Castañeda-Guarderas, Ana

Abstract Background Several treatments are available to reduce the risk of fragility fractures associated with osteoporosis. The choice of treatment requires knowledge of patients’ values and preferences. The aim of the present study was to summarize what is known about the values and preferences relevant to the management of osteoporosis in women. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases for studies reported in any language that had included women who had already started or were about to start any pharmacological therapy for osteoporosis. Pairs of reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. The results were synthesized narratively. Results We included 26 studies reporting on 15,348 women (mean age, 66 years). The women considered the effectiveness and adverse events equally, followed by the convenience of taking the drug and its effect on daily routine (less frequent dosing was preferred, the oral route was preferred, and the injectable route was preferred over oral if given less frequently). The treatment cost and duration were less important factors for decision making. Fear of breast cancer and fear of resuming uterine bleeding were common reasons for not choosing estrogen therapy. Calcium and vitamin D were viewed as safe and natural. Across the studies, the preferences were not affected by age, previous drug exposure, or employment status. Conclusions Women starting osteoporosis medications value effectiveness and side effects equally and prefer medications given less frequently. Injectable drugs appear acceptable if given less frequently. More research on patient values and preferences is needed to guide decision making in osteoporosis.

Objective The objective of this study was to assess patients’ achievement of ADA (American Diabetes Association) guideline recommendations for glycosylated hemoglobin, lipid profile, and blood pressure in a type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) outpatient clinic in a low-middle income country (LMIC) setting. Methods This is a descriptive cross-sectional study with 123 ambulatory T2DM patients who are being treated at a public hospital in Lima, Peru. Data was gathered via standardized interviews, clinical surveys, and anthropomorphic measurements for each patient. Blood samples were drawn in fasting state for measures of glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and lipid profile. Laboratory parameters and blood pressure were evaluated according to ADA recommendations. Results Of the 123 patients, 81 were women and the mean age was 61.8 years. Glycemic control was abnormal in 82 (68.33%) participants, and 45 (37.50%) were unable to control their blood pressure. Lipid profile was abnormal in 73 (60.83%) participants. Only nine (7.50%) participants fulfilled ADA recommendations for glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid control. Conclusions Amongst individuals with type 2 diabetes, there was poor attainment of the ADA recommendations (HbA1c, blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol) for ambulatory T2DM patients. Interventions are urgently needed in order to prevent long-term diabetic complications.

AbstractAlthough studies suggest that patients with limited health literacy and/or low numeracy skills may stand to gain the most from shared decision making (SDM), the impact of these conditions on the effective implementation of SDM in the emergency department (ED) is not well understood. In this article from the proceedings of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department we discuss knowledge gaps identified and propose consensus‐driven research priorities to help guide future work to improve SDM for this patient population in the ED.

Background: The best treatment option for patients with Graves' disease (GD) depends on each person's situation and how the differences between the treatment options matter to them in bringing resolution to their illness. The objective of this study was to develop and test an encounter decision tool (GD Choice) for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making about the treatment of GD. Methods: GD Choice was developed using an iterative process based on the principles of interaction design and participatory action research. To evaluate the impact of the tool, a controlled before–after study was conducted, assessing the use of GD Choice versus usual care (UC). Results: Sixty-eight patients were enrolled, 37 to UC and 31 to GD Choice. At baseline, the groups were similar. Treatment discussion length was similar in both arms. After their visit, patients in both groups had similar knowledge about the options, except for GD Choice patients knowing significantly more about the complications of treatment (correctly answered by 83% vs. 55%; p = 0.04). Compared with UC, patients in the GD Choice arm had greater involvement in decision making observed on video recordings of clinical encounters (mean OPTION scale score, 35% vs. 30%; p = 0.02), but reported similar levels of decisional comfort and participation in shared decision making. Conclusions: GD Choice increases engagement in the decision-making process and knowledge regarding intervention complications without increasing the length of consultation. These promising results support the conduct of a randomized trial of GD Choice versus UC in a large multicenter trial.