Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Häufige urologisch-sexualmedizinische Themen in der Praxis sind das Thema des MMW-Webinars am 5. Juni von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. Konkret geht es um die Frage, wann bei Harnwegsinfektionen auf Antibiotika verzichtet werden kann, und um ein Update zur Therapie von Libido- und Potenzstörungen des Mannes. Der dritte Vortrag behandelt sexuell übertragbare Krankheiten. Stellen Sie Ihre Fragen an die Experten und sammeln Sie 2 CME-Punkte. Jetzt gleich anmelden!
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Current Cardiology Reports
Erschienen in: Current Cardiology Reports 11/2023

09.11.2023 | Diversity and Health Equity in Cardiology (AE Johnson, Section Editor)

Using Patient Decision Aids for Cardiology Care in Diverse Populations

verfasst von: Ruth Masterson Creber, Natalie Benda, Arnaldo Dimagli, Annie Myers, Stephanie Niño de Rivera, Shalom Omollo, Yashika Sharma, Parag Goyal, Meghan Reading Turchioe

Erschienen in: Current Cardiology Reports | Ausgabe 11/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools that help guide treatment decisions and support shared decision-making when there is equipoise between treatment options. This review focuses on decision aids that are available to support cardiac treatment options for underrepresented groups.

Recent Findings

PDAs have been developed to support multiple treatment decisions in cardiology related to coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, and cholesterol management.

