Preferences and decisional considerations relating to opioid agonist therapy among Ukrainian people who use drugs: A conjoint analysis survey.

Scaling up opioid agonist therapies (OAT) is the most effective strategy to control combined HIV and opioid epidemics, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA), where HIV incidence and mortality continue to increase. Patient concerns about OAT, however, have undermined scale-up. The objective of this study is to understand Ukrainian opioid use disorder patient preferences about OAT to guide the development of an evidence-informed decision aid for clinical decision-making. We conducted a conjoint-based choice (CBC) survey. Participants were asked to about their preferences relating to 7 attributes of OAT (cost, dosing frequency, concerns about withdrawal symptoms, adverse side effects, improvements in quality of life, precipitation of withdrawal and legislative requirements to be registered as a drug dependent person) and 20 attribute levels for receiving OAT under differing potential treatment constraints. Data were analyzed using Hierarchical Bayesian models. Using respondent-driven sampling and random sampling, we recruited 2,028 people who inject drugs with opioid use disorder. Relative importance (RIS) and partial-worth utility scores (PWUS) were used to assess preferences for attributes and thresholds within each attribute. Cost and dosing frequency were the most important attributes (RIS = 39.2% and RIS = 25.2%, respectively) to potential patients, followed by concerns about withdrawal symptoms (RIS = 10.8%), adverse side effects (RIS = 9.0%), quality-of-life improvement (RIS = 7.5%), precipitation of euphoria (5.2%) and requirement to be registered as a drug- dependent person (RIS = 3.1%). The monthly cost-threshold for willingness-to-pay was 1,900 UAH ($70 USD). In Ukraine, where both governmental and private OAT clinics have emerged and provide markedly different delivery strategies, preferences are mostly driven by out-of-pocket expenses, despite many patients being willing to pay for OAT. Programmatic demands (flexibility and ease of acquiring medications) remain an important consideration while for a minority, clinical concerns about withdrawal symptoms, adverse side effects and OAT impact on life play a smaller role.

An Emergency Department-based system intervention to improve osteoporosis screening for older adults at high-risk of fracture.

Falls and osteoporosis are risk factors for fragility fractures. Bone mineral density (BMD) assessment is associated with better preventative osteoporosis care, but it is underutilized by those at high fracture risk. We created a novel electronic medical record (EMR) alert-driven protocol to screen patients in the Emergency Department (ED) for fracture risk and tested its feasibility and effectiveness in generating and completing referrals for outpatient BMD testing after discharge. The EMR alert was configured in 2 tertiary-care EDs and triggered by the term "fall" in the chief complaint, age (≥65 years for women, ≥70 years for men), and high fall risk (Morse score ≥ 45). The alert electronically notified ED study staff of potentially eligible patients. Participants received osteoporosis screening education and had BMD testing ordered. From November 15, 2020 to December 4, 2021, there were 2,608 EMR alerts among 2,509 patients. We identified 558 patients at high-risk of fracture who were screened for BMD testing referral. Participants were excluded for: serious illness (N = 141), no documented health insurance to cover BMD testing (N = 97), prior BMD testing/recent osteoporosis care (N = 58), research assistant unavailable to enroll (N = 53), concomitant fracture (N = 43), bedridden status (N = 38), chief complaint of fall documented in error (N = 38), long-term care residence (N = 34), participation refusal (N = 32), or hospitalization (N = 3). Of the 16 participants who had BMD testing ordered, 7 scheduled and 5 completed BMD testing. EMR alerts can help identify subpopulations who may benefit from osteoporosis screening, but there are significant barriers to identifying eligible and willing patients for screening in the ED. In our study targeting an innovative venue for osteoporosis care delivery, only about 1% of patients at high-risk of fracture scheduled BMD testing after an ED visit. Adequate resources during and after an ED visit are needed to ensure that older adults participate in preventative osteoporosis care.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains. RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains. CONCLUSION: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS: We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION: We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.