RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Discussing cost during medical encounters may decrease the financial impact of medical care on patients and align their treatment plans with their financial capacities. We aimed to examine which interventions exist and quantify their effectiveness to support cost conversations. METHODS: Several databases were queried (Embase; Ovid MEDLINE(R); Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily; the Cochrane databases; and Scopus) from their inception until January 31, 2020 using terms such as "clinician*", "patient*", "cost*", and "conversation*". Eligibility assessment, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. We extracted study setting, design, intervention characteristics and outcomes related to patients, clinicians and quality metrics. RESULTS: We identified four studies (1327 patients) meeting our inclusion criteria. All studies were non-randomised and conducted in the United States. Three were performed in a primary care setting and the fourth in an oncology. Two studies used decision aids that included cost information; one used a training session for health care staff about cost conversations, and the other directly delivered information regarding cost conversations to patients. All interventions increased cost-conversation frequency. There was no effect on out-of-pocket costs, satisfaction, medication adherence or understanding of costs of care. CONCLUSION: The body of evidence is small and comprised of studies at high risk of bias. However, an increase in the frequency of cost conversations is consistent. Studies with higher quality are needed to ascertain the effects of these interventions on the acceptability, frequency and quality of cost conversations.
Assuntos
Comunicação , Adesão à Medicação , HumanosRESUMO
About 42% of adults have one or more chronic conditions and 23% have multiple chronic conditions. The coordination and integration of services for the management of patients living with multimorbidity is important for care to be efficient, safe, and less burdensome. Minimally disruptive medicine may optimize this coordination and integration. It is a patient-centered approach to care that focuses on achieving patient goals for life and health by seeking care strategies that fit a patient's context and are minimally disruptive and maximally supportive. The cumulative complexity model practically orients minimally disruptive medicine-based care. In this model, the patient workload-capacity imbalance is the central mechanism driving patient complexity. These elements should be accounted for when making decisions for patients with chronic conditions. Therefore, in addition to decision aids, which may guide shared decision making, we propose to discuss and clarify a potential workload-capacity imbalance.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered approach in which clinicians and patients work together to find and choose the best course of action for each patient's particular situation. Six SDM key elements can be identified: situation diagnosis, choice awareness, option clarification, discussion of harms and benefits, deliberation of patient preferences, and making the decision. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) require that a decision aid (DA) support these key elements. Yet, the extent to which DAs support these six key SDM elements and how this relates to their impact remain unknown. METHODS: We searched bibliographic databases (from inception until November 2017), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, and experts for randomized controlled trials of DAs in patients with cardiovascular, or chronic respiratory conditions or diabetes. Reviewers worked in duplicate and independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial, and DA characteristics, and evaluated the quality of each trial. RESULTS: DAs most commonly clarified options (20 of 20; 100%) and discussed their harms and benefits (18 of 20; 90%; unclear in two DAs); all six elements were clearly supported in 4 DAs (20%). We found no association between the presence of these elements and SDM outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: DAs for selected chronic conditions are mostly designed to transfer information about options and their harms and benefits. The extent to which their support of SDM key elements relates to their impact on SDM outcomes could not be ascertained. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016050320 .
