Citations

Background— Decision aids (DAs) increase patient knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and promote shared decision making (SDM). The extent to which they do so across diverse sociodemographic patient groups is unknown. Methods and Results— We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials of DA versus usual care comprising 771 encounters between patients and clinicians discussing treatment options for chest pain, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and osteoporosis. Using a random effects model, we examined the impact of sociodemographic patient characteristics (age, sex, education, income, and insurance status) on the outcomes of knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. Because of small numbers of people of color in the study population, we were not powered to investigate the role of race. Most patients were aged ≥65 years (61%), white (94%), and women (59%); two thirds had greater than a high school education. Compared with usual care, DA patients gained knowledge, were more likely to know their risk, and had less decisional conflict along with greater involvement in SDM. These gains were largely consistent across sociodemographic patient groups, with DAs demonstrating similar efficacy when used with vulnerable patients such as the elderly and those with less income and less formal education. Differences in efficacy were found only in knowledge of risk in 1 subgroup, with greater efficacy among those with higher education (35% versus 18%; P =0.02). Conclusions— In this patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, DAs were efficacious across diverse sociodemographic groups as measured by knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. To the extent that DAs increase patient knowledge and participation in SDM, they have potential to impact health disparities related to these factors.

AbstractBackgroundExploration of values and preferences in the context of anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) remains limited. To better characterize the distribution of patient and physician values and preferences relevant to decisions regarding anticoagulation in patients with AF, we conducted interviews with patients at risk of developing AF and physicians who manage patients with AF.MethodsWe interviewed 96 outpatients and 96 physicians in a multicenter study and elicited the maximal increased risk of bleeding (threshold risk) that respondents would tolerate with warfarin vs. aspirin to achieve a reduction in three strokes in 100 patients over a 2‐year period. We used the probabilistic version of the threshold technique.ResultsThe median threshold risk for both patients and physicians was 10 additional bleeds (10 P = 0.7). In both groups, we observed large variability in the threshold number of bleeds, with wider variability in patients than clinicians [patient range: 0–100, physician range: 0–50]. We observed one cluster of patients and physicians who would tolerate <10 bleeds and another cluster of patients, but not physicians, who would accept more than 35.ConclusionsOur findings suggest wide variability in patient and physician values and preferences regarding the trade‐off between strokes and bleeds. Results suggest that in individual decision making, physician and patient values and preferences will often be discordant; this mandates tailoring treatment to the individual patient's preferences.

Objective To assess US physicians’ attitudes towards using shared decision-making (SDM) to achieve cost containment. Design Cross-sectional mailed survey. Setting US medical practice. Participants 3897 physicians were randomly selected from the AMA Physician Masterfile. Of these, 2556 completed the survey. Main outcome measures Level of enthusiasm for “Promoting better conversations with patients as a means of lowering healthcare costs”; degree of agreement with “Decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in my practice” and agreement with “should promoting SDM be legislated to control overall healthcare costs”. Results Of 2556 respondents (response rate (RR) 65%), two-thirds (67%) were ‘very enthusiastic’ about promoting SDM as a means of reducing healthcare costs. Most (70%) agreed decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in their practice, but only 24% agreed with legislating SDM to control costs. Compared with physicians with billing-only compensation, respondents with salary compensation were more likely to strongly agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7). Primary care physicians (vs surgeons, OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.6) expressed more enthusiasm for SDM being legislated as a means to address healthcare costs. Conclusions Most US physicians express enthusiasm about using SDM to help contain costs. They believe decision support tools that show costs would be useful. Few agree that SDM should be legislated as a means to control healthcare costs.