PURPOSE: We wanted to determine the effect of promoting the effective communication of absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and shared decision making through disseminating a simple decision aid for use in family practice consultations. METHODS: The study was based on a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial (phase III) with continuing medical education (CME) groups of family physicians as the unit of randomization. In the intervention arm, 44 physicians (7 CME groups) consecutively recruited 550 patients in whom cholesterol levels were measured. Forty-seven physicians in the control arm (7 CME groups) similarly included 582 patients. Four hundred sixty patients (83.6%) of the intervention arm and 466 patients (80.1%) of the control arm were seen at follow-up. Physicians attended 2 interactive CME sessions and received a booklet, a paper-based risk calculator, and individual summary sheets for each patient. Control physicians attended 1 CME-session on an alternative topic. Main outcome measures were patient satisfaction and participation after the index consultation, change in CVD risk status, and decisional regret at 6 months' follow-up. RESULTS: Intervention patients were significantly more satisfied with process and result (Patient Participation Scale, difference 0.80, P<.001). Decisional regret was significantly lower at follow-up (difference 3.39, P = .02). CVD risk decreased in both groups without a significant difference between study arms. CONCLUSION: A simple transactional decision aid based on calculating absolute individual CVD risk and promoting shared decision making in CVD prevention can be disseminated through CME groups and may lead to higher patient satisfaction and involvement and less decisional regret, without negatively affecting global CVD risk.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We wanted to determine the effect of promoting the effective communication of absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and shared decision making through disseminating a simple decision aid for use in family practice consultations. METHODS: The study was based on a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial (phase III) with continuing medical education (CME) groups of family physicians as the unit of randomization. In the intervention arm, 44 physicians (7 CME groups) consecutively recruited 550 patients in whom cholesterol levels were measured. Forty-seven physicians in the control arm (7 CME groups) similarly included 582 patients. Four hundred sixty patients (83.6%) of the intervention arm and 466 patients (80.1%) of the control arm were seen at follow-up. Physicians attended 2 interactive CME sessions and received a booklet, a paper-based risk calculator, and individual summary sheets for each patient. Control physicians attended 1 CME-session on an alternative topic. Main outcome measures were patient satisfaction and participation after the index consultation, change in CVD risk status, and decisional regret at 6 months' follow-up. RESULTS: Intervention patients were significantly more satisfied with process and result (Patient Participation Scale, difference 0.80, P<.001). Decisional regret was significantly lower at follow-up (difference 3.39, P = .02). CVD risk decreased in both groups without a significant difference between study arms. CONCLUSION: A simple transactional decision aid based on calculating absolute individual CVD risk and promoting shared decision making in CVD prevention can be disseminated through CME groups and may lead to higher patient satisfaction and involvement and less decisional regret, without negatively affecting global CVD risk.
Authors: Rod Jackson; Carlene M M Lawes; Derrick A Bennett; Richard J Milne; Anthony Rodgers Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jan 29-Feb 4 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: D Simon; G Schorr; M Wirtz; A Vodermaier; C Caspari; B Neuner; C Spies; T Krones; H Keller; A Edwards; A Loh; M Härter Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2006-07-26
Authors: Roberta E Goldman; Donna R Parker; Charles B Eaton; Jeffrey M Borkan; Robert Gramling; Rebecca T Cover; David K Ahern Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2006 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Diane Valade; Catherine Orlowski; Catherine Draus; Barbara Nabozny-Valerio; Susan Keiser Journal: Health Expect Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: France Légaré; Stéphane Turcotte; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Ratté; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham Journal: Patient Date: 2012 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Fahad Saeed; Susan A Ladwig; Ronald M Epstein; Rebeca D Monk; Paul R Duberstein Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: France Légaré; Hilary Bekker; Sophie Desroches; Renée Drolet; Mary C Politi; Dawn Stacey; Francine Borduas; Francine M Cheater; Jacques Cornuz; Marie-France Coutu; Nora Ferdjaoui-Moumjid; Frances Griffiths; Martin Härter; André Jacques; Tanja Krones; Michel Labrecque; Claire Neely; Charo Rodriguez; Joan Sargeant; Janet S Schuerman; Mark D Sullivan Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Jeremiah D Schuur; Christopher W Baugh; Erik P Hess; Joshua A Hilton; Jesse M Pines; Brent R Asplin Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Katarina Hauser; Armin Koerfer; Kathrin Kuhr; Christian Albus; Stefan Herzig; Jan Matthes Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2015-10-02 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Stacey L Sheridan; Lindy Behrend; Maihan B Vu; Andrea Meier; Jennifer M Griffith; Michael P Pignone Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-03-14