Dataset Information

Effects of a Patient Activation Tool on Decision Making Between Surgery and Nonoperative Management for Pediatric Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Strategies to activate and engage patients and caregivers in shared decision making in the acute care setting may result in improved outcomes.

Objective

To determine whether a patient activation tool (PAT) can improve decision-making and patient-centered outcomes among pediatric patients and their caregivers who choose between surgery and nonoperative management for their child's appendicitis.

Design, setting, and participants

This single-blind, randomized clinical trial collected data from a single tertiary children's hospital from March 1, 2014, through April 30, 2016, with 1-year follow-up completed on May 1, 2017. Two hundred of 236 eligible children and adolescents aged 7 to 17 years with uncomplicated appendicitis enrolled with their caregivers. After receiving the randomized clinical intervention, caregivers chose surgery or nonoperative management. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2014, through May 1, 2017.

Interventions

Randomization to a scripted standardized surgical consultation that emphasized patient choice or a scripted standardized surgical consultation plus the PAT (a tablet-based tool that presents each treatment, encourages participation in medical decision making, and aims at alleviating decisional uncertainty).

Main outcomes and measures

Decisional self-efficacy immediately after treatment decision, health care satisfaction at discharge, and disability days for the child at 1-year follow-up.

Results

Among 200 participants (median age, 12 years [interquartile range (IQR), 9-15 years]; 120 [60.0%] male), 98 were randomized to the PAT and 102 to the standardized consultation groups. The percentages choosing nonoperative management were similar (standardized consultation group, 42 of 102 [41.2%]; PAT group, 31 of 98 [31.6%]; P = .19). Immediate decisional self-efficacy was similar in the standardized consultation and PAT groups (median score, 100 [IQR, 97.7-100] vs 100 [IQR, 95.5-100]; P = .03), which was not significant at the planned significance level of P = .02. Total scores on health care satisfaction at discharge were similar (median, 99 [IQR, 94.7-100] vs 98 [IQR, 91.7-100]; P = .27). Disability days at 1-year follow-up were also similar (median, 6 [IQR, 2-11] vs 5 [IQR, 2-15]; P = .67). No difference in the failure rate of nonoperative management at 1 year (13 of 38 [34.2%] vs 11 of 30 [36.7%]; P > .99) or in the rate of complicated appendicitis 30 days after discharge (7 of 68 [10.3%] vs 9 of 71 [12.7%]; P = .79) occurred.

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, a technology-based PAT did not improve measures of decision making for pediatric patients and caregivers needing to make an urgent treatment decision between surgery and nonoperative management for appendicitis. However, the overall high scores in both groups suggest that pediatric patients and caregivers can process information in the acute care setting and effectively participate in an informed shared decision-making process around the need for surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02110485.

SUBMITTER: Minneci PC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6563561 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTraditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis.MethodsWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.MethodsWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer's perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.ResultsLA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient.ConclusionsLA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.

Project description:BackgroundLittle data exists regarding decision-making preferences for parents and surgeons in pediatric surgery. Here we investigate whether parents and surgeons have similar decision-making preferences as well as which factors influence those preferences. Specifically, we compare parents' and surgeons' assessments of the urgency and complexity of pediatric surgical scenarios and the impact of their assessments on decision-making preferences.MethodsA survey was emailed to parents of patients evaluated in a university-based pediatric surgery clinic and surgeons belonging to the American Pediatric Surgical Association. The survey asked respondents to rate 6 clinical vignettes for urgency, complexity, and desired level of surgeon guidance using the Controlled Preferences Scale (CPS).ResultsRegarding urgency, parents were more likely than surgeons to rate scenarios as emergent when cancer was involved (parents: 68.8% cancer vs. 29.5% non-cancer, p < .001; surgeons: 19.2% cancer vs. 25.4% non-cancer, p = .051). Parents and surgeons were more likely to rate a scenario as emergent when a baby was involved (parents: 45.2% baby vs. 36.2% child, p = .001; surgeons: 28.0% baby vs. 14.0% child, p < .001). Regarding decision-making preferences, parents and surgeons had similar CPS scores (2.56 vs. 2.72, respectively). Multivariable analysis showed parents preferred more surgeon guidance when scenarios involved a baby (OR 1.22; 95% CI 1.08-1.37; p < 0.01) or a cancer diagnosis (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.11-1.49; p < 0.01), and that both parents and surgeons preferred more surgeon guidance when a scenario was considered emergent (parents: OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.37-2.38, p < 0.001; surgeons: OR 2.48 95% CI 1.76-3.49, p < 0.001).ConclusionsWhen a pediatric patient is a baby or has cancer, parents are more likely then surgeons to perceive the clinical situation to be emergent, and both parents and surgeons prefer more surgeon guidance in decision-making when a clinical scenario is considered emergent. More research is needed to understand how parents' decision-making preferences depend on clinical context.

Project description:As national HIV programs across the world mature and continue to scale up towards UNAIDS' 90-90-90 targets, it is increasingly important to accurately estimate HIV treatment needs in pediatric patient populations to prepare for anticipated increases in demand. This is particularly vital in sub-Saharan Africa, where the bulk of the global pediatric HIV burden remains concentrated, and for treatment-experienced populations, for which data are severely limited. This article discusses the conceptual framework behind and application of a five-year country-level quantification and decision-making tool aimed at providing national HIV programs and their partners with a better understanding of their evolving national HIV treatment and programming needs for second-and third-line pediatric populations. The conceptual framework of the algorithm which undergirds the tool is the patient pathway, along which key influencing factors that determine whether pediatric HIV patients are linked to care, remain in treatment, and are appropriately switched to later lines of treatment are accounted for quantitatively. Excel-based and arithmetic, the algorithm is designed to use available national, regional, and global data for factors impacting patient estimates including treatment coverage; routine viral load testing; viral load non-suppression; confirmed treatment failure; and patient loss to follow up-outcomes for which data are generally very limited in this patient population. The ultimate output of the tool is an estimate of the aggregate annual number of patients by treatment line. Given the limitations in available data for pediatric HIV, particularly for patients on second- and third-line treatments, this tool may help fill a data gap by providing a mechanism for policymakers to scenario plan, thus aiding resource allocation decisions for pediatric HIV program scale-up. The tool may be used to streamline national antiretroviral procurement of later lines of treatment, especially in resource-limited settings, and may also be used to add value to broader HIV policy and planning processes at the national level.

Project description:A prospective study with randomized and observational cohorts.The aim of this study was to determine baseline variables affecting adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) decision making to participate in randomization (RAND), observational nonsurgical (OBS-NS), or observational surgical (OBS-S) cohorts.Multiple factors play a key role in a patient's decision to be randomized or to choose an OBS-NS or OBS-S course for ASLS. Studies evaluating these factors are limited.Eligible candidates (patients with ASLS and no prior spinal fusion deformity surgery) from 9 centers participated in a RAND, OBS-NS, or OBS-S cohort study. Baseline variables (demographics, socioeconomics, patient-reported outcomes [PROs], Functional Treadmill Test, radiographs) were analyzed.Two hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled: 67 RAND, 115 OBS-NS, 113 OBS-S. Subanalysis of older patients (60-80 years) found 54% of OBS-NS had college degrees compared with 82% of RAND and 71% of OBS-S (P = 0.010). Patients deciding to be part of a RAND cohort have similar clinical characteristics to the OBS-S cohort. OBS-S had more symptomatic spinal stenosis (57% vs. 39%, P = 0.029) and worse scores than OBS-NS on the basis of PROs (Back Pain Numerical Rating Scale [NRS 6.3 vs. 5.5, P = 0.007]; Scoliosis Research Society [SRS] Pain [2.8 vs. 3.0, P = 0.018], Function [3.1 vs. 3.4, P = 0.019] and Self-Image [2.7 vs. 3.1, P = 0.002]; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) [36.9 vs. 31.8, P = 0.029]; post-Treadmill back [5.8 vs. 4.4, P = 0.002] and leg [4.3 vs. 3.1, P = 0.037] pain NRS and larger lumbar coronal Cobb angles (56.5 degrees vs. 48.8 degrees, P < 0.001). RAND had more baseline motor deficits (10.4% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.036) and worse scores than OBS-NS on the basis of ODI (38.8 vs. 31.8, P = 0.006), SRS Function [3.1 vs. 3.4, P = 0.034], and Self-Image [2.7 vs. 3.1, P = 0.007].Patients with worse PROs, more back pain, more back and leg pain with ambulation, and larger lumbar Cobb angles are more inclined to select surgical over nonsurgical management.

Project description:ImportanceHistorically, opioid pain medications have been overprescribed following thyroid and parathyroid surgery. Many narcotic prescriptions are incompletely consumed, creating waste and opportunities for abuse.ObjectiveTo determine whether limiting opioid prescriptions after outpatient thyroid and parathyroid surgery to patients who opt in to narcotic treatment reduces opioid consumption without increasing postoperative pain compared with usual care (routine narcotic prescriptions).Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial of Postoperative Opt-In Narcotic Treatment (POINT) or routine narcotic prescription (control) was conducted at a single tertiary referral center from June 1 to December 30, 2020. A total of 180 adults undergoing ambulatory cervical endocrine surgery, excluding patients currently receiving opioids, were assessed for eligibility. POINT patients received perioperative pain management counseling and were prescribed opioids only on patient request. Patients reported pain scores (0-10) and medication use through 7 daily postoperative surveys. Logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with opioid consumption.InterventionsPatients in the POINT group were able to opt in or out of receiving prescriptions for opioid pain medication on discharge. Control patients received routine opioid prescriptions on discharge.Main outcomes and measuresDaily peak pain score through postoperative day 7 was the primary outcome. Noninferiority was defined as a difference less than 2 on an 11-point numeric rating scale from 0 to 10. Analysis was conducted on the evaluable population.ResultsOf the 180 patients assessed for eligibility, the final study cohort comprised 102 patients: 48 randomized to POINT and 54 to control. Of these, 79 patients (77.5%) were women and median age was 52 (interquartile range, 43-62) years. A total of 550 opioid tablets were prescribed to the control group, and 230 tablets were prescribed to the POINT group, in which 23 patients (47.9%) opted in for an opioid prescription. None who opted out subsequently required rescue opioids. In the first postoperative week, 17 POINT patients (35.4% of survey responders in the POINT group) reported consuming opioids compared with 27 (50.0%) control patients (P = .16). Median peak outpatient pain scores were 6 (interquartile range, 4-8) in the control group vs 6 (interquartile range, 5-7) in the POINT group (P = .71). In multivariate analysis, patients with a history of narcotic use were 7.5 times more likely to opt in (95% CI, 1.61-50.11; P = .02) and 4.8 times more likely to consume opioids (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P = .01). Higher body mass index (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.23; P = .03) and highest inpatient postoperative pain score (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P = .02) were also associated with opioid consumption.Conclusions and relevanceIn this trial, an opt-in strategy for postoperative narcotics reduced opioid prescription without increasing pain after cervical endocrine surgery.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04710069.