Can language enhance physical therapists' willingness to follow Choosing Wisely recommendations? A best-worst scaling study.

BACKGROUND: Choosing Wisely recommendations could reduce physical therapists' use of low-value care. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether language influences physical therapists' willingness to follow the Australian Physiotherapy Association's (APA) Choosing Wisely recommendations. DESIGN: Best-worst Scaling survey METHODS: The six original APA Choosing Wisely recommendations were modified based on four language characteristics (level of detail, strength- qualified/unqualified, framing, and alternatives to low-value care) to create 60 recommendations. Physical therapists were randomised to a block of seven choice tasks, which included four recommendations. Participants indicated which recommendation they were most and least willing to follow. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to create normalised (0=least preferred; 10=most preferred) and marginal preference scores. RESULTS: 215 physical therapists (48.5% of 443 who started the survey) completed the survey. Participants' mean age (SD) was 38.7 (10.6) and 47.9% were female. Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations with more detail (marginal preference score of 1.1) or that provided alternatives to low-value care (1.3) and less willing to follow recommendations with negative framing (-1.3). The use of qualified ('don't routinely') language (vs. unqualified - 'don't') did not affect willingness. Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations to avoid imaging for non-specific low back pain (3.9) and electrotherapy for low back pain (3.8) vs. recommendation to avoid incentive spirometry after upper abdominal and cardiac surgery. CONCLUSION: Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations that provided more detail, alternatives to low-value care, and were positively framed. These findings can inform the development of future Choosing Wisely recommendations and could help reduce low-value physical therapy.

The development and utility of a multicriteria patient decision aid for people contemplating treatment for osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: There are a range of treatment options for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee and hip, each with a unique profile of risks and benefits. Patient decision aids can help incorporate patient preferences in treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to develop and test the utility of a patient decision aid for OA that was developed using a multicriteria decision analytic framework. METHODS: People contemplating treatment for OA who had accessed the website myjointpain.org.au were invited to participate in the study by using the online patient decision aid. Two forms of the patient decision aid were created: A shorter form and a longer form, which allowed greater customization that was offered to respondents after they had completed the shorter form. Respondents also completed questions asking about their experience using the patient decision aid. RESULTS: A total of 625 self-selected respondents completed the short-form and 180 completed the long-form. Across both forms, serious side effects, pain and function were rated as the most important treatment outcomes. Most respondents (64%) who completed the longer form reported that using the tool was a positive experience, 38% reported that using the tool had changed their mind and 48% said that using the tool would improve the quality of their decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the findings suggest that this patient decision aid may be of use to a substantial number of people in facilitating appropriate treatment decision-making. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Service users of myjointpain.org.au were involved through their participation in the study, and their feedback will guide the development of future iterations of the tool.

Application of a health technology assessment framework to digital health technologies that manage chronic disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: As health services increasingly make investment decisions in digital health technologies (DHTs), a DHT-specific and comprehensive health technology assessment (HTA) process is crucial in assessing value-for-money. Research in DHTs is ever-increasing, but whether it covers the content required for HTA is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To summarize current trends in primary research on DHTs that manage chronic disease at home, particularly the coverage of content recommended for DHT-specific and comprehensive HTA. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Econlit, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library (1 January 2015 to 20 March 2020) were searched for primary research studies using keywords related to DHT and HTA domains. Studies were assessed for coverage of the most frequently recommended content to be considered in a nine domain DHT-specific HTA previously developed. RESULTS: A total of 178 DHT interventions were identified, predominantly randomized controlled trials targeting cardiovascular disease/diabetes in high- to middle-income countries. A coverage assessment of the cardiovascular and diabetes DHT studies (112) revealed less than half covered DHT-specific content in all but the health problem domain. Content common to all technologies but essential for DHTs was covered by more than half the studies in all domains except for the effectiveness and ethical analysis domains. CONCLUSIONS: Although DHT research is increasing, it is not covering all the content recommended for a DHT-specific and comprehensive HTA. The inability to conduct such an HTA may lead to health services making suboptimal investment decisions. Measures to increase the quality of trial design and reporting are required in DHT primary research.

Development of an international template to support patient submissions in Health Technology Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an international template to support patient submissions in Health Technology Assessments (HTAs). This was to be based on the experience and feedback from the implementation and use of the Scottish Medicines Consortium's (SMC) Summary Information for Patient Groups (SIP). METHODS: To gather feedback on the SMC experience, web-based surveys were conducted with pharmaceutical companies and patient groups familiar with the SMC SIP. Semistructured interviews with representatives from HTA bodies were undertaken, along with patient group discussions with those less familiar with the SIP, to explore issues around the approach. These qualitative data informed the development of an international SIP template. RESULTS: Survey data indicated that 82 percent (18 of 22 respondents) of pharmaceutical company representatives felt that the SIP was worthwhile; 88 percent (15/17) of patient group respondents found the SIP helpful. Both groups highlighted the need for additional support and guidance around plain language summaries. Further suggestions included provision of a glossary of terms and cost-effectiveness information. Patient group interviews supported the survey findings and led to the development of a new template. HTA bodies raised potential challenges around buy-in, timing, and bias connected to the SIP approach. CONCLUSIONS: The international SIP template is another approach to support deliberative processes in HTA. Although challenges remain around writing summaries for lay audiences, along with feasibility considerations for HTA bodies, the SIP approach should support more meaningful patient involvement in HTAs.

Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast screening programs replaced film mammography with digital mammography, and the effects of this practice shift in population screening on health outcomes can be measured through examination of cancer detection and interval cancer rates. METHODS: A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis were undertaken. Seven databases were searched for publications that compared film with digital mammography within the same population of asymptomatic women and reported cancer detection and/or interval cancer rates. RESULTS: The analysis included 24 studies with 16 583 743 screening examinations (10 968 843 film and 5 614 900 digital). The pooled difference in the cancer detection rate showed an increase of 0.51 per 1000 screens (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19 to 0.83), greater relative increase for ductal carcinoma in situ (25.2%, 95% CI = 17.4% to 33.5%) than invasive (4%, 95% CI = -3% to 13%), and a recall rate increase of 6.95 (95% CI = 3.47 to 10.42) per 1000 screens after the transition from film to digital mammography. Seven studies (80.8% of screens) reported interval cancers: the pooled difference showed no change in the interval cancer rate with -0.02 per 1000 screens (95% CI = -0.06 to 0.03). Restricting analysis to studies at low risk of bias resulted in findings consistent with the overall pooled results for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in cancer detection following the practice shift to digital mammography did not translate into a reduction in the interval cancer rate. Recall rates were increased. These results suggest the transition from film to digital mammography did not result in health benefits for screened women. This analysis reinforces the need to carefully evaluate effects of future changes in technology, such as tomosynthesis, to ensure new technology leads to improved health outcomes and beyond technical gains.

Examining the information needed for acceptance of deintensified screening programmes: qualitative focus groups about cervical screening in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: Given the changing understanding of overdiagnosis of screen detected cancers and advances in technology to detect and prevent cancer, updating and scaling back cancer screening programmes is becoming increasingly necessary. The National Cervical Screening Programme (NCSP) in Australia was recently deintensified, with the changes implemented in December 2017. This study examines women's understanding and acceptance of the renewed screening protocol and how such changes can be communicated more effectively. DESIGN: Focus groups structured around a presentation of information about the renewed NCSP, with discussions of the information facilitated throughout. Qualitative data analysis was conducted. SETTING: Australia PARTICIPANTS: Six focus groups were conducted in November 2017 with a community sample of 49 women aged 18-74. RESULTS: Women demonstrated little or no awareness of the upcoming screening changes in the period just before they occurred. Women expressed most concern and fear that the increased screening interval (from 2 to 5 years) and later age of first screening (from age 18 to 25 years) could lead to missing cancers. Concerns about exit testing were less common. Understanding of the natural history and the prevalence of both human papillomavirus and cervical cancer, and the nature of the new test (catching it 'earlier') was key to alleviate concerns about the increased screening interval. CONCLUSIONS: Deintensifying screening programmes should be accompanied by clear and coherent communication of the changes, including the rationale behind them, to limit concerns from the public and facilitate acceptance of renewed programmes. In this case, understanding the biology of cervical cancer was crucial.

Qualitative Evaluation of Evidence-Based Online Decision Aid and Resources for Osteoarthritis Management: Understanding Patient Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively examine the experiences with, and impact of, evidence-based online resources in self-management among Australians with osteoarthritis. METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted with 36 users of a novel osteoarthritis resource, the Osteoarthritis Awareness Hub. Rogers' 5 attributes of innovation (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability) and outcomes guided the semistructured interview and analysis. Maximum variation sampling was used, and data saturation occurred after 33 interviews. A coding scheme was agreed upon and all interview data were entered into NVivo for qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Study participants had high levels of literacy and health literacy. For adoption and implementation of an innovation, the participants' narratives confirmed and underscored the fact that it was important that it come from an authoritative and trusting voice and that its perceived benefits align with participants' values and existing practices (relative advantage and compatibility). The participants also valued seeing the practical benefits of the innovation, such as its capacity to impart quality and balanced new insights and information, and to maintain and monitor their personal progress. Notably, many participants spoke about the mental and physical health benefits that they derived from engagement with the online resources. CONCLUSION: Our study findings confirm that web-based tools can be a useful adjunct to patients adopting self-management strategies. Rogers' theory provides a framework for a deeper appreciation of the how, why, and what questions concerning the adoption and implementation processes, especially among people with good technology and health literacy.

A National Budget Impact Analysis of a Specialised Surveillance Programme for Individuals at Very High Risk of Melanoma in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Specialised surveillance using total body photography and digital dermoscopy to monitor people at very high risk of developing a second or subsequent melanoma has been reported as cost effective. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to estimate the 5-year healthcare budget impact of providing specialised surveillance for people at very high risk of subsequent melanoma from the perspective of the Australian healthcare system. METHODS: A budget impact model was constructed to assess the costs of monitoring and potential savings compared with current routine care based on identification of patients at the time of a melanoma diagnosis. We used data from a published cost-effectiveness analysis of specialised surveillance, and Cancer Registry data, to estimate the patient population and healthcare costs for 2017-2021. RESULTS: When all eligible patients, estimated at 18% of patients with melanoma diagnosed annually in Australia, received specialised surveillance rather than routine care, the cumulative 5-year cost was estimated at $93.5 million Australian dollars ($AU) ($US 64 million) for specialised surveillance compared with $AU 120.7 million ($US 82.7 million) for routine care, delivering savings of $AU 27.2 million ($US 18.6 million). With a staggered introduction of 60% of eligible patients accessing surveillance in year 1, increasing to 90% in years 4 and 5, the cumulative cost over 5 years was estimated at $AU 98.1 million ($US 67.2 million), amounting to savings of $AU 22.6 million ($US 15.5 million) compared with routine care. CONCLUSIONS: Specialised melanoma surveillance is likely to provide substantial cost savings for the Australian healthcare system.

Moving beyond the rhetoric of patient input in health technology assessment deliberations.

At a health system level, the importance of patient and public input into healthcare decision making is well recognised. Patient and public involvement not only provides a mechanism to legitimise decisions, but also contributes to improved translation of these decisions into practice, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes. Recent reviews in the health technology assessment space have identified the need for, and increased use of, patient input through systematic methodologies. Yet, what does this mean in practical terms? This paper outlines both short- and longer-term options for strengthening patient input into health technology assessment deliberations. This is particularly important given the planned reforms in this area and the commitment to public consultation as part of the reform process.

Community views and perspectives on public engagement in health technology assessment decision making.

Objectives The aim of the present study was to describe community views and perspectives on public engagement processes in Australian health technology assessment (HTA) decision making. Methods Six focus groups were held in Sydney (NSW, Australia) as part of a broad program of work on public engagement and HTA. Eligible participants were aged ≥18 years and spoke English. Participants were asked about their views and perspectives of public engagement in the HTA decision-making process, with responses analysed using a public participation framework. Results Fifty-eight participants aged 19-71 years attended the focus groups. Responses from the public indicated that they wanted public engagement in HTA to include a diversity of individuals, be independent and transparent, involve individuals early in the process and ensure that public input is meaningful and useful to the process. This was consistent with the public participation framework. Perceived shortcomings of the current public engagement process were also identified, namely the lack of awareness of the HTA system in the general population and the need to acknowledge the role different groups of stakeholders or 'publics' can have in the process. Conclusions The public do see a role for themselves in the HTA decision-making process. This is distinct to the involvement of patients and carers. It is important that any future public engagement strategy in this field distinguishes between stakeholder groups and outline approaches that will involve members of the public in the decision-making process, especially if public expectations of involvement in healthcare decision-making continue to increase. What is known about this topic? The views and perspectives of patients and consumers are important in the HTA decision-making process. There is a move to involve the broader community, particularly as decisions become increasingly complex and resources more scarce. What does this paper add? It not been known to what extent, or at what points, the community would like to be engaged with the HTA decision-making process. The present study adds to the evidence base on this topic by identifying features of engagement that may be important in determining the extent of wider public involvement. It is clear that the community expects the system to be transparent, for patients to be involved early in specific processes and the wider community to be able to contribute to the broader vision of the healthcare system. What are the implications for practitioners? A formalised strategy is needed to include the public voice into health technology decisions. With the current level of reform in the healthcare sector and the focus on creating a sustainable healthcare system, there is a real opportunity to implement an approach that not only informs patients and the community of the challenges, but includes and incorporates their views into these decisions. This will assist in developing and adapting policy that is relevant and meets the needs of the population.

What factors determine the choice of public engagement undertaken by health technology assessment decision-making organizations?

Purpose Public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly considered crucial for good decision making. Determining the "right" type of engagement activity is key in achieving the appropriate consideration of public values. Little is known about the factors that determine how HTA organizations (HTAOs) decide on their method of public engagement, and there are a number of possible factors that might shape these decisions. The purpose of this paper is to understand the potential drivers of public engagement from an organizational perspective. Design/methodology/approach The published HTA literature is reviewed alongside existing frameworks of public engagement in order to elucidate key factors influencing the choice of public engagement process undertaken by HTAOs. A conceptual framework is then developed to illustrate the factors identified from the literature that appear to influence public engagement choice. Findings Determining the type of public engagement undertaken in HTA is based on multiple factors, some of which are not always explicitly acknowledged. These factors included the: perceived complexity of the policy-making issue, perceived impact of the decision, transparency and opportunities for public involvement in governance, as well as time and resource constraints. The influences of these factors vary depending on the context, indicating that a one size fits all approach to public engagement may not be effective. Originality/value Awareness of the various factors that might influence the type of public engagement undertaken would enable decision makers to reflect on their choices and be more accountable and transparent about their choice of engagement process in eliciting public values and preferences in a HTAO.

Preferences for engagement in health technology assessment decision-making: a nominal group technique with members of the public.

OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics (factors) about health technology assessment (HTA) decisions that are important to the public in determining whether public engagement should be undertaken and the reasons for these choices. DESIGN: Focus groups using a nominal group technique to identify and rank factors relevant to public engagement in HTA decision-making. Thematic analysis was also undertaken to describe reasons underpinning participants' choices and rankings. SETTING: Members of the Australian general public. PARTICIPANTS: 58 people, aged 19-71 years participated in 6 focus groups. RESULTS: 24 factors were identified by participants that were considered important in determining whether public engagement should be undertaken. These factors were individually ranked and grouped into 4 themes to interpret preferences for engagement. Members of the public were more likely to think public engagement was needed when trade-offs between benefits and costs were required to determine 'value', uncertainties in the evidence were present, and family members and/or carers were impacted. The role of public engagement was also seen as important if the existent system lacked transparency and did not provide a voice for patients, particularly for conditions less known in the community. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the public considered value, impact, uncertainty, equity and transparency in determining when engagement should be undertaken. This indicates that the public's preferences on when to undertake engagement relate to both the content of the HTA itself as well as the processes in place to support HTA decision-making. By understanding these preferences, decision-makers can work towards more effective, meaningful public engagement by involving the public in issues that are important to them and/or improving the processes around decision-making.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PREFERENCE INFORMATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DECISION MAKING? A CASE STUDY OF COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the role of community preference information from discrete choice studies of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in health technology assessment (HTA) reports and subsequent policy decisions. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of discrete choice studies of CRC screening. Included studies were reviewed to assess the policy context of the research. For those studies that cited a recent or pending review of CRC screening, further searches were undertaken to determine the extent to which community preference information was incorporated into the HTA decision-making process. RESULTS: Eight discrete choice studies that evaluated preferences for CRC screening were identified. Four of these studies referred to a national or local review of CRC screening in three countries: Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. Our review of subsequently released health policy documents showed that while consideration was given to community views on CRC, policy was not informed by discrete choice evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Preferences and values of patients are increasingly being considered "evidence" to be incorporated into HTA reports. Discrete choice methodology is a rigorous quantitative method for eliciting preferences and while as a methodology it is growing in profile, it would appear that the results of such research are not being systematically translated or integrated into HTA reports. A formalized approach is needed to incorporate preference literature into the HTA decision-making process.

Developing an Online Decision Aid for Osteoarthritis.

A decision aid for osteoarthritis was developed using the best available evidence on effect size, potential harms and self-rated performance for other attributes. The aid was developed using a multi-criteria decision analytic tool capable of combing evidence and an individual's preferences for the attributes related to treatment.

Public preferences for engagement in Health Technology Assessment decision-making: protocol of a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Much attention in recent years has been given to the topic of public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making. HTA organizations spend substantial resources and time on undertaking public engagement, and numerous studies have examined challenges and barriers to engagement in the decision-making process however uncertainty remains as to optimal methods to incorporate the views of the public in HTA decision-making. Little research has been done to ascertain whether current engagement processes align with public preferences and to what extent their desire for engagement is dependent on the question being asked by decision-makers or the characteristics of the decision. This study will examine public preferences for engagement in Australian HTA decision-making using an exploratory mixed methods design. METHODS/DESIGN: The aims of this study are to: 1) identify characteristics about HTA decisions that are important to the public in determining whether public engagement should be undertaken on a particular topic, 2) determine which decision characteristics influence public preferences for the extent, or type of public engagement, and 3) describe reasons underpinning these preferences. Focus group participants from the general community, aged 18-70 years, will be purposively sampled from the Australian population to ensure a wide range of demographic groups. Each focus group will include a general discussion on public engagement as well as a ranking exercise using a modified nominal group technique (NGT). The NGT will inform the design of a discrete choice study to quantitatively assess public preferences for engagement in HTA decision-making. DISCUSSION: The proposed research seeks to investigate under what circumstances and how the public would like their views and preferences to be considered in health technology assessments. HTA organizations regularly make decisions about when and how public engagement should occur but without consideration of the public's preferences on the method and extent of engagement. This information has the potential to assist decision-makers in tailoring engagement approaches, and may be particularly useful in decisions with potential for conflict where clarification of public values and preferences could strengthen the decision-making process.

Association of study type, sample size, and follow-up length with type of recommendation produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Interventional Procedures Programme.

OBJECTIVES: The association between type and amount of clinical evidence and type of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommendations for interventional procedures was examined. METHODS: The evidence about 736 studies (including 183,729 patients) relating to 130 different interventional procedures and about relevant recommendations was analyzed. Associations were examined between type of recommendation ("normal arrangements" or "cautionary guidance") and evidence type, total number of treated patients, and mean follow-up length. Evidence type was categorized as (a) randomized, (b) nonrandomized controlled, and (c) case series/reports. The main outcome measures were frequency of evidence type, total number of patients treated, and mean follow-up length, by type of recommendation. RESULTS: "Normal arrangements" recommendations were made for 70 (54 percent) procedures and "cautionary guidance" was issued for 60 (46 percent) procedures. Procedures supported by at least one randomized study (34 percent, n = 44) were more likely to receive a "normal arrangements" recommendation (relative risk 1.38, p = .063). Overall, there were 85 (12 percent), 135 (18 percent), and 516 (70 percent) studies in categories a-c, respectively. The number of treated patients was significantly larger among procedures with "normal arrangements" (median, 605; range, 26-6,842) than among those with "cautionary guidance" (median, 240; range, 1-3,261; p < .001) recommendation. Mean follow-up length was longer in studies relating to procedures with "normal arrangements" recommendation (median, 16.7; range, 0-84 months) compared with those with "cautionary guidance" (median, 14.6; range, 0-67 months; p = .160). CONCLUSIONS: Procedures supported by randomized studies, and with larger numbers of patients and longer follow-up length, were more likely to receive positive guidance. Future research and development on interventional procedures should aim to produce better and more relevant evidence to optimize the possibility of such procedures being accepted by policy makers.