Online Decision Aids for Knee Arthroplasty: An Environmental Scan.
Journal
JBJS reviews
ISSN: 2329-9185
Titre abrégé: JBJS Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101674872
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 04 2021
08 04 2021
Historique:
entrez:
8
4
2021
pubmed:
9
4
2021
medline:
1
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Knee arthroplasty is a high-risk, resource-intensive procedure that should be reserved for patients in whom the benefit will outweigh the risks. The provision of high-quality, publicly available decision aids can help patients to balance the benefits against the harms of treatments and to assist informed decision-making. The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate the content and readability of freely available knee arthroplasty decision aids. A systematic search using an environmental scan methodology of publicly available online materials was performed in December 2018. Included materials were assessed for quality using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi), understandability and actionability from a patient's perspective using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), and readability grade level using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and the Gunning Fog Index. Of 761 online materials screened, 26 decision aids were identified. Only 18 (69%) may be considered to meet criteria to be defined as a decision aid and 4 (15%) met criteria suggesting that the material did not introduce potential harmful bias according to the IPDASi. The mean score (and standard deviation) for all decision aids was 74% ± 12% for understandability and 44% ± 19% for actionability using the PEMAT. Readability indices indicated a mean minimum reading level of Grade 10 (10.8 ± 2.5). No decision aid included a wait-and-see option. Few high-quality decision aids exist for patients considering knee arthroplasty and none include a wait-and-see option. Many do not provide actionable options and are pitched at above-average reading levels. Developers need to address these issues to encourage high-quality decision-making, especially for those with low health literacy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Knee arthroplasty is a high-risk, resource-intensive procedure that should be reserved for patients in whom the benefit will outweigh the risks. The provision of high-quality, publicly available decision aids can help patients to balance the benefits against the harms of treatments and to assist informed decision-making. The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate the content and readability of freely available knee arthroplasty decision aids.
METHODS
A systematic search using an environmental scan methodology of publicly available online materials was performed in December 2018. Included materials were assessed for quality using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi), understandability and actionability from a patient's perspective using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), and readability grade level using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and the Gunning Fog Index.
RESULTS
Of 761 online materials screened, 26 decision aids were identified. Only 18 (69%) may be considered to meet criteria to be defined as a decision aid and 4 (15%) met criteria suggesting that the material did not introduce potential harmful bias according to the IPDASi. The mean score (and standard deviation) for all decision aids was 74% ± 12% for understandability and 44% ± 19% for actionability using the PEMAT. Readability indices indicated a mean minimum reading level of Grade 10 (10.8 ± 2.5). No decision aid included a wait-and-see option.
CONCLUSIONS
Few high-quality decision aids exist for patients considering knee arthroplasty and none include a wait-and-see option. Many do not provide actionable options and are pitched at above-average reading levels. Developers need to address these issues to encourage high-quality decision-making, especially for those with low health literacy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33830958
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00088
pii: 01874474-202104000-00006
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: The authors indicated that no external funding was received for any aspect of this work. The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSREV/A678).
Références
Carr AJ, Robertsson O, Graves S, Price AJ, Arden NK, Judge A, Beard DJ. Knee replacement. Lancet. 2012 Apr 7;379(9823):1331-40. Epub 2012 Mar 6.
Stone OD, Duckworth AD, Curran DP, Ballantyne JA, Brenkel IJ. Severe arthritis predicts greater improvements in function following total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Aug;25(8):2573-9. Epub 2015 Oct 6.
OECD. Geographic variations in health care: what do we know and what can be done to improve health system performance? In: OECD Health Policy Studies. Paris:OECD Publishing; 2014.
OECD. Hip and knee replacement. In: Health at a glance 2017: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017.
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. 4.1 Surgical interventions: knee replacement. In: Second Australian atlas of healthcare variation. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare; 2017. p 237-56.
Kim AM, Kang S, Park JH, Yoon TH, Kim Y. Geographic variation and factors associated with rates of knee arthroplasty in Korea-a population based ecological study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Sep 2;20(1):400.
