A targeted decision aid for the elderly to decide whether to undergo colorectal cancer screening: development and results of an uncontrolled trial

Decision Regret and Decision-Making Process among Caregivers of Older Adults Receiving Home Care: A Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVES

Family caregivers of older adults receiving home care often find themselves in situations in which they must make important and difficult decisions, which can cause conflict and regret. To tailor shared decision making in this context, we aimed to identify the most difficult decisions they faced, assess their levels of decision regret, and explore the associated factors.

DESIGN

This study used a cross-sectional design.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Participants included 165 caregivers of older adults who received home care services in Korea.

METHODS

We identified difficult decisions perceived by family caregivers of older adults and evaluated decision regret using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), decisional conflict using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), burden of care using the Short Zarit Burden Inventory, and Preference Control Scale (PCS). We then performed descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate linear regression analyses to identify factors predicting decision regret.

RESULTS

The most frequently reported difficult decisions were related to place of living (71.6%), management of health conditions (15.1%), and end-of-life decisions (13.3%). The mean DCS score was 37.09 (12.67), the DRS score was 32.33 (15.91), and the burden score was 21.81 (8.25). Matching decisions with preferences and aligning decision-making roles significantly reduced regret, while decision conflicts increased regret.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The positive associations between decision regret, decision conflict, and the alignment of decision-making roles highlight the intricate dynamics involved in the decision-making process for family caregivers. These findings emphasize the need for tailored interventions that recognize and address the diverse factors influencing caregivers' decision-making experiences. Future research exploring the efficacy of targeted interventions such as decision-support programs or caregiver education initiatives could offer valuable insights into mitigating decision-related challenges and improving the overall well-being of both caregivers and care recipients.

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.

Screening for cancer beyond recommended upper age limits: views and experiences of older people

BACKGROUND

Internationally, screening programmes and clinical practice guidelines recommend when older adults should stop cancer screening using upper age limits, but it is unknown how older adults view these recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

To examine older adults' views and experiences about continuing or stopping cancer screening beyond the recommended upper age limit for breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancer.

DESIGN

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

Australia, telephone.

SUBJECTS

A total of 29 community-dwelling older adults (≥70-years); recruited from organisation newsletters, mailing lists and Facebook advertisements.

METHODS

Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

Firstly, older adults were on a spectrum between trusting recommendations and actively deciding about cancer screening, with some who were uncertain. Secondly, participants reported limited in-depth discussions with health professionals about cancer screening. In primary care, discussions were focused on checking they were up to date with screening or going over results. Discussions mostly only occurred if older adults initiated themselves. Finally, participants had a socially- and self-constructed understanding of screening recommendations and potential outcomes. Perceived reasons for upper age limits were cost, reduced cancer risk or ageism. Risks of screening were understood in relation to their own social experiences (e.g. shared stories about friends with adverse outcomes of cancer treatment or conversations with friends/family about controversy around prostate screening).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct-to-patient information and clinician support may help improve communication about the changing benefit to harm ratio of cancer screening with increasing age and increase understanding about the rationale for an upper age limit for cancer screening programmes.

Should we screen for colorectal cancer in people aged 75 and over? A systematic review - collaborative work of the French geriatric oncology society (SOFOG) and the French federation of digestive oncology (FFCD)

BACKGROUND

We have done a systematic literature review about CRC Screening over 75 years old in order to update knowledge and make recommendations.

METHODS

PUBMED database was searched in October 2021 for articles published on CRC screening in the elderly, and generated 249 articles. Further searches were made to find articles on the acceptability, efficacy, and harms of screening in this population, together with the state of international guidelines.

RESULTS

Most benefit-risk data on CRC screening in the over 75 s derived from simulation studies. Most guidelines recommend stopping cancer screening at the age of 75. In private health systems, extension of screening up to 80-85 years is, based on the life expectancy and the history of screening. Screening remains effective in populations without comorbidity given their better life-expectancy. Serious adverse events of colonoscopy increase with age and can outweigh the benefit of screening. The great majority of reviews concluded that screening between 75 and 85 years must be decided case by case.

CONCLUSION

The current literature does not allow Evidence-Based Medicine propositions for mass screening above 75 years old. As some subjects over 75 years may benefit from CRC screening, we discussed ways to introduce CRC screening in France in the 75-80 age group. IRB: An institutional review board composed of members of the 2 learned societies (SOFOG and FFCD) defined the issues of interest, followed the evolution of the work and reviewed and validated the report.

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.

Difficult Decisions for Older Canadians Receiving Home Care, and Why They Are So Difficult: A Web-Based Decisional Needs Assessment

Background. Older adults receiving home care services often face decisions related to aging, illness, and loss of autonomy. To inform tailored shared decision making interventions, we assessed their decisional needs by asking about the most common difficult decisions, measured associated decisional conflict, and identified factors associated with it. Methods. In March 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey with a pan-Canadian Web-based panel of older adults (≥65 y) receiving home care services. For a difficult decision they had faced in the past year, we evaluated clinically significant decisional conflict (CSDC) using the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (score 0–100) with a >37.5 cutoff. To identify factors associated with CSDC, we performed descriptive, bivariable, and multivariable analyses using the stepwise selection method with an assumed entry and exit significance level of 0.15 and 0.20, respectively. Final model selection was based on the Bayesian information criterion. Results. Among 460 participants with an average age of 72.5 y, difficult decisions were, in order of frequency, about housing and safety (57.2%), managing health conditions (21.8%), and end-of-life care (8.3%). CSDC was experienced by 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5%, 18.1%) of respondents on all decision points. Factors associated with CSDC included household size = 1 (OR [95% CI]: 1.81 [0.99, 3.33]; P = 0.27), household size = 3 (2.66 [0.78, 8.98]; P = 0.83), and household size = 4 (6.91 [2.23, 21.39]; P = 0.014); preferred option not matching the decision made (4.05 [2.05, 7.97]; P < 0.001); passive role in decision making (5.13 [1.78, 14.77]; P = 0.002); and lower quality of life (0.70 [0.57, 0.87]; P<0.001). Discussion. Some older adults receiving home care services in Canada experience CSDC when facing difficult decisions. Shared decision-making interventions could mitigate associated factors.

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'.

Effectiveness of a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening on components of informed choice according to educational attainment: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The decision to take up colorectal cancer screening has to be made on informed grounds balancing benefits and harms. Self-administered decision aids can support citizens in making an informed choice. A self-administered web-based decision aid targeting citizens with lower educational attainment has been evaluated within the target population. However, the effectiveness in the general screening population remains unexplored. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for colorectal cancer screening on components of informed choice among previous non-participants in colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The study was designed as a parallel randomised controlled trial among non-participants in colorectal cancer screening in Central Denmark Region (men and women aged 53-74 years). Respondents to baseline and follow-up questionnaires comprised the study population (n = 1,723). The intervention group received the decision aid electronically along with the second reminder. The control group received only the second reminder. The main outcomes (knowledge, attitudes, uptake and decisional conflict) were obtained through questionnaires data and from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Database. The decision aid increased the uptake rate by 8 percentage points (95% CI: 3.4;12.6) but had no effect on either knowledge (scale score differences: 0.09; 95% CI: -0.05;0.24) or attitudes (0.45; 95% CI: -0.00;0.91). Decisional conflict decreased by 1.69 scale points (95% CI: -3.18;-0.20). The effect was similar across educational attainment levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The web-based decision aid offers a feasible way to provide individualised screening information in a "one size fits all" approach that may hold the potential to increase informed CRC screening uptake.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT03253888.

Cancer Screening in Older Adults: Individualized Decision-Making and Communication Strategies

Cancer screening decisions in older adults can be complex due to the unclear cancer-specific mortality benefits of screening and several known harms including false positives, overdiagnosis, and procedural complications from downstream diagnostic interventions. In this review, we provide a framework for individualized cancer screening decisions among older adults, involving accounting for overall health and life expectancy, individual values, and the risks and benefits of specific cancer screening tests. We then discuss strategies for effective communication of recommendations during clinical visits that are considered more effective, easy to understand, and acceptable by older adults and clinicians.

Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: a Geriatrician's Perspective on Breast, Cervical, Colon, Prostate, and Lung Cancer Screening

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We summarize the evidence of benefits, harms, and tools to assist in individualized decisions among older adults in screening for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and cervical cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

The benefits of cancer screening in older adults remain unclear due to minimal inclusion of adults > 75 years old in most randomized controlled trials. Indirect evidence suggests that the benefits of screening seen in younger adults (< 70 years old) can be extrapolated to older adults when they have an estimated life expectancy of at least 10 years. However, older adults, especially those with limited life expectancy, may be at increased risk for experiencing harms of screening, including overdiagnosis of clinically unimportant diseases, complications from diagnostic procedures, and distress after false positive test results. We provide a framework to integrate key factors such as health status, risks and benefits of specific tests, and patient preferences to guide clinicians in cancer screening decisions in older adults.

The LEAD trial-The effectiveness of a decision aid on decision making among citizens with lower educational attainment who have not participated in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening in Denmark: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

This trial tested the effectiveness of a self-administered web-based decision aid, targeted at citizens with lower educational attainment, on informed choice about colorectal cancer screening participation as assessed by group levels of knowledge, attitudes and uptake.

METHODS

The randomised controlled trial was conducted among 2702 screening-naïve Danish citizens, 53-74 years old, with lower educational attainment. Baseline questionnaire respondents (62%) were allocated to intervention and control groups. Intervention group citizens received the decision aid. Outcomes were informed choice, worries and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Analyses were conducted among 339 eligible citizens. The mean difference in knowledge score change between intervention and control group was 0.00 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.38;0.38). Trends towards more positive screening attitudes (mean difference in score change: 0.72, 95% CI: -0.38;1.81) and higher screening uptake (7.6%, 95% CI:-2.2;17.4%) were observed. Worries (-0.33, 95% CI: -0.97;0.32) and decisional conflict (mean difference: -3.5, 95%CI: -7.0;-0.1) were slightly reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision aid did not affect informed choice or knowledge. However, there were trends towards increased screening uptake and more positive screening attitudes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Being a simple intervention and easily administered, the decision aid could represent a cost-effective way of enhancing screening uptake, and some elements of informed decision-making.

Cancer patients' interest in participating in cancer rehabilitation

Introduction: Rehabilitation for cancer patients aims at preventing and reducing the physical, mental, social and existential consequences of a cancer disease and its treatment. The aim of this study is to describe the patients' self-perceived interest in participating in cancer rehabilitation (CR).Material and methods: A total of 1179 cancer patients, diagnosed with 28 different cancer diagnoses, from November 2015 to October 2016, were identified via the national cancer quality registers. A questionnaire was developed for the purpose of this study, the Cancer Rehabilitation Interest. The questionnaire comprises 16 different rehabilitation activities. This study describes what activities the patients are interested to participate in.Results: The response rate was 62% and the final sample comprised 728 patients. The rehabilitation activities wanted by the cancer patients were Psychoeducational support group together with others with the same cancer diagnosis, Open lectures on cancer, Individual weight training with a physiotherapist and Personal support from a social worker. Most interested in cancer rehabilitation were women, younger patients, university educated patients and those who had received their diagnosis ≥12 months prior. Patients with a mandatory educational level had the lowest interest in all suggested activities compared with those having medium or high education.Conclusions: The interest of cancer rehabilitation of all approached patients in this study were 21%. Most interested were women, young patients, university educated and those who received their diagnosis ≥12 months earlier. About 30% of the participating cancer patients reported an interest of information and supportive groups, physical training and support from a hospital social worker. Patients with low level of education reported a low interest in CR. There are limitations in rehabilitation accessibility and that might affect a person's motivation to participate in this study.

