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