Thompson, Jocelyn S.

Introduction: The DECIDE-LVAD Trial demonstrated the benefit of a decision support tool for patients considering destination-therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) implantation. We hypothesized that patients with low health literacy or numeracy may have benefited most from the intervention. Methods: We used the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM-R) and the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS) to assess patients’ health literacy and numeracy, respectively. A REALM-R score of six or less out of eight identified patients at risk for poor literacy based on the original measure validation. An SNS score less than four out of six identified patients with poor subjective numeracy based on the mean score of the DECIDE-LVAD cohort. We assessed the effect of the decision support tool on LVAD knowledge and values-treatment concordance—concordance between patients’ stated values and their treatment outcome of LVAD or continued medical therapy—and their interaction with health literacy and numeracy. This interaction was assessed using linear mixed models for LVAD knowledge and the difference in Kendall’s tau correlation coefficient for values-treatment concordance. Results: Of the 248 DECIDE-LVAD patients, 228 with complete literacy and numeracy data were analyzed: 51% (116) had high literacy and numeracy; 18 (8%) had low literacy and high numeracy; 55 (25%) had high literacy and low numeracy; 39 (17%) had low scores for both measures. Average age was 63, 15% were female, 19% were racial/ethnic minorities. Patients with high scores for both measures were older, had more formal education, and higher total household income compared to the other 3 groups. Patients with low literacy and/or numeracy had significantly lower LVAD knowledge scores at baseline. In all groups, LVAD knowledge improved over time. The difference in LVAD knowledge between those with low literacy and high literacy decreased over time (baseline difference 9.4%, p=0.002; 6 month follow-up difference 1.4%, p=0.65). In those with high literacy, the decision support tool intervention increased the LVAD knowledge score by 4.2% relative to the control (p=0.15), while in those with low literacy, the intervention increased the score by 10.6% (p=0.04). For patients with low literacy, values-treatment concordance improved with use of the decision support tool (control vs. intervention tau: 0.234 vs 0.673, p=0.028). We did not observe differences in the effect of the intervention by participant numeracy score. Conclusion: All patient groups in the DECIDE-LVAD cohort of patients considering DT LVAD had improved LVAD knowledge with the use of the decision support tool. We did not observe a differential effect of the intervention by numeracy score. Compared to those with higher health literacy, patients with low health literacy improved their LVAD knowledge and values-treatment concordance after the intervention.

Background. Despite demonstrated efficacy, patient decision aids (DAs) are rarely used in clinical practice in the absence of coverage mandates. Deciding whether to pursue a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a major, preference-sensitive decision—ideal for exploring implementation of a DA. Methods. We conducted a type II effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial at 6 LVAD programs using a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design. Using the RE-AIM framework, we collected both quantitative and qualitative outcomes, including a checklist collected by study staff for each enrolled patient regarding DA use and interviews with LVAD program clinicians preintervention, 6 months postintervention, and at the conclusion of the study. Results. From June 2015 to January 2017, 248 patients and their caregivers were enrolled. A total of 69 interviews were conducted with 48 clinicians at 3 time points. The DA reached 95% of eligible patients. Adoption was 100%, as all sites approached agreed to participate in the trial. Interviews revealed several themes related to the implementation of the DA: clinicians had a strong desire to ensure patients were informed and embraced the DA. Despite this, they reported communication challenges among their team that impeded implementation. Five of the 6 sites have maintained use of the DA following the trial; 1 site reported concerns about decreased procedural volume with use of the DA as a reason for discontinuation. Conclusions. In this hybrid trial, a DA for patients considering LVADs and their caregivers demonstrated high reach. Adoption and implementation were facilitated by a strong desire to ensure that patients were well informed. Future dissemination research and practice should attend to concerns about procedure volume and coverage mandates and facilitate ongoing communication at sites using the DA.