Quality and effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment decision aids: a systematic review and environmental scan.
Decisions aids
Fracture
Osteoporosis
Shared decision-making
Systematic review
Journal
Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA
ISSN: 1433-2965
Titre abrégé: Osteoporos Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9100105
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
13
02
2020
accepted:
25
05
2020
pubmed:
6
6
2020
medline:
4
3
2021
entrez:
6
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Decision aids (DAs) are evidence-based tools that support shared decision-making (SDM) implementation in practice; this study aimed to identify existing osteoporosis DAs and assess their quality and efficacy; and to gain feedback from a patient advisory group on findings and implications for further research. We searched multiple bibliographic databases to identify research studies from 2000 to 2019 and undertook an environmental scan (search conducted February 2019, repeated in March 2020). A pair of reviewers, working independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, evaluated each trial's risk of bias, and conducted DA quality assessment using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Public contributors (patients and caregivers with experience of osteoporosis and fragility fractures) participated in discussion groups to review a sample of DAs, express preferences for a new DA, and discuss plans for development of a new DA. We identified 6 studies, with high or unclear risk of bias. Across included studies, use of an osteoporosis DA was reported to result in reduced decisional conflict compared with baseline, increased SDM, and increased accuracy of patients' perceived fracture risk compared with controls. Eleven DAs were identified, of which none met the full set of IPDAS criteria for certification for minimization of bias. Public contributors expressed preferences for encounter DAs that are individualized to patients' own needs and risk. Using a systematic review and environmental scan, we identified 11 decision aids to inform patient decisions about osteoporosis treatment and 6 studies evaluating their effectiveness. Use of decision aids increased accuracy of risk perception and shared decision-making but the decision aids themselves fail to comprehensively meet international quality standards and patient needs, underpinning the need for new DA development.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32500301
doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05479-w
pii: 10.1007/s00198-020-05479-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1837-1851Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : CS-2018-18-ST2-010
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : CS-2018-18-ST2-010
Références
International Osteoporosis Foundation (2018) Broken bones, broken lives: a roadmap to solve the fragility fracture crisis in the United Kingdom. http://share.iofbonehealth.org/EU-6-Material/Reports/IOF_report_UK.pdf . Accessed 23 Dec 2019
van der Velde RY, Wyers CE, Teesselink E, Geusens PPMM, van den Bergh JPW, de Vries F, Cooper C, Harvey NC, van Staa TP (2017) Trends in oral anti-osteoporosis drug prescription in the United Kingdom between 1990 and 2012: Variation by age, sex, geographic location and ethnicity. Bone 94:50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2016.10.013
doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2016.10.013
pubmed: 27742502
Hall SF, Edmonds SW, Lou Y, Cram P, Roblin DW, Saag KG, Wright NC, Jones MP, Wolinsky FD (2017) Patient-reported reasons for nonadherence to recommended osteoporosis pharmacotherapy. J Am Pharm Assoc 57:503–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2017.05.003
doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2017.05.003
Cramer JA, Gold DT, Silverman SL, Lewiecki EM (2007) A systematic review of persistence and compliance with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 18:1023–1031
doi: 10.1007/s00198-006-0322-8
McHorney CA, Schousboe JT, Cline RR, Weiss TW (2007) The impact of osteoporosis medication beliefs and side-effect experiences on non-adherence to oral bisphosphonates. Curr Med Res Opin 23:3137–3152
doi: 10.1185/030079907X242890
Salter C, McDaid L, Bhattacharya D, Holland R, Marshall T, Howe A (2014) Abandoned Acid? Understanding adherence to bisphosphonate medications for the prevention of osteoporosis among older women: A qualitative longitudinal study. PLoS One 9:e83552. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083552
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083552
pubmed: 24392086
pmcid: 3879247
Khosla S, Shane E (2016) A crisis in the treatment of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 31:1485–1487
doi: 10.1002/jbmr.2888
Paskins Z, Jinks C, Mahmood W, Jayakumar P, Sangan CB, Belcher J, Gwilym S (2017) Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a general population survey. Arch Osteoporos 12:45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-017-0340-5
doi: 10.1007/s11657-017-0340-5
pubmed: 28455735
pmcid: 5409917
Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L (2017) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD001431. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
Elwyn G, Frosch D, Volandes AE, Edwards A, Montori VM (2010) Investing in deliberation: a definition and classification of decision support interventions for people facing difficult health decisions. Med Decis Mak 30:701–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10386231
doi: 10.1177/0272989X10386231
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2012) Patient experience in adult NHS services: improving the experience of care for people using adult NHS services. CG138. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg138 . Accessed 23 Dec 2019
Joseph-Williams N, Newcombe R, Politi M, Durand MA, Sivell S, Stacey D, O’Connor A, Volk RJ, Edwards A, Bennett C, Pignone M, Thomson R, Elwyn G (2014) Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified delphi consensus process. Med Decis Mak 34:699–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13501721
doi: 10.1177/0272989X13501721
Vaisson G, Provencher T, Dugas M, Trottier M-E, Chipenda-Dansokho S, Colquhoun H, Fagerlin A, Giguere A, Hakim H, Haslett L, Hoffman A, Ivers N, Julien A-S, Legare F, Renaud J-S, Stacey D, Volk R, Witteman H (2019) User involvement in the development of patient decision aids: a systematic review. https://doi.org/10.31219/OSF.IO/QYFKP
Torres-Roldan V, Urtecho LM, Espinoza N, Organick P, Thota A, Brito JP (2019) A systematic review and environmental scan of decision aids for osteoporosis: a review protocol. In: PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019126787. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID = CRD42019126787. Accessed 23 Dec 2019
Donnelly KZ, Thompson R (2015) Medical versus surgical methods of early abortion: protocol for a systematic review and environmental scan of patient decision aids. BMJ Open 5:e007966. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007966
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007966
pubmed: 26173718
pmcid: 4513513
Graham P, Evitts T, Thomas-MacLean R (2008) Environmental scans: how useful are they for primary care research? Can Fam Physician 54:1022–1023
pubmed: 18625830
pmcid: 2464800
Doria N, Condran B, Boulos L, Curtis Maillet DG, Dowling L, Levy A (2018) Sharpening the focus: differentiating between focus groups for patient engagement vs. qualitative research. Res Involv Engagem 4:19
doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0102-6
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, Altman DG, Moher D, Barber R, Denegri S, Entwistle A, Littlejohns P, Morris C, Suleman R, Thomas V, Tysall C (2017) GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ 358:j3453. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3453
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3453
pubmed: 28768629
pmcid: 5539518
Cranney A, O’Connor AM, Jacobsen MJ, Tugwell P, Adachi JD, Ooi DS, Waldegger L, Goldstein R, Wells GA (2002) Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Patient Educ Couns 47:245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(01)00218-X
doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(01)00218-X
pubmed: 12088603
Cranney A, Simon LS, Tugwell P, Adachi R, Guyatt G (2009) Postmenopausal osteoporosis. In: Tugwell P, Shea B, Boers M, Brooks P, Simon L, Strand V, Wells G (eds) Evidence-based rheumatology. BMJ Books, pp 183–242
Watts NB, Manson JAE (2017) Osteoporosis and fracture risk evaluation and management: shared decision making in clinical practice. J Am Med Assoc 317:253–254. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.19087
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.19087
Kunneman M, Branda ME, Hargraves I, Pieterse AH, Montori VM (2018) Fostering choice awareness for shared decision making: a secondary analysis of video-recorded clinical encounters. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes 2:60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2017.12.002
doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2017.12.002
pubmed: 30225433
pmcid: 6124329
Paskins Z, Worrall A, Chapman S (2018) Patient and public views of bisphosphonate decision aids: Not fit for purpose. In: Osteoporosis International. pp S374–S374
Lopez-Olivo MA, des Bordes JKA, Lin H, Rizvi T, Volk RJ, Suarez-Almazor ME (2019) Comparison of multimedia and printed patient education tools for patients with osteoporosis: a 6-month randomized controlled trial. Osteoporos Int. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05210-4
