Uncertainty tolerance among primary care physicians: Relationship to shared decision making-related perceptions, practices, and physician characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: Understand how physicians' uncertainty tolerance (UT) in clinical care relates to their personal characteristics, perceptions and practices regarding shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: As part of a trial of SDM training about colorectal cancer screening, primary care physicians (n = 67) completed measures of their uncertainty tolerance in medical practice (Anxiety subscale of the Physician's Reactions to Uncertainty Scale, PRUS-A), and their SDM self-efficacy (confidence in SDM skills). Patients (N = 466) completed measures of SDM (SDM Process scale) after a clinical visit. Bivariate regression analyses and multilevel regression analyses examined relationships. RESULTS: Higher UT was associated with greater physician age (p = .01) and years in practice (p = 0.015), but not sex or race. Higher UT was associated with greater SDM self-efficacy (p < 0.001), but not patient-reported SDM. CONCLUSION: Greater age and practice experience predict greater physician UT, suggesting that UT might be improved through training, while UT is associated with greater confidence in SDM, suggesting that improving UT might improve SDM. However, UT was unassociated with patient-reported SDM, raising the need for further studies of these relationships. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Developing and implementing training interventions aimed at increasing physician UT may be a promising way to promote SDM in clinical care.

Eliciting preferences for cancer screening tests: Comparison of a discrete choice experiment and the threshold technique.

OBJECTIVE: To compare results of three preference elicitation methods for a cancer screening test. METHODS: Participants (undergraduate students) completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) task. Accuracy (false positives, false negatives), benefits (lives saved), and cost for a cancer screening test were used as attributes in the DCE and branching logic for the TT. Participants were also asked a direct elicitation question regarding a hypothetical screening test for breast (women) or prostate (men) cancer without mortality benefit. Correlations assessed the relationship between DCE and TT thresholds. Thresholds were standardized and ranked for both methods to compare. A logistic regression used the thresholds to predict results of the direct elicitation. RESULTS: DCE and TT estimates were not meaningfully correlated (max ρ = 0.17). Participant rankings of attributes matched only 20% of the time (58/292). Neither method predicted preference for being screened (ps > 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: The DCE and TT yielded different preference estimates (and rank orderings) for the same participant. Neither method predicted patients' desires for a screening test. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians, patients, policy makers, and researchers should be aware that patient preference results may be sensitive to the method of eliciting preferences.

Shared Decision Making for Elective Surgical Procedures in Older Adults with and without Cognitive Insufficiencies.

PURPOSE: Older adults are prone to cognitive impairment, which may affect their ability to engage in aspects of shared decision making (SDM) and their ability to complete surveys about the SDM process. This study examined the surgical decision-making processes of older adults with and without cognitive insufficiencies and evaluated the psychometric properties of the SDM Process scale. METHODS: Eligible patients were 65 y or older and scheduled for a preoperative appointment before elective surgery (e.g., arthroplasty). One week before the visit, staff contacted patients via phone to administer the baseline survey, including the SDM Process scale (range 0-4), SURE scale (top scored), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test version 8.1 BLIND English (MoCA-blind; score range 0-22; scores < 19 indicate cognitive insufficiency). Patients completed a follow-up survey 3 mo after their visit to assess decision regret (top scored) and retest reliability for the SDM Process scale. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent (127/488) of eligible patients completed the survey; 121 were included in the analytic data set, and 85 provided sufficient follow-up data. Forty percent of patients (n = 49/121) had MoCA-blind scores indicating cognitive insufficiencies. Overall SDM Process scores did not differ by cognitive status (intact cognition x¯ = 2.5, s = 1.0 v. cognitive insufficiencies x¯ = 2.5, s = 1.0; P = 0.80). SURE top scores were similar across groups (83% intact cognition v. 90% cognitive insufficiencies; P = 0.43). While patients with intact cognition had less regret, the difference was not statistically significant (92% intact cognition v. 79% cognitive insufficiencies; P = 0.10). SDM Process scores had low missing data and good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Reported SDM, decisional conflict, and decision regret did not differ significantly for patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies. The SDM Process scale was an acceptable, reliable, and valid measure of SDM in patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies. HIGHLIGHTS: Forty percent of patients 65 y or older who were scheduled for elective surgery had scores indicative of cognitive insufficiencies.Patient-reported shared decision making, decisional conflict, and decision regret did not differ significantly for patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies.The Shared Decision Making Process scale was an acceptable, reliable, and valid measure of shared decision making in patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies.

Performance of the shared decision-making process scale for use in evaluation of hereditary cancer genetic testing decisions.

This study aimed to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, reliability, and validity of the existing four-item Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process Scale for use in evaluating genetic testing decisions. Patients from a large hereditary cancer genetics practice were invited to participate in a two-part survey after completing pre-test genetic counseling. The online survey included the SDM Process Scale and the SURE scale, a measure of decisional conflict. SDM Process scores were compared to SURE scores to test convergent validity, and respondents were sent a second survey 1 week later to assess retest reliability. The response rate was 65% (n = 259/398) and missing data was low (<1%). SDM scores ranged from zero to four with a mean of 2.3 (SD = 1.1). Retest reliability was good, with intraclass correlation of 0.84, 95% confidence interval (0.79, 0.88). No relationship was found between SDM Process scores and decisional conflict (p = 0.46), likely because 85% of participants reported no decisional conflict. The four-item SDM Process Scale demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and retest reliability, but not convergent validity with decisional conflict. These findings provide initial evidence for use of this scale to measure patient perceptions of SDM in pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer genetic testing.

Evaluation of the shared decision-making process scale in cancer screening and medication decisions.

OBJECTIVES: Examine reliability and validity of the Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Process scale for cancer screening and medication decisions. METHODS: Secondary data analysis from 6174 participants who made decisions about cancer screening (breast, colon or prostate) or medication (menopause, depression, hypertension or high cholesterol). Key measures included the SDM Process scale, decisional conflict, decision regret, and decision quality. Construct validity was examined by testing whether higher SDM Process scores were associated with lower regret, lower decisional conflict and higher decision quality. Meta-analyses summarized data across studies. Some studies assessed the scale's reliability. RESULTS: Average SDM Process scores ranged from 1.2 to 2.5. There was a moderate-to-large, positive association between scores and lack of decisional conflict (cancer screening: d=0.61, CI(0.38, 0.84), p < .001; medications: d=0.36, CI(0.29, 0.44), p < .001). High scores were associated with lower decision regret (cancer screening: d=-0.24, CI(-0.37, -0.11), p < .001; medications: d=-0.30, CI(-0.40,-0.20), p < .001). There was no relationship with decision quality. Retest reliability was acceptable (ICC>0.7) for seven of eight clinical samples. CONCLUSIONS: The SDM Process scale demonstrated construct validity and retest reliability in cancer screening and medication decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The validated SDM Process scale is a short, patient reported metric to evaluate the current state of SDM.

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.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. CONCLUSION: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Cross-sectional Survey Examining Patient Attitudes and Preferences for Rescheduling Screening Colonoscopies Canceled due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were canceled. Patient perceptions of the benefits and risks of routine screening relative to health concerns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic were unknown. Purpose. Assess patient anxiety, worry, and interest in CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A random sample of 200 patients aged 45 to 75 y with colonoscopy cancellation due to COVID-19 in March to May 2020 were surveyed. Anxiety, COVID-19 and CRC risk perceptions, COVID-19 and CRC worry, likelihood of following through with colonoscopy in the next month, and interest in alternatives to colonoscopy were assessed. Subsequent screening was tracked for 12 mo. Results. Respondents (N = 127/200, 63.5%) were on average 60 y old, female (59%), college educated (62% college degree or more), and White (91%). A substantial portion of patients (46%) stated they may not follow through with a colonoscopy in the next month. There was greater interest in stool-based testing than in delaying screening (48% v. 26%). Women, older patients, and patients indicating tolerance of uncertainty due to complexity reported they were less likely to follow through with colonoscopy in the next month. Greater interest in stool-based testing was related to lower perceptions of CRC risk. Greater interest in delaying screening was related to less worry about CRC and less tolerance of risk. Over 12 mo, 60% of participants completed screening. Patients who stated they were more likely to screen in the next month were more likely to complete CRC screening (P = 0.01). Conclusions. Respondents who had a colonoscopy canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in interest in rescheduling the procedure. A shared decision-making approach may help patients address varying concerns and select the best approach to screening for them. Highlights: In the wake of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of patients stated they were not likely to follow through with a colonoscopy in the short term, about half were interested in screening with a stool-based test, and only one-quarter were interested in delaying screening until next year.Patients who perceived themselves at higher risk of colorectal cancer were less interested in stool-based testing, and patients who were more worried about colorectal cancer were less interested in delaying screening.A shared decision-making approach may be necessary to tailor screening discussions for patients during subsequent waves of the pandemic, other occasions where resources are limited and patient preferences vary, or where patients hold conflicting views of screening.

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.

Patient judgments about hypertension control: the role of patient numeracy and graph literacy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of patient health literacy, numeracy, and graph literacy on perceptions of hypertension control using different forms of data visualization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants (Internet sample of 1079 patients with hypertension) reviewed 12 brief vignettes describing a fictitious patient; each vignette included a graph of the patient's blood pressure (BP) data. We examined how variations in mean systolic blood pressure, BP standard deviation, and form of visualization (eg, data table, graph with raw values or smoothed values only) affected judgments about hypertension control and need for medication change. We also measured patient's health literacy, subjective and objective numeracy, and graph literacy. RESULTS: Judgments about hypertension data presented as a smoothed graph were significantly more positive (ie, hypertension deemed to be better controlled) then judgments about the same data presented as either a data table or an unsmoothed graph. Hypertension data viewed in tabular form was perceived more positively than graphs of the raw data. Data visualization had the greatest impact on participants with high graph literacy. DISCUSSION: Data visualization can direct patients to attend to more clinically meaningful information, thereby improving their judgments of hypertension control. However, patients with lower graph literacy may still have difficulty accessing important information from data visualizations. CONCLUSION: Addressing uncertainty inherent in the variability between BP measurements is an important consideration in visualization design. Well-designed data visualization could help to alleviate clinical uncertainty, one of the key drivers of clinical inertia and uncontrolled hypertension.

Pediatric Caregiver Version of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Validity and Reliability for ADHD Treatment Decisions.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended for common pediatric conditions; however, there are limited data on measures of SDM in pediatrics. This study adapted the SDM Process scale and examined validity and reliability of the scale for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment decisions. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of caregivers (n = 498) of children (aged 5-13) diagnosed with ADHD, who had made a decision about ADHD medication in the last 2 years. Surveys included the adapted SDM Process scale (scores range 0-4, higher scores indicate more SDM), decisional conflict, decision regret, and decision involvement. Validity was assessed by testing hypothesized relationships between these constructs. A subset of participants was surveyed a week later to assess retest reliability. RESULTS: Pediatric Caregiver version of the SDM Process scale (M = 2.8, SD = 1.05) showed no evidence of floor or ceiling effects. The scale was found to be acceptable (<1% missing data) and reliable (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.74). Scores demonstrated convergent validity, as they were higher for those without decisional conflict than those with decisional conflict (2.93 vs 2.46, P < .001, d = 0.46), and higher for caregivers who stated they made the decision with the provider than those who made the decision themselves (3.0 vs 2.7; P = .003). Higher scores were related to less regret (r = -0.15, P < .001), though the magnitude of the relationship was small. CONCLUSIONS: The adapted Pediatric Caregiver version of the SDM Process scale demonstrated acceptability, validity and reliability in the context of ADHD medication decisions made by caregivers of children 5-13. Scores indicate pediatricians generally involve caregivers in decision making about ADHD medication.

