Evidence-based patient choice: a prostate cancer decision aid in plain language

BACKGROUND: Decision aids (DA) to assist patients in evaluating treatment options and sharing in decision making have proliferated in recent years. Most require high literacy and do not use plain language principles. We describe one of the first attempts to design a decision aid using principles from reading research and document design. The plain language DA prototype addressed treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer. Evaluation assessed impact on knowledge, decisions, and discussions with doctors in men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. METHODS: Document development steps included preparing an evidence-based DA in standard medical parlance, iteratively translating it to emphasize shared decision making and plain language in three formats (booklet, Internet, and audio-tape). Scientific review of medical content was integrated with expert health literacy review of document structure and design. Formative evaluation methods included focus groups (n = 4) and survey of a new sample of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer (n = 60), compared with historical controls (n = 184). RESULTS: A transparent description of the development process and design elements is reported. Formative evaluation among newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients found the DA to be clear and useful in reaching a decision. Newly diagnosed patients reported more discussions with doctors about treatment options, and showed increases in knowledge of side effects of radiation therapy. CONCLUSION: The plain language DA presenting medical evidence in text and numerical formats appears acceptable and useful in decision-making about localized prostate cancer treatment. Further testing should evaluate the impact of all three media on decisions made and quality of life in the survivorship period, especially among very low literacy men

Hormone therapy after the Women's Health Initiative: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Publication of results from the Women's Health Initiative study in July 2002 was a landmark event in biomedical science related to postmenopausal women. The purpose of this study was to describe the impact of new hormone therapy recommendations on patients' attitudes and decision-making in a primary care practice. METHODS: A questionnaire including structured and open-ended questions was administered in a family practice office waiting room from August through October 2003. Rationale for taking or not taking hormone therapy was specifically sought. Women 50–70 years old attending for office visits were invited to participate. Data were analyzed qualitatively and with descriptive statistics. Chart review provided medication use rates for the entire practice cohort of which the sample was a subset. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 127) were predominantly white and well educated, and were taking hormone therapy at a higher rate (38%) than the overall rate (26%) for women of the same age range in this practice. Belief patterns about hormone therapy were, in order of frequency, 'use is risky', 'vindication or prior beliefs', 'benefit to me outweighs risk', and 'unaware of new recommendations'. Twenty-eight out of 78 women continued hormones use after July 2002. Of 50 women who initially stopped hormone therapy after July 2002, 12 resumed use. Women who had stopped hormone therapy were a highly symptomatic group. Responses with emotional overtones such as worry, confusion, anger, and grief were common. CONCLUSION: Strategies for decision support about hormone therapy should explicitly take into account women's preferences about symptom relief and the trade-offs among relevant risks. Some women may need emotional support during transitions in hormone therapy use

Changes in practice patterns affecting in-hospital and post-discharge survival among ACS patients

BACKGROUND: Adherence to clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of specific illnesses may result in unexpected outcomes, given that multiple therapies must often be given to patients with diverse medical conditions. Yet, few studies have presented empirical evidence that quality improvement (QI) programs both change practice by improving adherence to guidelines and improve patient outcomes under the conditions of actual practice. Thus, we focus on patient survival, following hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome in three successive patient cohorts from the same community hospitals, with a quality improvement intervention occurring between cohorts two and three. METHODS: This study is a comparison of three historical cohorts of Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) patients in the same five community hospitals in 1994–5, 1997, 2002–3. A quality improvement project, the Guidelines Applied to Practice (GAP), was implemented in these hospitals in 2001. Study participants were recruited from community hospitals located in two Michigan communities during three separate time periods. The cohorts comprise (1) patients enrolled between December 1993 and April 1995 (N = 814), (2) patients enrolled between February 1997 and September 1997 (N = 452), and (3) patients enrolled between January 14, 2002 and April 13, 2003 (N = 710). Mortality data were obtained from Michigan's Bureau of Vital Statistics for all three patient cohorts. Predictor variables, obtained from medical record reviews, included demographic information, indicators of disease severity (ejection fraction), co-morbid conditions, hospital treatment information concerning most invasive procedures and the use of ace-inhibitors, beta-blockers and aspirin in the hospital and as discharge recommendations. RESULTS: Adjusted in-hospital mortality showed a marked improvement with a HR = 0.16 (p < 0.001) comparing 2003 patients in the same hospitals to those 10 years earlier. Large gains in the in-hospital mortality were maintained based on 1-year mortality rates after hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: Changes in practice patterns that follow recommended guidelines can significantly improve care for ACS patients. In-hospital mortality gains were maintained in the year following discharge

Physicians' intentions and use of three patient decision aids

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Decision aids are evidence based tools that assist patients in making informed values-based choices and supplement the patient-clinician interaction. While there is evidence to show that decision aids improve key indicators of patients' decision quality, relatively little is known about physicians' acceptance of decision aids or factors that influence their decision to use them. The purpose of this study was to describe physicians' perceptions of three decision aids, their expressed intent to use them, and their subsequent use of them.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a cross-sectional survey of random samples of Canadian respirologists, family physicians, and geriatricians. Three decision aids representing a range of health decisions were evaluated. The survey elicited physicians' opinions on the characteristics of the decision aid and their willingness to use it. Physicians who indicated a strong likelihood of using the decision aid were contacted three months later regarding their actual use of the decision aid.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 580 eligible physicians, 47% (n = 270) returned completed questionnaires. More than 85% of the respondents felt the decision aid was well developed and that it presented the essential information for decision making in an understandable, balanced, and unbiased manner. A majority of respondents (>80%) also felt that the decision aid would guide patients in a logical way, preparing them to participate in decision making and to reach a decision. Fewer physicians (<60%) felt the decision aid would improve the quality of patient visits or be easily implemented into practice and very few (27%) felt that the decision aid would save time. Physicians' intentions to use the decision aid were related to their comfort with offering it to patients, the decision aid topic, and the perceived ease of implementing it into practice. While 54% of the surveyed physicians indicated they would use the decision aid, less than a third followed through with this intention.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Despite strong support for the format, content, and quality of patient decision aids, and physicians' stated intentions to adopt them into clinical practice, most did not use them within three months of completing the survey. There is a wide gap between intention and behaviour. Further research is required to study the determinants of this intention-behaviour gap and to develop interventions aimed at barriers to physicians' use of decision aids.</p

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for the management of pain in labour and childbirth [ISRCTN52287533]

BACKGROUND: Women report fear of pain in childbirth and often lack complete information on analgesic options prior to labour. Preferences for pain relief should be discussed before labour begins. A woman's antepartum decision to use pain relief is likely influenced by her cultural background, friends, family, the media, literature and her antenatal caregivers. Pregnant women report that information about analgesia was most commonly derived from hearsay and least commonly from health professionals. Decision aids are emerging as a promising tool to assist practitioners and their patients in evidence-based decision making. Decision aids are designed to assist patients and their doctors in making informed decisions using information that is unbiased and based on high quality research evidence. Decision aids are non-directive in the sense that they do not aim to steer the user towards any one option, but rather to support decision making which is informed and consistent with personal values. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a Pain Relief for Labour decision aid, with and without an audio-component, compared to a pamphlet in a three-arm randomised controlled trial. Approximately 600 women expecting their first baby and planning a vaginal birth will be recruited for the trial. The primary outcomes of the study are decisional conflict (uncertainty about a course of action), knowledge, anxiety and satisfaction with decision-making and will be assessed using self-administered questionnaires. The decision aid is not intended to influence the type of analgesia used during labour, however we will monitor health service utilisation rates and maternal and perinatal outcomes. This study is funded by a competitive peer-reviewed grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (No. 253635). DISCUSSION: The Pain Relief for Labour decision aid was developed using the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and systematic reviews of the evidence about the benefits and risks of the non-pharmacological and pharmacological methods of pain relief for labour. It comprises a workbook and worksheet and has been developed in two forms – with and without an audio-component (compact disc). The format allows women to take the decision aid home and discuss it with their partner

Behavioral and psychosocial effects of rapid genetic counseling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: Design of a multicenter randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been estimated that between 5% and 10% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have a hereditary form of the disease, primarily caused by a <it>BRCA1 </it>or <it>BRCA2 </it>gene mutation. Such women have an increased risk of developing a new primary breast and/or ovarian tumor, and may therefore opt for preventive surgery (e.g., bilateral mastectomy, oophorectomy). It is common practice to offer high-risk patients genetic counseling and DNA testing after their primary treatment, with genetic test results being available within 4-6 months. However, some non-commercial laboratories can currently generate test results within 3 to 6 weeks, and thus make it possible to provide <it>rapid </it>genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) prior to primary treatment. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of RGCT on treatment decisions and on psychosocial health.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In this randomized controlled trial, 255 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with at least a 10% risk of carrying a <it>BRCA </it>gene mutation are being recruited from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants are randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either a RGCT intervention group (the offer of RGCT directly following diagnosis with tests results available before surgical treatment) or to a usual care control group. The primary behavioral outcome is the uptake of direct bilateral mastectomy or delayed prophylactic contralateral mastectomy. Psychosocial outcomes include cancer risk perception, cancer-related worry and distress, health-related quality of life, decisional satisfaction and the perceived need for and use of additional decisional counseling and psychosocial support. Data are collected via medical chart audits and self-report questionnaires administered prior to randomization, and at 6 month and at 12 month follow-up.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will provide essential information on the impact of RGCT on the choice of primary surgical treatment among women with breast cancer with an increased risk of hereditary cancer. This study will also provide data on the psychosocial consequences of RGCT and of risk-reducing behavior.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR1493) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00783822).</p

The development and evaluation of a five-language multi-perspective standardised measure: clinical decision-making involvement and satisfaction (CDIS).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a brief quantitative five-language measure of involvement and satisfaction in clinical decision-making (CDIS) - with versions for patients (CDIS-P) and staff (CDIS-S) - for use in mental health services. METHODS: An English CDIS was developed by reviewing existing measures, focus groups, semistructured interviews and piloting. Translations into Danish, German, Hungarian and Italian followed the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force principles of good practice for translation and cultural adaptation. Psychometricevaluation involved testing the measure in secondary mental health services in Aalborg, Debrecen, London, Naples, Ulm and Zurich. RESULTS: After appraising 14 measures, the Control Preference Scale and Satisfaction With Decision-making English-language scales were modified and evaluated in interviews (n = 9), focus groups (n = 22) and piloting (n = 16). Translations were validated through focus groups (n = 38) and piloting (n = 61). A total of 443 service users and 403 paired staff completed CDIS. The Satisfaction sub-scale had internal consistency of 0.89 (0.86-0.89 after item-level deletion) for staff and 0.90 (0.87-0.90) for service users, both continuous and categorical (utility) versions were associated with symptomatology and both staff-rated and service userrated therapeutic alliance (showing convergent validity), and not with social disability (showing divergent validity), and satisfaction predicted staff-rated (OR 2.43, 95%CI 1.54- 3.83 continuous, OR 5.77, 95%CI 1.90-17.53 utility) and service user-rated (OR 2.21, 95%CI 1.51-3.23 continuous, OR 3.13, 95%CI 1.10-8.94 utility) decision implementation two months later. The Involvement sub-scale had appropriate distribution and no floor or ceiling effects, was associated with stage of recovery, functioning and quality of life (staff only) (showing convergent validity), and not with symptomatology or social disability (showing divergent validity), and staff-rated passive involvement by the service user predicted implementation (OR 3.55, 95%CI 1.53-8.24). Relationships remained after adjusting for clustering by staff. CONCLUSIONS: CDIS demonstrates adequate internal consistency, no evidence of item redundancy, appropriate distribution, and face, content, convergent, divergent and predictive validity. It can be recommended for research and clinical use. CDIS-P and CDIS-S in all 3 five languages can be downloaded at http://www.cedar-net.eu/instruments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75841675.CEDAR study is funded by a grant from the Seventh Framework Programme (Research Area HEALTH-2007-3.1-4 Improving clinical decision making) of the European Union (Grant no. 223290)

Alignment of the CMS silicon tracker during commissioning with cosmic rays

This is the Pre-print version of the Article. The official published version of the Paper can be accessed from the link below - Copyright @ 2010 IOPThe CMS silicon tracker, consisting of 1440 silicon pixel and 15 148 silicon strip detector modules, has been aligned using more than three million cosmic ray charged particles, with additional information from optical surveys. The positions of the modules were determined with respect to cosmic ray trajectories to an average precision of 3–4 microns RMS in the barrel and 3–14 microns RMS in the endcap in the most sensitive coordinate. The results have been validated by several studies, including laser beam cross-checks, track fit self-consistency, track residuals in overlapping module regions, and track parameter resolution, and are compared with predictions obtained from simulation. Correlated systematic effects have been investigated. The track parameter resolutions obtained with this alignment are close to the design performance.This work is supported by FMSR (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); Academy of Sciences and NICPB (Estonia); Academy of Finland, ME, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NKTH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); NRF (Korea); LAS (Lithuania); CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); PAEC (Pakistan); SCSR (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan); MST and MAE (Russia); MSTDS (Serbia); MICINN and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); NSC (Taipei); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA)