Dataset Information

A Shared Decision-making Tool for Drug Interactions Between Warfarin and Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs: Design and Usability Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Exposure to life-threatening drug-drug interactions (DDIs) occurs despite the widespread use of clinical decision support. The DDI between warfarin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is common and potentially life-threatening. Patients can play a substantial role in preventing harm from DDIs; however, the current model for DDI decision-making is clinician centric.

Objective

This study aims to design and study the usability of DDInteract, a tool to support shared decision-making (SDM) between a patient and provider for the DDI between warfarin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Methods

We used an SDM framework and user-centered design methods to guide the design and usability of DDInteract-an SDM electronic health record app to prevent harm from clinically significant DDIs. The design involved iterative prototypes, qualitative feedback from stakeholders, and a heuristic evaluation. The usability evaluation included patients and clinicians. Patients participated in a simulated SDM discussion using clinical vignettes. Clinicians were asked to complete eight tasks using DDInteract and to assess the tool using a survey adapted from the System Usability Scale.

Results

The designed DDInteract prototype includes the following features: a patient-specific risk profile, dynamic risk icon array, patient education section, and treatment decision tree. A total of 4 patients and 11 clinicians participated in the usability study. After an SDM session where patients and clinicians review the tool concurrently, patients generally favored pain treatments with less risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Clinicians successfully completed the tasks with a mean of 144 (SD 74) seconds and rated the usability of DDInteract as 4.32 (SD 0.52) of 5.

Conclusions

This study expands the use of SDM to DDIs. The next steps are to determine if DDInteract can improve shared decision-making quality and to implement it across health systems using interoperable technology.

SUBMITTER: Reese TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8579222 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstract Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach in which patients and clinicians act as partners in making medical decisions. Patients receive the information needed to decide and are encouraged to balance risks, benefits, and preferences. Informative materials are vital to SDM. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and responsible for 10% of ischemic strokes, however 1/3 of patients are not on appropriate anticoagulation. Decision sharing may facilitate treatment acceptance, improving outcomes. Aims To develop a framework of the components needed to create novel SDM tools and to provide practical examples through a case-study of stroke prevention in AF. Methods We analyze the design values of a web-based SDM tool created to better inform AF patients about anticoagulation. The tool was developed in partnership with patient advocates, multi-disciplinary investigators, and private design firms. It was refined through iterative, recursive testing in patients with AF. Its effectiveness is being evaluated in a multisite clinical trial led by Stanford University and sponsored by the American Heart Association. Findings The main components considered when creating the Stanford AFib tool included: design and software; content identification; information delivery; inclusive communication, user engagement; patient feedback; clinician experience; and anticipation of implementation and dissemination. We also highlight the ethical principles underlying SDM; matters of diversity and inclusion, linguistic variety, accessibility, and health literacy. The Stanford AFib Guide patient tool is available at: https://afibguide.com and the clinician tool at https://afibguide.com/clinician. Conclusion Attention to a range of vital development and design factors can facilitate tool adoption and information acquisition by diverse cultural, educational, and socioeconomic subpopulations. With thoughtful design, digital tools may decrease decision regret and improve treatment outcomes across many decision-making situations in healthcare.

Project description:ObjectivePatient values and preferences are an important component to decision making when tradeoffs exist that impact quality of life, such as tradeoffs between stroke prevention and hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) contemplating anticoagulant therapy. Our objective is to describe the development of an Atrial Fibrillation Guideline Support Tool (AFGuST) to assist the process of integrating patients' preferences into this decision.Materials and methodsCHA2DS2VASc and HAS-BLED were used to calculate risks for stroke and hemorrhage. We developed a Markov decision analytic model as a computational engine to integrate patient-specific risk for stroke and hemorrhage and individual patient values for relevant outcomes in decisions about anticoagulant therapy.ResultsIndividual patient preferences for health-related outcomes may have greater or lesser impact on the choice of optimal antithrombotic therapy, depending upon the balance of patient-specific risks for ischemic stroke and major bleeding. These factors have been incorporated into patient-tailored booklets which, along with an informational video, were developed through an iterative process with clinicians and patient focus groups.Key limitationsCurrent risk prediction models for hemorrhage, such as the HAS-BLED, used in the AFGuST, do not incorporate all potentially significant risk factors. Novel oral anticoagulant agents recently approved for use in the United States, Canada, and Europe have not been included in the AFGuST. Rather, warfarin has been used as a conservative proxy for all oral anticoagulant therapy.ConclusionsWe present a proof of concept that a patient-tailored decision-support tool could bridge the gap between guidelines and practice by incorporating individual patient's stroke and bleeding risks and their values for major bleeding events and stroke to facilitate a shared decision making process. If effective, the AFGuST could be used as an adjunct to published guidelines to enhance patient-centered conversations about the anticoagulation management.

