Dataset Information

Controlling Chronic Diseases Through Evidence-Based Decision Making: A Group-Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Although practitioners in state health departments are ideally positioned to implement evidence-based interventions, few studies have examined how to build their capacity to do so. The objective of this study was to explore how to increase the use of evidence-based decision-making processes at both the individual and organization levels.

Methods

We conducted a 2-arm, group-randomized trial with baseline data collection and follow-up at 18 to 24 months. Twelve state health departments were paired and randomly assigned to intervention or control condition. In the 6 intervention states, a multiday training on evidence-based decision making was conducted from March 2014 through March 2015 along with a set of supplemental capacity-building activities. Individual-level outcomes were evidence-based decision making skills of public health practitioners; organization-level outcomes were access to research evidence and participatory decision making. Mixed analysis of covariance models was used to evaluate the intervention effect by accounting for the cluster randomized trial design. Analysis was performed from March through May 2017.

Results

Participation 18 to 24 months after initial training was 73.5%. In mixed models adjusted for participant and state characteristics, the intervention group improved significantly in the overall skill gap (P = .01) and in 6 skill areas. Among the 4 organizational variables, only access to evidence and skilled staff showed an intervention effect (P = .04).

Conclusion

Tailored and active strategies are needed to build capacity at the individual and organization levels for evidence-based decision making. Our study suggests several dissemination interventions for consideration by leaders seeking to improve public health practice.

SUBMITTER: Brownson RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5716810 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsTo assess the intervention effects of BREATHE (BRief intervention to Evaluate Asthma THErapy), a novel brief shared decision-making intervention and evaluate feasibility and acceptability of intervention procedures.DesignGroup-randomized longitudinal pilot study.MethodsIn total, 80 adults with uncontrolled persistent asthma participated in a trial comparing BREATHE (N = 40) to a dose-matched attention control intervention (N = 40). BREATHE is a one-time shared decision-making intervention delivered by clinicians during routine office visits. Ten clinicians were randomized and trained on BREATHE or the control condition. Participants were followed monthly for 3 months post-intervention. Data were collected from December 2017 - May 2019 and included surveys, lung function tests, and interviews.ResultsParticipants were Black/multiracial (100%) mostly female (83%) adults (mean age 45). BREATHE clinicians delivered BREATHE to all 40 participants with fidelity based on expert review of audiorecordings. While the control group reported improvements in asthma control at 1-month and 3-month follow-up, only BREATHE participants had better asthma control at each timepoint (β = 0.77; standard error (SE)[0.17]; p ≤ 0.0001; β = 0.71; SE[0.16]; p ≤ 0.0001; β = 0.54; SE[0.15]; p = .0004), exceeding the minimally important difference. BREATHE participants also perceived greater shared decision-making occurred during the intervention visit (β = 7.39; SE[3.51]; p = .03) and fewer symptoms at follow-up (e.g., fewer nights woken, less shortness of breath and less severity of symptoms) than the controls. Both groups reported improved adherence and fewer erroneous medication beliefs.ConclusionBREATHE is a promising brief tailored intervention that can be integrated into office visits using clinicians as interventionists. Thus, BREATHE offers a pragmatic approach to improving asthma outcomes and shared decision-making in a health disparity population.ImpactThe study addressed the important problem of uncontrolled asthma in a high-risk vulnerable population. Compared with the dose-matched attention control condition, participants receiving the novel brief tailored shared decision-making intervention had significant improvements in asthma outcomes and greater perceived engagement in shared decision-making. Brief interventions integrated into office visits and delivered by clinicians may offer a pragmatic approach to narrowing health disparity gaps. Future studies where other team members (e.g., office nurses, social workers) are trained in shared decision-making may address important implementation science challenges as it relates to adoption, maintenance, and dissemination. TRAIL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov # NCT03300752.

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.

Project description:ObjectiveShared decision-making (SDM) supports patients to make informed and value-based decisions about their care. We are developing an intervention to enable healthcare professionals to support patients' pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) decision-making. To identify intervention components we needed to evaluate others carried out in chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs). We aimed to evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on patient decision-making (primary outcome) and downstream health-related outcomes (secondary outcome).DesignWe conducted a systematic review using the risk of bias (Cochrane ROB2, ROBINS-I) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tools.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCHINFO, CINAHL, PEDRO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, ISRCTN were search through to 11th April 2023.Eligibility criteriaTrials evaluating SDM interventions in patients living with CRD using quantitative or mixed methods were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. A narrative synthesis, with reference to The Making Informed Decisions Individually and Together (MIND-IT) model, was undertaken.ResultsEight studies (n=1596 (of 17 466 citations identified)) fulfilled the inclusion criteria.Five studies included components targeting the patient, healthcare professionals and consultation process (demonstrating adherence to the MIND-IT model). All studies reported their interventions improved patient decision-making and health-related outcomes. No outcome was reported consistently across studies. Four studies had high risk of bias, three had low quality of evidence. Intervention fidelity was reported in two studies.ConclusionsThese findings suggest developing an SDM intervention including a patient decision aid, healthcare professional training, and a consultation prompt could support patient PR decisions, and health-related outcomes. Using a complex intervention development and evaluation research framework will likely lead to more robust research, and a greater understanding of service needs when integrating the intervention within practice.Prospero registration numberCRD42020169897.

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:BackgroundShared decision making (SDM) is a widely recommended yet unproven strategy for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. Previous trials of decision aids to increase SDM and CRC screening uptake have yielded mixed results.PurposeTo assess the impact of decision aid-assisted SDM on CRC screening uptake.DesignRCT.Setting/participantsThe study was conducted at an urban, academic safety-net hospital and community health center between 2005 and 2010. Participants were asymptomatic, average-risk patients aged 50-75 years due for CRC screening.InterventionStudy participants (n=825) were randomized to one of two intervention arms (decision aid plus personalized risk assessment or decision aid alone) or control arm. The interventions took place just prior to a routine office visit with their primary care providers.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was completion of a CRC screening test within 12 months of the study visit. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of test completion and mediators of the intervention effect. Analysis was completed in 2011.ResultsPatients in the decision-aid group were more likely to complete a screening test than control patients (43.1% vs 34.8%, p=0.046) within 12 months of the study visit; conversely, test uptake for the decision aid and decision aid plus personalized risk assessment arms was similar (43.1% vs 37.1%, p=0.15). Assignment to the decision-aid arm (AOR=1.48, 95% CI=1.04, 2.10), black race (AOR=1.52, 95% CI=1.12, 2.06) and a preference for a patient-dominant decision-making approach (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.02, 2.35) were independent determinants of test completion. Activation of the screening discussion and enhanced screening intentions mediated the intervention effect.ConclusionsDecision aid-assisted SDM has a modest impact on CRC screening uptake. A decision aid plus personalized risk assessment tool is no more effective than a decision aid alone.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.govNCT00251862.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk due to age and smoking history after a shared decision-making conversation. However, little is known about best strategies for incorporating shared decision-making, especially in a busy primary care setting.ObjectiveTo develop a novel tool, Lung Cancer Assessment of Risk and Education (LungCARE) to guide LCS decisions among eligible primary care patients.DesignPilot cluster randomized controlled trial of LungCARE versus usual care.ParticipantsPatients of providers in a university primary care clinic, who met criteria for LCS.InterventionProviders were randomized to LungCARE intervention or control. LungCARE participants completed a computer tablet-based video assessment of lung cancer educational needs in the waiting room prior to a primary care visit. Patient and provider both received a summary handout of patient concerns and responses.Main measuresAll eligible patients completed baseline interviews by telephone. One week after the index visit, participants completed a follow-up telephone survey that assessed patient-physician discussion of LCS, referral to and scheduling of LCS, as well as LCS knowledge and acceptability of LungCARE. Two months after index visit, we reviewed patients' electronic health records (EHRs) for evidence of a shared decision-making conversation and referral to and receipt of LCS.Key resultsA total of 66 participants completed baseline and follow-up visits (34: LungCARE; 32: usual care). Mean age was 65.9 (± 6.0). Based on EHR review, compared to usual care, LungCARE participants were more likely to have discussed LCS with their physicians (56% vs 25%; p = 0.04) and to be referred to LCS (44% vs 13%; p < 0.02). Intervention participants were also more likely to complete LCS (32% vs 13%; p < 0.01) and had higher knowledge scores (mean score 6.5 (± 1.7) vs 5.5 (± 1.4; p < 0.01).ConclusionsLungCARE increased discussion, referral, and completion of LCS and improved LCS knowledge.Clinical trial registrationNCT03862001.