Cognitive screening and rehabilitation after cardiac arrest: only a few hurdles to take.

Dutch and European guidelines recommend systematic screening for cognitive and emotional impairments in cardiac arrest survivors. We aimed to clarify opinions on cognitive screening and rehabilitation, identify barriers and facilitators for implementation in the Netherlands, and arrive at recommendations in this field. We conducted 22 semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders using the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases checklist. There is broad-based acknowledgement of the relevance of cognitive impairment and a positive attitude regarding early cognitive screening among health professionals and patients. Barriers to implementation include a lack of practical recommendations on how, where and when to screen, insufficient knowledge of cognitive consequences of cardiac arrest, insufficient collaboration and knowledge sharing among different specialties within hospitals, insufficient resources, and insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of screening and therapy to justify financial compensation. Most of the identified barriers to implementation are solvable: national guidelines need practical recommendations and knowledge gaps among healthcare workers can be bridged by in-hospital collaboration. Fulfilling these requirements should be sufficient for the implementation of simple screening and tailored advice. More extensive cognitive rehabilitation therapy needs stronger evidence of efficacy in order to warrant stronger guideline recommendations and financial reimbursement.

Willingness to participate in combination screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease in four European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer screening (LCS), using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), can be more efficient by simultaneously screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), the Big-3 diseases. This study aimed to determine the willingness to participate in (combinations of) Big-3 screening in four European countries and the relative importance of amendable participation barriers. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey aimed at (former) smokers aged 50-75 years elicited the willingness of individuals to participate in Big-3 screening and used analytical hierarchy processing (AHP) to determine the importance of participation barriers. RESULTS: Respondents were from France (n = 391), Germany (n = 338), Italy (n = 399), and the Netherlands (n = 342), and consisted of 51.2% men. The willingness to participate in screening was marginally influenced by the diseases screened for (maximum difference of 3.1%, for Big-3 screening (73.4%) vs. lung cancer and COPD screening (70.3%)) and by country (maximum difference of 3.7%, between France (68.5%) and the Netherlands (72.3%)). The largest effect on willingness to participate was personal perceived risk of lung cancer. The most important barriers were the missed cases during screening (weight 0.19) and frequency of screening (weight 0.14), while diseases screened for (weight 0.11) ranked low. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in willingness to participate in LCS showed marginal increase with inclusion of more diseases and limited variation between countries. A marginal increase in participation might result in a marginal additional benefit of Big-3 screening. The amendable participation barriers are similar to previous studies, and the new criterion, diseases screened for, is relatively unimportant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Adding diseases to combination screening modestly improves participation, driven by personal perceived risk. These findings guide program design and campaigns for lung cancer and Big-3 screening. Benefits of Big-3 screening lie in long-term health and economic impact, not participation increase. KEY POINTS: • It is unknown whether or how combination screening might affect participation. • The addition of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease to lung cancer screening resulted in a marginal increase in willingness to participate. • The primary determinant influencing individuals' engagement in such programs is their personal perceived risk of the disease.

The ICEpop Capability Measure for Adults Instrument for Capabilities: Development of a Tariff for the Dutch General Population.

OBJECTIVES: The ICEpop Capability Measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) assesses 5 capabilities (stability, attachment, autonomy, achievement, and enjoyment) that are important to one's quality of life and might be an important addition to generic health questionnaires currently used in economic evaluations. This study aimed to develop a Dutch tariff of the Dutch translation of the ICECAP-A. METHODS: The methods used are similar to those used in the development of the UK tariff. A profile case best-worst scaling task was presented to 1002 participants from the general Dutch population. A scale-adjusted latent class analysis was performed to test for preferences of ICECAP-A capabilities and scale heterogeneity. RESULTS: A 3-preference class 2-scale class model with worst choice as scale predictor was considered optimal and was used to calculate the resulting tariff. Results indicated that the capabilities stability, attachment, and enjoyment were considered more important aspects of quality of life than autonomy and achievement. Additionally, improving capabilities from low to moderate levels had a larger effect on quality of life than improving capabilities that were already at a higher level. CONCLUSIONS: The ICECAP-A tariffs found in this study could be used in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions in The Netherlands.

The ICECAP-A instrument for capabilities: assessment of construct validity and test-retest reliability in a general Dutch population.

PURPOSE: The ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) assesses five capabilities that are important to one's well-being. The instrument might be an important addition to generic health questionnaires when evaluating quality of life extending beyond health. This study aimed to conduct a psychometric assessment of the Dutch translation of the ICECAP-A. METHODS: Construct validity of the instrument was assessed in two ways. First, by measuring correlations with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and a measure of self-efficacy and, second, by investigating the ability to distinguish between groups known to differ on the construct the ICECAP-A means to capture. Additionally, test-retest reliability was evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 1002 participants representative of the general Dutch population completed an online survey. For test-retest reliability, 252 participants completed the same questionnaire 2 weeks later. The ICECAP-A indicated moderate to strong correlations with the EQ-5D-5L and a strong correlation with self-efficacy. Furthermore, it was capable of differentiating known groups. Moreover, results indicated adequate test-retest reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.79. CONCLUSION: In summary, results suggest adequate test-retest reliability and construct validity and indicate that the ICECAP-A might be of added value, especially when considering areas outside of the traditional health intervention model.

Selecting Image-Guided Surgical Technologies in Oncology: A Surgeon's Perspective.

BACKGROUND: To improve surgical performance, image-guided (IG) technologies are increasingly introduced. Yet, it is unknown which oncological procedures yield most value from these technologies. This study aimed to select the most promising IG technology per oncologic indication. METHODS: An Analytic Hierarchical Process was used to evaluate three IG technologies: navigation, optical imaging, and augmented reality, in five oncologic indications compared with usual care. Sixteen decision criteria were selected. The relative importance of the criteria and the expected performance of the technologies were evaluated among surgeons. The combination of these scores gives the expected value per technology. RESULTS: On criteria level, sparing critical tissue (9%-18%) and reducing the risk of local recurrence (11%-27%) were most important. Navigation was preferred in three indications-removal of lymph nodes (42%), liver (47%), and rectal tumors (33%). In removing rectal tumors, optical imaging was equally preferred (34%). In removing breast and tongue tumors, no technology was clearly preferred. CONCLUSIONS: In selecting IG technologies, especially optical and navigation technologies are expected to add value in addition to usual care. Further development of those technologies for the preferred indications seems valuable. Multi-attribute analysis showed to be useful in prioritization of conducting clinical studies and steer research and development initiatives.

Health Preference Research in Europe: A Review of Its Use in Marketing Authorization, Reimbursement, and Pricing Decisions-Report of the ISPOR Stated Preference Research Special Interest Group.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines European decision makers' consideration and use of quantitative preference data. METHODS: The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions. RESULTS: Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences. CONCLUSION: While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers.

Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward.

OBJECTIVE: Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being "entirely mechanistic," ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context. METHODS: The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds. RESULTS: We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation. CONCLUSION: MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.

Opportunities for personalised follow-up care among patients with breast cancer: A scoping review to identify preference-sensitive decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Current follow-up arrangements for breast cancer do not optimally meet the needs of individual patients. We therefore reviewed the evidence on preferences and patient involvement in decisions about breast cancer follow-up to explore the potential for personalised care. METHODS: Studies published between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We then identified decision categories related to content and form of follow-up. Criteria for preference sensitiveness and patient involvement were compiled and applied to determine the extent to which decisions were sensitive to patient preferences and patients were involved. RESULTS: Forty-one studies were included in the full-text analysis. Four decision categories were identified: "surveillance for recurrent/secondary breast cancer; consultations for physical and psychosocial effects; recurrence-risk reduction by anti-hormonal treatment; and improving quality of life after breast cancer." There was little evidence that physicians treated decisions about anti-hormonal treatment, menopausal symptoms, and follow-up consultations as sensitive to patient preferences. Decisions about breast reconstruction were considered as very sensitive to patient preferences, and patients were usually involved. CONCLUSION: Patients are currently not involved in all decisions that affect them during follow-up, indicating a need for improvements. Personalised follow-up care could improve resource allocation and the value of care for patients.

Patient preference for radial versus femoral vascular access for elective coronary procedures: The PREVAS study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patient preference for vascular access site in percutaneous coronary procedures, the perceived importance of benefits and risks of transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) were assessed. In addition, direct preference for vascular access and preference for shared decision making (SDM) were evaluated. BACKGROUND: TRA has gained significant ground on TFA during the last decades. Surveys on patient preference have mostly been performed in dedicated TRA trials. METHODS: In the PREVAS study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02625493) a stated preference elicitation method best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to determine patient preference for six treatment attributes: bleeding, switch of access-site, postprocedural vessel quality, mobilization and comfort, and over-night stay. Based on software-generated treatment scenarios, 142 patients indicated which characteristics they perceived most and least important in treatment choice. Best-minus-Worst scores and attribute importance were calculated. RESULTS: Bleeding risk was considered most important (attribute importance 31.3%), followed by length of hospitalization (22.6%), and mobilization(20.2%). Most patients preferred the approach of their current procedure (85.9%); however, 71.1% of patients with experience with both access routes favored TRA (P < 0.001). Most patients (38.0%) appreciated SDM, balanced between patient and cardiologist. CONCLUSIONS: Patients appreciate lower bleeding risk and early ambulation, factors favoring TRA. Previous experience with a single access route has a major impact on preference, while experience with both routes generally resulted in preference for TRA. Most patients prefer balanced SDM. © 2017 The Authors Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Are component endpoints equal? A preference study into the practice of composite endpoints in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patients' perspectives regarding composite endpoints and the utility patients put on possible adverse outcomes of revascularization procedures. DESIGN: In the PRECORE study, a stated preference elicitation method Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) was used to determine patient preference for 8 component endpoints (CEs): need for redo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 1 year, minor stroke with symptoms <24 hours, minor myocardial infarction (MI) with symptoms <3 months, recurrent angina pectoris, need for redo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) within 1 year, major MI causing permanent disability, major stroke causing permanent disability and death within 24 hours. SETTING: A tertiary PCI/CABG centre. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and sixty patients with coronary artery disease who underwent PCI or CABG. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Importance weights (IWs). RESULTS: Patients considered need for redo PCI within 1 year (IW: 0.008), minor stroke with symptoms <24 hours (IW: 0.017), minor MI with symptoms <3 months (IW: 0.027), need for redo CABG within 1 year (IW: 0.119), recurrent angina pectoris (IW: 0.300) and major MI causing permanent disability (IW: 0.726) less severe than death within 24 hours (IW: 1.000). Major stroke causing permanent disability was considered worse than death within 24 hours (IW: 1.209). Ranking of CEs and the relative values attributed to the CEs differed among subgroups based on gender, age and educational level. CONCLUSION: Patients attribute different weight to individual CEs. This has significant implications for the interpretation of clinical trial data.

A qualitative study on Singaporean women's views towards breast cancer screening and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) gene testing to guide personalised screening strategies.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the top cancer by incidence and mortality in Singaporean women. Mammography is by far its best screening tool, but current recommended age and interval may not yield the most benefit. Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to improve discriminatory accuracy of breast cancer risk assessment models. This study was conducted to understand Singaporean women's views towards breast cancer screening and SNPs gene testing to guide personalised screening strategies. METHODS: Focus group discussions were conducted among English-speaking women (n = 27) between 40 to 65 years old, both current and lapsed mammogram users. Women were divided into four groups based on age and mammogram usage. Discussions about breast cancer and screening experience, as well as perception and attitude towards SNPs gene testing were conducted by an experienced moderator. Women were also asked for factors that will influence their uptake of the test. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis to captured similarities and differences in views expressed. RESULTS: Barriers to repeat mammogram attendance include laziness to make appointment and painful and uncomfortable screening process. However, the underlying reason may be low perceived susceptibility to breast cancer. Facilitators to repeat mammogram attendance include ease of making appointment and timely reminders. Women were generally receptive towards SNPs gene testing, but required information on accuracy, cost, invasiveness, and side effects before they decide whether to go for it. Other factors include waiting time for results and frequency interval. On average, women gave a rating of 7.5 (range 5 to 10) when asked how likely they will go for the test. CONCLUSION: Addressing concerns such as pain and discomfort during mammogram, providing timely reminders and debunking breast cancer myths can help to improve screening uptake. Women demonstrated a spectrum of responses towards a novel test like SNPs gene testing, but need more information to make an informed decision. Future public health education on predictive genetic testing should adequately address both benefits and risks. Findings from this study is used to inform a discrete choice experiment to empirically quantify women preferences and willingness-to-pay for SNPs gene testing.

Early EEG for outcome prediction of postanoxic coma: prospective cohort study with cost-minimization analysis.

BACKGROUND: We recently showed that electroencephalography (EEG) patterns within the first 24 hours robustly contribute to multimodal prediction of poor or good neurological outcome of comatose patients after cardiac arrest. Here, we confirm these results and present a cost-minimization analysis. Early prognosis contributes to communication between doctors and family, and may prevent inappropriate treatment. METHODS: A prospective cohort study including 430 subsequent comatose patients after cardiac arrest was conducted at intensive care units of two teaching hospitals. Continuous EEG was started within 12 hours after cardiac arrest and continued up to 3 days. EEG patterns were visually classified as unfavorable (isoelectric, low-voltage, or burst suppression with identical bursts) or favorable (continuous patterns) at 12 and 24 hours after cardiac arrest. Outcome at 6 months was classified as good (cerebral performance category (CPC) 1 or 2) or poor (CPC 3, 4, or 5). Predictive values of EEG measures and cost-consequences from a hospital perspective were investigated, assuming EEG-based decision- making about withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the case of a poor predicted outcome. RESULTS: Poor outcome occurred in 197 patients (51% of those included in the analyses). Unfavorable EEG patterns at 24 hours predicted a poor outcome with specificity of 100% (95% CI 98-100%) and sensitivity of 29% (95% CI 22-36%). Favorable patterns at 12 hours predicted good outcome with specificity of 88% (95% CI 81-93%) and sensitivity of 51% (95% CI 42-60%). Treatment withdrawal based on an unfavorable EEG pattern at 24 hours resulted in a reduced mean ICU length of stay without increased mortality in the long term. This gave small cost reductions, depending on the timing of withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Early EEG contributes to reliable prediction of good or poor outcome of postanoxic coma and may lead to reduced length of ICU stay. In turn, this may bring small cost reductions.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment preferences of healthcare professionals and proxies for challenging behaviors in patients with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing antipsychotics to patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms is a matter of concern. Physicians have to make treatment decisions for patients with dementia together with proxies and/or nurses. However, it is unknown whether physicians, nurses, and proxies' treatment preferences are aligned; hence this study. METHODS: Sixteen treatment attributes were selected to elicit the preferences of physicians and nurses. Ten of these attributes were used for the proxies. Preferences were estimated using a case-1 Best-Worst-Scaling design; respondents are asked to select the best and worst attribute on being presented with a hypothetical patient with dementia demonstrating neuropsychiatric symptoms. The treatments offered are: antipsychotic treatment or non-pharmaceutical regimens. RESULTS: The questionnaire was filled in by 41 physicians, 81 nurses, and 59 proxies. The non-pharmacological treatment option was chosen by 52% of the proxies and 71% of the physicians and nurses. The respondents who chose antipsychotics rated the aspects "fastest result" and "most effective" as important. Physicians ranked "experience with antipsychotics" as an important aspect for prescribing antipsychotics. Only the proxies rated the aspect "having a low negative effect on the patient" as important. The nurses and elderly care physicians who chose the non-pharmaceutical treatment ranked "appropriateness" and "of little burden to the patient" as important aspects. CONCLUSIONS: While doctors and nurses prefer non-pharmacological interventions, proxies indicated a preference for pharmacological treatment because of the immediate effect. However, physicians follow treatment guidelines and nurses and proxies rely on the physician's recommendations. We suggest physicians should be sensitive to these differences.

Valuing Treatments for Parkinson Disease Incorporating Process Utility: Performance of Best-Worst Scaling, Time Trade-Off, and Visual Analogue Scales.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare treatment profiles including both health outcomes and process characteristics in Parkinson disease using best-worst scaling (BWS), time trade-off (TTO), and visual analogue scales (VAS). METHODS: From the model comprising of seven attributes with three levels, six unique profiles were selected representing process-related factors and health outcomes in Parkinson disease. A Web-based survey (N = 613) was conducted in a general population to estimate process-related utilities using profile-based BWS (case 2), multiprofile-based BWS (case 3), TTO, and VAS. The rank order of the six profiles was compared, convergent validity among methods was assessed, and individual analysis focused on the differentiation between pairs of profiles with methods used. RESULTS: The aggregated health-state utilities for the six treatment profiles were highly comparable for all methods and no rank reversals were identified. On the individual level, the convergent validity between all methods was strong; however, respondents differentiated less in the utility of closely related treatment profiles with a VAS or TTO than with BWS. For TTO and VAS, this resulted in nonsignificant differences in mean utilities for closely related treatment profiles. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that all methods are equally able to measure process-related utility when the aim is to estimate the overall value of treatments. On an individual level, such as in shared decision making, BWS allows for better prioritization of treatment alternatives, especially if they are closely related. The decision-making problem and the need for explicit trade-off between attributes should determine the choice for a method.

Exploring how individuals complete the choice tasks in a discrete choice experiment: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: To be able to make valid inferences on stated preference data from a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) it is essential that researchers know if participants were actively involved, understood and interpreted the provided information correctly and whether they used complex decision strategies to make their choices and thereby acted in accordance with the continuity axiom. METHODS: During structured interviews, we explored how 70 participants evaluated and completed four discrete choice tasks aloud. Hereafter, additional questions were asked to further explore if participants understood the information that was provided to them and whether they used complex decision strategies (continuity axiom) when making their choices. Two existing DCE questionnaires on rotavirus vaccination and prostate cancer-screening served as case studies. RESULTS: A large proportion of the participants was not able to repeat the exact definition of the risk attributes as explained to them in the introduction of the questionnaire. The majority of the participants preferred more optimal over less optimal risk attribute levels. Most participants (66%) mentioned three or more attributes when motivating their decisions, thereby acting in accordance with the continuity axiom. However, 16 out of 70 participants continuously mentioned less than three attributes when motivating their decision. Lower educated and less literate participants tended to mention less than three attributes when motivating their decision and used trading off between attributes less often as a decision-making strategy. CONCLUSION: The majority of the participants seemed to have understood the provided information about the choice tasks, the attributes, and the levels. They used complex decision strategies (continuity axiom) and are therefore capable to adequately complete a DCE. However, based on the participants' age, educational level and health literacy additional, actions should be undertaken to ensure that participants understand the choice tasks and complete the DCE as presumed.

Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework.

BACKGROUND: There is an increased interest in the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support regulatory and reimbursement decision making. The EVIDEM framework was developed to provide pragmatic multi-criteria decision support in health care, to estimate the value of healthcare interventions, and to aid in priority-setting. The objectives of this study were to test 1) the influence of different weighting techniques on the overall outcome of an MCDA exercise, 2) the discriminative power in weighting different criteria of such techniques, and 3) whether different techniques result in similar weights in weighting the criteria set proposed by the EVIDEM framework. METHODS: A sample of 60 Dutch and Canadian students participated in the study. Each student used an online survey to provide weights for 14 criteria with two different techniques: a five-point rating scale and one of the following techniques selected randomly: ranking, point allocation, pairwise comparison and best worst scaling. RESULTS: The results of this study indicate that there is no effect of differences in weights on value estimates at the group level. On an individual level, considerable differences in criteria weights and rank order occur as a result of the weight elicitation method used, and the ability of different techniques to discriminate in criteria importance. Of the five techniques tested, the pair-wise comparison of criteria has the highest ability to discriminate in weights when fourteen criteria are compared. CONCLUSIONS: When weights are intended to support group decisions, the choice of elicitation technique has negligible impact on criteria weights and the overall value of an innovation. However, when weights are used to support individual decisions, the choice of elicitation technique influences outcome and studies that use dissimilar techniques cannot be easily compared. Weight elicitation through pairwise comparison of criteria is preferred when taking into account its superior ability to discriminate between criteria and respondents' preferences.

Parents' decision for helmet therapy in infants with skull deformation.

PURPOSE: Helmet therapy is regularly prescribed in infants with positional skull deformation. Evidence on the effectiveness is lacking, which complicates decision making. This study aims to assess the relation between parents' decision for treatment of skull deformation in their infant and their level of anxiety, decisional conflict, expectations of treatment effect, perceived severity of deformation and perceived side effects. METHODS: Parents of 5-month-old infants with skull deformation were invited to participate in a survey. Data collection included background characteristics, anthropometric assessment, parent-reported outcomes, decision for treatment (helmet therapy or awaiting natural course), decisional conflict scale and questions about perceived (side) effects of helmet therapy. Factors significantly correlated with treatment decision (p < 0.1) were tested in a multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The results of 186 respondents were included in the analysis. Parental satisfaction with their infant's head shape (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.2; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.1 to 0.4), expected effect of helmet therapy compared to natural course (aOR 13.4; 95 % CI 5.0 to 36.1) and decision uncertainty (aOR 1.0; 95 % CI 0.9 to 1.0; p = .03) were related to the decision for helmet therapy in infants with skull deformation. CONCLUSION: With the outcomes of this study, we can better understand parental decision-making for elective 'normalizing' treatments in children, such as helmet therapy in infants with skull deformation. Health care professionals should address the parents' perception of the severity of skull deformation and their expectations of helmet therapy. Furthermore, they can support parents in decision-making by balancing medical information with parents' expectations, values and beliefs.

Medical devices early assessment methods: systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to get an overview of current theory and practice in early assessments of medical devices, and to identify aims and uses of early assessment methods used in practice. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in September 2013, using computerized databases (PubMed, Science Direct, and Scopus), and references list search. Selected articles were categorized based on their type, objective, and main target audience. The methods used in the application studies were extracted and mapped throughout the early stages of development and for their particular aims. RESULTS: Of 1,961 articles identified, eighty-three studies passed the inclusion criteria, and thirty were included by searching reference lists. There were thirty-one theoretical papers, and eighty-two application papers included. Most studies investigated potential applications/possible improvement of medical devices, developed early assessment framework or included stakeholder perspective in early development stages. Among multiple qualitative and quantitative methods identified, only few were used more than once. The methods aim to inform strategic considerations (e.g., literature review), economic evaluation (e.g., cost-effectiveness analysis), and clinical effectiveness (e.g., clinical trials). Medical devices were often in the prototype product development stage, and the results were usually aimed at informing manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed converging aims yet widely diverging methods for early assessment during medical device development. For early assessment to become an integral part of activities in the development of medical devices, methods need to be clarified and standardized, and the aims and value of assessment itself must be demonstrated to the main stakeholders for assuring effective and efficient medical device development.

Public stated preferences and predicted uptake for genome-based colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Emerging developments in nanomedicine allow the development of genome-based technologies for non-invasive and individualised screening for diseases such as colorectal cancer. The main objective of this study was to measure user preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a nanopill. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was used to estimate the preferences for five competing diagnostic techniques including the nanopill and iFOBT. Alternative screening scenarios were described using five attributes namely: preparation involved, sensitivity, specificity, complication rate and testing frequency. Fourteen random and two fixed choice tasks, each consisting of three alternatives, were offered to 2225 individuals. Data were analysed using the McFadden conditional logit model. RESULTS: Thirteen hundred and fifty-six respondents completed the questionnaire. The most important attributes (and preferred levels) were the screening technique (nanopill), sensitivity (100%) and preparation (no preparation). Stated screening uptake for the nanopill was 79%, compared to 76% for iFOBT. In the case of screening with the nanopill, the percentage of people preferring not to be screened would be reduced from 19.2% (iFOBT) to 16.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Although the expected benefits of nanotechnology based colorectal cancer screening are improved screening uptake, assuming more accurate test results and less preparation involved, the relative preference of the nanopill is only slightly higher than the iFOBT. Estimating user preferences during the development of diagnostic technologies could be used to identify relative performance, including perceived benefits and harms compared to competitors allowing for significant changes to be made throughout the process of development.

Clinical decision support systems for multidisciplinary team decision-making in patients with solid cancer: Composition of an implementation model based on a scoping review.

Generating guideline-based recommendations during multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings in solid cancers is getting more complex due to increasing amount of information needed to follow the guidelines. Usage of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can simplify and optimize decision-making. However, CDSS implementation is lagging behind. Therefore, we aim to compose a CDSS implementation model. By performing a scoping review of the currently reported CDSSs for MDT decision-making we determined 102 barriers and 86 facilitators for CDSS implementation out of 44 papers describing 20 different CDSSs. The most frequently reported barriers and facilitators for CDSS implementation supporting MDT decision-making concerned CDSS maintenance (e.g. incorporating guideline updates), validity of recommendations and interoperability with electronic health records. Based on the identified barriers and facilitators, we composed a CDSS implementation model describing clinical utility, analytic validity and clinical validity to guide CDSS integration more successfully in the clinical workflow to support MDTs in the future.