Dataset Information

Effect of Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations vs Usual Care on Patient Interest and Use of Recommendations: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

This randomized clinical trial examines the feasibility and acceptability of a decision-making tool for increasing patient interest in individualized recommendations for preventive care services.

Objective

To pilot a tool to help patients compare life expectancy gains from evidence-based preventive services.

Design, setting, and participants

This randomized clinical trial examined patient and physician responses to a pilot decision tool incorporating personalized risk factors at 3 US primary care clinics between 2017 and 2020. Eligible patients were between ages 45 to 70 years with 2 or more high-risk factors. Patients were followed-up after 1 year.

Interventions

The gain in life expectancy associated with guideline adherence to each recommended preventive service was estimated. Personalized estimates incorporating risk factors in electronic health records were displayed in a physician-distributed visual aid. During development, physicians discussed individualized results with patients using shared decision-making (SDM). During the trial, patients were randomized to receive individualized recommendations or usual care (nonmasked, parallel, 1:1 ratio).

Main outcomes and measures

Primary outcome was patient interest in individualized recommendations, assessed by survey. Secondary outcomes were use of SDM, decisional comfort, readiness to change, and preventive services received within 1 year.

Results

The study enrolled 104 patients (31 development, 39 intervention, 34 control), of whom 101 were included in analysis (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [5.3] years; 73 [72.3%] women; 80 [79.2%] Black patients) and 20 physicians. Intervention patients found the tool helpful and wanted to use it again, rating it a median 9 of 10 (IQR, 8-10) and 10 of 10 (8-10), respectively. Compared with the control group, intervention patients more often correctly identified the service least likely (18 [46%] vs 0; P = .03) to improve their life expectancy. A greater number of patients also identified the service most likely to improve their life expectancy (26 [69%] vs 10 [30%]; P = .07), although this result was not statistically significant. Intervention patients reported greater mean [SD] improvement in SDM (4.7 [6.9] points) and near-term readiness to change (13.8 points for top-3-ranked recommendations). Point estimates indicated that patients in the intervention group experienced greater, although non-statistically significant, reductions in percentage of body weight (-2.96%; 95% CI, -8.18% to 2.28%), systolic blood pressure (-6.42 mm Hg; 95% CI, -16.12 to 3.27 mm Hg), hemoglobin A1c (-0.68%; 95% CI, -1.82% to 0.45%), 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score (-1.20%; 95% CI, -3.65% to 1.26%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-8.46 mg/dL; 95% CI, -26.63 to 9.70 mg/dL) than the control group. Nineteen of 20 physicians wanted to continue using the decision tool in the future.

Conclusions and relevance

In this clinical trial, an individualized preventive care decision support tool improved patient understanding of primary prevention and demonstrated promise for improved shared decision-making and preventive care utilization.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023813.

SUBMITTER: Taksler GB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8564576 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations vs Usual Care on Patient Interest and Use of Recommendations: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Taksler Glen B GB Hu Bo B DeGrandis Frederic F Montori Victor M VM Fagerlin Angela A Nagykaldi Zsolt Z Rothberg Michael B MB

JAMA network open 20211101 11

<h4>Importance</h4>This randomized clinical trial examines the feasibility and acceptability of a decision-making tool for increasing patient interest in individualized recommendations for preventive care services.<h4>Objective</h4>To pilot a tool to help patients compare life expectancy gains from evidence-based preventive services.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This randomized clinical trial examined patient and physician responses to a pilot decision tool incorporating personalized ...[more]

PMID: 34726747

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background. Few Americans obtain all 41 guideline-recommended preventive services for nonpregnant adults. We assessed patient interest in prioritizing their preventive care needs. Methods. We conducted a mixed-methods study, with 4 focus groups (N = 28) at a single institution and a nationwide survey (N = 2,103). Participants were middle-aged and older adults with preventive care needs. We obtained reactions to written materials describing the magnitude of benefit from major preventive services, including both absolute and relative benefits. Recommendations were individualized for patient risk factors ("individualized preventive care recommendations"). Focus groups assessed patient interest, how patients would want to discuss individualized recommendations with their providers, and potential for individualized recommendations to influence patient decision making. Survey content was based on focus groups and analyzed with logistic regression. Results. Patients expressed strong interest in individualized recommendations. Among survey respondents, an adjusted 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.7% to 89.7%) found individualized recommendations very easy to understand, 77.2% (95% CI = 75.3% to 79.1%) considered them very useful, and 64.9% (95% CI = 62.8% to 67.0%) highly trustworthy (each ≥6/7 on Likert scale). Three quarters of participants wanted to receive their own individualized recommendations in upcoming primary care visits (adjusted proportion = 77.5%, 95% CI = 75.6% to 79.4%). Both focus group and survey participants supported shared decision making and reported that individualized recommendations would improve motivation to obtain preventive care. Half of survey respondents reported that they would be much more likely to visit their doctor if they knew individualized recommendations would be discussed, compared with 4.2% who would not be more likely to visit their doctor. Survey respondents already prioritized preventive services, stating they were most likely to choose quick/easy preventive services and least likely to choose expensive preventive services (adjusted proportions, 63.8% and 8.5%, respectively). Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions. Individualized preventive care recommendations are likely to be well received in primary care and might motivate patients to improve adherence to evidence-based care.

Project description:ImportanceAnnual preventive health visits provide an opportunity to screen youths for unhealthy substance use and intervene before serious harm results.ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility and acceptability and estimate the efficacy of a primary care computer-facilitated screening and practitioner-delivered brief intervention (CSBI) system compared with usual care (UC) for youth substance use and associated risk of riding with an impaired driver.Design, setting, and participantsAn intent-to-treat pilot randomized clinical trial compared CSBI with UC among 965 youths aged 12 to 18 years at 5 pediatric primary care offices and 54 practitioners. Patients were randomized to CSBI (n = 628) or usual care (n = 243) groups within practitioner with 12 months of follow-up. Data were collected from February 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017. Data analysis was performed January 1, 2018, to March 30, 2019.InterventionsPatients self-administered a computer-facilitated substance use screening questionnaire before their annual preventive health visits. Immediately after completing the screening, they received their score and level of risk and viewed 10 pages of scientific information and true-life vignettes illustrating health risks associated with substance use. Trained practitioners received the screening results, patients' risk levels, talking points designed to prompt brief counseling, and recommended follow-up plans.Main outcomes and measuresFeasibility and acceptability were assessed using adolescents' postvisit ratings. Days of alcohol use, cannabis use, and heavy episodic drinking were assessed at baseline and 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups using Timeline Followback, and riding in the past 3 months with a driver who was impaired by use of alcohol or other drugs was assessed using 2 self-report items. The primary outcome was the intervention effect among at-risk youths who reported using alcohol or other drugs in the past 12 months or riding with an impaired driver in the past 3 months at baseline. The secondary outcome was the prevention effect among those with no prior use or risk.ResultsAmong 871 youths screened, 869 completed the baseline assessment; 211 of the 869 reported alcohol or cannabis use in the past 12 months at baseline (mean [SD] age, 16.4 [1.3] years; 114 [54.1%] female; 105 [49.8%] non-Hispanic white). Of the 211 youths, 148 (70.1%) were assigned to the CSBI group and 63 (29.9%) were assigned to the UC group. Among youths in the CSBI group, 105 (70.9%) reported receiving counseling about alcohol, 122 (82.4%) reported receiving counseling about cannabis, and 129 (87.2%) reported receiving counseling about not riding with an impaired driver. Adjusted hazard ratios for time to first postvisit use of alcohol or other drugs for CSBI vs UC were as follows: alcohol use, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.47-1.02); heavy episodic drinking, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.40-1.10); and cannabis use, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.94). At 12-month follow-ups among 99 youths who reported having ridden in the past 3 months at baseline with an impaired driver (64 in the CSBI group; 35 in the UC group), adjusted relative risk ratio of riding in the past 3 months with an impaired driver for CSBI vs UC groups was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.37-0.91). No intervention effect was observed among youths who reported no prior use of alcohol or other drugs (n = 658) or not having ridden with an impaired driver (n = 769) at baseline.Conclusions and relevanceThe CSBI system is a feasible and acceptable option for screening youths in primary care practice for use of alcohol and other drugs and for risk of riding with an impaired driver, and the estimated efficacy in this sample warrants further testing in larger samples.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00227877.

Project description:AimsThe prolonged use of benzodiazepines and opioids can lead to an increase in the incidence of withdrawal syndrome. One of the known risk factors is the lack of a sedative-weaning protocol. This study established a sedative-weaning protocol and compared this protocol with the usual care of weaning in high-risk critically ill children.Materials and methodsThis was an open-label, randomized controlled trial in a tertiary-care hospital. We recruited children aged 1 month to 18 years who had received intravenous sedative or analgesic drugs for at least 5 days. The exclusion criteria were patients who had already experienced the withdrawal syndrome. We established a weaning protocol. Eligible patients were randomly divided into the protocolized (intervention) and usual care (control) groups. The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of the withdrawal syndrome compared between two groups.ResultsThirty eligible patients were enrolled (19 in the intervention and 11 in the control group). Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between both the groups. The prevalence of the withdrawal syndrome was 84% and 81% of patients in the intervention and control group, respectively. The duration of the initial weaning phase was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (p value = 0.026). The cumulative dose of morphine solution for rescue therapy in the intervention group was statistically lower than that in the control group (p value = 0.016).ConclusionThe implementation of the sedative-weaning protocol led to a significant reduction in the percentage of withdrawal days and length of intensive care unit stay without any adverse drug reactions. External validation would be needed to validate this protocol.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT03018977.How to cite this articleTiacharoen D, Lertbunrian R, Veawpanich J, Suppalarkbunlue N, Anantasit N. Protocolized Sedative Weaning vs Usual Care in Pediatric Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(6):451-458.

Project description:BackgroundAvoidable disparities in health outcomes persist in Canada despite substantial investments in a publicly funded health care system that includes preventive services. Our objective was to provide preventive care recommendations that promote health equity by prioritizing effective interventions for people experiencing disadvantages.MethodsThe guideline was developed by a primary care provider-patient panel, with input from a patient-partner panel with diverse lived experiences. After selecting priority topics, we searched for systematic reviews and recent randomized controlled trials of screening and other relevant studies of screening accuracy and management efficacy. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations and followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) reporting guidance. We managed competing interests using the Guideline International Network principles. The recommendations were externally reviewed by content experts and circulated for endorsement by national stakeholders.RecommendationsWe developed 15 screening and other preventive care recommendations and 1 policy recommendation on improving access to primary care. We recommend prioritized outreach for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 45 years and for cardiovascular disease risk assessment, to help address inequities and promote health. Specific interventions that should be rolled out in ways that address inequities include human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing, HIV self-testing and interferon-γ release assays for tuberculosis infection. Screening for depression, substance use, intimate partner violence and poverty should help connect people experiencing specific disadvantages with proven interventions. We recommend automatic connection to primary care for people experiencing disadvantages.InterpretationProven preventive care interventions can address health inequities if people experiencing disadvantages are prioritized. Clinicians, health care organizations and governments should take evidence-based actions and track progress in promoting health equity across Canada.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Latinos are the largest minority group in the United States and experience persistent disparities in access to and quality of health care. OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the relationship between nativity/immigration status and self-reported quality of care and preventive care. (2) To assess the impact of a usual source of health care on receipt of preventive care among Latinos. DESIGN: Using cross-sectional data from the 2007 Pew Hispanic Center/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Hispanic Healthcare Survey, a nationally representative telephone survey of 4,013 Latino adults, we compared US-born Latinos with foreign-born Latino citizens, foreign-born Latino permanent residents and undocumented Latinos. We estimated odds ratios using separate multivariate ordered logistic models for five outcomes: blood pressure checked in the past 2 years, cholesterol checked in the past 5 years, perceived quality of medical care in the past year, perceived receipt of no health/health-care information from a doctor in the past year, and language concordance. RESULTS: Undocumented Latinos had the lowest percentages of insurance coverage (37% vs 77% US-born, P < 0.001), usual source of care (58% vs 79% US-born, P < 0.001), blood pressure checked (67% vs 87% US-born, P < 0.001), cholesterol checked (56% vs 83% US-born, P < 0.001), and reported excellent/good care in the past year (76% vs 80% US-born, P < 0.05). Undocumented Latinos also reported the highest percentage receiving no health/health-care information from their doctor (40% vs 20% US-born, P < 0.001) in the past year. Adjusted results showed that undocumented status was associated with lower likelihood of blood pressure checked in the previous 2 years (OR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84), cholesterol checked in the past 5 years (OR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.99), and perceived receipt of excellent/good care in the past year (OR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.77). Having a usual source of care increased the likelihood of a blood pressure check in the past 2 years and a cholesterol check in the past 5 years. CONCLUSION: In this national sample, undocumented Latinos were less likely to report receiving blood pressure and cholesterol level checks, less likely to report having received excellent/good quality of care, and more likely to receive no health/health-care information from doctors, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Our study shows that differences in nativity/immigration status should be taken into consideration when we discuss perceived quality of care among Latinos.

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommend an individualized approach in older adults that is informed by consideration of life expectancy and cancer risk. However, little is known about how patients perceive individualized screening recommendations.ObjectiveTo assess veterans' attitudes toward and comfort with cessation of low-value CRC screening (defined as screening in a patient for whom the benefit is expected to be small based on quantitative estimates from hypothetical risk calculators).Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study included patients older than 50 years who had undergone prior screening colonoscopy with normal results at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System. A total of 1500 surveys were mailed to potential participants from November 1, 2010, to January 1, 2012. Survey data were analyzed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresResponse to the question, "If you personally had serious health problems that were likely to shorten your life and your doctor did not think screening would be of much benefit based on the calculator, how comfortable would you be with not getting any more screening colonoscopies?"ResultsOf the 1500 surveys mailed, 85 were returned to sender, leaving 1415 potential respondents; 1054 of these respondents (median age range, 60-69 years; 884 [85.9%] white and 965 [94.2%] male) completed the survey (response rate, 74.5%). A total of 300 (28.7%) were not at all comfortable with cessation of low-value CRC screening, and 509 (49.3%) thought that age should never be used to decide when to stop screening. In addition, 332 (31.7%) thought it was not at all reasonable to use life expectancy calculators, and 255 (24.3%) thought it was not at all reasonable to use CRC risk calculators to guide these decisions. In ordered logistic regression analysis, factors associated with more comfort with screening cessation were (1) higher trust in physician (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32), (2) higher perceived health status (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.23-1.61), and (3) higher barriers to screening (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.30). Factors that were associated with less comfort with screening cessation included (1) greater perceived effectiveness of screening (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94) and (2) greater perceived threat of CRC (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that many veterans have strong preferences against screening cessation even when given detailed information about why the benefit may be low. Efforts to tailor screening recommendations may be met by resistance unless they are accompanied by efforts to address underlying perceptions about the benefit of screening.

Dataset Information

Effect of Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations vs Usual Care on Patient Interest and Use of Recommendations: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Trial registration

Publications

Effect of Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations vs Usual Care on Patient Interest and Use of Recommendations: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets