Shared Decision-Making and Short-Course Radiotherapy for Operable Rectal Adenocarcinoma: A Patient's Right to Choose.

BACKGROUND: As new treatment options for colorectal cancer (CRC) emerge, physicians and WOC nurses must be prepared to assist patients to choose care that meets their needs and preferences. A patient with T2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma was offered the US current standard of practice; he was not offered alternative treatment options. This case study emphasizes the need to ensure patients are offered all reasonable options for treatment. Shared decision-making is a process that helps patients actively participate in their heath choices rather than exclusively relying on the judgment of a health care provider. CASE: Mr J was a 70-year-old man with operable CRC who sought care at a health care facility in his community. He was offered a single option, based on standard of care for this tumor stage: long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and additional chemotherapy. After seeking a second opinion at a cancer care center in another state, Mr J chose to undergo a viable alternative treatment option (short-course radiotherapy, followed by surgery, with chemotherapy contingent on his nodal status post-surgery). No nodal involvement was found post- surgery (T2N0M0) enabling him to avoid postoperative chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This case illustrates the need for all health care providers and carers to regularly engage in shared decision-making when choosing among treatment options. In this case, short-course radiotherapy offered Mr J a shorter duration of treatment and avoided the risk for adverse side effects associated with chemotherapy, resulting in improved health-related quality of life. Initial omission to disclose all treatment options to Mr J may have reflected the preferences of the surgeon, institutional financial pressures, or discomfort with shared decision-making, but it failed to provide him with full range of options, given his diagnosis and tumor stage. All members of the patient's care team, including the WOC nurse, play a pivotal role in ensuring transparency in medical care, including advocating for shared decision-making where patients are made aware of all viable treatments, followed by supporting the patient as they reach a decision.

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.

Ovarian suppression in combination endocrine adjuvant therapy in premenopausal women with early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The benefits of adding ovarian suppression to either tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant breast cancer therapy in premenopausal women are controversial. Therefore, we performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized trials. METHODS: We identified and combined four qualifying trials reporting disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) using meta-analysis. RESULTS: Combining ABCSG-12, SOFT, and TEXT studies, there were 65 fewer DFS events (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57-1.39) but 30 more deaths for ovarian suppression plus aromatase inhibitor compared to ovarian suppression plus tamoxifen (HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.93-1.84, P = 0.12, τ = 0.03, heterogeneity, P = 0.18). DFS and OS were more concordant for combined SOFT and E-3193 findings; for ovarian suppression plus tamoxifen compared to tamoxifen alone, there were 24 fewer DFS events (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67-1.07, P = 0.09, τ 2 = 0) and 14 fewer deaths (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53-1.07). The SOFT Estrogen Substudy demonstrated inconsistent estrogen suppression with combined ovarian suppression and aromatase inhibitor. CONCLUSION: Given the discordance between DFS and OS and inconsistent estrogen suppression with ovarian suppression plus aromatase inhibitor, adding aromatase inhibitor to ovarian suppression as adjuvant therapy in premenopausal women is premature.

Patient-Provider Communication With Older Adults About Sleep Apnea Diagnosis and Treatment.

Patient-provider communication impacts adherence to therapy. We explored older adults' communication with their providers, preferences for communication, and views on communication attributes and decision aid characteristics, by conducting four focus groups. Several participants reported they had received insufficient information about their sleep apnea diagnosis and treatment options. Most participants felt that it would be helpful to have treatment information tailored to their needs, including information on the negative impact of treatment on comfort and convenience and disclosure about common barriers to adherence. Participants provided desired characteristics for a decision aid, including their preferred delivery method, content, and format. These findings have implications for how to design useful decision aids for older adults with newly diagnosed sleep apnea.

What Families Need and Physicians Deliver: Contrasting Communication Preferences Between Surrogate Decision-Makers and Physicians During Outcome Prognostication in Critically Ill TBI Patients.

BACKGROUND: Surrogate decision-makers ("surrogates") and physicians of incapacitated patients have different views of prognosis and how it should be communicated, but this has not been investigated in neurocritically ill patients. We examined surrogates' communication preferences and physicians' practices during the outcome prognostication for critically ill traumatic brain injury (ciTBI) patients in two level-1 trauma centers and seven academic medical centers in the USA. METHODS: We used qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics of transcribed interviews to identify themes in surrogates (n = 16) and physicians (n = 20). RESULTS: The majority of surrogates (82%) preferred numeric estimates describing the patient's prognosis, as they felt it would increase prognostic certainty, and limit the uncertainty perceived as frustrating. Conversely, 75% of the physicians reported intentionally omitting numeric estimates during prognostication meetings due to low confidence in family members' abilities to appropriately interpret probabilities, worry about creating false hope, and distrust in the accuracy and data quality of existing TBI outcome models. Physicians felt that these models are for research only and should not be applied to individual patients. Surrogates valued compassion during prognostication discussions, and acceptance of their goals-of-care decision by clinicians. Physicians and surrogates agreed on avoiding false hope. CONCLUSION: We identified fundamental differences in the communication preferences of prognostic information between ciTBI patient surrogates and physicians. These findings inform the content of a future decision aid for goals-of-care discussions in ciTBI patients. If validated, these findings may have important implications for improving communication practices in the neurointensive care unit independent of whether a formal decision aid is used.

Decision Aids and Shared Decision-Making in Neurocritical Care: An Unmet Need in Our NeuroICUs.

Improved resuscitation methods and advances in critical care have significantly increased the survival of patients presenting with devastating brain injuries compared to prior decades. After the patient's stabilization phase, families and patients are faced with "goals-of-care" decisions about continuation of aggressive intensive care unit care or comfort care only (CMO). Highly varying rates of CMO between centers raise the question of "self-fulfilling prophecies." Disease severity, the physician's communication and the family's understanding of projected outcomes, their uncertainties, complication risks with continued care, physician bias, and the patient's and surrogate's wishes and values all influence a CMO decision. Disease-specific decision support interventions, decision aids (DAs), may remedy these issues in the neurocritical care unit, potentially leading to better-informed and less-biased goals-of-care decisions in neurocritically ill patients, while increasing decision knowledge, confidence, and realistic expectations and decreasing decisional conflict and regret. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process that enhances patients' and proxies' understanding about prognosis, encourages them to actively weigh the risks and benefits of a treatment, and considers the patient's preferences and values to make better decisions. DAs are SDM tools, which have been successfully implemented for many other conditions to assist difficult decision-making. In this article, we summarize the purposes of SDM, the derivation of DAs, and their potential application in neurocritical care.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

An interactive, online decision aid assessing patient goals and preferences for treatment of aortic stenosis to support physician-led shared decision-making: Early feasibility pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend shared decision making when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis but implementation has lagged. We assessed the feasibility and impact of a novel decision aid for severe aortic stenosis at point-of-care. METHODS: This prospective multi-site pilot cohort study included adults with severe aortic stenosis and their clinicians. Patients were referred by their heart team when scheduled to discuss treatment options. Outcomes included shared decision-making processes, communication quality, decision-making confidence, decisional conflict, knowledge, stage of decision making, decision quality, and perceptions of the tool. Patients were assessed at baseline (T0), after using the intervention (T1), and after the clinical encounter (T2); clinicians were assessed at T2. Before the encounter, patients reviewed the intervention, Aortic Valve Improved Treatment Approaches (AVITA), an interactive, online decision aid. AVITA presents options, frames decisions, clarifies patient goals and values, and generates a summary to use with clinicians during the encounter. RESULTS: 30 patients (9 women [30.0%]; mean [SD] age 70.4 years [11.0]) and 14 clinicians (4 women [28.6%], 7 cardiothoracic surgeons [50%]) comprised 28 clinical encounters Most patients [85.7%] and clinicians [84.6%] endorsed AVITA. Patients reported AVITA easy to use [89.3%] and helped them choose treatment [95.5%]. Clinicians reported the AVITA summary helped them understand their patients' values [80.8%] and make values-aligned recommendations [61.5%]. Patient knowledge significantly improved at T1 and T2 (p = 0.004). Decisional conflict, decision-making stage, and decision quality improved at T2 (p = 0.0001, 0.0005, and 0.083, respectively). Most patients [60%] changed treatment preference between T0 and T2. Initial treatment preferences were associated with low knowledge, high decisional conflict, and poor decision quality; final preferences were associated with high knowledge, low conflict, and high quality. CONCLUSIONS: AVITA was endorsed by patients and clinicians, easy to use, improved shared decision-making quality and helped patients and clinicians arrive at a treatment that reflected patients' values. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial ID: NCT04755426, Clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

Balancing the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids: an updated review.

BACKGROUND: Standards for patient decision aids require that information and options be presented in a balanced manner; this requirement is based on the argument that balanced presentation is essential to foster informed decision making. If information is presented in an incomplete/non-neutral manner, it can stimulate cognitive biases that can unduly affect individuals' knowledge, perceptions of risks and benefits, and, ultimately, preferences. However, there is little clarity about what constitutes balance, and how it can be determined and enhanced. We conducted a literature review to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to balancing the presentation of information and options. METHODS: A literature search related to patient decision aids and balance was conducted on Medline, using MeSH terms and PubMed; this search supplemented the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration's review of patient decision aids trials. Only English language articles relevant to patient decision making and addressing the balance of information and options were included. All members of the team independently screened clusters of articles; uncertainties were resolved by seeking review by another member. The team then worked in sub-groups to extract and synthesise data on theory, definitions, and evidence reported in these studies. RESULTS: A total of 40 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, six explained the rationale for balancing the presentation of information and options. Twelve defined "balance"; the definition of "balance" that emerged is as follows: "The complete and unbiased presentation of the relevant options and the information about those options-in content and in format-in a way that enables individuals to process this information without bias". Ten of the 40 articles reported assessing the balance of the relevant decision aid. All 10 did so exclusively from the users' or patients' perspective, using a five-point Likert-type scale. Presenting information in a side-by-side display form was associated with more respondents (ranging from 70% to 96%) judging the information as "balanced". CONCLUSION: There is a need for comparative studies investigating different ways to improve and measure balance in the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids.

Clarifying values: an updated review.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids. METHODS: Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary. RESULTS: Values clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single "best" practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect. CONCLUSIONS: Values clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness.

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.

Factors associated with treatment of women with osteoporosis or osteopenia from a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Health outcomes could be improved if women at high risk for osteoporotic fracture were matched to effective treatment. This study determined the extent to which treatment for osteoporosis/osteopenia corresponded to the presence of specific risk factors for osteoporotic fracture. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the United States 2007 National Health and Wellness Survey included women age ≥ 40 years who reported having a diagnosis of osteoporosis (69% of 3276) or osteopenia (31% of 3276). Patients were stratified by whether they were or were not taking prescription treatment for osteoporosis/osteopenia. Using 34 patient characteristics as covariates, logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with treatment. RESULTS: Current prescription treatment was reported by 1800 of 3276 (54.9%) women with osteoporosis/osteopenia. The following factors were associated with receiving prescription treatment: patient-reported diagnosis of osteoporosis (versus osteopenia); previous bone mineral density test; ≥ 2 fractures since age 50; older age; lower body mass index; better physical functioning; postmenopausal status; family history of osteoporosis; fewer comorbidities; prescription insurance coverage; higher total prescription count; higher ratio of prescription costs to monthly income; higher income; single status; previous visit to a rheumatologist or gynecologist; and 1 or 2 outpatient visits to healthcare provider (vs. none) in the prior 6 months. Glucocorticoid, tobacco, and daily alcohol use were risk factors for fracture that were not associated with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is a mismatch between those women who could benefit from treatment for osteoporosis and those who are actually treated. For example, self-reported use of glucocorticoids, tobacco, and alcohol were not associated with prescription treatment of osteoporosis. Other clinical and socioeconomic factors were associated with treatment (e.g. prescription drug coverage and higher income) or not (e.g. comorbid osteoarthritis and anxiety) and could be opportunities to improve care.

Postmenopausal women with DCIS post-mastectomy: a potential role for aromatase inhibitors.

For postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) where optimal local control or patient preference results in mastectomy, despite substantial risk of contralateral invasive breast cancer, tamoxifen is uncommonly prescribed based on unfavorable risk-benefit consideration. In the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trial Group (NCIC CTG) MAP.3 primary prevention trial, in postmenopausal women exemestane reduced invasive breast cancer incidence by 65% without increasing life-threatening side effects. In adjuvant breast cancer trials, the aromatase inhibitor exemestane as well as anastrozole and letrozole have all reduced new contralateral breast cancer incidence. Thus, aromatase inhibitors, and perhaps particularly exemestane, provide an option to address the risk of contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with DCIS managed with mastectomy.

What matters most to patients with severe aortic stenosis when choosing treatment? Framing the conversation for shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend including the patient's values and preferences when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis (sAS). However, little is known about what matters most to patients as they develop treatment preferences. Our objective was to identify, prioritize, and organize patient-reported goals and features of treatment for sAS. METHODS: This multi-center mixed-methods study conducted structured focus groups using the nominal group technique to identify patients' most important treatment goals and features. Patients separately rated and grouped those items using card sorting techniques. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses generated a cognitive map and clusters. RESULTS: 51 adults with sAS and 3 caregivers with experience choosing treatment (age 36-92 years) were included. Participants were referred from multiple health centers across the U.S. and online. Eight nominal group meetings generated 32 unique treatment goals and 46 treatment features, which were grouped into 10 clusters of goals and 11 clusters of features. The most important clusters were: 1) trust in the healthcare team, 2) having good information about options, and 3) long-term outlook. Other clusters addressed the need for and urgency of treatment, being independent and active, overall health, quality of life, family and friends, recovery, homecare, and the process of decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: These patient-reported items addressed the impact of the treatment decision on the lives of patients and their families from the time of decision-making through recovery, homecare, and beyond. Many attributes had not been previously reported for sAS. The goals and features that patients' value, and the relative importance that they attach to them, differ from those reported in clinical trials and vary substantially from one individual to another. These findings are being used to design a shared decision-making tool to help patients and their clinicians choose a treatment that aligns with the patients' priorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial ID: NCT04755426, Trial URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids prepare people to participate in decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. SEARCH STRATEGY: For this update, we searched from January 2006 to December 2009 in MEDLINE (Ovid); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, issue 4 2009); CINAHL (Ovid) (to September 2008 only); EMBASE (Ovid); PsycINFO (Ovid); and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed potential risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, were:A) decision attributes;B) decision making process attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health system effects. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Of 34,316 unique citations, 86 studies involving 20,209 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included. Thirty-one of these studies are new in this update. Twenty-nine trials are ongoing. There was variability in potential risk of bias across studies. The two criteria that were most problematic were lack of blinding and the potential for selective outcome reporting, given that most of the earlier trials were not registered.Of 86 included studies, 63 (73%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: A) criteria involving decision attributes: knowledge scores (51 studies); accurate risk perceptions (16 studies); and informed value-based choice (12 studies); and B) criteria involving decision process attributes: feeling informed (30 studies) and feeling clear about values (18 studies).A) Criteria involving decision attributes:Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions by increasing knowledge (MD 13.77 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.40 to 16.15; n = 26). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simpler decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 4.97 out of 100; 95% CI 3.22 to 6.72; n = 15). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.08; n = 14). The effect was stronger when probabilities were expressed in numbers (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.37; n = 11) rather than words (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.48; n = 3). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification compared to those without explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients achieving decisions that were informed and consistent with their values (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.52; n = 8).B) Criteria involving decision process attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -6.43 of 100; 95% CI -9.16 to -3.70; n = 17); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -4.81; 95% CI -7.23 to -2.40; n = 14); c) reduced the proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; n = 11); and d) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; n = 9). Decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in the four studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 12) and/or the decision making process (n = 12), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. There were no studies evaluating the decision process attributes relating to helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made or understand that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomesExposure to decision aids compared to usual care continued to demonstrate reduced choice of: major elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; n = 11). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care also resulted in reduced choice of PSA screening (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; n = 7). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, there was reduced choice of menopausal hormones (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from -8 minutes to +23 minutes (median 2.5 minutes). Decision aids do not appear to be different from comparisons in terms of anxiety (n = 20), and general health outcomes (n = 7), and condition specific health outcomes (n = 9). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: New for this updated review is evidence that: decision aids with explicit values clarification exercises improve informed values-based choices; decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication; and decision aids have a variable effect on length of consultation.Consistent with findings from the previous review, which had included studies up to 2006: decision aids increase people's involvement, and improve knowledge and realistic perception of outcomes; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the choice of discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, cost-effectiveness, and use with developing and/or lower literacy populations need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have positive effects on attributes of the decision or decision-making process.

Interprofessional education about shared decision making for patients in primary care settings.

With an increasingly complex array of interventions facing healthcare professionals and patients, coupled with a potentially diverse number of professionals operating within the primary care team, the adoption of shared decision making (SDM) - with or without patients' decision aids - in an interprofessional manner is essential to ensure the highest quality of care for patients. In this article, we propose a framework for interprofessional education about SDM targeted to primary care settings. Five areas of knowledge and skills were agreed to be essential for all relevant stakeholders for interprofessional education in SDM to be successful: understanding the concept of SDM; acquiring relevant communication skills to facilitate SDM; understanding interprofessional sensitivities; understanding the roles of different professions within the relevant primary care group; and acquiring relevant skills to implement SDM. We suggest a series of teaching methods for the aforementioned areas, using principles from adult learning.

Efficacy of a patient decision aid for improving person-centered decision-making by older adults with obstructive sleep apnea.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Person-centered obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) care is a collaborative approach that is respectful of an individual's health priorities. Informed decision-making is essential to person-centered care, especially as patients age. In a feasibility study, we evaluated the effects of a new decision aid (Decide2Rest) on OSA treatment decision-making in older adults. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥ 60 years) with newly diagnosed OSA were recruited from two health care systems and randomized either to Decide2Rest or to a control program. Postintervention outcomes included 1) Decisional Conflict Scale (0-100, where 0 = low and 100 = high conflict), which measures perceptions of uncertainty, whether decisions reflect what matters most to patients, and whether patients feel supported in decision-making; 2) Preparation for Decision-Making scale (0-100, where 0 = least and 100 most prepared); and 3) OSA knowledge (0-100, where 0 = poor and 100 = outstanding). Multivariable linear regression models examined relationships between Decide2Rest and outcomes (Decisional Conflict Scale, Preparation for Decision-Making, OSA knowledge). RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were randomized to Decide2Rest (n = 36; mean age, 69 years; 72% male) vs control (n = 37; mean age, 69 years; 70% male). Results from the regressions, controlling for study site, indicate that the Decide2Rest program resulted in less decisional conflict (20.5 vs 32.7 on the Decisional Conflict Scale; P = .014), more preparedness for decision-making (87.8 vs 66.2 on the Preparation for Decision-Making scale; P < .001), and greater OSA knowledge (75.1 vs 65.3 OSA knowledge score; P = .04) scores than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The Decide2Rest program promotes person-centered OSA decision-making for older patients with newly diagnosed OSA. Future studies are needed to optimize implementation of the program. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov, Name: Improving Older Adults' Decision-Making for OSAT (eDecide2Rest); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03138993; Identifier: NCT03138993.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids prepare people to participate in 'close call' decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids for people facing difficult treatment or screening decisions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to July 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library; 2006, Issue 2); CINAHL (Ovid) (1982 to July 2006); EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to July 2006); and PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to July 2006). We contacted researchers active in the field up to December 2006. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published RCTs of interventions designed to aid patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to no intervention, usual care, and alternate interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision, or if the study's intervention was not available to determine that it met the minimum criteria to qualify as a patient decision aid. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, and extracted data from included studies using standardized forms. The primary outcomes focused on the effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: attributes of the decision and attributes of the decision process. We considered other behavioural, health, and health system effects as secondary outcomes. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR) using a random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 25 new RCTs, bringing the total to 55. Thirty-eight (69%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: decision attributes: knowledge scores (27 trials); accurate risk perceptions (11 trials); and value congruence with chosen option (4 trials); and decision process attributes: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials).This review confirmed the following findings from the previous (2003) review. Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions in terms of: a) greater knowledge (MD 15.2 out of 100; 95% CI 11.7 to 18.7); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -8.3 of 100; 95% CI -11.9 to -4.8); c) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.4; 95% CI -10.0 to -2.7); d) reduced the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8); and e) reduced proportion of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8). When simpler decision aids were compared to more detailed decision aids, the relative improvement was significant in knowledge (MD 4.6 out of 100; 95% CI 3.0 to 6.2) and there was some evidence of greater agreement between values and choice.In this review, we were able to explore the use of probabilities in decision aids. Exposure to a decision aid with probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.9). The effect was stronger when probabilities were measured quantitatively (RR 1.8; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.3) versus qualitatively (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5).As in the previous review, exposure to decision aids continued to demonstrate reduced rates of: elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9); and use of menopausal hormones, detailed versus simple aid (RR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0). There is now evidence that exposure to decision aids results in reduced PSA screening, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.0) . For other decisions, the effect on decisions remains variable.As in the previous review, decision aids are no better than comparisons in affecting satisfaction with decision making, anxiety, and health outcomes. The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, continuance, resource use) were inconclusive.There were no trials evaluating the IPDAS decision process criteria relating to helping patients to recognize a decision needs to be made, understand that values affect the decision, or discuss values with the practitioner. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Patient decision aids increase people's involvement and are more likely to lead to informed values-based decisions; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on decisions. They reduce the use of discretionary surgery without apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The degree of detail patient decision aids require for positive effects on decision quality should be explored. The effects on continuance with chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, and cost-effectiveness need further evaluation.

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.