ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease requires effective patient-clinician communication for successful illness and medication management. Shared decision making (SDM) has been suggested to improve communication around early intensive therapy. However, effective evidence-based SDM interventions for Crohn's disease are lacking, and the impact of SDM on Crohn's disease decision making and choice of therapy is unclear. AIM: To test the impact of SDM on choice of therapy, quality of the decision and provider trust compared to standard Crohn's disease care. METHODS: We conducted a multi-site cluster randomised controlled trial in 14 diverse gastroenterology practices in the US. RESULTS: A total of 158 adult patients with Crohn's disease within 15 years of their diagnosis, with no prior Crohn's disease complications, and who were candidates to receive immunomodulators or biologics, participated in the study. Among these, 99 received the intervention and 59 received standard care. Demographics were similar between groups, although there were more women assigned to standard care, and a slightly shorter disease duration among those in the intervention group. Participants in the intervention group more frequently chose combination therapy (25% versus 5% control, p < 0.001), had a significantly lower decisional conflict (p < 0.05) and had greater trust in their provider (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With rapidly expanding medication choices for Crohn's disease and slow uptake of early intensive therapy, SDM can personalise treatment strategies and has the potential to move the field of Crohn's disease management forward with an ultimate goal of consistently treating this disease early and intensively in appropriate patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Evaluating a Shared Decision Making Program for Crohn's Disease, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02084290 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02084290.
Subject(s)
Crohn Disease , Adult , Humans , Female , Crohn Disease/drug therapy , Decision Making, Shared , Decision MakingABSTRACT
Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care is beset with substantial practice variation. Learning health systems (LHSs) aim to learn from this variation and improve quality of care by sharing feedback and improvement strategies within the LHS. Obtaining accurate information on outcomes and quality of care is a priority for LHS, which often includes patients' self-reported data. While prior work has shown that patients can accurately report their diagnosis and surgical history, little is known about their ability to self-report recent healthcare utilization, medication use, and vaccination status. Methods: We compared patient self-reported data within the IBD Qorus LHS regarding recent IBD-related emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, computerized tomography (CT) scans, corticosteroid use, opioid use, influenza vaccinations, and pneumococcal vaccinations with electronic health record (EHR) data. Results: We compared 328 patient self-reports to data extracted from the EHR. Sensitivity was moderate-to-high for ED visits, hospitalizations, and CT scans (76%, 87%, and 87%, respectively), sensitivity was lower for medication use with 71% sensitivity for corticosteroid use and only 50% sensitivity for self-reported use of opioids. Vaccinations were reported with high sensitivity, but overall agreement was low as many patients reported vaccinations that were not registered in the EHR. Conclusions: Self-reported IBD-related ED visits, hospitalizations, and CT scans are reported with high sensitivity and accuracy. Medication use, and in particular opioid use, is less reliably reported. Vaccination self-report is likely more accurate than EHR data as many vaccinations are not accurately registered.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) experience a variety of symptoms and limitations due to their condition. While many outcome measures are available to assess IBD symptom level and disease activity, individual patients' preferences are usually not accounted for. Individualized outcome measures allow individual patients to select and weigh outcomes based on their relative importance, and have been developed in other medical disciplines. In this study, we explored IBD patients' perspectives on different strategies to prioritize IBD-specific health outcomes. METHODS: Existing individualized measures were modified for relevance to IBD patients. We performed six focus groups, in which patients were asked to rate and weigh these measures in a series of exercises and to discuss the pros and cons of five different prioritization methods (Likert scale, ranking, selecting outcomes, distribute points, and using a rotating disk) using a semi-structured approach. A thematic analysis revealed key themes in the data. RESULTS: Patients' thoughts could be grouped into four key themes with 2-4 subthemes each: (1) prioritizing outcomes; (2) differences between methods; (3) outcomes to include; and (4) practical use. Overall, it was challenging for many patients to prioritize outcomes. Among the different prioritization methods, the rotating disk was perceived as the most intuitive. Patients anticipated that this visualization would also help them communicate with their physician. CONCLUSION: In a series of focus groups, a visual rotating disk was found to be an intuitive and holistic way to elicit the relative importance of different outcomes for individual IBD patients.
