Effectiveness of a Population Health Intervention on Disparities in Hypertension Control: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in hypertension control across race, ethnicity, and language have been a long-standing problem in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a multi-pronged intervention can improve hypertension control for a target population and reduce disparities. DESIGN: This stepped wedge cluster randomized trial was conducted at 15 adult primary care clinics affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital. PCPs were randomized to receive the intervention in twelve groups. PARTICIPANTS: The target population was patients who met one of the following criteria based on self-identification: (1) Asian, Black, Indigenous, multi-racial, or other race; (2) Hispanic ethnicity; or (3) preferred language other than English. Reference population was White, English-speaking patients. INTERVENTIONS: PCPs were given access to an online equity dashboard that displays disparities in chronic disease management and completed an equity huddle with population health coordinators (PHCs), which involved reviewing target patients whose hypertension was not well controlled. In addition, community health workers (CHWs) were available in some practices to offer additional support. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in the proportion of target patients meeting the hypertension control goal when comparing intervention and control periods. KEY RESULTS: Of the 365 PCPs who were randomized, 311 PCPs and their 10,865 target patients were included in the analysis. The intervention led to an increase in hypertension control in the target population (RD 0.9%; 95% CI [0.3,1.5]) and there was a higher intervention effect in the target population compared to the reference population (DiD 2.1%; 95% CI [1.1, 3.1]). CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing data on disparities in quality outcome measures in routine clinical practice augmented by clinical support provided by PHCs and CHWs led to modest, but statistically significant, improvement in hypertension control among BIPOC, Hispanic, and LEP patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05278806.

Vulnerability and Colorectal screening during the pandemic.

Objective: Disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence across United States neighborhoods may reflect social inequities that create barriers to accessing and completing preventive health services. Our objective was to identify whether neighborhood social vulnerability was associated with a change in CRC screening prevalence in Boston neighborhoods during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Adults ages 50-74 years due for CRC screening who received primary care at one of 35 primary care practices affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital or Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, MA), 3/1/2020 to 3/1/2022. The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) is an aggregate measure of neighborhood social factors often used by public health authorities to examine neighborhood susceptibility to many health outcomes. Results: In 2020, 74.9 % of eligible individuals were up to date with CRC screening and this fell to 67.4 % in 2022 (p < 0.001). In 2020, 36.2 % of eligible patients lived in a neighborhood above the 80th percentile of SVI, consistent with high social vulnerability, while the same value was 35.1 % in 2022. There was no association between the change in screening prevalence and SVI: a decrease of 5.5 % screened in neighborhoods with SVI ≤ 80 compared to a decrease of 3.6 % in neighborhoods with SVI > 80 (p = 0.79). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic equalized the prevalence of CRC screening across Boston-area neighborhoods despite pre-existing geographic disparities in screening prevalence and SVI. Strategies to ensure equitable participation in CRC screening to promote health equity should be considered to promote equitable pandemic recovery.

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.

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.

Patients Who Reviewed a Decision Aid Prior to Major Orthopaedic Surgery Reported Higher Trust in Their Surgeon.

Decision aids (DAs) are utilized to ensure that patients are informed and involved in the decision-making process. Although DAs improve decision quality, other aspects of the decision-making process, such as trust and regret, are seldom measured. The objective of the present study was to determine whether patients given a DA prior to orthopaedic surgery had greater trust and lower regret at 6 months postoperatively. Methods: Consecutive patients were identified who underwent a hip or knee replacement or spine surgery from October 2018 to January 2020 and were subsequently surveyed at 6 months postoperatively. Outcomes included the Trust in the Surgical Decision and Decision Regret Scales. The primary analysis compared scores of patients who reviewed at least some of the DA to those who had not received or reviewed it. A sensitivity analysis compared patients with a DA order who reported reviewing it to those who did not. Multivariable models analyzed whether DA exposure predicted trust or regret. An exploratory mediation analysis examined the direct and indirect effects of DA exposure, including through the Shared Decision Making Process score. Results: The response rate was 56% (700 of 1,253). In the primary analysis, the proportion of patients who reported complete trust was 50.9% among those with no DA review and 63.8% among those with DA review (adjusted odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 2.36). A nonsignificant effect was observed comparing a DA order (59.9%) versus no DA order (51.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 2.11). Regret was unrelated to DA exposure. In the mediation analysis, 19.3% (95% confidence interval, 3.1% to 35.4%) of the effect of DA review on trust could be attributed to increased shared decision making. Conclusions: Patients who reviewed a DA prior to orthopaedic surgery reported higher trust in their surgeons. Clinical Relevance: Providing patients with a DA prior to orthopaedic surgery can improve trust in the surgeon. Improving trust between patients and surgeons may improve communication and help patients make better health decisions.

Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment.

BACKGROUND: The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a brief, patient-reported measure of SDM with demonstrated validity in surgical decision making studies. Herein we examine the validity of the scores in assessing SDM for cancer screening and medication decisions through standardized videos of good-quality and poor-quality SDM consultations. METHOD: An online sample was randomized to a clinical decision-colon cancer screening or high cholesterol-and a viewing order-good-quality video first or poor-quality video first. Participants watched both videos, completing a survey after each video. Surveys included the SDM Process scale and the 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9); higher scores indicated greater SDM. Multilevel linear regressions identified if video, order, or their interaction predicted SDM Process scores. To identify how the SDM Process score classified videos, area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The correlation between SDM Process score and SDM-Q-9 assessed construct validity. Heterogeneity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In the sample of 388 participants (68% white, 70% female, average age 45 years) good-quality videos received higher SDM Process scores than poor-quality videos (Ps < 0.001), and those who viewed the good-quality high cholesterol video first tended to rate the videos higher. SDM Process scores were related to SDM-Q-9 scores (rs > 0.58; Ps < 0.001). AUC was poor (0.69) for the high cholesterol model and fair (0.79) for the colorectal cancer model. Heterogeneity analyses suggested individual differences were predictive of SDM Process scores. CONCLUSION: SDM Process scores showed good evidence of validity in a hypothetical scenario but were lacking in ability to classify good-quality or poor-quality videos accurately. Considerable heterogeneity of scoring existed, suggesting that individual differences played a role in evaluating good- or poor-quality SDM conversations.

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.

Patient decision aid for trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) versus planned repeat cesarean delivery: a quasi-experimental pre-post study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a web-based decision aid on patient-centered decision making outcomes among women considering a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) versus planned repeat cesarean delivery. METHODS: The Birth Decision Aid Study (B-READY) was a quasi-experimental pre-post study of two sequential cohorts. From June 18, 2018 to July 31, 2019, 50 women were enrolled in routine care, followed by 50 women who were enrolled in the decision aid group. Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancies between 19/0 to 36/6 weeks, ≤2 prior cesareans, and no contraindications to TOLAC. The decision aid group viewed the online Healthwise® "Pregnancy: Birth Options After Cesarean" program. Both groups received the same birth options counseling and completed the same online assessment. Primary patient-centered outcomes were knowledge about birth options and shared decision making at online assessment, and informed, patient-centered decision making about her preferred mode of delivery at delivery admission. RESULTS: Among 100 women participated in this study (50 per group), the mean gestational age at enrollment was 31 weeks, and 71% or 63/89 women who consented to delivery data abstraction had a cesarean delivery. Women in the patient decision aid group gained more knowledge (defined as score ≥ 75%) about birth options compared to those in the routine care group (72% vs. 32%; adjusted odds ratio, AOR: 6.15 [95% CI: 2.34 to 16.14]), and were more likely to make an informed, patient-centered decision (60% vs. 26%; AOR: 3.30 [95% CI: 1.20 to 9.04]. Women in both groups reported similar involvement in shared decision making, as well as satisfaction and values. More than 90% of decision aid users reported it was a useful tool and would recommend it to other TOLAC-eligible women. CONCLUSIONS: A web-based birth options patient-centered decision aid for TOLAC eligible women can be integrated into prenatal Telehealth and may improve the quality of decision making about mode of delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with ClinincalTrials.gov and the ID# was NCT04053413 . Registered 12 August 2019 - Retrospectively registered.

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.

Do Personal Stories Make Patient Decision Aids More Effective? An Update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards.

BACKGROUND: This article evaluates the evidence for the inclusion of patient narratives in patient decision aids (PtDAs). We define patient narratives as stories, testimonials, or anecdotes that provide illustrative examples of the experiences of others that are relevant to the decision at hand. METHOD: To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of narratives in PtDAs, we conducted a narrative scoping review of the literature from January 2013 through June 2019 to identify relevant literature published since the last International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) update in 2013. We considered research articles that examined the impact of narratives on relevant outcomes or described relevant theoretical mechanisms. RESULTS: The majority of the empirical work on narratives did not measure concepts that are typically found in the PtDA literature (e.g., decisional conflict). Yet, a few themes emerged from our review that can be applied to the PtDA context, including the impact of narratives on relevant outcomes (knowledge, behavior change, and psychological constructs), as well as several theoretical mechanisms about how and why narratives work that can be applied to the PtDA context. CONCLUSION: Based on this evidence update, we suggest that there may be situations when narratives could enhance the effectiveness of PtDAs. The recent theoretical work on narratives has underscored the fact that narratives are a multifaceted construct and should no longer be considered a binary option (include narratives or not). However, the bottom line is that the evidence does not support a recommendation for narratives to be a necessary component of PtDAs.

Patient Preference Distribution for Use of Statin Therapy.

Importance: Thresholds for initiating statin therapy should be informed by patients' preferences. Objective: To define the preference distribution for statin therapy across the spectrum of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk after participants were informed about the benefits and harms of statin therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 13 to June 2, 2020. Participants included 304 individuals aged 40 to 75 years drawn from a nonprobability opt-in panel who had not taken a statin or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor in the past 3 years and knew the results of their total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure measurements. Exposures: Personalized 10-year CVD risk with and without statin therapy and potential harms of statins. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was self-reported preference for statin therapy. Results: The 304 participants had a mean (SD) age of 54.8 (9.9) years; 152 were women (50.0%), 130 (42.8%) non-White, 50 (16.6%) had a high school degree or less education, and 153 (50.8%) reported never needing help reading health materials. When asked their preference for using statin therapy after reviewing their benefit and risk information, 45% of the participants reported they would definitely or probably choose statin therapy. As the risk increased, the proportion who would choose statin therapy generally increased (from 31.1% for a risk <5% to 82.6% for a risk >50%). The minimum risk threshold had to increase to 20% before 75% of respondents in that risk group would want statin therapy. For participants with a risk greater than 10%, the desire to use statin therapy decreased as participants' health literacy, subjective numeracy, and knowledge scores increased. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, preferences for statin therapy for primary prevention of CVD appeared to vary across the spectrum of 10-year cardiovascular risk, but they were relatively flat at intermediate levels of risk. This preference distribution suggests a broad risk range for shared decision-making.

What Works in Implementing Patient Decision Aids in Routine Clinical Settings? A Rapid Realist Review and Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Decades of effectiveness research has established the benefits of using patient decision aids (PtDAs), yet broad clinical implementation has not yet occurred. Evidence to date is mainly derived from highly controlled settings; if clinicians and health care organizations are expected to embed PtDAs as a means to support person-centered care, we need to better understand what this might look like outside of a research setting. AIM: This review was conducted in response to the IPDAS Collaboration's evidence update process, which informs their published standards for PtDA quality and effectiveness. The aim was to develop context-specific program theories that explain why and how PtDAs are successfully implemented in routine healthcare settings. METHODS: Rapid realist review methodology was used to identify articles that could contribute to theory development. We engaged key experts and stakeholders to identify key sources; this was supplemented by electronic database (Medline and CINAHL), gray literature, and forward/backward search strategies. Initial theories were refined to develop realist context-mechanism-outcome configurations, and these were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: We developed 8 refined theories, using data from 23 implementation studies (29 articles), to describe the mechanisms by which PtDAs become successfully implemented into routine clinical settings. Recommended implementation strategies derived from the program theory include 1) co-production of PtDA content and processes (or local adaptation), 2) training the entire team, 3) preparing and prompting patients to engage, 4) senior-level buy-in, and 5) measuring to improve. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend key strategies that organizations and individuals intending to embed PtDAs routinely can use as a practical guide. Further work is needed to understand the importance of context in the success of different implementation studies.

Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure.

BACKGROUND: The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity. METHOD: Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results. RESULTS: Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality (d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores (d = 0.57, P < 0.001), and lower decision regret (d = -0.34, P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was present in all validity analyses. LIMITATIONS: Included studies all focused on surgical decisions, several had small sample sizes, and many were retrospective. CONCLUSION: SDM Process scores showed resilience to coding changes, and a scheme using the short, partial credit, with equal weights was adopted. The SDM Process scores demonstrated a small, positive relationship with decision quality and were consistently related to lower decision conflict and less regret, providing evidence of validity across several surgical decisions.

Validation of the 3-item What Engagement Looks Like (WELL) scale in patients with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patients' behaviors play a key role in chronic disease management, but how effective they are may depend on how engaged they feel. The objective was to develop a short measure of how much patients felt engaged in self-managing a chronic condition. Online test of a three-question series followed by a survey of physicians and their eligible diabetic patients. Physicians answered: 1) how well the physician thought the patient was managing his/her diabetes, and 2) how much effort the physician thought the patient was putting in. Each patient was mailed a survey that included three questions on self-management. Six hundred six patients from a national online consumer panel with diabetes or obesity, and 35 physicians from 3 primary care practices and a sample of 243 of their diabetic patients. Respondents were asked three questions about how much they thought their behavior could affect their health condition, how confident they were that they could do what was needed, and how involved they were in decisions about managing their condition. These items were summed to create a WELL score. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients were used to describe item relationships. Generalized Estimating Equations were used to predict how well the physician thought the patient was managing their diabetes and patient effort. RESULTS: Correlations among the three patient-reported items ranged from - 0.01 to 0.45. The WELL score was correlated with an existing measure of patient activation commitment (r = .43, p < 0.001) and found to be a significant predictor of physicians' ratings of how much effort patients devoted to condition management (b = 0.02, p = 0.001, OR = 1.02) after adjusting for confounders. The WELL score didn't predict physicians' ratings of how effective patients were (b = 0.003, p = .526, OR = 1.004) after their A1c score had been taken into account. CONCLUSION: Patients' WELL scores predicted physicians' ratings of patient effort in diabetes self-management.

National Survey of Decision-Making for Antidepressants and Educational Level.

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations to screen adults for depression in primary care, little is known about how people across education levels decide to treat their depression and factors that influence their decision. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a national, probability-based web survey in English-speaking adults aged 40 or older living in the United States who reported they discussed starting or continuing an antidepressant with their clinician in the past 2 years. Respondents answered questions about knowledge, decision-making process, and demographics. Education level was analyzed using 5 ordered categories. The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process score was used to assess patient involvement. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, analysis of variance, and regression models were used to describe the data and test associations. RESULTS: Of the 5682 people invited, 3396 answered questions about health decisions (59.8% response rate) and 385 reported discussing antidepressants. The mean percentage of knowledge questions answered correctly increased as education level increased (P = .008). The mean SDM Process score also increased with education (P = .001). There was an association between education and who made the treatment decision, suggesting that for respondents with less education, the clinician was more likely to decide (P = .001). Respondents with less education were less likely to report they would definitely make the same decision again (P = .000). CONCLUSIONS: Those with less education were even less informed, had lower SDM Process scores and were less likely to think they made the right decision about antidepressants. There is a need to ensure patients are better informed about and involved in treatment for depression.

Comparison of Three Measures of Shared Decision Making: SDM Process_4, CollaboRATE, and SURE Scales.

Objective. If shared decision making (SDM) is to be part of quality assessment, it is necessary to have good measures of SDM. The purpose of this study is to compare the psychometric performance of 3 short patient-reported measures of SDM. Methods. Patients who met with a specialist to discuss possible surgery for hip or knee osteoarthritis (hips/knees), lumbar herniated disc, or lumbar spinal stenosis (backs) were surveyed shortly after the visit and again 6 months later. Some of the patients saw a patient decision aid (PDA) prior to the meeting. The 3 SDM measures were the SDM Process_4 (SDMP) survey, CollaboRATE, and SURE scale. The follow-up survey included measures of decision regret, satisfaction, and decision quality. Results. Patients in the sample (N = 649) had a mean age of 63.3 years, 51% were female, 60% were college educated, and there were more hip/knee patients than back patients (69% v. 31%). Forty-nine percent had surgery. For hips/knees, the SDMP and SURE scores were significantly associated with viewing all of the PDA compared with those who did not (P < 0.001), but not for CollaboRATE (P = 0.35). For backs, none of the scores were significantly associated with viewing all the PDA. All 3 scores were significantly associated with less regret and higher satisfaction (P < 0.001) for hips/knees. For backs, only SURE and CollaboRATE were significantly associated with less regret, and only SDMP was significantly associated with higher satisfaction. For hips/knees and backs, the SDMP and SURE scales were significantly associated with an informed patient-centered decision (P < 0.001), but this relationship was not significant for CollaboRATE (hips/knees: P = 0.24; backs: P = 0.25). Discussion. Each measure has some evidence of validity. SURE and SDMP better discriminate the use of PDAs and have higher decision quality.

Interactive computer-based interventions for weight loss or weight maintenance in overweight or obese people.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the number of obese or overweight individuals worldwide will increase to 1.5 billion by 2015. Chronic diseases associated with overweight or obesity include diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and stroke. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interactive computer-based interventions for weight loss or weight maintenance in overweight or obese people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched several electronic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PsycINFO, through 25 May 2011. We also searched clinical trials registries to identify studies. We scanned reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials that evaluated interactive computer-based weight loss or weight maintenance programs in adults with overweight or obesity. We excluded trials if the duration of the intervention was less than four weeks or the loss to follow-up was greater than 20% overall. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Where interventions, control conditions, outcomes and time frames were similar between studies, we combined study data using meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 weight loss studies with a total of 2537 participants, and four weight maintenance studies with a total of 1603 participants. Treatment duration was between four weeks and 30 months. At six months, computer-based interventions led to greater weight loss than minimal interventions (mean difference (MD) -1.5 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.1 to -0.9; two trials) but less weight loss than in-person treatment (MD 2.1 kg; 95% CI 0.8 to 3.4; one trial). At six months, computer-based interventions were superior to a minimal control intervention in limiting weight regain (MD -0.7 kg; 95% CI -1.2 to -0.2; two trials), but not superior to infrequent in-person treatment (MD 0.5 kg; 95% -0.5 to 1.6; two trials). We did not observe consistent differences in dietary or physical activity behaviors between intervention and control groups in either weight loss or weight maintenance trials. Three weight loss studies estimated the costs of computer-based interventions compared to usual care, however two of the studies were 11 and 28 years old, and recent advances in technology render these estimates unlikely to be applicable to current or future interventions, while the third study was conducted in active duty military personnel, and it is unclear whether the costs are relevant to other settings. One weight loss study reported the cost-effectiveness ratio for a weekly in-person weight loss intervention relative to a computer-based intervention as USD 7177 (EUR 5678) per life year gained (80% CI USD 3055 to USD 60,291 (EUR 2417 to EUR 47,702)). It is unclear whether this could be extrapolated to other studies. No data were identified on adverse events, morbidity, complications or health-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to no intervention or minimal interventions (pamphlets, usual care), interactive computer-based interventions are an effective intervention for weight loss and weight maintenance. Compared to in-person interventions, interactive computer-based interventions result in smaller weight losses and lower levels of weight maintenance. The amount of additional weight loss, however, is relatively small and of brief duration, making the clinical significance of these differences unclear.