Article

A Web-Based Application to Communicate Benefits and Risks of Surgical Treatments

Authors:
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers - location Academic Medical Center - University of Amsterdam
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Background: In general, communication is an important aspect during surgeon-patient consultations. However, clear communication of the benefits and risks of the possible treatment options can be challenging. Visual presentation of information may increase patient comprehension. We developed and piloted a web-based application that provides graphical representations of the numerical benefits and risks of surgical treatment options. Materials and methods: The app was developed by assessing functional requirements, developing a prototype, pilot-testing and adjusting the prototype, and evaluating the final app. In the app, the surgeon enters the benefits and risks of the surgical treatment options as percentages. The app shows the possible outcomes ad libitum as bar charts, icon arrays, or natural frequency trees. Subsequently, we investigated clinicians' and patients' satisfaction with the prototype by means of questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and by observing their conversations. Results: The MAPPING app ("Mapping All Patient Probabilities In Numerical Graphs") was pilot-tested among five surgeons and 12 patients with various surgical disorders. Nine patients welcomed the app and were eager to understand the risks and benefits involved when presented as graphs. The surgeons judged the app as simple to use and valuable. The prototype was improved based on their suggestions. Conclusion: The MAPPING app was developed successfully and has the potential to facilitate surgical risk communication in a more structured and uniform manner. Future research will focus on its validation and promotion of SDM in different types of patients and disorders.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... Although patients' health literacy was not explicitly addressed in the project descriptions, the difficulty of explaining PROMs information and activating patients in using information was mentioned. It is known that just providing numbers will not help patients in decision-making.[91][92][93] To help patients with correct interpretation of PROMs information in the consultation, risk communication guidelines from the SDM field may be helpful. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background The recent emphasis on value‐based health care (VBHC) is thought to provide new opportunities for shared decision‐making (SDM) in the Netherlands, especially when using patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine medical encounters. It is still largely unclear about how PROMs could be linked to SDM and what we expect from clinicians in this respect. Aim To describe approaches and lessons learned in the fields of SDM and VBHC implementation that converge in using PROMs in medical encounters. Approach Based on input from three Dutch forerunner case examples and available evidence about SDM and VBHC, we describe barriers and facilitators regarding the use of PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter. Barriers and facilitators were structured according to a conversational model that included monitoring and managing, team talk, option talk, choice talk, and decision talk. Key lessons learned and recommendations were synthesized. Results The use of individual, N = 1 PROMs scores in the medical encounter has been largely achieved in the forerunner projects. Conversation on monitoring and managing is relatively well implemented, and option talk to some extent, unlike team talk, and decision talk. Aggregated PROMs information describing outcomes of treatment options seemed to be scarcely used. Experienced barriers largely corresponded to what is known from the literature, eg, perceived lack of time and lack of tools summarizing the options. Some concerns were identified about increasing health care consumption as a result of using PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter. Conclusion Successful implementation of SDM within VBHC initiatives may not be self‐evident, even though individual, N = 1 PROMs scores are being used in the medical encounter. Education and staff resources on meso and macro levels may facilitate the more time‐consuming SDM aspects. It seems fruitful to especially target team talk and choice talk in redesigning clinical pathways.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Complex patients with multiple chronic conditions often face significant challenges communicating and coordinating with their primary care physicians. These challenges are exacerbated by the limited time allotted to primary care visits. Objective: Our aim was to employ a user-centered design process to create a tablet tool for use by patients for visit discussion prioritization. Methods: We employed user-centered design methods to create a tablet-based waiting room tool that enables complex patients to identify and set discussion topic priorities for their primary care visit. In an iterative design process, we completed one-on-one interviews with 40 patients and their 17 primary care providers, followed by three design sessions with a 12-patient group. We audiorecorded and transcribed all discussions and categorized major themes. In addition, we met with 15 key health communication, education, and technology leaders within our health system to further review the design and plan for broader implementation of the tool. In this paper, we present the significant changes made to the tablet tool at each phase of this design work. Results: Patient feedback emphasized the need to make the tablet tool accessible for patients who lacked technical proficiency and to reduce the quantity and complexity of text presentation. Both patients and their providers identified specific content choices based on their personal experiences (eg, the ability to raise private or sensitive concerns) and recommended targeting new patients. Stakeholder groups provided essential input on the need to augment text with video and to create different versions of the videos to match sex and race/ethnicity of the actors with patients. Conclusions: User-centered design in collaboration with patients, providers, and key health stakeholders led to marked evolution in the initial content, layout, and target audience for a tablet waiting room tool intended to assist complex patients with setting visit discussion priorities.
Article
Full-text available
Article
Full-text available
Decision aids can help shared decision making, but most have been hard to produce, onerous to update, and are not being used widely. Thomas Agoritsas and colleagues explore why and describe a new electronic model that holds promise of being more useful for clinicians and patients to use together at the point of care.
Article
Full-text available
Effective communication of treatment risks is important to enable patients to make informed decisions. This study aimed to determine the effects of different risk formats on participants' evaluation and interpretation of risk information and on their treatment choice. Participants (N = 44) were recruited among patients who had undergone surgery for an abdominal aneurysm and were asked to evaluate treatment risks (surgery or an observation policy) of two hypothetical cases presented in one of three risk formats (numbers, vertical bars or icons). Risk information presented in vertical bars was evaluated as the most difficult to comprehend, and the perceived threat of this information was evaluated as higher than that of the other risk formats. Risk information presented as icons was evaluated as more helpful for making a decision, but resulted in a lower percentage of participants choosing for surgery than when risks were presented in the other formats. In conclusion, this study showed that different risk formats have different effects on participants' evaluation of the information and on their choice. Doctors should therefore be careful in choosing the format in which they present treatment risks.
Article
Full-text available
The authors share lessons learned from their development ofStatin Choice, a decision aid for patients with diabetes who are considering using statins to reduce their cardiovascular risk.
Article
Full-text available
Clear communication about the possible outcomes of proposed medical interventions is an integral part of medical care. Despite its importance, there have been few studies comparing different formats for presenting probabilistic information to patients, especially when small probabilities are involved. The purpose of this study was to explore the potential usefulness of several new small-risk graphic communication formats. Information about the likelihoods of cancer and cancer prevention associated with two hypothetical cancer screening programs were used to create an augmented bar chart, an augmented grouped icon display, a flow chart, and three paired combinations of these formats. In the study scenario, the baseline risk of cancer was 53 per 1,000 (5.3%). The risk associated with cancer screening option A was 38 per 1,000 (3.8%) and the risk associated with screening option B was 29 per 1,000 (2.9%). Both the augmented bar chart and the augmented grouped icon display contained magnified views of the differences in cancer risk and cancer prevention associated with the screening programs. A convenience sample of 29 subjects (mean age 56.4 years; 76% men) used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to indicate their relative preferences for the six formats using 15 sequential paired comparisons. The most preferred format was the combined augmented bar chart + flow diagram (mean preference score 0.43) followed by the combined augmented icon + augmented bar chart format (mean preference score 0.22). The overall differences among the six formats were statistically significant: Kruskal-Wallis Chi Square = 141.4, p < 0.0001. The three combined formats all had statistically significant higher preferences scores than the single format displays (p < 0.05). These findings suggest that patients may prefer combined, rather than single, graphic risk presentation formats and that augmented bar charts and icon displays may be useful for conveying comparative information about small risks to clinical decision makers. Further research to confirm and extend these findings is warranted.
Article
Physicians are legally and ethically compelled to present their patients with available evidence on the potentially beneficial and harmful effects of a proposed medical or surgical treatment.
Article
Objective: To determine the literacy skill sets of patients in the context of graphical interpretation of interactive dashboards. Methods: We assessed literacy characteristics of prostate cancer patients and assessed comprehension of quality of life dashboards. Health literacy, numeracy and graph literacy were assessed with validated tools. We divided patients into low vs. high numeracy and graph literacy. We report descriptive statistics on literacy, dashboard comprehension, and relationships between groups. We used correlation and multiple linear regressions to examine factors associated with dashboard comprehension. Results: Despite high health literacy in educated patients (78% college educated), there was variation in numeracy and graph literacy. Numeracy and graph literacy scores were correlated (r=0.37). In those with low literacy, graph literacy scores most strongly correlated with dashboard comprehension (r=0.59-0.90). On multivariate analysis, graph literacy was independently associated with dashboard comprehension, adjusting for age, education, and numeracy level. Conclusions: Even among higher educated patients; variation in the ability to comprehend graphs exists. Practice implications: Clinicians must be aware of these differential proficiencies when counseling patients. Tools for patient-centered communication that employ visual displays need to account for literacy capabilities to ensure that patients can effectively engage these resources.
Article
Medical treatment of patients always entails the risk of undesired complications or side effects. This is particularly poignant in surgery as both the disease to be treated and the surgical intervention to be performed can be life threatening. Hence, it is essential to inform a surgical patient in detail about the expectations desired, but also the possible undesired outcomes and complications, especially when new surgical techniques are introduced. Apart from communication about available evidence regarding treatment options, the patient's preference needs to be invoked to make sure the surgeon's advice matches the patient's preference. Shared decision-making (SDM) invokes the bidirectional communication between physicians and patients required to involve the patient's preference in the eventual treatment choice. SDM is considered as an essential part of evidence-based medicine as it helps determine whether the available evidence on the possible benefits and harms of treatment options match the patient's characteristics and preferences. This paper will exemplify what SDM is, why it is important, and how it can be performed in surgical practice. Several tools to facilitate SDM are presented.
Article
Background: Effective communication of risks and benefits to patients is critical for shared decision making. Purpose: To review the comparative effectiveness of methods of communicating probabilistic information to patients that maximize their cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Data sources: PubMed (1966 to March 2014) and CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1966 to December 2011) using several keywords and structured terms. Study selection: Prospective or cross-sectional studies that recruited patients or healthy volunteers and compared any method of communicating probabilistic information with another method. Data extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Data synthesis: Eighty-four articles, representing 91 unique studies, evaluated various methods of numerical and visual risk display across several risk scenarios and with diverse outcome measures. Studies showed that visual aids (icon arrays and bar graphs) improved patients' understanding and satisfaction. Presentations including absolute risk reductions were better than those including relative risk reductions for maximizing accuracy and seemed less likely than presentations with relative risk reductions to influence decisions to accept therapy. The presentation of numbers needed to treat reduced understanding. Comparative effects of presentations of frequencies (such as 1 in 5) versus event rates (percentages, such as 20%) were inconclusive. Limitation: Most studies were small and highly variable in terms of setting, context, and methods of administering interventions. Conclusion: Visual aids and absolute risk formats can improve patients' understanding of probabilistic information, whereas numbers needed to treat can lessen their understanding. Due to study heterogeneity, the superiority of any single method for conveying probabilistic information is not established, but there are several good options to help clinicians communicate with patients. Primary funding source: None.
Article
The System Usability Scale (SUS) is an inexpensive, yet effective tool for assessing the usability of a product, including Web sites, cell phones, interactive voice response systems, TV applications, and more. It provides an easy-to-understand score from 0 (negative) to 100 (positive). While a 100-point scale is intuitive in many respects and allows for relative judgments, information describing how the numeric score translates into an absolute judgment of usability is not known. To help answer that question, a seven-point adjective-anchored Likert scale was added as an eleventh question to nearly 1,000 SUS surveys. Results show that the Likert scale scores correlate extremely well with the SUS scores (r=0.822). The addition of the adjective rating scale to the SUS may help practitioners interpret individual SUS scores and aid in explaining the results to non-human factors professionals.
Article
To compare different interventions used to communicate cardiovascular risk and assess their impact on patient related outcomes. A systematic search of six electronic data sources from January 1980 to November 2008. Data was extracted from the included studies and a narrative synthesis of the results was conducted. Fifteen studies were included. Only four studies assessed individuals' actual cardiovascular risk; the rest were analogue studies using hypothetical risk profiles. Heterogeneity in study design and outcomes was found. The results from individual studies suggest that presenting patients with their cardiovascular risk in percentages or frequencies, using graphical representation and short timeframes, is best for achieving risk reduction through behaviour change. However, this summary is tentative and needs further exploration. Better quality trials are needed that compare different risk presentation formats, before conclusions can be drawn as to the most effective ways to communicate cardiovascular risk to patients. Instead of directing attention to the accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction, more should be paid to the effective presentation of risk, to help patients reduce risk by lifestyle change or active treatment.
Article
To evaluate the ability of six graph formats to impart knowledge about treatment risks/benefits to low and high numeracy individuals. Participants were randomized to receive numerical information about the risks and benefits of a hypothetical medical treatment in one of six graph formats. Each described the benefits of taking one of two drugs, as well as the risks of experiencing side effects. Main outcome variables were verbatim (specific numerical) and gist (general impression) knowledge. Participants were also asked to rate their perceptions of the graphical format and to choose a treatment. 2412 participants completed the survey. Viewing a pictograph was associated with adequate levels of both types of knowledge, especially for lower numeracy individuals. Viewing tables was associated with a higher likelihood of having adequate verbatim knowledge vs. other formats (p<0.001) but lower likelihood of having adequate gist knowledge (p<0.05). All formats were positively received, but pictograph was trusted by both high and low numeracy respondents. Verbatim and gist knowledge were significantly (p<0.01) associated with making a medically superior treatment choice. Pictographs are the best format for communicating probabilistic information to patients in shared decision making environments, particularly among lower numeracy individuals. Providers can consider using pictographs to communicate risk and benefit information to patients of different numeracy levels.
Article
Explaining risks to patients in an effective way is an essential part of ensuring that consent is "informed." A consultant in risk communication discusses the strategies that can help doctors to communicate risks clearly, and thereby also build closer relationships with their patients.
Article
Bad presentation of medical statistics such as the risks associated with a particular intervention can lead to patients making poor decisions on treatment. Particularly confusing are single event probabilities, conditional probabilities (such as sensitivity and specificity), and relative risks. How can doctors improve the presentation of statistical information so that patients can make well-informed decisions? The science fiction writer H. G. Wells predicted that in modern technological societies statistical thinking will one day be as necessary for efficient citizenship as the ability to read and write. How far have we got, a hundred or so years later? A glance at the literature shows a shocking lack of statistical understanding of the outcomes of modern technologies, from standard screening tests for HIV infection to DNA evidence. For instance, doctors, with an average of 14 years of profes- sional experience were asked to imagine using the Haemoccult test to screen for colorectal cancer. 1 2 The prevalence of cancer was 0.3%, the sensitivity of the test was 50%, and the false positive rate was 3%. The doctors were asked: What is the probability that someone who tests positive actually has colorectal cancer? The correct answer is about 5%. However, the doctors' answers ranged from 1% to 99%, with about half of them estimating the probability as 50% (the sensitivity) or 47% (sensitivity minus false positive rate). If patients knew about this degree of variability and statistical innumeracy they would be justly alarmed. Statistical innumeracy is often attributed to problems inside our minds. We disagree: The problem is not simply internal but lies in the external representation of information, and hence a solution exists. Every piece of statistical information needs a representation—that is, a form. Some forms tend to cloud minds, while others foster insight. We know of no medical institution that leaches the power of statistical representations; even worse, writers of information brochures for the public seem to prefer confusing representations. 2 3 Here we deal with three numerical representations that foster confusion: single event proba- bilities, conditional probabilities, and relative risks. In each case we show alternative representa- tions that promote insight (Table 1). These "mind tools" are simple to learn. Finally, we address questions of the framing (expression) and manipulation of information and how to minimise these effects.