Patient education preferences in ophthalmic care.

BACKGROUND: The learning preferences of ophthalmology patients were examined. METHODS: Results from a voluntary survey of ophthalmology patients were analyzed for education preferences and for correlation with race, age, and ophthalmic topic. RESULTS: To learn about eye disease, patients preferred one-on-one sessions with providers as well as printed materials and websites recommended by providers. Patients currently learning from the provider were older (average age 59 years), and patients learning from the Internet (average age 49 years) and family and friends (average age 51 years) were younger. Patients interested in cataracts, glaucoma, macular degeneration, and dry eye were older; patients interested in double vision and glasses were younger. There were racial differences regarding topic preferences, with Black patients most interested in glaucoma (46%), diabetic retinopathy (31%), and cataracts (28%) and White patients most interested in cataracts (22%), glaucoma (22%), and macular degeneration (19%). CONCLUSION: MOST OPHTHALMOLOGY PATIENTS PREFERRED PERSONALIZED EDUCATION: one-on-one with their provider or a health educator and materials (printed and electronic) recommended by their provider. Age-related topics were more popular with older patients, and diseases with racial risk factors were more popular with high risk racial groups.

Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey.

BACKGROUND: A Royal Statistical Society Working Party recently recommended that "Greater use should be made of numerical, as opposed to verbal, descriptions of risk" in first-in-man clinical trials. This echoed the view of many clinicians and psychologists about risk communication. As the clinical trial industry expands rapidly across the globe, it is important to understand risk communication in Asian countries. METHODS: We conducted a cognitive experiment about participation in a hypothetical clinical trial of a pain relief medication and a survey in cancer and arthritis patients in Singapore. In part 1 of the experiment, the patients received information about the risk of side effects in one of three formats (frequency, percentage and verbal descriptor) and in one of two sequences (from least to most severe and from most to least severe), and were asked about their willingness to participate. In part 2, the patients received information about the risk in all three formats, in the same sequence, and were again asked about their willingness to participate. A survey of preference for risk presentation methods and usage of verbal descriptors immediately followed. RESULTS: Willingness to participate and the likelihood of changing one's decision were not affected by the risk presentation methods. Most patients indicated a preference for the frequency format, but patients with primary school or no formal education were indifferent. While the patients used the verbal descriptors "very common", "common" and "very rare" in ways similar to the European Commission's Guidelines, their usage of the descriptors "uncommon" and "rare" was substantially different from the EU's. CONCLUSION: In this sample of Asian cancer and arthritis patients, risk presentation format had no impact on willingness to participate in a clinical trial. However, there is a clear preference for the frequency format. The lay use of verbal descriptors was substantially different from the EU's.

Development of a decision aid to inform patients' and families' renal replacement therapy selection decisions.

BACKGROUND: Few educational resources have been developed to inform patients' renal replacement therapy (RRT) selection decisions. Patients progressing toward end stage renal disease (ESRD) must decide among multiple treatment options with varying characteristics. Complex information about treatments must be adequately conveyed to patients with different educational backgrounds and informational needs. Decisions about treatment options also require family input, as families often participate in patients' treatment and support patients' decisions. We describe the development, design, and preliminary evaluation of an informational, evidence-based, and patient-and family-centered decision aid for patients with ESRD and varying levels of health literacy, health numeracy, and cognitive function. METHODS: We designed a decision aid comprising a complementary video and informational handbook. We based our development process on data previously obtained from qualitative focus groups and systematic literature reviews. We simultaneously developed the video and handbook in "stages." For the video, stages included (1) directed interviews with culturally appropriate patients and families and preliminary script development, (2) video production, and (3) screening the video with patients and their families. For the handbook, stages comprised (1) preliminary content design, (2) a mixed-methods pilot study among diverse patients to assess comprehension of handbook material, and (3) screening the handbook with patients and their families. RESULTS: The video and handbook both addressed potential benefits and trade-offs of treatment selections. The 50-minute video consisted of demographically diverse patients and their families describing their positive and negative experiences with selecting a treatment option. The video also incorporated health professionals' testimonials regarding various considerations that might influence patients' and families' treatment selections. The handbook was comprised of written words, pictures of patients and health care providers, and diagrams describing the findings and quality of scientific studies comparing treatments. The handbook text was written at a 4th to 6th grade reading level. Pilot study results demonstrated that a majority of patients could understand information presented in the handbook. Patient and families screening the nearly completed video and handbook reviewed the materials favorably. CONCLUSIONS: This rigorously designed decision aid may help patients and families make informed decisions about their treatment options for RRT that are well aligned with their values.

Selecting renal replacement therapies: what do African American and non-African American patients and their families think others should know? A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the types of information African American and non-African American patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and their families need to inform renal replacement therapy (RRT) decisions. METHODS: In 20 structured group interviews, we elicited views of African American and non-African American patients with CKD and their families about factors that should be addressed in educational materials informing patients' RRT selection decisions. We asked participants to select factors from a list and obtained their open-ended feedback. RESULTS: Ten groups of patients (5 African American, 5 non-African American; total 68 individuals) and ten groups of family members (5 African American, 5 non-African American; total 62 individuals) participated. Patients and families had a range (none to extensive) of experiences with various RRTs. Patients identified morbidity or mortality, autonomy, treatment delivery, and symptoms as important factors to address. Family members identified similar factors but also cited the effects of RRT decisions on patients' psychological well-being and finances. Views of African American and non-African American participants were largely similar. CONCLUSIONS: Educational resources addressing the influence of RRT selection on patients' morbidity and mortality, autonomy, treatment delivery, and symptoms could help patients and their families select RRT options closely aligned with their values. Including information about the influence of RRT selection on patients' personal relationships and finances could enhance resources' cultural relevance for African Americans.

