The impact of a decision aid about heart disease prevention on patients' discussions with their doctor and their plans for prevention: a pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Low utilization of effective coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention strategies may be due to many factors, but chief among them is the lack of patient involvement in prevention decisions. We undertook this study to test the effectiveness of an individually-tailored, computerized decision aid about CHD on patients' discussions with their doctor and their plans for CHD prevention. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized trial in a convenience sample of adults with no previous history of cardiovascular disease to test the effectiveness of an individually-tailored, computerized decision aid about CHD prevention against a risk factor list that patients could present to their doctor. RESULTS: We enrolled 75 adults. Mean age was 53. 59% were female, 73% white, and 23% African-American. 66% had some college education. 43% had a 10-year CHD risk of 0–5%, 25% a risk of 6–10%, 24% a risk of 11–20%, and 5% a risk of > 20%. 78% had at least one option to reduce their CHD risk, but only 45% accurately identified the strategies best supported by evidence. 41 patients received the decision aid, 34 received usual care. In unadjusted analysis, the decision aid increased the proportion of patients who discussed CHD risk reduction with their doctor from 24% to 40% (absolute difference 16%; 95% CI -4% to +37%) and increased the proportion who had a specific plan to reduce their risk from 24% to 37% (absolute difference 13%; 95% CI -7% to +34%). In pre-post testing, the decision aid also appeared to increase the proportion of patients with plans to intervene on their CHD risk (absolute increase ranging from 21% to 47% for planned medication use and 5% to 16% for planned behavioral interventions). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms patients' limited knowledge about their CHD risk and effective risk reduction options and provides preliminary evidence that an individually-tailored decision aid about CHD prevention might be expected to increase patients' discussions about CHD prevention with their doctor and their plans for CHD risk reduction. These findings should be replicated in studies with a larger sample size and patients at overall higher risk of CHD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0031597

Should a colon cancer screening decision aid include the option of no testing? A comparative trial of two decision aids

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An important question in the development of decision aids about colon cancer (CRC) screening is whether to include an explicit discussion of the option of not being screened. We examined the effect of including or not including an explicit discussion of the option of deciding not to be screened in a CRC screening decision aid on subjective measures of decision aid content; interest in screening; and knowledge.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Adults ages 50–85 were assigned to view one of two versions of the decision aid. The two versions differed only in the inclusion of video segments of two men, one of whom decided against being screened. Participants completed questionnaires before and after viewing the decision aid to compare subjective measures of content, screening interest and intent, and knowledge between groups. Likert response categories (5-point) were used for subjective measures of content (eg. clarity, balance in favor/against screening, and overall rating), and screening interest. Knowledge was measured with a three item index and individual questions. Higher scores indicated favorable responses for subjective measures, greater interest, and better knowledge. For the subjective balance, lower numbers were associated with the impression of the decision aid favoring CRC screening.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>57 viewed the "with" version which included the two segments and 49 viewed the "without" version. After viewing, participants found the "without" version to have better subjective clarity about benefits of screening ("with" 3.4, "without" 4.1, <it>p </it>< 0.01), and to have greater clarity about downsides of screening ("with" 3.2, "without" 3.6, <it>p </it>= 0.03). The "with" version was considered to be less strongly balanced in favor of screening. ("with" 1.8, "without" 1.6, <it>p </it>= 0.05); but the "without" version received a better overall rating ("with" 3.5, "without" 3.8, <it>p </it>= 0.03). Groups did not differ in screening interest after viewing a decision aid or knowledge.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A decision aid with the explicit discussion of the option of deciding not to be screened appears to increase the impression that the program was not as strongly in favor of screening, but decreases the impression of clarity and resulted in a lower overall rating. We did not observe clinically important or statistically significant differences in interest in screening or knowledge.</p

Development and initial testing of a computer-based patient decision aid to promote colorectal cancer screening for primary care practice

BACKGROUND: Although colorectal cancer screening is recommended by major policy-making organizations, rates of screening remain low. Our aim was to develop a patient-directed, computer-based decision aid about colorectal cancer screening and investigate whether it could increase patient interest in screening. METHODS: We used content from evidence-based literature reviews and our previous decision aid research to develop a prototype. We performed two rounds of usability testing with representative patients to revise the content and format. The final decision aid consisted of an introductory segment, four test-specific segments, and information to allow comparison of the tests across several key parameters. We then conducted a before-after uncontrolled trial of 80 patients 50–75 years old recruited from an academic internal medicine practice. RESULTS: Mean viewing time was 19 minutes. The decision aid improved patients' intent to ask providers for screening from a mean score of 2.8 (1 = not at all likely to ask, 4 = very likely to ask) before viewing the decision aid to 3.2 afterwards (difference, 0.4; p < 0.0001, paired t-test). Most found the aid useful and reported that it improved their knowledge about screening. Sixty percent said they were ready to be tested, 18% needed more information, and 22% were not ready to be screened. Within 6 months of viewing, 43% of patients had completed screening tests. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a computer-based decision aid can increase patient intent to be screened and increase interest in screening. Practice Implications: This decision aid can be viewed by patients prior to provider appointments to increase motivation to be screened and to help them decide about which modality to use for screening. Further work is required to integrate the decision aid with other practice change strategies to raise screening rates to target levels

A targeted decision aid for the elderly to decide whether to undergo colorectal cancer screening: development and results of an uncontrolled trial

Abstract: Background: Competing causes of mortality in the elderly decrease the potential net benefit from colorectal cancer screening and increase the likelihood of potential harms. Individualized decision making has been recommended, so that the elderly can decide whether or not to undergo colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The objective is to develop and test a decision aid designed to promote individualized colorectal cancer screening decision making for adults age 75 and over. Methods: We used formative research and cognitive testing to develop and refine the decision aid. We then tested the decision aid in an uncontrolled trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were prepared to make an individualized decision, defined a priori as having adequate knowledge (10/15 questions correct) and clear values (25 or less on values clarity subscale of decisional conflict scale). Secondary outcomes included overall score on the decisional conflict scale, and preferences for undergoing screening. Results: We enrolled 46 adults in the trial. The decision aid increased the proportion of participants with adequate knowledge from 4% to 52% (p < 0.01) and the proportion prepared to make an individualized decision from 4% to 41% (p < 0.01). The proportion that preferred to undergo CRC screening decreased from 67% to 61% (p = 0. 76); 7 participants (15%) changed screening preference (5 against screening, 2 in favor of screening) Conclusion: In an uncontrolled trial, the elderly participants appeared better prepared to make an individualized decision about whether or not to undergo CRC screening after using the decision aid

A randomized trial of an intervention to improve use and adherence to effective coronary heart disease prevention strategies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Efficacious strategies for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) are underused, and, when used, have low adherence. Existing efforts to improve use and adherence to these efficacious strategies have been so intensive that they are impractical for clinical practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a randomized trial of a CHD prevention intervention (including a computerized decision aid and automated tailored adherence messages) at one university general internal medicine practice. After obtaining informed consent and collecting baseline data, we randomized patients (men and women age 40-79 with no prior history of cardiovascular disease) to either the intervention or usual care. We then saw them for two additional study visits over 3 months. For intervention participants, we administered the decision aid at the primary study visit (1 week after baseline visit) and then mailed 3 tailored adherence reminders at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. We assessed our outcomes (including the predicted likelihood of angina, myocardial infarction, and CHD death over 10 years (CHD risk) and self-reported adherence) between groups at 3 month follow-up. Data collection occurred from June 2007 through December 2009. All study procedures were IRB approved.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We randomized 160 eligible patients (81 intervention; 79 control) and followed 96% to study conclusion. Mean predicted CHD risk at baseline was 11.3%. The intervention increased self-reported adherence to chosen risk reducing strategies by 25 percentage points (95% CI 8% to 42%), with the biggest effect for aspirin. It also changed predicted CHD risk by -1.1% (95% CI -0.16% to -2%), with a larger effect in a pre-specified subgroup of high risk patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A computerized intervention that involves patients in CHD decision making and supports adherence to effective prevention strategies can improve adherence and reduce predicted CHD risk.</p> <p>Clinical trials registration number</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00494052">NCT00494052</a></p

The impact of healthcare costs in the last year of life and in all life years gained on the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening

It is under debate whether healthcare costs related to death and in life years gained (LysG) due to life saving interventions should be included in economic evaluations. We estimated the impact of including these costs on cost-effectiveness of cancer screening. We obtained health insurance, home care, nursing homes, and mortality data for 2.1 million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1998–1999. Costs related to death were approximated by the healthcare costs in the last year of life (LastYL), by cause and age of death. Costs in LYsG were estimated by calculating the healthcare costs in any life year. We calculated the change in cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) if unrelated healthcare costs in the LastYL or in LYsG would be included. Costs in the LastYL were on average 33% higher for persons dying from cancer than from any cause. Including costs in LysG increased the CER by €4040 in women, and by €4100 in men. Of these, €660 in women, and €890 in men, were costs in the LastYL. Including unrelated healthcare costs in the LastYL or in LYsG will change the comparative cost-effectiveness of healthcare programmes. The CERs of cancer screening programmes will clearly increase, with approximately €4000. However, because of the favourable CER's, including unrelated healthcare costs will in general have limited policy implications

A primary care, multi-disciplinary disease management program for opioid-treated patients with chronic non-cancer pain and a high burden of psychiatric comorbidity

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain is a common problem that is often accompanied by psychiatric comorbidity and disability. The effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary pain management program was tested in a 3 month before and after trial. METHODS: Providers in an academic general medicine clinic referred patients with chronic non-cancer pain for participation in a program that combined the skills of internists, clinical pharmacists, and a psychiatrist. Patients were either receiving opioids or being considered for opioid therapy. The intervention consisted of structured clinical assessments, monthly follow-up, pain contracts, medication titration, and psychiatric consultation. Pain, mood, and function were assessed at baseline and 3 months using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale scale (CESD) and the Pain Disability Index (PDI). Patients were monitored for substance misuse. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled. Mean age was 51 years, 60% were male, 78% were Caucasian, and 93% were receiving opioids. Baseline average pain was 6.5 on an 11 point scale. The average CESD score was 24.0, and the mean PDI score was 47.0. Sixty-three patients (73%) completed 3 month follow-up. Fifteen withdrew from the program after identification of substance misuse. Among those completing 3 month follow-up, the average pain score improved to 5.5 (p = 0.003). The mean PDI score improved to 39.3 (p < 0.001). Mean CESD score was reduced to 18.0 (p < 0.001), and the proportion of depressed patients fell from 79% to 54% (p = 0.003). Substance misuse was identified in 27 patients (32%). CONCLUSIONS: A primary care disease management program improved pain, depression, and disability scores over three months in a cohort of opioid-treated patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Substance misuse and depression were common, and many patients who had substance misuse identified left the program when they were no longer prescribed opioids. Effective care of patients with chronic pain should include rigorous assessment and treatment of these comorbid disorders and intensive efforts to insure follow up

Can Broader Diffusion of Value-Based Insurance Design Increase Benefits from US Health Care without Increasing Costs? Evidence from a Computer Simulation Model

Using a computer simulation based on US data, R. Scott Braithwaite and colleagues calculate the benefits of value-based insurance design, in which patients pay less for highly cost-effective services

Short and long term effects of a lifestyle intervention for construction workers at risk for cardiovascular disease: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The prevalence of overweight and elevated cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk among workers in the construction industry is relatively high. Improving lifestyle lowers CVD risk and may have work-related benefits. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects on physical activity (PA), diet, and smoking of a lifestyle intervention consisting of individual counseling among male workers in the construction industry with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a randomized controlled trial including 816 male blue- and white-collar workers in the construction industry with an elevated risk of CVD, usual care was compared to a 6-month lifestyle intervention. The intervention consisted of individual counseling using motivational interviewing techniques, and was delivered by an occupational physician or occupational nurse. In three face to face and four telephone contacts, the participant's risk profile, personal determinants, and barriers for behavior change were discussed, and personal goals were set. Participants chose to aim at either diet and PA, or smoking. Data were collected at baseline and after six and 12 months, by means of a questionnaire. To analyse the data, linear and logistic regression analyses were performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The intervention had a statistically significant beneficial effect on snack intake (β-1.9, 95%CI -3.7; -0.02) and fruit intake (β 1.7, 95%CI 0.6; 2.9) at 6 months. The effect on snack intake was sustained until 12 months; 6 months after the intervention had ended (β -1.9, 95%CI -3.6; -0.2). The intervention effects on leisure time PA and metabolic equivalent-minutes were not statistically significant. The beneficial effect on smoking was statistically significant at 6 (OR smoking 0.3, 95%CI 0.1;0.7), but not at 12 months (OR 0.8, 95%CI 0.4; 1.6).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Beneficial effects on smoking, fruit, and snack intake can be achieved by an individual-based lifestyle intervention among male construction workers with an elevated risk of CVD. Future research should be done on strategies to improve leisure time PA and on determinants of maintenance of changed behavior. Considering the rising prevalence of unhealthy lifestyle and CVD, especially in the aging population, implementation of this intervention in the occupational health care setting is recommended.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN60545588">ISRCTN60545588</a></p