RESUMEN

Background: Cannabis for medical purposes has been legal in Canada since 2001; however, physicians receive no formal training in this modality, and clinical use of cannabis remains controversial. This study aims to explore the values and preferences of people living with chronic pain (PLwCP) in using medical cannabis for chronic pain to inform guideline development and shared decision-making in clinical practice. Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using in-depth interviews with PLwCP. Using a deductive/inductive approach, we developed concepts and themes related to values and preferences of PLwCP on their use (or avoidance) of medical cannabis for chronic pain. Results: We interviewed 52 PLwCP, including current medical cannabis users (40), previous users (10) and non-users (2). Most PLwCP who used cannabis therapeutically reported the need for experimentation to determine what cannabis products, routes, and doses worked for them. Perceived benefits of medical cannabis among current users included relief from pain, better sleep, and improved mental health. Reasons for discontinuing use of medical cannabis included lack of improvement in pain or sleep or undesirable side effects. Cannabidiol (CBD) dominant products were reported to result in minimal adverse effects (eg, physical or mental impairment) compared to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) dominant products. Perceived barriers or facilitators to use included social acceptability, availability or access, cost, and attitudes and knowledge among healthcare providers. Participants noted different routes of cannabis use including oral routes that provided longer-lasting pain relief with a slower onset and inhaled routes with a more rapid onset with shorter-lived effects. Conclusion: Participants' decisions to use medical cannabis for chronic pain were varied, which suggests these decisions are likely to be sensitive to individuals' values and preferences. There is a call for further research and information-sharing to help PLwCP understand the complexities of cannabis use for medical purposes, including ideal dosing and timing.

RESUMEN

The implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in management of sarcopenia is still in its nascent stage, especially compared to other areas of medical research. Accumulating evidence has highlighted the importance of SDM in older adults care. The current study overviews general SDM practices and explores the potential advantages and dilemmas of incorporating these concepts into sarcopenia management. We present common patient decision aids available for sarcopenia management and propose future research directions. SDM can be effectively integrated into daily practice with the aid of structured techniques, such as the "seek, help, assess, reach, evaluate" approach, "making good decisions in collaboration" questions, "benefits, risks, alternatives, doing nothing" tool, or "multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making." Such techniques fully consider patient values and preferences, thereby enhancing adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention measures. Additionally, we review the barriers to and potential solutions to SDM implementation. Further studies are required to investigate measurement and outcomes, coordination and cooperation, and digital technology, such as remote SDM. The study concludes that sarcopenia management must go beyond the single dimension of "Paternalism" choice. Integrating SDM into clinical practice offers promising opportunities to improve patient care, with patient-centered care and partnership of care approaches positively impacting treatment outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

With the development of patient-centered medical model,patient values and preferences have become a hot research topic.This paper starts from the concept of patients'values and preferences,analyzes the important importance of patients'values and preferences;Based on the published literature,the importance of patients'values and preferences in the development of acupuncture clinical guidelines,the positive role in doctor-patient co-decision,the value of patients'cognition and value promotion in acupuncture"Deqi"were sorted out,and the influencing factors of patients'values and preferences and acupuncture compliance were summarized.According to the influencing factors,the corresponding solutions were proposed to help patients establish correct values,and thus improve patients'acupuncture compliance.

RESUMEN

Introduction: The prevalence of patients with multimorbidity (ie, multiple chronic conditions) is increasing. Clinical decision-making guided by patients' values, health priorities and goals, and treatment preferences is particularly important in the context of interacting diseases and psychosocial needs. Physicians face challenges incorporating patient perspectives into care plans. We examined primary care physician (PCP) views on the influence of patients' values, health priorities and goals, and preferences on clinical decisions for patients with multimorbidity and increased psychosocial complexity. Methods: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 23 PCPs within patient-centered medical home teams in a nationally integrated health system in the United States between May and July 2020. Data were analyzed via thematic analysis with deductive and inductive coding. Results: Three major themes emerged: 1. Patient personal values were rarely explicitly discussed in routine clinical encounters but informed more commonly discussed concepts of patient priorities, goals, and preferences; 2. Patient values, health priorities and goals, and preferences were sources of divergent views about care plans between healthcare teams, patients, and families; 3. Physicians used explicit strategies to communicate and negotiate about patient values, health priorities and goals, and preferences when developing care plans, including trust-building; devoting extra effort to individualizing care; connecting patient values to healthcare recommendations; deliberate elicitation and acknowledgement of patient concerns; providing "space" for patient perspectives; incorporating family into care planning; pairing physician to patient priorities; and collaborative teamwork. Conclusion: Primary care physicians perceive patient values, health priorities and goals, and preferences as influential during clinical decision-making for complex patients with multimorbidity. Participants used concrete strategies to negotiate alignment of these aspects when physician-patient divergence occurred. While rarely discussed directly in clinical encounters, personal values affected patient health priorities, goals, and preferences during care planning, suggesting a clinical role for more deliberate elicitation and discussion of patient values for this population.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: We conducted systematic reviews on the benefits and harms of screening compared with no screening or alternative screening approaches for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) in non-pregnant sexually active individuals, and on the relative importance patients' place on the relevant outcomes. Findings will inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. METHODS: We searched five databases (to January 24, 2020), trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists for English and French literature published since 1996. Screening, study selection, and risk of bias assessments were independently undertaken by two reviewers, with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. Meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. The Task Force and content experts provided input on determining thresholds for important effect sizes and on interpretation of findings. RESULTS: Of 41 included studies, 17 and 11 reported on benefits and harms of screening, respectively, and 14 reported on patient preferences. Universal screening for CT in general populations 16 to 29 years of age, using population-based or opportunistic approaches achieving low screening rates, may make little-to-no difference for a female's risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) (2 RCTs, n=141,362; 0.3 more in 1000 [7.6 fewer to 11 more]) or ectopic pregnancy (1 RCT, n=15,459; 0.20 more per 1000 [2.2 fewer to 3.9 more]). It may also not make a difference for CT transmission (3 RCTs, n=41,709; 3 fewer per 1000 [11.5 fewer to 6.9 more]). However, benefits may be achieved for reducing PID if screening rates are increased (2 trials, n=30,652; 5.7 fewer per 1000 [10.8 fewer to 1.1 more]), and for reducing CT and NG transmission when intensely screening high-prevalence female populations (2 trials, n=6127; 34.3 fewer per 1000 [4 to 58 fewer]; NNS 29 [17 to 250]). Evidence on infertility in females from CT screening and on transmission of NG in males and both sexes from screening for CT and NG is very uncertain. No evidence was found for cervicitis, chronic pelvic pain, or infertility in males from CT screening, or on any clinical outcomes from NG screening. Undergoing screening, or having a diagnosis of CT, may cause a small-to-moderate number of people to experience some degree of harm, mainly due to feelings of stigmatization and anxiety about future infertility risk. The number of individuals affected in the entire screening-eligible population is likely smaller. Screening may make little-to-no difference for general anxiety, self-esteem, or relationship break-up. Evidence on transmission from studies comparing home versus clinic screening is very uncertain. Four studies on patient preferences found that although utility values for the different consequences of CT and NG infections are probably quite similar, when considering the duration of the health state experiences, infertility and chronic pelvic pain are probably valued much more than PID, ectopic pregnancy, and cervicitis. How patients weigh the potential benefits versus harms of screening is very uncertain (1 survey, 10 qualitative studies); risks to reproductive health and transmission appear to be more important than the (often transient) psychosocial harms. DISCUSSION: Most of the evidence on screening for CT and/or NG offers low or very low certainty about the benefits and harms. Indirectness from use of comparison groups receiving some screening, incomplete outcome ascertainment, and use of outreach settings was a major contributor to uncertainty. Patient preferences indicate that the potential benefits from screening appear to outweigh the possible harms. Direct evidence about which screening strategies and intervals to use, which age to start and stop screening, and whether screening males in addition to females is necessary to prevent clinical outcomes is scarce, and further research in these areas would be informative. Apart from the evidence in this review, information on factors related to equity, acceptability, implementation, cost/resources, and feasibility will support recommendations made by the Task Force. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733 .

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: An estimated 20-30% of community-dwelling Canadian adults aged 65 years or older experience one or more falls each year. Fall-related injuries are a leading cause of hospitalization and can lead to functional independence. Many fall prevention interventions, often based on modifiable risk factors, have been studied. Apart from the magnitude of the benefits and harms from different interventions, the preferences of older adults for different interventions as well as the relative importance they place on the different potential outcomes may influence recommendations by guideline panels. These reviews on benefits and harms of interventions, and on patient values and preferences, will inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to develop recommendations on fall prevention for primary care providers. METHODS: To review the benefits and harms of fall prevention interventions, we will update a previous systematic review of randomized controlled trials with adaptations to modify the classification of interventions and narrow the scope to community-dwelling older adults and primary-care relevant interventions. Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ageline), reference lists, trial registries, and relevant websites will be searched, using limits for randomized trials and date (2016 onwards). We will classify interventions according to the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFANE) Group's taxonomy. Outcomes include fallers, falls, injurious falls, fractures, hip fractures, institutionalization, health-related quality of life, functional status, and intervention-related adverse effects. For studies not included in the previous review, screening, study selection, data extraction on outcomes, and risk of bias assessments will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus used for final decisions. Where quantitative analysis is suitable, network or pairwise meta-analysis will be conducted using a frequentist approach in Stata. Assessment of the transitivity and coherence of the network meta-analyses will be undertaken. For the reviews on patient preferences and outcome valuation (relative importance of outcomes), we will perform de novo reviews with searches in three databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) and reference lists for cross-sectional, longitudinal quantitative, or qualitative studies published from 2000. Selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments suitable for each study design will be performed in duplicate. The analysis will be guided by a narrative synthesis approach, which may include meta-analysis for health-state utilities. We will use the CINeMa approach to a rate the certainty of the evidence for outcomes on intervention effects analyzed using network meta-analysis and the GRADE approach for all other outcomes. DISCUSSION: We will describe the flow of literature and characteristics of all studies and present results of all analyses and summary of finding tables. We will compare our findings to others and discuss the limitations of the reviews and the available literature. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol has not been registered.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Two reviews and an overview were produced for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline on screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) without alarm symptoms. The goal was to systematically review three key questions (KQs): (1) The effectiveness of screening for these conditions; (2) How adults with chronic GERD weigh the benefits and harms of screening, and what factors contribute to their preferences and decision to undergo screening; and (3) Treatment options for Barrett's esophagus (BE), dysplasia or stage 1 EAC (overview of reviews). METHODS: Bibliographic databases (e.g. Ovid MEDLINE®) were searched for each review in October 2018. We also searched for unpublished literature (e.g. relevant websites). The liberal accelerated approach was used for title and abstract screening. Two reviewers independently screened full-text articles. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were completed by one reviewer and verified by another reviewer (KQ1 and 2). Quality assessments were completed by two reviewers independently in duplicate (KQ3). Disagreements were resolved through discussion. We used various risk of bias tools suitable for study design. The GRADE framework was used for rating the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Ten studies evaluated the effectiveness of screening. One retrospective study reported no difference in long-term survival (approximately 6 to 12 years) between those who had a prior esophagogastroduodenoscopy and those who had not (adjusted HR 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.50). Though there may be higher odds of a stage 1 diagnosis than a more advanced diagnosis (stage 2-4) if an EGD had been performed in the previous 5 years (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.00-7.67). Seven studies compared different screening modalities, and showed little difference between modalities. Three studies reported on patients' unwillingness to be screened (e.g. due to anxiety, fear of gagging). Eleven systematic reviews evaluated treatment modalities, providing some evidence of early treatment effect for some outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Little evidence exists on the effectiveness of screening and values and preferences to screening. Many treatment modalities have been evaluated, but studies are small. Overall, there is uncertainty in understanding the effectiveness of screening and early treatments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATIONS: PROSPERO (CRD42017049993 [KQ1], CRD42017050014 [KQ2], CRD42018084825 [KQ3]).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: With advances in treatments among patients with lung cancer, it is increasingly important to understand patients' values and preferences to facilitate shared decision making. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter study of patients with treated stage I lung cancer. At the time of study participation, participants were 4-6 months posttreatment. Value clarification and discrete choice methods were used to elicit participants' values and treatment preferences regarding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgical resection using only treatment attributes. RESULTS: Among 114 participants, mean age was 70 years (Standard Deviation = 7.9), 65% were male, 68 (60%) received SBRT and 46 (40%) received surgery. More participants valued independence and quality of life (QOL) as "most important" compared to survival or cancer recurrence. Most participants (83%) were willing to accept lung cancer treatment with a 2% chance of periprocedural death for only one additional year of life. Participants also valued independence more than additional years of life as most (86%) were unwilling to accept either permanent placement in a nursing home or being limited to a bed/chair for four additional years of life. Surprisingly, treatment discordance was common as 49% of participants preferred the alternative lung cancer treatment than what they received. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with early stage lung cancer, maintaining independence and QOL were more highly valued than survival or cancer recurrence. Participants were willing to accept high periprocedural mortality, but not severe deficits affecting QOL when considering treatment. Treatment discordance was common among participants who received SBRT or surgery. Understanding patients' values and preferences regarding treatment decisions is essential to foster shared decision making and ensure treatment plans are consistent with patients' goals. Clinicians need more resources to engage in high quality communication during lung cancer treatment discussions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

CONTEXT: There are no evidence-based programs to train physicians to facilitate shared decision making based on incapacitated intensive care unit patients' values and preferences. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop a high-fidelity simulation to fill this gap. METHODS: Case development involved six steps: 1) drafting a case about an elderly patient receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation; 2) engaging an expert advisory board to optimize case content; 3) revising the case based on advisory board input; 4) training actors to portray the case patient's daughter; 5) obtaining physician feedback on the simulation; and 6) revising the case based on their feedback. We conducted a cross-sectional pilot study with 50 physicians to assess feasibility and acceptability, defined a priori as an enrollment rate >40 physicians/year, study procedures <75 minutes/participant, >95% actor adherence to standardization rules, and high physician ratings of realism and acceptability. RESULTS: Advisory panel feedback yielded two modifications: 1) refocusing the case on decision making about tracheostomy and percutaneous gastrostomy and 2) making the patient's values more authentic. Physician feedback yielded two additional modifications: 1) reducing how readily the actor divulged the patient's values and 2) making her more emotional. All 50 physicians enrolled in the pilot study over 11 months completed study procedures in <75 minutes. Actor adherence to standardization rules was 95.8%. Physicians' mean ratings of realism and acceptability were 8.4 and 9.1, respectively, on a 10-point scale. CONCLUSION: Simulation is feasible, is acceptable, and can be adequately standardized to study physicians' skills for facilitating surrogate decision making based on an incapacitated intensive care unit patient's values and preferences.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate questionnaires about patient's values and preferences to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires to be used when developing clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang Database was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient's values and preferences. The articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options were included. We assessed the questionnaires' construction and content with a psychometric methodology and summarized the domains and items about patient's preferences and values. RESULTS: A total of 7,008 records were retrieved by the search strategy and scanned, and 20 articles were finally included. Of these, 10 (50%) articles described the process of item generation and only four questionnaires (20%, 4/20) mentioned the pilot testing. Regarding "validity", seven questionnaires (35%, 7/20) assessed validity and only one (5%, 1/20) questionnaire assessed internal consistency, with Cornbrash's α values of 0.74-0.87. For "acceptability", the time to complete the questionnaires ranged from 10 to 30 minutes and only nine studies (45%, 9/20) reported the response rates. In addition, the results of domains and items about patient's preferences and values showed that the "effectiveness" domain was the most considered item in the patient's value questionnaire followed by "safety", "prognosis", and others, whereas the least considered domain was "physician's experience". CONCLUSION: Only a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patient's preferences and values. Currently, still there is no valid or reliable questionnaire for patient's preferences and values for use when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patient's preferences and values. This study provides the domains and items that may be used in formulating questionnaires about patient's preferences and values.

Asunto(s)