A Brief Shared Decision-Making Intervention for Acute Respiratory Infections on Antibiotic Dispensing Rates in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial

General practitioners' risk literacy and real-world prescribing of potentially hazardous drugs: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Overuse of medical care is a pervasive problem. Studies using hypothetical scenarios suggest that physicians' risk literacy influences medical decisions; real-world correlations, however, are lacking. We sought to determine the association between physicians' risk literacy and their real-world prescriptions of potentially hazardous drugs, accounting for conflicts of interest and perceptions of benefit-harm ratios in low-value prescribing scenarios.

SETTING AND SAMPLE

Cross-sectional study-conducted online between June and October 2023 via field panels of Sermo (Hamburg, Germany)-with a convenience sample of 304 English general practitioners (GPs).

METHODS

GPs' survey responses on their treatment-related risk literacy, conflicts of interest and perceptions of the benefit-harm ratio in low-value prescribing scenarios were matched to their UK National Health Service records of prescribing volumes for antibiotics, opioids, gabapentin and benzodiazepines and analysed for differences.

RESULTS

204 GPs (67.1%) worked in practices with ≥6 practising GPs and 226 (76.0%) reported 10-39 years of experience. Compared with GPs demonstrating low risk literacy, GPs with high literacy prescribed fewer opioids (mean (M): 60.60 vs 43.88 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.016), less gabapentin (M: 23.84 vs 18.34 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.023), and fewer benzodiazepines (M: 17.23 vs 13.58 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.037), but comparable volumes of antibiotics (M: 48.84 vs 40.61 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.076). High-risk literacy was associated with lower conflicts of interest (ϕ = 0.12, p=0.031) and higher perception of harms outweighing benefits in low-value prescribing scenarios (p=0.007). Conflicts of interest and benefit-harm perceptions were not independently associated with prescribing behaviour (all ps >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The observed association between GPs with higher risk literacy and the prescription of fewer hazardous drugs suggests the importance of risk literacy in enhancing patient safety and quality of care.

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.

Exploring general practitioners' perception of the value of natural history information and their awareness and use of guidelines' resources to support antibiotic prescribing for self-limiting infections: a qualitative study in Australian general practice

BACKGROUND

The newest version of the Therapeutic Guidelines' antibiotic chapter introduced patient- and clinician-facing resources to support decision-making about antibiotic use for self-limiting infections. It is unclear whether general practitioners (GPs) are aware of and use these resources, including the natural history information they contain. We explored GPs' perceptions of the value and their use of natural history information, and their use of the Therapeutic Guidelines' resources (summary table, discussion boxes, decision aids) to support antibiotic decision-making.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with 21 Australian GPs were conducted. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed by two independent researchers.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged: (1) GPs perceive natural history information as valuable in consultations for self-limiting conditions and use it for a range of purposes, but desire specific information for infectious and non-infectious conditions; (2) GPs' reasons for using patient-facing resources were manifold, including managing patients' expectations for antibiotics, legitimising the decision not to provide antibiotics and as a prescription substitute; (3) the guidelines are a useful and important educational resource, but typically not consulted at the time of deciding whether to prescribe antibiotics; and (4) experience and attitude towards shared decision-making and looking up information during consultations influenced whether GPs involved patients in decision-making and used a decision aid.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs perceived natural history information to be valuable in discussions about antibiotic use for self-limiting conditions. Patient and clinician resources were generally perceived as useful, although reasons for use varied, and a few barriers to use were reported.