Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case

Assessing patient information needs for new antidiabetic medications to inform shared decision-making: A best-worst scaling experiment in China

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a patient-centred approach to improve the quality of care. An essential requirement for the SDM process is to be fully aware of patient information needs.

OBJECTIVES

Our study aimed to assess patient information needs for new antidiabetic medications using the best-worst scaling (BWS) experiment.

METHODS

BWS tasks were developed according to a literature review and the focus group discussion. We used a balanced incomplete block design and blocking techniques to generate choice sets. The final BWS contains 11 attributes, with 6-choice scenarios in each block. The one-to-one, face-to-face BWS survey was conducted among type 2 diabetic patients in Jiangsu Province. Results were analyzed using count-based analysis and modelling approaches. We also conducted a subgroup analysis to observe preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Data from 539 patients were available for analysis. The most desired information domain was the comparative effectiveness of new antidiabetic medications. It consists of the incidence of macrovascular complications, the length of extended life years, changes in health-related quality of life, the incidence of microvascular complications, and the control of glycated haemoglobin. Of all the attributes, the incidence of macrovascular complications was the primary concern. Patients' glycemic control and whether they had diabetes complications exerted a significant influence on their information needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Information on health benefits is of critical significance for diabetic patients. Patients have different information needs as their disease progresses. Personalized patient decision aids that integrate patient information needs and provide evidence of new antidiabetic medications are worthy of being established.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Before data collection, a pilot survey was carried out among diabetic patients to provide feedback on the acceptability and intelligibility of the attributes.

Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others.

OUTCOMES

The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach.

Use of Persuasive Language in Communication of Risk during Prostate Cancer Treatment Consultations

BACKGROUND

Physician treatment preference may influence how risks are communicated in prostate cancer consultations. We identified persuasive language used when describing cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects in relation to a physician's recommendation for aggressive (surgery/radiation) or nonaggressive (active surveillance/watchful waiting) treatment.

METHODS

A qualitative analysis was performed on transcribed treatment consultations of 40 men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer across 10 multidisciplinary providers. Quotes pertaining to cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects were randomized. Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations from isolated blinded quotes. Testing characteristics of consensus predictions against the physician's treatment recommendation were reported. Coders then identified persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment for each quote. Frequencies of persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment were reported. Logistic regression quantified associations between persuasive strategies and physician treatment recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 496 quotes about cancer prognosis (n = 127), life expectancy (n = 51), and side effects (n = 318) were identified. The accuracy of predicting treatment recommendation based on individual quotes containing persuasive language (n = 256/496, 52%) was 91%. When favoring aggressive treatment, persuasive language downplayed side effect risks and amplified cancer risk (recurrence, progression, or mortality). Significant predictors (P < 0.05) of aggressive treatment recommendation included favorable side effect interpretation, downplaying side effects, and long time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity. When favoring nonaggressive treatment, persuasive language amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. Significant predictors of nonaggressive treatment recommendation included unfavorable side effect interpretation, favorable interpretation of cancer risk, and short time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians use persuasive language favoring their preferred treatment, regardless of whether their recommendation is appropriate.

IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should quantify risk so patients can judge potential harm without solely relying on persuasive language.

HIGHLIGHTS

Physicians use persuasive language favoring their treatment recommendation when communicating risks of prostate cancer treatment, which may influence a patient's treatment choice.Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations based on isolated, randomized quotes about cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects with 91% accuracy.Qualitative analysis revealed that when favoring nonaggressive treatment, physicians used persuasive language that amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. When favoring aggressive treatment, physicians did the opposite.Providers should be cognizant of using persuasive strategies and aim to provide quantified assessments of risk that are jointly interpreted with the patient so that patients can make evidence-based conclusions regarding risks without solely relying on persuasive language.

Systematic review for the development of a core outcome set for monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract surgery

Introduction

The aim of the study was to define a core outcome set (COS) to be measured following cataract surgery for the postoperative evaluation of monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). Compared to current COSs, the present work provides updates considering the advances in the technology due to the development of new generation monofocal IOLs, which are characterized by a safety profile comparable to standard monofocal IOLs but with an extended range of intermediate vision.

Methods

Healthcare professionals (ophthalmologist surgeons) and patients were involved in the selection of outcomes to be included in the COS, starting from a list of indicators retrieved from a systematic literature search. The search considered observational studies with both a retrospective or prospective design, case studies and classic randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A mixed methodology integrating a Delphi-driven and an expert panel approach was adopted to reach an agreement among clinicians, while patients were involved in the completion of a questionnaire.

Results

The final COS included 15 outcomes. Eleven outcomes, all clinical, were considered for inclusion after a joint discussion among ophthalmologists; seven outcomes were linked to visual acuity, while the remaining to contrast sensitivity, refractive errors, aberrations and adverse events. Measurement metrics, method of aggregation and measurement time point of these outcomes were specified. The most important aspects for the patients were (1) quality of life after cataract surgery, (2) the capacity to perform activities requiring good near vision (e.g., reading), (3) spectacle independence, and (4) safety of movements without fear of getting hurt or falling (intermediate vision).

Discussion

In a context with limited healthcare resources, it is important to optimize their use considering also the preferences of end-users, namely patients. The proposed COS, developed involving both ophthalmologists and patients, provides an instrument for the postoperative evaluation of different technologies in the context of monofocal IOLs, which can be used not only in clinical trials but also in clinical practice to increase the body of real-world evidence.

Feeling Safe in the Perioperative Period: Experiences from Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Day Surgery

Introduction

Day surgery is often preferred by patients, but it can pose challenges in self-management after discharge. In addition, patients undergoing orthopedic surgery report poorer rates of postoperative recovery than patients undergoing general surgery. Understanding patients' perceptions of feeling safe while undergoing surgery facilitates individualized care and is important since it may affect their recovery.

Objective

The aim of this study was to describe patients' perceptions of feeling safe in the perioperative period when undergoing orthopedic day surgery under regional anesthesia.

Methods

The design was qualitative and descriptive. Data were collected through a cross-sectional questionnaire containing open-ended questions. Qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach was used for data analysis. Participants' characteristics were presented descriptively. The study population consisted of a consecutive sample of 97 patients who had undergone orthopedic day surgery under regional anesthesia between March and October 2022.

Results

The categorization process resulted in the development of two categories describing participants' experience of perioperative feelings of safety when undergoing orthopedic day surgery: having someone near and having a sense of control. The results indicate that the relationship between patients and staff and the perceived feeling of control and participation are factors influencing patients' perception of feeling safe in the perioperative period.

Conclusions

In perioperative care, nurses play a vital role in fostering patients' sense of safety by establishing relationships. This ensures that patients can be actively engaged in their own care. Patients also need access to professional and competent staff who strives to add a personal touch and considers their perspective. Since patients undergoing orthopedic day surgery might face a more demanding postoperative recovery than they had initially anticipated, further research is suggested to explore the association between a perceived feeling of safety and postoperative recovery.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Use in Guidelines Published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology: A Review

TOPIC

We reviewed the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the treatment of ophthalmologic conditions as recommended by the Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Patient-reported outcome measures are standardized instruments that provide information regarding a patient's health status or health-related quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used to inform study end points in ophthalmology studies. However, the extent to which PROMs are ultimately informing patient management recommendations in ophthalmology as part of CPGs remains an area of evidence gap.

METHODS

We included all CPGs published by the AAO from inception to June 2022. We also included all primary studies and systematic reviews cited in the treatment sections of the CPGs evaluating treatment of an ophthalmic condition. The primary outcome was the frequency of PROMs discussed in CPGs and in cited studies evaluating treatment. Secondary outcomes included frequency of minimal important difference (MID) use to contextualize PROM results and percentage of strong and discretionary recommendations supported by PROMs. We published a study protocol a priori on PROSPERO (CRD42022307427). Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We assessed risk of bias using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

RESULTS

We identified 24 eligible CPGs, providing 2458 cited studies (2191 primary, 267 secondary) evaluating treatment of eye conditions. Ten CPGs (41.7%) reported consideration of PROMs. Of these, 31 of 94 (33%) recommendations were informed by studies evaluating a PROM as an outcome. Across all studies cited in the development of CPGs, 221 (9.0%) used PROMs as a primary or secondary outcome, of which 4 PROM results (1.8%) were interpreted using an empirically determined MID. Overall, the risk of bias was low for all CPGs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, outcomes of PROMs are seldom used in ophthalmology CPGs published by the AAO and in cited primary and secondary research on treatments. When PROMs were considered, their interpretation was seldom based on an MID. To improve patient care, guideline developers may consider incorporating PROMs and applicable MIDs to inform key outcomes when formulating treatment recommendations.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

A meta-analysis on the role older adults with cancer favour in treatment decision making

INTRODUCTION

In the complex setting of oncological treatment decision making, balancing professional guidance while respecting patient involvement can be a challenge. We set out to assess the role adults with cancer favour in treatment decision making (TDM), including differences across age groups and change over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase, for studies on role preference of (older) adults with cancer in oncological treatment decision making. A meta-analysis was conducted based on Control Preference Scale (CPS) data, a questionnaire on patient role preference in TDM.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis includes 33 studies reporting CPS data comprising 17,197 adults with cancer. Mean age was 60.6 years old for studies that specified age (24 studies, 6155 patients). During the last decade, patients' role preference shifted towards significantly more active involvement in TDM (p = 0.006). No age-dependent subgroup differences have been identified; both younger and older adults, defined as, respectively, below and above 65 years old, favour active involvement in treatment decision making.

DISCUSSION

Over time, adults with cancer have shifted towards more active role preference in treatment decision making. In current cancer care, a large majority prefers taking an active role, irrespective of age.

Systematic review of shared decision-making in guidelines about colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to systematically evaluate quality of shared decision-making (SDM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).

METHODS

Search for CRC screening guidances was from 2010 to November 2021 in EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus and CDSR, and the World Wide Web. Three independent reviewers and an arbitrator rated the quality of each guidance using a SDM quality assessment tool (maximum score: 31). Reviewer agreement was 0.88.

RESULTS

SDM appeared in 41/83 (49.4%) CPGs and 9/19 (47.4%) CSs. None met all the quality criteria, and 51.0% (52/102) failed to meet any quality items. Overall compliance was low (mean 1.63, IQR 0-2). Quality was better in guidances published after 2015 (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p = 0.048) and when the term SDM was specifically reported (mean 4.5, IQR 2.5-4.5 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p < 0.001). CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews showed better SDM quality than consensus (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0, IQR 0-2, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

SDM quality was suboptimal and mentioned in less than half of the guidances, and recommendations were scarce. Guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based SDM recommendations in guidances to underpin the translation of evidence into practice.

Comparison of ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation versus thyroid lobectomy for T1bN0M0 papillary thyroid carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To investigate and compare the clinical outcomes between radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and thyroid lobectomy (TL) for T1bN0M0 papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC).

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated 283 patients with solitary T1bN0M0 PTC treated with RFA (RFA group, 91 patients) or TL (TL group, 192 patients) from May 2014 to November 2018. The patients were regularly followed up after treatment. Local tumor progression, lymph node metastasis (LNM), recurrent tumor, persistent tumor, recurrence-free survival (RFS), treatment variables (hospitalization, procedure time, estimated blood loss, and cost), complication, and delayed surgery were compared.

RESULTS

During the follow-up (median [interquartile ranges], 50.4 [18.0] months), no significant differences were found in the local tumor progression (4.4% vs 3.6%, p = 1.000), LNM (1.1% vs 2.1%, p = 0.917), recurrent tumor (2.2% vs 1.6%, p = 1.000), persistent tumor (1.1% vs 0%, p = 0.146), and RFS rate (95.6% vs 96.4%, p = 0.816) in the RFA and TL groups. Distant metastasis was not detected. Patients in the RFA group had a shorter hospitalization (0 vs 7.0 [3.0] days, p < 0.001), shorter procedure time (5.6 [2.9] vs 90.0 [38.5] min, p < 0.001), lower estimated blood loss (0 vs 20 [20] mL, p < 0.001), lower cost ($1972.5 [0.1] vs $2362.4 [1009.3], p < 0.001), and lower complication rate (0 vs 12/192 [6.3%], p = 0.015) than those in the TL group. No patients in the RFA group underwent delayed surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed comparable 4-year clinical outcomes between RFA and TL for T1bN0M0 PTC in terms of local tumor progression and RFS. As a minimally invasive modality, RFA may be a promising feasible alternative to surgery for the treatment of T1bN0M0 PTC in selected patients after strict evaluation.

KEY POINTS

• No significant difference in local tumor progression and RFS was found between RFA and TL for T1bN0M0 PTC during a median follow-up period of 50.4 months. • Compared with TL, RFA led to a shorter hospitalization, lower estimated blood loss, lower cost, and lower complication rate. • RFA may be a promising feasible alternative to surgery for the treatment of T1bN0M0 PTC in selected patients after strict evaluation.

Patient preferences for treatment in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a discrete choice experiment

Aim: We quantified patient preferences for second-line diffuse large B-cell lymphoma therapies, including attributes of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Materials & methods: Using a discrete choice experiment, we surveyed 224 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients from the USA and Europe. Patients chose between two treatment options defined by six attributes with predefined levels for overall survival, adverse events (severe cytokine-release syndrome, severe neurological toxicities, severe infection) and time to return to pre-treatment functioning. Results: Increasing the probability of 1-year survival was most important to patients, followed by avoiding risks of cytokine-release syndrome and neurological toxicities. Respondents required a 13-14 percentage point increased 1-year survival probability to accept risks of treatment-associated adverse events. Conclusion: Patients prioritize survival and will accept certain adverse event risks to gain survival improvements.

Does the implementation of clinical practice guidelines for low back and neck pain by physical therapists improve patient outcomes? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Physical therapy for neck and low back pain is highly variable despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). This review aimed to determine the impact of CPG implementation on patient-level outcomes for spinal pain. Implementation strategies were also examined to determine prevalence and potential impact.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched through April 2021 for studies assessing CPG implementation in physical therapy for neck and low back pain. Articles were screened for eligibility. The Modified Downs and Black checklist was utilized to determine study quality. Due to the heterogeneity between studies, a meta-analysis was not performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included in this review. Implementation strategies were significantly varied between studies. Outcomes pertaining to healthcare utilization, pain, and physical functioning were assessed in relation to the implementation of CPGs. Multiple implementation strategies were identified, with Managing Quality as the most frequently utilized key implementation process. Findings indicate CPG implementation decreased healthcare utilization, but inconsistent results were found with physical functioning and pain outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

CPG implementation appears to have a beneficial effect on healthcare utilization outcomes, but may not impact pain and physical functioning outcomes. Effective CPG implementation strategies remain unknown, though utilizing implementation framework may improve outcomes. More research is needed to determine the most effective implementation strategies and effects on pain and physical function outcomes.

