Diabetes experts' reasoning about diabetes prevention studies: a questionnaire survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Presentation of results of diabetes prevention studies as relative risk reductions and the use of diagnostic categories instead of metabolic parameters leads to overestimation of effects on diabetes risk. This survey examines to what extent overestimation of diabetes prevention is related to overestimation of prevention of late complications.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants of two postgraduate courses in clinical diabetology in Austria (n = 69) and Germany (n = 31) were presented a questionnaire with 8 items at the beginning of the meetings. All 100 questionnaires were returned with 92 filled in completely. Participants were asked 1) to rate the importance of differently framed results of prevention studies and, for comparison, of the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), 2) to estimate to what extent late complications could be prevented by the achieved reductions in diabetes risk or HbA1c values, respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Prevention of diabetes by 60% was considered important by 84% of participants and 35% thought that complications could be prevented by ≥ 55%. However, if corresponding HbA1c values were presented (6.0% versus 6.1%) only 19% rated this effect important, and 12% thought that late complications could be prevented by ≥ 55%. The difference in HbA1c of 0.9% over 10 years in the UKPDS was considered important by 75% of participants and 16% thought that complications ('any diabetes related endpoint') were reduced by ≥ 55% (correct answer <15% by 20% participants).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The novel key message of this study is that the misleading reporting of diabetes prevention studies results in overestimation of effects on late complications.</p

Analysis of consumer information brochures on osteoporosis prevention and treatment

Purpose: Evidence-based consumer information is a prerequisite for informed decision making. So far, there are no reports on the quality of consumer information brochures on osteoporosis. In the present study we analysed brochures on osteoporosis available in Germany

Selective information seeking: can consumers' avoidance of evidence-based information on colorectal cancer screening be explained by the theory of cognitive dissonance?

Background: Evidence-based patient information (EBPI) is a prerequisite for informed decision-making. However, presentation of EBPI may lead to irrational reactions causing avoidance, minimisation and devaluation of the information

Development of a patient decision aid for prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes – rationale, design and pilot testing

Aims: Development and testing of a decision aid about prevention of myocardial infarction for persons with type 2 diabetes

Implementation of shared decision-making in oncology : development and pilot study of a nurse-led decision-coaching programme for women with ductal carcinoma in situ

Background To implement informed shared decision-making (ISDM) in breast care centres, we developed and piloted an inter-professional complex intervention. Methods We developed an intervention consisting of three components: an evidence-based patient decision aid (DA) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ, a decision-coaching led by specialised nurses (breast care nurses and oncology nurses) and structured physician encounters. In order to enable professionals to gain ISDM competencies, we developed and tested a curriculum-based training programme for specialised nurses and a workshop for physicians. After successful testing of the components, we conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of the entire revised intervention in two breast care centres. Here the acceptance of the intervention by women and professionals, the applicability to the breast care centres’ procedures, women’s knowledge, patient involvement in treatment decision-making assessed with the MAPPIN’SDM-observer instrument MAPPIN’Odyad, and barriers to and facilitators of the implementation were taken into consideration. We used questionnaires, structured verbal and written feedback and video recordings. Qualitative data were analysed descriptively, and mean values and ranges of quantitative data were calculated. Results To test the DA, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 27 women. Six expert reviews were obtained. The components of the nurse training were tested with 18 specialised nurses and 19 health science students. The development and piloting of the components were successful. The pilot test of the entire intervention included seven patients. In general, the intervention is applicable. Patients attained adequate knowledge (range of correct answers: 9–11 of 11). On average, a basic level of patient involvement in treatment decision-making was observed for nurses and patient–nurse dyads (M(MAPPIN-Odyad): 2.15 and M(MAPPIN-Onurse): 1.90). Relevant barriers were identified; physicians barely tolerated women’s preferences that were not in line with the medical recommendation. Classifying women as inappropriate for ISDM due to age or education led physicians to neglect eligible women during the recruitment phase. Conclusion Decision-coaching is feasible. Nevertheless, there are some indications that structural changes are needed for long-term implementation. We are currently evaluating the intervention in a cluster randomised controlled trial in 16 breast care centres.Publikationsfond ML

Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the effect of evidence based information on risk with that of standard information on informed choice in screening for colorectal cancer

Why not? – Communicating stochastic information by use of unsorted frequency pictograms – a randomised controlled trial

Objective: Statistical health risk information has been proven confusing and difficult to understand. While existing research indicates that presenting risk information in frequency formats is superior to relative risk and probability formats, the optimal design of frequency formats is still unclear. The aim of this study was to compare presentation of multi-figure pictographs in consecutive and random arrangements regarding accuracy in perception and vulnerability for cognitive bias

Evaluation of the public health measures introduced during the coronavirus pandemic : evidence-based risk communication must be a central topic

Wissenschaftsbasierte und verständliche Gesundheitsinformationen sind ein Kernelement der Evidenzbasierten Medizin und von Public Health. Ziel ist es, informierte Entscheidungen zu ermöglichen, die auf realistischen Einschätzungen von Gesundheitsrisiken sowie von Nutzen und Schaden möglicher Interventionen beruhen. In Deutschland wurden während der COVID-19-Pandemie die Standards für eine evidenzbasierte Risikokommunikation wenig beachtet. Häufig war die öffentliche Berichterstattung einseitig, unvollständig und missverständlich. Bedrohungsszenarien haben emotionalen Stress und unnötige Angst ausgelöst. Eine systematische und umfassende Aufarbeitung der Pandemiemaßnahmen ist auch in Deutschland dringlich geboten. Dabei müsste eine kritisch-konstruktive Analyse der medialen Risikokommunikation von Expert*innen, Politiker*innen und Medien ein zentrales Element der Aufarbeitung sein. Die Ergebnisse sollen helfen, aus der vergangenen Pandemie zu lernen, um für künftige Krisen besser vorbereitet zu sein

An evidence-based shared decision making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: protocol of a randomised-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Lack of patient involvement in decision making has been suggested as one reason for limited treatment success. Concepts such as shared decision making may contribute to high quality healthcare by supporting patients to make informed decisions together with their physicians. A multi-component shared decision making programme on the prevention of heart attack in type 2 diabetes has been developed. It aims at improving the quality of decision-making by providing evidence-based patient information, enhancing patients’ knowledge, and supporting them to actively participate in decision-making. In this study the efficacy of the programme is evaluated in the setting of a diabetes clinic. METHODS/DESIGN: A single blinded randomised-controlled trial is conducted to compare the shared decision making programme with a control-intervention. The intervention consists of an evidence-based patient decision aid on the prevention of myocardial infarction and a corresponding counselling module provided by diabetes educators. Similar in duration and structure, the control-intervention targets nutrition, sports, and stress coping. A total of 154 patients between 40 and 69 years of age with type 2 diabetes and no previous diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease or stroke are enrolled and allocated either to the intervention or the control-intervention. Primary outcome measure is the patients’ knowledge on benefits and harms of heart attack prevention captured by a standardised knowledge test. Key secondary outcome measure is the achievement of treatment goals prioritised by the individual patient. Treatment goals refer to statin taking, HbA1c-, blood pressure levels and smoking status. Outcomes are assessed directly after the counselling and at 6 months follow-up. Analyses will be carried out on intention-to-treat basis. Concurrent qualitative methods are used to explore intervention fidelity and to gain insight into implementation processes. DISCUSSION: Interventions to facilitate evidence-based shared decision making represent an innovative approach in diabetes care. The results of this study will provide information on the efficacy of such a concept in the setting of a diabetes clinic in Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN8463625