Impact of Cost Conversations During Clinical Encounters Aided by Shared Decision-Making Tools on Medication Adherence

Nataly R Espinoza Suarez; Meritxell Urtecho; Christina M LaVecchia; Karen M Fischer; Celia C Kamath; Juan P Brito

doi:10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2022.05.005

Impact of Cost Conversations During Clinical Encounters Aided by Shared Decision-Making Tools on Medication Adherence

Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2022 Jun 25;6(4):320-326. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2022.05.005. eCollection 2022 Aug.

Authors

Nataly R Espinoza Suarez^{1

2}, Meritxell Urtecho¹, Christina M LaVecchia¹, Karen M Fischer³, Celia C Kamath^{1

4

5}, Juan P Brito^{1

6}

Affiliations

¹ Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
² VITAM-Centre for Sustainable Health Research, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
³ Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
⁴ Division of Health Care Delivery and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
⁵ Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
⁶ Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the impact of cost conversations occurring with or without the use of encounter shared decision-making (SDM) tools in medication adherence.

Patients and methods: Using a coding scheme that included the occurrence and characteristics of cost conversation, we analyzed a randomly selected sample of 169 video recordings of clinical encounters. These videos were obtained during the conduct of practice-based randomized clinical trials comparing care with and without SDM tools for patients with diabetes, osteoporosis, and depression. Medication adherence was described in 2 ways: as a binary (yes/no) outcome, in which the patient met at least 80% adherence, or as a continuous variable, which was the percent of days that the patient adhered to their medication. The secondary analysis took place in 2018 from trials that ran between 2007 and 2015.

Results: Most patients were White (155, 93.4%), educated (104, 63.4% completed college), middle-aged (mean age, 58 years), female (104, 61.5%), and from diabetes (86, 50.9%), depression (43, 25.4%), and osteoporosis (40, 23.7%) trials. Cost conversations occurred in 119 clinical encounters (70%) and were more frequent in those encounters in which SDM tools were used (P=.03). Furthermore, 97 (57.4%) of the participants reported more than 80% medication adherence and 70.3±29.34 percentage of days with adherent medication of 70 days. In the multiple regression model, the only factor associated with adherence (binary or continuous) was the condition of the trial in which people participated. For the participants who had cost conversations, the use of an SDM tool, their sex, the nature of cost conversation (direct or indirect), the nature of cost concerns (treatment or patient issue), and the clinician-offered strategies (yes or no) were not associated with adherence.

Conclusion: In this videographic analysis of SDM practice-based clinical trials, cost conversations were not associated with the general measures of medication adherence. Future studies should assess whether a tailored cost conversation intervention would impact the cost-related nonadherence among patients.

Keywords: SDM, shared decision-making.