Should I Take Aspirin? (SITA): RCT of a decision aid for cancer chemoprevention.

Background Australian guidelines recommend that all people aged 50-70 years old consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Aim To determine the effect of a consultation with a researcher in general practice using a decision aid about taking low-dose aspirin to prevent CRC on informed decision-making and low-dose aspirin uptake compared to a general CRC prevention brochure. Design and Setting Individually randomised controlled trial in six general practices in Victoria, Australia, from October 2020 to March 2021. Method Patients aged 50-70 years attending a general practitioner (GP) were recruited consecutively. The intervention was a consultation using a decision aid to discuss taking aspirin to reduce CRC risk; control consultations discussed reducing CRC risk generally. The self-reported co-primary outcomes were informed choices about taking aspirin at one month and low-dose aspirin uptake at six months. Results 261 participants (86% of eligible patients) were randomised into trial arms (129 intervention, 132 control). 17.7% (20/113) of intervention and 7.6% (9/118) control participants reported making an informed choice at one month, an estimated 9.1% (95% CI 0.29% to 18.5) between-arm difference in proportions [odds ratio (OR) 2.47 (97.5% CI:0.94 to 6.52) p=0.074]. The proportions of individuals who reported using aspirin at six months were: 10.2% (12/118) intervention vs 13.8% (16/116) control (estimated between-arm difference: -4.0% (95% CI: -13.5 to 5.5); [OR= 0.68 (97.5% CI:0.27 to 1.70), p= 0.692]. Conclusion The decision aid improved informed decision-making; but has little effect on long-term regular use of aspirin to reduce CRC risk.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Establishing a hierarchy of total knee arthroplasty patients' goals and its congruity to health professionals' perceptions: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To formulate a hierarchy of primary goals of patients prior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and evaluate the agreement between patients and health professionals regarding this hierarchy of patient goals. METHODS: The five most important goals for each of 110 consecutive patients booked for total knee arthroplasty between June and October 2019 were identified. Goals were grouped into themes and then a hierarchy formulated. This hierarchy was randomized and provided to 94 health professionals, including orthopaedic surgeons (n = 49), rheumatologists (n = 16), physiotherapists (n = 16) and general practitioners (n = 13). These health professionals ranked the provided goals based on their belief of what was most important to patients. RESULTS: Ten overarching goals were identified, with the five most important goals to patients being improving mobility, reducing knee pain, improving daily tasks, participating in social & leisure activities and regaining knee range of motion. Health professionals ranked these goals highly similar to patients with the exceptions being that health professionals ranked quality of life near the top of the hierarchy (much higher than patients) and ranked improving mobility in the bottom half (much lower than patients). Ranking of these goals was similar between each health professional group. CONCLUSION: Pain and mobility are the most important goals to patients, with health professionals correctly identifying these as such. However, health professionals ranked quality of life higher, and mobility lower in the hierarchy than patients. This incongruity should be considered by health professionals when educating and communicating treatment outcomes.

