scholarly journals A childhood immunization education program for parents delivered during late pregnancy and one-month postpartum: a randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroko Otsuka-Ono ◽  
Narumi Hori ◽  
Hiroshi Ohta ◽  
Yukari Uemura ◽  
Kiyoko Kamibeppu
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Education Program ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Immunization Rates

Abstract Background Improved immunization rates have reduced the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) in advanced nations. Japan’s unique vaccination system classifies vaccines into routine vaccines ostensibly required under the Preventive Vaccination Law and recommended but optional vaccines, although all vaccines are in fact voluntary. In Japan, low immunization rates, particularly for optional vaccines, have resulted in high rates of sequelae and death. The decision as to whether a child will receive a vaccine depends on the parents, who must obtain information, make inquiries, and make the required payment, the last of which is a major barrier. This randomized, controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of an immunization education program designed to meet mothers’ needs. Methods This randomized controlled trial assigned pregnant women to intervention or control groups. The intervention was individual education sessions involving the children’s fathers in shared decision-making on whether or not to immunize their child. A survey was conducted before and after the intervention. Data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle. Results Of 225 pregnant women, 175 (78%) participated and 171 replied to the post-survey. At age 3 months, intervention infants had higher self-reported immunization rates for hepatitis B virus vaccine (76% vs. 49%; P < 0.001) and rotavirus vaccine (84% vs. 68%; P = 0.019) than control group infants. The percentage of parents intending to vaccinate their infants was higher in the intervention group (77% vs. 52%; P < 0.01). Improvements in scores for basic knowledge (mean [SD]: 5.5 [3.6] vs. 3.0 [3.8], range: 10–30; P < 0.001), advanced knowledge (mean [SD]: 5.1 [2.4] vs. 2.8 [2.5], range: 5–15; P < 0.001), and health literacy regarding immunization (mean [SD]: 0.5 [0.8] vs. 0.2 [0.6], range: 1–5; P < 0.01) were higher in the intervention group. The rate of decision making by both parents (68% vs. 52%; P < 0.05) was higher in the intervention group. Conclusions Our findings confirmed the program’s effectiveness. The intervention improved immunization rates, the percentage of parents intending to vaccinate their infants and knowledge scores. Interventions which directly and indirectly involved fathers in shared decision-making on whether to immunize their child were effective, as were individualized interventions that provided parents with access to up-to-date information. Trial registration UMIN000012575. Registered 14 December 2013 (The study was prospectively registered).

scholarly journals A Simple Goal Elicitation Tool Improves Shared Decision Making in Outpatient Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 766-773
Author(s):  
Kevin Mertz ◽  
Romil F. Shah ◽  
Sara L. Eppler ◽  
Jeffrey Yao ◽  
Marc Safran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Introduction. Shared decision making involves educating the patient, eliciting their goals, and collaborating on a decision for treatment. Goal elicitation is challenging for physicians as previous research has shown that patients do not bring up their goals on their own. Failure to properly elicit patient goals leads to increased patient misconceptions and decisional conflict. We performed a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a simple goal elicitation tool in improving patient involvement in decision making. Methods. We conducted a randomized, single-blind study of new patients presenting to a single, outpatient surgical center. Prior to their consultation, the intervention group received a demographics questionnaire and a goal elicitation worksheet. The control group received a demographics questionnaire only. After the consultation, both groups were asked to complete the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS) survey. We compared the mean PICS scores for the intervention and control groups using a nonparametric Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test. Secondary analysis included a qualitative content analysis of the patient goals. Results. Our final cohort consisted of 96 patients (46 intervention, 50 control). Both groups were similar in terms of demographic composition. The intervention group had a significantly higher mean (SD) PICS score compared to the control group (9.04 [2.15] v. 7.54 [2.27], P < 0.01). Thirty-nine percent of patient goals were focused on receiving a diagnosis or treatment, while 21% of patients wanted to receive education regarding their illness or their treatment options. Discussion. A single-step goal elicitation tool was effective in improving patient-perceived involvement in their care. This tool can be efficiently implemented in both academic and nonacademic settings.

scholarly journals Efficacy of a Peer-Led, Recovery-Oriented Shared Decision-Making System: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 68 (12) ◽  
pp. 1307-1311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sosei Yamaguchi ◽  
Ayano Taneda ◽  
Asami Matsunaga ◽  
Natsuki Sasaki ◽  
Masashi Mizuno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
System A ◽  
Decision Making System ◽  
Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Structured shared decision-making using dialogue and visualization: A randomized controlled trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
George M.A. Westermann ◽  
Fop Verheij ◽  
Bjorn Winkens ◽  
Frank C. Verhulst ◽  
Floor V.A. Van Oort
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Integrating shared decision making into primary care: Lessons learned from a multi-centre feasibility randomized controlled trial (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Yu ◽  
Farid Medleg ◽  
Dorothy Choi ◽  
Catherine M Spagnuolo ◽  
Lakmini Pinnaduwage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Primary Care Clinics ◽  
Randomized Controlled

BACKGROUND We previously developed MyDiabetesPlan, an evidence-based, online, interactive patient decision-aid to facilitate patient-centred, diabetes-specific goal-setting and action-planning, using shared decision making (SDM) with interprofessional (IP) healthcare teams. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of (1) integrating MyDiabetesPlan into routine workflows in IP primary care clinics, and (2) conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS We conducted a pilot cluster-RCT in 10 IP primary care clinics with patients living with diabetes and 2+ other comorbidities; half of the clinics were assigned to the MyDiabetesPlan intervention and the remainder were assigned to usual care. For Objective 1, we used RCT conduct logs and financial account summaries to assess recruitment, retention metrics, and resource use. For Objective 2, we used RCT conduct logs and website usage logs to assess intervention fidelity and resource usage. We used audiotapes of clinical encounters in the intervention groups to identify barriers and facilitators to integration of MyDiabetesPlan into clinical care across the IP team. RESULTS Objective 1: 1597 potentially eligible patients were identified through electronic medical record-based searches, of which 1113 patients met eligibility criteria upon detailed chart review. A total of 425 patients were randomly selected; of these, 213 were able to participate and were allocated (intervention: n=102; control: n=111), for a recruitment rate of 50.1%. 151 patients completed the study, for a retention rate of 70.9%. A total of 5745 personnel-hours and $6104 CAD were attributed to recruitment and retention activities. Objective 2: A total of 179 appointments occurred (out of a total of 204 expected appointments - 2 per participant over the 12-month study period; 87.7%). Forty (36%), 25 (23%) and 32 (29%) patients completed MyDiabetesPlan at least twice, once, and zero times respectively. Mean time for completion of MyDiabetesPlan by the clinician and the patient during initial appointments was 37 minutes. From the clinical encounter transcripts, we identified diverse strategies used by health care providers and patients to integrate MyDiabetesPlan into the appointment, characterized by rapport-building and individualization. Barriers to use included MyDiabetesPlan-related factors (e.g. limited selection of potential diabetes management strategies), clinician-related factors (e.g. discomfort with asking certain questions), and patient-related factors (e.g. computer literacy). CONCLUSIONS We evaluated the feasibility of an IPSDM approach using decision aids to help establish treatment priorities in patients with diabetes and found that it would be feasible. A total of 151 (70.9%) patients were retained for 12 months, which required 38 personnel hours and $40.42 CAD per participant who completed the study. Lower than expected numbers of diabetes-specific appointments were observed, and only 39% of patients completed MyDiabetesPlan twice. Addressing facilitators and barriers identified in this study will improve feasibility and promote more complete and seamless integration into clinical care. CLINICALTRIAL Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078 Date of Registration: February 11, 2015

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document