The Use and Impact of a Decision Support Tool for Appendicitis Treatment.

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Annals of surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-25 DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000006412
Joshua E Rosen, Sarah E Monsell, Sara C DePaoli, Erin C Fannon, Johnathan E Kohler, Caroline E Reinke, Lillian S Kao, Ryan B Fransman, Jonah J Stulberg, Michael B Shapiro, Deepika Nehra, Pauline K Park, Sabrina E Sanchez, Katherine N Fischkoff, Giana H Davidson, David R Flum
{"title":"The Use and Impact of a Decision Support Tool for Appendicitis Treatment.","authors":"Joshua E Rosen, Sarah E Monsell, Sara C DePaoli, Erin C Fannon, Johnathan E Kohler, Caroline E Reinke, Lillian S Kao, Ryan B Fransman, Jonah J Stulberg, Michael B Shapiro, Deepika Nehra, Pauline K Park, Sabrina E Sanchez, Katherine N Fischkoff, Giana H Davidson, David R Flum","doi":"10.1097/SLA.0000000000006412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Since introducing new and alternative treatment options may increase decisional conflict, we aimed to describe the use of the decision support tool (DST) and its impact on treatment preference and decisional conflict.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy, with both approaches associated with a different set of risks (eg, recurrence vs surgical complications) and benefits (eg, more rapid return to work vs decreased chance of readmission). Patients often have limited knowledge of these treatment options, and DSTs that include video-based educational materials and questions to elicit patient preferences about outcomes may be helpful. Concurrent with the Comparing Outcomes of Drugs and Appendectomy trials, our group developed a DST for appendicitis treatment ( www.appyornot.org ).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort including people who self-reported current appendicitis and used the AppyOrNot DST between 2021 and 2023. Treatment preferences before and after the use of the DST, demographic information, and Ottawa Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) were reported after completing the DST.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 8243 people from 66 countries and all 50 U.S. states accessed the DST. Before the DST, 14% had a strong preference for antibiotics and 31% for appendectomy, with 55% undecided. After using the DST, the proportion in the undecided category decreased to 49% ( P < 0.0001). Of those who completed the Ottawa Decisional Conflict Score (DCS; n = 356), 52% reported the lowest level of decisional conflict (<25) after using the DST; 43% had a DCS score of 25 to 50, 5.1% had a DCS score of >50 and 2.5% had and DCS score of >75.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The publicly available DST appyornot.org reduced the proportion that was undecided about which treatment they favored and had a modest influence on those with strong treatment preferences. Decisional conflict was not common after use. The use of this DST is now a component of a nationwide implementation program aimed at improving the way surgeons share information about appendicitis treatment options. If its use can be successfully implemented, this may be a model for improving communication about treatment for patients experiencing emergency health conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":8017,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006412","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Since introducing new and alternative treatment options may increase decisional conflict, we aimed to describe the use of the decision support tool (DST) and its impact on treatment preference and decisional conflict.

Background: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy, with both approaches associated with a different set of risks (eg, recurrence vs surgical complications) and benefits (eg, more rapid return to work vs decreased chance of readmission). Patients often have limited knowledge of these treatment options, and DSTs that include video-based educational materials and questions to elicit patient preferences about outcomes may be helpful. Concurrent with the Comparing Outcomes of Drugs and Appendectomy trials, our group developed a DST for appendicitis treatment ( www.appyornot.org ).

Methods: A retrospective cohort including people who self-reported current appendicitis and used the AppyOrNot DST between 2021 and 2023. Treatment preferences before and after the use of the DST, demographic information, and Ottawa Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) were reported after completing the DST.

Results: A total of 8243 people from 66 countries and all 50 U.S. states accessed the DST. Before the DST, 14% had a strong preference for antibiotics and 31% for appendectomy, with 55% undecided. After using the DST, the proportion in the undecided category decreased to 49% ( P < 0.0001). Of those who completed the Ottawa Decisional Conflict Score (DCS; n = 356), 52% reported the lowest level of decisional conflict (<25) after using the DST; 43% had a DCS score of 25 to 50, 5.1% had a DCS score of >50 and 2.5% had and DCS score of >75.

Conclusions: The publicly available DST appyornot.org reduced the proportion that was undecided about which treatment they favored and had a modest influence on those with strong treatment preferences. Decisional conflict was not common after use. The use of this DST is now a component of a nationwide implementation program aimed at improving the way surgeons share information about appendicitis treatment options. If its use can be successfully implemented, this may be a model for improving communication about treatment for patients experiencing emergency health conditions.

阑尾炎治疗决策支持工具的使用和影响。
目的:由于引入新的和可供选择的治疗方案可能会增加决策冲突:由于引入新的替代治疗方案可能会增加决策冲突,我们旨在描述决策支持工具(DST)的使用情况及其对治疗偏好和决策冲突的影响:对于阑尾炎的治疗,抗生素是阑尾切除术的有效替代方案,两种方法都有不同的风险(如复发与手术并发症)和益处(如更快恢复工作与减少再次入院的机会)。患者对这些治疗方案的了解往往有限,因此决策支持工具(包括基于视频的教育材料和问题,以征求患者对治疗结果的偏好)可能会有所帮助。在进行药物与阑尾切除术结果比较(CODA)试验的同时,我们的研究小组开发了阑尾炎治疗 DST (www.appyornot.org):回顾性队列包括在 2021-2023 年间自述患有阑尾炎并使用 AppyOrNot DST 的人群。结果:来自 66 个国家的 8243 人使用了 AppyOrNot DST:来自 66 个国家和美国 50 个州的 8,243 人使用了 DST。在使用 DST 之前,14% 的人强烈倾向于使用抗生素,31% 的人倾向于阑尾切除术,55% 的人未做出决定。使用 DST 后,未决定类别的比例降至 49%(P50,2.5% 的人 DCS 得分大于 75):可公开获取的 DST appyornot.org 减少了对治疗方法犹豫不决的比例,并对治疗偏好强烈的人群产生了一定的影响。使用后,决策冲突并不常见。目前,该 DST 的使用已成为一项全国性实施计划的组成部分,该计划旨在改善外科医生分享阑尾炎治疗方案信息的方式。如果能够成功实施,这将成为改善急诊患者治疗沟通的典范。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of surgery
Annals of surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
4.40%
发文量
687
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Surgery is a renowned surgery journal, recognized globally for its extensive scholarly references. It serves as a valuable resource for the international medical community by disseminating knowledge regarding important developments in surgical science and practice. Surgeons regularly turn to the Annals of Surgery to stay updated on innovative practices and techniques. The journal also offers special editorial features such as "Advances in Surgical Technique," offering timely coverage of ongoing clinical issues. Additionally, the journal publishes monthly review articles that address the latest concerns in surgical practice.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信