Development and evaluation of a new survey instrument to measure the quality of colorectal cancer screening decisions

Background: Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening recommend that patients be informed about options and be able to select preferred method of screening; however, there are no existing measures available to assess whether this happens. Methods: Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Quality Instrument (CRC-DQI) includes knowledge items and patients' goals and concerns. Items were generated through literature review and qualitative work with patients and providers. Hypotheses relating to the acceptability, feasibility, discriminant validity and retest reliability of the survey were examined using data from three studies: (1) 2X2 randomized study of participants recruited online, (2) cross-sectional sample of patients recruited in community health clinics, and (3) cross-sectional sample of providers recruited from American Medical Association Master file. Results: 338 participants were recruited online, 94 participants were recruited from community health centers, and 115 physicians were recruited. The CRC-DQI was feasible and acceptable with low missing data and high response rates for both online and paper-based administrations. The knowledge score was able to discriminate between those who had seen a decision aid or not (84% vs. 64%, p < 0.001) and between providers, online patients and clinic patients (89% vs. 74% vs. 41%, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The knowledge score and most of the goals had adequate retest reliability. About half of the participants received a test that matched their goals (47% and 51% in online and clinic samples respectively). Many respondents who had never been screened had goals that indicated a preference for colonoscopy. A minority of respondents in the online (21%) and in clinic (2%) samples were both well informed and received a test that matched their goals. Conclusions: The CRC-DQI demonstrated good psychometric properties in diverse samples, and across different modes of administration. Few respondents made high quality decisions about colon cancer screening

The role of perceived benefits and costs in patients’ medical decisions

Background  Many decisions can be understood in terms of actors’ valuations of benefits and costs. The article investigates whether this is also true of patient medical decision making. It aims to investigate (i) the importance patients attach to various reasons for and against nine medical decisions; (ii) how well the importance attached to benefits and costs predicts action or inaction; and (iii) how such valuations are related to decision confidence. Methods  In a national random digit dial telephone survey of U.S. adults, patients rated the importance of various reasons for and against medical decisions they had made or talked to a health‐care provider about during the past 2 years. Participants were 2575 English‐speaking adults age 40 and older. Data were analysed by means of logistic regressions predicting action/inaction and linear regressions predicting confidence. Results  Aggregating individual reasons into those that may be regarded as benefits and those that may be regarded as costs, and weighting them by their importance to the patient, shows the expected relationship to action. Perceived benefits and costs are also significantly related to the confidence patients report about their decision. Conclusion  The factors patients say are important in their medical decisions reflect a subjective weighing of benefits and costs and predict action/inaction although they do not necessarily indicate that patients are well informed. The greater the difference between the importance attached to benefits and costs, the greater patients’ confidence in their decision.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/102701/1/hex739.pd

Analysis of stimulant prescriptions and drug-related poisoning risk among persons receiving buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder

Importance: Stimulant medication use is common among individuals receiving buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). Associations between prescription stimulant use and treatment outcomes in this population have been understudied. Objectives: To investigate whether use of prescription stimulants was associated with (1) drug-related poisoning and (2) buprenorphine treatment retention. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, recurrent-event cohort study with a case-crossover design used a secondary analysis of administrative claims data from IBM MarketScan Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid databases from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2016. Primary analyses were conducted from March 1 through August 31, 2021. Individuals aged 12 to 64 years with an OUD diagnosis and prescribed buprenorphine who experienced at least 1 drug-related poisoning were included in the analysis. Unit of observation was the person-day. Exposures: Days of active stimulant prescriptions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were drug-related poisoning and buprenorphine treatment retention. Drug-related poisonings were defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, codes; treatment retention was defined by continuous treatment claims until a 45-day gap was observed. Results: There were 13 778 567 person-days of observation time among 22 946 individuals (mean [SD] age, 32.8 [11.8] years; 50.3% men) who experienced a drug-related poisoning. Stimulant treatment days were associated with 19% increased odds of drug-related poisoning (odds ratio [OR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.06-1.34]) compared with nontreatment days; buprenorphine treatment days were associated with 38% decreased odds of poisoning (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.59-0.65]). There were no significant interaction effects between use of stimulants and buprenorphine. Stimulant treatment days were associated with decreased odds of attrition from buprenorphine treatment (OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.59-0.70]), indicating that stimulants were associated with 36% longer mean exposure to buprenorphine and its concomitant protection. Conclusions and Relevance: Among persons with OUD, use of prescription stimulants was associated with a modest increase in per-day risk of drug-related poisoning, but this risk was offset by the association between stimulant use and improved retention to buprenorphine treatment, which is associated with protection against overdose

Deficiency of the lipid synthesis enzyme, DGAT1, extends longevity in mice

Calorie restriction results in leanness, which is linked to metabolic conditions that favor longevity. We show here that deficiency of the triglyceride synthesis enzyme acyl CoA:diacylglycerol acyltransferase 1 (DGAT1), which promotes leanness, also extends longevity without limiting food intake. Female DGAT1-deficient mice were protected from age-related increases in body fat, tissue triglycerides, and inflammation in white adipose tissue. This protection was accompanied by increased mean and maximal life spans of ~25% and ~10%, respectively. Middle-aged Dgat1−/− mice exhibited several features associated with longevity, including decreased levels of circulating insulin growth factor 1 (IGF1) and reduced fecundity. Thus, deletion of DGAT1 in mice provides a model of leanness and extended lifespan that is independent of calorie restriction

Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments

Background: Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDA) requires evidence that PtDAs improve the quality of the decision-making process and the quality of the choice made, or decision quality. The aim of this paper is to review the theoretical and empirical evidence for PtDA effectiveness and discuss emerging practical and research issues in the measurement of effectiveness. Methods: This updated overview incorporates: a) an examination of the instruments used to measure five key decision-making process constructs (i.e., recognize decision, feel informed about options and outcomes, feel clear about goals and preferences, discuss goals and preferences with health care provider, and be involved in decisions) and decision quality constructs (i.e., knowledge, realistic expectations, values-choice agreement) within the 86 trials in the Cochrane review; and b) a summary of the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration’s review of PtDAs for these key constructs. Data on the constructs and instruments used were extracted independently by two authors from the 86 trials and any disagreements were resolved by discussion, with adjudication by a third party where required. Results: The 86 studies provide considerable evidence that PtDAs improve the decision-making process and decision quality. A majority of the studies (76/86; 88%) measured at least one of the key decision-making process or decision quality constructs. Seventeen different measurement instruments were used to measure decision-making process constructs, but no single instrument covered all five constructs. The Decisional Conflict Scale was most commonly used (n = 47), followed by the Control Preference Scale (n = 9). Many studies reported one or more constructs of decision quality, including knowledge (n = 59), realistic expectation of risks and benefits (n = 21), and values-choice agreement (n = 13). There was considerable variability in how values-choice agreement was defined and determined. No study reported on all key decision-making process and decision quality constructs. Conclusions: Evidence of PtDA effectiveness in improving the quality of the decision-making process and decision quality is strong and growing. There is not, however, consensus or standardization of measurement for either the decision-making process or decision quality. Additional work is needed to develop and evaluate measurement instruments and further explore theoretical issues to advance future research on PtDA effectiveness

Development of instruments to measure the quality of breast cancer treatment decisions

Women with early stage breast cancer face a multitude of decisions. The quality of a decision can be measured by the extent to which the treatment reflects what’s most important to an informed patient. Reliable and valid measures of patients’ knowledge and their goals and concerns related to breast cancer treatments are needed to assess decision quality

Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: results from the DECISIONS study

Patients should understand the risks and benefits of cancer screening in order to make informed screening decisions

Clarifying Values: An updated review

Background: Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids. Methods: Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary. Results: Values clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single "best" practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect. Conclusions: Values clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness

Decision quality instrument for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a psychometric evaluation

Abstract Background A high quality decision requires that patients who meet clinical criteria for surgery are informed about the options (including non-surgical alternatives) and receive treatments that match their goals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties and clinical sensibility of a patient self report instrument, to measure the quality of decisions about total joint replacement for knee or hip osteoarthritis. Methods The performance of the Hip/Knee Osteoarthritis Decision Quality Instrument (HK-DQI) was evaluated in two samples: (1) a cross-sectional mail survey with 489 patients and 77 providers (study 1); and (2) a randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid with 138 osteoarthritis patients considering total joint replacement (study 2). The HK-DQI results in two scores. Knowledge items are summed to create a total knowledge score, and a set of goals and concerns are used in a logistic regression model to develop a concordance score. The concordance score measures the proportion of patients whose treatment matched their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, reliability and validity of the knowledge and concordance scores were examined. Results In study 1, the HK-DQI was completed by 382 patients (79%) and 45 providers (58%), and in study 2 by 127 patients (92%), with low rates of missing data. The DQI-knowledge score was reproducible (ICC = 0.81) and demonstrated discriminant validity (68% decision aid vs. 54% control, and 78% providers vs. 61% patients) and content validity. The concordance score demonstrated predictive validity, as patients whose treatments were concordant with their goals had more confidence and less regret with their decision compared to those who did not. Conclusions The HK-DQI is feasible and acceptable to patients. It can be used to assess whether patients with osteoarthritis are making informed decisions about surgery that are concordant with their goals