Assessment of the quality of existing patient educational tools focused on sudden cardiac arrest: a systematic evaluation by the Sudden Cardiac Arrest Thought Leadership Alliance

Educational resources for patients considering a left ventricular assist device: a cross-sectional review of internet, print, and multimedia materials

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are being used with increasing frequency to treat severe heart failure. Patients seek out informational resources when considering implantation. The primary study objective was to characterize the scope and quality of available LVAD educational materials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In July 2013, we performed a cross-sectional search of Internet, print, and multimedia resources available to patients considering LVAD. Written materials <10 sentences, videos <2 minutes, and materials clearly directed to healthcare professionals were excluded. Seventy-seven materials met inclusion criteria. Potential benefits of LVAD therapy were discussed in all (n=77), whereas less often mentioned were risks (n=43), lifestyle considerations (n=29), surgical details (n=26), caregiver information (n=9), and hospice or palliative care (n=2). Of the 14 materials that recognized a decision or alternate treatment option, 7 used outdated statistics, 12 scored above an eighth grade reading comprehension level, and 12 met <50% of International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria. In the survey participants rated all but one as biased toward accepting LVAD therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many resources exist for patients considering an LVAD, the content is suboptimal. Benefits of LVADs are often presented in the absence of risks, alternative options, and caregiver considerations. Most materials use outdated statistics, are above the reading level of average Americans, and are biased toward accepting LVAD therapy. There is no tool that would qualify as a formal decision aid.

A review of decision support, risk communication and patient information tools for thrombolytic treatment in acute stroke: lessons for tool developers

BACKGROUND

Tools to support clinical or patient decision-making in the treatment/management of a health condition are used in a range of clinical settings for numerous preference-sensitive healthcare decisions. Their impact in clinical practice is largely dependent on their quality across a range of domains. We critically analysed currently available tools to support decision making or patient understanding in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke with intravenous thrombolysis, as an exemplar to provide clinicians/researchers with practical guidance on development, evaluation and implementation of such tools for other preference-sensitive treatment options/decisions in different clinical contexts.

METHODS

Tools were identified from bibliographic databases, Internet searches and a survey of UK and North American stroke networks. Two reviewers critically analysed tools to establish: information on benefits/risks of thrombolysis included in tools, and the methods used to convey probabilistic information (verbal descriptors, numerical and graphical); adherence to guidance on presenting outcome probabilities (IPDASi probabilities items) and information content (Picker Institute Checklist); readability (Fog Index); and the extent that tools had comprehensive development processes.

RESULTS

Nine tools of 26 identified included information on a full range of benefits/risks of thrombolysis. Verbal descriptors, frequencies and percentages were used to convey probabilistic information in 20, 19 and 18 tools respectively, whilst nine used graphical methods. Shortcomings in presentation of outcome probabilities (e.g. omitting outcomes without treatment) were identified. Patient information tools had an aggregate median Fog index score of 10. None of the tools had comprehensive development processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Tools to support decision making or patient understanding in the treatment of acute stroke with thrombolysis have been sub-optimally developed. Development of tools should utilise mixed methods and strategies to meaningfully involve clinicians, patients and their relatives in an iterative design process; include evidence-based methods to augment interpretability of textual and probabilistic information (e.g. graphical displays showing natural frequencies) on the full range of outcome states associated with available options; and address patients with different levels of health literacy. Implementation of tools will be enhanced when mechanisms are in place to periodically assess the relevance of tools and where necessary, update the mode of delivery, form and information content.