The providing resources to enhance African American patients' readiness to make decisions about kidney disease (PREPARED) study: protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Living related kidney transplantation (LRT) is underutilized, particularly among African Americans. The effectiveness of informational and financial interventions to enhance informed decision-making among African Americans with end stage renal disease (ESRD) and improve rates of LRT is unknown. METHODS/DESIGN: We report the protocol of the Providing Resources to Enhance African American Patients' Readiness to Make Decisions about Kidney Disease (PREPARED) Study, a two-phase study utilizing qualitative and quantitative research methods to design and test the effectiveness of informational (focused on shared decision-making) and financial interventions to overcome barriers to pursuit of LRT among African American patients and their families. Study Phase I involved the evidence-based development of informational materials as well as a financial intervention to enhance African American patients' and families' proficiency in shared decision-making regarding LRT. In Study Phase 2, we are currently conducting a randomized controlled trial in which patients with new-onset ESRD receive 1) usual dialysis care by their nephrologists, 2) the informational intervention (educational video and handbook), or 3) the informational intervention in addition to the option of participating in a live kidney donor financial assistance program. The primary outcome of the randomized controlled trial will include patients' self-reported rates of consideration of LRT (including family discussions of LRT, patient-physician discussions of LRT, and identification of a LRT donor). DISCUSSION: Results from the PREPARED study will provide needed evidence on ways to enhance the decision to pursue LRT among African American patients with ESRD.

Protocol for the "Implementation, adoption, and utility of family history in diverse care settings" study.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment with a thorough family health history is recommended by numerous organizations and is now a required component of the annual physical for Medicare beneficiaries under the Affordable Care Act. However, there are several barriers to incorporating robust risk assessments into routine care. MeTree, a web-based patient-facing health risk assessment tool, was developed with the aim of overcoming these barriers. In order to better understand what factors will be instrumental for broader adoption of risk assessment programs like MeTree in clinical settings, we obtained funding to perform a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness study in primary care clinics at five diverse healthcare systems. Here, we describe the study's protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: MeTree collects personal medical information and a three-generation family health history from patients on 98 conditions. Using algorithms built entirely from current clinical guidelines, it provides clinical decision support to providers and patients on 30 conditions. All adult patients with an upcoming well-visit appointment at one of the 20 intervention clinics are eligible to participate. Patient-oriented risk reports are provided in real time. Provider-oriented risk reports are uploaded to the electronic medical record for review at the time of the appointment. Implementation outcomes are enrollment rate of clinics, providers, and patients (enrolled vs approached) and their representativeness compared to the underlying population. Primary effectiveness outcomes are the percent of participants newly identified as being at increased risk for one of the clinical decision support conditions and the percent with appropriate risk-based screening. Secondary outcomes include percent change in those meeting goals for a healthy lifestyle (diet, exercise, and smoking). Outcomes are measured through electronic medical record data abstraction, patient surveys, and surveys/qualitative interviews of clinical staff. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates factors that are critical to successful implementation of a web-based risk assessment tool into routine clinical care in a variety of healthcare settings. The result will identify resource needs and potential barriers and solutions to implementation in each setting as well as an understanding potential effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01956773.

Heteronormativity and practitioner-patient interaction.

Heteronormativity is the presumption of heterosexuality as the default sexual orientation and can result in discrimination against the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) population. This study serves as one of the first experimental studies to examine heteronormative perceptions in communication and their effects on practitioner-patient relationships. LGB participants were randomly assigned to read either heteronormative or non-heteronormative vignettes of a doctor-patient interaction. They then indicated how much health-relevant information they would disclose to the doctor in the vignette and their level of trust in the doctor. In the heteronormative condition, participants were less likely to disclose health-relevant information to the doctor in the vignette and were less trustful of the doctor as compared to those in the non-heteronormative condition. These results have important health implications, as lack of disclosure and trust may prevent people from getting needed care and prevent doctors from giving the best health advice possible. The results of this study provide further evidence that there is a need for more education for all health care professionals to feel comfortable while respectfully communicating with and treating patients who do not identify as heterosexual in order to ensure the best health care experience.

Role of patient factors, preferences, and distrust in health care and access to liver transplantation and organ donation.

Despite major improvements in access to liver transplantation (LT), disparities remain. Little is known about how distrust in medical care, patient preferences, and the origins shaping those preferences contribute to differences surrounding access. We performed a single-center, cross-sectional survey of adults with end-stage liver disease and compared responses between LT listed and nonlisted patients as well as by race. Questionnaires were administered to 109 patients (72 nonlisted; 37 listed) to assess demographics, health care system distrust (HCSD), religiosity, and factors influencing LT and organ donation (OD). We found that neither HCSD nor religiosity explained differences in access to LT in our population. Listed patients attained higher education levels and were more likely to be insured privately. This was also the case for white versus black patients. All patients reported wanting LT if recommended. However, nonlisted patients were significantly less likely to have discussed LT with their physician or to be referred to a transplant center. They were also much less likely to understand the process of LT. Fewer blacks were referred (44.4% versus 69.7%; P = 0.03) or went to the transplant center if referred (44.4% versus 71.1%; P = 0.02). Fewer black patients felt that minorities had as equal access to LT as whites (29.6% versus 57.3%; P < 0.001). For OD, there were more significant differences in preferences by race than listing status. More whites indicated OD status on their driver's license, and more blacks were likely to become an organ donor if approached by someone of the same cultural or ethnic background (P < 0.01). In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates persistent barriers to LT and OD. With improved patient and provider education and communication, many of these disparities could be successfully overcome. Liver Transplantation 22 895-905 2016 AASLD.