The Role of Personalised Choice in Decision Support: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Online Decision Aid for Prostate Cancer Screening

CAPER: patient preferences to inform nonsurgical treatment of chronic low back pain: a discrete-choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

We developed and used a discrete-choice measure to study patient preferences with regard to the risks and benefits of nonsurgical treatments when they are making treatment selections for chronic low back pain.

METHODS

"CAPER TREATMENT" (Leslie Wilson) was developed with standard choice-based conjoint procedures (discrete-choice methodology that mimics an individual's decision-making process). After expert input and pilot testing, our final measure had 7 attributes (chance of pain relief, duration of relief, physical activity changes, treatment method, treatment type, treatment time burden, and risks of treatment) with 3-4 levels each. Using Sawtooth software (Sawtooth Software, Inc., Provo, UT, USA), we created a random, full-profile, balanced-overlap experimental design. Respondents (n = 211) were recruited via an emailed online link and completed 14 choice-based conjoint choice pairs; 2 fixed questions; and demographic, clinical, and quality-of-life questions. Analysis was performed with random-parameters multinomial logit with 1000 Halton draws.

RESULTS

Patients cared most about the chance of pain relief, followed closely by improving physical activity, even more than duration of pain relief. There was comparatively less concern about time commitment and risks. Gender and socioeconomic status influenced preferences, especially with relation to strength of expectations for outcomes. Patients experiencing a low level of pain (Pain, Enjoyment, and General Activity Scale [PEG], question 1, numeric rating scale score<4) had a stronger desire for maximally improved physical activity, whereas those in a high level of pain (PEG, question 1, numeric rating scale score>6) preferred both maximum and more limited activity. Highly disabled patients (Oswestry Disability Index score>40) demonstrated distinctly different preferences, placing more weight on achieving pain control and less on improving physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with chronic low back pain were willing to trade risks and inconveniences for better pain control and physical activity. Additionally, different preference phenotypes exist, which suggests a need for clinicians to target treatments to particular patients.

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

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

Appraisal of the costs, health effects, and cost-effectiveness of screening, prevention, treatment and policy-indicated evidence-based interventions for eating disorders: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Having reliable information to make decisions about the allocation of healthcare resources is needed to improve well-being and quality-of-life of individuals with eating disorders (EDs). EDs are a main concern for healthcare administrators globally, particularly due to the severity of health effects, urgent and complex healthcare needs, and relatively high and long-term healthcare costs. A rigorous assessment of up-to-date health economic evidence on interventions for EDs is essential for informing decision-making in this area. To date, health economic reviews on this topic lack a comprehensive assessment of the underlying clinical utility, type and amount of resources used, and methodological quality of included economic evaluations. The current review aims to (1) detail the type of costs (direct and indirect), costing approaches, health effects, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for EDs; (2) assess the nature and quality of available evidence to provide meaningful insights into the health economics associated with EDs.

METHODS

All interventions for screening, prevention, treatment, and policy-based approaches for all Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (DSM-IV and DSM-5) listed EDs among children, adolescents, and adults will be included. A range of study designs will be considered, including randomised controlled trials, panel studies, cohort studies, and quasi-experimental trials. Economic evaluations will consider key outcomes, including type of resources used (time and valued in a currency), costs (direct and indirect), costing approach, health effects (clinical and quality-of-life), cost-effectiveness, economic summaries used, and reporting and quality assessments. Fifteen general academic and field-specific (psychology and economics) databases will be searched using subject headings and keywords that consolidate costs, health effects, cost-effectiveness and EDs. Quality of included clinical studies will be assessed using risk-of-bias tools. Reporting and quality of the economic studies will be assessed using the widely accepted Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Quality of Health Economic Studies frameworks, with findings of the review presented in tables and narratively.

DISCUSSION

Results emanating from this systematic review are expected to highlight gaps in healthcare interventions/policy-focused approaches, under-estimates of the economic costs and disease-burden, potential under-utilisation of ED-related resources, and a pressing need for more complete health economic evaluations.

Taking shared decision making for prostate cancer to the next level: Requirements for a Dutch treatment decision aid with personalized risks on side effects

BACKGROUND

Different curative treatment modalities need to be considered in case of localized prostate cancer, all comparable in terms of survival and recurrence though different in side effects. To better inform patients and support shared decision making, the development of a web-based patient decision aid including personalized risk information was proposed. This paper reports on requirements in terms of content of information, visualization of risk profiles, and use in practice.

METHODS

Based on a Dutch 10-step guide about the setup of a decision aid next to a practice guideline, an iterative and co-creative design process was followed. In collaboration with various groups of experts (health professionals, usability and linguistic experts, patients and the general public), research and development activities were continuously alternated.

RESULTS

Content requirements focused on presenting information only about conventional treatments and main side effects; based on risk group; and including clear explanations about personalized risks. Visual requirements involved presenting general and personalized risks separately; through bar charts or icon arrays; and along with numbers or words, and legends. Organizational requirements included integration into local clinical pathways; agreement about information input and output; and focus on patients' numeracy and graph literacy skills.

CONCLUSIONS

The iterative and co-creative development process was challenging, though extremely valuable. The translation of requirements resulted in a decision aid about four conventional treatment options, including general or personalized risks for erection, urinary and intestinal problems that are communicated with icon arrays and numbers. Future implementation and validation studies need to inform about use and value in practice.

Harnessing Machine Learning to Personalize Web-Based Health Care Content

Web-based health care content has emerged as a primary source for patients to access health information without direct guidance from health care providers. The benefit of this approach is dependent on the ability of patients to access engaging high-quality information, but significant variability in the quality of web-based information often forces patients to navigate large quantities of inaccurate, incomplete, irrelevant, or inaccessible content. Personalization positions the patient at the center of health care models by considering their needs, preferences, goals, and values. However, the traditional methods used thus far in health care to determine the factors of high-quality content for a particular user are insufficient. Machine learning (ML) uses algorithms to process and uncover patterns within large volumes of data to develop predictive models that automatically improve over time. The health care sector has lagged behind other industries in implementing ML to analyze user and content features, which can automate personalized content recommendations on a mass scale. With the advent of big data in health care, which builds comprehensive patient profiles drawn from several disparate sources, ML can be used to integrate structured and unstructured data from users and content to deliver content that is predicted to be effective and engaging for patients. This enables patients to engage in their health and support education, self-management, and positive behavior change as well as to enhance clinical outcomes.

Personalized strategies in population screening for prostate cancer

This review discusses evidence for population-based screening with contemporary screening tools. In Europe, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening led to a relative reduction of prostate cancer (PCa) mortality, but also to a substantial amount of overdiagnosis and unnecessarily biopsies. Risk stratification based on a single variable (a clinical variable or based on the presence of a lesion on prostate imaging) or based on multivariable approaches can aid in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdiagnosis by selecting men who can benefit from further clinical assessment. Multivariable approaches include clinical variables, and biomarkers, often combined in risk calculators or nomograms. These risk calculators can also incorporate the result of MRI imaging. In general, as compared to a purely PSA based approach, the combination of relevant prebiopsy information results in superior selection of men at higher risk of harboring clinically significant prostate cancer. Currently, it is not possible to draw any conclusions on the superiority of these multivariable risk-based approaches since head-to-head comparisons are virtually lacking. Recently initiated large population-based screening studies in Finland, Germany and Sweden, incorporating various multivariable risk stratification approaches will hopefully give more insight in whether the harm-benefit ratio can be improved, that is, maintain (or improving) the ability to reduce metastatic disease and prostate cancer mortality while reducing harm caused by unnecessary testing and overdiagnosis including related overtreatment.

Qualitative Evaluation of Evidence-Based Online Decision Aid and Resources for Osteoarthritis Management: Understanding Patient Perspectives

OBJECTIVE

To qualitatively examine the experiences with, and impact of, evidence-based online resources in self-management among Australians with osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Telephone interviews were conducted with 36 users of a novel osteoarthritis resource, the Osteoarthritis Awareness Hub. Rogers' 5 attributes of innovation (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability) and outcomes guided the semistructured interview and analysis. Maximum variation sampling was used, and data saturation occurred after 33 interviews. A coding scheme was agreed upon and all interview data were entered into NVivo for qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Study participants had high levels of literacy and health literacy. For adoption and implementation of an innovation, the participants' narratives confirmed and underscored the fact that it was important that it come from an authoritative and trusting voice and that its perceived benefits align with participants' values and existing practices (relative advantage and compatibility). The participants also valued seeing the practical benefits of the innovation, such as its capacity to impart quality and balanced new insights and information, and to maintain and monitor their personal progress. Notably, many participants spoke about the mental and physical health benefits that they derived from engagement with the online resources.

CONCLUSION

Our study findings confirm that web-based tools can be a useful adjunct to patients adopting self-management strategies. Rogers' theory provides a framework for a deeper appreciation of the how, why, and what questions concerning the adoption and implementation processes, especially among people with good technology and health literacy.

Assessing Preference Shift and Effects on Patient Knowledge and Decisional Conflict: Cross-Sectional Study of an Interactive Prostate-Specific Antigen Test Patient Decision Aid

Background

Randomized trials of Web-based decision aids for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing indicate that these interventions improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. However, we do not know about these tools’ impact on people who spontaneously use a PSA testing patient decision aid on the internet.

Objective

The objectives of this study were to (1) determine the impact of the Web-based PSA Option Grid patient decision aid on preference shift, knowledge, and decisional conflict; (2) identify which frequently asked questions (FAQs) are associated with preference shift; and (3) explore the possible relationships between these outcomes.

Methods

Data were collected between January 1, 2016, and December 30, 2017. Users who accessed the Web-based, interactive PSA Option Grid were provided with 3 options: have a PSA test, no PSA test, or unsure. Users first declared their initial preference and then completed 5 knowledge questions and a 4-item (yes or no) validated decisional conflict scale (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, Encouragement; SURE). Next, users were presented with 10 FAQs and asked to identify their preference for each question based on the information provided. At the end, users declared their final preference and completed the same knowledge and decisional conflict questions. Paired sample t tests were employed to compare before and after knowledge and decisional conflict scores. A multinomial regression analysis was performed to determine which FAQs were associated with a shift in screening preference.

Results

Of all the people who accessed the PSA Option Grid, 39.8% (186/467) completed the interactive journey and associated surveys. After excluding 22 female users, we analyzed 164 responses. At completion, users shifted their preference to “not having the PSA test” (43/164, 26.2%, vs 117/164, 71.3%; P<.001), had higher levels of knowledge (112/164, 68.3%, vs 146/164, 89.0%; P<.001), and lower decisional conflict (94/164, 57.3%, vs 18/164, 11.0%; P<.001). There were 3 FAQs associated with preference shift: “What does the test involve?” “If my PSA level is high, what are the chances that I have prostate cancer?” and “What are the risks?” We did not find any relationship between knowledge, decisional conflict, and preference shift.

Conclusions

Unprompted use of the interactive PSA Option Grid leads to preference shift, increased knowledge, and reduced decisional conflict, which confirms the ability of these tools to influence decision making, even when used outside clinical encounters.

Men's perspectives of prostate cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies

Background

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer in men. Screening for prostate cancer is widely accepted; however concerns regarding the harms outweighing the benefits of screening exist. Although patient’s play a pivotal role in the decision making process, men may not be aware of the controversies regarding prostate cancer screening. Therefore we aimed to describe men’s attitudes, beliefs and experiences of prostate cancer screening.

Methods

Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on men’s perspectives of prostate cancer screening. Electronic databases and reference lists were searched to October 2016.

Findings

Sixty studies involving 3,029 men aged from 18–89 years, who had been screened for prostate cancer by Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) or Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) and not screened, across eight countries were included. Five themes were identified: Social prompting (trusting professional opinion, motivation from family and friends, proximity and prominence of cancer); gaining decisional confidence (overcoming fears, survival imperative, peace of mind, mental preparation, prioritising wellbeing); preserving masculinity (bodily invasion, losing sexuality, threatening manhood, medical avoidance); avoiding the unknown and uncertainties (taboo of cancer-related death, lacking tangible cause, physiological and symptomatic obscurity, ambiguity of the procedure, confusing controversies); and prohibitive costs.

Conclusions

Men are willing to participate in prostate cancer screening to prevent cancer and gain reassurance about their health, particularly when supported or prompted by their social networks or healthcare providers. However, to do so they needed to mentally overcome fears of losing their masculinity and accept the intrusiveness of screening, the ambiguities about the necessity and the potential for substantial costs. Addressing the concerns and priorities of men may facilitate informed decisions about prostate cancer screening and improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Are there regional tendencies toward controversial screening practices? A study of prostate and breast cancer screening in a Medicare population

INTRODUCTION

Prostate and breast cancer screening in older patients continue to be controversial. Balancing the desire for early detection with avoidance of over-diagnosis has led to competing and contradictory guidelines for both practices. Despite similarities, it is not known how these screening practices are related at the regional level. In this study, we examined how screening PSA and mammography are related within healthcare regions, and, to better understand what may be driving these practices, whether they are associated with local intensity of care.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2012. For each of 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs), we calculated rates of PSA screening for men aged ≥68 years, as well as rates of screening mammography for women aged ≥75 years, adjusted for age and race. Additionally, we determined regional rates of "healthcare intensity", including spending on tests and procedures, and intensity of end-of-life care. Pearson correlations of adjusted rates were calculated within HRRs.

RESULTS

The mean adjusted rate of PSA screening was 22%. The mean age of screened and unscreened patients was 75.0 and 77.4 years, respectively (p<0.0001). The mean adjusted rate of screening mammography was 23%; mean ages of screened and non-screened women were 79.95 and 83.67, respectively (p<0.0001). HRR-level PSA screening rates were independent of screening mammography rates (r=0.06, p=0.31). PSA screening rates were associated with spending on testing and procedures (r=0.42, p<0.0001) and various measures of intensity of EOL care (e.g. r=0.40, p<0.0001 for mechanical ventilator use). Screening mammography had low correlation with both health care spending and EOL care intensity measures (all r-values <0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Regional rates of PSA screening rates were independent of screening mammography, thus these practices appear to be driven by different factors. Unlike mammography, PSA screening was associated with local enthusiasm for testing and treatment. Efforts to reduce over-testing should contemplate these practices differently, and future research should examine the factors motivating these screening practices.

The development and feasibility of a personal health-optimization system for people with bipolar disorder

Background

People with bipolar disorder often experience ill health and have considerably reduced life expectancies. Suboptimal treatment is common and includes a lack of effective medicines, overtreatment, and non-adherence to medical interventions and lifestyle measures. E- and m-health applications support patients in optimizing their treatment but often exhibit conceptual and technical shortcomings. The objective of this work was to develop and test the usability of a system targeting suboptimal treatment and compare the service to other genres and strategies.

Methods

Based on the frameworks of shared decision-making, multi-criteria decision analysis, and single-subject research design, we interviewed potential users, reviewed research and current approaches, and created a first version using a rapid prototyping framework. We then iteratively improved and expanded the service based on formative usability testing with patients, healthcare providers, and laypeople from Norway, the UK, and Ukraine. The evidence-based health-optimization system was developed using systematic methods. The System Usability Scale and a questionnaire were administered in formative and summative tests. A comparison of the system to current standards for clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids was performed.

Results

Seventy-eight potential users identified 82 issues. Driven by user feedback, the limited first version was developed into a more comprehensive system. The current version encompasses 21 integrated core features, supporting 6 health-optimization strategies. One crucial feature enables patients and clinicians to explore the likely value of treatments based on mathematical integration of self-reported and research data and the patient’s preferences. The mean ± SD (median) system usability score of the patient-oriented subsystem was 71 ± 18 (73). The mean ± SD (median) system usability score in the summative usability testing was 78 ± 18 (75), well above the norm score of 68. Feedback from the questionnaire was generally positive. Eighteen out of 23 components in the system are not required in international standards for patient decision aids and clinical practice guidelines.

Conclusion

We have developed the first evidence-based health-optimization system enabling patients, clinicians, and caregivers to collaborate in optimizing the patient’s health on a shared platform. User tests indicate that the feasibility of the system is acceptable.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0481-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.