Dataset Information

Primum non nocere: shared informed decision making in low back pain--a pilot cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low back pain is a common and disabling condition leading to large health service and societal costs. Although there are several treatment options for back pain little is known about how to improve patient choice in treatment selection. The purpose of this study was to pilot a decision support package to help people choose between low back pain treatments.

Methods

This was a single-centred pilot cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in a community physiotherapy service. We included adults with non-specific low back pain referred for physiotherapy. Intervention participants were sent an information booklet prior to their first consultation. Intervention physiotherapists were trained to enhance their skills in shared informed decision making. Those in the control arm received care as usual. The primary outcome was satisfaction with the treatment received at four months using a five-point Likert Scale dichotomised into "satisfaction" (very satisfied or somewhat satisfied) and "non-satisfaction" (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).

Results

We recruited 148 participants. In the control arm 67% of participants were satisfied with their treatment and in the intervention arm 53%. The adjusted relative risk of being satisfied was 1.28 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 2.09). For most secondary outcomes the trend was towards worse outcomes in the intervention group. For one measure; the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, this difference was clinically important (2.27, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 4.47). Mean healthcare costs were slightly lower (£38 saving per patient) within the intervention arm but health outcomes were also less favourable (0.02 fewer QALYs); the estimated probability that the intervention would be cost-effective at an incremental threshold of £20,000 per QALY was 16%.

Conclusion

We did not find that this decision support package improved satisfaction with treatment; it may have had a substantial negative effect on clinical outcome, and is very unlikely to prove cost-effective. That a decision support package might have a clinically important detrimental effect is of concern. To our knowledge this has not been observed previously. Decision support packages should be formally tested for clinical and cost-effectiveness, and safety before implementation.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46035546 registered on 11/02/10.

SUBMITTER: Patel S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4247192 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To translate an informed shared decision-making programme (ISDM-P) for patients with type 2 diabetes from a specialised diabetes centre to the primary care setting. DESIGN:Patient-blinded, two-arm multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial of 6 months follow-up; concealed randomisation of practices after patient recruitment and acquisition of baseline data. SETTING:22 general practices providing care according to the German Disease Management Programme (DMP) for type 2 diabetes. PARTICIPANTS:279 of 363 eligible patients without myocardial infarction or stroke. INTERVENTIONS:The ISDM-P comprises a patient decision aid, a corresponding group teaching session provided by medical assistants and a structured patient-physician encounter.Control group received standard DMP care. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary endpoint was patient adherence to antihypertensive or statin drug therapy by comparing prescriptions and patient-reported uptake after 6 months. Secondary endpoints included informed choice, risk knowledge (score 0-11 from 11 questions) and prioritised treatment goals of patients and doctors. RESULTS:ISDM-P: 11 practices with 151 patients; standard care: 11 practices with 128 patients; attrition rate: 3.9%. There was no difference between groups regarding the primary endpoint. Mean drug adherence rates were high for both groups (80% for antihypertensive and 91% for statin treatment). More ISDM-P patients made informed choices regarding statin intake, 34% vs 3%, OR 16.6 (95% CI 4.4 to 63.0), blood pressure control, 39% vs 3%, OR 22.2 (95% CI 5.3 to 93.3) and glycated?haemoglobin, 43% vs 3%, OR 26.0 (95% CI 6.5 to 104.8). ISDM-P patients achieved higher levels of risk knowledge, with a mean score of 6.96 vs 2.86, difference 4.06 (95% CI 2.96 to 5.17). In the ISDM-P group, agreement on prioritised treatment goals between patients and doctors was higher, with 88.5% vs 57%. CONCLUSIONS:The ISDM-P was successfully implemented in general practices. Adherence to medication was very high making improvements hardly detectable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN77300204; Results.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate an informed shared decision-making programme (ISDM-P) for people with type 2 diabetes under high fidelity conditions. DESIGN:Randomised, single-blinded trial with sham control intervention and follow-up of 6 months. SETTING:Single-centre diabetes clinic providing care according to the national disease management programme in Germany. PARTICIPANTS:154 people with type 2 diabetes without diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease or stroke. INTERVENTIONS:The ISDM-P is executed by diabetes educators. Core component is a patient decision aid on the prevention of myocardial infarction supplemented by a 90 min group teaching session. The structurally equivalent control intervention addresses stress issues. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome was risk comprehension, including realistic expectations about benefits and harms of interventions. It was assessed by a 12-item questionnaire after the teaching session when patients set and prioritise their treatment goals. Key secondary outcome was adherence to treatment goals, operationalised as achievement of individual goals and medication uptake. ISDM-P teaching sessions were video-taped to monitor intervention fidelity. RESULTS:72 of 77 ISDM-P and 71 of 77 control patients completed the questionnaire (score 0-12). ISDM-P patients achieved higher levels of risk comprehension, mean score 8.25 vs 2.62, difference 5.63 (95% CI 4.82 to 6.44), and realistic expectations (score 0-6), 4.51 vs 0.85, 3.67 (3.23 to 4.11). More ISDM-P patients wished to take statins, 59.2% vs 30.4%, 28.7% (12.9% to 44.5%); more prioritised blood pressure control, 51.4% vs 25.7%, and fewer intensive glucose control, 33.3% vs 60%, p=0.002. More ISDM-P patients achieved their glycated haemoglobin goals, 95.8% vs 85.7%, 10.1% (0.6% to 19.5%). Achievement of prioritised goals and medication uptake were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS:The ISDM-P on preventive measures in type 2 diabetes was effective under high fidelity conditions. Involvement of diabetes educators may facilitate implementation of the informed shared decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN84636255.

Project description:The aims of this study were to investigate the role of the veterinarian characteristics (e.g., age, gender, self-estimation, use of the internet), and their attitudes concerning animal owners seeking self-information. A particular focus was laid on any association between shared decision making (SDM), age and gender. In an online survey, 527 German veterinarians were asked about their attitude regarding SDM principles and their experiences with self-informed animal owners. The factors associated with veterinarians' perception of SDM were investigated in a multivariable linear regression model. A recently published structural equation model consolidated the application of SDM, empathic behavior, and veterinarians' evaluation of self-education as latent factors. Interconnected questionnaire items were processed using an exploratory factor analysis to 11 interpretable factors. Veterinarians who assumed therapy failure was associated with themselves had significantly higher rates of SDM (p = 0.002). In contrast, SDM was significantly lower (p = 0.002) if they assumed that therapy failure was due to the animal's owners. SDM was negatively associated with the perceived quality of the pet owners' self-information (p < 0.001) and if skepticism was perceived as the reason for seeking the self-information (p = 0.001). Veterinarians who advised against self-information (p = 0.006) and those who assumed that self-information of animal owners goes along with uncertainty (p = 0.001) had low SDM values (p = 0.006). Asking the animal owner for self-information (p = 0.001), and recommendations of good information sources (p = 0.022) were positively associated with SDM. Looking at the influence of age and gender on the application of SDM, older people and males rated higher. However, the evaluation of the latent factor SDM was based on the self-estimation of the participants. Assuming that younger women were less self-confident, we cannot exclude that young female participants self-evaluated their SDM skills lower than older male participants, although both groups would objectively have the same SDM level. Practitioners who have a positive attitude toward animal owners, who enjoy contact with animal owners and welcome their interest in further (self-)information, show empathic behavior, and have a positive attitude toward SDM are more likely to have better veterinarian-animal owner-relationships.

Project description:Large and complex data sets are increasingly available for research in critical care. To analyze these data, researchers use techniques commonly referred to as statistical learning or machine learning (ML). The latter is known for large successes in the field of diagnostics, for example, by identification of radiological anomalies. In other research areas, such as clustering and prediction studies, there is more discussion regarding the benefit and efficiency of ML techniques compared with statistical learning. In this viewpoint, we aim to explain commonly used statistical learning and ML techniques and provide guidance for responsible use in the case of clustering and prediction questions in critical care. Clustering studies have been increasingly popular in critical care research, aiming to inform how patients can be characterized, classified, or treated differently. An important challenge for clustering studies is to ensure and assess generalizability. This limits the application of findings in these studies toward individual patients. In the case of predictive questions, there is much discussion as to what algorithm should be used to most accurately predict outcome. Aspects that determine usefulness of ML, compared with statistical techniques, include the volume of the data, the dimensionality of the preferred model, and the extent of missing data. There are areas in which modern ML methods may be preferred. However, efforts should be made to implement statistical frameworks (e.g., for dealing with missing data or measurement error, both omnipresent in clinical data) in ML methods. To conclude, there are important opportunities but also pitfalls to consider when performing clustering or predictive studies with ML techniques. We advocate careful valuation of new data-driven findings. More interaction is needed between the engineer mindset of experts in ML methods, the insight in bias of epidemiologists, and the probabilistic thinking of statisticians to extract as much information and knowledge from data as possible, while avoiding harm.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making improves the quality of patient care. Unfortunately, shared decision-making is not yet common practice among vascular surgeons. Thus, decision support tools were developed to assist vascular surgeons and their patients in using shared decision-making. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of decision support tools to improve shared decision-making during vascular surgical consultations in which a treatment decision is to be made.MethodsThe study design is a multicentre stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Eligible patients are adult patients, visiting the outpatient clinic of a participating medical centre for whom several treatment options are feasible and who face a primary treatment decision for their abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid artery disease, intermittent claudication, or varicose veins. Patients and vascular surgeons in the intervention group receive decision support tools that may help them adopt shared decision-making when making the final treatment decision. These decision support tools are decision aids, consultation cards, decision cards, and a practical training. Decision aids are informative websites that help patients become more aware of the pros and cons of the treatment options and their preferences regarding the treatment choice. Consultation cards with text or decision cards with images are used by vascular surgeons during consultation to determine which aspect of a treatment is most important to their patient. In the training vascular surgeons can practice shared decision-making with a patient actor, guided by a medical psychologist. This trial aims to include 502 vascular surgical patients to achieve a clinically relevant improvement in shared decision-making of 10 out of 100 points, using the 5-item OPTION instrument to score the audio-recordings of consultations.DiscussionIn the OVIDIUS trial the available decision support tools for vascular surgical patients are implemented in clinical practice. We will evaluate whether these tools actually improve shared decision-making in the consultation room. The stepped-wedge cluster-randomised study design will ensure that at the end of the study all participating centres have implemented at least some of the decision support tools and thereby a certain level of shared decision-making.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Registry, NTR6487 . Registered 7 June 2017. URL: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=6487.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:For antidepressants, the translation of evidence of comparative effectiveness into practice is suboptimal. This deficit directly affects outcomes and quality of care for patients with depression. To overcome this problem, we developed the Depression Medication Choice (DMC) encounter decision aid, designed to help patients and clinicians consider the available antidepressants and the extent to which they improved depression and other issues important to patients. OBJECTIVE:Estimate the effect of DMC on quality of the decision-making process and depression outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted a cluster randomized trial of adults with moderate to severe depression considering treatment with an antidepressant. Primary care practices in 10 rural, suburban, and urban primary care practices across Minnesota and Wisconsin were randomly allocated to treatment of depression with or without use of the DMC decision aid. INTERVENTION:Depression Medication Choice, a series of cards, each highlighting the effect of the available options on an issue of importance to patients for use during face-to-face consultations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Decision-making quality as judged by patient knowledge and involvement in decision making, patient and clinician decisional comfort (Decisional Conflict Scale) and satisfaction, encounter duration, medication adherence, depression symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9). RESULTS:We enrolled 117 clinicians and 301 patients (67% women; mean [SD] age, 44 [15] years; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 15 [4]) into the trial. Compared with usual care (UC), use of DMC significantly improved patients' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 75%; P = .02), knowledge (DMC, 65% vs UC, 56%; P =?.03), satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], from 1.25 [P =?.81] to RR, 2.4 [P =?.002] depending on satisfaction domain), and involvement (DMC, 47% vs UC, 33%; P<.001). It also improved clinicians' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 68%; P <?.001) and satisfaction (RR, 1.64; P =?.02). There were no differences in encounter duration, medication adherence, or improvement of depression control between arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:The DMC decision aid helped primary care clinicians and patients with moderate to severe depression select antidepressants together, improving the decision-making process without extending the visit. On the other hand, DMC had no discernible effect on medication adherence or depression outcomes. By translating comparative effectiveness into patient-centered care, use of DMC improved the quality of primary care for patients with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01502891.

Project description:BackgroundStrabismus is a complex disease that has various treatment approaches each with its own advantages and drawbacks. In this context, shared decisions making (SDM) is a communication process with the provider sharing all the relevant treatment alternatives, all the benefits, and risks of each procedure, while the patient shares all the preferences and values regarding his/her choices. In that way, SDM is a bidirectional process that goes beyond the typical informed consent. Therefore, it is known a little of the extent to which SDM influences the satisfaction with the treatment outcome along with strabismus patients. To study this correlation, an SDM-Q-9 questionnaire was provided within surgical consultations where treatment decisions were made; the SDM-Q-9 aims to assess the relationship between the post-operative patient's satisfaction and their SMD score.MethodsThe study is considered a prospective observational pilot study. Eligible patients were adult patients diagnosed with strabismus, who had multiple treatment options, were given at the right of choice without being driven into a physician's preference. Ninety-three strabismus patients were asked to fill out the SDM-Q-9 questionnaire related to their perception of SDM during the entire period of strabismus treatment. After the treatment, patients were asked to rate their satisfaction level with the surgical outcome as excellent, good, fair, and poor. Descriptive statistics and the linear regression statistical tests (Spearman, Mann Whitney U, and Kriskal-Wallis) were used as analysis tools.ResultsThe average age of the participants was 24, where 50.6% were women. The mean SDM-Q-9 score among patients was 32 (IQR = 3). The postoperative patient satisfaction was rated as being excellent by 16 (17.2%) patients, good by 38 (40.9%), fair by 32 (34.4%), and poor by 7 patients (7.5%). Data analysis by linear regression statistical tests showed a positive correlation between the SDM-Q-9 score and the patient satisfaction related to the surgery outcome (B = 0.005, p < 0.001). Criteria in assessing patients' satisfaction were age, gender, and strabismus type. A positive correlation between SDM and real satisfaction (r = 0.834, p < 0.01) was found with age, and no significant relationship was found while taking into consideration the responder's gender and the strabismus type.ConclusionsAssessing patient satisfaction after choosing a treatment for strabismus method helped us evaluate the gaps in constructive dialogue that would lead to a positive outcome for both patient and clinician. The correlation between the SDM process and the patients' satisfaction with surgery outcome, adjusted by age, has been established. These findings can serve as a springboard to further communicative improvements related to the SDM process and between patients and physicians, thereby consequently leading to patients' satisfaction raise in strabismus care. The study underlines the importance of further analysis and validation of on-ground interactions among the adolescent and adult patients and the clinicians across the strabismus management trajectory. A multicentral study and its validation will follow.