Dataset Information

The effect of a decision aid intervention on decision making about coronary heart disease risk reduction: secondary analyses of a randomized trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Decision aids offer promise as a practical solution to improve patient decision making about coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention medications and help patients choose medications to which they are likely to adhere. However, little data is available on decision aids designed to promote adherence.

Methods

In this paper, we report on secondary analyses of a randomized trial of a CHD adherence intervention (second generation decision aid plus tailored messages) versus usual care in an effort to understand how the decision aid facilitates adherence. We focus on data collected from the primary study visit, when intervention participants presented 45 minutes early to a previously scheduled provider visit; viewed the decision aid, indicating their intent for CHD risk reduction after each decision aid component (individualized risk assessment and education, values clarification, and coaching); and filled out a post-decision aid survey assessing their knowledge, perceived risk, decisional conflict, and intent for CHD risk reduction. Control participants did not present early and received usual care from their provider. Following the provider visit, participants in both groups completed post-visit surveys assessing the number and quality of CHD discussions with their provider, their intent for CHD risk reduction, and their feelings about the decision aid.

Results

We enrolled 160 patients into our study (81 intervention, 79 control). Within the decision aid group, the decision aid significantly increased knowledge of effective CHD prevention strategies (+21 percentage points; adjusted p<.0001) and the accuracy of perceived CHD risk (+33 percentage points; adjusted p<.0001), and significantly decreased decisional conflict (-0.63; adjusted p<.0001). Comparing between study groups, the decision aid also significantly increased CHD prevention discussions with providers (+31 percentage points; adjusted p<.0001) and improved perceptions of some features of patient-provider interactions. Further, it increased participants' intentions for any effective CHD risk reducing strategies (+21 percentage points; 95% CI 5 to 37 percentage points), with a majority of the effect from the educational component of the decision aid. Ninety-nine percent of participants found the decision aid easy to understand and 93% felt it easy to use.

Conclusions

Decision aids can play an important role in improving decisions about CHD prevention and increasing patient-provider discussions and intent to reduce CHD risk.

SUBMITTER: Sheridan SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3943405 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of a decision aid intervention on decision making about coronary heart disease risk reduction: secondary analyses of a randomized trial.

Sheridan Stacey L SL Draeger Lindy B LB Pignone Michael P MP Rimer Barbara B Bangdiwala Shrikant I SI Cai Jianwen J Gizlice Ziya Z Keyserling Thomas C TC Simpson Ross J RJ

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20140228

<h4>Background</h4>Decision aids offer promise as a practical solution to improve patient decision making about coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention medications and help patients choose medications to which they are likely to adhere. However, little data is available on decision aids designed to promote adherence.<h4>Methods</h4>In this paper, we report on secondary analyses of a randomized trial of a CHD adherence intervention (second generation decision aid plus tailored messages) versus us ...[more]

PMID: 24575882

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundShared decision making (SDM) is a widely recommended yet unproven strategy for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. Previous trials of decision aids to increase SDM and CRC screening uptake have yielded mixed results.PurposeTo assess the impact of decision aid-assisted SDM on CRC screening uptake.DesignRCT.Setting/participantsThe study was conducted at an urban, academic safety-net hospital and community health center between 2005 and 2010. Participants were asymptomatic, average-risk patients aged 50-75 years due for CRC screening.InterventionStudy participants (n=825) were randomized to one of two intervention arms (decision aid plus personalized risk assessment or decision aid alone) or control arm. The interventions took place just prior to a routine office visit with their primary care providers.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was completion of a CRC screening test within 12 months of the study visit. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of test completion and mediators of the intervention effect. Analysis was completed in 2011.ResultsPatients in the decision-aid group were more likely to complete a screening test than control patients (43.1% vs 34.8%, p=0.046) within 12 months of the study visit; conversely, test uptake for the decision aid and decision aid plus personalized risk assessment arms was similar (43.1% vs 37.1%, p=0.15). Assignment to the decision-aid arm (AOR=1.48, 95% CI=1.04, 2.10), black race (AOR=1.52, 95% CI=1.12, 2.06) and a preference for a patient-dominant decision-making approach (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.02, 2.35) were independent determinants of test completion. Activation of the screening discussion and enhanced screening intentions mediated the intervention effect.ConclusionsDecision aid-assisted SDM has a modest impact on CRC screening uptake. A decision aid plus personalized risk assessment tool is no more effective than a decision aid alone.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.govNCT00251862.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians face challenges in promoting colorectal cancer screening due to multiple competing demands. A decision aid that clarifies patient preferences and improves decision quality can aid shared decision making and be effective at increasing colorectal cancer screening rates. However, exactly how such an intervention improves shared decision making is unclear. This study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, seeks to provide detailed understanding of how an interactive decision aid that elicits patient's risks and preferences impacts patient-clinician communication and shared decision making, and ultimately colorectal cancer screening adherence.Methods/designThis is a two-armed single-blinded randomized controlled trial with the target of 300 patients per arm. The setting is eleven community and three academic primary care practices in Metro Detroit. Patients are men and women aged between 50 and 75 years who are not up to date on colorectal cancer screening. ColoDATES Web (intervention arm), a decision aid that incorporates interactive personal risk assessment and preference clarification tools, is compared to a non-interactive website that matches ColoDATES Web in content but does not contain interactive tools (control arm). Primary outcomes are patient uptake of colorectal cancer screening; patient decision quality (knowledge, preference clarification, intent); clinician's degree of shared decision making; and patient-clinician concordance in the screening test chosen. Secondary outcome incorporates a Structural Equation Modeling approach to understand the mechanism of the causal pathway and test the validity of the proposed conceptual model based on Theory of Planned Behavior. Clinicians and those performing the analysis are blinded to arms.DiscussionThe central hypothesis is that ColoDATES Web will improve colorectal cancer screening adherence through improvement in patient behavioral factors, shared decision making between the patient and the clinician, and concordance between the patient's and clinician's preferred colorectal cancer screening test. The results of this study will be among the first to examine the effect of a real-time preference assessment exercise on colorectal cancer screening and mediators, and, in doing so, will shed light on the patient-clinician communication and shared decision making 'black box' that currently exists between the delivery of decision aids to patients and subsequent patient behavior.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01514786.

Project description:AimsCoronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) has emerged as a non-invasive diagnostic method for patients with suspected coronary artery disease, but its usefulness in patients with complex coronary artery disease remains to be investigated. The present study sought to determine the agreement between separate heart teams on treatment decision-making based on either coronary CTA or conventional angiography.Methods and resultsSeparate heart teams composed of an interventional cardiologist, a cardiac surgeon, and a radiologist were randomized to assess the coronary artery disease with either coronary CTA or conventional angiography in patients with de novo left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease. Each heart team, blinded for the other imaging modality, quantified the anatomical complexity using the SYNTAX score and integrated clinical information using the SYNTAX Score II to provide a treatment recommendations based on mortality prediction at 4 years: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or equipoise between CABG and PCI. The primary endpoint was the agreement between heart teams on the revascularization strategy. The secondary endpoint was the impact of fractional flow reserve derived from coronary CTA (FFRCT) on treatment decision and procedural planning. Overall, 223 patients were included. A treatment recommendation of CABG was made in 28% of the cases with coronary CTA and in 26% with conventional angiography. The agreement concerning treatment decision between coronary CTA and conventional angiography was high (Cohen's kappa 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.91). The heart teams agreed on the coronary segments to be revascularized in 80% of the cases. FFRCT was available for 869/1108 lesions (196/223 patients). Fractional flow reserve derived from coronary CTA changed the treatment decision in 7% of the patients.ConclusionIn patients with left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease, a heart team treatment decision-making based on coronary CTA showed high agreement with the decision derived from conventional coronary angiography suggesting the potential feasibility of a treatment decision-making and planning based solely on this non-invasive imaging modality and clinical information.Trial registration numberNCT02813473.

Project description:ImportanceTubal sterilization is common, especially among individuals with low income. There is substantial misunderstanding about sterilization among those who have undergone the procedure, suggesting suboptimal decision-making about a method that permanently ends reproductive capacity.ObjectiveTo test the efficacy of a web-based decision aid for improving tubal sterilization decision quality.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial conducted between March 2020 and November 2023 included English- or Spanish-speaking pregnant cisgender women aged 21 to 45 years who had Medicaid insurance and were contemplating tubal sterilization after delivery. Participants were recruited from outpatient obstetric clinics in 3 US cities.InterventionParticipants were randomized 1:1 to usual care (control arm) or to usual care plus a web-based decision aid (MyDecision/MiDecisión) (intervention arm). The aid includes written, audio, and video information about tubal sterilization procedures; an interactive table comparing contraceptive options; values-clarifying exercises; knowledge checks; and a summary report.Main outcomes and measuresThe co-primary outcomes were tubal sterilization knowledge and decisional conflict regarding the contraceptive decision. Knowledge was measured as the percentage of correct responses to 10 true-false items. Decisional conflict was measured using the low-literacy Decision Conflict Scale, with lower scores on a range from 0 to 100 indicating less conflict.ResultsAmong the 350 participants, mean (SD) age was 29.7 (5.1) years. Compared with the usual care group, participants randomized to the decision aid had significantly higher tubal sterilization knowledge (mean [SD] proportion of questions answered correctly, 76.5% [16.9%] vs 55.6% [22.6%]; P < .001) and lower decisional conflict scores (mean [SD], 12.7 [16.6] vs 18.7 [20.8] points; P = .002). The greatest knowledge differences between the 2 groups were for items about permanence, with more participants in the intervention arm answering correctly that tubal sterilization is not easily reversible (90.1% vs 39.3%; odds ratio [OR], 14.2 [95% CI, 7.9-25.4]; P < .001) and that the tubes do not spontaneously "come untied" (86.6% vs 33.7%; OR, 13.0 [95% CI, 7.6-22.4]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceMyDecision/MiDecisión significantly improved tubal sterilization decision-making quality compared with usual care only. This scalable decision aid can be implemented into clinical practice to supplement practitioner counseling. These results are particularly important given the recent increase in demand for permanent contraception after the US Supreme Court decision overturning federal abortion protections.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04097717.

Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions.MethodsWe evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM.ResultsA total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P < 0.001, d = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge.ConclusionsThe Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention).Trial registrationANZCTR376477.HighlightsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.

Dataset Information

The effect of a decision aid intervention on decision making about coronary heart disease risk reduction: secondary analyses of a randomized trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The effect of a decision aid intervention on decision making about coronary heart disease risk reduction: secondary analyses of a randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets