Effect of Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations vs Usual Care on Patient Interest and Use of Recommendations: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

Glen B Taksler, Bo Hu, Frederic DeGrandis Jr, Victor M Montori, Angela Fagerlin, Zsolt Nagykaldi, Michael B Rothberg, Glen B Taksler, Bo Hu, Frederic DeGrandis Jr, Victor M Montori, Angela Fagerlin, Zsolt Nagykaldi, Michael B Rothberg

Abstract

Importance: This randomized clinical trial examines the feasibility and acceptability of a decision-making tool for increasing patient interest in individualized recommendations for preventive care services.

Objective: To pilot a tool to help patients compare life expectancy gains from evidence-based preventive services.

Design, setting, and participants: This randomized clinical trial examined patient and physician responses to a pilot decision tool incorporating personalized risk factors at 3 US primary care clinics between 2017 and 2020. Eligible patients were between ages 45 to 70 years with 2 or more high-risk factors. Patients were followed-up after 1 year.

Interventions: The gain in life expectancy associated with guideline adherence to each recommended preventive service was estimated. Personalized estimates incorporating risk factors in electronic health records were displayed in a physician-distributed visual aid. During development, physicians discussed individualized results with patients using shared decision-making (SDM). During the trial, patients were randomized to receive individualized recommendations or usual care (nonmasked, parallel, 1:1 ratio).

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcome was patient interest in individualized recommendations, assessed by survey. Secondary outcomes were use of SDM, decisional comfort, readiness to change, and preventive services received within 1 year.

Results: The study enrolled 104 patients (31 development, 39 intervention, 34 control), of whom 101 were included in analysis (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [5.3] years; 73 [72.3%] women; 80 [79.2%] Black patients) and 20 physicians. Intervention patients found the tool helpful and wanted to use it again, rating it a median 9 of 10 (IQR, 8-10) and 10 of 10 (8-10), respectively. Compared with the control group, intervention patients more often correctly identified the service least likely (18 [46%] vs 0; P = .03) to improve their life expectancy. A greater number of patients also identified the service most likely to improve their life expectancy (26 [69%] vs 10 [30%]; P = .07), although this result was not statistically significant. Intervention patients reported greater mean [SD] improvement in SDM (4.7 [6.9] points) and near-term readiness to change (13.8 points for top-3-ranked recommendations). Point estimates indicated that patients in the intervention group experienced greater, although non-statistically significant, reductions in percentage of body weight (-2.96%; 95% CI, -8.18% to 2.28%), systolic blood pressure (-6.42 mm Hg; 95% CI, -16.12 to 3.27 mm Hg), hemoglobin A1c (-0.68%; 95% CI, -1.82% to 0.45%), 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score (-1.20%; 95% CI, -3.65% to 1.26%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-8.46 mg/dL; 95% CI, -26.63 to 9.70 mg/dL) than the control group. Nineteen of 20 physicians wanted to continue using the decision tool in the future.

Conclusions and relevance: In this clinical trial, an individualized preventive care decision support tool improved patient understanding of primary prevention and demonstrated promise for improved shared decision-making and preventive care utilization.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023813.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Taksler reported service as a consultant to the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor on a grant funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R21HS026257) outside the submitted work. Dr Rothberg reported receiving grant funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. Study Design
Figure 1.. Study Design
Figure 2.. Example of Individualized Preventive Care…
Figure 2.. Example of Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations Shown to Patients and Physicians
This figure illustrates the final design of the visual aid. Results were individualized for each patient.

References

    1. Global Burden of Diseases 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators . Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1223-1249. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2
    1. US Census Bureau Population Division . Table 1—Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 (NST-EST2019-01). December 2019. Accessed September 17, 2021.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . 10 Leading Causes of Death by Age Group, United States—2018. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Updated February 11, 2021. Accessed February 22, 2021,
    1. Maciosek MV, LaFrance AB, Dehmer SP, et al. . Updated priorities among effective clinical preventive services. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(1):14-22. doi:10.1370/afm.2017
    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. doi:10.1370/afm.2023
    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):925-928. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1248
    1. Muntner P, Hardy ST, Fine LJ, et al. . Trends in blood pressure control among US adults with hypertension, 1999-2000 to 2017-2018. JAMA. 2020;324(12):1190-1200. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.14545
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AARP, American Medical Association . Promoting Preventive Services for Adults 50-64: Community and Clinical Partnerships. National Association of Chronic Disease Directors; 2009.
    1. US Preventive Services Task Force . A and B Recommendations. Updated May 2021. Accessed August 3, 2021.
    1. LeBlanc E, O’Connor E, Whitlock EP, Patnode C, Kapka T. Screening for and Management of Obesity and Overweight in Adults. Evidence Report No. 89. AHRQ Publication No. 11-05159-EF-1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . Published online October 2011.
    1. Leblanc ES, O’Connor E, Whitlock EP, Patnode CD, Kapka T. Effectiveness of primary care-relevant treatments for obesity in adults: a systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(7):434-447. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-7-201110040-00006
    1. Multack M. Use of Clinical Preventive Services and Prevalence of Health Risk Factors Among Adults Aged 50-64. AARP Public Policy Institute . Published August 2013. Accessed September 17, 2021.
    1. Zhang JJ, Rothberg MB, Misra-Hebert AD, Gupta NM, Taksler GB. Assessment of physician priorities in delivery of preventive care. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(7):e2011677. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.11677
    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):161-168. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-3-201308060-00005
    1. Owens DK, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD. Prioritizing guideline-recommended interventions. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(3):223-224. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-3-201308060-00014
    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):2595-2609. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.6828
    1. Mold JW, Hamm RM, McCarthy LH. The law of diminishing returns in clinical medicine: how much risk reduction is enough? J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(3):371-375. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2010.03.090178
    1. Taksler GB, Mercer MB, Fagerlin A, Rothberg MB. Assessing patient interest in individualized preventive care recommendations. MDM Policy Pract. 2019;4(1):2381468319850803. doi:10.1177/2381468319850803
    1. Taksler GB; National Institute on Aging . Individualizing Disease Prevention for Middle-Aged Adults. . Updated July 2, 2020. Accessed November 16, 2020.
    1. Warren K. East Cleveland City Fact Sheet. Center for Community Solutions . Updated March 2018. Accessed February 22, 2021.
    1. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(19):1436-1443. doi:10.1093/jnci/djr318
    1. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A. The effect of format on parents’ understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun. 2010;15(5):487-501. doi:10.1080/10810730.2010.492560
    1. Sepucha KR, Fagerlin A, Couper MP, Levin CA, Singer E, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. How does feeling informed relate to being informed? the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(5)(suppl):77S-84S. doi:10.1177/0272989X10379647
    1. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. . Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361-1367. doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6
    1. Shared Decision-Making: Tips for Providers. St. John Health System . Updated December 8, 2015. Accessed August 3, 2021.
    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):94-99. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034
    1. Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Buchholz A, Härter M. Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire—physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(2):284-290. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2012.03.005
    1. Doherr H, Christalle E, Kriston L, Härter M, Scholl I. Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies—a systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173904. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173904
    1. O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25-30. doi:10.1177/0272989X9501500105
    1. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12(1):38-48. doi:10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38
    1. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health and Human Services . C-16 Increase the proportion of adults who receive a colorectal cancer screening based on the most recent guidelines. Updated June 23, 2021. Accessed August 5, 2021,
    1. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health and Human Services . D-5.1 Reduce the proportion of persons with diabetes with an A1c value greater than 9 percent. Updated June 23, 2021. Accessed August 5, 2021.
    1. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health and Human Services . HDS-12 Increase the proportion of adults with hypertension whose blood pressure is under control. Updated June 23, 2021. Accessed August 5, 2021.
    1. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health and Human Services . NWS-9 Reduce the proportion of adults who are obese. Updated June 23, 2021. Accessed August 5, 2021.
    1. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health and Human Services . PA-2.4 Increase the proportion of adults who meet the objectives for aerobic physical activity and for muscle-strengthening activity. Updated June 23, 2021. Accessed August 5, 2021.
    1. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health and Human Services . TU-1.1 Reduce cigarette smoking by adults. Updated June 23, 2021. Accessed August 5, 2021.
    1. Tinsel I, Buchholz A, Vach W, et al. . Shared decision-making in antihypertensive therapy: a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:135. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-14-135
    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. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
    1. Riikonen JM, Guyatt GH, Kilpeläinen TP, et al. . Decision aids for prostate cancer screening choice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(8):1072-1082. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0763
    1. Mann DM, Ponieman D, Montori VM, Arciniega J, McGinn T. The Statin Choice decision aid in primary care: a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(1):138-140. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.008
    1. Weymiller AJ, Montori VM, Jones LA, et al. . Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions: Statin Choice randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(10):1076-1082. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.10.1076
    1. Applegate M, Scott E, Taksler GB, et al. . Project ACTIVE: a randomized controlled trial of personalized and patient-centered preventive care in an urban safety-net setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36(3):606-613. doi:10.1007/s11606-020-06359-z
    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. doi:10.4338/ACI-2012-10-RA-0048
    1. Krist AH, Aycock RA, Etz RS, et al. . MyPreventiveCare: implementation and dissemination of an interactive preventive health record in three practice-based research networks serving disadvantaged patients—a randomized cluster trial. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):181-181. doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0181-1
    1. Pollard MS, Tucker JS, Green HD Jr. Changes in adult alcohol use and consequences during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(9):e2022942. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22942
    1. Tison GH, Avram R, Kuhar P, et al. . Worldwide effect of COVID-19 on physical activity: a descriptive study. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(9):767-770. doi:10.7326/M20-2665
    1. Ashby NJS. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on unhealthy eating in populations with obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2020;28(10):1802-1805. doi:10.1002/oby.22940

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner