9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of Integrating Machine Learning Mortality Estimates With Behavioral Nudges to Clinicians on Serious Illness Conversations Among Patients With Cancer : A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What is the effect of delivering machine learning mortality predictions with behavioral nudges to oncology clinicians on the rate of serious illness conversations with patients with cancer?

          Findings

          In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial that included 14 607 patients with cancer, the intervention led to a significant increase in serious illness conversations from approximately 1% to 5% of all patient encounters and from approximately 4% to 15% of encounters with patients having high predicted mortality risk.

          Meaning

          Machine learning mortality predictions combined with behavioral nudges to clinicians led to an increased rate of serious illness conversations for patients with cancer.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Serious illness conversations (SICs) are structured conversations between clinicians and patients about prognosis, treatment goals, and end-of-life preferences. Interventions that increase the rate of SICs between oncology clinicians and patients may improve goal-concordant care and patient outcomes.

          Objective

          To determine the effect of a clinician-directed intervention integrating machine learning mortality predictions with behavioral nudges on motivating clinician-patient SICs.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted across 20 weeks (from June 17 to November 1, 2019) at 9 medical oncology clinics (8 subspecialty oncology and 1 general oncology clinics) within a large academic health system in Pennsylvania. Clinicians at the 2 smallest subspecialty clinics were grouped together, resulting in 8 clinic groups randomly assigned to the 4 intervention wedge periods. Included participants in the intention-to-treat analyses were 78 oncology clinicians who received SIC training and their patients (N = 14 607) who had an outpatient oncology encounter during the study period.

          Interventions

          (1) Weekly emails to oncology clinicians with SIC performance feedback and peer comparisons; (2) a list of up to 6 high-risk patients (≥10% predicted risk of 180-day mortality) scheduled for the next week, estimated using a validated machine learning algorithm; and (3) opt-out text message prompts to clinicians on the patient’s appointment day to consider an SIC. Clinicians in the control group received usual care consisting of weekly emails with cumulative SIC performance.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Percentage of patient encounters with an SIC in the intervention group vs the usual care (control) group.

          Results

          The sample consisted of 78 clinicians and 14 607 patients. The mean (SD) age of patients was 61.9 (14.2) years, 53.7% were female, and 70.4% were White. For all encounters, SICs were conducted among 1.3% in the control group and 4.6% in the intervention group, a significant difference (adjusted difference in percentage points, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.3-4.5; P < .001). Among 4124 high-risk patient encounters, SICs were conducted among 3.6% in the control group and 15.2% in the intervention group, a significant difference (adjusted difference in percentage points, 11.6; 95% CI, 8.2-12.5; P < .001).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial, an intervention that delivered machine learning mortality predictions with behavioral nudges to oncology clinicians significantly increased the rate of SICs among all patients and among patients with high mortality risk who were targeted by the intervention. Behavioral nudges combined with machine learning mortality predictions can positively influence clinician behavior and may be applied more broadly to improve care near the end of life.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984773

          Abstract

          This stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial assesses the effect of a clinician-directed intervention combining machine learning mortality predictions with behavioral nudges vs usual care on motivating serious illness conversations between clinicians and patients with cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Book: not found

          An Introduction to the Bootstrap

          Statistics is a subject of many uses and surprisingly few effective practitioners. The traditional road to statistical knowledge is blocked, for most, by a formidable wall of mathematics. The approach in An Introduction to the Bootstrap avoids that wall. It arms scientists and engineers, as well as statisticians, with the computational techniques they need to analyze and understand complicated data sets.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Bootstrap methods and their application

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment.

              Talking about death can be difficult. Without evidence that end-of-life discussions improve patient outcomes, physicians must balance their desire to honor patient autonomy against a concern of inflicting psychological harm. To determine whether end-of-life discussions with physicians are associated with fewer aggressive interventions. A US multisite, prospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients with advanced cancer and their informal caregivers (n = 332 dyads), September 2002-February 2008. Patients were followed up from enrollment to death, a median of 4.4 months later. Bereaved caregivers' psychiatric illness and quality of life was assessed a median of 6.5 months later. Aggressive medical care (eg, ventilation, resuscitation) and hospice in the final week of life. Secondary outcomes included patients' mental health and caregivers' bereavement adjustment. One hundred twenty-three of 332 (37.0%) patients reported having end-of-life discussions before baseline. Such discussions were not associated with higher rates of major depressive disorder (8.3% vs 5.8%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-3.32), or more worry (mean McGill score, 6.5 vs 7.0; P = .19). After propensity-score weighted adjustment, end-of-life discussions were associated with lower rates of ventilation (1.6% vs 11.0%; adjusted OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83), resuscitation (0.8% vs 6.7%; adjusted OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.80), ICU admission (4.1% vs 12.4%; adjusted OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90), and earlier hospice enrollment (65.6% vs 44.5%; adjusted OR, 1.65;95% CI, 1.04-2.63). In adjusted analyses, more aggressive medical care was associated with worse patient quality of life (6.4 vs 4.6; F = 3.61, P = .01) and higher risk of major depressive disorder in bereaved caregivers (adjusted OR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.12-10.13), whereas longer hospice stays were associated with better patient quality of life (mean score, 5.6 vs 6.9; F = 3.70, P = .01). Better patient quality of life was associated with better caregiver quality of life at follow-up (beta = .20; P = .001). End-of-life discussions are associated with less aggressive medical care near death and earlier hospice referrals. Aggressive care is associated with worse patient quality of life and worse bereavement adjustment.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Oncol
                JAMA Oncol
                JAMA Oncol
                JAMA Oncology
                American Medical Association
                2374-2437
                2374-2445
                15 October 2020
                December 2020
                15 October 2020
                : 6
                : 12
                : e204759
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
                [2 ]Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [3 ]Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [4 ]Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                [5 ]Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [6 ]Penn Medicine Nudge Unit, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                [7 ]University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: July 28, 2020.
                Published Online: October 15, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4759
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Manz CR et al. JAMA Oncology.
                Corresponding Author: Christopher R. Manz, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Avenue, 11th Floor, Boston, MA 02215 ( christopher_manz@ 123456dfci.harvard.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Manz and Parikh had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Manz and Parikh contributed equally to this work and are co–first authors.
                Concept and design: Manz, Parikh, Small, Chivers, Regli, Hanson, O’Connor, Schuchter, Shulman, Patel.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Manz, Parikh, Small, Evans, Chivers, Bekelman, Rareshide, O’Connor, Shulman, Patel.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Manz, Parikh, Evans, Bekelman.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Manz, Parikh, Small, Chivers, Regli, Hanson, Bekelman, Rareshide, O’Connor, Schuchter, Shulman, Patel.
                Statistical analysis: Manz, Parikh, Small, Chivers, Rareshide.
                Obtained funding: Manz, Parikh.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Parikh, Evans, Chivers, Regli, O’Connor, Shulman, Patel.
                Supervision: Parikh, Regli, Hanson, O’Connor, Schuchter, Shulman, Patel.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Parikh reported receiving personal fees from GNS Healthcare and the Cancer Study Group and grants from Penn Center for Precision Medicine and the MUSC Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center in Precision Medicine and Minority Men’s Health, and grants and nonfinancial support from the Conquer Cancer Foundation outside the submitted work. Dr Bekelman reported receiving personal fees from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Optum, CVS Health, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and UnitedHealthcare and grants from Pfizer, North Carolina Blue Cross Blue Shield, Embedded Healthcare, and UnitedHealth Group outside the submitted work. Dr Patel reported being an advisory board member of and receiving stock options from Life.io and personal fees from Catalyst Health LLC, HealthMine Services, and Holistic Industries outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was funded by the Penn Center for Precision Medicine Accelerator Fund (to Drs Manz and Parikh), award T32 GM075766-14 to Dr Manz from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the University of Pennsylvania Health System through the Penn Medicine Nudge Unit.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Meeting Presentation: This paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology; May 29, 2020; virtual; and at the Annual Research Meeting of the Academy Health; July 28, 2020; virtual.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.
                Additional Contributions: Peter E. Gabriel, MD, MSE, Penn Medicine, provided assistance with database curation; and Jennifer Braun, MHA, BSN, Penn Medicine, provided guidance on interpretation. Neither person receive financial compensation for their contributions.
                Article
                coi200077
                10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4759
                7563672
                33057696
                d9a8dc56-ca55-450d-b121-7d89209fdf9a
                Copyright 2020 Manz CR et al. JAMA Oncology.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 2 June 2020
                : 28 July 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Penn Center for Precision Medicine Accelerator Fund
                Funded by: National Institute of General Medical Science
                Funded by: University of Pennsylvania Health System
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online First
                Online Only
                Comments

                Comments

                Comment on this article