Shared Decision-Making and Emergency Department Use Among People With High Blood Pressure.

INTRODUCTION: Forty-seven percent of all adults in the US have a diagnosis of high blood pressure. Among all US emergency department (ED) users, an estimated 45% have high blood pressure. The success of high blood pressure interventions in reducing ED visits is partially predicated on patients' adherence to treatment plans. One method for promoting adherence to treatment plans is shared decision-making between patients and medical providers. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study using 2015-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data. We used studies on shared decision-making as a guide to create a predictor variable for shared decision-making. We determined covariates according to the Andersen Behavioral Model of Health Services Use. ED use was the outcome variable. We used cross tabulation to compare covariates of ED use and multivariable logistical regression to assess the association between shared decision-making and ED use. Our sample size was 30,407 adults. RESULTS: Less than half (39.3%) of respondents reported a high level of shared decision-making; 23.3% had 1 or more ED visits. In the unadjusted model, respondents who reported a high level of shared decision-making were 20% less likely than those with a low level of shared decision-making to report 1 or more ED visits (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86; P <.001). After adjusting for covariates, a high level of shared decision-making was still associated with lower odds of ED use (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Shared decision-making may be an effective method for reducing ED use among patients with high blood pressure.

Influence of Social Determinants of Health on Heart Failure Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Background Prior research suggests an association between clinical outcomes in heart failure (HF) and social determinants of health (SDoH). Because providers should identify and address SDoH in care delivery, we evaluated how SDoH have been defined, measured, and evaluated in studies that examine HF outcomes. Methods and Results Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, databases were searched for observational or interventional studies published between 2009 and 2021 that assessed the influence of SDoH on outcomes. Selected articles were assessed for quality using a validated rating scheme. We identified 1373 unique articles for screening; 104 were selected for full-text review, and 59 met the inclusion criteria, including retrospective and prospective cohort, cross-sectional, and intervention studies. The majority examined readmissions and hospitalizations (k=33), mortality or survival (k=29), and success of medical devices and transplantation (k=8). SDoH examined most commonly included race, ethnicity, age, sex, socioeconomic status, and education or health literacy. Studies used a range of 1 to 9 SDoH as primary independent variables and 0 to 7 SDoH as controls. Multiple data sources were employed and frequently were electronic medical records linked with national surveys and disease registries. The effects of SDoH on HF outcomes were inconsistent because of the heterogeneity of data sources and SDoH constructs. Conclusions Our systematic review reveals shortcomings in measurement and deployment of SDoH variables in HF care. Validated measures need to be prospectively and intentionally collected to facilitate appropriate analysis, reporting, and replication of data across studies and inform the design of appropriate, evidence-based interventions that can ameliorate significant HF morbidity and societal costs.