Communicating prognosis to women with early breast cancer - overview of prediction tools and the development and pilot testing of a decision aid.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making in oncology requires information on individual prognosis. This comprises cancer prognosis as well as competing risks of dying due to age and comorbidities. Decision aids usually do not provide such information on competing risks. We conducted an overview on clinical prediction tools for early breast cancer and developed and pilot-tested a decision aid (DA) addressing individual prognosis using additional chemotherapy in early, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer as an example. METHODS: Systematic literature search on clinical prediction tools for the effects of drug treatment on survival of breast cancer. The DA was developed following criteria for evidence-based patient information and International Patient Decision Aids Standards. We included data on the influence of age and comorbidities on overall prognosis. The DA was pilot-tested in focus groups. Comprehension was additionally evaluated through an online survey with women in breast cancer self-help groups. RESULTS: We identified three prediction tools: Adjuvant!Online, PREDICT and CancerMath. All tools consider age and tumor characteristics. Adjuvant!Online considers comorbidities, CancerMath displays age-dependent non-cancer mortality. Harm due to therapy is not reported. Twenty women participated in focus groups piloting the DA until data saturation was achieved. A total of 102 women consented to participate in the online survey, of which 86 completed the survey. The rate of correct responses was 90.5% and ranged between 84 and 95% for individual questions. CONCLUSIONS: None of the clinical prediction tools fulfilled the requirements to provide women with all the necessary information for informed decision-making. Information on individual prognosis was well understood and can be included in patient decision aids.

Informed decision-making with and for people with dementia - efficacy of the PRODECIDE education program for legal representatives: protocol of a randomized controlled trial (PRODECIDE-RCT).

BACKGROUND: In Germany, the guardianship system provides adults who are no longer able to handle their own affairs a court-appointed legal representative, for support without restriction of legal capacity. Although these representatives only rarely are qualified in healthcare, they nevertheless play decisive roles in the decision-making processes for people with dementia. Previously, we developed an education program (PRODECIDE) to address this shortcoming and tested it for feasibility. Typical, autonomy-restricting decisions in the care of people with dementia-namely, using percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or physical restrains (PR), or the prescription of antipsychotic drugs (AP)-were the subject areas trained. The training course aims to enhance the competency of legal representatives in informed decision-making. In this study, we will evaluate the efficacy of the PRODECIDE education program. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial with a six-month follow-up will be conducted to compare the PRODECIDE education program with standard care, enrolling legal representatives (N = 216). The education program lasts 10 h and comprises four modules: A, decision-making processes and methods; and B, C and D, evidence-based knowledge about PEG, PR and AP, respectively. The primary outcome measure is knowledge, which is operationalized as the understanding of decision-making processes in healthcare affairs and in setting realistic expectations about benefits and harms of PEG, PR and AP in people with dementia. Secondary outcomes are sufficient and sustainable knowledge and percentage of persons concerned affected by PEG, FEM or AP. A qualitative process evaluation will be performed. Additionally, to support implementation, a concept for translating the educational contents into e-learning modules will be developed. DISCUSSION: The study results will show whether the efficacy of the education program could justify its implementation into the regular training curricula for legal representatives. Additionally, it will determine whether an e-learning course provides a valuable backup or even alternative learning strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRN: ISRCTN17960111 , Date: 01/06/2017.

Implementation of shared decision-making in oncology: development and pilot study of a nurse-led decision-coaching programme for women with ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: To implement informed shared decision-making (ISDM) in breast care centres, we developed and piloted an inter-professional complex intervention. METHODS: We developed an intervention consisting of three components: an evidence-based patient decision aid (DA) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ, a decision-coaching led by specialised nurses (breast care nurses and oncology nurses) and structured physician encounters. In order to enable professionals to gain ISDM competencies, we developed and tested a curriculum-based training programme for specialised nurses and a workshop for physicians. After successful testing of the components, we conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of the entire revised intervention in two breast care centres. Here the acceptance of the intervention by women and professionals, the applicability to the breast care centres' procedures, women's knowledge, patient involvement in treatment decision-making assessed with the MAPPIN'SDM-observer instrument MAPPIN'Odyad, and barriers to and facilitators of the implementation were taken into consideration. We used questionnaires, structured verbal and written feedback and video recordings. Qualitative data were analysed descriptively, and mean values and ranges of quantitative data were calculated. RESULTS: To test the DA, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 27 women. Six expert reviews were obtained. The components of the nurse training were tested with 18 specialised nurses and 19 health science students. The development and piloting of the components were successful. The pilot test of the entire intervention included seven patients. In general, the intervention is applicable. Patients attained adequate knowledge (range of correct answers: 9-11 of 11). On average, a basic level of patient involvement in treatment decision-making was observed for nurses and patient-nurse dyads (M(MAPPIN-Odyad): 2.15 and M(MAPPIN-Onurse): 1.90). Relevant barriers were identified; physicians barely tolerated women's preferences that were not in line with the medical recommendation. Classifying women as inappropriate for ISDM due to age or education led physicians to neglect eligible women during the recruitment phase. CONCLUSION: Decision-coaching is feasible. Nevertheless, there are some indications that structural changes are needed for long-term implementation. We are currently evaluating the intervention in a cluster randomised controlled trial in 16 breast care centres.

Oral health educational interventions for nursing home staff and residents.

BACKGROUND: Associations between nursing home residents' oral health status and quality of life, respiratory tract infections, and nutritional status have been reported. Educational interventions for nurses or residents, or both, focusing on knowledge and skills related to oral health management may have the potential to improve residents' oral health. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral health educational interventions for nursing home staff or residents, or both, to maintain or improve the oral health of nursing home residents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 18 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 18 January 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 18 January 2016), CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 18 January 2016), and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 18 January 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 18 January 2016. In addition, we searched reference lists of identified articles and contacted experts in the field. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs comparing oral health educational programmes for nursing staff or residents, or both with usual care or any other oral healthcare intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened articles retrieved from the searches for relevance, extracted data from included studies, assessed risk of bias for each included study, and evaluated the overall quality of the evidence. We retrieved data about the development and evaluation processes of complex interventions on the basis of the Criteria for Reporting the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions in healthcare: revised guideline (CReDECI 2). We contacted authors of relevant studies for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs involving 3253 nursing home residents in this review; seven of these trials used cluster randomisation. The mean resident age ranged from 78 to 86 years across studies, and most participants were women (more than 66% in all studies). The proportion of residents with dental protheses ranged from 62% to 87%, and the proportion of edentulous residents ranged from 32% to 90% across studies.Eight studies compared educational interventions with information and practical components versus (optimised) usual care, while the ninth study compared educational interventions with information only versus usual care. All interventions included educational sessions on oral health for nursing staff (five trials) or for both staff and residents (four trials), and used more than one active component. Follow-up of included studies ranged from three months to five years.No study showed overall low risk of bias. Four studies had a high risk of bias, and the other five studies were at unclear risk of bias.None of the trials assessed our predefined primary outcomes 'oral health' and 'oral health-related quality of life'. All trials assessed our third primary outcome, 'dental or denture plaque'. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between interventions and usual care for dental plaque (mean difference -0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to 0.17; six trials; 437 participants; low quality evidence) or denture plaque (standardised mean difference -0.60, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.05; five trials; 816 participants; low quality evidence). None of the studies assessed adverse events of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions about the effects of oral health educational interventions for nursing home staff and residents. We did not find evidence of meaningful effects of educational interventions on any measure of residents' oral health; however, the quality of the available evidence is low. More adequately powered and high-quality studies using relevant outcome measures are needed.

Comprehension of confidence intervals - development and piloting of patient information materials for people with multiple sclerosis: qualitative study and pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Presentation of confidence intervals alongside information about treatment effects can support informed treatment choices in people with multiple sclerosis. We aimed to develop and pilot-test different written patient information materials explaining confidence intervals in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Further, a questionnaire on comprehension of confidence intervals was developed and piloted. METHODS: We developed different patient information versions aiming to explain confidence intervals. We used an illustrative example to test three different approaches: (1) short version, (2) "average weight" version and (3) "worm prophylaxis" version. Interviews were conducted using think-aloud and teach-back approaches to test feasibility and analysed using qualitative content analysis. To assess comprehension of confidence intervals, a six-item multiple choice questionnaire was developed and tested in a pilot randomised controlled trial using the online survey software UNIPARK. Here, the average weight version (intervention group) was tested against a standard patient information version on confidence intervals (control group). People with multiple sclerosis were invited to take part using existing mailing-lists of people with multiple sclerosis in Germany and were randomised using the UNIPARK algorithm. Participants were blinded towards group allocation. Primary endpoint was comprehension of confidence intervals, assessed with the six-item multiple choice questionnaire with six points representing perfect knowledge. RESULTS: Feasibility of the patient information versions was tested with 16 people with multiple sclerosis. For the pilot randomised controlled trial, 64 people with multiple sclerosis were randomised (intervention group: n = 36; control group: n = 28). More questions were answered correctly in the intervention group compared to the control group (mean 4.8 vs 3.8, mean difference 1.1 (95 % CI 0.42-1.69), p = 0.002). The questionnaire's internal consistency was moderate (Cronbach's alpha = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: The pilot-phase shows promising results concerning acceptability and feasibility. Pilot randomised controlled trial results indicate that the patient information is well understood and that knowledge gain on confidence intervals can be assessed with a set of six questions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00008561 . Registered 8th of June 2015.

Understanding adverse drug reactions in package leaflets - an exploratory survey among health care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Current German or UK package leaflets do not contain an explicit notice that the listing of side effects does not imply that they are caused by the drug. Causal interpretations by patients and lay people are frequently observed. The authors examined whether health professionals understand that there is not necessarily a causal relation between drug intake and the frequency of side effects and whether adding placebo comparison improves understanding. METHODS: Exploratory survey consisting of eight assessments, each containing 2-6 survey items, and focus groups with one survey sample using questionnaires on adverse reactions in standard package leaflets and modified package leaflets supplemented with placebo comparison. Participants were convenience samples of 379 health professionals including 153 physicians (80 gynaecologists, 124 diabetes experts - physicians, nurses, and others, 39 medical students in their last year at university, 49 first year health science and education students with completed vocational training and professional experience in various health care professions and 87 pharmacists/pharmacy students). They were asked to rate how often the different adverse reactions listed were caused by drug intake. All surveys were carried out within university seminars and postgraduate lectures from April 2014 to June 2015 in Germany. Response rate was 86 % or higher. RESULTS: Without placebo comparison, the majority of participants responded that the drug causes adverse reactions with the frequency given in the package leaflet or even more often (95 % of health science students, 100 % of medical students, 60 to 80 % of physicians and 66 % of pharmacists/pharmacy students). Simply adding placebo comparison in a table did not prevent misunderstanding. Analysis of focus groups with health science students supported the lack of understanding. CONCLUSIONS: In the present surveys, health professionals had major difficulties understanding frequency information on side effects in package leaflets. The great majority erroneously implied a causal relation between drug intake and the frequency of side effects, even though most side effects listed are symptoms commonly experienced in daily life.

An informed shared decision making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: protocol of a cluster randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: International and national societies claim a patient centred approach including shared decision making (SDM) in diabetes care. In a previous project, a SDM programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction has been developed. It is aimed at supporting patients with type 2 diabetes to make informed choices on preventive options, to share the decision making process with the health care team, and to improve adherence to the chosen treatment. In this study, the programme will be implemented and evaluated in primary care practices. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster randomised, controlled trial will be conducted to compare the SDM programme with standard care enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes (N = 306) from primary care practices (N = 24). The intervention programme comprises a six hours provider training, a patient decision aid including evidence-based information, a 90 minutes structured teaching session provided by medical assistants, a sheet to document the patients' individual treatment goals, and a structured consultation with the general practitioner for sharing information, setting treatment goals, and for adapting treatment regimens if necessary. Patients in the control group receive a brief extract of recommendations of the German National Disease Management Guideline on the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Primary outcome measure is adherence to blood pressure treatment and statin treatment at 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures comprise informed choice and the achievement of patients' treatment goals. Analyses will be carried out on intention-to-treat basis. Concurrent qualitative methods will be used to explore the implementation processes. DISCUSSION: At the end of this study, information on the efficacy of the SDM programme in the primary care context will be available. In addition, processes that might interfere with or that might promote a successful implementation will be identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN77300204 .

[Evaluation of the public health measures introduced during the coronavirus pandemic: Evidence-based risk communication must be a central topic]. / Aufarbeitung der Corona-Pandemiemaßnahmen - Evidenzbasierte Risikokommunikation muss ein zentrales Thema sein.

Evidence-based and comprehensible health information is a key element of evidence-based medicine and public health. The goal is informed decision-making based on realistic estimations of health risks and accurate expectations about benefits and harms of interventions. In Germany, standards of evidence-based risk information were poorly followed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frequently, public information was biased, fragmentary and misleading. Pandemic-related threat scenarios induced emotional distress and unnecessary anxiety. A systematic and comprehensive evaluation of the pandemic measures is crucial, but still pending in Germany. A critical analysis of risk communication by experts, politicians and the media during the pandemic should be a key element of the evaluation process. Evaluation of decision making and media reporting during the pandemic should improve preparedness for future crises.

An evidence-based shared decision making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: protocol of a randomised-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lack of patient involvement in decision making has been suggested as one reason for limited treatment success. Concepts such as shared decision making may contribute to high quality healthcare by supporting patients to make informed decisions together with their physicians.A multi-component shared decision making programme on the prevention of heart attack in type 2 diabetes has been developed. It aims at improving the quality of decision-making by providing evidence-based patient information, enhancing patients' knowledge, and supporting them to actively participate in decision-making. In this study the efficacy of the programme is evaluated in the setting of a diabetes clinic. METHODS/DESIGN: A single blinded randomised-controlled trial is conducted to compare the shared decision making programme with a control-intervention. The intervention consists of an evidence-based patient decision aid on the prevention of myocardial infarction and a corresponding counselling module provided by diabetes educators. Similar in duration and structure, the control-intervention targets nutrition, sports, and stress coping. A total of 154 patients between 40 and 69 years of age with type 2 diabetes and no previous diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease or stroke are enrolled and allocated either to the intervention or the control-intervention. Primary outcome measure is the patients' knowledge on benefits and harms of heart attack prevention captured by a standardised knowledge test. Key secondary outcome measure is the achievement of treatment goals prioritised by the individual patient. Treatment goals refer to statin taking, HbA1c-, blood pressure levels and smoking status. Outcomes are assessed directly after the counselling and at 6 months follow-up. Analyses will be carried out on intention-to-treat basis. Concurrent qualitative methods are used to explore intervention fidelity and to gain insight into implementation processes. DISCUSSION: Interventions to facilitate evidence-based shared decision making represent an innovative approach in diabetes care. The results of this study will provide information on the efficacy of such a concept in the setting of a diabetes clinic in Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN84636255.

Effect of a guideline-based multicomponent intervention on use of physical restraints in nursing homes: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Despite unambiguous legal regulation and evidence for lack of effectiveness and safety, physical restraints are still frequently administered in nursing homes. OBJECTIVE: To reduce physical restraint prevalence in nursing homes using a guideline- and theory-based multicomponent intervention. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster randomized controlled trial of 6 months' duration conducted in 2 German cities between February 2009 and April 2010. Nursing homes were eligible if they had 20% or more residents with physical restraints. Using external concealed randomization, 18 nursing home clusters were included in the intervention group (2283 residents) and 18 in the control group (2166 residents). INTERVENTION: The intervention was based on a specifically developed evidence-based guideline and applied the theory of planned behavior. Components were group sessions for all nursing staff; additional training for nominated key nurses; and supportive material for nurses, residents, relatives, and legal guardians. Control group clusters received standard information. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Primary outcome was percentage of residents with physical restraints (bilateral bed rails, belts, fixed tables, and other measures limiting free body movement) at 6 months, assessed through direct unannounced observation by blinded investigators on 3 occasions during 1 day. Secondary outcomes included restraint use at 3 months, falls, fall-related fractures, and psychotropic medication prescriptions. RESULTS: All nursing homes completed the study and all residents were included in the analysis. At baseline, 30.6% of control group residents had physical restraints vs 31.5% of intervention group residents. At 6 months, rates were 29.1% vs 22.6%, respectively, a difference of 6.5% (95% CI, 0.6% to 12.4%; cluster-adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.97; P = .03). All physical restraint measures were used less frequently in the intervention group. Rates were stable from 3 to 6 months. There were no statistically significant differences in falls, fall-related fractures, and psychotropic medication prescriptions. CONCLUSION: A guideline- and theory-based multicomponent intervention compared with standard information reduced physical restraint use in nursing homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN34974819.

Training of patient and consumer representatives in the basic competencies of evidence-based medicine: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has become standard approach in medicine. Patients and health authorities increasingly claim active patient roles in decision making. Education to cope with these roles might be useful. We investigated the feasibility, acceptability and possible impact of EBM training courses for patient and consumer representatives. METHODS: We designed a generic one-week EBM course based on previous experience with EBM courses for non-medical health professionals. A course specific competence test has been developed and validated to measure EBM skills. Formative and summative evaluation of the course comprised: 1) EBM skills; 2) individual learning goals; 3) self-reported implementation after six months using semi-structured interviews; 4) group-based feedback by content analysis. EBM skills' achievement was compared to results gathered by a group of undergraduate University students of Health Sciences and Education who had attended a comparable EBM seminar. RESULTS: Fourteen EBM courses were conducted including 161 participants without previous EBM training (n = 54 self-help group representatives, n = 64 professional counsellors, n = 36 patient advocates, n = 7 others); 71% had a higher education degree; all but five finished the course. Most participants stated personal learning goals explicitly related to practicing EBM such as acquisition of critical appraisal skills (n = 130) or research competencies (n = 67). They rated the respective relevance of the course on average with 80% (SD 4) on a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 100%.Participants passed the competence test with a mean score of 14.7 (SD 3.0, n = 123) out of 19.5 points. The comparison group of students achieved a mean score of 14.4 (SD 3.3, n = 43). Group-based feedback revealed increases of self confidence, empowerment through EBM methodology and statistical literacy, and acquisition of new concepts of patient information and counselling. Implementation of EBM skills was reported by 84 of the 129 (65%) participants available for follow-up interviews. Barriers included lack of further support, limited possibilities to exchange experiences, and feeling discouraged by negative reactions of health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Training in basic EBM competencies for selected patient and consumer representatives is feasible and accepted and may affect counselling and advocacy activities. Implementation of EBM skills needs support beyond the training course.

Comparison of a fall risk assessment tool with nurses' judgement alone: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: the impact of fall risk assessment tools on clinical endpoints is unknown. OBJECTIVE: we compared a standardised fall risk assessment tool alongside nurses' clinical judgement with nurses' judgement alone. DESIGN: a 12-month cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: nursing homes in Hamburg (29 per study group). SUBJECTS: 1,125 residents (n = 574 intervention group, IG; n = 551 control group, CG). INTERVENTIONS: all homes received structured information on fall prevention before randomisation. The IG monthly administered the Downton Index, and the CG did not use a tool. Measurements were number of participants with at least one fall, falls, fall-related injuries and medical attention, fall preventive measures, physical restraints. RESULTS: the mean follow-up was 10.8 +/- 2.9 months in both groups: 105 (IG) and 114 (CG) residents died or moved away. There was no difference between the groups concerning the number of residents with at least one fall (IG: 52%, CG: 53%, mean difference -0.7, 95% confidence interval -10.3 to 8.9, P = 0.88) and the number of falls (n = 1,016 and n = 1,014). All other outcomes were also comparable between the IG and CG. CONCLUSIONS: application of a fall risk assessment tool in nursing homes does not result in the better clinical outcome than reliance on nurses' clinical judgement alone.

How to measure critical health competences: development and validation of the Critical Health Competence Test (CHC Test).

Consumers' autonomy regarding health increasingly requires competences to critically appraise health information. Critical health literacy refers to the concept of evidence-based medicine. Instruments to measure these competences in curriculum evaluation and surveys are lacking. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to measure critical health competences (CHC test). Development and testing of the questionnaire covered three phases: (1) test construction (and feasibility, (2) first field test of scalability and items revision (3) second field test to validate the instrument. Model fit analyses were performed for both field tests for Rasch-, Mixed Rasch- and Hybrid model. Participants were secondary school and university students with and without prior training in evidence-based medicine (1. field test n = 322; with training n = 87; 2. field test n = 107; with training n = 13). The second field test resulted in Rasch scalability of all items in one person class. Mean values (+/-SD) of person parameters were 716.14 (+/-53.74) for trained students and 470.11 (+/-59.63) for untrained students. Reliability of the instrument was 0.91 (WINMIRA ANOVA). In conclusion the CHC instrument is a feasible, reliable and valid instrument to measure critical health literacy. The generalizability of the instrument is to be explored in ongoing studies in different educational settings.

Evaluation of an evidence-based guidance on the reduction of physical restraints in nursing homes: a cluster-randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN34974819].

BACKGROUND: Physical restraints are regularly applied in German nursing homes. Their frequency varies substantially between centres. Beneficial effects of physical restraints have not been proven, however, observational studies and case reports suggest various adverse effects. We developed an evidence-based guidance on this topic. The present study evaluates the clinical efficacy and safety of an intervention programme based on this guidance aimed to reduce physical restraints and minimise centre variations. METHODS/DESIGN: Cluster-randomised controlled trial with nursing homes randomised either to the intervention group or to the control group with standard information. The intervention comprises a structured information programme for nursing staff, information materials for legal guardians and residents' relatives and a one-day training workshop for nominated nurses. A total of 36 nursing home clusters including approximately 3000 residents will be recruited. Each cluster has to fulfil the inclusion criteria of at least 20% prevalence of physical restraints at baseline. The primary endpoint is the number of residents with at least one physical restraint at six months. Secondary outcome measures are the number of falls and fall-related fractures. DISCUSSION: If successful, the intervention should be implemented throughout Germany. In case the intervention does not succeed, a three-month pre-post-study with an optimised intervention programme within the control group will follow the randomised trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34974819.

Restraint use among nursing home residents: cross-sectional study and prospective cohort study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate (1) the prevalence of physical restraints and psychoactive medication, (2) newly administered physical restraints, frequency of application of the devices and frequency of psychoactive medication on demand during 12-month follow-up and (3) characteristics associated with restraint use in nursing homes. BACKGROUND: High quality data on restraint use in German nursing homes are lacking so far. Such information is the basis for interventions to achieve a restraint-free care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study and prospective cohort study. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Thirty nursing homes with 2367 residents in Hamburg, Germany. METHODS: External investigators obtained prevalence of physical restraints by direct observation on three occasions on one day, psychoactive drugs were extracted from residents' records and prospective data were documented by nurses. RESULTS: Residents' mean age was 86 years, 81% were female. Prevalence of residents with at least one physical restraint was 26.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 21.3-31.1]. Centre prevalence ranged from 4.4 to 58.9%. Bedrails were most often used (in 24.5% of residents), fixed tables, belts and other restraints were rare. Prevalence of residents with at least one psychoactive drug was 52.4% (95% CI 48.7-56.1). The proportion of residents with at least one physical restraint after the first observation week of 26.3% (21.3-31.3) cumulated to 39.5% (33.3-45.7) at the end of follow-up (10.4 SD 3.3 months). The relative frequency of observation days with at least one device ranged from 4.9-64.8% between centres. No characteristic was found to explain centre differences. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of physical restraints and psychoactive drugs in German nursing homes is substantial. Pronounced centre variation suggests that standard care is possible without restraints. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Effective restraint minimisation approaches are urgently warranted. An evidence-based guideline may overcome centre differences towards a restraint-free nursing home care.

Nurse-led coaching of shared decision-making for women with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast care centers: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with breast cancer demand informed shared decision-making. Guidelines support these claims. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether an informed shared decision-making intervention for women with 'ductal carcinoma in situ' comprising an evidence-based decision aid with nurse-led decision coaching enhances the extent of the mutual shared decision-making behavior of patients and professionals regarding treatment options, and to analyze implementation barriers. DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial with accompanying process evaluation. SETTING: Certified breast care centers in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: Women with ductal carcinoma in situ and no previous history of breast cancer facing a primary treatment decision. METHODS: Sixteen breast centers were randomized to intervention or standard care to recruit 192 patients (partially-blinded). All coaching sessions and physician consultations were videotaped to assess the primary outcome 'extent of patient involvement in shared decision-making' using the MAPPIN-Odyad observer instrument (scores 0 to 4). Secondary endpoints included the sub-measures of the MAPPIN-inventory (MAPPIN-Onurse, MAPPIN-Ophysician, MAPPIN-Opatient, MAPPIN-Qnurse, MAPPIN-Qpatient and MAPPIN-Qphysician), 'informed choice', 'decisional conflict' and 'duration of consultations'. Primary intention-to-treat analyses were on cluster level comparing means of cluster values using t-tests. An accompanying process evaluation was conducted comprising 1) analysis of all video recordings with focus on procedures and intervention fidelity and 2) field notes of researchers and feedback from professionals and patients assessed by questionnaires and interviews with focus on barriers and facilitators for implementation at different time points. RESULTS: Due to protracted recruitment, the study was terminated after 14 centers had included 64 patients (intervention group 36, control group 28). Patient participation in informed shared decision-making was significantly higher in the intervention group (mean (SD) score 2.29 (0.56) vs. 0.42 (0.51) in the control group; difference 1.88 (95% CI 1.26-2.50, p < 0.0001). 47.7% women in the intervention group made informed choices, but none in the control group, difference 47.7% (95% CI 12.6-82.7%, p = 0.016). In the intervention group physician consultations lasted 12.8 (6.6) min. vs. 24.3 (6.3) min. in the control group. Physicians' attitudes, false incentives and structural barriers hindered implementation of informed shared decision-making. Nurses appreciated their new roles. CONCLUSIONS: Informed shared decision-making is not yet implemented in German breast care centers. Nurse-led decision coaching grounded on evidence-based patient information enhances informed shared decision-making. Trial registration No. ISRCTN46305518.

The Quality of Informed Consent Forms-a Systematic Review and Critical Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The patient's consent to a medical procedure must be preceded by a pre-procedure discussion with the physician that is documented on a standardized form. Evidence suggests that these forms lack information that would be relevant for an informed decision. METHODS: We carried out a systematic literature search up to February 2017 for evidence on the quality and efficacy of informed consent forms. The definition of criteria for the evaluation of meta-information, content, and presentation were derived from current guidelines for evidence-based health information. As an example, we analyzed consent forms currently in use in Germany for 10 medical interventions with regard to decisionally relevant content and intelligibility of format. RESULTS: Our literature search yielded 14 content analyses, which revealed that even some of the more important evaluative criteria were not always met, including information on benefits (9/14), risks (14/14), alternatives (11/14), the option of doing nothing (6/14), and numerical frequencies (2/14). All analyses indicated deficiencies in the content of the consent forms. We then analyzed 37 consent forms obtained from publishing companies (across Germany) and physician's practices in Hamburg. These forms were found to contain information on: the intervention (37/37), benefits (30/37), risks (37/37), alternatives (26/37), the option of doing nothing (4/37), numerical frequencies (10/37), the names of the authors (17/37), sources of information (0/37), and date of issue (21/37). CONCLUSION: Both the evidence from foreign countries and our own analysis of the consent forms now in use in Germany revealed deficiencies, particularly in the communication of risks. New standards are needed to promote well-informed decision-making. Structural changes in the process of patient information and decision-making should be discussed.

Causal interpretation of correlational studies - Analysis of medical news on the website of the official journal for German physicians.

BACKGROUND: Media frequently draws inappropriate causal statements from observational studies. We analyzed the reporting of study results in the Medical News section of the German medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt (DÄ). METHODS: Study design: Retrospective quantitative content analysis of randomly selected news reports and related original journal articles and press releases. A medical news report was selected if headlines comprised at least two linked variables. Two raters independently categorized the headline and text of each news report, conclusions of the abstract and full text of the related journal article, and the press release. The assessment instrument comprised five categories from 'neutral' to 'unconditionally causal'. Outcome measures: degree of matching between 1) news headlines and conclusions of the journal article, 2) headlines and text of news reports, 3) text and conclusions, and 4) headlines and press releases. We analyzed whether news headlines rated as unconditionally causal based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: One-thousand eighty-seven medical news reports were published between April 2015 and May 2016. The final random sample comprised 176 news reports and 100 related press releases. Degree of matching: 1) 45% (79/176) for news headlines and journal article conclusions, 2) 55% (97/176) for headlines and text, 3) 53% (93/176) for text and conclusions, and 4) 41% (41/100) for headlines and press releases. Exaggerations were found in 45% (80/176) of the headlines compared to the conclusions of the related journal article. Sixty-five of 137 unconditionally causal statements of the news headlines were phrased more weakly in the subsequent news text body. Only 52 of 137 headlines (38%) categorized as unconditionally causal reported RCTs. CONCLUSION: Reporting of medical news in the DÄ medical journal is misleading. Most headlines that imply causal associations were not based on RCTs. Medical journalists should follow standards of reporting scientific study results.

Alternative package leaflets improve people's understanding of drug side effects-A randomized controlled exploratory survey.

BACKGROUND: Current German and EU package leaflets (PLs) do not distinguish to what extent listed side effects are indeed side effects caused by drug intake or instead symptoms that occur regardless of drug use. We recently showed that most health professionals misinterpret the frequencies of listed side effects as solely caused by the drug. The present study investigated whether (1) these misinterpretations also prevail among laypeople and (2) alternative PLs reduce these misinterpretations. METHODS: In March 2017, 397 out of 400 laypeople approached completed an online survey. They were randomized to one of four PL formats: three alternative PLs (drug facts box with/without reading instruction, narrative format with numbers) and one standard PL. Each PL listed four side effects for a fictitious drug: two were presented as occurring more often, one as equally often, and one as less often with drug intake. The alternative formats (interventions) included information on frequencies with and without drug intake and included a statement on the causal relation. The standard PL (control) only included information on frequency ranges with drug intake. Questions were asked on general occurrence and causality of side effects. RESULTS: Participants randomized to the standard PL were unable to answer questions on causality. For side effects occurring more often (equally; less often) with drug intake, only 1.9% to 2.8% (equally: 1.9%; less often: 1.9%) provided correct responses about the causal nature of side effects, compared to 55.0% to 81.9% (equally: 23.8% to 70.5%; less often: 21.0% to 43.2%) of participants who received alternative PLs. It remains unclear whether one alternative format is superior to the others. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, information on the frequency of side effects in current package leaflets is misleading. Comparative presentation of frequencies for side effects with and without drug intake including statements on the causal relation significantly improves understanding.