Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions

Contains fulltext : 80919.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in interventions that can support patients who face difficult decisions and individuals who need to modify their behaviour to achieve better outcomes. Evidence for effectiveness is used to categorise patients care. Effective care is where evidence of benefit outweighs harm: patients should always receive this type of care, where indicated. Preference-sensitive care describes a situation where the evidence for the superiority of one treatment over another is either not available or does not allow differentiation; in this situation, there are two or more valid approaches, and the best choice depends on how individuals value the risks and benefits of treatments. DISCUSSION: Preference-sensitive decisions are defined by equipoise: situations where options need to be deliberated. Moreover, where both healthcare professionals and patients agree that equipoise exists, situations may be regarded as having 'dual equipoise'. Such conditions are ideal for shared decision making. However, there are many situations in medicine where dual equipoise does not exist, where health professionals hold the view that scientific evidence for benefit strongly outweighs harm. This is often the case where people suffer from chronic conditions, and where behaviour change is recommended to improve outcomes. However, some patients, are either ambivalent or find it difficult to sustain optimal behaviours, i.e., patients will be in varying degrees of equipoise. Therefore, situations where dual equipoise exists (or not) help to clarify the definitions of two classes of support, namely, decision and behaviour change support interventions. Decision support interventions help people think about choices they face; they describe where and why choice exists, in short, conditions of dual equipoise; they provide information about options, including, where reasonable, the option of taking no action. These interventions help people to deliberate, independently or in collaboration with others, about options by considering relevant attributes; they support people to forecast how they might feel about short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes that have relevant consequences, in ways that help the process of constructing preferences and eventual decision making appropriate to their individual situation. Whereas, behavioural support interventions describe, justify, and recommend actions that, over time, lead to predictable outcomes over short, intermediate, and long-term timeframes, and that have relevant and important consequences for those who are considering behaviour change. SUMMARY: Decision and behaviour support interventions have divergent aims, different relationships to equipoise, and form two classes of interventions

HOPE: Help fOr People with money, employment, benefit or housing problems: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: Self-harm and suicide increase in times of economic recession. Factors including job loss, austerity measures, financial difficulties and house repossession contribute to the risk. Vulnerable individuals commonly experience difficulties in navigating the benefits system and in accessing the available sources of welfare and debt advice, and this contributes to their distress. Our aim is to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a brief psychosocial intervention (the “HOPE” service) for people presenting to hospital emergency departments (ED) following self-harm or in acute distress because of financial, employment, or welfare (benefit) difficulties. Method: A pilot study including randomisation will be employed to determine whether it is possible to undertake a full-scale trial. Twenty people presenting to the ED who have self-harmed, have suicidal thoughts and depression and/or are in crisis and where financial, employment or benefit problems are cited as contributory factors will be asked to consent to random allocation to the intervention or control arm on a 2:1 basis. People who require secondary mental health follow-up will be excluded. Those randomised to the intervention arm will receive up to six sessions with a mental health worker who will provide practical help with financial and other problems. The mental health worker will use the motivational interviewing method in their interactions with participants. Control participants will receive one session signposting them to existing relevant support organisations. Participants will be followed up after 3 months. Participants and the mental health workers will take part in qualitative interviews to enable refinement of the intervention. The acceptability of outcome measures including the PHQ-9, GAD-7, repeat self-harm, EQ5D-5L and questions about debt, employment and welfare benefits will be explored. Discussion: This study will assess whether a full-scale randomised trial of this novel intervention to prevent self-harm among those distressed because of financial difficulties is feasible, including the acceptability of randomisation, potential rate of recruitment and the acceptability of outcome measures. Trial registration: ISRCTN5853124

Revisiting the De-Radicalisation or Disengagement Debate: Public Attitudes to the Re-Integration of Terrorists

The article reports on the findings of an experimental survey which was conducted to ascertain the level of support and perceived effectiveness of using de-radicalisation programmes to re-integrate returning foreign fighters. Public support (or the lack of opposition) for re-integration programmes can be important in ensuring the programmes have the time, resources and opportunity to be successful however we know little about what wider society thinks about re-integration programmes. The article explores the extent to which the inclusion of de-radicalisation – in name and content – changes attitudes to a re-integration programme. This is relevant in showing attitudes to de-radicalisation over disengagement and whether de-radicalisation, while perhaps not more effective at the programme-level, is or is not more effective at generating public support for re-integration (and thereby facilitating the process itself). We find that the inclusion of de-radicalisation in the name and content of a re-integration programme to a small extent increases support for re-integration over a programme that uses the terms disengagement and desistance. However, we also find that while de-radicalisation increases support, it also decreases perceived effectiveness, leading respondents to feel it makes the country less safe and less likely to reduce the re-offending rate than if the programme excludes de-radicalisation. We argue this polarising effect is reflective of wider reasons for supporting the policies (e.g. de-radicalisation may be seen as a form of ideational/normative punishment) and that the term de-radicalisation may shift the framing of the problematic to entrenched social structures, thus rendering itself ineffective as a policy treatment. In terms of policy, we argue there is a necessity for greater openness about re-integration programmes and that governments would benefit from selling the programmes to the public. We conclude our paper with a justification of focusing further research on understanding public/community attitudes to re-integration programmes and understanding the PR of counter-terrorism policies more generally

Exploring the impact of a decision support intervention on vascular access decisions in chronic hemodialysis patients: study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In patients with Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease who require renal replacement therapy a major decision concerns modality choice. However, many patients defer the decision about modality choice or they have an urgent or emergent need of RRT, which results in them starting hemodialysis with a Central Venous Catheter. Thereafter, efforts to help patients make more timely decisions about access choices utilizing education and resource allocation strategies met with limited success resulting in a high prevalent CVC use in Canada. Providing decision support tailored to meet patients' decision making needs may improve this situation. The Registered Nurses Association of Ontario has developed a clinical practice guideline to guide decision support for adults living with Chronic Kidney Disease <it>(Decision Support for Adults with Chronic Kidney Disease</it>.) The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of implementing selected recommendations this guideline on priority provincial targets for hemodialysis access in patients with Stage 5 CKD who currently use Central Venous Catheters for vascular access.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A non-experimental intervention study with repeated measures will be conducted at St. Michaels Hospital in Toronto, Canada. Decisional conflict about dialysis access choice will be measured using the validated SURE tool, an instrument used to identify decisional conflict. Thereafter a tailored decision support intervention will be implemented. Decisional conflict will be re-measured and compared with baseline scores. Patients and staff will be interviewed to gain an understanding of how useful this intervention was for them and whether it would be feasible to implement more widely. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Statistical significance of difference between means over time for aggregated SURE scores (pre/post) will be assessed using a paired t-test. Qualitative analysis with content coding and identification of themes will be conducted for the focus group and patient interview data.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Coupling the SURE tool with a decision support system structured so that a positive test result triggers providers to help patients through the decision-making process and/or refer patients to appropriate resources could benefit patients and ensure they have the opportunity to make informed HD access choices.</p

Reduction in stiffness of proximal leg muscles during the first 6 months of glucocorticoid therapy for giant cell arteritis: A pilot study using shear wave elastography.

Aim: To investigate muscle stiffness changes in patients treated for giant cell arteritis (GCA) with high‐dose oral glucocorticoids. Methods: Using ultrasound elastography, shear wave velocity (SWV) was measured in the quadriceps, hamstrings and biceps brachii muscles of 14 patients with GCA (4 male, mean age ± SD, 68.2 ± 4.3 years) within the first 2 weeks of initiating glucocorticoid treatment (baseline) and repeated after 3 and 6 months treatment. Muscle strength and performance tests were performed at each visit. Baseline measures were compared with those from 14 healthy controls. Linear mixed models were used to test for change in patient measures over time. Results: At baseline, muscle SWV in patients was not significantly different from controls. With glucocorticoid treatment, there was a reduction in SWV in the leg but not the arm muscles. SWV decreased by a mean of 14% (range 8.3%‐17.3%; P = .001) after 3 months and 18% (range 10.2%‐25.3%; P < .001) after 6‐months in the quadriceps and hamstrings during the resting position. The baseline, 3 and 6 months mean SWV (±SD) for the vastus lateralis were 1.62 ± 0.16 m/s, 1.40 ± 0.10 m/s and 1.31 ± 0.06 m/s, respectively (P < .001). In the patient group as a whole, there was no significant change in muscle strength. However, there were moderate correlations (r = .54‐.69) between exhibiting weaker muscle strength at follow‐up visits and a greater reduction in SWV. Conclusion: Glucocorticoid therapy in patients with GCA was associated with a significant reduction in proximal leg muscle stiffness during the first 6 months. Future research should study a larger sample of patients for a longer duration to investigate if diminished muscle stiffness precedes signs of glucocorticoid‐induced myopathy

Assessing the Quality of Decision Support Technologies Using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi)

Objectives To describe the development, validation and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to measure the quality of patient decision support technologies (decision aids). Design Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. Setting There has been increasing use of decision support technologies – adjuncts to the discussions clinicians have with patients about difficult decisions. A global interest in developing these interventions exists among both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. It is therefore essential to have internationally accepted standards to assess the quality of their development, process, content, potential bias and method of field testing and evaluation. Methods Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. Participants Twenty-five researcher-members of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration worked together to develop the instrument (IPDASi). In the fourth Stage (reliability study), eight raters assessed thirty randomly selected decision support technologies. Results IPDASi measures quality in 10 dimensions, using 47 items, and provides an overall quality score (scaled from 0 to 100) for each intervention. Overall IPDASi scores ranged from 33 to 82 across the decision support technologies sampled (n = 30), enabling discrimination. The inter-rater intraclass correlation for the overall quality score was 0.80. Correlations of dimension scores with the overall score were all positive (0.31 to 0.68). Cronbach's alpha values for the 8 raters ranged from 0.72 to 0.93. Cronbach's alphas based on the dimension means ranged from 0.50 to 0.81, indicating that the dimensions, although well correlated, measure different aspects of decision support technology quality. A short version (19 items) was also developed that had very similar mean scores to IPDASi and high correlation between short score and overall score 0.87 (CI 0.79 to 0.92). Conclusions This work demonstrates that IPDASi has the ability to assess the quality of decision support technologies. The existing IPDASi provides an assessment of the quality of a DST's components and will be used as a tool to provide formative advice to DSTs developers and summative assessments for those who want to compare their tools against an existing benchmark

Physicians' intentions and use of three patient decision aids

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Decision aids are evidence based tools that assist patients in making informed values-based choices and supplement the patient-clinician interaction. While there is evidence to show that decision aids improve key indicators of patients' decision quality, relatively little is known about physicians' acceptance of decision aids or factors that influence their decision to use them. The purpose of this study was to describe physicians' perceptions of three decision aids, their expressed intent to use them, and their subsequent use of them.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a cross-sectional survey of random samples of Canadian respirologists, family physicians, and geriatricians. Three decision aids representing a range of health decisions were evaluated. The survey elicited physicians' opinions on the characteristics of the decision aid and their willingness to use it. Physicians who indicated a strong likelihood of using the decision aid were contacted three months later regarding their actual use of the decision aid.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 580 eligible physicians, 47% (n = 270) returned completed questionnaires. More than 85% of the respondents felt the decision aid was well developed and that it presented the essential information for decision making in an understandable, balanced, and unbiased manner. A majority of respondents (>80%) also felt that the decision aid would guide patients in a logical way, preparing them to participate in decision making and to reach a decision. Fewer physicians (<60%) felt the decision aid would improve the quality of patient visits or be easily implemented into practice and very few (27%) felt that the decision aid would save time. Physicians' intentions to use the decision aid were related to their comfort with offering it to patients, the decision aid topic, and the perceived ease of implementing it into practice. While 54% of the surveyed physicians indicated they would use the decision aid, less than a third followed through with this intention.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Despite strong support for the format, content, and quality of patient decision aids, and physicians' stated intentions to adopt them into clinical practice, most did not use them within three months of completing the survey. There is a wide gap between intention and behaviour. Further research is required to study the determinants of this intention-behaviour gap and to develop interventions aimed at barriers to physicians' use of decision aids.</p