Dataset Information

Patient-accessible tool for shared decision making in cardiovascular primary prevention: balancing longevity benefits against medication disutility.

ABSTRACT: Primary prevention guidelines focus on risk, often assuming negligible aversion to medication, yet most patients discontinue primary prevention statins within 3 years. We quantify real-world distribution of medication disutility and separately calculate the average utilities for a range of risk strata.We randomly sampled 360 members of the general public in London. Medication aversion was quantified as the gain in lifespan required by each individual to offset the inconvenience (disutility) of taking an idealized daily preventative tablet. In parallel, we constructed tables of expected gain in lifespan (utility) from initiating statin therapy for each age group, sex, and cardiovascular risk profile in the population. This allowed comparison of the widths of the distributions of medication disutility and of group-average expectation of longevity gain. Observed medication disutility ranged from 1 day to >10 years of life being required by subjects (median, 6 months; interquartile range, 1-36 months) to make daily preventative therapy worthwhile. Average expected longevity benefit from statins at ages ?50 years ranges from 3.6 months (low-risk women) to 24.3 months (high-risk men).We can no longer assume that medication disutility is almost zero. Over one-quarter of subjects had disutility exceeding the group-average longevity gain from statins expected even for the highest-risk (ie, highest-gain) group. Future primary prevention studies might explore medication disutility in larger populations. Patients may differ more in disutility than in prospectively definable utility (which provides only group-average estimates). Consultations could be enriched by assessing disutility and exploring its reasons.

SUBMITTER: Fontana M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4751622 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient-accessible tool for shared decision making in cardiovascular primary prevention: balancing longevity benefits against medication disutility.

Fontana Marianna M Asaria Perviz P Moraldo Michela M Finegold Judith J Hassanally Khalil K Manisty Charlotte H CH Francis Darrel P DP

Circulation 20140417 24

<h4>Background</h4>Primary prevention guidelines focus on risk, often assuming negligible aversion to medication, yet most patients discontinue primary prevention statins within 3 years. We quantify real-world distribution of medication disutility and separately calculate the average utilities for a range of risk strata.<h4>Method and results</h4>We randomly sampled 360 members of the general public in London. Medication aversion was quantified as the gain in lifespan required by each individual ...[more]

PMID: 24744274

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivePatient values and preferences are an important component to decision making when tradeoffs exist that impact quality of life, such as tradeoffs between stroke prevention and hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) contemplating anticoagulant therapy. Our objective is to describe the development of an Atrial Fibrillation Guideline Support Tool (AFGuST) to assist the process of integrating patients' preferences into this decision.Materials and methodsCHA2DS2VASc and HAS-BLED were used to calculate risks for stroke and hemorrhage. We developed a Markov decision analytic model as a computational engine to integrate patient-specific risk for stroke and hemorrhage and individual patient values for relevant outcomes in decisions about anticoagulant therapy.ResultsIndividual patient preferences for health-related outcomes may have greater or lesser impact on the choice of optimal antithrombotic therapy, depending upon the balance of patient-specific risks for ischemic stroke and major bleeding. These factors have been incorporated into patient-tailored booklets which, along with an informational video, were developed through an iterative process with clinicians and patient focus groups.Key limitationsCurrent risk prediction models for hemorrhage, such as the HAS-BLED, used in the AFGuST, do not incorporate all potentially significant risk factors. Novel oral anticoagulant agents recently approved for use in the United States, Canada, and Europe have not been included in the AFGuST. Rather, warfarin has been used as a conservative proxy for all oral anticoagulant therapy.ConclusionsWe present a proof of concept that a patient-tailored decision-support tool could bridge the gap between guidelines and practice by incorporating individual patient's stroke and bleeding risks and their values for major bleeding events and stroke to facilitate a shared decision making process. If effective, the AFGuST could be used as an adjunct to published guidelines to enhance patient-centered conversations about the anticoagulation management.

Project description:Reports exist regarding a gradual approach to the care of patients with differences of sexual development. Each patient and family have different values and styles of learning that have to be taken into account. The goals of care should include education about the condition, counseling of the patient and family, and a complete outlining of treatment options. Motivated by a call from the 2010 Health Reform Law for the use of shared decision-making tools and the emphasis placed on these issues by the DSD Consensus Statement, we sought to develop and implement such tools for the DSD population.1-3 Thus, we developed an organized checklist for providers to share with a patients and families affected by CAIS, beginning with the initial visit. The development of the document enlisted input from physicians, clinical coordinator, advocacy groups and affected individuals. It allows providers to explain the process of care and develop a plan for delivery of that care over multiple visits spanning six months or more. The checklist is divided into five sections: 1) An overview addressing how much information is desired and in what manner the patient prefers to obtain information; 2) A preferred words list so that the patient can choose nomenclature that is most comfortable; 3) A list of topics to review over the course of multiple visits; 4) A list of questions to be answered by the providers or other resources over time, and; 5) A list of concerns to be addressed before surgical intervention is considered. An organized approach to long-term delivery of compassionate care and accurate information can be facilitated for patients with CAIS by the use of a shared decision-making checklist. Documentation of the care delivery process can stimulate referral to peer support and promote fully informed consent for treatment decisions. The use of the checklist should encourage trust in the provider, as well as aid in identifying and addressing stressors for the patient and family. The checklist will be updated and revised as new treatments and advanced technology emerges.

