Dataset Information

Development of an electronic conversation aid to support shared decision making for children with acute otitis media.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The overuse of antibiotics for acute otitis media (AOM) in children is a healthcare quality issue in part arising from conflicting parent and physician understanding of the risks and benefits of antibiotics for AOM. Our objective was to develop a conversation aid that supports shared decision making (SDM) with parents of children who are diagnosed with non-severe AOM in the acute care setting.

Materials and methods

We developed a web-based encounter tool following a human-centered design approach that includes active collaboration with parents, clinicians, and designers using literature review, observations of clinical encounters, parental and clinician surveys, and interviews. Insights from these processes informed the iterative creation of prototypes that were reviewed and field-tested in patient encounters.

Results

The ear pain conversation aid includes five sections: (1) A home page that opens the discussion on the etiologies of AOM; (2) the various options available for AOM management; (3) a pictograph of the impact of antibiotic therapy on pain control; (4) a pictograph of complication rates with and without antibiotics; and (5) a summary page on management choices. This open-access, web-based tool is located at www.earpaindecisionaid.org.

Conclusions

We collaboratively developed an evidence-based conversation aid to facilitate SDM for AOM. This decision aid has the potential to improve parental medical knowledge of AOM, physician/parent communication, and possibly decrease the overuse of antibiotics for this condition.

SUBMITTER: Anderson JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8054029 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDecision aids help patients consider the benefits and drawbacks of care options but rarely include cost information. We assessed the impact of a conversation-based decision aid containing information about low-risk prostate cancer management options and their relative costs.MethodsWe conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in outpatient urology practices within a US-based academic medical center. We randomised five clinicians to four intervention sequences and enroled patients newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Primary patient-reported outcomes collected postvisit included the frequency of cost conversations and referrals to address costs. Other patient-reported outcomes included: decisional conflict postvisit and at 3 months, decision regret at 3 months, shared decision-making postvisit, financial toxicity postvisit and at 3 months. Clinicians reported their attitudes about shared decision-making pre- and poststudy, and the intervention's feasibility and acceptability. We used hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient outcomes. The clinician was included as a random effect; fixed effects included education, employment, telehealth versus in-person visit, visit date, and enrolment period.ResultsBetween April 2020 and March 2022, we screened 513 patients, contacted 217 eligible patients, and enroled 117/217 (54%) (51 in usual care, 66 in the intervention group). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was not associated with cost conversations (β = .82, p = .27), referrals to cost-related resources (β = -0.36, p = .81), shared decision-making (β = -0.79, p = .32), decisional conflict postvisit (β = -0.34, p= .70), or at follow-up (β = -2.19, p = .16), decision regret at follow-up (β = -9.76, p = .11), or financial toxicity postvisit (β = -1.32, p = .63) or at follow-up (β = -2.41, p = .23). Most clinicians and patients had positive attitudes about the intervention and shared decision-making. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, patients in the intervention group experienced more transient indecision (p < .02) suggesting increased deliberation between visit and follow-up.DiscussionDespite enthusiasm from clinicians, the intervention was not significantly associated with hypothesised outcomes, though we were unable to robustly test outcomes due to recruitment challenges. Recruitment at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted eligibility, sample size/power, study procedures, and increased telehealth visits and financial worry, independent of the intervention. Future work should explore ways to support shared decision-making, cost conversations, and choice deliberation with a larger sample. Such work could involve additional members of the care team, and consider the detail, quality, and timing of addressing these issues.Patient or public contributionPatients and clinicians were engaged as stakeholder advisors meeting monthly throughout the duration of the project to advise on the study design, measures selected, data interpretation, and dissemination of study findings.

Project description:BackgroundSevere Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients are often unprepared to make decisions about accepting intubation for respiratory failure. We developed a Web-based decision aid, InformedTogether, to facilitate severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients' preparation for decision making about whether to accept invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure.ObjectiveWe describe feasibility testing of the InformedTogether decision aid.MethodsMixed methods, pre- and postintervention feasibility study in outpatient pulmonary and geriatric clinics. Clinicians used InformedTogether with severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients. Patient-participants completed pre- and postassessments about InformedTogether use. The outcomes measured were the following: feasibility/acceptability, communication (Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication [COMRADE], Medical Communication Competency Scale [MCCS], Observing Patient Involvement [OPTION] scales), and effectiveness of InformedTogether on changing patients' knowledge, Decisional Conflict Scale, and motivation.ResultsWe enrolled 11 clinicians and 38 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients at six sites. Feasibility/acceptability: Clinicians and patients gave positive responses to acceptability questions (mean 74.1/89 max [SD 7.24] and mean 59.63/61 [SD 4.49], respectively). Communication: 96% of clinicians stated InformedTogether improved communication (modified MCCS mean 44.54/49 [SD 2.97]; mean OPTION score 32.03/48 [SD 9.27]; mean COMRADE Satisfaction 4.31/5.0 [SD 0.58]; and COMRADE Confidence 4.18/5.0 [SD 0.56]). Preference: Eighty percent of patients discussed preferences with their surrogates by 1-month. Effectiveness: Knowledge scores increased significantly after using InformedTogether (mean difference 3.61 [SD 3. 44], P=.001) and Decisional Conflict decreased (mean difference Decisional Conflict Scale pre/post -13.76 [SD 20.39], P=.006). Motivation increased after viewing the decision aid.ConclusionsInformedTogether supports high-quality communication and shared decision making among Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients, clinicians, and surrogates. The increased knowledge and opportunity to deliberate and discuss treatment choices after using InformedTogether should lead to improved decision making at the time of critical illness.

Project description:Objective: The objective was to develop a decision aid (DA) to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) around whether to obtain computed tomography (CT) imaging in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected uncomplicated ureterolithiasis.Methods: We used evidence-based DA development methods, including qualitative methods and iterative stakeholder engagement, to develop and refine a DA. Guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), and a steering committee made up of stakeholders, we conducted interviews and focus groups with a purposive sample of patients, community members, emergency clinicians, and other stakeholders. We used an iterative process to code the transcripts and identify themes. We beta-tested the DA with patient-clinician dyads facing the decision in real time.Results: From August 2018 to August 2019, we engaged 102 participants in the design and iterative refinement of a DA focused on diagnostic options for patients with suspected ureterolithiasis. Forty-six were ED patients, community members, or patients with ureterolithiasis, and the remaining were emergency clinicians (doctors, residents, advanced practitioners), researchers, urologists, nurses, or other physicians. Patients and clinicians identified several key decisional needs including an understanding of accuracy, uncertainty, radiation exposure/cancer risk, and clear return precautions. Patients and community members identified facilitators to SDM, such as a checklist of signs and symptoms. Many stakeholders, including both patients and ED clinicians, expressed a strong pro-CT bias. A six-page DA was developed, iteratively refined, and beta-tested.Conclusions: Using stakeholder engagement and qualitative inquiry, we developed an evidence-based DA to facilitate SDM around the question of CT scan utilization in patients with suspected uncomplicated ureterolithiasis. Future research will test the efficacy of the DA in facilitating SDM.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians face challenges in promoting colorectal cancer screening due to multiple competing demands. A decision aid that clarifies patient preferences and improves decision quality can aid shared decision making and be effective at increasing colorectal cancer screening rates. However, exactly how such an intervention improves shared decision making is unclear. This study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, seeks to provide detailed understanding of how an interactive decision aid that elicits patient's risks and preferences impacts patient-clinician communication and shared decision making, and ultimately colorectal cancer screening adherence.Methods/designThis is a two-armed single-blinded randomized controlled trial with the target of 300 patients per arm. The setting is eleven community and three academic primary care practices in Metro Detroit. Patients are men and women aged between 50 and 75 years who are not up to date on colorectal cancer screening. ColoDATES Web (intervention arm), a decision aid that incorporates interactive personal risk assessment and preference clarification tools, is compared to a non-interactive website that matches ColoDATES Web in content but does not contain interactive tools (control arm). Primary outcomes are patient uptake of colorectal cancer screening; patient decision quality (knowledge, preference clarification, intent); clinician's degree of shared decision making; and patient-clinician concordance in the screening test chosen. Secondary outcome incorporates a Structural Equation Modeling approach to understand the mechanism of the causal pathway and test the validity of the proposed conceptual model based on Theory of Planned Behavior. Clinicians and those performing the analysis are blinded to arms.DiscussionThe central hypothesis is that ColoDATES Web will improve colorectal cancer screening adherence through improvement in patient behavioral factors, shared decision making between the patient and the clinician, and concordance between the patient's and clinician's preferred colorectal cancer screening test. The results of this study will be among the first to examine the effect of a real-time preference assessment exercise on colorectal cancer screening and mediators, and, in doing so, will shed light on the patient-clinician communication and shared decision making 'black box' that currently exists between the delivery of decision aids to patients and subsequent patient behavior.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01514786.

Project description:BackgroundMinistries of health in low- and middle-income countries often lack timely quality data for data-driven decision making in healthcare networks. We describe the design and implementation of decision-support electronic tools by the Ministry of Health of the State of Chiapas, in Mexico, as part of Salud Mesoamerica Initiative.MethodsThree electronic decision-support tools were designed through an iterative process focused on streamlined implementation: 1) to collect and report health facility data at health facilities; 2) to compile and analyze data at health district and central level; and, 3) to support stratified sampling of health facilities. Data was collected for five composite indicators measuring availability of equipment, medicines, and supplies for maternal and child health. Quality Assurance Teams collected data, evaluated results and supported quality improvement. Data was also analyzed at the central level and health districts for decision-making.ResultsData from 300 health facilities in four health districts was collected and analyzed (November 2014-June 2015). The first wave revealed gaps on availability of equipment and supplies in more than half of health facilities. Electronic tools provided the ministry of health officers new ways to visualize data, identify patterns and make hypothesis on root-causes. Between the first and second measurement, the number of missing items decreased, and actions performed by quality improvement teams became more proactive. In the final measurement, 89.7-100% of all health facilities achieved all the required items for each indicator.ConclusionsOur experience could help guide others seeking to implement electronic decision-support tools in low- and middle-income countries. Electronic decision-support tools supported data-driven decision-making by identifying gaps on heatmaps and graphs at the health facility, subdistrict, district or state level. Through a rapid improvement process, the Ministry of Health met targets of externally verified indicators. Using available information technology resources facilitated prompt implementation and adoption of technology.