Experiences and perspectives of colorectal cancer survivors and general practitioners on the delivery of survivorship care in general practice: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Many colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors experience ongoing sequelae from their cancer treatment. Limited evidence exists regarding how CRC survivors and general practitioners (GPs) manage these sequelae in the community. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of CRC survivors and GPs on current approaches to monitoring and managing sequelae of CRC treatment. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study using cross-sectional national surveys and qualitative interviews with CRC survivors and GPs to explore: (1) treatment sequelae experienced by CRC survivors, (2) how these were monitored and managed by general practitioners, and (3) suggestions to improve ongoing management of the treatment sequelae. Survey responses were reported descriptively. Qualitative data were thematically analysed using an interpretive descriptive approach. RESULTS: Seventy participants completed surveys: 51 CRC survivors and 19 GPs, and four interviews were conducted with GPs. CRC survivors experienced a range of treatment sequelae, but often did not discuss these with their GPs (experienced vs discussed: 86% vs 47% for fatigue/lack of energy, 78% vs 27% for psychological/emotional concern, 63% vs 22% for impaired sleep, 69% vs 29% for weight loss/gain, 59% vs 16% for sexual and intimacy concerns). GPs reported inadequate information transfer from cancer services and workload as major barriers to optimal care. CONCLUSIONS: System-level changes that facilitate adequate information transfer from cancer services to GPs upon CRC treatment completion, as well as addressing time constraint issues essential for comprehensive monitoring and management of CRC treatment sequelae, could enhance the care of CRC survivors in the community setting.

Understanding general practitioners' prescribing choices to patients with chronic low back pain: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Although NSAIDs are recommended as a first line analgesic treatment, opioids are very commonly prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP) despite risks of harms. AIM: This study aimed to determine factors contributing to general practitioners' (GPs') prescribing choices to patients with chronic LBP in a primary care setting. METHOD: This discrete choice experiment (DCE) presented 210 GPs with hypothetical scenarios of a patient with chronic LBP. Participants chose their preferred treatment for each choice set, either the opioid, NSAID or neither. The scenarios varied by two patient attributes; non-specific LBP or LBP with referred leg pain (sciatica) and number of comorbidities. The three treatment attributes also varied, being: the type of opioid or NSAID, degree of pain reduction and number of adverse events. The significance of each attribute in influencing clinical decisions was the primary outcome and the degree to which GPs preferred the alternative based on the number of adverse events or the amount of pain reduction was the secondary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, GPs preferred NSAIDs (45.2%, 95% CI 38.7-51.7%) over opioids (28.8%, 95% CI 23.0-34.7%), however there was no difference between the type of NSAID or opioid preferred. Additionally, the attributes of pain reduction and adverse events did not influence a GP's choice between NSAIDs or opioids for patients with chronic LBP. CONCLUSION: GPs prefer prescribing NSAIDs over opioids for a patient with chronic low back pain regardless of patient factors of comorbidities or the presence of leg pain (i.e. sciatica).

'It's a fragile open door'-enhancing COVID-19 vaccination rates in people receiving treatment for substance use disorder.

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorder are at high risk of harms from COVID-19 infection. Vaccine hesitancy is common in this population and compounds pre-existing barriers to accessing health care. A drug and alcohol service in Sydney, Australia introduced strategies to enhance COVID-19 vaccination in people receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT). We report vaccination outcomes and staff experiences of this. METHODS: This mixed methods study (i) retrospectively evaluated vaccine uptake in people accessing OAT and (ii) explored perceptions of staff who delivered vaccination interventions through surveys and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Of the 984 patients receiving OAT on 9 December 2021, 90.9% had received the first COVID-19 vaccination and 86.7% the second. Australia wide vaccination rates on that date were 93.1% and 88.7% for first and second doses, respectively. Staff commented that having a deep knowledge, understanding and connection with the patient group drove implementation and success of vaccination interventions. This was further supported by staff engagement with the vaccination interventions, and communication and sharing information, both between staff and with patients. CONCLUSION: High rates of COVID-19 vaccination can be achieved in a vulnerable population. Engaged staff providing information and facilitating access to healthcare underpin this success.

Randomized Trial of the Choosing Wisely Consumer Questions and a Shared Decision-Making Video Intervention on Decision-Making Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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 REGISTRATION: ANZCTR376477. HIGHLIGHTS: We 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.

Evaluation of the usability, content, readability and cultural appropriateness of online alcohol and other drugs resources for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in New South Wales, Australia.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyse the usability, content, readability and cultural appropriateness of alcohol and other drugs (AODs) resources for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. OUTCOME MEASURES: The content of 30 AOD resources for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples was analysed according to the following criteria: general characteristics; elements of graphical design and written communication; thoroughness and content; readability (Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Gunning Fog index (Fog), Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook and Flesch Reading Ease); and cultural appropriateness. RESULTS: Most resources displayed good usability, depicted by the use of headings and subheadings (n=27), superior writing style (n=19), relevant visuals (n=19) and use of colour support (n=30). However, some resources used at least one professional jargon (n=13), and many did not provide any peer-reviewed references (n=22). During content analysis, 12 resources were categorised into the alcohol group and 18 resources in the other drugs group. Impact of alcohol during pregnancy and breast feeding (n=12) was the most common included topics in the resources related to alcohol, while the physical impact of drugs (n=15) was the most discussed topics among the other drugs group. Based on the FKGL readability score, 83% of resources met the recommended reading grade level of 6-8 by NSW Health. Many resources (n=21) met at least half of the cultural appropriateness elements of interest. However, less than one-third were developed in collaboration with the local community (n=9), used local terms (n=5), targeted the local community (n=3), included an Aboriginal voice (n=2) and addressed the underlying cause (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: Many AOD resources are developed specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, but their usability, content and readability differed, and they were not culturally appropriate for all communities. Development of a standardised protocol for resource development is suggested.

Experiences of colorectal cancer survivors in returning to primary coordinated healthcare following treatment.

BACKGROUND: Advances in screening and treatments for colorectal cancer (CRC) have improved survival rates, leading to a large population of CRC survivors. Treatment for CRC can cause long-term side-effects and functioning impairments. General practitioners (GPs) have a role in meeting survivorship care needs of this group of survivors. We explored CRC survivors' experiences of managing the consequences of treatment in the community and their perspective on the GP's role in post-treatment care. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using an interpretive descriptive approach. Adult participants no longer actively receiving treatment for CRC were asked about: side-effects post-treatment; experiences of GP-coordinated care; perceived care gaps; and perceived GP role in post-treatment care. Thematic analysis was used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 19 interviews were conducted. Participants experienced side-effects that significantly impacted their lives; many they felt ill-prepared for. Disappointment and frustration was expressed with the healthcare system when expectations about preparation for post-treatment effects were not met. The GP was considered vital in survivorship care. Participants' unmet needs led to self-management, self-directed information seeking and sourcing referral options, leaving them feeling like their own care coordinator. Disparities in post-treatment care between metropolitan and rural participants were observed. CONCLUSION: There is a need for improved discharge preparation and information for GPs, and earlier recognition of concerns following CRC treatment to ensure timely management and access to services in the community, supported by system-level initiatives and appropriate interventions.

Impact of alternative terminology for depression on help-seeking intention: A randomized online trial.

OBJECTIVE: People with depression experience barriers to seeking professional help. Different diagnostic terminology can influence people's treatment/management preferences. The aim of this study was to investigate how alternative depression diagnostic labels and recommendations impact help-seeking intentions and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: Participants (18-70 years) were recruited using an online panel (Australia) to complete a randomized controlled trial. They read a hypothetical scenario where they discussed experiencing depressive symptoms with their GP and were randomized to receive one of four diagnoses ("depression," "burnout," "functional impairment syndrome" [fictitious label], no label [control]), and one of two follow-up recommendations ("clinical psychologist," "mind coach"). PRIMARY OUTCOME: help-seeking intention (5-point scale, higher = greater intention); secondary outcomes: intention to speak to boss, self-stigma, worry, perceived severity, illness perceptions, and personal stigma. RESULTS: A total of 676 participants completed the survey. There was no main effect of diagnostic label on help-seeking intention or stigma outcomes. Intention to speak to a boss was higher with the depression compared to burnout label (MD = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.14-0.66) and perceived severity was higher with the depression label compared to control (MD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74) and all other labels. Those who received the "clinical psychologist" recommendation reported higher help-seeking intention (MD = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.25-0.60) and treatment control (MD = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.29-1.10) compared to the "mind coach" recommendation. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the success of efforts to promote help-seeking from clinical psychologists for depression. If burnout is considered a separate diagnostic entity to depression, greater awareness around what such a diagnosis means may be needed. Future research should examine how different terminologies surrounding other mental health conditions impact help-seeking and stigma.

Acceptability and usability of 'One Key Question'® in Australian primary health care.

BACKGROUND: Around one-third of pregnancies in women attending antenatal care are unintended. This means a substantial number of women enter pregnancy without optimising their health prior to conception. Primary care practitioners are uniquely placed to counsel women about how to plan for pregnancy and about how to avoid unintended conception. The One Key Question® (OKQ®) tool facilitates a discussion of pregnancy intention and opens up subsequent discussions regarding preconception or contraception care. This study aimed to assess the acceptability and usability of the OKQ® tool in the Australian primary care setting. METHODS: We undertook a pilot study consisting of quantitative and qualitative componentsacross two general practice settings in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. We documented women's responses to being asked the OKQ® as part of their consultation. We collected data on the characteristics of the participating GPs and their experience of using the OKQ® tool and conducted semi-structured interviews with all participating GPs. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were asked the OKQ®, with the majority stating they were happy to be asked about their reproductive choices and felt it was relevant to their general health. The 10 participating GPs felt the OKQ® was easy to use and although 62.5% reported it extended the consultation time, the medium time taken was 2min. GPs felt framing the OKQ® helped introduce pregnancy intention discussions into a consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The OKQ® is acceptable to patients and easy for GPs to use. This tool facilitates a proactive and routine discussion to enhance the delivery of preconception care and contraceptive counselling.

Impact of targeted wording on response rates to a survey of general practitioners on referral processes for suspected head and neck cancer: an embedded randomised controlled trial.

Introduction Low response rates to surveys can lead to non-response bias, limiting generalisability of findings. When survey topics pertain to uncommon conditions, the decision of general practitioners (GPs) to complete a questionnaire may be swayed by the perceived relevance of the questionnaire content to their practice. Aim To explore whether targeted wording of a questionnaire for GPs about head and neck cancer referral patterns affects response rates. Methods A randomised controlled trial was embedded into a larger survey on referral practices for head and neck cancer among GPs in New South Wales, Australia. GPs were randomly allocated to receive versions of the study material with explanatory text written using either a 'symptom-frame' or a 'cancer-frame'; however, the questions and responses were the same in both groups. Results The overall response rate was 10.9% (196/1803). The response rate to the 'cancer-frame' version was 10.6% and 11.1% for the 'symptom-frame' version. After adjusting for practice location and GP gender, the difference in response rate based on wording was not significant (difference 0.5% [95%CI: -2.4, 3.4%]). A sub-analysis showed that GPs practicing in regional New South Wales were more likely to respond to the survey compared to those practicing in metropolitan New South Wales, independent of the intervention group or participant sex (AOR 1.61 [95%CI: 1.12, 2.31]; P = 0.01). Discussion The wording 'frame' of the survey did not appear to impact response rates in a survey of referral practices for suspected head and neck cancer; however, the significantly higher response rate from regional GPs warrants further investigation as to whether the content was considered more salient to their practice.

Implementing shared decision-making in Australia.

Person-centred care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) are part of national clinical standards for an increasing number of areas of health care delivery. In addition to existing standards for accrediting hospitals, day surgery facilities, public dental services and medical education in Australia, new standards governing primary health care and digital mental health services have been added. Implementation and measurement of PCC and SDM to comply with standards, and training of health professionals, remain challenges for the Australian health sector. Consumer involvement in health research, policy and clinical service governance continues to increase and the National Health and Medical Research Council has begun to encourage consumer and community involvement in health and medical research. This increased consumer engagement and moves towards more PCC provision is reflected in a focus on encouraging patients to ask questions during their clinical care and supports improvements in consumer health literacy. SDM support tools are now being culturally adapted whilst a need for more systemic approaches to their development and implementation persists. With increasing resources and tools for all aspects of PCC and SDM challenges to find sustainable solutions to ensure tools are kept up to date with the best available evidence remain.

