Effect of Information Content and General Practitioner Recommendation to Exercise on Treatment Beliefs and Intentions for Knee Osteoarthritis: An Online Multi-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effects of general osteoarthritis (OA) information in addition to a treatment option grid and general practitioner (GP) recommendation to exercise on treatment beliefs and intentions.

METHODS

An online randomized trial of 735 people 45 years old or older without OA who were recruited from a consumer survey network. Participants read a hypothetical scenario about visiting their GP for knee problems and were randomized to the following: i) 'general information', ii) 'option grid' (general information plus option grid), or iii) 'option grid plus recommendation' (general information plus option grid plus GP exercise recommendation). The primary outcome was an agreement that exercise is the best management option (0-10 numeric rating scale; higher scores indicating higher agreement that exercise is best). The secondary outcomes were beliefs about other management options and management intentions. Linear regression models estimated the mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) between-group difference in postintervention scores, adjusted for baseline.

RESULTS

Option grid plus recommendation led to higher agreement that exercise is the best management by a mean of 0.4 units (95% CI: 0.1-0.6) compared with general information. There were no other between-group differences for the primary outcome. Option grid led to higher agreement that surgery was best, and x-rays were necessary, compared with general information (mean between-group differences: 0.7 [CI: 0.2-1.1] and 0.5 [CI: 0.1-1.0], respectively) and option grid plus recommendation (0.5 [CI: 0.1-0.9] and 0.9 [CI: 0.4-1.3]).

CONCLUSION

Addition of an option grid and GP exercise recommendation to general OA information led to more favorable views that exercise was best for the hypothetical knee problem. However, differences were small and of unclear clinical importance.

Improving outcomes for women aged 70 years or above with early breast cancer: research programme including a cluster RCT

Background

In breast cancer management, age-related practice variation is widespread, with older women having lower rates of surgery and chemotherapy than younger women, based on the premise of reduced treatment tolerance and benefit. This may contribute to inferior outcomes. There are currently no age- and fitness-stratified guidelines on which to base treatment recommendations.

Aim

We aimed to optimise treatment choice and outcomes for older women (aged ≥ 70 years) with operable breast cancer.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) determine the age, comorbidity, frailty, disease stage and biology thresholds for endocrine therapy alone versus surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, or adjuvant chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy, for older women with breast cancer; (2) optimise survival outcomes for older women by improving the quality of treatment decision-making; (3) develop and evaluate a decision support intervention to enhance shared decision-making; and (4) determine the degree and causes of treatment variation between UK breast units.

Design

A prospective cohort study was used to determine age and fitness thresholds for treatment allocation. Mixed-methods research was used to determine the information needs of older women to develop a decision support intervention. A cluster-randomised trial was used to evaluate the impact of this decision support intervention on treatment choices and outcomes. Health economic analysis was used to evaluate the cost–benefit ratio of different treatment strategies according to age and fitness criteria. A mixed-methods study was used to determine the degree and causes of variation in treatment allocation.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were enhanced age- and fitness-specific decision support leading to improved quality-of-life outcomes in older women (aged ≥ 70 years) with early breast cancer.

Results

(1) Cohort study: the study recruited 3416 UK women aged ≥ 70 years (median age 77 years). Follow-up was 52 months. (a) The surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone comparison: 2854 out of 3416 (88%) women had oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, 2354 of whom received surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy and 500 received endocrine therapy alone. Patients treated with endocrine therapy alone were older and frailer than patients treated with surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy. Unmatched overall survival and breast-cancer-specific survival were higher in the surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy group (overall survival: hazard ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.33; p < 0.001; breast-cancer-specific survival: hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.58; p < 0.001) than in the endocrine therapy alone group. In matched analysis, surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy was still associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.98; p = 0.04) than endocrine therapy alone, but not with better breast-cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 1.37; p = 0.34) or progression-free-survival (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 2.26; p = 0.78). (b) The adjuvant chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy comparison: 2811 out of 3416 (82%) women received surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, of whom 1520 (54%) had high-recurrence-risk breast cancer [grade 3, node positive, oestrogen receptor negative or human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 positive, or a high Oncotype DX® (Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) score of > 25]. In this high-risk population, there were no differences according to adjuvant chemotherapy use in overall survival or breast-cancer-specific survival after propensity matching. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of metastatic recurrence than no chemotherapy in the unmatched (adjusted hazard ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.68; p = 0.002) and propensity-matched patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Adjuvant chemotherapy improved the overall survival and breast-cancer-specific survival of patients with oestrogen-receptor-negative disease. (2) Mixed-methods research to develop a decision support intervention: an iterative process was used to develop two decision support interventions (each comprising a brief decision aid, a booklet and an online tool) specifically for older women facing treatment choices (endocrine therapy alone or surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy or no chemotherapy) using several evidence sources (expert opinion, literature and patient interviews). The online tool was based on models developed using registry data from 23,842 patients and validated on an external data set of 14,526 patients. Mortality rates at 2 and 5 years differed by < 1% between predicted and observed values. (3) Cluster-randomised clinical trial of decision support tools: 46 UK breast units were randomised (intervention, n = 21; usual care, n = 25), recruiting 1339 women (intervention, n = 670; usual care, n = 669). There was no significant difference in global quality of life at 6 months post baseline (difference –0.20, 95% confidence interval –2.7 to 2.3; p = 0.90). In women offered a choice of endocrine therapy alone or surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, knowledge about treatments was greater in the intervention arm than the usual care arm (94% vs. 74%; p = 0.003). Treatment choice was altered, with higher rates of endocrine therapy alone than of surgery in the intervention arm. Similarly, chemotherapy rates were lower in the intervention arm (endocrine therapy alone rate: intervention sites 21% vs. usual-care sites 15%, difference 5.5%, 95% confidence interval 1.1% to 10.0%; p = 0.02; adjuvant chemotherapy rate: intervention sites 10% vs. usual-care site 15%, difference 4.5%, 95% confidence interval 0.0% to 8.0%; p = 0.013). Survival was similar in both arms. (4) Health economic analysis: a probabilistic economic model was developed using registry and cohort study data. For most health and fitness strata, surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy had lower costs and returned more quality-adjusted life-years than endocrine therapy alone. However, for some women aged > 90 years, surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy was no longer cost-effective and generated fewer quality-adjusted life-years than endocrine therapy alone. The incremental benefit of surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy reduced with age and comorbidities. (5) Variation in practice: analysis of rates of surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone between the 56 breast units in the cohort study demonstrated significant variation in rates of endocrine therapy alone that persisted after adjustment for age, fitness and stage. Clinician preference was an important determinant of treatment choice.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that, for older women with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, there is a cohort of women with a life expectancy of < 4 years for whom surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy may offer little benefit and simply have a negative impact on quality of life. The Age Gap decision tool may help make this shared decision. Similarly, although adjuvant chemotherapy offers little benefit and has a negative impact on quality of life for the majority of older women with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, for women with oestrogen-receptor-negative breast cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy is beneficial. The negative impacts of adjuvant chemotherapy on quality of life, although significant, are transient. This implies that, for the majority of fitter women aged ≥ 70 years, standard care should be offered.

Limitations

As with any observational study, despite detailed propensity score matching, residual bias cannot be excluded. Follow-up was at median 52 months for the cohort analysis. Longer-term follow-up will be required to validate these findings owing to the slow time course of oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer.

Future work

The online algorithm is now available (URL: https://agegap.shef.ac.uk/; accessed May 2022). There are plans to validate the tool and incorprate quality-of-life and 10-year survival outcomes.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN46099296.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Encounter decision aids to facilitate shared decision-making with women experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding or symptomatic uterine fibroids: A before-after study

OBJECTIVE

Is the level of shared decision-making (SDM) higher after introduction of a SDM package (including encounter decision aids on treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding and training for clinicians) than before?.

METHODS

This before-after study, performed in OB-GYN practice, compared consultations before and after introduction of a SDM package. The target sample size was 25 patients per group. Women seeking treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding were eligible. After their appointments, patients filled out a three-item patient-reported SDM measure. Treatment discussions were audio-recorded and rated for SDM using Observer OPTION⁵. Consultation transcripts in the 'after' group were checked for adherence to the steps required for intended use of decision aids.

RESULTS

16 gynaecologists participated. 25 patients participated before introduction of the decision aids and 28 after. The proportion of women reporting optimal SDM was higher after introduction (75 %) than before (50 %;p < 0.001). The mean observer-rated level of SDM was also significantly higher after than before (MD = 12.50,95 % CI 5.53-19.47).

CONCLUSION

The level of SDM was higher after the introduction of the package than before.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study was conducted in a real-life setting in three clinics, both large academic and small rural, offering opportunities for implementation in different type of organizations.

Partial or total knee replacement? Identifying patients' information needs on knee replacement surgery: a qualitative study to inform a decision aid

Purpose

For patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis, joint replacement is a widely used and successful operation to help improve quality-of-life when non-operative measures have failed. For a significant proportion of patients there is a choice between a partial or total knee replacement. Decision aids can help people weigh up the need for and benefits of treatment against possible risks and side-effects. This study explored patients’ experiences of deciding to undergo knee replacement surgery to identify information priorities, to inform a knee replacement decision aid.

Methods

Four focus groups were held with 31 patients who were candidates for both partial and total knee replacement surgery. Two focus groups included patients with no prior knee replacement surgery (pre-surgery); two with patients with one knee already replaced and who were candidates for a second surgery on their other knee (post-surgery). Data were analysed using Framework Analysis.

Results

Participants described a process of arriving at ‘readiness for surgery’ a turning point where the need for treatment outweighed their concerns. Referral and personal factors influenced their decision-making and expectations of surgery in the hope to return to a former self. Those with previous knee surgery offered insights into whether their expectations were met. ‘Information for decisions’ details the practicality and the optimal timing for the delivery of a knee replacement decision aid. In particular, participants would have valued hearing about the experiences of other patients and seeing detailed pictures of both surgical options. Information priorities were identified to include in a decision aid for knee replacement surgery.

Conclusions

Patients’ experiences of surgical decision-making have much in common with the Necessity-Concerns Framework. Whilst originally developed to understand drug treatment decisions and adherence, it provides a useful lens to understand decision-making about surgery. The use of a decision aid could enhance decision-making on knee replacement surgery. Ultimately, patients’ understanding of the risks and benefits of both surgical options could be improved and in turn, help informed decision-making. The knee replacement decision aid is perceived as a useful tool to be associated with other detailed information resources as recommended.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-019-02381-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Side effects and practices to improve management of type 2 diabetes mellitus from the viewpoint of patient experience and health care management. A narrative review

INTRODUCTION

There is an alarming increase in the number of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This increase is causing personal, family, social, economic, and political problems. The aim of this article is to review the side effects of treatments, the complications suffered by patients, and the practices to improve management of this disease from the viewpoint of the experience of patients and health care management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A narrative review was conducted of studies on type 2 diabetes mellitus published in English and Spanish indexed in PubMed, Science Direct, Cinahl, MedLine, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and Google academic. A total of 1,118 articles were found, 42 of which referred to the objectives of the review and met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The side effects and complications experienced by patients and their perception that they do not receive adequate information, together with poor satisfaction, lead to non-adherence to treatment, which impairs patient health and increases health care costs. The proposals in the reviewed studies guide the actions to improve treatment adherence and, thus, quality of life of patients, to decrease side effects and mortality and, therefore, the costs associated to type 2 diabetes mellitus through: 1) quick and easy access to medical care, 2) quality health education, and 3) participation of patients in the decisions about their treatment and in self-management of their disease to make minimum changes in their lifestyles.

Patients' views on the use of an Option Grid for knee osteoarthritis in physiotherapy clinical encounters: An interview study

Background

Patient decision support tools have been developed as a means of providing accurate and accessible information in order for patients to make informed decisions about their care. Option Grids^™ are a type of decision support tool specifically designed to be used during clinical encounters.

Objective

To explore patients’ views of the Option Grid encounter tool used in clinical consultations with physiotherapists, in comparison with usual care, within a patient population who are likely to be disadvantaged by age and low health literacy.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews with 72 patients (36 who had been given an Option Grid in their consultation and 36 who had not). Thematic analysis explored patients’ understanding of treatment options, perceptions of involvement, and readability and utility of the Option Grid.

Results

Interviews suggested that the Option Grid facilitated more detailed discussion about the risks and benefits of a wider range of treatment options for osteoarthritis of the knee. Participants indicated that the Option Grid was clear and aided their understanding of a structured progression of the options as their condition advanced, although it was not clear whether the Option Grid facilitated greater engagement in shared decision making.

Discussion and conclusion

The Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee was well received by patient participants who reported that it helped them to understand their options, and made the notion of choice explicit. Use of Option Grids should be considered within routine consultations.

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: evaluation of decision support interventions for older women with operable breast cancer: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

While breast cancer outcomes are improving steadily in younger women due to advances in screening and improved therapies, there has been little change in outcomes among the older age group. It is inevitable that comorbidities/frailty rates are higher, which may increase the risks of some breast cancer treatments such as surgery and chemotherapy, many older women are healthy and may benefit from their use. Adjusting treatment regimens appropriately for age/comorbidity/frailty is variable and largely non-evidence based, specifically with regard to rates of surgery for operable oestrogen receptor-positive disease and rates of chemotherapy for high-risk disease.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre, parallel group, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) (2015-18) reported here is nested within a larger ongoing 'Age Gap Cohort Study' (2012-18RP-PG-1209-10071), aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention of decision support interventions to assist in the treatment decision making for early breast cancer in older women. The interventions include two patient decision aids (primary endocrine therapy vs surgery/antioestrogen therapy and chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy) and a clinical treatment outcomes algorithm for clinicians.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

National and local ethics committee approval was obtained for all UK participating sites. Results from the trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

IRAS REFERENCE

115550.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) number 2015-004220-61;Pre-results. Sponsor's Protocol Code Number Sheffield Teaching Hospitals STH17086. ISRCTN 32447*.

The use of decision aids on early detection of prostate cancer: views of men and general practitioners

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

While decision support tools such as decision aids can contribute to shared decision making, implementing these tools in daily practice is challenging. To identify and address issues around the use of decision support tools in routine care, this study explores the views of men and general practitioners on using a DA for early detection of prostate cancer.

METHODS, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Group discussions and semi-structured interviews were carried out with 43 men and 16 general practitioners familiar with a previously developed decision aid. Data were analysed using qualitative description.

RESULTS

Views on using the decision support tool could be classified into four categories: no need for decision making, need for support, perceived benefit and practical barriers. For each category, several underlying themes could be identified that reflect the absence or presence of prerequisites to successful decision support delivery.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

While men and general practitioners generally have positive attitudes to shared decision making, for both parties attitudes such as not agreeing that there is a decision to be made and doubts on the beneficence of using DAs were identified as factors that may hinder the use of a DA in clinical practice. Participants formulated strategies to support the use of DAs, mainly supplementing DAs with short tools and investing in both training programmes and large-scale awareness raising of the general public.

Using Option Grids: steps toward shared decision-making for neonatal circumcision

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact, acceptability and feasibility of a short encounter tool designed to enhance the process of shared decision-making and parental engagement.

METHODS

We analyzed video-recordings of clinical encounters, half undertaken before and half after a brief intervention that trained four clinicians how to use Option Grids, using an observer-based measure of shared decision-making. We also analyzed semi-structured interviews conducted with the clinicians four weeks after their exposure to the intervention.

RESULTS

Observer OPTION(5) scores were higher at post-intervention, with a mean of 33.9 (SD=23.5) compared to a mean of 16.1 (SD=7.1) for pre-intervention, a significant difference of 17.8 (95% CI: 2.4, 33.2). Prior to using the intervention, clinicians used a consent document to frame circumcision as a default practice. Encounters with the Option Grid conferred agency to both parents and clinicians, and facilitated shared decision-making. Clinician reported recognizing the tool's positive effect on their communication process.

CONCLUSIONS

Tools such as Option Grids have the potential to make it easier for clinicians to achieve shared decision-making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Encounter tools have the potential to change practice. More research is needed to test their feasibility in routine practice.

Understanding older women's decision making and coping in the context of breast cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

Primary endocrine therapy (PET) is a recognised alternative to surgery followed by endocrine therapy for a subset of older, frailer women with breast cancer. Choice of treatment is preference-sensitive and may require decision support. Older patients are often conceptualised as passive decision-makers. The present study used the Coping in Deliberation (CODE) framework to gain insight into decision making and coping processes in a group of older women who have faced breast cancer treatment decisions, and to inform the development of a decision support intervention (DSI).

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with older women who had been offered a choice of PET or surgery from five UK hospital clinics. Women's information and support needs, their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment decisions were explored. A secondary analysis of these interviews was conducted using the CODE framework to examine women's appraisals of health threat and coping throughout the deliberation process.

RESULTS

Interviews with 35 women aged 75-98 years were analysed. Appraisals of breast cancer and treatment options were sometimes only partial, with most women forming a preference for treatment relatively quickly. However, a number of considerations which women made throughout the deliberation process were identified, including: past experiences of cancer and its treatment; scope for choice; risks, benefits and consequences of treatment; instincts about treatment choice; and healthcare professionals' recommendations. Women also described various strategies to cope with breast cancer and their treatment decisions. These included seeking information, obtaining practical and emotional support from healthcare professionals, friends and relatives, and relying on personal faith. Based on these findings, key questions were identified that women may ask during deliberation.

CONCLUSIONS

Many older women with breast cancer may be considered involved rather than passive decision-makers, and may benefit from DSIs designed to support decision making and coping within and beyond the clinic setting.

The information and decision support needs of older women (>75 yrs) facing treatment choices for breast cancer: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Primary Endocrine Therapy (PET) is a good alternative to surgery for breast cancer in older frailer women. Overall survival rates are equivalent although rates of local control are inferior. There is little research regarding the decision support needs of older patients faced with this choice. This qualitative study aimed to explore these among older breast cancer patients offered a choice of treatment, as the basis to develop an appropriate decision support tool.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with older women (>75 years) with breast cancer who had been offered a choice of PET or surgery at diagnosis. Women's involvement in their treatment decision and support for the process were explored and analysed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-three interviews were undertaken (median age 82, range 75-95 years, 22 PET, 11 surgery). Most women, regardless of treatment choice, wanted tailored information about the different treatment options, their impact on independence, the practicalities of treatment and the risk of recurrence and spread. Surgery was the treatment of choice in women wanting optimal disease control; those choosing PET felt that they were 'too old' for surgery and wanted minimal disruption.

CONCLUSIONS

Older women described making active treatment decisions. However, some knowledge was inaccurate. Women wanted information and decision support from their clinicians along with a specific tailored information booklet to support this process.

Option Grids to facilitate shared decision making for patients with Osteoarthritis of the knee: protocol for a single site, efficacy trial

BACKGROUND

Despite policy interest, an ethical imperative, and evidence of the benefits of patient decision support tools, the adoption of shared decision making (SDM) in day-to-day clinical practice remains slow and is inhibited by barriers that include culture and attitudes; resources and time pressures. Patient decision support tools often require high levels of health and computer literacy. Option Grids are one-page evidence-based summaries of the available condition-specific treatment options, listing patients' frequently asked questions. They are designed to be sufficiently brief and accessible enough to support a better dialogue between patients and clinicians during routine consultations. This paper describes a study to assess whether an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee (OA of the knee) facilitates SDM, and explores the use of Option Grids by patients disadvantaged by language or poor health literacy.

METHODS/DESIGN

This will be a stepped wedge exploratory trial involving 72 patients with OA of the knee referred from primary medical care to a specialist musculoskeletal service in Oldham. Six physiotherapists will sequentially join the trial and consult with six patients using usual care procedures. After a period of brief training in using the Option Grid, the same six physiotherapists will consult with six further patients using an Option Grid in the consultation. The primary outcome will be efficacy of the Option Grid in facilitating SDM as measured by observational scores using the OPTION scale. Comparisons will be made between patients who have received the Option Grid and those who received usual care. A Decision Quality Measure (DQM) will assess quality of decision making. The health literacy of patients will be measured using the REALM-R instrument. Consultations will be observed and audio-recorded. Interviews will be conducted with the physiotherapists, patients and any interpreters present to explore their views of using the Option Grid.

DISCUSSION

Option Grids offer a potential solution to the barriers to implementing traditional decision aids into routine clinical practice. The study will assess whether Option Grids can facilitate SDM in day-to-day clinical practice and explore their use with patients disadvantaged by language or poor health literacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN94871417.