Add-On Deep Brain Stimulation versus Continued Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Childhood Epilepsy (ADVANCE): A Partially Randomized Patient Preference Trial.

Outcomes following vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) improve over years after implantation in children with drug-resistant epilepsy. The added value of deep brain stimulation (DBS) instead of continued VNS optimization is unknown. In a prospective, non-blinded, randomized patient preference trial of 18 children (aged 8-17 years) who did not respond to VNS after at least 1 year, add-on DBS resulted in greater seizure reduction compared with an additional year of VNS optimization (51.9% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.047). Add-on DBS also resulted in less bothersome seizures (p = 0.03), but no change in quality of life. DBS may be considered earlier for childhood epilepsy after non-response to VNS. ANN NEUROL 2024;96:405-411.

Mammography Screening Preferences Among Screening-Eligible Women in Their 40s : A National U.S. Survey.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently changed its recommendation for mammography screening from informed decision making to biennial screening for women aged 40 to 49 years. Although many women welcome this change, some may prefer not to be screened at age 40 years. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a national probability-based U.S. survey to investigate breast cancer screening preferences among women aged 39 to 49 years. DESIGN: Pre-post survey with a breast cancer screening decision aid (DA) intervention. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05376241). SETTING: Online national U.S. survey. PARTICIPANTS: 495 women aged 39 to 49 years without a history of breast cancer or a known BRCA1/2 gene mutation. INTERVENTION: A mammography screening DA providing information about screening benefits and harms and a personalized breast cancer risk estimate. MEASUREMENTS: Screening preferences (assessed before and after the DA), 10-year Gail model risk estimate, and whether the information was surprising and different from past messages. RESULTS: Before viewing the DA, 27.0% of participants preferred to delay screening (vs. having mammography at their current age), compared with 38.5% after the DA. There was no increase in the number never wanting mammography (5.4% before the DA vs. 4.3% after the DA). Participants who preferred to delay screening had lower breast cancer risk than those who preferred not to delay. The information about overdiagnosis was surprising for 37.4% of participants versus 27.2% and 22.9% for information about false-positive results and screening benefits, respectively. LIMITATION: Respondent preferences may have been influenced by the then-current USPSTF guideline. CONCLUSION: There are women in their 40s who would prefer to have mammography at an older age, especially after being informed of the benefits and harms of screening. Women who wanted to delay screening were at lower breast cancer risk than women who wanted screening at their current age. Many found information about the benefits and harms of mammography surprising. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Merging machine learning and patient preference: a novel tool for risk prediction of percutaneous coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Predicting personalized risk for adverse events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains critical in weighing treatment options, employing risk mitigation strategies, and enhancing shared decision-making. This study aimed to employ machine learning models using pre-procedural variables to accurately predict common post-PCI complications. METHODS: A group of 66 adults underwent a semiquantitative survey assessing a preferred list of outcomes and model display. The machine learning cohort included 107 793 patients undergoing PCI procedures performed at 48 hospitals in Michigan between 1 April 2018 and 31 December 2021 in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) registry separated into training and validation cohorts. External validation was conducted in the Cardiac Care Outcomes Assessment Program database of 56 583 procedures in 33 hospitals in Washington. RESULTS: Overall rate of in-hospital mortality was 1.85% (n = 1999), acute kidney injury 2.51% (n = 2519), new-onset dialysis 0.44% (n = 462), stroke 0.41% (n = 447), major bleeding 0.89% (n = 942), and transfusion 2.41% (n = 2592). The model demonstrated robust discrimination and calibration for mortality {area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.930 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.920-0.940]}, acute kidney injury [AUC: 0.893 (95% CI 0.883-0.903)], dialysis [AUC: 0.951 (95% CI 0.939-0.964)], stroke [AUC: 0.751 (95%CI 0.714-0.787)], transfusion [AUC: 0.917 (95% CI 0.907-0.925)], and major bleeding [AUC: 0.887 (95% CI 0.870-0.905)]. Similar discrimination was noted in the external validation population. Survey subjects preferred a comprehensive list of individually reported post-procedure outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Using common pre-procedural risk factors, the BMC2 machine learning models accurately predict post-PCI outcomes. Utilizing patient feedback, the BMC2 models employ a patient-centred tool to clearly display risks to patients and providers (https://shiny.bmc2.org/pci-prediction/). Enhanced risk prediction prior to PCI could help inform treatment selection and shared decision-making discussions.

Outcome prioritization and preferences among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy in a randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with cancer facing competing treatments must prioritize between various outcomes. This study assessed health outcome prioritization among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial addressing vulnerabilities in older adults with cancer. Patients completed three validated outcome prioritization tools: 1) Health Outcomes Tool: prioritizes outcomes (survival, independence, symptoms) using a visual analog scale; 2) Now vs. Later Tool: rates the importance of quality of life at three times-today versus 1 or 5 years in the future; and 3) Attitude Scale: rates agreement with outcome-related statements. The authors measured the proportion of patients prioritizing various outcomes and evaluated their characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients (median [range] age 71 [65-88], 68% with metastatic disease) were included. On the Health Outcomes Tool, 60.7% prioritized survival over other outcomes. Having localized disease was associated with choosing survival as top priority. On the Now vs. Later Tool, 50% gave equal importance to current versus future quality of life. On the Attitude Scale, 53.4% disagreed with the statement "the most important thing to me is living as long as I can, no matter what my quality of life is"; and 82.2% agreed with the statement "it is more important to me to maintain my thinking ability than to live as long as possible". CONCLUSION: Although survival was the top priority for most participants, some older individuals with cancer prioritize other outcomes, such as cognition and function. Clinicians should elicit patient-defined priorities and include them in decision-making.

Patient preferences in the treatment of stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma: Results from the CONNECT cross-sectional survey.

We explored patient front-line treatment preferences in newly diagnosed stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). The CONNECT patient survey, administered online from 30 December 2020 to 1 March 2021, examined preferences overall and by age at diagnosis in 182 adult patients diagnosed with stage III/IV cHL within the past 10 years in the United States. At diagnosis, patients' median age was 36 years; 66% of patients were younger (aged 16-41 years) and 34% older (aged 42-85 years). When asked about initial treatment goals, 74% of patients ranked cure as their first or second goal (86% younger vs. 52% older patients; p < 0.001). At diagnosis, 72% of patients preferred aggressive treatment, and 85% were willing to accept more short-term risks in exchange for a better-working therapy long term. For long-term risks, younger versus older patients were significantly more concerned about second cancers (p < 0.001) and fertility issues (p = 0.007), whereas older patients were more concerned about lung damage (p = 0.028) and infections (p < 0.001). Most patients (94%) reported having a caregiver at some point, but 99% of these patients retained some control of treatment decisions. Collectively, these survey results highlight patient treatment preferences and differences in treatment goals and long-term side effect concerns based on patient age.

The Use and Impact of a Decision Support Tool for Appendicitis Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Since introducing new and alternative treatment options may increase decisional conflict, we aimed to describe the use of the decision support tool (DST) and its impact on treatment preference and decisional conflict. BACKGROUND: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy, with both approaches associated with a different set of risks (eg, recurrence vs surgical complications) and benefits (eg, more rapid return to work vs decreased chance of readmission). Patients often have limited knowledge of these treatment options, and DSTs that include video-based educational materials and questions to elicit patient preferences about outcomes may be helpful. Concurrent with the Comparing Outcomes of Drugs and Appendectomy trials, our group developed a DST for appendicitis treatment ( www.appyornot.org ). METHODS: A retrospective cohort including people who self-reported current appendicitis and used the AppyOrNot DST between 2021 and 2023. Treatment preferences before and after the use of the DST, demographic information, and Ottawa Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) were reported after completing the DST. RESULTS: A total of 8243 people from 66 countries and all 50 U.S. states accessed the DST. Before the DST, 14% had a strong preference for antibiotics and 31% for appendectomy, with 55% undecided. After using the DST, the proportion in the undecided category decreased to 49% ( P < 0.0001). Of those who completed the Ottawa Decisional Conflict Score (DCS; n = 356), 52% reported the lowest level of decisional conflict (<25) after using the DST; 43% had a DCS score of 25 to 50, 5.1% had a DCS score of >50 and 2.5% had and DCS score of >75. CONCLUSIONS: The publicly available DST appyornot.org reduced the proportion that was undecided about which treatment they favored and had a modest influence on those with strong treatment preferences. Decisional conflict was not common after use. The use of this DST is now a component of a nationwide implementation program aimed at improving the way surgeons share information about appendicitis treatment options. If its use can be successfully implemented, this may be a model for improving communication about treatment for patients experiencing emergency health conditions.

Patient Priorities Concerning Treatment Decisions for Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors Identified by Discrete Choice Experiments.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have multiple treatment options. Ideally, treatment decisions are shared between physician and patient; however, previous studies suggest that oncologists and patients place different value on treatment attributes such as adverse event (AE) rates. High-quality information on NET patient treatment preferences may facilitate patient-centered decision making by helping clinicians understand patient priorities. METHODS: This study used 2 discrete choice experiments (DCE) to elicit preferences of NET patients regarding advanced midgut and pancreatic NET (pNET) treatments. The DCEs used the "potentially all pairwise rankings of all possible alternatives" (PAPRIKA) method. The primary objective was to determine relative utility rankings for treatment attributes, including progression-free survival (PFS), treatment modality, and AE rates. Ranking of attribute profiles matching specific treatments was also determined. Levels for treatment attributes were obtained from randomized clinical trial data of NET treatments. RESULTS: One hundred and 10 participants completed the midgut NET DCE, and 132 completed the pNET DCE. Longer PFS was the highest ranked treatment attribute in 64.5% of participants in the midgut NET DCE, and in 59% in the pNET DCE. Approximately, 40% of participants in both scenarios prioritized lower AE rates or less invasive treatment modalities over PFS. Ranking of treatment profiles in the midgut NET scenario identified 60.9% of participants favoring peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), and 30.0% somatostatin analogue dose escalation. CONCLUSION: NET patients have heterogeneous priorities when choosing between treatment options based on the results of 2 independent DCEs. These results highlight the importance of shared decision making for NET patients.

A Feasibility Study Investigating an Exercise Program in Metastatic Cancer Based on the Patient-Preferred Delivery Mode.

BACKGROUND: Feasibility of exercise in patients with metastatic cancer is still a challenge. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an exercise intervention based on a patient-preferred delivery mode in patients affected by metastatic cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with a confirmed diagnosis of metastatic cancer were recruited in a 3-month exercise program. Whereas the exercise program consisted of aerobic and resistance activities performed twice a week, the participants may choose the mode of delivery: home based, personal training, or group based. The primary endpoint was the feasibility, defined by recruitment rate, attendance, adherence, dropout rate, tolerability (comparing the session RPE with the target RPE), and safety (using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0). Secondary endpoints included cardiorespiratory fitness (six minutes walking test), muscle strength (handgrip strength test and isometric leg press test), flexibility (the back scratch and chair sit and reach tests), anthropometric parameters (body mass index and waist-hip ratio), quality of life (EORTC QLQ C-30 questionnaire), and amount of physical exercise (Godin's Shepard Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire). Descriptive statistics, Student t test, and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used to analyze data. RESULTS: The study recruitment rate was 81%. Out of 44 recruited patients, 28 chose the personal training program, 16 chose the home-based program, and none chose the group-based program. Nine dropouts occurred (20%), 6 in the personal training program, and 3 in the home-based intervention. The median attendance rate was 92%, adherence was 88%, tolerability was 100%, and 9 nonsevere adverse events were registered during the exercise sessions. An increase in cardiorespiratory fitness (P < .001) and flexibility (P = .011 for chair sit and reach; P = .040 for back scratch) was observed at the end of the intervention, while no changes in anthropometric values and muscle strength were detected. Different quality-of-life domains were improved following the intervention, including physical (P = .002), emotional (P < .001), and role functioning (P = .018), fatigue (P = .030), and appetite loss (P = .005). CONCLUSION: A 3-month exercise program based on a patient-preferred delivery mode is feasible in patients with metastatic cancer and may improve physical function and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04226508.

A randomized controlled trial of shared decision-making treatment planning process to enhance shared decision-making in patients with MBC.

PURPOSE: Opportunities exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM). Presenting patient-reported data, including patient treatment preferences, to oncologists before or during a treatment plan decision may improve patient engagement in treatment decisions. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial evaluated the standard-of-care treatment planning process vs. a novel treatment planning process focused on SDM, which included oncologist review of patient-reported treatment preferences, prior to or during treatment decisions among women with MBC. The primary outcome was patient perception of shared decision-making. Secondary outcomes included patient activation, treatment satisfaction, physician perception of treatment decision-making, and use of treatment plans. RESULTS: Among the 109 evaluable patients from December 2018 to June 2022, 28% were Black and 12% lived in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood. Although not reaching statistical significance, patients in the intervention arm perceived SDM more often than patients in the control arm (63% vs. 59%; Cramer's V = 0.05; OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.57). Among patients in the intervention arm, 31% were at the highest level of patient activation compared to 19% of those in the control arm (V = 0.18). In 82% of decisions, the oncologist agreed that the patient-reported data helped them engage in SDM. In 45% of decision, they reported changing management due to patient-reported data. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologist engagement in the treatment planning process, with oncologist review of patient-reported data, is a promising approach to improve patient participation in treatment decisions which should be tested in larger studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03806738.

Interventions aiming to improve advance care planning uptake in oncology: a scoping review of recent randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve ACP uptake appears mixed. The purpose of this scoping review is to summarize findings from recent RCTs assessing the efficacy of interventions designed to increase ACP uptake in cancer care. RECENT FINDINGS: The PubMed database was searched for studies published between 2021 and 2023. Ten RCTs were identified that evaluated a wide range of interventions aimed at encouraging or facilitating ACP communication among patients with advanced cancer, caregivers, and HCPs. Three RCTs developed ACP facilitation tools for patients and sometimes caregivers. Six RCTs involved integrating trained ACP facilitators into patient care, and one RCT used nudges to encourage oncologists trained in ACP discussions to initiate discussions with patients at highest risk of short-term mortality. Most of the reviewed interventions were based on previously tested intervention approaches or tools. SUMMARY: The key effects identified in this review are the facilitation of ACP discussions among patients, caregivers, and HCPs, and the documentation of patient preferences in the medical record. The direct involvement of facilitators in ACP document drafting and inclusion in patient files, as well as interventions prompting end-of-life discussions, contributed to this effect.

Clinicians' Use of Choice Framing in ICU Family Meetings.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the frequency and patterns of clinicians' use of choice frames when discussing preference-sensitive care with surrogate decision-makers in the ICU. DESIGN: Secondary sequential content analysis. SETTING: One hundred one audio-recorded and transcribed conferences between surrogates and clinicians of incapacitated, critically ill adults from a prospective, multicenter cohort study. SUBJECTS: Surrogate decision-makers and clinicians. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four coders identified preference-sensitive decision episodes addressed in the meetings, including topics such as mechanical ventilation, renal replacement, and overall goals of care. Prior critical care literature provided specific topics identified as preference-sensitive specific to the critical care context. Coders then examined each decision episode for the types of choice frames used by clinicians. The choice frames were selected a priori based on decision science literature. In total, there were 202 decision episodes across the 101 transcripts, with 20.3% of the decision episodes discussing mechanical ventilation, 19.3% overall goals of care, 14.4% renal replacement therapy, 14.4% post-discharge care (i.e., discharge location such as a skilled nursing facility), and the remaining 32.1% other topics. Clinicians used default framing, in which an option is presented that will be carried out if another option is not actively chosen, more frequently than any other choice frame (127 or 62.9% of decision episodes). Clinicians presented a polar interrogative, or a "yes or no question" to accept or reject a specific care choice, in 43 (21.3%) decision episodes. Clinicians more frequently presented options emphasizing both potential losses and gains rather than either in isolation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians frequently use default framing and polar questions when discussing preference-sensitive choices with surrogate decision-makers, which are known to be powerful nudges. Future work should focus on designing interventions promoting the informed use of these and the other most common choice frames used by practicing clinicians.

All of Us participant perspectives on the return of value in research.

PURPOSE: To understand participant preferences for receiving specific types of research information, whether information preferences vary across sociodemographic groups, and the types of health providers participants could access to understand returned information. METHODS: All of Us Research Program participants completed a value of returning research information survey. Stratified sampling was implemented to enhance participant diversity and avoid noncoverage. We used weighted multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations between the most valuable information types, access to providers, and sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Participants (N = 20,405) were diverse in their race/ethnicity (eg, 52% were White, 18% were Hispanic/Latino or Spanish, 3% were Asian, and 20% were Black or African American). Most participants (78.6%) valued information about their risk of serious genetic diseases with available treatment. Primary care physicians, specialists, and genetic counselors were the top providers that participants could access for help understanding returned information. Information preferences and provider access varied across sociodemographic groups. For example, as income levels increased, the odds of placing value on genetic results indicating risk of serious disease with available treatment increased when compared with the lowest income levels (P value < .001). CONCLUSION: Although genetic information was most valuable to participants, preferences about specific information types varied across sociodemographic groups.

Parents' and patients' perspectives, experiences, and preferences for germline genetic or genomic testing of children with cancer: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Germline testing in pediatric cancer presents opportunities and challenges. Understanding family perspectives, experiences, and preferences will optimize integration into routine care. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched 4 databases for studies exploring perspectives, experiences, and preferences of parents/caregivers and/or patients regarding germline testing of children with cancer. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted, organized, and summarized by research question and themes. RESULTS: We identified 2286 unique articles, of which 24 were included. Interest in and uptake of testing was high. Families were motivated by altruism and a desire for inheritance/causation information. Testing barriers included psychological concerns, timing of the testing approach if offered at diagnosis or in a high-risk cancer setting and privacy/discrimination. Testing experiences highlighted challenges yet also positive impacts, with results providing psychological relief and informing proactive decision making. Timing preferences varied; however, allowing time to adjust to a new diagnosis was a common theme. Most wanted to receive as many germline sequencing-related results as possible. CONCLUSION: Findings underscore the importance of integrating germline analyses into pediatric cancer care with flexibility and support for families facing challenges. Where possible, consent should be provided at a time that suits each family's situation with access to information aligning with their needs and preferences. PROSPERO: CRD42023444890.

Patients' Preferences Towards Decision Counseling for Active Surveillance After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Decision counseling (DC) is offered to enable patients to reflect on their treatment preferences and to think through the consequences of alternative treatment options. However, the timing of DC is debatable. In this study, patients who underwent DC at different times were interviewed about their experiences, specifically focusing on the timing of DC. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer eligible for participation in a prospective cohort study on active surveillance (SANO-2 study) were offered DC either before or after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Structured interviews were conducted by phone 1 week after DC, and responses were analyzed using frequency counts for the answers to set response categories. The primary outcome was the preferred time to receive DC, while the secondary outcome was the overall experience of patients with DC. RESULTS: Overall, 40 patients were offered DC between 2021 and 2023. Patients who had counseling before the start of nCRT (n = 20) were satisfied with the timing of DC. Of the 20 patients who had DC after nCRT, 6 would have preferred counseling at an earlier time point. Patients who had DC both before or after the completion of nCRT reflected positively on DC. CONCLUSION: It is recommended to introduce the option of DC as early as possible and discuss with the patient at which moment during the decision-making process they prefer to discuss all treatment options more extensively.

Patient Preference for Surgical Methods for Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy has been the standard surgical treatment for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). Recently, there has been growing interest in repeat breast-conserving surgery (rBCS) for IBTR among breast surgeons; however, there is currently little information regarding patient preferences for surgical procedure for IBTR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate preference for surgical procedure (mastectomy vs. rBCS) among breast cancer patients who had undergone salvage surgery for IBTR. METHODS: Overall, 100 breast cancer patients who had undergone salvage surgery for IBTR were asked about their preferred surgical methods for IBTR and the reason. The association of patient preference and the reasons related to various clinical and pathological factors were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 100 respondents, only 11 patients (11%) preferred rBCS. Patients who had undergone rBCS and radiotherapy for IBTR were significantly more likely to prefer to undergo rBCS than other groups (p = 0.030). The most frequent reason for choosing rBCS was the patient's desire to minimize breast deformity and surgical wounds. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed that there is a low rate of patients who opt to undergo rBCS among patients who had undergone salvage surgery for IBTR. Discrepancies in perceptions regarding the surgical procedure for IBTR between patients and their surgeons may exist.

Patient decision-making in the era of transcarotid artery revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: The National Coverage Determination on carotid stenting by Medicare in October 2023 stipulates that patients participate in a shared decision-making (SDM) conversation with their proceduralist before an intervention. However, to date, there is no validated SDM tool that incorporates transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) into its decision platform. Our objective was to elicit patient and surgeon experiences and preferences through a qualitative approach to better inform the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. METHODS: We performed longitudinal perioperative semistructured interviews of 20 participants using purposive maximum variation sampling, a qualitative technique designed for identification and selection of information-rich cases, to define domains important to participants undergoing carotid endarterectomy or TCAR and impressions of SDM. We also performed interviews with nine vascular surgeons to elicit their input on the SDM process surrounding carotid revascularization. Interview data were coded and analyzed using inductive content analysis coding. RESULTS: We identified three important domains that contribute to the participants' ultimate decision on which procedure to choose: their individual values, their understanding of the disease and each procedure, and how they prefer to make medical decisions. Participant values included themes such as success rates, "wanting to feel better," and the proceduralist's experience. Participants varied in their desired degree of understanding of carotid disease, but all individuals wished to discuss each option with their proceduralist. Participants' desired medical decision-making style varied on a spectrum from complete autonomy to wanting the proceduralist to make the decision for them. Participants who preferred carotid endarterectomy felt outcomes were superior to TCAR and often expressed a desire to eliminate the carotid plaque. Those selecting TCAR felt it was a newer, less invasive option with the shortest procedural and recovery times. Surgeons frequently noted patient factors such as age and anatomy, as well as the availability of long-term data, as reasons to preferentially select one procedure. For most participants, their surgeon was viewed as the most important source of information surrounding their disease and procedure. CONCLUSIONS: SDM surrounding carotid revascularization is nuanced and marked by variation in patient preferences surrounding autonomy when choosing treatment. Given the mandate by Medicare to participate in a SDM interaction before carotid stenting, this analysis offers critical insights that can help to guide an efficient and effective dialog between patients and providers to arrive at a shared decision surrounding therapeutic intervention for patients with carotid disease.

Determining patient preferences for the medical management of osteoporosis using conjoint analysis.

We used conjoint analysis-a method that assesses complex decision making-to quantify patients' choices when selecting an osteoporosis therapy. While 60% of people prioritized medication efficacy when deciding among treatments, the remaining 40% highly valued factors other than efficacy, suggesting the need for personalized shared decision-making tools. INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to examine patient decision-making surrounding osteoporosis medications using conjoint analysis. METHODS: We enrolled osteoporosis patients at an academic medical center to complete an online conjoint exercise which calculated each patient's relative importance score of 6 osteoporosis medication attributes (higher = greater relative importance in decision-making). We used latent class analysis to identify distinct segments of patients with similar choice patterns and then used logistic regression to determine if demographics and osteoporosis disease features were associated with latent class assignment. RESULTS: Overall, 304 participants completed the survey. The rank order of medication attributes by importance score was the following: efficacy at preventing hip fractures (accounted for 31.0% of decision making), mode of administration (17.5%); risk of serious side effects (16.6%); dose frequency (13.9%); efficacy at preventing spine fractures (12.5%); risk of non-serious side effects (8.4%). We found that 60.9% of the cohort prioritized medication efficacy as their top factor when selecting among the therapies. Being a college graduate, having stronger beliefs on the necessity of using medications for osteoporosis, and never having used osteoporosis medicines were the only factors associated with prioritizing medication efficacy for fracture prevention over the other factors in the decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: While about 60% of patients prioritized efficacy when selecting an osteoporosis therapy, the remaining 40% valued other factors more highly. Furthermore, individual patient characteristics and clinical factors did not reliably predict patient decision making, suggesting that development and implementation of shared decision-making tools is warranted.

Patients' preferences for fracture risk communication: the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study.

The RICO study indicated that most patients would like to receive information regarding their fracture risk but that only a small majority have actually received it. Patients globally preferred a visual presentation of fracture risk and were interested in an online tool showing the risk. PURPOSE: The aim of the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study was to assess patients' preferences regarding fracture risk communication. METHODS: To assess patients' preferences for fracture risk communication, structured interviews with women with osteoporosis or who were at risk for fracture were conducted in 11 sites around the world, namely in Argentina, Belgium, Canada at Hamilton and with participants from the Osteoporosis Canada Canadian Osteoporosis Patient Network (COPN), Japan, Mexico, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA in California and Washington state. The interviews used to collect data were designed on the basis of a systematic review and a qualitative pilot study involving 26 participants at risk of fracture. RESULTS: A total of 332 women (mean age 67.5 ± 8.0 years, 48% with a history of fracture) were included in the study. Although the participants considered it important to receive information about their fracture risk (mean importance of 6.2 ± 1.4 on a 7-point Likert scale), only 56% (i.e. 185/332) had already received such information. Globally, participants preferred a visual presentation with a traffic-light type of coloured graph of their FRAX® fracture risk probability, compared to a verbal or written presentation. Almost all participants considered it important to discuss their fracture risk and the consequences of fractures with their healthcare professionals in addition to receiving information in a printed format or access to an online website showing their fracture risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant communication gap between healthcare professionals and patients when discussing osteoporosis fracture risk. The RICO study provides insight into preferred approaches to rectify this communication gap.

Patient autonomy and shared decision-making in the context of clinical trial participation.

AIMS: This study aimed to explore how incorporating shared decision-making (SDM) can address recruitment challenges in clinical trials. Specifically, it examines how SDM can align the trial process with patient preferences, enhance patient autonomy and increase active patient participation. Additionally, it identifies potential conflicts between SDM and certain clinical trial aspects, such as randomization or blinding, and proposes solutions to mitigate these issues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of existing literature on patient recruitment challenges in clinical trials and the role of SDM in addressing these challenges. We analysed case studies and trial reports to identify common obstacles and assess the effectiveness of SDM in improving patient accrual. Additionally, we evaluated three proposed solutions: adequate trial design, communication skill training and patient decision aids. RESULTS: Our review indicates that incorporating SDM can significantly enhance patient recruitment by promoting patient autonomy and engagement. SDM encourages physicians to adopt a more open and informative approach, which aligns the trial process with patient preferences and reduces psychological barriers such as fear and mental stress. However, implementing SDM can conflict with elements such as randomization and blinding, potentially complicating trial design and execution. DISCUSSION: The desire for patient autonomy and active engagement through SDM may clash with traditional clinical trial methodologies. To address these conflicts, we propose three solutions: redesigning trials to better accommodate SDM principles, providing communication skill training for physicians and developing patient decision aids. By focussing on patient wishes and emotions, these solutions can integrate SDM into clinical trials effectively. CONCLUSION: Shared decision-making provides a framework that can promote patient recruitment and trial participation by enhancing patient autonomy and engagement. With proper implementation of trial design modifications, communication skill training and patient decision aids, SDM can support rather than hinder clinical trial execution, ultimately contributing to the advancement of evidence-based medicine.

Patients' values and preferences for health states in allergic rhinitis-An artificial intelligence supported systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) impacts patients' physical and emotional well-being. Assessing patients' values and preferences (V&P) related to AR is an essential part of patient-centered care and of the guideline development process. We aimed to systematically summarize the information about patients' V&P on AR and its symptoms and impact on daily life. METHODS: We conducted systematic review in a MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases. We included studies which quantitatively assessed patients' V&P for specific outcomes in AR by assessing utilities, applying discrete choice approaches, or rating and ranking outcomes. We grouped outcomes as AR symptoms, functional status, and care-related patient experience. Study selection and data extraction were supported by the Laser AI tool. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies (41 records) were included: nine utility studies, seven direct-choice studies and 21 studies of rating or ranking outcomes. Utilities were lower with increased AR severity and with the concomitant presence of asthma, but not with whether AR was seasonal or perennial (CoE = low-high). Patients rated AR symptom-related outcomes as more important than those related to care-related patient experience and functional status (CoE = very low-moderate). Nasal symptoms (mainly nasal congestion) followed by breathing disorders, general and ocular symptoms were rated as the symptoms with the highest impact. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of V&P of patients with AR. Patients generally considered nasal symptoms as the most important. Future studies with standardized methods are needed to provide more information on V&P in AR.