Can Decision Support Help Patients With Spinal Stenosis Make a Treatment Choice?: A Prospective Study Assessing the Impact of a Patient Decision Aid and Health Coaching.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kearing S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4810456 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Can Decision Support Help Patients With Spinal Stenosis Make a Treatment Choice?: A Prospective Study Assessing the Impact of a Patient Decision Aid and Health Coaching.
Kearing Stephen S Berg Susan Z SZ Lurie Jon D JD
Spine 20160401 7
<h4>Study design</h4>A prospective, randomized study on patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who received a decision support intervention to facilitate their treatment choice.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to assess the impact of telephone health coaching (HC) in addition to a video decision aid (DA) compared with a DA alone for patients with spinal stenosis.<h4>Summary of background data</h4>Treatment options for lumbar spinal stenosis include surgical and nonsurgical approaches. P ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Shared decision making is essential to patient centered care, but can be difficult for busy clinicians to implement into practice. Tools have been developed to aid in shared decision making and embedded in electronic medical records (EMRs) to facilitate use. This study was undertaken to explore the patterns of use and barriers and facilitators to use of two decision aids, the Statin Choice Decision Aid (SCDA) and the Diabetes Medication Choice Decision Aid (DMCDA), in primary care practices where the decision aids are embedded in the EMR.A survey exploring factors that influenced use of each decision aid was sent to eligible primary care clinicians affiliated with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. Survey data was collected and clinician use of each decision aid via links from the EMR was tracked.The survey response rate was 40% (105/262). Log file data indicated 51% of clinicians used the SCDA and 9% of clinicians used the DMCDA. Reasons for lack of use included lack of knowledge of the EMR link, not finding the decision aids helpful, and time constraints. Survey responses indicated that use of the tool as intended was low, with many clinicians only discussing decision aid topics that they found relevant.Although guidelines for both the treatment of blood cholesterol with a statin and for the treatment of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes recommend shared decision making, tools that facilitate shared decision making are not routinely used even when embedded in the EMR. Even when decision aids are used, their use may not reflect patient centered care.
| S-EPMC5553736 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeOsteoporosis 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.MethodsPatient-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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionSupporting 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 registrationclinical trials.gov NCT00949611.
| S-EPMC4444262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIdentifying and managing serious spinal pathology (SSP) such as cauda equina syndrome or spinal infection in patients presenting with low back pain is challenging. Traditional red flag questioning is increasingly criticized, and previous studies show that many clinicians lack confidence in managing patients presenting with red flags. Improving decision-making and reducing the variability of care for these patients is a key priority for clinicians and researchers.ObjectiveWe aimed to improve SSP identification by constructing and validating a decision support tool using a Bayesian network (BN), which is an artificial intelligence technique that combines current evidence and expert knowledge.MethodsA modified RAND appropriateness procedure was undertaken with 16 experts over 3 rounds, designed to elicit the variables, structure, and conditional probabilities necessary to build a causal BN. The BN predicts the likelihood of a patient with a particular presentation having an SSP. The second part of this study used an established framework to direct a 4-part validation that included comparison of the BN with consensus statements, practice guidelines, and recent research. Clinical cases were entered into the model and the results were compared with clinical judgment from spinal experts who were not involved in the elicitation. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and area under the curve were calculated for accuracy statistics.ResultsThe RAND appropriateness procedure elicited a model including 38 variables in 3 domains: risk factors (10 variables), signs and symptoms (17 variables), and judgment factors (11 variables). Clear consensus was found in the risk factors and signs and symptoms for SSP conditions. The 4-part BN validation demonstrated good performance overall and identified areas for further development. Comparison with available clinical literature showed good overall agreement but suggested certain improvements required to, for example, 2 of the 11 judgment factors. Case analysis showed that cauda equina syndrome, space-occupying lesion/cancer, and inflammatory condition identification performed well across the validation domains. Fracture identification performed less well, but the reasons for the erroneous results are well understood. A review of the content by independent spinal experts backed up the issues with the fracture node, but the BN was otherwise deemed acceptable.ConclusionsThe RAND appropriateness procedure and validation framework were successfully implemented to develop the BN for SSP. In comparison with other expert-elicited BN studies, this work goes a step further in validating the output before attempting implementation. Using a framework for model validation, the BN showed encouraging validity and has provided avenues for further developing the outputs that demonstrated poor accuracy. This study provides the vital first step of improving our ability to predict outcomes in low back pain by first considering the problem of SSP.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/21804.
| S-EPMC10582804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDecision support tools can assist people to apply population-based evidence on benefits and harms to individual health decisions. A key question is whether "personalising" choice within decisions aids leads to better decision quality.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of personalising the content of a decision aid for prostate cancer screening using the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test.DesignRandomized controlled trial.SettingAustralia.Participants1,970 men aged 40-69 years were approached to participate in the trial.Intervention1,447 men were randomly allocated to either a standard decision aid with a fixed set of five attributes or a personalised decision aid with choice over the inclusion of up to 10 attributes.Outcome measuresTo determine whether there was a difference between the two groups in terms of: 1) the emergent opinion (generated by the decision aid) to have a PSA test or not; 2) self-rated decision quality after completing the online decision aid; 3) their intention to undergo screening in the next 12 months. We also wanted to determine whether men in the personalised choice group made use of the extra decision attributes.Results5% of men in the fixed attribute group scored 'Have a PSA test' as the opinion generated by the aid, as compared to 62% of men in the personalised choice group (χ2 = 569.38, 2df, p< 0001). Those men who used the personalised decision aid had slightly higher decision quality (t = 2.157, df = 1444, p = 0.031). The men in the personalised choice group made extensive use of the additional decision attributes. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of their stated intention to undergo screening in the next 12 months.ConclusionsTogether, these findings suggest that personalised decision support systems could be an important development in shared decision-making and patient-centered care.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12612000723886.
| S-EPMC4822955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDepression is a common and important public health problem most often treated by GPs. A self-help approach is popular with patients, yet little is known about its effectiveness.AimOur primary aim was to review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of bibliotherapy in the treatment of depression. Our secondary aim was to identify which of these self-help materials are generally available to buy and to examine the evidence specific to these publications.MethodMedline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CCTR, PsiTri and the National Research Register were searched for randomised trials that evaluated self-help books for depression which included participants aged over 16 years with a diagnosis or symptoms of depression. Clinical symptoms, quality of life, costs or acceptability to users were the required outcome measures. Papers were obtained and data extracted independently by two researchers. A meta-analysis using a random effects model was carried out using the mean score and standard deviation of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression at the endpoint of the trial.ResultsEleven randomised controlled trials were identified. None fulfilled CONSORT guidelines and all were small, with the largest trial having 40 patients per group. Nine of these evaluated two current publications, Managing Anxiety and Depression (UK) and Feeling Good (US). A meta-analysis of 6 trials evaluating Feeling Good found a large treatment effect compared to delayed treatment (standardised mean difference = -1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.76 to -0.96). Five self-help books were identified as being available and commonly bought by members of the public in addition to the two books that had been evaluated in trials.ConclusionThere are a number of self-help books for the treatment of depression readily available. For the majority, there is little direct evidence for their effectiveness. There is weak evidence that suggests that bibliotherapy, based on a cognitive behavioural therapy approach is useful for some people when they are given some additional guidance. More work is required in primary care to investigate the cost-effectiveness of self-help and the most suitable format and presentation of materials.
| S-EPMC1463163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical guidelines recommend patients with aortic stenosis (AS) being considered for transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement to participate in shared decision-making (SDM) with a heart valve team (HVT). Data supporting these recommendations are limited. This project gathered data on feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a decision aid (DA) in decision-making for patients with severe AS deciding between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement.MethodsThis institutional review board-approved randomized pilot trial assigned eligible patients to receive either the American College of Cardiology's DA for patients with AS or usual care. Patients were surveyed after their visit regarding knowledge, treatment-preference concordance, SDM (SDM process and CollaboRATE Scales), and decisional conflict. Patients were followed for 3 months to collect data on treatment received.ResultsOf 62 patients approached, 59 (95%) consented and participated. The average age of participants was 72 years, they were 100% white, and 32% of them were female. Intervention patients had higher knowledge scores (75.6 vs 65.5) and more frequently reported CollaboRATE top scores (67% vs 33%) than usual care patients. No other group comparisons reached significance. Patients who saw both members of the HVT before survey completion reported higher SDM process scores than those who saw only 1 specialist (3.1 vs 2.4).ConclusionsThe study exceeded enrollment targets, indicating feasibility. Results suggest the American College of Cardiology's DA improved patient knowledge and communication scores. Patients who met with both members of the HVT reported higher SDM. These observations highlight the importance of SDM and multidisciplinary HVT assessment in the management of severe AS.
| S-EPMC11308039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ecosystem service (ES) spatial modelling is a key component of the integrated assessments designed to support policies and management practices aiming at environmental sustainability. ESTIMAP ("Ecosystem Service Mapping Tool") is a collection of spatially explicit models, originally developed to support policies at a European scale. We based our analysis on 10 case studies, and 3 ES models. Each case study applied at least one model at a local scale. We analyzed the applications with respect to: the adaptation process; the "precision differential" which we define as the variation generated in the model between the degree of spatial variation within the spatial distribution of ES and what the model captures; the stakeholders' opinions on the usefulness of models. We propose a protocol for adapting ESTIMAP to the local conditions. We present the precision differential as a means of assessing how the type of model and level of model adaptation generate variation among model outputs. We then present the opinion of stakeholders; that in general considered the approach useful for stimulating discussion and supporting communication. Major constraints identified were the lack of spatial data with sufficient level of detail, and the level of expertise needed to set up and compute the models.
| S-EPMC5821683 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundRecent studies have shown substantial deficiencies in the quality or quantity (or both) of communication and decision-making during serious illness. We evaluated the efficacy of a novel decision support intervention, the Plan Well Guide, in increasing completion of a standard medical order form for advance medical care planning and improving decisional outcomes in nonacademic primary care settings.MethodsWe conducted a randomized trial in 3 primary care practices in Lethbridge, Alberta in 2017-2018. We recruited "patients at high risk" referred by the primary care doctor who required establishment or review of their Goals of Care Designation (GCD). Enrolled patients were randomly allocated to receive the Plan Well Guide, delivered by a trained facilitator, or usual care. Eight to 12 weeks after the intervention, a research assistant blinded to intervention assignment contacted the patients in both groups by telephone to do a final outcome assessment. The primary outcome was completion of GCD forms; secondary outcomes included decisional conflict scores and ratings of satisfaction.ResultsA total of 123 patients (59 women [48.0%]; mean age 73.9 yr) were enrolled, 66 in the intervention arm and 57 in the usualcare arm; 119 patients completed the trial. After the intervention, GCD completion rates in the intervention and usual-care groups were 95.3% and 90.9%, respectively (risk difference [RD] 4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -14% to 22%), and the rate of concordance between medical orders and expressed preferences on follow-up was 78% and 66%, respectively (RD 12%, 95% CI -7% to 30%). Significantly fewer patients in the intervention group than in the usual-care group had written medical orders for intensive care unit care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (22 [34%] v. 33 [60%], RD -26%, 95% CI -42% to -8%). Patients in the intervention group had lower decisional conflict scores than those in the usual-care group (mean 30.9 v. 43.1, adjusted mean difference -12.0, 95% CI -23.2 to -0.8). Physicians considered patients in the intervention group to have lower decisional conflict than those in the usual-care group, although not significantly so (mean score 10.4 v. 14.9, adjusted mean difference -4.7, 95% CI -9.9 to 0.4) and spent less time with the former (mean 9.7 v. 13.2 min, adjusted mean difference -3.5, 95% CI -5.5 to -1.5 min).InterpretationThe decision-support intervention did not increase GCD completion rates but did seem to improve some aspects of decisional quality while reducing the physician's time to accomplish GCD decisions. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01297946.
| S-EPMC7207027 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionProstate cancer is one of the most frequent cancers among men. However, screening for prostate cancer carries many risks and a small benefit. Thus, based on the available evidence, most medical organisations advocate a shared decision-making process, in which decision aids may play an important role. Nevertheless, to date there is no such instrument to be used by Portuguese men. Our goal is to translate and perform the cultural adaptation of an English language prostate cancer screening decision aid called 'Making the best choice', in web and printed formats, which has been developed and tested by a workgroup from Georgetown University (USA).Methods and analysisCulturally and technically inappropriate recommendations in the original decision aid will be reviewed by the process coordinator and a linguistic expert. Two forward translations from English to Portuguese will be done, followed by a back-translation and an independent expert review. We will further improve the decision aid through an iterative process of data collection, data analysis and decision aid review. Individual semistructured cognitive interviews will be conducted and audiotaped with 55-69-year-old men recruited from the local community (urban and suburban) of Oporto district. We plan a total sample size of 30 participants (15 interviews per format). All participants will receive written information about the study and will sign individual consent forms. After verbatim transcription of the audiofiles, a thematic categorical analysis will be conducted using Ligre Software.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Health Ethics Committee from Centro Hospitalar de São João/Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto. Results from this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and the Portuguese decision aid will available to Portuguese men.
| S-EPMC6797286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. While nerve and tendon transfer surgery can restore upper extremity function and independence after midcervical spinal cord injury, few individuals (∼14%) undergo surgery. There is limited information regarding these complex and time-sensitive treatment options. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) convey complex health information and help individuals make informed, preference-consistent choices. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a newly created PtDA for people with spinal cord injury who are considering options to optimize upper extremity function. Methods. The PtDA was developed by our multidisciplinary group based on clinical evidence and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. A prospective pilot study enrolled adults with midcervical spinal cord injury to evaluate the PtDA. Participants completed surveys about knowledge and decisional conflict before and after viewing the PtDA. Acceptability measures and suggestions for further improvement were also solicited. Results. Forty-two individuals were enrolled and completed study procedures. Participants had a 20% increase in knowledge after using the PtDA (P < 0.001). The number of participants experiencing decisional conflict decreased after viewing the PtDA (33 v. 18, P = 0.001). Acceptability was high. To improve the PtDA, participants suggested adding details about specific surgeries and outcomes. Limitations. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we used an entirely virtual study methodology and recruited participants from national networks and organizations. Most participants were older than the general population with a new spinal cord injury and may have different injury causes than typical surgical candidates. Conclusions. A de novo PtDA improved knowledge of treatment options and reduced decisional conflict about reconstructive surgery among people with cervical spinal cord injury. Future work should explore PtDA use for improving knowledge and decisional conflict in the nonresearch, clinical setting.HighlightsPeople with cervical spinal cord injury prioritize gaining upper extremity function after injury, but few individuals receive information about treatment options.A newly created patient decision aid (PtDA) provides information about recovery after spinal cord injury and the role of traditional tendon and newer nerve transfer surgery to improve upper extremity upper extremity function.The PtDA improved knowledge and decreased decisional conflict in this pilot study.Future work should focus on studying dissemination and implementation of the ptDA into clinical practice.
| S-EPMC10583528 | biostudies-literature