Question prompt lists and endorsement of question-asking support patients to get the information they seek-A longitudinal qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Question prompt lists (QPLs) have been found to support patients to ask questions and improve the information they receive from doctors. However, some QPL tools, which have been available online for almost 15 years, have little published data on their impact in real-world settings. This study's aim was to understand patients' attitudes and experiences accessing health information and to assess the impact of introducing two generic QPLs over 3 months. METHODS: A longitudinal qualitative study consisting of three semi-structured interviews over a three-month period was conducted with 31 purposively selected participants, adults ≥18 years, recruited online and through social media. Participants were introduced to two different QPLs currently available online ('Question Builder'; 'AskShareKnow'). Inductive thematic analysis of a total of 92 semi-structured telephone interviews was conducted during May-November 2020. RESULTS: Three main themes are described. (1) Participants described barriers and facilitators to accessing health information: navigating a complex health system; difficulty asking questions of their healthcare professionals and that they value doctors with good communication skills. (2) QPLs helped some participants recognize the role of question-asking in consultations, made them feel more empowered and helped them prepare and prioritize. (3) Participants wanted QPLs to be easier to use, be accessible when needed and that question-asking and QPLs should be normalized in medical consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed and easily accessible QPLs can empower people to ask questions and be more involved in decisions about their health care. Endorsement of question-asking in consultations by healthcare professionals and providing QPL tools at the point of contact with health services will be key to realizing the potential of QPLs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was completed in conjunction with a reference group consisting of a consumer representative, representatives from the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Healthdirect Australia Ltd., and the research team.

Current guidance for communicating with refugee and asylum seeker patients: An environmental scan of online resources.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Primary healthcare practitioners (PHPs) are often the first point of care for people seeking refuge or asylum in Australia. Communication plays a vital part in their care. The aim of this study was to identify, appraise and synthesise online resources that aim to support communication during consultations with these patients. METHOD: A systematic environmental scan of online Australian resources, using the Google search engine, was conducted. The resources were appraised and rated using a validated purpose taxonomy as well as the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials to determine understandability and actionability. RESULTS: A total of 32 unique resources were identified. On average, the resources scored better on understandability (mean 64%) than actionability (mean 49%). The resources each had between two and five purpose taxonomy types, and the proportion of the content relevant to communication ranged from 5% to 100%. DISCUSSION: There are multiple resources available to PHPs to improve their communication with refugee and asylum seeker patients. Those that were rated better overall identified the population group and had practical suggestions to help operationalise their content. This article synthesises the online resources with practical suggestions regarding continuity of care, language barriers and PHPs' responsiveness to individual and cultural considerations.

Geographic variation in referral practices for patients with suspected head and neck cancer: A survey of general practitioners using a clinical vignette.

INTRODUCTION: General practitioners (GPs) play a crucial role in cancer care and GPs are often the first doctor that patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer will encounter. Head and neck cancer (HNC) is a relatively uncommon presentation in primary care, and evidence suggests that times to diagnosis and treatment of HNC vary based on geographical location of patients. This may be due to barriers to referral faced by regional or rural GPs as compared to those in metropolitan cities in Australia. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of geographical location of GPs on management of patients with symptoms suggestive of HNC. DESIGN: This was a descriptive, analytical, cross-sectional survey. Surveys were sent to GPs at practices in two primary health care networks in New South Wales, Australia (Mid North Coast Primary Healthcare Network and the Central and Eastern Sydney Primary Healthcare Network) between February and May 2020. Main outcome measures were perceived time from referral to specialist appointment, factors affecting timeliness of patient help-seeking, and awareness and use of clinical guidelines. FINDINGS: A total of 1803 GPs were sampled, of which 196 responded (45 regional GPs and 151 metropolitan GPs). Less than half (48%) of regional GPs reported patients could expect to be seen by a specialist within 2 weeks of referral, compared to 70% of metropolitan GPs (p = 0.001). Most metropolitan GPs stated they would refer a patient with suspected HNC to a surgeon subspecialising in HNC. Regional GPs were split between ear, nose, and throat (ENT) and general surgeons. Availability of services was the most common factor influencing referral practices for regional GPs, whereas for metropolitan GPs, this was the patient's symptoms. Awareness of government resources for cancer referrals was generally low. DISCUSSION: Regional GPs report patients with HNC are less likely to be seen by a specialist within optimal time frames compared to metropolitan GPs. Respondents reported different barriers to early referral of patients with suspected HNC, with regional GPs more often citing system-level factors while metropolitan GPs more often cited patient-level factors. CONCLUSION: Evaluating service provision and uptake with respect to community need, and addressing of barriers to implementation, may minimise unwarranted clinical variation.

Doctors' Attitudes to Patient Question Asking, Patient-Generated Question Lists, and Question Prompt Lists: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Participation by patients in their own health care improves quality and safety. Question prompt lists (QPLs) can improve participation, particularly with doctors' endorsement. Few data have explored doctors' attitudes on these tools. We sought the experiences and attitudes of general practitioners and other specialists toward patient question asking and QPLs in their practice. METHODS: In-depth, semistructured interviews and focus groups with purposively selected Australian doctors were conducted. Interview guides were used to explore doctors' experiences of patient question asking, patients' lists, and a sample QPL created using an Australian government-funded online tool, "Question Builder." Recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analyzed thematically using the method by Braun and Clarke. RESULTS: Focus groups with 3 to 9 participants and a further 17 individual interviews were conducted. There was a total of 40 participants, 23 general practitioners and 17 other specialists (e.g., physicians, surgeons, pediatricians). Our analysis was summarized into several themes. 1) The doctors expected, encouraged, and had significant experience of patient question asking and patients' lists. They described many barriers for patients and their efforts to ensure patients had the information they needed. 2) The doctors felt responsible for creating an environment conducive to patient question asking, the delivery of answers, having strategies for unanswered questions, and balancing the agendas of both parties in the consultation. 3) Structured QPLs that prepared patients and facilitated the consultation agenda were viewed positively. The degree of time pressures participating doctors experienced in their context had a strong influence on how they responded to the sample QPL. CONCLUSION: Doctors in this study expected patients to ask questions and endorsed the benefits of QPLs. However, there were more diverse views about the feasibility of implementing them in practice. Designing QPLs to fit within current workflows, via more succinct and tailored designs, may result in wider doctor acceptance and endorsement, hence maximizing the benefits of QPLs with improved patient participation and patient safety.

COVID-19 challenges faced by general practitioners in Australia: a survey study conducted in March 2021.

Limited studies at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic found GPs have been negatively affected by increased workload, reduced income and major concerns about staff and patient safety. This study aimed to investigate the challenges of COVID-19 in general practice 1 year since it was declared a pandemic. A national cross-sectional online survey was conducted in March 2021 of a convenience sample of 295 Australian GPs attending an online educational webcast. Twenty-five multipart and free-text questions collected information regarding GPs' main COVID-19-related issues and concerns, including COVID-19 vaccines, useful sources of information, information needs and their perceived role as GPs in COVID-19 management. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all quantitative variables. Content analysis was used to analyse text data from open-ended questions. Of the 596 eligible attendees of the online educational webcast, 295 completed the survey (49.5% response rate). One year since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, GPs still have concerns regarding patients ignoring prescreening and presenting with flu-like symptoms, the safety of their colleagues and family and catching COVID-19 themselves, as well as concerns about the effect of the pandemic on their patients and patients delaying essential care for non-COVID-19 conditions. More education and resources about vaccines was identified as the top information need, which will assist with what GPs' perceived to be their key roles in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, namely educating the public, correcting misunderstandings and providing the COVID-19 vaccine. These findings highlight gaps in communication and information, particularly regarding COVID-19 vaccines. GPs need high-quality information and resources to support them in undertaking complex risk communication with their patients.

Exploring the Vast Choice of Question Prompt Lists Available to Health Consumers via Google: Environmental Scan.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in shared decision making (SDM) in Australia. Question prompt lists (QPLs) support question asking by patients, a key part of SDM. QPLs have been studied in a variety of settings, and increasingly the internet provides a source of suggested questions for patients. Environmental scans have been shown to be useful in assessing the availability and quality of online SDM tools. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the number and readability of QPLs available to users via Google.com.au. METHODS: Our environmental scan used search terms derived from literature and reputable websites to search for QPLs available via Google.com.au. Following removal of duplicates from the 4000 URLs and 22 reputable sites, inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to create a list of unique QPLs. A sample of 20 QPLs was further assessed for list length, proxy measures of quality such as a date of review, and evidence of doctor endorsement. Readability of the sample QPL instructions and QPLs themselves was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores. RESULTS: Our environmental scan identified 173 unique QPLs available to users. Lists ranged in length from 1 question to >200 questions. Of our sample, 50% (10/20) had a listed date of creation or update, and 60% (12/20) had evidence of authorship or source. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores for instructions were higher than for the QPLs (grades 10.3 and 7.7, respectively). There was over a 1 grade difference between QPLs from reputable sites compared with other sites (grades 4.2 and 5.4, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: People seeking questions to ask their doctor using Google.com.au encounter a vast number of question lists that they can use to prepare for consultations with their doctors. Markers of the quality or usefulness of various types of online QPLs, either surrogate or direct, have not yet been established, which makes it difficult to assess the value of the abundance of lists. Doctor endorsement of question asking has previously been shown to be an important factor in the effectiveness of QPLs, but information regarding this is not readily available online. Whether these diverse QPLs are endorsed by medical practitioners warrants further investigation.

What patients want to ask their doctors: Data analysis from Question Builder, an online question prompt list tool.

OBJECTIVES: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are one strategy to increase patient participation in healthcare decisions but the extent to which consumers might access them in the 'real world' is largely unknown. This study measured usage of a passively-promoted, government-funded web-based patient-generated QPL tool, called Question Builder (Australia) (QB) hosted on healthdirect.gov.au, a consumer health information website. METHODS: 12.5months of post-launch Google Analytics data from QB were analysed. Two existing coding frameworks (RIAS and ACEPP) were used to code QB questions thematically and 107 user-generated lists were analysed further to determine the questions chosen and prioritised. RESULTS: QB was accessed 8915 times, 4000 question lists were commenced and 1271 lists completed. Most lists were for general practice (GP) consultations (2444) rather than specialist consultations (1556). The most frequently chosen question was "Do I need any tests?". Shared decision-making questions (SDM) made up 40% of questions prioritised e.g. "Do I need any treatment and what are my treatment options?" CONCLUSIONS: There is active use of this online QPL, with strong interest in creating lists for GP consultations. Question Builder users prioritised questions which facilitate SDM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: More research is required to assess the utilisation of QB in practice and health professionals' views of QB.

Evaluation of the Choosing Wisely Australia 5 Questions resource and a shared decision-making preparation video: protocol for an online experiment.

INTRODUCTION: Choosing Wisely, an international effort to reduce low value care worldwide, considers communication between clinicians and patients during routine clinical encounters a key mechanism for change. In Australia, Choosing Wisely has developed a 5 Questions resource to facilitate better conversations. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the Choosing Wisely Australia 5 Questions resource and a video designed to prepare patients for question-asking and participation in shared decision-making on (a) self-efficacy to ask questions and participate in shared decision-making, (b) intention to participate in shared decision-making and (c) a range of secondary outcomes. The secondary aim of this study is to determine whether participants' health literacy modifies the effects of the interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design (preparation video: yes, no × Choosing Wisely 5 Questions resource: yes, no × health literacy: adequate, inadequate). Participants will be recruited by an online market research company, presented with a hypothetical non-specific low back pain scenario, and randomised to study groups stratified by health literacy. Quantitative primary and secondary outcome data will be analysed as intention-to-treat using appropriate regression models (ie, linear regression for continuous outcomes, logistic regression for dichotomous categorical outcomes). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (protocol number: 2018/965). The results from this work will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international journals, conferences and updates with collaborating public health bodies. Resources developed for this study will be made available to patients and clinicians following trial completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial has been registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (trial number: 376477) and the stage is Pre-results.