Development and Pilot Testing of Decision Aid for Shared Decision Making in Barrett's Esophagus With Low-Grade Dysplasia.
Journal
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
ISSN: 1539-2031
Titre abrégé: J Clin Gastroenterol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7910017
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
11
2
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
entrez:
11
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To develop an encounter decision aid [Barrett's esophagus Choice (BE-Choice)] for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making (SDM) for management of BE with low-grade dysplasia (BE-LGD) and assess its impact on patient-important outcomes. Currently, there are 2 strategies for management of BE-LGD-endoscopic surveillance and ablation. SDM can help patients decide on their preferred management option. Phase-I: Patients and clinicians were engaged in a user-centered design approach to develop BE-Choice. Phase-I included review of evidence on BE-LGD management, observation of usual care (UC), creation, field-testing, and iterative development of BE-Choice in clinical settings. Phase-II: Impact of BE-Choice on patient-important outcomes (patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in decision making) was assessed using a controlled before-after study design (UC vs. BE-Choice). Phase-I: Initial prototype was designed with observation of 8 clinical encounters. With field-testing, 3 successive iterations were made before finalizing BE-Choice. BE-Choice was paper based and fulfilled the qualifying criteria of International patient decision aid standards. Phase II: 29 patients were enrolled, 8 to UC and 21 to BE-Choice. Compared with UC, use of BE-Choice improved patient knowledge (90.4% vs. 70.5%; P=0.03), decisional comfort (89.6 vs. 71.9; P=0.01), and patient involvement (OPTION score: 27.1 vs. 19.2; P=0.01). BE-Choice is a feasible and effective decision aid to promote SDM in the management of BE-LGD. On pilot testing, BE-Choice had promising impact on patient-important outcomes. A larger multicenter trial is needed to confirm our results and promote widespread use of BE-Choice.
Sections du résumé
GOALS
To develop an encounter decision aid [Barrett's esophagus Choice (BE-Choice)] for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making (SDM) for management of BE with low-grade dysplasia (BE-LGD) and assess its impact on patient-important outcomes.
BACKGROUND
Currently, there are 2 strategies for management of BE-LGD-endoscopic surveillance and ablation. SDM can help patients decide on their preferred management option.
STUDY
Phase-I: Patients and clinicians were engaged in a user-centered design approach to develop BE-Choice. Phase-I included review of evidence on BE-LGD management, observation of usual care (UC), creation, field-testing, and iterative development of BE-Choice in clinical settings. Phase-II: Impact of BE-Choice on patient-important outcomes (patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in decision making) was assessed using a controlled before-after study design (UC vs. BE-Choice).
RESULTS
Phase-I: Initial prototype was designed with observation of 8 clinical encounters. With field-testing, 3 successive iterations were made before finalizing BE-Choice. BE-Choice was paper based and fulfilled the qualifying criteria of International patient decision aid standards. Phase II: 29 patients were enrolled, 8 to UC and 21 to BE-Choice. Compared with UC, use of BE-Choice improved patient knowledge (90.4% vs. 70.5%; P=0.03), decisional comfort (89.6 vs. 71.9; P=0.01), and patient involvement (OPTION score: 27.1 vs. 19.2; P=0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
BE-Choice is a feasible and effective decision aid to promote SDM in the management of BE-LGD. On pilot testing, BE-Choice had promising impact on patient-important outcomes. A larger multicenter trial is needed to confirm our results and promote widespread use of BE-Choice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32040049
doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001319
pii: 00004836-202101000-00008
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
36-42Références
Shaheen N, Ransohoff DF. Gastroesophageal reflux, Barrett esophagus, and esophageal cancer: clinical applications. JAMA. 2002;287:1982–1986.
Skacel M, Petras RE, Gramlich TL, et al. The diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus and its implications for disease progression. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:3383–3387.
American Gastroenterological Association, Spechler SJ, Sharma P, et al. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:1084–1091.
ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Evans JA, Early DS, et al. The role of endoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus and other premalignant conditions of the esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:1087–1094.
Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:30–50; quiz 1.
Phoa KN, van Vilsteren FG, Weusten BL, et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett esophagus and low-grade dysplasia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;311:1209–1217.
Small AJ, Araujo JL, Leggett CL, et al. Radiofrequency ablation is associated with decreased neoplastic progression in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and confirmed low-grade dysplasia. Gastroenterology. 2015;149:567–576.e3; quiz e13–e14.
Hur C, Choi SE, Rubenstein JH, et al. The cost effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:567–575.
Blevins CH, Iyer PG. Endoscopic therapy for Barrett’s oesophagus. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2015;29:167–177.
Krishnamoorthi R, Singh S, Ragunathan K, et al. Risk of recurrence of Barrett’s esophagus after successful endoscopic therapy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:1090–1106. e3.
Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, et al. The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect. 2005;8:34–42.
O’Connor A. Using patient decision aids to promote evidence-based decision making. ACP J Club. 2001;135:A11–A12.
Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.
LeBlanc A, Bodde AE, Branda ME, et al. Translating comparative effectiveness of depression medications into practice by comparing the depression medication choice decision aid to usual care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14:127.
Joseph-Williams N, Newcombe R, Politi M, et al. Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi consensus process. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:699–710.
Mullan RJ, Montori VM, Shah ND, et al. The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid: a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1560–1568.
Weymiller AJ, Montori VM, Jones LA, et al. Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions: statin choice randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1076–1082.
O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:25–30.
LeBlanc A, Herrin J, Williams MD, et al. Shared decision making for antidepressants in primary care: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1761–1770.
LeBlanc A, Wang AT, Wyatt K, et al. Encounter decision aid vs. clinical decision support or usual care to support patient-centered treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial II. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0128063.
Wyatt KD, Branda ME, Anderson RT, et al. Peering into the black box: a meta-analysis of how clinicians use decision aids during clinical encounters. Implement Sci. 2014;9:26.
Orman ES, Li N, Shaheen NJ. Efficacy and durability of radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s esophagus: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:1245–1255.
Singh S, Manickam P, Amin AV, et al. Incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus with low-grade dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:897–909.e4; quiz 83.e1–83.e3.
Shaheen NJ, Sharma P, Overholt BF, et al. Radiofrequency ablation in Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2277–2288.
Oshima Lee E, Emanuel EJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:6–8.
Hess EP, Knoedler MA, Shah ND, et al. The chest pain choice decision aid: a randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:251–259.
Spatz ES, Krumholz HM, Moulton BW. Prime time for shared decision making. JAMA. 2017;317:1309–1310.
Brito JP, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Gionfriddo MR, et al. Development and pilot testing of an encounter tool for shared decision making about the treatment of Graves’ disease. Thyroid. 2015;25:1191–1198.
Nannenga MR, Montori VM, Weymiller AJ, et al. A treatment decision aid may increase patient trust in the diabetes specialist. the Statin choice randomized trial. Health Expect. 2009;12:38–44.