Insights from a conference on implementing comparative effectiveness research through shared decision-making

Patient Perspectives on the Learning Health System: The Importance of Trust and Shared Decision Making

We conducted focus groups to assess patient attitudes toward research on medical practices in the context of usual care. We found that patients focus on the implications of this research for their relationship with and trust in their physicians. Patients view research on medical practices as separate from usual care, demanding dissemination of information and in most cases, individual consent. Patients expect information about this research to come through their physician, whom they rely on to identify and filter associated risks. In general, patients support this research, but worry that participation in research involving randomization may undermine individualized care that acknowledges their unique medical histories. These findings suggest the need for public education on variation in practice among physicians and the need for a collaborative approach to the governance of research on medical practices that addresses core values of trust, transparency, and partnership.

The vexing problem of defining the meaning, role and measurement of values in treatment decision-making

Two international movements, evidence-based medicine (EBM) and shared decision-making (SDM) have grappled for some time with issues related to defining the meaning, role and measurement of values/preferences in their respective models of treatment decision-making. In this article, we identify and describe unresolved problems in the way that each movement addresses these issues. The starting point for this discussion is that at least two essential ingredients are needed for treatment decision-making: research information about treatment options and their potential benefits and risks; and the values/preferences of participants in the decision-making process. Both the EBM and SDM movements have encountered difficulties in defining the meaning, role and measurement of values/preferences in treatment decision-making. In the EBM model of practice, there is no clear and consistent definition of patient values/preferences and no guidance is provided on how to integrate these into an EBM model of practice. Methods advocated to measure patient values are also problematic. Within the SDM movement, patient values/preferences tend to be defined and measured in a restrictive and reductionist way as patient preferences for treatment options or attributes of options, while broader underlying value structures are ignored. In both models of practice, the meaning and expected role of physician values in decision-making are unclear. Values clarification exercises embedded in patient decision aids are suggested by SDM advocates to identify and communicate patient values/preferences for different treatment outcomes. Such exercises have the potential to impose a particular decision-making theory and/or process onto patients, which can change the way they think about and process information, potentially impeding them from making decisions that are consistent with their true values. The tasks of clarifying the meaning, role and measurement of values/preferences in treatment decision-making models such as EBM and SDM, and determining whose values ought to count are complex and difficult tasks that will not be resolved quickly. Additional conceptual thinking and research are needed to explore and clarify these issues. To date, the values component of these models remains elusive and underdeveloped.

What do providers, payers and patients need from comparative effectiveness research on diagnostics? The case of HER2/Neu testing in breast cancer

AIMS

Comparing effectiveness of diagnostic tests is one of the highest priorities for comparative effectiveness research (CER) set by the Institute of Medicine. Our study aims to identify what information providers, payers and patients need from CER on diagnostics, and what challenges they encounter implementing comparative information on diagnostic alternatives in practice and policy.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Using qualitative research methods and the example of two alternative protocols for HER2 testing in breast cancer, we conducted interviews with 45 stakeholders: providers (n = 25) from four academic and eight nonacademic institutions, executives (n = 13) from five major US private payers and representatives (n = 7) from two breast cancer patient advocacies.

RESULTS

The need for additional scientific evidence to determine the preferred HER2 protocol was more common for advocates than payers (100 vs 54%; p = 0.0515) and significantly more common for advocates than providers (100 vs 40%; p = 0.0077). The availability of information allowing assessment of the implementation impact from alternative diagnostic protocols on provider institutions may mitigate the need for additional scientific evidence for some providers and payers (24 and 46%, respectively). The cost-effectiveness of alternative protocols from the societal perspective is important to payers and advocates (69 and 71%, respectively) but not to providers (0%; p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0001). The lack of reporting laboratory practices is a more common implementation challenge for payers and advocates (77 and 86%, respectively) than for providers (32%). The absence of any mechanism for patient involvement was recognized as a challenge by payers and advocates (69 and 100%, respectively) but not by providers (0%; p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Comparative implementation research is needed to inform the stakeholders considering diagnostic alternatives. Transparency of laboratory practices is an important factor in enabling implementation of CER on diagnostics in practice and policy. The incongruent views of providers versus patient advocates and payers on involving patients in diagnostic decisions is a concerning challenge to utilizing the results of CER.

Shared decision-making and comparative effectiveness research for patients with chronic conditions: an urgent synergy for better health

Chronic conditions are the most important cause of morbidity, mortality and health expense in the USA. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) seeks to provide evidence supporting the relative value of alternative courses of action. This research often concludes with estimates of the likelihood of desirable and undesirable outcomes associated with each option. Patients with chronic conditions should engage with their clinicians in deciding which of these options best fits their goals and context. In practicing shared decision-making (SDM), clinicians and patients should make use of CER to inform their deliberations. In these ways, SDM and CER are interrelated. SDM translates CER into patient-centered practice, while CER provides the backbone evidence about options and outcomes in SDM interventions. In this review, we explore the potential for a SDM-CER synergy in improving healthcare for patients with chronic conditions.