The Use and Impact of a Decision Support Tool for Appendicitis Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Since introducing new and alternative treatment options may increase decisional conflict, we aimed to describe the use of the decision support tool (DST) and its impact on treatment preference and decisional conflict. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy, with both approaches associated with a different set of risks (e.g., recurrence vs surgical complications) and benefits (e.g., more rapid return to work vs decreased chance of readmission). Patients often have limited knowledge of these treatment options and decision support tools that include video-based educational materials and questions to elicit patient preferences about outcomes may be helpful. Concurrent to the Comparing Outcomes of Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, our group developed a DST for appendicitis treatment (www.appyornot.org). METHODS: A retrospective cohort including people who self-reported current appendicitis and used the AppyOrNot DST between 2021-2023. Treatment preferences before- and after- use of the DST, demographic information, and Ottawa Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) were reported after completing the DST. RESULTS: 8,243 people from 66 countries and all 50 US states accessed the DST. Before the DST, 14% had a strong preference for antibiotics and 31% for appendectomy, with 55% undecided. After using the DST, the proportion in the undecided category decreased to 49% (P<0.0001). 52% of those who completed the Ottawa Decisional Conflict Score (DCS) (n=356) reported the lowest level of decisional conflict (<25) after using the DST; 43% had a DCS score of 25-50, 5.1% had a DCS score of >50 and 2.5% had and DCS score of >75. CONCLUSION: The publicly available DST appyornot.org reduced the proportion that was undecided about which treatment they favored and had a modest influence on those with strong treatment preferences. Decisional conflict was not common after use. The use of this DST is now a component of a nationwide implementation program aimed at improving the way surgeons share information about appendicitis treatment options. If its use can be successfully implemented, this may be a model for improving communication about treatment for patients experiencing emergency health conditions.

Operative vs Nonoperative Management of Acute Cholecystitis During the Different Trimesters of Pregnancy.

Importance: Acute cholecystitis (AC) management during pregnancy requires balancing the risk of pregnancy loss or preterm delivery (adverse pregnancy outcomes [APOs]) with or without surgery. Guidelines recommend cholecystectomy across trimesters; however, trimester-specific evidence on the risks of AC and its management is lacking. Objective: To assess cholecystectomy frequency in pregnant people with AC, compare the rates of APOs in pregnant people with or without AC, and compare the rates of APOs in people with AC who did or did not undergo cholecystectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based cohort study used data for pregnant people with AC from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2019, and a propensity score-matched cohort of pregnant people without AC. Trimester status (first [T1], second [T2], and third [T3]), APOs, and cholecystectomy were defined by administrative claims. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to July 2022. Exposures: Pregnant patients with or without AC. Pregnant patients with AC who did or did not receive cholecystectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were cholecystectomy during pregnancy and APOs (ie, preterm delivery and pregnancy loss). Pregnant patients with and without AC were compared to assess the association of AC with risk of APOs. Propensity score inverse-probability weighting was used to calculate treatment-associated APO risk among patients with 1-year follow-up. Results: The study included 5759 pregnant patients with AC (mean [SD] age, 30.1 [6.6] years) and 23 036 controls (mean [SD] age, 29.9 [6.7] years) after propensity score matching. Among 3426 pregnant patients with AC and 1-year follow-up, 1182 (34.5%) underwent cholecystectomy during the pregnancy (684 [41.7%] presenting with AC in T1, 404 [40.4%] in T2, and 94 [12.0%] in T3). Acute cholecystitis during pregnancy, irrespective of treatment, was associated with higher odds of APO compared with no AC during pregnancy across all trimesters (odds ratio [OR], 1.69 [95% CI, 1.54-1.85]). Compared with nonoperative management, receipt of surgery was associated with lower odds of APOs across all trimesters (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63-0.87]), in T1 (OR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.66-1.00]), in T2 (OR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.50-1.00]), and in T3 (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.28-0.70]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, cholecystectomy was associated with lower risk of APO in patients with AC across all trimesters, with the greatest benefit in T3. However, only 34.5% overall and 12.0% of patients in T3 had a cholecystectomy. These findings support guidelines recommending cholecystectomy during pregnancy and should inform decision-making discussions. Greater guideline adherence and surgery use, especially in T3, may represent an opportunity to improve outcomes for pregnant people with AC.

A core outcome set for appendicitis: A consensus approach utilizing modified Delphi methodology.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is one of the most common pathologies encountered by general and acute care surgeons. The current literature is inconsistent, as it is fraught with outcome heterogeneity, especially in the area of nonoperative management. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for future appendicitis studies to facilitate outcome standardization and future data pooling. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted after identification of content experts in the field of appendicitis using both the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) landmark appendicitis articles and consensus from the EAST ad hoc COS taskforce on appendicitis. The study incorporated three rounds. Round 1 utilized free text outcome suggestions, then in rounds 2 and 3 the suggests were scored using a Likert scale of 1 to 9 with 1 to 3 denoting a less important outcome, 4 to 6 denoting an important but noncritical outcome, and 7 to 9 denoting a critically important outcome. Core outcome status consensus was defined a priori as >70% of scores 7 to 9 and <15% of scores 1 to 3. RESULTS: Seventeen panelists initially agreed to participate in the study with 16 completing the process (94%). Thirty-two unique potential outcomes were initially suggested in round 1 and 10 (31%) met consensus with one outcome meeting exclusion at the end of round 2. At completion of round 3, a total of 17 (53%) outcomes achieved COS consensus. CONCLUSION: An international panel of 16 appendicitis experts achieved consensus on 17 core outcomes that should be incorporated into future appendicitis studies as a minimum set of standardized outcomes to help frame future cohort-based studies on appendicitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level V.

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants. Objective: To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022. Intervention: Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants. Results: Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Development and Feasibility Testing of a Decision Aid for Acute Appendicitis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be increasingly asked to choose between surgery and antibiotic management. We developed a novel decision aid for patients in the emergency department (ED) with acute appendicitis who are facing this choice. We describe the development of the decision aid and an initial feasibility study of its implementation in a busy tertiary care ED. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prepost survey analysis comparing patients before and after standardized implementation of the decision aid. Patients were surveyed about their experience making treatment decisions after discharge from the hospital. The primary outcome measure was the total score on the decisional conflict scale (; 0-100; lower scores better). RESULTS: The study included 24 participants (12 in the predecision aid period; 12 in the post period). Only 33% of participants in each group knew antibiotics were a treatment option prior to arriving at the ED. Prior to implementing the use of decision aid, only 75% of patients reported being told antibiotics were a treatment option, while this increased to 100% after implementation of the decision aid. The mean total decisional conflict scalescores were similar in the pre and post periods (mean difference = 0.13, 95% CI: -13 - 13, P > 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: This novel appendicitis decision aid was effectively integrated into clinical practice and helped toinform patients about multiple treatment options. These data support further large-scale testing of the decision aid as part of standardized pathways for the management of patients with acute appendicitis.

Comparative Outcomes of Groin Hernia Repair by Sex Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the rates of operative recurrence between male and female patients undergoing groin hernia repair. BACKGROUND DATA: Groin hernia repair is common but understudied in females. Limited prior work demonstrates worse outcomes among females. METHODS: Using Medicare claims, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent elective groin hernia repair between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2017. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to evaluate the risk of operative recurrence up to 5 years following the index operation. Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications following surgery. RESULTS: Among 118,119 patients, females comprised the minority of patients (n=16,056, 13.6%). Compared with males, female patients were older (74.8 vs. 71.9 y, P <0.01), more often white (89.5% vs. 86.7%, P <0.01), and had a higher prevalence of nearly all measured comorbidities. In the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, we found that female patients had a significantly lower risk of operative recurrence at 5-year follow-up compared with males (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60-0.82). The estimated cumulative incidence of recurrence was lower among females at all time points: 1 year [0.68% (0.67-0.68) vs. 0.88% (0.88-0.89)], 3 years [1.91% (1.89-1.92) vs. 2.49% (2.47-2.5)], and 5 years [2.85% (2.82-2.88) vs. 3.7% (3.68-3.75)]. We found no significant difference in the 30-day risk of complications. CONCLUSIONS: We found that female patients experienced a lower risk of operative hernia recurrence following elective groin hernia repair, which is contrary to what is often reported in the literature. However, the risk of operative recurrence was low overall, indicating excellent surgical outcomes among older adults for this common surgical condition.