Garriga C, Leal J, Sánchez-Santos MT, Arden N, Price A, Prieto-Alhambra D, Carr A, Rangan A, Cooper C, Peat G, Fitzpatrick R, Barker K, Judge A. Geographical variation in outcomes of primary hip and knee replacement. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2(10):e1914325.
Fisher E, Bell J, Tomek I, Esty A, Goodman D. Trends and regional variation in hip, knee and shoulder replacement. Hanover: Dartmouth College; 2010.
Wright JG, Santaguida PL, Young N, Hawker GA, Schemitsch E, Owen JL. Patient preferences before and after total knee arthroplasty. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):774-82. Epub 2009 Dec 11.
de Achaval S, Kallen MA, Amick B, Landon G, Siff S, Edelstein D, Zhang H, Suarez-Almazor ME. Patients’ expectations about total knee arthroplasty outcomes. Health Expect. 2016 Apr;19(2):299-308. Epub 2015 Feb 13.
Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, Rathleff MS, Arendt-Nielsen L, Simonsen O, Rasmussen S. A randomized, controlled trial of total knee replacement. N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373(17):1597-606.
Frankel L, Sanmartin C, Conner-Spady B, Marshall DA, Freeman-Collins L, Wall A, Hawker GA. Osteoarthritis patients’ perceptions of “appropriateness” for total joint replacement surgery. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012 Sep;20(9):967-73. Epub 2012 May 31.
Hawker G, Bohm ER, Conner-Spady B, De Coster C, Dunbar M, Hennigar A, Loucks L, Marshall DA, Pomey MP, Sanmartin C, Noseworthy T. Perspectives of Canadian stakeholders on criteria for appropriateness for total joint arthroplasty in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 Jul;67(7):1806-15.
Katz JN, Winter AR, Hawker G. Measures of the appropriateness of elective orthopaedic joint and spine procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Feb 15;99(4):e15.
Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int. 2000;15(3):259-67.
Diviani N, van den Putte B, Giani S, van Weert JC. Low health literacy and evaluation of online health information: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2015 May 7;17(5):e112.
Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 19;155(2):97-107.
Adams RJ, Appleton SL, Hill CL, Dodd M, Findlay C, Wilson DH. Risks associated with low functional health literacy in an Australian population. Med J Aust. 2009 Nov 16;191(10):530-4.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Programme for the international assessment of adult competencies, Australia. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2013.
Sørensen K, Pelikan JM, Röthlin F, Ganahl K, Slonska Z, Doyle G, Fullam J, Kondilis B, Agrafiotis D, Uiters E, Falcon M, Mensing M, Tchamov K, van den Broucke S, Brand H; HLS-EU Consortium. Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European Health Literacy Survey (HLS-EU). Eur J Public Health. 2015 Dec;25(6):1053-8. Epub 2015 Apr 5.
Rootman I, Gordon-El-Bihbety D. A vision for a health literate Canada. Report of the Expert Panel on Health Literacy. 2008. Accessed 2020 Oct 16. https://www.cpha.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/resources/healthlit/report_e.pdf
Doak C, Doak L, Root J. Teaching patients with low health literacy. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: J.P. Lippincott; 1996.
Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L, Wu JH. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 28;1:CD001431.
Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, Thomson R, Barratt A, Barry M, Bernstein S, Butow P, Clarke A, Entwistle V, Feldman-Stewart D, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Moumjid N, Mulley A, Ruland C, Sepucha K, Sykes A, Whelan T; International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417. Epub 2006 Aug 14.
Sepucha KR, Borkhoff CM, Lally J, Levin CA, Matlock DD, Ng CJ, Ropka ME, Stacey D, Joseph-Williams N, Wills CE, Thomson R. Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S12. Epub 2013 Nov 29.
Solomon MJ, Pager CK, Keshava A, Findlay M, Butow P, Salkeld GP, Roberts R. What do patients want? Patient preferences and surrogate decision making in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003 Oct;46(10):1351-7.
Aslakson RA, Schuster AL, Miller J, Weiss M, Volandes AE, Bridges JF. An environmental scan of advance care planning decision AIDS for patients undergoing major surgery: a study protocol. Patient. 2014;7(2):207-17.
Diouf NT, Menear M, Robitaille H, Painchaud Guérard G, Légaré F. Training health professionals in shared decision making: update of an international environmental scan. Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Nov;99(11):1753-8. Epub 2016 Jun 14.
Donnelly KZ, Thompson R. Medical versus surgical methods of early abortion: protocol for a systematic review and environmental scan of patient decision aids. BMJ Open. 2015 Jul 14;5(7):e007966.
Légaré F, Politi MC, Drolet R, Desroches S, Stacey D, Bekker H; SDM-CPD Team. Training health professionals in shared decision-making: an international environmental scan. Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Aug;88(2):159-69. Epub 2012 Feb 1.
Saunders CH, Elwyn G, Kirkland K, Durand MA. Serious choices: A protocol for an environmental scan of patient decision aids for seriously ill people at risk of death facing choices about life-sustaining treatments. Patient. 2018 Feb;11(1):97-106.
Bonner C, Fajardo MA, Hui S, Stubbs R, Trevena L. Clinical validity, understandability, and actionability of online cardiovascular disease risk calculators: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Feb 1;20(2):e29.
Elwyn G, O’Connor AM, Bennett C, Newcombe RG, Politi M, Durand MA, Drake E, Joseph-Williams N, Khangura S, Saarimaki A, Sivell S, Stiel M, Bernstein SJ, Col N, Coulter A, Eden K, Härter M, Rovner MH, Moumjid N, Stacey D, Thomson R, Whelan T, van der Weijden T, Edwards A. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument (IPDASi). PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4705. Epub 2009 Mar 4.
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. Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi consensus process. Med Decis Making. 2014 Aug;34(6):699-710. Epub 2013 Aug 20.
Vishnevetsky J, Walters CB, Tan KS. Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Mar;101(3):490-6. Epub 2017 Sep 6.
Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Sep;96(3):395-403. Epub 2014 Jun 12.
Gunning R. The technique of clear writing. 1st ed. McGraw-Hill; 1952.
Kincaid J, Fishburne R, Rogers R, Chissom B. Derivation of new readability formulas: Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula for Navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch; 1975. p. 40.
Morony S, McCaffery KJ, Kirkendall S, Jansen J, Webster AC. Health literacy demand of printed lifestyle patient information materials aimed at people with chronic kidney disease: are materials easy to understand and act on and do they use meaningful visual aids? J Health Commun. 2017 Feb;22(2):163-70. Epub 2017 Jan 25.
McLaughlin G. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read. 1969;12(8):639-46.
Kincaid J, Fishburne R, Rogers R, Chissom B. Derivation of new readability formula for Navy enlisted personnel. Memphis Naval Research Branch;1975.
Wilson M. Readability and patient education materials used for low-income populations. Clin Nurse Spec. 2009 Jan-Feb;23(1):33-40; quiz 41-2.
Fajardo MA, Balthazaar G, Zalums A, Trevena L, Bonner C. Favourable understandability, but poor actionability: an evaluation of online type 2 diabetes risk calculators. Patient Educ Couns. 2019 Mar;102(3):467-73. Epub 2018 Oct 24.
Bonner C, Patel P, Fajardo MA, Zhuang R, Trevena L. Online decision aids for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: systematic search, evaluation of quality and suitability for low health literacy patients. BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 13;9(3):e025173.
Fajardo MA, Durayb B, Zhong H, Trevena L, Traeger A, Bonner C. Online decision aids for knee osteoarthritis and low back pain: an environmental scan and evaluation. Med Decis Making:. 2019 May;39(4):327-34. Epub 2019 May 29.
Fajardo MA, Weir KR, Bonner C, Gnjidic D, Jansen J. Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: an environmental scan. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2019 Jul;85(7):1396-406. Epub 2019 May 7.
Coulter A, Kryworuchko J, Mullen P, Ng C, Stilwell D, van der Weijden T. Chapter A: using a systematic development process. In: Volk R, Llewellyn-Thomas H. Editors. Update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s background document; 2012. Accessed 2021 Jan 29. http://www.ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS-Chapter-A.pdf