The Costs of Implementing a Conversation Aid for Uterine Fibroids in Multiple Health Care Settings.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations considering adopting a conversation aid (CA), a type of patient decision aid innovation, need information about the costs of implementation. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to: (1) calculate the costs of introducing a CA in a study of supported implementation in 5 gynecologic settings that manage individuals diagnosed with uterine fibroids and (2) estimate the potential costs of future clinical implementation efforts in hypothetical settings. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used time-driven activity-based costing to estimate the costs of CA implementation at multiple steps: integration with an electronic health record, preimplementation, implementation, and sustainability. We then estimated costs for 2 disparate hypothetical implementation scenarios. SUBJECTS AND DATA COLLECTION: We conducted semistructured interviews with participants and examined internal documentation. RESULTS: We interviewed 41 individuals, analyzed 51 documents and 100 emails. Overall total implementation costs over ∼36 months of activities varied significantly across the 5 settings, ranging from $14,157 to $69,134. Factors influencing costs included size/complexity of the setting, urban/rural location, practice culture, and capacity to automate patient identification. Initial investments were substantial, comprising mostly personnel time. Settings that embedded CA use into standard workflows and automated identification of appropriate patients had the lowest initial investment and sustainability costs. Our estimates of the costs of sustaining implementation were much lower than initial investments and mostly attributable to CA subscription fees. CONCLUSION: Initiation and implementation of the interventions require significant personnel effort. Ongoing costs to maintain use are much lower and are a small fraction of overall organizational operating costs.

Using a Video Game Intervention to Increase Hospitalists' Advance Care Planning Conversations with Older Adults: a Stepped Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend Advance Care Planning (ACP) for seriously ill older adults to increase the patient-centeredness of end-of-life care. Few interventions target the inpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of a novel physician-directed intervention on ACP conversations in the inpatient setting. DESIGN: Stepped wedge cluster-randomized design with five 1-month steps (October 2020-February 2021), and 3-month extensions at each end. SETTING: A total of 35/125 hospitals staffed by a nationwide physician practice with an existing quality improvement initiative to increase ACP (enhanced usual care). PARTICIPANTS: Physicians employed for ≥ 6 months at these hospitals; patients aged ≥ 65 years they treated between July 2020-May 2021. INTERVENTION: Greater than or equal to 2 h of exposure to a theory-based video game designed to increase autonomous motivation for ACP; enhanced usual care. MAIN MEASURE: ACP billing (data abstractors blinded to intervention status). RESULTS: A total of 163/319 (52%) invited, eligible hospitalists consented to participate, 161 (98%) responded, and 132 (81%) completed all tasks. Physicians' mean age was 40 (SD 7); most were male (76%), Asian (52%), and reported playing the game for ≥ 2 h (81%). These physicians treated 44,235 eligible patients over the entire study period. Most patients (57%) were ≥ 75; 15% had COVID. ACP billing decreased between the pre- and post-intervention periods (26% v. 21%). After adjustment, the homogeneous effect of the game on ACP billing was non-significant (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.88-1.06; p = 0.42). There was effect modification by step (p < 0.001), with the game associated with increased billing in steps 1-3 (OR 1.03 [step 1]; OR 1.15 [step 2]; OR 1.13 [step 3]) and decreased billing in steps 4-5 (OR 0.66 [step 4]; OR 0.95 [step 5]). CONCLUSIONS: When added to enhanced usual care, a novel video game intervention had no clear effect on ACP billing, but variation across steps of the trial raised concerns about confounding from secular trends (i.e., COVID). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04557930, 9/21/2020.

Co-Development of a Web Application (COVID-19 Social Site) for Long-Term Care Workers ("Something for Us"): User-Centered Design and Participatory Research Study.

BACKGROUND: Improving confidence in and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and boosters among long-term care workers (LTCWs) is a crucial public health goal, given their role in the care of elderly people and people at risk. While difficult to reach with workplace communication interventions, most LTCWs regularly use social media and smartphones. Various social media interventions have improved attitudes and uptake for other vaccines and hold promise for the LTCW population. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a curated social web application (interactive website) to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence (a 3-arm randomized trial is underway). METHODS: Following user-centric design and participatory research approaches, we undertook the following 3 steps: (1) content identification, (2) platform development, and (3) community building. A LTCW and stakeholder advisory group provided iterative input. For content identification (step 1), we identified topics of concern about COVID-19 vaccines via desktop research (published literature, public opinion polls, and social media monitoring), refined by interviewing and polling LTCWs. We also conducted a national online panel survey. We curated and fact-checked posts from popular social media platforms that addressed the identified concerns. During platform development (step 2), we solicited preferences for design and functionality via interviews and user experience testing with LTCWs. We also identified best practices for online community building (step 3). RESULTS: In the interviews (n=9), we identified 3 themes: (1) LTCWs are proud of their work but feel undervalued; (2) LTCWs have varying levels of trust in COVID-19-related information; and (3) LTCWs would welcome a curated COVID-19 resource that is easy to understand and use-"something for us". Through desktop research, LTCW interviews, and our national online panel survey (n=592) we found that participants are interested in information about COVID-19 in general, vaccine benefits, vaccine risks, and vaccine development. Content identification resulted in 434 posts addressing these topic areas, with 209 uploaded to the final web application. Our LTCW poll (n=8) revealed preferences for personal stories and video content. The platform we developed is an accessible WordPress-based social media web application, refined through formal (n=3) and informal user experience testing. Users can sort posts by topic or subtopic and react to or comment on posts. To build an online community, we recruited 3 LTCW "community ambassadors" and instructed them to encourage discussion, acknowledge concerns, and offer factual information on COVID-19 vaccines. We also set "community standards" for the web application. CONCLUSIONS: An iterative, user-centric, participatory approach led to the launch of an accessible social media web application with curated content for COVID-19 vaccines targeting LTCWs in the United States. Through our trial, we will determine if this approach successfully improves vaccine confidence. If so, a similar social media resource could be used to develop curated social media interventions in other populations and with other public health goals.

Eliciting patients' healthcare goals and concerns: Do questions influence responses?

There is increasing interest in asking patients questions before their visits to elicit goals and concerns, which is part of the move to support the concept of coproducing care. The phrasing and delivery of such questions differs across settings and is likely to influence responses. This report describes a study that (i) used a three-level model to categorize the goals and concerns elicited by two different pre-visit questions, and (ii) describes associations between responses elicited and the phrasing and delivery of the two questions. The questions were administered to patients with rheumatic disease, and patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Paper-based responses from 150 patients with rheumatic disease and 338 patients with IBD were analyzed (163 paper, 175 electronic). The goals and concerns elicited were primarily disease or symptom-specific. The specific goal and concern examples featured in one pre-visit question were more commonly reported in responses to that question, compared to the question without examples. Questions completed electronically before the visit were associated with longer responses than those completed on paper in the waiting room. In conclusion, how and when patients' goals and concerns are elicited appears to have an impact on responses and warrants further investigation.

Enrollment, retention, and strategies for including disadvantaged populations in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Many randomized controlled trials fail to reach their target sample size. When coupled with the omission and underrepresentation of disadvantaged groups in randomized controlled trials, many trials fail to obtain data that accurately represents the true diversity of their target population. Policies and practices have been implemented to increase representation of disadvantaged groups in many randomized controlled trials, with some trials specifically targeting such groups. To our knowledge, no systematic review has quantified the enrollment metrics and effectiveness of inclusion and retention strategies in randomized controlled trials focused on disadvantaged populations specifically. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic search across EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL as well as grey literature, conference proceedings, research monographs, and Google Scholar from inception onwards. We will include randomized controlled trials where at least 50% of enrolled participants are considered to be disadvantaged, as per the RCT authors' definition and in line with our inclusion criteria. Two independent researchers per article will conduct preliminary title and abstract screening, subsequent full text review, and data extraction for the selected trials, with a third reviewer available to resolve conflicts. We will assess the quality of all included studies using specific criteria regarding data reporting, external validity, and internal validity. We will combine all selected studies and conduct a narrative synthesis to assess enrollment metrics. If there is sufficient homogeneity and sufficient trials comparing recruitment strategies within disadvantaged populations, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies designed to maximize the inclusion of disadvantaged populations in randomized controlled trials. DISCUSSION: The findings of this systematic review will establish baseline recruitment and enrollment metrics of trials targeting disadvantaged populations to elucidate the scope of the challenge of recruiting such populations. We hope that our findings will promote future research on the distinct barriers that may prevent disadvantaged populations from participating in health intervention research, will encourage more trials exploring effective, tailored recruitment strategies, and will establish a foundation to track future progress in the recruitment of disadvantaged populations. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: PROSPERO ID: CRD42020152814.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IDPAS).

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied. PURPOSE: To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = -9.59; 95% CI -18.94, -0.24 [I2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI -0.22, 0.26 [I2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials. LIMITATIONS: Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective.[Box: see text].

Routine patient-reported experience measurement of shared decision-making in the USA: a qualitative study of the current state according to frontrunners.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe instances of routine patient-reported shared decision-making (SDM) measurement in the USA, and to explore barriers and facilitators of routine patient-reported SDM measurement for quality improvement. SETTING: Payer and provider healthcare organisations in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Current or former adult employees of healthcare organisations with prior SDM activity and that may be conducting routine SDM measurement (n=21). OUTCOMES: Qualitative interview and survey data collected through snowball sampling recruitment strategy to inform barriers and facilitators of routine patient-reported SDM measurement. RESULTS: Three participating sites routinely measured SDM from patients' perspectives, including one payer organisation and two provider organisations-with the largest measurement effort taking place in the payer organisation. Facilitators of SDM measurement included SDM as a core organisational value or strategic priority, trialability of SDM measurement programmes, flexibility in how measures can be administered and existing momentum from payer-mandated measurement programmes. Barriers included competing organisational priorities with regard to patient-reported measurement and lack of perceived comparative advantage of patient-reported SDM measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Payers have a unique opportunity to encourage emphasis on SDM within healthcare organisations, including routine patient-reported measurement of SDM; however, provider organisations are currently best placed to make effective use of this type of data.