Using PROMs during routine medical consultations: The perspectives of people with Parkinson's disease and their health professionals.

BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), such as quality of life or symptoms like pain or fatigue, is increasingly embraced within patient-centred care and shared decision making. OBJECTIVES: To investigate: (a) how patients and health professionals think about using PROMs during routine medical consultations; (b) for which purpose(s), patients and health professionals want to use PROMs during those consultations; and (c) how patients interpret PROMs information presented in various formats. People with Parkinson's disease and their health professionals served as case example. METHODS: We performed semi-structured interviews with patients (N = 13) and professionals (N = 7 neurologists; N = 7 physiotherapists). We also used a survey in which patients (N = 115) were shown six figures displaying different information types. Presentation formats of this information varied (line/bar graphs). Interpretation by patients, perceived usefulness of information, attitude towards using information during routine medical consultations and (hypothetical) decisions were assessed. FINDINGS: Patients and professionals were generally positive about using PROMs during medical consultations. Professionals stressed the opportunity to monitor changes in individual PROMs over time. Patients were primarily positive about aggregated PROMs to make treatment decisions. This information was also most often interpreted correctly, especially when presented through a line graph (90.1% correct). Professionals thought patients should take the initiative in discussing PROMs, whereas patients thought professionals should do so. CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION: When used in routine medical consultations, PROMs seem to have potential to support shared decision making and facilitate patient-professional communication. However, training seems needed for both patients and professionals to facilitate actual discussion and proper interpretation.

The effects of infographics and several quantitative versus qualitative formats for cardiovascular disease risk, including heart age, on people's risk understanding.

OBJECTIVE: To study how comprehension of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is influenced by: (1) infographics about qualitative risk information, with/without risk numbers; (2) which qualitative risk dimension is emphasized; (3) heart age vs. traditional risk format. METHODS: For aim 1, a 2 (infographics versus text) x 2 (risk number versus no risk number) between-subjects design was used. For aim 2, three pieces of information were tested within-subjects. Aim 3 used a simple comparison group. Participants (45-65 yrs old) were recruited through an online access panel; low educated people were oversampled. They received hypothetical risk information (20%/61yrs). Primary outcomes: recall, risk appraisals, subjective/objective risk comprehension. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: behavioral intentions, information evaluations. RESULTS: Infographics of qualitative risk dimensions negatively affected recall, subjective risk comprehension and information evaluations. No effect of type of risk dimension was found on risk perception. Heart age influenced recall, comprehension, evaluations and affective risk appraisals. CONCLUSION: Infographics of hypothetical CVD risk information had detrimental effects on measures related to risk perception/comprehension, but effects were mainly seen in undereducated participants. Heart age influenced perceptions/comprehension of hypothetical risk in a way that seemed to support understanding. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Heart age seems a fruitful risk communication approach in disease risk calculators.