Annually, about 100,000 US patients face the difficult choice between the most common dialysis types, in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. This study evaluated the value of a new decision aid to assist in the choice of dialysis modality.A parallel-group randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of the decision aid on decision-making outcomes.English-speaking US adults with advanced chronic kidney disease and internet access enrolled in 2015.Participants randomly assigned to the decision aid intervention received information about chronic kidney disease, peritoneal dialysis, and hemodialysis and a value clarification exercise through the study website using their own electronic devices. Participants in the control arm were only required to complete the control questionnaire. Questionnaire responses were used to assess differences across arms in decision-making outcomes.Treatment preference, decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, knowledge, and preparation for decision making.Of 234 consented participants, 94 (40.2%) were lost to follow-up before starting the study. Among the 140 (70 in each arm) who started the study, 7 were subsequently lost to follow-up. Decision aid users had lower decisional conflict scores (42.5 vs 29.1; P<0.001) and higher average knowledge scores (90.3 vs 76.5; P<0.001). Both arms had high decisional self-efficacy scores independent of decision aid use. Uncertainty about choice of dialysis treatment declined from 46% to 16% after using the decision aid. Almost all (>90%) users of the decision aid reported that it helped in decision making.Limited generalizability from the study of self-selected study participants who had to have internet access, speak English, and have computer literacy. High postrandomization loss to follow-up. Evaluation of only short-term outcomes.The decision aid improves decision-making outcomes immediately after use. Implementation of the decision aid in clinical practice may allow further assessment of its effects on patient engagement and empowerment in choosing a dialysis modality.This study was funded through a Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) award (#1109).Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT02488317.
Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats is ethically desirable but challenging due to its tendency to promote avoidance of choice options with unknown probabilities—a phenomenon known as "ambiguity aversion." This study examined this phenomenon's potential magnitude, its responses to different communication strategies, and its mechanisms. In a factorial experiment, 2701 adult laypersons in Spain read one of three versions of a hypothetical newspaper article describing a pandemic vaccine-preventable disease (VPD), but varying in scientific uncertainty about VPD risk and vaccine effectiveness: No-Uncertainty, Uncertainty, and Normalized-Uncertainty (emphasizing its expected nature). Vaccination intentions were lower for the Uncertainty and Normalized-Uncertainty groups compared to the No-Uncertainty group, consistent with ambiguity aversion; Uncertainty and Normalized-Uncertainty groups did not differ. Ambiguity-averse responses were moderated by health literacy and mediated by perceptions of vaccine effectiveness, VPD likelihood, and VPD severity. Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats warrants caution and further research to elucidate its outcomes, mechanisms, and management.
To assess patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening with stool-based tests after initial colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation.An online scenario-based survey of adults aged 45 to 75 years at average risk for colorectal cancer was performed.When presented with a hypothetical scenario of screening colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation, 59% of respondents chose stool-based testing as a next step, 29% preferred a repeat colonoscopy within a year, and 12% preferred a repeat colonoscopy in 10 years (N = 1,080).Clinicians should consider offering stool-based screening tests as an alternative to repeat colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation.
Persons who read information about a hypothetical influenza strain with scientific (H11N3 influenza) or exotic-sounding (Yarraman flu) name reported higher worry and vaccination intentions than did those who read about strains named after an animal reservoir (horse flu). These findings suggest that terms used for influenza in public communications can influence reactions.
There is consensus that incorporating clinical decision support into electronic health records will improve quality of care, contain costs, and reduce overtreatment, but this potential has yet to be demonstrated in clinical trials.To assess the influence of a customized evidence-based clinical decision support tool on the management of respiratory tract infections and on the effectiveness of integrating evidence at the point of care.In a randomized clinical trial, we implemented 2 well-validated integrated clinical prediction rules, namely, the Walsh rule for streptococcal pharyngitis and the Heckerling rule for pneumonia. INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The intervention group had access to the integrated clinical prediction rule tool and chose whether to complete risk score calculators, order medications, and generate progress notes to assist with complex decision making at the point of care.The intervention group completed the integrated clinical prediction rule tool in 57.5% of visits. Providers in the intervention group were significantly less likely to order antibiotics than the control group (age-adjusted relative risk, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92). The absolute risk of the intervention was 9.2%, and the number needed to treat was 10.8. The intervention group was significantly less likely to order rapid streptococcal tests compared with the control group (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.97; P= .03).The integrated clinical prediction rule process for integrating complex evidence-based clinical decision report tools is of relevant importance for national initiatives, such as Meaningful Use. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01386047.
Background Many employers use screenings to identify and recommend modification of employees' risk factors for type 2 diabetes, yet little is known about how often employees then engage in recommended behaviors and what factors influence engagement. We examined the frequency of, facilitators of, and barriers to engagement in recommended behaviors among employees found to have pre-diabetes during a workplace screening. Methods We surveyed 82 University of Michigan employees who were found to have pre-diabetes during a 2014 workplace screening and compared the characteristics of employees who 3 months later were and were not engaged in recommended behaviors. We interviewed 40 of these employees to identify the facilitators of and barriers to engagement in recommended behaviors. Results 3 months after screening, 54% of employees with pre-diabetes reported attempting to lose weight and getting recommended levels of physical activity, had asked their primary care provider about metformin for diabetes prevention, or had attended a Diabetes Prevention Program. These employees had higher median levels of motivation to prevent type 2 diabetes (9/10 vs 7/10, p<0.001) and lower median estimations of their risk for type 2 diabetes (40% vs 60%, p=0.02). Key facilitators of engagement were high motivation and social and external supports. Key barriers were lack of motivation and resources, and competing demands. Conclusions Most employees found to have pre-diabetes through a workplace screening were engaged in a recommended preventive behavior 3 months after the screening. This engagement could be enhanced by optimizing motivation and risk perception as well as leveraging social networks and external supports.
Abstract Perceptions of infectious diseases are important predictors of whether people engage in disease‐specific preventive behaviors. Having accurate beliefs about a given infectious disease has been found to be a necessary condition for engaging in appropriate preventive behaviors during an infectious disease outbreak, while endorsing conspiracy beliefs can inhibit preventive behaviors. Despite their seemingly opposing natures, knowledge and conspiracy beliefs may share some of the same psychological motivations, including a relationship with perceived risk and self‐efficacy (i.e., control). The 2015–2016 Zika epidemic provided an opportunity to explore this. The current research provides some exploratory tests of this topic derived from two studies with similar measures, but different primary outcomes: one study that included knowledge of Zika as a key outcome and one that included conspiracy beliefs about Zika as a key outcome. Both studies involved cross‐sectional data collections that occurred during the same two periods of the Zika outbreak: one data collection prior to the first cases of local Zika transmission in the United States (March–May 2016) and one just after the first cases of local transmission (July–August). Using ordinal logistic and linear regression analyses of data from two time points in both studies, the authors show an increase in relationship strength between greater perceived risk and self‐efficacy with both increased knowledge and increased conspiracy beliefs after local Zika transmission in the United States. Although these results highlight that similar psychological motivations may lead to Zika knowledge and conspiracy beliefs, there was a divergence in demographic association.
