Assessing Patient Interest in Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations

Glen B Taksler, Mary Beth Mercer, Angela Fagerlin, Michael B Rothberg, Glen B Taksler, Mary Beth Mercer, Angela Fagerlin, Michael B Rothberg

Abstract

Background. Few Americans obtain all 41 guideline-recommended preventive services for nonpregnant adults. We assessed patient interest in prioritizing their preventive care needs. Methods. We conducted a mixed-methods study, with 4 focus groups (N = 28) at a single institution and a nationwide survey (N = 2,103). Participants were middle-aged and older adults with preventive care needs. We obtained reactions to written materials describing the magnitude of benefit from major preventive services, including both absolute and relative benefits. Recommendations were individualized for patient risk factors ("individualized preventive care recommendations"). Focus groups assessed patient interest, how patients would want to discuss individualized recommendations with their providers, and potential for individualized recommendations to influence patient decision making. Survey content was based on focus groups and analyzed with logistic regression. Results. Patients expressed strong interest in individualized recommendations. Among survey respondents, an adjusted 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.7% to 89.7%) found individualized recommendations very easy to understand, 77.2% (95% CI = 75.3% to 79.1%) considered them very useful, and 64.9% (95% CI = 62.8% to 67.0%) highly trustworthy (each ≥6/7 on Likert scale). Three quarters of participants wanted to receive their own individualized recommendations in upcoming primary care visits (adjusted proportion = 77.5%, 95% CI = 75.6% to 79.4%). Both focus group and survey participants supported shared decision making and reported that individualized recommendations would improve motivation to obtain preventive care. Half of survey respondents reported that they would be much more likely to visit their doctor if they knew individualized recommendations would be discussed, compared with 4.2% who would not be more likely to visit their doctor. Survey respondents already prioritized preventive services, stating they were most likely to choose quick/easy preventive services and least likely to choose expensive preventive services (adjusted proportions, 63.8% and 8.5%, respectively). Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions. Individualized preventive care recommendations are likely to be well received in primary care and might motivate patients to improve adherence to evidence-based care.

Keywords: Decision Making; Preventive Health Services; Preventive Medicine; Shared.

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Cleveland Clinic.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Examples of survey text to help respondents imagine personalized information. *Pronouns were individualized for each respondent’s self-reported sex.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Example visual aid for individualized preventive care recommendations. An example visual aid shown to focus group and survey participants. See Appendix 3 for alternatives. Pronouns were individualized for each respondent’s self-reported sex. “Get a Mammogram” was only shown to females. The height of the bars was proportionate to the estimated change in life expectancy associated with lifetime adherence to each preventive service, based on prior literature.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Patient prioritization of preventive care services. (A) Prioritization based on number of recommended preventive services. (B) Actions taken to prioritize preventive care services. The survey assessed whether and how respondents already prioritize among their preventive care options. Panel A stated, “It can be hard when your doctor asks you to make a lot of changes to improve your health. When answering the questions below, please think about how many changes you could make in your life in the next 4 weeks, while also maintaining your relationships with your family and friends, your work, and your hobbies. In your opinion: In the next 4 weeks, how likely would you be to do everything your doctor recommended if your doctor recommended [1, 2, 3, 5, or 8] preventive care services?” Panel B stated, “Imagine that you visit your doctor today, and he or she recommends too many preventive care services (more than you feel able to do). In your opinion, which of the following would you be likely to do in the next 4 weeks? Both panels utilized a 7-point Likert-type scale from “not at all likely” to “very likely”. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals.

References

    1. US Preventive Services Task Force. USPSTF A and B recommendations [cited July 10, 2018]. Available from:
    1. Kim DK, Riley LE, Hunter P. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended immunization schedule for adults aged 19 years or older—United States, 2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(5):158–60.
    1. Borsky A, Zhan C, Miller T, Ngo-Metzger Q, Bierman AS, Meyers D. Few Americans receive all high-priority, appropriate clinical preventive services. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37(6):925–8.
    1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(4):CD001431.
    1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis KB. Patient decision aids to engage adults in treatment or screening decisions. JAMA. 2017;318(7):657–8.
    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Decision memo for screening for lung cancer with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) (CAG-00439N) [cited July 12, 2018]. Available from:
    1. Schousboe JT, Kerlikowske K, Loh A, Cummings SR. Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(1):10–20.
    1. Trentham-Dietz A, Kerlikowske K, Stout NK, et al. Tailoring breast cancer screening intervals by breast density and risk for women aged 50 years or older: collaborative modeling of screening outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(10):700–12.
    1. van den Broek JJ, van Ravesteyn NT, Heijnsdijk EA, de Koning HJ. Simulating the impact of risk-based screening and treatment on breast cancer outcomes with MISCAN-Fadia. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1 Suppl.):54S–65S.
    1. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Zauber AG, et al. Individualizing colonoscopy screening by sex and race. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70(1):96–108,e1–e24.
    1. Subramanian S, Bobashev G, Morris RJ, Hoover S. Personalized medicine for prevention: can risk stratified screening decrease colorectal cancer mortality at an acceptable cost? Cancer Causes Control. 2017;28(4):299–308.
    1. Taksler GB, Perzynski AT, Kattan MW. Modeling individual patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening based on their tolerance for complications risk. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(3):204–15.
    1. van Hees F, Saini SD, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, et al. Personalizing colonoscopy screening for elderly individuals based on screening history, cancer risk, and comorbidity status could increase cost effectiveness. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(6):1425–37.
    1. Gulati R, Inoue LY, Gore JL, Katcher J, Etzioni R. Individualized estimates of overdiagnosis in screen-detected prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(2):djt367.
    1. Eddy DM, Adler J, Patterson B, Lucas D, Smith KA, Morris M. Individualized guidelines: the potential for increasing quality and reducing costs. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(9):627–34.
    1. Sussman J, Vijan S, Hayward R. Using benefit-based tailored treatment to improve the use of antihypertensive medications. Circulation. 2013;128:2309–17.
    1. Ferket BS, van Kempen BJ, Heeringa J, et al. Personalized prediction of lifetime benefits with statin therapy for asymptomatic individuals: a modeling study. PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001361.
    1. Laiteerapong N, Cooper JM, Skandari MR, et al. Individualized glycemic control for US adults with type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(3):170–8.
    1. Laiteerapong N, Fairchild PC, Chou CH, Chin MH, Huang ES. Revisiting disparities in quality of care among US adults with diabetes in the era of individualized care, NHANES 2007–2010. Med Care. 2015;53(1):25–31.
    1. Vijan S, Sussman JB, Yudkin JS, Hayward RA. Effect of patients’ risks and preferences on health gains with plasma glucose level lowering in type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1227–34.
    1. DeRigne L, Stoddard-Dare P, Collins C, Quinn L. Paid sick leave and preventive health care service use among US working adults. Prev Med. 2017;99:58–62.
    1. Jaen CR, McIlvain H, Pol L, Phillips RL Jr, Flocke S, Crabtree BF. Tailoring tobacco counseling to the competing demands in the clinical encounter. J Fam Pract. 2001;50(10):859–63.
    1. Jaen CR, Stange KC, Nutting PA. Competing demands of primary care: a model for the delivery of clinical preventive services. J Fam Pract. 1994;38(2):166–71.
    1. Jaen CR, Stange KC, Tumiel LM, Nutting P. Missed opportunities for prevention: smoking cessation counseling and the competing demands of practice. J Fam Pract. 1997;45(4):348–54.
    1. Nutting PA, Baier M, Werner JJ, Cutter G, Conry C, Stewart L. Competing demands in the office visit: what influences mammography recommendations? J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001;14(5):352–61.
    1. Piette JD, Richardson C, Valenstein M. Addressing the needs of patients with multiple chronic illnesses: the case of diabetes and depression. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10(2 Pt. 2):152–62.
    1. Pentakota SR, Rajan M, Fincke BG, et al. Does diabetes care differ by type of chronic comorbidity? An evaluation of the Piette and Kerr framework. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(6):1285–92.
    1. Aung E, Donald M, Coll J, Dower J, Williams GM, Doi SA. The impact of concordant and discordant comorbidities on patient-assessed quality of diabetes care. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1621–32.
    1. Taksler GB, Pfoh ER, Stange KC, Rothberg MB. Association between number of preventive care guidelines and preventive care utilization by patients. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(1):1–10.
    1. Nagykaldi Z, Aspy CB, Chou A, Mold JW. Impact of a wellness portal on the delivery of patient-centered preventive care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(2):158–67.
    1. Nagykaldi ZJ, Voncken-Brewster V, Aspy CB, Mold JW. Novel computerized health risk appraisal may improve longitudinal health and wellness in primary care: a pilot study. Appl Clin Inform. 2013;4(1):75–87.
    1. Krist AH, Woolf SH, Rothemich SF, et al. Interactive preventive health record to enhance delivery of recommended care: a randomized trial. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(4):312–9.
    1. Taksler GB, Keshner M, Fagerlin A, Hajizadeh N, Braithwaite RS. Personalized estimates of benefit from preventive care guidelines: a proof of concept. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(3):161–8.
    1. Owens DK, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD. Prioritizing guideline-recommended interventions. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(3):223–4.
    1. Maciosek MV, LaFrance AB, Dehmer SP, et al. Updated priorities among effective clinical preventive services. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(1):14–22.
    1. Isham G, Sanchez E, Jones WA, Teutsch S, Woolf S, Haddix A. Prevention priorities: guidance for value-driven health improvement. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(1):6–8.
    1. O’Connor PJ, Sperl-Hillen JM, Margolis KL, Kottke TE. Strategies to prioritize clinical options in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(1):10–3.
    1. Dynata. Available from:
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [cited May 4, 2019]. Available from:
    1. Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM, et al. Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2595–609.
    1. Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Härter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(1):94–9.
    1. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):672–80.
    1. Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET, Ghazal S, Joeris A. Measuring graph literacy without a test: a brief subjective assessment. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(7):854–67.
    1. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2014.
    1. Rhodes HG; Committee on Population; Board on Health Care Services. Measuring the Risks and Causes of Premature Death: Summary of Workshops. Washington: National Academies Press; 2015.
    1. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA. 2004;291(10):1238–45.
    1. McGinnis JM, Foege WH. Actual causes of death in the United States. JAMA. 1993;270(18):2207–12.
    1. US Burden of Disease Collaborators; Mokdad AH, Ballestros K, et al. The State of US Health, 1990–2016: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors among US states. JAMA. 2018;319(14):1444–72.
    1. Sinsky C, Colligan L, Li L, et al. Allocation of physician time in ambulatory practice: a time and motion study in 4 specialties. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(11):753–60.
    1. Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Østbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):635–41.
    1. Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(2):274–86.
    1. Hudson B, Zarifeh A, Young L, Wells JE. Patients’ expectations of screening and preventive treatments. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(6):495–502.
    1. Metcalfe KA, Narod SA. Breast cancer risk perception among women who have undergone prophylactic bilateral mastectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(20):1564–9.
    1. Satcher D. Preventive interventions: an immediate priority. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(1):8–9.
    1. US Census Bureau. ALLDATA: monthly population estimates by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin for the United States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 (with short-term projections to December 2018) [cited December 17, 2018]. Available from:
    1. US Census Bureau. Educational attainment in the United States: 2017. Table 3. Detailed years of school completed by people 25 years and over by sex, age groups, race and Hispanic origin: 2017 [cited December 17, 2018]. Available from:
    1. US Census Bureau. HINC-03. People in households—households, by total money income in 2017, age, race and Hispanic origin of householder. Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement [cited December 17, 2018]. Available from:
    1. US Census Bureau. Age and sex composition in the United States: 2016. Table 2. Marital status of the population 15 years and over by sex and age: 2016 [cited December 17, 2018]. Available from:
    1. US Census Bureau. DP05. ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates. 2013–2017 American Community Survey 5-year estimates [cited December 17, 2018]. Available from:

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe