Montori, Víctor M.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms.MethodsWe assessed 100 randomly selected video‐recorded primary care encounters, obtained as part of a randomized trial of an SDM intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Two coders, working independently, noted each instance of SDM, classified it as one of four problem‐based forms to SDM (weighing alternatives, negotiating conflicting issues, solving problems, or developing existential insight), and noted the occurrence and timing of each of the four canonical SDM steps: fostering choice awareness, providing information, stating preferences, and deciding. Descriptive analyses sought to determine the relative frequency of these steps across each of the four SDM forms within each encounter.ResultsThere were 485 SDM steps noted (mean 4.85 steps per encounter), of which providing information and stating preferences were the most common. There were 2.7 (38 steps in 14 encounters) steps per encounter observed in encounters with no discernible SDM form, 3.4 (105 steps in 31 encounters) with one SDM form, 5.2 (129 steps in 25 encounters) with two SDM forms, and 7.1 (213 steps in 30 encounters) when ≥3 SDM forms were observed within the encounter. The prescribed order of the four SDM steps was observed in, at best, 16 of the 100 encounters. Stating preferences was a common step when weighing alternatives (38%) or negotiating conflicts (59.3%) but less common when solving problems (29.2%). The distribution of SDM steps was similar to usual care with or without the SDM intervention.ConclusionThe normative steps of SDM are infrequently observed in their prescribed order regardless of whether an SDM intervention was used. Some steps are more likely in some SDM forms but no pattern of steps appears to distinguish among SDM forms.Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01293578.

Objectives To assess whether recommendations of individually oriented lifestyle interventions (IOLIs) in guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were underpinned by evidence of benefit, and whether harms and opportunity costs were considered. Design Cross sectional survey. Setting UK. Data sources NICE guidelines and supporting evidence. Eligibility criteria All NICE pathways for IOLI recommendations (ie, non-drug interventions that healthcare professionals administer to adults to achieve a healthier lifestyle and improve health) were searched systematically on 26 August 2020. One author screened all retrieved pathways for candidate guidelines, while a second author verified these judgments. Two authors independently and in duplicate screened all retrieved guidelines and recommendations for eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the evidence cited and the outcomes considered. Disagreements were noted and resolved by consensus. Results Within 57 guidelines, 379 NICE recommendations were found for IOLIs; almost all (n=374; 99%) recommended the lifestyle intervention and five (1%) recommended against the intervention. Of the 379 recommendations, 13 (3%) were supported by moderate or high certainty evidence of a beneficial effect on patient relevant outcomes (n=7; 2%) or surrogate outcomes (n=13; 3%). 19 (5%) interventions considered psychosocial harms, 32 (8%) considered physical harms, and one (<1%) considered the opportunity costs of implementation. No intervention considered the burden placed on individuals by these recommendations. Conclusion Few NICE recommendations of lifestyle interventions are supported by reliable evidence. While this finding does not contest the beneficial effects of healthy habits, guidelines recommending clinicians to try to change people’s lifestyle need to be reconsidered given the substantial uncertainty about the effectiveness, harms, and opportunity costs of such interventions.

Children with rare or life-limiting chronic conditions and their families are at high risk of psychosocial distress. However, despite its impact on patient and family health and functioning, psychosocial distress and its antecedents may not routinely be captured in medical records. The purpose of this study was to characterize current medical record documentation practices around psychosocial distress among children with rare or life-limiting chronic conditions and their families. Medical records for patients with rare or life-limiting chronic conditions (n = 60) followed by a pediatric complex care program were reviewed. Study team members extracted both structured data elements (e.g., diagnoses, demographic information) and note narratives from the most recent visit with a clinician in the program. Psychosocial topics were analyzed using a mixed quantitative (i.e., frequency counts of topics) and qualitative approach. Topics related to psychosocial distress that were documented in notes included child and parent emotional problems, parent social support, sibling emotional or physical problems, family structure (e.g., whether parents were together), and financial concerns. However, 35% of notes lacked any mention of psychosocial concerns. Although examples of psychosocial concerns were included in some notes, none were present in over one-third of this sample. For both patients with rare or life-limiting chronic conditions and their caregivers, more active elicitation and standard documentation of psychosocial concerns may improve the ability of healthcare providers to identify and intervene on psychosocial concerns and their risk factors.

Background: Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been shown to reduce the risk of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for stable coronary artery disease (CAD), many patients believe that PCI is a life-saving procedure. PCI for stable CAD is known to improve patients’ quality of life more rapidly than medications alone. We conducted a randomized trial to assess the impact of a decision aid (DA) compared to usual care (UC) for the treatment of stable CAD when there is a choice between PCI and optimal medical therapy (OMT). Methods: The PCI Choice trial was a prospective, randomized trial comparing the effects of DA versus UC. The DA was designed with a user-centered approach for an in-visit consultation, involving patients and clinicians throughout the development process. The final DA included information on myocardial infarction (MI), death and quality of life outcomes for PCI with OMT vs. OMT alone in the treatment of stable angina, stratified by angina type. Risks of procedure, bleeding, stent thrombosis, and need for future procedures were also depicted. The primary outcome was patient knowledge, measured by pre- and post-visit surveys. Additional outcomes included decisional conflict, patient satisfaction, preferred decision making style, and treatment decision. Results: A total of 110 patients were enrolled; mean age was 68.3 years and 26% of patients were women. At baseline, most patients had CCS Class I/II angina and were on a mean of two anti-anginal medications (2.3, SD 1.2). Knowledge increased among patients receiving DA compared to UC (63% vs. 44% p=0.0003). Specific knowledge about the impact of PCI for stable angina on death and MI was higher in both groups compared to prior studies (54% DA, 46% UC, p=0.45; 12% prior). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the DA group vs. UC (72% vs 40%, p=0.004). Decisional conflict was greater than in non-procedural DA trials, and was not different between the two arms (p=.43). Following exposure to DA, patients’ preference for sharing decision making tended to change more with DA (55% to 65%) than with UC (56% to 59%). While the proportion of patients choosing PCI over OMT was nearly half in both groups, there were fewer patients that remained undecided with DA (18% vs. 4%; p=0.14 overall difference). Conclusions: Exposure to a DA for the choice of PCI vs. optimal medical therapy in stable CAD improved patient knowledge and satisfaction and decreased uncertainty, without reducing the rate of PCI. Use of the DA in a larger patient population may further delineate impact on outcomes such as treatment choice, geographic variation and cost.

Abstract Background: Trial recruitment of Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) is key for interventions that interact with socioeconomic factors and cultural norms, preferences, and values. We report on our experience enrolling BIPOC participants into a multicenter trial of a shared decision-making intervention about anticoagulation to prevent strokes, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: We enrolled patients with AF and their clinicians in 5 healthcare systems (three academic medical centers, an urban/suburban community medical center, and a safety-net inner-city medical center) located in three states (Minnesota, Alabama, and Mississippi) in the United States. Clinical encounters were randomized to usual care with or without a shared decision-making tool about anticoagulation. Analysis: We analyzed BIPOC patient enrollment by site, categorized reasons for non-enrollment, and examined how enrollment of BIPOC patients was promoted across sites.Results: Of 2247 patients assessed, 922 were enrolled of which 147 (16%) were BIPOC patients. In comparison to trial-eligible White participants, eligible Black participants more frequently did not enroll (102 (11%) vs. 185 (15%); p <.001). The rate of BIPOC patients enrollment varied substantially by site and was generally reflective of the population served at each participating site. Enrollment of BIPOC patients benefited most from including and prioritizing practices most likely to care for BIPOC patients, with lower yield from specific efforts to reach BIPOC clinic attendees and enrolling BIPOC patients first when possible. Conclusions: Enrollment from practices that have implemented policies that favor the care of BIPOC patients can contribute to generate trustworthy estimates of the effect of these interventions in clinical practice that are applicable to BIPOC populations. Best practices to optimize the enrollment of BIPOC participants into trials that examined complex and culturally sensitive interventions remain to be developed.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02905032)