Search

Christine E Kistler,1 Maihan Vu,2 Anne Sutkowi-Hemstreet,3 Ziya Gizlice,4 Russell P Harris,5 Noel T Brewer,6 Carmen L Lewis,7 Rowena J Dolor,8 Colleen Barclay,5 Stacey L Sheridan9 1Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, 2Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 3Napa County Office of Education, Napa, CA, 4Biostatistical Support Unit, Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, 5Cecil G Sheps Center for Health Services Research, 6Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 7Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, 8Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 9Reaching for High Value Care Team, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Background: Primary-care providers may contribute to the use of low-value cancer screening. Objective: We sought to examine circumstances under which primary-care providers would discuss and recommend two types of cancer screening services across a spectrum of net benefit and other factors known to influence screening. Patients and methods: This was a cross sectional survey of 126 primary-care providers in 24 primary-care clinics in the US. Participants completed surveys with two hypothetical screening scenarios for prostate or colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients in the scenarios varied by age and screening-request status. For each scenario, providers indicated whether they would discuss and recommend screening. Providers also reported on their screening attitudes and the influence of other factors known to affect screening (short patient visits, worry about lawsuits, clinical reminders/performance measures, and screening guidelines). We examined associations between providers’ attitudes and their screening recommendations for hypothetical 90-year-olds (the lowest-value screening). Results: Providers reported they would discuss cancer screening more often than they would recommend it (P

Background: Approximately 80 million Americans have limited health literacy, which puts them at greater risk for poorer access to care and poorer health outcomes. Purpose: To update a 2004 systematic review and determine whether low health literacy is related to poorer use of health care, outcomes, costs, and disparities in health outcomes among persons of all ages. Data Sources: English-language articles identified through MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Cochrane Library databases and hand-searching (search dates for articles on health literacy, 2003 to 22 February 2011; for articles on numeracy, 1966 to 22 February 2011). Study Selection: Two reviewers independently selected studies that compared outcomes by differences in directly measured health literacy or numeracy levels. Data Extraction: One reviewer abstracted article information into evidence tables; a second reviewer checked information for accuracy. Two reviewers independently rated study quality by using predefined criteria, and the investigative team jointly graded the overall strength of evidence. Data Synthesis: 96 relevant good- or fair-quality studies in 111 articles were identified: 98 articles on health literacy, 22 on numeracy, and 9 on both. Low health literacy was consistently associated with more hospitalizations; greater use of emergency care; lower receipt of mammography screening and influenza vaccine; poorer ability to demonstrate taking medications appropriately; poorer ability to interpret labels and health messages; and, among elderly persons, poorer overall health status and higher mortality rates. Poor health literacy partially explains racial disparities in some outcomes. Reviewers could not reach firm conclusions about the relationship between numeracy and health outcomes because of few studies or inconsistent results among studies. Limitations: Searches were limited to articles published in English. No Medical Subject Heading terms exist for identifying relevant studies. No evidence concerning oral health literacy (speaking and listening skills) and outcomes was found. Conclusion: Low health literacy is associated with poorer health outcomes and poorer use of health care services. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronary heart disease is the most common cause of death in the United States. The conventional risk factor approach to primary prevention excludes many patients who could benefit from preventive therapies. A global risk approach allows more accurate estimates of risk to guide clinical primary prevention efforts. Global risk of coronary heart disease is a calculation of the absolute risk of having a coronary heart disease event (e.g., death, myocardial infarction) over a specified period. It is based on an empiric equation that combines major risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol levels. When physicians know a patient's global risk of coronary heart disease, they are more likely to prescribe risk-reducing therapies such as antihypertensives, statins, and aspirin. In addition, patients who know their risk level are more likely to initiate risk-reducing therapies. Many tools are available to estimate global risk, including several Web-based calculators. In the United States, tools based on the Framingham Heart Study are recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore how individuals respond to global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk and use it in combination with treatment information to make decisions to initiate and maintain risk reducing strategies.Methods: We conducted four focus groups of individuals at risk for CHD (n=29), purposively sampling individuals with each of several risk factors. Two reviewers coded verbatim transcripts and arbitrated differences, using ATLAS.ti 5.2 to facilitate analysis.Results: Participants generally regarded the concept of global CHD risk as useful and motivating, although had questions about its precision and comprehensiveness. They identified several additional influential factors in decision-making (e.g. achievable risk, the quickness and self-evidence of results) and generally preferred lifestyle changes to medications (although most would accept medications under certain circumstances). They also noted the importance of participating in decision-making.Conclusion: Our results underscore the motivating potential of global CHD risk and the importance of patient participation in decision-making.Practice Implications: Global CHD risk is a useful adjunct to CHD prevention and can be presented in ways, and with information, that might improve CHD outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore the evidence-translator's experience of the expert-recommended process of translating guidelines into tools for decision making, action, and adherence with the goal of improvement., Methods: A single reviewer dual reviewed the content, quality, certainty, and applicability of primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular prevention guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the time of this work and used targeted searches of Medline to define the ideal structure and outcomes of tools; fill in gaps in guidelines; identify end-user needs; and choose and optimize existing tools in preparation for testing., Results: Guidelines addressed screening, treatments, and/or supports, but never the combination of all three. None provided all of the information needed for evidence translation. Searches in Medline filled in some evidence gaps and provided key insights into end-user needs and effective tools. However, evidence translators are left with complicated decisions about how to use and align evidence., Conclusion: Guidelines provide some, but not all, of the evidence needed for evidence translation, requiring additional intensive work. Evidence gaps result in complicated decisions about how to use and align evidence and balance feasibility and rigor., Practice Implications: Guidelines, standards groups, and researchers should work to better support the process of evidence translation., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest I have no conflicts of interest that would impair the scientific integrity of this publication., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: Historic disruption in health infrastructure combined with data from a recent vaccine coverage survey suggests there are likely significant immunity gaps to vaccine preventable diseases and high risk of outbreaks in Timor-Leste. Community-based serological surveillance is an important tool to augment understanding of population-level immunity achieved through vaccine coverage and/or derived from prior infection., Methods and Analysis: This national population-representative serosurvey will take a three-stage cluster sample and aims to include 5600 individuals above 1 year of age. Serum samples will be collected by phlebotomy and analysed for measles IgG, rubella IgG, SARS-CoV-2 antispike protein IgG, hepatitis B surface antibody and hepatitis B core antigen using commercially available chemiluminescent immunoassays or ELISA. In addition to crude prevalence estimates and to account for differences in Timor-Leste's age structure, stratified age-standardised prevalence estimates will be calculated, using Asia in 2013 as the standard population. Additionally, this survey will derive a national asset of serum and dried blood spot samples which can be used for further investigation of infectious disease seroepidemiology and/or validation of existing and novel serological assays for infectious diseases., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Research Ethics and Technical Committee of the Instituto Nacional da Saúde, Timor-Leste and the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research, Australia. Co-designing this study with Timor-Leste's Ministry-of-Health and other relevant partner organisations will allow immediate translation of findings into public health policy, which may include changes to routine immunisation service delivery and/or plans for supplementary immunisation activities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Lack of access to diagnostic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can limit disease surveillance in remote areas. Serological surveillance can indicate the true extent and distribution of infections in such settings., Methods: This study monitored SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in residual serum samples salvaged from laboratories at five healthcare facilities across Timor-Leste from March to October 2021., Results: Seroprevalence increased from 8.3% to 87.0% during the study period. Potential immunity gaps were identified among children aged 0-15 y (who had not been eligible for vaccination) and individuals aged >60 y., Conclusions: Efforts to vaccinate vulnerable individuals including older people should be maintained. Residual serum samples can be analysed to give local, contemporary information about the extent and distribution of antibodies to infections, especially SARS-CoV-2, in areas where epidemiological information is limited., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.)

