Protocol for the Osteoporosis Choice trial. A pilot randomized trial of a decision aid in primary care practice

Impact of patient education by nurse case managers on decision making for out-of-pocket anti-osteoporotic pharmaceutical therapy: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is a common condition that increases the risk of fracture and mortality. In Taiwan, clinical guidelines recommend pharmaceutical therapy for patients with a T-score of ≤ - 2.5; however, Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) only covers these medications for those with a history of fragility fractures. This gap in coverage necessitates a discussion of out-of-pocket treatment options. To address this, we provided an integrated care program with patient education and shared decision-making by nurse case managers specializing in osteoporosis. We evaluated whether education by nurse case managers influences patients with a T-score ≤ - 2.5, who are not covered by the NHI, to choose out-of-pocket pharmaceutical therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients who underwent bone density scanning at our hospital between January 2014 and December 2021. We identified 4,462 patients with a T-score of ≤ - 2.5 who were ineligible for NHI-covered anti-osteoporotic therapy and analyzed trends in out-of-pocket medication use. Since the integrated care program began in 2018, we evaluated whether education by nurse case managers between 2018 and 2021 influenced patients' decisions to pay out-of-pocket for therapy. After the implementation of the integrated care program, we identified 2,910 patients with a T-score ≤ -2.5 who were ineligible for NHI-covered anti-osteoporotic therapy. Of these, 640 opted for out-of-pocket treatment, while 2,270 chose conservative care. After a 1:1 propensity score match based on age and sex, logistic regression was used to analyze the impact of nurse case manager education on these decisions.

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2021, 888 of the 4,462 patients chose out-of-pocket pharmaceutical therapy. Before the implementation of the integrated care program and patient education by nurse case managers (2014-2017), 16% of the patients opted to pay out-of-pocket for anti-osteoporotic therapy. After the program was implemented (2018-2021), the rate increased significantly to 22% (P < 0.001). A multivariate logistic regression model showed that a history of osteoarthritis (adjusted odds ratio = 1.576; P = 0.009) and education provided by the nurse case managers (adjusted odds ratio = 5.044; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with choosing out-of-pocket therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Education from nurse case managers significantly increased the likelihood of patients choosing out-of-pocket anti-osteoporotic therapy in our hospital, thereby bridging the gap between clinical guidelines and NHI reimbursement criteria.

A quasi-experimental study about shared decision-making and motivational interviewing on patients with a recent fracture attending Fracture Liaison Services

Shared decision-making (SDM) aims to improve patients' experiences with care, treatment adherence, and health outcomes. However, the effectiveness of SDM in patients with a recent fracture who require anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM) is unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a multicomponent adherence intervention (MCAI) including a patient decision aid (PDA) and motivational interviewing at Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) on multiple outcomes compared with usual care (UC). This pre-post superiority study included patients with a recent fracture attending FLS and with AOM treatment indication. The primary outcome was 1-year AOM persistence measured by pharmacy records. Secondary outcomes included treatment initiation, AOM adherence (measured by medication possession ratio [MPR]), decision quality (SDM process; 0-100, best), and decisional conflict (0-100, highest conflict), subsequent fractures, and mortality. Outcomes were tested in MCAI and UC groups at the first FLS visit and 4 and 12 months afterwards. Multiple imputation and uni- and multivariable analyses were performed. Post hoc analyses assessed the role of health literacy level. In total, 245 patients (MCAI: n = 136, UC: n = 109) were included. AOM persistence was 80.4% in the MCAI and 76.7% in the UC group (p=.626). SDM process scores were significantly better in MCAI (60.4 vs 55.1; p = .003). AOM initiation (97.8% vs 97.5%), MPR (90.9% vs 88.3%, p=.582), and decisional conflict (21.7 vs 23.0; p = .314) did not differ between groups. Results did not change importantly after adjustment. Stratified analyses by health literacy showed a better effect on MPR and SDM in those with adequate health literacy. This study showed no significant effect on AOM persistence; however, it demonstrated a significant positive effect of MCAI on SDM process in FLS attendees. (Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7236 [NTR7435]; version 1.0; 26-11-2020 https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/nl/trial/22858).

A person-centred consultation intervention to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines (iFraP): a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial protocol

Background

Good quality shared decision-making (SDM) conversations involve people with, or at risk of osteoporosis and clinicians collaborating to decide, where appropriate, which evidence-based medicines best fit the person's life, beliefs, and values. We developed the improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) intervention comprising a computerised Decision Support Tool (DST), clinician training package and information resources, for use in UK Fracture Liaison Service consultations.Two primary objectives to determine (1) the effect of the iFraP intervention on patient-reported ease in decision-making about osteoporosis medicines, and (2) cost-effectiveness of iFraP intervention compared to usual NHS care. Secondary objectives are to determine the iFraP intervention effect on patient reported outcome and experience measures, clinical effectiveness (osteoporosis medicine adherence), and to explore intervention acceptability, mechanisms, and processes underlying observed effects, and intervention implementation.

Methods

The iFraP trial is a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial in patients referred to a Fracture Liaison Service, with nested mixed methods process evaluation and health economic analysis. Participants aged ≥50 years (n=380) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to one of two arms: (1) iFraP intervention (iFraP-i) or (2) comparator usual NHS care (iFraP-u) and are followed up at 2-weeks and 3-months. The primary outcome is ease of decision-making assessed 2 weeks after the consultation using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The primary objectives will be addressed by comparing the mean DCS score in each trial arm (using analysis of covariance) for patients given an osteoporosis medicine recommendation, alongside a within-trial cost-effectiveness and value of information (VoI) analysis. Process evaluation data collection includes consultation recordings, semi-structured interviews, and DST analytics.

Discussion

The iFraP trial will answer important questions about the effectiveness of the new 'iFraP' osteoporosis DST, coupled with clinician training, on SDM and informed initiation of osteoporosis medicines.

Trial registration

ISRCTN 10606407, 21/11/2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10606407.

Cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent-adherence intervention in fracture liaison services

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a multi-component adherence intervention (MCAI), including a patient decision aid and motivational interviewing, compared to usual care in patients with a recent fracture attending fracture liaison services (FLS) and eligible for anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data on AOM initiation and one-year persistence were collected from a quasi-experimental study conducted between 2019 and 2023 in two Dutch FLS centers. An individual level, state-transition Markov model was used to simulate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with a societal perspective of MCAI vs usual care. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted including variation in additional FLS and MCAI costs (no MCAI cost in baseline).

RESULTS

MCAI was associated with gain in QALYs (0.0012) and reduction in costs (-€16) and is therefore dominant. At the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY, MCAI remained cost-effective when increasing costs of the FLS visit or the yearly maintenance cost for MCAI up to +€60. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated MCAI to be dominant in 54% of the simulations and cost-effective in 87% with a threshold of €50,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

A MCAI implemented in FLS centers may lead to cost-effective allocation of resources in FLS care, depending on extra costs.

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.

Development and usability of a decision aid to initiate anti-osteoporosis medication treatment in patients visiting the fracture liaison service with a recent fracture

This study describes the development of a decision aid (DA), aimed at supporting patients in their decision whether to start anti-osteoporosis medication. People with recent fractures or osteoporosis and health professionals were supportive of the DA initiative. An experimental study been started to assess (cost-)effectiveness of the DA.

PURPOSE

At fracture liaison services (FLS), patients with a recent fracture ánd osteoporosis or a prevalent vertebral fracture are advised to start anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM). This study describes the development of a decision aid (DA) to support patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) in their decision about whether to start AOM.

METHODS

The DA was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). A systematic procedure was chosen including scope, design, prototype development, and alpha testing. A previously developed DA for women with osteoporosis was used as a basis. Furthermore, input from literature searches, the Dutch guideline on management of osteoporosis, and from people with a fracture or osteoporosis was used. The updated DA was evaluated during alpha testing.

RESULTS

The DA facilitates the decision of patients whether to initiate AOM treatment and provides information on fractures and osteoporosis, general risk factors that increase the likelihood of a subsequent fracture, the role of lifestyle, personalized risk considerations of a subsequent fracture with and without AOM treatment, and AOM options and their characteristics in an option grid. Alpha testing with 15 patients revealed that patient preferences and needs were adequately presented, and several suggestions for improvement (e.g. adding more specific information, simplifying terminology, improving icon use) were accounted for. Participants from the alpha testing recommended use of the DA during outpatient visits.

CONCLUSION

Professionals and persons with osteoporosis were supportive of the proposed DA and its usability. The DA could help in a shared decision-making process between patients and HCPs.

Current situation of shared decision making in osteoporosis: A comprehensive literature review of patient decision aids and decision drivers

Background and Aims

Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microstructural deterioration of bone tissues, resulting in bone fragility and increased fracture risk. It is the most common bone-related disease in the population. However, the proportion of patients who start treatment but discontinue it during the first year is very high (around 50%). Endeavors are made to promote patient participation in treatment by implementing patient decision aids (PDA), whose function is to help the patient make disease-related decisions. We aim to summarize the characteristics of the currently available PDA for osteoporosis, as well as deciding factors.

Methods

Comprehensive review of the literature.

Results

Currently, eleven PDAs can be found for osteoporosis. These PDA have different characteristics or options such as information about treatments tailored to patient needs, graphic information of the results (to facilitate understanding), personal histories (learning), tests to check the knowledge acquired, provision of evidence, clinical practice guidelines or a final summary to share with their doctor. Only five of these PDAs can be considered complete since they provide relevant disease information and therapeutic options to the patient, promote patient's reflection and foment patient-physician discussion.

Conclusions

This study provides an update on the current state of decision making on osteoporosis and available PDA, which can help engage the patient through shared decision-making by considering, among other things, patient preferences. Physicians should consider PDA, as it may promote adherence and effectiveness of treatment.

Novel pictograms to improve pharmacist understanding of the number needed to treat (NNT)

INTRODUCTION

Number needed to treat (NNT) is a clinically useful "yardstick" used to gauge the efficacy of therapeutic interventions. The objective of this project was to develop and pilot a series of pictograms and assess their impact on pharmacist understanding of the NNT.

METHODS

Three decision aids containing NNT pictograms were developed following a preliminary literature review and three focus groups with current Australian-registered pharmacists and pharmacist interns. Pharmacists then tested the pictograms in a research pilot in clinical encounters until (1) ≥ 3 sessions had occurred or (2) a two-week period had elapsed from commencement. Knowledge assessment was administered both pre- and post-pilot. Transcription and inductive thematic analysis were applied to focus group data. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed rank, and McNemar's tests were used to analyse the pilot data.

RESULTS

Six core themes regarding NNT decision aid development were identified with >80% consensus across three focus groups (N = 11). Comparison of the pre-post measures (n = 10) showed an increase in median scores after use of NNT decision aids, correlating to a moderate Cohen classified effect size (d = 0.54). Wilcoxon matched pairs test demonstrated a statistically insignificant influence of NNT pictograms on the knowledge assessment survey (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

While the NNT is not a new concept, its incorporation as part of pictograms for health practitioner enrichment is novel. This pilot study suggests that utilizing decision aids with NNT pictograms as counselling adjuncts appears promising in the realm of enhancing pharmacists' understanding of the NNT.

Quality and effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment decision aids: a systematic review and environmental scan

Decision aids (DAs) are evidence-based tools that support shared decision-making (SDM) implementation in practice; this study aimed to identify existing osteoporosis DAs and assess their quality and efficacy; and to gain feedback from a patient advisory group on findings and implications for further research. We searched multiple bibliographic databases to identify research studies from 2000 to 2019 and undertook an environmental scan (search conducted February 2019, repeated in March 2020). A pair of reviewers, working independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, evaluated each trial's risk of bias, and conducted DA quality assessment using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Public contributors (patients and caregivers with experience of osteoporosis and fragility fractures) participated in discussion groups to review a sample of DAs, express preferences for a new DA, and discuss plans for development of a new DA. We identified 6 studies, with high or unclear risk of bias. Across included studies, use of an osteoporosis DA was reported to result in reduced decisional conflict compared with baseline, increased SDM, and increased accuracy of patients' perceived fracture risk compared with controls. Eleven DAs were identified, of which none met the full set of IPDAS criteria for certification for minimization of bias. Public contributors expressed preferences for encounter DAs that are individualized to patients' own needs and risk. Using a systematic review and environmental scan, we identified 11 decision aids to inform patient decisions about osteoporosis treatment and 6 studies evaluating their effectiveness. Use of decision aids increased accuracy of risk perception and shared decision-making but the decision aids themselves fail to comprehensively meet international quality standards and patient needs, underpinning the need for new DA development.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Electronic supplementary material

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

The development of a personalized patient education tool for decision making for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

A personalized patient education tool for decision making (PET) for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis was developed by means of a systematic development approach. A prototype was constructed and refined by involving various professionals and patients. Professionals and patients expressed a positive attitude towards the use of the PET.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose was to systematically develop a paper-based personalized PET to assist postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in selecting a treatment in line with their personal values and preferences.

METHODS

The development of the PET was based on a systematic process including scope, design, development of a prototype, and alpha testing among professionals and patients by semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

The design and development resulted in a four-page PET prototype together with a one-page fact sheet of the different drug options. The prototype PET provided the personal risk factors, the estimated individualized risk for a future major osteoporotic fracture and potential reduction with drugs, and a summary of advantages and disadvantages whether or not to start drugs. The drug fact sheet presents five attributes of seven drugs in a tabular format. The alpha testing with professionals resulted in some adaptations, e.g., inclusion of the possibility to calculate fracture risk based on various individual risk scoring methods. Important results from the alpha testing with patients were differences in the fracture risk percentage which was seen as worthwhile to start drugs, the importance of an overview of side effects, and of the timing of the PET into the patient pathway. All women indicated that the PET could be helpful for their decision to select a treatment.

CONCLUSION

Physicians and patients expressed a positive attitude towards the use of the proposed PET. Further research would be needed to test the effects of the PET on feasibility in clinical workflow and on patient outcomes.

Osteoporosis-Related Health Behaviors in Men With Prostate Cancer and Survivors: Exploring Osteoporosis Knowledge, Health Beliefs, and Self-Efficacy

This descriptive study aimed to (a) determine the extent of osteoporosis knowledge, perceived health beliefs, and self-efficacy with bone healthy behaviors in men with prostate cancer and survivors and (b) identify how dietary bone healthy behaviors are associated with these psychobehavioral and psychosocial factors. Three different questionnaires were used to measure osteoporosis knowledge, health beliefs, and self-efficacy in a group of men with prostate cancer and survivors. Bone health was assessed via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and calcium intake using a diet history. The prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass was high at over 70%. Participants had inadequate osteoporosis knowledge with a mean score of 43.3% ( SD = 18%) on the Facts on Osteoporosis Quiz. Participants scored low on the subscale measuring barriers to exercise (median = 11; interquartile range [IQR] = 6.5), indicating minimal barriers to exercise participation, and the subscale measuring the benefits of exercise scored the highest (median = 24; IQR = 3.5) compared with the other subscales. Men with prostate cancer and survivors were highly confident in their exercise and calcium self-efficacy (83.0%, IQR = 24.0% and 85.7%, IQR = 27.0%, respectively). Participants did not meet their calcium requirements or consume enough dairy products for optimum bone health. Men with prostate cancer and survivors have poor osteoporosis knowledge, but are confident in their self-efficacy of undertaking bone healthy behaviors. This confidence did not translate to specific dietary behaviors as they did not meet their calcium or dairy intake requirements. Implications for cancer survivors is that there is a need for bone health education programs among prostate cancer survivors. These programs should go beyond education and empowerment to provide practical guidance to maximize uptake of bone healthy behaviors.

Encounter Decision Aid vs. Clinical Decision Support or Usual Care to Support Patient-Centered Treatment Decisions in Osteoporosis: The Osteoporosis Choice Randomized Trial II

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis Choice, an encounter decision aid, can engage patients and clinicians in shared decision making about osteoporosis treatment. Its effectiveness compared to the routine provision to clinicians of the patient's estimated risk of fracture using the FRAX calculator is unknown.

METHODS

Patient-level, randomized, three-arm trial enrolling women over 50 with osteopenia or osteoporosis eligible for treatment with bisphosphonates, where the use of Osteoporosis Choice was compared to FRAX only and to usual care to determine impact on patient knowledge, decisional conflict, involvement in the decision-making process, decision to start and adherence to bisphosphonates.

RESULTS

We enrolled 79 women in the three arms. Because FRAX estimation alone and usual care produced similar results, we grouped them for analysis. Compared to these, use of Osteoporosis Choice increased patient knowledge (median score 6 vs. 4, p = .01), improved understanding of fracture risk and risk reduction with bisphosphonates (p = .01 and p<.0001, respectively), had no effect on decision conflict, and increased patient engagement in the decision making process (OPTION scores 57% vs. 43%, p = .001). Encounters with the decision aid were 0.8 minutes longer (range: 33 minutes shorter to 3.0 minutes longer). There were twice as many patients receiving and filling prescriptions in the decision aid arm (83% vs. 40%, p = .07); medication adherence at 6 months was no different across arms.

CONCLUSION

Supporting both patients and clinicians during the clinical encounter with the Osteoporosis Choice decision aid efficiently improves treatment decision making when compared to usual care with or without clinical decision support with FRAX results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinical trials.gov NCT00949611.

Peering into the black box: a meta-analysis of how clinicians use decision aids during clinical encounters

Objective

To quantify the extent to which clinicians use clinically-efficacious decision aids as intended during implementation in practice and how fidelity to usage instructions correlates with shared decision making (SDM) outcomes.

Methods

Participant-level meta-analysis including six practice-based randomized controlled trials of SDM in various clinical settings encompassing a range of decisions.

Results

Of 339 encounters in the SDM intervention arm of the trials, 229 were video recorded and available for analysis. The mean proportion of fidelity items observed in each encounter was 58.4% (SD = 23.2). The proportion of fidelity items observed was significantly associated with patient knowledge (p = 0.01) and clinician involvement of the patient in decision making (p <0.0001), while no association was found with patient decisional conflict or satisfaction with the encounter.