Shared decision-making in the Netherlands: Progress is made, but not for all. Time to become inclusive to patients

Dutch initiatives targeting shared decision-making (SDM) are still growing, supported by the government, the Federation of Patients' Organisations, professional bodies and healthcare insurers. The large majority of patients prefers the SDM model. The Dutch are working hard to realise improvement in the application of SDM in daily clinical practice, resulting in glimpses of success with objectified improvement on observed behavior. Nevertheless, the culture shift is still ongoing. Large-scale uptake of SDM behavior is still a challenge. We haven't yet fully reached the patients' needs, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behavior. In all Dutch implementation projects, early adopters, believers or higher-educated persons have been overrepresented, while patients with limited health literacy have been underrepresented. This is a huge problem as 25% of the Dutch adult population have limited health literacy. To further enhance SDM there are issues to be addressed: We need to make physicians conscious about their limited application of SDM in daily practice, especially regarding preference and decision talk. We need to reward clinicians for the extra work that comes with SDM. We need to be inclusive to patients with limited health literacy, who are less often actually involved in decision-making and at the same time more likely to regret their chosen treatment compared to patients with higher health literacy.

Clinician perspectives on clinical decision support systems in lung cancer: Implications for shared decision-making

Background

Lung cancer treatment decisions are typically made among clinical experts in a multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) based on clinical data and guidelines. The rise of artificial intelligence and cultural shifts towards patient autonomy are changing the nature of clinical decision‐making towards personalized treatments. This can be supported by clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that generate personalized treatment information as a basis for shared decision‐making (SDM). Little is known about lung cancer patients' treatment decisions and the potential for SDM supported by CDSSs. The aim of this study is to understand to what extent SDM is done in current practice and what clinicians need to improve it.

Objective

To explore (1) the extent to which patient preferences are taken into consideration in non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment decisions; (2) clinician perspectives on using CDSSs to support SDM.

Design

Mixed methods study consisting of a retrospective cohort study on patient deviation from MTB advice and reasons for deviation, qualitative interviews with lung cancer specialists and observations of MTB discussions and patient consultations.

Setting and Participants

NSCLC patients (N = 257) treated at a single radiotherapy clinic and nine lung cancer specialists from six Dutch clinics.

Results

We found a 10.9% (n = 28) deviation rate from MTB advice; 50% (n = 14) were due to patient preference, of which 85.7% (n = 12) chose a less intensive treatment than MTB advice. Current MTB recommendations are based on clinician experience, guidelines and patients' performance status. Most specialists (n = 7) were receptive towards CDSSs but cited barriers, such as lack of trust, lack of validation studies and time. CDSSs were considered valuable during MTB discussions rather than in consultations.

Conclusion

Lung cancer decisions are heavily influenced by clinical guidelines and experience, yet many patients prefer less intensive treatments. CDSSs can support SDM by presenting the harms and benefits of different treatment options rather than giving single treatment advice. External validation of CDSSs should be prioritized.

Patient or Public Contribution

This study did not involve patients or the public explicitly; however, the study design was informed by prior interviews with volunteers of a cancer patient advocacy group. The study objectives and data collection were supported by Dutch health care insurer CZ for a project titled ‘My Best Treatment’ that improves patient‐centeredness and the lung cancer patient pathway in the Netherlands.

The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Clinical Application of Evidence-Based Practice in Health Science Professionals

(1) Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) informs daily clinical interventions with the purpose of seeking changes to traditional practice through scientific evidence that justifies the reasons for our actions. The objectives were to describe the barriers, beliefs, and attitudes in the application of EBP among university health professionals (not doctors) and to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic among them. (2) Methods: This prospective study is both descriptive and observational. The individuals under study were university health professionals (not doctors) from various autonomous regions within Spain, in both public and private spheres. Sociodemographic and labor-related variables linked to the research and its completion were studied. Likewise, the survey instrument Health Sciences Evidence-Based Practice questionnaire (HS-EBP) was administered to evaluate the barriers to, beliefs in, and attitudes towards evidence-based practice. (3) Results: A total of 716 responses were gathered, of which 387 were collected during the period of confinement, and 343 in the COVID-19 post-confinement period. Possible associations that might help respond to the objectives were explored through a correlational study between the sociodemographic variables and each sub-scale of the HS-EBP 30 questionnaire (n = 716). (4) Conclusions: Barriers to, beliefs in, and attitudes towards evidence-based practice are described. There is a leadership gap where line management provides insufficient motivation to follow work routines. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused immense stress among health professionals. The post-confinement group showed a significant change in the variables "beliefs and attitudes", and likewise in the "evaluation" block, justified by the need to update knowledge and to apply evidence.

European clinical practice guidelines on the use of chemotherapy for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancers: a critical review using the AGREE II and the AGREE-REX instruments

PURPOSE

To assess the methodological quality of all relevant and recent European clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancers, and to synthesise their recommendations on the use of chemotherapy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, guidelines repositories, and other sources from 2010 onwards. We appraised quality using AGREE-II and AGREE-REX.

RESULTS

11 CPGs were included (five high, five low, and one moderate quality). Most guidelines showed deficiencies in the domain "applicability", with only three scoring above 60%. Nine did not report having sought the views and preferences of the target population. The lowest scores for AGREE-REX were item Values and Preferences of Target Users (1.6; SD 1.3), and item Values and Preferences of Policy/Decision-Makers (1.8; SD 1.7). The domain Clinical Applicability got the highest score and the domain Implementability got the lowest.

CONCLUSIONS

An urgent area of research is how to develop credible and implementable recommendations on the clinical use of CT for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancer.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021236753).

Why do medical residents prefer paternalistic decision making? An interview study

BACKGROUND

Although shared decision making is championed as the preferred model for patient care by patient organizations, researchers and medical professionals, its application in daily practice remains limited. We previously showed that residents more often prefer paternalistic decision making than their supervisors. Because both the views of residents on the decision-making process in medical consultations and the reasons for their 'paternalism preference' are unknown, this study explored residents' views on the decision-making process in medical encounters and the factors affecting it.

METHODS

We interviewed 12 residents from various specialties at a large Dutch teaching hospital in 2019-2020, exploring how they involved patients in decisions. All participating residents provided written informed consent. Data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection in an iterative process informing adaptations to the interview topic guide when deemed necessary. Constant comparative analysis was used to develop themes. We ceased data collection when information sufficiency was achieved.

RESULTS

Participants described how active engagement of patients in discussing options and decision making was influenced by contextual factors (patient characteristics, logistical factors such as available time, and supervisors' recommendations) and by limitations in their medical and shared decision-making knowledge. The residents' decision-making behavior appeared strongly affected by their conviction that they are responsible for arriving at the correct diagnosis and providing the best evidence-based treatment. They described shared decision making as the process of patients consenting with physician-recommended treatment or patients choosing their preferred option when no best evidence-based option was available.

CONCLUSIONS

Residents' decision making appears to be affected by contextual factors, their medical knowledge, their knowledge about SDM, and by their beliefs and convictions about their professional responsibilities as a doctor, ensuring that patients receive the best possible evidence-based treatment. They confuse SDM with acquiring informed consent with the physician's treatment recommendations and with letting patients decide which treatment they prefer in case no evidence based guideline recommendation is available. Teaching SDM to residents should not only include skills training, but also target residents' perceptions and convictions regarding their role in the decision-making process in consultations.

Complementary and alternative medicine mention and recommendations in guidelines for anxiety: A systematic review and quality assessment

BACKGROUND

Up to 43% of patients with anxiety disorders (ADS) use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), however, many healthcare providers receive little training on this topic. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relied upon to guide decision-making, especially with respect to topics less familiar to healthcare providers. In the present study, we identified the quantity and assessed the quality of CAM recommendations in CPGs for the treatment and/or management of ADS.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to April 2020 to identify eligible CPGs. In addition, the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched. Eligible CPGs containing CAM recommendations were evaluated using AGREE II.

RESULTS

Eleven CPGs were eligible, of which six made CAM recommendations. Average scaled domain percentages for these six CPGs from highest to lowest were as follows (% overall, % CAM): clarity and presentation (83.3%, 73.6%); scope and purpose (77.8%, 76.4%); editorial independence (69.4%, 36.8%); stakeholder involvement (55.6%, 31.9%); rigour of development (53.1%, 46.9%); and applicability (43.8%, 29.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

A need exists to improve the quality of CAM recommendations in anxiety CPGs through insight from AGREE II and other CPG development resources.

Ultrasound-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Thyroid Lobectomy for Low-Risk Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study of 884 Patients

Background: Thermal ablation (TA) has been applied in patients with low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC) who refuse surgery or active surveillance (AS). Recently, TA has been proposed as a potential therapeutic option for patients who are suitable for surgery or AS. However, the clinical outcomes of TA versus surgery remains controversial because of a lack of sufficient data. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus thyroid lobectomy (TL) for low-risk PTMC in a large cohort. Methods: This retrospective study evaluated 884 patients with unifocal low-risk PTMC treated with TL or RFA from June 2014 to March 2018. Among them, 460 patients underwent TL (TL group) and 424 patients, who refused surgery or AS, underwent RFA (RFA group). Patients were regularly followed up after treatment. Local tumor progression, recurrence-free survival (RFS), complications, and treatment variables, including procedure time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, and cost, were compared after propensity score matching (PSM). Results: After PSM, a total of 332 patients underwent TL (mean ages 43.8 ± 9.5 years) and 332 underwent RFA (mean ages 44.1 ± 9.5 years). During the follow-up (median [interquartile ranges], 48.3 [23.2] months), no significant differences were observed in local tumor progression (1.8% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.209), lymph node metastasis (0.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 1.000), recurrent PTMC (1.2% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.244), persistent lesion (0% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.317), and 4-year RFS rates (98.2% vs. 97.0%, p = 0.223) between the TL and RFA groups. Distant metastasis was not detected. None of the patients who were treated by RFA underwent delayed surgery. Patients undergoing RFA had shorter procedure time (3.4 [2.5] vs. 86.0 [37.0] minutes, p < 0.001), lower estimated blood loss (0 vs. 20 [10.0] mL, p < 0.001), shorter hospitalization (0 vs. 7.0 [3.0] days, p < 0.001), lower cost ($2035.7 [254.0] vs. $2269.1 [943.4], p < 0.001) and lower complication rate (0% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001) than those treated by TL. The association between treatment modality and recurrence remained nonsignificant after Cox analysis (p = 0.247). Conclusions: This large matched study revealed comparable four-year clinical outcomes between RFA and TL for low-risk PTMC. As a minimally invasive modality, RFA may be a promising alternative to the existing treatment options for low-risk PTMC.

Patient preferences for growth hormone treatment in Japanese children

BACKGROUND

There are not clear evidence to date evaluating patients' and caregivers' preferences for the recombinant-human growth hormone (r-hGH) injection in children in Japan. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluated the factors driving preferences for daily r-hGH injections among Japanese children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD) or their caregivers and to determine the relative importance of treatment delivery factors.

METHODS

This study was performed among Japanese children with GHD or their caregivers who visited a specialized clinic in Japan as part of their routine care. The participants were asked to complete a web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire.

RESULTS

Choice-based conjoint analysis was used to evaluate the relative importance of the attributes of the choice predictors and determine utility scores for each attribute. Of the 47 respondents who participated in this study, 41 were caregivers who responded on behalf of the patients, the remaining six were patients who completed the DCE themselves. The injection schedule was found to be the most important factor for both patients and caregivers; a once-weekly injection schedule was preferred over a daily injection schedule. Storage and preparation was deemed more important to patients than it was to caregivers, with patients preferring storage at room temperature even if it required additional mixing (reconstitution). Both patients and caregivers showed a clear preference for devices that offered a dose-setting memory.

CONCLUSIONS

A less frequent injection schedule may enhance adherence to r-hGH treatment and expected improve quality of life for GHD patients over the long term.

The opportunity of patient-journey studies for academic clinical research in oncology

A wave of new treatments and treatment combinations are becoming available for solid tumours. Trials performed to obtain registration establish a positive benefit-risk but unavoidably leave many questions unanswered on place-in-therapy and the relative efficacy of different treatment sequences. Such limitations create problems in terms of strength of treatment guidelines and reimbursement (in countries where a public payer exists). Data on new drugs arriving during the last 10 years for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and renal cancer are reported as an example of how the fortunate condition of having new effective treatments may translate into uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment plan. We suggest that academic research should react to such limitations and propose a model of patient-journey study (PJS), where patients are followed from the initial diagnosis across subsequent lines of treatment. A PJS master protocol might include at each node of clinical decision either the possibility of choosing treatment according to guidelines (generating prospective real-world evidence) or the possibility to randomise where uncertainty exists (generating comparative effectiveness data). PJS protocols might be adaptively modified every time a new drug arrives on the market. Overall, methodologically sound analyses of PJS will produce knowledge on the efficacy and the effectiveness of different treatment pathways and might significantly optimise treatment of patients in clinical practice. PJS would represent a jump from a few snapshots (trials performed to get regulatory approval) to a full movie (evidence on the relative value of treatment pathways).

Shared decision making in breast cancer screening guidelines: a systematic review of their quality and reporting

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a key component of evidence-based and patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to systematically review the quality of SDM proposals in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) concerning breast cancer (BC) screening.

METHODS

Guidances were identified, without language restrictions, using a prospectively planned systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and guideline websites) from January 2010 to August 2020. Duplicate data extraction used a 31-item SDM quality assessment tool; reviewer agreement was 98%.

RESULTS

SDM appeared only in 38 (49.4%) (33/68 CPGs, 4/9 CSs) documents (overall compliance with the quality tool: mean 5.74, IQR 3-8). CPGs and CSs specifically mentioning the term SDM (n = 12) had higher quality (mean 6.8, IQR 4-9 vs. mean 2.1, IQR 0-3; P = 0.001). No differences were found in mean quality comparing CPGs with CSs (3 vs. 1.6; P = 0.634), use of systematic review (4.2 vs. 2.9; P = 0.929) and publication in a journal (4 vs. 1.9; P = 0.094). Guidances with SDM were more recently reported than those without it (mean 41 vs. 57 months; P = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

More than half of all the guidelines did not meet SDM quality criteria. Those that explored it were more recently reported. There is an urgent need for promoting SDM in guidances concerning BC screening issued by institutions, professional associations and medical journals.

What does it take to facilitate the integration of clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain into practice? Part 1: A synthesis of recommendation

BACKGROUND

Despite the emergence of multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of low back pain (LBP) over the last decade, self-reported levels of disability in this population have not improved. This may be explained by the numerous implementation barriers, such as the complexity of information and sheer volumes of CPGs.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to summarize the evidence and recommendations from the most recent and high-quality CPGs on the rehabilitation management of LBP by developing an infographic summarizing the recommendations to facilitate dissemination into clinical practice.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of high-quality CPGs with an emphasis on rehabilitation approaches. We searched major health-related research databases (e.g., PubMed, CINAHL, and PEDro). We performed quality assessment via the AGREE-II instrument. Contents of the CPGs were synthesized by extracting recommendations, which were then compared to one another to identify consistencies based on an iterative evaluation process.

RESULTS

We identified and assessed 5 recent high-quality CPGs. We synthesized 13 recommendations on the rehabilitation management of LBP (2 for screening procedures, 3 for assessment procedures, and 8 involving treatment approaches) and 2 underlying principles were highlighted. These results were then synthetized and illustrated in a concise infographic that serves as a conceptual roadmap that identifies the specific behavior changes (i.e., adoption of CPGs' recommendations) rehabilitation professionals should adopt in order to integrate an evidenced-based approach for the management of LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

We systematically reviewed the literature for CPGs' recommendations for the physical rehabilitation management of LBP and synthesized the information through an infographic.

Thyroid Cancer Patients' View of Clinician Professionalism and Multidisciplinary Approach to Their Management

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to query thyroid cancer patients about 1) both the characteristics of the healthcare facilities where they were treated and the healthcare professionals that provided that treatment, as well as 2) the multidisciplinary approach used in the treatment process.

METHODS

Using a web-based survey, patients were asked to give their opinion of the healthcare centers, the professionalism of their team of specialists, and the thyroid cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDT).

RESULTS

For the 485 patients that responded, the most highly rated aspect of healthcare centers was the reduced waiting time between diagnosis and surgical intervention, an opinion expressed by 62.7% of patients. The most appreciated aspect of professionalism was the kindness shown toward patients by healthcare staff (66.6%). About 44.3% of patients were aware of the existence of thyroid cancer MDT. Most of respondents (82.7%) agreed that patients' opinions should be considered by their physicians when making treatment decisions.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that most patients with thyroid cancer appreciate therapeutic efficacy and kindness, and almost all are clearly in favor of using a multidisciplinary approach to their disease. Since such patients often demand to participate in the decision-making process, multidisciplinary teams should make every effort to share information with, and to integrate the opinion of, patients in the management of their thyroid disease.

Differences in Importance Attached to Drug Effects Between Patients With Type 2 Diabetes From the Netherlands and Turkey: A Preference Study

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the importance that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from the Netherlands and Turkey attach to certain drug effects of oral anti-diabetic drugs. Methods: Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey containing demographic questions and a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for oral anti-diabetic drugs. Adults from the Netherlands and Turkey were included if they had type 2 diabetes mellitus and had received a prescription of an oral anti-diabetic drug in the last 4 months. The oral anti-diabetic drugs in the discrete choice experiment were described in terms of six attributes: effects on HbA1c, cardiovascular diseases, weight change, gastrointestinal adverse drug events hypoglycemic events, and bladder cancer. Multinomial logit models with country as an interaction factor were fitted. Results: In total, 381 patients were included, 199 from the Netherlands and 182 from Turkey. Patients' preferences toward drug effects varied between the countries. Turkish patients attached the highest importance to reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (relative weight: 0.51, 95% CI 0.45-0.55), followed by reducing hypoglycemic events (relative weight: 0.16, 95% CI 0.11-0.22), and reducing gastrointestinal adverse drug events (relative weight: 0.11, 95% CI 0.07-0.18). Patients from the Netherlands attached the highest importance to gastrointestinal ADEs (relative weight: 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.39), followed by reducing hypoglycemic events (relative weight: 0.22, 95% CI 0.16-0.25), and reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (relative weight: 0.20, 95% CI 0.13-0.23). Conclusion: Patient preferences may differ across countries. Such differences should be acknowledged in regulatory decisions and clinical practice.

How do cancer screening guidelines trade off benefits versus harms and burdens of screening? A systematic survey

OBJECTIVES

Cancer screening guidelines differ in their recommendations for or against screening. To be able to provide explicit recommendations, guidelines need to specify thresholds for the magnitude of benefits of screening, given its harms and burdens. We evaluated how current cancer screening guidelines address the relative importance of benefits versus harms and burdens of screening.

DATA SOURCE

We searched the Guidelines International Network, International Guideline Library, ECRI Institute and Medline. Two pairs of reviewers independently performed guideline selection and data abstraction.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included all cancer screening guidelines published in English between January 2014 and April 2019.

RESULTS

Of 68 eligible guidelines, 25 included a statement regarding the trade-off between screening benefits versus harms and burdens (14 guidelines), or a statement of direction of the net effect (defined as benefits minus harms or burdens) (13 guidelines). None of these 25 guidelines defined how large a screening benefit should be to recommend screening, given its harms and burdens. 11 guidelines performed an economic evaluation of screening. Of these, six identified a key benefit outcome; two specified a cost-effectiveness threshold for recommending a screening option. Eight guidelines commented on people's values and preferences regarding the trade-off between benefits versus harms and burdens.

CONCLUSIONS

Current cancer screening guidelines fail to specify the values and preferences underlying their recommendations. No guidelines provide a threshold at which they believe the benefits of screening outweigh its harms and burdens.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019138590.

Shared Decision-Making and Medicolegal Aspects: Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care in India

It is often difficult for people with cancer to make decisions for their care. The aim of this review is to understand the importance of shared decisionmaking (SDM) in Indian clinical scenario and identify the gaps when compared to practices in the Western world. A systematic search (2000-2019) was executed in Medline and Google Scholar using predefined keywords. Of the approximate 400 articles retrieved, 43 articles (Indian: 5; Western: 38) were selected for literature review. Literature review revealed the paucity of information on SDM in India compared to the Western world data. This may contribute to patientreported physical or psychological harms, life disruptions, or unnecessary financial costs. Western world data demonstrate the involvement and sharing of information by both patient and physician, collective efforts of the two to build consensus for preferred treatment. In India, involvement of patients in the planning for treatment is largely limited to tertiary care centers, academic institutes, or only when the cost of therapy is high. In addition, cultural beliefs and prejudices impact the extent of participation and engagement of a patient in disease management. Communication failures have been found to strongly correlate with the medicolegal malpractice litigations. Research is needed to explore ways to how to incorporate SDM into routine oncology practice. India has a high unmet need towards SDM in diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Physicians need to involve patients or their immediate family members in decision making, to make it a patient-centric approach as well. SDM enforces to avoid uninformed decisionmaking or a lack of trust in the treating physician's knowledge and skills. Physician and patient education, development of tools and guiding policies, widespread implementation, and periodic assessments may advance the practice of SDM.

Guidelines should not recommend the type of decision-making for the medical encounter

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) often include a recommendation regarding how to approach a clinical encounter and which decision-making model should be used. The GRADE framework, a popular method for developing CPGs, suggests a paternalistic model when recommendations are "strong" and shared decision making (SDM) when recommendations are "weak". Tying the model of decision making and patient participation to the strength of a recommendation is not justified theoretically and/or empirically in the GRADE literature. Thus, why a CPG should offer any advice on which model to use in the clinical encounter is not clear. We argue that including such instruction is not justified and potentially violates the bioethical norms of autonomy and respect for individual choice and may even violate the clinician's legal obligation. Rather, the model to be used is better determined by the participants in the individual encounter during the encounter and not the panel developing the CPG.

Image-Guided Thermal Ablation as an Alternative to Surgery for Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma: Preliminary Results of an Italian Experience

PURPOSE

To report the results of our preliminary experience in treating patients with papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC) with image-guided thermal ablation, in particular estimating the feasibility, safety and short-term efficacy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2018 patients with cytologically proven PTMC < 10 mm were discussed in a multidisciplinary team and evaluated for feasibility of image-guided thermal ablation. In case of technical feasibility, the three possible alternatives (i.e., image-guided thermal ablation, surgery, and active surveillance) were discussed with patients. Patients who agreed to be treated with image guided thermal ablation underwent radiofrequency (RFA) or laser ablation under local anesthesia and conscious sedation. Treatment feasibility, technical success, technique efficacy, change in thyroid function tests, side effects, minor and major complications, patients satisfaction and pain/discomfort perception during and after treatment, and disease recurrence during follow-up were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 13 patients were evaluated, and 11/13 (84.6%) patients (9 female, 2 male, mean age 49.3 ± 8.7 years) resulted suitable for image-guided thermal ablation. All 11 patients agreed to be treated with image-guided thermal ablation. In addition, 3/11 (27.3%) were treated with laser ablation and 8/11 (72.7%) with RFA. All procedures were completed as preoperatively planned (technical success 100%). Technique efficacy was achieved in all 11/11 (100%) cases. Ablated volume significantly reduced from 0.87 ± 0.67 ml at first follow-up to 0.17 ± 0.36 at last follow-up (p = 0.003). No change in thyroid function tests occurred. No minor or major complications occurred. All patients graded 10 the satisfaction for the treatment, and mean pain after the procedure was reported as 1.4 ± 1.7, and mean pain after the procedure as 1.2 ± 1.1 At a median follow-up of 10.2 months (range 1.5-12 months), no local recurrence or distant metastases were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Image guided thermal ablations appear to be feasible and safe in the treatment of PTMC. These techniques hold the potential to offer patients a minimally invasive curative alternative to surgical resection or active surveillance. These techniques appear to be largely preferred by patients.