General practitioners' and nurses' experiences of using computerised decision support in screening for diabetic foot disease:implementing Scottish Clinical Information - Diabetes Care in routine clinical practice

<strong>Objective</strong> The Scottish Care Information - Diabetes Collaboration (SCI-DC) developed a computer- based information system to create a shared electronic record for use by all involved in the care of patients with diabetes mellitus. The objectives of this study were to understand primary care practitioners' views towards screening for diabetic foot disease and their experience of the SCI-DC system. <strong>Method</strong> We conducted an exploratory study using qualitativemethods. Semi-structured interviews were audiotape-recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis. Seven practice nurses and six general practitioners (GPs) with special responsibility for diabetes care inNHS Lothian participated. <strong>Results</strong> Primary care clinicians reported good systems in place to screen for diabetes-related complications and to refer their patients to specialist care. Foot ulceration was rarely observed; other diabetesrelated conditions were seen as a higher priority. Most had heard of the SCI-DC foot assessment tool, but its failure to integrate with other primary care information technology (IT) systems meant it was not used in these general practices. <strong>Conclusions</strong> Adoption of the SCI-DC foot assessment tool in primary care is not perceived as clinically necessary. Although information recorded by specialist services on SCI-DC is helpful, important structural barriers to its implementation mean the potential benefits associated with its use are unlikely to be realised; greater engagement with primary care priorities for diabetes management is needed to assist its successful implementation and adoption

Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity

Objective. Health professionals must enable patients to make informed decisions about health care choices through unbiased presentation of all options. This study examined whether presenting the decision as "opportunity" rather than "choice" biased individuals' preferences in the context of trial participation for cancer treatment. Methods. Self-selecting healthy women (N = 124) were randomly assigned to the following decision frames: opportunity to take part in the trial (opt-in), opportunity to be removed from the trial (opt-out), and choice to have standard treatment or take part in the trial (choice). The computer-based task required women to make a hypothetical choice about a real-world cancer treatment trial. The software presented the framed scenario, recorded initial preference, presented comprehensive and balanced information, traced participants' use of information during decision making, and recorded final decision. A posttask paper questionnaire assessed perceived risk, attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and satisfaction with decision. Results. Framing influenced women's immediate preferences. Opportunity frames, whether opt-in or opt-out, introduced a bias as they discouraged women from choosing standard treatment. Using the choice frame avoided this bias. The opt-out opportunity frame also affected women's perceived social norm; women felt that others endorsed the trial option. The framing bias was not present once participants had had the opportunity to view detailed information on the options within a patient decision aid format. There were no group differences in information acquisition and final decisions. Sixteen percent changed their initial preference after receiving full information. Conclusions. A "choice" frame, where all treatment options are explicit, is less likely to bias preferences. Presentation of full information in parallel, option-by-attribute format is likely to "de-bias" the decision frame. Tailoring of information to initial preferences would be ill-advised as preferences may change following detailed information

Development and evaluation of a patient decision aid for young people and parents considering fixed orthodontic appliances

OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a child-centred patient decision aid for young people, and their parents, supporting shared decision making about fixed orthodontic appliance treatment with dental health professionals, namely the Fixed Appliance Decision Aid (FADA). METHODS: The studies were undertaken in a UK teaching dental hospital orthodontic department in 2013-2014. The development phase involved an interview study with: (a) 10 patients (12-16 years old), and their parents, receiving orthodontic care to investigate treatment decision making and inform the content of the FADA and (b) 23 stakeholders critiquing the draft decision aid's content, structure and utility. The evaluation phase employed a pre-/post-test study design, with 30 patients (12-16 years old) and 30 parents. Outcomes included the Decisional Conflict Scale; measures of orthodontic treatment expectations and knowledge. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified two informational needs: effectiveness of treatment on orthodontic outcomes and treatment consequences for patients' lives. Quantitative analysis found decisional conflict reduced in both patients (mean difference -12.3, SD 15.3, 95% CI 6.6-17.9; p < 0.001) and parents (mean difference - 8.6, SD 16.6, 95% CI 2.5-14.8; p = 0.002); knowledge about duration and frequency of orthodontic treatment increased; expectations about care were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Using the FADA may enable dental professionals to support patients and their parents, decisions about fixed appliance treatments more effectively, ensuring young people's preferences are integrated into care planning

Kidney disease pathways, options and decisions: an environmental scan of international patient decision aids

Background: Conservative management is recognized as an acceptable treatment for people with worsening chronic kidney disease; however, patients consistently report they lack understanding about their changing disease state and feel unsupported in making shared decisions about future treatment. The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate patient decision aids (PtDAs) developed to support patient–professional shared decision-making between dialysis and conservative management treatment pathways. Methods: We performed a systematic review of resources accessible in English using environmental scan methods. Data sources included online databases of research publications, repositories for clinical guidelines, research projects and PtDAs, international PtDA expert lists and reference lists from relevant publications. The resource selection was from 56 screened records; 17 PtDAs were included. A data extraction sheet was applied to all eligible resources, eliciting resource characteristics, decision architecture to boost/bias thinking, indicators of quality such as International Standards for Patient Decision Aids Standards checklist and engagement with health services. Results: PtDAs were developed in five countries; eleven were publically available via the Internet. Treatment options described were dialysis (n = 17), conservative management (n = 9) and transplant (n = 5). Eight resources signposted conservative management as an option rather than an active choice. Ten different labels across 14 resources were used to name ‘conservative management’. The readability of the resources was good. Six publications detail decision aid development and/or evaluation research. Using PtDAs improved treatment decision-making by patients. Only resources identified as PtDAs and available in English were included. Conclusions: PtDAs are used by some services to support patients choosing between dialysis options or end-of-life options. PtDAs developed to proactively support people making informed decisions between conservative management and dialysis treatments are likely to enable services to meet current best practice

Examining the attitudes and preferences of health care decision-makers in relation to access, equity and cost-effectiveness: a discrete choice experiment

To describe the views of health care decision-makers and providers operating in the UK National Health Service (NHS) concerning the concepts of cost-effectiveness, equity and access through a series of attitudinal questions; to evaluate the preferences of health care providers in relation to each of these concepts using a discrete choice experiment (DCE); to assess the impact of prior completion of an attitude questionnaire on preferences elicited through a DCE

Examining the attitudes and preferences of health care decision-makers in relation to access, equity and cost-effectiveness: A discrete choice experiment

Objectives To describe the views of health care decision-makers and providers operating in the UK National Health Service (NHS) concerning the concepts of cost-effectiveness, equity and access through a series of attitudinal questions; to evaluate the preferences of health care providers in relation to each of these concepts using a discrete choice experiment (DCE); to assess the impact of prior completion of an attitude questionnaire on preferences elicited through a DCE.Method Three versions of a DCE questionnaire were developed with and without a series of attitudinal questions and randomly distributed to 1456 health care decision-makers and providers. The questionnaire sought to elicit their preferences between the competing objectives of cost-effectiveness, equity and access within the context of different hypothetical, specialist treatment programmes for cardiovascular disease.Results The response rate was 26%. Female respondents exhibited a stronger preference than males for reducing health inequalities by targeting the worst off (Wald test, PDiscrete choice experiment Attitudes Equity Access Cost-effectiveness Health care decision-makers

Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review

Including narratives in health-care interventions is increasingly popular. However, narrative information may bias individual's decision making, resulting in patients making poorer decisions. This systematic review synthesises the evidence about the persuasiveness of narrative information on individuals' decision making. Seventeen studies met the review criteria; 41% of studies employed first person narration, 59% third person. Narrative information influenced decision making more than the provision of no additional information and/or statistically based information in approximately a third of the studies (5/17); studies employing first person narratives were twice as likely to find an effect. There was some evidence that narrative information encouraged the use of heuristic rather than systematic processing. However, there was little consistency in the methods employed and the narratives' content to provide evidence on why narratives affect the decision process and outcome, whether narratives facilitate or bias decision making, and/or whether narratives affect the quality of the decision being made. Until evidence is provided on why and how narratives influence decision making, the use of narratives in interventions to facilitate medical decision making should be treated cautiously.Narrative First person testimonial Persuasion Medical decision making Systematic review Decision aids Physicians Informed choice