Lopez-Olivo MA, Ingleshwar A, Volk RJ, Jibaja-Weiss M, Barbo A, Saag K, Leong A, Suarez-Almazor ME (2018) Development and pilot testing of multimedia patient education tools for patients with knee osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 70:213–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23271
doi: 10.1002/acr.23271
Oakley S, Walley T (2006) A pilot study assessing the effectiveness of a decision aid on patient adherence with oral bisphosphonate medication. Pharm J 276:536–538
Pencille LJ, Campbell ME, Van Houten HK, Shah ND, Mullan RJ, Swiglo BA, Breslin M, Kesman RL, Tulledge-Scheitel SM, Jaeger TM, Johnson RE, Bartel GA, Wermers RA, Melton LJ, Montori VM (2009) Protocol for the osteoporosis choice trial. A pilot randomized trial of a decision aid in primary care practice. Trials 10:113. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-10-113
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-10-113
pubmed: 20003299
pmcid: 2796658
Montori VM, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, Branda ME, Van Houten HK, Swiglo BA, Kesman RL, Tulledge-Scheitel SM, Jaeger TM, Johnson RE, Bartel GA, Melton LJ, Wermers RA (2011) Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J Med 124:549–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.01.013
doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.01.013
pubmed: 21605732
Scoville EA, de Leon Lovaton PP, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, Montori VM (2011) Why do women reject bisphosphonates for osteoporosis? a videographic study. PLoS One 6:e18468. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018468
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018468
pubmed: 21533288
pmcid: 3076371
Coylewright M, Branda M, Inselman JW, Shah N, Hess E, LeBlanc A, Montori VM, Ting HH (2014) Impact of sociodemographic patient characteristics on the efficacy of decision aids a patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 7:360–367. https://doi.org/10.1161/HCQ.0000000000000006
doi: 10.1161/HCQ.0000000000000006
pubmed: 24823953
LeBlanc A, Wang AT, Wyatt K, Branda ME, Shah ND, Van Houten H, Pencille L, Wermers R, Montori VM (2015) 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 10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128063
Hiligsmann M, Ronda G, van der Weijden T, Boonen A (2016) The development of a personalized patient education tool for decision making for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 27:2489–2496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3555-1
doi: 10.1007/s00198-016-3555-1
pubmed: 27048388
pmcid: 4947108
Smallwood AJ, Schapira MM, Fedders M, Neuner JM (2017) A pilot randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with tailored fracture risk tool delivered via a patient portal. Osteoporos Int 28:567–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3767-4
doi: 10.1007/s00198-016-3767-4
pubmed: 27647529
Montori VM, Kunneman M, Brito JP (2017) Shared decision making and improving health care the answer is not in. JAMA 15:617. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.10289
doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.10289
Van de Velde S, Heselmans A, Delvaux N, Brandt L, Marco-Ruiz L, Spitaels D, Cloetens H, Kortteisto T, Roshanov P, Kunnamo I, Aertgeerts B, Vandvik PO, Flottorp S (2018) A systematic review of trials evaluating success factors of interventions with computerised clinical decision support. Implement Sci 13:114
doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0790-1
Scalia P, Durand MA, Berkowitz JL, Ramesh NP, Faber MJ, Kremer JAM, Elwyn G (2019) The impact and utility of encounter patient decision aids: systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Patient Educ Couns 102:817–841
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.020
Public Involvement Standards Development Partnership (2019) National Standards for Public Involvement in Research
Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen PD, Ng CJ, Van Der Weijden T (2013) A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13:S2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2
doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2
pubmed: 24625093
pmcid: 4044159
Raybould G, Babatunde O, Evans AL, Jordan JL, Paskins Z (2018) Expressed information needs of patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures: a systematic review. Arch Osteoporos 13:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-018-0470-4
doi: 10.1007/s11657-018-0470-4
Stacey D, Suwalska V, Boland L, Lewis KB, Presseau J, Thomson R (2019) Are patient decision aids used in clinical practice after rigorous evaluation? A survey of trial authors. Med Decis Mak 39:805–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19868193
doi: 10.1177/0272989X19868193