Search

Charles Christian Adarkwah,1–3 Nikita Jegan,1 Monika Heinzel-Gutenbrunner,4 Felicitas Kühne,5,6 Uwe Siebert,5–7 Uwe Popert,8 Norbert Donner-Banzhoff,1 Sarah Kürwitz1,9 1Department of General Practice and Family Medicine, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany; 2Department of Health Services Research and General Practice, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany; 3Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; 4MH Statistik Beratung, Marburg, Germany; 5Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health and Health Technology Assessment, University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Innsbruck, Austria; 6Division of Public Health Decision Modelling, Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics, ONCOTYROL – Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria; 7Center for Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; 8Department of General Practice, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; 9Department of Public Health, University of Bielefeld, Germany Background: Shared decision-making is a well-established approach to increasing patient participation in medical decisions. Increasingly, using lifetime-risk or time-to-event (TTE) formats has been suggested, as these might have advantages in comparison with a 10-year risk prognosis, particularly for younger patients, whose lifetime risk for some events may be considerably greater than their 10-year risk. In this study, a randomized trial, the most popular 10-year risk illustration in the decision-aid software Arriba (emoticons), is compared with a newly developed TTE illustration, which is based on a Markov model. The study compares the effect of these two methods of presenting cardiovascular risk to patients on their subsequent adherence to intervention.Methods: A total of 294 patients were interviewed 3 months after they had had a consultation with their GP on cardiovascular risk prevention. Adherence to behavioral change or medication intervention was measured as the primary outcome. The latter was expressed as a generated score. Furthermore, different secondary outcomes were measured, ie, patient perception of risk and self-rated importance of avoiding a cardiovascular event, as well as patient numeracy, which was used as a proxy for patient health literacy.Results: Overall, no significant difference in patient adherence was found depending on risk representation. In the emoticon group, the number of interventions had a significant impact on the adherence score (P=0.025). Perception of risk was significantly higher in patients counseled with the TTE risk display, whereas the importance of avoiding a cardiovascular event was rated equally highly in both groups and actually increased over time.Conclusion: The TTE format is an appropriate means for counseling patients. Adherence is a very complex construct, which cannot be fully explained by our findings. The study results support our call for considering TTE illustrations as a valuable alternative to current decision-support tools covering cardiovascular prevention. Nevertheless, further research is needed to shed light on patient motivation and adherence with regard to cardiovascular risk prevention.Trial registration: The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register and at the WHO International Clinical Trials Register Platform (ICTRP, ID DRKS00004933); registered February 2, 2016 (retrospectively registered). Keywords: randomized trial, Arriba, decision aid, adherence, risk perception, shared decision-making 10-year prognosis, risk assessment, lifetime risk, time to event, cardiovascular disease

Background: This study investigated the effects of three different risk displays used in a cardiovascular risk calculator on patients' motivation for shared decision-making (SDM). We compared a newly developed time-to-event (TTE) display with two established absolute risk displays (i.e. emoticons and bar charts). The accessibility, that is, how understandable, helpful, and trustworthy patients found each display, was also investigated., Methods: We analysed a sample of 353 patients recruited in general practices. After giving consent, patients were introduced to one of three fictional vignettes with low, medium or high cardiovascular risk. All three risk displays were shown in a randomized order. Patients were asked to rate each display with regard to motivation for SDM and accessibility. Two-factorial repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted to compare the displays and investigate possible interactions with age., Results: Regarding motivation for SDM, the TTE elicited the highest motivation, followed by the emoticons and bar chart (p < .001). The displays had no differential influence on the age groups (p = .445). While the TTE was generally rated more accessible than the emoticons and bar chart (p < .001), the emoticons were only superior to the bar chart in the younger subsample. However, this was only to a small effect (interaction between display and age, p < .01, η 2  = 0.018)., Conclusions: Using fictional case vignettes, the novel TTE display was superior regarding motivation for SDM and accessibility when compared to established displays using emoticons and a bar chart. If future research can replicate these results in real-life consultations, the TTE display will be a valuable addition to current risk calculators and decision aids by improving patients' participation.

Background: The concept of shared-decision-making is a well-established approach to increase the participation of patients in medical decisions. Using lifetime risk or time-to-event (TTE) formats has been increasingly suggested as they might have advantages, e.g. in younger patients, to better show consequences of unhealthy behaviour. In this study, the most-popular ten-year risk illustration in the decision-aid-software arriba TM (emoticons), is compared within a randomised trial to a new-developed TTE illustration, which is based on a Markov model., Methods: Thirty-two General Practitioners (GPs) took part in the study. A total of 304 patients were recruited and counseled by their GPs with arriba TM , and randomized to either the emoticons or the TTE illustration, followed by a patient questionnaire to figure out the degree of shared-decision-making (PEF-FB9, German questionnaire to measure the participation in the shared decision-making process, primary outcome), as well as the decisional conflict, perceived risk, accessibility and the degree of information, which are all secondary outcomes., Results: Regarding our primary outcome PEF-FB9 the new TTE illustration is not inferior compared to the well-established emoticons taking the whole study population into account. Furthermore, the non-inferiority of the innovative TTE could be confirmed for all secondary outcome variables. The explorative analysis indicates even advantages in younger patients (below 46 years of age)., Conclusion: The TTE format seems to be as useful as the well-established emoticons. For certain patient populations, especially younger patients, the TTE may be even superior to demonstrate a cardiovascular risk at early stages. Our results suggest that time-to-event illustrations should be considered for current decision support tools covering cardiovascular prevention., Trial Registration: The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register and at the WHO International Clinical Trials Register Platform ( ICTRP, ID DRKS00004933 ); registered 2 February 2016 (retrospectively registered).

Background: Evidence on the effectiveness of educational interventions on prescribing behaviour modification in prevention of cardiovascular disease is still insufficient. We evaluated the effects of a brief educational intervention on prescription of hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), inhibitors of platelet aggregation (IPA), and antihypertensive agents (AH)., Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial with continuous medical education (CME) groups of general practitioners (GPs)., Methods: Prescription of statins, IPA, and AH were verified prior to study start (BL), immediately after index consultation (IC), and at follow-up after 6 months (FU). Prescription in patients at high risk (>15% risk of a cardiovascular event in 10 years, based on the Framingham equation) and no prescription in low-risk patients (≤ 15%) were considered appropriate., Results: An intervention effect on prescribing could only be found for IPA. Generally, changes in prescription over time were all directed towards higher prescription rates and persisted to FU, independent of risk status and group allocation., Conclusions: The active implementation of a brief evidence-based educational intervention on global risk in CVD did not lead directly to risk-adjusted changes in prescription. Investigations on an extended time scale would capture whether decision support of this kind would improve prescribing risk-adjusted sustainably.