Christopher V Almario1,2, Welmoed K van Deen3, Michelle Chen4, Rebecca Gale2, Stéphanie Sidorkiewicz5, So Yung Choi6, Nirupama Bonthala1,7, Christina Ha8, Gaurav Syal1,7, Taylor Dupuy2, Xiaoyu Liu2, Gil Y Melmed1,7, Brennan M R Spiegel1,2. 1. Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 2. Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA. 3. Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Division of Health Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 4. UC San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California, USA. 5. Department of General Practice, Université de Paris, Paris, France. 6. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Research Center, Cedars-Sinai Cancer, Los Angeles, California, USA. 7. Inflammatory Bowel and Immunobiology Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 8. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and providers surrounding biologic treatments, we created IBD&me ( ibdandme.org )-a freely available, unbranded, interactive decision aid. We performed a multicenter comparative effectiveness trial comparing the impact of IBD&me on SDM vs a biologics fact sheet developed by the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation. METHODS: We enrolled patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) being seen at a clinic within IBD Qorus-a multicenter adult IBD learning health system-between March 5, 2019, and May 14, 2021. Eligible patients included those with recent IBD-related symptoms who reported that they wanted to discuss biologics with their provider during their upcoming visit. Patients were randomized 1:1 using stratified block randomization and received an e-mail 1 week before their visit inviting them to review either IBD&me or a fact sheet. The primary outcome was patient perception of SDM as measured by the 9-Item SDM Questionnaire (0-100 scale; higher = better); the Student t test was used to compare outcomes between arms. RESULTS: Overall, 152 patients were randomized (biologics fact sheet 75, IBD&me 77); most patients had Crohn's disease (66.4%) and were biologic-experienced (82.9%). No differences were seen between groups regarding SDM (fact sheet 72.6 ± 25.6, IBD&me 75.0 ± 20.8; P = .57). Most patients stated they would be likely to recommend the fact sheet (79.6%) or IBD&me (84.9%; P = .48) to another patient with IBD. DISCUSSION: No differences in outcomes were seen between IBD&me and the biologics fact sheet in this comparative effectiveness study; patients reported high satisfaction with both resources. Further study, particularly among biologic naïve patients, is needed to determine the utility of interactive components to IBD decision aids.
INTRODUCTION: To support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and providers surrounding biologic treatments, we created IBD&me ( ibdandme.org )-a freely available, unbranded, interactive decision aid. We performed a multicenter comparative effectiveness trial comparing the impact of IBD&me on SDM vs a biologics fact sheet developed by the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation. METHODS: We enrolled patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) being seen at a clinic within IBD Qorus-a multicenter adult IBD learning health system-between March 5, 2019, and May 14, 2021. Eligible patients included those with recent IBD-related symptoms who reported that they wanted to discuss biologics with their provider during their upcoming visit. Patients were randomized 1:1 using stratified block randomization and received an e-mail 1 week before their visit inviting them to review either IBD&me or a fact sheet. The primary outcome was patient perception of SDM as measured by the 9-Item SDM Questionnaire (0-100 scale; higher = better); the Student t test was used to compare outcomes between arms. RESULTS: Overall, 152 patients were randomized (biologics fact sheet 75, IBD&me 77); most patients had Crohn's disease (66.4%) and were biologic-experienced (82.9%). No differences were seen between groups regarding SDM (fact sheet 72.6 ± 25.6, IBD&me 75.0 ± 20.8; P = .57). Most patients stated they would be likely to recommend the fact sheet (79.6%) or IBD&me (84.9%; P = .48) to another patient with IBD. DISCUSSION: No differences in outcomes were seen between IBD&me and the biologics fact sheet in this comparative effectiveness study; patients reported high satisfaction with both resources. Further study, particularly among biologic naïve patients, is needed to determine the utility of interactive components to IBD decision aids.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Lisa C Johnson; Gil Y Melmed; Eugene C Nelson; Megan M Holthoff; S Alandra Weaver; Tamara S Morgan; Corey A Siegel Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: David T Rubin; Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan; Corey A Siegel; Bryan G Sauer; Millie D Long Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Corey A Siegel; Jennifer H Lofland; Ahmad Naim; Jan Gollins; Danielle M Walls; Laura E Rudder; Chuck Reynolds Journal: Patient Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Robert J Volk; Suzanne K Linder; Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Geetanjali R Kamath; Daniel S Reuland; Smita S Saraykar; Viola B Leal; Michael P Pignone Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Corey A Siegel; Jennifer H Lofland; Ahmad Naim; Jan Gollins; Danielle M Walls; Laura E Rudder; Chuck Reynolds Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Daniel Mark Baker; Matthew James Lee; Anne-Mairead Folan; Sue Blackwell; Kerry Robinson; Rebecca Wootton; Shaji Sebastian; Steven R Brown; Georgina Louise Jones; Alan J Lobo Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 2.692