Assessing the fidelity of a behavioural intervention involving academic detailing in general practice: a sub-study of the 'Implementing work-related Mental health guidelines in general PRacticE' (IMPRovE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the fidelity of intervention components enables researchers to make informed judgements about the influence of those components on the observed outcome. The 'Implementing work-related Mental health guidelines in general PRacticE' (IMPRovE) trial is a hybrid III trial aiming to increase adherence to the 'Clinical Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of work-related mental health conditions in general practice'. IMPRovE is a multifaceted intervention, with one of the central components being academic detailing (AD). This study describes the fidelity to the protocol for the AD component of the IMPRovE intervention. METHOD: All AD sessions for the trial were audio-recorded and a sample of 22% were randomly selected for fidelity assessment. Fidelity was assessed using a tailored proforma based on the Modified Conceptual Framework for fidelity assessment, measuring duration, coverage, frequency and content. A descriptive analysis was used to quantify fidelity to the protocol and a content analysis was used to elucidate qualitative aspects of fidelity. RESULTS: A total of eight AD sessions were included in the fidelity assessment. The average fidelity score was 89.2%, ranging from 80 to 100% across the eight sessions. The sessions were on average 47 min long and addressed all of the ten chapters in the guideline. Of the guideline chapters, 9 were frequently discussed. The least frequently discussed chapter related to management of comorbid conditions. Most general practitioner (GP) participants used the AD sessions to discuss challenges with managing secondary mental conditions. In line with the protocol, opinion leaders who delivered the AD sessions largely offered evidence-based strategies aligning with the clinical guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The IMPRovE AD intervention component was delivered to high fidelity. The sessions adhered to the intended duration, coverage, frequency, and content allowing participating GPs to comprehend the implementation of the guideline in their own practice. This study also demonstrates that the Modified Conceptual Fidelity Framework with a mixed methods approach can support the assessment of implementation fidelity of a behavioural intervention in general practice. The findings enhance the trustworthiness of reported outcomes from IMPRovE and show that assessing fidelity is amenable for AD and should be incorporated in other studies using AD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN 12620001163998, November 2020.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of a melanoma prevention program using genomic risk information compared with standard prevention advice in Australia.

PURPOSE: Evidence indicates that a melanoma prevention program using personalized genomic risk provision and genetic counseling can affect prevention behaviors, including reducing sunburns in adults with no melanoma history. This analysis evaluated its longer-term cost-effectiveness from an Australian health system perspective. METHODS: The primary outcome was incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of genomic risk provision (intervention) compared with standard prevention advice. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed using randomized trial data to simulate lifetime cost-effectiveness. All costs were presented in 2018/19 Australian dollars (AUD). The intervention effect on reduced sunburns was stratified by sex and traditional risk, which was calculated through a validated prediction model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken for robustness checks. RESULTS: The per participant cost of intervention was AUD$189. Genomic risk provision targeting high-traditional risk individuals produced an ICER of AUD$35,254 (per quality-adjusted life year gained); sensitivity analyses indicated the intervention would be cost-effective in more than 50% of scenarios. When the intervention was extended to low-traditional risk groups, the ICER was AUD$43,746 with a 45% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Genomic risk provision targeted to high-traditional melanoma risk individuals is likely a cost-effective strategy for reducing sunburns and will likely prevent future melanomas and keratinocyte carcinomas.

Finding Your Way - A shared decision making resource developed by and for Aboriginal people in Australia: Perceived acceptability, usability, and feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Finding Your Way is a culturally adapted shared decision making (SDM) resource for Aboriginal (First Nations) people of Australia. It integrates the Eight Ways of Aboriginal Learning (8 Ways) and was created by Aboriginal health workers and community members in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceived acceptability, usability, and feasibility of Finding Your Way as a SDM resource for Aboriginal people making health and wellbeing decisions. METHODS: The web-based resources were disseminated using social media, professional networks, publications, and the 'Koori grapevine'. Thirteen 'champions' also promoted the resources. An online questionnaire was available on the website for three months. Framework analysis determined early indications of its acceptability, usability, and feasibility. Web and social media analytics were also analysed. Partnership with and leadership by Aboriginal people was integrated at all phases of the project. RESULTS: The main landing page was accessed 5219 times by 4259 users. 132 users completed the questionnaire. The non-linear and visual aspects of the resources 'speak to mob' and identified with Aboriginal culture. The inclusion of social and emotional well-being, and the holistic approach were well received by the small number of users who opted to provide feedback. They suggested that non-digital formats and guidance on the resources are required to support use in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The 8 Ways enabled the development of a culturally safe SDM resource for Aboriginal people, which was well received by users who took the time to provide feedback after a brief dissemination process. Additional accessible formats, practice guides and training are required to support uptake in clinical practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Finding Your Way could be used to help improve experiences, health literacy, decision making quality and outcomes of healthcare for Aboriginal Australians.

Australian recommendations on perioperative use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in people with inflammatory arthritis undergoing elective surgery.

