Promise and perils of patient decision aids for reducing low-value care

Randomized Trial of the Choosing Wisely Consumer Questions and a Shared Decision-Making Video Intervention on Decision-Making Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions.

METHODS

We evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM.

RESULTS

A total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P < 0.001, d = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ANZCTR376477.

HIGHLIGHTS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.

The impact of a patient decision aid on intention to undergo surgery for subacromial pain syndrome: An online randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of a patient decision aid for people considering shoulder surgery.

METHODS

Participants with shoulder pain considering shoulder surgery (n = 425) were recruited online and randomised to (i) a decision aid outlining the benefits and harms of shoulder surgery and non-surgical options (then randomised to a side-by-side vs. top-and-bottom display of options); and (ii) general information about shoulder pain from the NHS. Outcomes included treatment intention (primary), knowledge, attitudes, informed choice, and decisional conflict. Linear and logistic regression models were used to evaluate between-groups differences in outcomes.

RESULTS

409 participants (96%) had post-intervention data. Mean age was 41.3 years, 44.2% were female. There was no between-group difference in post-intervention treatment intention (MD -0.2, 95% CI: -3.3 to 2.8) and likelihood of intending to have shoulder surgery (OR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.3-1.5). The decision aid slightly improved knowledge (MD 4.4, 95% CI: 0.2-8.6), but not any other secondary outcomes. The display of options did not influence any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In this online trial, a co-designed patient decision aid had no effect on treatment intention, attitudes, informed choice, and decisional conflict, but a small effect on improving knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Research is needed to understand reasons for the lack of anticipated effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000992808).

De-implementing low-value care in cancer care delivery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions to de-implement low-value services are urgently needed. While medical societies and educational campaigns such as Choosing Wisely have developed several guidelines and recommendations pertaining to low-value care, little is known about interventions that exist to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. We conducted this review to summarize the literature on interventions to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the published literature in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus from 1 January 1990 to 4 March 2021. We screened the retrieved abstracts for eligibility against inclusion criteria and conducted a full-text review of all eligible studies on de-implementation interventions in cancer care delivery. We used the framework analysis approach to summarize included studies' key characteristics including design, type of cancer, outcome(s), objective(s), de-implementation interventions description, and determinants of the de-implementation interventions. To extract the data, pairs of authors placed text from included articles into the appropriate cells within our framework. We analyzed extracted data from each cell to describe the studies and findings of de-implementation interventions aiming to reduce low-value cancer care.

RESULTS

Out of 2794 studies, 12 met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered several cancer types, including prostate cancer (n = 5), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 3), lung cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 2), and hematologic cancers (n = 1). Most of the interventions (n = 10) were multifaceted. Auditing and providing feedback, having a clinical champion, educating clinicians through developing and disseminating new guidelines, and developing a decision support tool are the common components of the de-implementation interventions. Six of the de-implementation interventions were effective in reducing low-value care, five studies reported mixed results, and one study showed no difference across intervention arms. Eleven studies aimed to de-implement low-value care by changing providers' behavior, and 1 de-implementation intervention focused on changing the patients' behavior. Three studies had little risk of bias, five had moderate, and four had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated a paucity of evidence in many areas of the de-implementation of low-value care including lack of studies in active de-implementation (i.e., healthcare organizations initiating de-implementation interventions purposefully aimed at reducing low-value care).