Steven J. Bernstein1, Kimberly A. Skarupski, Carla E. Grayson, Mark R. Starling, Eric R. Bates, Kim A. Eagle. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA; Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA; Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Gerontology Program, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio USA; Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of providing an educational videotape, 'Treatment Choices for Ischaemic Heart Disease: a Shared Decision-Making Program Videotape,' to patients referred for coronary angiography compared with standard patient-physician decision making (usual care). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING:University Hospital and Veterans Affairs Hospital. PATIENTS: A consecutive sample of 217 patients referred for coronary angiography were randomized to receive 'usual care' or to receive the videotape in addition to standard patient physician decision making (videotape): 109 completed the study (50% completion rate). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge of coronary artery disease, satisfaction, self-reported physical and mental health functioning, and the proportion of patients who were referred for coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Compared with patients who received 'usual care,' those who received the videotape were more knowledgeable (mean score 83 vs. 58%; P < 0.0001) but less satisfied with their treatment (79 vs. 88%; P = 0.038). There were no significant differences between the videotape and 'usual care' groups with respect to satisfaction with the decision making process (mean score 73 vs. 77%; P = 0.37), satisfaction with the decision made (mean score 73 vs. 78%; P = 0.28), physical functioning (38 vs. 38%; P = 0.76), mental health functioning (49 vs. 49%; P = 0.94), or in referral for coronary revascularization (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.22-1.65; P = 0.33). CONCLUSION: Although the educational videotape increased patients' knowledge level, it was associated with a decrease in their level of satisfaction with treatment. Before there is wide-spread dissemination of this technology, advocates should demonstrate its effectiveness in everyday practice.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of providing an educational videotape, 'Treatment Choices for Ischaemic Heart Disease: a Shared Decision-Making Program Videotape,' to patients referred for coronary angiography compared with standard patient-physician decision making (usual care). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: University Hospital and Veterans Affairs Hospital. PATIENTS: A consecutive sample of 217 patients referred for coronary angiography were randomized to receive 'usual care' or to receive the videotape in addition to standard patient physician decision making (videotape): 109 completed the study (50% completion rate). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge of coronary artery disease, satisfaction, self-reported physical and mental health functioning, and the proportion of patients who were referred for coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Compared with patients who received 'usual care,' those who received the videotape were more knowledgeable (mean score 83 vs. 58%; P < 0.0001) but less satisfied with their treatment (79 vs. 88%; P = 0.038). There were no significant differences between the videotape and 'usual care' groups with respect to satisfaction with the decision making process (mean score 73 vs. 77%; P = 0.37), satisfaction with the decision made (mean score 73 vs. 78%; P = 0.28), physical functioning (38 vs. 38%; P = 0.76), mental health functioning (49 vs. 49%; P = 0.94), or in referral for coronary revascularization (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.22-1.65; P = 0.33). CONCLUSION: Although the educational videotape increased patients' knowledge level, it was associated with a decrease in their level of satisfaction with treatment. Before there is wide-spread dissemination of this technology, advocates should demonstrate its effectiveness in everyday practice.
Authors: C D Naylor; C D Morgan; C M Levinton; S Wheeler; L Hunter; K Klymciw; R S Baigrie; B S Goldman Journal: CMAJ Date: 1993-10-01 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: J A Spertus; J A Winder; T A Dewhurst; R A Deyo; J Prodzinski; M McDonell; S D Fihn Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Finlay A McAlister; Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Sharon E Straus; William A Ghali; David Anderson; Sumit R Majumdar; Paul Gibson; Jafna L Cox; Miriam Fradette Journal: CMAJ Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Deb Feldman-Stewart; Sarah Brennenstuhl; Kathryn McIssac; Joan Austoker; Agathe Charvet; Paul Hewitson; Karen R Sepucha; Tim Whelan Journal: Health Expect Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: M W Morgan; R B Deber; H A Llewellyn-Thomas; P Gladstone; R J Cusimano; K O'Rourke; G Tomlinson; A S Detsky Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jamie C Brehaut; Alison Lott; Dean A Fergusson; Kaveh G Shojania; Jonathan Kimmelman; Raphael Saginur Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2008-07-23 Impact factor: 7.327