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are effective treatments for inflammatory arthritis but carry an increased risk of infection. For patients undergoing surgery, there is a need to consider the trade-off between a theoretical increased risk of infection with continuation of DMARDs perioperatively versus an increased risk of disease flare if they are temporarily withheld. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to develop recommendations for perioperative use of DMARDs for people with inflammatory arthritis undergoing elective surgery. The recommendations form part of the National Health and Medical Research Council-endorsed Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis. Conditional recommendations were made against routinely discontinuing conventional synthetic and biologic (b) DMARDs in the perioperative period but to consider temporary discontinuation of bDMARDs in individuals with a high risk of infection or where the impact of infection would be severe. A conditional recommendation was made in favour of temporary discontinuation of targeted synthetic DMARDs in the perioperative period.

The Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) trial: a randomised controlled trial of a decision support tool for risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening could result in a more acceptable balance of benefits and harms, and be more cost-effective. AIM: To determine the effect of a consultation in general practice using a computerised risk assessment and decision support tool (Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction, CRISP) on risk-appropriate CRC screening. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised controlled trial in 10 general practices in Melbourne, Australia, from May 2017 to May 2018. METHOD: Participants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-74 years attending their GP. Intervention consultations included CRC risk assessment using the CRISP tool and discussion of CRC screening recommendations. Control group consultations focused on lifestyle CRC risk factors. The primary outcome was risk-appropriate CRC screening at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 734 participants (65.1% of eligible patients) were randomised (369 intervention, 365 control); the primary outcome was determined for 722 (362 intervention, 360 control). There was a 6.5% absolute increase (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.28 to 13.2) in risk-appropriate screening in the intervention compared with the control group (71.5% versus 65.0%; odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.86, P = 0.057). In those due CRC screening during follow-up, there was a 20.3% (95% CI = 10.3 to 30.4) increase (intervention 59.8% versus control 38.9%; OR 2.31, 95% CI = 1.51 to 3.53, P<0.001) principally by increasing faecal occult blood testing in those at average risk. CONCLUSION: A risk assessment and decision support tool increases risk-appropriate CRC screening in those due screening. The CRISP intervention could commence in people in their fifth decade to ensure people start CRC screening at the optimal age with the most cost-effective test.

Initiating advance care planning in New South Wales general practices using a structured conversation guide

METHOD: Three focus groups were held as part of an existing initiative, 'Ask, Share, Know: Rapid Evidence for General Practice Decisions'. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach; themes identified informed adaptation of the conversation guide. RESULTS: Five key themes were identified: 1. general practice provides the optimal context for ACP discussions; 2. ACP priorities differ between GPs; 3. healthcare professionals' roles in ACP vary; 4. confusion exists regarding ACP practice; and 5. the adapted conversation guide provides a useful structure for ACP. DISCUSSION: ACP practice varies between GPs. GPs preferred the adapted conversation guide, but further evaluation is required prior to implementation into practice.

Biological age calculators to motivate lifestyle change: Environmental scan of online tools and evaluation of behaviour change techniques.

OBJECTIVE: "Biological age" calculators are widely used as a way of communicating health risk. This study evaluated the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) within such tools, underlying algorithm differences and suitability for people with varying health literacy. METHODS: Two authors entered terms into Google (eg, biological/heart age) and recorded the first 50 results. A standard patient profile was entered into eligible biological age calculators. Evaluation was based on Michie et al's BCT taxonomy and a readability calculator. RESULTS: From 4000 search results, 20 calculators were identified: 11 for cardiovascular age, 7 for general biological age and 2 for fitness age. The calculators gave variable results for the same 65-year-old profile: biological age ranged from younger to older (57-87 years), while heart age was always older (69-85+ years). Only 11/20 (55%) provided a reference explaining the underlying algorithm. The average reading level was Grade 10 (range 8.7-12.4; SD 1.44). The most common BCTs were salience of consequences, information about health consequences and credible source. CONCLUSIONS: Biological age tools have highly variable results, BCTs and readability. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Developers are advised to use validated models, explain the result at the average Grade 8 reading level, and incorporate a clear call to action using evidence-based behaviour change techniques.

Which Test Is Best? A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Risk Calculator and Recommendations on Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviour in General Practice.

INTRODUCTION: This cluster-randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the effect of the "Which test is best?" tool on risk-appropriate screening (RAS) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. METHODS: General practices in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, and a random sub-sample of 460 patients (aged 25-74 years) per practice were invited by post. Clusters were computer randomized independently of the researchers to an online CRC risk calculator with risk-based recommendations versus usual care. Primary and secondary outcomes were RAS and screening uptake via self-reported 5-year screening behaviour after 12 months follow-up. The usual care group (UCG) also self-reported 5-year CRC screening behaviour at 12 month post-randomization. RESULTS: Fifty-six practices were randomized (27 to the intervention and 29 to the control, 55 practices participated) with 818 intervention and 677 controls completing the primary outcome measure. The intervention significantly increased RAS in high-risk participants compared with UCG (80.0% vs. 64.0%, respectively; OR = 3.14, 95% CI: 1.25-7.96) but not in average-risk (44.9% vs. 49.5%, respectively; OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.99-1.12) or moderate-risk individuals (67.9% vs. 81.1%, respectively; OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.12-1.33). Faecal occult blood testing uptake over 12 months was increased compared with the UCG (24.9% vs. 15.1%; adjusted OR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.24-2.22), and there was a non-significant increase in colonoscopies during the same period (16.6% vs. 12.2%; adjusted OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 0.97-2.08). CONCLUSION: An online CRC risk calculator with risk-based screening recommendations increased RAS in high-risk participants and improved screening uptake overall within a 12-month follow-up period. Such tools may be useful for facilitating the uptake of risk-based screening guidelines.

Australian recommendations on tapering of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in inflammatory arthritis.

Biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD) have been an important advance in the management of inflammatory arthritis, but are expensive medications, carry a risk of infection and other adverse effects, and are often perceived as a burden by patients. We used GRADE methodology to develop recommendations for dose reduction and discontinuation of b/tsDMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have achieved a low disease activity state or remission. The recommendations form part of the Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis, an NHMRC-endorsed 'living' guideline, in which recommendations are updated in near real-time as new evidence emerges. Conditional recommendations were made in favour of dose reduction in RA and AxSpA but not in PsA. Abrupt discontinuation of b/tsDMARD is not recommended in any of the three diseases.

The Impact of Health Literacy-Sensitive Design and Heart Age in a Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Decision Aid: Randomized Controlled Trial and End-User Testing.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is an essential principle for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), where asymptomatic people consider lifelong medication and lifestyle changes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and evaluate the first literacy-sensitive CVD prevention decision aid (DA) developed for people with low health literacy, and investigate the impact of literacy-sensitive design and heart age. METHODS: We developed a standard DA based on international standards. The standard DA was based on our existing general practitioner DA. The literacy-sensitive DA included simple language, supporting images, white space, and a lifestyle action plan. The control DA used Heart Foundation materials. A randomized trial included 859 people aged 45-74 years using a 3 (DA: standard, literacy-sensitive, control) ×2 (heart age: heart age + percentage risk, percentage risk only) factorial design, with outcomes including prevention intentions and behaviors, gist and verbatim knowledge of risk, credibility, emotional response, and decisional conflict. We iteratively improved the literacy-sensitive version based on end-user testing interviews with 20 people with varying health literacy levels. RESULTS: Immediately after the intervention (n=859), there were no differences in any outcome among the DA groups. The heart age group was less likely to have a positive emotional response, perceived the message as less credible, and had higher gist and verbatim knowledge of heart age risk but not percentage risk. After 4 weeks (n=596), the DA group had better gist knowledge of percentage risk than the control group. The literacy-sensitive DA group had higher fruit consumption, and the standard DA group had better verbatim knowledge of percentage risk. Verbatim knowledge was higher for heart age than for percentage risk among those who received both. CONCLUSIONS: The literacy-sensitive DA resulted in increased knowledge of CVD risk and increased fruit consumption in participants with varying health literacy levels and CVD risk results. Adding heart age did not increase lifestyle change intentions or behavior but did affect psychological outcomes, consistent with previous findings. This tool will be integrated with additional resources to improve other lifestyle outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000806965; https://tinyurl.com/226yhk8a.

Current guidance for communicating with refugee and asylum seeker patients: An environmental scan of online resources.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Primary healthcare practitioners (PHPs) are often the first point of care for people seeking refuge or asylum in Australia. Communication plays a vital part in their care. The aim of this study was to identify, appraise and synthesise online resources that aim to support communication during consultations with these patients. METHOD: A systematic environmental scan of online Australian resources, using the Google search engine, was conducted. The resources were appraised and rated using a validated purpose taxonomy as well as the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials to determine understandability and actionability. RESULTS: A total of 32 unique resources were identified. On average, the resources scored better on understandability (mean 64%) than actionability (mean 49%). The resources each had between two and five purpose taxonomy types, and the proportion of the content relevant to communication ranged from 5% to 100%. DISCUSSION: There are multiple resources available to PHPs to improve their communication with refugee and asylum seeker patients. Those that were rated better overall identified the population group and had practical suggestions to help operationalise their content. This article synthesises the online resources with practical suggestions regarding continuity of care, language barriers and PHPs' responsiveness to individual and cultural considerations.

A Brief Shared Decision-Making Intervention for Acute Respiratory Infections on Antibiotic Dispensing Rates in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether acute respiratory infection (ARI) decision aids and a general practitioner (GP) training package reduces antibiotic dispensing rate and improves GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial of 27 Australian general practices (13 intervention, 14 control) involving 122 GPs. Intervention group GPs were given brief decision aids for 3 ARIs (acute otitis media, acute sore throat, acute bronchitis) and video-delivered training. Primary outcome was dispensing rate of target antibiotic classes (routinely used for ARIs), extracted for 12 months before, and following, randomization. Secondary outcomes were GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence; prescribing influences; acceptability, usefulness, and self-reported resource use; and dispensing rate of all antibiotics. RESULTS: The baseline mean dispensing rate of ARI-related antibiotics was 3.5% (intervention GPs) and 3.2% (control GPs) of consultations. After 12 months, mean rates decreased (to 2.9% intervention; 2.6% control): an 18% relative reduction from baseline but similar in both groups (rate ratio 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89-1.15). Greater increases in knowledge were seen in the intervention group than control; a significant increase (average 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-4.7, P <.001) in the number of correct responses to the 22 knowledge questions. There were no between-group differences for other secondary outcomes. The intervention was well received, perceived as useful, and reported as used by about two-thirds of intervention GPs. CONCLUSIONS: A brief shared decision-making intervention provided to GPs did not reduce antibiotic dispensing more than usual care, although GPs' knowledge of relevant benefit-harm evidence increased significantly.

The role of Primary Health Networks in cardiovascular disease prevention: A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Since the inception of PHNs in Australia, their role in implementing chronic disease prevention activities in general practice has been unclear. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the views of PHN staff on the role of PHNs in promoting prevention, with a focus on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. METHODS: Content analysis of PHN Needs Assessments was conducted to inform interview questions. Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 PHN staff, between June and December 2020, in varied roles across 18 PHNs in all Australian states and territories. Transcribed audio recordings were thematically coded, using the Framework Analysis method to ensure rigour. RESULTS: We identified three main themes: (a) Informal prevention: All respondents agreed the role of PHNs in prevention was indirect and, for the most part, outside the formal remit of PHN Key Performance Indicators (KPIs.) Prevention activities were conducted in partnership with external stakeholders, professional development and quality improvement programs, and PHN-funded data extraction and analysis software for general practice. (b) Constrained by financial incentives: Most interviewees felt the role of PHNs in prevention was contingent on the financial drivers provided by the Commonwealth government, such as Medicare funding and national quality improvement programs. (c) Shaped through competing priorities: The role of PHNs in prevention is a function of competing priorities. There was strong agreement amongst participants that the myriad competing priorities from government and local needs assessments impeded prevention activities. CONCLUSIONS: PHNs are well-positioned to foster prevention activities in general practice. However, we found that PHNs role in prevention activities was informal, constrained by financial incentives and shaped through competing priorities. Prevention can be improved through a more explicit prevention focus at the Commonwealth government level. To optimise the role of PHNs, therefore, requires prioritising prevention, aligning it with KPIs and supporting stakeholders like general practice.

Doctors' Attitudes to Patient Question Asking, Patient-Generated Question Lists, and Question Prompt Lists: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Participation by patients in their own health care improves quality and safety. Question prompt lists (QPLs) can improve participation, particularly with doctors' endorsement. Few data have explored doctors' attitudes on these tools. We sought the experiences and attitudes of general practitioners and other specialists toward patient question asking and QPLs in their practice. METHODS: In-depth, semistructured interviews and focus groups with purposively selected Australian doctors were conducted. Interview guides were used to explore doctors' experiences of patient question asking, patients' lists, and a sample QPL created using an Australian government-funded online tool, "Question Builder." Recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analyzed thematically using the method by Braun and Clarke. RESULTS: Focus groups with 3 to 9 participants and a further 17 individual interviews were conducted. There was a total of 40 participants, 23 general practitioners and 17 other specialists (e.g., physicians, surgeons, pediatricians). Our analysis was summarized into several themes. 1) The doctors expected, encouraged, and had significant experience of patient question asking and patients' lists. They described many barriers for patients and their efforts to ensure patients had the information they needed. 2) The doctors felt responsible for creating an environment conducive to patient question asking, the delivery of answers, having strategies for unanswered questions, and balancing the agendas of both parties in the consultation. 3) Structured QPLs that prepared patients and facilitated the consultation agenda were viewed positively. The degree of time pressures participating doctors experienced in their context had a strong influence on how they responded to the sample QPL. CONCLUSION: Doctors in this study expected patients to ask questions and endorsed the benefits of QPLs. However, there were more diverse views about the feasibility of implementing them in practice. Designing QPLs to fit within current workflows, via more succinct and tailored designs, may result in wider doctor acceptance and endorsement, hence maximizing the benefits of QPLs with improved patient participation and patient safety.

Exploring the expectations, experiences and tensions of refugee patients and general practitioners in the quality of care in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Refugees and asylum seekers arrive in the Australian community with complex health needs and expectations of healthcare systems formed from elsewhere. Navigating the primary healthcare system can be challenging with communication and language barriers. In multicultural societies, this obstacle may be removed by accessing language-concordant care. Emerging evidence suggests language-concordance is associated with more positive reports of patient experience. Whether this is true for refugees and asylum seekers and their expectation of markers of quality patient-centred care (PCC) remains to be explored. This study aimed to explore the expectations around the markers of PCC and the impacts of having language-concordant care in Australian primary healthcare. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured individual in-language (Arabic, Dari, and Tamil) remote interviews with 22 refugee and asylum seekers and 9 general practitioners (GPs). Interview transcripts were coded inductively and deductively, based on the research questions, using Thematic Analysis. Extensive debriefing and discussion took place within the research team throughout data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Community member expectations of markers of PCC are constantly evolving and adapting based on invisible and visible actions during clinical encounters. Challenges can occur in the clinical encounter when expectations are 'unsaid' or unarticulated by both community members and GPs due to the assumption of shared understanding with language concordant care. Expectations of what constitutes satisfactory, quality PCC are dynamic outcomes, which are influenced by prior and current experiences of healthcare. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of understanding that language concordant care does not always support aligned expectations of the markers of quality PCC between community members and their GP. We recommend that GPs encourage community members to provide explicit descriptions about how their prior experiences have framed their expectations of what characterizes quality PCC. In addition, GPs could develop a collaborative approach, in which they explain their own decision-making processes in providing PCC to refugees and asylum seekers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Bilingual researchers from multicultural backgrounds and experience working with people from refugee backgrounds were consulted on study design and analysis. This study included individuals with lived experiences as refugees and asylum seekers and clinicians as participants.

Acceptability and perceived feasibility of adapted encounter decision aids on contraceptive methods: An interview study with healthcare providers and Chinese migrant women.

Objective: This study aimed to explore the perceived acceptability, usefulness, and feasibility of a suite of encounter decision aids (DAs) on contraceptive methods with Chinese migrant women living in Australia and healthcare providers. Methods: Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 22 Chinese migrant women and twenty healthcare providers were conducted. Transcribed data were analysed using the qualitative content analysis method. Results: Women perceived the DAs to be informative and useful. They suggested making the DAs available outside the clinical settings. Healthcare providers perceived the DAs to be comprehensive and valuable in informing women about contraceptive methods. Some providers had concerns as to the information load and the length of the DAs. Such concerns were eased when provided with an explanation of how to use the DAs. Most women and healthcare providers preferred the numerical format for side-effect probability information presentation. Conclusion: Making the encounter DAs available in both the Chinese and English languages can be valuable in assisting Chinese migrant women in making informed decisions about contraceptive methods. Innovation: This study is the first to evaluate the acceptability and perceived feasibility of patient decision aids with members of a migrant community in Australia. The findings highlight the need for disseminating the DAs both within and outside the clinical settings.

Interventions Using Heart Age for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Communication: Systematic Review of Psychological, Behavioral, and Clinical Effects.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk communication is a challenge for clinical practice, where physicians find it difficult to explain the absolute risk of a CVD event to patients with varying health literacy. Converting the probability to heart age is increasingly used to promote lifestyle change, but a rapid review of biological age interventions found no clear evidence that they motivate behavior change. OBJECTIVE: In this review, we aim to identify the content and effects of heart age interventions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies presenting heart age interventions to adults for CVD risk communication in April 2020 (later updated in March 2021). The Johanna Briggs risk of bias assessment tool was applied to randomized studies. Behavior change techniques described in the intervention methods were coded. RESULTS: From a total of 7926 results, 16 eligible studies were identified; these included 5 randomized web-based experiments, 5 randomized clinical trials, 2 mixed methods studies with quantitative outcomes, and 4 studies with qualitative analysis. Direct comparisons between heart age and absolute risk in the 5 web-based experiments, comprising 5514 consumers, found that heart age increased positive or negative emotional responses (4/5 studies), increased risk perception (4/5 studies; but not necessarily more accurate) and recall (4/4 studies), reduced credibility (2/3 studies), and generally had no effect on lifestyle intentions (4/5 studies). One study compared heart age and absolute risk to fitness age and found reduced lifestyle intentions for fitness age. Heart age combined with additional strategies (eg, in-person or phone counseling) in applied settings for 9582 patients improved risk control (eg, reduced cholesterol levels and absolute risk) compared with usual care in most trials (4/5 studies) up to 1 year. However, clinical outcomes were no different when directly compared with absolute risk (1/1 study). Mixed methods studies identified consultation time and content as important outcomes in actual consultations using heart age tools. There were differences between people receiving an older heart age result and those receiving a younger or equal to current heart age result. The heart age interventions included a wide range of behavior change techniques, and conclusions were sometimes biased in favor of heart age with insufficient supporting evidence. The risk of bias assessment indicated issues with all randomized clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review provide little evidence that heart age motivates lifestyle behavior change more than absolute risk, but either format can improve clinical outcomes when combined with other behavior change strategies. The label for the heart age concept can affect outcomes and should be pretested with the intended audience. Future research should consider consultation time and differentiate between results of older and younger heart age. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): NPRR2-10.1101/2020.05.03.20089938.