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

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

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

Different Measures, Different Outcomes? A Systematic Review of Performance-Based versus Self-Reported Measures of Health Literacy and Numeracy

BACKGROUND Health literacy (HL) and numeracy are measured by one of two methods: performance on objective tests or self-report of one’s skills. Whether results from these methods differ in their relationship to health outcomes or use of health services is unknown. METHODS We performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate articles that measured both performance-based and self-reported HL or numeracy and examined their relationship to health outcomes or health service use. To identify studies, we started with an AHRQ-funded systematic review of HL and health outcomes. We then looked for newer studies by searching MEDLINE from 1 February 2010 to 9 December 2014. We included English language studies meeting pre-specified criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts and studies for inclusion and graded study quality. One reviewer abstracted information from included studies while a second checked content for accuracy. RESULTS We identified four “fair” quality studies that met inclusion criteria for our review. Two studies measuring HL found no differences between performance-based and self-reported HL for association with self-reported outcomes (including diabetes, stroke, hypertension) or a physician-completed rheumatoid arthritis disease activity score. However, HL measures were differentially related to a patient-completed health assessment questionnaire and to a patient’s ability to interpret their prescription medication name and dose from a medication bottle. Only one study measured numeracy and found no difference between performance-based and self-reported measures of numeracy and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization. However, in a moderator analysis from the same study, performance-based and self-reported numeracy were differentially related to CRC screening utilization when stratified by certain patient–provider communication behaviors (e.g., the chance to always ask questions and get the support that is needed). DISCUSSION Most studies found no difference in the relationship between results of performance-based and self-reported measures and outcomes. However, we identified few studies using multiple instruments and/or objective outcomes

Effect of Adding a Values Clarification Exercise to a Decision Aid on Heart Disease Prevention: A Randomized Trial

Experts have called for the inclusion of values clarification (VC) exercises in decision aids (DA) as a means of improving their effectiveness, but little research has examined the effects of such exercises

Tables or Bar Graphs? Presenting Test Results in Electronic Medical Records

Electronic personal health records offer a promising way to communicate medical test results to patients. We compared the usability of tables and horizontal bar graphs for presenting medical test results electronically

Adult Patients’ Perspectives on the Benefits and Harms of Overused Screening Tests: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a growing interest in reducing the overuse of healthcare services. However, little is known about how patients conceptualize the benefits and harms of overused screening tests or how patients make decisions regarding these tests. OBJECTIVE: To determine how patients think about the harms and benefits of overused screening tests and how they consider these and other factors when making decisions. DESIGN: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 50 patients, ages 50-84, who had previously received or not received any of four overused screening services: 1) prostate cancer screening (men ages 50-69), 2) colon cancer screening (men and women ages 76-85), 3) osteoporosis screening (low-risk women ages 50-64), or 4) cardiovascular disease screening (low-risk men and women ages 50-85). APPROACH: We conducted a thematic analysis, using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. Two independent coders analyzed interview transcriptions to identify themes and exemplifying quotes. KEY RESULTS: Many patients could not name a harm of screening. When they did name harms, patients often focused on only the harms of the screening test itself and rarely mentioned harms further along the screening cascade (e.g., from follow-up testing and treatment). In contrast, patients could easily name benefits of screening, although many seemed to misunderstand or overestimate the magnitude of the benefits. Furthermore, patients described many additional factors they considered when making screening decisions, including their clinicians' recommendations, their age, family or friends' experiences with disease, and insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need to help adults recognize and understand the benefits and harms of screening and make appropriate decisions about overused screening tests

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

Individuals’ responses to global CHD risk: A focus group study

To explore how individuals respond to global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk and use it in combination with treatment information to make decisions to initiate and maintain risk reducing strategies