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.

Personalized Multilevel Intervention for Improving Appropriate Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Despite guideline recommendations, clinicians do not systematically use prior screening or health history to guide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions in older adults.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of a personalized multilevel intervention on screening orders in older adults due for average-risk CRC screening.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Interventional 2-group parallel unmasked cluster randomized clinical trial conducted from November 2015 to February 2019 at 2 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities: 1 academic VA medical center and 1 of its connected outpatient clinics. Randomization at the primary care physician/clinician (PCP) level, stratified by study site and clinical full-time equivalency. Participants were 431 average-risk, screen-due US veterans aged 70 to 75 years attending a primary care visit. Data analysis was performed from August 2018 to August 2023.

Intervention

The intervention group received a multilevel intervention including a decision-aid booklet with detailed information on screening benefits and harms, personalized for each participant based on age, sex, prior screening, and comorbidity. The control group received a multilevel intervention including a screening informational booklet. All participants received PCP education and system-level modifications to support personalized screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was whether screening was ordered within 2 weeks of clinic visit. Secondary outcomes were concordance between screening orders and screening benefit and screening utilization within 6 months.

Results

A total of 436 patients were consented, and 431 were analyzed across 67 PCPs. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 71.5 (1.7) years; 424 were male (98.4%); 374 were White (86.8%); 89 were college graduates (21.5%); and 351 (81.4%) had undergone prior screening. A total of 258 (59.9%) were randomized to intervention, and 173 (40.1%) to control. Screening orders were placed for 162 of 258 intervention patients (62.8%) vs 114 of 173 control patients (65.9%) (adjusted difference, -4.0 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, -15.4 to 7.4 pp). In a prespecified interaction analysis, the proportion receiving orders was lower in the intervention group than in the control group for those in the lowest benefit quartile (59.4% vs 71.1%). In contrast, the proportion receiving orders was higher in the intervention group than in the control group for those in the highest benefit quartile (67.6% vs 52.2%) (interaction P = .049). Fewer intervention patients (106 of 256 [41.4%]) utilized screening overall at 6 months than controls (96 of 173 [55.9%]) (adjusted difference, -13.4 pp; 95% CI, -25.3 to -1.6 pp).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, patients who were presented with personalized information about screening benefits and harms in the context of a multilevel intervention were more likely to receive screening orders concordant with benefit and were less likely to utilize screening.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02027545.

Supporting older patients in making healthcare decisions: The effectiveness of decision aids; A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of Decision Aids (DAs) compared to usual care or alternative interventions for older patients facing treatment, screening, or care decisions.

METHODS

A systematic search of several databases was conducted. Eligible studies included patients ≥ 65 years or reported a mean of ≥ 70 years. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice made and decision making process, user experience and ways in which DAs were tailored to older patients. Meta-analysis was conducted, if possible, or outcomes were synthesized descriptively.

RESULTS

Overall, 15 studies were included. Using DAs were effective in increasing knowledge (SMD 0.90; 95% CI [0.48, 1.32]), decreasing decisional conflict (SMD -0.15; 95% CI [-0.29, -0.01]), improving patient-provider communication (RR 1.67; 95% CI [1.21, 2.29]), and preparing patients to make an individualized decision (MD 35.7%; 95% CI [26.8, 44.6]). Nine studies provided details on how the DA was tailored to older patients.

CONCLUSION

This review shows a number of favourable results for the effectiveness of DAs in decision making with older patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Current DAs can be used to support shared decision making with older patients when faced with treatment, screening or care decisions.

Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening

This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians' and vulnerable populations' preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients' values. Considering the complexities of patients' and clinicians' preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.

Physician Decision-Making About Surveillance in Older Adults With Prior Adenomas: Results From a National Survey

INTRODUCTION

There is no clear guidance on when surveillance colonoscopies should stop in older adults with prior adenomas. We aimed to examine physicians' decision-making regarding surveillance colonoscopies in older adults.

METHODS

In a national mailed survey of 1,800 primary care physicians (PCP) and 600 gastroenterologists, we asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in vignettes where we varied patient age (75 and 85 years), health (good, medium, and poor), and prior adenoma risk (low and high). We examined the association between surveillance recommendations and patient and physician characteristics using logistic regression. We also assessed decisional uncertainty, need for decision support, and decision-making roles.

