Computerized Decision Aids for Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: Systematic Review

Artificial-Intelligence Cloud-Based Platform to Support Shared Decision-Making in the Locoregional Treatment of Breast Cancer: Protocol for a Multidimensional Evaluation Embedded in the CINDERELLA Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) plays a crucial role in breast cancer care by empowering patients and reducing decision regret. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are valuable tools for facilitating SDM, now available in digital and artificial intelligence (AI)-powered formats to offer increasingly personalized contents. The ongoing CINDERELLA clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05196269) evaluates an innovative AI cloud-based approach using a web platform and a mobile application (CINDERELLA APProach) versus the conventional approach to support SDM in breast cancer patients undergoing locoregional treatment. This protocol outlines a trial-based multidimensional evaluation, encompassing economic, financial, implementability, and environmental considerations associated with the CINDERELLA APProach.

METHODS

A within-trial cost-consequence and cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective will be performed using patient-level data on outcomes and resource use. The latter will be valued in monetary terms using country-specific unit costs or patient valuations. A budget impact analysis will be performed over 1 and 5 years from the budget holder perspectives. The CINDERELLA APProach implementability will be assessed through an evaluation of its usability, acceptability, organizational impact, and overall feasibility. The environmental impact will be quantitatively assessed across several dimensions, such as quantity, appropriateness, and emissions, supplemented by qualitative insights. Overall, data for the evaluation will be gathered from patient questionnaires, interviews with patients and managers, focus groups with healthcare professionals, and app electronic data.

DISCUSSION

A thorough understanding of the broad consequences of the CINDERELLA APProach may foster its successful translation into real-world settings, hopefully benefiting breast cancer patients and clinical practice.

Effectiveness of computerised decision aids for patients with chronic diseases in shared decision-making: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To synthesise the composition and effectiveness of computer-based patient decision aid (PDAs) in interventions for patients with chronic diseases.

DESIGN

A systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

Five databases were searched, and only randomised controlled trials (RCTs)were included. This review was conducted with the PRISMA guidelines. The JBI Appraisal Tools for randomised trials were used to assess the risk of bias. We used the random-effects model to conduct meta-analyses. Evidence from RCTs was synthesised using standardised mean differences or mean differences. The GRADE system was employed to assess the certainty of evidence and recommendations. This study was registered on PROSPERO (number: CRD42022369340).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published before October 2022.

RESULTS

The review included 22 studies, and most computer-based PDAs reported information on the disease, treatment options, pros and cons and risk comparison and value clarification. The use of computer-based PDAs showed a significant effect on decision conflict and knowledge, but not on decision regret, satisfaction, self-efficacy, anxiety and quality of life. The overall GRADE certainty of evidence was low.

CONCLUSION

Although the quality of evidence was low, however, using computer-based PDAs could reduce decision conflict and enhance knowledge when making medical decisions. More research is needed to support the contention above.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Computer-based PDAs could assist health-care providers and patients in the shared decision-making process and improving the quality of decision-making.

REPORTING METHOD

This study adhered to PRISMA guidelines. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION.

Decision aids for promoting shared decision-making: A review of systematic reviews

In the context of shared decision-making (SDM), experts have advocated the use of validated decision aids (DAs) as valuable tools for facilitating SDM in various healthcare scenarios. This comprehensive review attempts to analyze a vast corpus of DA research by performing thorough searches across four prominent databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science). Independent reviewers selected relevant reviews, extracted data, and assessed review quality using the AMSTAR II tool. A total of 34 systematic reviews were identified and evaluated in this review, encompassing a wide range of outcomes associated with using DAs. These outcomes include patient knowledge, patient involvement in SDM, decision conflict, decision regret, satisfaction, and adherence. In addition, DAs positively affect healthcare provider outcomes by increasing satisfaction, reducing decision conflicts, and lengthening clinical consultations. This review highlights the need for additional research in specific contexts such as long-term care, mental health, and reproductive health to better understand the benefits and challenges of implementing DAs in these settings. Such research can contribute to the improvement of SDM practices and patient-centered care.

Current use of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program surgical risk calculator in academic surgery: a mixed-methods study

Background

This study aims to quantitatively assess use of the NSQIP surgical risk calculator (NSRC) in contemporary surgical practice and to identify barriers to use and potential interventions that might increase use.

Materials and methods

We performed a cross-sectional study of surgeons at seven institutions. The primary outcomes were self-reported application of the calculator in general clinical practice and specific clinical scenarios as well as reported barriers to use.

Results

In our sample of 99 surgeons (49.7% response rate), 73.7% reported use of the NSRC in the past month. Approximately half (51.9%) of respondents reported infrequent NSRC use (<20% of preoperative discussions), while 14.3% used it in ≥40% of preoperative assessments. Reported use was higher in nonelective cases (30.2% vs 11.1%) and in patients who were ≥65 years old (37.1% vs 13.0%), functionally dependent (41.2% vs 6.6%), or with surrogate consent (39.9% vs 20.4%). NSRC use was not associated with training status or years in practice. Respondents identified a lack of influence on the decision to pursue surgery as well as concerns regarding the calculator's accuracy as barriers to use. Surgeons suggested improving integration to workflow and better education as strategies to increase NSRC use.

Conclusions

Many surgeons reported use of the NSRC, but few used it frequently. Surgeons reported more frequent use in nonelective cases and frail patients, suggesting the calculator is of greater utility for high-risk patients. Surgeons raised concerns about perceived accuracy and suggested additional education as well as integration of the calculator into the electronic health record.

Patients' perspectives on a patient-oriented electronic decision support tool to reduce overuse of proton pump inhibitors (arriba-PPI): a qualitative study in primary care

BACKGROUND

To evaluate patients' perspectives and their experiences with a consultation involving a computer-assisted and patient-centered discontinuation strategy (arriba-PPI tool) as part of a German multicenter study on reducing the prescription of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

METHODS

Qualitative in-depth telephone interviews on proton pump inhibitors with patients who had received an arriba-PPI tool-based counseling by their general practitioner (GP). A random sample of 30 patients was taken from study participants. Interviews were conducted in 2020 and analyzed using a thematic qualitative text analysis.

RESULTS

Although this was meant to be the key to shared decision making with regard to PPI reduction, study participants mostly did not recall the visual features of the tool. However, a few patients remembered them very clearly. Above all, patients appreciated a trustful relationship with the GP as well as comprehensive, individualized counseling.

CONCLUSION

Application of the arriba-PPI tool can support the decision process but can also hinder the consultation process if the tool is not properly embedded in the consultation. GPs using the arriba-PPI tool to support the shared decision-making process should consider the patients' and their own expectations on the benefit of the visual representation of the tool.

What helps the successful implementation of digital decision aids supporting shared decision-making in cardiovascular diseases? A systematic review

Aims

Although digital decision aids (DAs) have been developed to improve shared decision-making (SDM), also in the cardiovascular realm, its implementation seems challenging. This study aims to systematically review the predictors of successful implementation of digital DAs for cardiovascular diseases.

Methods and results

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias. Data were extracted by using a predefined list of variables. Five good-quality studies were included, involving data of 215 patients and 235 clinicians. Studies focused on DAs for coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and end-stage heart failure patients. Clinicians reported DA content, its effectivity, and a lack of knowledge on SDM and DA use as implementation barriers. Patients reported preference for another format, the way clinicians used the DA and anxiety for the upcoming intervention as barriers. In addition, barriers were related to the timing and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) integration of the DA, the limited duration of a consultation, a lack of communication among the team members, and maintaining the hospital's number of treatments. Clinicians' positive attitude towards preference elicitation and implementation of DAs in existing structures were reported as facilitators.

Conclusion

To improve digital DA use in cardiovascular diseases, the optimum timing of the DA, training healthcare professionals in SDM and DA usage, and integrating DAs into existing ICT structures need special effort. Current evidence, albeit limited, already offers advice on how to improve DA implementation in cardiovascular medicine.

Patients' perspectives on the benefits of feedback on patient-reported outcome measures in a web-based personalized decision report for hip and knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Applications of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for individual patient management are expanding with the support of digital tools. Providing PROM-based information to patients can potentially improve care experiences and outcomes through informing and activating patients. This study explored patients' perspectives on the benefits of receiving feedback on PROMs in the context of a web-based personalized decision report to guide care for their hip or knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

This qualitative descriptive interview study was nested in a pragmatic clinical trial of a personalized report, which includes descriptive PROM scores and predicted postoperative PROM scores. Patients completed a semi-structured interview within 6 weeks of an office visit with an orthopaedic surgeon. Only patients who reported receiving the report and reviewing it with the surgeon and/or a health educator were included. Data were iteratively analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive coding strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients aged 49-82 years (60% female, 72% surgical treatment decision) participated and described three primary benefits of the PROM feedback within the report: 1. Gaining Information About My Health Status, including data teaching new information, confirming what was known, or providing a frame of reference; 2. Fostering Communication Between Patient and Surgeon, encompassing use of the data to set expectations, ask and answer questions, and facilitate shared understanding; and 3. Increasing My Confidence and Trust, relating to the treatment outcomes, treatment decision, and surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients identified actual and hypothetical benefits of receiving feedback on PROM scores in the context of a web-based decision report, including advantages for those who had already made a treatment decision before seeing the surgeon. Findings provide insight into patients' perspectives on how digital PROM data can promote patient-centered care. Results should be considered in the context of the homogeneous sample and complex trial. While participants perceived value in this personalized report, questions remain regarding best practices in patient-facing data presentation and engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03102580. Registered on 5 April 2017.

Shared decision-making in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease

The rapid progress of research into inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has resulted in increasingly more treatment options. Different options have different advantages and disadvantages, and the preferences of patients may also differ. If patients can be invited to the formulation of medical decision-making, their compliance and satisfaction would be improved, thus possibly achieving better therapeutic results. The present review aims to summarize the current literature on shared decision-making (SDM) in the management of IBD, with the goal of promoting the application of SDM.

Comorbidity and life expectancy in shared decision making for lung cancer screening

Shared decision making (SDM) is an important part of lung cancer screening (LCS) that includes discussing the risks and benefits of screening, potential outcomes, patient eligibility and willingness to participate, tobacco cessation, and tailoring a strategy to an individual patient. More than other cancer screening tests, eligibility for LCS is nuanced, incorporating the patient's age as well as tobacco use history and overall health status. Since comorbidities and multimorbidity (ie, 2 or more comorbidities) impact the risks and benefits of LCS, these topics are a fundamental part of decision-making. However, there is currently little evidence available to guide clinicians in addressing comorbidities and an individual's "appropriateness" for LCS during SDM visits. Therefore, this literature review investigates the impact of comorbidities and multimorbidity among patients undergoing LCS. Based on available evidence and guideline recommendations, we identify comorbidities that should be considered during SDM conversations and review best practices for navigating SDM conversations in the context of LCS. Three conditions are highlighted since they concomitantly portend higher risk of developing lung cancer, potentially increase risk of screening-related evaluation and treatment complications and can be associated with limited life expectancy: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and human immunodeficiency virus infection.

A patient decision aid for mild asthma: Navigating a new asthma treatment paradigm

INTRODUCTION

In mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol offers similar protection from severe exacerbations as daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with lower ICS exposure but slightly increased symptoms. We sought to develop an electronic decision aid to guide discussions about the pros and cons of these first-line options, while identifying and integrating user preferences.

METHODS

Following International Patient Decision Aid Standards, we created a mild asthma decision aid prototype comparing convenience, clinical outcomes, cumulative ICS dose exposure, costs, and side-effects of each option. After face validation, the prototype was iteratively adapted through rapid-cycle development. Each cycle consisted of a patient focus group and a primary care physician interview. We made user preference-based improvements after each round, until reaching a pre-set stopping criterion (no new critical issues identified). We then performed a summative qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Over 5 cycles, we recruited 21 asthma patients (12/21 women, 10/21 ≥ 60 years old) and 5 physicians. Serial changes included simplification and reduction of text and reading level, inclusion of an ICS "myths" section and elaboration of patient-friendly infographics for numerical comparisons. User preferences fell within Content, Format, and tool use Process themes. In response to decision-making preferences, we created a complementary one-page conversation aid for patient-provider use at the point-of-care.

CONCLUSIONS

We present preference-based electronic patient decision and conversation aids for treatment of mild asthma. Our user preference analyses offer useful insights for development of such tools in other chronic diseases. These tools now require integration into point-of-care workflows for measurement of real-world uptake and impact.

Decision Making When Cancer Becomes Chronic: Needs Assessment for a Web-Based Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma Patient Decision Aid

BACKGROUND

In cancers with a chronic phase, patients and family caregivers face difficult decisions such as whether to start a novel therapy, whether to enroll in a clinical trial, and when to stop treatment. These decisions are complex, require an understanding of uncertainty, and necessitate the consideration of patients' informed preferences. For some cancers, such as medullary thyroid carcinoma, these decisions may also involve significant out-of-pocket costs and effects on family members. Providers have expressed a need for web-based interventions that can be delivered between consultations to provide education and prepare patients and families to discuss these decisions. To ensure that these tools are effective, usable, and understandable, studies are needed to identify patients', families', and providers' decision-making needs and optimal design strategies for a web-based patient decision aid.

OBJECTIVE

Following the international guidelines for the development of a web-based patient decision aid, the objectives of this study are to engage potential users to guide development; review the existing literature and available tools; assess users' decision-making experiences, needs, and design recommendations; and identify shared decision-making approaches to address each need.

METHODS

This study used the decisional needs assessment approach, which included creating a stakeholder advisory panel, mapping decision pathways, conducting an environmental scan of existing materials, and administering a decisional needs assessment questionnaire. Thematic analyses identified current decision-making pathways, unmet decision-making needs, and decision support strategies for meeting each need.

RESULTS

The stakeholders reported wide heterogeneity in decision timing and pathways. Relevant existing materials included 2 systematic reviews, 9 additional papers, and multiple educational websites, but none of these met the criteria for a patient decision aid. Patients and family members (n=54) emphasized the need for plain language (46/54, 85%), shared decision making (45/54, 83%), and help with family discussions (39/54, 72%). Additional needs included information about uncertainty, lived experience, and costs. Providers (n=10) reported needing interventions that address misinformation (9/10, 90%), foster realistic expectations (9/10, 90%), and address mistrust in clinical trials (5/10, 50%). Additional needs included provider tools that support shared decision making. Both groups recommended designing a web-based patient decision aid that can be tailored to (64/64, 100%) and delivered on a hospital website (53/64, 83%), focuses on quality of life (45/64, 70%), and provides step-by-step guidance (43/64, 67%). The study team identified best practices to meet each need, which are presented in the proposed decision support design guide.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients, families, and providers report multifaceted decision support needs during the chronic phase of cancer. Web-based patient decision aids that provide tailored support over time and explicitly address uncertainty, quality of life, realistic expectations, and effects on families are needed.

