Development of an Electronic Decision Aid Tool to Facilitate Mainstream Genetic Testing in Ovarian Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Multigene panel testing is an important component of cancer treatment plans and risk assessment, but there are many different panel options and choosing the most appropriate panel can be challenging for health care providers and patients. Electronic tools have been proposed to help patients make informed decisions about which gene panel to choose by considering their preferences and priorities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic decision aid (DA) tool was developed in line with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards collaboration. The multidisciplinary project team collaborated with an external health care communications agency and the MGH Cancer Center Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) to develop the DA. Surveys of genetic counselors and patients were used to scope the content, and alpha testing was used to refine the design and content. RESULTS: Surveys of genetic counselors (n = 12) and patients (n = 228) identified common themes in discussing panel size and strategies for helping patients decide between panels and in identifying confusing terms for patients and distribution of patients' choices. The DA, organized into 2 major sections, provides educational text, graphics, and videos to guide patients through the decision-making process. Alpha testing feedback from the PFAC (n = 4), genetic counselors (n = 3) and a group of lay people (n = 8) identified areas to improve navigation, simplify wording, and improve layout. CONCLUSION: The DA developed in this study has the potential to facilitate informed decision-making by patients regarding cancer genetic testing. The distinctive feature of this DA is that it addresses the specific question of which multigene panel may be most suitable for the patient. Its acceptability and effectiveness will be evaluated in future studies.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy non-initiation and non-persistence in young women with early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Characterizing oral adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) non-initiation and non-persistence in young women with breast cancer can inform strategies to improve overall adherence in this population. METHODS: We identified 693 women with hormone receptor-positive, stage I-III breast cancer enrolled in a cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years. Women were classified as non-initiators if they did not report taking ET in the 18 months after diagnosis. Women who initiated but did not report taking ET subsequently (through 5-year post-diagnosis) were categorized as non-persistent. We assessed ET decision-making and used logistic regression to identify factors associated with non-initiation/non-persistence and to evaluate the association between non-persistence and recurrence. RESULTS: By 18 months, 9% had not initiated ET. Black women had higher odds and women with a college degree had lower odds of non-initiation. Among 607 women who initiated, 20% were non-persistent. Younger age, being married/partnered, and reporting more weight problems were associated with higher odds of non-persistence; receipt of chemotherapy and greater hot flash and vaginal symptom burden were associated with lower odds of non-persistence. Adjusting for age and clinical characteristics, non-persistence was associated with lower odds of recurrence. Women who initiated were more likely to report shared decision-making than non-initiators (57% vs. 38%, p = 0.049), while women who were non-persistent were less likely to indicate high confidence with the decision than women who were persistent (40% vs. 63%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve ET decision-making may facilitate initiation and address barriers to adherence in young breast cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov , NCT01468246.

Multilevel barriers and facilitators to widespread use of preconception carrier screening in the United States.

PURPOSE: Although preconception reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) is preferred to screening during pregnancy, population-wide preconception screening is not routinely performed in the United States. We explored the multilevel barriers to the widespread adoption of preconception RGCS in the United States via key informant interviews. METHODS: Semi-structured virtual video interviews were conducted with 29 informants with a breadth of professional expertise between May and October 2022. Data collection and qualitative analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and socioecological model. Analysis focused on identifying barriers to delivering preconception RGCS at and across different levels of health care and exploring potential facilitators of preconception RGCS delivery. RESULTS: Barriers to preconception RGCS were identified at the levels of test characteristics, patients and couples, clinicians and care teams, and the external health care and policy environments. Across the different levels of care delivery, 3 themes of barriers emerged: (1) fragmentation and inconsistencies hinder care delivery, (2) gaps in knowledge, misconceptions, and uncertainties about RGCS are pervasive, and (3) expanding preconception RGCS in the diverse US population presents unique implementation challenges. Potential solutions were detailed by informants. CONCLUSION: Identifying individual and thematic barriers to preconception RGCS delivery may help to define strategies to alleviate obstacles.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Breast Reconstruction: Does the Quality of Decisions Matter?

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the quality of decisions influences patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We hypothesized that higher decision quality for breast reconstruction would be independently associated with better PROs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without reconstruction. Patients were enrolled before surgery and followed for 18 months. We used BREAST-Q scales to measure PROs and linear regression models to explore the relationship between decision quality (based on knowledge and preference concordance) and PROs. Final models were adjusted for baseline BREAST-Q score, radiation, chemotherapy, and major complications. RESULTS: The cohort included 101 patients who completed baseline and 18-month surveys. Breast reconstruction was independently associated with higher satisfaction with breasts (ß = 20.2, p = 0.0002), psychosocial well-being (ß = 14.4, p = 0.006), and sexual well-being (ß = 15.7, p = 0.007), but not physical well-being. Patients who made a high-quality decision had similar PROs as patients who did not. Among patients undergoing mastectomy with reconstruction, higher decision quality was associated with lower psychosocial well-being (ß = -14.2, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Breast reconstruction was associated with better PROs in some but not all domains. Overall, making a high-quality decision was not associated with better PROs. However, patients who did not have reconstruction had a trend toward better well-being after making a high-quality decision, whereas patients who did have reconstruction had poorer well-being after making a high-quality decision. Additional research on the relationship between decision quality and PROs is needed.

Predictors of Informed People's Preferences for Statin Therapy to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk: an Internet Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest clinicians inform patients about their 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, little is known about how the risk estimate influences patients' preferences for statin therapy for primary prevention. OBJECTIVE: To define predictors of preference for statin therapy after participants were informed about their individualized benefits and harms. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey in 2020. SETTING: Online US survey panel. PARTICIPANTS: A national sample of 304 respondents aged 40 to 75 who had not previously taken a statin and who knew their cholesterol levels and blood pressure measurements. INTERVENTION: Participants entered their risk factors into a calculator which estimated their 10-year CVD risk. They were then provided with an estimate of their absolute risk reduction with a statin and the chance of side effects from meta-analyses. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: We used a hierarchical model to predict participants' preferences for statin therapy according to their 10-year CVD risk, perceptions of the magnitude of statin benefit (large, medium, small, or almost no benefit), worry about side effects (very worried, somewhat worried, a little worried, not worried at all), and other variables. KEY RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 55 years (SD = 9.9); 50% were female, 44% were non-white, and 16% had a high school degree or less education. After reviewing their benefits and side effects, 45% of the participants reported they probably or definitely wanted to take a statin. In the full hierarchical model, only perceived benefits of taking a statin was a significant independent predictor of wanting a statin (OR 7.3, 95% CI 4.7, 12.2). LIMITATIONS: Participants were from an internet survey panel and making hypothetical decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' perceptions of their benefit from statin therapy predicted wanting to take a statin for primary prevention; neither estimated CVD risk nor worries about statin side effects were independent predictors.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. CONCLUSION: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Performance of the shared decision-making process scale for use in evaluation of hereditary cancer genetic testing decisions.

This study aimed to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, reliability, and validity of the existing four-item Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process Scale for use in evaluating genetic testing decisions. Patients from a large hereditary cancer genetics practice were invited to participate in a two-part survey after completing pre-test genetic counseling. The online survey included the SDM Process Scale and the SURE scale, a measure of decisional conflict. SDM Process scores were compared to SURE scores to test convergent validity, and respondents were sent a second survey 1 week later to assess retest reliability. The response rate was 65% (n = 259/398) and missing data was low (<1%). SDM scores ranged from zero to four with a mean of 2.3 (SD = 1.1). Retest reliability was good, with intraclass correlation of 0.84, 95% confidence interval (0.79, 0.88). No relationship was found between SDM Process scores and decisional conflict (p = 0.46), likely because 85% of participants reported no decisional conflict. The four-item SDM Process Scale demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and retest reliability, but not convergent validity with decisional conflict. These findings provide initial evidence for use of this scale to measure patient perceptions of SDM in pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer genetic testing.

Validation of the Trust in the Surgical Decision Scale.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a short measure of trust in the surgical decision making process. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Having a reliable and valid measure of trust is important to assess the quality of the patient-surgeon relationship when decisions about surgical procedures are made. METHODS: A previously published 10-item trust scale was qualitatively tested with patients, and a revised set of 14 items was tested using a web-based survey of 300 people who had hip, knee or back surgery in the past 2 years. The 14 items were evaluated using patterns of correlations and relevance to medical decision making to create a 5-item version. A 5-item subset was compared to the 14-item version to assess reliability and validity of patient's trust in the surgical decision making process. RESULTS: Of the 300 participants, 32% had hip surgery, 33% had knee surgery, and 34% back surgery. Mean age was 53 years, 45% female, 80% White, and 36% had a high school degree or less. The item intercorrelations for the 14 items were 0.43-0.72 and 0.58-0.71 for the 5 items. Correlation between the versions was 0.96 (P < 0.01). The 14- and 5-item versions were positively correlated with participants' shared decision making process scores (0.42 and 0.41, both P = 0.01), internal consistency reliability scores were 0.95 and 0.89, respectively, and were negatively correlated with their Decision Regret scores (-0.51 and -0.48, both P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The 5-item Trust in the Surgical Decision Scale has strong evidence of validity and reliability for patients who underwent common orthopedic procedures.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Routine Medical Care and Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 restrictions and fear dramatically changed the use of medical care. Understanding the magnitude of cancelled and postponed appointments and associated factors can help identify approaches to mitigate unmet need. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of medical visits cancelled or postponed and for whom. We hypothesized that adults with serious medical conditions and those with higher anxiety, depressive symptoms, and avoidance-oriented coping would have more cancellations/postponements. DESIGN: Four nationally representative cross-sectional surveys conducted online in May, July, October, and December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 59,747 US adults who completed 15-min online surveys. 69% cooperation rate. MEASURES: Physical and mental health visits and cancer screening cancelled or postponed over prior 2 months. Plan to cancel or postpone visits over the next 2 months. Relationship with demographics, medical conditions, local COVID-19 death rate, anxiety, depressive symptoms, coping, intolerance of uncertainty, and perceived COVID-19 risk. KEY RESULTS: Of the 58% (N = 34,868) with a medical appointment during the 2 months before the survey, 64% had an appointment cancelled or postponed in May, decreasing to 37% in December. Of the 41% of respondents with scheduled cancer screening, 20% cancelled/postponed, which was stable May to December. People with more medical conditions were more likely to cancel or postpone medical visits (OR 1.19 per condition, 95% CI 1.16, 1.22) and cancer screening (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.15, 1.24). Race, ethnicity, and income had weak associations with cancelled/postponed visits, local death rate was unrelated, but anxiety and depressive symptoms were strongly related to cancellations, and this grew between May and December. CONCLUSIONS: Cancelled medical care and cancer screening were more common among persons with medical conditions, anxiety and depression, even after accounting for COVID-19 deaths. Outreach and support to ensure that patients are not avoiding needed care due to anxiety, depression and inaccurate perceptions of risk will be important.

Colorectal Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Shared decision-making (SDM) can help patients make good decisions about preventive health interventions such as cancer screening. We illustrate the use of SDM in the case of a 53-year-old man who had a new patient visit with a primary care physician and had never been screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The patient had recently recovered from a serious COVID-19 infection requiring weeks of mechanical ventilation. When the primary care physician initially offered a screening colonoscopy, the man expressed great reluctance to return to the hospital for the exam. The PCP then offered a stool test, which could be completed at home, but emphasized that if it were positive, a colonoscopy would be required. He agreed to complete the stool test, and unfortunately, it was positive. He then agreed to undergo colonoscopy, which uncovered a large rectal cancer. The carcinoma had invaded the mesorectal fat but there were no metastases. After undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a low anterior resection of the tumor, he has no evidence of recurrence so far. Many clinicians favor colonoscopy for CRC screening, but evidence suggests that patients who are offered more than one reasonable option are more likely to undergo screening. If screening had been delayed in this patient until he was willing to accept a screening colonoscopy, there was the potential the cancer may have been more advanced when diagnosed, with a worse outcome. Shared decision-making was a key approach to understanding the patient's feelings related to this screening decision and making a decision consistent with his preferences.

