Search

Objective: A patient decision aid (PtDA), was developed to support breast cancer patients making choices about their aftercare. The aim of this pilot was to test the effects of the PtDA on Shared Decision Making (SDM), Decision Evaluation (DES) in patients, consultation time, choice of aftercare and hospital costs., Methods: A prospective before-and-after study including a control (no PtDA-usage) and experimental group (PtDA-usage during consultation) was conducted in six hospitals. Patients were offered a choice between intensive (face-to-face consultations) and less intensive (telephonic or on demand consultations) aftercare. All patients filled out three validated questionnaires (baseline (T0), directly after the consultation (T1), three months later (T2)), assessing demographics (T0), SDM(T1) and DES (T1, T2). Hospital costs and choice of aftercare were assessed from the patients' files (T2). Effect sizes ( ɳ p 2 : 0.01 = small; 0.06 = medium; 0.14 = large; φ: 0.1 = small, 0.3 = medium, 0.5 = large) and p-values were calculated using both univariate and multivariate GLMs, a repeated measures GLM and chi-square-tests., Results: A small improvement in SDM ( ɳ p 2  = 0.02) and an effect ( ɳ p 2  = 0.10) on DES was found in the experimental group. Significantly more PtDA-users (51% vs. 29%, φ = 0.22) chose less intensive aftercare, leading to a small reduction of hospital costs (122 vs. 92 Euro, ɳ p 2  = 0.01), and a large increase in average consultation time (12.5 min; ɳ p 2  = 0.29)., Conclusion: This pilot study showed promising effects of the PtDA on SDM and hospital costs. The PtDA can be developed further to potentially reduce the increased consultation time., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Patient preferences are increasingly considered important in health care decision-making. The consideration of patient preferences is mostly put into practice by giving patients a seat at the decision-making table, instead of using research evidence on patient preferences. The consideration of research evidence on patient preferences is justified and relevant for several reasons. The current limited use of this type of evidence suggests, however, that barriers for its use exist. This paper provides an overview of the issues and controversies related to the use of research evidence on patient preferences. Furthermore, an agenda for research and practice is proposed. The paper focuses on two decision contexts, clinical practice guideline development and reimbursement decision-making.

Background: The patient perspective is increasingly considered in healthcare policy decisions. The use of research on patient preferences seems however limited. Using the available research on patient preferences would make healthcare policy decisions more evidence-based regarding the patient perspective. Objective of this study is to investigate whether and how results of research on patient preferences are incorporated in current procedures for pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline (CPG) development., Methods: A document analysis on procedure descriptions was combined with case studies. Analyses were performed for five European countries. In the document analysis we systematically checked whether the procedure provides guidance on the systematic use of research on patient preferences, and whether the search and use of research on patient preferences is mentioned in the decision making procedure. In the case studies, which were for exploratory purposes, we scored whether or not research question on patient preferences were formulated, whether or not a search strategy including terms relating to patient preferences was mentioned, whether results of this search strategy were shown and finally, how many references with preference-related terms were included in the reference list of the case., Results: None of the procedures for pharmaceutical coverage decisions mentions the systematic consideration of research on patient preferences. For CPG development, the Scottish procedure refers to a mandatory literature search. In the Netherlands this step is optional. In the case studies for pharmaceutical coverage decisions only one reference related to patient preferences was found. Some of the case studies for CPG included research questions, search strategies and references relating to patient preferences., Conclusions: This study illustrates that systematic consideration of research on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and guideline development is limited, or if taken into account, this is not visible. This contrasts the strong movement towards patient involvement in health care. Several potential barriers may explain the limited use of research on patient preferences.

Background: Despite a strong movement towards active patient involvement in healthcare policy decisions, systematic and explicit consideration of evidence of this research on patient preferences seems limited. Furthermore, little is known about the opinions of several stakeholders towards consideration of research evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions. This paper describes the protocol for an explorative study on the integration of research on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions. The study questions: to what extent research evidence on patient preferences is considered in current procedures for healthcare policy decisions; opinions of stakeholders regarding the integration of this type of evidence in healthcare policy decisions; and what could be a decision framework for the integration of such research evidence in healthcare policy decisions., Methods/design: The study is divided in three sub-studies, predominantly using qualitative methods. The first sub-study is a scoping review in five European countries to investigate whether and how results of research on patient preferences are considered in current procedures for coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline development. The second sub-study is a qualitative study to explore the opinions of stakeholders with regard to the possibilities for integrating evidence on patient preferences in the process of healthcare decision-making in the Netherlands. The third sub-study is the development of a decision framework for research on patient preferences. The framework will consist of: a process description regarding the place of evidence on patient preferences in the decision-making process; and a taxonomy describing different terminologies and conceptualisations of 'preferences' and an overview of existing methodologies for investigating preferences. The concept framework will be presented to and discussed with experts., Discussion: This study will create awareness regarding the existence and potential value of research evidence on patient preferences for healthcare policy decision-making and provides insight in the methods for investigating patient preferences and the barriers and facilitators for integration of such research in healthcare policy decisions. Results of the study will be useful for researchers, clinical practice guideline developers, healthcare policy makers, and patient representatives.

Objective: Customized care can be beneficial for patients when preferences for health care programs are heterogeneous. Yet, there is little guidance on how individual-specific preferences and cost data can be combined to inform health care decisions about customized care. Therefore, we propose a discrete choice experiment-based approach that illustrates how to analyze the cost-effectiveness of customized (and noncustomized) care programs to provide information for hospital managers., Methods: We exploit the fact that choice models make it possible to determine whether preference heterogeneity exists and to obtain individual-specific parameter estimates. We present an approach of how to combine these individual-specific parameter estimates from a random parameter model (mixed logit model) with cost data to analyze the cost-effectiveness of customized care and demonstrate our method in the case of follow-up after breast cancer treatment., Results: We found that there is significant preference heterogeneity for all except two attributes of breast cancer treatment follow-up and that the fully customized care program leads to higher utility and lower costs than the current standardized program. Compared with the single alternative program, the fully customized care program has increased benefits and higher costs. Thus, it is necessary for health care decision makers to judge whether the use of resources for customized care is cost-effective., Conclusions: Decision makers should consider using the results obtained from our methodological approach when they consider implementing customized health care programs, because it may help to find ways to save costs and increase patient satisfaction., (Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background This study aims to provide greater insight into the current decision-making process on diagnostic testing for dementia by exploring the expectations, needs and experiences of patients with memory complaints, significant others and general practitioners (GPs). Methods We performed semi-structured interviews with patients (>60 years) who consulted their GP on memory complaints, significant others and GPs. Participants were recruited until data saturation was reached in thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Results We performed 51 interviews (patients n  = 20, significant others n  = 15, GPs n  = 16). Thematic analysis revealed four themes: (i) 'drivers to (not) testing', i.e. need to act on symptoms, beliefs on the necessity and expected outcomes of diagnostic testing; (ii) 'patient preferences and context are critical in the actual decision', i.e. in the actual decision-making process interpretation of symptoms, GPs' desire to meet patient preferences, social context and healthcare system dynamics guided the decision; (iii) 'need for individualised communication in the decision-making process', i.e. for patients feeling heard was a prerequisite for decision-making and GPs tailored communication strategies to individual patients and (iv) 'GP practice and barriers to shared decision-making (SDM)', i.e. although GPs value SDM in the decision on diagnostic testing for dementia, patients express limited awareness of the decision and options at stake. Conclusions Decision-making on diagnostic testing for dementia is a multifactorial and preference-guided process for all involved stakeholders, but decisions are often not explicitly jointly made. Development of patient decision aids could facilitate better involvement and more informed choices by patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore the preferences of people with memory complaints (PwMC) and their significant others regarding starting a diagnostic trajectory for dementia. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Embase. Selection of abstracts and papers was performed independently by two researchers. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Result sections of the selected papers were thematically synthesized. From 2497 citations, seven qualitative studies and two mixed methods studies published between 2010 and 2020 were included. Overall quality of the studies was high to moderate. A thematic synthesis showed that preferences for starting a diagnostic trajectory arose from the feeling of needing to do something about the symptoms, beliefs on the necessity and expected outcomes of starting a diagnostic trajectory. These views were influenced by normalization or validation of symptoms, the support or wishes of the social network, interactions with health care professionals, the health status of the PwMC, and societal factors such as stigma and socioeconomic status. A variety of considerations with regard to decision-making on starting a diagnostic trajectory for dementia were identified. This emphasizes the need to explore individual preferences to facilitate a timely dementia diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Personalising aftercare for curatively treated breast cancer patients is expected to improve patient satisfaction with care. A patient decision aid can support women in making decisions about their aftercare trajectory, but is currently not available. The aim of this study was to assess the needs of patients and health professionals with regard to an aftercare decision aid to systematically develop such a decision aid. Focus groups with patients and individual interviews with health professionals were digitally recorded and coded using the Framework analysis. Although most patients felt few aftercare options were available to them, health professionals reported to provide various options on the patients' request. Patients reported difficulty in expressing their need for options to their health professional. Although most patients were unfamiliar with decision aids, the majority preferred a paper‐based patient decision aid, while most health professionals preferred an online tool. The practical implications for the intended patient decision aid are: that a digital tool with paper‐based element should be developed, the patient decision aid should facilitate both rational and intuitive processes and should provide insight in patients' preferences concerning aftercare to discuss these explicitly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The cesarean section (CS) rate has increased over recent decades with poor guideline adherence as a possible cause. The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators for delivering optimal care as described in clinical practice guidelines.Methods: Key recommendations from evidence-based guidelines were used as a base to explore barriers and facilitators for delivering optimal CS care in The Netherlands. Both focus group and telephone interviews among 29 different obstetrical professionals were performed. Transcripts from the interviews were analysed. Barriers and facilitators were identified and categorised in six domains according to the framework developed by Grol: the guideline recommendations (I), the professional (II), the patient (III), the social context (IV), the organizational context (V) and the financial/legislation context (VI).Results: Most barriers were found in the professional and organizational domain. Barriers mentioned by healthcare professionals were disagreement with specific guideline recommendations, and hesitation to allow women to be part of the decision making process. Other barriers are lack of adequately trained personal staff, lack of collaboration between professionals, and lack of technical equipment.Conclusions: Clear facilitators and barriers for guideline adherence were identified in all domains. Several barriers may be addressed by using decision aids on mode of birth or prediction models to individualise care in women in whom both planned vaginal birth and CS are equal options. In women with an intended vaginal birth, adequate staffing and the availability of both fetal blood sampling and epidural analgesia are important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Smoking continues to be a driver of mortality. Various forms of evidence-based cessation assistance exist; however, their use is limited. The choice between them may also induce decisional conflict. Offering decision aids (DAs) may be beneficial; however, insights into their effective elements are lacking.Objective: This study tested the added value of an effective element (ie, an "explicit value clarification method" paired with computer-tailored advice indicating the most fitting cessation assistance) of a web-based smoking cessation DA.Methods: A web-based randomized controlled trial was conducted among smokers motivated to stop smoking within 6 months. The intervention group received a DA with the aforementioned elements, and the control group received the same DA without these elements. The primary outcome measure was 7-day point prevalence abstinence 6 months after baseline (time point 3 [t=3]). Secondary outcome measures were 7-day point prevalence of abstinence 1 month after baseline (time point 2 [t=2]), evidence-based cessation assistance use (t=2 and t=3), and decisional conflict (immediately after DA; time point 1). Logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to assess the outcomes. Analyses were conducted following 2 (decisional conflict) and 3 (smoking cessation) outcome scenarios: complete cases, worst-case scenario (assuming that dropouts still smoked), and multiple imputations. A priori sample size calculation indicated that 796 participants were needed. The participants were mainly recruited on the web (eg, social media). All the data were self-reported.Results: Overall, 2375 participants were randomized (intervention n=1164, 49.01%), of whom 599 (25.22%; intervention n=275, 45.91%) completed the DAs, and 276 (11.62%; intervention n=143, 51.81%), 97 (4.08%; intervention n=54, 55.67%), and 103 (4.34%; intervention n=56, 54.37%) completed time point 1, t=2, and t=3, respectively. More participants stopped smoking in the intervention group (23/63, 37%) than in the control group (14/52, 27%) after 6 months; however, this was only statistically significant in the worst-case scenario (crude P=.02; adjusted P=.04). Effects on the secondary outcomes were only observed for smoking abstinence after 1 month (15/55, 27%, compared with 7/46, 15%, in the crude and adjusted models, respectively; P=.02) and for cessation assistance uptake after 1 month (26/56, 46% compared with 18/47, 38% only in the crude model; P=.04) and 6 months (38/61, 62% compared with 26/50, 52%; crude P=.01; adjusted P=.02) but only in the worst-case scenario. Nonuse attrition was 34.19% higher in the intervention group than in the control group (P<.001).Conclusions: Currently, we cannot confidently recommend the inclusion of explicit value clarification methods and computer-tailored advice. However, they might result in higher nonuse attrition rates, thereby limiting their potential. As a lack of statistical power may have influenced the outcomes, we recommend replicating this study with some adaptations based on the lessons learned.Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register NL8270; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8270.International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/21772. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anxiety in children is highly frequent and causes severe dysfunction. Various studies have used screening procedures to identify high-anxious children and offer them indicated prevention, but the cost-effectiveness of these screening procedures in combination with a preventive intervention has never been examined. This study compared four potential strategies in relation to the prevention of child anxiety: (1) a one-time school-based screening which offers a child-focused intervention, (2) the screening and offering of a parent-focused intervention, (3) the screening and differentially offering a child- or parent-focused intervention, depending on whether or not the parents are anxious themselves, and (4) or doing nothing. An economic evaluation from a societal perspective (i.e. including direct healthcare costs, direct non-healthcare costs, indirect costs, and out-of-pocket costs), using a decision-analytic model. The model was based on the real-world 2-year participation rates of screening and intervention, and real-world costs and effects of high- and median-anxious children (aged 8-12) from regular primary schools. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, and several secondary and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. The strategy of doing nothing and the strategy of screening and differentially offering the child- or parent-focused intervention, depending on parental anxiety levels were both worthwhile, with the latter strategy costing relatively little extra money compared to doing nothing. In conclusion, some evidence for the cost-effectiveness of screening and intervening was found. Screening and offering a parent-focused intervention to children of anxious parents, and a child-focused intervention to children of non-anxious parents, were found to be the most cost-effective approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To broadly synthesize literature regarding decision aids (DAs) supporting decision making about diet, physical activity, sleeping and substance use a scoping review was performed.Methods: Multiple sources were used: (1) Scientific literature searches, (2) excluded references from a Cochrane review regarding DAs for treatments and screenings, and (3) results from additional searches. Interventions had to (1) support informed decision making and (2) provide information and help to choose between at least two options. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts. Relevant information was extracted descriptively.Results: Thirty-five scientific articles and four DAs (grey literature) were included. Results were heterogeneous. Twenty-nine (94%) studies described substance use DAs. All DAs offered information and value and/or preference clarification. Many other elements were included (e.g., goal-setting). DA's effects were mixed. Few studies used standardized measures, e.g., decisional conflict (n = 4, 13%). Some positive behavioral effects were reported: e.g., smoking abstinence (n = 1).Conclusions: This research shows only some positive behavioral effects of DAs. However, studies reported heterogeneous results/outcomes, impeding knowledge synthesis. Areas of improvement were identified, e.g., establishing which intervention elements are effective regarding health behavior decision making.Practice Implications: DAs can potentially be beneficial in supporting people to change health behaviors - especially regarding smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Effective healthcare innovations are often not adopted and implemented. An implementation strategy based on facilitators and barriers for use as perceived by healthcare professionals could increase adoption rates. This study therefore aimed to identify the most relevant facilitators and barriers for use of an innovative breast cancer aftercare decision aid (PtDA) in healthcare practice.Methods: Facilitators and barriers (related to the PtDA, adopter and healthcare organisation) were assessed among breast cancer aftercare health professionals (n = 81), using the MIDI questionnaire. For each category, a backward regression analysis was performed (dependent = intention to adopt). All significant factors were then added to a final regression analysis to identify to most relevant determinants of PtDA adoption.Results: Expecting higher compatibility with daily practice and clinical guidelines, more positive outcomes of use, higher perceived relevance for the patient and increased self-efficacy were significantly associated with a higher intention to adopt. Self-efficacy and perceived patient relevance remained significant in the final model.Conclusions: Low perceived self-efficacy and patient relevance are the most important barriers for health professions to adopt a breast cancer aftercare PtDA.Practice Implications: To target self-efficacy and perceived patient relevance, the implementation strategy could apply health professional peer champions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To test how attribute framing in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) affects respondents' decision-making behavior and their preferences.Methods: Two versions of a DCE questionnaire containing nine choice tasks were distributed among a representative sample of the Dutch population aged 55 to 65 years. The DCE consisted of four attributes related to the decision regarding participation in genetic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). The risk attribute included was framed positively as the probability of surviving CRC and negatively as the probability of dying from CRC. Panel mixed-logit models were used to estimate the relative importance of the attributes. The data of the positively and negatively framed DCE were compared on the basis of direct attribute ranking, dominant decision-making behavior, preferences, and importance scores.Results: The majority (56%) of the respondents ranked survival as the most important attribute in the positively framed DCE, whereas only a minority (8%) of the respondents ranked mortality as the most important attribute in the negatively framed DCE. Respondents made dominant choices based on survival significantly more often than based on mortality. The framing of the risk attribute significantly influenced all attribute-level estimates and resulted in different preference structures among respondents in the positively and negatively framed data set.Conclusions: Risk framing affects how respondents value the presented risk. Positive risk framing led to increased dominant decision-making behavior, whereas negative risk framing led to risk-seeking behavior. Attribute framing should have a prominent part in the expert and focus group interviews, and different types of framing should be used in the pilot version of DCEs as well as in actual DCEs to estimate the magnitude of the effect of choosing different types of framing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]