Discussing cost and value in patient decision aids and shared decision making: A call to action

Direct and indirect costs of care influence patients\u27 health choices and the ability to implement those choices. Despite the significant impact of care costs on patients\u27 health and daily lives, patient decision aid (PtDA) and shared decision-making (SDM) guidelines almost never mention a discussion of costs of treatment options as part of minimum standards or quality criteria. Given the growing study of the impact of costs in health decisions and the rising costs of care more broadly, in fall 2021 we organized a symposium at the Society for Medical Decision Making\u27s annual meeting. The focus was on the role of cost information in PtDAs and SDM. Panelists gave an overview of work in this space at this virtual meeting, and attendees engaged in rich discussion with the panelists about the state of the problem as well as ideas and challenges in incorporating cost-related issues into routine care. This article summarizes and extends our discussion based on the literature in this area and calls for action. We recommend that PtDA and SDM guidelines routinely include a discussion of direct and indirect care costs and that researchers measure the frequency, quality, and response to this information

Cost talk: Protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of an intervention helping patients and urologic surgeons discuss costs of care for slow-growing prostate cancer during shared decision-making

BACKGROUND: Costs of care are important to patients making cancer treatment decisions, but clinicians often do not feel prepared to discuss treatment costs. We aim to (1) assess the impact of a conversation-based decision aid (Option Grid) containing cost information about slow-growing prostate cancer management options, combined with urologic surgeon training, on the frequency and quality of patient-urologic surgeon cost conversations, and (2) examine the impact of the decision aid and surgeon training on decision quality. METHODS: We will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in outpatient urology practices affiliated with a large academic medical center in the USA. We will randomize five urologic surgeons to four intervention sequences and enroll their patients with a first-time diagnosis of slow-growing prostate cancer independently at each period. Primary outcomes include frequency of cost conversations, initiator of cost conversations, and whether or not a referral is made to address costs. These outcomes will be collected by patient report (post-visit survey) and by observation (audio-recorded clinic visits) with consent. Other outcomes include the following: patient-reported decisional conflict post-visit and at 3-month follow-up, decision regret at 3-month follow-up, shared decision-making post-visit, communication post-visit, and financial toxicity post-visit and at 3-month follow-up; clinician-reported attitudes about shared decision-making before and after the study, and feasibility of sustained intervention use. We will use hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient-level outcomes, including urologic surgeon as a random effect to account for clustering of patient participants. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates a two-part intervention to improve cost discussions between urologic surgeons and patients when deciding how to manage slow-growing prostate cancer. Establishing the effectiveness of the strategy under study will allow for its replication in other clinical decision contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397016 . Registered on 21 May 2020

Evaluating CollaboRATE in a Clinical Setting: Analysis of Mode Effects on Scores, Response Rates and Costs of Data Collection

Shared decision-making (SDM) has become a policy priority, yet its implementation is not routinely assessed. To address this gap we tested the delivery of CollaboRATE, a 3-item patient reported experience measure of SDM, via multiple survey modes.To assess CollaboRATE response rates and respondent characteristics across different modes of administration, impact of mode and patient characteristics on SDM performance and cost of administration per response in a real-world primary care practice.Observational study design, with repeated assessment of SDM performance using CollaboRATE in a primary care clinic over 15 months of data collection. Different modes of administration were introduced sequentially including paper, patient portal, interactive voice response (IVR) call, text message and tablet computer.Consecutive patients ≥18 years, or parents/guardians of patients \u3c18 years, visiting participating primary care clinicians.CollaboRATE assesses three core SDM tasks: (1) explanation about health issues, (2) elicitation of patient preferences and (3) integration of patient preferences into decisions. Responses to each item range from 0 (no effort was made) to 9 (every effort was made). CollaboRATE scores are calculated as the proportion of participants who report a score of nine on each of the three CollaboRATE questions.Scores were sensitive to mode effects: the paper mode had the highest average score (81%) and IVR had the lowest (61%). However, relative clinician performance rankings were stable across the different data collection modes used. Tablet computers administered by research staff had the highest response rate (41%), although this approach was costly. Clinic staff giving paper surveys to patients as they left the clinic had the lowest response rate (12%).CollaboRATE can be introduced using multiple modes of survey delivery while producing consistent clinician rankings. This may allow routine assessment and benchmarking of clinician and clinic SDM performance

Developing and Pilot Testing a Spanish Translation of CollaboRATE for Use in the United States

Background/Aim Given the need for access to patient-facing materials in multiple languages, this study aimed to develop and pilot test an accurate and understandable translation of CollaboRATE, a three-item patient-reported measure of shared decision-making, for Spanish-speaking patients in the United States (US). Method We followed the Translate, Review, Adjudicate, Pre-test, Document (TRAPD) survey translation protocol. Cognitive interviews were conducted with Spanish-speaking adults within an urban Massachusetts internal medicine clinic. For the pilot test, all patients with weekday appointments between May 1 and May 29, 2015 were invited to complete CollaboRATE in either English or Spanish upon exit. We calculated the proportion of respondents giving the best score possible on CollaboRATE and compared scores across key patient subgroups. Results: Four rounds of cognitive interviews with 26 people were completed between January and April 2015. Extensive, iterative refinements to survey items between interview rounds led to final items that were generally understood by participants with diverse educational backgrounds. Pilot data collection achieved an overall response rate of 73 percent, with 606 (49%) patients completing Spanish CollaboRATE questionnaires and 624 (51%) patients completing English CollaboRATE questionnaires. The proportion of respondents giving the best score possible on CollaboRATE was the same (86%) for both the English and Spanish versions of the instrument. Discussion Our translation method, guided by emerging best practices in survey and health measurement translation, encompassed multiple levels of review. By conducting four rounds of cognitive interviews with iterative item refinement between each round, we arrived at a Spanish language version of CollaboRATE that was understandable to a majority of cognitive interview participants and was completed by more than 600 pilot questionnaire respondents

Using CollaboRATE, a brief patient‐reported measure of shared decision making: Results from three clinical settings in the United States

Abstract Introduction: CollaboRATE is a brief patient survey focused on shared decision making. This paper aims to (i) provide insight on facilitators and challenges to implementing a real‐time patient survey and (ii) evaluate CollaboRATE scores and response rates across multiple clinical settings with varied patient populations. Method All adult patients at three United States primary care practices were eligible to complete CollaboRATE post‐visit. To inform key learnings, we aggregated all mentions of unanticipated decisions, problems and administration errors from field notes and email communications. Mixed‐effects logistic regression evaluated the impact of site, clinician, patient age and patient gender on the CollaboRATE score. Results: While CollaboRATE score increased only slightly with increasing patient age (OR 1.018, 95% CI 1.014‐1.021), female patient gender was associated with significantly higher CollaboRATE scores (OR 1.224, 95% CI 1.073‐1.397). Clinician also predicts CollaboRATE score (random effect variance 0.146). Site‐specific factors such as clinical workflow and checkout procedures play a key role in successful in‐clinic implementation and are significantly related to CollaboRATE scores, with Site 3 scoring significantly higher than Site 1 (OR 1.759, 95% CI 1.216 to 2.545) or Site 2 (z=−2.71, 95% CI −1.114 to −0.178). Discussion This study demonstrates that CollaboRATE can be used in diverse primary care settings. A clinic's workflow plays a crucial role in implementation. Patient experience measurement risks becoming a burden to both patients and administrators. Episodic use of short measurement tools could reduce this burden

Developing and Pilot Testing a Spanish Translation of CollaboRATE for Use in the United States

Background/Aim Given the need for access to patient-facing materials in multiple languages, this study aimed to develop and pilot test an accurate and understandable translation of CollaboRATE, a three-item patient-reported measure of shared decision-making, for Spanish-speaking patients in the United States (US). Method We followed the Translate, Review, Adjudicate, Pre-test, Document (TRAPD) survey translation protocol. Cognitive interviews were conducted with Spanish-speaking adults within an urban Massachusetts internal medicine clinic. For the pilot test, all patients with weekday appointments between May 1 and May 29, 2015 were invited to complete CollaboRATE in either English or Spanish upon exit. We calculated the proportion of respondents giving the best score possible on CollaboRATE and compared scores across key patient subgroups. Results Four rounds of cognitive interviews with 26 people were completed between January and April 2015. Extensive, iterative refinements to survey items between interview rounds led to final items that were generally understood by participants with diverse educational backgrounds. Pilot data collection achieved an overall response rate of 73 percent, with 606 (49%) patients completing Spanish CollaboRATE questionnaires and 624 (51%) patients completing English CollaboRATE questionnaires. The proportion of respondents giving the best score possible on CollaboRATE was the same (86%) for both the English and Spanish versions of the instrument. Discussion Our translation method, guided by emerging best practices in survey and health measurement translation, encompassed multiple levels of review. By conducting four rounds of cognitive interviews with iterative item refinement between each round, we arrived at a Spanish language version of CollaboRATE that was understandable to a majority of cognitive interview participants and was completed by more than 600 pilot questionnaire respondents

Measuring Patient-Reported Shared Decision-Making to Promote Performance Transparency and Value-Based Payment: Assessment of collaboRATE's Group-Level Reliability

Contains fulltext : 227437.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Cost talk: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of an intervention helping patients and urologic surgeons discuss costs of care for slow-growing prostate cancer during shared decision-making

Background: Costs of care are important to patients making cancer treatment decisions, but clinicians often do not feel prepared to discuss treatment costs. We aim to (1) assess the impact of a conversation-based decision aid (Option Grid) containing cost information about slow-growing prostate cancer management options, combined with urologic surgeon training, on the frequency and quality of patient-urologic surgeon cost conversations, and (2) examine the impact of the decision aid and surgeon training on decision quality. Methods: We will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in outpatient urology practices affiliated with a large academic medical center in the USA. We will randomize five urologic surgeons to four intervention sequences and enroll their patients with a first-time diagnosis of slow-growing prostate cancer independently at each period. Primary outcomes include frequency of cost conversations, initiator of cost conversations, and whether or not a referral is made to address costs. These outcomes will be collected by patient report (post-visit survey) and by observation (audio-recorded clinic visits) with consent. Other outcomes include the following: patient-reported decisional conflict post-visit and at 3-month follow-up, decision regret at 3-month follow-up, shared decision-making post-visit, communication post-visit, and financial toxicity post-visit and at 3-month follow-up; clinician-reported attitudes about shared decision-making before and after the study, and feasibility of sustained intervention use. We will use hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient-level outcomes, including urologic surgeon as a random effect to account for clustering of patient participants. Discussion: This study evaluates a two-part intervention to improve cost discussions between urologic surgeons and patients when deciding how to manage slow-growing prostate cancer. Establishing the effectiveness of the strategy under study will allow for its replication in other clinical decision contexts. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04397016. Registered on 21 May 202