Measuring shared decision-making in younger and older adults with depression.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the performance of the shared decision-making (SDM) Process scale in patients with depression, compared alternative wording of two items in the scale and explored performance in younger adults. METHODS: A web-based non-probability panel of respondents with depression aged 18-39 (younger) or 40-75 (older) who talked with a health-care provider about starting or stopping treatment for depression in the past year were surveyed. Respondents completed one of two versions of the SDM Process scale that differed in the wording of pros and cons items and completed measures of decisional conflict, decision regret and who made the decision (mainly the respondent, mainly the provider or together). A subset of respondents completed a retest survey by 1 week. We examined how version and age group impacted SDM Process scores and calculated construct validity and retest reliability. We hypothesized that patients with higher SDM Process scores would show less decisional conflict using the SURE scale (range = 0-4); top score = no conflict versus other and less regret (range 1-4; higher scores indicated more regret). RESULTS: The sample (N = 494) was majority White, non-Hispanic (82%) and female (72%), 48% were younger and 23% had a high school education or less. SDM Process scores did not differ by version (P = 0.09). SDM Process scores were higher for younger respondents (M = 2.6, SD = 1.0) than older respondents (M = 2.3, SD = 1.1; P = 0.001). Higher SDM Process scores were also associated with no decisional conflict (M = 2.6, SD = 0.99 vs. M = 2.1, SD = 1.2; P < 0.001) and less decision regret (r = -0.18, P < 0.001). Retest reliability was intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.81. CONCLUSIONS: The SDM Process scale demonstrated validity and retest reliability in younger adults, and changes to item wording did not impact scores. Although younger respondents reported more SDM, there is room for improvement in SDM for depression treatment decisions.

What matters most: Randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata.

BACKGROUND: Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with early-stage breast cancer are more likely to report poorer physician-patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery, lower involvement in decision making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. The objective of this study was to understand how to support women across socioeconomic strata in making breast cancer surgery choices. METHODS: We conducted a 3-arm (Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, and usual care), multisite, randomized controlled superiority trial with surgeon-level randomization. The Option Grid (text only) and Picture Option Grid (pictures plus text) conversation aids were evidence-based summaries of available breast cancer surgery options on paper. Decision quality (primary outcome), treatment choice, treatment intention, shared decision making (SDM), anxiety, quality of life, decision regret, and coordination of care were measured from T0 (pre-consultation) to T5 (1-year after surgery. RESULTS: Sixteen surgeons saw 571 of 622 consented patients. Patients in the Picture Option Grid arm (n = 248) had higher knowledge (immediately after the visit [T2] and 1 week after surgery or within 2 weeks of the first postoperative visit [T3]), an improved decision process (T2 and T3), lower decision regret (T3), and more SDM (observed and self-reported) compared to usual care (n = 257). Patients in the Option Grid arm (n = 66) had higher decision process scores (T2 and T3), better coordination of care (12 weeks after surgery or within 2 weeks of the second postoperative visit [T4]), and more observed SDM (during the surgical visit [T1]) compared to usual care arm. Subgroup analyses suggested that the Picture Option Grid had more impact among women of lower SES and health literacy. Neither intervention affected concordance, treatment choice, or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Paper-based conversation aids improved key outcomes over usual care. The Picture Option Grid had more impact among disadvantaged patients. LAY SUMMARY: The objective of this study was to understand how to help women with lower incomes or less formal education to make breast cancer surgery choices. Compared with usual care, a conversation aid with pictures and text led to higher knowledge. It improved the decision process and shared decision making (SDM) and lowered decision regret. A text-only conversation aid led to an improved decision process, more coordinated care, and higher SDM compared to usual care. The conversation aid with pictures was more helpful for women with lower income or less formal education. Conversation aids with pictures and text helped women make better breast cancer surgery choices.

A randomized controlled trial of an online health tool about Down syndrome.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine if a novel online health tool, called Down Syndrome Clinic to You (DSC2U), could improve adherence to national Down syndrome (DS) guidelines. We also sought to determine if primary care providers (PCPs) and caregivers are satisfied with this personalized online health tool. METHODS: In a national, randomized controlled trial of 230 caregivers who had children or dependents with DS without access to a DS specialist, 117 were randomized to receive DSC2U and 113 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was adherence to five health evaluations indicated by national guidelines for DS. DSC2U is completed electronically, in all mobile settings, by caregivers at home. The outputs-personalized checklists-are used during annual wellness visits with the patient's PCP. RESULTS: A total of 213 participants completed a 7-month follow-up evaluation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the intervention group had a 1.6-fold increase in the number of indicated evaluations that were recommended by the primary care provider or completed compared with controls. Both caregivers and PCPs reported high levels of satisfaction with DSC2U. CONCLUSIONS: DSC2U improved adherence to the national DS health-care guidelines with a novel modality that was highly valued by both caregivers and PCPs.

Treatment decisions for patients with peripheral artery disease and symptoms of claudication: Development process and alpha testing of the SHOW-ME PAD decision aid.

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) face a range of treatment options to improve survival and quality of life. An evidence-based shared decision-making tool (brochure, website, and recorded patient vignettes) for patients with new or worsening claudication symptoms was created using mixed methods and following the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria. We reviewed literature and collected qualitative input from patients (n = 28) and clinicians (n = 34) to identify decisional needs, barriers, outcomes, knowledge, and preferences related to claudication treatment, along with input on implementation logistics from 59 patients and 27 clinicians. A prototype decision aid was developed and tested through a survey administered to 20 patients with PAD and 23 clinicians. Patients identified invasive treatment options (endovascular or surgical revascularization), non-invasive treatments (supervised exercise therapy, claudication medications), and combinations of these as key decisions. A total of 65% of clinicians thought the brochure would be useful for medical decision-making, an additional 30% with suggested improvements. For patients, those percentages were 75% and 25%, respectively. For the website, 76.5% of clinicians and 85.7% of patients thought it would be useful; an additional 17.6% of clinicians and 14.3% of patients thought it would be useful, with improvements. Suggestions were incorporated in the final version. The first prototype was well-received among patients and clinicians. The next step is to implement the tool in a PAD specialty care setting to evaluate its impact on patient knowledge, engagement, and decisional quality. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03190382.

Development of a measure of decision quality for implantable defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: CMS reimbursement guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) include mandated shared decision making (SDM), but without any manner of assessing the quality of decisions made. We developed and tested a scale meant to assess patients' knowledge of and preferences specific to ICDs. Such a tool would assess these constructs in the clinical environment, targeting resources and support for patients considering a primary prevention ICD. METHODS: Development of the ICD decision quality (ICD-DQ) scale included (1) item creation, (2) content validation using surveys of patients (n = 23) and clinicians (n = 31), and (3) examination of validity and reliability using a survey of patients who previously received an ICD (n = 295, response rate = 72%). RESULTS: The final scale consists of 12 knowledge and 8 preference items. With respect to content validity, clinician and patient respondents agreed on the importance of 19 of 24 candidate knowledge items (79%), and 9 of 11 treatment preference items (81%). Knowledge items exhibited moderate internal validity (α = 0.62, 1 factor), strong test-retest reliability (mean % correct at first administration = 59%, 62% at follow-up, P > .1) and discriminant validity (59% correct for patients, 93% among cardiologists). Short versions of the ICD-DQ were developed for clinical settings, the scores from both of which correlated with the long version in this cohort (11-item (r = 0.90) and a 5-item (r = 0.75)). CONCLUSIONS: The ICD-DQ fills a critical gap in measuring the quality of patients' ICD decisions. They may be used to evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids or the quality of SDM in clinical practice.

Validation of the Impact Index: can we measure disease effects on quality of life in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis?

PURPOSE: To validate the Impact Index, a short, publicly available scale that measures the extent to which a respondent's health problem adversely impacts their quality of life. METHODS: Secondary analysis of patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis surveyed after visiting a surgeon at baseline (N = 322) and about 6 months after the visit (N = 283). Patients responded to the Impact Index and previously validated questionnaires about overall health, pain, and function. The Impact Index includes four questions that ask how much the respondent is bothered, worried, limited, or in pain due to their health condition over the past 30 days. Total scores range from 0 to 12; higher scores indicate more deleterious impact. RESULTS: Patients were mostly female (55%), majority white (95%), had an average age of 65 (SD = 9), and most had surgery (64%). The baseline Impact Index score was 9.48 (SD = 2.63); at follow up 4.75 (SD = 3.54). Impact Index was related to overall health at baseline (r = - 0.49). For knee patients at baseline, Impact Index was negatively related to their knee symptoms (r = - 0.49) and knee pain (r = - 0.67). For hip patients at baseline, Impact Index was negatively related to the Harris Hip score (r = - 0.62). Scale directions varied; however, the signs of all correlations were as hypothesized. The Impact Index was predictive of surgical choice (p < .001, OR = 1.45), however, overall health (p = .88) and comorbidity (p = .24) measures were not. Reliability was acceptable (α = 0.85). Responsiveness statistics suggested overall health, pain, function, and Impact Index measures reflected improvement patients experienced from surgery. The Impact Index had the largest effect sizes (> - 3.4) and Guyatt Responsiveness Statistics (> - 2.3). CONCLUSIONS: The Impact Index demonstrated strong evidence of validity, reliability, and responsiveness in hip or knee osteoarthritis patients.

Assessing the quality of shared decision making for elective orthopedic surgery across a large healthcare system: cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend engaging patients in shared decision making for common orthopedic procedures; however, limited work has assessed what is occurring in practice. This study assessed the quality of shared decision making for elective hip and knee replacement and spine surgery at four network-affiliated hospitals. METHODS: A cross-sectional sample of 875 adult patients undergoing total hip or knee joint replacement (TJR) for osteoarthritis or spine surgery for lumbar herniated disc or lumbar spinal stenosis was selected. Patients were mailed a survey including measures of Shared Decision Making (SDMP scale) and Informed, Patient-Centered (IPC) decisions. We examined decision-making across sites, surgeons, and conditions, and whether the decision-making measures were associated with better health outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for clustering of patients within surgeons. RESULTS: Six hundred forty-six surveys (74% response rate) were returned with sufficient responses for analysis. Patients who had TJR reported lower SDMP scores than patients who had spine surgery (2.2 vs. 2.8; p < 0.001). Patients who had TJR were more likely to make IPC decisions (OA = 70%, Spine = 41%; p < 0.001). SDMP and IPC scores varied widely across surgeons, but the site was not predictive of SDMP scores or IPC decisions (all p > 0.09). Higher SDMP scores and IPC decisions were associated with larger improvements in global health outcomes for patients who had TJR, but not patients who had spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of shared decision making and decision quality varied among patients undergoing common elective orthopedic procedures. Routine measurement of shared decision making provides insight into areas of strength across these different orthopedic conditions as well as areas in need of improvement.

Psychometric evaluation of a decision quality instrument for medication decisions for treatment of depression symptoms.

BACKGROUND: A high quality treatment decision means patients are informed and receive treatment that matches their goals. This research examined the reliability and validity of the Depression Decision Quality Instrument (DQI), a survey to measure the extent to which patients are informed and received preferred treatment for depression. METHODS: Participants were aged 18 and older from 17 US cities who discussed medication or counseling with a physician in the past year, and physicians who treated patients with depression who practiced in the same cities. Participants were mailed a survey that included the Depression-DQI, a tool with 10 knowledge and 7 goal and concern items. Patients were randomly assigned to either receive a patient decision aid (DA) on treatment of depression or no DA. A matching score was created by comparing the patient's preferred treatment to their self-reported treatment received. Concordant scores were considered matched, discordant were not. We examined the reliability and known group validity of the Depression-DQI. RESULTS: Most patients 405/504 (80%) responded, 79% (320/405) returned the retest survey, and 60% (114/187) of physicians returned the survey. Patients' knowledge scores on the 10-item scale ranged from 14.6 to 100% with no evidence of floor or ceiling effects. Retest reliability for knowledge was moderate and for goals and concerns ranged from moderate to good. Mean knowledge scores differentiated between patients and physicians (M = 63 [SD = 15] vs. M = 81 [SD = 11], p < 0.001), and between patients who did and didn't receive a DA (M = 64 [SD = 16] vs. M = 61 [SD = 14], p = 0.041). 60.5% of participants received treatment that matched their preference. Based on the multivariate logistic regression, 'avoiding taking anti-depressants' was the only goal that was predictive of taking mediation (OR = 0.73 [0.66, 0.80], p < 0.01). Shared Decision Making Process scores were similar for those who matched their preference and those who didn't (M = 2.18 [SD = 0.97] vs. M = 2.06 [SD = 1.07]; t(320) = - 1.06, p = 0.29). Those who matched had lower regret scores (matched M = 1.72 [SD = 0.74] vs. unmatched M = 2.32 [SD = 0.8]; t(301) = - 6.6, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The Depression DQI demonstrated modest reliability and validity. More work is needed to establish validity of the method to determine concordance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01152307.

Validation of an electronic coding algorithm to identify the primary indication of orthopedic surgeries from administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Determining the primary indication of a surgical procedure can be useful in identifying patients undergoing elective surgery where shared decision-making is recommended. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an algorithm to identify patients receiving the following combinations of surgical procedure and primary indication as part of a study to promote shared decision-making: (1) knee arthroplasty to treat knee osteoarthritis (KOA); (2) hip arthroplasty to treat hip osteoarthritis (HOA); (3) spinal surgery to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (SpS); and (4) spinal surgery to treat lumbar herniated disc (HD). METHODS: Consecutive surgical procedures performed by participating spine, hip, and knee surgeons at four sites within an integrated care network were included. Study staff reviewed electronic medical records to ascertain a "gold standard" determination of the procedure and primary indication status. Electronic algorithms consisting of ICD-10 and CPT codes for each combination of procedure and indication were then applied to records for each case. The primary measures of validity for the algorithms were the sensitivity and specificity relative to the gold standard review. RESULTS: Participating surgeons performed 790 procedures included in this study. The sensitivity of the algorithms in determining whether a surgical case represented one of the combinations of procedure and primary indication ranged from 0.70 (HD) to 0.92 (KOA). The specificity ranged from 0.94 (SpS) to 0.99 (HOA, KOA). CONCLUSION: The electronic algorithm was able to identify all four procedure/primary indication combinations of interest with high specificity. Additionally, the sensitivity for the KOA cases was reasonably high. For HOA and the spine conditions, additional work is needed to improve the sensitivity of the algorithm to identify the primary indication for each case.

An In-Visit Decision Aid for Surgeons to Address Decision Making for Bilateral Mastectomy for Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Few decision aids for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients are used by surgeons during their consultations with patients. METHODS: From 2017 to 2019, an online interactive breast cancer in-visit decision aid (BIDA) was used on 63 patients and 57 patients underwent usual care (UC). We compared knowledge, decision involvement, anxiety and distress (HADS scale), quality of life (PROMIS), fear of recurrence, body image, and patient values between BIDA and UC before surgery. A knowledge score of ≥ 57% was considered "high knowledge." RESULTS: A total of 188 patients were enrolled of which 120 (63.8%) completed all study procedures. Patient demographic characteristics and anxiety and quality of life (QOL) at baseline were similar between patients in BIDA and UC cohorts. After seeing the surgeon, patients in the BIDA group had higher composite knowledge scores compared with UC patients [n = 55 (87.3%) vs. n = 39 (68.4%) respectively, p = 0.012]. Patients in the BIDA cohort reported being asked more often their surgical preference (p = 0.013) and discussing bilateral mastectomy (BM) as an option (p = 0.048). There was a trend of less patients in the BIDA cohort undergoing BM then in the UC cohort [10 (15.9%) vs. 14 (24.6%), p = 0.49]. Anxiety and distress, QOL, fear of recurrence, and body image were not significantly different between BIDA and UC cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid used by surgeons during their consultation was associated with higher knowledge levels, patients reporting more discussion about BM, and a trend of lower BMs. A larger study with more patients is needed to confirm this finding.