Prostate Cancer and Race

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72215/1/j.1525-1497.2003.30801.x.pd

Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions

Contains fulltext : 80919.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in interventions that can support patients who face difficult decisions and individuals who need to modify their behaviour to achieve better outcomes. Evidence for effectiveness is used to categorise patients care. Effective care is where evidence of benefit outweighs harm: patients should always receive this type of care, where indicated. Preference-sensitive care describes a situation where the evidence for the superiority of one treatment over another is either not available or does not allow differentiation; in this situation, there are two or more valid approaches, and the best choice depends on how individuals value the risks and benefits of treatments. DISCUSSION: Preference-sensitive decisions are defined by equipoise: situations where options need to be deliberated. Moreover, where both healthcare professionals and patients agree that equipoise exists, situations may be regarded as having 'dual equipoise'. Such conditions are ideal for shared decision making. However, there are many situations in medicine where dual equipoise does not exist, where health professionals hold the view that scientific evidence for benefit strongly outweighs harm. This is often the case where people suffer from chronic conditions, and where behaviour change is recommended to improve outcomes. However, some patients, are either ambivalent or find it difficult to sustain optimal behaviours, i.e., patients will be in varying degrees of equipoise. Therefore, situations where dual equipoise exists (or not) help to clarify the definitions of two classes of support, namely, decision and behaviour change support interventions. Decision support interventions help people think about choices they face; they describe where and why choice exists, in short, conditions of dual equipoise; they provide information about options, including, where reasonable, the option of taking no action. These interventions help people to deliberate, independently or in collaboration with others, about options by considering relevant attributes; they support people to forecast how they might feel about short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes that have relevant consequences, in ways that help the process of constructing preferences and eventual decision making appropriate to their individual situation. Whereas, behavioural support interventions describe, justify, and recommend actions that, over time, lead to predictable outcomes over short, intermediate, and long-term timeframes, and that have relevant and important consequences for those who are considering behaviour change. SUMMARY: Decision and behaviour support interventions have divergent aims, different relationships to equipoise, and form two classes of interventions

Balancing influence between actors in healthcare decision making

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Healthcare costs in most developed countries are not clearly linked to better patient and public health outcomes, but are rather associated with service delivery orientation. In the U.S. this has resulted in large variation in healthcare availability and use, increased cost, reduced employer participation in health insurance programs, and reduced overall population health outcomes. Recent U.S. healthcare reform legislation addresses only some of these issues. Other countries face similar healthcare issues.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>A major goal of healthcare is to enhance patient health outcomes. This objective is not realized in many countries because incentives and structures are currently not aligned for maximizing population health. The misalignment occurs because of the competing interests between "actors" in healthcare. In a simplified model these are individuals motivated to enhance their own health; enterprises (including a mix of nonprofit, for profit and government providers, payers, and suppliers, etc.) motivated by profit, political, organizational and other forces; and government which often acts in the conflicting roles of a healthcare payer and provider in addition to its role as the representative and protector of the people. An imbalance exists between the actors, due to the resources and information control of the enterprise and government actors relative to the individual and the public. Failure to use effective preventive interventions is perhaps the best example of the misalignment of incentives. We consider the current Pareto efficient balance between the actors in relation to the Pareto frontier, and show that a significant change in the healthcare market requires major changes in the utilities of the enterprise and government actors.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>A variety of actions are necessary for maximizing population health within the constraints of available resources and the current balance between the actors. These actions include improved transparency of all aspects of medical decision making, greater involvement of patients in shared medical decision making, greater oversight of guideline development and coverage decisions, limitations on direct to consumer advertising, and the need for an enhanced role of the government as the public advocate.</p

Adjuncts or adversaries to shared decision-making? Applying the Integrative Model of behavior to the role and design of decision support interventions in healthcare interactions

Background A growing body of literature documents the efficacy of decision support interventions (DESI) in helping patients make informed clinical decisions. DESIs are frequently described as an adjunct to shared decision-making between a patient and healthcare provider, however little is known about the effects of DESIs on patients' interactional behaviors-whether or not they promote the involvement of patients in decisions. Discussion Shared decision-making requires not only a cognitive understanding of the medical problem and deliberation about the potential options to address it, but also a number of communicative behaviors that the patient and physician need to engage in to reach the goal of making a shared decision. Theoretical models of behavior can guide both the identification of constructs that will predict the performance or non-performance of specific behaviors relevant to shared decision-making, as well as inform the development of interventions to promote these specific behaviors. We describe how Fishbein's Integrative Model (IM) of behavior can be applied to the development and evaluation of DESIs. There are several ways in which the IM could be used in research on the behavioral effects of DESIs. An investigator could measure the effects of an intervention on the central constructs of the IM - attitudes, normative pressure, self-efficacy, and intentions related to communication behaviors relevant to shared decision-making. However, if one were interested in the determinants of these domains, formative qualitative research would be necessary to elicit the salient beliefs underlying each of the central constructs. Formative research can help identify potential targets for a theory-based intervention to maximize the likelihood that it will influence the behavior of interest or to develop a more fine-grained understanding of intervention effects. Summary Behavioral theory can guide the development and evaluation of DESIs to increase the likelihood that these will prepare patients to play a more active role in the decision-making process. Self-reported behavioral measures can reduce the measurement burden for investigators and create a standardized method for examining and reporting the determinants of communication behaviors necessary for shared decision-making

Do Interventions Designed to Support Shared Decision-Making Reduce Health Inequalities? : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Copyright: © 2014 Durand et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Background: Increasing patient engagement in healthcare has become a health policy priority. However, there has been concern that promoting supported shared decision-making could increase health inequalities. Objective: To evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on disadvantaged groups and health inequalities. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.Peer reviewe

Impact of monopolar radiofrequency energy on subchondral bone viability

The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of monopolar radiofrequency energy treatment on subchondral bone viability. The femoral grooves of six chinchilla bastard rabbits were exposed bilaterally to monopolar radiofrequency energy for 2, 4 and 8 s, creating a total of 36 defects. An intravital fluorescence bone-labeling technique characterized the process of subchondral bone mineralization within the 3 months following exposure to radiofrequency energy and was analyzed by widefield epifluorescence optical sectioning microscopy using an ApoTome. After 2 s of radiofrequency energy exposure, regular fluorescence staining of the subchondral bone was evident in all samples when compared to untreated areas. The depth of osteonecrosis after 4 and 8 s of radiofrequency energy treatment averaged 126 and 942 µm at 22 days (P < .05; P < .01). The 4 s treatment group showed no osteonecrosis after 44 days whereas the depth of osteonecrosis extended from 519 µm at 44 days (P < .01), to 281 µm at 66 days (P < .01) and to 133 µm at 88 days (P < .05) after 8 s of radiofrequency energy application. Though radiofrequency energy may induce transient osteonecrosis in the superficial zone of the subchondral bone, the results of this study suggest that post-arthroscopic osteonecrosis appears to be of only modest risk given the current clinical application in humans

Exploring dietitians' salient beliefs about shared decision-making behaviors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Shared decision making (SDM), a process by which health professionals and patients go through the decision-making process together to agree on treatment, is a promising strategy for promoting diet-related decisions that are informed and value based and to which patients adhere well. The objective of the present study was to identify dietitians' salient beliefs regarding their exercise of two behaviors during the clinical encounter, both of which have been deemed essential for SDM to take place: (1) presenting patients with all dietary treatment options for a given health condition and (2) helping patients clarify their values and preferences regarding the options.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twenty-one dietitians were allocated to four focus groups. Facilitators conducted the focus groups using a semistructured interview guide based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Discussions were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed with NVivo8 (QSR International, Cambridge, MA) software.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most participants stated that better patient adherence to treatment was an advantage of adopting the two SDM behaviors. Dietitians identified patients, physicians, and the multidisciplinary team as normative referents who would approve or disapprove of their adoption of the SDM behaviors. The most often reported barriers and facilitators for the behaviors concerned patients' characteristics, patients' clinical situation, and time.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The implementation of SDM in nutrition clinical practice can be guided by addressing dietitians' salient beliefs. Identifying these beliefs also provides the theoretical framework needed for developing a quantitative survey questionnaire to further study the determinants of dietitians' adoption of SDM behaviors.</p

Twelve Years' Experience with Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs in Canada: A Cautionary Tale

Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs is illegal in Canada as a health protection measure, but is permitted in the United States. However, in 2000, Canadian policy was changed to allow 'reminder' advertising of prescription drugs. This is a form of advertising that states the brand name without health claims. 'Reminder' advertising is prohibited in the US for drugs that have 'black box' warnings of serious risks. This study examines spending on DTCA in Canada from 1995 to 2006, 12 years spanning this policy shift. We ask how annual per capita spending compares to that in the US, and whether drugs with Canadian or US regulatory safety warnings are advertised to the Canadian public in reminder advertising.Prescription drug advertising spending data were extracted from a data set on health sector spending in Canada obtained from a market research company, TNS Media Inc. Spending was adjusted for inflation and compared with US spending. Inflation-adjusted spending on branded DTCA in Canada grew from under CAD$2 million per year before 1999 to over$22 million in 2006. The major growth was in broadcast advertising, accounting for 83% of spending in 2006. US annual per capita spending was on average 24 times Canadian levels. Celebrex (celecoxib), which has a US black box and was subject to three safety advisories in Canada, was the most heavily advertised drug on Canadian television in 2005 and 2006. Of 8 brands with >$500,000 spending, which together accounted for 59% of branded DTCA in all media, 6 were subject to Canadian safety advisories, and 4 had US black box warnings.Branded 'reminder' advertising has grown rapidly in Canada since 2000, mainly due to a growth in television advertising. Although DTCA spending per capita is much lower in Canada than in the US, there is no evidence of safer content or product choice; many heavily-advertised drugs in Canada have been subject to safety advisories. For governments searching for compromise solutions to industry pressure for expanded advertising, Canada's experience stands as a stark warning

Translating shared decision-making into health care clinical practices: Proof of concepts

Background: There is considerable interest today in shared decision-making (SDM), defined as a decision-making process jointly shared by patients and their health care provider. However, the data show that SDM has not been broadly adopted yet. Consequently, the main goal of this proposal is to bring together the resources and the expertise needed to develop an interdisciplinary and international research team on the implementation of SDM in clinical practice using a theory-based dyadic perspective. Methods: Participants include researchers from Canada, US, UK, and Netherlands, representing medicine, nursing, psychology, community health and epidemiology. In order to develop a collaborative research network that takes advantage of the expertise of the team members, the following research activities are planned: 1) establish networking and on-going communication through internet-based forum, conference calls, and a bi-weekly e-bulletin; 2) hold a two-day workshop with two key experts (one in theoretical underpinnings of behavioral change, and a second in dyadic data analysis), and invite all investigators to present their views on the challenges related to the implementation of SDM in clinical practices; 3) conduct a secondary analyses of existing dyadic datasets to ensure that discussion among team members is grounded in empirical data; 4) build capacity with involvement of graduate students in the workshop and online forum; and 5) elaborate a position paper and an international multi-site study protocol. Discussion: This study protocol aims to inform researchers, educators, and clinicians interested in improving their understanding of effective strategies to implement shared decision-making in clinical practice using a theory-based dyadic perspective