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.

The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge.

PURPOSE: The US Preventive Services Task Force has changed their screening recommendations, encouraging informed patient choice and shared decision making as a result of emerging evidence. We aimed to compare the impact of a didactic intervention, a descriptive harms intervention, a narrative intervention, and a new risk communication strategy titled Aiding Risk Information learning through Simulated Experience (ARISE) on preferences for a hypothetical beneficial cancer screening test (one that reduces the chance of cancer death or extends life) versus a hypothetical screening test with no proven physical benefits. METHOD: A total of 3386 men and women aged 40 to 70 completed an online survey about prostate or breast cancer screening. Participants were randomly assigned to either an unbeneficial test condition (0 lives saved due to screening) or a beneficial test condition (1 life saved due to screening). Participants then reviewed 4 informational interventions about either breast (women) or prostate (men) cancer screening. First, participants were provided didactic information alongside an explicit recommendation. This was followed by a descriptive harms intervention in which the possible harms of overdetection were explained. Participants then viewed 2 additional interventions: a narrative and ARISE (an intervention in which participants learned about probabilities by viewing simulated outcomes). The order of these last 2 interventions was randomized. Preference for being screened with the test and knowledge about the test were measured. RESULTS: With each successive intervention, preferences for screening tests decreased an equivalent amount for both a beneficial and unbeneficial test. Knowledge about the screening tests was largely unimpacted by the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Presenting detailed risk and benefit information, narratives, and ARISE reduced preferences for screening regardless of the net public benefit of screening.

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.

Validation of the SDM Process Scale to Evaluate Shared Decision-Making at Clinical Sites.

The Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Process scale (scored 0-4) uses 4 questions about decision-making behaviors: discussion of options, pros, cons, and preferences. We use data from mail surveys of patients who made surgical decisions at 9 clinical sites and a national web survey to assess the reliability and validity of the measure to assess shared decision-making at clinical sites. Patients at sites using decision aids to promote shared decision-making for hip, knee, back, or breast cancer surgery had significantly higher scores than national cross-section samples of surgical patients for 3 of 4 comparisons and significantly higher scores for both comparisons with "usual care sites." Reliability was supported by an intra-class correlation at the clinical site level of 0.93 and an average correlation of SDM scores for knee and hip surgery patients treated at the same sites of 0.56. The results document the reliability and validity of the measure to assess the degree of shared decision-making for surgical decisions at clinical sites.

Assessing the quality of shared decision making for elective orthopedic surgery across a large healthcare system: cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend engaging patients in shared decision making for common orthopedic procedures; however, limited work has assessed what is occurring in practice. This study assessed the quality of shared decision making for elective hip and knee replacement and spine surgery at four network-affiliated hospitals. METHODS: A cross-sectional sample of 875 adult patients undergoing total hip or knee joint replacement (TJR) for osteoarthritis or spine surgery for lumbar herniated disc or lumbar spinal stenosis was selected. Patients were mailed a survey including measures of Shared Decision Making (SDMP scale) and Informed, Patient-Centered (IPC) decisions. We examined decision-making across sites, surgeons, and conditions, and whether the decision-making measures were associated with better health outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for clustering of patients within surgeons. RESULTS: Six hundred forty-six surveys (74% response rate) were returned with sufficient responses for analysis. Patients who had TJR reported lower SDMP scores than patients who had spine surgery (2.2 vs. 2.8; p < 0.001). Patients who had TJR were more likely to make IPC decisions (OA = 70%, Spine = 41%; p < 0.001). SDMP and IPC scores varied widely across surgeons, but the site was not predictive of SDMP scores or IPC decisions (all p > 0.09). Higher SDMP scores and IPC decisions were associated with larger improvements in global health outcomes for patients who had TJR, but not patients who had spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of shared decision making and decision quality varied among patients undergoing common elective orthopedic procedures. Routine measurement of shared decision making provides insight into areas of strength across these different orthopedic conditions as well as areas in need of improvement.

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.

Home blood pressure data visualization for the management of hypertension: using human factors and design principles.

BACKGROUND: Home blood pressure measurements have equal or even greater predictive value than clinic blood pressure measurements regarding cardiovascular outcomes. With advances in home blood pressure monitors, we face an imminent flood of home measurements, but current electronic health record systems lack the functionality to allow us to use this data to its fullest. We designed a data visualization display for blood pressure measurements to be used for shared decision making around hypertension. METHODS: We used an iterative, rapid-prototyping, user-centred design approach to determine the most appropriate designs for this data display. We relied on visual cognition and human factors principles when designing our display. Feedback was provided by expert members of our multidisciplinary research team and through a series of end-user focus groups, comprised of either hypertensive patients or their healthcare providers required from eight academic, community-based practices in the Midwest of the United States. RESULTS: A total of 40 participants were recruited to participate in patient (N = 16) and provider (N = 24) focus groups. We describe the conceptualization and development of data display for shared decision making around hypertension. We designed and received feedback from both patients and healthcare providers on a number of design elements that were reported to be helpful in understanding blood pressure measurements. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a data display for substantial amounts of blood pressure measurements that is both simple to understand for patients, but powerful enough to inform clinical decision making. The display used a line graph format for ease of understanding, a LOWESS function for smoothing data to reduce the weight users placed on outlier measurements, colored goal range bands to allow users to quickly determine if measurements were in range, a medication timeline to help link recorded blood pressure measurements with the medications a patient was taking. A data display such as this, specifically designed to encourage shared decision making between hypertensive patients and their healthcare providers, could help us overcome the clinical inertia that often results in a lack of treatment intensification, leading to better care for the 35 million Americans with uncontrolled hypertension.

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.

Validation of the Impact Index: can we measure disease effects on quality of life in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis?

PURPOSE: To validate the Impact Index, a short, publicly available scale that measures the extent to which a respondent's health problem adversely impacts their quality of life. METHODS: Secondary analysis of patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis surveyed after visiting a surgeon at baseline (N = 322) and about 6 months after the visit (N = 283). Patients responded to the Impact Index and previously validated questionnaires about overall health, pain, and function. The Impact Index includes four questions that ask how much the respondent is bothered, worried, limited, or in pain due to their health condition over the past 30 days. Total scores range from 0 to 12; higher scores indicate more deleterious impact. RESULTS: Patients were mostly female (55%), majority white (95%), had an average age of 65 (SD = 9), and most had surgery (64%). The baseline Impact Index score was 9.48 (SD = 2.63); at follow up 4.75 (SD = 3.54). Impact Index was related to overall health at baseline (r = - 0.49). For knee patients at baseline, Impact Index was negatively related to their knee symptoms (r = - 0.49) and knee pain (r = - 0.67). For hip patients at baseline, Impact Index was negatively related to the Harris Hip score (r = - 0.62). Scale directions varied; however, the signs of all correlations were as hypothesized. The Impact Index was predictive of surgical choice (p < .001, OR = 1.45), however, overall health (p = .88) and comorbidity (p = .24) measures were not. Reliability was acceptable (α = 0.85). Responsiveness statistics suggested overall health, pain, function, and Impact Index measures reflected improvement patients experienced from surgery. The Impact Index had the largest effect sizes (> - 3.4) and Guyatt Responsiveness Statistics (> - 2.3). CONCLUSIONS: The Impact Index demonstrated strong evidence of validity, reliability, and responsiveness in hip or knee osteoarthritis patients.