Dataset Information

5As Team obesity intervention in primary care: development and evaluation of shared decision-making weight management tools.

ABSTRACT: Despite several clinical practice guidelines, there remains a considerable gap in prevention and management of obesity in primary care. To address the need for changing provider behaviour, a randomized controlled trial with convergent mixed method evaluation, the 5As Team (5AsT) study, was conducted. As part of the 5AsT intervention, the 5AsT tool kit was developed. This paper describes the development process and evaluation of these tools. Tools were co-developed by the multidisciplinary research team and the 5AsT, which included registered nurses/nurse practitioners (n?=?15), mental health workers (n?=?7) and registered dieticians (n?=?7), who were previously randomized to the 5AsT intervention group at a primary care network in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The 5AsT tool development occurred through a practice/implementation-oriented, need-based, iterative process during learning collaborative sessions of the 5AsT intervention. Feedback during tool development was received through field notes and final provider evaluation was carried out through anonymous questionnaires. Twelve tools were co-developed with 5AsT. All tools were evaluated as either 'most useful' or 'moderately useful' in primary care practice by the 5AsT. Four key findings during 5AsT tool development were the need for: tools that were adaptive, tools to facilitate interdisciplinary practice, tools to help patients understand realistic expectations for weight loss and shared decision-making tools for goal setting and relapse prevention. The 5AsT tools are primary care tools which extend the utility of the 5As of obesity management framework in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Osunlana AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4755160 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

5As Team obesity intervention in primary care: development and evaluation of shared decision-making weight management tools.

Osunlana A M AM Asselin J J Anderson R R Ogunleye A A AA Cave A A Sharma A M AM Campbell-Scherer D L DL

Clinical obesity 20150630 4

Despite several clinical practice guidelines, there remains a considerable gap in prevention and management of obesity in primary care. To address the need for changing provider behaviour, a randomized controlled trial with convergent mixed method evaluation, the 5As Team (5AsT) study, was conducted. As part of the 5AsT intervention, the 5AsT tool kit was developed. This paper describes the development process and evaluation of these tools. Tools were co-developed by the multidisciplinary resear ...[more]

PMID: 26129630

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite opportunities for didactic education on obesity management, we still observe low rates of weight management visits in our primary care setting. This paper describes the co-creation by front-line interdisciplinary health care providers and researchers of the 5As Team intervention to improve obesity prevention and management in primary care.We describe the theoretical foundations, design, and core elements of the 5AsT intervention, and the process of eliciting practitioners' self-identified knowledge gaps to inform the curricula for the 5AsT intervention. Themes and topics were identified through facilitated group discussion and a curriculum relevant to this group of practitioners was developed and delivered in a series of 12 workshops.The research question and approach were co-created with the clinical leadership of the PCN; the PCN committed internal resources and a practice facilitator to the effort. Practice facilitation and learning collaboratives were used in the intervention For the content, front-line providers identified 43 topics, related to 13 themes around obesity assessment and management for which they felt the need for further education and training. These needs included: cultural identity and body image, emotional and mental health, motivation, setting goals, managing expectations, weight-bias, caregiver fatigue, clinic dynamics and team-based care, greater understanding of physiology and the use of a systematic framework for obesity assessment (the "4Ms" of obesity). The content of the 12 intervention sessions were designed based on these themes. There was a strong innovation values fit with the 5AsT intervention, and providers were more comfortable with obesity management following the intervention. The 5AsT intervention, including videos, resources and tools, has been compiled for use by clinical teams and is available online at http://www.obesitynetwork.ca/5As_Team .Primary care interdisciplinary practitioners perceive important knowledge gaps across a wide range of topics relevant to obesity assessment and management. This description of the intervention provides important information for trial replication. The 5AsT intervention may be a useful aid for primary care teams interested to improve their knowledge of obesity prevention and management. Clinical Trials.gov (NCT01967797).