Project description:Potentially inappropriate medications are associated with polypharmacy and polypathology. Some interventions such as pharmacotherapy reviews have been designed to reduce the prescribing of inappropriate medications. The objective of this study is to evaluate how effective a decision-making support tool is for determining medication appropriateness in patients with one or more chronic diseases (hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and/or diabetes) and polypharmacy in the primary care setting. For this, a quasi-experimental study (randomised, controlled and multicentre) has been developed. The study compares an intervention group, which assesses medication appropriateness by applying a decision support tool, with a control group that follows the usual clinical practice. The intervention included a decision support tool in paper format, where participants were informed about polypharmacy, inappropriate medications, associated problems and available alternatives, as well as shared decision-making. This is an informative guide aimed at helping patients with decision-making by providing them with information about the secondary risks associated with inappropriate medications in their treatment, according to the Beers and START/STOPP criteria. The outcome measure was the proportion of medication appropriateness. The proportion of patients who confirmed medication appropriateness after six months of follow-up is greater in the intervention group (32.5%) than in the control group (27.9%) p = 0.008. The probability of medication appropriateness, which was calculated by the proportion of drugs withdrawn or replaced according to the STOPP/Beers criteria and those initiated according to the START criteria, was 2.8 times higher in the intervention group than in the control group (OR = 2.8; 95% CI 1.3-6.1) p = 0.008. In patients with good adherence to the treatment, the percentage of appropriateness was 62.1% in the shared decision-making group versus 37.9% in the control group (p = 0.005). The use of a decision-making support tool in patients with potentially inappropriate medications increases the percentage of medication appropriateness when compared to the usual clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).ObjectiveWe examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.DesignMulticenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.ApproachWe performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.ParticipantsWe interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.ResultsAll clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of cost conversations occurring with or without the use of encounter shared decision-making (SDM) tools in medication adherence.Patients and methodsUsing a coding scheme that included the occurrence and characteristics of cost conversation, we analyzed a randomly selected sample of 169 video recordings of clinical encounters. These videos were obtained during the conduct of practice-based randomized clinical trials comparing care with and without SDM tools for patients with diabetes, osteoporosis, and depression. Medication adherence was described in 2 ways: as a binary (yes/no) outcome, in which the patient met at least 80% adherence, or as a continuous variable, which was the percent of days that the patient adhered to their medication. The secondary analysis took place in 2018 from trials that ran between 2007 and 2015.ResultsMost patients were White (155, 93.4%), educated (104, 63.4% completed college), middle-aged (mean age, 58 years), female (104, 61.5%), and from diabetes (86, 50.9%), depression (43, 25.4%), and osteoporosis (40, 23.7%) trials. Cost conversations occurred in 119 clinical encounters (70%) and were more frequent in those encounters in which SDM tools were used (P=.03). Furthermore, 97 (57.4%) of the participants reported more than 80% medication adherence and 70.3±29.34 percentage of days with adherent medication of 70 days. In the multiple regression model, the only factor associated with adherence (binary or continuous) was the condition of the trial in which people participated. For the participants who had cost conversations, the use of an SDM tool, their sex, the nature of cost conversation (direct or indirect), the nature of cost concerns (treatment or patient issue), and the clinician-offered strategies (yes or no) were not associated with adherence.ConclusionIn this videographic analysis of SDM practice-based clinical trials, cost conversations were not associated with the general measures of medication adherence. Future studies should assess whether a tailored cost conversation intervention would impact the cost-related nonadherence among patients.

Project description:Background. Accurate diagnosis of patients' preferences is central to shared decision making. Missing from clinical practice is an approach that links pretreatment preferences and patient-reported outcomes. Objective. We propose a Bayesian collaborative filtering (CF) algorithm that combines pretreatment preferences and patient-reported outcomes to provide treatment recommendations. Design. We present the methodological details of a Bayesian CF algorithm designed to accomplish 3 tasks: 1) eliciting patient preferences using conjoint analysis surveys, 2) clustering patients into preference phenotypes, and 3) making treatment recommendations based on the posttreatment satisfaction of like-minded patients. We conduct a series of simulation studies to test the algorithm and to compare it to a 2-stage approach. Results. The Bayesian CF algorithm and 2-stage approaches performed similarly when there was extensive overlap between preference phenotypes. When the treatment was moderately associated with satisfaction, both methods made accurate recommendations. The kappa estimates measuring agreement between the true and predicted recommendations were 0.70 (95% confidence interval = 0.052-0.88) and 0.73 (0.56-0.90) under the Bayesian CF and 2-stage approaches, respectively. The 2-stage approach failed to converge in settings in which clusters were well separated, whereas the Bayesian CF algorithm produced acceptable results, with kappas of 0.73 (0.56-0.90) and 0.83 (0.69-0.97) for scenarios with moderate and large treatment effects, respectively. Limitations. Our approach assumes that the patient population is composed of distinct preference phenotypes, there is association between treatment and outcomes, and treatment effects vary across phenotypes. Findings are also limited to simulated data. Conclusion. The Bayesian CF algorithm is feasible, provides accurate cluster treatment recommendations, and outperforms 2-stage estimation when clusters are well separated. As such, the approach serves as a roadmap for incorporating predictive analytics into shared decision making.

Dataset Information

Patient-accessible tool for shared decision making in cardiovascular primary prevention: balancing longevity benefits against medication disutility.

Publications

Patient-accessible tool for shared decision making in cardiovascular primary prevention: balancing longevity benefits against medication disutility.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets