Dataset Information

Informed shared decision-making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To evaluate an informed shared decision-making programme (ISDM-P) for people with type 2 diabetes under high fidelity conditions. DESIGN:Randomised, single-blinded trial with sham control intervention and follow-up of 6 months. SETTING:Single-centre diabetes clinic providing care according to the national disease management programme in Germany. PARTICIPANTS:154 people with type 2 diabetes without diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease or stroke. INTERVENTIONS:The ISDM-P is executed by diabetes educators. Core component is a patient decision aid on the prevention of myocardial infarction supplemented by a 90 min group teaching session. The structurally equivalent control intervention addresses stress issues. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome was risk comprehension, including realistic expectations about benefits and harms of interventions. It was assessed by a 12-item questionnaire after the teaching session when patients set and prioritise their treatment goals. Key secondary outcome was adherence to treatment goals, operationalised as achievement of individual goals and medication uptake. ISDM-P teaching sessions were video-taped to monitor intervention fidelity. RESULTS:72 of 77 ISDM-P and 71 of 77 control patients completed the questionnaire (score 0-12). ISDM-P patients achieved higher levels of risk comprehension, mean score 8.25 vs 2.62, difference 5.63 (95% CI 4.82 to 6.44), and realistic expectations (score 0-6), 4.51 vs 0.85, 3.67 (3.23 to 4.11). More ISDM-P patients wished to take statins, 59.2% vs 30.4%, 28.7% (12.9% to 44.5%); more prioritised blood pressure control, 51.4% vs 25.7%, and fewer intensive glucose control, 33.3% vs 60%, p=0.002. More ISDM-P patients achieved their glycated haemoglobin goals, 95.8% vs 85.7%, 10.1% (0.6% to 19.5%). Achievement of prioritised goals and medication uptake were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS:The ISDM-P on preventive measures in type 2 diabetes was effective under high fidelity conditions. Involvement of diabetes educators may facilitate implementation of the informed shared decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN84636255.

SUBMITTER: Buhse S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4654390 | biostudies-other | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Informed shared decision-making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

Buhse Susanne S Mühlhauser Ingrid I Heller Tabitha T Kuniss Nadine N Müller Ulrich Alfons UA Kasper Jürgen J Lehmann Thomas T Lenz Matthias M

BMJ open 20151113 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate an informed shared decision-making programme (ISDM-P) for people with type 2 diabetes under high fidelity conditions.<h4>Design</h4>Randomised, single-blinded trial with sham control intervention and follow-up of 6 months.<h4>Setting</h4>Single-centre diabetes clinic providing care according to the national disease management programme in Germany.<h4>Participants</h4>154 people with type 2 diabetes without diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease or stroke.<h4>Intervent ...[more]

PMID: 26567256

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To translate an informed shared decision-making programme (ISDM-P) for patients with type 2 diabetes from a specialised diabetes centre to the primary care setting. DESIGN:Patient-blinded, two-arm multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial of 6 months follow-up; concealed randomisation of practices after patient recruitment and acquisition of baseline data. SETTING:22 general practices providing care according to the German Disease Management Programme (DMP) for type 2 diabetes. PARTICIPANTS:279 of 363 eligible patients without myocardial infarction or stroke. INTERVENTIONS:The ISDM-P comprises a patient decision aid, a corresponding group teaching session provided by medical assistants and a structured patient-physician encounter.Control group received standard DMP care. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary endpoint was patient adherence to antihypertensive or statin drug therapy by comparing prescriptions and patient-reported uptake after 6 months. Secondary endpoints included informed choice, risk knowledge (score 0-11 from 11 questions) and prioritised treatment goals of patients and doctors. RESULTS:ISDM-P: 11 practices with 151 patients; standard care: 11 practices with 128 patients; attrition rate: 3.9%. There was no difference between groups regarding the primary endpoint. Mean drug adherence rates were high for both groups (80% for antihypertensive and 91% for statin treatment). More ISDM-P patients made informed choices regarding statin intake, 34% vs 3%, OR 16.6 (95% CI 4.4 to 63.0), blood pressure control, 39% vs 3%, OR 22.2 (95% CI 5.3 to 93.3) and glycated?haemoglobin, 43% vs 3%, OR 26.0 (95% CI 6.5 to 104.8). ISDM-P patients achieved higher levels of risk knowledge, with a mean score of 6.96 vs 2.86, difference 4.06 (95% CI 2.96 to 5.17). In the ISDM-P group, agreement on prioritised treatment goals between patients and doctors was higher, with 88.5% vs 57%. CONCLUSIONS:The ISDM-P was successfully implemented in general practices. Adherence to medication was very high making improvements hardly detectable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN77300204; Results.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain is a common and disabling condition leading to large health service and societal costs. Although there are several treatment options for back pain little is known about how to improve patient choice in treatment selection. The purpose of this study was to pilot a decision support package to help people choose between low back pain treatments.MethodsThis was a single-centred pilot cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in a community physiotherapy service. We included adults with non-specific low back pain referred for physiotherapy. Intervention participants were sent an information booklet prior to their first consultation. Intervention physiotherapists were trained to enhance their skills in shared informed decision making. Those in the control arm received care as usual. The primary outcome was satisfaction with the treatment received at four months using a five-point Likert Scale dichotomised into "satisfaction" (very satisfied or somewhat satisfied) and "non-satisfaction" (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).ResultsWe recruited 148 participants. In the control arm 67% of participants were satisfied with their treatment and in the intervention arm 53%. The adjusted relative risk of being satisfied was 1.28 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 2.09). For most secondary outcomes the trend was towards worse outcomes in the intervention group. For one measure; the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, this difference was clinically important (2.27, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 4.47). Mean healthcare costs were slightly lower (£38 saving per patient) within the intervention arm but health outcomes were also less favourable (0.02 fewer QALYs); the estimated probability that the intervention would be cost-effective at an incremental threshold of £20,000 per QALY was 16%.ConclusionWe did not find that this decision support package improved satisfaction with treatment; it may have had a substantial negative effect on clinical outcome, and is very unlikely to prove cost-effective. That a decision support package might have a clinically important detrimental effect is of concern. To our knowledge this has not been observed previously. Decision support packages should be formally tested for clinical and cost-effectiveness, and safety before implementation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN46035546 registered on 11/02/10.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Intensive lifestyle change (e.g., the Diabetes Prevention Program) and metformin reduce type 2 diabetes risk among patients with prediabetes. However, real-world uptake remains low. Shared decision-making (SDM) may increase awareness and help patients select and follow through with informed options for diabetes prevention that are aligned with their preferences. OBJECTIVE:To test the effectiveness of a prediabetes SDM intervention. DESIGN:Cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Twenty primary care clinics within a large regional health system. PARTICIPANTS:Overweight/obese adults with prediabetes (BMI???24 kg/m2 and HbA1c 5.7-6.4%) were enrolled from 10 SDM intervention clinics. Propensity score matching was used to identify control patients from 10 usual care clinics. INTERVENTION:Intervention clinic patients were invited to participate in a face-to-face SDM visit with a pharmacist who used a decision aid (DA) to describe prediabetes and four possible options for diabetes prevention: DPP, DPP ± metformin, metformin only, or usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Primary endpoint was uptake of DPP (??9 sessions), metformin, or both strategies at 4 months. Secondary endpoint was weight change (lbs.) at 12 months. RESULTS:Uptake of DPP and/or metformin was higher among SDM participants (n =?351) than controls receiving usual care (n =?1028; 38% vs. 2%, p <?.001). At 12-month follow-up, adjusted weight loss (lbs.) was greater among SDM participants than controls (-?5.3 vs. -?0.2, p?<?.001). LIMITATIONS:Absence of DPP supplier participation data for matched patients in usual care clinics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:A prediabetes SDM intervention led by pharmacists increased patient engagement in evidence-based options for diabetes prevention and was associated with significantly greater uptake of DPP and/or metformin at 4 months and weight loss at 12 months. Prediabetes SDM may be a promising approach to enhance prevention efforts among patients at increased risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was registered at clinicaltrails.gov (NCT02384109)).

Project description:Background Oral anticoagulation reduces stroke and disability in atrial fibrillation (AF) but is underused. We evaluated the effects of a novel patient-clinician shared decision-making (SDM) tool in reducing oral anticoagulation patient's decisional conflict as compared with usual care. Methods and Results We designed and evaluated a new digital decision aid in a multicenter, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial, ENHANCE-AF (Engaging Patients to Help Achieve Increased Patient Choice and Engagement for AF Stroke Prevention). The digital AF shared decision-making toolkit was developed using patient-centered design with clear health communication principles (eg, meaningful images, limited text). Available in English and Spanish, the toolkit included the following: (1) a brief animated video; (2) interactive questions with answers; (3) a quiz to check on understanding; (4) a worksheet to be used by the patient during the encounter; and (5) an online guide for clinicians. The study population included English or Spanish speakers with nonvalvular AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc stroke score ≥1 for men or ≥2 for women. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either usual care or the shared decision-making toolkit. The primary end point was the validated 16-item Decision Conflict Scale at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included Decision Conflict Scale at 6 months and the 10-item Decision Regret Scale at 1 and 6 months as well as a weighted average of Mann-Whitney U-statistics for both the Decision Conflict Scale and the Decision Regret Scale. A total of 1001 participants were enrolled and followed at 5 different sites in the United States between December 18, 2019, and August 17, 2022. The mean patient age was 69±10 years (40% women, 16.9% Black, 4.5% Hispanic, 3.6% Asian), and 50% of participants had CHA2DS2-VASc scores ≥3 (men) or ≥4 (women). The primary end point at 1 month showed a clinically meaningful reduction in decisional conflict: a 7-point difference in median scores between the 2 arms (16.4 versus 9.4; Mann-Whitney U-statistics=0.550; P=0.007). For the secondary end point of 1-month Decision Regret Scale, the difference in median scores between arms was 5 points in the direction of less decisional regret (P=0.078). The treatment effects lessened over time: at 6 months the difference in medians was 4.7 points for Decision Conflict Scale (P=0.060) and 0 points for Decision Regret Scale (P=0.35). Conclusions Implementation of a novel shared decision-making toolkit (afibguide.com; afibguide.com/clinician) achieved significantly lower decisional conflict compared with usual care in patients with AF. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04096781.

Project description:The aims of this study were to investigate the role of the veterinarian characteristics (e.g., age, gender, self-estimation, use of the internet), and their attitudes concerning animal owners seeking self-information. A particular focus was laid on any association between shared decision making (SDM), age and gender. In an online survey, 527 German veterinarians were asked about their attitude regarding SDM principles and their experiences with self-informed animal owners. The factors associated with veterinarians' perception of SDM were investigated in a multivariable linear regression model. A recently published structural equation model consolidated the application of SDM, empathic behavior, and veterinarians' evaluation of self-education as latent factors. Interconnected questionnaire items were processed using an exploratory factor analysis to 11 interpretable factors. Veterinarians who assumed therapy failure was associated with themselves had significantly higher rates of SDM (p = 0.002). In contrast, SDM was significantly lower (p = 0.002) if they assumed that therapy failure was due to the animal's owners. SDM was negatively associated with the perceived quality of the pet owners' self-information (p < 0.001) and if skepticism was perceived as the reason for seeking the self-information (p = 0.001). Veterinarians who advised against self-information (p = 0.006) and those who assumed that self-information of animal owners goes along with uncertainty (p = 0.001) had low SDM values (p = 0.006). Asking the animal owner for self-information (p = 0.001), and recommendations of good information sources (p = 0.022) were positively associated with SDM. Looking at the influence of age and gender on the application of SDM, older people and males rated higher. However, the evaluation of the latent factor SDM was based on the self-estimation of the participants. Assuming that younger women were less self-confident, we cannot exclude that young female participants self-evaluated their SDM skills lower than older male participants, although both groups would objectively have the same SDM level. Practitioners who have a positive attitude toward animal owners, who enjoy contact with animal owners and welcome their interest in further (self-)information, show empathic behavior, and have a positive attitude toward SDM are more likely to have better veterinarian-animal owner-relationships.

Project description:Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common ongoing health problem that places patients at risk of stroke. Whether and how a patient addresses this risk depends on each patient's goals, context, and values. Consequently, leading cardiovascular societies recommend using shared decision making (SDM) to individualize antithrombotic treatment in patients with AF. The aim of this study is to assess the extent to which the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool promotes high-quality SDM and influences anticoagulation uptake and adherence in patients with AF at risk of strokes.This study protocol describes a multicenter, encounter-level, randomized trial to assess the effect of using the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool in the clinical encounter, compared to usual care. The participating centers include an academic hospital system, a suburban community group practice, and an urban safety net hospital, all in Minnesota, USA. Patients with ongoing nonvalvular AF at risk of strokes (CHA2DS2-VASc score???1 in men, or???2 in women) will be eligible for participation. We aim to include 999 patients and their clinicians. The primary outcome is the quality of SDM as perceived by participants, and as assessed by a post-encounter survey that ascertains (a) knowledge transfer, (b) concordance of the decision made, (c) quality of communication, and (d) satisfaction with the decision-making process. Recordings of encounters will be reviewed to assess the extent of patient involvement and how participants use the tool (fidelity). Anticoagulant use, choice of agent, and adherence will be drawn from patients' medical and pharmacy records. Strokes and bleeding events will be drawn from patient records.This study will provide a valid and precise measure of the effect of the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool on SDM quality and processes, and on the treatment choices and adherence to therapy among AF patients at risk of stroke.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02905032 . Registered on 9 September 2016.

Project description:ImportanceShared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which the use of an SDM tool affects the quality of SDM and anticoagulant treatment decisions in at-risk patients with AF.Design, setting, and participantsThis encounter-randomized trial recruited patients with nonvalvular AF who were considering starting or reviewing anticoagulant treatment and their clinicians at academic, community, and safety-net medical centers between January 30, 2017 and June 27, 2019. Encounters were randomized to either the standard care arm or care that included the use of an SDM tool (intervention arm). Data were analyzed from August 1 to November 30, 2019.InterventionsStandard care or care using the Anticoagulation Choice Shared Decision Making tool (which presents individualized risk estimates and compares anticoagulant treatment options across issues of importance to patients) during the clinical encounter.Main outcomes and measuresQuality of SDM (which included quality of communication, patient knowledge about AF and anticoagulant treatment, accuracy of patient estimates of their own stroke risk [within 30% of their estimate], decisional conflict, and satisfaction), decisions made during the encounter, duration of the encounter, and clinician involvement of patients in the SDM process.ResultsThe clinical trial enrolled 922 patients (559 men [60.6%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [11] years) and 244 clinicians. A total of 463 patients were randomized to the intervention arm and 459 patients to the standard care arm. Participants in both arms reported high communication quality, high knowledge, and low decisional conflict, demonstrated low accuracy in their risk perception, and would similarly recommend the approach used in their encounter. Clinicians were significantly more satisfied after intervention encounters (400 of 453 encounters [88.3%] vs 277 of 448 encounters [61.8%]; adjusted relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.42-1.53). A total of 747 of 873 patients (85.6%) chose to start or continue receiving an anticoagulant medication. Patient involvement in decision-making (as assessed through video recordings of the encounters using the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-item scale) scores were significantly higher in the intervention arm (mean [SD] score, 33.0 [10.8] points vs 29.1 [13.1] points, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 4.2 points; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6 points). No significant between-arm difference was found in encounter duration (mean [SD] duration, 32 [16] minutes in the intervention arm vs 31 [17] minutes in the standard care arm; adjusted mean between-arm difference, 1.1; 95% CI, -0.3 to 2.5 minutes).Conclusion and relevanceThe use of an SDM encounter tool improved several measures of SDM quality and clinician satisfaction, with no significant effect on treatment decisions or encounter duration. These results help to calibrate expectations about the value of implementing SDM tools in the care of patients with AF.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

Project description:IntroductionSocioeconomic disparities for breast cancer surgical care exist. Although the aetiology of the observed socioeconomic disparities is likely multifactorial, patient engagement during the surgical consult is critical. Shared decision-making may reduce health disparities by addressing barriers to patient engagement in decision-making that disproportionately impact socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. In this trial, we test the impact of a decision aid on increasing socioeconomically disadvantaged patients' engagement in breast cancer surgery decision-making.Methods and analysisThis multisite randomised trial is conducted through 10 surgical clinics within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). We plan a stepped-wedge design with clinics randomised to the time of transition from usual care to the decision aid arm. Study participants are female patients, aged ≥18 years, with newly diagnosed stage 0-III breast cancer who are planning breast surgery. Data collection includes a baseline surgeon survey, baseline patient survey, audio-recording of the surgeon-patient consultation, a follow-up patient survey and medical record data review. Interviews and focus groups are conducted with a subset of patients, surgeons and clinic stakeholders. The effectiveness of the decision aid at increasing patient engagement (primary outcome) is evaluated using generalised linear mixed-effects models. The extent to which the effect of the decision aid intervention on patient engagement is mediated through the mitigation of barriers is tested in joint linear structural equation models. Qualitative interviews explore how barriers impact engagement, especially for socioeconomically disadvantaged women.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol has been approved by the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review Board, and Certificate of Confidentiality has been obtained. We plan to disseminate the findings through journal publications and national meetings, including the NCORP network. Our findings will advance the science of medical decision-making with the potential to reduce socioeconomic health disparities.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03766009).

Dataset Information

Informed shared decision-making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Informed shared decision-making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets