Shared decision making requires a shift in attitudes at all levels but can become part of routine practice with the right support, say Natalie Joseph-Williams and colleagues

Objective: To determine the efficacy of a computerised decision aid in patients with atrial fibrillation making decisions on whether to take warfarin or aspirin therapy. Design: Two-armed open exploratory randomised controlled trial. Setting: Two research clinics deriving participants from general practices in Northeast England. Participants: 109 patients with atrial fibrillation aged over 60. Interventions: Computerised decision aid applied in shared decision-making clinic compared to evidencebased paper guidelines applied as direct advice. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome measure was the decision conflict scale. Secondary outcome measures included anxiety, knowledge, decision-making preference, treatment decision, use of primary and secondary care services and health outcomes. Results: Decision conflict was lower in the computerised decision aid group immediately after the clinic; mean difference 20.18 (95% CI 20.34 to 20.01). Participants in this group not already on warfarin were much less likely to start warfarin than those in the guidelines arm (4/16, 25% compared to the guidelines group 15/16, 93.8%, RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.63). Conclusions: Decision conflict was lower immediately following the use of a computerised decision aid in a shared decision-making consultation than immediately following direct doctor-led advice based on paper guidelines. Furthermore, participants in the computerised decision aid group were significantly much less likely to start warfarin than those in the guidelines arm. The results show that such an approach has a positive impact on decision conflict comparable to other studies of decision aids, but also reduces the uptake of a clinically effective treatment that may have important implications for health outcomes.

No abstract

BackgroundHepatitis C viral (HCV) infection is a significant public health problem. In the UK, an estimated 200,000 individuals have active HCV infection, most of whom are injecting drug users (IDUs). Many IDUs spend time within the prison system therefore screening for HCV infection in this setting is important. However, uptake of testing within prisons is very low.MethodsQualitative interview study. 30 interviews with 25 male and 5 female prisoners with a history of injecting drug use.ResultsPersonal and institutional barriers to uptake of testing for HCV were identified. Personal barriers included: prisoners' fears and lack of knowledge about HCV, low motivation for testing, lack of awareness about the testing procedure, and concerns about confidentiality and stigma. Institutional barriers included: the prisons' applications procedure for testing, inadequate pre- and post-test discussion, lack of pro-active approaches to offering testing, and lack of continuity of care on discharge and transfer.ConclusionThis study highlights potential areas of development in the management of HCV in prisons. Further research is needed to evaluate care pathways for HCV in the prison setting and to develop and assess interventions to improve the uptake of testing for HCV by prisoners.

BackgroundIn emergency research, obtaining informed consent can be problematic. Research to develop and improve treatments for patients admitted to hospital with life-threatening and debilitating conditions is much needed yet the issue of research without consent (RWC) raises concerns about unethical practices and the loss of individual autonomy. Consistent with the policy and practice turn towards greater patient and public involvement in health care decisions, in the US, Canada and EU, guidelines and legislation implemented to protect patients and facilitate acute research with adults who are unable to give consent have been developed with little involvement of the lay public. This paper reviews research examining public opinion regarding RWC for research in emergency situations, and whether the rules and regulations permitting research of this kind are in accordance with the views of those who ultimately may be the most affected.MethodsSeven electronic databases were searched: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Philosopher's Index, Age Info, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science. Only those articles pertaining to the views of the public in the US, Canada and EU member states were included. Opinion pieces and those not published in English were excluded.ResultsConsidering the wealth of literature on the perspectives of professionals, there was relatively little information about public attitudes. Twelve studies employing a range of research methods were identified. In five of the six questionnaire surveys around half the sample did not agree generally with RWC, though paradoxically, a higher percentage would personally take part in such a study. Unfortunately most of the studies were not designed to investigate individuals' views in any depth. There also appears to be a level of mistrust of medical research and some patients were more likely to accept an experimental treatment 'outside' of a research protocol.ConclusionThere are too few data to evaluate whether the rules and regulations permitting RWC protects – or is acceptable to – the public. However, any attempts to engage the public should take place in the context of findings from further basic research to attend to the apparently paradoxical findings of some of the current surveys.