Dataset Information

Use of online safety decision aid by abused women: effect on decisional conflict in a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: An Internet safety decision aid was developed to help abused women understand their risk for repeat and near-lethal intimate partner violence, clarify priorities related to safety, and develop an action plan customized to these priorities.To test the effectiveness of a safety decision aid compared with usual safety planning (control) delivered through a secure website, using a multistate RCT design. The paper evaluates the effectiveness of the safety decision aid in reducing decisional conflict after a single use by abused women.RCT referred to as Internet Resource for Intervention and Safety (IRIS).Abused women who spoke English (n=708) were enrolled in a four-state RCT.The intervention was an interactive safety decision aid with personalized safety plan; the control condition was usual safety planning resources. Both were delivered to participants through the secure study website.This paper compares women's decisional conflict about safety: total decisional conflict and the four subscales of this measure (feeling: uninformed, uncertain, unsupported, and unclear about safety priorities) between intervention/control conditions. Data were collected from March 2011 to May 2013 and analyzed from January to March 2014.Immediately following the first use of the interactive safety decision aid, intervention women had significantly lower total decisional conflict than control women, controlling for baseline value of decisional conflict (p=0.002, effect size=0.12). After controlling for baseline values, the safety decision aid group had significantly greater reduction in feeling uncertain (p=0.006, effect size=0.07) and in feeling unsupported (p=0.008, effect size=0.07) about safety than the usual safety planning group.Abused women randomized to the safety decision aid reported less decisional conflict about their safety in the abusive intimate relationship after one use compared to women randomized to the usual safety planning condition.

SUBMITTER: Eden KB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4380709 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of online safety decision aid by abused women: effect on decisional conflict in a randomized controlled trial.

Eden Karen B KB Perrin Nancy A NA Hanson Ginger C GC Messing Jill T JT Bloom Tina L TL Campbell Jacquelyn C JC Gielen Andrea C AC Clough Amber S AS Barnes-Hoyt Jamie S JS Glass Nancy E NE

American journal of preventive medicine 20141226 4

<h4>Background</h4>An Internet safety decision aid was developed to help abused women understand their risk for repeat and near-lethal intimate partner violence, clarify priorities related to safety, and develop an action plan customized to these priorities.<h4>Purpose</h4>To test the effectiveness of a safety decision aid compared with usual safety planning (control) delivered through a secure website, using a multistate RCT design. The paper evaluates the effectiveness of the safety decision a ...[more]

PMID: 25547929

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeople with moderate to severe depression in pregnancy must weigh potential risks of untreated or incompletely treated depression against the small, but uncertain risks of fetal antidepressant drug exposure. Clinical support alone appears insufficient for helping individuals with this complex decision. A patient decision aid (PDA) has the potential to be a useful tool for this population. The objective of our work was to use internationally recognized guidelines from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration to develop an evidence-based PDA for antidepressant use in pregnancy.MethodsA three-phased development process was used whereby, informed by patient and physician perspectives and evidence synthesis, a steering committee commissioned a web-based PDA for those deciding whether or not to start or continue antidepressant treatment for depression in pregnancy (Phase 1). A prototype was developed (Phase 2) and iteratively revised based on feedback during field testing based on a user-centred process (Phase 3).ResultsWe developed a web-based PDA for people deciding whether to start or continue antidepressant use for depression in pregnancy. It has five interactive sections: (1) information on depression and treatment; (2) reasons to start/continue an antidepressant and to start/stop antidepressant medication; (3) user assessment of values regarding each issue; (4) opportunity to reflect on factors that contribute to decision making; and (5) a printable PDF that summarizes the user's journey through the PDA.ConclusionsThis tool, which exclusively focuses on depression treatment with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Serotonin-Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors, can be used by individuals making decisions about antidepressant use to treat depression during pregnancy. Limitations of the PDA are that it is not for other conditions, nor other medications that can be used for depression, and in its pilot form cannot be used by women who do not speak English or who have a visual impairment. Pending further study, it has the potential to enhance quality of care and patient experience.

Project description:Background. While nerve and tendon transfer surgery can restore upper extremity function and independence after midcervical spinal cord injury, few individuals (∼14%) undergo surgery. There is limited information regarding these complex and time-sensitive treatment options. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) convey complex health information and help individuals make informed, preference-consistent choices. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a newly created PtDA for people with spinal cord injury who are considering options to optimize upper extremity function. Methods. The PtDA was developed by our multidisciplinary group based on clinical evidence and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. A prospective pilot study enrolled adults with midcervical spinal cord injury to evaluate the PtDA. Participants completed surveys about knowledge and decisional conflict before and after viewing the PtDA. Acceptability measures and suggestions for further improvement were also solicited. Results. Forty-two individuals were enrolled and completed study procedures. Participants had a 20% increase in knowledge after using the PtDA (P < 0.001). The number of participants experiencing decisional conflict decreased after viewing the PtDA (33 v. 18, P = 0.001). Acceptability was high. To improve the PtDA, participants suggested adding details about specific surgeries and outcomes. Limitations. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we used an entirely virtual study methodology and recruited participants from national networks and organizations. Most participants were older than the general population with a new spinal cord injury and may have different injury causes than typical surgical candidates. Conclusions. A de novo PtDA improved knowledge of treatment options and reduced decisional conflict about reconstructive surgery among people with cervical spinal cord injury. Future work should explore PtDA use for improving knowledge and decisional conflict in the nonresearch, clinical setting.HighlightsPeople with cervical spinal cord injury prioritize gaining upper extremity function after injury, but few individuals receive information about treatment options.A newly created patient decision aid (PtDA) provides information about recovery after spinal cord injury and the role of traditional tendon and newer nerve transfer surgery to improve upper extremity upper extremity function.The PtDA improved knowledge and decreased decisional conflict in this pilot study.Future work should focus on studying dissemination and implementation of the ptDA into clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundCompeting health concerns present real obstacles to people living with diabetes and other chronic diseases as well as to their primary care providers. Guideline implementation interventions rarely acknowledge this, leaving both patients and providers feeling overwhelmed by the volume of recommended actions. Interprofessional (IP) shared decision-making (SDM) with the use of decision aids may help to set treatment priorities. We developed an evidence-based SDM intervention for patients with diabetes and other conditions that was framed by the IP-SDM model and followed a user-centered approach. Our objective in the present study is to pilot an IP-SDM and goal-setting toolkit following the Knowledge-to-Action Framework to assess (1) intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger trial and (2) impact on decisional conflict, diabetes distress, health-related quality of life and patient assessment of chronic illness care.Methods/designA two-step, parallel-group, clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted, with the primary goal being to assess intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger RCT. The first step is a provider-directed implementation only; the second (after a 6-month delay) involves both provider- and patient-directed implementation. Half of the clusters will be assigned to receive the IP-SDM toolkit, and the other will be assigned to be mailed a diabetes guidelines summary. Individual interviews with patients, their family members and health care providers will be conducted upon trial completion to explore toolkit use. A secondary purpose of this trial is to gather estimates of the toolkit's impact on decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes include diabetes distress, quality of life and chronic illness care, which will be assessed on the basis of patient-completed questionnaires of validated scales at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Multilevel hierarchical regression models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data.DiscussionAn individualized approach to patients with multiple chronic conditions using SDM and goal setting is a desirable strategy for achieving guideline-concordant treatment in a patient-centered fashion. Our pilot trial will provide insights regarding strategies for the routine implementation of such interventions in clinical practice, and it will offer an assessment of the impact of this approach.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: 11 February 2015.

Project description:BackgroundBoth patients and surrogate decision-makers experience decisional conflict when making a major medical treatment decision with life or death implications. The relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict while making a major medical treatment decision is not understood.ObjectiveTo identify the prevalence of individuals making major medical treatment decisions for themselves or someone else and to explore the relationships between decisional conflict and circumstances of the decision as well as the decision-maker.DesignTwo-phase survey study: in phase 1, we screened for who made a major treatment decision; in phase 2, we asked eligible respondents about their experience making the decision.ParticipantsAddress-based random sample of 4000 Wisconsin residents; 1072 completed phase 1 and 464 completed phase 2.Main measuresWe asked respondents about types of decisions made, the most difficult decision made, and characteristics of the decision-maker and the decision. We included the Decisional Conflict Scale and four domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. Open-ended questions also allowed respondents to describe their experiences.Key resultsAbout 43% of respondents reported making a major medical treatment decision. Decisions about major surgery and life support were regarded as the most difficult decisions. Respondents who made the decision for a spouse/partner (β = 6.65, p = 0.012), parent (β = 9.27, p < 0.001), or someone else (β = 10.7, p < 0.001) had higher decisional conflict. Respondents who reported higher ability to actively engage with healthcare providers (β = - 5.24, p = 0.002) and to understand health information well enough to know what to do (β = - 6.12, p = 0.001) had lower decisional conflict.ConclusionsThe need to make major treatment decisions is likely to increase and making decisions on someone else's behalf appeared to be especially difficult. Improving communication to encourage patient and family engagement in the decision-making conversation, particularly for individuals with limited health literacy, may be helpful.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a human rights violation and leading health burden for women. Safety planning is a hallmark of specialist family violence intervention, yet only a small proportion of women access formal services. A Web-based safety decision aid may reach a wide audience of women experiencing IPV and offer the opportunity to prioritize and plan for safety for themselves and their families. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of a Web-based safety decision aid (isafe) for women experiencing IPV. METHODS:We conducted a fully automated Web-based two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) in a general population of New Zealand women who had experienced IPV in the past 6 months. Computer-generated randomization was based on a minimization scheme with stratification by severity of violence and children. Women were randomly assigned to the password-protected intervention website (safety priority setting, danger assessment, and tailored action plan components) or control website (standard, nonindividualized information). Primary endpoints were self-reported mental health (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Revised, CESD-R) and IPV exposure (Severity of Violence Against Women Scale, SVAWS) at 12-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. RESULTS:Women were recruited from September 2012 to September 2014. Participants were aged between 16 and 60 years, 27% (111/412) self-identified as Māori (indigenous New Zealand), and 51% (210/412) reported at baseline that they were unsure of their future plans for their partner relationship. Among the 412 women recruited, retention at 12 months was 87%. The adjusted estimated intervention effect for SVAWS was -12.44 (95% CI -23.35 to -1.54) for Māori and 0.76 (95% CI -5.57 to 7.09) for non-Māori. The adjusted intervention effect for CESD-R was -7.75 (95% CI -15.57 to 0.07) for Māori and 1.36 (-3.16 to 5.88) for non-Māori. No study-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS:The interactive, individualized Web-based isafe decision aid was effective in reducing IPV exposure limited to indigenous Māori women. Discovery of a treatment effect in a population group that experiences significant health disparities is a welcome, important finding. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000708853; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12612000708853 (Archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation/61MGuVXdK).

Dataset Information

Use of online safety decision aid by abused women: effect on decisional conflict in a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Use of online safety decision aid by abused women: effect on decisional conflict in a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets