Acceptance of a Polypill Approach to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease Among a Sample of U.S. Physicians

Objective—Toex amine US physicians’ self-reported knowledge about the Polypill, factors considered in deciding whether to prescribe it, and acceptance of prescribing it for cardiovascular disease (CVD)prevention. Methods—Numerical scales of 0 (lowest) to 5 (highest) were used to assess self-reported knowledge and importance of factors relevant to making a decision to prescribe a Polypill. Characteristics of physicians indicating they would prescribe a Polypill were compared. Results—Among 952 physicians surveyed February through March 2010, mean self-rated knowledge about the Polypill was 2.0±1.5. Importance of degree of CVD event reduction, cost, and side effects were rated with means of 4.4, 4.3, and 4.3, respectively. 83% of respondents indicated they would “definitely” or “probably” prescribe it for high-risk patients; 62% would do so for moderate risk patients. Physicians with self-rated knowledge at ≥75th percentile were more likely to indicate they would prescribe a Polypill for moderate risk ( adjusted OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.60–2.93) and high-risk (adjusted OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.07–2.32) patients. Conclusion—Among this sample of physicians, there is relatively high acceptance of prescribing a Polypill for CVD prevention despite relatively modest knowledge about it

A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of providing structured information about the benefits and harms of mammography in differing frames on women’s perceptions of screening. DESIGN: Randomized control trial. SETTING: General internal medicine academic practice. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-nine women aged 35 through 49. INTERVENTION: Women received 1 of 3 5-minute videos about the benefits and harms of screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49. These videos differed only in the way the probabilities of potential outcomes were framed (positive, neutral, or negative). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured the change in accurate responses to questions about potential benefits and harms of mammography, and the change in the proportion of participants who perceived that the benefits of mammography were more important than the harms. Before seeing the videos, women’s knowledge about the benefits and harms of mammography was inaccurate (82% responded incorrectly to all 3 knowledge questions). After seeing the videos, the proportion that answered correctly increased by 52%, 43%, and 30% for the 3 knowledge questions, respectively, but there were no differences between video frames. At baseline, most women thought the benefits of mammography outweighed the harms (79% positive frame, 80% neutral frame, and 85% negative frame). After the videos, these proportions were similar among the 3 groups (84%, 81%, 83%, P = .93). CONCLUSIONS: Women improved the accuracy of their responses to questions about the benefits and harms of mammography after seeing the videos, but this change was not affected by the framing of information. Women strongly perceived that the benefits of mammography outweighed the harms, and providing accurate information had no effect on these perceptions, regardless of how it was framed

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

Abstract 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

The Harms of Screening: A Proposed Taxonomy and Application to Lung Cancer Screening

IMPORTANCE Making rational decisions about screening requires information about its harms, but high-quality evidence is often either not available or not used. One reason may be that we lack a coherent framework, a taxonomy, for conceptualizing and studying these harms. OBJECTIVE To create a taxonomy, we categorized harms from several sources: systematic reviews of screening, other published literature, and informal discussions with clinicians and patients. We used this information to develop an initial taxonomy and vetted it with local and national experts, making revisions as needed. RESULTS We propose a taxonomy with 4 domains of harm from screening: physical effects, psychological effects, financial strain, and opportunity costs. Harms can occur at any step of the screening cascade. We provide definitions for each harm domain and illustrate the taxonomy using the example of screening for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The taxonomy provides a systematic way to conceptualize harms as experienced by patients. As shown in the lung cancer screening example, the taxonomy also makes clear where (which domains of harms and which parts of the screening cascade) we have useful information and where there are gaps in our knowledge. The taxonomy needs further testing and validation across a broad range of screening programs. We hope that further development of this taxonomy can improve our thinking about the harms of screening, thus informing our research, policy making, and decision making with patients about the wisdom of screening

Kappa statistic for clustered dichotomous responses from physicians and patients

The bootstrap method for estimating the standard error of the kappa statistic in the presence of clustered data is evaluated. Such data arise, for example, in assessing agreement between physicians and their patients regarding their understanding of the physician-patient interaction and discussions. We propose a computationally efficient procedure for generating correlated dichotomous responses for physicians and assigned patients for simulation studies. The simulation result demonstrates that the proposed bootstrap method produces better estimate of the standard error and better coverage performance compared to the asymptotic standard error estimate that ignores dependence among patients within physicians with at least a moderately large number of clusters. An example of an application to a coronary heart disease prevention study is presented

Quantifying the utility of taking pills for preventing adverse health outcomes: a cross-sectional survey

ObjectivesThe utility value attributed to taking pills for prevention can have a major effect on the cost-effectiveness of interventions, but few published studies have systematically quantified this value. We sought to quantify the utility value of taking pills used for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingCentral North Carolina.Participants708 healthcare employees aged 18 years and older.Primary and secondary outcomesUtility values for taking 1 pill/day, assessed using time trade-off, modified standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods.ResultsMean age of respondents was 43 years (19–74). The majority of the respondents were female (83%) and Caucasian (80%). Most (80%) took at least 2 pills/day. Mean utility values for taking 1 pill/day using the time trade-off method were: 0.9972 (95% CI 0.9962 to 0.9980). Values derived from the standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods were 0.9967 (0.9954 to 0.9979) and 0.9989 (95% CI 0.9986 to 0.9991), respectively. Utility values varied little across characteristics such as age, sex, race, education level or number of pills taken per day.ConclusionsThe utility value of taking pills daily in order to prevent an adverse CVD health outcome is approximately 0.997

Use of global coronary heart disease risk assessment in practice: a cross-sectional survey of a sample of U.S. physicians

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk assessment is recommended to guide primary preventive pharmacotherapy. However, little is known about physicians' understanding and use of global CHD risk assessment. Our objective was to examine US physicians' awareness, use, and attitudes regarding global CHD risk assessment in clinical practice, and how these vary by provider specialty.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a web-based survey of US family physicians, general internists, and cardiologists, we examined awareness of tools available to calculate CHD risk, method and use of CHD risk assessment, attitudes towards CHD risk assessment, and frequency of using CHD risk assessment to guide recommendations of aspirin, lipid-lowering and blood pressure (BP) lowering therapies for primary prevention. Characteristics of physicians indicating they use CHD risk assessments were compared in unadjusted and adjusted analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 952 physicians completed the questionnaire, with 92% reporting awareness of tools available to calculate CHD global risk. Among those aware of such tools, over 80% agreed that CHD risk calculation is useful, improves patient care, and leads to better decisions about recommending preventive therapies. However, only 41% use CHD risk assessment in practice. The most commonly reported barrier to CHD risk assessment is that it is too time consuming. Among respondents who calculate global CHD risk, 69% indicated they use it to guide lipid lowering therapy recommendations; 54% use it to guide aspirin therapy recommendations; and 48% use it to guide BP lowering therapy. Only 40% of respondents who use global CHD risk routinely tell patients their risk. Use of a personal digital assistant or smart phone was associated with reported use of CHD risk assessment (adjusted OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.17-2.12).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Reported awareness of tools to calculate global CHD risk appears high, but the majority of physicians in this sample do not use CHD risk assessments in practice. A minority of physicians in this sample use global CHD risk to guide prescription decisions or to motivate patients. Educational interventions and system improvements to improve physicians' effective use of global CHD risk assessment should be developed and tested.</p

Patient-physician agreement on the content of CHD prevention discussions: Patient-physician agreement on discussions

Little is known about agreement between patients and physicians on content and outcomes of clinical discussions. A common perception of content and outcomes may be desirable to optimize decision making and clinical care

Explanation and elaboration of the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines: examples of reporting SUNDAE items from patient decision aid evaluation literature

This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) article expands on the 26 items in the Standards for UNiversal reporting of Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines. The E&E provides a rationale for each item and includes examples for how each item has been reported in published papers evaluating patient decision aids. The Explanation and Elaboration focuses on items key to reporting studies evaluating patient decision aids and is intended to be illustrative rather than restrictive. Authors and reviewers may wish to use the Explanation and Elaboration broadly to inform structuring of patient decision aid evaluation reports, or use it as a reference to obtain details about how to report individual Checklist items

Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist

Background: Patient decision aids (PDAs) are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration review papers and Cochrane systematic review of PDAs have found significant gaps in the reporting of evaluations of PDAs, including poor or limited reporting of PDA content, development methods, and delivery. This study sought to develop and reach consensus on reporting guidelines to improve the quality of publications evaluating PDAs. Methods: An international workgroup, consisting of members from IPDAS Collaboration, followed established methods to develop reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies. This paper describes the results from three completed phases (1) Planning, (2) Drafting, and (3) Consensus, which included a modified, two stage, online international Delphi process. The work was conducted over two years with bi-monthly conference calls and three in-person meetings. The workgroup used input from these phases to produce a final set of recommended items in the form of a checklist. Results: The SUNDAE Checklist (Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations) includes 26 items recommended for studies reporting evaluations of PDAs. In the two-stage Delphi process, 117/143 (82%) experts from 14 countries completed round 1 and 96/117 (82%) completed round 2. Respondents reached a high level of consensus on the importance of the items and indicated strong willingness to use the items when reporting PDA studies. Conclusion: The SUNDAE Checklist will help ensure that reports of PDA evaluation studies are understandable, transparent, and of high quality. A separate Explanation and Elaboration publication provides additional details to support use of the Checklist