Introduction: The World Health Organisation recommends that healthcare workers (HCWs) are immune to measles and rubella, and those at risk of exposure are offered the hepatitis B vaccine. No formal programme for occupational assessment and provision of vaccinations to HCWs currently exists in Timor-Leste., Methods: A cross-sectional study was undertaken to determine the seroprevalence of hepatitis B, measles and rubella among HCWs in Dili, Timor-Leste. All patient-facing employees at three healthcare institutions during April-June 2021 were invited to participate. Epidemiological data were collected by interview-questionnaire and a serum sample was collected by phlebotomy and analysed at the National Health Laboratory. Participants were contacted to discuss their results. Relevant vaccines were offered to seronegative individuals and those with active hepatitis B infection were referred for further assessment and management in a hepatology clinic as per national guidelines., Results: Three-hundred-and-twenty-four HCWs were included (representing 51.3% of all eligible HCWs working at the three participating institutions). Sixteen (4.9%; 95% CI: 2.8-7.9%) had active hepatitis B infection, 121 (37.3%; 95% CI: 32.1-42.9%) had evidence of previous (cleared) hepatitis B infection, 134 (41.4%; 95% CI: 35.9-46.9%) were hepatitis B seronegative, and 53 (16.4%; 95% CI: 12.5-20.8%) had been vaccinated. Two-hundred-and-sixty-seven (82.4%; 95% CI: 77.8-86.4%) and 306 (94.4%; 95% CI: 91.4-96.7%) individuals exhibited antibodies to measles and rubella, respectively., Interpretation: There are significant immunity gaps and a high prevalence of hepatitis B infection among HCWs in Dili Municipality, Timor-Leste. Routine occupational assessment and targeted vaccination of this group would be beneficial and should include all types of HCWs. This study provided an opportunity to develop a programme for the occupational assessment and vaccination of HCWs and forms the template for a national guideline., Funding: This work was supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government [Complex Grant Agreement Number 75889]., Competing Interests: Authors do not have any commercial or other associations that might pose conflicts of interest. PA is paid by Menzies as a Technical Advisor for work on the ARIA-RISE Timor-Leste Project. This is a portfolio of sero-surveillance studies investigating vaccine-preventable disease seroepidemiology in Timor-Leste, including the one reported in this manuscript. He is paid according to a consultancy agreement. ADKD is an honorary fellow at the Menzies School of Health Research who provides technical advice and support to surveillance and epidemiology activities in Timor-Leste., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Background Serosurveillance can be used to investigate the extent and distribution of immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within a population. Characterisation of humoral immune responses gives insight into whether immunity is infection- or vaccine-derived. Methods A longitudinal study of health care workers (HCWs) in Dili, Timor-Leste, was conducted during vaccine rollout (ChAdOx1) and a concurrent SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Results A total of 324 HCWs were included at baseline (April-May 2021). Out of those, 32 (9.9%) were seropositive for anti-nucleocapsid protein (anti-N) IgG antibodies, indicating a significant sub-clinical infection among HCWs early in the local outbreak. Follow-up was conducted in 157 (48.5%) participants (July-September 2021), by which time there had been high uptake of vaccination (91.7%), and 86.0% were seropositive for anti-spike protein antibodies. Acquisition of anti-N antibodies was observed in partially vaccinated HCWs (30/76, 39.5%), indicating some post-dose-1 infections. Discussion Serosurveillance of HCWs may provide early warning of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks and should be considered in non-endemic settings, particularly where there is limited availability/uptake of testing for acute infection. Characterisation of humoral immune responses may be used to assess vaccine impact and coverage. Such studies should be considered in national and international efforts to investigate and mitigate against future emerging pathogens., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Authors do not have any commercial or other associations that might pose conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Vertical transmission from mother-to-child is an important mode of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, accounting for up to half of all incident cases globally. We evaluated the uptake of HBV neonatal vaccination and immunoglobulin delivery in Queensland, Australia, between 2001 and 2013. We identified HBV-positive mothers using linked notifiable conditions, hospitalisation, and perinatal administrative data. Perinatal receipt of monovalent HBV vaccine and hepatitis B immunoglobulin were examined. Of 710,859 live births, with 5753 infants (0.81%) born to identified HBV-positive mothers; 91.7% received HBV neonatal vaccine. Immunoglobulin uptake was 20.0% in 2012 and 36.6% in 2013. Uptake was higher when the mother's HBV-positive status was recorded in perinatal records (69.6% if maternal HBV status recorded on perinatal data collection vs 9.5% otherwise). Delivery of neonatal HBV vaccination in Queensland was high. Improved identification and documentation of HBV-positive mothers' status during the antenatal period was associated with increased immunoglobulin administration., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To create a shared vision for the content, delivery, measurement, and sustainment of patient-centered high value care., Methods: We performed a scoping review and translated findings into toolkit for system leaders. For our scoping review, we searched Medline, 2005-November 2015, for literature on patient-centered care (PCC) and its relationship to a high value care change model. We supplemented searches with key author, Google Scholar, and key website searches. One author reviewed all titles, abstracts, and articles for inclusion; another reviewed a random 20%. To develop our toolkit, we translated evidence into simple, actionable briefs on key topics and added resources. We then iteratively circulated briefs and the overall toolkit to potential users, making updates as needed., Results: In our scoping review, we found multiple interventions and measures to support the components of PCC and our change model. We found little on the overall effects of PCC or how PCC creates value. Potential users reported our toolkit was simple, understandable, thorough, timely, and likely to be globally useful., Conclusions: Considerable evidence supports patient-centered high value care and a toolkit garnered enthusiasm., Practice Implications: The toolkit is ready for use, but needs comparison to other approaches., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patient decision aids (PDAs) are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration review papers and Cochrane systematic review of PDAs have found significant gaps in the reporting of evaluations of PDAs, including poor or limited reporting of PDA content, development methods and delivery. This study sought to develop and reach consensus on reporting guidelines to improve the quality of publications evaluating PDAs., Methods: An international workgroup, consisting of members from IPDAS Collaboration, followed established methods to develop reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies. This paper describes the results from three completed phases: (1) planning, (2) drafting and (3) consensus, which included a modified, two-stage, online international Delphi process. The work was conducted over 2 years with bimonthly conference calls and three in-person meetings. The workgroup used input from these phases to produce a final set of recommended items in the form of a checklist., Results: The SUNDAE Checklist (Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations) includes 26 items recommended for studies reporting evaluations of PDAs. In the two-stage Delphi process, 117/143 (82%) experts from 14 countries completed round 1 and 96/117 (82%) completed round 2. Respondents reached a high level of consensus on the importance of the items and indicated strong willingness to use the items when reporting PDA studies., Conclusion: The SUNDAE Checklist will help ensure that reports of PDA evaluation studies are understandable, transparent and of high quality. A separate Explanation and Elaboration publication provides additional details to support use of the checklist., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KRS received salary support as a scientific advisory board member for the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation, which was part of Healthwise, a not-for-profit organisation that develops patient decision aids, from April 2014 to April 2017. CAL was employed by Healthwise from April 2014 to November 2016. VAS received personal fees from Merck Pharmaceuticals. During the last 36 months, SLS has received funding from the Agency for Health Services Research and Quality for a scoping review to identify a research agenda on shared decision making and high value care. During this time, she also completed unfunded research or papers on patient decision aid evaluations and developed the reaching for high value care toolkit, a toolkit of evidence briefs and resources on patient-centred high value care for all levels of system leaders. As part of those efforts and efforts on the current manuscripts, SLS has developed a series of research resources on reporting research. She is considering the potential benefits and harms of pursuing intellectual property protection for some of these efforts, but has not initiated these to date., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: In November 2005, Australia introduced a publicly funded single dose of varicella vaccine for children aged 18-months. We describe the impact of this program on varicella hospitalisations in Queensland and provide the first assessment of single-dose varicella vaccine effectiveness in Australia since the program commenced., Methods: Age-standardised varicella hospitalisation rates were calculated for 2000-2014 and pre- and post-public funding period rates compared. Case-control studies were conducted to investigate the association between vaccine receipt and both varicella hospitalisations and uncomplicated varicella emergency department presentations. Cases were matched to controls from a population-based register by date of birth and state of residence. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated as (1-odds ratio)×100%., Results: Compared to the pre-funded period (2000-2003), age-standardised varicella hospitalisation rates declined by more than 70% in 2011-2014 with varicella principal diagnosis rates declining from 5.7 to 1.6 per 100,000 population per year. Varicella vaccine effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation with a principal diagnosis of varicella among children aged 19-months to 6-years was 81.9% (95% confidence interval: 61.8-91.4%), while for emergency department presentations among children aged 19-months to 8-years it was 57.9% (95% confidence interval: 48.5-65.5%)., Conclusions: In Australia, the single-dose varicella vaccination program has substantially reduced varicella morbidity. The single-dose varicella vaccine schedule is moderately-to-highly effective against hospitalisation, but appears less effective against emergency department presentations., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A protective association between rotavirus vaccination and childhood seizures in the year after vaccination was recently reported from the United States. In the state of Queensland, Australia, the authors found that rotavirus vaccine was 35.8% and 38.0% effective at preventing emergency department presentation and subsequent hospitalization, respectively, for febrile seizures among children up to two years following vaccination., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: Healthcare overuse, the delivery of low-value services, is increasingly recognized as a critical problem. However, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of alternate formats for presenting benefits and harms information to patients as a strategy to reduce overuse., Objective: To examine the effect of different benefits and harms presentations on patients' intentions to accept low-value or potentially low-value screening services (prostate cancer screening in men ages 50-69 years; osteoporosis screening in low-risk women ages 50-64 years; or colorectal cancer screening in men and women ages 76-85 years)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of 775 individuals eligible to receive information about any 1 of the 3 screening services and scheduled for a visit with their clinician. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 intervention arms that differed in terms of presentation format: words, numbers, numbers plus narrative, and numbers plus framed presentation. The trial was conducted from September 2012 to June 2014 at 2 family medicine and 2 internal medicine practices affiliated with the Duke Primary Care Research Consortium. The data were analyzed between May and September of 2015., Interventions: One-page evidence-based decision support sheets on each of the 3 screening services, with benefits and harms information presented in 1 of 4 formats: words, numbers, numbers plus narratives, or numbers plus a framed presentation., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in intention to accept screening (on a response scale from 1 to 5). Our secondary outcomes included general and disease-specific knowledge, perceived risk and consequences of disease, screening attitudes, perceived net benefit of screening, values clarity, and self-efficacy for screening., Results: We enrolled and randomly allocated 775 individuals, aged 50 to 85 years, to 1 of 4 intervention arms: 195 to words, 192 to numbers, 196 to narrative, and 192 to framed formats. Intentions to accept screening were high before the intervention and change in intentions did not differ across intervention arms (words, -0.07; numbers, -0.05; numbers plus narrative, -0.12; numbers plus framed presentation, -0.02; P = .57 for all comparisons). Change in other outcomes also showed no difference across intervention arms. Results were similar when stratified by screening service., Conclusions and Relevance: Single, brief, written decision support interventions, such as the ones in this study, are unlikely to be sufficient to change intentions for screening. Alternate and additional interventions are needed to reduce overused screening services., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01694784.

Background: In recent years, there has been a growing interest in reducing the overuse of healthcare services. However, little is known about how patients conceptualize the benefits and harms of overused screening tests or how patients make decisions regarding these tests., Objective: To determine how patients think about the harms and benefits of overused screening tests and how they consider these and other factors when making decisions., Design: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews., Participants: The study comprised 50 patients, ages 50-84, who had previously received or not received any of four overused screening services: 1) prostate cancer screening (men ages 50-69), 2) colon cancer screening (men and women ages 76-85), 3) osteoporosis screening (low-risk women ages 50-64), or 4) cardiovascular disease screening (low-risk men and women ages 50-85)., Approach: We conducted a thematic analysis, using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. Two independent coders analyzed interview transcriptions to identify themes and exemplifying quotes., Key Results: Many patients could not name a harm of screening. When they did name harms, patients often focused on only the harms of the screening test itself and rarely mentioned harms further along the screening cascade (e.g., from follow-up testing and treatment). In contrast, patients could easily name benefits of screening, although many seemed to misunderstand or overestimate the magnitude of the benefits. Furthermore, patients described many additional factors they considered when making screening decisions, including their clinicians' recommendations, their age, family or friends' experiences with disease, and insurance coverage., Conclusions: This study highlights the need to help adults recognize and understand the benefits and harms of screening and make appropriate decisions about overused screening tests.

Background: Health literacy (HL) and numeracy are measured by one of two methods: performance on objective tests or self-report of one's skills. Whether results from these methods differ in their relationship to health outcomes or use of health services is unknown., Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate articles that measured both performance-based and self-reported HL or numeracy and examined their relationship to health outcomes or health service use. To identify studies, we started with an AHRQ-funded systematic review of HL and health outcomes. We then looked for newer studies by searching MEDLINE from 1 February 2010 to 9 December 2014. We included English language studies meeting pre-specified criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts and studies for inclusion and graded study quality. One reviewer abstracted information from included studies while a second checked content for accuracy., Results: We identified four "fair" quality studies that met inclusion criteria for our review. Two studies measuring HL found no differences between performance-based and self-reported HL for association with self-reported outcomes (including diabetes, stroke, hypertension) or a physician-completed rheumatoid arthritis disease activity score. However, HL measures were differentially related to a patient-completed health assessment questionnaire and to a patient's ability to interpret their prescription medication name and dose from a medication bottle. Only one study measured numeracy and found no difference between performance-based and self-reported measures of numeracy and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization. However, in a moderator analysis from the same study, performance-based and self-reported numeracy were differentially related to CRC screening utilization when stratified by certain patient-provider communication behaviors (e.g., the chance to always ask questions and get the support that is needed)., Discussion: Most studies found no difference in the relationship between results of performance-based and self-reported measures and outcomes. However, we identified few studies using multiple instruments and/or objective outcomes.

Several observational studies provide evidence that acellular pertussis vaccines (aP) are less protective against pertussis disease than highly effective whole-cell pertussis vaccines (wP), however, concerns have been raised that some of these findings may be confounded by age. By undertaking age-stratified and restricted analyses on a cohort of Australian children primed with either aP-only, wP-only or mixed pertussis vaccine schedules, we demonstrate that compared to aP the association of wP with increased protection from pertussis is not confounded by age, nor by aP booster-dose receipt., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The utility value attributed to taking pills for prevention can have a major effect on the cost-effectiveness of interventions, but few published studies have systematically quantified this value. We sought to quantify the utility value of taking pills used for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD)., Design: Cross-sectional survey., Setting: Central North Carolina., Participants: 708 healthcare employees aged 18 years and older., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: Utility values for taking 1 pill/day, assessed using time trade-off, modified standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods., Results: Mean age of respondents was 43 years (19-74). The majority of the respondents were female (83%) and Caucasian (80%). Most (80%) took at least 2 pills/day. Mean utility values for taking 1 pill/day using the time trade-off method were: 0.9972 (95% CI 0.9962 to 0.9980). Values derived from the standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods were 0.9967 (0.9954 to 0.9979) and 0.9989 (95% CI 0.9986 to 0.9991), respectively. Utility values varied little across characteristics such as age, sex, race, education level or number of pills taken per day., Conclusions: The utility value of taking pills daily in order to prevent an adverse CVD health outcome is approximately 0.997., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Clinicians' perceptions of screening benefits and harms influence their recommendations, which in turn shape patients' screening decisions. We sought to understand clinicians' perceptions of the benefits and harms of cancer screening by comparing 2 screening tests that differ in their balance of potential benefits to harms: colonoscopy, which results in net benefit for many adults, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, which may do more harm than good., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 126 clinicians at 24 family/internal medicine practices completed surveys in which they listed and rated the magnitude of colonoscopy and PSA testing benefits and harms for a hypothetical 70-year-old male patient and then estimated the likelihood that these tests would cause harm and lengthen the life of 100 similar men in the next 10 years. We tested the hypothesis that the availability heuristic would explain the association of screening test to perceived likelihood of benefit/harm and a competing hypothesis that clinicians' gist of screening tests as good or bad would mediate this association., Results: Clinicians perceived PSA testing to have a greater likelihood of harm and a lower likelihood of lengthening life relative to colonoscopy. Consistent with our gist hypothesis, these associations were mediated by clinicians' gist of screening (balance of perceived benefits to perceived harms)., Limitations: Generalizability beyond academic clinicians remains to be established., Conclusions: Targeting clinicians' gist of screening, for example through graphical displays that allow clinicians to make gist-based relative magnitude comparisons, may influence their risk perception and possibly reduce overrecommendation of screening., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Background: The decrease in utility attributed to taking pills for cardiovascular prevention can have major effects on the cost-effectiveness of interventions but has not been well studied. We sought to measure the utility of daily pill-taking for cardiovascular prevention., Methods and Results: We conducted a cross-sectional Internet-based survey of 1000 US residents aged ≥30 in March 2014. We calculated utility values, using time trade-off as our primary method and standard gamble and willingness-to-pay techniques as secondary analyses. Mean age of respondents was 50 years. Most were female (59%) and white (63%); 28% had less than a college degree; and 79% took ≥1 pills daily. Mean utility using the time trade-off method was 0.990 (95% confidence interval, 0.988-0.992), including ≈70% not willing to trade any amount of time to avoid taking a preventive pill daily. Using the standard gamble method, mean utility was 0.991 (0.989-0.993), with 62% not willing to risk any chance of death. Respondents were willing to pay an average of $1445 to avoid taking a pill daily, which translated to a mean utility of 0.994 (0.940-0.997), including 41% unwilling to pay any amount. Time trade-off-based utility varied by age (decreasing utility as age increased), sex, race, numeracy, difficulty with obtaining pills, and number of pills taken per day but did not vary by education level, literacy, or income., Conclusions: Mean utility for taking a pill daily for cardiovascular prevention is ≈0.990 to 0.994., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) readings predict the increased risks of cardiovascular events and end-organ damage independent of office blood pressure (BP). Numeracy (the ability to handle numbers) may limit the feasibility of patients' performing HBPM. The authors analyzed data from 409 adults recruited from 12 North Carolina primary care clinics who completed a three-item numeracy assessment, the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Short Form health literacy assessment, and HBPM over 2 weeks. Among the 409 participants, 73% were college graduates and 69% had adequate numeracy. Completion of HBPM was greater among those with adequate numeracy (96.2% vs 93.7%; P=.009) and did not correlate with health literacy scores. More participants with adequate numeracy reported completion of ≥85% of readings than those with low numeracy (95% vs 88%; P=.018). Adequate numeracy, but not high literacy, is associated with more complete HBPM reporting. Whether higher numeracy is associated with more accurate self-reported readings is an area of future research., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

In 2008, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations to discourage screening for prostate cancer in men over 75 and for colorectal cancer in adults over 85. We aimed to determine whether newspapers portrayed these screenings differently after these recommendation changes. A quantitative content analysis included articles on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or colonoscopy in US newspapers from 2005 to 2012. Outcomes included the number of benefits and harms mentioned and the gist expert and lay readers might get from articles. Benefits in PSA articles (n = 222) and harms and benefits in colonoscopy articles (n = 65) did not change over time. Mentions of PSA harms increased after 2008 (p < .01). Expected expert gist of PSA articles became more negative after 2008 (p < .01). Expected lay gist was positive and did not change. News coverage of PSA testing harms increased without a decrease in the discussion of benefits. Consumers, especially lay consumers, are receiving unbalanced information on cancer screening.

The recent epidemics of pertussis (whooping cough) in parts of the USA and Australia have led to the largest numbers of annual cases reported in over half a century. These epidemics demonstrated a new pattern, with particularly high rates of disease among pre-adolescents and early adolescents. These high rates of pertussis coincided with the first cohorts vaccinated with purely acellular pertussis vaccine, which replaced whole-cell pertussis (wP) vaccine in the later 1990s in the USA and Australia. Studies undertaken during these epidemics provide new evidence of more rapid waning of acellular pertussis-containing vaccines and longer-term protection from effective wP-containing vaccines. There is evidence that receiving wP as at least the first dose of pertussis-containing vaccine provides greater and more long-lived protection, irrespective of the nature of subsequent doses. This evidence will be reviewed together with the immunobiology associated with both vaccines, and the implications for pertussis control discussed.

Importance: Most primary care clinicians lack the skills and resources to offer effective lifestyle and medication (L&M) counseling to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. Thus, effective and feasible CHD prevention programs are needed for typical practice settings., Objective: To assess the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of a combined L&M intervention to reduce CHD risk offered in counselor-delivered and web-based formats., Design, Setting, and Participants: A comparative effectiveness trial in 5 diverse family medicine practices in North Carolina. Participants were established patients, aged 35 to 79 years, with no known cardiovascular disease, and at moderate to high risk for CHD (10-year Framingham Risk Score [FRS], ≥10%)., Interventions: Participants were randomized to counselor-delivered or web-based format, each including 4 intensive and 3 maintenance sessions. After randomization, both formats used a web-based decision aid showing potential CHD risk reduction associated with L&M risk-reducing strategies. Participants chose the risk-reducing strategies they wished to follow., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was within-group change in FRS at 4-month follow-up. Other measures included standardized assessments of blood pressure, blood lipid levels, lifestyle behaviors, and medication adherence. Acceptability and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. Outcomes were assessed at 4 and 12 months., Results: Of 2274 screened patients, 385 were randomized (192 counselor; 193 web): mean age, 62 years; 24% African American; and mean FRS, 16.9%. Follow-up at 4 and 12 months included 91% and 87% of the randomized participants, respectively. There was a sustained reduction in FRS at both 4 months (primary outcome) and 12 months for both counselor-based (-2.3% [95% CI, -3.0% to -1.6%] and -1.9% [95% CI, -2.8% to -1.1%], respectively) and web-based groups (-1.5% [95% CI, -2.2% to -0.9%] and -1.7% [95% CI, -2.6% to -0.8%] respectively). At 4 months, the adjusted difference in FRS between groups was -1.0% (95% CI, -1.8% to -0.1%) (P = .03), and at 12 months, it was -0.6% (95% CI, -1.7% to 0.5%) (P = .30). The 12-month costs from the payer perspective were $207 and $110 per person for the counselor- and web-based interventions, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: Both intervention formats reduced CHD risk through 12-month follow-up. The web format was less expensive., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01245686.

Unlabelled: OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of three, four and five doses of acellular pertussis vaccine against pertussis notification for children aged 1 - < 4 years and 5 - < 12 years, and the effectiveness of three doses of acellular pertussis vaccine against pertussis hospitalisation for children aged 1 - < 4 years., Design, Setting and Participants: A population-based retrospective study of children aged 1 - < 12 years residing in Queensland, Australia, during 2009 and 2010. Routinely collected notification, hospitalisation, testing and vaccination data were used to describe notification rates and testing patterns and to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) by the screening method., Main Outcome Measures: VE against pertussis notification for children aged 1 - < 4 years and 5 - < 12 years, by birth year, and VE against pertussis hospitalisation for children aged 1 - < 4 years., Results: 1961 notifications and 29 hospitalisations were included in the VE calculations. VE point estimates against pertussis notification and hospitalisation in children aged 1 - < 4 years were similar in 2009 and 2010, and ranged between 83.5% and 89.4%. VE point estimates against notification among children aged 5 - < 12 years were between 71.2% and 87.7% in 2009, and between 34.7% and 70.3% in 2010. The numbers of pertussis tests performed for children, particularly polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, increased between 2009 and 2010., Conclusions: Acellular pertussis vaccine provided good protection within the first years of priming, but this waned as age increased. Changes in pertussis testing behaviour, because of increases in PCR use and awareness, may have contributed to increased pertussis notification rates and lower estimates of VE against notification owing to identification of milder disease.

Background: Medicare covers several cancer screening tests not currently recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force). In September 2002, the Task Force relaxed the upper age limit of 70 years for breast cancer screening recommendations, and in March 2003 an upper age limit of 65 years was introduced for cervical cancer screening recommendations. We assessed whether mammogram and Pap test utilization among women with Medicare coverage is influenced by changes in the Task Force's recommendations for screening., Methods: We identified female Medicare beneficiaries aged 66-80 years and used bivariate probit regression to examine the receipt of breast (mammogram) and cervical (Pap test) cancer screening reflecting changes in the Task Force recommendations. We analyzed 9,760 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey responses from 2001 to 2007., Results: More than two-thirds reported receiving a mammogram and more than one-third a Pap test in the previous 2 years. Lack of recommendation was given as a reason for not getting screened among the majority (51% for mammogram and 75% for Pap). After controlling for beneficiary-level socioeconomic characteristics and access to care factors, we did not observe a significant change in breast and cervical cancer screening patterns following the changes in Task Force recommendations., Conclusions: Although there is evidence that many Medicare beneficiaries adhere to screening guidelines, some women may be receiving non-recommended screening services covered by Medicare.

Background: Decision aids offer promise as a practical solution to improve patient decision making about coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention medications and help patients choose medications to which they are likely to adhere. However, little data is available on decision aids designed to promote adherence., Methods: In this paper, we report on secondary analyses of a randomized trial of a CHD adherence intervention (second generation decision aid plus tailored messages) versus usual care in an effort to understand how the decision aid facilitates adherence. We focus on data collected from the primary study visit, when intervention participants presented 45 minutes early to a previously scheduled provider visit; viewed the decision aid, indicating their intent for CHD risk reduction after each decision aid component (individualized risk assessment and education, values clarification, and coaching); and filled out a post-decision aid survey assessing their knowledge, perceived risk, decisional conflict, and intent for CHD risk reduction. Control participants did not present early and received usual care from their provider. Following the provider visit, participants in both groups completed post-visit surveys assessing the number and quality of CHD discussions with their provider, their intent for CHD risk reduction, and their feelings about the decision aid., Results: We enrolled 160 patients into our study (81 intervention, 79 control). Within the decision aid group, the decision aid significantly increased knowledge of effective CHD prevention strategies (+21 percentage points; adjusted p<.0001) and the accuracy of perceived CHD risk (+33 percentage points; adjusted p<.0001), and significantly decreased decisional conflict (-0.63; adjusted p<.0001). Comparing between study groups, the decision aid also significantly increased CHD prevention discussions with providers (+31 percentage points; adjusted p<.0001) and improved perceptions of some features of patient-provider interactions. Further, it increased participants' intentions for any effective CHD risk reducing strategies (+21 percentage points; 95% CI 5 to 37 percentage points), with a majority of the effect from the educational component of the decision aid. Ninety-nine percent of participants found the decision aid easy to understand and 93% felt it easy to use., Conclusions: Decision aids can play an important role in improving decisions about CHD prevention and increasing patient-provider discussions and intent to reduce CHD risk.

Importance: Making rational decisions about screening requires information about its harms, but high-quality evidence is often either not available or not used. One reason may be that we lack a coherent framework, a taxonomy, for conceptualizing and studying these harms., Objective: To create a taxonomy, we categorized harms from several sources: systematic reviews of screening, other published literature, and informal discussions with clinicians and patients. We used this information to develop an initial taxonomy and vetted it with local and national experts, making revisions as needed., Results: We propose a taxonomy with 4 domains of harm from screening: physical effects, psychological effects, financial strain, and opportunity costs. Harms can occur at any step of the screening cascade. We provide definitions for each harm domain and illustrate the taxonomy using the example of screening for lung cancer., Conclusions and Relevance: The taxonomy provides a systematic way to conceptualize harms as experienced by patients. As shown in the lung cancer screening example, the taxonomy also makes clear where (which domains of harms and which parts of the screening cascade) we have useful information and where there are gaps in our knowledge. The taxonomy needs further testing and validation across a broad range of screening programs. We hope that further development of this taxonomy can improve our thinking about the harms of screening, thus informing our research, policy making, and decision making with patients about the wisdom of screening.

Background: Although lifestyle and medications are effective for coronary heart disease (CHD) risk reduction, few studies have examined the comparative effectiveness of various strategies for delivering high quality CHD risk reduction. In this paper, we report on the design and baseline characteristics of participants for just such a trial., Methods: We conducted a randomized trial of the same lifestyle and medication intervention delivered in two alternate formats: counselor-delivered or web-based. The trial was conducted at 5 diverse practices in a family medicine research network and included men and women age 35-79 who were at high risk of CHD events based on 10-year predicted Framingham risk of ≥10% or a known history of cardiovascular disease. After individual-level randomization, participants in both arms received a decision aid plus four intensive intervention visits and 3 maintenance visits over 12 months. The primary outcome was change in 10-year predicted CHD risk among patients without prior cardiovascular disease. Secondary outcomes, measured among all participants, included changes in CHD risk factors, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability at 4 and 12-month follow-up., Results: We randomized 489 eligible patients: 389 without and 100 with a known history of cardiovascular disease. Mean age was 62.3. 75% were white, 25% African-American. 45% had a college education. 88% had health insurance. Mean 10-year predicted CHD risk was 16.9%., Conclusion: We have successfully recruited a diverse sample of practices and patients that will provide a rich sample in which to test the comparative effectiveness of two strategies to implement high quality CHD prevention., (© 2013.)

The bootstrap method for estimating the standard error of the kappa statistic in the presence of clustered data is evaluated. Such data arise, for example, in assessing agreement between physicians and their patients regarding their understanding of the physician-patient interaction and discussions. We propose a computationally efficient procedure for generating correlated dichotomous responses for physicians and assigned patients for simulation studies. The simulation result demonstrates that the proposed bootstrap method produces better estimate of the standard error and better coverage performance compared with the asymptotic standard error estimate that ignores dependence among patients within physicians with at least a moderately large number of clusters. We present an example of an application to a coronary heart disease prevention study., (Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Importance: To make good decisions about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, men must consider how they value the different potential outcomes., Objective: To determine the effects of different methods of helping men consider such values., Design and Setting: Randomized trial from October 12 to 27, 2011, in the general community., Participants: A total of 911 men aged 50 to 70 years from the United States and Australia who had average risk. Participants were drawn from online panels from a survey research firm in each country and were randomized by the survey firm to 1 of 3 values clarification methods: a balance sheet (n = 302), a rating and ranking task (n = 307), or a discrete choice experiment (n = 302)., Intervention: Participants underwent a values clarification task and then chose the most important attribute., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome was the difference among groups in the most important attribute. Secondary outcomes were differences in unlabeled test preference and intent to undergo screening with PSA., Results: The mean age was 59.8 years; most participants were white and more than one-third had graduated from college. More than 40% reported a PSA test within 12 months. The participants who received the rating and ranking task were more likely to report reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer as being most important (54.4%) compared with those who received the balance sheet (35.1%) or the discrete choice experiment (32.5%) (P < .001). Those receiving the balance sheet were more likely (43.7%) to prefer the unlabeled PSA-like option (as opposed to the "no screening"-like option) compared with those who received rating and ranking (34.2%) or the discrete choice experiment (20.2%). However, the proportion who intended to undergo PSA testing was high and did not differ between groups (balance sheet, 77.1%; rating and ranking, 76.8%; and discrete choice experiment, 73.5%; P = .73)., Conclusions and Relevance: Different values clarification methods produce different patterns of attribute importance and different preferences for screening when presented with an unlabeled choice. Further studies with more distal outcome measures are needed to determine the best method of values clarification, if any, for decisions such as whether to undergo screening with PSA.

Background: Effective use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) can be affected by the user's health literacy and the PtDA's characteristics. Systematic reviews of the relevant literature can guide PtDA developers to attend to the health literacy needs of patients. The reviews reported here aimed to assess:, Methods: We reviewed literature for evidence relevant to these two aims. When high-quality systematic reviews existed, we summarized their evidence. When reviews were unavailable, we conducted our own systematic reviews., Results: Aim 1: In an existing systematic review of PtDA trials, lower health literacy was associated with lower patient health knowledge (14 of 16 eligible studies). Fourteen studies reported practical design strategies to improve knowledge for lower health literacy patients. In our own systematic review, no studies reported on values clarity per se, but in 2 lower health literacy was related to higher decisional uncertainty and regret. Lower health literacy was associated with less desire for involvement in 3 studies, less question-asking in 2, and less patient-centered communication in 4 studies; its effects on other measures of patient involvement were mixed. Only one study assessed the effects of a health literacy intervention on outcomes; it showed that using video to improve the salience of health states reduced decisional uncertainty. Aim 2: In our review of 97 trials, only 3 PtDAs overtly addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. In 90% of trials, user health literacy and readability of the PtDA were not reported. However, increases in knowledge and informed choice were reported in those studies in which health literacy needs were addressed., Conclusion: Lower health literacy affects key decision-making outcomes, but few existing PtDAs have addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. The specific effects of PtDAs designed to mitigate the influence of low health literacy are unknown. More attention to the needs of patients with lower health literacy is indicated, to ensure that PtDAs are appropriate for lower as well as higher health literacy patients.

Background: Professional societies recommend shared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening, however, most efforts have promoted informed rather than shared decision making. The objective of this study is to 1) examine the effects of a prostate cancer screening intervention to promote SDM and 2) determine whether framing prostate information in the context of other clearly beneficial men's health services affects decisions., Methods: We conducted two separate randomized controlled trials of the same prostate cancer intervention (with or without additional information on more clearly beneficial men's health services). For each trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of 2 internal medicine practices, and their interested physicians and male patients with no prior history of prostate cancer (for a total of 4 practices, 28 physicians, and 128 men across trials). Within each practice site, we randomized men to either 1) a video-based decision aid and researcher-led coaching session or 2) a highway safety video. Physicians at each site received a 1-hour educational session on prostate cancer and SDM. To assess intervention effects, we measured key components of SDM, intent to be screened, and actual screening. After finding that results did not vary by trial, we combined data across sites, adjusting for the random effects of both practice and physician., Results: Compared to an attention control, our prostate cancer screening intervention increased men's perceptions that screening is a decision (absolute difference +41%; 95% CI 25 to 57%) and men's knowledge about prostate cancer screening (absolute difference +34%; 95% CI 19% to 50%), but had no effect on men's self-reported participation in shared decisions or their participation at their preferred level. Overall, the intervention decreased screening intent (absolute difference -34%; 95% CI -50% to -18%) and actual screening rates (absolute difference -22%; 95% CI -38 to -7%) with no difference in effect by frame., Conclusions: SDM interventions can increase men's knowledge, alter their perceptions of prostate cancer screening, and reduce actual screening. However, they may not guarantee an increase in shared decisions., Trial Registration: #NCT00630188.

Background: Electronic personal health records offer a promising way to communicate medical test results to patients. We compared the usability of tables and horizontal bar graphs for presenting medical test results electronically., Methods: We conducted experiments with a convenience sample of 106 community-dwelling adults. In the first experiment, participants viewed either table or bar graph formats (between subjects) that presented medical test results with normal and abnormal findings. In a second experiment, participants viewed table and bar graph formats (within subjects) that presented test results with normal, borderline, and abnormal findings., Results: Participants required less viewing time when using bar graphs rather than tables. This overall difference was due to superior performance of bar graphs in vignettes with many test results. Bar graphs and tables performed equally well with regard to recall accuracy and understanding. In terms of ease of use, participants did not prefer bar graphs to tables when they viewed only one format. When participants viewed both formats, those with experience with bar graphs preferred bar graphs, and those with experience with tables found bar graphs equally easy to use. Preference for bar graphs was strongest when viewing tests with borderline results., Conclusions: Compared to horizontal bar graphs, tables required more time and experience to achieve the same results, suggesting that tables can be a more burdensome format to use. The current practice of presenting medical test results in a tabular format merits reconsideration.

Background: Global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk assessment is recommended to guide primary preventive pharmacotherapy. However, little is known about physicians' understanding and use of global CHD risk assessment. Our objective was to examine US physicians' awareness, use, and attitudes regarding global CHD risk assessment in clinical practice, and how these vary by provider specialty., Methods: Using a web-based survey of US family physicians, general internists, and cardiologists, we examined awareness of tools available to calculate CHD risk, method and use of CHD risk assessment, attitudes towards CHD risk assessment, and frequency of using CHD risk assessment to guide recommendations of aspirin, lipid-lowering and blood pressure (BP) lowering therapies for primary prevention. Characteristics of physicians indicating they use CHD risk assessments were compared in unadjusted and adjusted analyses., Results: A total of 952 physicians completed the questionnaire, with 92% reporting awareness of tools available to calculate CHD global risk. Among those aware of such tools, over 80% agreed that CHD risk calculation is useful, improves patient care, and leads to better decisions about recommending preventive therapies. However, only 41% use CHD risk assessment in practice. The most commonly reported barrier to CHD risk assessment is that it is too time consuming. Among respondents who calculate global CHD risk, 69% indicated they use it to guide lipid lowering therapy recommendations; 54% use it to guide aspirin therapy recommendations; and 48% use it to guide BP lowering therapy. Only 40% of respondents who use global CHD risk routinely tell patients their risk. Use of a personal digital assistant or smart phone was associated with reported use of CHD risk assessment (adjusted OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.17-2.12)., Conclusions: Reported awareness of tools to calculate global CHD risk appears high, but the majority of physicians in this sample do not use CHD risk assessments in practice. A minority of physicians in this sample use global CHD risk to guide prescription decisions or to motivate patients. Educational interventions and system improvements to improve physicians' effective use of global CHD risk assessment should be developed and tested.

