Literature DB >> 12460093

Effects of decision aids for menorrhagia on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs: a randomized controlled trial.

Andrew D M Kennedy1, Mark J Sculpher, Angela Coulter, Nuala Dwyer, Margaret Rees, Keith R Abrams, Susan Horsley, Deborah Cowley, Christine Kidson, Catherine Kirwin, Caroline Naish, Gordon Stirrat.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Decision aids can increase patient involvement in treatment decision making. However, questions remain regarding their effects and cost implications.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of information, with and without a structured preference elicitation interview, on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized controlled trial with 2 years of follow-up. Between October 1996 and February 1998, 894 women with uncomplicated menorrhagia were recruited from 6 hospitals in southwest England. Women were randomized to the control group, information alone group (information), or information plus interview group (interview).
INTERVENTIONS: Women in both intervention groups were sent an information pack (a booklet and complementary videotape) 6 weeks before their specialist consultation. Immediately before their consultation, women in the interview group underwent structured interview, to clarify and elicit their preferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported health status was the main outcome; secondary outcomes included treatments received and costs. Cost analyses adopted a UK health service (payer) perspective, and were based on patient-reported resource use data and are reported in 1999-2000 US dollars.
RESULTS: The interventions had no consistent effect on health status. Hysterectomy rates were lower for women in the interview group (38%) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.96) than in the control group (48%) and women who received the information alone (48%) (adjusted OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.82). The interview group had lower mean costs ($1566) than the control group ($2751) (mean difference, $1184; 95% CI, $684-$2110) and the information group $2026 (mean difference, $461; 95% CI, $236-$696).
CONCLUSIONS: Neither intervention had an effect on health status. Providing women with information alone did not affect treatment choices; however, the addition of an interview to clarify values and elicit preferences had a significant effect on women's management and resulted in reduced costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12460093     DOI: 10.1001/jama.288.21.2701

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  68 in total

1.  Treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Authors:  Anne Lethaby; Cindy Farquhar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-11-29

2.  Likely consequences of increased patient choice.

Authors:  Margaret Holmes-Rovner
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Treatment decision aids: conceptual issues and future directions.

Authors:  Cathy Charles; Amiram Gafni; Tim Whelan; Mary Ann O'Brien
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients.

Authors:  Angela Coulter; Jo Ellins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-07-07

5.  Heavy menstrual bleeding: delivering patient-centred care.

Authors:  Miriam Santer
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Coaching to support patients in making decisions.

Authors:  Annette M O'Connor; Dawn Stacey; France Légaré
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-02-02

7.  From informed consent to informed request: do we need a new gold standard?

Authors:  Ben Moulton; Peter Alf Collins; Nick Burns-Cox; Angela Coulter
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  When should you involve patients in treatment decisions?

Authors:  Angela Coulter
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Do Upper Extremity Trauma Patients Have Different Preferences for Shared Decision-making Than Patients With Nontraumatic Conditions?

Authors:  Michiel G J S Hageman; Rajesh Reddy; Dennis J S Makarawung; Jan Paul Briet; C Niek van Dijk; David Ring
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Improving physician-patient communication about cancer pain with a tailored education-coaching intervention.

Authors:  Richard L Street; Christina Slee; Donna K Kalauokalani; Dionne Evans Dean; Daniel J Tancredi; Richard L Kravitz
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2009-12-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.