PEER simplified lipid guideline 2023 update: Prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 2015 clinical practice guideline and provide a simplified approach to lipid management in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for primary care. METHODS: Following the Institute of Medicine's Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, a multidisciplinary, pan-Canadian guideline panel was formed. This panel was represented by primary care providers, free from conflicts of interest with industry, and included the patient perspective. A separate scientific evidence team performed evidence reviews on statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors, fibrates, bile acid sequestrants, niacin, and omega-3 supplements (docosahexaenoic acid with eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] or EPA ethyl ester alone [icosapent]), as well as on 11 supplemental questions. Recommendations were finalized by the guideline panel through use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. RECOMMENDATIONS: All recommendations are presented in a patient-centred manner designed with the needs of family physicians and other primary care providers in mind. Many recommendations are similar to those published in 2015. Statins remain first-line therapy for both primary and secondary CVD prevention, and the Mediterranean diet and physical activity are recommended to reduce cardiovascular risk (primary and secondary prevention). The guideline panel recommended against using lipoprotein a, apolipoprotein B, or coronary artery calcium levels when assessing cardiovascular risk, and recommended against targeting specific lipid levels. The team also reviewed new evidence pertaining to omega-3 fatty acids (including EPA ethyl ester [icosapent]) and proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors, and outlined when to engage in informed shared decision making with patients on interventions to lower cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: These updated evidence-based guidelines provide a simplified approach to lipid management for the prevention and management of CVD. These guidelines were created by and for primary health care professionals and their patients.

Lignes directrices simplifiées de PEER sur les lipides : actualisation 2023: Prévention et prise en charge des maladies cardiovasculaires en soins primaires.

OBJECTIF: Actualiser le guide de pratique clinique de 2015 et présenter une approche simplifiée de la prise en charge des lipides dans la prévention des maladies cardiovasculaires (MCV) en première ligne. MÉTHODES: Conformément aux recommandations de l'Institute of Medicine dans Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, un panel pancanadien d'experts multidisciplinaires en lignes directrices a été formé. Ce panel était représentatif des cliniciens en soins primaires, libre de tout conflit d'intérêts avec l'industrie, et il tenait compte des points de vue des patients. Une équipe distincte, responsable des données probantes scientifiques, a passé en revue l'information sur les statines, l'ézétimibe, les inhibiteurs de la proprotéine convertase subtilisine-kexine de type 9, les fibrates, les chélateurs des acides biliaires, la niacine et les suppléments d'omega-3 (acide docosahexaénoïque avec acide eicosapentaénoïque [EPA] ou ester éthylique de l'EPA seul [icosapent]), ainsi que sur la réponse à 11 questions supplémentaires. Le panel des lignes directrices a finalisé les recommandations en utilisant la méthodologie GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RECOMMANDATIONS: Toutes les recommandations sont présentées de manière à être centrées sur le patient et conçues en ayant à l'esprit les besoins des médecins de famille et des autres cliniciens des soins primaires. De nombreuses recommandations sont semblables à celles publiées en 2015. Les statines demeurent le traitement de première intention pour la prévention tant primaire que secondaire des MCV, et le régime méditerranéen et l'activité physique sont recommandés pour réduire le risque cardiovasculaire (en prévention primaire et secondaire). Le panel des lignes directrices a recommandé de ne pas utiliser le dosage des lipoprotéines a, des apolipoprotéines B ou le score calcique coronarien (SCC) dans l'évaluation du risque cardiovasculaire, et de ne pas cibler de seuils précis de taux lipidiques. L'équipe a aussi passé en revue de nouvelles données concernant les acides gras omega-3 (y compris l'ester éthylique d'EAP [icosapent]) et les inhibiteurs de la proprotéine convertase subtilisine-kexine de type 9, et a précisé les moments où il convient de procéder à une prise de décision partagée avec les patients sur les interventions pour diminuer le risque cardiovasculaire. CONCLUSION: Ces lignes directrices actualisées et fondées sur des données probantes présentent une approche simplifiée de la prise en charge des lipides pour la prévention et le traitement des MCV. Ce guide de pratique clinique a été conçu par et pour des professionnels de la santé en soins primaires et leurs patients.

