Treatments for Stage IV Colon Cancer and Overall Survival.

BACKGROUND: The role of primary tumor resection (PTR) for asymptomatic stage IV colon cancer with unresectable metastases remains unclear. Increasingly there has been a trend away from resection. The aim of this study was to examine trends in the treatment of stage IV colon cancers, impact of different treatments on long-term mortality, and factors associated with receipt of postoperative chemotherapy. METHODS: The 2006-2012 National Cancer Data Base was queried for stage IV colon cancer patients. Treatments were grouped into PTR and chemotherapy, PTR only, chemotherapy only, and no treatment. A descriptive analysis was performed examining patient and hospital characteristics associated with different treatments. A Cox regression analysis was used to assess the adjusted effect of different treatments on long-term survival. A multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with postoperative chemotherapy. RESULTS: Of 31,310 patients, who met inclusion criteria, 22% of the patients underwent PTR and chemotherapy, 37.5% received chemotherapy only, 11.9% underwent PTR, and 28.6% received no treatment. Patients who received no treatment had the highest hazard of death at 1, 3, and 5 y, followed by PTR only, and chemotherapy only compared with PTR combined with chemotherapy. Patients who were older and had more comorbidities were less likely to receive postoperative chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Primary tumor resection in conjunction with postoperative chemotherapy among stage IV colon cancer patients with unresectable metastases was associated with a long-term survival benefit compared with other treatment options. Efforts should be made to increase the use of postoperative chemotherapy where feasible.

Depression partially mediated the relationship between basic psychological needs and quality of life among people living with HIV.

Few studies have examined the relationship between basic psychological needs (BPN), depression and quality of life (QOL) in people living with HIV (PLWH). This cross-sectional study (N = 65; 37% females, 37% Caucasian, mean age = 55 ± 6 years, mean CD4 count = 668 ± 368 cells/mm3, average duration of HIV = 18 ± 4 years) found that BPN frustration was related with lower QOL. The strength of this relationship was reduced after controlling for depression. This suggests that depression partially mediated the relationship between BPN and QOL. BPN and depression may be specific targets for psychosocial interventions aimed at improving QOL in PLWH to promote successful aging.

Feasibility of Early Palliative Care Consultation for Children With High-Risk Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Children with cancer suffer significant morbidity throughout therapy and often face an uncertain prognosis. Because palliative care teams can provide an additional layer of support with symptom management and communication, we conducted a prospective study assessing the feasibility of early palliative care consultation for children with high-risk malignancies. PROCEDURE: This study was part of a larger prospective study examining the impact of early palliative care consultation. Children were eligible if they were <22 years old and had a high-risk malignancy, recurrence, or required hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Data were collected from the medical record on diagnosis, days to consultation, acceptability of consultation to family/staff, and overall survival. Feasibility was defined as enrollment of >75% of eligible patients, palliative care consultation within 1 month of eligibility, and patient/family satisfaction. RESULTS: Twenty of 25 (80%) eligible patients were approached and received a palliative care consultation at initial diagnosis (7), recurrence (12), or time of HSCT (1). Median age of the children was 5 years (0.1-20 years). Median time from new diagnosis/recurrence to consultation was 12 days (2-180 days); 17 (85%) received the consultation within 30 days. Eleven (55%) of the 20 children died. Median time of consultation prior to death was 128 days (10-648 days). Ten of the 11 (91%) received their consultation >30 days prior to death. No families or oncologists declined an early consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Early palliative care consultation is feasible for children with high-risk cancer and is acceptable to children, families, and pediatric oncologists.

Does patient time spent viewing computer-tailored colorectal cancer screening materials predict patient-reported discussion of screening with providers?

The main aim is to examine whether patients' viewing time on information about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening before a primary care physician (PCP) visit is associated with discussion of screening options during the visit. We analyzed data from a multi-center randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) to activate patients to undergo CRC screening, deployed in primary care offices immediately before a visit. We employed usage time information stored in the IMCP to examine the association of patient time spent using the program with patient-reported discussion of screening during the visit, adjusting for previous CRC screening recommendation and reading speed.On average, patients spent 33 minutes on the program. In adjusted analyses, 30 minutes spent using the program was associated with a 41% increase in the odds of the patient having a discussion with their PCP (1.04, 1.59, 95% CI). In a separate analysis of the tailoring modules; the modules encouraging adherence to the tailored screening recommendation and discussion with the patient's PCP yielded significant results. Other predictors of screening discussion included better self-reported physical health and increased patient activation. Time spent on the program predicted greater patient-physician discussion of screening during a linked visit.Usage time information gathered automatically by IMCPs offers promise for objectively assessing patient engagement around a topic and predicting likelihood of discussion between patients and their clinician.

Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection in Medicare patients: multicriteria decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the setting of finite healthcare resources, developing cost-efficient strategies for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis is paramount. The current levels of knowledge allow for PJI diagnostic recommendations based on scientific evidence but do not consider the benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks of the different diagnostic alternatives. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined the best diagnostic strategy for knee and hip PJI in the ambulatory setting for Medicare patients, utilizing benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks evaluation through multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). METHODS: The PJI diagnostic definition supported by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society was employed for the MCDA. Using a preclinical model, we evaluated three diagnostic strategies that can be conducted in a Medicare patient seen in the outpatient clinical setting complaining of a painful TKA or THA. Strategies were (1) screening with serum markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR]/C-reactive protein [CRP]) followed by arthrocentesis in positive cases, (2) immediate arthrocentesis, and (3) serum markers requested simultaneously with arthrocentesis. MCDA was conducted through the analytic hierarchy process, comparing the diagnostic strategies in terms of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. RESULTS: Strategy 1 was the best alternative to diagnose knee PJI among Medicare patients (normalized value: 0.490), followed by Strategy 3 (normalized value: 0.403) and then Strategy 2 (normalized value: 0.106). The same ranking of alternatives was observed for the hip PJI model (normalized value: 0.487, 0.405, and 0.107, respectively). The sensitivity analysis found this sequence to be robust with respect to benefits, opportunities, and risks. However, if during the decision-making process, cost savings was given a priority of higher than 54%, the ranking for the preferred diagnostic strategy changed. CONCLUSIONS: After considering the benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks of the different available alternatives, our preclinical model supports the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons recommendations regarding the use of serum markers (ESR/CRP) before arthrocentesis as the best diagnostic strategy for PJI among Medicare patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, economic and decision analysis. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Oral ketamine for children with chronic pain: a pilot phase 1 study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether oral ketamine is safe at higher dosages for sedating children and whether it may be an option for the control of chronic pain in children. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study was performed on 12 children with chronic pain to identify the maximum tolerated dosage of oral ketamine. Participants were given 14 days of oral ketamine, 3 times daily, at dosages ranging from 0.25-1.5 mg/kg/dose. Participants were assessed for toxicity and for pain severity at baseline and on day 14 of treatment. RESULTS: Two participants, both treated at 1.5 mg/kg/dose, experienced dose-limiting toxicities (sedation and anorexia). One participant, treated at 1 mg/kg/dose, opted to stop ketamine treatment due to new pain on treatment. Nine participants completed their course of ketamine treatment. Of these 12 children, 5 experienced improvement in their pain scores, 2 with complete resolution of pain, lasting >4 weeks off ketamine treatment. CONCLUSION: Oral ketamine at dosages of 0.25-1 mg/kg/dose appears to be safe when given for 14 days to children with chronic pain.

Development and initial evaluation of a treatment decision dashboard.

BACKGROUND: For many healthcare decisions, multiple alternatives are available with different combinations of advantages and disadvantages across several important dimensions. The complexity of current healthcare decisions thus presents a significant barrier to informed decision making, a key element of patient-centered care.Interactive decision dashboards were developed to facilitate decision making in Management, a field marked by similarly complicated choices. These dashboards utilize data visualization techniques to reduce the cognitive effort needed to evaluate decision alternatives and a non-linear flow of information that enables users to review information in a self-directed fashion. Theoretically, both of these features should facilitate informed decision making by increasing user engagement with and understanding of the decision at hand. We sought to determine if the interactive decision dashboard format can be successfully adapted to create a clinically realistic prototype patient decision aid suitable for further evaluation and refinement. METHODS: We created a computerized, interactive clinical decision dashboard and performed a pilot test of its clinical feasibility and acceptability using a multi-method analysis. The dashboard summarized information about the effectiveness, risks of side effects and drug-drug interactions, out-of-pocket costs, and ease of use of nine analgesic treatment options for knee osteoarthritis. Outcome evaluations included observations of how study participants utilized the dashboard, questionnaires to assess usability, acceptability, and decisional conflict, and an open-ended qualitative analysis. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 25 volunteers - 7 men and 18 women - with an average age of 51 years. The mean time spent interacting with the dashboard was 4.6 minutes. Mean evaluation scores on scales ranging from 1 (low) to 7 (high) were: mechanical ease of use 6.1, cognitive ease of use 6.2, emotional difficulty 2.7, decision-aiding effectiveness 5.9, clarification of values 6.5, reduction in decisional uncertainty 6.1, and provision of decision-related information 6.0. Qualitative findings were similarly positive. CONCLUSIONS: Interactive decision dashboards can be adapted for clinical use and have the potential to foster informed decision making. Additional research is warranted to more rigorously test the effectiveness and efficiency of patient decision dashboards for supporting informed decision making and other aspects of patient-centered care, including shared decision making.

Differences between dialysis modality selection and initiation.

BACKGROUND: Although dialysis modality education is associated with higher rates of peritoneal dialysis (PD) use, some patients start hemodialysis (HD) therapy despite initially selecting PD as their modality of choice. This study seeks to identify predictors of this discrepancy. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 217 patients who received dialysis modality education at the University of Rochester between January 2004 and September 2009 and subsequently started dialysis therapy. PREDICTORS: Demographic (age, race, sex, and timing of education), social (education, income, insurance, marital, employment, and smoking status), and clinical data (estimated glomerular filtration rate, cause of end-stage renal disease [ESRD], number of comorbid conditions, and number of nephrology visits). OUTCOME: HD use at initiation and day 91 of dialysis therapy in patients initially selecting PD. RESULTS: Of 217 patients receiving education and starting dialysis therapy, at the time of education, 124 chose PD, 52 were undecided, and 41 chose HD. Modality distribution at the time of dialysis therapy initiation was 150 with HD and 67 with PD. Of 124 patients who chose PD at the time of education, 59 started dialysis therapy with PD and 65 started with HD. On day 91, a total of 60 patients were on PD therapy and 55 were on HD therapy. Nine patients had either died, undergone transplant, or not yet reached 91 days of dialysis therapy. On multivariable analysis, nonglomerular cause of ESRD, age older than 75 years, and not being employed predicted starting with HD therapy, whereas age older than 75 years, nonwhite race, and nonglomerular cause of ESRD predicted HD use at day 91. LIMITATIONS: Single-center observational study. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that patients choosing PD after dialysis education may not start with this modality and identifies several predictors of this mismatch. Further investigation into predictors of this discrepancy and strategies promoting a PD start in patients selecting this modality are warranted.

Assessing the Effectiveness of a Primary Care Provider Office-Based Intervention for Increasing Organ Donor Registration Rates in Two New York State Counties.

Introduction: Despite strong public support, organ donor registration rates (RR) continue to lag while need only grows. In the United States, the traditional registration site is the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), however Primary care provider (PCP) offices have been considered as alternate locations for increasing RR. Methods: Twelve PCP offices across 2 New York Counties were subjected to a control week where participants received only a registration opportunity and an intervention week with the addition of a motivational poster and informational brochure. Zip code level sociodemographic data were obtained for each site. RR from the DMV over the same period served as historical control. Results: There were 1292 participants in the control phase and 1099 in the experimental phase. New registration rate for the control was 33.8% (289/897); experimental phase 7.88% (61/769); DMV registration 21.02% (1902/9050). The intervention was associated with a significant decrease in registrations (OR 0.181 (95% CI 0.135-0.244, P < 0.001)). Offices were clustered based on sociodemographic factors and regressed in 2 clusters. Lower educational attainment was associated with lower registration in the first but not second cluster (OR = 0.948 (0.923-0.974, P < 0.001)). Conclusions: This study provided evidence that PCP offices were a feasible site for organ donor registration and calls into question the efficacy of written materials-only interventions for increasing organ donor RR. It reiterated the negative effect of lower educational attainment on registration and suggested future studies focus on more active methods of engagement.

Harnessing Expert Judgment to Support Clinical Decisions When the Evidence Base Is Weak.

PURPOSE: In the process of developing an evidence-based decision dashboard to support treatment decisions for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, we found that the clinical evidence base is insufficient to provide high-quality comparative outcome data. We therefore sought to determine if clinically acceptable outcome estimates could be created using a modified version of the Sheffield Elicitation Framework (SHELF), a formal method for eliciting judgments regarding probability distributions of expected decision outcomes. METHODS: We asked a panel of 3 urologists, 4 radiation oncologists, and 2 medical oncologists to estimate the probabilities of 11 treatment outcomes based on their clinical experience and an annotated evidence summary. The estimates were elicited using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet containing a self-guided, adapted version of the SHELF Roulette method distributed via email. We created combined outcome estimates by taking the mean values of the panel members' upper and lower 95% bounds for each outcome. The combined estimates were then distributed via email to the panel for final approval. RESULTS: Eight of the 9 responses were judged to be correct applications of the SHELF method and included in the combined outcome estimates. The final set of outcome estimates was unanimously accepted by the clinician panel members and used to create a decision dashboard suitable for clinical use and evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Many important health care decisions need to be made in situations where the evidence base is inadequate. Use of a formal protocol for eliciting expert judgments is feasible and can be used to promote evidence-based practice by providing a powerful tool to facilitate the combination of professional judgment with research evidence and patient preferences to guide clinical decisions.

An Analytical Mobile App for Shared Decision Making About Prenatal Screening: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about prenatal screening to assess the risk of genetic conditions such as Down syndrome are complex and should be well informed. Moreover, the number of available tests is increasing. Shared decision making (SDM) about testing could be facilitated by decision aids powered by mobile technology. OBJECTIVE: In this mixed methods study, we aim to (1) assess women's needs and preferences regarding using an app for considering prenatal screening, (2) develop a decision model using the analytical hierarchy process, and (3) develop an analytical app and assess its usability and usefulness. METHODS: In phase 1, we will assess the needs of 90 pregnant women and their partners (if available). We will identify eligible participants in 3 clinical sites (a midwife-led birthing center, a family practice clinic, and an obstetrician-led hospital-based clinic) in Quebec City and Montreal, Canada. Using semistructured interviews, we will assess participants' attitudes toward mobile apps for decision making about health, their current use of apps for health purposes, and their expectations of an app for prenatal testing decisions. Self-administered questionnaires will collect sociodemographic information, intentions to use an app for prenatal testing, and perceived importance of decision criteria. Qualitative data will be transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. In phase 2, we will develop a decision model using the AHP whereby users can assign relative importance to criteria when deciding between options. We will validate the model with potential users and a multidisciplinary team of patients, family physicians, primary care researchers, decision sciences experts, engineers, and experts in SDM, genetics, and bioethics. In phase 3, we will develop a prototype of the app using the results of the first 2 phases, pilot test its usefulness and usability among a sample of 15 pregnant women and their partners (if available), and improve it through 3 iterations. Data will be collected with a self-administered questionnaire. Results will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Recruitment for phase 1 will begin in 2019. We expect results to be available in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This study will result in a validated analytical app that will provide pregnant women and their partners with up-to-date information about prenatal screening options and their risks and benefits. It will help them clarify their values and enable them to weigh the options to make informed choices consistent with their preferences and values before meeting face-to-face with their health care professional. The app will be easy to update with the latest information and will provide women with a user-friendly experience using their smartphones or tablets. This study and the resulting app will contribute to high-quality SDM between pregnant women and their health care team. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/13321.

The use of the analytic hierarchy process to aid decision making in acquired equinovarus deformity.

OBJECTIVE: To increase the transparency of decision making about treatment in patients with equinovarus deformity poststroke. DESIGN: The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used as a structured methodology to study the subjective rationale behind choice of treatment. SETTING: An 8-hour meeting at a centrally located rehabilitation center in The Netherlands, during which a patient video was shown to all participants (using a personal computer and a large screen) and the patient details were provided on paper. PARTICIPANTS: A panel of 10 health professionals from different backgrounds. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The performance of the applicable treatments on outcome, impact, comfort, cosmetics, daily effort, and risks and side effects of treatment, as well as the relative importance of criteria in the choice of treatment. RESULTS: According to the model, soft-tissue surgery (.413) ranked first as the preferred treatment, followed by orthopedic footwear (.181), ankle-foot orthosis (.147), surface electrostimulation (.137), and finally implanted electrostimulation (.123). Outcome was the most influential consideration affecting treatment choice (.509), followed by risk and side effects (.194), comfort (.104), daily effort (.098), cosmetics (.065), and impact of treatment (.030). CONCLUSIONS: Soft-tissue surgery was judged best on outcome, daily effort, comfortable shoe wear, and cosmetically acceptable result and was thereby preferred as a treatment alternative by the panel in this study. In contrast, orthosis and orthopedic footwear are usually preferred in daily practice. The AHP method was found to be suitable methodology for eliciting subjective opinions and quantitatively comparing treatments in the absence of scientific evidence.

Shared decision-making--transferring research into practice: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate how the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be used to promote shared decision-making and enhance clinician-patient communication. METHODS: Tutorial review. RESULTS: The AHP promotes shared decision-making by creating a framework that is used to define the decision, summarize the information available, prioritize information needs, elicit preferences and values, and foster meaningful communication among decision stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The AHP and related multi-criteria methods have the potential for improving the quality of clinical decisions and overcoming current barriers to implementing shared decision-making in busy clinical settings. Further research is needed to determine the best way to implement these tools and to determine their effectiveness. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Many clinical decisions involve preference-based trade-offs between competing risks and benefits. The AHP is a well-developed method that provides a practical approach for improving patient-provider communication, clinical decision-making, and the quality of patient care in these situations.

Risk communication formats for low probability events: an exploratory study of patient preferences.

BACKGROUND: Clear communication about the possible outcomes of proposed medical interventions is an integral part of medical care. Despite its importance, there have been few studies comparing different formats for presenting probabilistic information to patients, especially when small probabilities are involved. The purpose of this study was to explore the potential usefulness of several new small-risk graphic communication formats. METHODS: Information about the likelihoods of cancer and cancer prevention associated with two hypothetical cancer screening programs were used to create an augmented bar chart, an augmented grouped icon display, a flow chart, and three paired combinations of these formats. In the study scenario, the baseline risk of cancer was 53 per 1,000 (5.3%). The risk associated with cancer screening option A was 38 per 1,000 (3.8%) and the risk associated with screening option B was 29 per 1,000 (2.9%). Both the augmented bar chart and the augmented grouped icon display contained magnified views of the differences in cancer risk and cancer prevention associated with the screening programs. A convenience sample of 29 subjects (mean age 56.4 years; 76% men) used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to indicate their relative preferences for the six formats using 15 sequential paired comparisons. RESULTS: The most preferred format was the combined augmented bar chart + flow diagram (mean preference score 0.43) followed by the combined augmented icon + augmented bar chart format (mean preference score 0.22). The overall differences among the six formats were statistically significant: Kruskal-Wallis Chi Square = 141.4, p < 0.0001. The three combined formats all had statistically significant higher preferences scores than the single format displays (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that patients may prefer combined, rather than single, graphic risk presentation formats and that augmented bar charts and icon displays may be useful for conveying comparative information about small risks to clinical decision makers. Further research to confirm and extend these findings is warranted.

The Feasibility of Sophisticated Multicriteria Support for Clinical Decisions.

BACKGROUND: Multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are well-suited to serve as the foundation for clinical decision support systems. To do so, however, they need to be appropriate for use in busy clinical settings. We compared decision-making processes and outcomes of patient-level analyses done with a range of multicriteria methods that vary in ease of use and intensity of decision support, 2 factors that could affect their ease of implementation into practice. METHODS: We conducted a series of Internet surveys to compare the effects of 5 multicriteria methods that differ in user interface and required user input format on decisions regarding selection of a preferred method for lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease. The study sample consisted of members of an online Internet panel maintained by Fluidsurveys, an Internet survey company. Study outcomes were changes in preferred option, decision confidence, preparation for decision making, the Values Clarification and Decisional Uncertainty subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale, and method ease of use. RESULTS: The frequency of changes in the preferred option ranged from 9% to 38%, P < 0.001, and rose progressively as the level of decision support provided by the MCDM method increased. The proportion of respondents who rated the method as easy ranged from 57% to 79% and differed significantly among MCDM methods, P = 0.003, but was not consistently related to intensity of decision support or ease of use. CONCLUSION: Decision support based on MCDM methods is not necessarily limited by decreases in ease of use. This result suggests that it is possible to develop decision support tools using sophisticated multicriteria techniques suitable for use in routine clinical care settings.

A Personalized Approach of Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening Options.

BACKGROUND: Current colorectal cancer screening guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force endorse multiple options for average-risk patients and recommend that screening choices should be guided by individual patient preferences. Implementing these recommendations in practice is challenging because they depend on accurate and efficient elicitation and assessment of preferences from patients who are facing a novel task. OBJECTIVE: To present a methodology for analyzing the sensitivity and stability of a patient's preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening options and to provide a starting point for a personalized discussion between the patient and the health care provider about the selection of the appropriate screening option. METHODS: This research is a secondary analysis of patient preference data collected as part of a previous study. We propose new measures of preference sensitivity and stability that can be used to determine if additional information provided would result in a change to the initially most preferred colorectal cancer screening option. RESULTS: Illustrative results of applying the methodology to the preferences of 2 patients, of different ages, are provided. The results show that different combinations of screening options are viable for each patient and that the health care provider should emphasize different information during the medical decision-making process. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity and stability analysis can supply health care providers with key topics to focus on when communicating with a patient and the degree of emphasis to place on each of them to accomplish specific goals. The insights provided by the analysis can be used by health care providers to approach communication with patients in a more personalized way, by taking into consideration patients' preferences before adding their own expertise to the discussion.

Optimal management of adults with pharyngitis--a multi-criteria decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current practice guidelines offer different management recommendations for adults presenting with a sore throat. The key issue is the extent to which the clinical likelihood of a Group A streptococcal infection should affect patient management decisions. To help resolve this issue, we conducted a multi-criteria decision analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. METHODS: We defined optimal patient management using four criteria: 1) reduce symptom duration; 2) prevent infectious complications, local and systemic; 3) minimize antibiotic side effects, minor and anaphylaxis; and 4) achieve prudent use of antibiotics, avoiding both over-use and under-use. In our baseline analysis we assumed that all criteria and sub-criteria were equally important except minimizing anaphylactic side effects, which was judged very strongly more important than minimizing minor side effects. Management strategies included: a) No test, No treatment; b) Perform a rapid strep test and treat if positive; c) Perform a throat culture and treat if positive; d) Perform a rapid strep test and treat if positive; if negative obtain a throat culture and treat if positive; and e) treat without further tests. We defined four scenarios based on the likelihood of group A streptococcal infection using the Centor score, a well-validated clinical index. Published data were used to estimate the likelihoods of clinical outcomes and the test operating characteristics of the rapid strep test and throat culture for identifying group A streptococcal infections. RESULTS: Using the baseline assumptions, no testing and no treatment is preferred for patients with Centor scores of 1; two strategies--culture and treat if positive and rapid strep with culture of negative results--are equally preferable for patients with Centor scores of 2; and rapid strep with culture of negative results is the best management strategy for patients with Centor scores 3 or 4. These results are sensitive to the priorities assigned to the decision criteria, especially avoiding over-use versus under-use of antibiotics, and the population prevalence of Group A streptococcal pharyngitis. CONCLUSION: The optimal clinical management of adults with sore throat depends on both the clinical probability of a group A streptococcal infection and clinical judgments that incorporate individual patient and practice circumstances.

Should Health Numeracy Be Assessed Objectively or Subjectively?

INTRODUCTION: Because current evidence suggests that numeracy affects how people make decisions, it is an important factor to account for in studies assessing the effectiveness of medical decision support interventions. Subjective and objective numeracy assessment methods are available that vary in theoretical background, skills assessed, known relationship with decision making skills, and ease of implementation. The best way to use these tools to assess numeracy when conducting medical decision-making research is currently unknown. METHODS: We conducted Internet surveys comparing numeracy assessments obtained using the subjective numeracy scale (SNS) and 5 objective numeracy scales. Each study participant completed the SNS and 1 objective numeracy measure. Following each assessment, participants indicated willingness to repeat the assessment and rated its user acceptability. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 78%, resulting in a total sample size of 673. Spearman correlations between the SNS and the objective numeracy measures ranged from 0.19 to 0.44. Acceptability assessments for the short form of the Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument and the SNS did not differ significantly. The other objective scales all had lower acceptability ratings than the SNS. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with prior research suggesting that objective and subjective numeracy scales measure related but distinct constructs. Due to current uncertainty regarding which construct is more likely to influence the effectiveness of decision support interventions, these findings warrant further investigation to determine the proper use of objective versus subjective numeracy assessments in medical decision-making research. Pending additional information, a reasonable approach is to measure both objective and subjective numeracy so that the full range of actual and perceived numeracy skills can be taken into account.

Cost-Effectiveness of Extended Duration Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in High Risk Urological Oncology Surgical Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Major urological oncology surgery carries a significant risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism events, resulting in major morbidity, possible mortality and substantial costs. We determined the incremental cost-effectiveness for in-hospital and low molecular weight heparin extended duration prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism prevention in patients at high risk following major urological oncology surgery. METHODS: A decision analytical model was developed to compare inpatient hospital costs, venous thromboembolism incidence within 365 days and outcomes associated with extended duration prophylaxis for 4 prophylaxis strategies. The 4 strategies grouped by protocol adherence were 1) per protocol in-hospital prophylaxis with extended duration prophylaxis in 88 cases, 2) per protocol in-hospital prophylaxis without extended duration prophylaxis in 42, 3) not per protocol in-hospital prophylaxis with extended duration prophylaxis in 80 and 4) not per protocol in-hospital prophylaxis without extended duration prophylaxis in 99. Between June 2011 and March 2014, 707 patients underwent major urological oncology surgery. Using the Caprini risk score 309 patients were at high risk. RESULTS: The group 1 strategy was the dominant (most effective) strategy when the probability of preventing venous thromboembolism with extended duration prophylaxis was greater than 80%. Effectiveness for preventing venous thromboembolism was most influenced by the group 2 venous thromboembolism incidence rate. Costs in group 1 vs group 2 were calculated at $1,531 vs $1,563. Using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to compare groups 1 and 2, which were the 2 groups with the closest costs and effectiveness, an overall cost savings of $1,390 per patient was seen. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with competing strategies in-hospital and extended duration prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism prevention in patients at high risk undergoing major urological oncology surgery is effective to prevent venous thromboembolism and it is cost saving.

Balance Sheets Versus Decision Dashboards to Support Patient Treatment Choices: A Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Growing recognition of the importance of involving patients in preference-driven healthcare decisions has highlighted the need to develop practical strategies to implement patient-centered shared decision-making. The use of tabular balance sheets to support clinical decision-making is well established. More recent evidence suggests that graphic, interactive decision dashboards can help people derive deeper a understanding of information within a specific decision context. We therefore conducted a non-randomized trial comparing the effects of adding an interactive dashboard to a static tabular balance sheet on patient decision-making. METHODS: The study population consisted of members of the ResearchMatch registry who volunteered to participate in a study of medical decision-making. Two separate surveys were conducted: one in the control group and one in the intervention group. All participants were instructed to imagine they were newly diagnosed with a chronic illness and were asked to choose between three hypothetical drug treatments, which varied with regard to effectiveness, side effects, and out-of-pocket cost. Both groups made an initial treatment choice after reviewing a balance sheet. After a brief "washout" period, members of the control group made a second treatment choice after reviewing the balance sheet again, while intervention group members made a second treatment choice after reviewing an interactive decision dashboard containing the same information. After both choices, participants rated their degree of confidence in their choice on a 1 to 10 scale. RESULTS: Members of the dashboard intervention group were more likely to change their choice of preferred drug (10.2 versus 7.5%; p = 0.054) and had a larger increase in decision confidence than the control group (0.67 versus 0.075; p < 0.03). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in decisional conflict or decision aid acceptability. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that clinical decision dashboards may be an effective point-of-care decision-support tool. Further research to explore this possibility is warranted.