Primary goals, information-giving and men\u27s understanding: A qualitative study of Australian and UK doctors\u27 varied communication about PSA screening

Objectives: (1) To characterise variation in general practitioners’ (GPs’) accounts of communicating with men about prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, (2) to characterise GPs’ reasons for communicating as they do and (3) to explain why and under what conditions GP communication approaches vary. Study design and setting: A grounded theory study. We interviewed 69 GPs consulting in primary care practices in Australia (n=40) and the UK (n=29). Results: GPs explained their communication practices in relation to their primary goals. In Australia, three different communication goals were reported: to encourage asymptomatic men to either have a PSA test, or not test, or alternatively, to support men to make their own decision. As well as having different primary goals, GPs aimed to provide different information (from comprehensive to strongly filtered) and to support men to develop different kinds of understanding, from population-level to ‘gist’ understanding. Taking into account these three dimensions (goals, information, understanding) and building on Entwistle et al’s Consider an Offer framework, we derived four overarching approaches to communication: Be screened, Do not be screened, Analyse and choose, and As you wish. We also describe ways in which situational and relational factors influenced GPs’ preferred communication approach. Conclusion: GPs’ reported approach to communicating about prostate cancer screening varies according to three dimensions—their primary goal, information provision preference and understanding sought—and in response to specific practice situations. If GP communication about PSA screening is to become more standardized in Australia, it is likely that each of these dimensions will require attention in policy and practice support interventions

Implementing cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines to translate evidence-based medicine and shared decision making into general practice: theory-based intervention development, qualitative piloting and quantitative feasibility

Background: The use of cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines based on absolute risk assessment is poor around the world, including Australia. Behavioural barriers amongst GPs and patients include capability (e.g. difficulty communicating/understanding risk) and motivation (e.g. attitudes towards guidelines/medication). This paper outlines the theory-based development of a website for GP guidelines, and piloting of a new risk calculator/decision aid. Methods: Stage 1 involved identifying evidence-based solutions using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework, informed by previous research involving 400 GPs and 600 patients/consumers. Stage 2 co-developed website content with GPs. Stage 3 piloted a prototype website at a national GP conference. Stage 4 iteratively improved the website based on "think aloud" interviews with GPs and patients. Stage 5 was a feasibility study to evaluate potential efficacy (guidelines-based recommendations for each risk category), acceptability (intended use) and demand (actual use over 1 month) amongst GPs (n = 98). Results: Stage 1 identified GPs as the target for behaviour change; the need for a new risk calculator/decision aid linked to existing audit and feedback training; and online guidelines as a delivery format. Stage 2-4 iteratively improved content and format based on qualitative feedback from GP and patient user testing over three rounds of website development. Stage 5 suggested potential efficacy with improved identification of hypothetical high risk patients (from 26 to 76%) and recommended medication (from 57 to 86%) after viewing the website (n = 42), but prescribing to low risk patients remained similar (from 19 to 22%; n = 37). Most GPs (89%) indicated they would use the website in the next month, and 72% reported using it again after one month (n = 98). Open feedback identified implementation barriers including a need for integration with medical software, low health literacy resources and pre-consultation assessment. Conclusions: Following a theory-based development process and user co-design, the resulting intervention was acceptable to GPs with high intentions for use, improved identification of patient risk categories and more guidelines-based prescribing intentions for high risk but not low risk patients. The effectiveness of linking the intervention to clinical practice more closely to address implementation barriers will be evaluated in future research

Shared decision-making about cardiovascular disease medication in older people: A qualitative study of patient experiences in general practice

Objectives To explore older people's perspectives and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) about medication for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Design, setting and participants Semi-structured interviews with 30 general practice patients aged 75 years and older in New South Wales, Australia, who had elevated CVD risk factors (blood pressure, cholesterol) or had received CVD-related lifestyle advice. Data were analysed by multiple researchers using Framework analysis. Results Twenty eight participants out of 30 were on CVD prevention medication, half with established CVD. We outlined patient experiences using the four steps of the SDM process, identifying key barriers and challenges: Step 1. Choice awareness: taking medication for CVD prevention was generally not recognised as a decision requiring patient input; Step 2. Discuss benefits/harms options: CVD prevention poorly understood with emphasis on benefits; Step 3. Explore preferences: goals, values and preferences (eg, length of life vs quality of life, reducing disease burden vs risk reduction) varied widely but generally not discussed with the general practitioner; Step 4. Making the decision: overall preference for directive approach, but some patients wanted more active involvement. Themes were similar across primary and secondary CVD prevention, different levels of self-reported health and people on and off medication. Conclusions Results demonstrate how older participants vary widely in their health goals and preferences for treatment outcomes, suggesting that CVD prevention decisions are preference sensitive. Combined with the fact that the vast majority of participants were taking medications, and few understood the aims and potential benefits and harms of CVD prevention, it seems that older patients are not always making an informed decision. Our findings highlight potentially modifiable barriers to greater participation of older people in SDM about CVD prevention medication and prevention in general

What do you think overdiagnosis means? A qualitative analysis of responses from a national community survey of Australians

OBJECTIVE: Overdiagnosis occurs when someone is diagnosed with a disease that will not harm them. Against a backdrop of growing evidence and concern about the risk of overdiagnosis associated with certain screening activities, and recognition of the need to better inform the public about it, we aimed to ask what the Australian community understood overdiagnosis to mean. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Content analysis of verbatim responses from a randomly sampled community telephone survey of 500 Australian adults, between January and February 2014. Data were analysed independently by two researchers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis of themes arising from community responses to open-ended questions about the meaning of overdiagnosis. RESULTS: The sample was broadly representative of the Australian population. Forty per cent of respondents thought overdiagnosis meant exaggerating a condition that was there, diagnosing something that was not there or too much diagnosis. Twenty-four per cent described overdiagnosis as overprescribing, overtesting or overtreatment. Only 3% considered overdiagnosis meant doctors gained financially. No respondents mentioned screening in conjunction with overdiagnosis, and over 10% of participants were unable to give an answer. CONCLUSIONS: Around half the community surveyed had an approximate understanding of overdiagnosis, although no one identified it as a screening risk and a quarter equated it with overuse. Strategies to inform people about the risk of overdiagnosis associated with screening and diagnostic tests, in clinical and public health settings, could build on a nascent understanding of the nature of the problem

Heuristics and biases in cardiovascular disease prevention:How can we improve communication about risk, benefits and harms?

Objective Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend medication based on the probability of a heart attack/stroke in the next 5–10 years. However, heuristics and biases make risk communication challenging for doctors. This study explored how patients interpret personalised CVD risk results presented in varying formats and timeframes. Methods GPs recruited 25 patients with CVD risk factors and varying medication history. Participants were asked to ‘think aloud’ while using two CVD risk calculators that present probabilistic risk in different ways, within a semi-structured interview. Transcribed audio-recordings were coded using Framework Analysis. Results Key themes were: 1) numbers lack meaning without a reference point; 2) risk results need to be both credible and novel; 3) selective attention to intervention effects. Risk categories (low/moderate/high) provided meaningful context, but short-term risk results were not credible if they didn’t match expectations. Colour-coded icon arrays showing the effect of age and interventions were seen as novel and motivating. Those on medication focused on benefits, while others focused on harms. Conclusion CVD risk formats need to be tailored to patient expectations and experiences in order to counteract heuristics and biases. Practice implications Doctors need access to multiple CVD risk formats to communicate effectively about CVD prevention