Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: An environmental scan.

AIMS: To identify and evaluate content and readability of freely available online deprescribing patient education materials (PEMs). METHODS: Systematic review of PEMs using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews from inception to 25 September 2017 to identify PEMs. Additionally, deprescribing researchers and health professionals were surveyed to identify additional materials. Known repositories of materials were searched followed by a systematic Google search (22-28 January 2018). Materials were evaluated using an approach informed by the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Inventory. Readability of text-based materials was assessed using the US-based Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level. RESULTS: Forty-eight PEMs were identified. PEMs addressing deprescribing of medications for symptom control (81%) were most common. Preventative medications were rarely addressed and material (39%) focused on older people. Only 37% of PEMs provided information about both potential benefits (e.g. reducing risk of side effects) and harms (e.g. withdrawal symptoms, increased risk of disease) of deprescribing, while 40% focussed on benefits only. Readability indices indicated an average minimum reading level of Grade 12. Option Grids and Decision Aids (mean reading level below Grade 10) were most suitable for people with average literacy levels. CONCLUSIONS: Over 1/3 of deprescribing PEMs present potential benefits and harms of deprescribing indicating most of the freely available materials are not balanced. Most PEMs are pitched above average reading levels making them inaccessible for low health literacy populations.

Clinical Validity, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculators: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Online health information is particularly important for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, where lifestyle changes are recommended until risk becomes high enough to warrant pharmacological intervention. Online information is abundant, but the quality is often poor and many people do not have adequate health literacy to access, understand, and use it effectively. OBJECTIVE: This project aimed to review and evaluate the suitability of online CVD risk calculators for use by low health literate consumers in terms of clinical validity, understandability, and actionability. METHODS: This systematic review of public websites from August to November 2016 used evaluation of clinical validity based on a high-risk patient profile and assessment of understandability and actionability using Patient Education Material Evaluation Tool for Print Materials. RESULTS: A total of 67 unique webpages and 73 unique CVD risk calculators were identified. The same high-risk patient profile produced widely variable CVD risk estimates, ranging from as little as 3% to as high as a 43% risk of a CVD event over the next 10 years. One-quarter (25%) of risk calculators did not specify what model these estimates were based on. The most common clinical model was Framingham (44%), and most calculators (77%) provided a 10-year CVD risk estimate. The calculators scored moderately on understandability (mean score 64%) and poorly on actionability (mean score 19%). The absolute percentage risk was stated in most (but not all) calculators (79%), and only 18% included graphical formats consistent with recommended risk communication guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: There is a plethora of online CVD risk calculators available, but they are not readily understandable and their actionability is poor. Entering the same clinical information produces widely varying results with little explanation. Developers need to address actionability as well as clinical validity and understandability to improve usefulness to consumers with low health literacy.

Could nudges reduce health literacy disparities in CVD prevention? An experiment using alternative messages for CVD risk assessment screening.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of SMS nudge messages amongst people with varying health literacy on their intention to get a Heart Health Check. METHODS: A 3 (Initial SMS: scarcity, regret, or control nudge) x 2 (Reminder SMS: social norm or control nudge) factorial design was used in a hypothetical online experiment. 705 participants eligible for Heart Health Checks were recruited. Outcomes included intention to attend a Heart Health Check and psychological responses. RESULTS: In the control condition, people with lower health literacy had lower behavioural intentions compared to those with higher health literacy (p = .011). Scarcity and regret nudges closed this gap, resulting in similar intention levels for lower and higher health literacy. There was no interactive effect of the reminder nudge and health literacy (p = .724). CONCLUSION: Scarcity and regret nudge messages closed the health literacy gap in behavioural intentions compared to a control message, while a reminder nudge had limited additional benefit. Health literacy should be considered in behavioural intervention evaluations to ensure health equity is addressed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Results informed a national screening program using a universal precautions approach, where messages with higher engagement for lower health literacy groups were used in clinical practice.

Interventions Using Heart Age for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Communication: Systematic Review of Psychological, Behavioral, and Clinical Effects.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk communication is a challenge for clinical practice, where physicians find it difficult to explain the absolute risk of a CVD event to patients with varying health literacy. Converting the probability to heart age is increasingly used to promote lifestyle change, but a rapid review of biological age interventions found no clear evidence that they motivate behavior change. OBJECTIVE: In this review, we aim to identify the content and effects of heart age interventions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies presenting heart age interventions to adults for CVD risk communication in April 2020 (later updated in March 2021). The Johanna Briggs risk of bias assessment tool was applied to randomized studies. Behavior change techniques described in the intervention methods were coded. RESULTS: From a total of 7926 results, 16 eligible studies were identified; these included 5 randomized web-based experiments, 5 randomized clinical trials, 2 mixed methods studies with quantitative outcomes, and 4 studies with qualitative analysis. Direct comparisons between heart age and absolute risk in the 5 web-based experiments, comprising 5514 consumers, found that heart age increased positive or negative emotional responses (4/5 studies), increased risk perception (4/5 studies; but not necessarily more accurate) and recall (4/4 studies), reduced credibility (2/3 studies), and generally had no effect on lifestyle intentions (4/5 studies). One study compared heart age and absolute risk to fitness age and found reduced lifestyle intentions for fitness age. Heart age combined with additional strategies (eg, in-person or phone counseling) in applied settings for 9582 patients improved risk control (eg, reduced cholesterol levels and absolute risk) compared with usual care in most trials (4/5 studies) up to 1 year. However, clinical outcomes were no different when directly compared with absolute risk (1/1 study). Mixed methods studies identified consultation time and content as important outcomes in actual consultations using heart age tools. There were differences between people receiving an older heart age result and those receiving a younger or equal to current heart age result. The heart age interventions included a wide range of behavior change techniques, and conclusions were sometimes biased in favor of heart age with insufficient supporting evidence. The risk of bias assessment indicated issues with all randomized clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review provide little evidence that heart age motivates lifestyle behavior change more than absolute risk, but either format can improve clinical outcomes when combined with other behavior change strategies. The label for the heart age concept can affect outcomes and should be pretested with the intended audience. Future research should consider consultation time and differentiate between results of older and younger heart age. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): NPRR2-10.1101/2020.05.03.20089938.

Implementing cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines to translate evidence-based medicine and shared decision making into general practice: theory-based intervention development, qualitative piloting and quantitative feasibility.

BACKGROUND: The use of cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines based on absolute risk assessment is poor around the world, including Australia. Behavioural barriers amongst GPs and patients include capability (e.g. difficulty communicating/understanding risk) and motivation (e.g. attitudes towards guidelines/medication). This paper outlines the theory-based development of a website for GP guidelines, and piloting of a new risk calculator/decision aid. METHODS: Stage 1 involved identifying evidence-based solutions using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework, informed by previous research involving 400 GPs and 600 patients/consumers. Stage 2 co-developed website content with GPs. Stage 3 piloted a prototype website at a national GP conference. Stage 4 iteratively improved the website based on "think aloud" interviews with GPs and patients. Stage 5 was a feasibility study to evaluate potential efficacy (guidelines-based recommendations for each risk category), acceptability (intended use) and demand (actual use over 1 month) amongst GPs (n = 98). RESULTS: Stage 1 identified GPs as the target for behaviour change; the need for a new risk calculator/decision aid linked to existing audit and feedback training; and online guidelines as a delivery format. Stage 2-4 iteratively improved content and format based on qualitative feedback from GP and patient user testing over three rounds of website development. Stage 5 suggested potential efficacy with improved identification of hypothetical high risk patients (from 26 to 76%) and recommended medication (from 57 to 86%) after viewing the website (n = 42), but prescribing to low risk patients remained similar (from 19 to 22%; n = 37). Most GPs (89%) indicated they would use the website in the next month, and 72% reported using it again after one month (n = 98). Open feedback identified implementation barriers including a need for integration with medical software, low health literacy resources and pre-consultation assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Following a theory-based development process and user co-design, the resulting intervention was acceptable to GPs with high intentions for use, improved identification of patient risk categories and more guidelines-based prescribing intentions for high risk but not low risk patients. The effectiveness of linking the intervention to clinical practice more closely to address implementation barriers will be evaluated in future research.

Online decision aids for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: systematic search, evaluation of quality and suitability for low health literacy patients.

OBJECTIVES: Recent guideline changes for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention medication have resulted in calls to implement shared decision-making rather than arbitrary treatment thresholds. Less attention has been paid to existing tools that could facilitate this. Decision aids are well-established tools that enable shared decision-making and have been shown to improve CVD prevention adherence. However, it is unknown how many CVD decision aids are publicly available for patients online, what their quality is like and whether they are suitable for patients with lower health literacy, for whom the burden of CVD is greatest. This study aimed to identify and evaluate all English language, publicly available online CVD prevention decision aids. DESIGN: Systematic review of public websites in August to November 2016 using an environmental scan methodology, with updated evaluation in April 2018. The decision aids were evaluated based on: (1) suitability for low health literacy populations (understandability, actionability and readability); and (2) International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Understandability and actionability using the validated Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials (PEMAT-P scale), readability using Gunning-Fog and Flesch-Kincaid indices and quality using IPDAS V.3 and V.4. RESULTS: A total of 25 unique decision aids were identified. On the PEMAT-P scale, the decision aids scored well on understandability (mean 87%) but not on actionability (mean 61%). Readability was also higher than recommended levels (mean Gunning-Fog index=10.1; suitable for grade 10 students). Four decision aids met criteria to be considered a decision aid (ie, met IPDAS qualifying criteria) and one sufficiently minimised major bias (ie, met IPDAS certification criteria). CONCLUSIONS: Publicly available CVD prevention decision aids are not suitable for low literacy populations and only one met international standards for certification. Given that patients with lower health literacy are at increased risk of CVD, this urgently needs to be addressed.

Favourable understandability, but poor actionability: An evaluation of online type 2 diabetes risk calculators.

OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to identify all freely available online diabetes risk calculators and to evaluate their suitability for patients with low health literacy. METHODS: Online diabetes risk calculators were identified by an environmental scan. The Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Printable Materials was used to determine understandability and actionability scores. A high-risk profile was used to compare the risk results obtained with each calculator. RESULTS: Thirty-five risk calculators were identified; 51% had no described model, 23% reported absolute risk and 31% used visual aids. The estimated risk for the same profile ranged from low to very high. The mean understandability score was 79% (SD = 19%) and the mean actionability score was 42% (SD = 30%). CONCLUSIONS: Online diabetes risk calculators are generally understandable, but not very actionable, and may not be completely suitable for use by patients with low health literacy. The estimated risk is highly variable depending on the underlying model used for the calculation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients and healthcare providers need to exercise caution when selecting a diabetes risk calculator.

Online Decision Aids for Knee Osteoarthritis and Low Back Pain: An Environmental Scan and Evaluation.

Background. Musculoskeletal conditions are leading causes of disability. Management options are plentiful, but the current evidence base suggests many are ineffective or unproven. Online decision aids can help support patients make informed health care choices. However, there are little data on the quality of online decision aids for common musculoskeletal conditions such as knee or low back pain. Purpose. To identify all publicly available online decision aids for knee osteoarthritis and low back pain and evaluate them against the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Inventory (IPDASi). Data Sources. Google Australia. Study selection. Two reviewers independently screened websites for inclusion and assessed the quality of included online decision aids between April and May 2018. Included online decision aids were free, provided information about knee osteoarthritis or low back pain, and written in English. Online decision aids that required payment, targeted health professionals, addressed rheumatoid arthritis, or addressed a screening decision were excluded. Data Extraction. IPDASi Version 4. Data Synthesis. Twenty-five online decision aids were identified: 15 knee osteoarthritis and 10 low back pain. Only 3 online decision aids (12%) provided a "wait-and-see" option. Nineteen (75%) met IPDASi criteria to be considered a decision aid and 3 (12%) met IPDASi criteria to state that the online decision aid was unbiased. Limitations. Dynamic nature of Google searches may not be replicable easily. Conclusions. Few good-quality online decision aids are available for people with knee osteoarthritis or low back pain. Most online decision aids failed to explicitly provide a wait-and-see option, suggesting a bias toward intervention. These online decision aids would benefit from explicitly highlighting a wait-and-see option to support informed choice.