Purpose: To compare two techniques for eliciting and clarifying patient values for decision making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening: choice-based conjoint analysis and a rating and ranking task., Methods: Using our decision lab registry and university e-mail lists, we recruited average risk adults ages 48-75 for a written, mailed survey. Eligible participants were given basic information about CRC screening and six attributes of CRC screening tests, then randomized to complete either a choice-based conjoint analysis with 16 discrete choice tasks or a rating and ranking task. The main outcome was the most important attribute, as determined from conjoint analysis or participant ranking. Conjoint analysis-based most important attribute was determined from individual patient-level utilities generated using multinomial logistic regression and hierarchical Bayesian modeling., Results: Of the 114 eligible participants, 104 completed and returned questionnaires. Mean age was 57 (range 48-73), 70% were female, 88% were white, 71% were college graduates, and 62% were up to date with CRC screening. Ability to reduce CRC incidence and mortality was the most frequent most important attribute for both the conjoint analysis (56% of respondents) and rating/ranking (76% of respondents) groups, and these proportions differed significantly between groups (absolute difference 20%, 95% CI 3%, 37%, p =0.03). There were no significant differences between groups in proportion with clear values (p = 0.352), intent to be screened (p = 0.226) or unlabelled test preference (p = 0.521), Conclusions: Choice-based conjoint analysis produced somewhat different patterns of attribute importance than a rating and ranking task, but had little effect on other outcomes.

Background: Efficacious strategies for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) are underused, and, when used, have low adherence. Existing efforts to improve use and adherence to these efficacious strategies have been so intensive that they are impractical for clinical practice., Methods: We conducted a randomized trial of a CHD prevention intervention (including a computerized decision aid and automated tailored adherence messages) at one university general internal medicine practice. After obtaining informed consent and collecting baseline data, we randomized patients (men and women age 40-79 with no prior history of cardiovascular disease) to either the intervention or usual care. We then saw them for two additional study visits over 3 months. For intervention participants, we administered the decision aid at the primary study visit (1 week after baseline visit) and then mailed 3 tailored adherence reminders at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. We assessed our outcomes (including the predicted likelihood of angina, myocardial infarction, and CHD death over 10 years (CHD risk) and self-reported adherence) between groups at 3 month follow-up. Data collection occurred from June 2007 through December 2009. All study procedures were IRB approved., Results: We randomized 160 eligible patients (81 intervention; 79 control) and followed 96% to study conclusion. Mean predicted CHD risk at baseline was 11.3%. The intervention increased self-reported adherence to chosen risk reducing strategies by 25 percentage points (95% CI 8% to 42%), with the biggest effect for aspirin. It also changed predicted CHD risk by -1.1% (95% CI -0.16% to -2%), with a larger effect in a pre-specified subgroup of high risk patients., Conclusion: A computerized intervention that involves patients in CHD decision making and supports adherence to effective prevention strategies can improve adherence and reduce predicted CHD risk.

Background: Little is known about agreement between patients and physicians on content and outcomes of clinical discussions. A common perception of content and outcomes may be desirable to optimize decision making and clinical care., Objective: To determine patient-physician agreement on content and outcomes of coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention discussions., Design: Cross-sectional survey nested within a randomized CHD prevention study., Setting and Participants: University internal medicine clinic; 24 physicians and 157 patients., Methods: Following one clinic visit, we surveyed patients and physicians on discussion content, decision making and final decisions about CHD prevention. For comparison, we audio-recorded, transcribed and coded 20 patient-physician visits. We calculated percent agreement between patient/physician reports, patient/transcription reports and physician/transcription reports. We calculated Cohen's kappas to compare patient/physician perspectives., Results: Patients and physicians agreed on whether CHD was discussed in 130 visits (83%; kappa = 0.55; 95% CI 0.40-0.70). When discussions occurred, they agreed about discussion content (pros versus cons) in 53% of visits (kappa = 0.15; 95% CI -0.01-0.30) and physicians' recommendations in 73% (kappa = 0.44; 95% CI 0.28-0.66). Patients and physicians agreed on final decisions to take medication in 78% (kappa = 0.58; 95% CI 0.45-0.71) and change lifestyle in 69% (kappa = 0.38; 95% CI 0.24-0.53). They agreed less often, 43% (kappa = 0.13; 95% CI -0.11-0.37) about degree of involvement in decision making. Audio-recorded results were similar, but showed very low agreement between transcripts and patients' and physicians' self-report on discussion content and decision making., Conclusions: Disagreements about clinical discussions and decision making may be common. Future work is needed to determine: how widespread such agreements are; whether they impact clinical outcomes; and the relative importance of the subjective experience versus objective steps of shared decision making., (© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Objectives: To update a 2004 systematic review of health care service use and health outcomes related to differences in health literacy level and interventions designed to improve these outcomes for individuals with low health literacy. Disparities in health outcomes and effectiveness of interventions among different sociodemographic groups were also examined., Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE®, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, and the Educational Resources Information Center. For health literacy, we searched using a variety of terms, limited to English and studies published from 2003 to May 25, 2010. For numeracy, we searched from 1966 to May 25, 2010., Review Methods: We used standard Evidence-based Practice Center methods of dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, abstractions, quality ratings, and strength of evidence grading. We resolved disagreements by consensus. We evaluated whether newer literature was available for answering key questions, so we broadened our definition of health literacy to include numeracy and oral (spoken) health literacy. We excluded intervention studies that did not measure health literacy directly and updated our approach to evaluate individual study risk of bias and to grade strength of evidence., Results: We included good- and fair-quality studies: 81 studies addressing health outcomes (reported in 95 articles including 86 measuring health literacy and 16 measuring numeracy, of which 7 measure both) and 42 studies (reported in 45 articles) addressing interventions. Differences in health literacy level were consistently associated with increased hospitalizations, greater emergency care use, lower use of mammography, lower receipt of influenza vaccine, poorer ability to demonstrate taking medications appropriately, poorer ability to interpret labels and health messages, and, among seniors, poorer overall health status and higher mortality. Health literacy level potentially mediates disparities between blacks and whites. The strength of evidence of numeracy studies was insufficient to low, limiting conclusions about the influence of numeracy on health care service use or health outcomes. Two studies suggested numeracy may mediate the effect of disparities on health outcomes. We found no evidence concerning oral health literacy and outcomes. Among intervention studies (27 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 2 cluster RCTs, and 13 quasi-experimental designs), the strength of evidence for specific design features was low or insufficient. However, several specific features seemed to improve comprehension in one or a few studies. The strength of evidence was moderate for the effect of mixed interventions on health care service use; the effect of intensive self-management inventions on behavior; and the effect of disease-management interventions on disease prevalence/severity. The effects of other mixed interventions on other health outcomes, including knowledge, self-efficacy, adherence, and quality of life, and costs were mixed; thus, the strength of evidence was insufficient., Conclusions: The field of health literacy has advanced since the 2004 report. Future research priorities include justifying appropriate cutoffs for health literacy levels prior to conducting studies; developing tools that measure additional related skills, particularly oral (spoken) health literacy; and examining mediators and moderators of the effect of health literacy. Priorities in advancing the design features of interventions include testing novel approaches to increase motivation, techniques for delivering information orally or numerically, "work around" interventions such as patient advocates; determining the effective components of already-tested interventions; determining the cost-effectiveness of programs; and determining the effect of policy and practice interventions.