PROSPERO CRD42013004761 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013004761).

PurposeOsteoporosis Choice, an encounter decision aid, can engage patients and clinicians in shared decision making about osteoporosis treatment. Its effectiveness compared to the routine provision to clinicians of the patient’s estimated risk of fracture using the FRAX calculator is unknown.MethodsPatient-level, randomized, three-arm trial enrolling women over 50 with osteopenia or osteoporosis eligible for treatment with bisphosphonates, where the use of Osteoporosis Choice was compared to FRAX only and to usual care to determine impact on patient knowledge, decisional conflict, involvement in the decision-making process, decision to start and adherence to bisphosphonates.ResultsWe enrolled 79 women in the three arms. Because FRAX estimation alone and usual care produced similar results, we grouped them for analysis. Compared to these, use of Osteoporosis Choice increased patient knowledge (median score 6 vs. 4, p = .01), improved understanding of fracture risk and risk reduction with bisphosphonates (p = .01 and p<.0001, respectively), had no effect on decision conflict, and increased patient engagement in the decision making process (OPTION scores 57% vs. 43%, p = .001). Encounters with the decision aid were 0.8 minutes longer (range: 33 minutes shorter to 3.0 minutes longer). There were twice as many patients receiving and filling prescriptions in the decision aid arm (83% vs. 40%, p = .07); medication adherence at 6 months was no different across arms.ConclusionSupporting both patients and clinicians during the clinical encounter with the Osteoporosis Choice decision aid efficiently improves treatment decision making when compared to usual care with or without clinical decision support with FRAX results.Trial Registrationclinical trials.gov NCT00949611

ObjectiveTo quantify the extent to which clinicians use clinically-efficacious decision aids as intended during implementation in practice and how fidelity to usage instructions correlates with shared decision making (SDM) outcomes.MethodsParticipant-level meta-analysis including six practice-based randomized controlled trials of SDM in various clinical settings encompassing a range of decisions.ResultsOf 339 encounters in the SDM intervention arm of the trials, 229 were video recorded and available for analysis. The mean proportion of fidelity items observed in each encounter was 58.4% (SD = 23.2). The proportion of fidelity items observed was significantly associated with patient knowledge (p = 0.01) and clinician involvement of the patient in decision making (p <0.0001), while no association was found with patient decisional conflict or satisfaction with the encounter.ConclusionClinicians’ fidelity to usage instructions of point-of-care decision aids in randomized trials was suboptimal during their initial implementation in practice, which may have underestimated the potential efficacy of decision aids when used as intended.

BackgroundWomen can choose from a range of contraceptive methods that differ in important ways. Inadequate decision support may lead them to select a method that poorly fits their circumstances, leading to dissatisfaction, misuse, or nonuse. Decision support interventions, such as decision aids, may help women choose a method of contraception that best fits their personal circumstances. To guide future decision aid development, we aim to summarize the attributes of contraceptive methods included in available decision aids as well as surveys and interviews of women actively choosing a contraceptive method.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify attributes of contraceptive methods that may be important to women when engaging in this decision making process. We performed a database search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, OVID CENTRAL, Ovid PsycInfo, EBSCO CINAHL, Popline, and Scopus from 1985 until 2013 to identify decision aids, structured interviews and questionnaires reporting attributes of contraceptive options that are of importance to women. A free-text internet search was also performed to identify additional decision support tools. All articles and tools were reviewed in duplicate for inclusion, and a summary list of attributes was compiled.ResultsWe included 20 surveys, 1 semistructured interview report and 19 decision aids, reporting 32 unique attributes. While some attributes were consistently included in surveys/interviews and decision aids, several were included more often in decision aids as opposed to surveys/interviews (e.g., STI prevention, noncontraceptive benefits, how the method is used, requirement of a healthcare provider), and vice versa (e.g., a woman’s vicarious experience with contraceptive methods). Key attributes mentioned in both surveys/interviews and decision aids include efficacy (29 total mentioned) and side effects/health risks (28 total mentioned). While a limited number of decision support tools were formally evaluated, many were not rigorously studied.ConclusionsMany attributes were identified as potentially important to women choosing a method of contraception, but these were inconsistently included in the reviewed resources. Formal evaluation of decision support tools for contraceptive choice and involvement of users in the development process may lead to more user-centered design and implementation.

No abstract

BackgroundBlunt head trauma is a common cause of death and disability in children worldwide. Cranial computed tomography (CT), the reference standard for the diagnosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI), exposes children to ionizing radiation which has been linked to the development of brain tumors, leukemia, and other cancers. We describe the methods used to develop and test the effectiveness of a decision aid to facilitate shared decision-making with parents regarding whether to obtain a head CT scan or to further observe their child at home.Methods/DesignThis is a protocol for a multicenter clinician-level parallel randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving a decision aid, ‘Head CT Choice’, to a control group receiving usual care. The trial will be conducted at five diverse emergency departments (EDs) in Minnesota and California. Clinicians will be randomized to decision aid or usual care. Parents visiting the ED with children who are less than 18-years-old, have experienced blunt head trauma within 24 hours, and have one or two risk factors for clinically-important TBI (ciTBI) from the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network head injury clinical prediction rules will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of Head CT Choice on: (1) parent knowledge regarding their child’s risk of ciTBI, the available diagnostic options, and the risks of radiation exposure associated with a cranial CT scan (primary outcome); (2) parent engagement in the decision-making process; (3) the degree of conflict parents experience related to feeling uninformed; (4) patient and clinician satisfaction with the decision made; (5) the rate of ciTBI at seven days; (6) the proportion of patients in whom a cranial CT scan is obtained; and (7) seven-day healthcare utilization. To capture these outcomes, we will administer parent and clinician surveys immediately after each clinical encounter, obtain video recordings of parent-clinician discussions, administer parent healthcare utilization diaries, analyze hospital billing records, review the electronic medical record, and conduct telephone follow-up.DiscussionThis multicenter trial will robustly assess the effectiveness of a decision aid on patient-centered outcomes, safety, and healthcare utilization in parents of children with minor head trauma in five diverse EDs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT02063087. Registration date February 13, 2014.

Extant clinical practice guidelines for one chronic disease sometimes consider the context of the patient with that disease, but only do so narrowly. Guideline panels must remove their contextual blinders if they want to practically guide the care of patients with MCC.

Background Point-of-care clinical photography using mobile devices is coming of age as a new standard of care for clinical documentation. High-quality cameras in modern smartphones facilitate faithful reproduction of clinical findings in photographs; however, clinical photographs captured on mobile devices are often taken using the native camera app on the device and transmitted using relatively insecure methods (eg, SMS text message and email) that do not preserve images as part of the electronic medical records. Native camera apps lack robust security features and direct integration with electronic health records (EHRs), which may limit patient acceptability and usefulness to clinicians. In March 2015, Mayo Clinic overcame these barriers by launching an internally developed mobile app that allows health care providers to securely capture clinical photographs and upload them to the EHR in a manner that is compliant with patient privacy and confidentiality regulations. Objective The study aimed to understand the perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of patients who were photographed using a mobile point-of-care clinical image capture app. Methods The study included a mail-out survey sent to 292 patients in Rochester, Minnesota, who were photographed using a mobile point-of-care clinical image capture app within a preceding 2-week period. Results The surveys were completed by 71 patients who recalled being photographed. Patients were seen in 18 different departments, with the most common departments being dermatology (19/71, 27%), vascular medicine (17/71, 24%), and family medicine (10/71, 14%). Most patients (49/62, 79%) reported that photographs were taken to simply document the appearance of a clinical finding for future reference. Only 16% (10/62) of patients said the photographs were used to obtain advice from a specialist. Furthermore, 74% (51/69) of the patients said they would recommend medical photography to others and 67% (46/69) of them thought the photos favorably affected their care. Patients were largely indifferent about the device used for photography (mobile device vs professional camera; 40/69, 58%) or the identity of the photographer (provider vs professional photographer; 52/69, 75%). In addition, 90% (64/71) of patients found reuse of photographs for one-on-one learner education to be acceptable. Acceptability for other uses declined as the size of the audience increased, with only 42% (30/71) of patients deeming reuse on social media for medical education as appropriate. Only 3% (2/71) of patients expressed privacy or confidentiality concerns. Furthermore, 52% (33/63) of patients preferred to provide consent verbally, and 21% (13/63) of them did not think a specific consent process was necessary. Conclusions Patient attitudes regarding medical photography using a secure EHR-integrated app were favorable. Patients perceived that photography improved their care despite the most common reason for photography being to simply document the appearance of a clinical finding for future reference. Whenever possible, health care providers should utilize secure EHR-integrated apps for point-of-care medical photography using mobile devices.