OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental effect of a graphic weigh-scale values clarification exercise to explicitly consider the personal importance of the benefits versus the risks in a woman's decision aid regarding postmenopausal hormone therapy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. Intervention Decision aid including information on options, benefits and risks, and their probabilities either followed by: (1) a graphic weigh-scale values clarification exercise to explicitly consider the personal importance of each benefit and risk; or (2) a summary of the main benefits and risks to implicitly consider benefits versus the risks. SAMPLE: Two-hundred and one women aged 50-69 years from Ottawa, Canada, who had never used hormone therapy. OUTCOME: Perceived clarity of values, a sub-scale of the decisional conflict scale; congruence between personal values of benefits and risks (measured on 0-10 importance rating scale) and choices (accept, decline, unsure regarding preventive hormone therapy [HRT]) using discriminant function analysis. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between interventions in perceived clarity of values and overall congruence between values and choices. Amongst those choosing HRT, there was a trend in those exposed to the graphic weigh-scale exercise to have better congruence between values and choices compared to implicit values clarification (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: The use of the graphic weigh-scale exercise in a decision aid conveys no overall short-term benefit. Further study is needed to specifically determine effects in those changing the status quo and on the quality of patient-practitioner communication and persistence with decisions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental effect of a graphic weigh-scale values clarification exercise to explicitly consider the personal importance of the benefits versus the risks in a woman's decision aid regarding postmenopausal hormone therapy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. Intervention Decision aid including information on options, benefits and risks, and their probabilities either followed by: (1) a graphic weigh-scale values clarification exercise to explicitly consider the personal importance of each benefit and risk; or (2) a summary of the main benefits and risks to implicitly consider benefits versus the risks. SAMPLE: Two-hundred and one women aged 50-69 years from Ottawa, Canada, who had never used hormone therapy. OUTCOME: Perceived clarity of values, a sub-scale of the decisional conflict scale; congruence between personal values of benefits and risks (measured on 0-10 importance rating scale) and choices (accept, decline, unsure regarding preventive hormone therapy [HRT]) using discriminant function analysis. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between interventions in perceived clarity of values and overall congruence between values and choices. Amongst those choosing HRT, there was a trend in those exposed to the graphic weigh-scale exercise to have better congruence between values and choices compared to implicit values clarification (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: The use of the graphic weigh-scale exercise in a decision aid conveys no overall short-term benefit. Further study is needed to specifically determine effects in those changing the status quo and on the quality of patient-practitioner communication and persistence with decisions.
Authors: D Grady; S M Rubin; D B Petitti; C S Fox; D Black; B Ettinger; V L Ernster; S R Cummings Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1992-12-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: A M O'Connor; P Tugwell; G A Wells; T Elmslie; E Jolly; G Hollingworth; R McPherson; H Bunn; I Graham; E Drake Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 1998-03
Authors: M L Rothert; M Holmes-Rovner; D Rovner; J Kroll; L Breer; G Talarczyk; N Schmitt; G Padonu; C Wills Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 2.228
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: Maria L Jibaja-Weiss; Robert J Volk; Lois C Friedman; Thomas S Granchi; Nancy E Neff; Stephen J Spann; Emily K Robinson; Noriaki Aoki; J Robert Beck Journal: Health Expect Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Michael P Pignone; Alison T Brenner; Sarah Hawley; Stacey L Sheridan; Carmen L Lewis; Daniel E Jonas; Kirsten Howard Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Joseph D Shirk; Catherine M Crespi; Josemanuel D Saucedo; Sylvia Lambrechts; Ely Dahan; Robert Kaplan; Christopher Saigal Journal: Patient Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.883
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: 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