BACKGROUND: Patient Decision Support (PDS) tools assist patients in using medical evidence to make choices consistent that are with their values and in using evidence about consequences of medical alternatives. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a PDS intervention for perimenopausal hormone replacement therapy. We assessed the impact of the PDS on (1) consistency between the decision to take estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) or progesterone/estrogen replacement therapy (PERT) and the expected utility of treatment and (2) likelihood to take ERT and PERT pre- and postintervention. DESIGN: Content of the PDS was standardized. Randomized trial of three intensities of intervention: (1) brochure; (2) lecture/discussion; and (3) active decision support. SUBJECTS:Participants were perimenopausal community volunteers between the ages of 40 and 65 (n = 248). MEASURES: (1) Consistent with values (correlation between expected utility (EU) and likelihood of taking hormones); and (2) Likelihood to take hormone replacement therapy. RESULTS: (1) The brochure group was less consistent with the decision analytic model than the lecture/discussion and active decision support groups. (2) Influence on decisions: PDS tools increased the number of women certain about whether or not to take hormones. There were no differences among experimental groups. Of 99 women uncertain about ERT pre-PDS, 65% changed. Twenty-one (32%) decided against ERT and 44 (68%) decided for ERT. (3) More intensive interventions produced modest gains in a normative direction. CONCLUSIONS: PDSs using any of 3 formats reduce uncertainty and assist women to make informed decisions. Increased consistency with decision analytic models appears to be driven by better estimates of likelihood of outcomes.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patient Decision Support (PDS) tools assist patients in using medical evidence to make choices consistent that are with their values and in using evidence about consequences of medical alternatives. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a PDS intervention for perimenopausal hormone replacement therapy. We assessed the impact of the PDS on (1) consistency between the decision to take estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) or progesterone/estrogen replacement therapy (PERT) and the expected utility of treatment and (2) likelihood to take ERT and PERT pre- and postintervention. DESIGN: Content of the PDS was standardized. Randomized trial of three intensities of intervention: (1) brochure; (2) lecture/discussion; and (3) active decision support. SUBJECTS:Participants were perimenopausal community volunteers between the ages of 40 and 65 (n = 248). MEASURES: (1) Consistent with values (correlation between expected utility (EU) and likelihood of taking hormones); and (2) Likelihood to take hormone replacement therapy. RESULTS: (1) The brochure group was less consistent with the decision analytic model than the lecture/discussion and active decision support groups. (2) Influence on decisions: PDS tools increased the number of women certain about whether or not to take hormones. There were no differences among experimental groups. Of 99 women uncertain about ERT pre-PDS, 65% changed. Twenty-one (32%) decided against ERT and 44 (68%) decided for ERT. (3) More intensive interventions produced modest gains in a normative direction. CONCLUSIONS: PDSs using any of 3 formats reduce uncertainty and assist women to make informed decisions. Increased consistency with decision analytic models appears to be driven by better estimates of likelihood of outcomes.
Authors: Colleen M McBride; Lori A Bastian; Susan Halabi; Laura Fish; Isaac M Lipkus; Hayden B Bosworth; Barbara K Rimer; Ilene C Siegler Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Becky L Stephenson; David A Wohl; Carol E Golin; Hsiao-Chuan Tien; Paul Stewart; Andrew H Kaplan Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Stacey L Sheridan; Jennifer M Griffith; Lindy Behrend; Ziya Gizlice; Michael P Pignone Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010-05-18 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Amber E Barnato; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Ellen M Peters; Laura Siminoff; E Dale Collins; Michael J Barry Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2007-09-14 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Cheryl L L Carling; Doris Tove Kristoffersen; Andrew D Oxman; Signe Flottorp; Atle Fretheim; Holger J Schünemann; Elie A Akl; Jeph Herrin; Thomas D MacKenzie; Victor M Montori Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 3.240