Literature DB >> 19250151

A treatment decision aid may increase patient trust in the diabetes specialist. The Statin Choice randomized trial.

Michael R Nannenga1, Victor M Montori, Audrey J Weymiller, Steven A Smith, Teresa J H Christianson, Sandra C Bryant, Amiram Gafni, Cathy Charles, Rebecca J Mullan, Lesley A Jones, Enrique R Bolona, Gordon H Guyatt.   

Abstract

AIMS: Decision aids in practice may affect patient trust in the clinician, a requirement for optimal diabetes care. We sought to determine the impact of a decision aid to help patients with diabetes decide about statins (Statin Choice) on patients' trust in the clinician.
METHODS: We randomized 16 diabetologists and 98 patients with type 2 diabetes referred to a subspecialty diabetes clinic to use the Statin Choice decision aid or a patient pamphlet about dyslipidaemia, and then to receive these materials from either the clinician during the visit or a researcher prior to the visit. Providers and patients were blinded to the study hypothesis. Immediately after the clinical encounter, patients completed a survey including questions on trust (range 0 to total trust = 100), knowledge, and decisional conflict. Researchers reviewed videotaped encounters and assessed patient participation (using the OPTION scale) and visit length.
RESULTS: Overall mean trust score was 91 (median 97.2, IQR 86, 100). After adjustment for patient characteristics, results suggested greater total trust (trust = 100) with the decision aid [odds ratio (OR) 1.77, 95% CI 0.94, 3.35]. Total trust was associated with knowledge (for each additional knowledge point, OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1, 1.6), patient participation (for each additional point in the OPTION scale, OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.1, 1.2), and decisional conflict (for every 5-point decrease in conflict, OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2, 1.9). Total trust was not associated with visit length, which the decision aid did not significantly affect. There was no significant effect interaction across the trial factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests that decision aids do not have a large negative impact on trust in the physician and may increase trust through improvements in the decision-making process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19250151      PMCID: PMC5060475          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00521.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  26 in total

1.  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

2.  A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes.

Authors:  Victor M Montori; Amiram Gafni; Cathy Charles
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Patient-physician trust: an exploratory study.

Authors:  D H Thom; B Campbell
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 0.493

Review 4.  Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement.

Authors:  G Elwyn; A Edwards; M Wensing; K Hood; C Atwell; R Grol
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-04

5.  Validation of a decisional conflict scale.

Authors:  A M O'Connor
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Further validation and reliability testing of the Trust in Physician Scale. The Stanford Trust Study Physicians.

Authors:  D H Thom; K M Ribisl; A L Stewart; D A Luke
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Racial and ethnic disparities in perceptions of physician style and trust.

Authors:  M P Doescher; B G Saver; P Franks; K Fiscella
Journal:  Arch Fam Med       Date:  2000 Nov-Dec

8.  Patient trust: is it related to patient-centered behavior of primary care physicians?

Authors:  Kevin Fiscella; Sean Meldrum; Peter Franks; Cleveland G Shields; Paul Duberstein; Susan H McDaniel; Ronald M Epstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Sex differences in patients' and physicians' communication during primary care medical visits.

Authors:  D Roter; M Lipkin; A Korsgaard
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions: statin choice randomized trial.

Authors:  Audrey J Weymiller; Victor M Montori; Lesley A Jones; Amiram Gafni; Gordon H Guyatt; Sandra C Bryant; Teresa J H Christianson; Rebecca J Mullan; Steven A Smith
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2007-05-28
View more
  42 in total

1.  Diagnostic accuracy of the TIMI risk score in patients with chest pain in the emergency department: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Erik P Hess; Dipti Agarwal; Subhash Chandra; Mohammed H Murad; Patricia J Erwin; Judd E Hollander; Victor M Montori; Ian G Stiell
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  Patients' perceptions of sharing in decisions: a systematic review of interventions to enhance shared decision making in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  France Légaré; Stéphane Turcotte; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Ratté; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Insights from a conference on implementing comparative effectiveness research through shared decision-making.

Authors:  Mary C Politi; Marla L Clayman; Angela Fagerlin; Jamie L Studts; Victor Montori
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.744

4.  Mismatch between health-care professionals' and patients' views on a diabetes patient decision aid: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Ping Yein Lee; Ee Ming Khoo; Wah Yun Low; Yew Kong Lee; Khatijah Lim Abdullah; Syahidatul Akmal Azmi; Chirk Jenn Ng
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Can shared decision making increase the uptake of evidence in clinical practice?

Authors:  France Légaré; Michèle Shemilt; Dawn Stacey
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-04-21

6.  Personalized decision support in type 2 diabetes mellitus: current evidence and future directions.

Authors:  Michael J Wilkinson; Aviva G Nathan; Elbert S Huang
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.810

Review 7.  Aspirin, Statins, and Primary Prevention: Opportunities for Shared Decision Making in the Face of Uncertainty.

Authors:  Amit Jhaveri; Rachel A Sibley; Erica S Spatz; John Dodson
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 8.  Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument.

Authors:  Nicolas Couët; Sophie Desroches; Hubert Robitaille; Hugues Vaillancourt; Annie Leblanc; Stéphane Turcotte; Glyn Elwyn; France Légaré
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  The Chest Pain Choice trial: a pilot randomized trial of a decision aid for patients with chest pain in the emergency department.

Authors:  Meghan A Pierce; Erik P Hess; Jeffrey A Kline; Nilay D Shah; Maggie Breslin; Megan E Branda; Laurie J Pencille; Brent R Asplin; David M Nestler; Annie T Sadosty; Ian G Stiell; Henry H Ting; Victor M Montori
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Protocol for the Osteoporosis Choice trial. A pilot randomized trial of a decision aid in primary care practice.

Authors:  Laurie J Pencille; Megan E Campbell; Holly K Van Houten; Nilay D Shah; Rebecca J Mullan; Brian A Swiglo; Maggie Breslin; Rebecca L Kesman; Sidna M Tulledge-Scheitel; Thomas M Jaeger; Ruth E Johnson; Gregory A Bartel; Robert A Wermers; L Joseph Melton; Victor M Montori
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.