Patients' and physicians' beliefs and attitudes towards integrating personalized risk estimates into patient education about left ventricular assist device therapy.

Clinical decision making Patient engagement Personalized risk estimates Shared decision making

Journal

Patient education and counseling
ISSN: 1873-5134
Titre abrégé: Patient Educ Couns
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8406280

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 Jan 2024
Historique:
received: 04 05 2023
revised: 06 01 2024
accepted: 14 01 2024
medline: 30 1 2024
pubmed: 30 1 2024
entrez: 30 1 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Personalized risk (PR) estimates may enhance clinical decision making and risk communication by providing individualized estimates of patient outcomes. We explored stakeholder attitudes toward the utility, acceptability, usefulness and best-practices for integrating PR estimates into patient education and decision making about Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD). As part of a 5-year multi-institutional AHRQ project, we conducted 40 interviews with stakeholders (physicians, nurse coordinators, patients, and caregivers), analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. All stakeholder groups voiced positive views towards integrating PR in decision making. Patients, caregivers and coordinators emphasized that PR can help to better understand a patient's condition and risks, prepare mentally and logistically for likely outcomes, and meaningfully engage in decision making. Physicians felt it can improve their decision making by enhancing insight into outcomes, enhance tailored pre-emptive care, increase confidence in decisions, and reduce bias and subjectivity. All stakeholder groups also raised concerns about accuracy, representativeness and relevance of algorithms; predictive uncertainty; utility in relation to physician's expertise; potential negative reactions among patients; and overreliance. Stakeholders are optimistic about integrating PR into clinical decision making, but acceptability depends on prospectively demonstrating accuracy, relevance and evidence that benefits of PR outweigh potential negative impacts on decision making quality.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Personalized risk (PR) estimates may enhance clinical decision making and risk communication by providing individualized estimates of patient outcomes. We explored stakeholder attitudes toward the utility, acceptability, usefulness and best-practices for integrating PR estimates into patient education and decision making about Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD).
METHODS AND RESULTS RESULTS
As part of a 5-year multi-institutional AHRQ project, we conducted 40 interviews with stakeholders (physicians, nurse coordinators, patients, and caregivers), analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. All stakeholder groups voiced positive views towards integrating PR in decision making. Patients, caregivers and coordinators emphasized that PR can help to better understand a patient's condition and risks, prepare mentally and logistically for likely outcomes, and meaningfully engage in decision making. Physicians felt it can improve their decision making by enhancing insight into outcomes, enhance tailored pre-emptive care, increase confidence in decisions, and reduce bias and subjectivity. All stakeholder groups also raised concerns about accuracy, representativeness and relevance of algorithms; predictive uncertainty; utility in relation to physician's expertise; potential negative reactions among patients; and overreliance.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Stakeholders are optimistic about integrating PR into clinical decision making, but acceptability depends on prospectively demonstrating accuracy, relevance and evidence that benefits of PR outweigh potential negative impacts on decision making quality.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38290171
pii: S0738-3991(24)00024-7
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108157
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

108157

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest Thank you for your time and consideration. This article has not been published previously and is not under consideration elsewhere. There are no conflicts of interests to report. All authors agree with the content of the manuscript.

Auteurs

Kristin M Kostick-Quenet (KM)

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: kristin.kostick@bcm.edu.

Benjamin Lang (B)

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Natalie Dorfman (N)

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Jerry Estep (J)

Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Mandeep R Mehra (MR)

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Arvind Bhimaraj (A)

Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.

Andrew Civitello (A)

Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Ulrich Jorde (U)

Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.

Barry Trachtenberg (B)

Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.

Nir Uriel (N)

Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.

Holland Kaplan (H)

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Eleanor Gilmore-Szott (E)

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Robert Volk (R)

University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Mahwash Kassi (M)

Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.

J S Blumenthal-Barby (JS)

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Classifications MeSH