MDM Policy and Practice最新文献

Introduction. Personalized web-based clinical decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening could address knowledge gaps, enhance patient autonomy in shared decision-making, and promote equitable care. The purpose of this review was to present evidence on the availability, usability, feasibility, acceptability, quality, and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools to support their integration into clinical care. Methods. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist to conduct this review. We searched 6 databases to identify literature on the development, validation, usability, feasibility, acceptability testing, and uptake of the tools into practice settings. Quality assessment for each tool was conducted using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument, with quality scores ranging from 0 to 63 (lowest-highest). Results. We identified 10 tools for breast cancer prevention and 9 tools for screening. The tools included individual (e.g., age), clinical (e.g., genomic risk factors), and health behavior (e.g., alcohol use) characteristics. Fourteen tools included race/ethnicity, but no tool incorporated contextual factors (e.g., insurance, access) associated with breast cancer. All tools were internally or externally validated. Six tools had undergone usability testing in samples including White (median, 71%; range, 9%-96%), insured (99%; 97%-100%) women, with college education or higher (60%; 27%-100%). All of the tools were developed and tested in academic settings. Seven (37%) tools showed potential evidence of uptake in clinical practice. The tools had an average quality assessment score of 21 (range, 9-39). Conclusions. There is limited evidence on testing and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools in diverse clinical settings. The development, testing, and integration of tools in academic and nonacademic settings could potentially improve uptake and equitable access to these tools.

Highlights: There were 19 personalized, interactive, Web-based decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening.Breast cancer outcomes were personalized based on individual clinical characteristics (e.g., age, medical history), genomic risk factors (e.g., BRCA1/2), race and ethnicity, and health behaviors (e.g., smoking). The tools did not include contextual factors (e.g., insurance status, access to screening facilities) that could potentially contribute to breast cancer outcomes.Validation, usability, acceptability, and feasibility testing were conducted mostly among White and/or insured patients with some college education (or higher) in academic settings. There was limited evidence on testing and uptake of the tools in nonacademic clinical settings.

Introduction. This study aimed to understand the impact of alternative modes of information provision on the stated preferences of a sample of the public for attributes of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) in the United Kingdom. Methods. An online discrete choice experiment survey was designed using 4 attributes to describe NBS (effect of treatment on the condition, time to receive results, whether the bloodspot is stored, false-positive rate). Survey respondents were randomized to 1 of 2 survey versions presenting the background training materials using text from a leaflet (leaflet version) or an animation (animation version). Heteroskedastic conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of mode of information provision on error variance. Results. The survey was completed by 1,000 respondents (leaflet = 525; animation = 475). Preferences for the attributes in the DCE were the same in both groups, but the group receiving the animation version had 9% less error variance in their responses. Respondents completing the animation version gave higher ratings compared with the leaflet version in terms of ease of perceived understanding. Subgroup analysis suggested that the animation was particularly effective at reducing error variance for women (20%), people with previous children (16.5%), and people between the ages of 35 and 45 y (11.8%). Limitations. This study used simple DCE with 4 attributes, and the results may vary for more complex choice questions. Conclusion. This study provides evidence that that supplementing the information package offered to parents choosing to take part in NBS with an animation may aid them their decision making. Further research would be needed to test the animation in the health system. Implications. Researchers designing DCE should carefully consider the design of their training materials to improve the quality of data collected.

Highlights: Prior to completing a discrete choice experiment about newborn bloodspot screening, respondents were shown information using either a leaflet-based or animated format.Respondents receiving information using an animation version reported that the information was slightly easier to understand and exhibited 9% less error variance in expressing their preferences for a newborn screening program.Using the animation version to present information appeared to have a larger impact in reducing the error variance of responses for specific respondents including women, individuals with children, individuals between the ages of 35 and 45 y, and individuals educated to degree level.

Background. Patient involvement interventions are complex interventions that improve patient involvement in treatment and care in health care systems. Studies report several benefits of patient involvement interventions and that health care professionals are positive about using them. However, they have not been explored as a collected group of interventions throughout the continuum of care and treatment. In addition, the relationship between patient involvement interventions and the clinical reasoning process of health care professionals has not been thoroughly studied. Design. This mixed-methods study was conducted at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark between April and November 2022 using interview data from 12 health care professionals and survey data from 420 health care professionals. Informants were medical doctors, nurses, midwives, dietitians, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists who had direct contact with patients during their daily care and treatment. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative data were analyzed via inductive and deductive content analysis. Results. Communication and interaction were seen as overarching aspects of patient involvement, with patient involvement interventions being defined as concrete tools and methods to enhance health care professionals' explicit clinical reasoning process. Limitations. It is unclear if results are representative of all health care professionals at the hospital or only those with a positive view of patient involvement interventions. Conclusions. Patient involvement interventions are viewed as beneficial for patients and fit with the clinical reasoning of health care professionals. Clinical reasoning may be an active ingredient in the development and implementation of patient involvement interventions. Implications. In practice, health care professionals need training in person-centered communication and the ability to articulate their clinical reasoning explicitly. In research, a more in-depth understanding of the interrelations between patient involvement interventions and clinical reasoning is needed.

Highlights: Communication and interaction are the fundamental goals of patient involvement in practice, regardless of which patient involvement intervention is being used.Clinical reasoning is often an unconscious process using tacit knowledge, but the use of patient involvement interventions may be a way for health care professionals (at both individual and group levels) to become more explicit about and aware of their reflections.Clinical reasoning can be viewed as a mechanism of change in the development and implementation of patient involvement interventions.

Objective. To compare resource utilization and costs associated with 3 alternative screening approaches to identify early-onset sepsis (EOS) in infants born at ≥35 wk of gestational age, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2018. Study Design. Decision tree-based cost analysis of the 3 AAP-recommended approaches: 1) categorical risk assessment (categorization by chorioamnionitis exposure status), 2) neonatal sepsis calculator (a multivariate prediction model based on perinatal risk factors), and 3) enhanced clinical observation (assessment based on serial clinical examinations). We evaluated resource utilization and direct costs (2022 US dollars) to the health system. Results. Categorical risk assessment led to the greatest neonatal intensive care unit usage (210 d per 1,000 live births) and antibiotic exposure (6.8%) compared with the neonatal sepsis calculator (112 d per 1,000 live births and 3.6%) and enhanced clinical observation (99 d per 1,000 live births and 3.1%). While the per-live birth hospital costs of the 3 approaches were similar-categorical risk assessment cost $1,360, the neonatal sepsis calculator cost $1,317, and enhanced clinical observation cost $1,310-the cost of infants receiving intervention under categorical risk assessment was approximately twice that of the other 2 strategies. Results were robust to variations in data parameters. Conclusion. The neonatal sepsis calculator and enhanced clinical observation approaches may be preferred to categorical risk assessment as they reduce the number of infants receiving intervention and thus antibiotic exposure and associated costs. All 3 approaches have similar costs over all live births, and prior literature has indicated similar health outcomes. Inclusion of downstream effects of antibiotic exposure in the neonatal period should be evaluated within a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Highlights: Of the 3 approaches recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2018 to identify early-onset sepsis in infants born at ≥35 weeks, the categorical risk assessment approach leads to about twice as many infants receiving evaluation to rule out early-onset sepsis compared with the neonatal sepsis calculator and enhanced clinical observation approaches.While the hospital costs of the 3 approaches were similar over the entire population of live births, the neonatal sepsis calculator and enhanced clinical observation approaches reduce antibiotic exposure, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and hospital costs associated with interventions as part of the screening approach compared with the categorical risk assessment approach.

Background. Local health services make limited use of economic evaluation to inform decisions to fund new health service interventions. One barrier is the relevance of published intervention effects to the local setting, given these effects can strongly reflect the original evaluation context. Expert elicitation methods provide a structured approach to explicitly and transparently adjust published effect estimates, which can then be used in local-level economic evaluations to increase their local relevance. Expert elicitation was used to adjust published effect estimates for 2 interventions targeting the prevention of inpatient hypoglycemia. Methods. Elicitation was undertaken with 6 clinical experts. They were systematically presented with information regarding potential differences in patient characteristics and quality of care between the published study and local contexts, and regarding the design and application of the published study. The experts then assessed the intervention effects and provided estimates of the most realistic, most pessimistic, and most optimistic intervention effect sizes in the local context. Results. The experts estimated both interventions would be less effective in the local setting compared with the published effect estimates. For one intervention, the experts expected the lower complexity of admitted patients in the local setting would reduce the intervention's effectiveness. For the other intervention, the reduced effect was largely driven by differences in the scope of implementation (hospital-wide in the local setting compared with targeted implementation in the evaluation). Conclusions. The pragmatic elicitation methods reported in this article provide a feasible and acceptable approach to assess and adjust published intervention effects to better reflect expected effects in the local context. Further development and application of these methods is proposed to facilitate the use of local-level economic evaluation.

Highlights: Local health services make limited use of economic evaluation to inform their decisions on the funding of new health service interventions. One barrier to use is the relevance of published intervention evaluations to the local setting.Expert elicitation methods provide a structured way to consider differences between the evaluation and local settings and to explicitly and transparently adjust published effect estimates for use in local economic evaluations.The pragmatic elicitation methods reported in this article offer a feasible and acceptable approach to adjusting published intervention effects to better reflect the effects expected in the local context. This increases the relevance of economic evaluations for local decision makers.

Background. Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a high-prevalence disease associated with poor quality of life and mortality. This quantitative patient preference study aims to identify TR patients' perspectives on risk-benefit tradeoffs. Methods. A discrete-choice experiment was developed to explore TR treatment risk-benefit tradeoffs. Attributes (levels) tested were treatment (procedure, medical management), reintervention risk (0%, 1%, 5%, 10%), medications over 2 y (none, reduce, same, increase), shortness of breath (none/mild, moderate, severe), and swelling (never, 3× per week, daily). A mixed logit regression model estimated preferences and calculated predicted probabilities. Relative attribute importance was calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed. Results. An online survey was completed by 150 TR patients. Shortness of breath was the most important attribute and accounted for 65.8% of treatment decision making. The average patients' predicted probability of preferring a "procedure-like" profile over a "medical management-like" profile was 99.7%. This decreased to 78.9% for a level change from severe to moderate in shortness of breath in the "medical management-like" profile. Subgroup analysis confirmed that patients older than 64 y had a stronger preference to avoid severe shortness of breath compared with younger patients (P < 0.02), as did severe or worse TR patients relative to moderate. New York Heart Association class I/II patients more strongly preferred to avoid procedural reintervention risk relative to class III/IV patients (P < 0.03). Conclusion. TR patients are willing to accept higher procedural reintervention risk if shortness of breath is alleviated. This risk tolerance is higher for older and more symptomatic patients. These results emphasize the appropriateness of developing TR therapies and the importance of addressing symptom burden.

Highlights: This study provides quantitative patient preference data from clinically confirmed tricuspid regurgitation (TR) patients to understand their treatment preferences.Using a targeted literature search and patient, physician, and Food and Drug Administration feedback, a cross-sectional survey with a discrete-choice experiment that focused on 5 of the most important attributes to TR patients was developed and administered online.TR patients are willing to accept higher procedural reintervention risk if shortness of breath is alleviated, and this risk tolerance is higher for older and more symptomatic patients.