Summary

By considering the unique needs and preferences of diverse populations, PDAs can enhance patient engagement and promote equitable healthcare delivery in cardiology. In this review, we examine the benefits, challenges, and current trends in implementing PDAs, with a focus on improving decision-making processes and outcomes for patients from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. In addition, the article highlights key considerations when implementing PDAs and potential future directions in the field.
Literatur
1.
Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.PubMed
2.
• Turkson-Ocran R-AN, Ogunwole SM, Hines AL, Peterson PN. Shared decision making in cardiovascular patient care to address cardiovascular disease disparities. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e018183. This paper lays the conceptual groundwork for understanding the importance of shared decision-making in cardiovascular care and particularly how it may be used to reduce existing disparities in outcomes. The authors present a framework linking social determinants of health, shared decision-making, and short- and long-term health outcomes, while also defining key constructs to be understood in this work.
3.
Backman WD, Levine SA, Wenger NK, Harold JG. Shared decision-making for older adults with cardiovascular disease. Clin Cardiol. 2020;43:196–204.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Chenel V, Mortenson WB, Guay M, Jutai JW, Auger C. Cultural adaptation and validation of patient decision aids: a scoping review. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:321–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Bazargan M, Cobb S, Assari S. Discrimination and medical mistrust in a racially and ethnically diverse sample of California adults. Ann Fam Med. 2021;19:4–15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Veinot TC, Mitchell H, Ancker JS. Good intentions are not enough: how informatics interventions can worsen inequality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25:1080–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Yen RW, Smith J, Engel J, Muscat DM, Smith SK, Mancini J, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient decision aids for socially disadvantaged populations: update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IDPAS). Med Decis Making. 2021;41:870–96.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Elwyn G, Scholl I, Tietbohl C, Mann M, Edwards AGK, Clay C, et al. “Many miles to go …”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Lloyd A, Joseph-Williams N, Edwards A, Rix A, Elwyn G. Patchy, “coherence”: using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC). Implement Sci. 2013;8:102.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Chung MK, Fagerlin A, Wang PJ, Ajayi TB, Allen LA, Baykaner T, et al. Shared decision making in cardiac electrophysiology procedures and arrhythmia management. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2021;14:e007958.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Alden DL, Friend J, Lee PY, Lee YK, Trevena L, Ng CJ, et al. Who decides: me or we? Family involvement in medical decision making in eastern and western countries. Med Decis Making. 2018;38:14–25.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Durand M-A, Carpenter L, Dolan H, Bravo P, Mann M, Bunn F, et al. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e94670.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Thomas KL, Zimmer LO, Dai D, Al-Khatib SM, Allen LaPointe NM, Peterson ED. Educational videos to reduce racial disparities in ICD therapy via innovative designs (VIVID): a randomized clinical trial. Am Heart J. 2013;166:157–63.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Goyal P, Safford MM, Hilmer SN, Steinman MA, Matlock DD, Maurer MS, et al. N-of-1 trials to facilitate evidence-based deprescribing: rationale and case study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022;88:4460–73.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Doll JA, Jones WS, Lokhnygina Y, Culpepper S, Parks RL, Calhoun C, et al. PREPARED study: a study of shared decision-making for coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12:e005244.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Chhatriwalla AK, Decker C, Gialde E, Catley D, Goggin K, Jaschke K, et al. Developing and testing a personalized, evidence-based, shared decision-making tool for stent selection in percutaneous coronary intervention using a pre-post study design. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12:e005139.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Zhang D, Zhou Y, Liu J, Zhu L, Wu Q, Pan Y, et al. Application of patient decision aids in treatment selection of cardiac surgery patients: a scoping review. Heart Lung. 2022;56:76–85.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Anaya J, Moonsamy P, Sepucha KR, Axtell AL, Ivan S, Milford CE, et al. Pilot study of a patient decision aid for valve choices in surgical aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108:730–6.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Carroll SL, Stacey D, McGillion M, Healey JS, Foster G, Hutchings S, et al. Evaluating the feasibility of conducting a trial using a patient decision aid in implantable cardioverter defibrillator candidates: a randomized controlled feasibility trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2017;3:49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Rao BR, Merchant FM, Howard DH, Matlock D, Dickert NW. Shared decision-making for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: policy goals, metrics, and challenges. J Law Med Ethics. 2021;49:622–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Vig EK, Pearlman RA. Good and bad dying from the perspective of terminally ill men. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:977–81.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Ali-Ahmed F, Matlock D, Zeitler EP, Thomas KL, Haines DE, Al-Khatib SM. Physicians’ perceptions of shared decision-making for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of a physician survey. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019;30:2420–6.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Johnson AE, Bell YK, Hamm ME, Saba SF, Myaskovsky L. A Qualitative analysis of patient-related factors associated with implantable cardioverter defibrillator acceptance. Cardiol Ther. 2020;9:421–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Maddox TM, Song Y, Allen J, Chan PS, Khan A, Lee JJ, et al. Trends in U.S. Ambulatory Cardiovascular Care 2013 to 2017: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;2020(75):93–112.CrossRef
25.
Marzec LN, Wang J, Shah ND, Chan PS, Ting HH, Gosch KL, et al. Influence of direct oral anticoagulants on rates of oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2475–84.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Potpara TS, Mihajlovic M, Zec N, Marinkovic M, Kovacevic V, Simic J, et al. Self-reported treatment burden in patients with atrial fibrillation: quantification, major determinants, and implications for integrated holistic management of the arrhythmia. Europace. 2020;22:1788–97.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Coylewright M, Holmes DR Jr. Caution regarding government-mandated shared decision making for patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2017;135:2211–3.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Kunneman M, Branda ME, Noseworthy PA, Linzer M, Burnett B, Dick S, et al. Shared decision making for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18:443.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Kunneman M, Branda ME, Hargraves IG, Sivly AL, Lee AT, Gorr H, et al. Assessment of shared decision-making for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:1215–24.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Mark DB, Anstrom KJ, Sheng S, Piccini JP, Baloch KN, Monahan KH, et al. Effect of catheter ablation vs medical therapy on quality of life among patients with atrial fibrillation: the CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;321:1275–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
32.
Sultan A, Lüker J, Andresen D, Kuck KH, Hoffmann E, Brachmann J, et al. Predictors of atrial fibrillation recurrence after catheter ablation: data from the German Ablation Registry. Sci Rep. 2017;7:16678.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
34.
Seaburg L, Hess EP, Coylewright M, Ting HH, McLeod CJ, Montori VM. Shared decision making in atrial fibrillation: where we are and where we should be going. Circulation. 2014;129:704–10.PubMedCrossRef
35.
36.
Brodney S, Valentine KD, Sepucha K, Fowler FJ Jr, Barry MJ. Patient preference distribution for use of statin therapy. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e210661.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Bacon E. Racial/ethnic differences in treatment recommendations: lifestyle changes and medication prescriptions for high cholesterol. Ethn Health. 2020;25:273–88.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Goyal P, Mangal S, Krishnaswami A, Rich MW. Polypharmacy in heart failure: progress but also problem. Am J Med. 2021:1071–1073.
39.
Unlu O, Levitan EB, Reshetnyak E, Kneifati-Hayek J, Diaz I, Archambault A, et al. Polypharmacy in older adults hospitalized for heart failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2020;13:e006977.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
Coylewright M, Keevil JG, Xu K, Dodge SE, Frosch D, Field ME. Pragmatic study of clinician use of a personalized patient decision aid integrated into the electronic health record: an 8-year experience. Telemed J E Health. 2020;26:597–602.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Hickey KT, Masterson Creber RM, Reading M, Sciacca RR, Riga TC, Frulla AP, et al. Low health literacy: implications for managing cardiac patients in practice. Nurse Pract. 2018;43:49–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
49.
•• Stacey D, Volk RJ, IPDAS Evidence Update Leads (Hilary Bekker, Karina Dahl Steffensen, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Kirsten McCaffery, Rachel Thompson, Richard Thomson, Lyndal Trevena, Trudy van der Weijden, and Holly Witteman). The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) collaboration: evidence update 2.0. Med Decis Making. 2021;41: 729–733. This paper presents an update by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration, detailing the latest evidence and advancements in patient decision aid standards aimed at improving medical decision-making processes.
50.
51.
Mangal S, Niño de Rivera S, Choi J, Reading Turchioe M, Benda N, Sharko M, et al. Returning study results to research participants: data access, format, and sharing preferences. Int J Med Inform. 2023;170:104955.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Ancker JS, Benda NC, Sharma MM, Johnson SB, Weiner S, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Taxonomies for synthesizing the evidence on communicating numbers in health: goals, format, and structure. Risk Anal. 2022;42:2656–70.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Bonner C, Trevena LJ, Gaissmaier W, Han PKJ, Okan Y, Ozanne E, et al. Current best practice for presenting probabilities in patient decision aids: fundamental principles. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:821–33.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Trevena LJ, Bonner C, Okan Y, Peters E, Gaissmaier W, Han PKJ, et al. Current challenges when using numbers in patient decision aids: advanced concepts. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:834–47.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Barksdale CL, Rodick WH III, Hopson R, Kenyon J, Green K, Jacobs CG. Literature review of the National CLAS Standards: policy and practical implications in reducing health disparities. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2017;4:632–47.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Alden DL, Friend J, Schapira M, Stiggelbout A. Cultural targeting and tailoring of shared decision making technology: a theoretical framework for improving the effectiveness of patient decision aids in culturally diverse groups. Soc Sci Med. 2014;105:1–8.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Uskul AK, Oyserman D. When message-frame fits salient cultural-frame, messages feel more persuasive. Psychol Health. 2010;25:321–37.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55:68–78.PubMedCrossRef
59.
60.
Mischel W, Shoda Y. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol Rev. 1995;102:246–68.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Oyserman D, Sorensen N, Reber R, Chen SX. Connecting and separating mind-sets: culture as situated cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97:217–35.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Kitayama S, Park H, Sevincer AT, Karasawa M, Uskul AK. A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97:236–55.PubMedCrossRef
63.
64.
Muscat DM, Smith J, Mac O, Cadet T, Giguere A, Housten AJ, et al. Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids: an update from the international patient decision aid standards. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:848–69.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
65.
Witteman HO, Maki KG, Vaisson G, Finderup J, Lewis KB, Dahl Steffensen K, et al. Systematic development of patient decision aids: an update from the IPDAS collaboration. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:736–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
66.
Rahn AC, Jull J, Boland L, Finderup J, Loiselle M-C, Smith M, et al. Guidance and/or decision coaching with patient decision aids: scoping reviews to inform the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Med Decis Making. 2021;41:938–53.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Hargraves IG, Fournier AK, Montori VM, Bierman AS. Generalized shared decision making approaches and patient problems. Adapting AHRQ’s SHARE Approach for Purposeful SDM. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103:2192–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
69.
Zeballos-Palacios C, LeBlanc A, Hess EP, Tilburt J, Wyatt K, Boehmer K, et al. Case study: interventions to create better conversations at the Mayo Clinic. Oxford University Press; 2016.
Metadaten
Titel
Using Patient Decision Aids for Cardiology Care in Diverse Populations
verfasst von
Ruth Masterson Creber
Natalie Benda
Arnaldo Dimagli
Annie Myers
Stephanie Niño de Rivera
Shalom Omollo
Yashika Sharma
Parag Goyal
Meghan Reading Turchioe
Publikationsdatum
09.11.2023
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Current Cardiology Reports / Ausgabe 11/2023
Print ISSN: 1523-3782
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-3170
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-023-01953-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2023

Current Cardiology Reports 11/2023 Zur Ausgabe

Valvular Heart Disease (TL Kiefer, Section Editor)

TAVR in TAVR: Where Are We in 2023 for Management of Failed TAVR Valves?

Echocardiography (JM Gardin and AH Waller, Section Editors)

Contrast Echocardiography for Assessing Myocardial Perfusion

Diversity and Health Equity in Cardiology (AE Johnson, Section Editor)

Preventing Heart Failure Readmission in Patients with Low Socioeconomic Position

Invasive Electrophysiology and Pacing (EK Heist, Section Editor)

Long-Term Remote vs. Conventional Monitoring of Pacemakers: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Hypertension (DS Geller and DL Cohen, Section Editors)

Congenital Cyanotic Heart Disease and the Association with Pheochromocytomas and Paragangliomas

Cardiometabolic Disease (DM and CV) (CJ Lavie, Section Editor)

Obesity, Cardiorespiratory Fitness, and Cardiovascular Disease

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

Nach Herzinfarkt mit Typ-1-Diabetes schlechtere Karten als mit Typ 2?

29.05.2024 Herzinfarkt Nachrichten

Bei Menschen mit Typ-2-Diabetes sind die Chancen, einen Myokardinfarkt zu überleben, in den letzten 15 Jahren deutlich gestiegen – nicht jedoch bei Betroffenen mit Typ 1.

Erhöhtes Risiko fürs Herz unter Checkpointhemmer-Therapie

28.05.2024 Nebenwirkungen der Krebstherapie Nachrichten

Kardiotoxische Nebenwirkungen einer Therapie mit Immuncheckpointhemmern mögen selten sein – wenn sie aber auftreten, wird es für Patienten oft lebensgefährlich. Voruntersuchung und Monitoring sind daher obligat.

GLP-1-Agonisten können Fortschreiten diabetischer Retinopathie begünstigen

24.05.2024 Diabetische Retinopathie Nachrichten

Möglicherweise hängt es von der Art der Diabetesmedikamente ab, wie hoch das Risiko der Betroffenen ist, dass sich sehkraftgefährdende Komplikationen verschlimmern.

TAVI versus Klappenchirurgie: Neue Vergleichsstudie sorgt für Erstaunen

21.05.2024 TAVI Nachrichten

Bei schwerer Aortenstenose und obstruktiver KHK empfehlen die Leitlinien derzeit eine chirurgische Kombi-Behandlung aus Klappenersatz plus Bypass-OP. Diese Empfehlung wird allerdings jetzt durch eine aktuelle Studie infrage gestellt – mit überraschender Deutlichkeit.

Update Kardiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen