Improving patient-provider communication about chronic pain: development and feasibility testing of a shared decision-making tool.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain has emerged as a disease in itself, affecting a growing number of people. Effective patient-provider communication is central to good pain management because pain can only be understood from the patient's perspective. We aimed to develop a user-centered tool to improve patient-provider communication about chronic pain and assess its feasibility in real-world settings in preparation for further evaluation and distribution. METHODS: To identify and prioritize patient treatment goals for chronic pain, strategies to improve patient-provider communication about chronic pain, and facilitate implementation of the tool, we conducted nominal group technique meetings and card sorting with patients with chronic pain and experienced providers (n = 12). These findings informed the design of the PainAPP tool. Usability and beta-testing with patients (n = 38) and their providers refined the tool and assessed its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact. RESULTS: Formative work revealed that patients felt neither respected nor trusted by their providers and focused on transforming providers' negative attitudes towards them, whereas providers focused on gathering patient information. PainAPP incorporated areas prioritized by patients and providers: assessing patient treatment goals and preferences, functional abilities and pain, and providing patients tailored education and an overall summary that patients can share with providers. Beta-testing involved 38 patients and their providers. Half of PainAPP users shared their summaries with their providers. Patients rated PainAPP highly in all areas. All users would recommend it to others with chronic pain; nearly all trusted the information and said it helped them think about my treatment goals (94%), understand my chronic pain (82%), make the most of my next doctor's visit (82%), and not want to use opioids (73%). Beta-testing revealed challenges delivering the tool and summary report to patients and providers in a timely manner and obtaining provider feedback. CONCLUSIONS: PainAPP appears feasible for use, but further adaptation and testing is needed to assess its impact on patients and providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the University of New England Independent Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research (012616-019) and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (protocol ID: NCT03425266) prior to enrollment. The trial was prospectively registered and was approved on February 7, 2018.

Implementing Shared Decision-Making for Multiple Sclerosis: The MS-SUPPORT Tool.

BACKGROUND: Disease modifying therapies (DMTs) offer opportunities to improve the course of multiple sclerosis (MS), but decisions about treatment are difficult. People with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) want more involvement in decisions about DMTs, but new approaches are needed to support shared decision-making (SDM) because of the number of treatment options and the range of outcomes affected by treatment. We designed a patient-centered tool, MS-SUPPORT, to facilitate SDM for pwMS. We sought to evaluate the feasibility and impact of MS-SUPPORT on decisions about disease modifying treatments (DMTs), SDM processes, and quality-of-life. METHODS: This multisite randomized controlled trial compared the SDM intervention (MS-SUPPORT) to control (usual care) over a 12-month period. English-speaking adults with relapsing MS were eligible if they had an upcoming MS appointment and an email address. To evaluate clinician perspectives, participants' MS clinicians were invited to participate. Patients were referred between November 11, 2019 and October 23, 2020 by their MS clinician or a patient advocacy organization (the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America). MS-SUPPORT is an online, interactive, evidence-based decision aid that was co-created with pwMS. It clarifies patient treatment goals and values and provides tailored information about MS, DMTs, and adherence. Viewed by patients before their clinic appointment, MS-SUPPORT generates a personalized summary of the patient's treatment goals and preferences, adherence, DMT use, and clinical situation to share with their MS clinician. Outcomes (DMT utilization, adherence, quality-of-life, and SDM) were assessed at enrollment, post-MS-SUPPORT, post-appointment, and quarterly for 1 year. RESULTS: Participants included 501 adults with MS from across the USA (84.6% female, 83% white) and 34 of their MS clinicians (47% neurologists, 41% Nurse Practitioners, 12% Physician Assistants). Among the 203 patients who completed MS-SUPPORT, most (88.2%) reported they would recommend it to others and that it helped them talk to their doctor (85.2%), understand their options (82.3%) and the importance of taking DMTs as prescribed (82.3%). Among non-users of DMTs at baseline, the probability ratio of current DMT use consistently trended higher over one-year follow-up in the MS-SUPPORT group (1.30 [0.86-1.96]), as did the cumulative probability of starting a DMT within 6-months, with shorter time-to-start (46 vs 90 days, p=0.24). Among the 222 responses from 34 participating clinicians, more clinicians in the MS-SUPPORT group (vs control) trended towards recommending their patient start a DMT (9 of 108 (8%) vs 5 of 109 (5%), respectively, p=0.26). Adherence (no missed doses) to daily-dosed DMTs was higher in the MS-SUPPORT group (81.25% vs 56.41%, p=.026). Fewer patients forgot their doses (p=.046). The MS-SUPPORT group (vs control) reported 1.7 fewer days/month of poor mental health (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: MS-SUPPORT was strongly endorsed by patients and is feasible to use in clinical settings. MS-SUPPORT increased the short-term probability of taking and adhering to a DMT, and improved long-term mental health. Study limitations include selection bias, response bias, social desirability bias, and recall bias. Exploring approaches to reinforcement and monitoring its implementation in real-world settings should provide further insights into the value and utility of this new SDM tool.

Metformin and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis and critical literature review.

Observational studies have suggested that metformin decreases the incidence of several common cancers. However, findings regarding breast cancer have been mixed. In order to explore this issue, a systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed with a focus on potential biases. We conducted a comprehensive literature search for all pertinent studies addressing metformin use and breast cancer risk by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus (which includes Embase, ISI Web of Science) using the Mesh terms: "metformin" or "biguanides" or "diabetes mellitus, type 2/therapy" and "cancer" or "neoplasms." When multiple hazard ratios (HR) or odds ratio (OR) were reported, the most adjusted estimate was used in the base-case analysis. We pooled the adjusted HR and performed sensitivity analyses on duration of metformin use (> or ≤3 years use), study quality (assessed using the GRADE system), and initial observation year of the cohort (before vs after 1997). From a total of 443 citations, 18 full-text articles were considered, and seven independent studies were included. All were observational (four cohort and three case control). Our combined OR of all seven studies was 0.83 (0.71-0.97). Stronger associations were found when analyses were limited to studies estimating the impact of longer metformin use (OR = 0.75. 95 % CI 0.62, 0.91) or among studies that began observing their cohort before 1997 (OR = 0.68. 95 % CI 0.55-0.084). Stratification according to study quality did not affect the combined OR but higher quality studies had smaller CI and achieved statistical significance. Interpretation is limited by the observational nature of reports and different comparison groups. Our analyses support a protective effect of metformin on breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women with diabetes. Clinical trials are needed for definitive determination of the role of metformin in breast cancer risk reduction.

A Novel Tool to Improve Shared Decision Making and Adherence in Multiple Sclerosis: Development and Preliminary Testing.

Background. Most people with multiple sclerosis (MS) want to be involved in medical decision making about disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but new approaches are needed to overcome barriers to participation. Objectives. We sought to develop a shared decision-making (SDM) tool for MS DMTs, evaluate patient and provider responses to the tool, and address challenges encountered during development to guide a future trial. Methods. We created a patient-centered design process informed by image theory to develop the MS-SUPPORT SDM tool. Development included semistructured interviews and alpha and beta testing with MS patients and providers. Beta testing assessed dissemination and clinical integration strategies, decision-making processes, communication, and adherence. Patients evaluated the tool before and after a clinic visit. Results. MS-SUPPORT combines self-assessment with tailored feedback to help patients identify their treatment goals and preferences, correct misperceptions, frame decisions, and promote adherence. MS-SUPPORT generates a personal summary of their responses that patients can share with their provider to facilitate communication. Alpha testing (14 patients) identified areas needing improvement, resulting in reorganization and shortening of the tool. MS-SUPPORT was highly rated in beta testing (15 patients, 4 providers) on patient-provider communication, patient preparation, adherence, and other endpoints. Dissemination through both patient and provider networks appeared feasible. All patient testers wanted to share the summary report with their provider, but only 60% did. Limitations. Small sample size, no comparison group. Conclusions. The development process resulted in a patient-centered SDM tool for MS that may facilitate patient involvement in decision making, help providers understand their patients' preferences, and improve adherence, though further testing is needed. Beta testing in real-world conditions was critical to prepare the tool for future testing and inform the design of future studies.

Whose Preferences Matter? A Patient-Centered Approach for Eliciting Treatment Goals.

BACKGROUND: Patients facing a high-stakes clinical decision are often confronted with an overwhelming array of options. High-quality decisions about treatment should reflect patients' preferences as well as their clinical characteristics. Preference-assessment instruments typically focus on pre-selected clinical outcomes and attributes chosen by the investigator. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a patient-centered approach to elicit and compare the treatment goals of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and healthcare providers (HCPs). METHODS: We conducted five nominal group technique (NGT) meetings to elicit and prioritize treatment goals from patients and HCPs. Five to nine participants in each group responded silently to one question about their treatment goals. Responses were shared, consolidated, and ranked to develop a prioritized list for each group. The ranked lists were combined. Goals were rated and sorted into categories. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to derive a visual representation, or cognitive map, of the data and to identify conceptual clusters, reflecting how frequently items were sorted into the same category. RESULTS: Five NGT groups yielded 34 unique patient-generated treatment goals and 31 unique HCP-generated goals. There were differences between patients and HCPs in the goals generated and how they were clustered. Patients' goals tended to focus on the impact of specific symptoms on their day-to-day lives, whereas providers' goals focused on slowing down the course of disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the treatment goals of patients and HCPs underscore the limitations of using HCP- or investigator-identified goals. This new adaptation of cognitive mapping is a patient-centered approach that can be used to generate and organize the outcomes and attributes for values clarification exercises while minimizing investigator bias and maximizing relevance to patients.

Evaluation of a Novel Preference Assessment Tool for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: We developed a preference assessment tool to help assess patient goals, values, and preferences for multiple sclerosis (MS) management. All preference items in the tool were generated by people with MS. The aim of this study was to evaluate this tool in a national sample of people with MS. METHODS: English-speaking patients with MS aged 21 to 75 years with access to the internet were recruited. Participants completed the preference tool online, which included separate modules assessing three core preference areas: treatment goals, preferences for attributes of disease-modifying therapies, and factors influencing a change in treatment. The tool generated a summary of participants' treatment goals and preferences. Immediately after viewing the summary, participants were asked to evaluate the tool. Rankings of preference domains were compared with rankings obtained in another study. RESULTS: In 135 people with MS who completed the tool and evaluation, the highest ranked goal was brain health (memory, thinking, brain), followed by disability concerns (walking, strength, vision). Rankings were highly similar to those in the referent study. Nearly all participants reported that the tool helped them understand their goals and priorities regarding MS and that the summary appropriately reflected what is important to them. Most participants (87%) wanted to discuss their treatment goals and priorities with their clinician. CONCLUSIONS: This preference assessment tool successfully captured patients' goals, values, and preferences for MS treatment and could potentially be used to help patients communicate their preferences to their clinician.

Timing, frequency and type of physician-diagnosed infections in childhood and risk for Crohn's disease in children and young adults.

BACKGROUND: Recent experimental data show that exposure to microbes during early childhood can confer immunological tolerance and protect against Crohn's disease (CD). Epidemiological evidence for this link, however, remains controversial. Using prospective data, we examined the link between this hypothesis and risk for CD in children and young adults. METHODS: A case-control study design was used. CD cases (diagnosed before age 20 years) were recruited from a tertiary-care pediatric hospital in Montreal, and population-based controls matched for age, gender and, geographical location were selected. Infection data were ascertained from physician-billing records. These records, which use International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnostic codes, were consulted retrospectively but provide prospectively collected diagnostic information. Conditional logistic regression analysis was used to study potential associations. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated. RESULTS: Four hundred nine cases and 1621 controls were included. Regression analysis adjusting for potential confounding variables suggested that any recorded infection before the diagnosis of CD was associated with reduced risk of CD (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48-0.93). The protective effect was restricted to infections occurring mainly before 5 years of age, with increasing number of infections resulting in greater protection (1-5 infections: OR, 0.74; ≥6 infections: OR, 0.61; P value for trend = 0.039). Infections affecting the oral and upper respiratory tracts, cellulitis, and, enteric infections seemed most protective. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides support for the hygiene hypothesis, whereby exposure to infections in early childhood could potentially reduce risks of CD.

Management and adherence to VTE treatment guidelines in a national prospective cohort study in the Canadian outpatient setting. The Recovery Study.

Documenting patterns and outcomes of venous thromboembolism (VTE) management and degree of adherence by clinicians to treatment guidelines could help identify remediable gaps in patient care. Prospective, clinical practice-based data from Canadian outpatient settings on management of VTE, degree of adherence with treatment guidelines and frequency of recurrent VTE and bleeding during follow-up was obtained in a multicentre, prospective observational study. From 12 Canadian centres, we assessed 868 outpatients with acute symptomatic VTE who received the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin alone or with vitamin K antagonists (VKA), at baseline and at six months (or at the end of treatment, whichever came first). Index VTE was limb deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in 583 (67.2%) patients, pulmonary embolism (PE) with or without DVT in 262 (30.2%) patients, and unusual site DVT in 23 (2.6%) patients. VTE was unprovoked in 399 (46.0%) patients, associated with cancer in 74 (8.5%) patients, transient risk factors in 327 (37.7%) patients and hormonal factors in 68 (7.8%) patients.With regard to guideline adherence, 58 (7.3%) patients received <5 days LMWH and 114 (14.5%) had overlap <1 day. Among patients with cancer-related VTE, 59.5% were prescribed LMWH monotherapy and 43.2% received such treatment for >3 months. Only 38.1% of patients with transient VTE risk factors had received thromboprophylaxis. Our study provides useful information on clinical presentation, management and related outcomes in Canadian outpatients with VTE. Our results suggest there may be important gaps in use of thromboprophylaxis to prevent VTE and use of LMWH monotherapy to treat cancer-related VTE.