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes. METHODS: We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations. RESULTS: The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Five year trends in surgical technique and outcomes of groin hernia repair in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Despite being one of the most commonly performed operations in the US, there is a paucity of data on practice patterns and resultant long-term outcomes of groin hernia repair. In this context, we performed a contemporary assessment of operative approach with 5 year follow-up to inform care for the 800000 persons undergoing groin hernia repair annually. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing elective groin hernia repair in a 20% representative Medicare sample from 2010-17. Surgical approach [minimally invasive (MIS) vs open] was defined using appropriate CPT codes. The primary outcome was operative recurrence at up to 5 years following surgery. We estimated the overall risk of operative recurrence using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Among 118119 patients, the majority (76.4%) underwent an open repair. Compared to patients who underwent MIS repair, patients in the open surgery cohort were older (mean age 72.7 vs 71.0, p < 0.001), more often female (14.4 vs 10.9%, p < 0.001), less often white (86.9 vs 87.7%, p < 0.001), and had a higher prevalence of nearly all measured comorbidities Patients in the open cohort had a lower incidence of operative recurrence at 1-year (1.0 vs 1.5%, p < 0.001), 3-years, (2.5 vs 3.5%, p < 0.001), and 5-years (3.7 vs 4.7%, p < 0.001). In the Cox proportional hazards model, we found that patients who underwent an open groin hernia repair were significantly less likely to experience operative recurrence (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that open groin hernia repair was associated with a lower risk of operative recurrence over time. While this may be related to patient comorbidity and age at the index operation, future work should focus on the impact of surgeon volume on outcomes in the modern era.

Association of Patient Belief About Success of Antibiotics for Appendicitis and Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A patient's belief in the likely success of a treatment may influence outcomes, but this has been understudied in surgical trials. Objective: To examine the association between patients' baseline beliefs about the likelihood of treatment success with outcomes of antibiotics for appendicitis in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of the CODA randomized clinical trial. Participants from 25 US medical centers were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. Included in the analysis were participants with appendicitis who were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics in the CODA trial. After informed consent but before randomization, participants who were assigned to receive antibiotics responded to a baseline survey including a question about how successful they believed antibiotics could be in treating their appendicitis. Interventions: Participants were categorized based on baseline survey responses into 1 of 3 belief groups: unsuccessful/unsure, intermediate, and completely successful. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three outcomes were assigned at 30 days: (1) appendectomy, (2) high decisional regret or dissatisfaction with treatment, and (3) persistent signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, tenderness, fever, or chills). Outcomes were compared across groups using adjusted risk differences (aRDs), with propensity score adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Results: Of the 776 study participants who were assigned antibiotic treatment in CODA, a total of 425 (mean [SD] age, 38.5 [13.6] years; 277 male [65%]) completed the baseline belief survey before knowing their treatment assignment. Baseline beliefs were as follows: 22% of participants (92 of 415) had an unsuccessful/unsure response, 51% (212 of 415) had an intermediate response, and 27% (111 of 415) had a completely successful response. Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those who believed antibiotics could be completely successful had a 13-percentage point lower risk of appendectomy (aRD, -13.49; 95% CI, -24.57 to -2.40). The aRD between those with intermediate vs unsuccessful/unsure beliefs was -5.68 (95% CI, -16.57 to 5.20). Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those with intermediate beliefs had a lower risk of persistent signs and symptoms (aRD, -15.72; 95% CI, -29.71 to -1.72), with directionally similar results for the completely successful group (aRD, -15.14; 95% CI, -30.56 to 0.28). Conclusions and Relevance: Positive patient beliefs about the likely success of antibiotics for appendicitis were associated with a lower risk of appendectomy and with resolution of signs and symptoms by 30 days. Pathways relating beliefs to outcomes and the potential modifiability of beliefs to improve outcomes merit further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Self-selection vs Randomized Assignment of Treatment for Appendicitis.

Importance: For adults with appendicitis, several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy. However, it remains unknown how the characteristics of patients in such trials compare with those of patients who select their treatment and whether outcomes differ. Objective: To compare participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study of participants who declined randomization and self-selected treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CODA trial was conducted in 25 US medical centers. Participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020; all participants were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up, with all follow-up ending in 2021. The randomized cohort included 1094 adults with appendicitis; the self-selection cohort included patients who declined participation in the randomized group, of whom 253 selected appendectomy and 257 selected antibiotics. In this secondary analysis, characteristics and outcomes in both self-selection and randomized cohorts are described with an exploratory analysis of cohort status and receipt of appendectomy. Interventions: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics among participants randomized to either appendectomy or antibiotics were compared with those of participants who selected their own treatment. Results: Clinical characteristics were similar across the self-selection cohort (510 patients; mean age, 35.8 years [95% CI, 34.5-37.1]; 218 female [43%; 95% CI, 39%-47%]) and the randomized group (1094 patients; mean age, 38.2 years [95% CI, 37.4-39.0]; 386 female [35%; 95% CI, 33%-38%]). Compared with the randomized group, those in the self-selection cohort were less often Spanish speaking (n = 99 [19%; 95% CI, 16%-23%] vs n = 336 [31%; 95% CI, 28%-34%]), reported more formal education (some college or more, n = 355 [72%; 95% CI, 68%-76%] vs n = 674 [63%; 95% CI, 60%-65%]), and more often had commercial insurance (n = 259 [53%; 95% CI, 48%-57%] vs n = 486 [45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%]). Most outcomes were similar between the self-selection and randomized cohorts. The number of patients undergoing appendectomy by 30 days was 38 (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.7%-19.7%) among those selecting antibiotics and 155 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.9%-22.5%) in those who were randomized to antibiotics (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 9.5%). Differences in the rate of appendectomy were primarily observed in the non-appendicolith subgroup. Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of the CODA RCT found substantially similar outcomes across the randomized and self-selection cohorts, suggesting that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the community at large. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Patient Factors Associated With Appendectomy Within 30 Days of Initiating Antibiotic Treatment for Appendicitis.

IMPORTANCE: Use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis is safe and has been found to be noninferior to appendectomy based on self-reported health status at 30 days. Identifying patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of appendectomy within 30 days in those who initiate antibiotics could support more individualized decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient factors associated with undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics for appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study using data from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial, characteristics among patients who initiated antibiotics were compared between those who did and did not undergo appendectomy within 30 days. The study was conducted at 25 US medical centers; participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. A total of 1552 participants with acute appendicitis were randomized to antibiotics (776 participants) or appendectomy (776 participants). Data were analyzed from September 2020 to July 2021. EXPOSURES: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Conditional logistic regression models were fit to estimate associations between specific patient factors and the odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days after initiating antibiotics. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding participants who underwent appendectomy within 30 days for nonclinical reasons. RESULTS: Of 776 participants initiating antibiotics (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [13.4] years; 286 [37%] women and 490 [63%] men), 735 participants had 30-day outcomes, including 154 participants (21%) who underwent appendectomy within 30 days. After adjustment for other factors, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.31), radiographic finding of wider appendiceal diameter (OR per 1-mm increase, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.18), and presence of appendicolith (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28-3.10) were associated with increased odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days. Characteristics that are often associated with increased risk of complications (eg, advanced age, comorbid conditions) and those clinicians often use to describe appendicitis severity (eg, fever: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98) were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. The sensitivity analysis limited to appendectomies performed for clinical reasons provided similar results regarding appendicolith (adjusted OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.49-3.91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study found that presence of an appendicolith was associated with a nearly 2-fold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics. Clinical characteristics often used to describe severity of appendicitis were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. This information may help guide more individualized decision-making for people with appendicitis.

What's in a Number? Assessing the Burden of Diverticular Disease.

MINI-ABSTRACT: In this prospective observational cohort of patients with a history of diverticulitis, we assessed the correlation between the diverticulitis quality of life survey (DVQOL) and other patient-reported expressions of disease measures including work and activity impairment, and contentment with gastrointestinal-related health. Then, we assessed whether the DVQOL is better correlated with these measures than diverticulitis episode count. Our study results showed that the DVQOL has a stronger correlation with other disease measures than diverticulitis episode count, and our findings support the broader use of the DVQOL in assessing the burden of diverticulitis and monitoring response to management.

Randomized Pilot Test of a Decision Support Tool for Acute Appendicitis: Decisional Conflict and Acceptability in a Healthy Population.

To test the effect of a new decision support tool for acute appendicitis and assess its efficacy and acceptability. Background: Mounting evidence from randomized controlled trials have shown that antibiotics can be a safe and effective treatment for appendicitis. Patients and surgeons must work together to choose the optimal treatment approach for each patient based on their own preferences and values. We developed a decision support tool to facilitate shared decision-making for appendicitis and its effect on decisional outcomes remains unknown. Methods: We conducted an online randomized field test in at-risk individuals comparing the decision support tool to a standard infographic. Individuals were randomized 3:1 to view the decision support tool or infographic. The primary outcome was the total decisional conflict scale (DCS) score measured before and after exposure to the decision support tool. Secondary outcomes included between-group DCS scores, and between-group comparisons of the acceptability. Results: One hundred eighty individuals were included in the study. Total DCS scores decreased significantly after viewing the decision support tool (59 [95% confidence interval (CI): 55-63] to 15 [95% CI: 12-17], P < 0.001) representing movement from a state of high to low decisional conflict. Individuals exposed to the decision support tool reported higher acceptability ratings (3.7 [95% CI: 3.6-3.8] vs 3.3 [95% CI: 3.2-3.5] out of 4) and demonstrated increased willingness to consider both treatment options. Conclusions: These data support the further use and testing of this novel decision support tool in patients with acute appendicitis.

Forecasting Future Asthma Hospital Encounters of Patients With Asthma in an Academic Health Care System: Predictive Model Development and Secondary Analysis Study.

BACKGROUND: Asthma affects a large proportion of the population and leads to many hospital encounters involving both hospitalizations and emergency department visits every year. To lower the number of such encounters, many health care systems and health plans deploy predictive models to prospectively identify patients at high risk and offer them care management services for preventive care. However, the previous models do not have sufficient accuracy for serving this purpose well. Embracing the modeling strategy of examining many candidate features, we built a new machine learning model to forecast future asthma hospital encounters of patients with asthma at Intermountain Healthcare, a nonacademic health care system. This model is more accurate than the previously published models. However, it is unclear how well our modeling strategy generalizes to academic health care systems, whose patient composition differs from that of Intermountain Healthcare. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the generalizability of our modeling strategy to the University of Washington Medicine (UWM), an academic health care system. METHODS: All adult patients with asthma who visited UWM facilities between 2011 and 2018 served as the patient cohort. We considered 234 candidate features. Through a secondary analysis of 82,888 UWM data instances from 2011 to 2018, we built a machine learning model to forecast asthma hospital encounters of patients with asthma in the subsequent 12 months. RESULTS: Our UWM model yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.902. When placing the cutoff point for making binary classification at the top 10% (1464/14,644) of patients with asthma with the largest forecasted risk, our UWM model yielded an accuracy of 90.6% (13,268/14,644), a sensitivity of 70.2% (153/218), and a specificity of 90.91% (13,115/14,426). CONCLUSIONS: Our modeling strategy showed excellent generalizability to the UWM, leading to a model with an AUC that is higher than all of the AUCs previously reported in the literature for forecasting asthma hospital encounters. After further optimization, our model could be used to facilitate the efficient and effective allocation of asthma care management resources to improve outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/resprot.5039.