Randomized trial of a shared decision-making intervention consisting of trade-offs and individualized treatment information for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a shared decision-making intervention (SDMI) for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who have to make a choice between screening and prophylactic surgery for breasts and/or ovaries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The SDMI consisted of two value assessment sessions, using the time trade-off method, followed by individualized treatment information based on (quality-adjusted) life expectancy. After the baseline assessment (2 weeks after a positive DNA test result), women were randomly assigned to the SDMI group (n = 44), receiving the SDMI 2 months after the test result, or to the control group (n = 44). The short- and long-term effects, 3 and 9 months after the test result, were assessed using questionnaires. Data were collected on well-being, treatment choice, and decision-related outcomes. RESULTS: In the short term, the SDMI had no effect. In the long term, with respect to well-being, patients in the SDMI group had less intrusive thoughts (P =.05) and better general health (P =.01) and tended to be less depressed (P =.07). With respect to decision-related outcomes for the breasts, the SDMI group held stronger preferences (P =.02) and agreed more strongly to having weighed the pros and cons (P =.01). No effect was found on treatment choice. In the long term, interaction effects between the SDMI and cancer history were found. The SDMI showed an overall beneficial effect for unaffected women, whereas affected women tended to experience detrimental effects. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the SDMI improved decision making in unaffected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Supporting decision making in a systematic way using trade-offs is beneficial for these women.

Antibiotic prescribing in primary care: first choice and restrictive prescribing are two different traits.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the quality of antibiotic prescribing in primary care using quality indicators and the relatedness of these indicators. To determine the influence of general practice and practice population characteristics on the indicator scores. METHODS: Data on performance were collected during the Second National Survey of General Practice over 1 year between May 2000 and April 2002 in The Netherlands. The study was carried out in 104 computerised general practices, comprising 195 general practitioners and about 400,000 patients. From a preliminary set of quality indicators on antibiotic prescribing (n = 15), eight were selected covering various medical conditions. Indicator scores were derived. A factor analysis was performed to examine the relatedness of these indicators. Composite scores were calculated for the indicators loading on the same factor. The influence of general practice and practice population characteristics on the quality of antibiotic prescribing was investigated. RESULTS: Considerable variation was found between indicator scores (32.8-94.2%) and between practices. The factor analysis discovered two interpretable factors-namely, "first choice prescribing" and "restrictive prescribing". The composite scores were 64% and 68%, respectively. No significant correlation was found between the two composite scores. Practice and population characteristics explained only a small proportion of the variance between practices. CONCLUSIONS: Although different quality indicators on antibiotic prescribing are grouped together over several medical conditions, there is large variation between those indicators. General practices performing well on first choice prescribing do not automatically perform well on restrictive prescribing. There is room for improvement on both aspects of prescribing. The variation between practices is clearly present and should be further investigated.

Randomised trial of a decision aid and its timing for women being tested for a BRCA1/2 mutation.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of a decision aid (DA) and its timing in women being tested for a BRCA1/2 mutation. Women with and without a previous history of cancer were included after blood sampling for genetic testing. The DA consisted of a brochure and video providing information on screening and prophylactic surgery. To evaluate the impact of the DA, women were randomised to the DA group (n=184), receiving the DA 2 weeks after blood sampling, or to the control group (n=184). To evaluate the impact of timing, mutation carriers who had received the DA before the test result (n=47) were compared to mutation carriers who received the DA after the test result (n=42). Data were collected on well-being, treatment choice, decision and information related outcomes. The impact of the DA was measured 4 weeks after blood sampling. The impact of timing was measured 2 weeks after a positive test result. The DA had no impact on well-being. Regarding decision related outcomes, the DA group more frequently considered prophylactic surgery (P=0.02) corroborated with higher valuations (P=0.04). No differences were found for the other decision related outcomes. Regarding information related outcomes, the DA group felt better informed (P=0.00), was more satisfied with the information (P=0.00), and showed more accurate risk perceptions. Timing of the DA had no effect on any of the outcomes. No interactions were found between the DA and history of cancer. In conclusion, women being tested for a BRCA1/2 mutation benefit from the DA on information related outcomes. Because timing had no effect, the DA is considered useful either before or after the test result.