Patient-centred and economic effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with age-related cataract in China: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

Yingfeng Zheng, Bo Qu, Ling Jin, Chunxiao Wang, Yuxin Zhong, Mingguang He, Yizhi Liu, Yingfeng Zheng, Bo Qu, Ling Jin, Chunxiao Wang, Yuxin Zhong, Mingguang He, Yizhi Liu

Abstract

Introduction: The need for cataract surgery is on the rise due to our ageing population and high demands for greater visual functioning. Although the majority of patients want to participate in a shared decision-making process, no decision aid has been available to improve the quality of decision. The present study aims to determine whether a decision aid increases informed decision about cataract surgery.

Methods and analysis: A parallel randomised controlled trial (772 participants) will be conducted. The decision aid will be implemented among patients with any age-related cataract in Yuexiu District, which is socioeconomically representative of a major metropolitan region in Southern China. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either a patient decision aid or a traditional booklet, and they will complete three surveys: (1) baseline assessment before the intervention (time point (T)1), 2 weeks (T2) and 1 year (T3) after the intervention. The control group receives a traditional booklet with standard general information developed by the National Eye Institute to help patients understand cataract, whereas the intervention group receives a patient decision aid that includes not only the standard general information, but also the quantitative risk information on the possible outcomes of cataract surgery as well as value clarification exercise. The primary study outcome is the informed decision, the percentage of patients who have adequate knowledge and demonstrate consistency between attitudes and intentions. Secondary outcomes include perceived importance of cataract surgery benefits/harms, decision conflict and confidence, anticipated regret and booklet utilisation and acceptability at 2 weeks, and surgical rates and a cost-utility estimate of the decision aid at 1 year.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center (reference number: 2019KYPJ090). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings for academic audiences.

Trial registration number: NCT03992807.

Keywords: cataract; cataract surgery; informed choice; patient decision aid; shared decision making.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The rationale of promoting shared decision making for cataract surgery.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flowchart of the trial.

References

    1. Zheng Y, Huang W, Xiao B, et al. . Preferences for participation in shared decision-making among cataract patients in urban southern China: a cross-sectional study. The Lancet 2016;388:S56 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31983-3
    1. Flaxman SR, Bourne RRA, Resnikoff S, et al. . Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990-2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2017;5:e1221–34. 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30393-5
    1. Liu Y-C, Wilkins M, Kim T, et al. . Cataracts.. Lancet 2017;390:600–12. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30544-5
    1. Khairallah M, Kahloun R, Bourne R, et al. . Number of people blind or visually impaired by cataract worldwide and in world regions, 1990 to 2010. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:6762–9. 10.1167/iovs.15-17201
    1. Kessel L, Andresen J, Erngaard D, et al. . Indication for cataract surgery. do we have evidence of who will benefit from surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Ophthalmol 2016;94:10–20. 10.1111/aos.12758
    1. Taylor HR, Vu HTV, Keeffe JE. Visual acuity thresholds for cataract surgery and the changing Australian population. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:1750–3. 10.1001/archopht.124.12.1750
    1. Behndig A, Montan P, Stenevi U, et al. . One million cataract surgeries: Swedish national cataract register 1992-2009. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37:1539–45. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.05.021
    1. Gollogly HE, Hodge DO, St Sauver JL, et al. . Increasing incidence of cataract surgery: population-based study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:1383–9. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.03.027
    1. Keenan T, Rosen P, Yeates D, et al. . Time trends and geographical variation in cataract surgery rates in England: study of surgical workload. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:901–4. 10.1136/bjo.2006.108977
    1. Setty R, Bosanquet R, Harle J. Changing thresholds for cataract surgery. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:1439a–1439. 10.1136/bjo.84.12.1439a
    1. Lundström M, Goh P-P, Henry Y, et al. . The changing pattern of cataract surgery indications: a 5-year study of 2 cataract surgery databases. Ophthalmology 2015;122:31–8. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.07.047
    1. Lundström M, Barry P, Henry Y, et al. . Visual outcome of cataract surgery; study from the European registry of quality outcomes for cataract and refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:673–9. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.11.026
    1. Zheng Y, Cheng C-Y, Lamoureux EL, et al. . How much eye care services do Asian populations need? projection from the Singapore epidemiology of eye disease (seed) study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:2171–7. 10.1167/iovs.12-11393
    1. Wennberg JE. Time to tackle unwarranted variations in practice. BMJ 2011;342:d1513. 10.1136/bmj.d1513
    1. Olson RJ, Braga-Mele R, Chen SH, et al. . Cataract in the adult eye preferred practice Pattern®. Ophthalmology 2017;124:P1–119. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.027
    1. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012;366:780–1. 10.1056/NEJMp1109283
    1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, et al. . Decision AIDS for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014:p.CD001431.
    1. He M, Foster PJ, Ge J, et al. . Prevalence and clinical characteristics of glaucoma in adult Chinese: a population-based study in Liwan district, Guangzhou. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:2782–8. 10.1167/iovs.06-0051
    1. Tsai S-Y, Hsu W-M, Cheng C-Y, et al. . Epidemiologic study of age-related cataracts among an elderly Chinese population in Shih-Pai, Taiwan. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1089–95. 10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00243-4
    1. Zheng Y, Lavanya R, Wu R, et al. . Prevalence and causes of visual impairment and blindness in an urban Indian population: the Singapore Indian eye study. Ophthalmology 2011;118:1798–804. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.02.014
    1. Wong WL, Li X, Li J, et al. . Cataract conversion assessment using lens opacity classification system III and Wisconsin cataract grading system. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:280–7. 10.1167/iovs.12-10657
    1. Chua BE, Mitchell P, Cumming RG. Effects of cataract type and location on visual function: the blue Mountains eye study. Eye 2004;18:765–72. 10.1038/sj.eye.6701366
    1. Shen M, Hu M, Liu S, et al. . Assessment of the Chinese resident health literacy scale in a population-based sample in South China. BMC Public Health 2015;15:637. 10.1186/s12889-015-1958-0
    1. Mathieu E, Barratt A, Davey HM, et al. . Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2039–46. 10.1001/archinte.167.19.2039
    1. Mathieu E, Barratt AL, McGeechan K, et al. . Helping women make choices about mammography screening: an online randomized trial of a decision aid for 40-year-old women. Patient Educ Couns 2010;81:63–72. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.001
    1. Gwyn K, Vernon SW, Conoley PM. Intention to pursue genetic testing for breast cancer among women due for screening mammography. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:96–102.
    1. Watson E, Hewitson P, Brett J, et al. . Informed decision making and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer: a randomised controlled trial exploring the impact of a brief patient decision aid on men's knowledge, attitudes and intention to be tested. Patient Educ Couns 2006;63:367–79. 10.1016/j.pec.2006.05.005
    1. Dormandy E, Michie S, Hooper R, et al. . Informed choice in antenatal Down syndrome screening: a cluster-randomised trial of combined versus separate visit testing. Patient Educ Couns 2006;61:56–64. 10.1016/j.pec.2005.02.006
    1. Smith SK, Trevena L, Simpson JM, et al. . A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010;341:c5370. 10.1136/bmj.c5370
    1. Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, et al. . Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision AIDS: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006;333:417. 10.1136/
    1. Sepucha KR, Borkhoff CM, Lally J, et al. . Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision AIDS: key constructs and measurement instruments. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13:S12. 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S12
    1. Hersch J, Barratt A, Jansen J, et al. . Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:1642–52. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60123-4
    1. Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, et al. . The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach 2010;32:676–82. 10.3109/0142159X.2010.500704
    1. Smith SK, Barratt A, Trevena L, et al. . A theoretical framework for measuring knowledge in screening decision aid trials. Patient Educ Couns 2012;89:330–6. 10.1016/j.pec.2012.07.009
    1. O' Connor AM. User manual – Decision Conflict Scale (16 item question format) [document on the Internet]. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 1993.
    1. O' Connor AM. User manual – Decision Self-Efficacy Scale [document on the Internet]. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 1995.
    1. von Wagner C, Good A, Smith SG, et al. . Responses to procedural information about colorectal cancer screening using faecal occult blood testing: the role of consideration of future consequences. Health Expect 2012;15:176–86. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00675.x
    1. Whitaker KL, Good A, Miles A, et al. . Socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer screening uptake: does time perspective play a role? Health Psychol 2011;30:702–9. 10.1037/a0023941
    1. Sandberg T, Conner M. A mere measurement effect for anticipated regret: impacts on cervical screening attendance. Br J Soc Psychol 2009;48:221–36. 10.1348/014466608X347001
    1. Ziarnowski KL, Brewer NT, Weber B. Present choices, future outcomes: anticipated regret and HPV vaccination. Prev Med 2009;48:411–4. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.10.006
    1. Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait anxiety inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 1992;31:301–6. 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x
    1. Smith SK, Trevena L, Barratt A, et al. . Development and preliminary evaluation of a bowel cancer screening decision aid for adults with lower literacy. Patient Educ Couns 2009;75:358–67. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.01.012
    1. Lin X, Li M, Wang M, et al. . Validation of Catquest-9SF questionnaire in a Chinese cataract population. PLoS One 2014;9:e103860. 10.1371/journal.pone.0103860
    1. Lamoureux EL, Lamoreux EL, Chong E, et al. . Visual impairment, causes of vision loss, and falls: the Singapore Malay eye study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:528–33. 10.1167/iovs.07-1036
    1. Luo N, Liu G, Li M, et al. . Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health 2017;20:662–9. 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016
    1. EQ-5D-5L. Available: [Accessed 17 Mar 2019].
    1. Al-Itejawi HHM, van Uden-Kraan CF, van de Ven PM, et al. . Effectiveness, cost-utility and implementation of a decision aid for patients with localised prostate cancer and their partners: study protocol of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2017;7:e015154. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015154
    1. Schakel W, van der Aa HPA, Bode C, et al. . The economic burden of visual impairment and comorbid fatigue: a cost-of-illness study (from a societal perspective). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2018;59:1916–23. 10.1167/iovs.17-23224
    1. Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, et al. . Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009;338:b2393. 10.1136/bmj.b2393

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren