A J Smallwood1, M M Schapira2,3, M Fedders4, J M Neuner5,6. 1. Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. asmallwood@mcw.edu. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 3. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 4. Clinical Informatics, Froedtert and the Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. 5. Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, CLCC-5th Floor, 9200 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
Abstract
We tested the feasibility of a fracture prevention decision aid in an online patient portal. The decision aid was acceptable for patients and successfully decreased decisional conflict. This study suggests the possible utility of leveraging the patient portal to enhance patient education and decision making in osteoporosis care. INTRODUCTION: Although interventions have improved osteoporosis screening and/or treatment for certain populations of high-risk patients, recent national studies suggest that large-scale uptake of these interventions has been limited. We aimed to determine the feasibility and potential efficacy of a patient portal-based osteoporosis decision aid (DA). METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of primary care patients aged ≥55 who were enrolled in a patient portal and had a T-score of <-1. Intervention subjects were provided a link to a patient DA. The DA contained a 10-year fracture risk calculator, summary of medication risks and benefits (prescription and nonprescription), and an elicitation of values. Subjects completed questionnaires assessing the primary outcomes of decisional conflict and preparation for decision making and secondary outcomes related to feasibility and planning for a larger trial. Charts were reviewed for physician-subject interactions and medication uptake. RESULTS: The DA was acceptable to subjects, but 17 % of the patients in the decision aid arm incorrectly entered their T-scores into FRAX-based risk calculator. Decisional conflict was lower post-intervention for those who were randomized to the decision aid arm compared to controls (17.8 vs. 47.1, p < .001), and there was a significant difference in the percentage of patients who made a treatment decision at 3 months. No significant differences were observed in medication uptake. CONCLUSIONS: A portal-based osteoporosis DA was acceptable and improved several measures of decision quality. Given its effect on improving the quality of patients' decisions, future studies should examine whether it improves physician guideline adherence or medication adherence uptake among treated patients.
RCT Entities:
We tested the feasibility of a fracture prevention decision aid in an online patient portal. The decision aid was acceptable for patients and successfully decreased decisional conflict. This study suggests the possible utility of leveraging the patient portal to enhance patient education and decision making in osteoporosis care. INTRODUCTION: Although interventions have improved osteoporosis screening and/or treatment for certain populations of high-risk patients, recent national studies suggest that large-scale uptake of these interventions has been limited. We aimed to determine the feasibility and potential efficacy of a patient portal-based osteoporosis decision aid (DA). METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of primary care patients aged ≥55 who were enrolled in a patient portal and had a T-score of <-1. Intervention subjects were provided a link to a patient DA. The DA contained a 10-year fracture risk calculator, summary of medication risks and benefits (prescription and nonprescription), and an elicitation of values. Subjects completed questionnaires assessing the primary outcomes of decisional conflict and preparation for decision making and secondary outcomes related to feasibility and planning for a larger trial. Charts were reviewed for physician-subject interactions and medication uptake. RESULTS: The DA was acceptable to subjects, but 17 % of the patients in the decision aid arm incorrectly entered their T-scores into FRAX-based risk calculator. Decisional conflict was lower post-intervention for those who were randomized to the decision aid arm compared to controls (17.8 vs. 47.1, p < .001), and there was a significant difference in the percentage of patients who made a treatment decision at 3 months. No significant differences were observed in medication uptake. CONCLUSIONS: A portal-based osteoporosis DA was acceptable and improved several measures of decision quality. Given its effect on improving the quality of patients' decisions, future studies should examine whether it improves physician guideline adherence or medication adherence uptake among treated patients.
Authors: Nelson B Watts; John P Bilezikian; Pauline M Camacho; Susan L Greenspan; Steven T Harris; Stephen F Hodgson; Michael Kleerekoper; Marjorie M Luckey; Michael R McClung; Rachel Pessah Pollack; Steven M Petak Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Mick P Couper; Eleanor Singer; Carrie A Levin; Floyd J Fowler; Sonja Ziniel; Peter A Ubel; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Victor M Montori; Nilay D Shah; Laurie J Pencille; Megan E Branda; Holly K Van Houten; Brian A Swiglo; Rebecca L Kesman; Sidna M Tulledge-Scheitel; Thomas M Jaeger; Ruth E Johnson; Gregory A Bartel; L Joseph Melton; Robert A Wermers Journal: Am J Med Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Kenneth G Saag; Stephen H Gehlbach; Jeffrey R Curtis; Thomas E Youket; Karen Worley; Jeffrey L Lange Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Joan M Neuner; Neil Binkley; Rodney A Sparapani; Purushottam W Laud; Ann B Nattinger Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kevon-Mark Jackman; Derek T Dangerfield; Cui Yang; Maria Trent; Hadi Kharrazi; Renee M Johnson; Carl Latkin Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2020-11-13
Authors: France Légaré; Rhéda Adekpedjou; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Turcotte; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham; Anne Lyddiatt; Mary C Politi; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-07-19
Authors: Hae-Ra Han; Kelly T Gleason; Chun-An Sun; Hailey N Miller; Soo Jin Kang; Sotera Chow; Rachel Anderson; Paul Nagy; Tom Bauer Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2019-12-19
Authors: Dennis Cornelissen; Annelies Boonen; Silvia Evers; Joop P van den Bergh; Sandrine Bours; Caroline E Wyers; Sander van Kuijk; Marsha van Oostwaard; Trudy van der Weijden; Mickaël Hiligsmann Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 2.362