Feasibility and efficacy of a decision aid for emergency department patients with suspected ureterolithiasis: protocol for an adaptive randomized controlled trial

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.

"Just give them a choice": Patients' perspectives on starting medications for opioid use disorder in the ED

OBJECTIVES

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) prescribed in the emergency department (ED) have the potential to save lives and help people start and maintain recovery. We sought to explore patient perspectives regarding the initiation of buprenorphine and methadone in the ED with the goal of improving interactions and fostering shared decision making (SDM) around these important treatment options.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) regarding ED visits and their experiences with MOUD. The interview guide was based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, a framework for examining decisional needs and tailoring decisional support, and the research team's experience with MOUD and SDM. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process using both the Ottawa Framework and a social-ecological framework. Themes were identified and organized and implications for clinical care were noted and discussed.

RESULTS

Twenty-six participants were interviewed, seven in person in the ED and 19 via video conferencing software. The majority had tried both buprenorphine and methadone, and almost all had been in an ED for an issue related to opioid use. Participants reported social, pharmacological, and emotional factors that played into their decision making. Regarding buprenorphine, they noted advantages such as its efficacy and logistical ease and disadvantages such as the need to wait to start it (risk of precipitated withdrawal) and that one could not use other opioids while taking it. Additionally, participants felt that: (1) both buprenorphine and methadone should be offered; (2) because "one person's pro is another person's con," clinicians will need to understand the facets of the options; (3) clinicians will need to have these conversations without appearing judgmental; and (4) many patients may not be "ready" for MOUD, but it should still be offered.

CONCLUSIONS

Although participants were supportive of offering buprenorphine in the ED, many felt that methadone should also be offered. They felt that treatment should be tailored to an individual's needs and circumstances and clarified what factors might be important considerations for people with OUD.

A Preliminary Investigation on the “Swinging Kidney”: A Sonographic Sign Useful for Diagnosing Renal Colic

Objective:

During acute renal colic due to nephrolithiasis, a new sonographic diagnostic sign was noted, called “a swinging kidney.” This term was given due to a characteristic anteroposterior “rolling” movement of the kidney. A preliminary investigation was conducted to evaluate the correlation between this new diagnostic sign and nephrolithiasis.

Materials and Methods:

An exploratory observational investigation was conducted on adult patients who accessed an emergency medicine department, with acute renal colic, between June 1, 2019, and October 31, 2019.

Results:

Thirty-seven patients were enrolled. The “swinging kidney” was present in 26 cases (70%). This sign was correlated with a stone’s diameter of less than 10 mm (χ2: 4.68; P = .031), and with a stone localization in the juxtavesical ureter tract site (χ2: 10.83; P = .029). Spontaneously stone expulsion was correlated with the presence of the “swinging kidney” (χ2: 4.66; P = .031); with the minor degree of hydronephrosis (χ2: 16.82; P = .0008), and with a distal localization of the stone (χ2: 25.11; P = 1:47 × 10−5).

Conclusion:

The “swinging kidney” may be a promising diagnostic sign that could be useful in diagnosing nephrolithiasis besides the other indirect sonographic signs. This new diagnostic sign could have a prognostic role.