Dataset Information

Encounter Decision Aid vs. Clinical Decision Support or Usual Care to Support Patient-Centered Treatment Decisions in Osteoporosis: The Osteoporosis Choice Randomized Trial II.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Osteoporosis Choice, an encounter decision aid, can engage patients and clinicians in shared decision making about osteoporosis treatment. Its effectiveness compared to the routine provision to clinicians of the patient's estimated risk of fracture using the FRAX calculator is unknown.

Methods

Patient-level, randomized, three-arm trial enrolling women over 50 with osteopenia or osteoporosis eligible for treatment with bisphosphonates, where the use of Osteoporosis Choice was compared to FRAX only and to usual care to determine impact on patient knowledge, decisional conflict, involvement in the decision-making process, decision to start and adherence to bisphosphonates.

Results

We enrolled 79 women in the three arms. Because FRAX estimation alone and usual care produced similar results, we grouped them for analysis. Compared to these, use of Osteoporosis Choice increased patient knowledge (median score 6 vs. 4, p = .01), improved understanding of fracture risk and risk reduction with bisphosphonates (p = .01 and p<.0001, respectively), had no effect on decision conflict, and increased patient engagement in the decision making process (OPTION scores 57% vs. 43%, p = .001). Encounters with the decision aid were 0.8 minutes longer (range: 33 minutes shorter to 3.0 minutes longer). There were twice as many patients receiving and filling prescriptions in the decision aid arm (83% vs. 40%, p = .07); medication adherence at 6 months was no different across arms.

Conclusion

Supporting both patients and clinicians during the clinical encounter with the Osteoporosis Choice decision aid efficiently improves treatment decision making when compared to usual care with or without clinical decision support with FRAX results.

Trial registration

clinical trials.gov NCT00949611.

SUBMITTER: LeBlanc A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4444262 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Encounter Decision Aid vs. Clinical Decision Support or Usual Care to Support Patient-Centered Treatment Decisions in Osteoporosis: The Osteoporosis Choice Randomized Trial II.

LeBlanc Annie A Wang Amy T AT Wyatt Kirk K Branda Megan E ME Shah Nilay D ND Van Houten Holly H Pencille Laurie L Wermers Robert R Montori Victor M VM

PloS one 20150526 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>Osteoporosis Choice, an encounter decision aid, can engage patients and clinicians in shared decision making about osteoporosis treatment. Its effectiveness compared to the routine provision to clinicians of the patient's estimated risk of fracture using the FRAX calculator is unknown.<h4>Methods</h4>Patient-level, randomized, three-arm trial enrolling women over 50 with osteopenia or osteoporosis eligible for treatment with bisphosphonates, where the use of Osteoporosis Choice w ...[more]

PMID: 26010755

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Canadian Computed Tomography (CT) Head Rule, a clinical decision rule designed to safely reduce imaging in minor head injury, has been rigorously validated and implemented, and yet expected decreases in CT were unsuccessful. Recent work has identified empathic care as a key component in decreasing CT overuse. Health information technology can hinder the clinician-patient relationship. Patient-centered decision tools to support the clinician-patient relationship are needed to promote evidence-based decisions.ObjectiveOur objective is to formatively evaluate an electronic tool that not only helps clinicians at the bedside to determine the need for CT use based on the Canadian CT Head Rule but also promotes evidence-based conversations between patients and clinicians regarding patient-specific risk and patients' specific concerns.MethodsUser-centered design with practice-based and participatory decision aid development was used to design, develop, and evaluate patient-centered decision support regarding CT use in minor head injury in the emergency department. User experience and user interface (UX/UI) development involved successive iterations with incremental refinement in 4 phases: (1) initial prototype development, (2) usability assessment, (3) field testing, and (4) beta testing. This qualitative approach involved input from patients, emergency care clinicians, health services researchers, designers, and clinical informaticists at every stage.ResultsThe Concussion or Brain Bleed app is the product of 16 successive iterative revisions in accordance with UX/UI industry design standards. This useful and usable final product integrates clinical decision support with a patient decision aid. It promotes shared use by emergency clinicians and patients at the point of care within the emergency department context. This tablet computer app facilitates evidence-based conversations regarding CT in minor head injury. It is adaptable to individual clinician practice styles. The resultant tool includes a patient injury evaluator based on the Canadian CT Head Rule and provides patient specific risks using pictographs with natural frequencies and cues for discussion about patient concerns.ConclusionsThis tool was designed to align evidence-based practices about CT in minor head injury patients. It establishes trust, empowers active participation, and addresses patient concerns and uncertainty about their condition. We hypothesize that, when implemented, the Concussion or Brain Bleed app will support-not hinder-the clinician-patient relationship, safely reduce CT use, and improve the patient experience of care.

Project description:Bisphosphonates can reduce fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis, but many at-risk patients do not start or adhere to these medications. The aims of this study are to: (1) preliminarily evaluate the effect of an individualized 10-year osteoporotic fracture risk calculator and decision aid (OSTEOPOROSIS CHOICE) for postmenopausal women at risk for osteoporotic fractures; and (2) assess the feasibility and validity (i.e., absence of contamination) of patient-level randomization (vs. cluster randomization) in pilot trials of decision aid efficacy.This is a protocol for a parallel, 2-arm, randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving OSTEOPOROSIS CHOICE to a control group receiving usual primary care. Postmenopausal women with bone mineral density T-scores of <-1.0, not receiving bisphosphonate therapy, and receiving care at participating primary care practices in and around Rochester, Minnesota, USA will be eligible to participate in the trial. We will measure the effect of OSTEOPOROSIS CHOICE on five outcomes: (a) patient knowledge regarding osteoporosis risk factors and treatment; (b) quality of the decision-making process for both the patient and clinician; (c) patient and clinician acceptability and satisfaction with the decision aid; (d) rate of bisphosphonate use and adherence, and (e) trial processes (e.g., ability to recruit participants, collect patient outcomes). To capture these outcomes, we will use patient and clinician surveys following each visit and video recordings of the clinical encounters. These video recordings will also allow us to determine the extent to which clinicians previously exposed to the decision aid were able to recreate elements of the decision aid with control patients (i.e., contamination). Pharmacy prescription profiles and follow-up phone interviews will assess medication start and adherence at 6 months.This pilot trial will provide evidence of feasibility, validity of patient randomization, and preliminary efficacy of a novel approach--decision aids--to improving medication adherence for postmenopausal women at risk of osteoporotic fractures. The results will inform the design of a larger trial that could provide more precise estimates of the efficacy of the decision aid.Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT00578981.

Project description:IntroductionMany parents who choose hypospadias repair for their sons experience decisional conflict (DC) and decisional regret (DR). We previously found that parental decision-making about hypospadias surgery is a complex process characterized by cyclic information-seeking to alleviate anxiety and confusion.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to engage parents of hypospadias patients and pediatric providers in the co-design of a decision aid (DA) prototype to facilitate shared decision-making about hypospadias surgery and address DC and DR.MethodsFrom August 2018 to January 2019, we conducted three co-design workshops with parents of hypospadias patients, pediatric urology and general pediatric providers to discuss their recommendations for a DA prototype. Activities were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts and worksheets were analyzed by six coders using qualitative analysis to identify key aspects of a hypospadias DA desired by stakeholders. We conducted a collaborative design and prototyping session to establish key features and requirements, created a content map visualizing this work, and then developed a DA prototype.ResultsParent participants included 6 mothers and 4 fathers: 8 Caucasian, 2 African-American; median age 31 years. Providers included pediatric urology (n = 7) and general pediatric providers (n = 10): median age 47.5 years, 83.3% Caucasian, 58.3% male, 58.3% MD's and 41.7% nurse practitioners. Participants created user-friendly, interactive DA prototypes with "24/7" availability that had three key functions: 1) provide accurate, customizable, educational content, 2) connect parents with each other, and 3) engage them in a decision-making activity. The prototype consisted of five modules (Extended Summary Figure). "Hypospadias Basics" includes epidemiology and a hypospadias severity scale. "Surgery Basics" includes goals, illustrated steps, and pros/cons of surgery. "Testimonials" includes videos of parents and adolescents discussing their experiences. "Help me Decide" includes a decisional conflict scale and a decision-making activity (i.e. values clarification method). "Frequently Asked Questions" covers general hypospadias information, perioperative expectations and a review of postoperative care.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this is the first DA prototype developed for a pediatric urology condition using a human-centered design approach to engage many key stakeholders in the development process. One limitation of this study is the small population sampled, which limits generalizability and means that our findings may not reflect the views of all parents or pediatric providers involved in hypospadias decision-making.ConclusionsWe created a parent-centered hypospadias DA prototype that provides decision support in an online, interactive format. Future directions include further testing with usability experts, providers and parents.

Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer is a leading cause of cancer among men. Because screening for prostate cancer is a controversial issue, many experts in the field have defended the use of shared decision making using validated decision aids, which can be presented in different formats (eg, written, multimedia, Web). Recent studies have concluded that decision aids improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict.ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of using Web-based decision aids to support men's prostate cancer screening decisions in comparison with usual care and other formats of decision aids.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to November 2016. This search identified randomized controlled trials, which assessed Web-based decision aids for men making a prostate cancer screening decision and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Using a random-effects model, meta-analyses were conducted pooling results using mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD), and relative risks (RR).ResultsOf 2406 unique citations, 7 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and participant/personnel blinding were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on seven items, two studies had high risk of bias for one item. Compared to usual care, Web-based decision aids increased knowledge (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.18-0.75), reduced decisional conflict (MD -7.07%; 95% CI -9.44 to -4.71), and reduced the practitioner control role in the decision-making process (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31-0.81). Web-based decision aids compared to printed decision aids yielded no differences in knowledge, decisional conflict, and participation in decision or screening behaviors. Compared to video decision aids, Web-based decision aids showed lower average knowledge scores (SMD -0.50; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.12) and a slight decrease in prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25).ConclusionsAccording to this analysis, Web-based decision aids performed similarly to alternative formats (ie, printed, video) for the assessed decision-quality outcomes. The low cost, readiness, availability, and anonymity of the Web can be an advantage for increasing access to decision aids that support prostate cancer screening decisions among men.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) were developed to aid patient triage. However, research focusing on the interaction between decision support systems and human experts is lacking.MethodsThirty-two physicians were recruited to rate the survival probability of 59 critically ill patients by means of chart review. Subsequently, one of two artificial intelligence systems advised the physician of a computed survival probability. However, only one of these systems explained the reasons behind its decision-making. In the third step, physicians reviewed the chart once again to determine the final survival probability rating. We hypothesized that an explaining system would exhibit a higher impact on the physicians' second rating (i.e., higher weight-on-advice).ResultsThe survival probability rating given by the physician after receiving advice from the clinical decision support system was a median of 4 percentage points closer to the advice than the initial rating. Weight-on-advice was not significantly different (p = 0.115) between the two systems (with vs without explanation for its decision). Additionally, weight-on-advice showed no difference according to time of day or between board-qualified and not yet board-qualified physicians. Self-reported post-experiment overall trust was awarded a median of 4 out of 10 points. When asked after the conclusion of the experiment, overall trust was 5.5/10 (non-explaining median 4 (IQR 3.5-5.5), explaining median 7 (IQR 5.5-7.5), p = 0.007).ConclusionsAlthough overall trust in the models was low, the median (IQR) weight-on-advice was high (0.33 (0.0-0.56)) and in line with published literature on expert advice. In contrast to the hypothesis, weight-on-advice was comparable between the explaining and non-explaining systems. In 30% of cases, weight-on-advice was 0, meaning the physician did not change their rating. The median of the remaining weight-on-advice values was 50%, suggesting that physicians either dismissed the recommendation or employed a "meeting halfway" approach. Newer technologies, such as clinical reasoning systems, may be able to augment the decision process rather than simply presenting unexplained bias.

Dataset Information

Encounter Decision Aid vs. Clinical Decision Support or Usual Care to Support Patient-Centered Treatment Decisions in Osteoporosis: The Osteoporosis Choice Randomized Trial II.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Encounter Decision Aid vs. Clinical Decision Support or Usual Care to Support Patient-Centered Treatment Decisions in Osteoporosis: The Osteoporosis Choice Randomized Trial II.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets