that would lead to the improved management of diabetes in people living with dementia.

LIMITATIONS

There is little evidence relating to the management of diabetes in people living with dementia, although including a wider literature provided opportunities for transferable learning. The outcomes in our CMOs are largely experiential rather than clinical. This reflects the evidence available. Outcomes such as increased engagement in self-management are potential surrogates for better clinical management of diabetes, but this is not proven.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that there is a need to prioritise quality of life, independence and patient and carer priorities over a more biomedical, target-driven approach. Much current research, particularly that specific to people living with dementia and diabetes, identifies deficiencies in, and problems with, current systems. Although we have highlighted the need for personalised care, continuity and family-centred approaches, there is much evidence to suggest that this is not currently happening. Future research on the management of diabetes in older people with complex health needs, including those with dementia, needs to look at how organisational structures and workforce development can be better aligned to the needs of people living with dementia and diabetes.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020625.

FUNDING

The NIHR HTA programme.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Explanation and elaboration of the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines: examples of reporting SUNDAE items from patient decision aid evaluation literature

This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) article expands on the 26 items in the Standards for UNiversal reporting of Decision Aid Evaluations guidelines. The E&E provides a rationale for each item and includes examples for how each item has been reported in published papers evaluating patient decision aids. The E&E focuses on items key to reporting studies evaluating patient decision aids and is intended to be illustrative rather than restrictive. Authors and reviewers may wish to use the E&E broadly to inform structuring of patient decision aid evaluation reports, or use it as a reference to obtain details about how to report individual checklist items.

Changing Patients' Treatment Preferences and Values with a Decision Aid for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Results from the Treatment Arm of a Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Failure to intensify treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) when indicated, or clinical inertia, is a major obstacle to achieving optimal glucose control. This study investigates the impact of a values-focused patient decision aid (PDA) for T2DM antihyperglycemic agent intensification on patient values related to domains important in decision-making and preferred treatments.

METHODS

Patients with poorly controlled T2DM who were taking a metformin-containing regimen were recruited through physicians to access a PDA presenting evidence-based information on T2DM and antihyperglycemic agent class options. Participants' preferences for treatment, decision-making, and the relative importance they placed on various values related to treatment options (e.g., dosing, weight gain, side effects) were assessed before and after interacting with the PDA. Changes from baseline were calculated (post-PDA minus pre-PDA difference) and assessed in univariate generalized linear models exploring associations with patients' personal values.

RESULTS

Analyses included 114 diverse patients from 27 clinics across the US. The importance of avoiding injections, concern about hypoglycemia, and taking medications only once a day significantly decreased after interacting with the PDA [- 1.1 (p = 0.002), - 1.3 (p < 0.001), - 1.1 (p = 0.004), respectively], while the importance of taking medications that avoided weight gain increased [0.8 (p = 0.004)]. Prior to viewing the PDA, most patients (58.8%) had not begun thinking about the decision of adding a medication, and few (12.3%) indicated that they had already made a decision. Post-PDA, 46.5% could state a medication preference.

CONCLUSION

The values-focused PDA for T2DM medication intensification prepared patients to make a shared decision with their clinician and changed patients' values regarding what was important in making that decision. Helping patients understand their options and underlying values can promote shared decision-making and may reduce clinical inertia delaying treatment intensification.

FUNDING

Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC.

Development and pilot-testing of patient decision aid for use among Chinese patients with primary open-angle glaucoma

Background

A patient decision aid (PDA) is a tool for shared decision making (SDM), which emphasises patient empowerment. It is useful in chronic diseases and when there are multiple, no best single treatment option. Although SDM is prevalent in Western countries, its use is limited in Chinese societies, where the adoption of a paternalistic approach is strong. Here, we report the development, acceptance and pilot test results of a PDA targeted at Chinese patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).

Methods

We developed a PDA designed for use in Chinese patients with POAG. Recruited subjects were given our PDA. Baseline evaluation included decision conflict scale (DCS), validated glaucoma adherence questionnaires and glaucoma knowledge questionnaire. Subjects were briefed through the PDA and instructed to read it that day. Three to four weeks later, follow-up questionnaire as described above were conducted with the addition of acceptance questionnaires.

Results

Data from 65 subjects were available. The PDA was well received among subjects. DCS improved from 48.9±20.4 at baseline to 34.3±20.3 during follow-up, with P<0.01. Validated medication adherence questionnaires and knowledge showed improvement from baseline, which was statistically significant.

Conclusions

The use of PDA among Chinese subjects with POAG demonstrated positive reception and acceptance. Evaluation of its initial effects shows improvement in DCS, medication adherence and glaucoma knowledge. The implementation of SDM and PDA among Chinese subjects with POAG is encouraged. Future studies with randomised design and later evaluation time points can further reveal the impacts of PDA among Chinese subjects with POAG.

Shared decision-making and outcomes in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic disease which necessitates the development of a therapeutic alliance between patient and provider. This review systematically examines the association between treatment shared decision-making (SDM) and outcomes in diabetes.

METHODS

A range of bibliographic databases and gray literature sources was searched. Included studies were subjected to dual data extraction and quality assessment. Outcomes were synthesized using meta-analyses where reporting was sufficiently homogenous or alternatively synthesized in narrative fashion.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 4592 records, which were screened by title, abstract, and full text to identify 16 studies with a range of study designs and populations. We found evidence of an association between SDM and improved decision quality, patient knowledge and patient risk perception. We found little evidence of an association between SDM and glycemic control, patient satisfaction, quality of life, medication adherence or trust in physician.

CONCLUSIONS

This work elucidates the potential clinical utility of SDM interventions in the management of Type 2 Diabetes and helps inform future research on the topic.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A more complete understanding of the associations between SDM and outcomes will guide and motivate efforts aimed at improving uptake of the SDM paradigm.

Development of a complex intervention to promote appropriate prescribing and medication intensification in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus in Irish general practice

BACKGROUND

Poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can be seen as failure to meet recommended targets for management of key risk factors including glycaemic control, blood pressure and lipids. Poor control of risk factors is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Failure to intensify medications for patients with poor control of T2DM when indicated is called clinical inertia and is one contributory factor to poor control of T2DM. We aimed to develop a theory and evidence-based complex intervention to improve appropriate prescribing and medication intensification in poorly controlled T2DM in Irish general practice.

METHODS

The first stage of the Medical Research Council Framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions was utilised. To identify current evidence, we performed a systematic review to examine the effectiveness of interventions targeting patients with poorly controlled T2DM in community settings. The Behaviour Change Wheel theoretical approach was used to identify suitable intervention functions. Workshops, simulation, collaborations with academic partners and observation of physicians were utilised to operationalise the intervention functions and design the elements of the complex intervention.

RESULTS

Our systematic review highlighted that professional-based interventions, potentially through clinical decision support systems, could address poorly controlled T2DM. Appropriate intensification of anti-glycaemic and cardiovascular medications, by general practitioners (GPs), for adults with poorly controlled T2DM was identified as the key behaviour to address clinical inertia. Psychological capability was the key driver of the behaviour, which needed to change, suggesting five key intervention functions (education, training, enablement, environmental restructuring and incentivisation) and nine key behaviour change techniques, which were operationalised into a complex intervention. The intervention has three components: (a) a training program/academic detailing of target GPs, (b) a remote finder tool to help GPs identify patients with poor control of T2DM in their practice and (c) A web-based clinical decision support system.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper describes a multifaceted process including an exploration of current evidence and a thorough theoretical understanding of the predictors of the behaviour resulting in the design of a complex intervention to promote the implementation of evidence-based guidelines, through appropriate prescribing and medication intensification in poorly controlled T2DM.

Improving risk factor management for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of healthcare interventions in primary care and community settings

OBJECTIVES

Poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major international health problem. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, specifically targeting patients with poorly controlled T2DM, which seek to improve glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk in primary care settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Primary care and community settings.

INCLUDED STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeting patients with poor glycaemic control were identified from Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS. Poor glycaemic control was defined as HbA1c over 59 mmol/mol (7.5%).

INTERVENTIONS

Interventions were classified as organisational, patient-oriented, professional, financial or regulatory.

OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes were HbA1c, blood pressure and lipid control. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality. Meta-analyses were undertaken where appropriate using random-effects models. Subgroup analysis explored the effects of intervention type, baseline HbA1c, study quality and study duration. Meta-regression analyses were undertaken to investigate identified heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Forty-two RCTs were identified, including 11 250 patients, with most undertaken in USA. In general, studies had low risk of bias. The main intervention types were patient-directed (48%) and organisational (48%). Overall, interventions reduced HbA1c by -0.34% (95% CI -0.46% to -0.22%), but meta-analyses had high statistical heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses suggested that organisational interventions and interventions on those with baseline HbA1c over 9.5% had better improvements in HbA1c. Meta-regression analyses suggested that only interventions on those with population HbA1c over 9.5% were more effective. Interventions had a modest improvement of blood pressure and lipids, although baseline levels of control were generally good.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that interventions for T2DM, in primary care, are better targeted at individuals with very poor glycaemic control and that organisational interventions may be more effective.

What works for whom in the management of diabetes in people living with dementia: a realist review

BACKGROUND

Dementia and diabetes mellitus are common long-term conditions and co-exist in a large number of older people. People living with dementia (PLWD) may be less able to manage their diabetes, putting them at increased risk of complications such as hypoglycaemia. The aim of this review was to identify key mechanisms within different interventions that are likely to improve diabetes outcomes in PLWD.

METHODS

This is a realist review involving scoping of the literature and stakeholder interviews to develop theoretical explanations of how interventions might work, systematic searches of the evidence to test and develop the theories and their validation with a purposive sample of stakeholders. Twenty-six stakeholders - user/patient representatives, dementia care providers, clinicians specialising in diabetes or dementia and researchers - took part in interviews, and 24 participated in a consensus conference.

RESULTS

We included 89 papers. Ten focused on PLWD and diabetes, and the remainder related to people with either dementia, diabetes or other long-term conditions. We identified six context-mechanism-outcome configurations which provide an explanatory account of how interventions might work to improve the management of diabetes in PLWD. This includes embedding positive attitudes towards PLWD, person-centred approaches to care planning, developing skills to provide tailored and flexible care, regular contact, family engagement and usability of assistive devices. An overarching contingency emerged concerning the synergy between an intervention strategy, the dementia trajectory and social and environmental factors, especially family involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence highlighted the need for personalised care, continuity and family-centred approaches, although there was limited evidence that this happens routinely. This review suggests there is a need for a flexible service model that prioritises quality of life, independence and patient and carer priorities. Future research on the management of diabetes in older people with complex health needs, including those with dementia, needs to look at how organisational structures and workforce development can be better aligned to their needs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42015020625. Registered on 18 May 2015.

Impact of a goal setting and decision support telephone coaching intervention on diet, psychosocial, and decision outcomes among people with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate a 16-week decision support and goal-setting intervention to compare diet quality, decision, and diabetes-related outcomes to a control group.

METHODS

Adults with type 2 diabetes (n=54) were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Intervention group participants completed one in-person motivational interviewing and decision support session followed by seven biweekly telephone coaching calls. Participants reported previous goal attempts and set diet- and/or physical activity-related goals during coaching calls. Control group participants received information about local health care resources on the same contact schedule.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between groups for diabetes empowerment (p=0.045). A significant increase in diet quality, diabetes self-efficacy, and diabetes empowerment, and a significant decrease in diabetes distress and depressive symptoms (all p≤0.05) occurred in the intervention group. Decision confidence to achieve diet-related goals significantly improved from baseline to week 8 but then declined at study end (both p≤0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Setting specific diet-related goals may promote dietary change, and telephone coaching can improve psychosocial outcomes related to diabetes self-management.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Informed shared decision making can facilitate progressively challenging yet attainable goals tailored to individuals' lifestyle. Decision coaching may empower patients to improve self-management practices and reduce distress.

Quality of reporting of patient decision aids in recent randomized controlled trials: A descriptive synthesis and comparative analysis

OBJECTIVE

Variable reporting of patient decision aids (PDAs) in published articles raises uncertainty about whether the intervention meets the definition of a PDA. We appraised the quality of reporting of PDA characteristics in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

RCTs eligible for the Cochrane review of PDAs and published June 2012 to April 2015 were included. Quality of PDA reporting was appraised using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument (v4.0). We descriptively synthesized and comparatively analysed qualifying and certification criteria reported in each publication against their presence in actual PDAs.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs evaluating sixteen PDAs were included. Ten PDAs (58.8%) were reported using all qualifying criteria. Two (11.8%) were reported using all certification criteria. The median score for reporting qualifying criteria was 6 of 6 (range 4-6). The median score for reporting certification criteria was 2 of 10 (range 2-3) for screening and 1 of 6 (range 0-6) for treatment decisions.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of PDAs in RCTs is suboptimal. Incomplete reporting poses challenges for clinicians and researchers needing to identify PDA content for clinical practice and/or future research.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Authors should report IPDASi (v4.0) criteria in published articles. Reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies are in development to improve reporting within the scientific literature.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

What information is used in treatment decision aids? A systematic review of the types of evidence populating health decision aids

Background

Patient decision aids (DAs) are support tools designed to provide patients with relevant information to help them make informed decisions about their healthcare. While DAs can be effective in improving patient knowledge and decision quality, it is unknown what types of information and evidence are used to populate such decision tools.

Methods

Systematic methods were used to identify and appraise the relevant literature and patient DAs published between 2006 and 2015. Six databases (Academic Search Complete, AMED, CINAHL, Biomedical Reference Collection, General Sciences and MEDLINE) and reference list searching were used. Articles evaluating the effectiveness of the DAs were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The content, quality and sources of evidence in the decision aids were evaluated using the IPDASi-SF and a novel classification system. Findings were synthesised and a narrative analysis was performed on the results.

Results

Thirteen studies representing ten DAs met the inclusion criteria. The IPDASI-SF score ranged from 9 to 16 indicating many of the studies met the majority of quality criteria. Sources of evidence were described but reports were sometimes generic or missing important information. The majority of DAs incorporated high quality research evidence including systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Patient and practice evidence was less commonly employed, with only a third of included DAs using these to populate decision aid content. The quality of practice and patient evidence ranged from high to low. Contextual factors were addressed across all DAs to varying degrees and covered a range of factors.

Conclusions

This is an initial study examining the information and evidence used to populate DAs. While research evidence and contextual factors are well represented in included DAs, consideration should be given to incorporating high quality information representing all four pillars of evidence based practice when developing DAs. Further, patient and expert practice evidence should be acquired rigorously and DAs should report the means by which such evidence is obtained with citations clearly provided.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0415-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

More primary care patients regret health decisions if they experienced decisional conflict in the consultation: a secondary analysis of a multicenter descriptive study

Background

We sought to estimate the extent of decision regret among primary care patients and identify risk factors associated with regret.

Methods

Secondary analysis of an observational descriptive study conducted in two Canadian provinces. Unique patient-physician dyads were recruited from 17 primary care clinics and data on patient, physician and consultation characteristics were collected before, during and immediately after consultations, as well as two weeks post-consultation, when patients completed the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). We examined the DRS score distribution and performed ordinal logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of regret.

Results

Among 258 unique patient-physicians dyads, mean ± standard deviation of decision regret scores was 11.7 ± 15.1 out of 100. Overall, 43 % of patients reported no regret, 45 % reported mild regret and 12 % reported moderate to strong regret. In multivariate analyses, higher decision regret was strongly associated with increased decisional conflict and less significantly associated with patient age and education, as well with male (vs. female) physicians and residents (vs. teachers).

Conclusion

After consulting family physicians, most primary care patients experience little decision regret, but some experience more regret if there is decisional conflict. Strategies for reducing decisional conflict in primary care, such as shared decision-making with decision aids, seem warranted.

Intra-cluster and inter-period correlation coefficients for cross-sectional cluster randomised controlled trials for type-2 diabetes in UK primary care

Background

Clustered randomised controlled trials (CRCTs) are increasingly common in primary care. Outcomes within the same cluster tend to be correlated with one another. In sample size calculations, estimates of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) are needed to allow for this nonindependence. In studies with observations over more than one time period, estimates of the inter-period correlation (IPC) and the within-period correlation (WPC) are also needed.

Methods

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of all patients aged 18 or over with a diagnosis of type-2 diabetes, from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database, between 1 October 2007 and 31 March 2010. We report estimates of the ICC, IPC, and WPC for typical outcomes using unadjusted and adjusted generalised linear mixed models with cluster and cluster by period random effects. For binary outcomes we report on the proportions scale, which is the appropriate scale for trial design. Estimated ICCs were compared to those reported from a systematic search of CRCTs undertaken in primary care in the UK in type-2 diabetes.

Results

Data from 430 general practices, with a median [IQR] number of diabetics per practice of 241 [150–351], were analysed. The ICC for HbA1c was 0.032 (95 % CI 0.026–0.038). For a two-period (each of 12 months) design, the WPC for HbA1c was 0.035 (95 % CI 0.030–0.040) and the IPC was 0.019 (95 % CI 0.014–0.026). The difference between the WPC and the IPC indicates a decay of correlation over time. Following dichotomisation at 7.5 %, the ICC for HbA1c was 0.026 (95 % CI 0.022–0.030). ICCs for other clinical measurements and clinical outcomes are presented. A systematic search of ICCs used in the design of CRCTs involving type-2 diabetes with HbA1c (undichotomised) as the outcome found that published trials tended to use more conservative ICC values (median 0.047, IQR 0.047–0.050) than those reported here.

Conclusions

These estimates of ICCs, IPCs, and WPCs for a variety of outcomes commonly used in diabetes trials can be useful for the design of CRCTs. In studies with observations taken at different time-points, the correlation of observations may decay over time, as reflected in lower values for the IPC than for the ICC. The IPC and WPC estimates are the first reported for UK primary care data.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1532-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Shared decision making in endocrinology: present and future directions

In medicine and endocrinology, there are few clinical circumstances in which clinicians can accurately predict what is best for their patients. As a result, patients and clinicians frequently have to make decisions about which there is uncertainty. Uncertainty results from limitations in the research evidence, unclear patient preferences, or an inability to predict how treatments will fit into patients' daily lives. The work that patients and clinicians do together to address the patient's situation and engage in a deliberative dialogue about reasonable treatment options is often called shared decision making. Decision aids are evidence-based tools that facilitate this process. Shared decision making is a patient-centred approach in which clinicians share information about the benefits, harms, and burden of different reasonable diagnostic and treatment options, and patients explain what matters to them in view of their particular values, preferences, and personal context. Beyond the ethical argument in support of this approach, decision aids have been shown to improve patients' knowledge about the available options, accuracy of risk estimates, and decisional comfort. Decision aids also promote patient participation in the decision-making process. Despite accumulating evidence from clinical trials, policy support, and expert recommendations in endocrinology practice guidelines, shared decision making is still not routinely implemented in endocrine practice. Additional work is needed to enrich the number of available tools and to implement them in practice workflows. Also, although the evidence from randomised controlled trials favours the use of this shared decision making in other settings, populations, and illnesses, the effect of this approach has been studied in a few endocrine disorders. Future pragmatic trials are needed to explore the effect and feasibility of shared decision making implementation into routine endocrinology and primary care practice. With the available evidence, however, endocrinologists can now start to practice shared decision making, partner with their patients, and use their expertise to formulate treatment plans that reflect patient preferences and are more likely to fit into the context of patients' lives. In this Personal View, we describe shared decision making, the evidence behind the approach, and why and how both endocrinologists and their patients could benefit from this approach.