RESULTS

Of 1,040 respondents (response rate 54.8%), 874 were eligible and included. Recommendation for surveillance colonoscopies was lower if patient was older (adjusted proportions 20.6% vs 49.8% if younger), in poor health (adjusted proportions 7.1% vs 28.8% moderate health, 67.7% good health), and prior adenoma was of low risk (adjusted proportions 29.7% vs 41.6% if high risk). Family medicine physicians were most likely and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance (adjusted proportions 40.0% vs 30.9%). Approximately 52.3% of PCP and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty regarding the benefit/harm balance of surveillance in older adults. Most (85.9% PCP and 77.0% gastroenterologists) would find a decision support tool helpful. Approximately 32.8% of PCP vs 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist's role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies.

DISCUSSION

Studies to better evaluate the benefits/harms of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate such data are needed.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences.

OBJECTIVE

To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults.

DESIGN

Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period.

INTERVENTIONS

Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit.

KEY RESULTS

Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms.

CONCLUSION

Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Guidelines recommend individualized decision-making for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults aged 76 to 84 years, a process that includes a consideration of health state and patient preference.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a targeted patient decision aid would align older adults' screening preference with their potential to benefit from CRC screening.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a prespecified secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial. Participants aged 70 to 84 years who were not up to date with screening and had an appointment within 6 weeks were purposively sampled by health state (poor, intermediate, or good) at 14 community-based primary care practices and block randomized to receive the intervention or control. Patients were recruited from March 1, 2012, to February 28, 2015, and these secondary analyses were performed from January 15 to March 1, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patient decision aid targeted to age and sex.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome of this analysis was patient preference for CRC screening. The a priori hypothesis was that the decision aid (intervention) group would reduce the proportion preferring screening among those in poor and intermediate health compared with the control group.

RESULTS

Among the 424 participants, the mean (SD) age was 76.8 (4.2) years; 248 (58.5%) of participants were women; and 333 (78.5%) were White. The proportion preferring screening in the intervention group was less than in the control group for those in the intermediate health state (34 of 76 [44.7%] vs 40 of 73 [54.8%]; absolute difference, -10.1% [95% CI, -26.0% to 5.9%]) and in the poor health state (24 of 62 [38.7%] vs 33 of 61 [54.1%]; absolute difference, -15.4% [95% CI, -32.8% to 2.0%]). These differences were not statistically significant. The proportion of those in good health who preferred screening was similar between the intervention and control groups (44 of 74 [59.5%] for intervention vs 46 of 75 [61.3%] for control; absolute difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -17.6% to 13.8%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this secondary analysis of a clinical trial did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in patient preferences between the health groups. Additional studies that are appropriately powered are needed to determine the effect of the decision aid on the preferences of older patients for CRC screening by health state.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01575990.

Characteristics Associated with Low-Value Cancer Screening Among Office-Based Physician Visits by Older Adults in the USA

BACKGROUND

After a certain age, cancer screening may expose older adults to unnecessary harms with limited benefits and represent inefficient use of health care resources.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the frequency of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening among adults older than US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) age thresholds at which screening is no longer considered routine and to identify physician and patient factors associated with low-value cancer screening.

DESIGN

Observational study using pooled cross-sectional data (2011-2016) from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative probability sample of US office-based physician visits.

PARTICIPANTS

Analyses for cervical and breast cancer screening were limited to visits by women over age 65 (N=37,818) and ages 75 and over (N=19,451), respectively. Analyses for colorectal cancer screening were limited to visits by patients over age 75 (N=31,543).

MAIN MEASURES

Cancer screening procedures were coded as low value using USPSTF age thresholds.

KEY RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2016, an estimated 509, 507, and 273 thousand potentially low-value Pap smears, mammograms, and colonoscopies/sigmoidoscopies, respectively, were ordered annually. Low-valuecervical cancer screening was less likely to occur for visits with older (vs. younger) patients. Compared to visits by non-HispanicWhite women, low-valuecervical and breast cancer screening was less likely to occur for visits by women whose race/ethnicitywas something other than non-HispanicWhite, non-HispanicBlack, or Hispanic. Obstetrician/gynecologistswere more likely to order low-valuePap smears and mammograms compared to family/generalpractice physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Thousands of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screenings at ages beyond routine guideline thresholds occur each year in the USA. Further research is needed to understand whether this pattern represents clinical inertia and resistance to de-adoption of previous screening practices, or whether physicians and/or patients perceive a higher value in these tests than that endorsed by experts writing evidence-based guidelines.

Making decisions on your own: Self-administered decision aids about colorectal cancer screening - A systematic review and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic review of self-administered decision aids (DAs) for citizens invited to participate in colorectal cancer screening synthesizing the effectiveness of self-administered DAs on informed choice or the components hereof; knowledge, attitudes, and participation.

METHODS

The literature search was undertaken in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase and Scopus and last updated 19 March 2021. Results were presented by narrative synthesis, meta-analyses and vote counting based on direction of effect.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies of fair methodological quality were included. One study reported on informed choice and 13 studies reported on the components. Self-administered DAs increased participation and knowledge whereas it was inconclusive with regard to attitudes towards screening. The studies were very heterogeneous with different comparators, outcomes and means of measurement.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review showed a potential for self-administered DAs to support informed choice in colorectal cancer screening, especially by increasing knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It seems reasonable to consider informed choice to be one of the main outcomes of self-administered DAs. Yet there is a need for consensus on how to measure informed choice in cancer screening, especially a validated measurement of knowledge defining what constitutes 'adequate knowledge'.

Life expectancy estimates based on comorbidities and frailty to inform preventive care

BACKGROUND

Long-term prognostication is important to inform preventive care in older adults. Existing prediction indices incorporate age and comorbidities. Frailty is another important factor in prognostication. In this project, we aimed at developing life expectancy estimates that incorporate both comorbidities and frailty.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we used data from a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries with and without history of cancer from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry areas. We included adults aged 66-95 years who were continuously enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for ≥1 year from 1998 to 2014. Participants were followed for survival until 12/31/2015, death, or disenrollment. Comorbidity (none, low/medium, high) and frailty categories (low, high) were defined using established methods for claims. We estimated 5- and 10-year survival probabilities and median life expectancies by age, sex, comorbidities, and frailty.

RESULTS

The study included 479,646 individuals (4,128,316 person-years), of whom most were women (58.7%). Frailty scores varied widely among participants in the same comorbidity category. In Cox models, both comorbidities and frailty were independent predictors of mortality. Individuals with high comorbidities (HR, 3.24; 95% CI, 3.20-3.28) and low/medium comorbidities (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.34-1.39) had higher risks of death than those with no comorbidities. Compared to low frailty, high frailty was associated with higher risk of death (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.52-1.58). Frailty affected life expectancy estimates in ways relevant to preventive care (i.e., distinguishing <10-year versus >10-year life expectancy) in multiple subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating both comorbidities and frailty may be important in estimating long-term life expectancies of older adults. Our life expectancy tables can aid clinicians' prognostication and inform simulation models and population health management.

Epidemiology and Implementation of Cancer Prevention in Disparate Populations and Settings

Successful cancer prevention strategies must be tailored to support usability. In this article, we will focus on cancer prevention strategies in populations that differ by race and ethnicity, place and location, sexual orientation and gender identity, and age by providing examples of effective approaches. An individual may belong to none of these categories, to all of these categories, or to some. This intersectionality of belonging characterizes individuals and shapes their experiences. Even within a category, broad diversity exists. Effective cancer prevention strategies comprehensively engage the community at multiple levels of influence and may effectively include lay health workers and faith-based cancer education interventions. Health system efforts that integrate cancer health with other health promotion activities show promise. At the individual physician level, culturally literate approaches have demonstrated success. For example, when discussing cancer screening tests with older adults, clinicians should indicate whether any data suggest that the screening test improves quality or quantity of life and the lag time to benefit from the screening test. This will allow older adults to make an informed cancer screening decision based on a realistic understanding of the potential benefits and risks and their values and preferences. Addressing individual and health system bias remains a challenge. Quality improvement strategies can address gaps in quality of care with respect to timeliness of care, coordination of care, and patient experience. The time is ripe for research on effective and interdisciplinary prevention strategies that harness expertise from preventive medicine, behavioral medicine, implementation science, e-health, telemedicine, and other diverse fields of health promotion.