Trends in Drug Utilization, Glycemic Control, and Rates of Severe Hypoglycemia, 2006-2013.

ObjectiveTo examine temporal trends in utilization of glucose-lowering medications, glycemic control, and rate of severe hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).Research design and methodsUsing claims data from 1.66 million privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients with T2DM from 2006 to 2013, we estimated the annual 1) age- and sex-standardized proportion of patients who filled each class of agents; 2) age-, sex-, race-, and region-standardized proportion with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) <6%, 6 to <7%, 7 to <8%, 8 to <9%, ≥9%; and 3) age- and sex-standardized rate of severe hypoglycemia among those using medications. Proportions were calculated overall and stratified by age-group (18-44, 45-64, 65-74, and ≥75 years) and number of chronic comorbidities (zero, one, and two or more).ResultsFrom 2006 to 2013, use increased for metformin (from 47.6 to 53.5%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (0.5 to 14.9%), and insulin (17.1 to 23.0%) but declined for sulfonylureas (38.8 to 30.8%) and thiazolidinediones (28.5 to 5.6%; all P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% declined (from 56.4 to 54.2%; P < 0.001) and with HbA1c ≥9% increased (9.9 to 12.2%; P < 0.001). Glycemic control varied by age and was poor among 23.3% of the youngest and 6.3% of the oldest patients in 2013. The overall rate of severe hypoglycemia remained the same (1.3 per 100 person-years; P = 0.72), declined modestly among the oldest patients (from 2.9 to 2.3; P < 0.001), and remained high among those with two or more comorbidities (3.2 to 3.5; P = 0.36).ConclusionsDuring the recent 8-year period, the use of glucose-lowering drugs has changed dramatically among patients with T2DM. Overall glycemic control has not improved and remains poor among nearly a quarter of the youngest patients. The overall rate of severe hypoglycemia remains largely unchanged

What is the effect of a decision aid in potentially vulnerable parents? Insights from the head CT choice randomized trial.

ObjectiveTo test the hypotheses that use of the Head CT Choice decision aid would be similarly effective in all parent/patient dyads but parents with high (vs low) numeracy experience a greater increase in knowledge while those with low (vs high) health literacy experience a greater increase in trust.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial conducted at seven sites. One hundred seventy-two clinicians caring for 971 children at intermediate risk for clinically important traumatic brain injuries were randomized to shared decision making facilitated by the DA (n = 493) or to usual care (n = 478). We assessed for subgroup effects based on patient and parent characteristics, including socioeconomic status (health literacy, numeracy and income). We tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site.ResultsThe decision aid did not increase knowledge more in parents with high numeracy (P for interaction [Pint ] = 0.14) or physician trust more in parents with low health literacy (Pint  = 0.34). The decision aid decreased decisional conflict more in non-white parents (decisional conflict scale, -8.14, 95% CI: -12.33 to -3.95; Pint  = 0.05) and increased physician trust more in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents (trust in physician scale, OR: 8.59, 95% CI: 2.35-14.83; Pint  = 0.04).ConclusionsUse of the Head CT Choice decision aid resulted in less decisional conflict in non-white parents and greater physician trust in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents. Decision aids may be particularly effective in potentially vulnerable parents

Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of shared decision making with usual care in choice of admission for observation and further cardiac testing or for referral for outpatient evaluation in patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN: Multicenter pragmatic parallel randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Six emergency departments in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 898 adults (aged \u3e17 years) with a primary complaint of chest pain who were being considered for admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing (451 were allocated to the decision aid and 447 to usual care), and 361 emergency clinicians (emergency physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) caring for patients with chest pain. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic, web based system to shared decision making facilitated by a decision aid or to usual care. The primary outcome, selected by patient and caregiver advisers, was patient knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care; secondary outcomes were involvement in the decision to be admitted, proportion of patients admitted for cardiac testing, and the 30 day rate of major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS: Compared with the usual care arm, patients in the decision aid arm had greater knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care (questions correct: decision aid, 4.2 v usual care, 3.6; mean difference 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.86), were more involved in the decision (observing patient involvement scores: decision aid, 18.3 v usual care, 7.9; 10.3, 9.1 to 11.5), and less frequently decided with their clinician to be admitted for cardiac testing (decision aid, 37% v usual care, 52%; absolute difference 15%; P CONCLUSIONS: Use of a decision aid in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome increased patient knowledge about their risk, increased engagement, and safely decreased the rate of admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01969240

The Effect of How Outcomes Are Framed on Decisions about Whether to Take Antihypertensive Medication: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND: We conducted an Internet-based randomized trial comparing three valence framing presentations of the benefits of antihypertensive medication in preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) for people with newly diagnosed hypertension to determine which framing presentation resulted in choices most consistent with participants' values. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this second in a series of televised trials in cooperation with the Norwegian Broadcasting Company, adult volunteers rated the relative importance of the consequences of taking antihypertensive medication using visual analogue scales (VAS). Participants viewed information (or no information) to which they were randomized and decided whether or not to take medication. We compared positive framing over 10 years (the number escaping CVD per 1000); negative framing over 10 years (the number that will have CVD) and negative framing per year over 10 years of the effects of antihypertensive medication on the 10-year risk for CVD for a 40 year-old man with newly diagnosed hypertension without other risk factors. Finally, all participants were shown all presentations and detailed patient information about hypertension and were asked to decide again. We calculated a relative importance score (RIS) by subtracting the VAS-scores for the undesirable consequences of antihypertensive medication from the VAS-score for the benefit of CVD risk reduction. We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' RIS and their choice. 1,528 participants completed the study. The statistically significant differences between the groups in the likelihood of choosing to take antihypertensive medication in relation to different values (RIS) increased as the RIS increased. Positively framed information lead to decisions most consistent with those made by everyone for the second, more fully informed decision. There was a statistically significant decrease in deciding to take antihypertensives on the second decision, both within groups and overall. CONCLUSIONS: For decisions about taking antihypertensive medication for people with a relatively low baseline risk of CVD (70 per 1000 over 10 years), both positive and negative framing resulted in significantly more people deciding to take medication compared to what participants decided after being shown all three of the presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN 33771631

Signalling hostility: The relationship between witnessing weight-based discrimination in medical school and medical student wellbeing

Environments that are hostile to one or more marginalised groups are known to have a negative effect on the mental health and wellbeing of both targets and observers. Anti-fat attitudes have been well documented in medical education, including the use of derogatory humour and discriminatory treatment towards higher-weight patients. However, to date, it is not known what effect observing weight stigma and discrimination during medical school has on medical students’ psychological health and wellbeing, sense of belonging, and medical school burnout. The present study surveyed a total of 3,994 students enrolled across 49 US medical schools at the start of their first year and at the end of their fourth year. Participants reported the frequency with which they had observed stigmatising and discriminatory behaviours targeted at both higher-weight patients and higher-weight students during their four years of medical school. Observed weight stigma was prevalent, and was associated with worse psychological and general health, reduced medical school belonging and increased medical school burnout. The indirect effects of observed weight stigma on medical school burnout, via belonging, psychological health, and general health, were statistically significant in the sample as a whole, but were more pronounced in higher-weight students. This effect may be explained, in part, by the relationship between observed stigma and medical school belonging. Higher levels of observed stigma were associated with reduced feelings of belonging in higher-weight but not normative-weight students. Top-down institutional culture change is needed to rectify this situation, which is detrimental to both students and patients

Effectiveness of the Chest Pain Choice decision aid in emergency department patients with low-risk chest pain: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is the second most common reason patients visit emergency departments (EDs) and often results in very low-risk patients being admitted for prolonged observation and advanced cardiac testing. Shared decision-making, including educating patients regarding their 45-day risk for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and management options, might safely decrease healthcare utilization. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a protocol for a multicenter practical patient-level randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving a decision aid, Chest Pain Choice (CPC), to a control group receiving usual care. Adults presenting to five geographically and ethnically diverse EDs who are being considered for admission for observation and advanced cardiac testing will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of CPC on (1) patient knowledge regarding their 45-day risk for ACS and the available management options (primary outcome); (2) patient engagement in the decision-making process; (3) the degree of conflict patients experience related to feeling uninformed (decisional conflict); (4) patient and clinician satisfaction with the decision made; (5) the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (6) the proportion of patients admitted for advanced cardiac testing; and (7) healthcare utilization. To assess these outcomes, we will administer patient and clinician surveys immediately after each clinical encounter, obtain video recordings of the patient-clinician discussion, administer a patient healthcare utilization diary, analyze hospital billing records, review the electronic medical record, and conduct telephone follow-up. DISCUSSION: This multicenter trial will robustly assess the effectiveness of a decision aid on patient-centered outcomes, safety, and healthcare utilization in low-risk chest pain patients from a variety of geographically and ethnically diverse EDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01969240

Learning implementation of a guideline based decision support system to improve hypertension treatment in primary care in China: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) in improving the use of guideline accordant antihypertensive treatment in primary care settings in China. Design: Pragmatic, open label, cluster randomised trial. Setting: 94 primary care practices in four urban regions of China between August 2019 and July 2022: Luoyang (central China), Jining (east China), and Shenzhen (south China, including two regions). Participants: 94 practices were randomised (46 to CDSS, 48 to usual care). 12 137 participants with hypertension who used up to two classes of antihypertensives and had a systolic blood pressure <180 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <110 mm Hg were included. Interventions: Primary care practices were randomised to use an electronic health record based CDSS, which recommended a specific guideline accordant regimen for initiation, titration, or switching of antihypertensive (the intervention), or to use the same electronic health record without CDSS and provide treatment as usual (control). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of hypertension related visits during which an appropriate (guideline accordant) treatment was provided. Secondary outcomes were the average reduction in systolic blood pressure and proportion of participants with controlled blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg) at the last scheduled follow-up. Safety outcomes were patient reported antihypertensive treatment related events, including syncope, injurious fall, symptomatic hypotension or systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, and bradycardia. Results: 5755 participants with 23 113 visits in the intervention group and 6382 participants with 27 868 visits in the control group were included. Mean age was 61 (standard deviation 13) years and 42.5% were women. During a median 11.6 months of follow-up, the proportion of visits at which appropriate treatment was given was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (77.8% (17 975/23 113) v 62.2% (17 328/27 868); absolute difference 15.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval (CI) 10.7 to 19.8); P<0.001; odds ratio 2.17 (95% CI 1.75 to 2.69); P<0.001). Compared with participants in the control group, those in the intervention group had a 1.6 mm Hg (95% CI −2.7 to −0.5) greater reduction in systolic blood pressure (−1.5 mm Hg v 0.3 mm Hg; P=0.006) and a 4.4 percentage point (95% CI −0.7 to 9.5) improvement in blood pressure control rate (69.0% (3415/4952) v 64.6% (3778/5845); P=0.07). Patient reported antihypertensive treatment related adverse effects were rare in both groups. Conclusions: Use of a CDSS in primary care in China improved the provision of guideline accordant antihypertensive treatment and led to a modest reduction in blood pressure. The CDSS offers a promising approach to delivering better care for hypertension, both safely and efficiently. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03636334

Effectiveness of the head CT choice decision aid in parents of children with minor head trauma: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial

Background: Blunt head trauma is a common cause of death and disability in children worldwide. Cranial computed tomography (CT), the reference standard for the diagnosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI), exposes children to ionizing radiation which has been linked to the development of brain tumors, leukemia, and other cancers. We describe the methods used to develop and test the effectiveness of a decision aid to facilitate shared decision-making with parents regarding whether to obtain a head CT scan or to further observe their child at home. Methods/Design: This is a protocol for a multicenter clinician-level parallel randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving a decision aid, ‘Head CT Choice’, to a control group receiving usual care. The trial will be conducted at five diverse emergency departments (EDs) in Minnesota and California. Clinicians will be randomized to decision aid or usual care. Parents visiting the ED with children who are less than 18-years-old, have experienced blunt head trauma within 24 hours, and have one or two risk factors for clinically-important TBI (ciTBI) from the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network head injury clinical prediction rules will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of Head CT Choice on: (1) parent knowledge regarding their child’s risk of ciTBI, the available diagnostic options, and the risks of radiation exposure associated with a cranial CT scan (primary outcome); (2) parent engagement in the decision-making process; (3) the degree of conflict parents experience related to feeling uninformed; (4) patient and clinician satisfaction with the decision made; (5) the rate of ciTBI at seven days; (6) the proportion of patients in whom a cranial CT scan is obtained; and (7) seven-day healthcare utilization. To capture these outcomes, we will administer parent and clinician surveys immediately after each clinical encounter, obtain video recordings of parent-clinician discussions, administer parent healthcare utilization diaries, analyze hospital billing records, review the electronic medical record, and conduct telephone follow-up. Discussion: This multicenter trial will robustly assess the effectiveness of a decision aid on patient-centered outcomes, safety, and healthcare utilization in parents of children with minor head trauma in five diverse EDs. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT02063087. Registration date February 13, 2014