MDM Policy and Practice最新文献

Background. Shared decision making (SDM) for patients enrolling in differentiated antiretroviral therapy (DART) is crucial. Empirical evidence is lacking regarding factors promoting or hindering SDM implementation in DART provision in Ethiopia. Hence, this study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM for patients enrolled in DART in Northwest Ethiopia. Methods. A qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews among 17 patients and 15 providers at health facilities providing DART service was conducted. The MAXQDA version 20 software was used for inductive coding. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results. Ten themes emerged at 4 levels related to SDM in the provision of DART: patient, provider, organizational, and health system. At the patient level, 1) trust in providers (facilitator) and 2) patient's level of education (barrier) emerged as themes. At the provider level, 3) lack of familiarity with DART models (barrier) and 4) patient-provider relationship (barrier and facilitator) were emerged themes. At the organizational level, 5) workload (barrier) and 6) resources (barrier and facilitator) emerged as themes. At the health system level, 7) availability of DART models (facilitator), 8) not involving providers while initiating DART models (barrier), 9) other providers' involvement (facilitator), and 10) presence of other implementing partners (barrier) emerged as themes. Conclusions. Numerous barriers and facilitators influence the implementation of SDM in the provision of DART. Based on these findings, the following steps are recommended. Providing access to patient decision aids shall be in place to assist patients in making decisions about their preferred DART models. Health care workers shall be trained, and patients shall be given education to enhance the SDM process. Policy makers and program managers shall consider the resource context (training and size of human resources and convenience of rooms) for the delivery of ART service to have an appropriate implementation of SDM in clinical practice.

Highlights: Shared decision making in DART is influenced by various barriers and facilitators present at the patient, provider, organizational, and health system levels.Patients need education, and health care staff need regular training to improve SDM in DART service provision.Patient access to decision support tools that aid in the selection of the preferred DART model in health facilities is critical.Policy makers and program managers shall consider the availability of adequate and trained human resources as well as provide adequate space and private rooms for SDM in the implementation of DART.

Background. Previous research has examined the individual effects of uncertainty, time pressure, perceived stress, and team support on decision making. However, scant research has investigated how team support and perceived stress collectively influence providers' perception of decision conflict and satisfaction with decision. Objectives. The present study aims to fill this void by examining the potential mediating role of perceived stress and team support in the relationship between time pressure, uncertainty, decision satisfaction, and decision conflict. Methods. Obstetrics and gynecology (Obs and Gynae) physicians (N = 347) working in tertiary care hospitals were approached through snowball and purposive convenient sampling. Self-reported data were collected in the form of questionnaires. Results. Structural equation modeling was used to uncover the complex linkages. Perceived stress was found to be a significant mediator between uncertainty and decision conflict (b = -0.033, P < 0.05). In addition, team support was also found to be a significant mediator between uncertainty and decision satisfaction (b = 0.082, P < 0.05) as well as between time pressure and decision satisfaction (b = 0.086, P < 0.05). Conclusion. Team support acts as a bridge between uncertainty and decision satisfaction and also between time pressure and decision satisfaction, underscoring its critical role in provider perceptions of decision making in the Obs and Gynae context. Implications. This study highlights the significance of managing stress, enhancing team support, and giving priority to patient-centered care. These findings provide insights into risk and uncertainty management in medical decision making, advancing patient-centered care, and optimizing health care outcomes.

Highlights: Stressors in hospital settings such as the complexity and uncertainty of tasks create stress among physicians, potentially leading to decision conflicts.Team support plays a fundamental role in mitigating the negative effects of stressors such as time pressure and uncertainty.Implementing stress management and team support interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness may enhance decision making among Obs and Gynae physicians.

Objective. We aim to evaluate patients' preferences for antiretroviral therapy (ART) to enhance shared decision making in clinical practice in Northwest Ethiopia. Methods. A discrete choice experiment approach was used among adult patients from 36 randomly selected public health facilities from February 6, 2023, to March 29, 2023. A literature review, qualitative work, ranking and rating surveys, and expert consultation were used to identify the attributes. Location, provider, frequency of visit, appointment modality, refill time, and cost of visit were the 6 ART service features chosen. Participants were given the option of choosing between 2 hypothetical differentiated ART delivery models. Mixed logit and latent class analysis were used. Results: Four hundred fifty-six patients completed the choice task. Respondents preferred to receive ART refills alone at health facilities by health care workers without having to have frequent visits and with reduced cost of visit. Overall, the participants valued the cost of the visit the most while they valued the timing of ART refill the least. Participants were willing to pay only for the attributes of frequency of visit and medication refill time. The latent class model with 3 classes provided the best model fit. Location, cost, and frequency were the most important attributes in class 1, class 2, and class 3, respectively. Income and marital status significantly predicted class membership. Conclusions. Respondents preferred to receive refills at health facilities, less frequent visits, individual appointments, service provision by health care workers, and reduced cost of visit. The cost attribute had the greatest impact on the choice of patients. Health care workers should consider the preferences of patients while providing ART services to meet patients' expectations and choices.

Highlights: A discrete choice experiment was used to elicit patient preferences.People living with HIV preferred receiving medication refills at health facilities, less frequent visits, individual appointments, service delivery by health care workers, and lower visit costs.Health care workers should consider the preferences of patients while providing ART service to meet their expectations and choices.Scaling up differentiated HIV treatment services is crucial for patient-centered care.

Introduction. Serogroup B (MenB) is the leading cause of invasive meningococcal disease among adolescents and young adults in the United States. The US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends MenB vaccination based on shared clinical decision making between patients and providers. However, suboptimal understanding of these recommendations could contribute to low vaccination awareness and coverage. Understanding young adult and parent expectations of their health care providers (HCPs) and the value they place on vaccine information could help inform a consistent approach to HCP MenB vaccination discussions and recommendations. Methods. Data collected via a discrete-choice experiment online survey were used to evaluate preferences and willingness to pay regarding MenB vaccination among US parents and young adults in 2019. Results. Of 2,388 respondents with valid data, 1,185 were parents of children aged 12 to 25 y, and 1,203 were young adults aged 18 to 25 y. Approximately 70% of parents and young adults indicated that they would react negatively if their HCP chose not to initiate a discussion with them about MenB vaccines. Neither parents nor young adults were willing to pay for additional time for MenB vaccine discussions with their HCP but were willing to pay an average of $416 and $282, respectively, for the vaccine. For parents and young adults, greater willingness to pay was associated with a provaccination attitude and the opinion that the HCP has a moral obligation to discuss the MenB vaccine with them. Conclusion. Both parents and young adults felt their HCP is responsible for initiating a discussion about MenB vaccination and disease risk and were willing to pay for the vaccine. These findings should help inform ACIP recommendations for meningococcal vaccination.

Highlights: ACIP recommends shared clinical decision making for MenB vaccination.Data were collected from young adults and parents of adolescents by online survey.We measured values and consultation preferences on MenB disease and vaccination.Young adults/parents strongly preferred doctor-initiated MenB vaccine discussion.Respondents were willing to pay for a MenB vaccine.

Background. Stroke and epilepsy are the most common neurologic conditions affecting individuals. The Short Form Six-Dimension Health Index (SF-6D) is a preference-based measure of health developed to estimate utility values from the SF-36. This study estimated utility values for health states of Nigerian individuals with stroke or epilepsy using the SF-36. Methods. SF-36 responses from 125 and 69 individuals with stroke and persons with epilepsy, respectively, were transformed into health state utility values using the SF-6D algorithm. The Excel program developed by Brazier and colleagues was used to generate the SF-6D utility score estimated using a set of parametric preference weights. The health state utility values were determined using ordinal health state and standard gamble valuation techniques. Results. Mean (s) ages of the stroke and epilepsy participants were 63.1 (11) and 39.6 (16) y, respectively. The mean (s) utility scores for stroke and epilepsy were 0.52 (0.10) and 0.65 (0.1) for standard gamble and 0.48 (0.13) and 0.68 (0.11), respectively, using the ordinal health state paradigm. The mean (s) utility of stroke (female = 0.46 [0.15]; male = 0.50 [0.12]) and epilepsy (female = 0.65 [0.13], male = 0.69 [0.11]) participants were reported. The mean (s) annual episodes of seizure was 18.7 (39). Conclusions. To our knowledge, this is the first study to suggest that females with stroke and those with epilepsy considered their health to be poorer than that of their male counterparts. The significance of our findings is that they may be helpful for researchers, policy makers, and clinicians by providing input into economic evaluations to facilitate resource allocation for stroke survivors and people living with epilepsy to improve their health outcomes and reduce the huge burden associated with the conditions.

Highlight: We estimated a health state utility value for stroke and epilepsy to aid researchers and public health policy makers in conducting health economic analysis and outcomes research.

Purpose. To estimate the impact on mortality of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. We implemented an agent-based modified SEIR model of COVID-19, calibrated to match death numbers reported in Pennsylvania from January 2020 to April 2021 and including representations of NPIs implemented in Pennsylvania. To investigate the impact of these strategies, we ran the calibrated model with no interventions and with varying combinations, timings, and levels of interventions. Results. The model closely replicated death outcomes data for Pennsylvania. Without NPIs, deaths in the early months of the pandemic were estimated to be much higher (67,718 deaths compared to actual 6,969). Voluntary interventions alone were relatively ineffective at decreasing mortality. Delaying implementation of interventions led to higher deaths (∼9,000 more deaths with just a 1-week delay). School closure was insufficient as a single intervention but was an important part of a combined intervention strategy. Conclusions. NPIs were effective at reducing deaths early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Agent-based models can incorporate substantial detail on infectious disease spread and the impact of mitigations. Policy Implications. The model supports the importance and effectiveness of NPIs to decrease morbidity from respiratory pathogens. This is particularly important for emerging pathogens for which no vaccines or treatments exist, but such strategies are applicable to a variety of respiratory pathogens.

Highlights: Nonpharmaceutical interventions were used extensively during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic, but their use has remained controversial.Agent-based modeling of the impact of these mitigation strategies early in the COVID-19 pandemic supports the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical interventions at decreasing mortality.Since such interventions are not specific to a particular pathogen, they can be used to protect against any respiratory pathogen, known or emerging. They can be applied rapidly when conditions warrant.

Background. Global climate change is resulting in dramatic increases in wildfires. Individuals exposed to wildfires experience a high burden of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the cost-effectiveness of the treatment options to address PTSD from wildfires has not been studied. The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing screening followed by treatment with paroxetine or trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) versus no screening in Canadian adult wildfire evacuees. Methods. Using a Markov model, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs were evaluated over a 5-y time horizon using health care and societal perspectives. All costs and utilities in the model were discounted at 1.5%. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses examined the uncertainty in the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000. Results. From a societal perspective, no screening (NMB = $177,641) was dominated by screening followed by treatment with paroxetine (NMB = $180,733) and TF-CBT (NMB = $181,787), with TF-CBT having the highest likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY (probability = 0.649). The initial prevalence of PTSD, probability of acceptance of treatment, and costs of productivity had the largest impact on the INMB of both paroxetine or TF-CBT versus no screening. Neither intervention was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY from a health care perspective. Interpretation. Screening followed by treatment with paroxetine or TF-CBT compared with no screening was found to be cost-saving while providing additional QALYs in wildfire evacuees. Governments should consider funding screening programs for PTSD followed by treatment with TF-CBT for wildfire evacuees.

Highlights: Two prior studies examined the cost-effectiveness of screening followed by treatment for PTSD among individuals exposed to other disaster-type events (i.e., terrorist attack and Hurricane Sandy) and found screening followed by treatment (i.e., cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]) to be highly cost-effective.Among wildfire evacuees, screening followed by treatment with paroxetine or trauma-focused (TF)-CBT provides additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and is cost-saving from a societal perspective. TF-CBT was the treatment option found most likely to be cost-effective.Neither treatment option was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY from a health care perspective.Screening programs for PTSD should be considered for wildfire evacuees, and individuals diagnosed with PTSD could be prescribed either TF-CBT or paroxetine depending on their preference and resources availability.

Background. Fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) is the delivery of fecal microbiome, isolated from healthy donors, into a patient's gastrointestinal tract. FMT is a safe and efficient treatment for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection. Donors undergo strict screening to avoid disease transmission. This consists of several blood and stool tests, which are performed in a multistage, costly process. We performed a cost-minimizing analysis to find the optimal order in which the tests should be performed. Methods. An algorithm to optimize the order of tests in terms of cost was defined. Performance analysis for disqualifying a potential healthy donor was carried out on data sets based on either the published literature or our real-life data. For both data sets, we calculated the total cost to qualify a single donor according to the optimal order of tests, suggested by the algorithm. Results. Applying the algorithm to the published literature revealed potential savings of 94.2% of the cost of screening a potential donor and 7.05% of the cost to qualify a single donor. In our cohort of 87 volunteers, 53 were not eligible for donation. Of 34 potential donors, 10 were disqualified due to abnormal lab tests. Applying our algorithm to optimize the order of tests, the average cost for screening a potential donor resulted in potential savings of 49.9% and a 21.3% savings in the cost to qualify a single donor. Conclusions. Improving the order and timing of the screening tests of potential FMT stool donors can decrease the costs by about 50% per subject.

Highlights: What is known:Fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) is the transfer of microbiome from healthy donors to patients.Fecal donors undergo multiple strict screening tests to exclude any transmissible disease.Screening tests of potential fecal donors is expensive and time consuming.FMT is the most efficient treatment for recurrent C difficile infection.What is new here:An algorithm to optimize the order of donors' screening tests in terms of cost was defined.Optimizing the order tests can save nearly 50% in costs of screening a potential donor.

Background: Considering a patient's full risk factor profile can promote personalized shared decision making (SDM). One way to accomplish this is through encounter tools that incorporate prediction models, but little is known about clinicians' perceptions of the feasibility of using these tools in practice. We examined how clinicians react to using one such encounter tool for personalizing SDM about lung cancer screening (LCS).

Design: We conducted a qualitative study based on field notes from academic detailing visits during a multisite quality improvement program. The detailer engaged one-on-one with 96 primary care clinicians across multiple Veterans Affairs sites (7 medical centers and 6 outlying clinics) to get feedback on 1) the rationale for prediction-based LCS and 2) how to use the DecisionPrecision (DP) encounter tool with eligible patients to personalize LCS discussions.

Results: Thematic content analysis from detailing visit data identified 6 categories of clinician willingness to use the DP tool to personalize SDM for LCS (adoption potential), varying from "Enthusiastic Potential Adopter" (n = 18) to "Definite Non-Adopter" (n = 16). Many clinicians (n = 52) articulated how they found the concept of prediction-based SDM highly appealing. However, to varying degrees, nearly all clinicians identified challenges to incorporating such an approach in routine practice.

Limitations: The results are based on the clinician's initial reactions rather than longitudinal experience.

Conclusions: While many primary care clinicians saw real value in using prediction to personalize LCS decisions, more support is needed to overcome barriers to using encounter tools in practice. Based on these findings, we propose several strategies that may facilitate the adoption of prediction-based SDM in contexts such as LCS.

Highlights: Encounter tools that incorporate prediction models promote personalized shared decision making (SDM), but little is known about clinicians' perceptions of the feasibility of using these tools in practice.We examined how clinicians react to using one such encounter tool for personalizing SDM about lung cancer screening (LCS).While many clinicians found the concept of prediction-based SDM highly appealing, nearly all clinicians identified challenges to incorporating such an approach in routine practice.We propose several strategies to overcome adoption barriers and facilitate the use of prediction-based SDM in contexts such as LCS.

Background. Advocates argue that end-of-life (EOL) care is systematically disadvantaged by the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) framework. By definition, EOL care is short duration and not primarily intended to extend survival; therefore, it may be inappropriate to value a time element. The QALY also neglects nonhealth dimensions such as dignity, control, and family relations, which may be more important at EOL. Together, these suggest the QALY may be a flawed measure of the value of EOL care. To test these arguments, we administered a stated preference survey in a UK-representative public sample. Methods. We designed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to understand public preferences over different EOL scenarios, focusing on the relative importance of survival, conventional health dimensions (especially physical symptoms and anxiety), and nonhealth dimensions such as family relations, dignity, and sense of control. We used latent class analysis to understand preference heterogeneity. Results. A 4-class latent class multinomial logit model had the best fit and illustrated important heterogeneity. A small class of respondents strongly prioritized survival, whereas most respondents gave relatively little weight to survival and, generally speaking, prioritized nonhealth aspects. Conclusions. This DCE illustrates important heterogeneity in preferences within UK respondents. Despite some preferences for core elements of the QALY, we suggest that most respondents favored what has been called "a good death" over maximizing survival and find that respondents tended to prioritize nonhealth over conventional health aspects of quality. Together, this appears to support arguments that the QALY is a poor measure of the value of EOL care. We recommend moving away from health-related quality of life and toward a more holistic perspective on well-being in assessing EOL and other interventions.

Highlights: Advocates argue that some interventions, including but not limited to end-of-life (EOL) care, are valued by patients and the public but are systematically disadvantaged by the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) framework, leading to an unfair and inefficient allocation of health care resources.Using a discrete choice experiment, we find some support for this argument. Only a small proportion of public respondents prioritized survival in EOL scenarios, and most prioritized nonhealth aspects such as dignity and family relations.Together, these results suggest that the QALY may be a poor measure of the value of EOL care, as it neglects nonhealth aspects of quality and well-being that appear to be important to people in hypothetical EOL scenarios.