Matlock, Daniel D.

ABSTRACT Background Guidelines recommend primary care practitioners (“PCPs”) engage women ≥ 75 years in shared decision‐making (SDM) around mammography screening. Therefore, we aimed to develop a web‐based conversation aid about mammography screening for women ≥ 75 using output from established simulation models to provide screening outcomes based on > 23,000 combinations of individual women's health and breast cancer risk factors. Methods We used an end‐user centered design approach to develop a prototype web‐based conversation aid incorporating feedback. From July 2023 to April 2024, 10 PCPs from a Boston‐area health system and a safety‐net hospital used the prototype aid during encounters with women ≥ 75 without breast cancer or dementia ( n = 30; 1–5 patients per PCP). We observed aid use and assessed clinician effort to involve patients in SDM using OPTION5 (assesses five components of SDM, scores range 0–100). We surveyed PCPs and patients about the aid's acceptability. Patients completed the SDM‐process scale (scores range 0–4) to rate the SDM quality experienced. Participants' comments were subject to thematic analysis. Results Of 10 PCP ‐participants, seven were female and four were community‐based. Of 30 patient‐participants, 22 (73%) were non‐Hispanic White, 9 (30%) had ≥ 2 Charlson comorbidities and mean age was 78.5 years ( SD 2.8). Nine PCPs agreed that the aid helped them with SDM and was easy‐to‐use; six felt it had too much information; and seven planned to continue using the aid. Patients rated the SDM ‐process highly (scores = 3.0 [ SD 0.9]) and we observed high SDM (mean OPTION5 = 77.9 [ SD 20.6]). Participants felt the aid was “empowering” and “helpful for decision‐making.” After SDM discussions, seven patients intended to stop screening, nine to screen less frequently, and 14 to continue screening regularly. Conclusions We developed a novel conversation aid that supports SDM about mammography screening with women ≥ 75 years. Lessons learned will guide revisions of a final tool for testing in a clinical trial.

Importance Only modest attention has been paid to the contributions of social determinants of health to atrial fibrillation (AF) risk factors, diagnosis, symptoms, management, and outcomes. The diagnosis of AF provides unique challenges exacerbated by the arrhythmia’s often paroxysmal nature and individuals’ disparate access to health care and technologies that facilitate detection. Social determinants of health affect access to care and management decisions for AF, increasing the likelihood of adverse outcomes among individuals who experience systemic disadvantages. Developing effective approaches to address modifiable social determinants of health requires research to eliminate the substantive inequities in health care delivery and outcomes in AF. Observations The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened an expert panel to identify major knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the field of social determinants of AF. The workshop addressed the following social determinants: (1) socioeconomic status and access to care; (2) health literacy; (3) race, ethnicity, and racism; (4) sex and gender; (5) shared decision-making in systemically disadvantaged populations; and (6) place, including rurality, neighborhood, and community. Many individuals with AF have multiple adverse social determinants, which may cluster in the individual and in systemically disadvantaged places (eg, rural locations, urban neighborhoods). Cumulative disadvantages may accumulate over the life course and contribute to inequities in the diagnosis, management, and outcomes in AF. Conclusions and Relevance Workshop participants identified multiple critical research questions and approaches to catalyze social determinants of health research that address the distinctive aspects of AF. The long-term aspiration of this work is to eradicate the substantive inequities in AF diagnosis, management, and outcomes across populations.

BACKGROUND: Destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) is increasingly offered to patients with end-stage heart failure who are ineligible for heart transplantation. Implanting centers often require the identification of a dedicated caregiver prior to DT LVAD implantation; however, the caregiver experience surrounding this difficult decision is relatively unexplored. METHODS: Between October 2012 and July 2013, we conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews of caregivers to understand their experiences with decision making for loved ones considering and living with DT LVADs. Data were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 17 caregivers: 16 caregivers of patients who had received a DT LVAD and 1 caregiver of a patient who had declined a DT LVAD. At the time of the caregiver interview, 10 DT LVAD patients were living and 7 were deceased. The majority were women (n=16) of whom 12 were either spouses or widows of the patients. Median age of caregivers was 65 (range 35-79). Twelve caregivers reported spending more than 8 hours per week caring for their loved one, and 14 attended regular medical appointments. Throughout the interviews, caregivers reported that DT LVAD was a complex decision making process with many inherent tensions. The themes identified are broadly interpreted under three domains: 1) the stark decision context with tension between hopes and realities, “when we first started out¼we had hopes of a transplant¼but once the lung function was done, and the kidneys ¼there was pretty much nothing. There was no hope other than the LVAD”; 2) the challenging decision process and the tension between wanting their loved ones to live, “I said ‘Well, I'll tell you what. I didn't marry you to be a young widow” and wanting to respect their loved ones’ wishes, “My thoughts were this was his life and it was his choice”; and 3) the downstream decision outcome and the tension between gratitude, “I'm just thankful to have my dad here¼” and a feeling of burden, “I've never felt caregiver was my gift¼I tend to feel like I'm being imposed upon at times.” CONCLUSIONS: Despite the promise of significantly improved survival for some patients, DT LVAD has major implications for caregives as well as patients. Decision making surrounding DT LVAD requires education of both the patient and caregiver of potential stresses. Additionally, decision-making surrounding DT LVAD should seek to incorporate decision support for patients and caregivers. This should include a focus on caregiver burden and the tensions that caregivers may experience.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Background: Destination therapy left ventricular assist devices (DT-LVADs) have become a treatment option for carefully selected patients with end-stage heart failure. Death is inevitable despite DT-LVAD, with 1-year mortality approximately 20% and median survival 5 years. However, end-of-life processes for LVAD patients vary significantly by institution, provider, and patient preference. Palliative care has played an increasing role in the care of this patient population, yet there remains little data on the most effective way to integrate palliative care and hospice in the DT-LVAD population. Therefore, we aimed to understand the end-of-life perspectives regarding LVADs among both cardiology and palliative care/hospice providers. Methods: Using internet-based, secure methods, we administered a 41-item survey via electronic mail to members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, European Society of Cardiology-Heart Failure Association, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, and the Heart Failure Society of America to assess their perspectives on end-of-life care in patients with LVADs. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare categorical data. Results: From October to November 2011, there were a total of 440 respondents (palliative care/hospice=137; cardiology=303). Most were physicians (80%; n=320) and male (59%; n=232). The majority of providers in both groups viewed an LVAD as a life-sustaining treatment. The groups differed in their attitudes, beliefs, and comfort with end-of-life care in patients with an LVAD. Few palliative care/hospice providers believed a patient needed to be imminently dying to turn off an LVAD; whereas most cardiology providers noted patients should be imminently dying in order to consider LVAD deactivation (2% vs 60%; p=<0.001). Most palliative care/hospice providers believed requests for turning off an LVAD in a patient who is not nearing death should be honored. In contrast, just over half of cardiology providers contended the request should be honored (88% vs 57%; p=<0.001). The provider groups also disagreed on requiring ethics consultation, with most cardiology providers stating it was necessary prior to turning off an LVAD near the end of life (67% vs 24%; p=<0.001). Conclusion: Cardiology providers and palliative care/hospice providers collectively have different perceptions on management of end of life in patients with an LVAD. Bridging the gaps between these two disciplines is a critical first step in creating a more cohesive approach to end-of-life care for these patients—one that honors autonomy but respects individual provider comfort levels.

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.

Background— Implanting centers often require the identification of a dedicated caregiver before destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) implantation; however, the caregiver experience surrounding this difficult decision is relatively unexplored. Methods and Results— From October 2012 through July 2013, we conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews with caregivers of patients considering DT LVAD. Data were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. We interviewed 17 caregivers: 10 caregivers of patients living with DT LVAD, 6 caregivers of patients who had died with DT LVAD, and 1 caregiver of a patient who had declined DT LVAD. The themes identified, which could also be considered dialectical tensions, are broadly interpreted under 3 domains mapping to decision context, process, and outcome: (1) the stark decision context, with tension between hope and reality; (2) the challenging decision process, with tension between wanting loved ones to live and wanting to respect loved ones’ wishes; and (3) the downstream decision outcome, with tension between gratitude and burden. Conclusions— Decision-making surrounding DT LVAD should incorporate decision support for patients and caregivers. This should include a focus on caregiver burden and the predictable tensions that caregivers experience.