scholarly journals Impact of an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes on decisional conflict – study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine H. Yu ◽  
Noah M. Ivers ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Jeremy Rezmovitz ◽  
Deanna Telner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Goal Setting ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patients With Diabetes

A randomized controlled trial of a self-administered, online decision-aid (“Navya Patient Preference Tool”) to reduce decisional conflict in women with early breast cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7033-7033
Author(s):  
Shalaka P Joshi ◽  
Lakshmi Ramarajan ◽  
Ojas Deshpande ◽  
Elizabeth Fernandes ◽  
Vaibhav Vanmali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Medical Encounter ◽  
Randomized Controlled

7033 Background: Shared decision making to confront choices with clinical equipoise, has been the privilege of those patients with access to time intensive consults with oncologists. We conducted a randomized controlled trial for breast cancer patients to use an online, self-administered, out-of-the-medical-encounter decision aid (DA) to choose between breast conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy. Methods: Navya Patient Preference Tool (Navya PPT) is a multilingual DA based on adaptive conjoint analysis of tradeoffs between cost, adverse effects of radiation, and breast conservation. Prior analysis established high internal reliability and external validity of the Navya PPT. Eligible cT1/2, cN0 breast cancer patients planned for surgery were block randomized, in 1:1:1 ratio, to receive the research questionnaire (RQ) to measure decisional conflict on choice of surgery (control, arm 1), Navya PPT followed by RQ (experimental, arm 2) or Navya PPT followed by RQ administered with key male family member (experimental, arm 3). Groups were stratified with respect to age, socio-economic status (SES) and educational level. The study was powered to detect a decrease in Decisional Conflict Index (DCI) by 0.25 (β-0.8, two sided α- 0.01). Results: Between June 2017 and December 2019, 247/255 patients were randomized to arm 1 (83), arm 2 (84), and arm 3 (80). Median age was 48 years (IQR 23-76), and median pT size was .5 cm (0.5-6 cm). 59% of patients were middle or lower SES and 46.2% had ≤ 12th grade education. DCI was significantly reduced in arm 2 as compared with arm 1 (1.34 vs. 1.65, Cohen’s d 0.49 (± 0.31) p<0.05) as well as in arm 3 as compared with arm 1 (1.30 vs. 1.65, Cohen’s d 0.54 (± 0.31) p<0.05). 80% (± 6%) of patients underwent surgery of choice as determined by Navya PPT. BCS rate was similar in all three arms (85.2, 88.9 and 86.5% respectively (p=0.779). Conclusions: Online, self-administered, adaptive DAs used out of the medical encounter can reduce decisional conflict and increase access to shared decision making for every patient; especially in practices with low doctor to patient ratios. Clinical trial information: IEC/0116/1619/001 .

scholarly journals Integrating shared decision-making into primary care: lessons learned from a multi-centre feasibility randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine H. Yu ◽  
Farid Medleg ◽  
Dorothy Choi ◽  
Catherine M. Spagnuolo ◽  
Lakmini Pinnaduwage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Primary Care Clinics ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background MyDiabetesPlan is a web-based, interactive patient decision aid that facilitates patient-centred, diabetes-specific, goal-setting and shared decision-making (SDM) with interprofessional health care teams. Objective Assess the feasibility of (1) conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) and (2) integrating MyDiabetesPlan into interprofessional primary care clinics. Methods We conducted a cluster RCT in 10 interprofessional primary care clinics with patients living with diabetes and at least two other comorbidities; half of the clinics were assigned to MyDiabetesPlan and half were assigned to usual care. To assess recruitment, retention, and resource use, we used RCT conduct logs and financial account summaries. To assess intervention fidelity, we used RCT conduct logs and website usage logs. To identify barriers and facilitators to integration of MyDiabetesPlan into clinical care across the IP team, we used audiotapes of clinical encounters in the intervention groups. Results One thousand five hundred and ninety-seven potentially eligible patients were identified through searches of electronic medical records, of which 1113 patients met the 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%. One hundred and fifty-one 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. A total of 179 appointments occurred (out of 204 expected appointments—two 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 min. From the clinical encounter transcripts, we identified diverse strategies used by clinicians and patients to integrate MyDiabetesPlan into the appointment, characterized by rapport building and individualization. Barriers to use included clinician-related, patient-related, and technical factors. Conclusion An interprofessional approach to SDM using a decision aid was feasible. Lower than expected numbers of diabetes-specific appointments and use of MyDiabetesPlan were observed. Addressing facilitators and barriers identified in this study will promote more seamless integration into clinical care. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: February 11, 2015. Protocol version: Version 1; February 26, 2015.

P646Effects of personalized therapy-effect predictions on statin treatment decisions by patients and physicians: a three-armed, blinded, randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N E M Jaspers ◽  
F L J Visseren ◽  
Y Van Der Graaf ◽  
O C Damman ◽  
Y M Smulders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
P Value ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cvd Risk ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Abstract Background Several online tools express an individual's therapy-benefit for various cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention strategies. The benefit can be expressed in multiple formats, such as absolute 10-year CVD risk reduction or gain in CVD-free life-years. It is increasingly suggested that these estimates can be used in doctor-patient communication to support shared decision-making. However, the actual therapy-benefit to be expected from preventive therapy might be small from the perspective of patients, and it remains unclear how the estimates affect patient and physician decision-making. Purpose The primary objective was to determine whether communicating personalized predictions of prognosis and treatment-effects (compared to non-personalized standard practice) leads to lower decisional conflict among patients with stable CVD and prescribed statin medication. Methods A hypothesis-blinded, three-armed randomized controlled trial was performed in which 303 patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to either standard practice (control-group) or to one of two intervention arms. Intervention arms received personalized estimates of prognostic changes associated with both discontinuation of current statin and intensification to the most potent statin type and dose (atorvastatin 80 mg). Intervention arms differed only in the format of the treatment effect estimates: change in personal 10-year absolute CVD risk (iAR-group) or CVD-free life-expectancy (iLE-group). Primary outcome was patient decisional conflict score (DCS) after one-month, which varies from 0 (no conflict) to 100 (high conflict). Secondary outcomes were collected at one or six months: DCS, quality of life, illness perception, patient activation, patient perception of statin efficacy and shared decision-making, self-reported statin adherence, understanding of statin-therapy, post-randomization low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and physician opinion of statin therapy decisions and the intervention. Outcomes are reported as median (25th–75th percentile). Results In the iAR group, the change in 10-year absolute CVD-risk was −2.4 (−1.2 to −3.9%) from intensification and +10.2% (+7.7 to +13.5) from discontinuation. In the iLE group, the change in CVD-free life-expectancy was +0.5 years (+0.3 to +0.8) from intensification and −2.0 years (−1.3 to −2.8) from discontinuation. Decisional conflict differed between the intervention arms: median control 27 (20–43), iAR-group 22 (11–30; p-value versus control 0.002), and iLE-group 25 (10–31; p-value versus control 0.02). No differences in secondary outcomes were observed. Figure 1. Part of the personalized information received by iAR-group (left) and iLE-group (right). Conclusion In patients with clinically manifest CVD, providing personalized estimations of treatment-effects lowers decisional conflict associated with statin use. The results support the use of personalized predictions for patient decision making. Acknowledgement/Funding Partially funded by a Netherlands Heart Foundation grant (2016T026)

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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document