Conclusion

Clinicians’ fidelity to usage instructions of point-of-care decision aids in randomized trials was suboptimal during their initial implementation in practice, which may have underestimated the potential efficacy of decision aids when used as intended.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Shared decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial in primary care

Background

Patient-centered diabetes care requires shared decision making (SDM). Decision aids promote SDM, but their efficacy in nonacademic and rural primary care clinics is unclear.

Methods

We cluster-randomized 10 practices in a concealed fashion to implement either a decision aid (DA) about starting statins or one about choosing antihyperglycemic agents. Each practice served as a control group for another practice implementing the other type of DA. From April 2011 to July 2012, 103 (DA=53) patients with type 2 diabetes participated in the trial. We used patient and clinician surveys administered after the clinical encounter to collect decisional outcomes (patient knowledge and comfort with decision making, patient and clinician satisfaction). Medical records provided data on metabolic control. Pharmacy fill profiles provided data for estimating adherence to therapy.

Results

Compared to usual care, patients receiving the DA were more likely to report discussing medications (77% vs. 45%, p<.001), were more likely to answer knowledge questions correctly (risk reduction with statins 61% vs. 33%, p=.07; knowledge about options 57% vs. 33%, p=.002) and were more engaged by their clinicians in decision making (50. vs. 28, difference 21.4 (95% CI 6.4, 36.3), p=.01). We found no significant impact on patient satisfaction, medication starts, adherence or clinical outcomes, in part due to limited statistical power.

Conclusion

DAs improved decisional outcomes without significant effect on clinical outcomes. DAs designed for point-of-care use with type 2 diabetes patients promoted shared decision making in nonacademic and rural primary care practices.

Trial Registration

NCT01029288

Improving the normalization of complex interventions: measure development based on normalization process theory (NoMAD): study protocol

BACKGROUND

Understanding implementation processes is key to ensuring that complex interventions in healthcare are taken up in practice and thus maximize intended benefits for service provision and (ultimately) care to patients. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) provides a framework for understanding how a new intervention becomes part of normal practice. This study aims to develop and validate simple generic tools derived from NPT, to be used to improve the implementation of complex healthcare interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to: develop a set of NPT-based measures and formatively evaluate their use for identifying implementation problems and monitoring progress; conduct preliminary evaluation of these measures across a range of interventions and contexts, and identify factors that affect this process; explore the utility of these measures for predicting outcomes; and develop an online users' manual for the measures.

METHODS

A combination of qualitative (workshops, item development, user feedback, cognitive interviews) and quantitative (survey) methods will be used to develop NPT measures, and test the utility of the measures in six healthcare intervention settings.

DISCUSSION

The measures developed in the study will be available for use by those involved in planning, implementing, and evaluating complex interventions in healthcare and have the potential to enhance the chances of their implementation, leading to sustained changes in working practices.

Insights from a conference on implementing comparative effectiveness research through shared decision-making

For decades, investigators have conducted innovative research on shared decision-making (SDM), helping patients and clinicians to discuss health decisions and balance evidence with patients' preferences for possible outcomes of options. In addition, investigators have developed and used rigorous methods for conducting comparative effectiveness research (CER), comparing the benefits and risks of different interventions in real-world settings with outcomes that matter to patients and other stakeholders. However, incorporating CER findings into clinical practice presents numerous challenges. In March 2012, we organized a conference at Washington University in St Louis (MO, USA) aimed at developing a network of researchers to collaborate in developing, conducting and disseminating research about the implementation of CER through SDM. Meeting attendees discussed conceptual similarities and differences between CER and SDM, challenges in implementing CER and SDM in practice, specific challenges when engaging SDM with unique populations and examples of ways to overcome these challenges. CER and SDM are related processes that emphasize examining the best clinical evidence and how it applies to real patients in real practice settings. SDM can provide one opportunity for clinicians to discuss CER findings with patients and engage in a dialog about how to manage uncertainty about evidence in order to make decisions on an individual patient level. This meeting highlighted key challenges and suggested avenues to pursue such that CER and SDM can be implemented into routine clinical practice.

Shared decision making in patients with stable coronary artery disease: PCI choice

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and optimal medical therapy (OMT) are comparable, alternative therapies for many patients with stable angina; however, patients may have misconceptions regarding the impact of PCI on risk of death and myocardial infarction (MI) in stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We designed and developed a patient-centered decision aid (PCI Choice) to promote shared decision making for patients with stable CAD. The estimated benefits and risks of PCI+OMT as compared to OMT were displayed in a decision aid using pictographs with natural frequencies and text. We engaged patients, clinicians, health service researchers, and designers with over 20 successive iterations of the decision aid, which were field tested during real-world clinical encounters involving clinicians and patients. The decision aid is intended to facilitate knowledge transfer, deliberation based on patient values and preferences, and shared decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the methods and outcomes of the design and development of a decision aid (PCI Choice) to promote shared decision making between clinicians and patients regarding the choice of PCI+OMT vs. OMT for treatment of stable CAD. We will evaluate the impact of PCI Choice on patient knowledge, decisional conflict, participation in decision-making, and treatment choice in an upcoming randomized trial.

Treatment satisfaction and persistence among postmenopausal women on osteoporosis medications: 12-month results from POSSIBLE US™

SUMMARY

Women in POSSIBLE US™ who expressed greater treatment satisfaction at study entry were more likely to persist with osteoporosis therapy over a 1-year period. Lower satisfaction among women with moderate/severe side effects increased the risk of discontinuation/switching by 67%. Treatment satisfaction and side effect experience influence osteoporosis medication adherence.

INTRODUCTION

Non-adherence is common among women using postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) medications. We describe the association between treatment satisfaction, measured with the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), and the risk of discontinuation/switching PMO medications using patient-reported data from a large, longitudinal cohort study.

METHODS

Data from 2,405 participants in the Prospective Observational Scientific Study Investigating Bone Loss Experience (POSSIBLE US™) Study were evaluated. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for the association between treatment satisfaction at study entry and self-reported discontinuation/switching of pharmacologic PMO medications over a 1-year follow-up period. Logistic regression was used to evaluate relationships between treatment satisfaction, lifestyle behaviors, and compliance with bisphosphonate dosing instructions.

RESULTS

Median TSQM scores were highest (indicating greatest satisfaction) for the side effects domain [n = 1,182; median = 87.5 (Q1 = 75.0, Q3 = 100.0)] and lowest for global satisfaction [n = 2,340; median = 64.0 (Q1 = 55.7, Q3 = 77.7)]. Median scores decreased for the side effects and global satisfaction domains as patient-reported side effect severity increased. Women with higher satisfaction were less likely to discontinue/switch medications than women with lower scores (adjusted HRs for convenience 0.73, 95% CI = 0.63-0.85; effectiveness 0.82, 95% CI = 0.70-0.97; and global satisfaction 0.73, 95% CI = 0.63-0.85). Lower treatment satisfaction was particularly influential among women who reported moderate/severe side effects (HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.37-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower treatment satisfaction was associated with a 22% (1/0.82) to 67% (1/0.60) increased risk of discontinuation/switching osteoporosis medication during 1 year of follow-up.

Effectiveness of interventions to improve the detection and treatment of osteoporosis in primary care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of primary care interventions to improve the detection and treatment of osteoporosis. Eight electronic databases and six gray literature sources were searched. Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, quasi-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series written in English or French from 1985 to 2009 were considered. Eligible studies had to include patients at risk (women ≥ 65 years, men ≥ 70 years, and men/women ≥ 50 years with at least one major risk factor for osteoporosis) or at high risk (men/women using oral glucocorticoids or with previous fragility fractures) for osteoporosis and fractures. Outcomes included bone mineral density (BMD) testing, osteoporosis treatment initiation, and fractures. Data were pooled using a random effects model when applicable. Thirteen studies were included. The majority were multifaceted and involved patient educational material, physician notification, and/or physician education. Absolute differences in the incidence of BMD testing ranged from 22% to 51% for high-risk patients only and from 4% to 18% for both at-risk and high-risk patients. Absolute differences in the incidence of osteoporosis treatment initiation ranged from 18% to 29% for high-risk patients only and from 2% to 4% for at-risk and high-risk patients. Pooling the results of six trials showed an increased incidence of osteoporosis treatment initiation (risk difference (RD) = 20%; 95% CI: 7-33%) and of BMD testing and/or osteoporosis treatment initiation (RD = 40%; 95% CI: 32-48%) for high-risk patients following intervention. Multifaceted interventions targeting high-risk patients and their primary care providers may improve the management of osteoporosis, but improvements are often clinically modest.

Evaluating complex interventions and health technologies using normalization process theory: development of a simplified approach and web-enabled toolkit

BACKGROUND

Normalization Process Theory (NPT) can be used to explain implementation processes in health care relating to new technologies and complex interventions. This paper describes the processes by which we developed a simplified version of NPT for use by clinicians, managers, and policy makers, and which could be embedded in a web-enabled toolkit and on-line users manual.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2010 we undertook four tasks. (i) We presented NPT to potential and actual users in multiple workshops, seminars, and presentations. (ii) Using what we discovered from these meetings, we decided to create a simplified set of statements and explanations expressing core constructs of the theory (iii) We circulated these statements to a criterion sample of 60 researchers, clinicians and others, using SurveyMonkey to collect qualitative textual data about their criticisms of the statements. (iv) We then reconstructed the statements and explanations to meet users' criticisms, embedded them in a web-enabled toolkit, and beta tested this 'in the wild'.

RESULTS

On-line data collection was effective: over a four week period 50/60 participants responded using SurveyMonkey (40/60) or direct phone and email contact (10/60). An additional nine responses were received from people who had been sent the SurveyMonkey form by other respondents. Beta testing of the web enabled toolkit produced 13 responses, from 327 visits to http://www.normalizationprocess.org. Qualitative analysis of both sets of responses showed a high level of support for the statements but also showed that some statements poorly expressed their underlying constructs or overlapped with others. These were rewritten to take account of users' criticisms and then embedded in a web-enabled toolkit. As a result we were able translate the core constructs into a simplified set of statements that could be utilized by non-experts.

CONCLUSION

Normalization Process Theory has been developed through transparent procedures at each stage of its life. The theory has been shown to be sufficiently robust to merit formal testing. This project has provided a user friendly version of NPT that can be embedded in a web-enabled toolkit and used as a heuristic device to think through implementation and integration problems.

Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Poor adherence to therapy, perhaps related to unaddressed patient preferences, limits the effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment in at-risk women. A parallel patient-level randomized trial in primary care practices was performed.

METHODS

Eligible postmenopausal women with bone mineral density T-scores less than -1.0 and not receiving bisphosphonate therapy were included. In addition to usual primary care, intervention patients received a decision aid (a tailored pictographic 10-year fracture risk estimate, absolute risk reduction with bisphosphonates, side effects, and out-of-pocket cost), and control patients received a standard brochure. Knowledge transfer, patient involvement in decision-making, and rates of bisphosphonate start and adherence were studied. Data came from medical records, post-visit written and 6-month phone surveys, video recordings of clinical encounters, and pharmacy prescription profiles.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients (range of 10-year fracture risk, 6%-60%) were allocated randomly to receive the decision aid (n=52) or usual care (n=48). Patients receiving the decision aid were 1.8 times more likely to correctly identify their 10-year fracture risk (49% vs 28%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-3.2) and 2.7 times more likely to identify their estimated risk reduction with bisphosphonates (43% vs 16%; 95% CI, 1.3-5.7). Patient involvement improved with the decision aid by 23% (95% CI, 13.6-31.4). Bisphosphonates were started by 44% of patients receiving the decision aid and 40% of patients receiving usual care. Adherence at 6 months was similarly high across both groups, but the proportion with more than 80% adherence was higher with the decision aid (n=23 [100%] vs n=14 [74%]; P = .009).

CONCLUSION

A decision aid improved the quality of clinical decisions about bisphosphonate therapy in at-risk postmenopausal women, did not affect start rates, and may have improved adherence.

Why do women reject bisphosphonates for osteoporosis? A videographic study

Background

Despite access to effective, safe, and affordable treatment for osteoporosis, at-risk women may choose not to start bisphosphonate therapy. Understanding the reasons women give for rejecting a clinician's offer of treatment during consultations and how clinician's react to these reasons may help clinicians develop more effective strategies for fracture prevention and medication adherence.

Methods

We conducted a videographic evaluation of encounters in the Osteoporosis Choice randomized trial of a decision aid about bisphosphonates vs. usual primary care. Eligible videos involved consultations with women with an estimated 10-year fragility fracture risk >20% who verbalized at least one reason to not take bisphosphonates. Two reviewers independently reviewed eligible videos and verbatim transcripts, classifying patient views about bisphosphonate use, clinicians reponse to those views, and patient adherence at 6 months post visit.

Results

Eighteen video recordings (12 with decision aid) were eligible for analyses. We identified 37 reasons for and against bisphosphonate therapy. Eleven patients rejected treatment, offering 9 (average of 2 per patient) unique reasons against initiating bisphosphonates (most common: side effects 39% and distrust of medications in general 33%). When physicians conceded to patient views the outcome was no bisphosphonate use. Adherence to choices at 6 months was 100%.

Conclusions

The expression of patient preferences is sometimes unfavorable to bisphosphonates treatment even among well-informed patients at high risk for osteoporotic fractures. At 6 months, patients who expressed concerns about these medicines behaved consistently with the decision made during the visit.

Nurse case-manager vs multifaceted intervention to improve quality of osteoporosis care after wrist fracture: randomized controlled pilot study

Few outpatients with fractures are treated for osteoporosis in the years following fracture. In a randomized pilot study, we found a nurse case-manager could double rates of osteoporosis testing and treatment compared with a proven efficacious quality improvement strategy directed at patients and physicians (57% vs 28% rates of appropriate care).

INTRODUCTION

Few patients with fractures are treated for osteoporosis. An intervention directed at wrist fracture patients (education) and physicians (guidelines, reminders) tripled osteoporosis treatment rates compared to controls (22% vs 7% within 6 months of fracture). More effective strategies are needed.

METHODS

We undertook a pilot study that compared a nurse case-manager to the multifaceted intervention using a randomized trial design. The case-manager counseled patients, arranged bone mineral density (BMD) tests, and prescribed treatments. We included controls from our first trial who remained untreated for osteoporosis 1-year post-fracture. Primary outcome was bisphosphonate treatment and secondary outcomes were BMD testing, appropriate care (BMD test-treatment if bone mass low), and costs.

RESULTS

Forty six patients untreated 1-year after wrist fracture were randomized to case-manager (n = 21) or multifaceted intervention (n = 25). Median age was 60 years and 68% were female. Six months post-randomization, 9 (43%) case-managed patients were treated with bisphosphonates compared with 3 (12%) multifaceted intervention patients (relative risk [RR] 3.6, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.1-11.5, p = 0.019). Case-managed patients were more likely than multifaceted intervention patients to undergo BMD tests (81% vs 52%, RR 1.6, 95%CI 1.1-2.4, p = 0.042) and receive appropriate care (57% vs 28%, RR 2.0, 95%CI 1.0-4.2, p = 0.048). Case-management cost was $44 (CDN) per patient vs $12 for the multifaceted intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

A nurse case-manager substantially increased rates of appropriate testing and treatment for osteoporosis in patients at high-risk of future fracture when compared with a multifaceted quality improvement intervention aimed at patients and physicians. Even with case-management, nearly half of patients did not receive appropriate care.

TRIAL REGISTRY

clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00152321.

Risk communication and shared decision making in the care of patients with osteoporosis

Health maintenance and disease management require vigilance in assessing risk, communicating risk, and balancing the expected benefits of therapeutic interventions with potential harms. The evaluation of skeletal health includes identification of clinical risk factors for fracture, bone density testing in appropriate patients, and the use of validated algorithms for estimating the probability of fracture. To reduce the burden of osteoporotic fractures, patients at risk for fracture must be identified and treated with effective agents that are taken regularly, correctly, and for a sufficient length of time to achieve the desired benefit. These goals may be enhanced by shared decision making, a process by which the clinician and the patient share all applicable information and negotiate a plan of treatment that is acceptable to both. As an educator and a partner in making treatment decisions, the clinician must be familiar with the medical evidence and able to discuss complex medical information in a manner that is understood by the patient, with appropriate consideration of the patient's expectations, beliefs, and concerns. After treatment is started, risk communication, patient education, and shared decision making should be continued in an effort to maintain good compliance and persistence with therapy. Further study is needed to identify and validate optimal risk communication tools for the care of patients with osteoporosis. Challenges to shared decision making include competition from other health care priorities for limited patient encounter time during office visits, poor reimbursement, insufficient knowledge of the medical evidence, inadequate communication skills, and cognitive/affective disorders limiting patient participation in making treatment decisions.

The Chest Pain Choice trial: a pilot randomized trial of a decision aid for patients with chest pain in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Chest pain is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department (ED). Despite the frequency with which clinicians evaluate patients with chest pain, accurately determining the risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and sharing risk information with patients is challenging. The aims of this study are (1) to develop a decision aid (CHEST PAIN CHOICE) that communicates the short-term risk of ACS and (2) to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on patient participation in decision-making and resource use.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a protocol for a parallel, 2-arm randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving CHEST PAIN CHOICE to a control group receiving usual ED care. Adults presenting to the Saint Mary's Hospital ED in Rochester, MN USA with a primary complaint of chest pain who are being considered for admission for prolonged ED observation in a specialized unit and urgent cardiac stress testing will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of CHEST PAIN CHOICE on six outcomes: (1) patient knowledge regarding their short-term risk for ACS and the risks of radiation exposure; (2) quality of the decision making process; (3) patient and clinician acceptability and satisfaction with the decision aid; (4) the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and urgent cardiac stress testing; (5) economic costs and healthcare utilization; and (6) the rate of delayed or missed ACS. To capture these outcomes, we will administer patient and clinician surveys after each visit, obtain video recordings of the clinical encounters, and conduct 30-day phone follow-up.

DISCUSSION

This pilot randomized trial will develop and evaluate a decision aid for use in ED chest pain patients at low risk for ACS and provide a preliminary estimate of its effect on patient participation in decision-making and resource use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01077037.