Pilot test of a patient decision aid about liver transplant organ quality.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Volk ML
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4072737 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Pilot test of a patient decision aid about liver transplant organ quality.
Volk Michael L ML Roney Meghan M Fagerlin Angela A
Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society 20140701 7
Prior studies have shown that patients are reluctant to accept donor-specific risks, and transplant professionals lack an effective and time-efficient means of obtaining informed consent. We designed and pilot-tested a Web-based patient decision aid (DA) on organ quality. The DA was administered to 53 liver transplant candidates (median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score = 14, range = 7-26), and they took a mean of 15 minutes to complete it. Questions about knowledge and attitudes were aske ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFor liver transplant candidates on the waiting list, deciding to accept a donor organ with known or potential risk factors can be stressful and can lead to declined offers. Current education for patients and family often takes place during transplant evaluations and can be overwhelming and result in low retention and poor understanding of donor quality.MethodsIn the first phase, we sought to understand provider experiences when counseling patients about donor risks and donor offers. We conducted interviews and focus groups with liver transplant providers at 1 local center and at a national clinician conference. Twenty providers participated: 15 hepatologists and 5 surgeons. The provider feedback was used to create an initial outline of content that is consistent with decision support frameworks. In a second phase, graphic design collaborators created mockups of a patient-friendly tool. We reviewed mockups with 4 transplant coordinators and 9 liver transplant candidates for feedback on clarity and utility to prepare for an organ offer. Patient responses allowed a comparison of perceived readiness to receive an offer call before and after viewing mockups.ResultsWe identified themes relating to the offer process, repetition and timing of education, and standardization and tailoring of content. The results indicated a gap in available education after the evaluation session, and information specific to offer decisions is needed. Patient feedback emphasized the need to review the offer process before a real offer.ConclusionsPatients and providers responded favorably to a patient tool addressing existing gaps in education while waiting for a donor offer. Additional patient, family, and provider feedback will guide the development of an interactive tool to prepare patients and families for an offer decision.
| S-EPMC8081471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients in the US in need of a life-saving organ transplant must complete a long process of medical decisions, and a first step is to identify a transplant center to complete an evaluation. This study describes a patient-centered process of testing and refinement of a new website (www.transplantcentersearch.org) that was developed to provide data to patients who are seeking a transplant center. Mixed methods, including online surveys and structured usability testing, were conducted to inform changes in an iterative process. Survey data from 684 participants indicated the effects of different icon styles on user decisions. Qualitative feedback from 38 usability testing participants informed improvements to the website interface. The mixed methods approach was feasible and well suited to the need to address multiple development steps of a patient-facing tool. The combined methods allowed for large survey sample sizes and also allowed interaction with a functioning website and in-depth qualitative discussions. The approach is applicable for a broad range of target user groups who are faced with challenging decisions and a need for information tailored to individual users. The survey and usability testing concluded with a functioning website that is positively received by users and meets the objective to support patient decisions when seeking an organ transplant.
| S-EPMC8128227 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared decision making (SDM) is a systematic approach aimed at improving patient involvement in preference-sensitive health care decisions. Choosing between surgical or non-surgical treatment for lumbar disc herniation, can be difficult as the evidence of a superior treatment is unclear, which makes it a preference-sensitive decision. The objectives of this study was therefore to assess the degree of SDM and afterwards to develop and test a patient decision aid (PtDA) to support SDM during the clinical encounter between surgeon and patient, when patients choose between surgical and non-surgical treatment for Lumbar disc herniation (LDH).MethodsThe study was conducted in four steps. 1) Assessment of the extent to which SDM was practiced in the spine clinic. 2) Development of a PtDA to support SDM. 3) Testing its usability and acceptability amongst potential users (patients). 4) Pilot-test of its usability in the clinical setting.ResultsResults from our small baseline study (n =?40) showed that between a third and two-thirds of the patients reported not being fully engaged in a shared decision. A pre-designed template (BESLUTNINGSHJÆLPER™) was adapted to support the decision about whether or not to have surgery for LDH. Testing the prototype with patients led to minor refinements. A subsequent pilot test of its usability in a clinical setting achieved positive responses from both patients and clinicians.ConclusionOur baseline study demonstrated that SDM was not universally practiced in the clinic. The PtDA we have developed was rated as acceptable and usable by both patients and clinicians for helping those with LDH choose between surgical or non- surgical treatment. This tool now requires further testing to assess its effectiveness.
| S-EPMC6778367 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7947059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background & aimsDespite an allocation system designed to give deceased-donor livers to the sickest patients, many transplantable livers are declined by U.S. transplant centers. It is unknown whether centers vary in their propensities to decline organs for the highest priority patients, and how these decisions directly impact patient outcomes.MethodsWe analyzed Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data from 5/1/07-6/17/13, and included all adult liver-alone waitlist candidates offered an organ that was ultimately transplanted. We evaluated acceptance rates of liver offers for the highest ranked patients and their subsequent waitlist mortality.ResultsOf the 23,740 unique organ offers, 8882 (37.4%) were accepted for the first-ranked patient. Despite adjusting for organ quality and recipient severity of illness, transplant centers within and across geographic regions varied strikingly (p<0.001) in the percentage of organ offers they accepted for the highest priority patients. Among all patients ranked first on waitlists, the adjusted center-specific organ acceptance rates ranged from 15.7% to 58.1%. In multivariable models, there was a 27% increased odds of waitlist mortality for every 5% absolute decrease in a center's adjusted organ offer acceptance rate (adjusted OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.20-1.32). However, the absolute difference in median 5-year adjusted graft survival was 4% between livers accepted for the first-ranked patient, compared to those declined and transplanted at a lower position.ConclusionThere is marked variability in center practices regarding accepting livers allocated to the highest priority patients. Center-level decisions to decline organs substantially increased patients' odds of dying on the waitlist without a transplant.
| S-EPMC4799773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDecision aids can improve decision making processes, but the amount and type of information that they should attempt to communicate is controversial. We sought to compare, in a pilot randomized trial, two colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision aids that differed in the number of screening options presented.MethodsAdults ages 48-75 not currently up to date with screening were recruited from the community and randomized to view one of two versions of our previously tested CRC screening decision aid. The first version included five screening options: fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, a combination of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and barium enema. The second discussed only the two most frequently selected screening options, FOBT and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were differences in screening interest and test preferences between groups after decision aid viewing. Patient test preference was elicited first without any associated out-of-pocket costs (OPC), and then with the following costs: FOBT-$10, sigmoidoscopy-$50, barium enema-$50, and colonoscopy-$200.Results62 adults participated: 25 viewed the 5-option decision aid, and 37 viewed the 2-option version. Mean age was 54 (range 48-72), 58% were women, 71% were White, 24% African-American; 58% had completed at least a 4-year college degree. Comparing participants that viewed the 5-option version with participants who viewed the 2-option version, there were no differences in screening interest after viewing (1.8 vs. 1.9, t-test p = 0.76). Those viewing the 2-option version were somewhat more likely to choose colonoscopy than those viewing the 5-option version when no out of pocket costs were assumed (68% vs. 46%, p = 0.11), but not when such costs were imposed (41% vs. 42%, p = 1.00).ConclusionThe number of screening options available does not appear to have a large effect on interest in colorectal cancer screening. The effect of offering differing numbers of options may affect test choice when out-of-pocket costs are not considered.
| S-EPMC2259331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Variations in candidate and donor acceptance criteria may influence access and mortality for liver transplantation. We sought to understand how recipient and donor characteristics vary across centers and how patients interpret this information, and we used these data to develop a tool to provide tailored information to candidates seeking a center (www.transplantcentersearch.org). We analyzed liver recipient data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to determine how recipient and donor characteristics (eg, age, Medicaid use, and human immunodeficiency virus status) varied across programs. Data included recipients and donors at each US program between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. The variation in characteristics was plotted with centers stratified by total transplant volume and by volume of each characteristic. A subset of characteristics was plotted to show variation over 3 years. We created mockups of potential reports displaying recipient characteristics alongside pretransplant and posttransplant outcomes and solicited feedback at patient and family interviews and focus groups, which included 39 individuals: 10 pilot interviews with candidates seeking liver transplant at the University of Minnesota-Fairview (UMNF) and 5 focus groups with 13 UMNF candidates, 6 UMNF family members, and 10 national recipients. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis. Several themes emerged: (1) Candidates experience gaps in existing education about center options; (2) patients requested information about how selection criteria might impact access to transplant; and (3) information tailored to a candidate's medical characteristics can inform decisions. Characteristics shown on mockups varied across centers (P < 0.01). Variation was widespread for small and large centers. In conclusion, variation exists in recipient and donor characteristics across centers. Liver transplant patients provide positive feedback upon viewing patient-specific search tools.
| S-EPMC8193801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:BRCA1/2 mutation carriers' choice between risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy is very complex. Aim was to develop a patient decision aid that combines evidence with patient preferences to facilitate decision making. DESIGN:Systematic development of a patient decision aid in an iterative process of prototype development, alpha testing by patients and clinicians and revisions using International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) quality criteria. Information was based on the available literature and current guidelines. A multidisciplinary steering group supervised the process. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Pre-menopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers choosing between RRSO and salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy in Family Cancer Clinics in the Netherlands. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:IPDAS quality criteria, relevance, usability, clarity. RESULTS:The patient decision aid underwent four rounds of alpha testing and revisions. Finally, two paper decision aids were developed: one for BRCA1 and one for BRCA2. They both contained a general introduction, three chapters and a step-by-step plan containing a personal value clarification worksheet. During alpha testing, risk communication and information about premature menopause and hormone therapy were the most revised items. The patient decision aids fulfil 37 of 43 (86%) IPDAS criteria for content and development process. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:Both BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and professionals are willing to use or offer the developed patient decision aids for risk-reducing surgery. The patient decision aids have been found clear, balanced and comprehensible. Future testing among patients facing the decision should point out its effectiveness in improving decision making.
| S-EPMC5980589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has mandated in-person shared decision-making (SDM) counseling with the use of one or more decision aids (DAs) prior to lung cancer screening. We developed a single-page, paper-based, encounter DA (EDA) to be used within a clinician-patient encounter for lung cancer screening and conducted a pre-post pilot intervention study to evaluate its feasibility and effects on patient decisional conflict. Patients referred to a pulmonary practice-based lung cancer screening program were surveyed before and after an SDM visit with a pulmonologist, who used the EDA to counsel the patient. Patient knowledge of the mortality benefit from screening and the frequency of abnormal screening test results was evaluated after the visit, while decisional conflict was measured before and after the visit using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Twenty-three patients participated (mean age = 65.8 years; 43% female; mean smoking history = 57.8 pack-years; 48% currently smoking). Following the visit, 28% of participants correctly understood the mortality benefit of lung cancer screening, while 82% understood the frequency of abnormal screening tests. The mean total DCS score decreased from 35.0 to 0.2 after the visit (p < 0.001). These data suggest that a single-page, paper-based EDA is feasible and potentially effective in reducing decision conflict when used within a SDM visit, although more research is needed to establish the independent effects of the EDA, and future efforts to promote SDM may need to devote greater attention to improving patient understanding of the mortality benefit of screening.
| S-EPMC8260603 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6282011 | biostudies-literature