Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Rosen JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9780038 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Rosen Joshua E JE Flum David R DR Davidson Giana H GH Liao Joshua M JM

Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches 20221024 4

To test the effect of a new decision support tool for acute appendicitis and assess its efficacy and acceptability.<h4>Background</h4>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 appendicit ...[more]

PMID: 36590895

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background. While nerve and tendon transfer surgery can restore upper extremity function and independence after midcervical spinal cord injury, few individuals (∼14%) undergo surgery. There is limited information regarding these complex and time-sensitive treatment options. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) convey complex health information and help individuals make informed, preference-consistent choices. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a newly created PtDA for people with spinal cord injury who are considering options to optimize upper extremity function. Methods. The PtDA was developed by our multidisciplinary group based on clinical evidence and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. A prospective pilot study enrolled adults with midcervical spinal cord injury to evaluate the PtDA. Participants completed surveys about knowledge and decisional conflict before and after viewing the PtDA. Acceptability measures and suggestions for further improvement were also solicited. Results. Forty-two individuals were enrolled and completed study procedures. Participants had a 20% increase in knowledge after using the PtDA (P < 0.001). The number of participants experiencing decisional conflict decreased after viewing the PtDA (33 v. 18, P = 0.001). Acceptability was high. To improve the PtDA, participants suggested adding details about specific surgeries and outcomes. Limitations. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we used an entirely virtual study methodology and recruited participants from national networks and organizations. Most participants were older than the general population with a new spinal cord injury and may have different injury causes than typical surgical candidates. Conclusions. A de novo PtDA improved knowledge of treatment options and reduced decisional conflict about reconstructive surgery among people with cervical spinal cord injury. Future work should explore PtDA use for improving knowledge and decisional conflict in the nonresearch, clinical setting.HighlightsPeople with cervical spinal cord injury prioritize gaining upper extremity function after injury, but few individuals receive information about treatment options.A newly created patient decision aid (PtDA) provides information about recovery after spinal cord injury and the role of traditional tendon and newer nerve transfer surgery to improve upper extremity upper extremity function.The PtDA improved knowledge and decreased decisional conflict in this pilot study.Future work should focus on studying dissemination and implementation of the ptDA into clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundBoth patients and surrogate decision-makers experience decisional conflict when making a major medical treatment decision with life or death implications. The relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict while making a major medical treatment decision is not understood.ObjectiveTo identify the prevalence of individuals making major medical treatment decisions for themselves or someone else and to explore the relationships between decisional conflict and circumstances of the decision as well as the decision-maker.DesignTwo-phase survey study: in phase 1, we screened for who made a major treatment decision; in phase 2, we asked eligible respondents about their experience making the decision.ParticipantsAddress-based random sample of 4000 Wisconsin residents; 1072 completed phase 1 and 464 completed phase 2.Main measuresWe asked respondents about types of decisions made, the most difficult decision made, and characteristics of the decision-maker and the decision. We included the Decisional Conflict Scale and four domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. Open-ended questions also allowed respondents to describe their experiences.Key resultsAbout 43% of respondents reported making a major medical treatment decision. Decisions about major surgery and life support were regarded as the most difficult decisions. Respondents who made the decision for a spouse/partner (β = 6.65, p = 0.012), parent (β = 9.27, p < 0.001), or someone else (β = 10.7, p < 0.001) had higher decisional conflict. Respondents who reported higher ability to actively engage with healthcare providers (β = - 5.24, p = 0.002) and to understand health information well enough to know what to do (β = - 6.12, p = 0.001) had lower decisional conflict.ConclusionsThe need to make major treatment decisions is likely to increase and making decisions on someone else's behalf appeared to be especially difficult. Improving communication to encourage patient and family engagement in the decision-making conversation, particularly for individuals with limited health literacy, may be helpful.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is the gold standard for patient-clinician interaction, yet many patients are not actively involved in medical consultations and hesitate to engage in decisions on their health. Despite considerable efforts to improve implementation, research on barriers to SDM within the patient-clinician relationship and interaction is scant. To identify potential barriers to urological patients' participation in decision-making, we developed two novel scales assessing power asymmetry (PA-ME) and embarrassment in medical encounters (EmMed). The present study validates both scales in a large sample comprising urological patients and non-clinical participants. It further examines the effects of both factors on participation preferences and decisional conflict among patients.MethodsData were collected from 107 urological patients at a university hospital for Urology and Urosurgery in Germany. Patients completed self-report questionnaires before and after their clinical appointments. In addition, 250 non-clinical participants provided data via an online study. All participants rated perceived power asymmetry in the patient-clinician relationship and their experience of embarrassment in medical contexts using the PA-ME and EmMed scales. Urological patients further indicated their participation preference in decisions regarding both general and urological care prior to the consultation. Afterward, they assessed the level of perceived decisional conflict.ResultsFactor analyses yielded power asymmetry and medical embarrassment as unidimensional constructs. Both questionnaires have good (PA-ME; α = 0.88), respectively excellent (EmMed; α = 0.95), internal consistency. Among urological patients, higher levels of perceived power asymmetry predicted lower generic participation preference (β = - 0.98, p <.001, adjusted R2 = 0.14) and higher decisional conflict (β = 0.25, p <.01, adjusted R2 = 0.07). While, in patients, embarrassment was not linked to generic participation preference before the consultation (p ≥.5), it resulted in higher decisional conflict after the consultation (β = 0.39, p <.001, adjusted R2 = 0.14). Neither power asymmetry nor embarrassment were specifically associated with participation preference regarding urological care (p ≥.273).ConclusionsGiven their promising psychometric properties, the new instruments are recommended for routine assessment of power asymmetry and embarrassment among patients. Addressing these factors may be helpful to reduce decisional conflict and increase participation preferences. Both factors are prerequisites for a successful SDM-process and active patient engagement in health-related decisions.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials of Web-based decision aids for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing indicate that these interventions improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. However, we do not know about these tools' impact on people who spontaneously use a PSA testing patient decision aid on the internet.ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to (1) determine the impact of the Web-based PSA Option Grid patient decision aid on preference shift, knowledge, and decisional conflict; (2) identify which frequently asked questions (FAQs) are associated with preference shift; and (3) explore the possible relationships between these outcomes.MethodsData were collected between January 1, 2016, and December 30, 2017. Users who accessed the Web-based, interactive PSA Option Grid were provided with 3 options: have a PSA test, no PSA test, or unsure. Users first declared their initial preference and then completed 5 knowledge questions and a 4-item (yes or no) validated decisional conflict scale (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, Encouragement; SURE). Next, users were presented with 10 FAQs and asked to identify their preference for each question based on the information provided. At the end, users declared their final preference and completed the same knowledge and decisional conflict questions. Paired sample t tests were employed to compare before and after knowledge and decisional conflict scores. A multinomial regression analysis was performed to determine which FAQs were associated with a shift in screening preference.ResultsOf all the people who accessed the PSA Option Grid, 39.8% (186/467) completed the interactive journey and associated surveys. After excluding 22 female users, we analyzed 164 responses. At completion, users shifted their preference to "not having the PSA test" (43/164, 26.2%, vs 117/164, 71.3%; P<.001), had higher levels of knowledge (112/164, 68.3%, vs 146/164, 89.0%; P<.001), and lower decisional conflict (94/164, 57.3%, vs 18/164, 11.0%; P<.001). There were 3 FAQs associated with preference shift: "What does the test involve?" "If my PSA level is high, what are the chances that I have prostate cancer?" and "What are the risks?" We did not find any relationship between knowledge, decisional conflict, and preference shift.ConclusionsUnprompted use of the interactive PSA Option Grid leads to preference shift, increased knowledge, and reduced decisional conflict, which confirms the ability of these tools to influence decision making, even when used outside clinical encounters.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets