Patient Information Leaflets for Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Missed Opportunity

Background: High-quality patient information is recommended to help reduce procedure-related anxiety and encourage patients to become active participants in their recovery. The objective of this study was to analyze the quality of patient information leaflets (PILs) given to National Health Service (NHS) patients ahead of lumbar spine surgery. Methods: The DISCERN tool was used to evaluate the quality of PILs, sourced from NHS websites. Results: Thirty-two PILs on lumbar surgery were included. Two (6%) leaflets were considered poor, 13 (41%) were marked as fair, 14 (44%) were of good quality, and 3 (9%) were scored as excellent. The total mean score was 55 (30-74), which corresponds to good quality. The lowest scoring questions were sources of information (Q4), balanced/unbiased content (Q6), and explanation of no treatment (Q12). Conclusions: There is considerable variation in the quality of PILs provided ahead of lumbar spine surgery. The scope for improvement is clear, and as the move toward patient-centered, evidence-based care continues, it is important that hospital resources provide recommendations based upon evidence of clinical effectiveness

The Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): protocol for a randomised controlled demonstration lung cancer screening pilot testing a targeted invitation strategy for high risk and ‘hard-to-reach’ patients

Background Participation in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening offered in the trial context has been poor, especially among smokers from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds; a group for whom the risk-benefit ratio is improved due to their high risk of lung cancer. Attracting high risk participants is essential to the success and equity of any future screening programme. This study will investigate whether the observed low and biased uptake of screening can be improved using a targeted invitation strategy. Methods/design A randomised controlled trial design will be used to test whether targeted invitation materials are effective at improving engagement with an offer of lung cancer screening for high risk candidates. Two thousand patients aged 60–75 and recorded as a smoker within the last five years by their GP, will be identified from primary care records and individually randomised to receive either intervention invitation materials (which take a targeted, stepped and low burden approach to information provision prior to the appointment) or control invitation materials. The primary outcome is uptake of a nurse-led ‘lung health check’ hospital appointment, during which patients will be offered a spirometry test, an exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) reading, and an LDCT if eligible. Initial data on demographics (i.e. age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation score) and smoking status will be collected in primary care and analysed to explore differences between attenders and non-attenders with respect to invitation group. Those who attend the lung health check will have further data on smoking collected during their appointment (including pack-year history, nicotine dependence and confidence to quit). Secondary outcomes will include willingness to be screened, uptake of LDCT and measures of informed decision-making to ensure the latter is not compromised by either invitation strategy. Discussion If effective at improving informed uptake of screening and reducing bias in participation, this invitation strategy could be adopted by local screening pilots or a national programme. Trial registration This study was registered with the ISRCTN (International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy Number : ISRCTN21774741) on the 23rd September 2015 and the NIH ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT0255810) on the 22nd September 2015

U.S. General Population Estimate for “Excellent” to “Poor” Self-Rated Health Item

BACKGROUND: The most commonly used self-reported health question asks people to rate their general health from excellent to poor. This is one of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health items. Four other items are used for scoring on the PROMIS global physical health scale. Because the single item is used on the majority of large national health surveys in the U.S., it is useful to construct scores that can be compared to U.S. general population norms. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the PROMIS global physical health scale score from the responses to the single excellent to poor self-rated health question for use in public health surveillance, research, and clinical assessment. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of 21,133 individuals, weighted to be representative of the U.S. general population. PARTICIPANTS: The PROMIS items were administered via a Web-based survey to 19,601 persons in a national panel and 1,532 subjects from PROMIS research sites. The average age of individuals in the sample was 53 years, 52 % were female, 80 % were non-Hispanic white, and 19 % had a high school degree or lower level of education. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMIS global physical health scale. KEY RESULTS: The product–moment correlation of the single item with the PROMIS global physical health scale score was 0.81. The estimated scale score based on responses to the single item ranged from 29 (poor self-rated health, 2.1 SDs worse than the general population mean) to 62 (excellent self-rated health, 1.2 SDs better than the general population mean) on a T-score metric (mean of 50). CONCLUSIONS: This item can be used to estimate scores for the PROMIS global physical health scale for use in monitoring population health and achieving public health objectives. The item may also be used for individual assessment, but its reliability (0.52) is lower than that of the PROMIS global health scale (0.81)

Proactive Assessment of Obesity Risk during Infancy (ProAsk): A qualitative study of parents' and professionals' perspectives on an mHealth intervention

Background: Prevention of childhood obesity is a public health priority. Interventions that establish healthy growth trajectories early in life promise lifelong benefits to health and wellbeing. Proactive Assessment of Obesity Risk during Infancy (ProAsk) is a novel mHealth intervention designed to enable health professionals to assess an infant’s risk of future overweight and motivate parental behaviour change to prevent childhood overweight and obesity. The aim of this study was to explore parents’ and health professionals’ experiences of the overweight risk communication and behaviour change aspects of this mHealth intervention. Methods: The study was conducted in four economically deprived localities in the UK. Parents (N=66) were recruited to the ProAsk feasibility study when their infant was 6-8 weeks old. Twenty two health visitors (HVs) used a hand-held tablet device to deliver ProAsk to parents when their infants were 3 months old. Parents (N=12) and HVs (N=15) were interviewed when infants in the study were 6 months old. Interview data were transcribed and analysed thematically using an inductive, interpretative approach. Results: Four key themes were identified across both parent and health visitor data: engaging and empowering with digital technology; unfamiliar technology presents challenges and opportunity; trust in the risk score; resistance to targeting. Most participants found the interactivity and visual presentation of information on ProAsk engaging. Health visitors who were unfamiliar with mobile technology drew support from parents who were more confident using tablet devices. There was evidence of resistance to targeting infants at greatest risk of future overweight and obesity, and both parents and health visitors drew on a number of reasons why a higher than average overweight risk score might not apply to a particular infant. Conclusions: An mHealth intervention actively engaged parents, enabling them to take ownership of the process of seeking strategies to reduce infant risk of overweight. However, cognitive and motivational biases that prevent effective overweight risk communication are barriers to targeting an intervention at those infants most at risk

Current best practices for presenting probabilities in patient decision aids: Fundamental principles

Background Shared decision making requires evidence to be conveyed to the patient in a way they can easily understand and compare. Patient decision aids facilitate this process. This article reviews the current evidence for how to present numerical probabilities within patient decision aids. Methods Following the 2013 review method, we assembled a group of 9 international experts on risk communication across Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We expanded the topics covered in the first review to reflect emerging areas of research. Groups of 2 to 3 authors reviewed the relevant literature based on their expertise and wrote each section before review by the full authorship team. Results Of 10 topics identified, we present 5 fundamental issues in this article. Although some topics resulted in clear guidance (presenting the chance an event will occur, addressing numerical skills), other topics (context/evaluative labels, conveying uncertainty, risk over time) continue to have evolving knowledge bases. We recommend presenting numbers over a set time period with a clear denominator, using consistent formats between outcomes and interventions to enable unbiased comparisons, and interpreting the numbers for the reader to meet the needs of varying numeracy. Discussion Understanding how different numerical formats can bias risk perception will help decision aid developers communicate risks in a balanced, comprehensible manner and avoid accidental “nudging” toward a particular option. Decisions between probability formats need to consider the available evidence and user skills. The review may be useful for other areas of science communication in which unbiased presentation of probabilities is important

Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts

Background Decision aid developers have to convey complex task-specific numeric information in a way that minimizes bias and promotes understanding of the options available within a particular decision. Whereas our companion paper summarizes fundamental issues, this article focuses on more complex, task-specific aspects of presenting numeric information in patient decision aids. Methods As part of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards third evidence update, we gathered an expert panel of 9 international experts who revised and expanded the topics covered in the 2013 review working in groups of 2 to 3 to update the evidence, based on their expertise and targeted searches of the literature. The full panel then reviewed and provided additional revisions, reaching consensus on the final version. Results Five of the 10 topics addressed more complex task-specific issues. We found strong evidence for using independent event rates and/or incremental absolute risk differences for the effect size of test and screening outcomes. Simple visual formats can help to reduce common judgment biases and enhance comprehension but can be misleading if not well designed. Graph literacy can moderate the effectiveness of visual formats and hence should be considered in tool design. There is less evidence supporting the inclusion of personalized and interactive risk estimates. Discussion More complex numeric information. such as the size of the benefits and harms for decision options, can be better understood by using incremental absolute risk differences alongside well-designed visual formats that consider the graph literacy of the intended audience. More research is needed into when and how to use personalized and/or interactive risk estimates because their complexity and accessibility may affect their feasibility in clinical practice