The Mammography Screening Controversy: Who and what is heard in the press?

The objective of this project was to analyze newspaper coverage of the January 2000 meta-analysis by Gotzsche and Olsen, “Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justified?” [Lancet 355 (2000) 129]. A content analysis was performed on a comprehensive set of newspaper clippings from the UK during the 2 weeks following publication of the Lancet article. The original authors were most quoted in Wave 1 (the first weekend); the screening programme was most quoted in Wave 2 (week 2). Screening programme description, and the “quality” of the Lancet article dominated Wave 1; patient testimonials increased in Wave 2. Newspaper articles were structured as debates between experts and advocates, thereby enhancing polarisation of opinion. We suggest this is counter-productive to evidence-based patient choice and public involvement in decision-making. Medical journals’ and charities’ press releases that begin to include discussion of uncertainty inherent in medical technologies can contribute to evidence-based public deliberation

Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids

MethodsWe reviewed literature for evidence relevant to these two aims. When high-quality systematic reviews existed, we summarized their evidence. When reviews were unavailable, we conducted our own systematic reviews.ResultsAim 1: In an existing systematic review of PtDA trials, lower health literacy was associated with lower patient health knowledge (14 of 16 eligible studies). Fourteen studies reported practical design strategies to improve knowledge for lower health literacy patients. In our own systematic review, no studies reported on values clarity per se, but in 2 lower health literacy was related to higher decisional uncertainty and regret. Lower health literacy was associated with less desire for involvement in 3 studies, less question-asking in 2, and less patient-centered communication in 4 studies; its effects on other measures of patient involvement were mixed. Only one study assessed the effects of a health literacy intervention on outcomes; it showed that using video to improve the salience of health states reduced decisional uncertainty. Aim 2: In our review of 97 trials, only 3 PtDAs overtly addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. In 90% of trials, user health literacy and readability of the PtDA were not reported. However, increases in knowledge and informed choice were reported in those studies in which health literacy needs were addressed.ConclusionLower health literacy affects key decision-making outcomes, but few existing PtDAs have addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. The specific effects of PtDAs designed to mitigate the influence of low health literacy are unknown. More attention to the needs of patients with lower health literacy is indicated, to ensure that PtDAs are appropriate for lower as well as higher health literacy patients

Decision aid use during post-biopsy consultations for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Decision Aids (DAs) effectively translate medical evidence for patients but are not routinely used in clinical practice. Little is known about how DAs are used during patient-clinician encounters. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the content and communicative function of high-quality DAs during diagnostic clinic visits for prostate cancer. PARTICIPANTS: 252 men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had received a DA, 45 treating physicians at 4 US Veterans Administration urology clinics. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of transcribed audio recordings was used to inductively develop categories capturing content and function of all direct references to DAs (booklet talk). The presence or absence of any booklet talk per transcript was also calculated. RESULTS: Booklet talk occurred in 55% of transcripts. Content focused on surgical procedures (36%); treatment choice (22%); and clarifying risk classification (17%). The most common function of booklet talk was patient corroboration of physicians\u27 explanations (42%), followed by either physician or patient acknowledgement that the patient had the booklet. Codes reflected the absence of DA use for shared decision-making. In regression analysis, predictors of booklet talk were fewer years of patient education (P = .027) and more time in the encounter (P = .027). Patient race, DA type, time reading the DA, physician informing quality and physician age did not predict booklet talk. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that good decision aids, systematically provided to patients, appeared to function not to open up deliberations about how to balance benefits and harms of competing treatments, but rather to allow patients to ask narrow technical questions about recommended treatments

Decision aid use during postâ biopsy consultations for localized prostate cancer

BackgroundDecision Aids (DAs) effectively translate medical evidence for patients but are not routinely used in clinical practice. Little is known about how DAs are used during patientâ clinician encounters.ObjectiveTo characterize the content and communicative function of highâ quality DAs during diagnostic clinic visits for prostate cancer.Participants252 men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had received a DA, 45 treating physicians at 4 US Veterans Administration urology clinics.MethodsQualitative analysis of transcribed audio recordings was used to inductively develop categories capturing content and function of all direct references to DAs (booklet talk). The presence or absence of any booklet talk per transcript was also calculated.ResultsBooklet talk occurred in 55% of transcripts. Content focused on surgical procedures (36%); treatment choice (22%); and clarifying risk classification (17%). The most common function of booklet talk was patient corroboration of physiciansâ explanations (42%), followed by either physician or patient acknowledgement that the patient had the booklet. Codes reflected the absence of DA use for shared decisionâ making. In regression analysis, predictors of booklet talk were fewer years of patient education (P = .027) and more time in the encounter (P = .027). Patient race, DA type, time reading the DA, physician informing quality and physician age did not predict booklet talk.ConclusionsResults show that good decision aids, systematically provided to patients, appeared to function not to open up deliberations about how to balance benefits and harms of competing treatments, but rather to allow patients to ask narrow technical questions about recommended treatments.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141531/1/hex12613_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141531/2/hex12613.pd

Treatment decision-making and the form of risk communication: results of a factorial survey

BACKGROUND: Prospective users of preventive therapies often must evaluate complex information about therapeutic risks and benefits. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of relative and absolute risk information on patient decision-making in scenarios typical of health information for patients. METHODS: Factorial experiments within a telephone survey of the Michigan adult, non-institutionalized, English-speaking population. Average interview lasted 23 minutes. Subjects and sample design: 952 randomly selected adults within a random-digit dial sample of Michigan households. Completion rate was 54.3%. RESULTS: When presented hypothetical information regarding additional risks of breast cancer from a medication to prevent a bone disease, respondents reduced their willingness to recommend a female friend take the medication compared to the baseline rate (66.8% = yes). The decrease was significantly greater with relative risk information. Additional benefit information regarding preventing heart disease from the medication increased willingness to recommend the medication to a female friend relative to the baseline scenario, but did not differ between absolute and relative risk formats. When information about both increased risk of breast cancer and reduced risk of heart disease were provided, typical respondents appeared to make rational decisions consistent with Expected Utility Theory, but the information presentation format affected choices. Those 11% – 33% making decisions contrary to the medical indications were more likely to be Hispanic, older, more educated, smokers, and to have children in the home. CONCLUSIONS: In scenarios typical of health risk information, relative risk information led respondents to make non-normative decisions that were "corrected" when the frame used absolute risk information. This population sample made generally rational decisions when presented with absolute risk information, even in the context of a telephone interview requiring remembering rates given. The lack of effect of gender and race suggests that a standard strategy of presenting absolute risk information may improve patient decision-making

"Concordance between comorbidity data from patient self-report interviews and medical record documentation"

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Comorbidity is an important adjustment measure in research focusing on outcomes such as health status and mortality. One recurrent methodological issue concerns the concordance of comorbidity data obtained from different reporting sources. The purpose of these prospectively planned analyses was to examine the concordance of comorbidity data obtained from patient self-report survey interviews and hospital medical record documentation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Comorbidity data were obtained using survey interviews and medical record entries from 525 hospitalized Acute Coronary Syndrome patients. Frequencies and descriptive statistics of individual and composite comorbidity data from both sources were completed. Individual item agreement was evaluated with simple and weighted kappas, Spearman Rho coefficients for composite scores.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>On average, patients reported more comorbidities during their patient survey interviews (mean = 1.78, SD = 1.99) than providers had documented in medical records (mean = 1.27, SD = 1.43). Higher proportions of positive responses were obtained from self-reports compared to medical records for all conditions except congestive heart failure and renal disease. Older age and higher depressive symptom levels were significantly associated with poorer levels of data concordance.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These results demonstrate that survey comorbidity data from ACS patients may not be entirely concordat with medical record documentation. In the absence of a gold standard, it is possible that hospital records did not include all pre-admission comorbidities and these patient survey interview methods may need to be refined. Self-report methods to facilitate some patients' complete recall of comorbid conditions may need to be refined by health services researchers.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00416026.</p

What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

Recent guidelines on cancer screening have provided not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians' support, must decide whether to get screened, which modality to use, and how often to undergo screening. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision‐making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. A total of 73 decision aids concerning screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers were reviewed. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need of more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real‐world setting. Most studies used sound study designs. Significant variation existed in the setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over one‐third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted with regard to which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision‐making. Little information was available regarding the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. In this review, the implications for future research, as well as what clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice, are discussed. CA Cancer J Clin 2013. © 2013 American Cancer Society.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98159/1/CAAC_21180_Supp_Appendix_Tables.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98159/2/21180_ftp.pd

Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids

BackgroundEffective use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) can be affected by the user’s health literacy and the PtDA’s characteristics. Systematic reviews of the relevant literature can guide PtDA developers to attend to the health literacy needs of patients. The reviews reported here aimed to assess:1. a) the effects of health literacy / numeracy on selected decision-making outcomes, and b) the effects of interventions designed to mitigate the influence of lower health literacy on decision-making outcomes, and2. the extent to which existing PtDAs a) account for health literacy, and b) are tested in lower health literacy populations.MethodsWe reviewed literature for evidence relevant to these two aims. When high-quality systematic reviews existed, we summarized their evidence. When reviews were unavailable, we conducted our own systematic reviews.ResultsAim 1: In an existing systematic review of PtDA trials, lower health literacy was associated with lower patient health knowledge (14 of 16 eligible studies). Fourteen studies reported practical design strategies to improve knowledge for lower health literacy patients. In our own systematic review, no studies reported on values clarity per se, but in 2 lower health literacy was related to higher decisional uncertainty and regret. Lower health literacy was associated with less desire for involvement in 3 studies, less question-asking in 2, and less patient-centered communication in 4 studies; its effects on other measures of patient involvement were mixed. Only one study assessed the effects of a health literacy intervention on outcomes; it showed that using video to improve the salience of health states reduced decisional uncertainty. Aim 2: In our review of 97 trials, only 3 PtDAs overtly addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. In 90% of trials, user health literacy and readability of the PtDA were not reported. However, increases in knowledge and informed choice were reported in those studies in which health literacy needs were addressed.ConclusionLower health literacy affects key decision-making outcomes, but few existing PtDAs have addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. The specific effects of PtDAs designed to mitigate the influence of low health literacy are unknown. More attention to the needs of patients with lower health literacy is indicated, to ensure that PtDAs are appropriate for lower as well as higher health literacy patients