Project description:Obesity is a pressing public health concern, which frequently presents in primary care. With the explosive obesity epidemic, there is an urgent need to maximize effective management in primary care. The 5As of Obesity Management™ (5As) are a collection of knowledge tools developed by the Canadian Obesity Network. Low rates of obesity management visits in primary care suggest provider behaviour may be an important variable. The goal of the present study is to increase frequency and quality of obesity management in primary care using the 5As Team (5AsT) intervention to change provider behaviour.The 5AsT trial is a theoretically informed, pragmatic randomized controlled trial with mixed methods evaluation. Clinic-based multidisciplinary teams (RN/NP, mental health, dietitians) will be randomized to control or the 5AsT intervention group, to participate in biweekly learning collaborative sessions supported by internal and external practice facilitation. The learning collaborative content addresses provider-identified barriers to effective obesity management in primary care. Evidence-based shared decision making tools will be co-developed and iteratively tested by practitioners. Evaluation will be informed by the RE-AIM framework. The primary outcome measure, to which participants are blinded, is number of weight management visits/full-time equivalent (FTE) position. Patient-level outcomes will also be assessed, through a longitudinal cohort study of patients from randomized practices. Patient outcomes include clinical (e.g., body mass index [BMI], blood pressure), health-related quality of life (SF-12, EQ5D), and satisfaction with care. Qualitative data collected from providers and patients will be evaluated using thematic analysis to understand the context, implementation and effectiveness of the 5AsT program.The 5AsT trial will provide a wide range of insights into current practices, knowledge gaps and barriers that limit obesity management in primary practice. The use of existing resources, collaborative design, practice facilitation, and integrated feedback loops cultivate an applicable, adaptable and sustainable approach to increasing the quantity and quality of weight management visits in primary care.NCT01967797.

Project description:BackgroundTherapeutic decision-making in oncology is a complex process because physicians must consider many forms of medical data and protocols. Another challenge for physicians is to clearly communicate their decision-making process to patients to ensure informed consent. Computer-based decision tools have the potential to play a valuable role in supporting this process.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to investigate the extent to which computer-based decision tools have been successfully adopted in oncology consultations to improve patient-physician joint therapeutic decision-making.MethodsThis review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist and guidelines. A literature search was conducted on February 4, 2021, across the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (from 2005 to January 28, 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (December 2020), MEDLINE (from 1946 to February 4, 2021), Embase (from 1947 to February 4, 2021), Web of Science (from 1900 to 2021), Scopus (from 1969 to 2021), and PubMed (from 1991 to 2021). We used a snowball approach to identify additional studies by searching the reference lists of the studies included for full-text review. Additional supplementary searches of relevant journals and gray literature websites were conducted. The reviewers screened the articles eligible for review for quality and inclusion before data extraction.ResultsThere are relatively few studies looking at the use of computer-based decision tools in oncology consultations. Of the 4431 unique articles obtained from the searches, only 10 (0.22%) satisfied the selection criteria. From the 10 selected studies, 8 computer-based decision tools were identified. Of the 10 studies, 6 (60%) were conducted in the United States. Communication and information-sharing were improved between physicians and patients. However, physicians did not change their habits to take advantage of computer-assisted decision-making tools or the information they provide. On average, the use of these computer-based decision tools added approximately 5 minutes to the total length of consultations. In addition, some physicians felt that the technology increased patients' anxiety.ConclusionsOf the 10 selected studies, 6 (60%) demonstrated positive outcomes, 1 (10%) showed negative results, and 3 (30%) were neutral. Adoption of computer-based decision tools during oncology consultations continues to be low. This review shows that information-sharing and communication between physicians and patients can be improved with the assistance of technology. However, the lack of integration with electronic health records is a barrier. This review provides key requirements for enhancing the chance of success of future computer-based decision tools. However, it does not show the effects of health care policies, regulations, or business administration on physicians' propensity to adopt the technology. Nevertheless, it is important that future research address the influence of these higher-level factors as well.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021226087; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021226087.

Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions.MethodsWe evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM.ResultsA total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P < 0.001, d = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge.ConclusionsThe Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention).Trial registrationANZCTR376477.HighlightsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.

Dataset Information

5As Team obesity intervention in primary care: development and evaluation of shared decision-making weight management tools.

Publications

5As Team obesity intervention in primary care: development and evaluation of shared decision-making weight management tools.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets