Citations

AbstractAbstract In a randomized trial of 130 surgical patients, use of a decision aid consisting of laminated cards with pros and cons of continuing smoking, attempting temporary abstinence, or attempting to quit smoking improved measures of decisional quality but did not change perioperative tobacco use behavior. Background: Decision aids can increase patient involvement in decision-making about health care. The study goal was to develop and test a decision aid for use by clinicians in discussion options for changing smoking behavior before and after elective surgery. Methods: In formative work, a decision aid was designed to facilitate patient–clinician discussion regarding three options: continue smoking, attempt a period of temporary abstinence, and attempt to quit smoking for good. A randomized, two-group pilot study was then conducted in smokers evaluated in preparation for elective surgery in a preoperative clinic to test the hypothesis that the decision aid would improve measures of decisional quality compared with usual care. Results: The final decision aid consisted of three laminated cards. The front of each card included a colorful graphic describing each choice; the reverse including two to three pros and cons for each decision, a simple graphic illustrating the effects of smoking on the body, and a motivational phrase. In the randomized trial of 130 patients, the decision aid significantly ( P < 0.05) improved measures of decisional quality and patient involvement in decision making (Cohen’s d effect sizes of 0.76 and 1.20 for the Decisional Conflict Scale and Observing PatienT involvement In decisiON-making scale, respectively). However, the decision aid did not affect any aspect of perioperative smoking behavior, including the distribution of or adherence to choices. Conclusions: Although the use of a decision aid to facilitate clinician–patient discussions regarding tobacco use around the time of surgery substantially improved measures of decisional quality, it alone did not change perioperative tobacco use behavior.

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.

Chronic conditions are the most important cause of morbidity, mortality and health expense in the USA. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) seeks to provide evidence supporting the relative value of alternative courses of action. This research often concludes with estimates of the likelihood of desirable and undesirable outcomes associated with each option. Patients with chronic conditions should engage with their clinicians in deciding which of these options best fits their goals and context. In practicing shared decision-making (SDM), clinicians and patients should make use of CER to inform their deliberations. In these ways, SDM and CER are interrelated. SDM translates CER into patient-centered practice, while CER provides the backbone evidence about options and outcomes in SDM interventions. In this review, we explore the potential for a SDM–CER synergy in improving healthcare for patients with chronic conditions.

AbstractBackgroundVarious components of the skin biopsy requisition form (SBRF) may contribute to accurate dermatopathologic interpretation.MethodsA search of electronic databases, including those of Ovid MEDLINE In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus, was conducted from inception to October 2011. Two authors independently screened all articles for eligibility. Inclusion criteria required material to represent original studies on skin biopsy and pathology requisition forms. Data abstracted from each article that met the inclusion criteria included details of the study characteristics, including the study location, type of pathology practice, specimen type, type of dermatoses, medical specialty of the requesting provider, suggested clinical components, and format of the SBRF.ResultsOf 32 titles and abstracts reviewed, seven articles were included. From these, we determined that dermatologists, general practitioners and surgeons completed SBRFs. Commonly included components were patient demographics and requesting clinician characteristics. Clinical information and differential diagnosis were provided in 4% (two of 48 surgeons) to 36% (18 of 50 dermatologists) of requisitions. Most SBRFs did not include information on specimen type, clinical morphology, photographs or clinical history.ConclusionsThe limited medical literature demonstrates variation in the content of SBRFs across clinicians and practices, and suggests an important target for improvement in the quality of communication and dermatologic care by requesting clinicians and pathologists.

Abstract Background We have no clear overview of the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in the decision‐making process during consultations. The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument ( OPTION ) was designed to assess this. Objective To systematically review studies that used the OPTION instrument to observe the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in decision making across a range of clinical contexts, including different health professions and lengths of consultation. Search strategy We conducted online literature searches in multiple databases (2001–12) and gathered further data through networking. Inclusion criteria (i) OPTION scores as reported outcomes and (ii) health‐care providers and patients as study participants. For analysis, we only included studies using the revised scale. Data extraction Extracted data included: (i) study and participant characteristics and (ii) OPTION outcomes (scores, statistical associations and reported psychometric results). We also assessed the quality of OPTION outcomes reporting. Main results We found 33 eligible studies, 29 of which used the revised scale. Overall, we found low levels of patient‐involving behaviours: in cases where no intervention was used to implement shared decision making ( SDM ), the mean OPTION score was 23 ± 14 (0–100 scale). When assessed, the variables most consistently associated with higher OPTION scores were interventions to implement SDM ( n = 8/9) and duration of consultations ( n = 8/15). Conclusions Whatever the clinical context, few health‐care providers consistently attempt to facilitate patient involvement, and even fewer adjust care to patient preferences. However, both SDM interventions and longer consultations could improve this.