A dimensional analysis of inner strength in people ageing with serious illness

Nursing models of care show promise in addressing the needs of older adults facing serious illness through supporting inner strength. However, previous conceptual and theoretical models of inner strength are limited. This concept analysis used dimensional analysis methods to explore inner strength in people ageing with serious illness to address limitations by defining a pragmatic, data-driven model. This study analyzed published literature of adults with serious illness that describes inner strength. Thirty articles were selected after review. The result was an explanatory matrix that describes inner strength from the perspective of where have I been, where am I going? within the context of being a person who is living and dies and you have a serious illness. The conditions spotlighting by actors around me and taking stock of others and ideas lead to processes of looking in/looking out and seeing me as I'm seen. The final consequence of this process is meeting me. This updated concept analysis of inner strength improves upon previous models by providing a clinically relevant situation-specific model of inner strength for people with serious illness. Implications for nursing scholarship and practice are described including exploration of person-centered care, relational practice, and health communication.

The Gray Zone: Adolescent and Young Adult Decision Support Needs for Ulcerative Colitis

Purpose. To understand the medical decision support needs specific to adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with ulcerative colitis (UC) and inform development of a decision support tool addressing AYAs' preferences. Methods. We conducted focus groups with AYAs with UC and mentors from a pediatric inflammatory bowel disease clinic's peer mentoring program. Focus groups were led by a single trained facilitator using a semistructured guide aimed at eliciting AYAs' roles in medical decision making and perceived decision support needs. All focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded by the research team. Data were analyzed using content analysis and the immersion crystallization method. Results. The facilitator led six focus groups: one group with peer mentors aged 18 to 24 years, three groups with patients aged 14 to 17 years, and two groups with patients aged 18 to 24 years. Decision timing and those involved in decision making were identified as interacting components of treatment decision making. Treatment decisions by AYAs were further based on timing, location (inpatient v. outpatient), and family preference for making decisions during or outside of clinic. AYAs involved parents and health care providers in medical decisions, with older participants describing themselves as "final decision makers." Knowledge and experience were facilitators identified to participating in medical decision making. Conclusions. AYAs with UC experience changes to their roles in medical decisions over time. The support needs identified will inform the development of strategies, such as decision support tools, to help AYAs with chronic conditions develop and use skills needed for participating in medical decision making.

Shared decision-making in vascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Ideally, patients' decision-making regarding surgical options should reflect myriad implicit values. The informed consent process is meant to ensure that patients' values mirror clinical decisions regarding expectations for outcomes, such as quality of life, life expectancy, and subsequent pain and suffering. However, surgeons are not always equipped to discuss patients' values.

METHODS

Shared decision-making is a method that could help surgeons elicit patients' values and subsequently improve the patient's knowledge and satisfaction, among other important outcomes. Yet, several barriers hinder implementation of shared decision-making in the clinic, such as time, interpersonal characteristics, and trust. To address concerns, several tools and approaches have been developed to increase shared decision-making in the clinic. This article highlights two strategies: the three-talk model and decision aids.

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision-making is a tool that could be especially valuable in discussions regarding elective surgery. Further research is needed to determine how best to implement shared decision-making in the surgical setting. Without full integration of patients' values into discussions of surgical options, there will continue to be a disconnect between the surgical procedures, outcomes, and patients' values.

Efficacy of a Preference-Based Decision Tool on Treatment Decisions for a First-Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: A Randomized Controlled Trial of At-Risk Patients

BACKGROUND

First-time anterior shoulder dislocations (FTASD) provide an opportunity to examine the value of integrating stated-preference data with decision modeling to differentiate between patients whose preferred management strategy involves operative or nonoperative treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a FTASD decision tool intervention with individual preference measurement compared with a text-based control in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Two hundred respondents between 18 and 35 years of age at risk for experiencing an FTASD were enrolled from the orthopedic clinics and randomized to receive either an interactive decision tool intervention capable of eliciting patient preferences for treatment of an FTASD or a text-based control on shoulder dislocations and treatments. The primary outcome was preference for operative or nonoperative treatment choice. Secondary outcomes included the decisional conflict scale (DCS), stage of decision making, patient activation and engagement, awareness of preference sensitive decisions, knowledge retention, and instrument acceptability.

RESULTS

One hundred respondents were randomized to the intervention and 100 to the control. A total of 154 men and 46 women with an average age of 23.6 years completed the survey. Participants in the intervention group made treatment decisions that aligned more closely with evidence-based recommendations than those in the control group ( P = 0.016). Secondary outcomes showed no difference between intervention and control, excluding several DCS subscales.

DISCUSSION

An interactive, preference-based decision tool for treatment of FTASD affects patient decision making by guiding respondents toward treatment decisions that align more closely with evidence-based recommendations in the absence of a consultation with an orthopedic provider compared with a standard-of-care control tool. Additional study is needed to evaluate the long-term effects of this tool on treatment outcomes, patient adherence, and satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Assessing an Interactive Online Tool to Support Parents' Genomic Testing Decisions

Clinical use of genome-wide sequencing (GWS) requires pre-test genetic counseling, but the availability of genetic counseling is limited. We developed an interactive online decision-support tool, DECIDE, to make genetic counseling, patient education, and decision support more readily available. We performed a non-inferiority trial comparing DECIDE to standard genetic counseling to assess the clinical value of DECIDE for pre-GWS counseling. One hundred and six parents considering GWS for their children with epilepsy were randomized to conventional genetic counseling or DECIDE. Following the intervention, we measured parents' knowledge and empowerment and asked their opinions about using DECIDE. Both DECIDE and conventional genetic counseling significantly increased parents' knowledge, with no difference between groups. Empowerment also increased but by less than 2% in each group. Parents liked using DECIDE and found it useful; 81% would recommend it to others; 49% wished to use it along with a genetic counselor; 26% of parents preferred to see a genetic counselor; 7% preferred DECIDE alone; and 18% had no preference. DECIDE appears equivalent to genetic counseling at conveying information. In addition, it was highly acceptable to the majority of study participants, many of whom indicated that it was useful to their decision-making. Use of DECIDE as a pre-test tool may extend genetic counseling resources.

Models Used in Clinical Decision Support Systems Supporting Healthcare Professionals Treating Chronic Wounds: Systematic Literature Review

Background

Chronic wounds such as diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and pressure ulcers are a massive burden to health care facilities. Many randomized controlled trials on different wound care elements have been conducted and published in the Cochrane Library, all of which have only a low evidential basis. Thus, health care professionals are forced to rely on their own experience when making decisions regarding wound care. To progress from experience-based practice to evidence-based wound care practice, clinical decision support systems (CDSS) that help health care providers with decision-making in a clinical workflow have been developed. These systems have proven useful in many areas of the health care sector, partly because they have increased the quality of care, and partially because they have generated a solid basis for evidence-based practice. However, no systematic reviews focus on CDSS within the field of wound care to chronic wounds.

Objective

The aims of this systematic literature review are (1) to identify models used in CDSS that support health care professionals treating chronic wounds, and (2) to classify each clinical decision support model according to selected variables and to create an overview.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using 6 databases. This systematic literature review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement for systematic reviews. The search strategy consisted of three facets, respectively: Facet 1 (Algorithm), Facet 2 (Wound care) and Facet 3 (Clinical decision support system). Studies based on acute wounds or trauma were excluded. Similarly, studies that presented guidelines, protocols and instructions were excluded, since they do not require progression along an active chain of reasoning from the clinicians, just their focus. Finally, studies were excluded if they had not undergone a peer review process. The following aspects were extracted from each article: authors, year, country, the sample size of data and variables describing the type of clinical decision support models. The decision support models were classified in 2 ways: quantitative decision support models, and qualitative decision support models.

Results

The final number of studies included in the systematic literature review was 10. These clinical decision support models included 4/10 (40%) quantitative decision support models and 6/10 (60%) qualitative decision support models. The earliest article was published in 2007, and the most recent was from 2015.

Conclusions

The clinical decision support models were targeted at a variety of different types of chronic wounds. The degree of accessibility of the inference engines varied. Quantitative models served as the engine and were invisible to the health care professionals, while qualitative models required interaction with the user.