Risk communication in a patient decision aid for radiotherapy in breast cancer: How to deal with uncertainty?

Background and aimPatient decision aids for oncological treatment options, provide information on the effect on recurrence rates and/or survival benefit, and on side-effects and/or burden of different treatment options. However, often uncertainty exists around the probability estimates for recurrence/survival and side-effects which is too relevant to be ignored. Evidence is lacking on the best way to communicate these uncertainties. The aim of this study is to develop a method to incorporate uncertainties in a patient decision aid for breast cancer patients to support their decision on radiotherapy.MethodsFirstly, qualitative interviews were held with patients and health care professionals. Secondly, in the development phase, thinking aloud sessions were organized with four patients and 12 health care professionals, individual and group-wise.ResultsConsensus was reached on a pictograph illustrating the whole range of uncertainty for local recurrence risks, in combination with textual explanation that a more exact personalized risk would be given by their own physician. The pictograph consisted of 100 female icons in a 10 x 10 array. Icons with a stepwise gradient color indicated the uncertainty margin. The prevalence and severity of possible side-effects were explained using verbal labels.ConclusionsWe developed a novel way of visualizing uncertainties in recurrence rates in a patient decision aid. The effect of this way of communicating risk uncertainty is currently being tested in the BRASA study (NCT03375801).     

Manipulation and free will in shared decision making

In recent years, there has been an increased focus on patient involvement in treatment planning in the health care system. To reduce the risk of the clinician moving towards paternalism, various methods have been introduced—shared decision making, among others. The goal of shared decision making is for the clinician and patient to share available evidence on the best treatment and to raise awareness on the needs and preferences of the patient as to make a genuinely informed choice. However, in the present article, we discuss to which degree paternalism can be avoided in light of the clinician's role as an authority with certain knowledge and expertise. Through the philosophical theory of reasons‐responsiveness, we discuss to which extend free will and control applies to the patient. Through theoretical analysis, we come to suggest that the clinician has a role as an ally rather than manipulator.     

Difference in Survival in Early Kidney after Liver Transplantation Compared with Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Transplantation: Evaluating the Potential of the “Safety Net”

1. Download : Download high-res image (281KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Economic Evaluation of Factorial Trials: Cost-Utility Analysis of the Atorvastatin in Factorial With Omega EE90 Risk Reduction in Diabetes 2 × 2 × 2 Factorial Trial of Atorvastatin,Omega-3 Fish Oil,and Action Planning

ObjectivesWe applied principles for conducting economic evaluations of factorial trials to a trial-based economic evaluation of a cluster-randomized 2 × 2 × 2 factorial trial. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin, omega-3 fish oil, and an action-planning leaflet, alone and in combination, from a UK National Health Service perspective.MethodsThe Atorvastatin in Factorial With Omega EE90 Risk Reduction in Diabetes (AFORRD) Trial randomized 800 patients with type 2 diabetes to atorvastatin, omega-3, or their respective placebos and randomized general practices to receive a leaflet-based action-planning intervention designed to improve compliance or standard care. The trial was conducted at 59 UK general practices. Sixteen-week outcomes for each trial participant were extrapolated for 70 years using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model v2.01. We analyzed the trial as a 2 × 2 factorial trial (ignoring interactions between action-planning leaflet and medication), as a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial trial (considering all interactions), and ignoring all interactions.ResultsWe observed several qualitative interactions for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) that changed treatment rankings. However, different approaches to analyzing the factorial design did not change the conclusions. There was a ≥99% chance that atorvastatin is cost-effective and omega-3 is not, at a £20 000/QALY threshold.ConclusionsAtorvastatin monotherapy was the most cost-effective combination of the 3 trial interventions at a £20 000/QALY threshold. Omega-3 fish oil was not cost-effective, while there was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about action planning. Recently-developed methods for analyzing factorial trials and combining parameter and sampling uncertainty were extended to estimate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves within a 2x2x2 factorial design with model-based extrapolation.