Project description:BackgroundThe field of rehabilitation has seen a recent rise in technologies to support shared decision-making (SDM). Usability testing during the design process of SDM technologies is needed to optimize adoption and realize potential benefits. There is variability in how usability is defined and measured. Given the complexity of usability, a thorough examination of the methodologies used to measure usability to develop the SDM technologies used in rehabilitation care is needed.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to answer the following research questions: which methods and measures have been used to produce knowledge about the usability of rehabilitation technologies aimed at supporting SDM at the different phases of development and implementation? Which parameters of usability have been measured and reported?MethodsThis review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework. An electronic search was performed in the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from January 2005 up to November 2020. In total, 2 independent reviewers screened all retrieved titles, abstracts, and full texts according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. The International Organization for Standardization framework was used to define the scope of usability (effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction). The characteristics of the studies were outlined in a descriptive summary. Findings were categorized based on usability parameters, technology interventions, and measures of usability.ResultsA total of 38 articles were included. The most common SDM technologies were web-based aids (15/33, 46%). The usability of SDM technologies was assessed during development, preimplementation, or implementation, using 14 different methods. The most frequent methods were questionnaires (24/38, 63%) and semistructured interviews (16/38, 42%). Satisfaction (27/38, 71%) was the most common usability parameter mapped to types of SDM technologies and usability evaluation methods. User-centered design (9/15, 60%) was the most frequently used technology design framework.ConclusionsThe results from this scoping review highlight the importance and the complexity of usability evaluation. Although various methods and measures were shown to be used to evaluate the usability of technologies to support SDM in rehabilitation, very few evaluations used in the included studies were found to adequately span the selected usability domains. This review identified gaps in usability evaluation, as most studies (24/38, 63%) relied solely on questionnaires rather than multiple methods, and most questionnaires simply focused on the usability parameter of satisfaction. The consideration of end users (such as patients and clinicians) is of particular importance for the development of technologies to support SDM, as the process of SDM itself aims to improve patient-centered care and integrate both patient and clinician voices into their rehabilitation care.

Project description:Reports exist regarding a gradual approach to the care of patients with differences of sexual development. Each patient and family have different values and styles of learning that have to be taken into account. The goals of care should include education about the condition, counseling of the patient and family, and a complete outlining of treatment options. Motivated by a call from the 2010 Health Reform Law for the use of shared decision-making tools and the emphasis placed on these issues by the DSD Consensus Statement, we sought to develop and implement such tools for the DSD population.1-3 Thus, we developed an organized checklist for providers to share with a patients and families affected by CAIS, beginning with the initial visit. The development of the document enlisted input from physicians, clinical coordinator, advocacy groups and affected individuals. It allows providers to explain the process of care and develop a plan for delivery of that care over multiple visits spanning six months or more. The checklist is divided into five sections: 1) An overview addressing how much information is desired and in what manner the patient prefers to obtain information; 2) A preferred words list so that the patient can choose nomenclature that is most comfortable; 3) A list of topics to review over the course of multiple visits; 4) A list of questions to be answered by the providers or other resources over time, and; 5) A list of concerns to be addressed before surgical intervention is considered. An organized approach to long-term delivery of compassionate care and accurate information can be facilitated for patients with CAIS by the use of a shared decision-making checklist. Documentation of the care delivery process can stimulate referral to peer support and promote fully informed consent for treatment decisions. The use of the checklist should encourage trust in the provider, as well as aid in identifying and addressing stressors for the patient and family. The checklist will be updated and revised as new treatments and advanced technology emerges.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).ObjectiveWe examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.DesignMulticenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.ApproachWe performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.ParticipantsWe interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.ResultsAll clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.

Project description:Background. Accurate diagnosis of patients' preferences is central to shared decision making. Missing from clinical practice is an approach that links pretreatment preferences and patient-reported outcomes. Objective. We propose a Bayesian collaborative filtering (CF) algorithm that combines pretreatment preferences and patient-reported outcomes to provide treatment recommendations. Design. We present the methodological details of a Bayesian CF algorithm designed to accomplish 3 tasks: 1) eliciting patient preferences using conjoint analysis surveys, 2) clustering patients into preference phenotypes, and 3) making treatment recommendations based on the posttreatment satisfaction of like-minded patients. We conduct a series of simulation studies to test the algorithm and to compare it to a 2-stage approach. Results. The Bayesian CF algorithm and 2-stage approaches performed similarly when there was extensive overlap between preference phenotypes. When the treatment was moderately associated with satisfaction, both methods made accurate recommendations. The kappa estimates measuring agreement between the true and predicted recommendations were 0.70 (95% confidence interval = 0.052-0.88) and 0.73 (0.56-0.90) under the Bayesian CF and 2-stage approaches, respectively. The 2-stage approach failed to converge in settings in which clusters were well separated, whereas the Bayesian CF algorithm produced acceptable results, with kappas of 0.73 (0.56-0.90) and 0.83 (0.69-0.97) for scenarios with moderate and large treatment effects, respectively. Limitations. Our approach assumes that the patient population is composed of distinct preference phenotypes, there is association between treatment and outcomes, and treatment effects vary across phenotypes. Findings are also limited to simulated data. Conclusion. The Bayesian CF algorithm is feasible, provides accurate cluster treatment recommendations, and outperforms 2-stage estimation when clusters are well separated. As such, the approach serves as a roadmap for incorporating predictive analytics into shared decision making.