Type 2 diabetes patient activation and mHealth interventions decreased cardiovascular disease risk.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are 2 to 4 times higher than among those without T2D. Our objective was to determine whether a patient activation program (Office-Guidelines Applied to Practice [Office-GAP]) plus a mobile health (mHealth) intervention compared with mHealth alone improved medication use and decreased 10-year atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk score in patients with T2D. STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental design; Office-GAP plus mHealth vs mHealth only. METHODS: The Office-GAP intervention included (1) a patient activation group visit, (2) provider training, and (3) a decision support checklist used in real time during the encounter. The mHealth intervention included daily text messages for 15 weeks. Patients with T2D (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8%) attending internal medicine residency clinics were randomly assigned to either the combined Office-GAP + mHealth group (Green) or mHealth-only group (White). After group visits, patients followed up with providers at 2 and 4 months. A generalized estimating equation regression model was used to compare change in medication use and ASCVD risk scores between the 2 arms at 0, 2, and 4 months. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with diabetes (26 in Green team and 25 in White team) completed the study. The 10-year ASCVD risk score decreased in both groups (Green: -3.23; P = .06; White: -3.98; P = .01). Medication use increased from baseline to 4-month follow-up (statin: odds ratio [OR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.32-3.67; aspirin: OR, 3.21, 95% CI, 1.44-7.17; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker: OR, 2.67, 95% CI, 1.09-6.56). There was no significant difference in impact of the combined intervention (Office-GAP + mHealth) compared with mHealth alone. CONCLUSIONS: Both Office-GAP + mHealth and mHealth alone increased the use of evidence-based medications and decreased 10-year ASCVD risk scores for patients with T2D in 4 months.

Improving diabetic patients' adherence to treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease (Office Guidelines Applied to Practice-IMPACT Study)-a cluster randomized controlled effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite nationwide improvements in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and morbidity, CVD deaths in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are 2-4 times higher than among those without T2DM. A key contributor to these poor health outcomes is medication non-adherence. Twenty-one to 42% of T2DM patients do not take blood sugar, blood pressure (BP), or statin medications as prescribed. Interventions that foster and reinforce patient-centered communication show promise in improving health outcomes. However, they have not been widely implemented, in part due to a lack of compelling evidence for their effectiveness in real-life primary care settings. METHODS: This pragmatic cluster-randomized trial randomizes 17 teams in 12 Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers (FQHCs) to two experimental groups: intervention (group 1): Office-Gap + Texting vs. control (group 2): Texting only. Office-GAP (Office-Guidelines Applied to Practice) is a patient activation intervention to improve communication and patient-provider partnerships through brief patient and provider training in shared decision-making (SDM) and use of a guideline-based checklist. The texting intervention (Way2Health) is a cell phone messaging service that informs and encourages patients to adhere to goals, adhere to medication use and improve communication. After recruitment, patients in groups 1 and 2 will both attend (1) one scheduled group visit, (90-120 min) conducted by trained research assistants, and (2) follow-up visits with their providers after group visit at 0-1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Data will be collected over 12-month intervention period. Our primary outcome is medication adherence measured using eCAP electronic monitoring and self-report. Secondary outcomes are (a) diabetes-specific 5-year CVD risk as measured with the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Engine score, (b) provider engagement as measured by the CollaboRATE Shared-Decision Making measure, and (c) patient activation measures (PAM). DISCUSSION: This study will provide a rigorous pragmatic evaluation of the effectiveness of combined mHealth, and patient activation interventions compared to mHealth alone, targeting patients and healthcare providers in safety net health centers, in improving medication adherence and decreasing CVD risk. Given that 20-50% of adults with chronic illness demonstrate medication non-adherence, increasing adherence is essential to improve CVD outcomes as well as healthcare cost savings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT04874116.

Head to head randomized trial of two decision aids for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: While many studies have tested the impact of a decision aid (DA) compared to not receiving any DA, far fewer have tested how different types of DAs affect key outcomes such as treatment choice, patient-provider communication, or decision process/satisfaction. This study tested the impact of a complex medical oriented DA compared to a more simplistic decision aid designed to encourage shared decision making in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: 1028 men at 4 VA hospitals were recruited after a scheduled prostate biopsy. Participants completed baseline measures and were randomized to receive either a simple or complex DA. Participants were men with clinically localized cancer (N = 285) by biopsy and who completed a baseline survey. Survey measures: baseline (biopsy); immediately prior to seeing the physician for biopsy results (pre- encounter); one week following the physician visit (post-encounter). Outcome measures included treatment preference and treatment received, knowledge, preference for shared decision making, decision making process, and patients' use and satisfaction with the DA. RESULTS: Participants who received the simple DA had greater interest in shared decision making after reading the DA (p = 0.03), found the DA more helpful (p's < 0.01) and were more likely to be considering watchful waiting (p = 0.03) compared to those receiving the complex DA at Time 2. While these differences were present before patients saw their urologists, there was no difference between groups in the treatment patients received. CONCLUSIONS: The simple DA led to increased desire for shared decision making and for less aggressive treatment. However, these differences disappeared following the physician visit, which appeared to change patients' treatment preferences. Trial registration This trial was pre-registered prior to recruitment of participants.

Racial differences in veterans' response to a standard vs. patient-centered decision aid for prostate cancer: Implications for decision making in African American and White men.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether racial differences exist in patient preferences for prostate cancer treatment after being informed about options using a patient-centered vs. a standard decision aid (DA). METHODS: This article reports secondary analyses of a large study of men diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer. Men were recruited from 4 VA Health Systems and randomized to receive a patient-centered or standard DA about prostate cancer treatment options. Data were collected at 1) baseline, 2) after reading the DA but prior to diagnosis, and 3) after receiving a cancer diagnosis and meeting with a urologist. RESULTS: White patients who received the patient-centered DA written at a 7th grade reading level were more likely to prefer active surveillance and less likely to prefer radiation compared to those who received the standard DA written at >9th grade reading level. African American patients' treatment preferences did not differ as a function of DA. CONCLUSIONS: When informed about prostate cancer treatment options through a patient-centered DA, White patients changed their treatment preferences but African American patients did not. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: As DAs are increasingly being used in clinical practice, more research is needed regarding the efficacy, relevance, and receptivity of DAs for African Americans.

Decision aid use during post-biopsy consultations for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Decision Aids (DAs) effectively translate medical evidence for patients but are not routinely used in clinical practice. Little is known about how DAs are used during patient-clinician encounters. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the content and communicative function of high-quality DAs during diagnostic clinic visits for prostate cancer. PARTICIPANTS: 252 men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had received a DA, 45 treating physicians at 4 US Veterans Administration urology clinics. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of transcribed audio recordings was used to inductively develop categories capturing content and function of all direct references to DAs (booklet talk). The presence or absence of any booklet talk per transcript was also calculated. RESULTS: Booklet talk occurred in 55% of transcripts. Content focused on surgical procedures (36%); treatment choice (22%); and clarifying risk classification (17%). The most common function of booklet talk was patient corroboration of physicians' explanations (42%), followed by either physician or patient acknowledgement that the patient had the booklet. Codes reflected the absence of DA use for shared decision-making. In regression analysis, predictors of booklet talk were fewer years of patient education (P = .027) and more time in the encounter (P = .027). Patient race, DA type, time reading the DA, physician informing quality and physician age did not predict booklet talk. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that good decision aids, systematically provided to patients, appeared to function not to open up deliberations about how to balance benefits and harms of competing treatments, but rather to allow patients to ask narrow technical questions about recommended treatments.

Quality Improvement Summit 2016: Shared Decision Making and Prostate Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: The American Urological Association Quality Improvement Summit occurs regularly to provide education and promote dialogue around the issues of quality improvement and patient safety. Nearly all prostate cancer screening guidelines recommend shared decision making strategies when determining whether prostate specific antigen testing is right for a specific patient. This summit, held in partnership with the Society for Medical Decision Making, focused on techniques to identify and understand patient values in relation to prostate cancer screening and treatment, and to promote incorporation of shared decision making into prostate cancer screening discussions. METHODS: Information presented at the Quality Improvement Summit was provided by physicians and leading experts in the field of shared decision making. The open forum of this summit encouraged contributions from participants about their personal experiences with shared decision making and their thoughts on the tools presented during the day. RESULTS: Shared decision making supports collaboration between physician and patient in situations where there are multiple preference sensitive options. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners should include formal shared decision making procedures surrounding prostate specific antigen testing in their practices to ensure that testing is in accordance with patient values and desired outcomes. Tools and strategies like those reviewed in this Quality Improvement Summit are invaluable for alleviating potential burden on providers, ensuring communication and improving quality of care.

Influence of Men's Personality and Social Support on Treatment Decision-Making for Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment for localized prostate cancer (LPC) is controversial. We assessed the effects of personality, specialists seen, and involvement of spouse, family, or friends on treatment decision/decision-making qualities. METHODS: We surveyed a population-based sample of men ≤ 75 years with newly diagnosed LPC about treatment choice, reasons for the choice, decision-making difficulty, satisfaction, and regret. RESULTS: Of 160 men (71 black, 89 white), with a mean age of 61 (±7.3) years, 59% chose surgery, 31% chose radiation, and 10% chose active surveillance (AS)/watchful waiting (WW). Adjusting for age, race, comorbidity, tumor risk level, and treatment status, men who consulted friends during decision-making were more likely to choose curative treatment (radiation or surgery) than WW/AS (OR = 11.1, p < 0.01; 8.7, p < 0.01). Men who saw a radiation oncologist in addition to a urologist were more likely to choose radiation than surgery (OR = 6.0, p = 0.04). Men who consulted family or friends (OR = 2.6, p < 0.01; 3.7, p < 0.01) experienced greater decision-making difficulty. No personality traits (pessimism, optimism, or faith) were associated with treatment choice/decision-making quality measures. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to specialist seen, consulting friends increased men's likelihood of choosing curative treatment. Consulting family or friends increased decision-making difficulty.

Patient Knowledge and Qualities of Treatment Decisions for Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Controversy surrounds treatment for localized prostate cancer (LPC). OBJECTIVES: To assess men's localized prostate cancer (LPC) knowledge and its association with decision-making difficulty, satisfaction and regret. METHODS: Population-based sample of 201 men (104 white, 97 black), ≤ 75 years with newly diagnosed LPC completed a self-administered survey. RESULTS: Mean age was 61(±7.6) years; two-thirds had less than a Bachelor's degree. Mean LPC knowledge was low, 5.87 (±2.53, maximum score 11). More than a third of men who received surgery or radiation did not know about serious long-term treatment side effects. Fewer than half of the men correctly answered comparative side effect and survival benefit questions between surgery and radiation. Knowledge gaps were greatest among black men, men with lower education, single men. Tumor aggressiveness (i.e. PSA level, Gleason score) and treatment choice were not associated with knowledge. Knowledge was not associated with decisional satisfaction or regret. However, greater knowledge was associated with greater decision-making difficulty (P = .018). CONCLUSIONS: Significant LPC knowledge gaps existed across groups, with greater knowledge gaps among black men. The association of decision-making difficulty with knowledge was independent of race. Better patient education is needed, but may not alleviate men's decision-making difficulty due to inherent scientific uncertainty.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions. SEARCH METHODS: Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Physician Recommendations Trump Patient Preferences in Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We enrolled 257 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <20; Gleason score 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We measured patients' baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment v. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients' interest in sex. RESULTS: Patients' initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance, Δχ2(4) = 3.67, P = 0.45. Instead, receipt of active treatment was predicted primarily by urologists' recommendations, Δχ2(2) = 32.81, P < 0.001. Urologists' recommendations, in turn, were influenced heavily by medical factors (age and Gleason score) but were unrelated to patient preferences, Δχ2(6) = 0, P = 1. Urologists rarely discussed patients' interest in sex (<15% of appointments). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' treatment decisions were based largely on urologists' recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients' personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.

Implementing shared decision making in federally qualified health centers, a quasi-experimental design study: the Office-Guidelines Applied to Practice (Office-GAP) program.

BACKGROUND: Use of Shared Decision-Making (SDM) and Decision Aids (DAs) has been encouraged but is not regularly implemented in primary care. The Office-Guidelines Applied to Practice (Office-GAP) intervention is an application of a previous model revised to address guidelines based care for low-income populations with diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate Office-GAP Program feasibility and preliminary efficacy on medication use, patient satisfaction with physician communication and confidence in decision in low-income population with diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD) in a Federally Qualified Healthcare Center (FQHC). METHOD: Ninety-five patients participated in an Office-GAP program. A quasi-experimental design study, over 6 months with 12-month follow-up. Office-GAP program integrates health literacy, communication skills education for patients and physicians, patient/physician decision support tools and SDM into routine care. MAIN MEASURES: 1) Implementation rates of planned program elements 2) Patient satisfaction with communication and confidence in decision, and 3) Medication prescription rates. We used the GEE method for hierarchical logistic models, controlling for confounding. RESULTS: Feasibility of the Office-GAP program in the FQHC setting was established. We found significant increase in use of Aspirin/Plavix, statin and beta-blocker during follow-up compared to baseline: Aspirin OR 1.5 (95 % CI: 1.1, 2.2) at 3-months, 1.9 (1.3, 2.9) at 6-months, and 1.8 (1.2, 2.8) at 12-months. Statin OR 1.1 (1.0, 1.3) at 3-months and 1.5 (1.1, 2.2) at 12-months; beta-blocker 1.8 (1.1, 2.9) at 6-months and 12-months. Program elements were consistently used (≥ 98 % clinic attendance at training and tool used). Patient satisfaction with communication and confidence in decision increased. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Office-GAP program to teach SDM and use of DAs in real time was demonstrated to be feasible in FQHCs. It has the potential to improve satisfaction with physician communication and confidence in decisions and to improve medication use. The Office-GAP program is a brief, efficient platform for delivering patient and provider education in SDM and could serve as a model for implementing guideline based care for all chronic diseases in outpatient clinical settings. Further evaluation is needed to establish feasibility outside clinical study, reach, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this approach.

The Office Guidelines Applied to Practice program improves secondary prevention of heart disease in Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers.

UNLABELLED: The burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among minority and low-income populations is well documented. This study aimed to assess the impact of patient activation and shared decision-making (SDM) on medication use through the Office-Guidelines Applied to Practice (Office-GAP) intervention in Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers (FQHCs). Patients (243) with diabetes and CHD participated in Office-GAP between October 2010 and March 2014. Two-site (FQHCs) intervention/control design. Office-GAP integrates health literacy, communication skills education for patients and physicians, decision support tools, and SDM into routine care. MAIN MEASURES: 1) implementation rates, 2) medication use at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months, and 3) predictors of medication use. Logistic regression with propensity scoring assessed impact on medication use. Intervention arm had 120 and control arm had 123 patients. We found that program elements were consistently used. Compared to control, the Office-GAP program significantly improved medications use from baseline: ACEIs or ARBs at 3 months (OR 1.88, 95% CI = 1.07; 3.30, p < 0.03), 6 months (OR 2.68, 95% CI = 1.58;4.54; p < 0.01); statin at 3 months (OR 2.00, 95% CI = 0.1.22; 3.27; p < 0.05), 6 months (OR 3.05, 95% CI = 1.72; 5.43; p < 0.01), Aspirin and/or clopidogrel at 3 months OR 1.59, 95% CI = 1.02, 2.48; p < 0.05), 6 months (OR 3.67, 95% CI = 1.67; 8.08; p < 0.01). Global medication adherence was predicted only by Office-GAP intervention presence and hypertension. Office-GAP resulted in increased use of guideline-based medications for secondary CVD prevention in underserved populations. The Office-GAP program could serve as a model for implementing guideline-based care for other chronic diseases.

Patients' Survival Expectations With and Without Their Chosen Treatment for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Overtreatment of screen-detected localized prostate cancer (LPC) is an important public health concern, since the survival benefit of aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) has not been well established. We investigated the survival expectations of patients who had LPC with and without their chosen treatment. METHODS: A population-based sample of 260 men (132 black, 128 white) 75 years old or younger with newly diagnosed LPC completed a self-administered survey. How long the patients expected to live with their chosen treatment, how long they would expect to live with no treatment, and factors associated with the difference in perceived life expectancy were assessed using multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Without any treatment, 33% of patients expected that they would live less than 5 years, 41% 5 to 10 years, 21% 10 to 20 years, and 5% more than 20 years. With their chosen treatment, 3% of patients expected to live less than 5 years, 9% 5 to 10 years, 33% 10 to 20 years, and 55% more than 20 years. Treatment chosen, age, general health perception, and perceived cancer seriousness predicted the differences in perceived life expectancy, while race and actual tumor risk did not. After adjustment for other covariates, men who choose surgery or radiation expected greater gain in survival than men who chose watchful waiting or active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with LPC underestimated their life expectancy without treatment and overestimated the gain in life expectancy with surgery or radiation. These unrealistic expectations may compromise patients' ability to make informed treatment decisions and may contribute to overtreatment of LPC. Primary care physicians, when included in the decision process, should focus on helping patients develop realistic expectations and choices that support their treatment goals.

Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients in Federally Qualified Health Centers: Impact of Shared Decision Making in the Office-GAP Program.

Background: Hypertension (HTN) in people with diabetes doubles the risk of cardiovascular disease. Prior patient activation studies largely show improved communication but little impact on behavior or health outcomes. We sought to 1) assess the impact of Office-Based Guidelines Applied to Practice (Office-GAP) Program on blood pressure (BP) control; 2) determine the rate and predictors of BP control in patients with HTN and/or diabetes mellitus (DM) in federally qualified health centers. Methods: Sample: Patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or DM with history of HTN; analyzed patients with DM and HTN compared to HTN without DM. INTERVENTION: Office-GAP included physician training, patient activation, and an Office-GAP decision checklist. Two-site intervention/control design; data collection at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months. Logistic regression with propensity scoring assessed impact on BP control over time. Results: Of 243 patients, HTN was present in 75% at baseline; 32% had BP controlled. Consistent trend showed Office-GAP slightly improved the rate of BP control across time, while the control arm showed a nonsignificant decrease in the rate of BP control across time, compared to baseline. BP improved at 6 months at the intervention site compared to control site (odds ratio = 2.92; 95% confidence interval = 1.11-7.69). Conclusion: BP control was better at the intervention site compared to the control site at 6 months. Office-GAP shows promise to implement guidelines-based patient-centered care that improves BP.

Informed Decision Making: Assessment of the Quality of Physician Communication about Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how physicians present diagnosis and treatment planning in routine practice in preference-sensitive treatment decisions. We evaluated completeness and quality of informed decision making in localized prostate cancer post biopsy encounters. METHODS: We analyzed audio-recorded office visits of 252 men with presumed localized prostate cancer (Gleason 6 and Gleason 7 scores) who were seeing 45 physicians at 4 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Data were collected between September 2008 and May 2012 in a trial of 2 decision aids (DAs). Braddock's previously validated Informed Decision Making (IDM) system was used to measure quality. Latent variable models for ordinal data examined the relationship of IDM score to treatment received. RESULTS: Mean IDM score showed modest quality (7.61±2.45 out of 18) and high variability. Treatment choice and risks and benefits were discussed in approximately 95% of encounters. However, in more than one-third of encounters, physicians provided a partial set of treatment options and omitted surveillance as a choice. Informing quality was greater in patients treated with surveillance (ß = 1.1, p = .04). Gleason score (7 vs 6) and lower age were often cited as reasons to exclude surveillance. Patient preferences were elicited in the majority of cases, but not used to guide treatment planning. Encounter time was modestly correlated with IDM score (r = 0.237, p = .01). DA type was not associated with IDM score. DISCUSSION: Physicians informed patients of options and risks and benefits, but infrequently engaged patients in core shared decision-making processes. Despite patients having received DAs, physicians rarely provided an opportunity for preference-driven decision making. More attention to the underused patient decision-making and engagement elements could result in improved shared decision making.

Patient-physician communication about early stage prostate cancer: analysis of overall visit structure.

BACKGROUND: We know little about patient-physician communication during visits to discuss diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To examine the overall visit structure and how patients and physicians transition between communication activities during visits in which patients received new prostate cancer diagnoses. PARTICIPANTS: Forty veterans and 18 urologists at one VA medical centre. METHODS: We coded 40 transcripts to identify major communication activities during visits and used empiric discourse analysis to analyse transitions between activities. RESULTS: We identified five communication activities that occurred in the following typical sequence: 'diagnosis delivery', 'risk classification', 'options talk', 'decision talk' and 'next steps'. The first two activities were typically brief and involved minimal patient participation. Options talk was typically the longest activity; physicians explicitly announced the beginning of options talk and framed it as their professional responsibility. Some patients were unsure of the purpose of visit and/or who should make treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: Visits to deliver the diagnosis of early stage prostate cancer follow a regular sequence of communication activities. Physicians focus on discussing treatment options and devote comparatively little time and attention to discussing the new cancer diagnosis. Towards the goal of promoting patient-centred communication, physicians should consider eliciting patient reactions after diagnosis delivery and explaining the decision-making process before describing treatment options.

Patient participation in clinical encounters: a systematic review to identify self-report measures.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence suggesting that active participation of patients in their health care can improve the quality of care and decrease health-care costs. Further, patient reports of their health-care experience are increasingly used to monitor health-care quality. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes a systematic review of peer-reviewed studies to identify measures of patients' active participation in their encounters with health-care providers. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted for publications indexed from 1975 to 2011. Of interest were self-reported measures of patient participation that were not limited to a specific health concern. All abstracts were reviewed independently by two authors, and the full paper was considered for those meeting inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS: From a review of 4528 citations, ten measures were identified. The approaches to development of the measures varied considerably, as did their study samples and their psychometric quality. DISCUSSION: These measures represented three conceptual frameworks: empowerment and self-efficacy, therapeutic alliance, and consumerism/satisfaction. They provide a more comprehensive perspective of patients' experiences of their provider encounters, and a better understanding patient behaviour enhanced the quality of health-care delivery or improved health outcomes. These measures underscore the continuing challenge of defining patient participation and the multiple theoretical approaches that underlie this form of patient behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Current interest in quality-related physician report cards gives significant weight to patients' self-reported experiences as one dimension of physician performance. It is critical to identify the specific focus and quality of measures selected for this and research purposes.

Is quality improvement sustainable? Findings of the American College of Cardiology's Guidelines Applied in Practice.

OBJECTIVE: (i) To examine the sustainability of an in-hospital quality improvement (QI) intervention, the American College of Cardiology's Guideline Applied to Practice (GAP) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). (ii) To determine the predictors of physician adherence to AMI guidelines-recommended medication prescribing. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Five mid-Michigan community hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 516 AMI patients admitted consecutively 1 year after the GAP intervention. These patients were compared with 499 post-GAP patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was adherence to medication use guidelines. Predictors of medication use were determined using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: 1 year after GAP implementation, adherence to most medications remained high. We found a significant increase in beta-blocker (BB) use in-hospital (87.9 vs. 72.1%, P < 0.001) whereas cholesterol assessment within 24 h (79.5 vs. 83.6%, P > 0.225) did not change significantly. However, discharge aspirin (83 vs. 90%, P < 0.018) and BB prescriptions (84 vs. 92%, P < 0.016) dropped to preintervention rates. Discharge angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and treatment of patients with low-density lipoprotein of ≥ 100 were unchanged. Predictors of receiving appropriate medications were male gender (for aspirin and BBs) and treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention compared with coronary artery bypass graft. Notably, prescription rates for discharge medications differed significantly by hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Early benefits of the Mid-Michigan GAP intervention on guideline use were only partially sustained at 1 year. Differences in guideline adherence by treatment modality and hospital demonstrate challenges for follow-up phases of GAP. Additional strategies to improve sustainability of QI efforts are urgently needed.

Refining a brief decision aid in stable CAD: cognitive interviews.

BACKGROUND: We describe the results of cognitive interviews to refine the "Making Choices©" Decision Aid (DA) for shared decision-making (SDM) about stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We conducted a systematic development process to design a DA consistent with International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) focused on Alpha testing criteria. Cognitive interviews were conducted with ten stable CAD patients using the "think aloud" interview technique to assess the clarity, usefulness, and design of each page of the DA. RESULTS: Participants identified three main messages: 1) patients have multiple options based on stress tests and they should be discussed with a physician, 2) take care of yourself, 3) the stress test is the gold standard for determining the severity of your heart disease. Revisions corrected the inaccurate assumption of item number three. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive interviews proved critical for engaging patients in the development process and highlighted the necessity of clear message development and use of design principles that make decision materials easy to read and easy to use. Cognitive interviews appear to contribute critical information from the patient perspective to the overall systematic development process for designing decision aids.

Patient understanding of medical jargon: a survey study of U.S. medical students.

OBJECTIVE: With increasing exposure, medical students may forget that technical jargon is unfamiliar to laypeople. To investigate this possibility, authors assessed student perceptions of patient understanding across different years in medical school. METHODS: 533 students at 4 U.S. medical schools rated the proportion of patients likely to understand each of twenty-one different jargon terms. Students were either in the first month of their first year, the middle of their first year, or the middle of their fourth year of medical school. RESULTS: Fourth-year students were slightly more pessimistic about patients' understanding compared to new first-year students (mean percent understanding of 55.1% vs. 58.6%, p=0.004). Students both over- and under-estimated patient understanding of specific words compared to published estimates. In a multivariate model, other factors did not explain these differences. CONCLUSION: Students do not generally presume that patients understand medical jargon. In many cases they actually underestimate patients' understanding, and these estimates may become more pessimistic longitudinally. Jargon use in communication with patients does not appear to stem from unrealistic presumptions about patients' understanding or from desensitization to jargon during medical school. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Training about patient knowledge of medical jargon may be a useful addition to communication skills curricula.