Real-World Effectiveness of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir on Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Hospitalization Prevention: A Population-based Cohort Study in the Province of Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir has shown to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization and death before Omicron, but updated real-world evidence studies are needed. This study aimed to assess whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalization among high-risk outpatients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 between March 15 and 15 October 2022, using data from the Quebec clinico-administrative databases. Outpatients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared with infected ones not receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir using propensity-score matching. Relative risk (RR) of COVID-19-associated hospitalization within 30 days was assessed using a Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 8402 treated outpatients were matched to controls. Regardless of vaccination status, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with a 69% reduced RR of hospitalization (RR: .31; 95% CI: .28; .36; number needed to treat [NNT] = 13). The effect was more pronounced in outpatients with incomplete primary vaccination (RR: .04; 95% CI: .03; .06; NNT = 8), while no benefit was found in those with a complete primary vaccination (RR: .93; 95% CI: .78; 1.08). Subgroups analysis among high-risk outpatients with a complete primary vaccination showed that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with a significant decrease in the RR of hospitalization in severely immunocompromised outpatients (RR: .66; 95% CI: .50; .89; NNT = 16) and in high-risk outpatients aged ≥70 years (RR: .50; 95% CI: .34; .74; NNT = 10) when the last dose of the vaccine was received at least 6 months ago. CONCLUSIONS: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalization among incompletely vaccinated high-risk outpatients and among some subgroups of completely vaccinated high-risk outpatients.

Endorsement of clinical practice guidelines: Criteria from the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To refine the process for endorsement of guidelines and establish the expectations of the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) regarding the quality and relevance of clinical practice guidelines targeting family physicians and their patients. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: Initially, a group of 6 CFPC staff and selected College members reviewed the previous process for endorsement with the aim of providing a new direction, if needed. The work was then assumed by the Guideline and Knowledge Translation Expert Working Group, a purposefully selected group of 9 family physicians from across Canada with expertise in research, evidence, guidelines, knowledge translation, and continuing professional development and education. METHODS: The initial task force reviewed the endorsement process and identified areas for improvement. A draft new process and core criteria for high-quality guidelines were developed. This was approved by the CFPC board. A Guideline and Knowledge Translation Expert Working Group was then formed to further refine the process and the criteria. Multiple resources were used to inform the criteria. The Guideline and Knowledge Translation Expert Working Group will manage the endorsement process of external submitted guidelines, as well as provide high-level guidance to the CFPC regarding in-house guidelines and continuing professional development content. REPORT: This article provides the expectations of the CFPC regarding clinical practice guidelines and describes in detail the process and criteria for endorsement. Key principles include family physician involvement and guideline funding unlikely to introduce bias, with most criteria falling under 4 themed areas: relation to family medicine, CFPC values, patient engagement and decision making, and scientific rigour. The Guideline and Knowledge Translation Expert Working Group will report to the CFPC board at least once a year. It is hoped that this fully transparent process and these criteria will help advance the quality and standards of clinical practice guideline production in Canada. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive but reasonable list has been provided that reflects the best standards and recommendations and is consistent with the CFPC's values while recognizing the landscape of guideline development for its national partners and colleagues. As with all processes, careful consideration and evaluation will be essential.

Validation des lignes directrices de pratique clinique: Critères du Collège des médecins de famille du Canada.

OBJECTIF: Parfaire le processus de validation des lignes directrices et établir les attentes du Collège des médecins de famille du Canada (CMFC) quant à la qualité et à la pertinence des lignes directrices de pratique clinique à l'intention des médecins de famille et de leurs patients. COMPOSITION DU COMITÉ: Au départ, un groupe de 6 personnes, employés et membres choisis du CMFC, ont révisé le précédent processus de validation dans le but de lui donner une nouvelle orientation, au besoin. Le Groupe de travail d'experts sur les lignes directrices et le transfert des connaissances a ensuite pris le relais; ce groupe est composé de 9 médecins de famille sélectionnés avec soin partout au Canada qui sont expérimentés dans les domaines de la recherche, des données probantes, des lignes directrices, du transfert des connaissances, ainsi que du perfectionnement professionnel continu et de l'éducation. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Le groupe de travail initial s'est penché sur le processus de validation et a relevé les domaines pouvant être améliorés. L'ébauche d'un nouveau processus et de critères fondamentaux pour des lignes directrices de bonne qualité a été rédigée et approuvée par le Conseil d'administration du CMFC. Un Groupe de travail d'experts sur les lignes directrices et le transfert des connaissances a ensuite été formé pour peaufiner davantage le processus et les critères. Les critères s'appuient sur plusieurs ressources. Le Groupe de travail d'experts sur les lignes directrices et le transfert des connaissances aura la responsabilité de gérer le processus de validation des lignes directrices externes soumises, ainsi que de fournir au CMFC des conseils de haut niveau sur les lignes directrices internes et le contenu du perfectionnement professionnel continu. RAPPORT: Cet article présente les attentes du CMFC en matière de lignes directrices de pratique clinique, et décrit en détail le processus et les critères de validation. Les principes fondamentaux sont la participation des médecins de famille et le financement des lignes directrices qui est peu susceptible d'introduire un biais, et la plupart des critères s'inscrivent sous 4 thèmes : la relation avec la médecine familiale; les valeurs du CMFC; l'engagement et la prise de décision des patients; et la rigueur scientifique. Le Groupe de travail d'experts sur les lignes directrices et le transfert des connaissances présentera ses résultats au Conseil d'administration du CMFC au moins une fois l'an. L'on souhaite que ce processus complètement transparent et ces critères fassent progresser la qualité et les normes qui régissent la production des lignes directrices de pratique clinique au Canada. CONCLUSION: Une liste exhaustive, mais raisonnable, reflète les meilleures normes et recommandations, et respecte les valeurs du CMFC tout en reconnaissant le contexte de rédaction des lignes directrices pour ses partenaires et ses collègues à l'échelle nationale. Comme c'est le cas pour tous les processus, l'examen et l'évaluation approfondis seront essentiels.

Twenty "must-read" research articles for primary care providers in Nunavik: scoping study and development of an information tool.

While health needs in Nunavik are distinct, there is a scarcity of knowledge transfer intended for local primary care providers. We aimed to build an information tool in the form of a newsletter and a website to share with them a selection of relevant research articles. To identify such articles, a scoping study of Inuit health research published between 2012 and 2017 was conducted. Selection criteria were adapted from the framework of information mastery. After a database search yielding 2896 results, publications were screened for eligibility. Next, the 226 eligible articles were evaluated and scored for their relevance, their methods (including community participation), their local applicability and their clinical utility. The 20 highest-scored articles were selected for dissemination in a newsletter. They were summarised and presented in 6 thematic emails: Child Development, Infectious Diseases, Traditional and Modern Medicine, Metabolism, Nutrition and Contaminants, and Inuit Perspectives. The newsletter was sent to over 190 health workers and regional stakeholders in Nunavik and was also published online. We hope that this project will foster knowledge sharing and inter-sectorial collaboration between research, public health and clinical care. Trends in Inuit health research are discussed.

Can patients be trained to expect shared decision making in clinical consultations? Feasibility study of a public library program to raise patient awareness.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process whereby decisions are made together by patients and/or families and clinicians. Nevertheless, few patients are aware of its proven benefits. This study investigated the feasibility, acceptability and impact of an intervention to raise public awareness of SDM in public libraries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 1.5 hour interactive workshop to be presented in public libraries was co-designed with Quebec City public library network officials, a science communication specialist and physicians. A clinical topic of maximum reach was chosen: antibiotic overuse in treatment of acute respiratory tract infections. The workshop content was designed and a format, whereby a physician presents the information and the science communication specialist invites questions and participation, was devised. The event was advertised to the general public. An evaluation form was used to collect data on participants' sociodemographics, feasibility and acceptability components and assess a potential impact of the intervention. Facilitators held a post-workshop focus group to qualitatively assess feasibility, acceptability and impact. RESULTS: All 10 planned workshops were held. Out of 106 eligible public participants, 89 were included in the analysis. Most participants were women (77.6%), retired (46.1%) and over 45 (59.5%). Over 90% of participants considered the workshop content to be relevant, accessible, and clear. They reported substantial average knowledge gain about antibiotics (2.4, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 2.0-2.8; P < .001) and about SDM (4.0, 95% CI: 3.4-4.5; P < .001). Self-reported knowledge gain about SDM was significantly higher than about antibiotics (4.0 versus 2.4; P < .001). Knowledge gain did not vary by sociodemographic characteristics. The focus group confirmed feasibility and suggested improvements. CONCLUSIONS: A public library intervention is feasible and effective way to increase public awareness of SDM and could be a new approach to implementing SDM by preparing potential patients to ask for it in the consulting room.

Number of patients needed to prescribe statins in primary cardiovascular prevention: mirage and reality.

Background: Number of patients needed to treat (NNT) with a statin in primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) is often misinterpreted because this single statistic averages results from heterogeneous studies. Objective: To provide estimates of the number of individuals needed to be prescribed a statin to prevent one CHD event accounting for their level of CHD risk and for persistence to treatment. Methods: A post hoc analysis was conducted based on a Cochrane review on statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Five-year NNTs were calculated separately from randomized clinical trials (RCTs), including 'lower' and 'higher' risk populations (CHD mean event rates of 3.7 and 14.4 per 1000 person-years, respectively). NNTs were adjusted for 5-year persistence to treatment using a value of 65%. Results: Persistence-adjusted 5-year NNTs to prevent one CHD for the lower and higher CHD risk categories were 146 [95% confidence interval (CI): 117-211] and 53 (95% CI: 39-88) respectively, values 25% and 15% higher than their unadjusted counterpart (117, 95% CI: 94-167 and 46, 95% CI: 34-78). Conclusions: Five-year NNTs for statins to prevent a first CHD is almost three times higher in those at lower versus higher risk populations. Reporting combined results from RCTs including subjects at different cardiovascular risks should be avoided. Individualizing the risk of CHD should orient family physicians and their patients in their choice of preventive approaches and generate more realistic expectations about compliance and outcomes.

Teaching Shared Decision Making to Family Medicine Residents: A Descriptive Study of a Web-Based Tutorial.

BACKGROUND: DECISION+2, a Web-based tutorial, was designed to train family physicians in shared decision making (SDM) regarding the use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). It is currently mandatory for second-year family medicine residents at Université Laval, Quebec, Canada. However, little is known about how such tutorials are used, their effect on knowledge scores, or how best to assess resident participation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to describe the usage of this Web-based training platform by family medicine residents over time, evaluate its effect on their knowledge scores, and identify what kinds of data are needed for a more comprehensive analysis of usage and knowledge acquisition. METHODS: We identified, collected, and analyzed all available data about participation in and current usage of the tutorial and its before-and-after 10-item knowledge test. Residents were separated into 3 log-in periods (2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015) depending on the day of their first connection. We compared residents' participation rates between entry periods (Cochran-Armitage test), assessed the mean rank of the difference in total scores and category scores between pre- and posttest (Wilcoxon signed-rank test), and compared frequencies of each. Subsequent to analyses, we identified types of data that would have provided a more complete picture of the usage of the program and its effect on knowledge scores. RESULTS: The tutorial addresses 3 knowledge categories: diagnosing ARIs, treating ARIs, and SDM regarding the use of antibiotics for treating ARIs. From July 2012 to July 2015, all 387 second-year family medicine residents were eligible to take the Web-based tutorial. Out of the 387 eligible residents, 247 (63.8%) logged in at least once. Their participation rates varied between entry periods, most significantly between the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 cohorts (P=.006). For the 109 out of 387 (28.2%) residents who completed the tutorial and both tests, total and category scores significantly improved between pre- and posttest (all P values <.001). However, the frequencies of those answering correctly on 2 of the 3 SDM questions did not increase significantly (P>.99, P=.25). Distribution of pre- or posttest total and category scores did not increase between entry periods (all P values >.1). Available data were inadequate for evaluating the associations between the tutorial and its impact on the residents' scores and therefore could tell us little about its effect on increasing their knowledge. CONCLUSION: Residents' use of this Web-based tutorial appeared to increase between entry periods following the changes to the SDM program, and the tutorial seemed less effective for increasing SDM knowledge scores than for diagnosis or treatment scores. However, our results also highlight the need to improve data availability before participation in Web-based SDM tutorials can be properly evaluated or knowledge scores improved.

Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of decision boxes on shared decision-making processes.

BACKGROUND: Decision boxes (DBoxes) are two-page evidence summaries to prepare clinicians for shared decision making (SDM). We sought to assess the feasibility of a clustered Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) to evaluate their impact. METHODS: A convenience sample of clinicians (nurses, physicians and residents) from six primary healthcare clinics who received eight DBoxes and rated their interest in the topic and satisfaction. After consultations, their patients rated their involvement in decision-making processes (SDM-Q-9 instrument). We measured clinic and clinician recruitment rates, questionnaire completion rates, patient eligibility rates, and estimated the RCT needed sample size. RESULTS: Among the 20 family medicine clinics invited to participate in this study, four agreed to participate, giving an overall recruitment rate of 20%. Of 148 clinicians invited to the study, 93 participated (63%). Clinicians rated an interest in the topics ranging 6.4-8.2 out of 10 (with 10 highest) and a satisfaction with DBoxes of 4 or 5 out of 5 (with 5 highest) for 81% DBoxes. For the future RCT, we estimated that a sample size of 320 patients would allow detecting a 9% mean difference in the SDM-Q-9 ratings between our two arms (0.02 ICC; 0.05 significance level; 80% power). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' recruitment and questionnaire completion rates support the feasibility of the planned RCT. The level of interest of participants for the DBox topics, and their level of satisfaction with the Dboxes demonstrate the acceptability of the intervention. Processes to recruit clinics and patients should be optimized.

Evidence summaries (decision boxes) to prepare clinicians for shared decision-making with patients: a mixed methods implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Decision boxes (Dboxes) provide clinicians with research evidence about management options for medical questions that have no single best answer. Dboxes fulfil a need for rapid clinical training tools to prepare clinicians for clinician-patient communication and shared decision-making. We studied the barriers and facilitators to using the Dbox information in clinical practice. METHODS: We used a mixed methods study with sequential explanatory design. We recruited family physicians, residents, and nurses from six primary health-care clinics. Participants received eight Dboxes covering various questions by email (one per week). For each Dbox, they completed a web questionnaire to rate clinical relevance and cognitive impact and to assess the determinants of their intention to use what they learned from the Dbox to explain to their patients the advantages and disadvantages of the options, based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Following the 8-week delivery period, we conducted focus groups with clinicians and interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Dbox information. RESULTS: One hundred clinicians completed the web surveys. In 54% of the 496 questionnaires completed, they reported that their practice would be improved after having read the Dboxes, and in 40%, they stated that they would use this information for their patients. Of those who would use the information for their patients, 89% expected it would benefit their patients, especially in that it would allow the patient to make a decision more in keeping with his/her personal circumstances, values, and preferences. They intended to use the Dboxes in practice (mean 5.6±1.2, scale 1-7, with 7 being "high"), and their intention was significantly related to social norm, perceived behavioural control, and attitude according to the TPB (P<0.0001). In focus groups, clinicians mentioned that co-interventions such as patient decision aids and training in shared decision-making would facilitate the use of the Dbox information. Some participants would have liked a clear "bottom line" statement for each Dbox and access to printed Dboxes in consultation rooms. CONCLUSIONS: Dboxes are valued by clinicians. Tailoring of Dboxes to their needs would facilitate their implementation in practice.

Decision making in family medicine: randomized trial of the effects of the InfoClinique and Trip database search engines.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of users of 2 medical search engines, InfoClinique and the Trip database, to provide correct answers to clinical questions and to explore the perceived effects of the tools on the clinical decision-making process. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: Three family medicine units of the family medicine program of the Faculty of Medicine at Laval University in Quebec city, Que. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen second-year family medicine residents. INTERVENTION: Residents generated 30 structured questions about therapy or preventive treatment (2 questions per resident) based on clinical encounters. Using an Internet platform designed for the trial, each resident answered 20 of these questions (their own 2, plus 18 of the questions formulated by other residents, selected randomly) before and after searching for information with 1 of the 2 search engines. For each question, 5 residents were randomly assigned to begin their search with InfoClinique and 5 with the Trip database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The ability of residents to provide correct answers to clinical questions using the search engines, as determined by third-party evaluation. After answering each question, participants completed a questionnaire to assess their perception of the engine's effect on the decision-making process in clinical practice. RESULTS: Of 300 possible pairs of answers (1 answer before and 1 after the initial search), 254 (85%) were produced by 14 residents. Of these, 132 (52%) and 122 (48%) pairs of answers concerned questions that had been assigned an initial search with InfoClinique and the Trip database, respectively. Both engines produced an important and similar absolute increase in the proportion of correct answers after searching (26% to 62% for InfoClinique, for an increase of 36%; 24% to 63% for the Trip database, for an increase of 39%; P = .68). For all 30 clinical questions, at least 1 resident produced the correct answer after searching with either search engine. The mean (SD) time of the initial search for each question was 23.5 (7.6) minutes with InfoClinique and 22.3 (7.8) minutes with the Trip database (P = .30). Participants' perceptions of each engine's effect on the decision-making process were very positive and similar for both search engines. CONCLUSION: Family medicine residents' ability to provide correct answers to clinical questions increased dramatically and similarly with the use of both InfoClinique and the Trip database. These tools have strong potential to increase the quality of medical care.

Decision boxes for clinicians to support evidence-based practice and shared decision making: the user experience.

BACKGROUND: This project engages patients and physicians in the development of Decision Boxes, short clinical topic summaries covering medical questions that have no single best answer. Decision Boxes aim to prepare the clinician to communicate the risks and benefits of the available options to the patient so they can make an informed decision together. METHODS: Seven researchers (including four practicing family physicians) selected 10 clinical topics relevant to primary care practice through a Delphi survey. We then developed two one-page prototypes on two of these topics: prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen test, and prenatal screening for trisomy 21 with the serum integrated test. We presented the prototypes to purposeful samples of family physicians distributed in two focus groups, and patients distributed in four focus groups. We used the User Experience Honeycomb to explore barriers and facilitators to the communication design used in Decision Boxes. All discussions were transcribed, and three researchers proceeded to thematic content analysis of the transcriptions. The coding scheme was first developed from the Honeycomb's seven themes (valuable, usable, credible, useful, desirable, accessible, and findable), and included new themes suggested by the data. Prototypes were modified in light of our findings. RESULTS: Three rounds were necessary for a majority of researchers to select 10 clinical topics. Fifteen physicians and 33 patients participated in the focus groups. Following analyses, three sections were added to the Decision Boxes: introduction, patient counseling, and references. The information was spread to two pages to try to make the Decision Boxes less busy and improve users' first impression. To try to improve credibility, we gave more visibility to the research institutions involved in development. A statement on the boxes' purpose and a flow chart representing the shared decision-making process were added with the intent of clarifying the tool's purpose. Information about the risks and benefits according to risk levels was added to the Decision Boxes, to try to ease the adaptation of the information to individual patients. CONCLUSION: Results will guide the development of the eight remaining Decision Boxes. A future study will evaluate the effect of Decision Boxes on the integration of evidence-based and shared decision making principles in clinical practice.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing Decision Boxes in primary healthcare teams to facilitate shared decisionmaking: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Decision Boxes are summaries of the most important benefits and harms of health interventions provided to clinicians before they meet the patient, to prepare them to help patients make informed and value-based decisions. Our objective is to explore the barriers and facilitators to using Decision Boxes in clinical practice, more precisely factors stemming from (1) the Decision Boxes themselves, (2) the primary healthcare team (PHT), and (3) the primary care practice environment. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-phase mixed methods study will be conducted. Eight Decision Boxes relevant to primary care, and written in both English and in French, will be hosted on a website together with a tutorial to introduce the Decision Box. The Decision Boxes will be delivered as weekly emails over a span of eight weeks to clinicians of PHTs (family physicians, residents and nurses) in five primary care clinics located across two Canadian provinces. Using a web-questionnaire, clinicians will rate each Decision Box with the Information Assessment Method (cognitive impacts, relevance, usefulness, expected benefits) and with a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to study the determinants of clinicians' intention to use what they learned from that Decision Box in their patient encounter (attitude, social norm, perceived behavioral control). Web-log data will be used to monitor clinicians' access to the website. Following the 8-week intervention, we will conduct semi-structured group interviews with clinicians and individual interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Decision Boxes. Data collected from questionnaires, focus groups and individual interviews will be combined to identify factors potentially influencing implementation of Decision Boxes in clinical practice by clinicians of PHTs. CONCLUSIONS: This project will allow tailoring of Decision Boxes and their delivery to overcome the specific barriers identified by clinicians of PHTs to improve the implementation of shared decision making in this setting.

Training family physicians in shared decision-making to reduce the overuse of antibiotics in acute respiratory infections: a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Few interventions have proven effective in reducing the overuse of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. We evaluated the effect of DECISION+2, a shared decision-making training program, on the percentage of patients who decided to take antibiotics after consultation with a physician or resident. METHODS: We performed a randomized trial, clustered at the level of family practice teaching unit, with 2 study arms: DECISION+2 and control. The DECISION+2 training program included a 2-hour online tutorial followed by a 2-hour interactive seminar about shared decision-making. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who decided to use antibiotics immediately after consultation. We also recorded patients' perception that shared decision-making had occurred. Two weeks after the initial consultation, we assessed patients' adherence to the decision, repeat consultation, decisional regret and quality of life. RESULTS: We compared outcomes among 181 patients who consulted 77 physicians in 5 family practice teaching units in the DECISION+2 group, and 178 patients who consulted 72 physicians in 4 family practice teaching units in the control group. The percentage of patients who decided to use antibiotics after consultation was 52.2% in the control group and 27.2% in the DECISION+2 group (absolute difference 25.0%, adjusted relative risk 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.68). DECISION+2 was associated with patients taking a more active role in decision-making (Z = 3.9, p < 0.001). Patient outcomes 2 weeks after consultation were similar in both groups. INTERPRETATION: The shared decision-making program DECISION+2 enhanced patient participation in decision-making and led to fewer patients deciding to use antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. This reduction did not have a negative effect on patient outcomes 2 weeks after consultation. ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT01116076.