Interactivity in a Decision Aid: Findings From a Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making RCT

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) remains underutilized. Decision aids (DAs) can increase patient knowledge, intent, and CRCS rates compared with "usual care," but whether interactivity further increases CRCS rate remains unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

A two-armed RCT compared the effect of a web-based DA that interactively assessed patient CRC risk and clarified patient preference for specific CRCS test to a web-based DA with the same content but without the interactive tools.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

The study sites were 12 community- and three university-based primary care practices (56 physicians) in southeastern Michigan. Participants were men and women aged 50-75 years not current on CRCS.

INTERVENTION

Random allocation to interactive DA (interactive arm) or non-interactive DA (non-interactive arm).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was medical record documentation of CRCS 6 months after the intervention. Secondary outcome was patient decision quality (i.e., knowledge, preference clarification, and intent) measured immediately before and after DA use, and immediately after the office visit. To determine that either DA had a positive effect on CRCS adherence, usual care CRCS rates were determined from the three university-based practices among patients eligible for but not participating in the study.

RESULTS

Data were collected between 2012 and 2014; analysis began in 2015. At 6 months, CRCS rate was 36.1% (95% CI=30.5%, 42.2%) in the interactive arm (n=284) and 40.5% (95% CI=34.7%, 46.6%) in the non-interactive arm (n=286, p=0.29). Usual care CRCS rate (n=440) was 18.6% (95% CI=15.2%, 22.7%), significantly lower than both arms (p<0.001). Knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, test preference, and intent increased significantly within each arm versus baseline, but the rate was not significantly different between the two arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The interactive DA did not improve the outcome compared to the non-interactive DA. This suggests that the resources needed to create and maintain the interactive components are not justifiable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01514786.

A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids

Introduction. Patient decision aid (PDA) certification standards recommend including the positive and negative features of each option of the decision. This review describes the inclusion of concepts related to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, negative features often ambiguously defined, in cancer screening PDAs. Methods. Our process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We reviewed 1) current systematic reviews of decision aids, 2) the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Decision Aid Library Inventory, and 3) a web-based, gray literature search. Two independent reviewers identified and evaluated PDAs using content analysis. Reviewers coded whether overdiagnosis/overtreatment was described as 1) detecting cancer that would not lead to death, 2) detecting cancer that would not cause symptoms, and/or 3) a potential harm or consequence of screening. Coding discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Results. A total of 904 records (e.g., articles, PDAs) were reviewed and 85 PDAs were identified: prostate (n = 36), breast (n = 26), lung (n = 10), colorectal (n = 10), and other (n = 3). Sixty-seven PDAs included concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment; 57 (67.1%) used a term other than overdiagnosis/overtreatment, 23 (27.1%) used the specific term "overdiagnosis," and 13 (15.3%) used "overtreatment." PDAs described overdiagnosis/overtreatment as a potential harm or consequence of screening (n = 62) and/or a detection of a cancer that would not cause symptoms (n = 49). Thirty-six described overdiagnosis as the detection of a cancer that would not result in death. Twenty PDAs described the probabilities associated with overdiagnosis/overtreatment. Conclusions. Over three quarters of cancer screening PDAs addressed concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment, yet terminology was inconsistent and few included probability estimates. Consistent terminology and minimum standards to describe overdiagnosis/overtreatment would help guide the design and certification of cancer screening PDAs.

Development and validation of a 5-year mortality prediction model using regularized regression and Medicare data

PURPOSE

De-implementation of low-value services among patients with limited life expectancy is challenging. Robust mortality prediction models using routinely collected health care data can enhance health care stakeholders' ability to identify populations with limited life expectancy. We developed and validated a claims-based prediction model for 5-year mortality using regularized regression methods.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries age 66 or older with an office visit and at least 12 months of pre-visit continuous Medicare A/B enrollment were identified in 2008. Five-year mortality was assessed through 2013. Secondary outcomes included 30-, 90-, and 180-day and 1-year mortality. Claims-based predictors, including comorbidities and indicators of disability, frailty, and functional impairment, were selected using regularized logistic regression, applying the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) in a random 80% training sample. Model performance was assessed and compared with the Gagne comorbidity score in the 20% validation sample.

RESULTS

Overall, 183 204 (24%) individuals died. In addition to demographics, 161 indicators of comorbidity and function were included in the final model. In the validation sample, the c-statistic was 0.825 (0.823-0.828). Median-predicted probability of 5-year mortality was 14%; almost 4% of the cohort had a predicted probability greater than 80%. Compared with the Gagne score, the LASSO model led to improved 5-year mortality classification (net reclassification index = 9.9%; integrated discrimination index = 5.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our claims-based model predicting 5-year mortality showed excellent discrimination and calibration, similar to the Gagne score model, but resulted in improved mortality classification. Regularized regression is a feasible approach for developing prediction tools that could enhance health care research and evaluation of care quality.

Knowledge, attitudes, and worries among different health literacy groups before receiving first invitation to colorectal cancer screening: Cross-sectional study

Background

Colorectal cancer screening uptake is associated with knowledge, attitudes and worries about screening. People with higher levels of health literacy usually have higher screening-related knowledge, but its association with attitudes and worries is sparsely described.The aim of this study was to describe knowledge, attitudes, and worries about colorectal cancer screening among unscreened citizens, and to estimate the association between these and health literacy.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study 10,030 53-74 year-old Central Denmark Region citizens received a questionnaire assessing knowledge, attitudes, worry and health literacy. Socioeconomic and -demographic data were linked from Statistics Denmark after data collection.

Results

In total, 7142 (71.2%) questionnaires were completed. A good general level of knowledge was observed (4.91 and 5.13 out of 7 for men and women, respectively). Citizens tended to be positive towards screening (21.4 and 21.3 on a 4-28 range scale for men and women respectively), and showed low levels of worries (8.8 and 9.09 on a 3-15 range scale for men and women respectively). Knowledge decreased and worries increased with lower levels of health literacy. Further, attitudes tended to be more positive with higher levels of health literacy.

Conclusions

In general, citizens tend to have good knowledge, positive attitudes and few worries about colorectal cancer screening. People with lower health literacy could benefit from targeted interventions that address knowledge and worries about screening to support informed decision making.

A Decision Aid to Promote Appropriate Colorectal Cancer Screening among Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background. Concerns have been raised about both over- and underutilization of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in older patients and the need to align screening behavior with likelihood of net benefit. Objective. The purpose of this study was to test a novel use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) to promote appropriate CRC screening in older adults. Methods. A total of 424 patients ages 70 to 84 y who were not up to date with CRC screening participated in a double-blinded randomized controlled trial of a PtDA targeted to older adults making decisions about whether to undergo CRC screening from March 2012 to February 2015. Intervention. Patients were randomized to a targeted PtDA or an attention control. The PtDA was designed to facilitate individualized decision making—helping patients understand the potential risks, benefits, and uncertainties of CRC screening given advanced age, health state, preferences, and values. Outcomes. Two composite outcomes, appropriate CRC screening behavior 6 mo after the index visit and appropriate screening intent immediately after the visit, were defined as completed screening or intent for patients in good health, discussion about screening with their provider for patients in intermediate health, and no screening or intent for patients in poor health. Health state was determined by age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Results. Four hundred twelve (97%) and 421 (99%) patients were analyzed for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Appropriate screening behavior at 6 mo was higher in the intervention group (55% v. 45%, P = 0.023) as was appropriate screening intent following the provider visit (61% v. 47%, P = 0.003). Limitations. The study took place in a single geographic region. The appropriate CRC screening classification system used in this study has not been formally validated. Conclusions. A PtDA for older adults promoted appropriate CRC screening behavior and intent.

Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, registration number NCT01575990. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01575990?term=epic-d&rank=1

Implementation and Evaluation of a Novel Colorectal Cancer Decision Aid Using a Centralized Delivery Strategy

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States; however, CRC screening reduces both incidence and mortality rates. Patient decision aids (DAs) are an evidence-based strategy to support patients making health-related decisions. CRC screening DAs can be unsuccessful due to provider preferences for colonoscopy and lack of effective DA implementation strategies within clinical settings.

METHODS

A hybrid implementation-effectiveness study was conducted testing the feasibility of using an existing centralized preventive health screening outreach infrastructure to implement a novel CRC DA across a health care system. Participants included primary care patients at one of three study clinics. Implementation was assessed by determining whether patients remembered receiving the DA and were aware of CRC screening options. Effectiveness was measured by comparing overall screening rates between the control and intervention groups.

RESULTS

Using a centralized delivery system was a feasible and efficient method for implementing DAs to a large academic health system. More than 90% of the intervention group remembered receiving the DA, and 80% found it helpful in their decision-making process. The DA was successful in improving CRC screening knowledge; however, overall CRC screening rates significantly decreased between the control and intervention periods (50.8% vs. 39.2%, respectively; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Centralized delivery is a feasible method for DA implementation. Although DAs increase knowledge, the true effectiveness of CRC DAs in clinical settings is unknown, as a result of the number in screening tests, diversity in DA format, and the variability in dissemination and implementation practices.

Cancer Screening in the Elderly: A Review of Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer Screening

There are relatively limited data on outcomes of screening older adults for cancer; therefore, the decision to screen older adults requires balancing the potential harms of screening and follow-up diagnostic tests with the possibility of benefit. Harms of screening can be amplified in older and frail adults and include discomfort from undergoing the test itself, anxiety, potential complications from diagnostic procedures resulting from a false-positive test, false reassurance from a false-negative test, and overdiagnosis of tumors that are of no threat and may result in overtreatment. In this paper, we review the evidence and guidelines on breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer as applied to older adults. We also provide a general framework for approaching cancer screening in older adults by incorporating evidence-based guidelines, patient preferences, and patient life expectancy estimates into shared screening decisions.

Design of a randomized clinical trial of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid to promote appropriate screening in community-dwelling older adults

BACKGROUND

Appropriate colorectal cancer screening in older adults should be aligned with the likelihood of net benefit. In general, patient decision aids improve knowledge and values clarity, but in older adults, they may also help patients identify their individual likelihood of benefit and foster individualized decision-making. We report on the design of a randomized clinical trial to understand the effects of a patient decision aid on appropriate colorectal cancer screening. This report includes a description of the baseline characteristics of participants.

METHODS

English-speaking primary care patients aged 70-84 years who were not currently up to date with screening were recruited into a randomized clinical trial comparing a tailored colorectal cancer screening decision aid with an attention control. The intervention group received a decision aid that included a values clarification exercise and individualized decision-making worksheet, while the control group received an educational pamphlet on safe driving behaviors. The primary outcome was appropriate screening at 6 months based on chart review. We used a composite measure to define appropriate screening as screening for participants in good health, a discussion about screening for patients in intermediate health, and no screening for patients in poor health. Health state was objectively determined using patients' Charlson Comorbidity Index score and age.

RESULTS

A total of 14 practices in central North Carolina participated as part of a practice-based research network. In total, 424 patients were recruited to participate and completed a baseline visit. Overall, 79% of participants were White and 58% female, with a mean age of 76.8 years. Patient characteristics between groups were similar by age, gender, race, education, insurance coverage, or work status. Overall, 70% had some college education or more, 57% were married, and virtually all had Medicare insurance (90%). The three primary medical conditions among the cohort were a history of diabetes, pneumonia, and cancer (28%, 26%, and 21%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We designed a randomized clinical trial to test a novel use of a patient decision aid to promote appropriate colorectal cancer screening and have recruited a diverse study population that seems similar between the intervention and control groups. The study should be able to determine the ability of a patient decision aid to increase individualized and appropriate colorectal cancer screening.

Correlates of Patient Intent and Preference on Colorectal Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION

Information is limited on patient characteristics that influence their preference among screening options and intent to be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). A mechanistic pathway to intent and preference was examined through a formal mediation analysis.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2014, a total of 570 adults aged 50-75 years were recruited from 15 primary care practices in Metro Detroit for a trial on decision aids for CRC screening. Confirmatory factor, regression, and mediation analyses were performed in 2015-2016 on baseline cross-sectional data. Main outcomes were patient intent and preference. Perceived risk and self-efficacy were secondary outcomes. Covariates included demographic information, health status, previous CRC screening experience, patient attitudes, and knowledge.

RESULTS

Mean age was 57.7 years, 56.1% were women, and 55.1% white and 36.6% black. Women had 32% and 41% lower odds than men of perceiving CRC to be high/moderate risk (OR=0.68, 95% CI=0.47, 0.97, p=0.03) and having high self-efficacy (OR=0.59, 95% CI=0.42, 0.85, p=0.006), respectively. Whites had 63% and 47% lower odds than blacks of having high self-efficacy (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25, 0.57, p<0.001) and intent to undergo CRC screening (OR=0.53, 95% CI=0.34, 0.84, p=0.007), respectively. Younger age, higher knowledge, lower level of test worries, and medium/high versus low self-efficacy increased the odds of intent of being screened. Self-efficacy, but not perceived risk, significantly mediated the association between race, attitude, and test worries and patient screening intent.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-efficacy mediated the association between race, attitude, and test worries and patient intent.

Use of a computerised decision aid (DA) to inform the decision process on adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II colorectal cancer: development and preliminary evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To develop a computerised decision aid (DA) to inform the decision process on adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II colorectal cancer, and examine perceived usefulness, acceptability and areas for improvement of the DA.

DESIGN

Mixed methods.

SETTING

Single outpatient oncology department in central London.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive recruitment of 13 patients with stage II colorectal cancer, 12 of whom completed the study. Inclusion criteria were: age >18 years; complete resection for stage II adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; patients within 14-56 days after surgery; no contraindication to adjuvant chemotherapy; able to give written informed consent. Exclusion criterion: previous chemotherapy.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Patient perceived usefulness (assessed by the PrepDM questionnaire) and acceptability of the DA.

RESULTS

PrepDM scores, measuring the perceived usefulness of the DA in preparing the patient to communicate with their doctor and make a health decision, were above those reported in other patient groups. Patient acceptability scores were also high; however, interviews showed that there was evidence of a lack of understanding of key information among some patients, in particular their baseline risk of recurrence, the net benefit of combination chemotherapy and the rationale for having chemotherapy when cancer had apparently gone.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients found the DA acceptable and useful in supporting their decision about whether or not to have adjuvant chemotherapy. Suggested improvements for the DA include: sequential presentation of treatment options (eg, no treatment vs 1 drug, 1 drug vs 2 drugs) to enhance patient understanding of the difference between combination and single therapy, diagrams to help patients understand the rationale for chemotherapy to prevent a recurrence and inbuilt checks on patient understanding of baseline risk of recurrence and net benefit of chemotherapy.

Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Decision aids prepare patients to make decisions about healthcare options consistent with their preferences. Helping patients choose among available options for colorectal cancer screening is important because rates are lower than screening for other cancers. This systematic review describes studies evaluating patient decision aids for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults and their impact on knowledge, screening intentions, and uptake.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid PsycINFO through July 21, 2015, pertinent reference lists, and Cochrane review of patient decisions aids. Reviewers independently selected studies that quantitatively evaluated a decision aid compared to one or more conditions or within a pre-post evaluation. Using a standardized form, reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Analysis was conducted in August 2015.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-three articles representing 21 trials including 11,900 subjects were eligible. Patients exposed to a decision aid showed greater knowledge than those exposed to a control condition (mean difference=18.3 of 100; 95% CI=15.5, 21.1), were more likely to be interested in screening (pooled relative risk=1.5; 95% CI=1.2, 2.0), and more likely to be screened (pooled relative risk=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.4). Decision aid patients had greater knowledge than patients receiving general colorectal cancer screening information (pooled mean difference=19.3 of 100; 95% CI=14.7, 23.8); however, there were no significant differences in screening interest or behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids improve knowledge and interest in screening, and lead to increased screening over no information, but their impact on screening is similar to general colorectal cancer screening information.

Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods

Background. Values clarification is a recommended element of patient decision aids. Many different values clarification methods exist, but there is little evidence synthesis available to guide design decisions. Purpose. To describe practices in the field of explicit values clarification methods according to a taxonomy of design features. Data Sources. MEDLINE, all EBM Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, manual search of reference lists, and expert contacts. Study Selection. Articles were included if they described 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. Data Extraction. We extracted data about decisions addressed; use of theories, frameworks, and guidelines; and 12 design features. Data Synthesis. We identified 110 articles describing 98 explicit values clarification methods. Most of these addressed decisions in cancer or reproductive health, and half addressed a decision between just 2 options. Most used neither theory nor guidelines to structure their design. “Pros and cons” was the most common type of values clarification method. Most methods did not allow users to add their own concerns. Few methods explicitly presented tradeoffs inherent in the decision, supported an iterative process of values exploration, or showed how different options aligned with users’ values. Limitations. Study selection criteria and choice of elements for the taxonomy may have excluded values clarification methods or design features. Conclusions. Explicit values clarification methods have diverse designs but can be systematically cataloged within the structure of a taxonomy. Developers of values clarification methods should carefully consider each of the design features in this taxonomy and publish adequate descriptions of their designs. More research is needed to study the effects of different design features.

Colon cancer screening in U.S. adults aged 65 and older according to life expectancy and age

OBJECTIVES

To examine receipt of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening according to age and life expectancy (LE) in adults aged 65 and older.

DESIGN

Population-based survey.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Community dwelling adults aged 65 and older who participated in the 2008 or 2010 National Health Interview Survey (N = 7,747).

MEASUREMENTS

Receipt of CRC screening (e.g., colonoscopy within 10 years) was examined according to age and LE (≥10 and <10 years), adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and survey year. Frequency of CRC screening was also examined according to age and LE at time of screening (e.g., age at colonoscopy rather than at interview). Participants screened when they were aged 75 and older or had less than a 10-year LE were considered to have received screening inconsistent with guidelines.

RESULTS

Overall, 38.5% of participants had less than a 10-year LE; 40.2% were aged 75 and older, and 56.3% had received recent CRC screening (90.1% by colonoscopy). CRC screening was higher in 2010 (58.9%) than 2008 (53.7%, P <.001) and was associated with longer LE and younger age, although 51.1% of adults aged 75 and older reported receiving CRC screening, as did 50.9% of adults with less than a 10-year LE. Based on age and LE at time of screening (rather than at interview), 28.4% of CRC screening of adults aged 65 and older was targeted to those aged 75 and older and those with less than a 10-year LE. Of adults aged 65 to 75 with a 10-year LE or more (adults recommended for screening by guidelines), 39.2% had not recently been screened.

CONCLUSION

Older adults with little chance of benefit because of limited LE commonly undergo CRC screening, whereas many adults aged 65 to 75 with a 10-year LE or greater are not screened.

A universal decision support system. Addressing the decision-making needs of patients, families, and clinicians in the setting of critical illness

In the setting of a complex critical illness, preference-sensitive decision making-choosing between two or more reasonable treatment options-can be difficult for patients, families, and clinicians alike. A common challenge to making high-quality decisions in this setting is a lack of critical information access and sharing among participants. Decision aids-brochures, web applications, and videos-are a major focus of current research because mounting evidence suggests they can improve decision-making quality and enhance collaborative shared decision making. However, many decision aids have important limitations, including a relatively narrow capacity for personalization, an inability to gather and generate clinical data, a focus on only a single disease or treatment, and high developmental costs. To address these issues and to help guide future research, we propose a model of "universal" electronic decision support that can be easily adapted by clinicians and patients/families for whatever decision is at hand. In this scalable web-based platform, a general shared decision-making core structure would accommodate simple, interchangeable disease and treatment information modules. The format and content of the system could be adapted to decisional participants' unique characteristics, abilities, and needs. Universal decision support can better standardize a decisional approach and also allow a unique degree of personalization within a framework of shared decision making. We also discuss potential criticisms of this approach as well as strategies that can overcome them in a critical illness setting.

Endoscopy in the elderly: risks, benefits, and yield of common endoscopic procedures

There has been limited research examining the risks, benefits, and use of common endoscopic procedures in the elderly. Furthermore, gastroenterology training programs do not routinely incorporate elderly concerns when dealing with common gastrointestinal issues. There exists a broad array of endoscopic procedures with varying inherent risks that must be weighed with each elderly patient in mind. This article discusses the benefits and drawbacks of the most common procedures and indications for endoscopy including upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and deep enteroscopy.

Older adults newly diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma and treatment decision making

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To describe the preferences for participation in decision making of older adult patients newly diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma and to explore the association between sociodemographic variables and decisional role preferences.

DESIGN

Descriptive, cross-sectional design.

SETTING

Participants' homes and two large academic cancer centers in Seattle, WA, and Chicago, IL.

SAMPLE

A convenience sample of 20 older adults (60 years of age and older) with symptomatic myeloma diagnosed within the past six months.

METHODS

The Control Preferences Scale was administered followed by an in-person, one-time, semistructured interview.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Role preferences for participation in treatment decision making, age, gender, race, work status, personal relationship status, education, and income.

FINDINGS

Fifty-five percent of the participants preferred a shared role with the physician and 40% preferred to make the decisions after seriously considering the opinion of their physicians. Only one participant preferred to leave the decision to the doctor, as long as the doctor considered the patient's treatment preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings indicate that older adults newly diagnosed with myeloma want to participate in treatment decision making. Oncology nurses must respect the patient's desired role preference and oncology clinicians must listen to the patient and allow him or her to be autonomous in making treatment decisions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nurses and other oncology clinicians can elicit a patient's preferred level of participation in treatment decision making. Oncology nurses can make sure patients receive disease- and treatment-related information, encourage them to express their decisional role preference to the physician, develop a culture of mutual respect and value their desire for autonomy for treatment decision making, acknowledge that the right to make a treatment choice belongs to the patient, and provide support during treatment decision making throughout the care continuum.

Continuing cancer screening later in life: attitudes and intentions among older adults in England

Background: the rise in life expectancy, together with age-related increase in the incidence of most cancers, has led to mounting interest in cancer screening in older people. In England, routine invitations stop and an ‘opt-in’ (individual request) process is available from ages 71 to 76 years for breast and colorectal screening respectively. Little is known about public attitudes towards age-stoppage policy.

Objective: this study examined public attitudes to current stoppage policy, information preferences and intentions to request screening beyond the age of routine invitations.

Sample: participants (n = 927; age 60–74 years) were recruited as part of a TNS Research International survey and took part in home-based, computer-assisted interviews.

Methods: measures included: (i) attitudes towards current stoppage policy, (ii) preference for communications about screening after the end of the routine invitation period and (iii) intention to opt-in.

Results: the majority of respondents (78%) did not agree with age-based stoppage policies. Most (83%) wanted a strong recommendation to opt-in after this age, although the number who thought they would follow such a recommendation was much lower (27%). A majority of participants (54%) thought information on screening at older ages should come from their general practitioner (GP).

Conclusion: this survey indicates that older people in England wish to continue to be actively invited for cancer screening, although only a minority think that they would ultimately take up the offer. Primary care may play a role in negotiating a shared decision that is based on individual circumstances.

Physician decision making for colorectal cancer screening in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Although individualized decision making is recommended to appropriately screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) in older adults, it is unclear whether physicians solicit input from older patients before making a recommendation for or against CRC screening.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine whether physicians elect to engage older patients in individualized decision making for CRC screening.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

We surveyed a random sample of 650 US primary care physicians by mail. Physicians responded to questions about three clinical vignettes involving 80-year-old female patients in good, fair, and poor health. We examined whether physicians reported that they would initiate a discussion with the patients about CRC screening and whether they would make a recommendation about screening or seek patient input first.

RESULTS

A total of 276 eligible physicians responded (52 % corrected response rate). Whether physicians indicated they would initiate a discussion about CRC screening varied by vignette: 91 % of physicians indicated they would do so for the patient in good health and 66 % and 44 % for the patients in fair and poor health, respectively (p<0.0001). The proportion of physicians that would seek patient input for their screening recommendation also varied by vignette (45 % for good, 49 % for fair, and 26 % for poor).

CONCLUSION

We found that physicians often individualize their CRC screening recommendations for older women by electing to engage patients in discussions and seeking their input before making a CRC recommendation. Physicians were more likely to elect to engage the patients represented by the good and fair health vignette, where the potential benefits likely outweigh the potential harms, than the patient in poor health, where the potential harms likely outweigh the potential benefits.

Implementing clinical practice guidelines about health promotion and disease prevention through shared decision making

Clinical practice guidelines aim to improve the health of patients by guiding individual care in clinical settings. Many guidelines specifically about health promotion or primary disease prevention are beginning to support informed patient choice, and suggest that clinicians and patients engage in shared discussions to determine how best to tailor guidelines to individuals. However, guidelines generally do not address how to translate evidence from the population to the individual in clinical practice, or how to engage patients in these discussions. In addition, they often fail to reconcile patients' preferences and social norms with best evidence. Shared decision making (SDM) is one solution to bridge guidelines about health promotion and disease prevention with clinical practice. SDM describes a collaborative process between patients and their clinicians to reach agreement about a health decision involving multiple medically appropriate treatment options. This paper discusses: 1) a brief overview of SDM; 2) the potential role of SDM in facilitating the implementation of prevention-focused practice guidelines for both preference-sensitive and effective care decisions; and 3) avenues for future empirical research to test how best to engage individual patients and clinicians in these complex discussions about prevention guidelines. We suggest that SDM can provide a structure for clinicians to discuss clinical practice guidelines with patients in a way that is evidence-based, patient-centered, and incorporates patients' preferences. In addition to providing a model for communicating about uncertainty at the individual level, SDM can provide a platform for engaging patients in a conversation. This process can help manage patients' and clinicians' expectations about health behaviors. SDM can be used even in situations with strong evidence for benefits at the level of the population, by helping patients and clinicians prioritize behaviors during time-pressured medical encounters. Involving patients in discussions could lead to improved health through better adherence to chosen options, reduced practice variation about preference-sensitive options, and improved care more broadly. However, more research is needed to determine the impact of this approach on outcomes such as morbidity and mortality.

What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

Recent guidelines on cancer screening have provided not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians' support, must decide whether to get screened, which modality to use, and how often to undergo screening. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision-making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. A total of 73 decision aids concerning screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers were reviewed. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need of more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real-world setting. Most studies used sound study designs. Significant variation existed in the setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over one-third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted with regard to which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision-making. Little information was available regarding the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. In this review, the implications for future research, as well as what clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice, are discussed.

Supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence is low

There is growing interest in shared decision making (SDM) in the United States and globally, at both the clinical and policy levels. SDM is typically employed during "preference-sensitive" decisions, where there is equipoise between treatment options with equal or similar outcomes from a medical standpoint. In these situations, patients' preferences for the possible risks, benefits, and trade-offs between options are central to the decision. However, SDM also may be appropriate in clinical situations besides those in which data demonstrate equipoise. In situations of low evidence, where evidence is conflicting, unavailable or not applicable to an individual patient, supporting SDM can present unique challenges, above and beyond the challenges faced during more standard preference-sensitive decisions. This article discusses challenges in supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence is low, describes strategies that can facilitate SDM despite low evidence, and suggests avenues for future research to explore further these proposed strategies.

Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for surrogates of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making is inadequate in intensive care units. Decision aids can improve decision making quality, though their role in an intensive care units setting is unclear. We aimed to develop and pilot test a decision aid for shared decision makers of patients undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation.

SETTING

Intensive care units at three medical centers.

SUBJECTS

Fifty-three surrogate decision makers and 58 physicians.

DESIGN AND INTERVENTIONS

We developed the decision aid using defined methodological guidelines. After an iterative revision process, formative cognitive testing was performed among surrogate-physician dyads. Next, we compared the decision aid to usual care control in a prospective, before/after design study.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Primary outcomes were physician-surrogate discordance for expected patient survival, comprehension of relevant medical information, and the quality of communication. Compared to control, the intervention group had lower surrogate-physician discordance (7 [10] vs. 43 [21]), greater comprehension (11.4 [0.7] vs. 6.1 [3.7]), and improved quality of communication (8.7 [1.3] vs. 8.4 [1.3]) (all p<.05) post-intervention. Hospital costs were lower in the intervention group ($110,609 vs. $178,618; p=.044); mortality did not differ by group (38% vs. 50%, p=.95). Ninety-four percent of the surrogates and 100% of the physicians reported that the decision aid was useful in decision making.

CONCLUSION

We developed a prolonged mechanical ventilation decision aid that is feasible, acceptable, and associated with both improved decision-making quality and less resource utilization. Further evaluation using a randomized controlled trial design is required to evaluate the decision aid's effect on long-term patient and surrogate outcomes.

Arriba-lib: association of an evidence-based electronic library of decision aids with communication and decision-making in patients and primary care physicians

AIM

In shared decision-making, patients are empowered to actively ask questions and participate in decisions about their healthcare based on their preferences and values. Decision aids should help patients make informed choices among diagnostic or treatment options by delivering evidence-based information on options and outcomes; however, they have rarely been field tested, especially in the primary care context. We therefore evaluated associations between the use of an interactive, transactional and evidence-based library of decision aids (arriba-lib) and communication and decision-making in patients and physicians in the primary care context.

METHODS

Our electronic library of decision aids ('arriba-lib') includes evidence-based modules for cardiovascular prevention, diabetes, coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation and depression. Twenty-nine primary care physicians recruited 192 patients. We used questionnaires to ask patients and physicians about their experiences with and attitudes towards the programme. Patients were interviewed via telephone 2 months after the consultation. Data were analysed by general estimation equations, cross tab analyses and by using effect sizes.

RESULTS

Only a minority (8.9%) of the consultations were felt to be too long because physicians said consultations were unacceptably extended by arriba-lib. We found a negative association between the detailedness of the discussion of the clinical problem's definition and the age of the patients. Physicians discuss therapeutic options in less detail with patients who have a formal education of less than 8 years. Patients who were counselled by a physician with no experience in using a decision aid more often reported that they do not remember being counselled with the help of a decision aid or do not wish to be counselled again with a decision aid.

CONCLUSIONS

Arriba-lib has positive associations to the decision-making process in patients and physicians. It can also be used with older age groups and patients with less formal education. Physicians seem to adapt their counselling strategy to different patient groups. Prior experience with the use of decision aids has an influence on the acceptance of arriba-lib in patients but not on their decision-making or decision implementation.

Arriba-lib: evaluation of an electronic library of decision aids in primary care physicians

Background

The successful implementation of decision aids in clinical practice initially depends on how clinicians perceive them. Relatively little is known about the acceptance of decision aids by physicians and factors influencing the implementation of decision aids from their point of view. Our electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) is to be used within the encounter and has a modular structure containing evidence-based decision aids for the following topics: cardiovascular prevention, atrial fibrillation, coronary heart disease, oral antidiabetics, conventional and intensified insulin therapy, and unipolar depression. The aim of our study was to evaluate the acceptance of arriba-lib in primary care physicians.

Methods

We conducted an evaluation study in which 29 primary care physicians included 192 patients. The physician questionnaire contained information on which module was used, how extensive steps of the shared decision making process were discussed, who made the decision, and a subjective appraisal of consultation length. We used generalised estimation equations to measure associations within patient variables and traditional crosstab analyses.

Results

Only a minority of consultations (8.9%) was considered to be unacceptably extended. In 90.6% of consultations, physicians said that a decision could be made. A shared decision was perceived by physicians in 57.1% of consultations. Physicians said that a decision was more likely to be made when therapeutic options were discussed “detailed”. Prior experience with decision aids was not a critical variable for implementation within our sample of primary care physicians.

Conclusions

Our study showed that it might be feasible to apply our electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) in the primary care context. Evidence-based decision aids offer support for physicians in the management of medical information. Future studies should monitor the long-term adoption of arriba-lib in primary care physicians.

Cancer surgery in the elderly

The proportions both of elderly patients in the world and of elderly patients with cancer are both increasing. In the evaluation of these patients, physiologic age, and not chronologic age, should be carefully considered in the decision-making process prior to both cancer screening and cancer treatment in an effort to avoid ageism. Many tools exist to help the practitioner determine the physiologic age of the patient, which allows for more appropriate and more individualized risk stratification, both in the pre- and postoperative periods as patients are evaluated for surgical treatments and monitored for surgical complications, respectively. During and after operations in the oncogeriatric populations, physiologic changes occuring that accompany aging include impaired stress response, increased senescence, and decreased immunity, all three of which impact the risk/benefit ratio associated with cancer surgery in the elderly.

Acceptance of shared decision making with reference to an electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) and its association to decision making in patients: an evaluation study

Background

Decision aids based on the philosophy of shared decision making are designed to help patients make informed choices among diagnostic or treatment options by delivering evidence-based information on options and outcomes. A patient decision aid can be regarded as a complex intervention because it consists of several presumably relevant components. Decision aids have rarely been field tested to assess patients' and physicians' attitudes towards them. It is also unclear what effect decision aids have on the adherence to chosen options.

Methods

The electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) to be used within the clinical encounter has a modular structure and contains evidence-based decision aids for the following topics: cardiovascular prevention, atrial fibrillation, coronary heart disease, oral antidiabetics, conventional and intensified insulin therapy, and unipolar depression. We conducted an evaluation study in which 29 primary care physicians included 192 patients. After the consultation, patients filled in questionnaires and were interviewed via telephone two months later. We used generalised estimation equations to measure associations within patient variables and traditional crosstab analyses.

Results

Patients were highly satisfied with arriba-lib and the process of shared decision making. Two-thirds of patients reached in the telephone interview wanted to be counselled again with arriba-lib. There was a high congruence between preferred and perceived decision making. Of those patients reached in the telephone interview, 80.7% said that they implemented the decision, independent of gender and education. Elderly patients were more likely to say that they implemented the decision.

Conclusions

Shared decision making with our multi-modular electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) was accepted by a high number of patients. It has positive associations to general aspects of decision making in patients. It can be used for patient groups with a wide range of individual characteristics.